Changing assumptions about computing options

Thursday, May 28th 2009 by Wes FryercloseAuthor: Wes Fryer Name: Wes Fryer
Email: wes@isteconnects.org
Site: http://www.speedofcreativity.org
About: Wesley is an international learning consultant, author, digital storyteller, educator and catalyst for educational reform focused on blended learning, differentiated instruction, and creative engagement. His bio is available on www.wesfryer.com/bio and complete vitae on www.wesfryer.com/vitae.See Authors Posts (74)

Many educators as well as parents today have computing expectations which are in need of adjustment. Zachary Saale’s post yesterday on ISTEconnects, “Education Technology in a Dual-Platform World,” reveals two of these expectations candidly. Many people assume we live in a two platform world, and assume that productivity software is naturally client-based. Both assumptions are incorrect.

Original photo by acousticdad.

We need larger numbers of educational constituents to understand that just as we no longer live strategically in a bipolar world, we no longer live in a bipolar computing environment dominated by two platforms: Apple Macintosh and Windows-based PCs. Zachary mentions cloud-based computing and netbooks in his post, but his post title still conveys the assumption or perception that there are just two main choices when it comes to computing platforms. This is not true, and we need to be aware of how our language can reinforce existing perceptions or encourage people to stretch in their perceptions and understanding of the computing environment. In her comment to his post, Laura Blankenship reminds everyone not to forget about Linux. Not only should educational leaders REMEMBER Linux, we need to be USING Linux ourselves on an ongoing basis to better understand the power and potential of it as a viable computing platform. Dr. David Thornburg is one of my favorite advocates for Linux-based computing, and makes a persuasive case for Linux when he presents at educational technology conferences. David is able to make this case persuasively in large part because he personally uses and models the use of Linux-based computers during his presentations. OLPC is one project continuing to demonstrate the viability and benefits of using a free, open-source, Linux-based operating system for one-to-one learning. As the expectations of our legislative leaders change with regard to operating systems in different parts of the United States as well as other countries in the world, we’re going to see and hear more about Linux in the years to come. This change may appear to be slow when we look across an entire country, but it can certainly be accelerated when educational leaders in a particular area understand and embrace open source technologies as fundamental game-changers in the arena of educational technology.

The second assumption Zachary’s post communicated was that productivity software programs are and should be, by default, client-based. Again I want to acknowledge that Zachary mentioned a cloud-based productivity option (Google Docs,) but the overall theme of his post seemed to suggest that client-based computing challenges are an unavoidable problem. This is not the case.

The compatibility issues he discussed are all a result of client-based productivity software use, where software programs are installed and run locally from a hard drive rather than being accessed virtually over the web. Computing today includes a mix of client-side and cloud-based computing solutions, and I do not think that reality will change dramatically in the near term. I do think, however, we need to stop communicating the assumption that software must be client-based. Google Documents and Zoho are two examples of cloud-based collaboration software environments which can completely replace client-based, desktop productivity software. Technologies like Google Gears offer a way for users to continue using these applications even when Internet connectivity is not available. As netbooks continue to grow in power and remain relatively more affordable for schools, it is both logical as well as fiscally responsible for educational leaders to embrace them (along with the cloud-based computing solutions which run on them so well) for learning, collaboration, publishing, and assessment.

I’m very familiar with the “Mac versus PC” debates. My own published writing on that topic goes back to 1998, in a contentious article which led to some negative administrative scrutiny at the time. In my educational context in 1998, it was an almost unquestioned assumption that the only computers which should or could be purchased by the school district would have to be Windows-based. That was a ridiculous position at the time, and is even more untenable today. We need to find ways to help our educational leaders question and redefine some of their assumptions about educational technology, and two of the basics which need updating involve platforms and cloud-based computing. Sustainability and scalability for 1 to 1 computing initiatives is pivotal, and open source computing options offer a viable path forward for schools, districts, states, and nations seeking to embrace affordable, ubiquitous platforms for digital learning.

We’re not living in a bipolar world.

Similar Posts:

• Alternative Apps to Google Notebook