Screencast-O-Matic: An Evaluation

The following post was originally written for my Master's course work.

March 18^th, 2012

Summary

Screencast-O-Matic (SOM) is a free online resource that allows users to create, save, and share screencasts. A screencast is a video, typically with audio commentary, in which the viewer is shown how to complete a short computer based process or series of steps. Screencasts typically show the interface of software applications and include the ‘animation’ of cursor movements, mouse clicks, and whatever else is seen on screen. SOM offers an entry-level product for screencasting, but one that certainly has everything most beginners will need. The applet runs with minimal set-up, and offers features such as: automatic microphone input level with sound quality review, a variety of resolution options, and webcam integration options. Once a screencast recording is started, users can very easily pause and continue using the “option + p” command. Stops and starts are rather seamless and the free account has a generous maximum runtime of 15 minutes. Once a screencast is completed, users can share via SOM, YouTube, or save on their own hard drive as a QuickTime, Windows Media or other popular file format. Captions can be added as well, for viewers to find a section or chapter of interest. For a “Pro” upgrade available for $12/year or $30/3 years, SOM users can gain features such as: the removal of watermark when publishing, expanded recording time limits, publishing directly to Google Docs, editing capabilities, and advance recording controls. For the targeted user, (educators, tech-support, online enthusiasts) the upgrade is likely very affordable and would make using this application even more accessible and enjoyable.

Critique

Possible innovation application – Screencasting via a resource such as SOM would allow educators and their students to create “how to” videos and tutorials with minimal instruction or training and no start-up cost. For teachers such as myself, interested in emerging classroom models such as the “flipped classroom”, SOM would allow me to quickly record videos for my students to view outside of class, reserving in-class time for discussions of the topics in greater depth and supervised independent work time. My students could also be innovative using this technology, as they would be easily able to record videos documenting their own knowledge and mastery of a subject or process for assessment. Furthermore, students would be able to create their own review videos and/or tutorial videos for one another. Such uses hold rather exciting possibilities for learning, sharing knowledge, and assessment.

Main advantages - The main advantage of such an accessible piece of technology its speed and ease of producing high-quality screencasts. You cannot get more affordable than free, and the finished video sharing options are not restrictive. Other screencasting programs can cost many hundreds of dollars, and SOM offers a lucrative “Pro” package for a dollar a month or less. The free user interface is very easy to navigate, and while it does not allow for editing, the streamlined production does not necessarily warrant such options. The use of sharing screencast via SOM “channels” makes organizing and sharing videos very quick and easy via short URL links.

Possible concerns of the website – Using the free option may prove to be frustrating for some, given that editing is not an option. This means that if an error is made, rerecording the entire video is required. That said, other video editing software applications could be employed to circumvent this barrier/frustration. For the free account, there is the constant presence of appropriately tech-related sidebar advertisements, but that concern is minimal and avoidable with the upgrade account.

Accessing and Assessing the Potential of Online Learning

This post was originally written as a paper during my Master's course work. (Picture added)

Central Michigan University

EDU708 Seminar: Distance Education

Evaluation Paper

December, 8th, 2011

While it is widely recognized in today’s educational climate that, “Technology impacts student success” (Blackboard Inc, 2009), the implementation of technologies in teaching and learning is varied to say the least. Today more than ever, a plethora of tools, systems, and approaches are being implemented to leverage technologies in order to educate students for the future. As the field of distance education via the Internet is perhaps one of the most promising horizons for expanding access to quality education, many stakeholders have targeted online courses as a key component for the future of schooling and learning. What follows is an examination of the challenges in teaching and supporting an online course, surveying the interrelated needs of students, teachers, administrators, and infrastructures, coupled with recommendations for the evaluation of such an endeavor.

