It's always frustrating to read the Chronicle of Higher Education when it covers technology because so often it just doesn't get the program. Calling Stanford students "tech-savvy" because they sleep with their iPhones should in no way entail they would embrace the partially-functional and non-utilitarian iPads in a classroom setting. This is especially the case if the wireless doesn't work. To cite student reticence to depend on a devioce that isn't ready for prime time, on a network still struggling with down time, does not in any way show that the concept is ill-conceived. And there are zingers throughout the article, somehow linking the iPad to digital ID and attendance tracking.
And this: "For an anatomy course, instructional-technology officials built a three-dimensional, interactive map of the brain for the iPad. But a professor who had supported its use happened to stop teaching the course, and his replacements didn't want to use the iPad. The map hasn't been used since." For goodness sake, why didn't it occur to the reporter to ask the Stanford PR people why they hadn't released the map as an open educational resource where it would be widely used by students worldwide? Like I said, they're just not with the program...
And this: "For an anatomy course, instructional-technology officials built a three-dimensional, interactive map of the brain for the iPad. But a professor who had supported its use happened to stop teaching the course, and his replacements didn't want to use the iPad. The map hasn't been used since." For goodness sake, why didn't it occur to the reporter to ask the Stanford PR people why they hadn't released the map as an open educational resource where it would be widely used by students worldwide? Like I said, they're just not with the program...
Today: 1 Total: 6 [Direct link] [Share]
