Now like the iPhone/Touch the iPad can use thousands of “apps”– miniature applications developed solely for use on iPhone/iTouch/iPad, and sold through the Apple store. What’s always been disconcerting about the app development process is that Apple controls not only the specifications for apps, but also restricts what apps are made available for use on their product, censors content, and even denies what technologies can be used to produce such apps.

Apple has the right to do all this, of course–it’s their device. Even though the approach out-M$s Microsoft, Apple’s restrictions on production and content of the apps is only one side of a larger problem. What really concerns me is how Apple’s app model will impact digital content on the open web, and I’m not talking about Flash.

The Web as an App

We’ve seen already a number of apps that replicate core functionality of web sites. We’re starting to see more apps produced by content providers as a supplement to their existing web-based content (e.g. Wired, NPR, WSJ). But how long until this supplement supplants the web-based stream? How long until consumers are hooked into fee-based access to this content under the illusion that it’s only available through the app?
I believe Apple has been rather insidious, if clever, in their iPhone/iPad app model, wherein the closed nature of their system requires a kind of fake innovation in the development of “new” apps that do little more than their web-based cousins; certainly little more than what’s already possible with a web browser and a little creative use of standards-based web languages. Instead, these appear to be little more than an opportunity for approved providers to elicit fees in new ways from end-users.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for businesses finding new ways to make money by improving service or a product, but is that what we are getting here? The drive to develop web-based products as apps seems entirely backwards, for we already have the one tool we need to facilitate mobility of both content and services: the standards-compliant web browser. What technologies do we need? Not C, C++, or even Flash, but how about HTML, CSS, Javascript, XML, and PHP? How about the open web standards that have facilitated the information access revolution we are experiencing?

Now a “special” path to mobile device development is nothing new; even the W3 tried to sell us on HDML rather than alternative CSS and minimalistic but semantically correct XHTML. But I think time has proven that this is wasted effort in the face of a broadly-accepted, dually-purposed web site constructed on sound principles of web design and utilizing creative applications of open technologies. Even NPR seems to prove this point by the fact that it has not only released it’s own iPad app, it’s also reworked it’s web site to be “iPad-friendly” for those who don’t want to download the (free) app. And at first glance it looks like the web site provides the same essential features.

Enter Blackboard

As expected, in an attempt to capitalize on the iPad buzz and finally make good on years of broken promises for mobile accessibility, Blackboard has unveiled its iPad app, which

recreates the course experience of Blackboard Learn™ … and lets students check grades and assignments, add discussion board comments and blog posts, email instructors and classmates

How stunningly innovative! I surely couldn’t do any of that on a mobile web browser?

I probably rehash this example too often, but I remember sitting in a session at a WebCT conference 5 years ago that was supposed to reveal WebCT’s innovations in mobile delivery of content. Turned out the WebCT rep had nothing to share, but hoped to take ideas from the audience. Disappointed, I turned to my Palm Treo phone and did some grading through Blazer on Moodle. Though the HTML, CSS, and Javascript of Moodle was still disappointingly primitive at the time, it was just good enough that the weak Blazer browser could handle it, and demonstrated the power of using open web standards.

Michael Feldstein suggests that this sort of “innovation” will promote the iPad itself, saying, “if I were a student or faculty member heavily using Blackboard and thinking about buying an iPad, I might find this app to be an additional motivator to buy one”. I bet Bb is hoping the reverse of this will be true: that by providing all their students with an iPad colleges like Seton Hill and George Fox will create a scenario that fits just right with their particular e-learning solution, which is “the industry leader” with full support for “mobile devices”.

This restrictive piping of information that we currently take for granted on the open web is of greatest concern to educators, perhaps, because it has the potential to retard the development of new models of learning. I don’t mean “learning by doing”, though iPad’s failure to support creative production is notable (Jeff Jarvis writes, “It turns us back into an audience again”); I mean particularly developing models that encourage increased learner self-regulation and networked direction along variable learning paths. Such models require access–both broad and deep–to information and depend upon content aggregation, parsing, and re-dissemination. These capabilities have only recently begun to be realized through the open web, thanks in large part to web standards. What schism might the apps model cause in this new standard of information accessibility? What locks and limitations may now encrust upon the ideals of the open web?

As our semester crawled into the second week and I began to enter scores and feedback for the students’ first assignment–a blog post–I noticed a couple unusual features:

1. When a student submits an URL for an assignment, Instructure grabs a screenshot of the rendered URL in addition to providing a hyperlink. This ensures that students actually have completed what they claim to have completed at the time of submission.
2. Students and instructors can each reply to an assignment’s score and feedback seamlessly within the system. For instance, after I submitted scores for this first assignment, one student explained in the assignment feedback why I failed to notice that she had in fact completed the assignment. I confirmed this, changed her score, and replied back, much like I would in private e-mail, but without any of the hassle of opening a message, choosing an addressee, etc.

Not only is this feedback discussion feature both seamless and the default, I can also use a built-in rubric, attach individual files (though Instructure has an even better way to upload assignment feedback en masse) and even record audio feedback inline (uses a Flash-based plug-in [still buggy for me on Win 7 in FF3]).