Planning online courses that meet the needs of real students requires teachers to have knowledge of their students’ needs. Gathering such information is an immediate challenge when considering an online course format, as students are not going to interact in traditional ways, thus not making their learning needs known in as in a typical classroom. I propose that because of this change of (potentially isolating) communication modes in online courses, a student-centered approach is necessary more than ever. Not all students may be well suited to an online course format, and assumptions of their technological proficiency should never be made. To avoid making such assumptions, the instructor of an online course should make all the responsibilities of students clear and explicit from the onset of the course, in the syllabus, and in any ongoing instructions of tasks. Tutorial videos, slideshows, or other media modes relating the basic skills required in using the pertinent technologies or tools of a course should also accompany written instructions. Because of the non-traditional modes of interaction in an online learning environment, the challenge of interpreting directions and comments through plain text or other, “Impersonal communications” (Canis Learning Systems, Inc, 2011) may act as a barrier to some students’ success. Learners experiencing difficulty in an online course may exhibit less obvious behaviors than in a traditional classroom, such as to, “Not keep in contact regularly, ignore advice, and submit work that is plagiarized or not their own” (Butler, 2003). While these behaviors are not unique to web-based courses, online teachers should be prepared for a potential increase of incidence of these behaviors, given the nature of course interactions. While awareness is one responsibility of the online teacher, “Making sure learners are aware and informed as possible, reacting objectively and supportively, and seeking support from colleagues when necessary”, are three strategies recommended by Butler in resolving such issues. “Modeling the behavior you expect and timely intervention of inappropriate behaviors”, are two other recommendations Butler asserts for proactivity. Awareness of students’ strengths and needs should be comprehensive and conscious in order to remove barriers through a universal design approach, as the learners who populate an online course may be vastly diverse without the typical tells of a physical classroom and interactions. The abilities and disabilities of online learners can remain hidden, but thorough accessibility planning can, “Prompt the instructor to access the course content from the student's point of view” (Georgia Tech Research on Accessible Distance Education, 2006). Furthermore differences that are below the surface, such as those in ethnic background and experiences may not fit with an online course’s potential, “‘Cultural hegemony,’ a phenomenon that refers to the ways in which assumptions of a group/person achieve dominance and are viewed as common-sense understandings or interests that serve for all” (Uzuner, 2009). For example, a small group of students, recently immigrated to Canada from the Congo, may not possess many of the underlying cultural knowledge of basic computer usage including power buttons and mousing. Another challenge to consider is a student’s inequity of access as the result of factors such as their geographic location or socioeconomic status. The responsibility of securing a computer with Internet access may be shared by the student’s family, school, district and possibly external funders, but needs to be addressed and never assumed. Formative assessment, that is, assessment for or during the learning process, is imperative for an online course format and should be done regularly to ensure students are developing their knowledge of the course. Some formative methods for online course work could be as simple as students posting responses to a weekly discussion board question, group chatting, or contributing to a wiki. In all cases, the task allows the teacher to monitor the learning taking place, misconceptions, gaps in subject knowledge, and misunderstanding that could be addressed in a timely fashion. Formative assessment may also allow a teacher to see where or when their course instruction or planning is deficient or off-track. Teachers could also solicit their peers to review the resources employed in an online course and gather student feedback through focused, anonymous, online surveys. Both these measures account for a greater level of clarity and objectivity in instructions, experiences, and assignments. Because of the many above potentially barriers, course preparation in an online format needs to be inclusive and conscientious of learners, with a special attention given to the clarity of information presented and assessment tasks. It is recommended that prior to commencing an online course, teacher consultation with learning support personnel should occur. As well, the instructor could consider assigning students to prepare some basic information introducing themselves to their classmates. The benefits of such a simple act as introductions, can serve to inform all class members as well as give the opportunity to find group commonalities and exceptionalities. Once informed of students’ needs, the online teacher will continue to conduct various methods of formative assessment and keep in touch to monitor individual students who may be experiencing difficulties for some reason or another.

