Interviews with Maddog Hall and John Selmys; Coming Up--Doc Searls and Richard Stallman
by Steve Hargadon
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/jonmaddoghal...
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/jonmaddoghal...
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/johnselmys.mp3
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/johnselmys.ogg
This week I've spoken to Jon "maddog" Hall and John Selmys about Free
and Open Source Software in schools. Their recorded interviews are
linked above. Tonight at 5pm PDT I interview Doc Searls (see
EdTechLive.com to participate or listen real-time), and on Saturday,
October 7, I'll be interviewing Richard Stallman at 7:30 am PDT.
Maddog (and he told me only his mom calls him Jon) is the Executive
Director of Linux International, and even though I was struggling with
a flu bug, he did a great job of succinctly communicating the value of
Free and Open Source Software in education.
John Selmys is the organizer of the Seneca College Free and Open
Source Software Symposium being held in Toronto this coming October 26
- 28.
While Maddog gave a great overview of the theoretical value of FOSS in
schools, John S. gave a somewhat discouraging practical report on the
lack of progress for FOSS in Toronto schools. In many ways, the
combination of these two interviews is reflective of the reality of
the situation with Free and Open Source Software.
Now, I know I must sound like I'm beating the same drum over and over
again the last few weeks, but as Maddog was talking about the
grassroots kind of assimilation that the FOSS world hopes for into the
classroom, and John S. was talking about the top-level decision-making
that is precluding FOSS from getting to the classroom, I couldn't help
but continue to reflect on Larry Cuban's remarks from a couple of
weeks ago. The lessons seem to be:
1. Decision-making about technology in most schools is not made by
the teachers themselves, but by higher-level policy-makers. And this
is a political game, with lots of money at stake.
2. Teachers are extremely busy (it was a little heart-wrenching to
hear John S. talk about the restructuring in his area that has made it
even harder for teachers). We cannot place the burden on them to learn
about and integrate technology into what they do, as most simply don't
have the time and are measured on other factors.
3. There are early-adopter teachers who are utilizing technology
actively in their classroom, but their adoption pattern is not the
same as the average teacher, and so attempts to roll out technology
initiatives on their experience historically haven't proven effective.
4. Even though billions of dollars have been spent on educational
technology, the computer has not really penetrated or transformed the
average classroom experience.
5. For technology to be truly integrated into the classroom, it
will have to be so reliable and easy to use so that average teacher
can participate in a grass-roots movement to bring it into the
classroom, since it will likely buck the trend of decision-making at
higher levels.
Now, I am sure that this is an oversimplification, but to me this last
point really helps to explain why FOSS has not made more inroads in
the classroom. It's not going to come from the top, since even though
the cost savings and the openness of FOSS would have value to the
school or district, the existing proprietary vendors have a financial
interest in keeping their programs in use. And it can't come from the
bottom, because to the average teacher, Linux and FOSS are no easier
to use than their existing computer tools and the cost savings and
openness are not as important to them. Linux, in particular, is
significantly less difficult to maintain from an administrative level
(where the decision-making won't necessarily be about that), but at
the classroom level can even be harder to use for a teacher because it
is unfamiliar.
So far I've focused on the classroom, but the computer lab (or
technology training program) is another story that I'd still like to
figure out. Maddog makes some great points about the use of Free
Software (which is his preferred term) for training.
1. Free software can be given to the students, and so there is no
economic barrier to learning or to continued use outside of or after
school.
2. Much of the technologies that drive the Internet and the Web are
based on Free Software, and so teaching these programs would be much
more advantageous to students.
3. Free software teaches you three times: once when you use the
code, once when you investigate what it does and how it does it, and
once when you improve it to make it better (particularly for the older
students).
4. Free software introduces students into the world of
collaborative programming.
5. Free software allows students to create their own computer labs
(a la LTSP).
6. Free software allows students to investigate everything from
embedded systems to supercomputers.
I'm particularly fascinated by the potential for computer and
programming classes to provide students with the opportunity to work
on collaborative programs that would benefit their community. If you
are seeing this done, would you please let me know so that I might
focus some attention on it?
