Cost of migration to the Internet for schools

In educational environment, I often hear teacher discussions about affordability of technologies and their advantages. One of the discussions usually turns around the reduced price of ABS device or service (replace ABS by Chromebook, iPad, GoogleDdocs or anything else) that uses Internet for an important part of functionality.

However, the reality in education is much more complicated. One of the main limiting factors of Internet related technologies in education is the network. The system is routinely hit with spikes of activity followed by down times. For example, when everyone comes after lunch and starts working, the system and the servers are often hit with thousands(or hundreds of thousands) of requests that they need to serve in timely manner.

Example

In our hypothetical school of 1200 students and 120 members of personnel, everyone has a network enabled device and around half of people have two devices. That means that WiFi needs to support around 2000 devices.

WiFi price

Usually, schools are highly dense environments with poor WiFi performance. That means that despite the fact that many APs (WiFi access modules) can support  up to 60 students it is common to see a density of 30 devices or less per AP. This gives us a total of 66 APs plus a controller:

• each access point will cost from 450$ to 1200$ CAN. Assuming an average of 700$ per unit we are talking about 46000$
• the controller with licenses will cost around 12000$. 

This gives a total of 58 000$ that has to be reinvested around every 5 to 7 years (8280$ to 12000$ per year) if the institution wants to keep up with new technologies (g-->n-->ac) and the increasing demand of users.

Of course, this calculation assumes that the prices will drop while demand will increase in the same proportion keeping the costs on the same level as now. In fact, the demand for broadband high speed internet has been growing exponentially resulting in a net increase of prices if we consider the same level of service over a span of the last 10 years.

Internet price

Assumptions:

• roughly 30% of the users will need concurrent access to bandwidth intensive applications (YouTube, Skype and the likes) requiring 500+ Kbps
• roughly 30% will need 15 Kbps or less
• 40% of users will be inactive
• prices are based on Montreal, Quebec, Canada pricing as of August 2014

The calculations:

• 30%*2000*0.5 Mbps=300 Mbps
• 30%*2000*0.015 Mbps=9 Mbps

The price:

It is not easy to set the price for such a service BUT... let's take the prices at Montreal:

• Videotron Business Solutions: highest offer is 200/30 Mbps for 207$/year with an agreement of 3 years. In this case, we will need two connections to satisfy user demand totaling roughly 340$/month plus a rooter that can aggregate and balance both connections. 
• Prices accessible through private school association agreement: minimum of 960$/month for 300Mbps fiber optic connection.
• Prices available on Skynet Canada highspeed WiFi service: 25Mbps for 900$/month

Using the lowest and the middle from the three examples above we could now calculate the total price of the network connection not including maintenance fees and other hidden costs.

Total

• 8280 + 4080 = 12 360$/year on lower end (Videotron)
• 12000 + 11520 = 23 520$/year on higher end (fiber optic)

Considering that the above calculations do not include support, maintenance and possible growth, the cost estimate is a tight one and will most definitely be higher.
Definitely, the "free" is not really free. Schools need to carefully consider all implications before investing time and money in these cool tools and gadgets.

So what a school can do with 6000$ to 12000$ invested in pedagogical services like psychologist or inclusion specialist?

[EDPE 640] First impressions

As I have mentioned in my previous post, I will try to keep a log of my impressions about a class on disruptive technologies for educational change(EDPE 640 at McGill) that I am taking right now.

After the first class, I am still not convinced of anything. I remain highly skeptical about technology in education and its advantages (data supported).

On the negative side, the teacher has hit some of my sensitive points. While I do know that these are only my perceptions, I still look for deep reflection and data supported tools in education. Phrases in form of "Why would you ask your students to take notes, when everyone can take a photo of the board with a smart phone" simply hit on my nerves because they ignore all neurological research and educational theories. We do learn better when we write with our hands because we are:

• using different parts of our brain when writing, thus multiplying input methods for long term memory
• forced to re-code the information to write faster, thus forcing the brain to analyse, modify the information and create additional links between previous knowledge and new info.

During the same lesson, the teacher also stated that we should have a Facebook account with students as friends. Of course, this means that we should have a professional one and personal one. However, current (04 sept. 2014) Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities clearly states that:

• "Facebook users provide their real names and information"
• "You will not create more than one personal account"
• "If you violate the letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop providing all or part of Facebook to you"

Which means that we should have only one personal account; In caseof multiple accounts,they can removed or deactivated. Moreover, we should behave like good online citizen: we should model the behavior of respect and understanding of online laws and regulations. That is, we should have follow the regulations of every service, know them int he same manner as we know civil rights and responsibilities (do we actually?). I'm not even talking about ethical and legal issues that may arise when by mistake a teacher or as student will move from a realm of polite communication between "Facebook friends" into a realm of real friends.