The issue of accessibility carries over when considering the teaching staff as well as their students. Within a school’s collection of professionals, varying competencies, comforts, and access to technology exist. As teachers who are early adopters of technology are often the first or most likely to receive resources (hardware, software, or opportunities to teach online courses), there lies a great potential for online technologies and online learning to divide teachers. Teaching has long been described as an isolated profession, and therefor it may be ironic that online learning resources designed to allow teachers located across the world to collaborate, may in fact isolate a teacher from his or her colleagues down the hall. In response to this potential challenge to online learning, teacher training and professional development should be geared towards the great collaborative potential of emerging web-based technologies. While some seasoned educators may resist technology, technology will not yield. Furthermore, stakeholders in education today, mainly parents, “Are notably dissatisfied with the availability of quality technology in schools and teachers’ skills in using technology”, (Blackboard Inc, 2009) and demand teachers to be better trained in the use of educational technologies. Teachers are at the center of effective implementation of technology in schools, as noted, “Educational technology is not, and never will be, transformative on its own—it requires teachers who can integrate technology into the curriculum and use it to improve student learning” (Carlson & Tidiane Gadio, 2003). To this end, and in recognition that the abilities and needs of teachers are as vast as those of their students, professional development for teaching staff needs to be, “Multifaceted, modular, authentic, collaborative, “incentivized,” iterative and ongoing, allocated sufficient time and financial resources, cost-effective, and evaluated and revised” (Carlson & Tidiane Gadio, 2003). While this list of may seem exhausting, teachers must be well trained in the use of online tools and their application in order to create web-based opportunities that take full advantage of the unique learning environment of Internet-based courses. Without comprehensive professional development as described above, the business of teaching will likely continue as usual with superficial updates. And while some parties are satisfied with the status quo, backed by research supporting today’s students’ learning preferences for technology, Marc Prensky suggests what is required is, “Invention - new things in new ways. Change is the order of the day in our kids' twenty-first-century lives. It ought to be the order of the day in their schools as well” (Prensky, 2005). To this end, teachers’ professional autonomy needs to be increased in order for teachers to access, build, and share online learning resources both globally and locally. It needs to be recognized that, “Focusing on online technology solely as a mechanism to deliver training and/or create online networks places the cart before the horse by ignoring the Internet's even greater potential to help support and strengthen local communities of practice within which teachers work” (Schlager & Fusco, 2003). Supporting teachers to employ technology ought to be a grassroots, upward swell instead of a top-down approach in which everyone will use software ‘A’. And while teachers, their unions, and researchers have long been arguing for greater dedication and funding to establish sound pedagogies and methodologies through professional development focused on technology, ultimately such actions rely on the financial support of the administrators in schools and districts.

The success or failure of any online learning experience still hinges on the reliability of the technology, the infrastructure, and information technology (IT) support available. The rather large responsibility of determining which and how technologies will be supported in learning falls largely on the shoulders of a relatively few administrators. Issues such as computer obsolescence, Internet bandwidth capacity, and network security all make the promise of online learning into a complicated logistic puzzle limited to a finite (sometimes shrinking) budget. To guide and ensure the progressive employment of technology such as in online learning, administration needs to work with a transparent, accessible district technology plan. Such a document should evolve regularly and aim to address the broader issues of technology in education and not mandate this or that software or practice. That being said, most districts are investing their online course budget in a particular learning management system, or LMS, such as Blackboard or the like. While such companies offer a stable, comprehensive environment for online learning, many of the tools they bundle and sell are readily available for free online. It’s too bad that ‘network security’ is often cited by IT as a primary concern when considering such low-cost options. To balance the existing infrastructure and future goals of a learning community, administrators should seek feedback on their district technology plan regularly from all involved parties. Also, instituting built-in feedback or rating features to staff/IT interactions can help to easily produce data for reviewing the success of a system. If online learning is to evolve and grow, evaluation of it as a complete system must be ongoing and thorough.

While challenges will be faced at every level of online learning, so too evaluation must be multifaceted and targeted at all levels. By the differing nature of the online environments and interactions, we cannot rely on traditional or informal means of evaluation. But therein lies one promised advantage of web-based learning, as the technology itself has the potential to act as the tool providing the necessary feedback and results. If such web tools exist as they do, the focus of educators’ work should solely be accessing and assessing the potential of online learning in order for it to live up to its promise.

Works Cited

Blackboard Inc. (2009). Learning in the 21st century: Parents’ perspectives, parents’ priorities. Education in the 21st Century, DOI: www.blackboard.com/k12/education21c.

