Week 11: Touch
After reading the Touch page and watching the videos, please answer the following 3 questions:
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
Posted in: General, Week 11:
tomwhyte1 10:18 am on November 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. Professionally no – as a school just beginning to explore BYOD technology, and before that having little to no technology inside of the classroom, this reality has never existed yet. Personally, I have watched my now 4 and 6 year old navigate extremely well throughout my iPad to play various games and participate in multiple learning activities. (Which on a side note, I do not believe my children are naturally gifted at technology, as many people do… what I do believe is that the people who invented the interface has made it so natural and easy to figure out, that age is almost now a non-factor). Lastly, due to my location in the world, I have not experienced geographical nor socio-economic improvements due to touch technology, I have heard of the extremely inexpensive tablet computer before, and I am interested. However, I am concerned about the longevity of the device, which may lead to more disposable tech… Thoughts?
2/3. For myself, these questions are very similar, for myself, it is very similar to the touch screen desk that appeared in one of the TED Talk videos. For I envision, desks such as these for each student, containing textbooks, audio files, etc… Which would allow the promise of interactive education to occur for each individual student… Thoughts?
tomwhyte1 10:20 am on November 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Secondly, even though Apple made Touch technology common for the consumer market and profitable for themselves, it is important to remember the many milestones that have occurred before:
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/23/144185699/timeline-a-history-of-touch-screen-technology
I myself remember some of these… 🙂
Peggy Lawson 8:55 pm on November 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks Week 11 for a great start on some interesting topics – I’ve just started experimenting with some of the voice apps but want to jump to Touch technology.
Interesting timeline Tom. It’s always important to remember that even with the rapid leaps in technology, there are still small steps along the way. I found one key step absent in the timeline link you posted – interactive white boards (e.g. smartboards). While these companies likely didn’t create many new touch technologies, they certainly made huge inroads into education. But it took many years – I remember seeing SMART Board vendors trying to sell their wares many many years before they have just suddenly become very common in my own school division. Alas, most schools spent thousands on single touch boards, and now of course multi-touch is the standard.
While I think IWB (Interactive White Boards) have great potential, I’ve seen too much money spent recently on them just because schools see them as a “must have” to demonstrate they have “integrated” technology. Already, many of them are almost obsolete due to multi-touch. And iPads.
My point I guess – by the time many schools are ready to really invest in a technology, it is already being surpassed by something better. For expensive technology – this is a major consideration. Schools need to invest – but is big and expensive the best option if you are late to join the game?
lullings 12:48 am on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hey Peggy, thanks for the post.
I am getting the feeling from your post that that a school is a large entity that is slow to change and adopt new technology. When it does change it has to go for proven technology that might be already surpassed due to accountability and costs.
Do you think that a school should be broken up into classes and let teachers decide their use of technology. This would allow for early adopters and trials of the newest digital resources due to the reduced volume and faster adaptability?
Stuart
tomwhyte1 8:53 am on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Personally, I think that would be a great idea. However, I am unsure a district would allow such approaches, as volume purchasing reduces prices, and consistent technology reduces IT time and subsequent costs.
However, as a classroom teacher, I would fully endorse such an approach.
manny 1:28 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink
Thanks for sharing some of your reservations regarding white boards Peggy. Unfortunately, when technology (or anything new for that matter) is introduced in the classroom it usually undergoes a pilot phase for a period of about 2 years. I am currently part of a pilot project integrating iPads within our school district. However, according to Moores Law, by the time it is ready for full implementation, it would probably already become obsolete. Sort of a catch 22 but something that we must live with. I guess the alternative is to do nothing at all and i’m sure we would all agree in that avenue is not an option if we want to remain on the cutting edge of innovation.
Peggy Lawson 6:14 pm on November 14, 2012 Permalink
Thanks for the extended discussion. For a large division such as mine, where tech support can be an issue, allowing every teacher, or even every school, to go in their own direction, with their own technologies, is a poor option these days, as desirable as it might initially seem for individual schools.
I agree pilot projects are likely the best approach, but as you suggest Manny & others, by the time to pilot is done technology has moved on (iPad 1 > 2 >3). But iPad versions, in the end, are less critical than the iPad itself.
To me the lesson is then …
(1) Make sure the technology is not just a flash-in-the-pan that will be totally obsolute within a year or 2; thus it needs to have some established life span already;
(2) realize that having the most recent version (e.g. iPads) is not the important critical factor. Tailor instructional technology implementation for the lesser version of the technology, once the technology itself has been determined to be worth the investment.
I’m sure there are more points to add – suggestions? Alterations to points 1 & 2?
Colin 11:11 pm on November 15, 2012 Permalink
I think it would be ideal to let teachers choose what technologies they implement in a classroom. I understand the disadvantage to servicing and purchasing of equipment but it would allow for a lot more innovation. When a teacher has a choice in what technology they are using it makes them feel empowered and they are more likely to be effective using it instead of just being assigned a smart-board. Different styles of teaching does lend itself well to different kinds of technology. Technology is just a tool that needs to be wielded correctly by the user for a specific purpose.
The other point is that educational technology is dependent on teachers to evaluate their usefulness. If teachers or other users of educational technologies don’t find that it is useful then they just don’t use it. The result is that technological advances will focus only on what is successful. This evaluation process gives direction and focus to further research. That is why I think the decision should lie with the teacher and not the school district. I often find that the people buying the technology often buy into the marketing pitch instead of what is really needed.
Suhayl Patel 5:20 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
If I may, I think that’s a great question. All too often, we are so stringent on rule and bureaucratic guidelines and processes that by the time we get what we want, or a decision it’s too late and the technology is obsolete. I have experienced this first hand with many forms of technology, and recently with the iPad. By the time the decision was made to go ahead and allow for the purchase for the iPad2, the iPad three was already out. But, there were lessons learned for our organization. We are less strict on what can be purchased. We try to focus now on how the technology requested will meet the school development plans (SDP), whether it’s hardware or software. If there is a need for a specific form of technology and it meets the SDP, then a simple Privacy Impact Assessment form is filled out, and it’s approved rather quickly. I think this will allow for more time with the current technology instead of being technological laggards.
Thoughts?
lullings 4:07 pm on November 15, 2012 Permalink
Thats great Patel, so you are saying that schools can act independently according to their own SDP?
