ACU’s iPhone innovation
Abilene Christian University recently decided to provide every incoming first-year student with an iPhone or iPod Touch in order to promote a “connected campus.” Thanks to Abilene’s privileged position in the alphabet, ACU has occupied the top slot on iTunes U‘s university listing for some time now. ACU provides a short video (just under 18 minutes) about the iPhone initiative through its iTunes U site.
As long as I can remember (I moved to Abilene as a junior high school student in 1982, and earned my bachelor’s and master’s degrees at ACU in 1989 and 1993), ACU has placed a high emphasis on instructional technology. During the years that I worked for C. H. Love and SchoolVision—two local computer companies—I had the pleasure of installing several computers and labs at ACU. ACU’s vision of “convergence” across campus takes a logical, evolutionary step forward in ACU’s technological innovation. But it’s not just about technology. ACU’s iPhone initiative does indeed have the horse before the cart, and attempts to build upon and extend “best practices” in pedagogical thinking. The chart below, which actually resides on a page within ACU’s mobile learning site, invites observers under the hood:
ACU also hosts iThinkEd, a blog that deals with this and other topics.
Yesterday, Jim West dissed ACU’s innovative approach to mobile learning. Jim wrote:
What a crock. It’s nothing more than an advertising ploy like the old bank bit of offering a toaster to new customers if they opened a $500 account. An iPod isn’t a tool and neither, frankly, is an iPhone (with apologies to all those techno-geeks who think they can’t live without theirs). They are toys. Gadgets. Goodies. And nothing more. ACU is wasting resources for the sake of novelty. That, dear parents, is what your hard earned money is going for when you pack your kids up and send them off to Abilene. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it, to know your kids will be listening to their new iPod and chatting it up on their new iPhone instead of hitting the books.
As sometimes happens, Jim is simply wrong about this, despite Drew’s and Esteban’s comments. (And in case you wonder why I didn’t just leave a comment on Jim’s blog instead of bringing it up here: I did, but Jim moderated the comment out of existence.) In a comment to Jim’s post, Drew wrote: “I’d like to see what learning and program outcomes this is tied to.” Well, Drew, check out Mark’s and Chris Brady’s comments below yours on the original post. Check out ACU’s mobile learning web site. Check out ACU’s ed-tech blog, iThinkEd. Check out the “Connected” movie on iTunes U or Google Video (which stars my dear friend Richard Beck as an ACU psychology professor). No, tell you what. I’ll embed it right here.
Clearly, ACU has put a lot of thought into how to “connect” the campus, and by standardizing on iPhone/iPod Touch, ACU can deploy sites like MyACU Mobile with ease.
One more thing, on the topic of cost. Jim claimed—in a complete absence of any data—that the iPhones/iPods would be paid for with student tuition money. Chris Brady agreed that might be a concern. I don’t have any idea how ACU is coming up with the money to pay for the iPhones, but let’s assume for just a moment that (a) ACU is giving every student a 16GB iPhone, (b) that Apple is charging ACU full retail price for every iPhone given to a student, and (c) that ACU is passing that cost on to the students in the form of a tuition increase. I’m reasonably sure that (a) is false, since students apparently have the option of an iPod touch instead; also, having worked with Apple and ACU in the past, and knowing of ACU’s long relationship with Apple, I’m quite certain that (b) is false. I have know way of knowing about (c), as I have not asked anybody connected with ACU about it. Even so, let’s go with those three assumptions. Apple sells the new 16GB iPhone for $499. An ACU student needs an absolute minimum of 128 credit hours to graduate. Therefore, if ACU increases tuition to cover the cost of each student’s 16GB iPhone, ACU will need to increase tuition by $3.90 per semester hour. Three dollars and ninety cents. Since ACU’s tuition is already $557 per credit hour, it’s barely enough to notice. We’re talking a difference of $125 per academic year, and that’s only if all three of the premises above apply.
I applaud ACU for its iPhone initiative—and not just because I’m an Abilene native, an ACU grad, and an iPhone enthusiast. I applaud ACU’s iPhone initiative because ACU has really thought through how these technologies can enrich learning, teaching, and campus life at ACU. Bill Rankin’s in-class use of the iPhone is light-years ahead of my use of “clickers” and makes me feel like I’m working with stone knives and bearskins. It’s not just that Bill is brilliant, but that Bill, Richard, et al. are supported by an institution-wide commitment and a unique set of software tools that integrate campus computing with teaching and learning. Way to go, ACU.