Butler, K. (2003, July 4). How to manage 'difficult' students online. Retrieved from http://community.flexiblelearning.net.au/TeachingTrainingLearners/content/article_3753.htm

Canis Learning Systems, Inc, (2011, September 6). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.virtualstudent.com/

Carlson, S., & Tidiane Gadio, C. (2003). Teacher professional development in the use of technology. For Education, Retrieved from http://www.ictinedtoolkit.org/usere/library/tech_for_ed_chapters/08.pdf

Georgia Tech Research on Accessible Distance Education. (2006). Accesselearning module 2: Access plan background. Retrieved from http://www.accesselearning.net/mod2/2_02.php

Prensky, M. (2005). Adopt or adapt: Shaping tech for the classroom. Edutopia, Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-Adopt_and_Adapt-Edutopia-01.doc&ei=3qLfTrTtBfC62gXU5YiUBQ&usg=AFQjCNE9xNa4u_IJiL8nUh4eLAdH8AbGrA

Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. A. (2003). Are we putting the cart before the horse. The Information Society, 19(3), 203-20. doi: 10.1080/01972240390210046

Uzuner, S. (2009). Questions of culture in distance learning: A research review. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), doi: 1492-3831

Defining a Wiki

This post was originally written for my Master's course work in March of 2012 (Photo added)

What Is a Wiki?

Introduction

A wiki is a collaborative webpage that allows users to write, edit, and organize content pertaining to the wiki’s topic or subject. “Wiki pages can be interconnected and organized as required, and are not presented by default in a reverse-chronological, taxonomic-hierarchical, or any other predetermined order. This makes wikis a highly flexible knowledge management space” (Duffy & Bruns, 2006). These attributes clearly distinguish wikis from blogs or other web 2.0 tools. The distinct nature of wikis and their inherent departure from traditional publishing could be why wikis figure to be potentially transformational in learning and education.

The Wiki's Impact on Education

Wikis can be great vehicles for building collaborative knowledge amongst many parties in a rather direct, uninhibited, democratic fashion. The collaborative authoring process is one that appears to be futuristic but also quite practical in workplaces and community groups. The flexibility offered through wikis changes the time and place of traditional learning, as “A wiki also offers the ability to interact with an evolving document over time. It allows teachers and learners to see the evolution of a written task, and to continually comment on it, rather than offering comments only on the final draft. Considering students’ busy schedules, a wiki can also be very useful for tracking and streamlining group projects” (Duffy & Bruns, 2006). Such advantages to traditional school methods do come with challenges however, as the nature of knowledge is fundamentally changed from the fixed world of traditional publishing. “Wikis also present some further challenges for educational settings – around ownership and attribution of work, valuing and assessment of relational processes” (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005), which have real and immediate consequences for the way teachers do their jobs.

Issues and Implications of Wikis

A wiki’s collaborative nature is a departure from traditional authorship that some more traditionally-minded individuals may find challenging. This challenge has a rich complexity in implementation as noted, “wikis provide a space where knowledge becomes networked (situated, contextualized) but remains ephemeral: it changes, and can be changed and mediated by the community” (Duffy & Bruns, 2006). A paradigm shift of this sort needs to be recognized and properly supported in education to properly teach the use of wikis both as a writing form and learning resource with unique conventions. That said the lack of formal conventions governing a new and independent wiki might also prove to be one of the chief challenges for educators in employing the tool. Just this past week, I began what I considered to be a ‘simple’ first wiki with my grade nine media literacy class. For the sake of clarity, I randomly divided the class into five groups, each of which would initially build upon the five headings, with sub-headings and articles for our wiki. Despite what I considered a good overview and group-modeled process of organizing various subjects, when confronted with a stark empty wiki page, many of the students were stunned with where to start. The reality was that I needed to legitimately scaffold a more authentically social constructivist learning experience, than would easily fit in one period. And so pedagogically, wikis as learning tools can challenge or even be at odds with a teacher’s practice or even beliefs about linear thinking and education. As school largely, “Remains based on the idea that the teacher/lecturer will impart their knowledge to the student through a one-way communication system, such as lectures or text books. For reasons of convenience more than pedagogy, academic delivery is often structured in a linear fashion” and, “While some aspects of this linear structure are no doubt useful – such as beginning with an introduction – others may be counterproductive as they reduce the range of information and knowledge available in a given field” (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005). Such is the double-edged sword of technologies such as wikis, as their employment shapes the way in which thinking and learning are practiced, thus leading to perhaps question the relevancy of older methods and tools.

