Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Textbook Solicitation: The Old, The New and The Ugly


Today must be a special day. I received three different textbook solicitations. (I haven’t had any in the last four weeks since classes started.) The three soliciting strategies were rather different from one another.

Let’s start with the Old. I was sent (unsolicited, of course) a physical textbook in my subdiscipline of chemistry. It was a gratis copy. This has happened ever since I started my job as a professor although the frequency has decreased over the years. Perhaps the old school strategy (pre-internet) is losing its effectiveness.

Before I start with the New, let me describe the more popular method in recent years. I receive a targeted e-mail asking me if I’d like to review a book for potential adoption in one of my classes. An input code allows me free 30-day access to an online version. This is also what happens if I solicit the publisher to review a potential text.

But what was New today is that I first got an unsolicited phone call from Large Publishing Company. They wanted to know if I was interested in reviewing a textbook for potential adoption in one of my classes. The name of the book suggested it wouldn’t fit as well, and I told the caller so. The caller said that I might potentially use it as a reference, and if they could send it to me. Suspecting some string attached, I asked what I needed to do if it was sent. The caller said I wouldn’t have to do anything – it would just be provided free electronically. If I didn’t want to use it, that would be fine. I said, okay, that seems reasonable. Then I was told that what I would actually be provided is 30-day access. I replied that it was unlikely I would review it in that time period so there was no need to send me access. The caller pleasantly thanked me and the conversation ended. Three hours later, I get an e-mail with links to access the book. I delete it.

And now the Ugly. I had an l unsolicited e-mail from Chegg. This is a first for me. They must have a new strategy with a bot that trolls through web pages, because the information was from one of my P-Chem courses from five years ago regarding a textbook that I’m no longer using. The e-mail was also sent at 4am according to the time stamp.

=====
Dear Dr. [my first name],

I notice you mentioned [textbook name, first half chopped off] by [author names, second author name partially chopped off] on your [course name] web page [URL], and I thought your students might like to know that they can actually rent that book at Chegg for far less. Additionally Chegg offers a resource that can help students with their studies for that textbook.

Chegg Study provides students with self-guided learning tools through instant access to millions of step-by-step tutorials, and Q&A boards monitored by professors and trusted subject experts. Perfect for when students get stuck during late night study sessions, or when office hours are over. Over 90% of students who use Chegg Study say it helped them improve their grades and better understand the material.

I hope you’ll consider where they can find study help for the book: [Link to the solutions manual, I’ll describe this in more detail shortly.]

I bet your students would appreciate saving money on their textbooks so I’ll also provide a link to where students can rent the book for your course: [Link to textbook rental]

Together, let’s help students save time and money while they improve their academic outcomes!
=====

Why is this Ugly? It’s because of the very last line claiming to help students improve their academic outcomes. I have no problem with textbook rental. The problem is the way the solutions manual is provided. The student would save time, but not money – and it’s bad for their learning. I learned about Chegg many moons ago, from students. They explained to me how it worked, and how they have used it for some of their “hard science or math classes”. In P-Chem, which is hard and has lots of math, the way you best learn the material is to struggle through working problems. By looking up the solutions manual, students short-circuit their learning process. My syllabus prohibits the use of a solutions manual, and I explain in detail to my class why.

However, I also understand that a student under stress can make bad decisions in the heat of the moment. Therefore, I make it clear to the students that if they used or consulted a solutions manual, to simply not turn in the problem set. Turning in the problem set is optional – I grade it if turned in. If not, that small grade percentage is lumped into the next exam for a student who didn’t turn in one. Since it is still early in the semester, the vast majority of the students are turning in problem sets. (I take the time to explain why this is important for learning, and how it will help them when they prepare for the exams.) So far I’ve had many students come to office hours for help on their problem set – a good sign early in the semester.

Chegg provides a sample solution when you click on the link for “study help”. At least a number of years ago, the system was such that you got something like one free “solution” (i.e. to one question) for some period of time (maybe a month) and that you had to pay per piece if you wanted more. There was probably also a tiered subscription for X number of solutions for Y price; I haven’t checked recently so this might be outdated data. And some students are willing to take this “shortcut”. However they don’t do well on the exams if they haven’t put in the time to struggle through the material – and worse, the solutions manual is sometimes wrong or misleading. It’s the most error-prone part of supplementary information attached to a textbook. I know, because it’s one of the ways you can catch students who use this strategy.

I will certainly not be forwarding Chegg’s e-mail to my students. Chances are they know all about it already. I hope none of them short-circuit their learning. As to whether one should be using a textbook and its associated problems, here's an old musing.

No comments:

Post a Comment