DIT Bits

The most recent data I’ve seen reports 8 million iPads sold to educational institutions. The speed with which schools have adopted this device has been remarkable, more so than any product in recent years. Though I’ve taken a more deliberate approach in adopting them than tech directors at other schools, Lab now has 278 iPads currently in service. With capital requests for 97 more next year, it seems like a good time to review what Lab has done to date and take a look at what role these devices are likely to play in the next couple of years.

Current Status

Of the 278 iPads in service, 221 were acquired through the Computing/AV capital budget and assigned for use by students and teachers, primarily students and their homeroom teachers in grades N-4 for use in the course of daily instruction. Some of the remaining 57 were also funded through capital expenditures, though some were  acquired from other budgets or through donations.

The mix of models includes first, second, and third generation iPads, though the iPad 2 is by far the most common model. All have been equipped with cases, whatever adapters are appropriate, and, increasingly, headsets.

A cohort of teachers in grades K-4 have had the opportunity to engage in a year-long program of professional development paid for with funds from the IS operating budget, including on site days, webinars, and online courses provided by Ed Tech Teacher, a consulting group with expertise in iPad deployments. Library Technology Coordinator Louis Coronel has also assisted numerous teachers on a “just in time” basis in developing technology integration strategies for using the iPads, which some have used more than others. Rob Koontz has put in many hours figuring out how to configure, support and manage these consumer devices using the limited tools Apple has made available.

The Focus

There is no question that the iPads open up a whole new range of possibilities for instruction throughout the Schools. My focus has been on using available resources to  put iPads into the hands of our younger students because I believe they are most likely to recoup the largest instructional return on the Schools’ investment in these mobile devices. Here are some of the reasons I believe this is so:

1) The touch screen removes the keyboarding barrier for young children, who can interact with the screen in a tactile way that matches up well with their developmental level.The form factor also makes it easy for children to share the device easily when working on a lesson with a partner. Their mobility also fits well with the commonly used teaching strategy of having rotating “center” based activities that find children huddled on bean bag chairs, up in a loft, or spread out on the rug.

2)  Young children have been historically underserved by our existing strategies for providing computer access. The iCart laptops are rarely used by Lower and Primary teachers, and never by N-K. Laptops aren’t a great fit for doing what we do in those grades; when they are used, it is typically for doing PowerPoints or word processing, which tend to be in the third or fourth grades, and then only occasionally. The Lower School computer lab is often booked for classes and teacher sign-up use, but still has the same challenges in terms of keyboard use and sharing a screen. The iPad addresses many of these “fit” issues and gives this population of students and teachers an unprecedented opportunity to determine what level of technology infusion can enhance the instructional program.

3) As children are exposed to the world of mobile devices at younger ages than ever before, it makes sense that we would seize the opportunity to learn what role these devices should (and should not) play in the growth and development of the students we teach. There are a lot of conflicting opinions and data out there about what copious screen time means for kids as they grow. The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools should be contributing to this national dialogue based on concrete experiences we have had in the classroom with our students, not just our educated guesses, intuitions, or the last journal article we read. Parents need our wise counsel as they struggle to raise young children in this media-saturated culture. If we have not taken the time and effort to investigate these issues for ourselves, how can we properly address their concerns?

iPad Challenges

As always, challenges accompany the opportunities new technologies present. In the case of the iPad, these include:

Support: iPads were designed for the consumer market. iTunes works quite well for the individual iPad owner, but for enterprise operations like ours who need to manage them in large numbers, Apple’s tool kit is crude at best. We are fortunate to already have a suite of mobile device management tools in place (its name is Casper, sold by JAMF Software), and we are learning how to use it to manage the fleet of iPads we have, but even as good as Casper is, supporting them is not a trivial endeavor.

Connectivity: Some iPad apps assume a network connection, yet our younger students are not eligible to claim a CNet ID. Even if they were, you can imagine the situation comedy that could result from a group of Kindergarten kids trying to log on to the network (this spoken as a former K teacher myself).

Our workaround for this has been to set up what amounts to a parallel network of Apple Base Station routers that serve their own network addresses without a log in. These base stations are in or near every homeroom that has iPads. To secure them, the iPads’ MAC addresses, a unique identifying number assigned by the factory to each device, must be entered into the configuration files of each base station nearest the rooms in which that iPad is likely to be used. This workaround is far from ideal because, in addition to adding expense, support load, and a point of possible failure, it ties the mobile devices to a geographical location — precisely the opposite of what we’d like to see happen with a truly mobile device, especially when we think about using iPads assigned to homerooms in special area classes spread around the Schools (remember, the iPad is designed to be a mobile device). We have made initial contact with UC IT Services about finding a different approach for the Shapiro center, and they have not pointed and laughed at us, but I mention it so readers understand the challenge.

The Apple Rabbit Hole: Apple is legendary for retaining tight control over its closed, proprietary systems for managing what content can go on its mobile devices and what cannot. The iPad is no different. If you go all in and follow Apple down their rabbit hole, you are obliged to go in whatever direction they choose and don’t have any other option than walking away from the product if you don’t like it. This makes me anxious in the rapidly changing world of mobile devices.

