24-25 / 42
Tech for You.
The first phase, Tech for You,
focused on introducing students to ways in which
their PED can assist them in their studies. In effect,
we wanted them to experience how use of the iPad
can be beneficial so that they will be better able to
help their students benefit similarly. We mandated
out-of-the-box training for all new student users to
ensure a minimum understanding of the uses of the
iPad for their own learning. The iLife suite and note
taking applications such as Notability were shared.
We also made sure that students were aware of Appy
Wednesdays, and we encouraged them to attend.
During the semester, students were also offered
seminars on specific applications. These trainings
were conducted by a graduate assistant in the college
instructional technology lab.
Tech for Us.
The second phase of the model
is called Tech for Us. Early in this phase, teacher
candidates began taking some introductory courses
related to teacher education, creating more time
for structured interaction between students and
faculty in the college. During the Tech for You
phase, students were still largely enrolled in general
education coursework taught by university faculty
who are often not involved in the one-to-one initiative,
making it difficult to influence classroom activities.
In this second phase, however, college instructors
began to emphasize the collaborative capabilities
of personal electronic devices. Teacher candidates
began to use iPads, not simply as a tool for individual
learning, but also as a tool for building an educational
community. Faculty were the lead agents in this
training phase for students because they require app
use specific to discipline coursework, created lesson
plans that integrated technology when appropriate,
and required mastery of specific technology relevant
to the discipline.
Tech for Them.
In the final phase, Tech for
Them, the focus shifted toward the students that our
candidates would teach in P-12 classrooms, although
fall of 2015 will be the first semester in which we will
have students in the Tech for Them phase who have
participated in each of the other two phases. Having
developed their own capacity to learn and collaborate
using PEDs, they will be in a position—during these
last few semesters of their university career—to model
these practices for their students. By this point, they
will have developed a personal library of apps suited
to their teaching styles and subjects, and they will
have had opportunities to observe faculty and peers
using many of the apps in varying contexts.
We spent the year before the launch addressing
required infrastructure needs. A strong collaborative
relationship with academic leaders and instructional
technology personnel was a necessity. We had to
articulate the types of activities that would occur
in learning spaces so that IT could strengthen the
current system to meet our demands. The primary
issues included the amount of Wi-Fi capacity needed,
classroom hardware and software needs, processes
for the distribution and return of iPads, billing of
student accounts, and procedures for lost or stolen
devices.
Wi-Fi Capacity.
A needs analysis of Wi-Fi
demand was critical to the launch of the one-to-one
initiative. Users could be expected to bring two or
three devices into the learning spaces, straining the
bandwidth capacity and slowing down use of devices
in the classroom. In turn, this decrease in service
would result in student and faculty frustration. To
prepare for this situation, IT added several access
points in the learning spaces. Ironically, one result of
this attempt to be proactive was the oversaturation
of Wi-Fi access, with devices unable to determine the
best access point. This ultimately led to a decrease
in Wi-Fi usability during class time, not because
there was not enough access, but because devices
had difficulty choosing between too many options
for access. This issue was eventually corrected by
changing the device management system to force
access to the closest point.
Strategies also had to be implemented to regulate
the load demand based on differing class activities.
For example, we requested that faculty assign
the downloading of specific apps as a homework
assignment since a large app download by 25
simultaneous users may result in a several users
losing their connections. The load demand resulted
in the need to increase the university wide bandwidth
to handle the expanding use throughout the campus.
In addition, we had to assess the Wi-Fi use in non-
instructional areas, such as in a Subway and a
Starbucks that share our building. The network
needed to be able to withstand the lunch hour rush
as well as the instructional demands of a one-to-one
initiative.
Classrooms.
Preparing the instructional
environment was as critical as the professional
development of the faculty. Each classroom required
APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE
hardware changes included the addition of Apple
TV or AirServer to allow multiple users to share one
classroom projector. AirServer was used in most
classrooms because it was the less expensive option,
but Apple TV was included in improvements to the
Instructional Technology Resource Center. Both tools
allow password control to prevent students in the
hallway from disrupting a classroom by taking over
the projector.
During early implementation, it was important to have
all technology failures in the classrooms documented
and reported centrally. Decreases in service and
other user concerns had to be addressed by the
IT department quickly. Lost instructional time due
to failures of the technology could quickly lead to
reduced use of the devices and, in turn, a decrease in
support for the initiative as a whole. Given the cost to
students, we made addressing poor connectivity and
other service issues a high priority.
Software purchases included a device management
system for tracking all iPads and for pushing apps to
users. We also created a master list of preferred apps
for students to download based upon major. We
chose to limit the list to free or “starter” apps during
the initial launch to avoid burdening students with
additional costs.
Instructional Resource Technology
Center.
Finally, community spaces such as
computer labs and instructional resources areas
were impacted by the movement to one-to-one.
Charging stations were added for both students
and faculty use. Collaborative learning stations
were needed to allow students to use their personal
devices in the center. The space also needed to
provide access to the peripherals used by faculty to
promote competency by student users. Remodeling
of our center included adding a “practice room”
that provided both high-tech and low-tech tools for
students to practice lessons before implementation
in a real classroom. Spaces were also created to
facilitate lecture capture for “flipped” lessons. Larger
collaboration spaces were developed for micro-
teaching activities both in and out of class. Also a
graduate student was hired to provide assistance to
students in using the technology. Moving forward, we
are hiring a full-time coordinator for the center.
24
25