Update: I removed the following from the paragraph just before the block quotation from Jim West: “—who has no experience teaching undergraduates in a college or university—” Apparently, Jim’s online résumé is incomplete and does not include some guest lectures at the University of Copenhagen and some teaching at Vance-Granville Community College and Roane State Community College. Why Jim omitted these experiences from his online “CV,” I don’t know, but apparently I shouldn’t have relied on that information. See here for more details.
Update: After learning more about Drew, I replaced the phrase “uninformed, knee-jerk applause” in my original text with the more neutral word “comments.” Please read the comments attached to the present post for further clarification.
17 comments Christopher Heard | computers and software, online resources, teaching and learning
[...] Chris say pass the way of corn in excrement, since it normally has the same value. But when he writes that ‘Jim West has no experience in teaching undergraduates” he lies. He either [...]
Chris,
What a stupid comment about me. have you seen my bio on my blog? I have been in the educational technology business for 8 years and counting. I read the research, attend the conferences, and oh yes manage a 1.7 million dollar federal grant to integrate it into the curriculum. And I have been teaching undergraduate students for 9 years now in all formats.
It’s load of crap until it is linked to learning outcomes. Read a little. I merely said that it was a strategy to get enrollments up. If you do not think that is important then look at Yahoo’s awards for higher edu and the impact of Educause recognition.
I suggest you shut your trap.
Add me to Jim’s apology demand.
Drew
Drew, your qualifications are not at issue. Your comments are. You characterized ACU’s iPhone initiative as a “[r]ather transparent gimmick to hook enrollments if you ask me.” If it was a “gimmick,” why did ACU spend a year piloting the project? Why did they sink tons of time and money into developing the software back-end to enable the applications they’ve shown us so far? ACU has put a lot of thought into the program, and your characterization of it as a “gimmick” inaccurately shortchanges a whole lot of effort. I hardly see how my use of “knee-jerk applause” is any more or less “slanderous” than your use of “[r]ather transparent gimmick.”
Nope. I stand by it. Did I ever say a gimmick was bad?
Your qualification of my comment as “uninformed, knee-jerk applause” is false.
I have been in one year planning efforts for million dollar license acquisitions. Know how many learning outcomes were targeted? None. Implementation of something this large requires more FTE support from systems than from instructional design.
I read the website, and the level of rigor regarding teaching, learning, and research outcomes is not clear. That why it looks like a gimmick to me. I will see what kind of outcomes they present at conferences if they do. then I will ask the same question to them directly.
Drew, fair enough. I do therefore apologize for jumping to conclusions, particularly my use of the word “uninformed.” Nevertheless, I continue to disagree about whether ACU’s initiative constitutes a “gimmick” (a word I find hard to take positively, but I suppose that’s my problem, not yours).
I think the good folks at ACU should be applauded for their long history of innovation in these areas. Even if we assume that adding technology of this sort adds nothing to the mechanics of instruction (an unlikely assertion), the higher potential to successfully engage students in their chosen media warrants serious consideration.
There are also safety issues addressed by using portable wide area communication. The events at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois compel campuses to pursue some sort of diffuse, immediate communication.
Is there a marketing and recruiting panache? Sure. If it keep students away from godforsaken Baptist colleges, then it is money well-spent. (That is a joke for anyone who misreads my intent.)
It beats the great technology I was provided in my undergraduate days.
http://www.mayflyblog.com/?p=533
[...] in another online spat with Jim West. In the original version of my post earlier today about Abilene Christian University’s iPhone initiative, I stated—erroneously, as it turns out—that Jim “has no experience teaching [...]
So Drew, I just saw your latest comment on Jim’s blog, and I have to ask: now who’s making unwarranted assumptions? I’ve been in higher ed (faculty) for ten years. I’ve served on instructional technology committees and on accreditation/program review/assessment committees. When you talk about “outcomes,” I speak your language. But at the same time, “outcomes” aren’t everything. If the university handed out free pens and notebooks on the first day of registration, nobody would ask what SLOs were met by providing students with these tools. ACU has been using the iPhones in a small group of pilot classes during the 2007-08 school year, and the professors (several of whom are close personal friends of mine—I say this in the interest of full disclosure) have been pleased with the results.
