Now I have an iPad? What to do next?

1 Comment

So you’ve received a shiny, new iPad, set up email and calendar, used the browser to check some basketball or hockey scores, watched a Netflix movie and installed Facebook. All of that functionality exists on your laptop, so why use the iPad? It seems like duplicated effort. Here are some reasons, and recommendations for getting started small so you are not overwhelmed by the 200,000 apps out there.

Reasons for using the iPad

  •  Mobility – You walk ten miles with your laptop; i’ll walk with my iPad. Let’s see who’s more tired at the end of the trip. Imagine an iPad eliminating the need for a backpack, or at minimum, reducing the weight by 50%.
  •  Spontaneity – “Okay, let’s go to the computers.” Ten minutes later, every student in the classroom is logged in (some forgot his/her password), and has found the web page you asked them to locate. Can you afford to sacrifice ten minutes of class time? With the iPad, this process occurs in 30 seconds. Would 30 seconds deter you from using an iPad in class?
  •  Size – Smaller than a breadbox, bigger than a smart phone; a great size for note-taking and reading.
  •  Multi-purpose – With a little creativity, you can satisfy most of your needs with the iPad (some apps are still in development – remember Woody Allen’s Sleeper).

Getting started

Very simple: Read, read, read with your iPad. Books, newspapers, magazines, web pages, journals. Start taking notes using the built-in Notes app or ask your friends for note-taking app recommendations if you want to use a stylus (purchase at Walmart for under $10). Begin with shopping lists, to do’s, and  meeting notes. Finally, start using Dropbox so you can share documents between your laptop and the iPad. These steps will help to unleash the passion — the commitment comes when you add a few other functions.

“Over the High-Tech Rainbow”

Comments Off on “Over the High-Tech Rainbow”

The title of this post is borrowed from Sue Halpern‘s article in the November 24, 2011 issue of The New York Review of Books (ironically, the article is behind a paid gateway). It is by far one of the most fascinating and concise articles I have read in some time because Ms. Halpern raises questions that are fundamental to our future. Beginning with a tribute to the genius of Steve Jobs for developing Siri in the iPhone 4S, Halpern reminds us of Jobs’ frequent tribute to hockey great Wayne Gretzky, “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going.”

In a society that has many broken institutions, Halpern is remarkably hopeful, describing efforts to improve “clean-tech” energy production, viewing the world’s most pressing problems as opportunities, and the kind of innovative biotech that Steve Jobs used to manage his cancer. He was unsuccessful, according to Halpern, because he was playing where the puck was going to be, not where it was.

A statue of Wayne Gretzky raising the Stanley ...

Image via Wikipedia

The implications of Halpern’s ideas are profound, particularly in our current society that has lost sight of planing for the future, and is understandably interested in recovering the status quo. When your car doesn’t run, you have it repaired so it will run as it did before. But all of us experience that moment when we decide it is not worth fixing the car; it is time to buy a new one. Society today has not yet crossed that threshold, and until we do, we will be stuck on the near side of the rainbow, forgetting there is a far side that contains the proverbial pot of gold.

The kinds of innovation Halpern discusses will require both heavy financial commitments and big-time brainpower. Those are the two characteristics of our society that are sitting in the garage rather than on the open road. As a democrat who always believed in the value of public goods and social programs, I am humbled to say that the Republican emphasis on protecting the “5%,” who are the captains of our economy, may be well-placed. Yes, we need to get the rest of our society back to work, but that will only happen if the 5% get excited about funding technology research that will create jobs. President Reagan’s “trickle-down economics” may have been ahead of its time.

More importantly, the 5% will not live forever, and their offspring represent a very small slice of our workforce. The challenges for education are enormous, teaching all kids to think about where the puck will be rather than where it is. Imagine an educational philosophy that promotes the charge, “Question everything.” We need to cultivate a Steve Jobs type of mind in almost every child, and we need teachers who buy into the notion that preparing our kids for a very challenging future is in their best interest, and bureaucrats who understand that higher order thinking skills cannot be cultivated in the realm of the multiple choice question.

Finally, there are those who favor progress, but worry about the ethical issues that result from “messing with the essence of humanity” in laboratories. Recall that dinosaurs became extinct because they were unable to adapt to environmental changes. That is perhaps the best reason for “rewriting the life code,” to adapt to a changing environment. Halpern speaks eloquently of the ethical issue in the article: “It’s not clear where, in the process of innovation, questions of ethics arise, or if the process is so solipsistic and self-referential that the answers are largely beside the point.” The Open Source movement grew out of a desire to democratize knowledge and expertise, and it has provided numerous benefits to individuals and the marketplace, but over the long haul, knowledge will become the premier unit of economic value, and if it does not command a handsome return, what will provide the incentive to develop new ideas and technologies (Daniel Pink should weigh in here)?