The Future of Wikis

At present time, some educators question whether “Wikis can be used to promote student engagement or create student-driven course content suitable for assessment” (Cole, 2008). This may be due in part to the unknown nature of emerging technologies and the need for greater understanding and adoption by students (and teachers alike), before such tools can be properly evaluated. For instance in her 2008 study, Cole concluded there may be many ‘yet to be determined factors’ effecting the rate of wiki adoption hypothesizing, “The perceptions of some students, who currently see little value in Wiki technology as a tool for learning, could change if class Wiki contributions had grown into a module-based repository of knowledge as originally intended. Another point to consider is the extent to which the structure of teaching and learning adopted in this experiment discouraged early student use.” Given the wild popularity of Wikipedia and the growing profile of other websites such as Wikileaks, I don’t expect the form of wikis to be disappearing anytime soon. That said, I also foresee a rapid evolution in the way they are viewed and used. Just as the Gutenberg press and the personal computer revolutionized authorship, publication, and the ownership of knowledge, so too will wikis likely change many rules in the game of learning.

Resources

Bruns, A. & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment: The m/cyclopedia project. In Proceedings International Wiki Symposium, Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2289/1/2289.pdf

Cole, M. (2008). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315

Duffy, P. & Bruns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and rss in education: A conversation of possibilities. Proceedings Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006, Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5398/1/5398.pdf

Richardson, W. (2006). Weblogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful web tools that are transforming classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

iPromise: Researching iPads and Student Achievement

The following post was originally written as a term paper for my Master's course work. (Picture Added)



Central Michigan University
EDU707 Seminar: Issues in Educational Technology
Final Term Paper
February 26th, 2012
Dr. Kathyrn Dirkin

Central Question

The Apple iPad, noted as the “flag-bearer of tablets” (Arthur, 2011), is being heralded by some as a revolutionary tool for learning. However, while the device’s rapid rate of purchase and adoption declare its popularity, what evidence is there that its use will increase student achievement as suggested? This research paper will review and analyze a variety of journal writings concerning the iPad as an educational tool, its features and challenges. Furthermore, this paper will explore what factors appear critical to the iPad’s successful implementation in classrooms, concluding whether or not the device has yet been proven to raise student achievement.

Features

The iPad has a plethora of features that make it very attractive and accessible to most users. The device’s emergence as a robust alternative to laptop and desktop computers is also largely why consumers and educators are interested in using the iPad. Dr. Shelley Kinash notes the device’s features, “It is affordable and lightweight, can be purchased with both Wi-Fi and 3G, thereby expanding the Internet connection options. It has a long battery life, which makes it conveniently wireless both for Internet and power. The size and high resolution of the screen make it viable to read eBooks through applications such as Kindle” (Kinash, 2010). Currently retailing at $499 US, I would argue that the iPad is only “affordable” when compared to the purchase price of a Macbook or high-end PC laptop. And while the iPad’s weight is lighter than, again say a laptop, the weight of new laptops does not necessarily make them difficult to transport. Further Kinash highlights that, “The large memory makes it possible to have an extensive library of educational source materials. The touch screen, icons and intuitive settings make the iPad user friendly. Bluetooth keyboards are available for those who do not like touchscreen keyboards” (2010). Although the disc space is ample for many of its applications, when again compared with laptops, Apple only offers iPads with a limited storage capacity; an entry level 16 GB to a maximum of 64 GB. Apple contends this is because of its forward thinking employment of iCloud technology and the device’s unique OS. The touchscreen interface and keyboard have a difference in feel and physicality that goes beyond ‘preference’ as Kinash suggests, and could stand as a barrier to student with exceptionalities. Kinash rightly states that, “There are apps for every content area imaginable and to expedite many processes”, as the number of apps currently available at Apple’s App store is over 140 000 (Apple, 2012a). Finally, Kinash notes, “The iPad supports multimedia, making the searching and viewing of YouTube videos easy” (2010). This multimedia support, while not unique to the iPad, does seem to be its core draw, with a “9.7-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen Multi-Touch display with IPS technology” (Apple, 2012b), practically the entire front of the device is a visual display interface. Others also see its visual interface as the iPad’s key feature for improved learning experiences, as Robert Meurant observes and speculates, “It is designed for using fingers on a touch screen rather than the physical keyboard and mouse as with PCs, and this is one contributing factor to what will likely prove to be a revolution in education. The effects will likely become particularly evident in language education, because of the integrated multimedia and telecommunications features that have application to language learning” (Meurant, 2010). This supposition appears based on the Mayer’s principle of modality, which states for the sake of increased comprehension, “It is recommend having words in audio format instead of visual text on screen when presenting graphics and words simultaneously” (Clark & Mayers, 2003; Levert, 2006).

