Controversial Laptops
The third session at the PNAIS TechShare I was involved in concered student laptops. It was fun, because we simply admitted that 1:1 student laptop programs are controversial at the start, and we reviewed three different positions one could take on the issue:
Position I: Student Laptops are Unnecessary
• Laptops are too expensive and too complicated to maintain
• Laptops are distractions in the classroom and lead to attention loss
• Kids use computers too much at home—school should be a haven from computers.
• Schools educate kids best with face-to-face interactions, not face-to-screen.
• Laptops don’t address a problem or need in most schools, and nor will they ever.
• Several schools have started 1:1 programs, only to stop them.
• Academic research has not proven clear benefits from 1:1 laptops.
Position II: Student Laptops Are Inevitable
• Laptops used to cost over $2000. Now good laptops can be had for less than $1000.
• Today, the cost difference between laptops and desktops is incremental, but laptops can be used more frequently than desktops.
• In the coming years, laptops will become even less expensive, or laptop alternatives (small phone/tablet hybrids) will become commonplace and relatively inexpensive ($500).
• Later generations of software for laptops will improve reliability and reduce support needs.
• Increasing numbers of private and public colleges and universities are requiring laptops.
• As more kids have laptops at home, how does a school argue that “no laptops are allowed or needed”?
Position III: Student Laptops Are Essential
• The “smoking gun” that proves the need for laptops is that high percentages of independent school Middle School and Upper School students have problems with organization.
• Maybe we expect more of students today of tracking their work, deadlines and commitments. If nothing else, they face more distractions for time and attention.
• If a fair percentage of these students can be helped by the “all-in-one-place” benefits of laptops, easy access to online course pages, combined calendars, and other resources.
• The communications benefits of individual laptops may equal or exceed the productivity benefits.
• Teachers have always had to adjust classroom management techniques for different generations of kids. Why would technology necessitate a “locking of techniques” that pretends that current and future generations don’t use computers?
• If the kids, teachers and school is going to evolve and move forward on multiple fronts (organization, communications, productivity, classroom management, student-centered learning), then student laptops are essential.
During the course of our discussion, we noted that there were strong and true points in each of these positions. We added two more points to the third position. First, laptops can help overcome equity of access for students of different economic backgrounds (when schools provide low or no cost laptops to financial aid students that are the same as everyone else’s laptops). Second, 1:1 laptops can ensure equity of access for boys and girls, especially during the critical middle school years.
We knocked around other issues, such as who should buy and own the laptops, laptop cases, insurance plans, and implementation strategies. Here’s a copy of the TechShare Laptop Session Handout.
Meanwhile, on the fourth of July, I sit in the PDX airport and wait for my flight to San Diego for NECC. My “Low Stress Laptop Programs” presentation is tomorrow at 2 p.m., Room 32 A/B. I’ve heard that normal people do things with their families on the fourth…
EdTech | Jim Heynderickx July 4, 2006
By David Warlick, July 4, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
Jim,
This was a very interesting post. I like to technique of finding two or three perspectives and making notes for each.
One thing that came to mind, as a 1:1 advocate, is that many of the points certered around schooling, rather than preparation for 21st century life. There was a concern for distraction from doing school. It’s not the digital natives who need to adapt to school, but school that should adapt to the digital natives — at all costs.
But I’m a radical
Sorry I’ll miss your session. I’ll be presenting at the same time near by. I’ll know who to blame if I get no audience.
Later!
By Fred, July 5, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
Jim,
As usual your posts leave me thinking. As someone who has been running a 1-to-1 with 500+ students for 7 years I think I’ve experienced every opinion in all three postions. On bad days some of the items in position one will still pop into my head. Running a 1-to-1 laptop program, even with a low-stress approach, is a high-maintenance operation, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good thing to do.
I think the points in the first position are really kind of weak, and I think this can be illustrated by substituting ‘paper, writing implements and books’ for ‘laptops’ in the points.
• Paper, writing implements and books are too expensive and too complicated to maintain
• Paper, writing implements and books are distractions in the classroom and lead to attention loss
• Kids use paper, writing implements and book too much at home—school should be a haven from paper, writing implements and books
• Schools educate kids best with face-to-face interactions, not face-to-paper
• Paper, writing implements and books don’t address a problem or need in most schools, and nor will they ever
• Several schools have started 1:1 paper, writing implement and book programs, only to stop them
• Academic research has not proven clear benefits from 1:1 paper, writing implements and book programs
Hope your session went well.
Regards,
Fred
By Jim Heynderickx, July 6, 2006 @ 7:33 am
David,
Thanks for you comment– it’s great to hear from you, and I hope your session went well.
Your idea of changing the classroom to meet the needs of digital natives fits in well with the point in Position III about “how long can we ‘lock’ classroom management techniques, pretending that computers don’t exist?”
I was once told that schools have created invisible walls around themselves. The walls are made of rationalizations of why the school doesn’t have to be like the surrounding community. Many of the invisible bricks relate to technology, and explain why we have higher tech compentencies for admin assistants than we do for teachers.
After doing the K-12 Comp Sci session last week, however, I wonder if we all don’t suffer from a massively “tool centered” mentaility when it comes to ed-tech. Bringing the tools into the classroom may be the easiest part of the equation (as some failed laptop programs discovered). The bigger picture is cultural change and acceptance. The long-view is that kids need to be innovators and not just consumers.
So, yes, we need to meet the digital natives on common ground, but I also feel we need to give them the keys to the castle and the ability to see through the apps and hardware to see what’s really possible.
Hope to see you at the conference. Email me at jim@oes.edu if you have time for drinks.
Jim H
By Jim Heynderickx, July 6, 2006 @ 7:44 am
Fred,
As usual, I love it when you have time to comment. Sorry I’m missing Lausanne this year.
For you and I, with years of 1:1 program experience, it’s easy to feel that the Position I comments are weak. The “haven” approach in particular is both seductive and rewarding to those who wonder where all this technology is going. We have to admit that kids use computers as much as four times as much at home as they do at school, but does all that time investement lead to significant rewards?
The funny part about this is that few of us, even those with years and years of edtech experience, can really define what our end-state success parameters are. We all struggle with the “Plinko Effect” caused by some teachers doing a lot with technology and some very little, leading to corresponding high and low tech exposure for students. At the same time, few of us are even trying to make strong required tech courses for ALL upper school students.
I think as long as we’re unclear about what “Victory” is, we’re going to be pot-shotted. I think as long as we find, encourage and support “shot gun” tools (meaning major variations in tool choices by teachers), we’re going to be seen as marginal. I believe there are tools now that can be used, and be required for use, by all faculty. It’s a strong position to have to say “all will use this,” and goes against the “everyone at their own pace and choices” position, but how else will our programs be as strong and respected as other schools programs (that have requirements, clear curriculums, and agreed-upon outcomes).
Basically, I don’t think we’re going to overcome a lot of the “questions” in position one, until we respect and standardize our own programs. Too many questions are hanging out there.
Ugh– the second keynote is starting here at NECC– Negroponte and his $100 laptops. Another tool-centric approach? Will tools alone change cultures, or is this another materialist solution? My mind is open, but I wonder.
Jim