Tablets in Schools

[Apache]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

This is really the key. There have been efforts to lock down iPads, but kids seem to fairly quickly figure out ways around the restrictions.

As is usually the case, the biggest issue that one runs into is keeping the kids focused on what they are suppose to be doing rather than goofing off. I'm pretty sure there is no technical solution for that, but even with all the really cool learning apps for the iPad, most kids seem to view it as entertainment and games, not learning.

The best way to teach kids is to make it fun and enjoyable. I used to own a Martial Arts School and taught a lot of kids. The worst mistake I have seen is treating the younger kids like adults. They do not learn the same way. As long as they were having fun it did not matter to them that they were learning and working out. A bored child will not learn.
When my son was in middle school, the School hired a teacher with great credentials from teaching men in the Air Force. He tried to teach the children using the same methods and could not figure out why his was the worst class in the school.
Keep the children interested and make it fun and they can do anything.
Apache

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

It does as lack of educational app ecosystem is a hold back for cheap tablets. And price is a hold back for the iPad and windows/Mac PC's. The surface is expensive, and not particularly durable. And on top of that, not a great tablet,

I disagree with you on the quality of the Surface.

But I think you're making the mistake of confusing consumer commercial experience with tablets in schools. The two wouldn't be the same at all.

Nothing is stopping MS, Apple or Google from tuning their OSes to meet educational needs and developing platforms for them.

If the software developed for any of the OSes is good enough, than any would work well for schools.

Funny thing: We're quibbling on this when overall I agree with your main point: color eInk is not desperately needed for educational purposes. A tablet or laptop would be far more useful. Google's had a lot of success with their Chromebooks in schools.

[leebase]

Yes, agree on eInk not being the answer. Also agree that the surface would be great in schools...better than a chromebook as it’s a full pc. But it’s pricey, not something a school system would buy for every student. And, I stand by the “not durable” for kids I’m school particularly when you consider the price.

That’s why Chromebooks so so well

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

More evidence that it’s the software that’s holding tablets back. It’s not the price. It for sure isn’t the need for a reflective screen. Ergo...aiming a SCFEEN tech for schools is just nonsense.

Thing is, I think this is something that has to be built in from the "ground up." You really can't have an iPad or an Android tablet turn into something resembling a Chromebook. You would almost have to build a new, more limited device based on an iPad or Android tablet. And that would be a hard sell. I'm not a huge Google fan and I don't want a Chromebook, but they really can be used almost like an old-fashioned "dumb" terminal in the school environment. That gives them a huge advantage over a tablet for classrooms.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

Yes, agree on eInk not being the answer. Also agree that the surface would be great in schools...better than a chromebook as it’s a full pc. ...

Again, sometimes more isn't better. A "full PC" plays games, gets viruses and allows the kids to do things a Chromebook wouldn't. Actually a Chromebook, using Google Docs, is a pretty good fit for schools. I think that's the main reason they're doing well in the school market.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Again, sometimes more isn't better. A "full PC" plays games, gets viruses and allows the kids to do things a Chromebook wouldn't. Actually a Chromebook, using Google Docs, is a pretty good fit for schools. I think that's the main reason they're doing well in the school market.

No debate from me that the Chromebook's ability to be locked down is a selling feature for schools. But you could lock down a PC too, if you wanted.

If you want to program, not nearly as easy to do on a Chrome book. Photo editing? Much much better with local photo software verses web hosted.

Even word is much better locally -- AND -- you can use Office 365 to have a "better than google doc" online experience.

You just need a systems integrator to put it all together in a "open up and just use" type package for the schools. That's the big missing ingredient. Apple is working hard on their solution. Google has a nice solution. Don't rule out Msft, they are aiming to play there as well.

You know who DOESN'T have a prayer? Anybody selling affordable Android based tablets. And it has nothing to do with how well such a device COULD be used.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Thing is, I think this is something that has to be built in from the "ground up." You really can't have an iPad or an Android tablet turn into something resembling a Chromebook. You would almost have to build a new, more limited device based on an iPad or Android tablet. And that would be a hard sell. I'm not a huge Google fan and I don't want a Chromebook, but they really can be used almost like an old-fashioned "dumb" terminal in the school environment. That gives them a huge advantage over a tablet for classrooms.