In the same class, I have heard a quote from a report on future of education. While I haven't found such a report online, it does not matter. Predicting what technology will be most popular in 5 years is hard enough. Predicting that in 5 years the education market will embrace ubiquitous presence of smart phones is at least pretentious. First iPhone was released in 2007 and it was much less capable than the current version; iPad arrived in 2010 and is now one of the most popular mobile devices in education in North America. There are countless examples of accelerating tech development suggesting that in 5 years we will probably have one or two technological revolutions in consumer market spilling over into business and education.  

On the positive side, I have heard a lot of new names: polleverywhere.com, mightybell.com etc. It certainly looks like I will be bombarded with new tools and websites throughout the course. It will most certainly give me the chance to broaden my view and improve my digital toolkit. 

In short, the two hours lesson was full of various types of information that has interested and engaged me in various ways. An the end of it all, I will try to stay open to new ideas and learning experiences.

Universal Screening - short description

Universal Screening is the entry point for all students in the RtI model. It is the first step in the analysis which gauges whether or not the student is attaining current benchmarks in basic/core skills in reading, mathematics and behaviour. Typically, assessments occur three times per year and the results are compared to a benchmark available as part of the tool used or decided upon the teacher (or teaching team).

The screening process is necessary to ensure that a student does not fall through the cracks in a given year in such a way that they end up being a year behind in the next school year.  Once students have been assessed, their current performance can be monitored.

If they are falling below targeted benchmarks, teachers can offer in-class remediation/enrichment to bring the student to level of mastery in that particular skill.  Universal Screening enables teachers to target students' needs exactly where they are at and at the level where they are rather than giving general remediation help to many students, which may or may not be what the students need in particular.

Multitasking - Part 2

I have come across a really interesting article on multitasking (and many other things related to digital age).

The article: http://www.zurinstitute.com/digital_divide.html - Section on MultiTasking Vs. 'Hopping' or Task Switching. In this text, the authors discuss the differences between Multitasking and Hoping (switching between tasks). Unfortunately, some aspects of the discussion  are not detailed enough and may lead one to believe that the situation is better than it actually is.

For example, towards the end of the section, the author suggests that there is not enough research to clearly conclude that multitasking impairs understanding. This is probably the biggest message in the section! While it is totally true, let us not jump to a conclusion that there is no negative impact in multitasking.

The text suggests that "reading while listing to music" is an example of multitasking. In reality, it is not. If we turn to the research on human development especially on processing of reading and auditory information, we will find that reading is actually a skill directly associated with auditory sections of the brain. Some even suggest that good readers "imagine" sound in their head in order to improve processing of information. Moreover, both reading and listening to songs (with words) requires the same sections of the brain to work on executive and decoding functions.

In short, we cannot multitask as long as the tasks in question require the same section(s) of the brain to process or react. Just imagine a highway with toll payment section on it. The toll is hundreds of lines wide but each line is specifically associated with a particular model/brand of car. Each car has to, absolutely, use the appropriate toll booth. Moreover, there is a processing restriction: at the same instance no more than 7 cars can pay. Therefore, two cars of the same brand/model cannot cross the toll at the same time but a few different model(s)/brand(s) of cars can. While this analogy is limited, it still demonstrates the basic principle: the brain simply cannot keep alive more than 5-7 chunks of info at the same time. The same type or form of information cannot be processed at the same time. While the brain works much faster than any toll on the road can, it has other restrictions that our special toll does not: it cannot process more than one higher level task. That means that, according to a Revised Bloom's Taxonomy by Anderson & Krathwohl (2001), many tasks at

• Level IV - Analyze
• analyze
• categorize
• classify
• compare
• infer
• etc.
• Level V - Evaluate
• appraise
• judge
• compare
• criticize
• defend
• Level VI - Create(Synthesis)
• choose
• combine
• create
• design
• construct
• hypothesize
• etc.

cannot be done at the same time. 

So what? Well, this goes much farther than we could initially think. If we come back to our early example of reading, research demonstrates that an effective reader will naturally analyze, evaluate and hypothesize in the process of reading a paragraph or section. 

