I was recently asked my thoughts on netbooks as a possible solution for a 1 to 1 program. As I started to think through the issues I started jotting down some rough ideas that formed a discussion paper…. So below are my thoughts on netbooks as a device for a 1 to 1 program. I would be keen to hear your thoughts and feed back.
The Netbook and 1 to 1 Laptop Programs
Discussion Paper
Brett Moller
Head of Learning and Educational Technologies
Kings Christian College
A netbook or nettop is a small computing device that has been stripped down feature wise to fit into a small package and relatively small price point. They have seen great popularity in the corporate sector; especially amongst corporate travellers whose basic office administration does not require high-powered computing. These machines are great value for money for folk who simply need to write and view documents and communicate using email or other basic forms of online communication. They have the ability to go online and connect to wireless networks hence making them a handy device to connect to the online world and create basic level communication resources.
From this description it could easily be suggested that these devices create a wonderful opportunity for schools to get their student computer to student numbers to the magic 1 to 1 ratio. Many schools have decided to go in this direction, deciding that these devices fulfil the needs to students and teachers. However, the question must be asked if these devices can truly provide an improved teaching and learning experience?
If we are excited about the prospect of 1:1 then we must decide what it is we are aiming for in achieving this magic ratio of computing access. Why do we want 1:1 learning? Why is it important? What will students achieve in this learning environment that they can’t achieve now?
Spending a short period of time in any school that does not have a 1:1 computer ratio, you quickly realise the main frustration of teachers in the school when it comes to computer usage. Every school hears the call from teachers for more access to computers. Why then do they want access? My experience has been so that they can have their students doing assignment work. This often entails online research and typing of documents. For this reason the netbook is a wonderful choice for school laptop programs.
However, it could easily be argued that this is poor teaching and learning, resembling nothing of good sound educational practice and pedagogy. It resembles a slightly modernised version of education last century. This is not quality teaching and learning and fails to take into account that this generation of students is not satisfied with simply consuming information. This generation wants to and NEEDS to have the skills to create content. A consumer of information is not an innovative, creative thinker and certainly is not going to survive in a global economy desperate for problem solvers and creative thinkers. The jobs that require basic consumption and reproduction of simple content are quickly depleting today and will certainly not exist when our students graduate. Eight of the of the top ten jobs in five years time do not exist yet. These jobs don’t exist because the technology and the information based around the success of these markets are yet to be created. So who will create these markets? Hopefully our students! If not our students, the world that they will compete with – economic super powers such as China and India.
Our students must not be held back and must be given the opportunity to be creators of content and resource anywhere, anytime. They must construct and build their world in the way they have been conditioned to think. A word processor does not cut it for this generation. A spreadsheet, while possibly powerful, does not give students a sense of ownership over the information or the ability to present it in a meaningful and impacting manner.
The devices we supply for students must be devices capable of creating content that not only is a reproduction of what already exists, but a presentation of knowledge learnt – which is impacting and meaningful. Multimedia appeals to emotion and often impacts an audience in powerful ways, well beyond what this discussion paper or something equivalent ever could.
We are heading into an age where digital literacy and media literacy are just as important as traditional reading and writing. Students must be given the opportunity to create content in different format and genre, presenting and appealing to different learning styles and audiences. Most importantly, this needs to be something they can access anytime, anywhere. Today our primary students are performing tasks and creating content that is beyond the capabilities of a netbook. They demonstrate their learning in powerful ways that has meaning to them. Imagine the learner we could have at our school if they had this type of resource anytime, anywhere!
The netbooks functionality is already available in most modern mobile phones. The mobile phone is an even cheaper device than a netbook and is already in the hands of a large percentage of our students. Purchasing netbooks for a 1 to 1 program would simply be replicating technology already in existence for our students. What our students don’t have access to are tools that help them create content in a multiple range of media and presentation formats. The limitation of the netbook will hold our students back from reaching their potential.
It is important to remember that any portable device will always be behind the desktop device in power and high-end features. Therefore, a laptop program does not eliminate the need for high-powered desktop machines in specialist areas. However, relying on desktop machines in the school to fulfil all the functions a netbook cannot perform will place much higher demand on desktop resources. The true vision of 1 to 1 laptop programs is the anytime anywhere learning – limiting the number of boundaries and restrictions for our students must be a major goal.
While the netbook will quickly fill the gap that many teachers have in their desire to have students researching and typing, it will not extend, engage or see a return on investment in their learning outcomes. The statement in our organisation was clear at the beginning of this journey; Curriculum (quality teaching and learning) drive IT, not the other way around. Implementing netbooks for the financial factors brings a third criteria into play, which would in turn become the driving force. Are we saying that finance should drive teaching and learning? When we return to our starting goal of providing quality education for our students, we must ask ourselves is providing resource to a IT vision which is insufficient really worth doing? Would we not be better off investing the money in further teacher training or even typewriters in the library?
Growing up I remember some of my fathers advice to me… – “If a job is worth doing, it’s worth doing properly” Can’t help but think there is some wisdom in the old guy that relates to this Journey to 1:1 computing.



Related Articles
16 users responded in this post
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
thanks Paul and Mark – check this out for online tools and connectivity
http://blog.brettmoller.com/2009/04/02/wow-what-a-day/
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.
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
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,
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