A recent column on MSNBC by Helen A.S. Popkin addresses the shortcomings of the earlier posting about the Pew Internet and American Life Project recent research report.
While the column is a ranting tirade and most of it seems to be all in good fun (and to draw readership) the major point comes across - cyberbullying is rampant and a constant danger to our younger generations.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Interactive Whiteboards vs. Tablet PCs
There has been a lot of discussion (1 2 3) on the impact of interactive whiteboards (IWB)in teaching and learning. Schools around the country (and world) are heavily investing in this technology as the newest tool for delivery of information. Many IWBs are rather fragile and while we would like to think that things are never thrown in a classroom, one errant missile can leave a "dead spot" on the surface of the IWB, reducing it's functionality. Some schools want to buy one per department or grade level, but as a former classroom teacher my experience with sharing a resource like this is usually not worth the effort.
I keep reading about all the great and wonderful things people are doing with IWBs, but I have not found one activity or learning experience that cannot be replicated completely, or perhaps even more completely then the original by using other technologies. Some people might say, "Brian, you must never have had the chance to teach with one". Not true, I have used IWBs to teach adult learners in evening classes and even had one in my high school science classroom during my last year in teaching. The entire time I possessed one, I experimented with it every day. My students also experimented. They learned things about its functionality and taught them to other students and even occasionally showed their teacher a trick or two. Without a doubt, IWBs are a great tool to place in the classroom, but are they cost efficient?
Let's look at the cost of installing a complete classroom set-up: IWB, desktop computer, ceiling mounted digital projector, and all associated cabling.
Cost of an interactive whiteboard classroom (Classroom A):
$1500 for 4x6 interactive whiteboard (and what about installation?)
$750 for desktop computer
$1000 for digital projector, ceiling mount, & cabling
Total: $3250 per classroom
So, basic costs round out to about $3250 per classroom. And if you have 40 classrooms in a building? $130,000
Now let's look at a more technologically advanced classroom: tablet PC, wireless ceiling mounted projector, wireless interactive tablet, and associated cabling.
Cost of an alternative interactive classroom (Classroom B):
$1400 for tablet PC
$1200 for wireless digital project, ceiling mount, & cabling
$300 for wireless interactive tablet
Total: $3000
The general costs is approximately $3000 per classroom. Expand that for 40 classrooms and you have $120,000. An overall savings of $10,000. You know, outfit three schools of 40 classrooms each and save $30,000. I can hire a pretty good technician to service just those 120 tablet PCs, 120 digital projectors, and 120 interactive tablets for that.
What about functionality? Well, Classroom A has a desktop computer and IWB. The teacher is limited to control of the projected image by either standing at the PC or at the IWB. Not very conducive for classroom management. Plus students have to move around the classroom to access the IWB themselves. Plus the projected image is limited to the size of the IWB, in this case 4x6.
Classroom B on the other hand is wireless. The tablet PC can transmit the projected image as the teacher moves about the room with it in his/her hands. The interactive tablet can be placed into student hands (as could the tablet PC) as a means of interacting with the projected image. Hard wired cabling is still installed just in case the teacher wants to show a short video (or an even longer one). In this classroom we are not limited to the size of our projected image. A 8' or 10' screen can be hung in place of the IWB and even those with terrible vision can read the information displayed.
I know which room I would choose: Classroom B! In fact, my school is installing 40 of them next summer (Why not sooner you ask? The new elementary will not be ready for technology until then!).
I keep reading about all the great and wonderful things people are doing with IWBs, but I have not found one activity or learning experience that cannot be replicated completely, or perhaps even more completely then the original by using other technologies. Some people might say, "Brian, you must never have had the chance to teach with one". Not true, I have used IWBs to teach adult learners in evening classes and even had one in my high school science classroom during my last year in teaching. The entire time I possessed one, I experimented with it every day. My students also experimented. They learned things about its functionality and taught them to other students and even occasionally showed their teacher a trick or two. Without a doubt, IWBs are a great tool to place in the classroom, but are they cost efficient?
Let's look at the cost of installing a complete classroom set-up: IWB, desktop computer, ceiling mounted digital projector, and all associated cabling.
Cost of an interactive whiteboard classroom (Classroom A):
$1500 for 4x6 interactive whiteboard (and what about installation?)
$750 for desktop computer
$1000 for digital projector, ceiling mount, & cabling
Total: $3250 per classroom
So, basic costs round out to about $3250 per classroom. And if you have 40 classrooms in a building? $130,000
Now let's look at a more technologically advanced classroom: tablet PC, wireless ceiling mounted projector, wireless interactive tablet, and associated cabling.