If this hypothetical reader is also doing something else requiring the same section(s) of the brain, the reader will be Hopping. If we push it a bit farther and assume that the stream of information(from one of the sources) is continuous and cannot be stopped: the reader will loose information! However, in most cases, we can stop reading and restart again at our ease. So what is the problem? Well the problem is that the short memory and executive function will be taxed much more: before Hopping the info on the text will have to be fully processed and stored in long term memory. Before, the reader can come back to reading and restart, the information will have to be retrieved and reprocessed again. Considering that at all stages short time memory is bound to loose some information, that the executive function and many other sections of the brain have to work more, the understanding will not be the same. Of course, the essentials will probably be understood, but the depth of the text and the detailed appreciation of the language and vocabulary will be lost (at least partially).

So where is the proof? Remember the phrase that we have started with? Unfortunately, the research that specifically targets our ability to multitask is new and there is simply not enough information to build a sufficient body of knowledge in order to make a sound conclusion. That does not mean that we do not have an idea on what should happen. For instance, according to the most recent ideas in neurology, we know that the brain can rewire itself and restore some of the lost or initially impaired function. So why not multitasking? Why not imagine that we are getting better at Hopping to a point of not loosing any information? One of the hypotheses suggest that such a major rewiring of the brain cannot be accounted by a mere principle of brain elasticity. Others, like Prensky think that new generations are different. However, we simply do not know.

The jury on the multitasking may have yet to come to a conclusion, but one thing remains the same: as long as we consider that our brain has not evolved in the pas thousand years, multitasking, as a limited and extremely taxing on our brain activity, will have a noticeable impact on higher level cognitive functions of the human.

Rationale for RtI in Quebec

The current model of intervention in Quebec is the "Wait to Fail" model.  This model stipulates that a student will not receive extra assistance (or intervention) until they are two years behind the current grade level.  The problem with this model is that the first three years of school (Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2) are the most critical for students to learn literacy and numeracy skills.  If students do not have these basic skills by the time they are in Grade 3, they will continue to fall further behind as they are no longer being taught literacy and numeracy, but are expected to know them already. This intervention in this model occurs too late for students as it is too difficult to catch up.

Response to Intervention (RtI), however, offers immediate, real-time response to students who are struggling in reading, in writing, and in math.  The RtI model does not wait for a student to fall two years behind grade level, but through Universal Screening and subsequent Progress Monitoring, it gathers data regarding the current achievement level of the students, rather than relying on "gut feelings" or other emotionally based decisions. 

In addition, RtI requires Educational support teams comprised of teachers, resource staff, and administration, to use data based evidence to make decisions regarding the interventions needed for the student. All selected Interventions should be research based and curriculum based. In fact, the curriculum itself should be supported by research. Once the student has been identified as needing intervention, a Multi-Tiered delivery system will structure the intervention plan.  Lastly, RtI implies that all selected interventions and measures should be used with fidelity and integrity in the same way as defined in the research.

Challenges inherent in supporting students with special needs are numerous: teachers are not adequately trained to deal with students with special needs; costs associated with extra resource help can quickly over run a school budget; students with special needs get labelled, be it as problem children or other, and quickly fall into a trap of self-fulfilling prophecy; support outside the school is sometimes lacking (eg - lack of food, sleep, security) causing student to struggle in school; education students with special needs are not always relevant, like a stairway leading to nowhere; etc..

According to the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL, 2010),  48% of Canadians have low literacy skills and more than 15 million adult Canadians will be part of this group by 2031 (a 25% increase from 2001). According to NICHD, 10% of US citizens have Learning Disabilities-80% of them in reading; every dollar spent on literacy programming results in a 241% return; a 1% increase in literacy rate would generate 18 million dollars in economic growth; if students are not reading at grade level by the third grade, the odds that they will ever read at grade level are only 1 in 17; by the 4th grade, 2 hours of specialized daily instruction is required to make the same gain that would have resulted from only 30 minutes of daily instruction if begun when the child was in Kindergarten.

References

CCL. (2010). The Future of Literacy in Canada’s Largest Cities: Canadian Council on Learning.

Digital natives – being or doing?

One of the main reasons for introduction of technologies in education cited in the last eight or more years is a “digital nation” argument (Buckingham, 2007). Many proponents of the ICT integration in the classroom argue that the current generation is born with new technologies and thus can easily use them (Prensky, 2001; Prensky & Berry, 2001). Consequently, teachers usually assume that students are “better” and “know how things work.”  However, Holley and Oliver (2010, p. 694) cite multiple researchers and state that “students are not, in fact, digital natives; indeed, they are not particularly prolific users of technology.”  They also conclude that we should be “exploring, rather than taking for granted, the practices and preferences of students.”