Perhaps somewhat conversely to this highlighted multimedia capability, it is also the potential capacity of iPads to replace physical textbooks that many feel is the device’s greatest use to raise student engagement and achievement (Meurant 2010; Evenstuen, Torstein Dalen & Hoff Midtbo, 2010). While some stakeholders see an opportunity for funding the purchase of iPads in lieu of the budgeting for the purchase of traditional textbooks, there have yet to be substantiated studies that would confirm this claim. Salerno & Vonhof caution of such a rationale, entirely based on cost saving, “We are confident that solely relying on cost savings as a philosophical framework will mislead constituents and may derail efforts when cost savings are not realized” (2011). Instead, and more interestingly there appears to be an expectation that through the employment of the iPad device as an e-reader, textbooks will become increasingly interactive and rich with multimedia features. Publishers of traditional textbooks have already begun to work in partnership with companies such as Apple to develop such resources that go beyond directly generated PDF formats of existing materials. In adopting a digitally based interactive media, researchers believe that instructors and learners will experience a greater opportunity to customize and individualize content. (McCrea, 2010; Valstad, 2010) From this paradigm, also comes an assertion of difference between textbook replacement and textbook transformation, “Many schools have adopted the replacement stage, which entails taking an existing resource and replacing it with a somewhat identical digital resource. The simplest and most known example of this is to replace a paper textbook by the same textbook in PDF/eBook form on for example an iPad. This is useful if the purpose is to “test” out new technology and measure how well it replaces the original resource. However, transformation is when a process, or a resource for that matter, is completely transformed in how it is used, taught or handled” (Valstad, 2010). This “transformation” process is still largely theoretical and only currently being undertaken, but when traditional textbooks are compared to the sort of document annotation and modification that exists with a device such as the iPad, there is a clear case for Valstad’s described “transformation” over “replacement”.

In summary, the multitude of innovative features and different physically interface, have led many to the conclusion that the iPad as a technology is more easily integrated to a learning environment, “Institutional factors, such as dedicated computer classrooms, this is where the iPad truly shines. It does not alter the “way of teaching” in the same sense as what common ICT tools do. There is no need to move the class to the computer room, it is lying there next to the textbooks and it is instantly on. It is less disruptive” (Valstad, 2010).

Challenges

The above summarizes the numerous features of the iPad that many feel make it a better device for computer and communication applications in a learning environment, however its unique attributes also pose a number of specialized challenges for learning, teaching, and assessment. For the purpose of discussing the challenges of deploying and managing iPads in an educational setting, I will be using a model wherein the devices are owned and maintained by the educational institution and only utilized by a number of students throughout the school day. While this model of deployment is a departure from the commercially advertised iPad as a personal lifestyle device, such are the most likely conditions under which iPads are to be employed, given current technology implementation models and budgets.

The iPad’s easy to use operating system and apps mean that the process of saving, storing, and organizing files is virtually unseen. This automation results in students not being able to structure or search folders on their own, as is the usual case with the vast majority of desktop and laptop computers, regardless of their operating system: Windows, Mac, Linux, etc. This hidden file location may be challenging for students who are often very familiar with the traditional hierarchy of PC files and folders. This streamlined saving process can also pose a challenge when considering the issue of backing up and security students’ work. As the iPad is conceived as a personal device with no log-in required and no multi-user log-in possible. If the device is shared amongst classes or students, file security on the device is next to nil. To address this potential glaring security gap, numerous applications such as Dropbox or even Google Docs could be employed, which allow students to save all files to an external, web-based server with user names and passwords. This is an additional process for students, albeit one that is a basic of information communication technology (ICT) skills.

