College textbooks are needlessly expensive, possibly harmful

By Mike Klymkowsky and Melanie M. Cooper

The soaring costs of a college education are now well recognized as a major barrier for many students in their pursuit of higher education. Factored in this is the cost of textbooks, which in aggregate can amount to more than $1,000 in the first year of a four-year program.

However, it is not at all clear that many such texts are particularly useful, and some may even pose unnecessary obstacles to learning. We consider the value and costs of textbooks from the perspective of the natural sciences and science education, topics with which we are most familiar.



Consider the situation in introductory physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology courses, disciplines in which the foundational concepts, and the observations upon which they are based, are well established. In most areas, little has changed for more than 50 years. Yet during this time, textbooks have expanded as if they have some form of elephantiasis, many now coming in at between 500 and 1,000 pages in length. At the same time, textbook publishers generate new editions every three to five years, even though there is little if any new foundational knowledge to be conveyed.

So what could possibly justify new editions of such introductory-level textbooks, besides the obvious quest for financial gain? One justification might be the introduction of pedagogical strategies that make the textbooks more effective in terms of student engagement and learning outcomes. While content really hasn’t changed (after all how could it, since these are introductory texts and presumably designed to help students learn the underlying fundamental materials?), authors and publishers have added high-level production values, boxes containing “interesting” asides embedded within the text, multicolor, high-resolution photographic images, and chapter summaries.

For a short period of time, publishers also supplemented textbooks with expensive-to-produce and little-used CD-ROMs pocketed on the inside of a text’s back cover. Publishers have now replaced these CD-ROMs with “homework systems” for which students often pay yet more money to access. So, given the costs of new editions and ancillary boxes, pictures and multimedia, it would be reasonable to conclude that the benefits of these additions (used to justify high costs) are well established through research on student engagement and learning.

Oh, would that it were so! Sadly, there appear to be little if any data to support this conclusion. Indeed, while many of the pedagogical flourishes that have found their way into textbooks (bold vocabulary words, chapter summaries, large numbers of illustrations) may have emerged from laboratory studies on learning, there is evidence that students “in the wild” use these materials in ways that were never intended. For example studies show that the use of these pedagogical aids in the text is inversely correlated with student success.[1] Presumably, students who think they can get away with simply reading the chapter summaries are mistaken.



Perhaps these new editions reflect serious reappraisals of how best to present the core ideas within a discipline? Here again, there is little evidence to assuage our concerns. The expansion of texts actually reflects a failure to clearly delineate and focus on important ideas — even though there is a general agreement that a robust and coherent understanding of a discipline should be built on a framework of core concepts. Instead, we find more and more material jammed into the texts without careful editing to ensure that key concepts receive the emphasis they require. The implications for learning are obvious: less time for students to work with and grasp complex foundational topics. Instead of building up an expert-like conceptual framework, standard textbooks subject students to many, many fragmentary factoids that students are then expected to consolidate into a coherent picture by themselves.

Here we would suggest as a contrasting example Einstein & Infeld’s The Evolution of Physics, originally published in 1938. A slim volume, The Evolution introduces core ideas in physics from the “early concepts to relativity to quanta,” pretty much all and more that is taught in most two-semester introductory physics courses. What is particularly important, from the perspective of students who are not intending to be physics majors, is that it addresses questions of both macroscopic physics (cannon balls and planetary motions) and molecular level phenomena such as Brownian motion, while addressing difficult concepts such as the nature of energy and its transformations.[2] While not meant as a textbook, it could easy serve as an introduction to physics for students at a cost of less than $15 (and is now available for free online).

We propose that colleges and universities provide the materials required for all introductory sequences in the sciences free of charge to their students. This could easily save early stage students more than $500 per semester.”

But surely — you might well object — physics, chemistry and particularly biology, with the advent of new molecular methods and dramatic discoveries — are changing so rapidly that they require introductory textbooks to be frequently updated. Perhaps the breakneck pace of discovery is the driver for new textbook editions.

