AssortedStuff

Following up on the previous post about leadership, during the interview with Steve Jobs he discussed Apple’s approach to business.

And he made this observation about the difference between producing computing devices for consumers, in which Apple has been very successful over the past decade, and the business market.

What I love about the consumer market that I always hated about the enterprise market is that we come up with a product, we try to tell everybody about it, and every person decides for themselves.  They vote yes or no.  And if enough of them say yes, we get to come to work tomorrow.  That’s how it works.  It’s really simple.

As for the enterprise market, it’s not so simple.  The people who use the products don’t decide for themselves.  And the people who make those decisions sometimes are confused.

Confused indeed!

Here in the overly-large school district, we are regularly reminded that we are not really a school system.

We work for an “enterprise” (and that we are all “clients”).

And that last part of Jobs’ remarks may offer a clue as to why the use of instructional technology is not what it should be here in the overly-large enterprise.

apple, olsd, steve jobs, technology

In parts one and two of a multipart post, Larry Cuban looks at why school districts buy new technologies when there is little or no evidence they do anything to improve student learning, especially when most are having major budget problems.

From part one, he notes that consumer spending on electronics in the US is up despite the continuing recession.

At the same time schools are purchasing more technology products while also laying off teachers, increasing class size, and cutting program.

Economists can probably tell you why families are devoting scarce resources to new and better technology devices but why are schools doing the same thing?

The reasons public officials most often give for these purchases, past and present, is that the electronic devices will transform classroom practices, student learning, and prepare students for jobs in a competitive global economy. So, school boards need to back up these reasons with solid evidence for spending public dollars on new (and replacement) technologies that promise significant changes in teaching, learning, and administrative practice.

Where is that “solid evidence”?

The evidence for these electronic devices doing what is expected both in the U.S. and abroad is—as I read the research–at best, spotty—at worst, weak. Few careful and impartial observers of U.S., Europe, and Asia where governments have committed themselves to infusing technology into schools can say with confidence that the use of new technologies has led to increases in student academic achievement (as measured on either U.S. or international tests), altered substantially how teachers teach, or prepared students for to compete in an ever-changing labor market.

In part two, Cuban offers two reasons for this blind devotion to tech “solutions” that solve nothing: political and psychological.

This political explanation helps to make sense of why policymakers effortlessly skip over the lack of evidence to support major high tech expenditures. They figure that media photos of students happily clicking away on laptops–visible symbols–will trump the few research studies or critics who question purchases.

Turning from a political to a psychological explanation, districts buy technology because they suffer from “inattentional blindness”: They are too focused on a specific problem and lose sight of the big picture.

Or they suffer from some kind of blindness caused by salespeople promising tech-based “solutions” to whatever problem their schools might be facing without seeing if it fits in that big picture.

Of course, if the stuff looks good when photographed next to the superintendent, mayor, governor, and/or congressional candidate, so much the better.

Cuban, as always, makes some excellent points about our educational obsession with gimmicks.  Take the time to read both posts.

edtech, education, larry cuban, reform, technology

A British “professor of the public understanding of technology” writing in The Guardian offers nine things everyone needs to know about the internet.

For anyone who’s been connected and paying attention, which I suspect includes many people who read blogs like this one, this is a review of what you already know.

However, it’s still a great read, detailing some important concepts about the web that many people still don’t get.

Three of them stand out for me as an educator.

DISRUPTION IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG

One of the things that most baffles (and troubles) people about the net is its capacity for disruption. One moment you’ve got a stable, profitable business – say, as the CEO of a music label; the next minute your industry is struggling for survival, and you’re paying a king’s ransom to intellectual property lawyers in a losing struggle to stem the tide. Or you’re a newspaper group, wondering how a solid revenue stream from classified ads could suddenly have vaporised; or a university librarian wondering why students use only Google nowadays. How can this stuff happen? And how does it happen so fast?

Or you’re an educational institution and the traditional structure where all information flows through one teacher makes no sense in this age of instant connection to many teachers.

THE NETWORK IS NOW THE COMPUTER

For baby-boomers, a computer was a standalone PC running Microsoft software. Eventually, these devices were networked, first locally (via office networks) and then globally (via the internet). But as broadband connections to the net became commonplace, something strange happened: if you had a fast enough connection to the network, you became less concerned about the precise location of either your stored data or the processor that was performing computational tasks for you.

We in the education business also need to recognize that the network is also the classroom. And vice versa.

OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME IS NO LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE

Since our current intellectual property regime was conceived in an era when copying was difficult and imperfect, it’s not surprising that it seems increasingly out of sync with the networked world. To make matters worse (or better, depending on your point of view), digital technology has provided internet users with software tools which make it trivially easy to copy, edit, remix and publish anything that is available in digital form – which means nearly everything, nowadays. As a result, millions of people have become “publishers” in the sense that their creations are globally published on platforms such as Blogger, Flickr and YouTube. So everywhere one looks, one finds things that infringe copyright in one way or another.

Which has incredible implications for teaching and learning.  We need to spend more time teaching kids how to be responsible producers as well as smart consumers.

In the end the writer notes that it “would be ridiculous to pretend that these nine ideas encapsulate everything that there is to be known about the net”.

Still his excellent points are well worth the read.

education, internet, technology, web

It’s spring so, as with most years, we’ve been getting a lot of questions about TSIP.

For those of you from outside Virginia, TSIP is the Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel, a legislative requirement for all teachers enacted about ten years ago.

Everyone with a teaching license must complete the TSIP requirements, either during their first year in the state or in order to renew their license.

Unfortunately, the requirements haven’t changed in a decade and generally conform to what a college advisor called the “inoculation theory of professional development”: you need it, you get it, you never have to bother with it again.

One shot and you’re done.

My thinking on the whole TSIP concept today just happens to coincides with a call from ISTE and other organizations for people to blog and/or tweet about the lack of any ed tech funding in the proposed federal budget.

However, I’m not entirely sure that’s necessarily a bad idea.

I’m willing to bet that most of the half billion dollars allocated this year had very little impact on instruction anyway.

Most likely it was spent at the state or district level to buy expensive packages from educational conglomerates like Pearson (along with plenty of consultants, of course), promising “solutions” to whatever problem is at the top of your list.

But more to the point, I wonder if there’s really a need for “educational” technology anymore?

Does the artificial classification of hardware, software, web applications and the rest as “instructional” (with the inevitable conclusion that rest of the stuff is not) just get in the way of the basic idea that almost any technology could be used for learning?

And does the process also gives some in our profession the cover necessary to ignore anything considered “non-instructional”?

You know, all that tech the kids play with when they’re not with us or when we’re not looking.

We say we want students to be able to communicate and collaborate, to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills, and to become creative and innovative in their work.

Do we really need special “edtech” to make that happen?

Or just a better understanding of how people in the real world are using all kinds of technology to improve their personal skills in all those areas and how to help our students learn to do the same.

Maybe, just like our tech standards that linger from the previous century, the whole concept of “educational technology” is outdated and obsolete.

budget, edtech, government, technology

For those who have an iPad, or are considering one, here’s a short list of the apps on my device that get the most use. (everything is free unless otherwise noted)

Remember, this is what’s current. A few months from now you might find a completely different collection. I’m always open to consider the good stuff others have found.

Evernote: The app is great, but it’s their service, providing access to all your files anywhere with an internet connection, that makes this a must have. And it’s all free! This has become my default word processor.

Feeddler: There are lots of RSS aggregator apps but this one is free, handles large numbers of feeds, and syncs with Google Reader. A paid version will cache posts for offline reading but I haven’t found a need for it.

Twitterrific & Tweetdeck: Both are good but neither is great. I’m waiting for the iPad version of Tweetie, which is what I use on the iPhone and desktop, and which is soon to be the “official” Twitter app.

GoodReader: At only 99 cents this PDF reader is a great bargain. While you can sync documents through iTunes, this app also offers an easy way to add files through wifi. More apps, including those from Apple, need the same feature.

BBC News: The best of the free news readers, mostly because of their great coverage outside the US pundit echo chamber. NPR’s app is also good. Not impressed at all with what the New York Times did.

WordPress: Which is what I’m using to post this. However it has enough annoying little problems that I’m considering paying for BlogPress ($2.99) rather than waiting for the WP community to fix the bugs.

Safari: Like we get a choice. :-) While it could use some improvements (adding Flash support is not one of them; I don’t care), this default web browser is actually very good. Even our crappy Blackboard interface works for the most part.

Mail: As much as I’d like to ignore it, a good email app is essential on any portable device and they did a great job with adapting this for the iPad. Looking forward to the unified mailbox that’s in the OS version 4.

Video: The iPad video player is excellent but other web-connected apps like YouTube and the one from ABC work very well as long as you have a good wifi connection. But where’s Hulu?

As I said, that’s the short list.  I’m up to five screens so far, although very few are paid for since there aren’t many apps yet that provide enough compelling features over the free equivalents.

And I will admit to having a few apps that some people might consider frivolous.