Counter to the claim made by some (McCrea 2010; Kinash 2011), the use of an iPad as an e-reader in lieu of traditional textbooks is not immediately or equally valid to other dedicated e-readers. This is mainly due to the iPad’s LED backlit screen, which has been associated with increased eyestrain. Such a symptom may lead many users unable to read passages beyond 3 or 4 pages (Valstad, 2010). This limited ability to read text passages would likely not contribute to the iPad’s improvement of student achievement. Another questioned use of the iPad is its employment for note taking. Given the unique interface, students require significant time and practice to adopt such a new modality (Evenstuen, Torstein Dalen & Hoff Midtbo, 2010), often preferring to maintain a paper based methodology that is more familiar and expedient. There is even some concern that the increasingly slick, multi-media presentation capabilities of texts via the iPad could lead students to exert less effort in learning which in turn could results in the student yielding poorer learning strategies in the future. To support this thinking, Valstad presents an interesting analogy, “Non-educators often make the mistake of equating access to information with access to learning. In reality, these are two separate goals. In fact, increasing access to information can actually undermine learning, because it sometimes requires reducing or eliminating the challenge or resistance that is essential to learning. The difference between access to information and access to learning is parallel to the kind of heavy lifting done by a professional mover versus done by a body builder. The professional mover is eager to get the job done as fast as possible with the least amount of work. To accomplish this, the professional mover uses tools as lifts, trucks and other devices to get the job done with minimal wear and tear. The body builder wishes to accomplish something with this job: strengthen his muscles. Therefore, he seeks challenges and lifts weights, and is on the lookout for opportunities to build strength and gain weight, focusing on support muscles not being trained and increase resistance for those that are. The goals of learners are similar to the body builder than to the professional mover.” (Valstad, 2010). This line of thinking challenges the many positive suppositions that the iPad’s many features and functions make it, to continue the analogy, a wheeler cart that makes lifting fast and easy.

One glaring challenge to the use of the iPads in education that I have first hand experience with is the device’s inability to share or mirror its screen through a media projector when using most apps. Designed to only perform such an important sharing functionality through apps such as Keynote, iTunes, and handful of others, teachers and students cannot connect the iPad to a media projector in order for larger audiences to view their screen and work. This is a significant barrier to immediate sharing and on-screen demonstrations and requires a more elaborate mechanism. The only true option to overcome this lack of direct output is jail-breaking, a term for the employment of apps that modify the iPad’s OS, which are not approved or distributed by Apple through their Apps store. While screen sharing can easily be achieved by jail-breaking the device, Apple is rather explicit that this action will yield any existing warrantee for the iPad null and void. The choice to jail-break a device becomes moot in a traditional educational setting where administrative clout for installing programs and apps is often held by IT staff.

Successful Implementation

Despite the anticipation and excitement for Apple’s iPad in an education context, very little of this potential has been substantiated by proof with regards to its actual improvement of student achievement. Currently the majority of articles published have proposed theoretical reasoning for its support of learners’ success based largely on the iPad’s similarity to proven technologies and its numerous progressive features. In researching the topic, a few key elements can be found to be common amongst effective deployment strategies and pedagogies. First, the issue of ownership appears to be central to both deployment and teaching/learning practices. As discussed previously, the design of the iPad is that of a personal device not a multiple user device. In deployment, having many students share one device throughout the school day, week, or term, presents immediate challenges for the security of student work with many popular apps. Therefore the dedication of a single device to a single student appears to be beneficial both to the security of student work as well as the degree of adoption into note taking and use as a study tool (Evenstuen, Torstein Dalen & Hoff Midtbo, 2010). Providing individual students with their own iPad that can be taken home, may sound financially unsound or risky, but Salerno & Vonhof argue it necessary for true adoption and integration of learning tasks, “Schools must ensure that the pilot program mirrors the final product. Many schools are tempted to launch pilot programs where iPads remain at school and are shared by multiple students. The iPad was not designed to be shared, and piloting iPads in this manner may provide a false and disappointing picture of what a true 1-to-1 program will look like” (Salerno & Vonhof, 2011).