Cost: iPads run a minimum $425 each (including case, adapters, and basic app purchases) with an anticipated useful life of three years, a half year shorter than laptops and a full year shorter than desktops. They are additions to the overall number of devices and replace nothing. Only once has a user replaced a laptop with an iPad.

Though the capital budget for computing has not remained completely flat, over the past 4 years increases have been modest, as has been the case for budgets across the University campus. A one-time payment to retire two years of iCart laptop lease payments made it possible for us to do what we have done with iPads so far. Sustaining growth over time will take some creative accounting and cutting costs in other areas.

Wrapping Up

In closing, let me say that in spite of the iPad’s clear applicability  to our instructional program across the Schools, it is simply not reasonable to expect that we have the resources to increase our hardware budget by 30% and ratchet up support demand  proportionately  to  adopt them on a school-wide basis for faculty or for students. The only viable strategy I see at this point (other than not adopting them at all, which seems very unLablike) is a targeted, tightly focused adoption strategy that puts what we can afford where it’s  most likely to make the greatest impact on student learning, which, in my view, is clearly in the hands of younger students.

I certainly welcome others’ opinions, concerns, or questions about what I’ve said. Feel free to comment or stop by to see me.

Posted on April 12th, 2013 by Curt Lieneck
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

“Flipping” classrooms is all the rage these days. For those who have been hiding under a rock, you can find a description of how a flipped classroom works here. The gist of it is that teachers make lecture-style content available online for students to watch when they are not in class. When in class, the work focuses on applying what was learned from the video, much as if what used to be homework is now the stuff of daily classroom activity.

The speed with which flipping has taken off is nothing short of amazing. There are now tons of conferences, books, videos, and all manner of corporate, grass roots, and other kinds of support for flipping. The zeal with which flippers embrace and defend this allegedly new concept is remarkable, too, which makes it feel like there is a lot of bandwagon jumping going on.

At the same time, flipping has its detractors. Some see this as a dressed-up version of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with its familiar focus on “filling the empty vessel” model of teaching. Getting dull stuff out of the way at home so you can do engaging stuff in school makes one wonder why we haven’t thought about better ways to keep stuff we teach from being dull. Others wonder what happens when students in a flipped classroom don’t have regular access to a computer/ other network-enabled device or a network. Still others broach the issue of how much student time outside school would be spent sitting in front of a screen for even more time than they already do.

My own take on this starts with a certain amount of disappointment. As a dyed-in-the-wool progressive educator, I have always believed that classroom time, as much as possible, should be used for activities that can’t happen anywhere else, activities that capitalize on all the trouble we go to to assemble a particular group of people in the same space at the same time. Sure, it’s not practically possible to run a classroom that functions that way 100% of the time, but activities that don’t fit that model should be the exception, not the rule. It’s unsettling to think that so many teachers are just now realizing what progressive educators have always assumed as a pedagogical tenet.

I also am automatically skeptical of zealots. If one is going to have a career in technology that lasts longer than twelve minutes, one had better be, since technology’s penchant for causing much ado about nothing should be familiar to all. Remember when the Palm Pilot was going to revolutionize classroom instruction?  Or hard wiring schools with coax cabling and closed-circuit TV so kids could do televised morning announcements? Just as David Letterman used to run a segment called “Is This Anything?”, maybe we ought to find out in a systematic way if flipping is something or not before we jump on the bandwagon.

On the other hand, I am a pragmatist. It’s easy to imagine that a student who was struggling with some basic skills (preferably being applied in the context of solving a real-world problem directly relevant to his or her interests) would benefit from playing and replaying a well-done video that addresses the particular concepts and skills the student finds vexing. I should emphasize the “well-done” part of the video, since people who haven’t done them before always wildly underestimate how hard it is to make  a good one.

But my intuition and experience tells me that, like all instructional approaches, flipping should be done with a clear goal in mind and a cogent understanding of its strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs. It is clearly not a panacea, or a solution to the problem of a purely content-driven, test-prep curriculum. We should all be working to create thriving, powerful learning communities that make the best possible use of learning in ways that recognize the power of our physical presence and personal interactions as we seek the sweet spot in the place where content, pedagogy, and technology converge.

Do you have thoughts on flipping classrooms? Are you a flipper? I’m curious to hear others’ experiences, pro and con.

Posted on December 17th, 2012 by Curt Lieneck
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Remember a few posts ago when I described a red flag when dealing with a new vendor? Well, sure enough, things have not gone well now that it is install day. Two components were found to be damaged from careless shipping, the installers did not have all the tools they needed to do the work, and they started fishing cables through a wall only to find part way through that the cables weren’t long enough. There’s more, but I’m sure no one really wants to hear it.  Let’s just say it will take at least one more trip out for the vendor to complete the work. Maybe two.  And then the conversation about the “oops” discount for substandard performance.

I also missed an item on the Statement of Work that clearly says something I assumed was part of  any installation was “Out of Scope”, so I guess I have to own some of the chaos.

Anyway: lesson confirmed. Red flags early on almost always mean trouble down the road.  Hate to do a “one and done” with any vendor, but there’s no reason to bring these folks back.

Posted on August 31st, 2012 by Curt Lieneck
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Last time, I talked about Cirque Du Soleil, their singular focus on artistic expression, and how that focus plays out in performing Ka, one of their signature shows.

Today, I’m just finishing up a vacation at the Inn on the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, N. C. This is the third time I’ve stayed here, and besides the beautiful scenery and the wonderful city of Asheville, the other reason I keep coming back is because I’m intrigued by the high level of customer service they provide in the many aspects of the Biltmore operation.

Someone here at the Estate knows exactly what they are trying to do and has figured out how to get everyone who works here on board with the message of excellence in customer service. Every employee we encountered, whether it was a tour guide at the Estate House, the shuttle drivers, our servers at breakfast, the valet parking attendants, our housekeepers — every single one asked if we were enjoying our stay and if there was anything we needed. They knew the history of the estate, greeted us warmly and courteously, and noticed and remembered our personal preferences during our stay. They took time to engage us in delightful conversations about the estate, Asheville, and our lives in Chicago. When we remarked  how gracious everyone was, to a person they said how much they enjoyed working there and how much they valued the opportunity to share the estate with us.

Now, I did not just fall off the turnip truck.  I know when I am being sold and when I am being hustled. This was not an act. They meant it, and they showed it every day, even at times when no one else was around and at times when it would have been really easy not to. It’s remarkable.  As a professional educator, I don’t get to stay at top-tier hotels all the time, but of the handful I have visited, I haven’t seen this consistent level of gracious hospitality.

Here are a few examples of what I’m talking about: Traci, the concierge, gladly helped me reinstate a gift card credit that had expired since our last stay three years ago;  Kristin, the server at breakfast, somehow knew that we had extended our stay by three days and said she was glad we were getting a longer vacation; the valet brought me two cold bottles of water when we said we were driving to an outdoor festival downtown on a hot day, saying “you’ll be needing these”; the housekeeper replaced our heavy blanket with a lighter one when she noticed we’d not been using the heavier one;  after we’d been there for a while, we received a handwritten note from the hotel manager, along with a stunning arrangement of flowers from the hotel garden, thanking us for choosing the Inn for our stay and asking if there was anything we needed.

The next time we come back, I want very much to learn more about how the leadership team at the Biltmore makes this happen. It is a large, complex organization with many kinds of services, businesses, and skills under its very large umbrella, so it cannot have been easy to achieve, and it must be even harder to maintain it over time. I applaud their success in creating a culture of service in which all employees seem to feel respected, valued, and part of something larger than themselves.

They must be careful recruiters. Weeding out the kind of people that will fit with their model takes talent and skill in interviewing. They must compensate their employees well and offer good benefits to help good people want to stay. I would expect they also have extremely effective training protocols in place and clear, regular performance assessments, and don’t hesitate much to let someone go if they are not performing up to standards.  To do all this well in an organization of that size is a mammoth undertaking.

Superior customer service is a worthy goal for any IT operation. Based on my experiences this summer with Cirque Du Soleil and the Biltmore estate, I will be looking for new, fresh ways to keep our IT team striving for this same level of focus on our core mission.

DITBits readers, have you encountered the power of focus like the kinds I’ve described? I’d love to hear about them and about how they made your tech team stronger and wiser.

Posted on August 6th, 2012 by Curt Lieneck
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

So I’m using a new vendor to install some projectors, and they did not take long to trigger a red flag (you might recall my earlier post about what makes a good vendor).

A/V installers need to get a lot of details right about buildings they work in, so I didn’t mind completing a very thorough 4-page form that was a sort of virtual site visit. It took me a good 90 minutes to visit the rooms in question, take the requested measurements, snap some photos for them, and talk with the Facilities head here to make sure behind-the-walls and above-the-hung-ceiling details were accurate.

Lo and behold, I get an e-mail a few days later requesting an apparently-standard conference call with the sales rep, contractor, and  subcontractor selected to do the install. There was a long agenda for this call, including reviewing all the terms of the SOW and a variety of other things. I had to leave a session at an out-of-town conference to do the call, which I’d pushed for since I wanted to get on the installer’s schedule while preferred dates were still available. I suppose it made sense get all the players on the same page, but what we ended up doing was essentially confirming all the information I’d assiduously entered on the form. The other agenda items never came up.

I behaved myself, but could not resist referring to what I had already said on the form. I was genial about it, but in truth, I was fishing for some acknowledgement that this was maybe a waste of my time. None was offered.

It’s tempting to think this is a little thing, but this has historically been a solid “tell” that there’s trouble ahead when working with a new vendor. When a vendor asks you to do something, and you do it, and then they act as if you haven’t done it, or ask for the same information again,  it’s a red flag, and it means I will have to keep a closer eye on this vendor than I would like to. It also means that I will have to (genially, of course) ask my sales rep if it’s SOP to duplicate clients’efforts. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

Posted on July 18th, 2012 by Curt Lieneck
Filed under: Managing IT | No Comments »