--- Forwarded Message from Lynne Crandall <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:25:50 -0400
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum             <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Lynne Crandall <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Cheng & Tsui Pricing
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>

------------------ I certainly was not suggesting that IALL boycott any publication, and hope 
my earlier post was not construed as such! The adoption of instructional 
materials, or an instructional package, is an important decision that must 
consider many factors.  The match to curricular objectives, teaching style 
and learner needs are critical, and should be the first considerations.  
However, if the materials are not acccessible to students for regular and 
convenient study, due to cost or the funding ability of the institution, 
will the materials still meet curricular objectives?  

The situation I related was one in which the publisher initially refused any 
duplication license, insisting rather that all tapesets be purchased 
individually. Although the materials were wonderful, that scenario would 
have made their aquisition prohibitive for students, and impossible for us 
to underwrite.  The instructor for the course was aghast because the 
inability of students to have ready access (at home) would render the 
materials less desirable.  In that scenario the text would have been dropped 
because it would not have met instructional needs.  The publisher, however, 
was willing to negotiate because they wanted to keep the adoption.  For some 
institutions money is not an object and they are fortunate!  For most, 
especially the labs and centers supporting language instruction, funding is 
a huge factor.

I agree with Harold that we must be dispassionate and work with our material 
providers as best we can to serve the needs of students. We must be 
frank with our faculty about the ramifications of expensive adoptions and 
instructional materials, and communicate with the publishers or distributors 
of materials we want to use about the impact of pricing structures  or terms 
(this includes good news, too!).

I think it comes down to priorities.  If the materials are the best fit and 
the conditions of use are agreeable, then it is worth the asking price.  One 
wouldn't substitute say, zinc for oxygen in a chem lab, no?  But the match 
must be the right or best match.  And if it isn't, especially if it is due 
only to use restrictions or cost, then we must let our providers know!  If 
we don't tell them, who will? --Lynne


--- Excerpt:
--- Forwarded Message from Harold Hendricks  --- 

>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:47:50 -0600 
>From: Harold Hendricks  

Daniel Tom wrote that he will let Ted Yao know about the controversy. 
It's too late. Ted believes that IALL is boycotting his textbook based 
on one of the messages sent to this listserv. I hope no such boycott is 
seriously being considered. 

My hope is that we will not let emotion get the better of us to the 
detriment of our programs and students. 
--- end of excerpt

____________________________________________________________________________
Lynne Crandall
University of Michigan Language Resource Center
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1275
734-647-0762
[log in to unmask]