Andrew J. Cerniglia

Apple's iPhone for School Administrators - Low Expectations?

Apple has added a document to their web site, published in early December of 2009, entitled iPod Touch/iPhone for Administrators. These sort of documents, put out by developers of technology, are interesting in that they shed some light on the way in which these companies perceive the educational domain, and more specifically how they think their product “fits” within that field. Apple typically does a nice job presenting information in a persuasive way, and they do a so here. However, my intent is to deduce what the information included in this piece tells us about Apple’s perception of the educational realm.

The text’s most glaring omission is the failure to acknowledge the potential inherent to the use of Web 2.0 and mobile technologies. Apple has included a section dedicated to Web 2.0, and includes brief overviews of Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. These technologies are introduced by the following passage.

Today, more and more educators and students are using social networks to build relationships, meet new contacts, and market themselves. By embracing even just a few of these popular Web 2.0 tools using your iPod touch or iPhone, you can see how these technologies are changing the landscape of life in the 21st Century, grow as a professional, and learn about the world as they way our children are and will experience it later in life.

Two important points need to be made. First, Apple presents these technologies as tool that administrators can use to advance their career. Secondly, the last phrase (obviously a typo, and thus hard to decipher) straddles the fence if you will, indicating that “our children” are and will experience this world that administrators are to learn about through the use of this device. Are students to experience this world inside of school? Moreover, there is nothing here about pedagogy or curriculum. Rather, a focus on the potential to improving one’s position, and to increase one’s understanding of today’s students.

Is this a failure of Apple to understand the potential of their own device? Or, is it indicative of their unwillingness to jump into the debate about technology’s role in the classroom? Professional development is presented in a way that reinforces, in a fundamental way, the status quo, as Audible.com, podcasts, RSS, and iTunes U are discussed in some detail. These are certainly worthy inclusions. However, the common thread, present in all four, is that each presents or is a conduit for information. Apple is missing the point of Web 2.0 — to participate in the construction of our own (shared) understanding through collaborative exercises.

I will only mention one or two additional observations from reviewing this document. Basic productivity applications, Mail, Safari, iCal, and Address book are reviewed first. I might be reading into this a bit too much, but that tells me that Apple’s first prerogative is to allay any fears that one might have about the potential to do these sorts of things on the device, specifically the fears of those most comfortable using Microsoft Office products. The last applications reviewed reinforce this idea, addressing the ability to edit Microsoft Office files, check spelling, and share/exchange files. How is the reader to reconcile the focus on these sorts of tasks and the inclusion of the following phrase to early in the text?

On the pages that follow, you will see how the iPod touch or iPhone can be used by administrators in a variety of ways well beyond a simple PIM device or media player, become a fantastic tool to practice digital leadership!

What is “digital leadership”? This document implies that Apple imagines superintendents/principals/supervisors performing managerial tasks on a smaller, electronic device. Email, calendaring, web browsing, editing documents, and sharing/exchanging files are the principle focuses of this paper. What happened to “high expectations”? Digital leadership encompasses a wide range of tasks, most importantly modeling the ways in which technology can be used to increase students motivation via their participation in this great experiment that is unfolding online everyday. Apple, and other producers of technology, should be considering the iPod/iPhone’s potential to encourage students to think more and in more complex ways, rather than focusing on the automation/facilitation of administrative tasks.

Lastly, the section on data collection does a fair job of illustrating the iPod Touch/iPhone’s potential, although I wonder why things such as eInstruction’s student response system or FMTouch aren’t included. There are other alternatives to the walk-through software listed, and the application iObserve hasn’t been updated since October of 2008, i.e., I believe that it’s no longer being developed.

There is a disconnect between the way that Apple presents the iPod/iPhone to the educational community as a whole (see Mobile Learning with the iPod touch and Lessons on the goPhone for examples of more progressive presentations), and the way that they envision its use by administrators. Although I’ve been pretty tough on the particular resource, the existence of these other works suggests that it is not Apple’s naivety in terms of how they envision Web 2.0 technologies fitting into today’s classroom, but rather thier uninspiring image of administrators role in this process.

Teachers as Early Adopters

As we engage in discussions regarding the integration of technology, arguments inevitably arise. Deliberating how to allocate of funds can be a contentious process. The merits of the multiple positions that one might take with regards to these conversations is not the focus of this post. Instead, I would like to consider the precursor to any such dialogue. Isn’t the quality of instruction, face-to-face or online, most directly related to the teacher and his or her way of being? And if so, how do we reconcile the use of Web 2.0 technologies with such a assertion?

I find it difficult to accept arguments that emphasize technology over pedagogy. However, if we accept the premise that the effectiveness of classroom instruction is most directly we related to the teacher, mustn’t we also consider the role of the student. That is to say that we might choose to identify the nature/quality of both participants the individuals, and their “way of being” with each other, as the preeminent predictors of the degree to which the desired objectives are achieved. For a thorough conversation on the topic, see Rogoff and her idea of “intersubjectivity”. This is where technology comes into play. The collaborative and communicative powers of technology and online media are impressive. Thus, these interactions can be carried on after class has ended.

The combination of the Internet and cellular, or mobile technology renders both time and space inconsequential. At a time where the performance of America’s schools is being questioned daily, in a world in which other countries send their youth to school more often and for longer duration, the (un)willingness of public educators to shift from a 8-to-4 mindset to one of continual or ongoing discussion is, or should be, a concern. The discussions do not have to end, they can continue. Teachers must make themselves available to their students, via SMS, their mobile phones, and a plethora of Web 2.0 tools, before and after school.

There is a problem, I think, with the way we talk about technology. It may not be as big of a problem with our younger generation of teachers, but it’s critically important that we think about how we discuss, or “represent” technology in front of veteran educators. Technology is not one thing, but it is often represented as such (see Learning Management Systems). Communicating now is very different than it was only 15 years ago, when essentially three forms of media, the written word, the telephone, and television existed. Educators must understand that the growth, the modification the evolution of technology is rapid. If an individual feels that they “have got it”, they are wrong, regardless of their degree of understanding at that point in time.

More than anything teachers must be encouraged to buy into the idea that there is an exciting, engaging, collaborative exercise unfolding minute by minute online. They are leaders of a group of young people that, as a whole, can add to this ongoing construction of artifacts, tools, and virtual documentation. The idea is for them to pass this excitement onto their students. The degree to which they buy into this idea is directly related to their ability to use these collaborative, constructive, online activities as motivational rationale. One would think that contributing to something meaningful and real is a much more attractive exercise than the sort of repetitive, managerial tasks that are so often observed in today’s classrooms. Today’s youth are the early adopters of new technology. If they are to be allowed to use it as they see fit, then those individuals who must assess their “contributions” (teachers) must be comfortable using such technology.

Each new school year will present teachers with new students prepared, through their experiences outside of school, to implement technology the latest way. The teacher’s options are to either force their students to adopt technology he or she is most comfortable using, or to adapt themselves. The progressive educator, the innovator who embraces the rapid evolution inherent to the Web, will be most comfortable (possibly energized) by the later possibility. Research related to motivation, goal orientation, and locus of control, have a place in this conversation. If we choose to integrate technology in a way that allows students to interact with their teachers when they want and in the way that they want, that permits their demonstration of knowledge, skills, and efforts using the tools they want, we are essentially shifting the locus of control towards them. This allows students to operate more autonomously which has been shown to increase intrinsic motivation, or motivation from within. However, adopting this approach requires much more, in terms of time/accessibility and technological proficiency, from the instructor.

Mobile Learning - Frohberg et al.

The integration/utilization of mobile technology into the educational setting will be one of my primary focuses in the coming months. It seems clear that the use of mobile technology, phones specifically, as a means of facilitating educational experiences will only increase in the future. There are a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that teens are using mobile phones at an astonishingly high rate. 85% of 16 year-olds owned a cell phone in 2008. This percentage is significantly greater than the 63% of the US population that has broadband access. My guess is that this number would move towards 80% if you included dial-up connections. There is a generational component here as well, i.e., students are unquestionably attuned to the mobile lifestyle.

These thoughts were the impetus for my decision to read as much as I can regarding the integration of mobile technologies and education. I just finished Mobile Learning Projects - a Critical Analysis of the State of the Art by D. Frohberg, C Göth, & G. Schwabe (2009), which I found a worthwhile endeavor. The authors indicate very early the framework from which they approach this topic.

Notwithstanding the increased attention from conferences and publications, there is still no common understanding for Mobile Learning. More precisely, there is not even a consensus about the term itself. There are more or less interchangeable terms such as wireless, ubiquitous, seamless, nomadic or pervasive learning/ education, as well as mobile computer-supported collaborative learning, and mobile e-learning (p. 308).

Sort of shocking, really. I don’t know enough to comment on the validity of this statement, but my sense is that this is fairly accurate. We (the educational community) are still trying to figure out what mobile learning looks like. Frohberg et al. adopt the framework of Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. in their work entitled A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age (PowerPoint presentation can be found here) and make some suggestions that are worth considering. This framework is based on six factors.