Cost of an alternative interactive classroom (Classroom B):
$1400 for tablet PC
$1200 for wireless digital project, ceiling mount, & cabling
$300 for wireless interactive tablet
Total: $3000
The general costs is approximately $3000 per classroom. Expand that for 40 classrooms and you have $120,000. An overall savings of $10,000. You know, outfit three schools of 40 classrooms each and save $30,000. I can hire a pretty good technician to service just those 120 tablet PCs, 120 digital projectors, and 120 interactive tablets for that.
What about functionality? Well, Classroom A has a desktop computer and IWB. The teacher is limited to control of the projected image by either standing at the PC or at the IWB. Not very conducive for classroom management. Plus students have to move around the classroom to access the IWB themselves. Plus the projected image is limited to the size of the IWB, in this case 4x6.
Classroom B on the other hand is wireless. The tablet PC can transmit the projected image as the teacher moves about the room with it in his/her hands. The interactive tablet can be placed into student hands (as could the tablet PC) as a means of interacting with the projected image. Hard wired cabling is still installed just in case the teacher wants to show a short video (or an even longer one). In this classroom we are not limited to the size of our projected image. A 8' or 10' screen can be hung in place of the IWB and even those with terrible vision can read the information displayed.
I know which room I would choose: Classroom B! In fact, my school is installing 40 of them next summer (Why not sooner you ask? The new elementary will not be ready for technology until then!).
Monday, July 2, 2007
Don't be a bully
I find that the article posted on MSNBC discussing how a research study found that students were more likely to be subjected to face-to-face bullying than cyber bullying is a bit out of touch with the overall picture. Bullying is bullying whether its done face-to-face or via technology. The damage is done and the torment is still very real.
Some of the responses to the article were a disheartening as well (perhaps a chronic bully him/her-self?):
This raises the question: Should we discuss cyber bullying with students at differently then we discuss (for the lack of a better term) old-fashioned bullying? I propose that our children need to be made aware of the implications of bullying on a regular basis. Bullying is bullying - we need to address it within our schools and not let another event like these occur.
Red Lake Indian Reservation
Frontier Junior High
Virginia Tech
Columbine
Some of the responses to the article were a disheartening as well (perhaps a chronic bully him/her-self?):
"Waahhhh! Stop being pissy cry-babies, and take some accountability for your actions. Don't get in compromising positions and there won't be any compromising photos. Parents, there's a reason it's called "rearing" your kids. Also, this is worthy of news? Gimme a break, report on something substantive, not something that a whiny touchy-feely psychologist got his Ph.D. for. Grow some thick skin already! We're becoming a nation of lame ducks!"
This raises the question: Should we discuss cyber bullying with students at differently then we discuss (for the lack of a better term) old-fashioned bullying? I propose that our children need to be made aware of the implications of bullying on a regular basis. Bullying is bullying - we need to address it within our schools and not let another event like these occur.
Red Lake Indian Reservation
Frontier Junior High
Virginia Tech
Columbine
Catching those Cheaters...
A company has gone out of its way and created a device that will allow instructors to monitor the test taking behavior of their online students. I find this invention nearly laughable, I mean we have the ability for on-demand learning, but we still are hung up on traditional assessments? I guess with the high-stakes testing atmosphere promoted by No Child Left Behind it should come as no surprise that some educators cannot find a better way.
Here is the device's capabilities: "It locks down a computer while the test is being taken, preventing students from searching files or the Internet, and the latest version also includes fingerprint authentication, to help ensure the person taking the test isn't a ringer. But the new development is a small Webcam and microphone set up where a student takes the exam. The camera points into a reflective ball, which allows it to capture a full 360-degree image. When the exam begins, the device records audio and video. Software detects significant noises and motions and flags them in the recording."
To top it off, Troy University of Alabama is actually going to start using the device. Even the for-profit competitors University of Phoenix, Capella University, and Walden University said they do little student testing online. Instead they rely on student written assessments. For shame! The questionable academia of for-profit education even knows better than to use traditional tests. Too bad they cannot figure out that authentic learning activities does not always mean a paper.
Here is the device's capabilities: "It locks down a computer while the test is being taken, preventing students from searching files or the Internet, and the latest version also includes fingerprint authentication, to help ensure the person taking the test isn't a ringer. But the new development is a small Webcam and microphone set up where a student takes the exam. The camera points into a reflective ball, which allows it to capture a full 360-degree image. When the exam begins, the device records audio and video. Software detects significant noises and motions and flags them in the recording."
To top it off, Troy University of Alabama is actually going to start using the device. Even the for-profit competitors University of Phoenix, Capella University, and Walden University said they do little student testing online. Instead they rely on student written assessments. For shame! The questionable academia of for-profit education even knows better than to use traditional tests. Too bad they cannot figure out that authentic learning activities does not always mean a paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)