Add a keyboard to the iPad and you HAVE a Chromebook++

There's no reason you CAN'T run web apps on an iPad -- unless they are "only runs on Internet Explorer" -- which wouldn't run on Chromebooks either.

I do agree, though, that a device built with the traditional laptop form factor is better for traditional web based applications, word processing and the like.

Apple COULD aim the iPad in this manner, but Apple want's everything to be app based as that gives Apple exclusivity. This is a stumbling block for many school systems that don't want vendor lock in. Which, btw, is why web apps have long ago replaced a good deal of apps on windows....allowing Chromebooks to be viable in the first place.

We will see if Apple's iPadOS with it's "desktop browser" will change the iPad's ability to be a Chromebook++

[crich70]

Originally Posted by leebase

It does as lack of educational app ecosystem is a hold back for cheap tablets. And price is a hold back for the iPad and windows/Mac PC's. The surface is expensive, and not particularly durable. And on top of that, not a great tablet,

And one thing that has to be addressed is keeping the kids from using the tablet in class for things other than their schoolwork. How does the school propose to keep them from just surfing rather than typing up assignments?

[GlennD]

One of our local school districts is replacing all of the student ipads with Chromebooks. Lack of a keyboard is cited as the reason.

[John F]

Originally Posted by leebase

Add a keyboard to the iPad and you HAVE a Chromebook++

...

If it was my school, I wouldn't vote for an iPad (with keyboard). The screen is too small. An iPad Pro approaches a usable screen size.

Maybe if the school needed them for special purposes, than maybe, but as a general solution for students: no.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

The best way to teach kids is to make it fun and enjoyable. I used to own a Martial Arts School and taught a lot of kids. The worst mistake I have seen is treating the younger kids like adults. They do not learn the same way. As long as they were having fun it did not matter to them that they were learning and working out. A bored child will not learn.
When my son was in middle school, the School hired a teacher with great credentials from teaching men in the Air Force. He tried to teach the children using the same methods and could not figure out why his was the worst class in the school.
Keep the children interested and make it fun and they can do anything.
Apache

Oddly enough, I've been teach karate to both kids and adults (different classes, of course) for the past 20 years. Yea, I know you don't treat kids and adults the same. I know all about trying to make lessons interesting for kids and how to motivate kids. The issue is that in this "no child left behind" era, there are kids who don't want to learn. They want to goof off. At least in karate, we can keep them active, even if they aren't learning the stuff they need to learn to advance. A kid who is simply disruptive can eventually be told to either shape up or leave. I think we have refunded parents' money and told them not to come back a handful of times over those 20 years, rare but it does happen. And this is where parents are paying money for kids to come, so it's more like a private school than a public school.

Even the best teacher can't connect with all his or her students, especially once you get to the teen years. With karate, those who don't want to learn, eventually drop out. Think about how many kids you taught actually got their black belt? The average that I've read is 1 in 100. Public schools don't have that luxury. For the most part, they are required to keep advancing everyone.

[theducks]

The 'No child' policy is absurd. People are different. Forcing One Size fits all on teachers is a terrible thing to do as well as not kind to students.

I am a 'Visual' (spatial) thinker. There are those that do more 'Conceptual ' thinking (like Maths). We don't learn the same. Then there are those that really can't learn the hard stuff.
Putting everyone together in a single class is just a road to disaster. Nobody (students), wins. Both ends of the bathtub curve end up frustrated.

I am more of a OJT type, while others learn purely from books and lectures.

I read at 800WPM, twice as fast as the next person in my class. Trying to throttle me down to the rest of the class led to BOREDOM (I never was at the same place in the book as the class) .

In life, my best bosses, were the ones that had figured me out, and made use of my quirky ways We both won! I was challenged. They got results.

[Apache]

I always thought No Child left behind was the stupidest policy a Department of Education could come up with.
Everyone is different. With a policy like that some children are held back ( and become bored) and others do not get the extra help they need.
It made a good sound byte and that is all they cared about.
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

I always thought No Child left behind was the stupidest policy a Department of Education could come up with.
Everyone is different. With a policy like that some children are held back ( and become bored) and others do not get the extra help they need.
It made a good sound byte and that is all they cared about.
Apache

Never challenge stupidest when dealing with a government agency.