If you are talking about this:
“Read a little.”
That was in response to your initial phrase that I was “uninformed”. Tit-for-tat as it were.
Thank you for clearing the air.
But from now let’s do a favor and avoid any ad hominems. A better response is always “I disagree based on the following data/assumptions…”
For my management, outcomes are everything. Budget constraints demand accurate assessment of any outcomes for implementation. This is beyond someone being pleased with the results. It is defining what those results mean to the insitution.
And I will say it once more. Even if it is a gimmick to boost a little enrollment/retention and/or help the school with a little extra PR that’s fine too. I never said a gimmick was a bad thing. What’s bad is if the gimmick masks itself as an effective new pedagogical strategy when there is no research anywhere to support that. There is research we can find to support the use of pens, paper and notebooks in learning – some of it’s really old. That is in the category of fact at this point.
1 to 1 laptop programs are a better example. Many institutions are not sure it is cost effective for students to float the bill with their tuition when a Dell at Wal Mart can be purchased for 400 dollars with support included from Dell in the package.
Drew, you say “What’s bad is if the gimmick masks itself as an effective new pedagogical strategy when there is no research anywhere to support that.” I go to Educause events and read those publications as well and I heard several papers in Atlanta about how the use of podcasting was enhancing learning amongst students. The presented data from studies of classroom testing, etc. That looks to me like research supporting (at least in part) the purpose of ACUs initiative.
[...] all started when Chris Heard made a passing remark that Jim West didn’t have any teaching experience. The comment was a perfectly acceptable [...]
I just posted a comment on Jim’s blog about his shoot from the hip characterizations of a lot of smart, passionate, Christian educators.
My more general irritation is with the “drive by” violence of his blog.
Chris B (gets confusing here :-),
The operative term is “effective” here. I am using that as a term that measures learning outcomes. What has not been done is a demonstration that, since we are talking about podcasts specifically, are effective in improving learning. What we do see is improvement in student satisfaction usually related to ubiquity of access. However, this variable is usually consistent with any technology platform or system that a student is currently using. Now student satisfaction is not irrelevant and it is related to learning. But it is much harder to say that this kind of technology that produced satisfaction with this assignment improved learning. We have seen the same effect with the Student Response Systems. Student satisfaction and attention to the lecture increase (it becomes “more fun”), but after several iterations, the improvement in learning is negligible at best.
Studies conducted usually follow the model of measuring student satisfaction in a variety of ways. Here is an example (not the only kind of study presented, but rather typical with any technology presentation at Educause – it’s why I go to ELI which is really where you should go as well if you have not been…much better presentation quality directed at pedagogy):
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/SWR067.pdf
What is clear is that when we control for other aspects such as student motivation, internal locus of control, etc. technology in general (such as courseware or a fully online course as other examples) bear no significant difference in student performance. That is to say, if I know how to study, know how to learn, and have a degree of self-motivation, the tool is rather irrelevant unless it is applied to engaging a specific learning outcome.
IF ACU is smart about this, they will set up specific control groups in large enrollment courses to examine the effectiveness of this as a teaching tool. Over on JW’s blog I noted a few palpable uses that the iPhone would help make more efficient (clinicals, field work, etc.).
The problem is that when you are promising that learning improvements will happen and get over optimistic, you will ignore situations where improved learning is just not happening and actually will not happen due to the technology. That is why being specific with learning outcomes is necessary if you are going to make any assertion that the technology is a variable that elicits a significant difference.
Hope the clarifies it a bit.
I also have thoughts on the ethics of requiring students to buy any technology with tuition dollars due to corporate planned obsolescence, interest charges on loan payback periods that increase gross costs of technology for students, and the lack of options that students have (I am interested to see for instance how ACU will manage calling plans). Students need a good value for the dollar that they will not have to pay back long after the value of the tool has been expended and have a right to choose between alternatives. Labs and printers and charging a moderate tech fee is different since the student has less liability for those assets since they are not on the student’s person per se.