But how am I supposed to determine whether something like Plants vs Zombies could be educational unless I check it out personally? :-)

apple, ipad, tablet, technology

Ok, so I’ve had this iPad for a month now. Has it brought about unalterable changes in my life?

Not quite, but I’m still very happy with it and can see how it’s already altering some things about the way I work and manage my life.

And, of course, there are the things that need improvement but I’ll get to that later.

Starting with the good stuff, the hardware itself is outstanding, solidly built with an excellent display. Those who complain about the glare are right but it hasn’t been a problem, especially since since I don’t plan to use it in direct sunlight anyway.

There have also been reports of wireless problems but that’s hasn’t affected my unit. I’ve had no difficulties connecting and staying connected with a good strong signal. I don’t regret not getting the 3G model (and another bill from AT&T).

As to the software, some claim the iPad is just a big iPhone and I suppose there’s something to that. But the extra screen real estate makes a huge difference for many applications and the Phone OS on the iPad is excellent, very fast, very responsive.

So, what’s in need of upgrading?

I’ll join the chorus of those screaming for multitasking. It doesn’t bother me not having it on the phone but on this new format it is essential. We’ll see if Apple really does get it right when version 4 of the OS arrives in the fall.

I especially want to leave a browser page open while I switch to something else without it having to reload when I come back to it. Very annoying.

The other apps I’ve got are good or very good but none rise to the level of excellent yet. Some of the developers seem to have a good understanding of how to create software for the iPad and their stuff just needs a few tweaks.

Others? Well, it’s a good thing they were free. Except for Keynote which is rather disappointing for the price. Hopefully they will fix the problems in an update or two.

I was going to add a list of the apps I’m using to this rant but it’s running longer than I planned so maybe I’ll post that later in the week (if anyone cares).

Finally, the virtual keyboard on which I’ve been typing this is really quite useable, very good even. I’ve become rather adept at four-finger non-touch typing.

apple, ipad, tablet, technology

I’ve only had this new device for a little over 24 hours so this won’t be much of a review. More like a collection of random thoughts and observations.

First, as with every Apple product I’ve owned in the past ten or so years, the iPad has a real solid, quality feel to it. Excellent design and execution. Is it worth the price when “more capable” netbooks are lower priced? It is to me.

I’ve read all the complaints about no camera but I don’t care. I’m not sure I’d use it anyway. Besides there are several good tools for voice communications and that’s enough. It will probably come in a later revision, although I wonder if someone could build one that plugs in the dock port.

The other big negative in most reviews is the lack of multitasking. While I agree the iPad (and iPhone for that matter) needs it, that’s likely something that can be fixed in a software update. I can wait.

The on screen keyboard is actually better than I expected. I won’t be writing the great American novel on this thing but for short blog posts (like this one), Twitter, taking notes, and the like, it seems to work very well.

During EduCon, the weekend after Apple made the big reveal, I tweeted that the iPad looked like it would make a good conference computer. When you combine the great portability with the more than adequate functionality and excellent battery life (I’m still working with the charge that came out of the box), this is going to be ideal for long days in buildings with limited power outlets.

So, is this the device that transforms education, saves newspapers and magazines, and revolutionizes media? Probably not. It will depend on whether those institutions try to use it to prop up their failing business models.

However, I do believe the iPad will turn out to be the beginning of a major shift in the way we look at computing/communications tools.

Complain about the lack of content creation tools if you like, as some I follow on Twitter were doing before it was even on sale. I suspect they will come as this type of device evolves. And evolve it will.

This is just the first of many iPad personal computing tools I will own, each gaining more capabilities than the previous generations, the same way laptops have developed in the past twenty years.

Anyway, bottom line is that I’m happy with my iPad so far. Your mileage may vary.

apple, computers, ipad, technology

Over the past few years, I’ve delivered a few rants (here and elsewhere) about the wastes of money and time that are interactive whiteboards.

But I’m just one of those evil central office types who never had one in my classroom. What do I know?

So instead read the reflections of a 6th grade language arts teacher who experimented with an IWB in his classroom for a year and then told his school to take it away.

His whole post, Wasting Money on Whiteboards…, is worth reading (as are the comments and his follow-up post) for some excellent insights on technology and learning.

I’d go even farther, though, and argue that even WITH time and training, Interactive Whiteboards are an under-informed and irresponsible purchase.

They do little more than reinforce a teacher-centric model of learning. Heck, even whiteboard companies market them as a bridging technology, designed to replicate traditional instructional practices—making presentations, giving notes, delivering lectures—in an attempt to move digital dinosaurs into the light.

