Please Not the Hemlock

This week for class I read an array of articles surrounding book clubs and the Socratic method, as well as a piece in preparation for the Socratic Seminar that we will have in class tomorrow. With regards to book clubs and the Socratic Method, I read:

Dempsey, Beth. "The evolving book group." Library Journal 136.14 (September 1 2011): 24-26.

Hoffert, Babara. "The book club exploded." Library Journal (July 15, 2006). 

Metzger, Margaret. "Teaching reading: beyond the plot." Phi Delta Kappan 80.3 (1998): 240. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Jan. 2011.

I enjoyed both of the readings about book clubs and found lots of inspiration for potential library book clubs in my future, but found Metzger's article about using a modification of the Socratic method in her high school English classes to be the most compelling article of the three. She was enthusiastic about the growth in reading abilities that it brought about in her students, but also realistic about the growing pains that both teacher and students experienced when they began using the method in the classroom. To me, the most exciting take-away of the article was that her students reported a growth in their confidence in decoding texts; no longer was understanding a complex text a purview of a few of the best students. In using her modification of the Socratic Method, she democratized her classroom, both by stepping back in her role of keeper-of-knowledge and by creating a classroom culture where all student voices had an opportunity to be heard. 

The text that I read in preparation for the Socratic Method demonstration tomorrow was:

Prensky, Marc. "In the 21st-century, let's ban (paper) books." The chronicle of higher education. (2011). 

I must admit that when I read the title, I had to work very hard to rein in my knee jerk reaction which was, 'get rid of (paper) books! Never!' I tried to read the article with an open mind, I really did. Prensky's basic premise it that in the 21st century, a forward-looking university could do away with paper books altogether, and transition entirely to digital. He notes advantages to being entirely digital, including the ability to carry an entire library in your pocket, and for students to own books that include the annotations of everyone from their professors and classmates to experts in the field. He has some good points. I'm not convinced (and, judging by the 101 comments that the article garnered, other people have opinions too.) 

My first worry is his proposal to confiscate any paper books that students bring to campus with them, and give them digital copies instead. He also proposes giving professors a timeline for transitioning their personal libraries to digital (with the assistance of students, who would do the actual scanning.) He argues that this is analogous to the move from slide rule to calculator, or from typewriter to computer. I don't think that his proposal is the same as these prior technology shifts. So far as I know, no university confiscated all personal slide rules in favor of calculators; rather, the newer, superior technology won out over time. If digital content trumps paper books, the same thing will happen over time with e-readers. And, of course, it makes me uneasy to think of a university commanding that sort of authority over what is, after all, a personal possession.

My second worry echoes that of one of the comments to the article. It's still early days for digital contents, especially e-books. The issue of ownership is a minefield, and we still have few hard-and-fast rules to play by. It's pretty clear that the old rules of book ownership do not correlate one-to-one with e-books, but it is still unclear what the new laws and norms will be. Until the dust settles, and we work out good solutions (for everyone) for borrowing, second-hand selling, and, indeed, actual ownership of digital books, I don't think that it is wise to ask students or professors (who have in some cases spent their entire professional lives building their personal library) to move to solely digital content that may or may not be theirs to do with as they wish. We will see a maturation and coalescing of digital rights ownership, perhaps alongside the open access movement, but until it does, I should think that universities would be very careful in recommending that students purchase content that they have little ultimate authority over. 

My last worry is, as it often is, about those left behind the digital wave. Yes, e-readers are coming down in price. Yes, universities could give all their freshman an e-reader. And yes, digital books are often cheaper than paper books. But the fact is, e-readers are still out of the price range for many, many people and will be for a while yet, and ten dollars for a digital book is still a lot of money for many people. We already know that there is a gap between those who go to college and those who don't. College has a huge impact on lifetime earning potential. I worry about what happens when students leaving college not only have four years of education but also four years of assumed access to technology that not everyone has access to. Will they be able to work in environments and with people for whom a personal library of e-books with professor's annotations is not a given? Will a wholly-digital campus serve to further widen the digital gap? I'm really looking forward to discussing this issue in class and hearing what everyone else thinks.