• Context
• Tools
• Control
• Communication
• Subject
• Objective

Each factor is then interpreted via a Likert scale ranging from 1-5. Context ranges from “individual” to “socialized”. My understanding of the authors’ explanation is that context refers to both individuals with whom one interacts, and the actual physical environment within which learning occurs. Tools can be either used for “content delivery” at one extreme, or “content construction” at the other. Control, as in the classroom, can be placed with the teacher, with the student or somewhere in between. Frohberg et al. suggest that striking a balance between the two is ideal. (Control, as it is described here can be related to Vygotsky’s “scaffolding”, the need for which necessarily evolves as a learner gains a greater understanding.) Learning can be directed/optimized for the novice or the expert (the subject factor), and that subject can be asked to “know” or “evaluate” (see Blooms taxonomy for an analogous continuum). Lastly, the “communication” can be considered isolated at one extreme, or collaborative at the other. The authors stress that these factors are interdependent; their interactions are “dynamic”.

The primary purpose of the study is to analyze extant research within the context of this framework. Frohber et al. began with a collection of 1469 papers, eventually basing their findings on 102. Their major findings (p. 323) are summarized in the following syllogism.

• Mobile Learning is best used to support learning in context
• Novice learners are often not ready to learn in this way
• Therefore, Mobile Learning should address advanced learners first

I find the authors contentions/conclusions appealing. There is an innate openness/freedom embedded within what I envision Mobile Learning to be. The real potential for Mobile Learning lies beyond the transfer of knowledge. The authors make this point explicitly.

However, it is not necessarily adequate to select novices in physical or socializing contexts. The fundamental reason to have learners learn in a relevant context is to let them apply and process their knowledge and to acquire new knowledge by themselves when exploring, cooperating, and thus reflecting on the environment and their activities. Novice learners are usually not expected to be able to perform these higher forms of learning. Rather, they would need to build up a knowledge basis first and perform their activities under tight control (p. 322).

Mobile technology is ideally suited to construct a more vivid, complex, and nuanced understanding of already existing knowledge through examination/deliberation/collaboration in context. Efforts such as this require the appropriate level of initial understanding. Moreover, one would expect that the successful navigation of such tasks would be aided by a mastery goal orientation and the (related) ability to self-regulate one’s efforts. All of this points towards prototype implementations with individuals looking to expand on preexisting knowledge.

The Computer in the School?

In The Development of a SMS-based Teaching and Learning System, Simon So frames the use of mobile technology around Robert Taylor’s 1980 book The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. Taylor described the way computers can be used as:

• a tool to support learning,
• a tutor that instructs, and
• a tutee that is taught.

So goes on to group administrative tasks such as notifying staff and students about changes/cancellations underneath the “tool” classification, but struggles a bit to find ways of describing use as “instructive” and, to a greater extent, the tutee role. He connects the tutor role to teaching, and the tutee role to learning. Granted, I haven’t read Taylor’s work, but it seems to me that he is, at a minimum, describing some sort of creative/constructive activity when he uses the word “tutee”. My initial thought was that Taylor was alluding to the possibility of using AI in a way that allows student to actually teach content. If this is the case, I have a hard time with this connection in particular.

This is the first time that I’ve come across a reference to Taylor’s book, but I have seen the word “seminal” used as a descriptor, so I’ll be adding it to my reading list. Unfortunately, I’m having a hard time finding a new copy. I’ll do a bit more searching, but there are some used copies for sale on Amazon. Has anyone read this book? Thoughts?

Mobile Use in the Developing World

Jonathan Donner’s article entitled Research Approaches to Mobile Use in the Developing World: A Review of the Literature provides a nice overview of the existing research related to mobile phones/technology. Although I’m specifically interested in the educational uses of this technology, Donner’s work provides a much broader assessment, an appropriate starting point for my reading.

I’ve pulled two bits of text from the article.

While mobiles could be used to find new customers and expand business networks, they are just as likely to be used to amplify strong ties with existing personal relations (p. 146).

This strikes me as something that we see a lot of in the application/use of technology in education. More precisely, new technologies are used in a way that replaces the function of some older technology. The white board (SmartBoard) is used in a functionally similar way as the blackboard was years ago. Information (text/images) are presented on the screen to spur discussion or, worse yet, to be written/copied by the students. PowerPoint is another example of technology often used to replace some antecedent.

…much of the value of the mobile in the developing world is as a landline substitute — but there are times when grouping the mobile along with the landline the Internet in a discussion of “new media” or “ICTs” can be counterproductive (150).

Here the author reminds us that there is danger in grouping technologies too closely, particularly in this case. Mobile technology is differs greatly from desktop or even portable forms of accessing information. There is no need to “set up” a space, or “set aside” time. Information can be accessed/considered/responded to immediately, at which point the user can return to whatever had been doing just seconds/minutes before. Mobile technology lends itself to sporadic, brief, intense stretches of attention, rather than the typical 50 minute period of instruction that we see in schools today. This changes how we view schools and (more interestingly) the role of the teacher.

Winter Solstice

In several languages, not just in English, people have traditionally compared the rebirth of the sun with the birth of the son of God - http://j.mp/4U600I

Interesting (religious) connection …

Career-Technical Education - How to Meet Indicators

I am responsible for improving our school's performance in four indicators delineated by the Ohio Department of Education. These indicators are:

• Technical Skill Attainment
• State or Industry Recognized Certificate or License
• Nontraditional Participation
• Nontraditional Completion

My hope is that I will get some suggestions as to what other individuals are doing, especially those in career-technical education, to increase their performance in these areas. I have summarized my thoughts for each below.

Assessments and Certificates

Technical Skill Attainment

ODE is looking at the number of CTE Concentrators who passed assessments related to their field, specifically a "CTE technical skill assessment or a State-recognized CTE industry assessment" Those individuals who did not attempt such an assessment are not part of the equation. This is then a reflection on the quality of the training/education offered by the career-technical institution. More specifically, this is a measure of a student's retention of the material covered throughout their training. One component of such a measure is the number of students, who enter a field related to their schooling, i.e., one would not expect those individuals who did not pursue a job in their career-technical area to have taken a related assessment. The performance target for 2010-2011 is 63%.

State or Industry Recognized Certificate or License

The school has a lot of control over this indicator, which looks at the percentage of student graduates who have received a "State or industry-recognized certificate or license", as it is something that can be worked into the curriculum. Our administration, first the Principal and now me, have compiled data summarizing what each of our programs already have in place. We are moving to fill the voids this year with the Career Safe OSHA Certifications and First Aid/CPR. The aim is to have program specific certificate or licensure processes in place for all of our programs for the 2010-2011 school year. This indicator will be new in 2010-2011.

Thoughts

The definitions for "Technical Skill Attainment" and "State or Industry Recognized Certificate or License" are similar. The former refers to the passage of a "State-recognized technical skill assessment that is aligned with industry-recognized standards", the later to the obtainment of a "State or industry-recognized certificate or license". It would then seem ideal for instructors to attempt to find State-recognized technical skill assessments that led to recognized certificates or licenses. The one caveat is that these definitions refer to students who have already graduated, specifically individuals "who left secondary education the previous year". The language is unclear as to whether or not those individuals could have attained the two measures while still attending school. My assumption is that they could.

One strategy that we might look at employing is spaced or distributed practice. A regularly scheduled practice of the topics/skills that would be included on a year-end, State or Industry recognized skill assessment, should optimize student performance. This would require that the instructor complete the following series of tasks.

1. Find a State or Industry recognized assessment that leads to either a certificate or license
2. Delineate the major components of the chosen assessment
3. Map a strategy to repeatedly work with this content on a regular basis (cumulative nature might require that content is "added-to" over time)
4. Have their entire class sit for the exam late in their senior year

One ramification of grouping these two indicators in this way is that all students would necessarily be included in the Technical Skill Attainment indicator. This is not required by the state, as the indicator only looks that those individuals who sat for an exam that fits the criteria, where as the State or Industry Recognized Certificate or License indicator requires that all graduates are included. My inclination is to overlook this complication, as I believe that the implementation of the above listed strategy will prove potent enough to reach the requisite percentages.

Nontraditional Participation/Completion

Nontraditional students are defined as those persons who participate in a program "from which one gender (theirs) comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed" in that program's field. There is a major push to increase these numbers, especially the percentage of females in field traditionally dominated by their male counterparts. The statistical data used to promote these efforts are, most notably, median salary incomes in the "traditional" fields (roughly $8000 difference) and the number of women living in single-parent households.

A school's performance in these two measures is fundamentally related, yet different enough to warrant separate strategies. That is to say that you cannot have a "completer" without first having a "participant". Strategically, it would make sense to first focus on boosting participation. The fact that completion efforts could be tied into school-wide initiatives crystallizes the superordinate role of the "participation" indicator.

• The nontraditional participation performance target for 2010-2011 20.5%
• The nontraditional completion performance target for 2010-2011 is 17.5%

Essentially, 85% the second indicator requires that a bit more than 85% of our nontraditional students complete their program. This doesn't seem to be insurmountable. In fact, it seems very doable. However, I believe that my inclination is wrong, as the state indicates that it is indeed the completion indicator that we (career-technical programs statewide) have traditionally struggled to meet. Between 2002 and 2006, Ohio met its completion target only twice, while attaining the participation goal five times. This tells me that students are being lost along the way.

Thoughts

Could boosting nontraditional numbers be as easy as appealing to the extrinsic motion (monetary compensation) of potential students? The compensatory difference between traditional and nontraditional fields for females is significant. It would seem that the other motivator, especially in today's economy, would be access to jobs. Can we show that employers are looking to fill positions with nontraditional employees? One dilemma of approaching recruitment in this way is that we might be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Highlighting the high salary or job opportunities of one field necessarily depresses the attractiveness of other programs, especially when tenth graders (and their parents) are weighing their options.

I'm inclined to focus first on aiding instructors in the marketing of their trade to all students. My bet is that their efforts in this area have not been as effective as they might be due to a lack of organization. That is to say that I think we might be able to move forward by first creating a form for them to fill out. For example, we might base our questions on the following categories:

• Skills/tasks taught (the focus already)
• Job types and (optional) salary/wage information
• Local businesses (where can they get a job soon)
• Continuing education (kids don't want to lock themselves into one job when they've just got their driver's license)
• Benefits of nontraditional participation

As I said, my sense is that the majority of our focus has been on the first three, and beyond the curriculum (skills/tasks), the efforts have been disorganized. That is to say that an instructor might have one or two individuals from their Advisory Committee in when sophomores visit, but others won't. Do any of our instructors include businesses that fall within the scope of their trade yet do not serve on their advisory committee? Kids want to know where the trade fits, in terms of the field as a whole, both in a general and a specific sense. Thus it is incumbent on our trade instructors and marketing gurus to demonstrate where the trade falls on the academic continuum. If I attend, how can I continue to advance within the field? What are my options academically? And, finally, how might I have an advantage if I choose this field as a nontraditional student.

Far too often, we provide students with handouts, dominated by text. This is failed strategy. Human's cognitive ability to (quickly and completely) interpret text pales in comparison to our ability to process visual imagery (see the work of Paivio, specifically with regards to words that produce imagery). The degree to which we choose, as an institution, to align our materials with what cognitive research tells us about the way individuals process information is an open question. For example, we could draw also from cognitive load theory, integrating imagery and text and strategically placing each piece of information in one place on the handout, thus avoiding the "split attention effect" and minimizing the amount of effort required to understand. Of course, or efforts to produce literature that is easy to understand is predicated on the premise that what we have to say about our programs is appealing.

Beyond the marketing strategy and literature design, we must address the nontraditional component of recruitment. Here too, I think we start with a "big picture" view. Can we compile a list of general benefits that one might expect to enjoy if they are classified as nontraditional? Such a list would provide each program with a staging point for generating more industry-specific advantages. It would not be surprising to find that a trade teacher's examination of this "industry-agnostic" list might give rise to the illumination of additional items from within the industry.

I am lost in terms of the completion indicator. One would assume that if we are able to boost our participation percentage, our completion percentage would increase as well. The data indicates that a large percentage of nontraditional students drop out of their program. Why is this? Does it have to do with the way these students are treated in the lab setting? Some of ODE's literature and their suggested strategies for improvement insinuate that this is the case. Could it be that those students who choose the nontraditional path are often "searching" and tend to continue to "search", resulting in a change of placement? If this is the case, then the schools ability to control such a situation is moderate at best. My initial inclination is to focus first on the identification of the benefits/advantages of the nontraditional path. The ability to refer a student to such a list, when needed, is essential. Emphasizing fairness within the lab, in terms of opportunities, feedback, and discourse, would also be a priority.

Feedback

I have just begun to look at these indicators. I have only been in my current position for several weeks. I would appreciate any feedback that I receive, particularly with regards to strategies for the retention of nontraditional students. I'm hopeful that this post will be found by individuals who have far greater experience designing marketing/retention strategies, and who are willing to share the experience/expertise as they relate to my situation.

Starting math early

The New York Times has an interesting article - http://j.mp/8aYXO6 - summarizing the extant research on the mathematical abilities of preschoolers. The findings indicate that children's abilities are greater, and develop earlier, than had been previously thought.

The money quote:

"A crude number instinct us hard-wired into the brain"

Also of note, researchers surmise that math education "sharpens the firing of these quantity neurons", which has a corollary in the cellular development in the visual cortex.

I know that my boys, ages six and four, have been doing some remedial math for a while now, as I have sometimes given them basic addition problems to pass the time while we drive. Fingers are utilized, but they can be pretty successful in finding the answer to problems such as 3+2.