Do we really want to spend thousands of dollars on a tool that makes stand-and-deliver instruction easier?

If we could turn control of learning over to students, we’d probably see motivation AND academic growth levels rise all at once. Classrooms would become innovative places that students were drawn to instead of the snooze palaces that they seem to be for so many kids today.

If those are the outcomes we most desire, then why are we wasting money on Interactive Whiteboards—tools that do little to promote independent discovery and collaborative work? Sure—you could argue that when used as an instructional center, whiteboards become more interactive, but that is one REALLY expensive center, don’t you think?!

(emphasis is mine)

So, with IWBs we waste money on a technology that reinforces a “teacher-centric model of learning” and does “little to promote independent discovery and collaborative work”.

That’s IWBs in a nutshell!

interative whiteboards, teaching, technology, waste

In his Class Struggle column last week, Jay Mathews asks the question Will Technology Save Our Kids?

The post deals with a new book called “Liberating Learning: Technology, Politics, and the Future of American Education”, the thesis of which Mathews summarizes in one long sentence.

Because of the rise of technology, Moe and Chubb say, our future schools will be more customized to students, more effective, more beneficial to teachers, less costly, more autonomous, more competitive, more accountable, better at serving needy constituencies, better at promoting social equity and better at doing what works.

All of which sounds very much like Disrupting Class a book that’s been getting a lot of buzz in the online echo chamber in which I live (and which I just finished reading about the same time I read Mathews’ entry).

Both sets of authors seem to be depending a great deal on virtual schools to provide the competition necessary for the disrupting/liberating of American education.

While I haven’t read the book by Moe and Chubb, Disrupting Class started strong but in the it was something of a disappointment.

Christensen, Johnson and Horn start out in the early chapters with a very good assessment of the American educational system and how we’ve been using technology.

…the current educational system – the way it trains teachers, and the way school buildings are laid out – is designed for standardization. If the US is serious about leaving no child behind, it cannot teach students with standardized methods.

While people have spent billions of dollars putting computers into US schools, it has resulted in little change in how students learn. And most products that the fragmented and marginally profitable education software industry has produced attempt to teach students in the same ways that subjects have been taught in the classroom.

The reason for this disappointing result [little or no improvement in learning] is that the way schools have employed computers has been perfectly predictable, perfectly logical – and perfectly wrong.

However, they then turn to writing a business book, discussing how companies that dominate their segment of a particular industry have been disrupted by outsiders who target an unserved part of the marketplace.

Their conclusion is that technology, and specifically online educational delivery systems, will be the disruptive force in the education business. Control of the educational marketplace will no longer be dominated by one giant corporation (big education).

…when disruptive innovators begin forming user networks through which professionals and amateurs – students, parents, and teachers – circumvent the existing value chain and instead market their products directly to each other, … the balance of power in education will shift.

The concept of using networks (both people and the technology that connects them) to differentiate instruction is very attractive, and especially if doing so also gives parents and students more control over the educational process.

But Christensen, et. al. (and I suspect Moe and Chubb) seem to be saying that implementing a new method of delivery for instruction is all that’s needed to trigger an overhaul of the American education system.

Maybe I need to read the last third of the book again, but somewhere in this coming disruption also needs to be a serious look at both the curriculum being used as well as the tools we use for assessing student learning.

For technology to save education, start by dumping the concept that all learning is measured by standardized tests, along with the curriculum that’s custom designed to support it.

education, jay mathews, reform, technology

It’s that time of year again: standardized testing season.

Increasingly in our overly-large school district, students are taking those tests online, sucking almost all equipment and bandwidth from actual instructional uses for a month or more.

Unfortunately, it’s not just an American phenomena as the BBC profiles a new testing system being tried in Norway.

About 6,000 students in Norway are doing exams on their laptops in a trial that could soon be rolled out across the country.

Every 16-19 year-old in Nord-Trondelag county in Norway has been trying out the laptop-based system.

The secondary students are given a laptop by the government when they turn 16 to help them with schoolwork.

During exams the specially-tailored software springs into life to block and record any attempt at cheating.

Ok, taking tests on the computer and software to stop cheating (I wonder how long it takes before some enterprising student hacks that). Very nice.

What’s really interesting, however, is part about the Norwegian government routinely issuing laptops to students of a certain age.

Apparently, they consider personal computers to be an essential part of learning, something that should be provided from educational funding.

Here in the US we certainly have mastered the talking points about how important technology is to instruction.

We just aren’t as good as other parts of the world about the follow through.

bbc, edtech, norway, standardized testing, technology