/me nods Yep, it's sounding like our best data at this point is to look directly at the experiences of other schools and try to capture the same benefits in our own district. A couple other people have indicated to me that most (if not all) of the more formal studies have been conducted by hardware vendors, who obviously have a conflict of interest. But I see no reason why we couldn't refer to such studies even as we pilot LTSP instead. I've printed out your presentations, Daniel, and I expect them to be invaluable for our committee as we consider Linux, LTSP, and FOSS. --matt Daniel Howard wrote: [Fri Sep 29 2006, 05:18:43AM EDT] > Matt, I know of no studies, merely our experience with our teachers as > we gradually increased the number of PCs in their rooms. They all said > they needed at least a third PCs per class for their students in order > to form a center that they could rotate the students throughout the day > to use the PCs effectively. A 3:1 ratio with a 6 hour workday means > that in a classroom, each student get access for at least 2 hours per > day. Think about how many hours per day you access a PC to work... > > Ask your teachers how many PCs they need at a minimum to use them > throughout the day, they'll tell you. > > Daniel > > Matt Oquist wrote: > >Daniel, > > > >Can you point to any studies that confirm the 3:1 minimum ratio? I've > >been asked by a school board member here to find (among other things) > >some studies on the issue, and since you're mentioning it now, I'm > >asking you first. :) > > > >Thanks, > >Matt > > > >Daniel Howard wrote: [Fri Sep 29 2006, 03:57:22AM EDT] > >>Steve Hargadon wrote: > >>The lessons seem to be: > >>> 1. Decision-making about technology in most schools is not made by > >>>the teachers themselves, but by higher-level policy-makers. And this > >>>is a political game, with lots of money at stake. > >>> 2. Teachers are extremely busy (it was a little heart-wrenching to > >>>hear John S. talk about the restructuring in his area that has made it > >>>even harder for teachers). We cannot place the burden on them to learn > >>>about and integrate technology into what they do, as most simply don't > >>>have the time and are measured on other factors. > >>> 3. There are early-adopter teachers who are utilizing technology > >>>actively in their classroom, but their adoption pattern is not the > >>>same as the average teacher, and so attempts to roll out technology > >>>initiatives on their experience historically haven't proven effective. > >>> 4. Even though billions of dollars have been spent on educational > >>>technology, the computer has not really penetrated or transformed the > >>>average classroom experience. > >>> 5. For technology to be truly integrated into the classroom, it > >>>will have to be so reliable and easy to use so that average teacher > >>>can participate in a grass-roots movement to bring it into the > >>>classroom, since it will likely buck the trend of decision-making at > >>>higher levels. > >>> > >>Steve, add one more to this list: > >>6. There need to be enough computers in each classroom so that all > >>students can access them daily for integration across curriculae. A 3:1 > >>student to PC ratio appears to be a minimum. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Daniel > >> > >>-- > >>Daniel Howard > >>President and CEO > >>Georgia Open Source Education Foundation > >-- > >Open Source Software Engineering Consultant > >http://majen.net/ > > > -- > Daniel Howard > President and CEO > Georgia Open Source Education Foundation -- Open Source Software Engineering Consultant http://majen.net/ 718 Fox Hollow Drive Hudson, NH 03051 U.S.A. +1 603.236.1054 (cell)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature