16 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
User Gravatar
Paul Luke said in March 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Brett, nice post. I think your reference to content creation is spot on and am not sure whether netbooks are the answer, especially when creating a digitally rich multimedia product. From my experience – kids like and want software / tools that they can engage with.

User Gravatar
Mark Warschauer said in March 27th, 2009 at 7:49 am

Thanks for the thoughtful post. But I find three things objectionable. First, cell phones do NOT have the functionality of netbooks. Even if they ran the same programs on the same operating system with the same Internet access, they have much smaller screens and keyboards, which greatly limits their functionality (for example, for writing and editing papers).

Second, I think you exaggerate the limitations of netbooks. My understanding is they perform lots of multimedia tasks, such as make presentations with slide presentation software, do multimedia programming with Scratch. (Perhaps they do these things better in Linux environments, which demand less resources, than Windows environments.) It’s true that they have insufficient power for video editing, but a few high end machines could always be purchased for that.

Finally, of course pricing has to be taken into account in any educational or social program. It’s absurd to assume that it can be factored out of the equation.

User Gravatar
Brett said in March 27th, 2009 at 8:37 am

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I have been looking at some recent reports on netbooks in education and the results schools are having with them. Number 1 complaint is that they are not durable enough for everyday life at school. They are cheaply made and quite poorly designed.

Further more from Marks comment, I have a massive issue with the way we declare slide shows being great examples of multimedia. PowerPointless and the likes are overused pieces of software that really have minimal to no educational value. When I say multimedia – I mean video editing, podcasting etc etc…. Let’s not resource our children with cheap poorly designed second rate technology.

I agree we should have labs with high end machines. But my version of high end is machines that are capable of what no laptop can do. For example my students editing in final cut pro and using programs such as motion 3D should have laptops that can do the basics of final cut and access to labs that can facilitate their work in motion or other 3D software.

Yes cost and pricing are important factors – but the vision should come first. Dream big first!! Problem is schools often try and do everything at once instead of having clear and concise long term planning!! Long term planning looks at issues such as the TOTAL cost of ownership over a period of time, not just the initial outlay.

These devices are being peddled to schools as the “cheap” alternative. TCO is not being discussed as the infrastructure costs involved and lifespan of the devices are an issue.

User Gravatar
Mark Warschauer said in March 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Thanks for the reply. Podcasting is no problem on a netbook. Scratch works fine with a netbook. The only applicaiton that you’ve mentioned that won’t work on a netbook, as far as I know, is video editing. If I were a school district administrator, I would rather purchase $300 netbooks that can’t do videoediting than $800 laptops that can do it.

User Gravatar
Mark Warschauer said in March 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

One more point. Though video editing is obviously more powerful than slide presentation software, there is nothing inherently superior in it as an educational tool. Though PowerPoint is usually taught in a terrible way, it doesn’t have to be taught that way. And video editing can also be taught in a terrible way.

User Gravatar
Brett said in March 27th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Thanks for the reply Mark…. Well scratch is an interesting tool it is no where near as easy to use as tools like GarageBand. The concept of students as creators of content is far more meaningful when students have devices that don’t restrict their creativity. I know for my students who have been using Apple iLife and pro apps – a netbook would be a massive leap backward!!

I must also point out that there is not much difference in price when you include your microsoft taxes, virus software and spyware protection.

As for software we use that wouldn’t run on a netbook – I also have a number of students using pro graphics programs such as archicad and Adobe CS4. While we could have high powered labs running this, the true vision of 1 to 1 learning is anywhere anytime – and may I add anything!!

It scares me that we consider these things when I see 11 year olds editing in photoshop and begging to get their hands on Final Cut Pro. I also have music students who take their macbook and a microphone with them to record music anywhere. All with a $800 laptop!!

User Gravatar
Mark Warschauer said in March 28th, 2009 at 2:46 am

I have been using a Mac forever and I am a huge fan, and I agree that they are great tools for kids. And I agree with you about the added hassle and cost of using Windows. If a school district can afford it, a Mac is great. If not, a $280 Asus EEE w/Linux OS can run Audacity instead of Garage Band, Picasa instead of iPhoto, Scratch instead of iMovie, Open Office, plus Firefox and all online applications.

User Gravatar
Paul Luke said in March 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Interesting follow up comments – I think the issue of durability will be one that will unfold over the next couple of years. A couple of other comments to add to the debate:
- Having owned an Acer Tablet PC for a few years with a 10 inch screen – I feel a smaller screen will be prohibitive to do any form of serious media creation.
- the integration of the iLife tools (Garageband, iPhoto etc) for productivity, workflow and creative output – is way in front (IMHO) of Audacity, Picasa etc (Simplicity of Garageband esp the most recent version 09 – engages kids big time, the export / sharing features enable instant publishing / use in other iLife apps. Have tried Audacity on many occasions with kids – even though the functionality is there – the engagement level is minimal
- Brett – your comment re TCO is spot on – have done similar planning.
- Open Office – yep OK – have you tried Pages / Keynote.
- Also the cost of a Macbook through the DER funding in Aust – came in at just over $1000
- Not sure about last comment about Scratch instead of iMovie (different tools) iMovie 09 is pretty amazing
- Cost of school site licennce for iLife and iWork is just over a couple of hundered bucks. We’re still paying nearly two grand for our annual microsoft agreement.
- Last comment – If I were a school administrator, I would pay $800 for a machine that handles good video editing rather than the $300 one that doesn’t. This is where the real / rich higher-order thinking / learning takes place – where learners are mixing / creating / innovating.

User Gravatar
Mark Warschauer said in April 1st, 2009 at 3:47 pm

At least we agree on something–that Windows is not a competitor. If you have the funds, go with Mac. If not, go with Linux.

To me the central problem is that, a decade or so after the value of one-to-one computing programs became clear, perhaps two or thee percent (at most) of U.S. public school students are in one-to-one classrooms. The transition to one-to-one is just too slow. Though I love the Mac and can’t argue against the superiority of its software, what advantage does that software hold if children seldom get to use it?

User Gravatar
Mark Warschauer said in April 1st, 2009 at 9:48 pm

On Scratch vs. iMovie. Yes, of course they don’t do the same thing. I only meant to suggest that, if you want to give children engaging and cognitively challenging experiences in working with multiple media, there are alternatives to video editing.

User Gravatar
Paul Luke said in April 2nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm

Great to have the chance to dialogue with you guys through these Web 2.0 tools. Would like to look at these threads in 2-3 years time :)
I agree with you Mark – there is an ever increasing range of online tools to offer these high-order thinking experiences.
Bring on the time when the bandwidth / connectivity to classrooms (in Aust) where we can fully utilize these tools.

User Gravatar
Brett said in April 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 pm

thanks Paul and Mark – check this out for online tools and connectivity

http://blog.brettmoller.com/2009/04/02/wow-what-a-day/

User Gravatar
Time to Shine said in April 8th, 2009 at 1:40 am

As for netbook as a fad in education? I think our education system is better off having to incorporate IT or so-called the digital or media literacy in a manner that would be beneficial to the students and teachers alike. Let’s face it life has been great having technology get involved with our daily lives but in education? It should be undergo a thorough study to get the real deal before implementing something in regard with the issue being raised.

User Gravatar
psikeyhackr said in April 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

I think you are talking complete nonsense.

Check out Vero Beach High School, 1987.

They had computerized education that did a better job than the teachers. Students that were about to drop out did better on GEDs than students that graduated.

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/500/421

But how powerful were the computers they had to work with in 1987. Intel didn’t introduce the 486 until 1989 and the Pentium came out in 1993.

So it is the information and software that matter not the price and power. But $300 and portable with internet accesss may make school obsolete. Or maybe only the bad students will need the teachers.

psik

User Gravatar
Brett said in May 4th, 2009 at 9:33 am

Nonsense – I think not…. you see your comparison here is looking at technology that was cutting edge or at least close to it at the time. There was no limitations – students were given the best that could be given at the time. I am simply saying why give technology that is less than what most of these students have at home already?

Interesting links though… thanks,

User Gravatar
psikeyhackr said in May 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

I got a chance to test some netbooks last week. I enhanced a version of a benchmark from Byte magazine, Jan 1983. The reason I use such an old benchmark is because it gives a more absolute perspective. The magazines are mostly controlled by marketing and only compare current machines.

The netbooks I tested using 1.6 GHz Atoms are THREE TIMES as fast as the fastest system from 1983, the IBM 3033 mainframe which cost $3,000,000 in 1978. So what do grade school kids today need with more power than that? Do we let Macro$cam tell us what to do with computers for the sake of their profits? And that mainframe could only take 32 megabytes of memory while these netbooks have at least 32 times that much.

If netbooks aren’t powerful enough to teach kids ANYTHING it just demonstrates gross incompetence on the part of our educational system. The kids exist to serve the educational system.

The parents and kids will just have to learn to use the technology to best serve themselves. IBM would not even tell us that all computers were von Neuman machines. I worked there.

Leave A Reply

 Username (Required)

 Email Address (Remains Private)

 Website (Optional)