Foremost in my mind is difference between the iPad and a laptop PC, which universities should bear in mind when considering offering the iPad as a computing option for higher ed students. A casual application of the “Job To Be Done” opportunity analysis method, (Silverstein, S., Samuel, P. & DeCarlo, N.,  2009) helped me to think more clearly about the differences.

Main Idea:The iPad is not the same thing as a laptop computer.

Major difference: The iPad was not designed to replace the laptop PC. Not yet, at least. It was designed to function elegantly in a web connected environment. However, with my iPad I cannot:

• connect to any mapped network drives at work or at home.
• connect to USB disk drives.
• do peer-to-peer networking, I cannot easily share files with peers.
• use apps that require wireless connectivity if a wireless connection is not available.
• use 3G as the major cell carriers have not installed 3G in rural areas.

None of the above are necessarily iPad killers. They simply highlight the unique purpose of the iPad. Leaders in education need to be aware of these differences before implementing technology initiatives that assume the iPad is just a different kind of laptop PC.

———————-

Silverstein, S., Samuel, P. & DeCarlo, N. ( 2009). The innovators toolkit: 50+ techniques for predictable and sustainable organic growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

While he had cut the appropriate notch to direct the tree’s fall, he made the bad choice of cutting into the trunk such that the trunk leaned over, trapping the chain saw bar, and stopping work for the day. The saw was well and truly stuck, and required the help of a neighbor on the following day to un-stick it.

So, what would you say, was the problem with the chain saw? Nothing. It was the right tool, but it was used in a way that prevented accomplishing the planned outcome.

The chain saw stuck in the tree was for me, a visual parable. Choosing the right technology for use in teaching and learning is only one of several important steps in the process of effectively integrating technology in learning process. If technology is used poorly, without planning, without practice, without much thought, we are likely to be unpleasantly surprised when things get stuck, and our students fail to achieve the outcomes we expected.

A Prime example of this problem is, (take a deep breath), PowerPoint in the classroom.  Poor design and poor use practices of PowerPoint in the classroom have been (and continue to be) highly detrimental to learning.

How can we help faculty not only choose the right tool, but also employ it effectively when they generally feel so pressed for time, and over loaded with advising, committees, heavy teaching loads, research demands, etc.?

How ironic that in higher education we have allowed barriers to (faculty) learning to become embedded in the institution.

These findings have implications not only for podcasting, but for mobile learning in general. And, we should not be surprised.

A large number of studies conducted in the 1980s brought to light important factors related to learning, concentration, and digital media (e.g. Mayer & Moreno, et al). Added to those studies are more current studies on brain research which has begun to describe the strengths and limits of human information processing.

The bottom line: People learn best when they are able to concentrate and focus, with few distractions as possible. Check out some of the studies below.

Copley, J. (2007). Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus-based students: Production and evaluation of student use. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 387-399.

Gorra, A. & Finlay, J. (2009). Podcasting to support students using a business simulation. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 257-264.

Lee, M. & Chan, A. (2007). Pervasive, lifestyle-integrated mobile learning for distance learners: An analysis and unexpected results from a podcasting study. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 22(3), 201-218.

Lee, M. J. W. & Tynan, B. (2008). Podcasts and distance learning. In Salmon, G. & Edirisingha, P. (Eds.), Podcasting for learning in universities. New York, NY: Open University Press, (p. 92-102).

McGarr, O. (2009). A review of podcasting in higher education: Its influence on the traditional lecture. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 309-321.

Robson, N. & Greensmith, J. (2009). Educational podcasts: Some early evidence and thoughts. International Journal of Management Education, 8(3), 107-117.

Walls, S. M., Kucsera, J. V., Walker, J. D., Acee, T. W., McVaugh, N. K. & Robinson, D. H. (2010). Podcasting in education: Are students as ready and eager as we think they are? Computers & Education, 54(2), 371-378.

The following is a bullet-point summary of some of the key themes I found bubbling to the surface during my lit review. Please Note: Negative themes are tagged with a minus (-, 10), and positive themes are tagged with a plus (+, 5):

• Significant learning curve ( – )
  • Technology issues (especially for many faculty)
  • Complex interface
  • Time consuming (students & faculty)
  • Frustrating experience (students & faculty)

• Security & privacy ( – )
  • “overheard” conversations risk exposure of private information

• Cost for developing your own space ( – )
  • Additional cost if faculty want to develop their own dedicated space

• Potential impact of deviant/antisocial behavior ( – )
  • Little or no control over who tries to interact with you or your students
  • Potential for disruption by “pranksters”

• No content management ( – )

• Building learning objects is difficult ( – )

• Too many distractions ( – )

• Too easy for the emphasis to shift to the medium rather than the message ( – )
• Bandwidth requirements may limit access for some students ( – )

• Graphics performance will vary depending on users technology, and may slow things to a crawl ( – )

• Potential for developing community ( + )
• 3D models can be very useful in some disciplines ( + )
• Potential for collaboration ( + )
• Real-time communication & interaction ( + )
• Available 24/7 ( + )
• Provides a range of affordances for learning interactions

Obviously, 30+ articles is not a comprehensive lit review, and the list of themes above may raise as many questions as they answer. Some faculty are able to make effective use of Second Life, and others are not. This really is not an either/or kind of issue.

Bottom Line: I came away from this review of the literature with a couple of thoughts that stuck with me:

1. I wonder about the value/ROI from developing Second Life resources, versus the value/ROI of using another Web 2.0 application. Maybe I’m being a frump, but I cannot but help raising the issue of “effort vs reward” for the faculty member who tries to raise the bar of technology integration in their courses. I tend to come down on the side of choosing other Web 2.0 apps.
2. Making the technology invisible so the learning becomes the focus. As an instructional designer want-to-be, this is an important goal. The degree to which it is accomplished varies widely among Web 2.0 applications. However, there is no way to make the technology in Second Life fade into the background.
3. Non-traditional learners and computer proficiency. I know I shouldn’t be, but I continue to be amazed at the low level of computer proficiency among non-trad students. Given that these students now make up the majority of students enrolled in American universities, I would rather them master the use of a Wiki, Blog, Social bookmarks, or other Web 2.0 app than struggle with Second Life.

Going forward, I think I will demonstrate Second Life to my adult learners and assess their interest. But I do not plan to integrate Second Life as a project or assignment. That, of course, is just my opinion.

I have been in and out of Second Life (SL) for several years. Each time I engaged SL it was to explore its potential for teaching and learning. Admittedly, there was much in SL which interested me. But, I came away each time feeling that the teaching I experienced in SL was “ho hum”, or worse. Nevertheless, I keep going back thinking that I would discover one more thing that will really make a difference in my opinion of SL as a teaching tool. My latest visit of SL in December 2009 was kind of fun. But, again I walked away scratching my head. This week I started digging on the Web to find experimental research evaluating SL’s effectiveness as a teaching tool. I have not found much useful research as yet, but I am just getting started. I will begin searching scholarly journal databases this week. At this time however, I am claiming my right as a bona fide geezer to take the “Harrumph!” position towards SL.

Can you think of one popular online tool or technology that hasn’t been touted as the newest way to engage students, and improve learning? I think we as educators are just too ready to adopt and promote the latest & greatest technology for teaching and learning without evaluating its true effectiveness. Don’t misunderstand me. I LOVE technology; I make my living with it. I simply feel that teaching using something new (even though SL is no longer “new), is not as important as teaching well.

As I move deeper into my research on SL, here are the thoughts running through my head:

• In a learning context, how do I square what the research suggests about cognitive overlead with a rich, busy, complex environment like SL?
• What topics/subjects/disciplines are most likely to benefit from learning interactions within SL?
• How should teaching in SL differ from a classroom approach?
• Who does SL include/exclude?
• In a learning context, does the use of avatars actually make communication more authentic/personal?

If you know of experimental research on SL, please let me know. I’ll report my findings as I go along.

“Poor teaching + technology = Expensive poor teaching“

I would have to agree with Mr. Bolton. Simply adding a specific technology to our instructional strategies does not automatically result in improved student learning outcomes. If anything, I am convinced we need to make improving our teaching skills a high priority. Just as we encourage our students to engage in methodical metacognitive habits, we should be engage in ongoing self-evaluation of our teaching, as well as researching and implementing sound pedagogical praxis. Perhaps the best teachers are also the best learners.

The specific path my thought followed after reading Ms. Tolisano’s post is probably somewhat afield of her intent, but it went something like this:

• We tend to teach as we were taught
• Outside schools of education, most academic disciplines do not teach one how to teach
• Most colleges/universities require only advanced or terminal degrees in a discipline in order to teach. Good pedagogical skills are not.
• Many faculty are not comfortable admitting they need to improve their teaching skills.
• Many institutions keep faculty so busy with teaching loads, advising, committees, research, etc. that finding time to improve teaching skills is difficult.

What would happen if an institution adopted a 5 year plan in which all faculty were required to both successfully complete a program of professional development designed to make them master teachers, and implement their master teacher skills in the classroom or online?

Granted, such a 5 year program would need to cover a broad range of issues, and I am not sure what would be covered. But, I think a radical approach that puts the importance of teaching quality on par with being an expert in a given discipline would put feet on institutional claims of excellence.

Not that long ago Google announced the availability of a new service connecting Google apps to specific Moodle courses. This enables faculty to integrate Google apps directly into their Moodle courses, and to require students to use the Google apps to produce course assignments.

The integration of Google apps into a Moodle course if fairly robust. Creating user accounts in Google apps automatically creates a Gmail account for each user. Further, each Google app displays the course name, reminding users that they are connected to their online course.

Having direct access for my students to Google apps within my online courses is exciting since I love the Google apps for online collaboration. But more than that, I see this new partnership as another indicator the idea of the LMS is being redefined, or re-imagined. What might this mean for Blackboard?

This kind of reliability may enable some faculty to upload their own media files, which would potentially provide workload relief for our staff.

Ironically, after 2 years of Apple telling us the problem was not on their end, it appears their upgrade solved the problem. I guess it was on their end after all.

Recently, Apple updated the iTunes U backend providing new functionality and flexibility. Yesterday I decided to test the “new & improved” version of iTunes U by uploading the video file that took us 3 weeks to load. Call me jaded. Call me skeptical. But, I did not expect it to work. No one was more surprised than I to find the file actually uploaded successfully on the first try. No “time out” errors, no error of any kind.

So after a year and a half of investing, configuring, tweaking, and a lot of hair pulling, perhaps we have turned a corner. Don’t remind me that Apple iTunes U forum experts assured us there was no problem on their end. Don’t remind me that we invested heavily in an end-to-end Apple solution to get reliable uploads to iTunes U. I will be doing additional tests to see if my first success was a statistical outlier. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Apple’s upgrade of iTunes U has finally addressed a critical reliability issue. I’ll let you know the results of further testing.