Steve
--
Steve Hargadon
steve(a)hargadon.com
916-899-1400 direct
www.SteveHargadon.com - (Blog on Educational Technology)
www.K12Computers.com - (Refurbished Dell Optiplexes for Schools)
www.TechnologyRescue.com - (Linux Thin Client Solutions)
www.LiveKiosk.com - (Web Access and Content Delivery Solutions)
www.PublicWebStations.com - (Disaster & Shelter WebStation Software)
www.K12OpenSource.com (Public Wiki)
www.SupportBlogging.com (Public Wiki)
17 years, 7 months
Interview with Eric S. Raymond on Open Source Software in Education
by Steve Hargadon
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/ESR.mp3
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/ESR.ogg
This wide-ranging interview with Eric Raymond didn't turn out to be
the historical view of Open Source Software that I thought or hoped it
would be. ESR, as he is know to the Open Source or "hacker" community,
is one of the Open Source movement's "most recognized and
controversial characters," and while we didn't delve into topics that
were too controversial (well, except for his position on a liberal
arts education), his responses to my questions were relatively brief
and direct�leaving me ranging all over the map, trying to find some
area for discussion that would benefit educators. I'm not sure I fully
succeeded, but it was interesting!
Here are some of the items that we talked about:
* Eric is a strong believer in the pragmatic aspects of Open
Source Software, believing that the market will reward and promote
Open Source because of the quality of results that it provides. He is
less interested in the philosophical or moral arguments of Richard
Stallman and the "Free Software" movement. He also felt, along with
the other founders of the Open Source Initiative, that the phrase
"open source" would be more likely to attract business support than
"free software." When I tried to point out the links between this way
of programming and the academic world�where knowledge is freely
distributed�I felt he was a little guarded about making that
association. I also think Eric's answers to the assumption of Open
Source in schools depend on volunteers championing Open Source�which
really depends on the philosophical commitment.
* Eric's most well-known writing, an essay called "The Cathedral
and the Bazaar," was a description of the methods used by Linus
Torvalds to create the Linux kernel. While we didn't talk much about
this, it does seem that Eric was seminal in describing a method of
massive collaboration that had previously been believed could not
produce high-quality results. While others have taken the principles
from his essay and extended them into other spheres, he is less
interested in doing so because his expertise is in programming. I have
no such hesitation! Much of the interesting collaborative technologies
that we call "Web 2.0″ (blogs, wikis, social networking tools) seem to
me to have both a technical and sociological roots in the Free and
Open Source Software movements. He wasn't sure he actually believed
there was a "Web 2.0," but I think my description was acceptable to
him.
* Eric definitely had some negative things to say about Wikipedia,
and didn't want to concede a comparison between Open Source
development and the collaboration of a wiki. I'm not sure I fully
understood why, and I wasn't sure he was comparing "bests to
bests"�both Open Source Software and wikis have successes and
failures, and I felt like he he may have painted the picture of Open
Source too positively.
* Eric's view of Open Source Software in education was pragmatic:
the quality of open source software will be better than proprietary
software, and will ultimately win out. At the same time, he
acknowledged that proprietary vendors are likely to provide financial
incentives to keep schools using their software. I guess I am left
feeling dissatisfied with both the Free Software and Open Source
software answers to the question of adoption of their software in
education. If the Free Software movement requires a moral or
philosophical commitment by its users, it's not really realistic to
think that is going to happen on a broad scale by educators who have
to see the technology as a means to an end. In Eric's representation
of the Open Source movement, there is a dependence on the free market
to choose the best product, and I think we have to recognize that
capitalism is often messier than that. With no financial backing or
marketing of Open Source software, I'm not sure the best product does
come to the top. My standard example for this is the Apache, which
runs some 70% of the world's web servers, would be a great program for
technical students to learn, but is virtually untaught in our
schools�for there is no marketing money promoting it to schools.
* In this vein, I asked Eric why we don't have a United States
equivalent to South Africa's Mark Shuttleworth�that is, someone who
has had financial success because of Open Source Software, and who
then funds initiatives to provide the benefits of Open Source Software
to schools. Eric's answer was that we can't count on someone like
that�that Mark is a "random event." However, it does seem to me that
the Free and Open Source Software movements in this country would be
greatly benefited by such a "random event," and that a realistic view
of marketing and publicity would accept it as very important for
someone like that step forward.
* I followed my thread from the Larry Cuban interview about
computing in the classroom: basically, that the computer is still too
complicated and unreliable to be fully integrated into or to transform
the regular teacher's teaching methods. What has occurred to me
recently, and which has been something of an eye-opener, is that this
description of the problem does help to explain why Linux is not
making more inroads in education. Among early adopters (those teachers
who are willing to spend the extra time on technology), the idea of a
freely available operating system has great appeal�but maybe we are
being tricked in that way. Early adopters may not have the same needs
or respond in the same way as mainstream educators, and maybe Linux
isn't making more inroads because it essentially doesn't answer, any
better, the needs of that individual mainstream teacher. While "free,"
and arguably more reliable, Linux is an unknown to most of them and
doesn't actually present them with any more of an "appliance-like"
classroom tool than a Windows machine. (The standards for me of
"appliance-like" being the overhead projector and the iPod.) I then
broached the topic with Eric of a more "appliance-like" computer, and
he shot that down FAST. He said we can't expect that for 10 or 20
years. I'm not sure he's right. I think we don't have an
"appliance-like" computer not because it's not technically possible�it
surely is�but maybe because 1) we're not ready to trade reliability
for reduced functionality, or 2) because the decision-makers for
educational technology don't see the value. But it's not hard for me
to imagine a read-only PC that runs the web, word processing, and
spreadsheets, and saves to USB key only. We certainly have the
technological capability of producing such a machine, although that
doesn't mean it would be successful.
* We did talk about the abundant changes in work that have been
brought about by the Internet, collaboration, and a higher standard of
living. I'll have explore this later, but one of the effects of the
"Long Tail" world we now live in is that there are likely to be many
more opportunities for us to work�as part of our vocations and
avocations�on things that interest and motivate us. If our educational
system has typically prepared us to have a breadth of skills, assuming
we may not have much choice in what we ultimately do, how will that
change when there is more choice? If schools continue to be rigid
institutions without much integration of technology, will the charter,
alternative, and homeschool movements become more and more attractive
to students?
* We did get into the fascinating topic of ownership or
accessibility of "metadata" from Web 2.0 services. This is something
Tim O'Reilly has talked about. I've been putting up on flickr all the
photos of my ancestors that we have previously had in several boxes,
and have been "tagging" them with information so that other family
members can easily find them and help organize them. All of that
data�the tags and the descriptions�is extremely valuable to me, and is
really only accessible to me as long as I am using flickr. So what
happens if flickr goes away, or has a system failure, or raises their
prices so much that I want to switch services? I'm pretty locked in.
No easy answers to this one, although Eric discusses the Open Source
way of solving this issue.
* We also talk about another favorite topic of mine�the changing
nature of the commercial relationship between producer and consumer,
and how Open Source has provided a model for more active participation
in the creation of the end product. Again, I always use the simplistic
example of American Idol, since the viewers actually end up helping to
create (choose) the product (singer) that they are likely to purchase
(music).
I'm grateful to Eric for taking the time to talk to me. Let's hope
I've characterized the discussion accurately. :)
--
Steve Hargadon
steve(a)hargadon.com
916-899-1400 direct
www.SteveHargadon.com - (Blog on Educational Technology)
www.K12Computers.com - (Refurbished Dell Optiplexes for Schools)
www.TechnologyRescue.com - (Linux Thin Client Solutions)
www.LiveKiosk.com - (Web Access and Content Delivery Solutions)
www.PublicWebStations.com - (Disaster & Shelter WebStation Software)
www.K12OpenSource.com (Public Wiki)
www.SupportBlogging.com (Public Wiki)
17 years, 7 months
OpenOffice.org Interview: First Choice for Some Schools Now?
by Steve Hargadon
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/OpenOffice.mp3
My EdTechLive.com conversation with Solveig Haugland, Ben Horst, &
Randy Orwin on the popular Open Source program OpenOffice. This was a
particularly interesting interview because Solveig has actually done
teacher training for Bainbridge Island School District, where Randy is
the Director of Technology, and they both had insight into the
transition from a paid office program to OpenOffice.
According to Randy, the move to OpenOffice will save the district
"hundreds of thousands of dollars," but he also seemed to indicate
that version 2.0 of OpenOffice might actually makes it their first
choice regardless of cost because of the features--particularly the
ability to natively export to PDF format, the ability of OpenOffice to
more easily read and repair documents than the commercial
alternatives, and the ability to standardize on document formats
because the students can use the OpenOffice for free at home as well.
It would be interesting to find out how many schools or districts are
going through this same process of formally evaluating their office
productivity software. As was pointed out this summer by two
professors at Harvard (see "Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will
Win?"), as soon as OpenOffice becomes a real threat to sales of
commercial software, the commercial vendor will lower the price of
that software to keep their "first-mover" advantage and visibility in
the marketplace. That seems to me really likely to happen (in fact,
Ben argues in the interview that it already has). And while that
scenario might be disappointing to those who have worked so hard to
create a viable Open Source alternative to the commercial programs, it
would still have led to some really positive outcomes: first, choice;
second, one of those choices being "free" (in both senses of that
word); and third, a significant reduction in the amount of money
schools have to spend for basic technology. "Hundreds of thousands of
dollars" must surely make a big difference to a school district, their
faculty, the students, and their parents. (I've already said how much
I hate the additional fundraising that our schools do--especially when
they take time to train the students to do it).
We also talked about the trends that have made the adoption of
OpenOffice by schools much more likely:
* OpenOffice has just gotten a lot better. Everyone agreed on this.
* Office programs are really not adding features now that are
significant for the bulk of use by most users. And, in fact, the
adding of a lot of new features can actually work against basic
productivity programs because they run the risk of being overly
complicated.
* Students are coming to school now from a computing world in
which they are used to a large variety of choice. There are multiple
IM, email, music, and other programs, and they have learned to
navigate quickly between them to accomplish what they want. They
aren't as bound by past experience as the previous generation, and are
very adept at exploring and figuring things out. The "first-mover"
advantage mentioned above won't mean as much to them.
* Students are also using a lot of different programs to
accomplish tasks that once were the sole domain of office
productivity: most of their writing surely does not take place in a
word processor (think online journals, blogs, texting, and social
networking programs), and when they are "word processing" they have
access to several web-based programs that are becoming more and more
robust.
* Randy and Solveig both seemed to indicate that OpenOffice, when
shown to students and teachers, is often mistaken for the commercial
alternative.
All in all, a pretty exciting time for OpenOffice, and for user choice, I think.
--
Steve Hargadon
steve(a)hargadon.com
916-899-1400 direct
www.SteveHargadon.com - (Blog on Educational Technology)
www.K12Computers.com - (Refurbished Dell Optiplexes for Schools)
www.TechnologyRescue.com - (Linux Thin Client Solutions)
www.LiveKiosk.com - (Web Access and Content Delivery Solutions)
www.PublicWebStations.com - (Disaster & Shelter WebStation Software)
www.K12OpenSource.com (Public Wiki)
www.SupportBlogging.com (Public Wiki)
17 years, 7 months
Fwd: [FOSSEd Discussion] Harvard Study - Linux vs. Microsoft
by Bryant Patten
[I sent this off to the international FOSS and Education mailing list
and then decided it is relevant to this list as well. Apologies to any
dual subscribers. - Bryant]
Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux vs. Windows
[Interview with authors at - http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4834.html]
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Bryant Patten <bmp(a)fossed.org>
> Date: September 11, 2006 12:50:26 AM EDT
> To: Open Source and Education <discussion(a)fossed.org>
> Subject: [FOSSEd Discussion] Harvard Linux vs. Microsoft Study
> Reply-To: Open Source and Education <discussion(a)fossed.org>
>
> Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux vs. Windows
> [Interview with authors at - http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4834.html]
>
> Okay - so I find lots about this interview fascinating (don't have
> access to the study). Perhaps the most fascinating is that Harvard is
> asking this question.
>
> Here is the summary:
>
> "Ultimately, the authors believe, neither side is likely to be forced
> from the battlefield—Microsoft has too much market share and OSS offers
> too many benefits for users. But there are strategies each can use
> successfully against the other, as they detail in this e-mail
> interview."
>
>
> But there are a few fascinating tidbits (IMHO) relevant to the focus of
> this mailing list (FOSS and Education):
>
> "...Having obtained this basic result, we investigate the conditions
> that will warrant that Linux ends up forcing Windows out. We do this by
> modifying the model in two ways. First of all, we look at the effect of
> having buyers such as governments and some large corporations committed
> to deployment of Linux in their organizations. We call such buyers
> strategic. In addition to cost-related reasons, governments back Linux
> because having access to the source code allows them to verify that
> sensitive data is treated securely. Binary code makes it hard to figure
> out who has access to information flowing in a network. Companies such
> as IBM, in contrast, back Linux because they see in OSS one way to
> diminish Microsoft's dominance. We find that the presence of strategic
> buyers together with Linux's sufficiently strong demand-side learning
> results in Windows being driven out of the market. This may be one main
> reason why Microsoft has been providing chunks of Windows' source code
> to governments."
>
> So government (and in this case I would strongly add schools as a
> particularly important part of government) adoption results in a
> Windows loss.
>
> "...Second, we look at the role of cost asymmetries. In the base model
> we assume that the cost structures of Windows and Linux for the
> development, distribution, and support of software coincide. A natural
> question is then whether the central result that Windows survives in
> the long-run equilibrium regardless of the speed of Linux's demand-side
> learning persists if there are cost asymmetries. We find that because
> OSS implies lower profits for Microsoft, the larger the cost
> differences are between Linux and Windows, the less able Microsoft is
> to guarantee the survival of Windows."
>
> My graduate background is in computer simulation and believe me, the
> results of these models is significantly directed by the underlying
> assumptions. I strongly question their decision to have 'the
> development, distribution and support' costs coincide on the base
> model. Other questions to investigate
> 1)While they seem to invoke the value of the MS Office suite, they make
> no reference to the hundreds (thousands) of free FOSS programs.
> 2) How does the emerging international user community figure into all
> this?
> 3) The only FOSS benefit he discusses is demand-side learning - the
> ability to modify code.
>
> The interviewer asked " From your modelling, what can Microsoft do
> strategically to remain competitive against a product that is argued to
> be of better quality, is updated more frequently, and is free?" and
> after essentially saying become more FOSS-like, another part of the
> response was:
>
> "Price discriminate. Give Windows and applications away to schools and
> universities so that users build their file libraries on Microsoft, not
> Linux."
>
> And finally I love the following line, buried in the middle of a
> paragraph:
>
> "... We find that while a monopoly of Linux is always preferable (from
> the point of view of societal welfare) to a Windows monopoly,..."
>
> Which makes me think of the Jim Wales quotes that Kathryn brought to
> this list:
>
> "I would like to think education is a precursor to everything that is
> to come in life. Schools are places for education and that means more
> than simply providing training in software packages."
>
> and
>
> "Schools are places where our values and philosophies are on
> show.
> They are places where we create and recreate society."
>
> Obviously preaching to the choir here but FOSS and Education is SUCH an
> important issue....
>
> Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion(a)fossed.org
> http://fossed.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion_fossed.org
>
>
17 years, 7 months
Interview with Larry Cuban, Author of “Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom”
by Steve Hargadon
http://educationbridges.net/k12opensource/wp-content/uploads/LarryCuban.mp3
The link above is to my EdTechLive.com interview with Larry Cuban,
Emeritus Professor of Education at Stanford University, and the author
of the 2001 book "Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom."
(This interview could not be "skypecast" because of some problem at
Skype at the time.)
Maybe this was not a natural interview for someone who sells computers
for a living, but let's chalk it up to the the quest for "truth" and a
desire--as a computer lover--to understand why the efforts to put
computers in the classroom have not had broader success in improving
teaching and learning. And while there was a natural tendency in the
interview to focus on the "oversold" part of Dr. Cuban's message, the
opportunity seems to lie in understanding the "underused" part.
Professor Cuban provides a very balanced and thoughtful perspective on
the use of computers in schools–or rather, the non-use thereof. First,
to counter the perception that it is the fault of the teachers that
computers aren't being more broadly adopted in the classroom, he shows
that most teachers are actually active computer users themselves as
they prepare for their classes and organize their work. We therefore,
he says, need to look deeper than a perceived "resistance" by teachers
to explain the lack of technology integration in the classroom.
Dr. Cuban gives us a glimpse of the incredible challenges teachers
face in trying to accomplish all that is asked of them, and asks us to
consider that teachers would more likely embrace computer technology
in the classroom if it actually helped them do their jobs better or
more easily. He gives the example of the video-cassette player and the
overhead projector--both technologies that became quickly and easily
integrated into teaching. Can we really expect, if there are
relatively few computers available to students, if they are available
only for limited periods of time, and if they are often unreliable,
that it would really make sense for a teachers to change the way they
teach because of computers?
While pointing out that there are ways in which computers have been
clearly shown to improve academic performance, he says that by and
large there is a surprising lack of significant studies or real data
to show where those benefits exist and where they don't. Instead, he
is concerned, the factors which really seems to drive the purchase and
implementation of computer technology are not usually the teachers'
needs or requests, but a push from those outside of the classroom:
politicians, parents, and administrators. Well before the publication
of The World Is Flat, and across political lines, there has been a
concern that we are "a nation at risk," and that we need to make sure
our children are computer "savvy." He made a fascinating point in the
interview: if you go to a college campus, you will see computers in
active use by faculty and students--so the absense of computer use in
high schools doesn't seem to impede their use in college. (I didn't
mention it, but my brother, who is a professor of business, has
actually banned the use of computers in his classes because the
constant instant messaging and other non-class-focused uses of the
computer were distracting from his ability to teach.)
What occurred to me is that when the pressures to use computers are
external, then the more detailed understandings of how they can be
used successfully get lost. In one of the articles I read to prepare
for the interview, Dr. Cuban separates computer use in education into
three categories: computer-assisted instruction, computer-managed
instruction, and computer-enhanced instruction. (Noticeably missing,
but probably intentional, is vocational technical training.) While the
first two, according to the article, have been pretty-well documented
to improve academic performance, it is the third--the use of computers
in such a way that transforms the educational process--that is less
understood. What I think I notice from my interactions with proactive
and engaged teachers who are excited about certain technologies (like
blogs and wikis, or Moodle) is that they are experiencing this
transformational change; and I would imagine that they are likely to
have have been able to do this because they were so proactive and
engaged. And if his theories hold true, it will be these kind of
technologies that really capture teachers' imaginations and desires
that can ultimately lead to more ubiquitous use of the computer in the
classroom.
I did ask Dr. Cuban specifically about blogs and wikis, but got the
sense that these are technologies that are not yet fully on his radar
as educational tools. I meant to ask about Moodle, and forgot. Based
on his perspective, I am particularly encouraged by the fact that
these technologies don't require buying new computers (or even having
"current" technology), since they really only require a web browser to
work.
We also talked about the role of commercial companies play in
"selling" technology to schools. In a free-market economy, it is hard
to see an alternative, but Dr. Cuban recommends being a "skeptical"
consumer of those commercial offerings. I've been thinking long and
hard about this, since I sell computer hardware to schools. The
conclusion that I have come to is that, as a vendor of technology, I
need to be exploring ways to understand how to make the computer a
better and more reliable tool for teachers. K12Computers is way too
small to effect broad change, but if I ask the right questions and
start to find the right answers, maybe we can make a difference.
He also pointed out that if the end-goal is truly academic
achievement, it may sometimes be measurably better for a school to
reduce class size or hire more aids than to buy computers. Most of
those involved in our educational system need to get paid for their
work, but are actually involved in the work because of a personal
commitment to the cause of education. It seems, as a vendor to
schools, we should hold ourselves to the same standard. I'm not quite
sure how to do this, but it does seem important.
It also seems that Linux and Open Source Software hold the potential
to reduce acquisition and maintenance costs for providing a computing
environment. The work in Indiana, in particular, should be very
instructive. If the cost of having one-to-one computing can be
significantly reduced, there should be a great opportunity to study
the transformative effects of this kind of program. And I can't stop
thinking about the concept of a "web appliance:" a no-maintenance
computer that provides access to the web. If every classroom in a
school had some number of "webstations" that the teachers knew were
always available and would always work, would they begin to integrate
web reasearch and other web tools into their classwork as easily as
they have the overhead projector? This is something I would like
specific feedback on, and would like to try some testing if anyone is
interested.
--
Steve Hargadon
steve(a)hargadon.com
916-899-1400 direct
www.SteveHargadon.com - (Blog on Educational Technology)
www.K12Computers.com - (Refurbished Dell Optiplexes for Schools)
www.TechnologyRescue.com - (Linux Thin Client Solutions)
www.LiveKiosk.com - (Web Access and Content Delivery Solutions)
www.PublicWebStations.com - (Disaster & Shelter WebStation Software)
www.K12OpenSource.com (Public Wiki)
www.SupportBlogging.com (Public Wiki)
17 years, 7 months
Audio Webcast Interview This Week: Larry Cuban, author of "Oversold and Underused"
by Steve Hargadon
This Thursday evening (September 7), I'll be interviewing Larry Cuban,
emeritus professor of education at Stanford, and author of "Oversold
and Underused: Computers in the Classroom." The interview will start
at 5:00 pm PDT, will be be one hour long, and will be webcast live
with a question and answer session at the end.
Links to the webcast and the concurrent chatroom are available at
http://edtechlive.wikispaces.com/Upcoming+Interviews. You can also
see details on upcoming interviews on Open Office (Solveig Haugland &
Ben Horst), Open Source Software in Education (Eric S. Raymond & Doc
Searls), and Open Source licensing (Ruth Lutes & Ragavan Srinivasan
from HP).
Recordings of the interview (.mp3 and .ogg) with Prof. Cuban will be
available the next day. Recent interviews recordings are available at
http://edtechlive.wikispaces.com/Recordings+List. Included are:
* Victoria Davis and Adam Frey on "Wikis--What Are They, and Why Use
Them in Education?"
* Michelle Moore on "Moodle: An Open Source Learning Management System"
* Mike Huffman and Laura Taylor on "Indiana's ACCESS Program:
Affordable Classroom Computers for Every Secondary Student"
* Daniel Howard and William Fragakis on Atlanta Public Schools' Linux
Thin Client Project
* Jim McQuillan and Eric Harrison on LTSP, K12LTSP, and Linux Thin
Client for Schools
* Dr. David Thornburg on "Free and Open Source Software in Education"
Happy listening!
Steve
--
Steve Hargadon
steve(a)hargadon.com
916-899-1400 direct
www.SteveHargadon.com - (Blog on Educational Technology)
www.K12Computers.com - (Refurbished Dell Optiplexes for Schools)
www.TechnologyRescue.com - (Linux Thin Client Solutions)
www.LiveKiosk.com - (Web Access and Content Delivery Solutions)
www.PublicWebStations.com - (Disaster & Shelter WebStation Software)
www.K12OpenSource.com (Public Wiki)
www.SupportBlogging.com (Public Wiki)
17 years, 7 months