I find it amusing that people think a $400 gadget would be the tipping point for someone choosing a school. These are the kids that have grown up with computers in the home. In their lifetime how many computers, cellphones, or music players have they gone through? I’m guessing most of these kids have probably gone through two cellphones in high school alone. For this generation technology is disposable. I think most 18 year olds are smart enough to realize their new iPhone will be rendered “Jobsolete” when Apple rolls out the next model. There are a lot of factors that go into a young adult’s college decision and I highly doubt that a free iPhone ranks the highest on that list. I think some people need to start giving the 18 year olds a little more credit.
I support ACU in their decision. The majority of my family makes a living developing, designing, delivering mediated education and they’re all in favor of schools moving this direction! In fact, my brother is currently reworking a major course management software he helped design for use on the iPhone. I know he’s happy with ACU!
I work at ACU in the Adams Center for Teaching and Learning. I welcome the opportunity to add to this conversation. The conversation here refreshingly goes much deeper than the discussions on most sites and I’ll attempt to take it even deeper still.
The ongoing conversation regarding learning outcomes, research methodologies, and measurements of learning are spot on. The largest issue I see with understanding our goals and dreams for the iPhone is the glitz of the iPhone itself. Let me try to frame this conversation with a different perspective.
In the early 1950′s the overhead projector was taking the educational world by storm. Seminars were held, books were written, and pedagogies were altered. So the question was, did it increase learning in a measurable way. Not that I can find. Go back another 100 years and the same was being said about the chalkboards I’d guess.
So, back to 2008. Could we teach advanced bio-chem as effectively with a slate and chalk as we can with a computer, data projector and 3D modeling software? I surmise most chem profs would answer with a resounding NO. But why?
In a good textbook-worthy research project, we would, as suggested by Drew, control all other variables and isolate the technology (and we are doing that). The problem is, by design, we are simply replacing one tool for another and measuring the effects of the tool.
The magic happens over time as we allow the tool to alter the way we go about our job that obsoletes the previous tool. Example: Movies (a communication tool) were once just used for reproductions of stage plays. It took time for them to develop into their own genera. Now try imagine Star Wars as a stage play. Same concept as with the hypothetical chem teacher above. Give it some time and you can’t go back because your mental schema evolved due to availability of a tool. It is too complex for this rambling post but read Everything that is Bad is Good for You.
Let me get back on track. 96% of our students already arrive with a cell phone – most capable of playing media, browsing the internet, etc. All these computers in the classroom and the best we can do is create a policy of “turn them off as you enter?” Let’s use those computers for good rather than evil.
We didn’t choose the tool, the students did. They spend an average of 20 minutes a day just texting each other (Harris Interactive). But for us to leverage that tool we need to standardize – at least for now. The iPhone is simply the first device that has real convergence. The future holds Google’s Android and no doubt some leapfrog advances from Nokia and others not yet ready to give up the fight.
As far as cost, a typical student backpack has a cell phone (96&), media layer (iPod – 85%), calculator (100%?), several clickers (due to guerrilla marketing by textbook companies – don’t get me started on that one) and who knows what else. A single device, even as costly as an iPhone, is comparable in cost to all the devices it replaces. As far as the phone plan… 96% already are paying for one and if you can’t/won’t, the iPod touch can be used.
So, after 9 years of research on mobile computing and one-to-one computing in addition to one year of specific iPhone related research, we felt the time was right to pull the trigger on widening the experiment. Will it be successful? Perhaps. But in the meantime, we, as a university, are focusing on teaching and learning and the importance of learning outcomes for our students. We are looking at reaching students more effectively and efficiently and realizing that education in 2008 might need to look a bit different that in 1958. And that, my friends, is an amazing thing.
[...] of weeks ago—a couple of days before I posted about Abilene Christian University’s decision to provide iPhones or iPod touches to all incoming first-year students, making the iPhone a ubiquitous mobile learning [...]
Last we we published a paper examining the quantitative effectiveness of using podcasts in exercise physiology classes and found no real benefit:
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol10/beej-10-8.aspx
We think this is because (in part) podcasts (and other content ‘consumed’ but students) are still passive ways of learning…no different really to sitting in a lecture hall and listening. We believe the real value of using a device like the iPhone will be in allowing students to create their own content…using photographs, audio recordings, video recording, journal entries etc etc. What we need now are ways of harnessing the creative abilities of mobile devices and incorporating those into the way we teach our classes.