If they were using PDF textbooks (ideally, chunked out into individual chapters), I'd be much more favorably disposed to the investment. This would save a lot of paper and reduce the weight of the backpacks my kids are forced to lug around. Obviously, the requirement here would be that the PDF doesn't expire or whatever (though I can see a security lock that blocks copying or sending it). You buy it, you own it.
They are, and-- it isn't.
iTexts/eTexts are
sold with site-licensing on an annual basis. This is the SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE MEANS
EVER OF SUPPLYING TEXTBOOKS TO STUDENTS.
It also generates MIND-boggling profit margins for textbook publishing. It's price-gouging, plain and simple.
I'll add that the functional limitations on using electronic textbooks for kids haven't really been studied very well. I believe that they exist-- and most parents who have used virtual schooling for any length of time agree wholeheartedly. We
know that there is a difference between PDF-based textbooks and physical ones, and that the latter is generally superior as a
learning tool for students.
If I hadn't experienced it firsthand, why would I spend hundreds of dollars annually to
provide physical textbooks when the school provides "electronic" ones for free?
I think it's important to note that as students get older, and certainly when discussing adults, that those limitations may become less meaningful, at least for certain purposes. I can certainly learn from a screen-- with some caveats. DD is better about it than she was at nine or ten-- but there are some physiological differences in the mode of interaction that make "reading" a non-equivalent activity in paper vs. screen. Rather like typing versus writing longhand. There
is a difference as far as the brain is concerned.
My major concern about the transition is that the neuroscience that raises questions-- IMO, quite legitimate questions-- about the differences is being
ignored amid a lot of hype.
Edited links:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/