Halpern has posed all the right questions, and now we need the appropriate answers. The purpose of this post is to begin the conversation, not to end it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Social Media and Politics Project

Comments Off on A Social Media and Politics Project

I’m currently working with one of our best students on a Capstone project that asks the following question: “Is there a form of social media that, properly analyzed, could be used to predict the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election?” After consulting with a polling expert at Wesleyan University, we came to the conclusion that it was possible to use social media based on polling theories, but that we would be in uncharted waters. This Professor suspected there was a chance that Twitter might be used to forecast a national election outcome, based on the assumption that Twitter had become a reliable gauge of public sentiment in some circles. My student immediately searched for similar studies and uncovered the following:

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

1. The CIA has an  entire division that does nothing but look at public data for the purpose of characterizing the mood of a nation or group: “The intelligence analysts at the agency’s Open Source Center, who other agents refer to as ‘vengeful librarians,’ are tasked with sifting through millions of tweets, Facebook messages, online chat logs, and other public data on the World Wide Web to glean insights into the collective moods of regions or groups abroad.” (The Atlantic Monthly – Jared Keller)

2. Analysis of Twitter feeds have already been used to predict the behavior of the stock market, perhaps an even more fickle index than public sentiment: “Here we investigate whether measurements of collective mood states derived from large-scale Twitter feeds are correlated to the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) over time… we find an accuracy of 87.6% in predicting the daily up and down changes in the closing values of the DJIA.” (study completed at Indiana University)

I love this project because it combines rigorous analysis of political trends and a study of Twitter as a predictive rather than reflective social networking tool (what some have called “crowdsourcing”). Suppose we could ascertain the ongoing sentiment of our students through a review of an appropriate Twitter feed?  Love to hear your feedback.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Alone Together: Sherry Turkle and The Challenge of Illusion

Comments Off on Alone Together: Sherry Turkle and The Challenge of Illusion

Several days ago Sherry Turkle, author of Alone Together, Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, spoke to the Choate Rosemary Hall faculty. The talk featured the core theme of her book with an educational spin. Thus, the dilemma of managing new technologies so that we are able to continue being human while grappling with the onslaught of communication devices that create the illusion we are interacting with each other  was translated into a school setting. As teachers, is there a way we might model behaviors that would permit us to effectively and appropriately utilize collaborative tools while still maintaining quality face to face contact with our students? The operative question we were all left with was: “how hard would it be to do this?”


Sherry Turkle

Image by jeanbaptisteparis via Flickr


I spend a great deal of time with my technology toys, and like to think I use them effectively for collaboration with my students and colleagues. I look at Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn through Flipboard on my iPad, as they are part of my Personal Learning Network. Each day, however, there are periods of time when I am living in a technology blackout. My thirty minute morning walks everyday are technology-free; that time is reserved for recharging my mind and body, and while I may be reflecting on issues here at school, my brain is forced to rely on its own resources during that process. At the end of the day (whenever that occurs), I come home to my significant other, and we have a conversation about our day stripped of any props including TV or music from the iPod. It is just my partner and me interacting in the same room, close together, using our five senses sans electronics.

As Sir Ken Robinson speaks about cooking in his kitchen, I experience the writing process. I have my word processor  or blog editor open, I’m not checking emails or texts, I don’t like interruptions, and I’m not reading an RSS feed while I write. Professor Turkle confirmed that we cannot multi-task, even though reliable sources such as the New York Times claim we do.

Without a complete frontal lobe, I understand that our students may not be able to make the distinctions I am able to make. But Professor Turkle clearly made the point that adults with full frontal lobes are as prone to being confused about the differences between “real communication” and digital or virtual communication. If we overcome that challenge, we are then unable to prioritize the appropriate use of both forms of communication given all of the demands made upon our busy lives. Thus, if we are unable to model good judgment in the world of communication and personal interaction, how can we expect our students to do the same?

