The narrow Apple perspective

So, let’s be clear. Apple offers high quality, but expensive hardware. I own multiple Apple devices and if pushed into a corner of having to limit my hardware purchases I would have to go with Apple.

What troubles me about the Apple approach is the narrow perspective the company takes on software and services. I think Apple books have real potential. iTunes U is a great resource for education. I just can’t get into these software products because I have the feeling that the primary motivation is to sell more quality, but expensive hardware. The benefit to learners seems a convenient secondary consequence. I would probably develop our textbook as an iBook if the decision would not ignore all of those learners who prefer a different hardware platform.

I don’t kid myself – it is always about the money. Google wants to encourage ad displays and can benefit even when content is viewed on platforms other than android. Whether purposeful or not, the Google business model is “less evil” when it comes to providing experiences to all learners.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on The narrow Apple perspective

Put the learner in the middle

Here is another idea for professional development via reading. Too many professionals read content that they agree with. They may ask colleagues for a recommendation and someone says “here is something you will like”. If much “development” from such experiences occurs at all, there is a diminishing return from following this approach as a long term strategy. Remember what Piaget had to say about “accommodation” or science educators are taught about the value of “conceptual conflict”.

So for the tech integration crowd, here is a pair recommendation.

Toyama – Geek heresy

Diamandis – Abundance

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Put the learner in the middle

Big picture reading

If as an educator and the read to inform yourself about your profession, I would propose you consider several books that are about the context within which educators function. Glass, for example, proposes that politics and economics are stronger determinants of learner experience than learning science. Educators may not think on this level, but to be effective advocates perhaps they should. All books here are available for the Kindle or Kindle app.
Friedman – Hot, flat & crowded
Friedman – That used to be us
Lessig – Republic lost

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Big picture reading

Filtering by reading level

Google used to allow the filtering of search results by reading level, but for some reason (not officially announced) this advanced feature was removed.

New businesses emerge to fill a niche left unexplored by the big players. Choosito appears to be such a business promising searches results filtered to user designated reading level.

Pricing is not yet available.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Filtering by reading level

Considering the needs of ALL categories of learners

I have been reading several books about educational reform and charter schools (e.g., Disrupting Class). I began to experience a vague associated with a topic I used to cover when teaching educational psychology. One persuasive logic in individualization is that categories of learners can be identified and then taught as most appropriate for that group. Students and their parents should be allowed to select approaches that best offer the best categorical fit.

The logic of isolating categories of students for differentiated instruction sounds great, but the logic may be based on seriously flawed assumptions.

The association I flashed on considering the proposals of charter school advocates was the logic for ability grouping. The form of ability group I am highlighting here is called between-class ability grouping. The notion was that if students were grouped by ability instruction could more precisely be targeted to each group. Now, if I remember some of the research findings accurately, whole class ability grouping improved the achievement of high ability students, but diminished the achievement of low ability students.

Sometimes logic, when put into practice, does not work. Then, it is time to re-evaluate the logic to identify the flaws. My own logic in explaining the data to the students was that in group learning situations all participants serve as teachers. Take the high aptitude students out of a group and the remaining group experiences a lower quality of instruction. Other scholars have come up with less charitable interpretations – perhaps the teachers assigned to the less capable students were also less capable or were more focused on classroom management than education.

I wonder if a similar phenomenon applies with other categorization systems. What may be an advantage for one category may well be a disadvantage for those not fitting in that category. In fact, what those not fitting in one category may really need is the presence of a group that could be removed.

Aside from ability grouping, I wonder about other categorization variables. I wonder if most are not really proxies for motivation, for parental support, or other important variables. Removing the more motivated students from a group does not mean that those who remain would now be easier to teach. Consider the requirements for participation in a KIPP school as an example. What is expected of those students and their families who enroll and continue to meet the expectations for participation in a KIPP school? If these students and their parents are removed from the neighborhood school, would the “new” method of instruction that now work better on that neighborhood school now be obvious.

The idea of to each his own sounds great but the idea of categorization has to my knowledge generated few positive outcomes for all involved. I would be pleased to modify my position given good data to the contrary.

My point is that proposals too often focus on the opportunities for those in one group for which new opportunities await. The remaining students who are left in the original institution seldom receive attention. The guy with the new idea for a subset of students seldom explains what is to happen to the students not included in this subset.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Considering the needs of ALL categories of learners

The invisible politics of education

I came to believe that debates in education are not about achievement or test scores or preparing tomorrow’s workforce at all. They are about gaining the political power to control money and secure special privileges.

Glass, Gene V (2008-06-01). Fertilizers, Pills & Magnetic Strips The Fate of Public Education in America (Kindle Locations 216-218). IAP – Information Age Publishing, Inc.. Kindle Edition. 

I have another book recommendation. Available on the Kindle for $2. The quote above gives you a taste of the book’s focus.

Gene Glass is a well-known educational researcher. However, he has concluded that research and research data do not hold the answers for present educational debates. The research does not matter because other forces (see quote) are the major determinants of decisions.

I tend to agree with Glass. What I find ironic about this situation is that educators are strongly discouraged from participating in political discussions regarding the profession they pursue. It hardly seems fair.

 

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The invisible politics of education