Communication

Textbook Merger Papers Over One Learning Benefit

October 19, 2019 2112
Student reading book

Ever since Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education – two of the largest textbook publishers in the U.S. – announced plans to merge next year, fears have arisen that lack of competition in America’s textbook industry will lead to higher textbook prices for students. [Ed. – SAGE Publishing, the parent of Social Science Space, also publishes textbooks.]

Indeed, Cengage and McGraw-Hill currently control about 24 percent and 21 percent of the textbook market, respectively, while Pearson – the other giant in America’s textbook industry – controls about 40 percent. If the merger goes through, that means just two companies would control over 80 percent of U.S. textbook sales, placing control over future price hikes in even fewer hands.

This is particularly troublesome when you consider the fact that since 2000, textbook prices have already risen 146 percent – far above the rate of inflation.

As a scholar who studies how students read and learn using print versus digital texts, I see other potential issues with the proposed textbook company merger that could harm students in more ways than just forcing them to pay more for their course readings.

Lessening of choices

The first issue concerns choice – both for students and faculty.

The Conversation logo
This article by Naomi S. Baron originally appeared at The Conversation, a Social Science Space partner site, under the title “Textbook merger could create more problems than just higher prices”

Thanks to the growth of e-books and online courses, traditional print books are already being increasingly replaced by digital materials.

Consequently, as publishers move to phase out print, students aren’t just getting their course materials from the college bookstore. For instance, several of the largest publishers, including Cengage and McGraw-Hill, have created an “inclusive access” model. In this model, students are charged a course fee by the college or university they attend, and their school then pays the publisher in return for digital materials.

In 2017, Cengage created Cengage Unlimited, offering students digital access to any of its books for less than US$200 a year. While on the one hand this might seem like a convenience, it basically locks faculty into books published only by Cengage – which precludes faculty selecting other books.

An even more dramatic change is the new “digital first” policy that Pearson announced in July. Under this digital first policy, Pearson will largely focus on creating and updating digital materials going forward. Consequently, there will be fewer new editions of print textbooks, and when they do appear, their prices will be relatively high.

With digital, students don’t actually buy books but license them, meaning they never own them, just as you don’t own any digital software. That means students can’t shop for a lower-priced copy of a digital book, and they can’t sell the digital book at the end of the semester.

Understandably, publishers dislike the used book market, since they profit only from first sale of new books.

If the merger goes through, selling back used textbooks will be less common – and to the detriment of student choice. With print, if students purchase a textbook, they may choose to sell it when the course ends. They also might buy a used copy initially, saving them money. These options disappear in a digital environment.

Impact on learning

But there is a second critical issue with shifting from print to digital. And that is whether students learn better using print or digital textbooks.

In two international studies of university students – including one I conducted and another led by Diane Mizrachi – students overwhelmingly said they learn better with print. My colleagues and I got the same response for a study we did with middle and high school students in Norway. In all three studies, students complained they become distracted when reading digitally.

An analysis of several studies on the topic concluded that overall, students performed better in answering questions about a reading passage if they read it in print, not digitally. However, these findings sometimes depend on the kind of questions asked or the amount of time students spend doing the reading.

Researchers Patricia Alexander and Lauren Singer Trakhman have shown that students do equally well with print and digital when questions ask about the main idea in a passage. However, if students are asked for more detailed key points, students do better in print. Ironically, if you ask those same students about the medium on which they think they had higher scores, they say digital – even though the opposite is true.

Time also matters. For instance, researchers in Israel found that if people get a set amount of time to read, they score comparably in print and digital. However, if students can choose how much time to take, they tend to read faster and do worse on the comprehension exam.

What can be done

There might be little that can be done about the continuing shift from print to digital in the textbook industry. But students can be encouraged to study more strategically in a digital environment. Some ideas include employing traditional reading strategies such as identifying keywords, summarizing and note-taking. Researchers are also experimenting with having students do exercises to encourage making inferences about the text, rather than reading only for surface information.

As the educational reading landscape becomes overwhelmingly digital, I believe it will become more important to find proven strategies to help students become more aware of the best ways to read and study online – especially as regular printed textbooks gradually begin to disappear.

Naomi S. Baron is a professor of linguistics in the Department of World Languages and Cultures in the College of Arts and Sciences at American University. She is the author of eight books, including Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, winner of the 2008 English-Speaking Union's Duke of Edinburgh English Language Award Competition. Most recently, she completed a cross-national analysis of print versus digital reading practices and preferences of university students in the US, Japan, Germany, Slovakia, and India. A Guggenheim Fellow and Swedish Fulbright Fellow, she was also a Visiting Scholar at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

View all posts by Naomi S. Baron

Related Articles

Second Edition of ‘The Evidence’ Examines Women and Climate Change
Bookshelf
March 29, 2024

Second Edition of ‘The Evidence’ Examines Women and Climate Change

Read Now
Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?
Communication
February 27, 2024

Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?

Read Now
The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases
Communication
February 1, 2024

The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases

Read Now
Safiya Noble on Search Engines
Social Science Bites
January 8, 2024

Safiya Noble on Search Engines

Read Now
Did Turing Miss the Point? Should He Have Thought of the Limerick Test?

Did Turing Miss the Point? Should He Have Thought of the Limerick Test?

David Canter is horrified by the power of readily available large language technology.

Read Now
The Silver Lining in Bulk Retractions

The Silver Lining in Bulk Retractions

This is the opening from a longer post by Adya Misra, the research integrity and inclusion manager at Social Science Space’s parent, Sage. The full post, which addresses the hows and the whys of bulk retractions in Sage’s academic journals, appears at Retraction Watch.

Read Now
Fake News, Misinformation Focus of New Microsite

Fake News, Misinformation Focus of New Microsite

A new Information Literacy Microsite from sage can be your new home for pressing research on the digital age and the ways to combat mis-, dis-, and misinformation.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments