jebsblog

I’ve reported about the Kindle more than a few times in this blog and have been generally fascinated by e-reader technology. I keep predicting it is the next big thing and with the pending announcement coming from the creatives in Cupertino, we may have another e-reader in the mix very soon.

That said, the e-reader, and specifically the Kindle by Amazon, has been having a rough time of it. First introduced in November of 2007, the Kindle was a big hit, selling out in the first five hours and on backorder for months after that. The Kindle 2, released two years later was equally well received and the DX version released a couple of months later was also very popular.

Then the fun began. A controversy with The Author’s Guild forced Amazon to hobble the Kindle 2 by shutting off the text-to-speech feature. Disability groups stormed the Manhattan offices of The Author’s Guild to protest and claim discrimination, but the device, it seems, was already inherently inaccessible to people with disabilities.

In May of 2009, Amazon announced a bold move of a offering the Kindles to several large US universities with the goal of taking over the college textbook industry and making paper college textbooks a thing of the past. More fun followed when the inherent inaccessibility of the device became widely known. A number of the  universities that piloted the program with the Kindle backtracked and dropped out when they started to see the accessibility problems. “Syracuse University and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, also examined the utility of the Kindle DX as a teaching device and decided that they would not use the Kindle DX until it is accessible to blind individuals” – this according to the US Department of Justice (USDOJ).

The latest news on Kindle is a settlement with the USDOJ announced this week. It states:

Under the agreements reached today, the universities (Case Western Reserve University, Pace University, Reed College, and Arizona State University) generally will not purchase, recommend or promote use of the Kindle DX, or any other dedicated electronic book reader, unless the devices are fully accessible to students who are blind and have low vision. The universities agree that if they use dedicated electronic book readers, they will ensure that students with vision disabilities are able to access and acquire the same materials and information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students with substantially equivalent ease of use. The agreements that the Justice Department reached with these universities extend beyond the Kindle DX to any dedicated electronic reading device.

This sounds pretty bad for Amazon and the Kindle.

And given Mr. Jobs recent efforts at making Apple products fully accessible, one can only imagine that the rumored “Apple Table device” WILL be fully accessible and perfectly timed to kick butt.

Stay tuned.

With much fanfare a few months ago, Amazon.com rolled out its latest version of Kindle, the e-book appliance that they hoped would revolutionize the industry. At the time, close to the beginning of the school year, Amazon also announced that several “major” universities in the US would be “testing” the Kindle as a way of inexpensively delivering college text to college students.

In the meantime, Kindle has also been embroiled in a debate between consumers who have disabilities and the association that represents writers, The Authors’ Guild. Central in that debate was copyright issues and whether having a text to speech conversion tool built into Kindle’s operating system would be a violation of the copyright rules. More on that story.

But the Kindle story took a new twist when two of the “major universities”  rejected the Kindle because – get this – “the menus of the device are not accessible to the blind”

Reported widely in the press, both Syracuse University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have decided to say, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Kindle.

E-Access Bulletin reports,

The institutions’ decision was “applauded” by the US National Federation of the Blind ( NFB: http://bit.ly/gBnAC ), which said that although the reader contains a text-to-speech feature, “the menus of the device are not accessible to the blind”, meaning that blind users cannot purchase books from Amazon’s Kindle store, select which book to read, or even activate the device’s text-to-speech feature.

They further state,

“If e-books are accessible, then there will be no need for the expensive and time- consuming process of converting a printed textbook into Braille, audio, or electronic form. Blind students will have access to the same book at the same time and at the same price as their sighted peers”, said Chris Danielsen, director of public relations for the NFB.

Danielsen said that Amazon could increase the accessibility of the Kindle DX by “making the menus speak and/or by allowing the functions of the device to be controlled by keystrokes from the keyboard.”

Read the full article on E-Access Bulletin.

I have written and published a new article about accessible documents on the Maine CITE website. This is the first of a series I plan to write on the topic called Making Accessible Educational Documents. The articles are based upon the series of articles I wrote for the Maine State Government Office of Information Technology over the past two years and will refine the content, focusing it specifically on the needs of classroom teachers and educational administrators at all levels – Kindergarten through college.

As more and more curriculum and school-related content is being provided to students, parents and the general public in digital form, it is essential that these documents be created in a form that everyone can access.

The articles will also appear in print form in the quarterly newsletter published by the Association of Computer Technology Educators of Maine (ACTEM).

The first in the series is called Making Text Documents Accessible and deals with word processor and Portable Document Format (PDF) documents .

Also featured on the new web resource will be quick tips and resources to help teachers and educational administrators communicate better with their constituents.

~j

I just finished reading an article in the New York Times (on line of course) “Texting, Surfing, Studying” written by a pediatrician about “her” own children and how they “multitask.” BTW, I cannot tell by the name (or anything in the text) as to whether this is a man or a woman writing – my bias is it’s a woman – so apologies given if necessary.

In any case Dr. Klass shares the story of an “experiment” with her son who is currently a medical student and his friends (also medical students). She asked them about study habits and it turned out most of them indicated that when they studied they were also doing something else (watching a movie, texting, or exercising). Apparently, all of these highly educated and competent medical students could manage to successfully study and do the other task.

Dr. Kass notes in the article about the research showing that there is no such thing as multitasking in human behavior. My own personal and professional experience would back that up. But Dr. Kass appears to be supporting the notion that today’s generation of “digital natives” are perhaps different their forefathers. This notion is in dispute among cognitive neuroscientists, but I would venture to guess there are some stylistic differences at work here.

Rather than quoting research, I thought I would tell you about my stepbrother. Chris is eight years younger than I, but still falls within the “baby boomer” generation. We became brothers when he was 11 and I was 19 and so I only got to observe his studying behavior for a few years. The fact that I was a psychology major helped.

Chris’ technique for studying – which, by the way he did very little of – was to have a book open on his lap while he was watching television. I, on the other hand, have to be in a room with almost complete silence for me to study anything. The only exception is listening to classical music and only such music that has no one singing – no opera!

Now I won’t pontificate and talk about the level of academic achievement that my brother and I attained – suffice it to say there was some variance here. But to this day, he is still much better at remembering things that he has learned by listening and can repeat lines from plays and movies seen years ago with ease. I, on the other hand am one of those people who when I got to a meeting or party and am introduced to new people, cannot remember their names to save my life. And, I can only remember lyrics to songs when I am playing an instrument along while singing.

Both my stepbrother and I are fairly adept at using technology and in other ways are very similar. So I have my doubts about the digital immigrant/digital native notion – sorry Marc Prensky. The only geeky behavior that I eschew is video gaming. For the life of me, I just don’t get it.  To be a gamer I think you have to have been born with a GameBoy in you hands.

Check out the NYT article and feel free to comment.

Image from Gideo Burton Creative Commons license.

I have been indulging in some more thoughtful reading of late about the nature of literacy and particularly the skills of our latest generation. I am a member of the TV Generation and when I was in high school, the educational community was all upset because the nation’s SAT scores had started to drop. There were all kinds of theories at the time: television and comic books were the prime culprits, particularly in my household.

When I was doing my masters degree in school psychology we took a field trip down to Princeton, NJ to visit Educational Testing Service the then-purveyors of Scholastic Aptitude Test – the dreaded SATs. We had a conversation about the declining SATs score with some of the big honchos at ETS and they were engaged in real research at the time about the causes of the decline. They had theories, and yes, television viewing was on the list, but not nearly as wicked as my mother contended. It seemed that there were a lot of factors at work, but we were assured that children were not getting stupider…

As I entered the field of education, I continued to harbor some guilt feeling that we, the TV Generation, did not really work as hard as previous generations. At the time, I sensed that we had had it easier and that there was less pressure to succeed. Clearly, we were allowed to goof off more than the kids who sat in our seats 5, 10 years earlier. After all, there were all these “new technologies” to play with and things to explore. Studying Latin, which had been a requirement for all student at my high school up until 1966, the year I entered, was now only offered as an elective. By the time I graduated, there were no Latin classes, the teacher retired and was not replaced. But this was okay, right?

In college, there were similar events where it looked like corners were being cut. Expectations and entrance requirements had been lowered from previous years, and graduation requirements lowered. But I wasn’t about to complain. Hey, it was the 70s and I was too busy playing my guitar, drinking beer and hanging with my friends.

But this sense of complacency has haunted me all these years.

In 1990, the brilliant film maker Ken Burns released his 11-hour epic “The Civil War” on PBS. I can still remember the episode where the letter from Sullivan Ballou was read. A letter written by a man on a battlefield to his wife telling her how he was “impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I am no more.” With Jay Unger and Molly Mason’s beautiful and haunting rendition of Ashokan Farewell filling the background, I was moved the first time, and the every time I’ve heard the elegant prose. A graduate of Brown University, a lawyer in civilian life and a man who rose to the rank of Major in the Union Army, Ballou clearly had achieved a level of literacy that far exceeds what most college graduates have today. Could a student today, write a Facebook entry as elegant?

Two articles that I just read talk about “the new literacy” and appear to take the position that things are not so bad. Clive Thompson published The New Literacy in last month’s Wired magazine which described a recent study by Stanford University professor Andrea Lunsford called Stanford Study of Writing. It seems Professor Lunsford thinks thing are not all that bad. Thompson poses this:

But is this explosion of prose good, on a technical level? Yes. Lunsford’s team found that the students were remarkably adept at what rhetoricians call kairos—assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across. The modern world of online writing, particularly in chat and on discussion threads, is conversational and public, which makes it closer to the Greek tradition of argument than the asynchronous letter and essay writing of 50 years ago.

You should read Thomson’s whole piece. Good stuff.

The other is from Paul Barnwell and appears in today’s issue of Education Week. Entitled Literary Accountability in a New-Media Age, Barnwell, a middle school language arts teacher from Kentucky, suggests that the perceived decline in the literacy of today’s children is a function of the type of metric we are using to measure literacy. He states, “If we judged these students’ ability to interpret and gather information solely based on their mastery of print media, we’d be doing ourselves—and society—a huge disservice.”

I just don’t know. I can’t find the reference right now, but I recall a few weeks ago there was a report (I think it was in the Washington Post) complaining about students not being prepared for college and the costs of remediation for these students once they get to college is growing.

So, if you have thoughts on the topic, feel free to drop a comment. Me, I’m gonna go watch TV.

~j