This is a great way to negotiate feedback and scoring with students. This also provides an opportunity for learners to engage in the assessment process. And since the features on this particular tool are easy and even intuitive to use, there is no excuse for accurate, timely corrective feedback that is understood by both instructor and learner.

How do (students’ | faculty | staff) attitudes toward institutional learning and communication systems differ from attitudes toward informal learning and communication systems?

This isn’t nearly as relevant to the WPMU system as originally intended, but I do expect to be able to address the system through this survey without overwhelming participants. Some of the survey questions that pop into mind ask about personal use of social media, perceptions of institutional technology, relevance of both toward learning, perceived efficiency for learning, likelihood of using new institutional technology, etc.

I’m posting this here in case any readers (who I haven’t lost yet through neglect) have ideas on how to keep this useful while maintaining a sharp focus. Suggested questions are, of course, welcome.

The internet is a rebel and a bully, threatening to destroy the established system of education that dictates how we learn. Shocked? Well, this is a good thing any way you look at it. The internet will transform the way you and I learn. It will provide a customized and individual learning experience. Okay, maybe the “internet” alone won’t start the revolution, but it definitely facilitates it. Producers of educational media content already provide fully customizable websites that utilize learning management systems that let you choose what you learn, when you want to learn it. … this means that you get more bang for your buck. Which is more than you can say for the “established” educational institutions that just bark out education in hopes that you’ll keep returning. The future of education online is bright. The things we do with the internet can transform education. It can transform the world.

…

Here is one scenario:

UVU gets rid of the physical school except for one building used to house administration and an office for each teacher. Each teacher is provided with computers, webcams, microphones and other equipment. The teachers now have resources to teach lessons live, record them, and archive them for students to view at a later time. Teachers also have virtual office hours where they can chat with students, they all use email, and have personal LMS tracking their own progress. (customized and specific to the school; and better than Moodle or Blackboard) Students collaborate online.

For those of us in ed tech, nothing here is really new, but there is a palpable frustration re. the absence of teachers’ use of very basic networked technologies. This is the future he’s talking about; when I was an undergrad over 12 years ago I wanted many of the same things! Speaking of being frustrated with teachers, what he said next really grabbed me:

[I] don’t think that enough effort is being put into developing the tools that would empower us as students…

The implication here should have been obvious: if the teachers are not satisfying the students needs, at the very least students should be given tools they need to empower themselves.

I would love to see examples of your reuses/remixes so I can highlight them in future posts, and gain new ideas and insights. Please comment, pingback, or e-mail me URLs or details!

(For those of you who have been in a coma for the last 13 years, MP3 is the most popular digital audio file format. It uses a lossy encoding and compression technique to ensure small file size while preserving audio quality.)

A lot of the “MP3″ legal concern is over MP3 encoding or decoding technology, but the patents also affect the distribution of the .mp3 file itself. Emusic.com is just one of many who pay a patent royalty for the distribution of it’s MP3s. But what about educational institutions? For instance, MIT OCW uses MP3 technology for compression of audio lectures; do they pay off Thomson for each file?

Not likely. Thompson’s web site declares…

A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like).

However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

This appears to exempt non-profit educational usage, so I e-mailed Thompson directly. Reeder Grant of Thompson replied swiftly and courteously:

If you are not receiving, or you do not anticipate receiving more than $100,000 annually from mp3 distribution activities, you do not need a license. From your described use below (distribution of non-profit educational MP3s), it would seem that you would fall into this latter category of not needing the license.

Good news, right? Based on this information I suggest the following options for educational creation and distribution of .mp3 (which in no way should be considered legal advice):

1. Proceed. Create and distribute .mp3s without a license if they are clearly for non-profit educational purposes. But make sure you use a legally purchased and licensed, or, even better, an open source MP3 encoder like LAME (open source MP3 encoders have been specifically ignored by the legal actions). And consult a lawyer.
2. Contact the patent holder(s). I would go with Thompson for the above-stated reasons. Then consult a lawyer.
3. Break into the open. Use a different, widely supports audio compression format. OGG seems to be the most popular “open” lossy audio compression technology. OGG is not natively supported by iTunes or Windows Media Player (two of the most popular desktop media players), but plug-ins are available for both (make these available to users on the file download pages). No lawyer required.

Hardcore edupunk’s might lean toward option 3, but while nearly everyone is ready to play an MP3 in some form or another, few are ready to play an OGG, and less are comfortable with the change of file format.

(I will add that though I’ve never played with OGG, I am fascinated by the claim that OGG can “contain” lossless audio file information from other formats such as FLAC. FLAC is an open “lossless” audio compression codec, and I’ve always ripped my CDs as FLAC and MP3 simultaneously using EAC, Mareo, and LAME [FLAC for archive, MP3 for portability], but this FLAC + OGG marriage may be more suitable in the longterm.

(If you’re thinking of trying OGG, audiophiles recommend that you not “transcode”, that is, convert from MP3 –> OGG. Convert from CD, original WAV, or other “lossless” format.)

