iPads Out, Laptops In

Full disclosure: I own an iPad, albeit a very old one (2012, iPad 2). I tried using it to supplement my desktop (Windows) and laptop (MacBook) use at work and otherwise, going so far as to purchase a Bluetooth keyboard. I tired of trying within a few months and it is now used exclusively to play music to entertain our plants in a sunroom.

Headline: "Maine Decides to Ditch iPads for Macbooks," from yesterday's Education News (http://www.educationnews.org/technology/maine-decides-to-ditch-ipads-for-macbooks/). There is doubtlessly a K-12 movement away from tablets to laptops. Simply, iPads, even the iPad Pro, lacks features that facilitate production: mouse/trackpad, keyboard, and cursor. The Apple Pencil and Smart Keyboard go a considerable way toward alleviating shortcomings when using some apps but fall short when used with the many touch-sensitive apps designed exclusively for touch screens. One frequently needed example are the copy, cut and paste commands which can be accurately and rapidly performed on a laptop using keyboard shortcuts. Smart Keyboards are expensive (about $169) and third party keyboards although less expensive at about $99, are not as feature rich as the apple Smart Keyboard. Word processing and spreadsheet number crunching on an iPad with a keyboard are slow and difficult processes. Slightly less so with one.

How does that affect classroom use? I'm not sure. There are other considerations, of course. Cost is a major one and the iPad is less expensive than the MacBook Air by a few hundred dollars, but far more expensive than a Chromebook. iPads while not indestructible, are less subject to damage in and out of a backpack resulting in fewer repairs and replacement. There are more education-oriented apps for iPads than for laptops of any manufacturer. One teacher in a survey in Maine commented that many of the students were using the iPads as “toys” and that the devices have “no educational function in the classroom.” I suspect that both the teachers and students that participated in the survey are integrating at Dr. Ruben Puentedura's Substitution level of SAMR.

The question should be more about integration into the learning process than about production. I suspect that both the teachers and students that participated in the survey are integrating at Dr. Ruben Puentedura's Substitution level of SAMR. When used as little more than a tool substitute for the typewriter, calculator, and print copy dictionary, thesaurus, and encyclopedia, very little integration into the curriculum and classroom is occurring.  In this case, yes, laptops at all levels would be ideal. Actually, my take is that once the learning apps database grows to accommodate educational laptop demand, laptops, would be ideal for all grades and ease the transition into higher education and the work world.

You Gotta Love Peter Greene--the Value of LMS's

Regardless the subject you can count on Peter (Curmudgucation) to be reasoned and focused. While seldom concise his blogs define the writing process we so want our students to emulate: in-depth researching; critical thinking; analyzing; synthesizing; organizing; and journaling. A perfect example is his take on Learning Management Systems. Understand that he is writing from a teacher's perspective. As such he promotes local control (preferably no higher than the teacher level) and is anti-competency-based education (for thoughtful reasons).

Repost: America's High School Graduates Look Like Other Countries High School Dropouts

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/10/469831485/americas-high-school-graduates-look-like-other-countries-high-school-dropouts

Computational Thinking: Nothing More Than Systemic Common Sense Problem-Solving

From what I can determine, computational thinking is said by its proponents to provide a manner of thinking (extrapolated from computer science) that should be applied across all occupational and social endeavors. And that computational thinking should be taught and enforced beginning with the earliest grades. The Computer Science For Fun Site while not doing a very good job of detailing examples of how it should apply, does lay out the types of thinking inclusive in computational thinking.

Logical Thinking: Logical thinking is about deducing as much new information as possible from the little you already have - but (and this is the critical bit) not by jumping to conclusions. The new information gleaned must follow for sure.

Algorithmic Thinking: Algorithmic thinking is developing a set of rules that produce a winning or successful problem-solving strategy each time when confronted with similar circumstances. Once a successful algorithm has been built, one does not need to rethink the exercise from scratch each time.

Efficient Solutions: In computer science, efficiency is basically just about minimizing how much of some resource you use to complete a task. The resources to minimize vary but the most important one is often 'time'. What matters is usually finding ways that guarantee you get a task done in as few steps as possible.

Scientific Thinking: Basically scientific thinking is essentially not jumping to conclusions without evidence: following the Scientific Method to build up new knowledge. And the steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question


• Do Background Research


• Construct a Hypothesis


• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment


• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion


• Communicate Your Results

Innovative Thinking: Innovative thinking means, I think, not only coming up with unique ideas that are guaranteed to better some small or large part of mankind but to push the idea through to fruition.