Does this mean the district has no control over what the school spends as long as they are in their SDP?
frank 4:28 pm on November 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Tom, thanks for sharing.
Though Apple has become the corporate faceplate of Touch in recent times, you are certainly right to point out that its history goes back way deeper, and in that regard, Apple has just been a good entrepreneur of bringing this technology to mainstream market.
Perhaps a contemporary version of the Electronic Sackbut that first incorporated touch might be the Hydraulophone – a touch operated acoustic instrument that operates hydraulically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgU0OZkGhGI
I agree with you that with cheaper versions, longevity will likely certainly be an issue as, with any replica type manufactured product. But I think if we take a long view on this, then through iteration, those cheaper manufacturers of tablets will also learn how to improve the quality of their products, just as anyone else would. The goal of a creating a $20 tablet is a noble one, but no one said it would be an one to achieve, and certainly, not a static one across time.
As for the future of touch, I wanted to focus more on the fundamentals of what I see to be the most important attributes of Touch. However, take a look at this video of MS LABS’ Vision for 2019, in which Touch: Touch helps us improve cross-cultural communication, learn visually in ways previously not possible, manage and navigate our lives in smarter, simpler and more convenient ways, and even shift our perspectives across space and time. The future of touch is ripe with opportunity; where do you think these opportunities lie for the field of learning and education?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgU0OZkGhGI
tomwhyte1 8:18 pm on November 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
First off, thank you for sharing this video, it shows what I currently believe, in that Touch technology is most likely the next evolution of the interface with technology. much like the mouse was before it. In that, like you said, it allows us to potentially navigate our lives, in smarter, simpler ways. For like the video you shared, touch technology is only as powerful as the accompanying gestures provided, and this is where I myself have some difficulties imagining the future.
For you mention, that touch technology (which must include gestures to utilize the technology), will improve cross-cultural communication. But whose culture are we developing the touch/gesture combo’s on? Will all gestures be western in origin? Take this website for example:
http://westsidetoastmasters.com/resources/book_of_body_language/chap5.html
It is vital, that we consider that the entire world does not view our gestures the same way we do, nor is it our right to force our Western gestures to the rest of the world. Something, I know you are not saying, nor implying, but it is something that we sometimes forget – as was evidenced in the One Laptop Per Child Program – heavy western influence and assumptions, led to issues with the program.
Lastly, I will focus on the point you made in regards to using touch to learn visually. While at first glance, this may seem opposite, upon reflection I was reminded of the Minority Report Scene:
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ironman28/clips/FFminorityReportGesturalinterfaceH264.mov/view
And yes, like you, I believe this technology, with consideration and careful thought could enhance areas of education. I wonder though… Even if it may help, could anyone in the near future afford classrooms full of touch desks?
Thoughts?
teacherben 7:48 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I am not sure who the ‘we’ is that is forcing anything on anyone. As noted above, there are a few big names in the game such as Apple and Google, but this is not the 1990’s. There is hardware being developed in India by Indian companies and hardware being developed in China by Chinese companies. if you are willing to spend a weekend learning how to do it, you can produce your own interactive hardware in your garage for a few dollars. The tools are easily available for anyone to learn to write their own software that leverages these technologies. The process has been democratised in a big way. I can write software to share with just my own classes with no intention of ever sharing it with the outside world and i can do this without even having to write a single line of code. And the tools I can use to do this are free.
tomwhyte1 9:30 am on November 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
While agree that the world of technology is opening up, and the examples you provide for hardware being developed is becoming and will continue to become a more global venture. And lastly, I also agree that it is not the 1990’s.
My concern is fundamentally the operating system in which the hardware runs, more specifically, the large companies you mentioned like Apple, Google, and even Microsoft etc… is “What are they basing their touch/gesture technology on?” Are they going to create an industry standard like the WHMIS system? Which is the same around the world, regardless of language or cultural norms. If they do that, what touch/gestures are they going to base it on? For in my above post, I showed how even common gestures have multiple messages around the world. My guess is, the default would be western, as these are primarily Western Companies entrenched in western values and norms. I myself have an issue with that.
Or, it could be approached like you mentioned, with various individuals and companies creating what they want, how they want. The benefit here would be the customization of products to local areas, the downside is the cost to mass produce this. And yes I am not talking about the hobbyist in his garage, I am talking about large multinational corporations who like to earn profits. For it is these companies that for at least the near future will drive the majority of this industry.
Regardless of this concern, I do see an overall educational benefit of this technology, especially for the young and elderly who have either developing or deteriorating manual dexterity.
Thoughts?
teacherben 5:58 pm on November 14, 2012 Permalink
I understand your concerns and I think there’s no question that western sentiments seem to dominate the industry but I still think that you may be underestimating the ease with which companies can and will be able to customize the experience for their own users. With Android, Google provides a core which is itself based on a lot of other people’s technologies (the kernel is Linux-based, for example) but the user interface is highly customizable as evidenced by the many variations that we see with Sense on the HTC phones (a Taiwanese company), Touchwiz (Motorola) and more. Here is a list of 42 launchers that have been created to replace the stock Android one, each one replete with its own library of gestures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_Launchers
A couple of years ago, there was a group of Chinese hackers (white hat) that had been mucking around customizing their own Android rom (custom firmware) for their own purposes. They borrowed ideas from a bunch of different phones and added a lot of their own stuff. They made this custom ROM available for download, so other people could replace the operating system on their phone with this modified Android one. It uses a lot of unique gestures to control it and has a lot of unique characteristics. It became very popular in the Android community and since they made their code open source, a lot of other people started customizing it for their own market/language as well. Their ROM is called MIUI. Their company is called Xiaomi. They managed to get some backers and scraped up enough money to get started making their own phone. A year later, they had sold half a million phones. Then they made a deal with China Unicom and sold another million phones.
If you picked up one of these phones, you might not recognize it as Android at all. They replaced the existing voice recognition software on it with one made by a Chinese company that works better with the Chinese languages. They included software so that you can draw Chinese characters with your finger to launch applications. Not bad for a few guys that started in the garage.