Beyond this somewhat obvious but challenging conclusion, a more general trend in iPad deployment was the necessity of a well supported Learning Management System, or LMS to frame the tasks and tools of course work. Following the reliable infrastructure provided by a robust LMS, pedagogy practices that are aligned with the mobility of iPads and M-learning are recommended (Cochrane 2010; Kinash 2011). Defined as, “the digital support of adaptive, investigative, communicative, collaborative, and productive learning activities in remote locations, proposes a wide variety of environments in which the teacher can operate” (Laurillard, 2007), the features outlined above support that the iPad is very well suited to M-learning.

Conclusion

Despite the many often agreeable speculations on the iPad’s merit as a technological tool for enhanced and improved learning, little if no data has proven this device will raise student achievement. I suspect this is because of the novelty and newness of the technology. This lacking knowledge could be what Matthew Koehler refers to as, “Technological Pedagogical Knowledge”, that is, “Knowledge of the existence, components and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies” (Koehler, 2011). This explicit articulation of what is lacking in examining whether iPad use leads to improve student achievement may be of small consolation to those seeking substantiated proof. Koehler’s suggestion for further development does however give all interested parties a clear and concise domain in which to pursue the iPad’s promised practicality.

References

Apple Inc. (2012a). Apple ipad 2: See apps and games from the apps store. Retrieved from        http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/

Apple Inc. (2012b). Technical specifications for ipad 2. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

Arthur, C. (2011, October 19). Apple sales rise - but fail to soar. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/19/apple-sales-rise-iphone-ipad

Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer Edition. ISBN: 0-7879-6051-0

Cochran, Thomas D. (2010) ‘Exploring mobile learning success factors’, ALT-J, 18: 2, 133-148, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687769.2010.494718

Evenstuen, A., Torstein Dalen, J., & Hoff Midtbo, O. (2010). The use of ipad as a learning tool. Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF4260/h10/student-projects/The Use of iPad as a Learning Tool/Final Report HCI.pdf

Kinash, S. (2011). It's mobile, but is it learning?. Education Technology Solutions, Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=tls

Koehler, M. (2011, May 11). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.tpck.org/

Laurillard, D. 2007. Pedagogcal forms of mobile learning: Framing research questions. In Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda, ed. N. Pachler, 33–54. London: WLE Centre, Institute of Education.

Levert, G. (2006, June 19). Designing for mobile learning: Clark and mayer's principles applied. Learning Solutions Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/222/designing-for-mobile-learning-clark-and-mayers-principles-applied/page2

McCrea, B. A. (2010). Measuring the ipad's potential for education. THE Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2010/01/27/Measuring-the-iPads-Potential-for-Education.aspx?Page=1

Meurant, R. C. (2010). Ipad tablet computing to foster korean efl digital literacy. International Journal of Service, Science and Technology, 3(4), 49-62. Retrieved from http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJUNESST/vol3_no4/4.pdf

Salerno, M. A., & Vonhof, M. (2011). Launching an ipad 1-to-1 program: A primer. THE Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2011/12/14/Launching-an-iPad-1-to-1-Program-A-Primer.aspx?sc_lang=en&p=1

Valstad, H. (2010). Ipad as a pedagogical device. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Retrieved from http://framsikt.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ipad-as-a-pedagogical-device.pdf

My American Educational History Lesson/Confession

This series was the video companion to a text book for one of my courses. In reality I was expected to read the actual book, but I found the stories told through video much more rich and telling. So I returned the book for a full refund! The videos certainly informed me about America's past and heavy influence on the Canadian educational system. The stories and topics made me long to teach history and social studies again. These videos do not have 50, 000, 000 views on YouTube, but are so worth the 4 hours. Please enjoy them and don't tell my prof about the returned textbook.


The Story of American Public Education: The Common School 1770-1890 from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.



As American as Public School: 1900-1950 from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.



The Story of American Public Education, A Struggle for Educational Equality 1950-1980 from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.



The Story of American Public Education, The Bottom Line in Education 1980 to Present from Eduardo E Salinas on Vimeo.