Jeannette Wing, who coined the term Computational Thinking, wrote: "It represents a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use. " In her article, she goes on to characterize Computational Thinking as conceptualizing, not programming; fundamental, not rote skill; a way that humans, not computers, think; complements and combines mathematical and engineering thinking; ideas, not artifacts; for everyone, everywhere.

Given the common sensical attributes of so-called computational thinking, there can be little doubt the whole thing is a bit silly and a lot forced. That we need to ball it all up into curricula and add it to reading, writing, and arithmetic as a basic as early as kindergarten, is ridiculous. Ms. Wing and CMU are garnering considerable attention with considerable fluff. It too will pass but not before we have misdirected billions to buying computational thinking as the skill of the 21st Century.

Wi-Fi Troubleshooting

Most of the time Wi-Fi works and it's wonderful! A bit slower than cable all-around yet, wonderful! However, frustratingly, at one time or another we all have Wi-Fi issues: can't turn on Wi-Fi no matter how hard or fast you press that wireless key; maybe not being able to connect to the Internet; showing only a partial connection and not being able to reach a particular site; etc. It can be mysterious. Over at Wirednot, Lee Bradman has posted a wonderful little schematic that not only depicts what all is involved with Wi-Fi but lays out the considerations that need to be taken into account during troubleshooting what appears to be a Wi-Fi problem.  It also makes very clear that once you reach the access point you're out of the wireless environment, at least locally. This is not intended to bypass standard troubleshooting steps: 1) identify the problem; 2) establish a theory of probable cause; 3) test the theory to determine cause; 4) establish a plan of action to resolve the problem and identify potential effects; 5) implement the solution or escalate as necessary; 6) verify full system functionality and if applicable implement preventive measures; and 7) document findings, actions, and outcomes. The process is fairly standard regardless of occupation or profession. Lee's little graphic puts it into a technology networking framework. As you step through the standard troubleshooting process, here's most of the stuff you need to consider.

Reasoning Ed Tech

One of the most reasoned articles on the value and use of ed tech was brilliantly written by Alfie Kohn (The Overselling of Ed Tech). Not only should educators and technologists take note but politicians and corporate heads could also benefit from this short analysis. He centers on the question, "What kinds of learning should be taking place in those schools?". He maintains that a collaboratively derived answer to that question is a prerequisite to answering, “Is tech useful in schools?”. While I agree, I can't imagine how as a nation we could ever arrive at a coherent, coordinated answer to the first question. Common Core anyone? Satisficing answers may be more attainable by returning control to the local level. As it stands now, we are just wasting huge sums of money on technology and we don't even know why.

Too Much Ed Tech Too Frequently?

The following is an RSS Feed Reader snip from the Educational Technology and Mobile Learning (http://www.educatorstechnology.com/) site encompassing but the past six days.

Your school just might be well enough funded to have implemented 1 to 1 classrooms or maybe just a legacy computer lab or two, or maybe tablet carts or four or five static tablets assigned to each classroom. Many might still be saddled with ancient slow and cumbersome desktops. (Aside note: I remember a time [the late 80's] when I lugged my "portable" 30-pound computer with two 5-1/4" floppy disk drives back and forth to work daily using a luggage carrier.) Surely whatever devices on campus, all have access to the Internet and every faculty member has a laptop, notebook or tablet device. No? Whatever the case someone or someones has the explicit, or worse, the implicit task of vetting new educational apps, websites, browser add-ons, templates, ed tech tools, hardware, and all  stuff ed tech. Considering that these 60 some educational technology "things" above are from only one website, we can be assured that every six days produces many, many more, probably thousands. Who vets, recommends, budgets and buys ed tech stuff at your institution? Is it the administrators, the teachers, the IT guys, the education-technology integrator/coordinator, the cleaning crew? Who or what group would ever even have the time to visit each website and blog then look up and read a summary about each new thing. Does anyone even care that new and fabulous ed tech stuff, eminently capable of propelling students forward by at least two grades, goes on the market every day? What criteria is used? Do the teacher-users and student-user have input to decisions?ed tech tools, hardware, and all stuff ed tech. Considering that these 60 some educational technology "things" above are from only one website, we can be assured that every six days produces many, many more, probably thousands. Who vets, recommends, budgets and buys ed tech stuff at your institution? Is it the administrators, the teachers, the IT guys, the education-technology integrator/coordinator, the cleaning crew? Who or what group would ever even have the time to visit each website and blog then look up and read a summary about each new thing. Does anyone even care that new and fabulous ed tech stuff, eminently capable of propelling students forward by at least two grades, goes on the market every day? What criteria is used? Do the teacher-users and student-user have input to decisions?