After even brief examination, however, this hypothesis does not hold water. Essentially all new discoveries are extensions of existing disciplinary principles, and it is these principles that students need to master first, before they can use them to incorporate new knowledge in a useful way. Moreover, this knowledge often involves variations on themes, rather than revolutionary new ideas.

As an example, let us consider one of the latest discoveries on molecular biology, the CRISPR-Cas9 system of genome editing. Scientists initially discovered this system through its role as a novel defense system used by bacteria to inactivate invading viruses. Variations are now being used in a wide range of experimental studies, including genome editing of human embryos.[3] While previously unknown mechanisms are involved, their mode of action depends on core ideas in molecular biology. If students really understand those core ideas — that is, can apply their knowledge of molecular interactions between nucleic acids and proteins — then the general idea of the genome editing could be introduced to them without the need for a new addition of the textbooks, even though the exact mechanistic details are probably best suited to more advanced courses.

Similarly, while new materials are being synthesized every day in chemistry labs, and an understanding of chemistry impacts a wide range of societal changes (think climate change and new technologies such as hydrogen-producing artificial leaves[4] and quantum dot TVs), the underlying core ideas remain the same. The idea that macroscopic properties can be predicted by molecular level structures is a core idea in chemistry and can be applied to systems as varied as the difference between graphene and diamond or the interaction of carbon dioxide with electromagnetic radiation. We can provide interesting and relevant applications — but only if students understand the underlying core ideas.

So how to address both the weaknesses and costs of modern textbooks, particularly within the sciences? Our suggestions emerge from our experiences as faculty, observing the course and curricular design process from the inside, from generating introductory course materials, and from our own initiatives involving projects funded by the National Science Foundation (which bears no responsibility for our comments).

First, we propose that colleges and universities provide the materials required for all introductory sequences in the sciences free of charge to their students. This could easily save early stage students more than $500 per semester.^[5] Second, it is clear that changes to such introductory texts (and supporting materials, such as formative assessment systems) must be justified based on research on their actual impact on student learning, rather than theoretical benefits. In such studies, it is critical that researchers clearly articulate what exactly they expect students to learn and be able to do with that knowledge — specifically, their performance expectation for the course and course sequence — and whether the materials students use help to achieve these goals.[6]

As with many design projects, it is often the case that the original course and curricular learning goals may prove to be over-ambitious. Without the flexibility to reconsider and revise these goals and the ways they are presented to students, both instructors and students find themselves in a vicious cycle that emphasizes learning trivia at the expense of mastering foundational concepts, leaving students unprepared for upper-division courses and more importantly, the real world (wherever that is). When politicians, policymakers and employers decry the poor preparation of many students in scientific disciplines, they generally ignore the trivialization of science education, abetted by the poor design of courses, curricula and textbooks. Over-priced and ineffective textbooks that distract from foundational concepts in favor of useless and even harmful add-ons are simply too high a price to pay for our students and our educational system.

Mike Klymkowsky is Professor of molecular, cellular & developmental biology at the University of Colorado Boulder. Melanie Cooper is Lappan-Phillips Professor of chemistry at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mich.

Dec. 7, 2015

 

 

[1] Gurung, R. A., & Daniel, D. (2006). Evidence-Based Pedagogy: Do Text-Based Pedagogical Features Enhance Student Learning? Best Practices for Teaching Introduction to Psychology, 41.

[2] Cooper, M. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2013). The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 306-312

[3] Cyranoski, David, and Sara Reardon. "Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos." Nature (2015).

[4] Nocera, D.G., 2012. The Artificial Leaf. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ar2003013

[5] This has now been done at one of our institutions, saving students an estimated $750,000; see http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/msu-chemistry-courses-improve-learning-save-students-money/

[6] see, as an example: (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00619?journalCode=jceda8)