The programming involved to replace one gesture with a different one is not a whole lot more difficult than mapping a different combination of keys on a keyboard.
adi 9:23 am on November 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks for the link to body language. I agree not everyone uses the same gestures, and I also feel there’s a certain westernization of education. For example, though I found Sugata Mitra’s experiment ‘Hole in the Wall’ interesting, I did not approve of when he responded that the programs did not need to be translated into Hindi, because children learned how to use them intuitively. Since the end of the British colonies, English imposed itself as ‘the’ language to communicate in, and myths emerged about learning in an ‘English Only’ environment and preferably with ‘native speakers’; all imperialistic notions. Unfortunately, this is now the case with technology and the WWW; most is in English. So though these technologies afford many things when it comes to education, I also think we should question their effect on minorities, cultures and other language systems.
frank 4:31 pm on November 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Oops.
Here’s the Microsoft Office Labs vision 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff7SzP4gfg
manny 1:22 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1) Through my experience, I have to look no further than my 3 year old daughter and her interaction with touch technologies to see its overwhelming impact. An important observation that I made is similar to Sugata Mitras observation on people living in remote areas. In this instance, if you observe an infant utilizing touch technology, an interesting phenomenon occurs. They begin to understand the cause and effect relationship and similar to the boy experimenting with “the hole in the wall,” they realize that their hand gestures can control the occurrences on a screen. What became fascinating to me is how this technology aided in my child’s verbal communication. Of course as parents we model the language for them but coupling it with technology takes it to another level of comprehension. An important note to be taken away is that touch technologies don’t discriminate in the users ability to use them.
2) The beauty of the NUI technology to its GUI and CLI counterparts is the ease at which it can be learned. For this style of touch technology, the learning curve is quick as was demonstrated in the Sugata Mitra video. In essence, this provides an even playing field as students can concentrate on the content and not the procedure of operating a computer.
3) The primary way for districts to facilitate the innovations provided through touch technologies is simply to embrace the hardware that affords it. Tablets are making their way into mainstream education and the hardware seems to be popping up more frequently. When implementing new innovations such as this one, cost usually becomes one of the main counter arguments/concerns. I believe that this is where the BYOD initiative comes into play and helps offset some of the fiscal concerns around integrating touch technologies.
avninder 1:58 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Like others who have posted, I have witnessed touch screens being used by small children who seem to quickly learn and master have to navigate various platforms as they become intuitive. I like the point made in the OER that we have been making learners adapt to fit with technology instead of having technology fit with learners. I would hope that the future of education would include the use of more intuitive technology with gentle learning curves to provide ease of use to everyone regardless of their experience or background. Will we ever get there? I believe so. In my lifetime? Maybe with higher education and organizations, but in the public education system and remote areas of the world, it will be very difficult. The MET video mentioned that it would be ideal to use technology in less fortunate areas before well-developed ones. Of course there are many issues with this, the big ones being funding and access.
teacherben 8:41 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Haven’t we always had to adapt to technology? From pencils to spears, there has only been so much that we could do to customise our user experience. I would venture that the purpose of education is a combination of teaching students both how to adapt technology to suit their needs and to adapt themselves to suit the technology available.
Jenny Brown 7:08 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. I think one of the huge advantages to touch is the improvement of learning and communication opportunities of mentally and/or physically challenged children and adults. I thought this article: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/news/la-heb-ipod-touch-autism-20120904 provided a good example of how an iPod touch really helped an adult with Down syndrome, who could not read, tell time or understand a calendar, keep her job. Another article showed how a young autistic student is now able to write for the first time using iPad’s touch-screen and how a school is using iPod Touch for each of their autistic students. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/apple_ipad_itouch_may_help_peo.html
2. Children are not as assimilated as adults and therefore are better explorers. Touch would (and already does) lead to more learning opportunities for even younger children. As many of you have probably experienced (and some have already mentioned), even two year olds can become pretty good at using touch pads; it was my friend’s 2 year old daughter who showed me how to change the views on the Magic Piano app.
3. I think touch technology will greatly impact the types of tools purchased by schools – more iPads/tablets and less PCs. Schools need to stay ahead of the technologies (taking this course, reading the Horizon reports and being part of Ed tech communities) so that they can lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide by hopefully getting the tools in place while they are still current.
Scott 8:19 pm on November 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think Jenny has touched on, pardon the obvious pun, what is undoubtedly one of the truly important benefits of using touch and gesture based NUIs – it’s affordances for mentally and physically challenged learners.
To highlight this point, just last night on CBC Radio’s As It Happens, they interviewed two teachers from the Toronto area, that worked with a researcher from OISE/UT, to investigate the effectiveness of iPads as a communication and instructional aid for students with Autism. The gesture based NUI of the iPad proved to be an effective method of ‘reaching’ the students, which allowed for more sustained opportunities for academic and social instruction in the classroom. The efforts of the two teachers earned them both Prime Minister’s Awards for Teaching Excellence. To learn more about this research, you may want to listen to the complete interview on CBC’s podcast found here: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/asithappens_20121113_25689.mp3
I believe many of us feel we have lived long enough with input technologies from centuries past. Heck, the clumsy QWERTY keyboard layout we all use today, was invented in the 1800’s with the goal of avoiding jamming manual typewriters when adjacent letters were struck! Touch technology in general is a much more intuitive way to interface with digital devices and when combined with the emerging technology of haptic* feedback, touch based interfaces will continue to revolutionize how we interact with technology.
Personally, I can’t wait for a touch screen iMac, which by all accounts is already sitting on a desk in Sir ‘Jony’ Ive’s design lab in Cupertino!
* For more information on the emergence of haptic technology in education, check out these links:
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2012/03/haptic-tablet/
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8821.html
http://tinyurl.com/a8nf768
teacherben 1:48 am on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As we were beginning to research this area this was an area that stood out for us too. We thought it was so important that, for a while, we were considering focusing the entire week’s discussion on Accessibility. At last year’s Hong Kong Electronics Expo, I met a Canadian guy from Calgary that runs a company that is entirely dedicated to creating alternative input systems for people with disabilities and with special needs. He had devices that could go in your mouth so you could control your computer using your tongue and by blowing air through a tube. He had eye-tracking technologies. All sorts of cool stuff. The prices were through the roof though. No individual could afford these things on their own. They would need support from a school board or some government institution. I think a lot of the more recent developments that we have posted about here show that there is a convergence happening where a lot of these technologies that were previously targeted at the disabled are also able to help all sorts of people to be more productive.
rebeccaharrison 11:56 am on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That’s a very valid point. Often times technology that is useful to address one type of learner is useful for all learners, in the same way that a teaching strategy that you implement for a student might be applicable for all.
Jonathan 10:10 pm on November 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1) Absolutely technology has improved. Has access to these devices improved as well? I think you only need to look around at how the prices for these devices have gone down and how many people are looking at them as a replacement device at home. I think that people are quickly finding that they can’t be a replacement but do many of the similar things. While I haven’t observed these devices transcend across socio-economic barriers — the mere fact that they can be purchased for sub $200 makes me think that they are. The lower end tablets and devices are also making their way into 3rd World countries as well as Melissa mentioned in a post about $20 tablets and the group’s references to $35 ones as well.
2)I think the innovation has lead to and will continue to drive the way for students to more intuitively engage with material. On one hand the student is looking at a computer to access information but the interactivity and one on one intimacy that a child can have — can allow for mistakes to occur more fluidly and have the child continue practicing and learning a concept. For children with different learning needs the ability to have touch software interpret their writing strokes can be powerful.
3) Manny nailed it with his reference to the “Moore’s Law”, it is difficult for schools to lead because they often want to be certain about technology they are placing in the classrooms because of the enormous costs involved. However, the most positive change that we can bring as educators is to embrace what is given and use it to its fullest. The applications can often become overwhelming and cost prohibitive. Finding alternative solutions (and developers often know this) — and finding a way to bring the skills to our children is ultimately what is most important. Schools need to be educated as do the teachers on what these devices can bring to the classroom.
jkotler 2:01 am on November 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In reflecting on my own experience, I have seen how the element of touch has greatly improved technology and education across age groups via the Smart Board. In considering why this is the case, I believe one of the most significant reasons, among other things, is that it inherently offers some form of interactivity which then captures the learners interest thereby encouraging them to engage with the device and the learning material itself.
In regards to geographic and socioeconomic barriers, I cannot speak much to its improvement from a personal standpoint, but I can say that after watching the Ted Talk with Sugatra Mitra, I was very much impressed with the results from his experiments with young learners in India and believe that it can be used as a key example of how touch technology can be similarly and highly effective for children across a range of socioeconomic and geographic locations if they are given access. As such, I think that embedding touch technology within education can lead to more valuable learning and higher academic achievement among learners and so while it may come at a considerable cost to the school and would require teacher dedication, it would be worth it.
frank 2:26 pm on November 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks for your thoughts.
Some things I’m reading/hearing:
Touch’s intuitive and direct interface may empower individuals with autism and other learning disabilities to become more fully participating members of society.
– Agreed. In the same manner that Touch enables 2-year olds access to using a computer like never before, Touch technology and haptics research are developing numerous ways to assist individuals with disabilities and special needs live fuller lives. So far, much of the evidence of the success of these efforts is anecdotal. And it is easy for the non-scientist – such as myself – to downplay the heterogeneity and complexity involved in creating effective technological solutions to such long standing problems. However, I do believe that NUI is a game changer and that its convergence with voice and gesture will significantly alter what is possible for the disabled and special needs in our lifetime. Agree/Disagree?
We can infer from Moore’s Law that the rate of technological change will outpace the rate by which schools can evolve and adapt to useful technologies in a timely manner.
Some solutions proposed:
1) try to keep up by staying informed and educating educators on developments in this area – i.e. dedicate more time and resources to education technology (oh.. I see where you are going with this 😉
2) you can’t keep up with it all, so focus your efforts around your School’s Development Plan (SDP), and what you need to adopt to achieve its goals.
3) promote more project based initiatives and empower teachers to carry them out as a way of experimenting with what works, before investing heavily into it – some have pointed out that such a pilot mechanism already exists, but it does not help address Moore’s Law.
4) the issue of technology cost is prohibitive. How do we increase access to technology without having more funding to facilitate it?
– These are all good analytical points in their own right. And I don’t mean to pull a Tyler Durden on you guys, but why don’t you all just come out and say it?
We are witnessing the end of the Industrial Revolution, and the system we have built for this era – be it our education system, or other hierarchical models of business/governance – are grossly inadequate to tackle the challenges we face in the future of the digital economy. An economy whose success will not be driven on compliance, or Command-and-Control as with the Industrial model, but with letting go of control to make way for co-creation and social intelligence mechanisms, to which perhaps this course can serve as a contemporary reference.
Fact is, in the information age, no matter how hard you try, you will always be too late.
And that fact is not inconsequential.
According to McKinsey & Company’s research paper entitled “An Inconvenient truth about change management: Why it isn’t working and what to do about it,” 70% of organizational change initiatives fail.
They fail because in the direction we are heading, wisdom lies in crowds, and not in the heads of a handful of executives and their SDP.
They fail because SDPs do not embody a program or an ecosystem that is needed to sustain change in the long-haul.
Finally, they fail because in the 21st century, if your focus is on a project and not building a community of knowledge needed to leverage learning experiences (the NMC or our course for example), then you have failed to leverage and access the knowledge you possess as an organizational whole.
As for cost, that too was a big impediment in the industrial era. But as Ben has pointed out, in the digital age the means of production are available to anyone – and concurrently, their costs are relatively minimal.
For example, Sugata Mitra did not need millions to show that those who were poor and in remote locations could learn through technological access. And the Khan Academy started with just Khan sitting at his pc and video recording tutorials for his cousins youtube; now, they these videos reach millions because the net makes them scalable.
If we look into the future, the issue is not a crisis of cost or the way to achieve our goals and objectives. At stake is a crisis of vision in modern education; one that has yet to fully realize that the technology we’re building is completely redefining the challenges we face and what is possible.
The Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson once remarked “when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?“ In the 21st century, technologies such as touch, voice and gesture are changing the world in which we live. We can no longer afford to let our romantic attachments to the educational pedagogies we once grew up determine the way forward. If it is to be pertinent for the future, our education model must reflect the new realities of the digital economy. And I would argue that to achieve this, our education needs a new raison d’être. Perhaps that is why we are here.
visramn 8:02 pm on November 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
A few year back I had a student in my class who could not speak or hear and was in a wheelchair because she could not move most of her body. She had a system that was touch based that consisted of different pictures that she could click on to form sentences that would be orally relayed by the machine. This was a great tool for helping her communicate with her peers and teacher. Later on in the year, her parent purchased a Ipad for her that she started bringing to school. The Ipad allowed her to pick up on many skills due to the various apps she could use. I got to see her knowledge base, confidence and communication ability/skills grow a lot in a year and was impressed by the power of touch technology and how it improved her leaning capabilities.
I have also noticed that touch technology has allowed for very young children to learn how to navigate and use tools that might not have been possible in the past. I have seen children as young as one years old click on a screen and try to manipulate what is happening on the screen. I have also seen how they pick up on these skills quickly and can be using the device and doing something productive by the time they are around three years old. It is amazing to see what these children are capable of and how easily they learn tasks. They can not read what is on the screen but the simple process of looking at objects, touching them and manipulating them allows them to gain knowledge. This is very similar to what Sugata Mitra observed in India. Children may not have the language skills but the simple ability to see and touch allows them to learn when using technological devices.
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
I definitely think this innovation will open many doors in the educational realm. I think that touch devices will allow for a lot more personalization of learning and for more collaboration amongst students. It will also open a lot of doors for students with special needs.
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
The main way would be updating of hardware and software to allow for capabilities such as touch screens to be present. In some parts this could also be accomplished through allowing of BYOD. I also think this will result in a restructuring of curriculum design and implementation. Learning will become more personal,each individual will be in charge of their learning and will be able to expand on their learning in the way that is most conducive to them self. Thus, this would require a restructuring of the age old parameters of knowledge delivery and reception.
Nureen
frank 5:34 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks for sharing Nureen.
I agree that a solution to this problem might be BYOD and getting students to become greater participants and drivers of their learning. If we move forward with this aim in mind, what will students need to succeed and how will this change the roles of schools and teachers for students?
adi 9:09 am on November 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think question # 3 is key, “What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?” The Horizon Report on Singapore, in the ‘Top Ten challenges’ (pp 19-20), mentions several important things, like the challenge to get teachers to adopt technology; integrating 21st century technology in schools that still function as if they were in a 19th century setting; adapting assessment to portray the kind of learning these new technologies afford, among others. However, perhaps the answer to these and other problems should be left to a group of kids to solve. Judging by Sugata Mitra’s experiment ‘Hole in the Wall’, I’m sure kids would come up with a lot of useful and practical solutions for the sake of having access to these new technologies.
(Thank you to this week’s team for introducing us to this very interesting experiment. If anyone wants to read up more about this, here is the site http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/ .)
jhodi 8:13 pm on November 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi,
You bring up an interesting point. I wonder how our perspective as educators form our view of these technologies compared to the perspectives of the students. We look at a technology and think ‘how can I use this to help students learn’, whereas students look at a technology and genuinely explore it, find entertainment with it, and can learn as a result, sometimes by accident. I think that it would be very useful for us as educators to just sit back and watch these students to see what type of learning is occurring as a byproduct.
Jhodi
kstackhouse 12:49 pm on November 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. I have not witnessed large changes to accessibility and change for large groups of students in my region. I do see that SMART boards as a touch technology is being used to impact how teachers and students interact with the material on the screen. On a smaller scale though I have witnessed how the iPod and iPad are being used with students with accessibility issues while using various apps. Some of the gesture controls that are available through both products have proven to be beneficial for many students. These are easy to change and adapt to the needs of the user. This allows them to control the device when vision or fine motor issues might normally cause problems.
2. I also think that the features mentioned in number one will continue to improve and will provide more opportunities for others. Some of the touch features in unison with the voice features we have looked at will continue to change the way people interact with their devices. Opening more doors for participation and collaboration for a wider group of learners. The best feature as presented on the Touch page comes with the ability to participate with these complex features without needing to be specialized or trained to use them.
3. Schools need to change, period. The system is not set-up to allow for innovative use of technologies in large school districts that follow centralized decision making practices. Decentralization will be the only way that schools and teachers will really be able to benefit from innovative products. Applications for grants for faculty is another way to motivate teachers to apply and become creative and strategic in their use of innovative technologies.
Paula Poodwan 6:56 pm on November 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
I have no personal experience using touch technology; however, through my search over the internet, I have come across lots of research that agreed that one positive result of using touch technology in the classroom is to promote collaborative learning interactions. For example this research “ Are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children’s collaborative interactions?” http://oro.open.ac.uk/19510/1/os-cscl2009.pdf interestingly concluded that the single-touch condition allowed only one child to interact with the digital content at a time, whereas with the multiple-touch condition, the children could interact with the digital content simultaneously. Results also showed that touch condition did not affect the frequency or equity of interactions, but did influence the nature of children’s discussion. In the multiple-touch condition, children talked more about the task; in the single-touch condition, they talked more about turn taking.
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
Collaborative learning is important for 21st century learners; it helps students to become critical thinkers. Therefore any devices that can help promote this type of learning should be incorporated in the classroom.
In my opinion, touch technology will have more opportunity to thrive in a global classroom. Compared to voice and gesture technology, touch technology has a more international concept. People around the world tend to interpret and receive the meaning and benefit of touch in the same way. For example, babies that come from different cultures can benefit the same from a loving touch of other human beings.
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
In order for schools to implement touch technologies, they must firstly see the benefits of using it.
frank 5:41 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Paula,
I agree that a stronger case needs to made for the value proposition of having technology integrated into our education programs.
I would also suggest that we consider whose roles and interests would be threatened by pursuing such an approach and get them involved in the change process by finding ways that they too might benefit.
Lisa Nevoral 8:02 pm on November 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hey All,
1. I have not witnessed an improvement in technological and educational access across geographical or socio-economic barriers, but I have seen a bit across age groups. My friend’s son is almost 3. The other day, he was showing me pictures of their trip to Edmonton that were on her IPhone and was able to enlarge himself and flip through the pictures. Although it was pretty cool that he could do that, I was more fascinated when he hit the home button, scrolled through several screens, found the game he liked, and started playing it. As someone else has mentioned, the makers of touch technology make it fairly easy to navigate from screen to screen, but that he understood how to hit the home key and find the game was still pretty fascinating.
2. I think that in the next 10 years we may go towards multi-touch desks or tables in the classrooms. Interactive whiteboards have some capacity of multiple people touching the screen, but it is fairly limited. With multi-touch desks, more people can interact with the table or desk and with the people around it at the same time. A multi-touch desk is not controlled using a mouse or keyboard, so it provides a way for everyone to interact with the system. We can already see this trend of touch screens with IPads (or similar devices) and with many cell phones.
Here are some of the concerns I have with interactive or multi-touch desks:
a) The cost – how much will it cost to have these desks placed into one classroom, let alone into a whole school?
b) Vandalism or destruction of these desks – students at my school like to change the keys on our laptops or write on their desks. How would we prevent damage to the interactive desks from occurring?
c) Does interactivity with technology actually improve students’ achievement? I think this heavily depends on how the teacher structures the lessons around the use of these interactive desks.
d) Further teacher training – teachers will need PD opportunities to come up with good lesson plans to use these desks.
Lisa
frank 5:50 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Lisa,
You mention some very real and legitimate concerns about cost and vandalism. I wonder if as an education provider, you might have some suggestions as to how we might mitigate these risks – perhaps based on what we’ve learned from integrating some technology into schools already.
As for PD for teachers, are there different ways we can go about this? For example, by having math teachers share their experiments and success stories with others like them? Also do teachers necessarily have to be the experts or can they some in ways let technology do the heavy lifting, while they become better facilitators of student learning and exploration?
jhodi 8:04 pm on November 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I have noticed the change in technology to shift towards intuitive touch technologies. For example, a computer mouse has advanced from an independent object connected to the computer via a cord that moved a pointer on the screen in the same direction as you moved it on the table, to a trackpad for your finger moving a pointer on the screen on a laptop, to a tablet where your finger literally is the mouse and controls the pointer. Other technologies are becoming intuitive as well, such as the arrow on an iPhone that says ‘slide to unlock’. Technologies such as this could be used without the words; one could probably gather that they need to slide the flashing arrow in the direction that it is pointing without any words attached to it. Some of the best applications of touch technologies that I have seen have been used with students with special needs. I have seen great apps on the iPad that allow students to use their fingers to navigate and move things around. Students that could not use a mouse with a computer screen have been able to use their fingers to touch what they need to on a tablet. I think that one of the largest benefits of touch technology is it’s ability to communicate the same message across all languages using symbols, sounds, and intuitive gestures.
Jhodi
jenbarker 10:38 am on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I tried to use Vocaroo this morning but after ten times I gave up. I am not sure if it was due to a setting I had on my computers (I tried both my laptop and iMac) but my voice sounded mottled and was almost inaudible. So instead I used a screencast program called Jing that I love. It records a portion of your screen and allows you to talk to it. I use it when responding to student’s papers and/or lesson plans as you can scroll through the document on the screen and use your cursor/arrow to point things out and talk to them simultaneously.
On my Jing I gave a review of Siri. Here is the link to my Jing. http://screencast.com/t/Alj9CGtd
jenbarker 11:17 am on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Ok I am very embarrassed as I posted on the wrong thread. The above post should have been on the voice thread. I went into the dashboard to try to edit my post and couldn’t find it. When I click on my posts it only shows 11 of them and I have made way contributions than that. If anyone knows how to help me, I would greatly appreciate it. Sorry for incorrectly posting.
rebeccaharrison 12:08 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
I haven’t seen this myself. What I’ve found, mostly, is that those who don’t have geographical or socio-economic barriers are the ones who are able to afford/access technology. As was mentioned in the website, it is these people who would benefit most from this kind of technology that are often unable to use it.
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
I would hope in the future that it would be able to reach those people who need it. I see technology as a leveller, except that, as it is so expensive to acquire, these levelling possibilities are often unrealized. Touch could provide (as mentioned in previous posts) a whole host of opportunities for students who have physical limitations.
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
Perhaps, as Peggy mentioned, we need to look at separating funding. If you wait for the bureaucracy in a district to play its course everything will be outdated. Perhaps the way we fund and “administer” education needs to change? Traditional classrooms might not be the way our students are going to be most successful. Who drives that change though? Students? Teachers? Administrators? Technology experts?
frank 6:00 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Rebecca,
You are right to point out that technology, like education itself, is a great leveller.
If we recognize this, then bringing technological access to the remote – be it because of georgraphy, socio-economic or mental and physical barriers – will empower them to become valuable participants in our societies; and that is something that benefits all of us.
To do this however requires leadership. And in collaborative leadership, each and every one of us has a role to play, be it as a student, teacher, administrator or technology. Would you not agree?
jenbarker 12:09 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1) In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
Definitely I have seen touch improve technological access across age groups as similarly mentioned by both Scott and Jenny who discuss how it has been of great assistance to students with special needs. Additionally, as Manny discussed the intuitive nature of touch technology allows people of all ages to interact. I have just begun using iPads in my classroom and I am surprised at how few questions the students as of me as compared to when we are using iMacs in the lab. They seem to be able to figure things out on their own.
2) What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future? AND 3) What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
What I find most captivating is the discussion brought forth by Sugata Mitra showing how without teachers students demonstrated the ability to learn through technology. It connects to another theorist Seymour Papert who argues against learning by being told and instead believes learning should be acquired through exploration. Papert and others such as Ivan Illich believe that technology will not improve school but eventually replace them in the future. There is a great video of a discussion that took place between Paulo Friere and Papert on this topic. Here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V-0KfBdWao&feature=share&list=PL4UARNpBiEHpGbm7Vs4RbIgVTkKJ1HO5k
I find myself leaning more towards Friere’s hopes for the future of education. Although I see the need to incorporate technology in education, I hope that it doesn’t replace teachers. In the future I hope the system of education (our current model) goes through massive changes to reflect a paradigm… one that focusses less on covering content and more on understanding it. One that encourages personalized knowledge, collaboration, and critical thinking. I see the need for teachers to help guide and facilitate this process.
sophiabb 2:28 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Question 1:
I understand the fascination with touch devices. I am, my children certainly are, and even my husband is as well. Papert makes in point in Mindstorm that we should leverage an active engagement with computer cultures to “develop new ways to think about thinking” and not as is done “in most contemporary educational situations where children come into contact with computers the computer is used to put children through their paces, to provide exercises of an appropriate level of difficulty” (http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/mindstorms.pdf). Touch devices seem intuitive and lends themselves to users doing more – they have the potential to facilitate active engagement with the computers/devices. I have witnessed this with my daughter who is dyslexic bit has been activity engaging with the computer for meaningful learning. By not focusing on spelling errors, etc, she has been better able to search, find, make the linkages, and process and produce in her own way, using technology. Touch devices are a great tool for learners and in particular for special needs learners.
Questions 2 and 3:
I think touch devices lend themselves to “learning that happens deliberately without teaching” and “without curriculum” (Papert, 1980) – a classroom of one kind of approach. While this approach holds some appeal to me however I wonder about its practical merit. Planners/decision makers grapple with the constraints that limited financial resources have on the expansion of schools, adequacy of materials, hiring of staff, including teachers and purchase of or upgrade of current technological resources. Given the fast rate of technology obsolescence; a wholesale adoption/incorporation of this device might not be fiscally prudent. I like to think the use of computers in the constructivist sense is growing; more educators are seeking to use educational computer programs and – devices to incorporate affordances such as scaffolding, organizing, reflection, visualization and problem-solving into their lessons. While I think touch devices are great and could really facilitate many of these, I think that this can be achieved by incorporating many of the Web 2.0 GUI technologies/resources as that are available.
Sophia
sophiabb 2:33 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
jennbarker, please ignore this post. I meant to post as a response to the question in general and so I have re-posted in the correct area.
Sophia
Patrick Pichette 1:39 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
The biggest impact that touch technology has had on education is in its intuitive adoptive nature. Touch technology provides a means to communicate by using a very natural gesture as opposed to mice and keyboards. In doing so, it allows the young, the old, the physically and mentally challenged to communicate using an interface that does not require much learning at all. The biggest hurdle at this point is making this technology available to all in an affordable way.
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
We’ve already seen how the interactive nature of touch technology can motivate students to participate in their education. If the technology becomes widespread and affordable, it should provide equal opportunities for students requiring a more hands-on approach to learning. Touch based learning allows students to explore a greater amount of content that becomes available just at their fingertips.
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
As for how schools need to change, it is mainly in the delivery of education. Schools will need to focus on a student-centred learning approach as opposed to the more common teacher-centred approach. Teachers need to learn that they must not be masters of content but rather become facilitators of content, resource guides, mentors, and support pillars for students. The student will need to take more responsibility for the learning and knowledge construction and actively participate in the journey. One major change for schools would be the introduction of technology resource department that constantly searches and analyzes new content, applications, and approaches to education in order to facilitate and support teachers’ adoption of these resources in class. It is becoming impossible to keep on top of educational technology and available resources as many companies are trying to capitalize on the booming market. Schools will need to assist teachers in finding the right tools for their students, for the curriculum, and for assisting teachers in providing the richest educational experience possible.
sophiabb 2:32 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Question 1:
I understand the fascination with touch devices. I am, my children certainly are, and even my husband is as well. Papert makes in point in Mindstorm that we should leverage an active engagement with computer cultures to “develop new ways to think about thinking” and not as is done “in most contemporary educational situations where children come into contact with computers the computer is used to put children through their paces, to provide exercises of an appropriate level of difficulty” (http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/mindstorms.pdf). Touch devices seem intuitive and lends themselves to users doing more – they have the potential to facilitate active engagement with the computers/devices. I have witnessed this with my daughter who is dyslexic bit has been activity engaging with the computer for meaningful learning. By not focussing on spelling errors, etc, she has been better able to search, find, make the linkages, and process and produce in her own way, using technology. Touch devices are a tool for learners and in particular for special needs learners.
Questions 2 and 3:
I think touch devices lend themselves to “learning that happens deliberately without teaching” and “without curriculum” (Papert, 1980) – a classroom of one kind of approach. While this approach holds some appeal to me however I wonder about its practical merit. Planners/decision makers grapple with the constraints that limited financial resources have on the expansion of schools, adequacy of materials, hiring of staff, including teachers and purchase of or upgrade of current technological resources. Given the fast rate of technology obsolescence; a wholesale adoption/incorporation of this device might not be fiscally prudent.
I like to think the use of computers in the constructivist sense is growing; more educators are seeking to use educational computer programs and – devices to incorporate affordances such as scaffolding, organizing, reflection, visualization and problem-solving into their lessons. While I think touch devices are great and could really facilitate many of these, I think that this can be achieved by incorporating many of the Web 2.0 GUI technologies/resources as that are available.
Sophia
frank 6:30 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Sophie, you make well researched and articulated points.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your argument that technological advance frees us up from previously labour intensive constraints such as teaching, and allows us to think more about thinking (meta-cognition) i.e. what it is we value about learning and how to use new technologies to better achieve them?
While fiscal elements are very much an operational reality, I don’t think that you mean to argue that special needs children should have their access to enabling technologies such as touch limited by this constraint. And I would argue the same logic holds for the geographically and socio-economically remote. Surely tradeoffs have to be made, but the end goal should be to give everyone access to the technologies that best allow them achieve their greatest potential along Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. And just as Touch requires us to challenge our beliefs about the role of education, I would argue that is will also require us to challenge our thinking about how to finance it, or at least, how to spend the money we have allotted to it already.
C. Ranson 2:57 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Touch technology is everywhere, and across all age groups. Outside of every Apple store you can witness the lifecycle sitting at tables participating in the Apple Learning classes. I personally have made the transition with several of my devices and the “Beyond” section for this week’s presentation is fascinating. I now have downloaded Dragon Dictation to my iPhone, using Flutter gestures on my iTunes music and have been exposed to some new ideas to include in my curriculum for teaching the delievery of care of the special needs patient.
In my experience (adult education) I have not witnessed how touch technology has improved technological and educational access across students, nor do I witness geographical and socio-economic barriers to accessing technology in the college environment. The student population is diverse both geographically and socio-economically – they have access to technology on campus both touch and non-touch and most appear to be suited up with BYOD – tablets, laptops and mobile devices. Similar student activity occurred prior to the launch of touch technology devices. I don’t see it as just touch technology improving access but the advances in technology addressing access and improvements, technology and pedagogy together is impacting the transformation of education. Digital learning is promoting interactive ways of learning, constructivist learning that is facilitated and self-directed, and touch technology has provided improved applications and methods for users to access and deliver information and perhaps this has impacted the way curriculum is delivered and addresses various learning styles such as touch, visual, interactivities, engagement. Touch has replaced the mouse and offers advances for the user, making it easier to navigate through information. Voice and gesture applications are advancements that are promoting interactive ways of communicating, teaching and learning. Gesture creates fundamental advances in teaching and learning for healthcare programs to offer ways to communicate and learn for groups of people such as those physically & mental disabled, and the elderly. Post- secondary education has transformed into a business venture offering education, the student is the customer and resources such as technology are in place to service the student who is the customer. Educational institutions that offer current resources and methods of learning are also creating a competitive edge in attracting future customers. In my educational institution technology/research and innovation is part of the 2020 strategy.
Catherine
jenniferschubertubc 7:20 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
I have been fortunate enough to have worked in a few classrooms that have incorporated touch technology to increase accessibility to the curriculum for special needs students. My older students (ages 14-22) were classified as Profound Mentally Handicapped with capacities determined to be those of infants. With hand over hand assistance, these students were presented with lessons in cause and effect that corresponded directly to their own actions. Though it was virtually impossible to determine whether or not the students actually fully understood the relationship between their actions and results, some did progress to activating touch technology on their own, with and without prompting.
My younger students were enrolled in a life skills class where we focused on simple literacy and mathematic skills as well as working on fine and gross motor skills. By utilising a removable touch screen on the existing school computers, students with lesser dexterity who may not have been able to move a mouse, could still access reading programs like Starfall. This school was on the lower end of the socio-economic scale of the district, but due to the efforts of the teachers in the program, the administration knew of the benefits and made budget allowances for such technology that could contribute to student success.
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
I do think that children are going to be exposed to and start using this type of technology earlier and earlier. The Christmas adverts I am seeing here in the UK advertise many lower end, toy-like, child-friendly substitutes for iPads and e-Readers. I do think that the availability of such toys will be largely determined by socio-economic status, thus possibly contributing to the digital divide. In education, I have witnessed pilot programs (in the US) to provide every child within a school with a laptop. One school in particular was extremely successful, but the program was stopped when district funding ran out and other schools complained that they did not get the same opportunities.
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
I think that administration needs to look at the budget very carefully, taking all costs into consideration and weighing the advantages of adaptable technology. (New books versus an update of existing technology, etc.) In this vein, I would hate to see schools adopting technology but not keeping up with it. I would compare this to using very out of date textbooks, which still occurs, especially when budgetary constraints become tighter.
Eva Ziemsen 9:35 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
No, I personally have not witnessed touch improve technological and educational across age groups. I have traveled a great deal, in the context of education, and I have not yet seen the impact of touch impact in other parts of the world. For example, I was recently in Bhutan, where i was teaching a screenwriting workshop. Most people in Bhutan have some kind of access to a computer at home, but I would estimate that less than 1% of people own a tablet. I would be surprised that even the King of Bhutan (who is actually now the Prime Minister/ democratic leader of Bhutan) would even have an iPad. I was also in Rwanda about 6 years ago. Of course the touch revolution only happened more recently, but again, I would argue that most people in Rwanda do not have an touch device, as many do not have power or running water.
Obviously the touch revolution has impacted the developed world heavily, however, I have not been involved with classes that have made use of this technology.
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
I think initiatives such as the one by Mitra is truly inspirational and one way innovation in this type of technology will help impact the future of education in the world. I heard of Mitra’s Cloud Grannies a while ago and was very moved, as I believe more of these experiments should be undertaken. This coincided with the time that I started my PhD in Online Film Education. From my own perspective, I believe innovation will allow the developed world help the developing world. However, this very much depends on Internet availability.
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access? I think BYOD will come into effect very quickly in order to accommodate touch technology, without causing major budgetary disasters. We recently had a coordinator’s meeting at my institution, where the topic of discussion was, taking computers out of the labs (because our students prefer to bring their own) and reinvesting into other kinds of technology that is not affordable by students.
Eva Ziemsen 9:44 pm on November 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
One last thing, I wanted to mention. A friend of mine, made the film MADE IN CHINA. It premiered at Hot Docs this past spring. It is about the city in China where most things are made, including Apple products.
http://www.hotdocs.ca/film/title/made_in_china
Unfortunately, the conditions where these people work are not good at all, and the hours or these assembly factories are inhumane and many workers commit suicide. I feel obligated to relay this information in this context, as I was very disturbed to know that the world’s consumption of tablets (and most other things) is having such a detrimental impact.
Furthermore, the environmental damage by the waste or technological devices is also something we must consider, as the waste is only increasing exponentially. There are many relevant films and youtube clips on this subject matter as well.
Food for thought.
jameschen 12:59 am on November 18, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
1. In your experience, how have you witnessed touch improve technological and educational access across age groups, as well as geographical and socio-economic barriers?
The only experience I have regarding touch in education is the SMARTBoard. I am not sure if it helped improve educational access because my experience with the SB is somewhat limited. One thing I knew it did was to help students interact with content without the restraints of a mouse and keyboard. I cannot say it helps students see content on a different level because the projections were 2D and the SB I tried was limited to single touch. From this experience I cannot say that touch has improved technological and educational access across age groups/geographical/socio-economic barriers.
2. What do you think this innovation might lead to (opportunities) in how we provide and access education in the future?
With multi-touch and 3D displays, I think education can be accessed on a different level. Perhaps it would enable learners to read, write, interact with the content (i.e. do science experiments) more “naturally” as they would using concrete learning objects but with the added support of multimedia and internet access. Being able to use one’s fingers to rotate, zoom in/out, and flip 3D objects would help tactile learners interact with the content more effectively and enhance the learning experience.
3. What are some ways schools might need to change, in order to lead and facilitate the innovations that touch can provide in educational technology and access?
In order to achieve this, schools would need to have access to the hardware that supports touch. This can be achieved by fundraising or partnering up with companies such as Apple/Microsoft. The former would require large sums of money and the latter might not provide enough hardware to the majority of students. These matters need to be discussed with the School Board and their respective PACs.
James