I haven’t contributed to this blog much for quite some time now, and I don’t want to start back in with an anti-capitalist rant about the corporatisation of education. Yet having just attended an iPad in Education seminar, the urge is overwhelming.
Like so many aspects of my work, I try very hard to see past my own ideologies and opinions and consider alternative viewpoints with the mindset that my role in education has got to be about far more than my opinions. I think that’s a very important part of how we learn – by continuing to challenge your own ideas by subjecting them to scrutiny.
Yet when I attend a session like this, it’s so hard not to be jaded and cynical; to make biting jokes under my breath, and take on the role of Statler and Waldorf, high in the seats of Muppet Theatre endlessly berating the performers.
I am increasingly distressed about the idea of being an “Apple University” campus. I see so much space for conflicts of interest in this, especially when sessions on the educational efficacy of technologies are being sponsored by corporations who stand to gain financially from your attention.
Cite all the academic papers you like. When vendor-sponsored organisations talk about their products in the landscape of education, you cannot have neutrality. So it was incredibly hard to distinguish the truth from the marketing.
I jokingly stated before the session started that I’d get up and leave the first time I heard the phrase “game changer” uttered. They made it 2 slides, but I persevered.
To be fair, the presentation is all you’d expect from an Apple-affiliated speaker. Polished, knowledgeable, charismatic. Truly, he seems like a lovely fellow. And the fact he has a respectable background in higher education did a lot for the legitimacy of his discussion on learning and teaching matters.
He was also very informative, and talked a great deal about different use cases across education. He referred to initiatives in higher education, and in secondary school; he cited a diverse selection of disciplinary use cases, from music to medicine, and business to creative writing. Each and every one was reasonable and innovative.
Yet throughout it all was the underlying theme that Apple is the be-all and end-all. That mobile learning is Apple, and Apple is mobile learning; that there are “those other companies” that have mobile offerings, but their presence is negligible. iOS is God.
Truly, this is what I was expecting. So in that I wasn’t taken by surprise. Yet what concerns me is the impact this spin will have on the local university community. This is where my complaint about vendor-sponsored affiliations lay. When you are trying to educate others about the viability and utility of technology in education – and its fundamental power to support learning – it needs to be presented by a neutral party, not by those who have a stake in you buying their products.
At best it paints unrealistic expectations about a technology’s impact on learning and teaching. At worst it completely hijacks the discussion and provides misleading evidence to make a dollar.
Increased use of iPads is not a learning objective.
Sounds like you’ve been to the same seminar that inspired me to create this post: http://sarahthorneycroft.com/?p=204. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an Apple fan girl when it comes to buying my own tech, but totally agree with you re: the place for vendors in the education discussion (ie there isn’t one). Great post
.
This is a concern that’s even made it into the nonprofit I work for. We’re a basic science research center, and a few years ago, we instituted strict policies about what ‘goodies’ vendors can offer. Virtually all gifting is disallowed, and even trivial stuff like the food offered [to entice, say, grad students] has to be paid by us because we want everything above-board.
It boils down to this: A box of Costco bagels is not a reason to buy one pipette over another.
A mess of additional restrictions has been instituted, the details of which are out of my interest-range. But the point still stands: Even with the best of intentions, conflicts of interest arise. You are wise to be wary.
Regarding Apple, in particular, there’s double cause for concern. I, too, love their products, but they are a corporate behemoth, utterly ruthless about IP, and with clear objectives with regard to media consumption. I love the educational potential of iPads, too, but, as you note, that’s not exactly the point of all this.
Thanks for your thoughts.