P.S. With respect to the original ITForum question, I should point out that Audacity is not a MP3 encoder as implied, nor does it contain an MP3 encoder, thus exempting it from the patent licensing bane. Audacity is an audio file editing software that uses it’s own file format. Audacity does, however, work with external MP3 encoding software (like LAME). Basically Audacity triggers the external encoder to compress the audio file.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KsEQnOkTZ0

Richard references Johnathan Harris, so you might want to check out his web site here.

Here’s a higher quality flv version:

Intro to OpenShare for Moodle 1.9 (flv)

• LilaTov Cocktail: “Creepy Treehouse” effect: Twitter & Facebook suck when they’re required by your professor
• Marie-Jose Klaver Met je professor in een boomhut (In a Treehouse with Your Professor) (Dutch — does “kippenvel” mean “goosebumps”?)
• AnneC Trouver l’équilibre (French — relates personal experiences with student resistance to instructor-implemented social media)
• History-ing: Creepy Treehouse

The persistence of this discussion should be encouraging for John Krutsch and Marc Hugentobler, who will be presenting at this year’s WCET Annual Conference specifically on the creepy tree house effect in a session titled “Taking the ‘Creepy’ Out of ‘Creepy Tree House’”. I look forward to seeing educators and administrators engage in discussion and debate on the meaningful/meaningless-ness of the term, any deleterious effects it might have on teaching and learning, and how we can leverage technology without wasting our time.

My review will be a little different from John and Ben Krutsch’s review, as I almost immediately set about wiping the Xandros Linux operating system (OS) and installed Ubuntu Linux, which I am using on several other computers.

Specs of EeePC 900

Review

The ASUS EeePC 900 is a compact, fairly light, surprisingly powerful notebook that will suit the needs of nearly any mobile dekstop computing user, providing they have good manual dexterity and eyesight.

Strengths:

• Small width and depth
• Good resolution for the size (1024 x 600)
• Sufficient USB ports (3) & SD card slot
• VGA video out
• Fairly lightweight
• Fast boot up (< 1min) and application starts
• No moving hard drive to farm
• Bright screen in normal, indoor lighting

Weaknesses:

• Average height
• Small screen requires good vision (disclaimer: my colleague John Krutsch has a visual impairment but did not complain about the readability of the screen size)
• Keyboard is a little awkward and uncomfortable for my hands
• Not as lightweight as I’d expected
• Limited storage space (I’ve set aside the 16gb 2nd memory for my storage space.
• Achromatic chassis may be boring to some
• No Bluetooth or WAN

It’s fair to say I have high expectations for laptops/notebooks. I’ve owned half-a-dozen different brands of laptops (Panasonic, Dell, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Lenovo, Texas Instruments/Acer), and so far my favorites have been Lenovo, Fujitsu, and Dell, in that order. In fact, I now own two Lenovos which I use 90% of the time—a Thinkpad T60 for my “desktop replacement” with a docking station, and a Thinkpad x60s as my writing notebook.

Because the EeePC was predicted to replace my Thinkpad x60s in my workflow I reviewed the EeePC in comparison. It’s important to keep in mind that the EeePC costs three times less than the Thinkpad x60s, and ASUS certainly didn’t intend for it to be a competitor of these higher-end laptops. I run Ubuntu 8.4 on my Thinkpad, and for the basic word processing and Web/Internet apps I used there is very little noticeable advantage to the Thinkpad in terms of speed, which is a strong mark for the EeePC.

The battery life of my charged EeePC was labeled at approximately 6 hours, though I will update this information tonight after I let it run down.

Obviously the Thinkpad has a larger screen and a full-size keyboard, and so it wins there hands down—by comparison, typing on the EeePC was painful, though the more I type with it the easier it becomes.. What really startled me upon comparison was how insignificant the weight difference was between the EeePC 900 and the Thinkpad x60s—the Thinkpad was a mere 6 oz heavier—not enough to really notice.

So while the EeePC is a compact tool of considerable computing power at an unbeatable price, it’s small size can be weighed as a disadvantage in terms of screen and keyboard usability. For my purposes, it’s not significantly lighter or more convenient than my Thinkpad x60s, and so to facilitate my writing work I will probably stick with the latter. I expect the EeePC to be very convenient, however, to keep in my office as a highly portable, on-demand notebook for toting around campus to meetings and appointments.

Applications for E-Learning

The most prominent application for learning with EeePCs comes from their low pricetag. At ~$400 USD I could imagine these being standard equipment for jr. high or high school students. If my son’s school had an established plan for integrating use of notebook computers into the daily curriculum, I would have no problem shelling out the money for one of these. Presuming that these could be used for at least 2 years, probably 3-4 if any memory expansions become available, the bang-for-the-buck potential is high.

The Xandros and the Ubuntu distributions come with Firefox for the Web, OpenOffice for word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations, and Ubuntu comes with GIMP for image editing–this open source suite alone provides users with significant opportunities to learn and create right out of the box.

Collaboration or other connected learning opportunities are less apparent, but I think it’s worth considering further, even to the point that ed tech bloggers come up with a “best practices” list of ways to support engaged learning through these and other laptops (something the OLPC focuses on with Sugar).