Great! Now all is needed is for professors to use them (preferably as the author intends), publish them, publish only in free on-line journals, and for the institutions to stop insisting that such journals, ipso facto don't count as publications (e.g., toward tenure), and the whole "business" of education and learning reaches a transformational peak soon.
The idea of free sharing of ideas as opposed to making certain clay-paper journal and book barons wealthy is gaining momentum (talk about "stamping out the vintage!"). Perhaps ESA could develop a list of "approved" on-line texts and journals for starters? WT At 03:02 PM 11/19/2007, Ann Showalter wrote: >In response to Max, there is a professor in the math department at my alma >mater who has written his own free, online textbook. The following is some >of what he has to say on the subject (see http://linear.ups.edu/): > >"This textbook has more freedom than most... First, there is no cost to >acquire this text, and you are under no obligation whatsoever to compensate >or donate to the author or publisher. So in this most basic sense, it is a >free textbook. Therefore you can also make as many copies as you like, >ensuring that the book will never go out-of-print. You may modify copies of >the book for your own use - for example, you may wish to change to a >preferred notation for certain objects or add a few new sections. I have >applied a copyright to the book, and subsequently licensed it with a GNU >Free Documentation License (GFDL). It is this combination that allows me to >give you greater freedoms in how you use the text, thus liberating it from >some of the antiquated notions of copyright that apply to books in physical >form. The main caveat is that if you make modifications and then distribute >a modified version, you are required to again apply the GFDL license to the >result so that others may benefit from your modifications...It is hoped that >by this arrangement, others will help improve the book through rapid >correction of errors and contributions of exercises and new material." > >Sound like this sort of textbook could be useful in any discipline. Is >anyone aware of such a textbook in the field of ecology? > >Ann > > >On 11/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I am another individual who doesn?t use textbooks in my classes. Instead, > > I cobble together a reading list from professional primary and secondary > > literature, portions of textbooks (we pay the appropriate fees to the > > publishers), encyclopedia entries, IPCC reports, etc. Even then, I > > frequently find that I can?t find appropriate readings. Many times review > > papers are too advanced for my students, or focus on the recent literature > > to the exclusion of fundamental information that was obtained decades ago. > > Often, I think the latter is what undergraduates need the most. > > > > I have often thought of filling the gap by writing my own materials. These > > would be like stand-alone textbook chapters, or like review papers written > > for an undergraduate audience. A good example would be the chapters in the > > Crawley Plant Ecology book (ISBN-10: 0632036397). > > > > The principal reason that I haven?t written any such chapters is that it > > would take a LOT of work to write one, and that work wouldn?t be > > recognized/rewarded by my University unless it was published. Since I don?t > > know of any places to publish papers of this kind, the need to > publish makes > > me spend time on other sorts of projects instead. > > > > I am wondering if there are others like me who feel that if appropriate > > peer-reviewed venues existed for publication of textbook chapters that they > > would write them? I could imagine a sizable body of such becoming available > > for use on the internet, much as with TIEE. These could be used > in a modular > > fashion to construct courses tailored to individual needs. Are there others > > out there who would be interested in this model of writing and course > > preparation? > > > > Max Taub > > > > > > Quoting Andrew Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Hi Ecologgers, > > > > > > Responses are invited to the following thoughts, especially from > > > experienced teachers: > > > > > > I teach a 2nd year course in basic Ecology at an undergraduate > > > university. After four years of teaching this course, I am being > > > drawn to the following conclusions: > > > > > > [1] ? The textbook is awful. Not only that, but all the textbooks I > > have > > > looked at that are aimed at teaching an overview of Ecology seem > > to be > > > chronically faulted: > > > * There is simply too much stuff in them. My course is one semester > > > long, but > > > even if it were a full year course, I could probably cover less than > > 50% of > > > this book. > > > > > > ** The books are grossly overpriced. Some students are unable to afford > > them, > > > and since the publisher is constantly coming out with slightly > > > altered ?new? > > > editions, the resale price is low. > > > > > > *** The material they cover and their overall emphasis, appears to be > > poorly > > > selected and framed given the tenor of current public discourse on > > ecology > > > and environment. > > > > > > **** Finally, I believe that I can do this stuff better myself. > > > Although there > > > are commonalities among all universities, the sociocultural > > > backgrounds of > > > students and the bioregional contexts in which we work differ > > greatly. > > > How can a mass-produced textbook ever hope to capture that? > > > > > > [2] ? Students today are different. Numerous research studies and even > > more > > > anecdotal evidence suggest that numerical skills, basic literacy, > > the > > > ability to organize information into coherent arguments, and > > engagement > > > with the natural world are all worse than they were (even) a > > decade ago. > > > And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how to > > read a > > > graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and perhaps > > most > > > importantly, as though they already understand the difference > > between > > > salamanders and lizards, spiders and insects. NEWSFLASH ? THEY > > DON?T. > > > > > > [3] Because of [1] and [2], I conclude that I need to take a radically > > > different approach to teaching this basic course: > > > > > > * The course needs to be longer, probably split into ?Basic? and > > ?Advanced? > > > Semesters > > > > > > ** A module on the basic variety of life needs to be built into the > > course. > > > > > > *** The course has to contain materials relevant to modern environmental > > > discourse. For example, discussions of energy transfer and primary > > > productivity cannot really be taught without reference to the human > > > appropriation of primary productivity. > > > > > > **** At the same time, the traditional technical basis for teaching > > ecology > > > cannot be abandoned. the question is, how to make it as > > > engaging as some > > > of the more sexy, issue-based stuff. > > > > > > ***** Finally I believe that I may throw away the textbook, along > > > with most of > > > the powerpoints, the WEB-CT site and a lot of the other > > technological > > > paraphernalia that often seems to distract as much as it > > informs. > > > > > > I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME RESPONSE TO THESE THOUGHTS FROM > > TEACHERS. IN > > > PARTICULAR: > > > > > > * Have any of you decided to chuck the required text and simply use > > handouts > > > and readings? > > > > > > ** Have you changed the ways that you teach, either to reflect our > > current > > > environmental crisis, or to reflect the preparedness of students. > > > > > > *** What, in your opinion, are the ESSENTIAL things that we have to > > teach in > > > basic Ecology courses. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Andy Park (Biology Department, University of Winnipeg) > > > > >
