Clarence Fisher- Ratios and Teacher Training…Chicken or the Egg?
Clarence Fisher’s presentation raised some thoughts as I continue to explore the variables that affect the validity of technology for students in the classroom. One variable is ratio as demonstrated by Clarence has in his room…an ideal 1:1. Every class in our system has 4 sun terminals in the room and a school lab. I have managed a 1:1 ratio in my behavioural program..I have 8 terminals (hey, when they give you two hubs you use them….) How important is ratio (school access) for our students?
Smartboards are an example where collaboration and potential for effective use is demonstrated at a 1:20 (more or less), yet this technology, I admit, allows for multiple students to work on one board. Yet the ratio is not 1:1, and I would argue that proper use of this technology, as demonstrated by both students in this class and some of our presenters(Darren Kuropatwa), is really the key to engaging students.
So, those students that have the chance to go home and use their personal technology to access school resources benefiting at a greater degree than those who cannot afford these technologies? If so, how do we address this?
Collaboration, access, teacher knowledge of technology have been important topics in this room. Clarence has shown how excellence in these areas have developed positive, engaging experiences for his students. I think, as Alec has mentioned, more research is needed in regards to the topic of ratio. Chicken or the egg scenario— do we encourage boards to pour money into reaching that 1:1 ratio that would then “prod” teachers to incorporate these technologies in the classroom, or expose teachers to effective uses of educational technologies (and proper inservice) that would then result in boards allocating more money into increased access? Both?
I think we are nowhere near understanding the implications as there haven’t been enough good studies done that weren’t linked closely to the vendors themselves. Sorry, as much as I love Apple products, I just can’t trust research in their trust. Almost everything I read is closely associated to Apple or Microsoft.
I’d love to see some real research come along. Maybe now that the Eees bring down the pricepoint, this may actually happen.
Actually, my classroom itself with the little eee pcs we have is a little worse off than 1:2 (10 computers and 23 kids) it is when I book time in a lab that has 12 computers or so and also take along my eee pcs that we turn into a 1:1 classroom.
Sorry about the misinformation Clarence…. I thought you had laptops for everyone in your room.
I agree Alec, there needs to be some real research in this area. As I mentioned in a comment in a different blog, I believe Sask Learning did set up a pilot program using Mac laptops in a classroom connected to a server…about 2005 the concept arose…Did not here anything further about it. It was at the same conference when Rob and Dean I believe sat down with Stephen Downes….anyone know whether this project was actually implemented?
I think the first and most important “ratio” is for our teachers. We need to put technology in their hands to support their learning journey.
We also have data from our 1:1 projects that demonstrates a range of academic and behavioural changes (positive) for students. We do have our vendors participate (Apple and Microsoft) but include independent researchers from our own staff and the University of Calgary. I have seen myself both the quantitative data and the students’ personal descriptions of the difference it has made for them.
In the end, it is not an either/or proposition. We need teachers comfortable with these new learning models, and access for both them and the students.
I agree with Cindy. Teachers need to start playing with web tools and thinking about how the tool may fit into their style of teaching. There is a learning curve, we can’t just force 1:1 for everybody, we need teachers to buy in and adopt the tech because they believe in shifting how learning happens in their classroom.
Shaun
The Sun model of thin client has some promise. I toured a high school in MJ about 6-8 years ago with our Board Office Technology leaders. At the time, I was teaching the Cisco Networking Academy Program and SUN had some opportunities to get into the thin client model at a cheap $ (according to them).
The cost was still a considerable amount as compared to Windows or Mac machines.
I thought SUN missed the boat by not lowering the costs, but who am I to judge.
I saw this model as having some potential in lowering the access level closer to 1:1.
How is the thin client model working?
The short version (I hope)
We jumped into the thin client technology primarily because of the low cost (offered only to pilot projects). MJ tech and our division worked together to solve common hardware/software issues. We use Red Hat Linux OS, and I still argue today that in terms of open source, terminal hardware and centralized servers, we have a system in which access is considerable, costs are low and downtime is minimal. The thin client on my desk is now 5 years old. In the past 7 years since we moved to Suns, downtime has been less than 10 days. That is remarkable.
We started with a vision that the web would be the primary source for tools for our students and staff. I think we jumped into that assumption way too soon. At that time (and today for some) the challenge was to find replacement programs for Reader Rabbit and Math Blaster. (Yes, I know, but back then..) I have found the technology, which we still use throughout our division, is still geared for the upper grades more than elementary. However, once more technical issues are overcome, I believe that Web 2.0 will be our primary OS. Money is a real issue at the moment. I have no idea how a division can afford to replace stand alones and pay license fees. I also recognize it is an important investment for student engagement.