DA Magazine Columns

January 2009: The Impending Mobile Mega-Disruption

March 2009: From Learning What to Learning How

May 2009: Pedagogy Is King

June/July 2009: K12 Schools: Stop the Bleeding!

August 2009:   E-Books Help the Mobile Generation Read

September 2009: Disrupting Class Misses the Point

Comments

[Mike D. Skara]

I am becoming more and more concerned about the echo chamber in which the pundits of educational technology appear to be seated. In both “The Impending Mobile Mega-Disruption” by Cathleen Norris and Elliot Soloway in the January 2009 edition of Administrator and Alexander Russo’s column in February’s edition, as well as so many others, the writers claim the potential of the ubiquitous penetration of personal cell phones will revolutionize educational technology. Their Nostradamus-like forecasts may seem credible on the surface, but just like those of the French apothecary, their predictions are rather dubious.
I agree that the big question is ‘What pedagogical value do mobile devices have?” They certainly may have their place. However, the assertion that a “candy-bar sized gadget is ... on par with a desktop or laptop computer” cannot be true because their functionalities are by design not the same. Is it a realistic assertion an academic paper, including the use of a graphic organizer for drafting purposes, could be written on a screen the size of a candy bar? Short bursts of stream of consciousness text is one thing, but the dissemination of complex ideas is quite another. Artists using video and music editing technology, as well as graphic designers, AutoCAD students, and architects are now using two and three extra large monitors to complete their complex creative tasks. These users need more screen real estate than ever, not less.
Furthermore, these various devices that might be brought in by the students would highlight the distinction between the affluent and not. Today some have IPhones and Blackberry Storms while others still use a Nokia 6085. The assertion that cells phones will be “essentially zero cost” is a ludicrous one. Why would manufacturers do that and cut off a revenue stream? Would Apple give up the $1.5 Billion they’ve already made in IPhone sales? Who would make a phone that was free unless it was filled with advertising? School provided resources – computers, textbooks, desks, and even teachers – put all students on the same playing field. The computers the district provides already give “a layer of software that makes their devices appear homogeneous and providing them with a safe data network.” Why would a student submit to having his personal device limited by his academic institution?
Another issue with personal devices is that a teacher cannot know every nuance of every device. Each manufacturer has slightly different functionality. Imagine trying to teach with students using computers running Windows 98, 2000, XP, Vista and Mac OS 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 all in the same room. One can’t just leave the students to figure out how to make the various functions work on their own.
These articles also assume every student’s personal device would have unlimited connectivity for text, web browsing, streaming video and other features. These cannot be free or else wireless providers wouldn't make money. “Out sourcing wireless networking to a telecommunications company” might make “good economic sense” to a school district, but will it to the telecommunications company and its users? Can we force that additional economic burden on families?