As a result, we may ask ourselves what it means to be a digital native and what it implies in a school setting. One of the most commonly cited definitions has been proposed in Prensky (2001) and Prensky and Berry (2001). Prensky suggests that digital natives are like native speakers. Compared to immigrants, they are born into a world with high ICT use, and are surrounded by its variant and multiple forms. As a result, a “digital native’s” brain and behavior may be altered. Prensky suggests that digital natives may be characterised by their habits and behaviour:

Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to "serious" work. (Prensky, 2001, p. 2)

In the paragraph above, Prensky describes a Digital Native as a person with certain behaviour. This person is “used to” certain forms of informational load, “prefers” a certain format of information, “functions” best in a particular context, “thrives” on a certain reward system and “prefers” certain work format. However, the same author suggests that this divide is generational. That is, all students born at a certain period of time belong to this category and behave in a similar manner. In comparison, Digital Immigrants – those who have learned the new way and born before the period of initial technology adoption – always retain their “accent” and remain attached to old ways. Prensky suggests that this gap is major and not incremental as many may think. “Today’s students have not just changed incrementally… A really big discontinuity has taken place”(Prensky, 2001, p. 1).

Many opponents, however, argue that there is no clear generational divide, and that this cannot be used as the only principle to define digital natives (Helsper & Eynon, 2009). Most of the arguments are concentrated on the assumption made by Prensky and his followers that Digital Natives are surrounded by new technologies that are an essential parts of their lives. (Helsper and Eynon (2009); Holley and Oliver (2010)) and many others argue that so called Digital Natives are not actually that different from so called Digital Immigrants: some are using ICTs, some aren’t.

In the scope of this debate, it is interesting to analyse the proposal made by Helsper and Eynon (2009). The authors suggest that we should “separate the ‘doing’ from the ‘being’. That is, we should concentrate on behavior, as Prensky often does, while still identifying the most likely categories of people that are bound to demonstrate such behavior. Following this proposal, it is possible to adjust Digital Natives definition by Prensky to encompass Digital Immigrants embracing technology to the point that they act like Digital Natives.

This divide in conception of digital natives, either as a generation or as those with certain experience and expertise with new technologies, may have a direct impact on the effects of ICT use in education. If we assume that the status of digital native is acquired, there is a possibility that some students, if not most of them, are not digital natives and may not be familiar with ICTs. For example, Cole (2009) has found out that her students do not use ICTs as expected and some do not know how to use them at all. Although most students used SMS or chat (92.2%) and many have browsed Wikipedia (86.3%), 37% have reported that they had difficulties with the technology while trying to post on their course’s wiki page. The experiment with wiki may have failed for many reasons, but one thing is certain: a large set of students was not familiar with wiki editing or how to find suitable help on the Internet.

In short, I argue that we should stop thinking that our students are better at IT: they do need training to use technologies appropriately, especially if it is not the most popular tool among this age group. 

REFERENCES:

• Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond Technology: Children's Learning in the Age of Digital Culture: Wiley.
• Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141-146. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.003
• Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2009). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. doi: 10.1080/01411920902989227
• Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk. Computers & Education, 54(3), 693.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6. 
• Prensky, M., & Berry, B. D. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9. 

Thinking about technologies in the classroom

I have just looked up a new course created at McGill University (Montreal, Canada) called Emerging Technologies for Educational Change (EDPE 640). It is an interesting course that I may take this summer or fall. But … But, as often … as always, the teacher completely ignores personal choices of his students. As far as I can see, there is no consideration (or time taken to talk) about one’s digital footprint (in this case, Internet footprint).

While the nature of this course suggests that all students will have to "get dirty" and create some form of online presence, it is always astonishing to note that no time or place is taken to talk about how our choices (as teachers or students) may influence our future lives and the lives of our students. There is no mention of privacy online or any other similar idea. Considering that this course is tailored towards teacher learners it looks like an important concept to consider.

Instead, the teacher expects his students to share their ideas (essentially school work) on Twitter, blogs etc. Most probably, all proposed platforms will be commercial products made for profit and using personal user information to do whatever it takes to make money. Application of such technologies in an adult classroom may, in worst case, generate some form of complaints. Using them in the high school or lower is at least unethical.

Don’t get me wrong: I cannot simply judge a course by its description and declare it bad or unethical or anything else. I simply deplore the fact that there is no course that I know of at McGill that addresses the moral, ethical and legal issues related to the use of “disruptive” technologies including Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, Cloud etc.

UPDATE 02/09/2014: I am, finally, taking the above mentioned course now (in the fall semester). More impressions and reflections to come!