The challenge of finding the balance that Professor Turkle seeks between our real world and the virtual world is a bit of a trick. As I think about my courses, I fully buy into the notion that they are F2F discussion-based classes because that pedagogy is the sine qua non of the boarding school and because we still haven’t topped the educational effectiveness of the Socratic method of learning or the spirited discussion of the Greek Agora. On the other hand, classrooms are a bit like musical chairs. when the music stops, everybody changes their demeanor in the rush for a chair. Outside the classroom, how does one perpetuate the kinds of exchanges that occur in the classroom? If we view learning as a 24/7 experience, then virtual communication becomes an effective substitute (but not a replacement) for the F2F exchange. And while the boarding school setting provides more opportunities for F2F contact, virtual communication is very scalable for reaching those students who have shorter school days. The same rules apply for adults, who are continually learning as well. The primo solution to a specific pedagogical or course content challenge is a F2F conversation with a colleague. When that conversation ends in the real world, however, it continues in the virtual world with the “wisdom of crowds” and the spectrum of knowledge that is provided to me by the entire world, or at least those I choose to follow on Twitter.

We who work in technology are often branded as the folks who got us into this mess that we love to hate, who created the illusion that virtual is as good as F2F. In our enthusiasm for progress we have to bear some of the responsibility for the dilemma that Professor Turkle describes so eloquently in her book. But like any skilled guide who gets lost in the woods, we are most likely to find our way out of the mess, and I see that charge as the challenge from Sherry Turkle. Let’s zoom out of the jungle of social interactions so we can see the forest through the trees.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Online Learning and Quality Education


I recently completed an online course entitled “Teaching Online Courses.” I suppose that makes it a meta-course. The Online School for Girls (OSG) was the course provider, and my instructor was a science teacher at the Westover School. Of course, in the online world, it wouldn’t matter where she taught. Suffice it to say she was very good online instructor. While I learned a great deal about constructing online courses, I also reflected about whether one could create an online course that would approach or exceed the quality of the best face to face (F2F) courses.

Online Learning

Image via Wikipedia

Several observations and  lessons come to mind:

  1. In the online world, the teacher cannot be the center of the classroom. That structural modification, although it has been endorsed for years, is transformed from a suggestion to a requirement. Students are self-directed based on the instructions and requirements of the course. That means the content and activities have to be designed for student-directed learning.
  2. The notion of time is completely redefined: a) Course content and activities must be divided between what would have been class time and homework time. Both are now merged into one online setting. b) Concrete goals and activities are no longer defined by days or numbers of classes. The online course provides a roadmap of activities, and can impose due dates on those activities, but the parameters of task completion must be explicitly spelled out because there are no bells ringing or class attendance requirements. The course is goal-oriented rather than time slice-oriented. c) Length of online courses is also variable. Courses with specific objectives are completed when those objectives are met (novel idea?). Those timeframes may be 4 weeks, 8 weeks, or 12 weeks, and may not fall neatly into the boundaries of terms or semesters.
  3. The notion of interaction is also redefined. Some interaction between teacher and students can occur as it does in the F2F world; technologists call that synchronous communication — all parties are interacting in the same time slot. More commonly, however, the interaction is asynchronous, meaning that teacher and students communicate at their leisure during a loosely defined timeframe. Knowing which method is appropriate for a given lesson component is critical to ensuring student success, and both techniques are important to simulating a F2F classroom.
  4. Clarity and feedback have a higher standard in the online world. We always strive to be clear with our students, but if we are in a F2F classroom, we will know there is confusion by observing either questions from students or looks of confusion on their faces. In the online world, there will not be immediate feedback, often requiring student initiative to clear up the confusion. Frequency of assessment, both formative and summative, would be more important in the online world so students receive more rapid feedback in the absence of the F2F teacher.
  5. There are web tools available to help teacher and students get to know each other and communicate better. Threaded discussion boards, video lessons, screen casts, VoiceThreads, online chat or video chat, and Skype bring people closer together when online. I felt like I knew several of my classmates reasonably well through these tools, but am not sure whether I would have known them even better if we had enrolled in a F2F class.
My initial conclusion, having completed my test drive of an online course, is that we might approach the quality of a F2F class, and that would mean quality online learning has a future. The questions of whether online learning is a good substitute for F2F classrooms, and under what circumstances, still stand, however. I’d like to hear feedback.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Hybrid Class Discussions

Comments Off on Hybrid Class Discussions

The independent school world has always prided itself on an approach to learning that was effective and well-suited for smaller class sizes. It is popularly known as the Harkness method, named for the inventor of the oval tables (1930) that were used to promote self-directed class discussions. The belief was that students could be trained to participate regularly and substantively in discussions that were designed to ferret out the answers to essential questions of the daily lesson.

