Touch Devices in Education

Repost from: Lounge: Apple Touch Devices in the Classroom?

(Some redundant parts from the last post.)

Watched and blogged about Apple’s enterprise and development media event, yesterday. The event was about what I call “Touch” products (iPhone and iPod Touch).
One thing which struck me is that Phil Schiller started the enterprise section of that presentation with some comments about Stanford. Now, I’m not one to favor the customer-based model of education. I still see Stanford as being about knowledge more than about financial profit.
Still, this all got me thinking: What if we started using Apple’s Touch products in the classroom? Distributing and sharing documents around the group as we are working on diverse projects. Streaming lecture material (audio, video, slides) directly to learners’ handhelds on which they can take notes. Synchronous and asynchronous chats. Collaborative editing. Task management…
For that matter, even Microsoft Exchange could make sense in this context. Some campuses already use it for faculty but it’d make perfect sense to have push email, calendars, and contacts on school devices. Secure connections. Global address list. Remote wiping if the device gets stolen or lost.
Even the application distribution system (using the App Store), which may make some developers cringe, could make some sense for schools. Controlling which applications are on school devices sounds awful from the perspective of many a tech enthusiasts, but it could sound really good to school IT managers.
In this sense, Touch devices could make more sense than traditional laptop programs for education. Better battery life, somewhat lower cost, better security, easier maintenance… A Touch program could even have some advantages over newer generation laptop programs, especially in terms of “control.”

I know, I know… I’m sounding like a Pointy-Haired Boss. I’m surprised myself. I guess that, as an ethnographer, I tend to put myself in someone else’s shoes. In this case, it happens to be the shoes of a school administrator.
Of course, I prefer Open devices. In this sense, Google’s Android would satisfy my Open-loving side more than Apple’s Touch products. It’s just that admins tend not to like openness so much and they’re the ones who need to be convinced.

Advertisement

Schools, Research, Relevance

The following was sent to the Moodle Lounge.

Business schools and research | Practically irrelevant? | Economist.com

My own reaction to this piece…
Well, well…
The title and the tone are, IMHO, rather inflammatory. For those who follow tech news, this could sound like a column by John C. Dvorak. The goal is probably to spark conversation about the goals of business schools. Only a cynic (rarely found in academia 😛 ) would say that they’re trying to increase readership. 😎

The article does raise important issues, although many of those have been tackled in the past. For instance, the tendency for educational institutions to look at the short-term gains of their “employees’ work” for their own programs instead of looking at the broader picture in terms of social and human gains. Simple rankings decreasing the diversity of programmes. Professors who care more about their careers than about their impact on the world. The search for “metrics” in scholarship (citation impact, patents-count, practical impact…). The quest for prestige. Reluctance to change. Etc.

This point could lead to something interesting:

AACSB justifies its stance by saying that it wants schools and faculty to play to their strengths, whether they be in pedagogy, in the research of practical applications, or in scholarly endeavour.

IMHO, it seems to lead to a view of educational institutions which does favour diversity. We need some schools which are really good at basic research. We need other schools (or other people at the same schools) to be really good ast creating learning environments. And some people should be able to do the typical goal-oriented “R&D” for very practical purposes, with business partners in mind. It takes all kinds. And because some people forget the necessity for diverse environments, it’s an important point to reassess.
The problem is, though, that the knee-jerk reaction apparently runs counter to the “diversity” argument. Possibly because of the AACSB’s own recommendations or maybe because of a difference of opinion, academics (and the anonymous Economist journalist) seem to understand the AACSB’s stance as meaning that all programs should be evaluated with the exact same criteria which give less room for basic research. Similar things have been done in the past and, AFAICT, basic research eventually makes a comeback, one way or the other. A move toward “practical outcomes” is often a stopgap measure in a “bearish” context.

To jump on the soapbox for a second. I personally do think that there should be more variety in academic careers, including in business schools. Those who do undertake basic research are as important as the others. But it might be ill-advised to require every faculty member at every school to have an impressive research résumé every single year. Those people whose “calling” it is to actually teach should have some space and should probably not be judged using the same criteria as those who perceive teaching as an obstacle in their research careers. This is not to say that teachers should do no research. But it does mean that requiring proof of excellence in research of everyone involved is a very efficient way to get both shoddy research and dispassionate teaching. In terms of practical implications for the world outside the Ivory Tower, often subsumed under the category of “Service,” there are more elements which should “count” than direct gain from a given project with a powerful business partner. (After all, there is more volatility in this context than in most academic endeavours.) IMHO, some people are doing more for their institutions by going “in the world” and getting people interested in learning than by working for a private sponsor. Not that private sponsors are unimportant. But one strength of academic institutions is that they can be neutral enough to withstand changes in the “market.”

Phew! 😉

Couldn’t help but notice that the article opens the door for qualitative and inductive research. Given the current trend in and toward ethnography, this kind of attitude could make it easier to “sell” ethnography to businesses.
What made me laugh in a discussion of video-based ethnographic observation is that they keep contrasting “ethnography” (at least, the method they use at EverydayLives) with “research.” 😀

The advantage of this distinction, though, in the context of this Economist piece, is that marketeers and other business-minded people might then see ethnography as an alternative for what is perceived as “practically irrelevant” research. 💡