Harkness Method

Harkness Method

For three quarters of a century, the Harkness method has worked well in educational environments where the faculty believes that students are capable of discovering and constructing knowledge with well-crafted coaching from the teacher. As I reflect on my experiences with what we tend to call “discussion-driven” classrooms, I see some challenges with today’s students that might be addressed with minor modifications to the original concept. These changes are based on two assumptions:

  • Not all students participate in discussion for a variety of reasons, even if it is an expectation of the course.
  • Even though class sizes are smaller in independent schools, discussions of 12-16 students almost guarantee that not everybody will be able to participate regularly.
The hybrid model is not an original idea. Others have proposed several iterations over the past few years, so this proposal is simply a variation on a theme:
  • Divide the class into two random groups of similar size.
  • One group engages in a traditional class discussion.
  • The other group participates in the discussion through a live blog such as CoverItLive that is projected in the classroom (they are not permitted to speak).
  • On a daily basis, students shift frequently between the spoken and written contribution, but both groups are expected to participate together and in concert.

There are several benefits to this strategy (if it works) that might speak to the individual needs of some students. Those who are intimidated or prefer not to speak in class will have the opportunity to participate. Those who prefer to reflect on a question before responding will have the opportunity to do so in the written genre. Those students who dislike writing as a form of expression will write more frequently, and about topics and viewpoints that they feel strongly about (the same motivations for speaking in class).

Will there be challenges implementing the hybrid discussion? I can anticipate several. First, the logistics of ensuring some continuity between the two camps may be complex. Traditional discussions sometimes move at a pace that would be difficult to match for writers. On the other hand, slowing down discussions to encourage more depth might be a benefit. Second, students may not like the hybrid format, both because it is different (and therefore risky) and because they will not always be able to play their stronger suit, depending on the group to which they are assigned. Again, alternating groups might strengthen both spoken and written skills over time.

After I have experimented with the hybrid discussion in my class for a few weeks, I will report back in this blog with anecdotal results and student feedback. I am hoping I can add the hybrid discussion to the “teacher toolkit for increased student engagement” that I am building this year.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Engagement and Learning

Comments Off on Engagement and Learning

I’m currently taking an online course from the Online School for Girls (OSG) entitled “Teaching Online Courses.” I’ll talk more about the experience when I complete the course in two weeks, but I do want to talk today about one of the challenges of online course design that I have encountered.

Online Learning

Image via Wikipedia

Posting content to an online course doesn’t seem very different than posting that same content in Blackboard for my face-to-face (F2F) classes. The greater challenge is what to do online to replace the 200 minutes of class time that will no longer exist, at least as we know it in the traditional sense.

If I am to keep a high school student’s attention for 200 minutes over the course of a week without any F2F contact, then I will have to provide individual and collaborative lessons that are high on the engagement meter. What do I mean by engagement? I love Carol Ann Tomlinson‘s explanation from her 1999 book, Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum:

Engagement happens when a lesson captures students’ imaginations,
 snares their curiosity, ignites their opinions, or taps into their souls.
Engagement is the magnet that attracts learners’ meandering attention
and holds it so that enduring learning can occur. Understanding means
more than recalling. It means the learner has “wrapped around” an important
idea, has incorporated it accurately into his or her inventory of how things
work. The learner owns the idea (p. 38). 

After pondering the passage, I think of either highly collaborative activities that require students to work with their peers, engage in problem solving, and resolve differences in point of view, or individual activities that emphasize good communication skills, initiative and entrepreneurship, and a good deal of imagination (Wow! These are among Tony Wagner’s seven skills students need for their future). I’ve addressed a few of these in the F2F classroom, but that was my option, or so I thought. In the online classroom, I must develop these skills if I wish to truly engage my students.

The last sentence in Tomlinson’s quote, however, is the most telling. How do we, as teachers, help guide our students to ownership of ideas? This is not a legal question about intellectual property, but a pedagogical question about the role of the teacher. When you design an online course, many of the traditional structures of teaching and learning are collapsed because the classroom is no longer fixed in time and space. Therefore, I cannot be a “sage on the stage,” and must morph into a “guide by the side.” Isn’t it interesting that those elements that are essential to online courses are also critical to student engagement and mastery of skills for the future? If one accepts the premise of the question, then one would also want to transform or at least modify the traditional F2F classroom in the same manner, even though it may not be a requirement.

That may be why current research from the U.S. Department of Education (Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning) concludes the following (with qualifications): Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction (p.xv). Thus, my conclusion is that every teacher learn to teach an online course; not because many of those teachers will likely teach an online course in the K12 world or because K12 education will become primarily online in delivery, but because it will help to instruct us in making our traditional or blended curriculum more engaging for our students. That is the primary reason I need to take the online course I am taking very seriously. It will make me a better teacher regardless of the delivery model.

In future posts, I’ll talk about the experience of taking an online course and how integrating some online or blended courses into the curricula of bricks and mortar schools can create a more acceptable cost model for the school.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: