Apple Aims to Reinvent the Textbook
APPLE in EDUCATION I-BOOKS TEXT BOOKS
Teaching is kind of like any other form of show business. Some people suck at explaining things while remaining entertaining enough to hold your attention. Some people are pretty good. Some people are super stars.
There are so many talented instructors out there who have worked long hours to come up with innovative ways to explain their subject matter to their students.
Lowering the barrier of entry that prevents those rock-star talented instructors from sharing what they have developed with more than just the lucky few students who got into their class has the potential to be pretty game changing.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Apple announces iBooks 2, iBooks Author to "reinvent textbooks"
<>
Wow, I don't consider myself an Apple fan at all, in fact I dislike their corporate policy entirely. But this blind biased hatred of Mac is absurd.
The fact is that getting major text-book publishers to agree to release text books for under 15$ is a major step forward in liberating the less fortunate from the tyranny of ignorance. Currently text books cost anywhere from 80-200$ and believe me, that is hard to afford. I am a professional enrolled in a Graduate program, I make a decent wage, and I still can barely afford my textbooks every semester. To have books available at a price that almost anyone can afford in this country is a blessing, and despite my distaste for Apples policies in general I applaud them for this.
The fact that they require you to use an Apple device to use iBooks does make the savings a bit less, and makes their motives less genuine. But in the long run a single iPad (even an original iPad) and the 15$ per book will save people, and schools, a lot of money.
Read the article MSNBC/GADGETBOX/Apple announces iBooks 2, iBooks Author and new iTunes U
<>
I think Apple forgets one major thing: kids lose and break things. I have 4
children, and I have gone through over 10 cellphones last year. I now buy used
Blackberry's on Ebay for $50 each. There is no way I will commit to $500 IPads
for 4 kids to have their electronic books. The math for me is: $500 x 4 = $2000,
Plus a 50% loss or destruction rate, making it $4000/year. We have 2 IPads, and
they are not allowed to leave the house. Anything losable or droppable will be
both by kids. If they lose a textbook its only $39. Plus who wants to steal a
textbook. My daughter left a $100 leather jacket in the school cafeteria and it
vanished (i.e. stolen). At best, I would not commit to anything more than a $79
Kindle.
Actually, there is no need to be trudging books back and forth
to school. My children have online access to their textbooks from home, so they
can leave their books in school.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Apple Makes Push Into iPad Textbooks
<>
I can't tell you how tired I am of watching my daughter and her friends trudging
off to school under the weight of a 30 or 40 pound backpack. They are heroic
enough to to do homework until the wee hours of the morning as it is.
It
would be nice if they could reclaim their taxonomic legacy and be homo erectus
again.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Apple Makes Push Into iPad Textbooks
<>
How will this drive down costs for the school? Even if we assume that parents
are forced to purchase iPads for the students and schools are only required to
purchase the iBook textbooks the costs are more expensive per year. An iBook
once assigned to a student is now owned by the student and the school cannot
reuse it when the student is done with the course. Physical books last many
years, especially for courses that don't have constantly changing content
(foreign languages, Shakespeare, etc.) If a phsyical book costs $100 and lasts
10-15 years then it has a per year cost of $6.67 to $10, significantly less than
the $15 for an iBook.
If the schools also have to purchase the iPads then
this gets much worse for the school districts.
Publishers are jumping on
this bandwagon since it means they get a constant stream of income versus
intermittent large purchases and probably will make more net income when you
factor out the costs of printing and distribution even with Apple taking a 30%
cut off the top.
What I fervently hope is that some non-profits will
start writing iBooks and distributing them for free
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Apple Makes Push Into iPad Textbooks
<>
Teachers and Profs self-publishing their own books. It sounds like a good idea on it's face. But what's to stop districts from "properly" vetting a book by a local "expert". I can see certain states using "It's in ALL these textbooks as a fact so therefore Intelligent Design is a Fact." or "The Earth is flat is a Fact." or anything else that they might decide belongs in their version of an eTextBook.
What about a Prof that self-publishes and gets certain things fundamentally wrong. I had several times when a Prof corrected their view after going over a text and verifying it. But there's a strong possiblity that they may perpetuate that error without proper peer review and vetting.
OpenSource textbook projects wouldn't fly - the peer review may be there, but try telling any Prof worth their salt that wikipedia is a valid reference and see how long it takes for them to stop laughing.
What about books expriing after a given time, and then you have to re-purchase it for the next quarter if it's a book that can go through several courses (think Gen Chem). How about publishers possibly obsoleting a book for the next quarter?
And of course, ahving used several eBooks and pdfs in class and other situations I can say that there is NO substitute to being able to quickly flip back and forth between pages. A phsyical copy is a wonderful thing.
I love the idea of lower costs for books, but this process makes me a little nervous.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Apple announces iBooks 2, iBooks Author to "reinvent textbooks"
<>
Both my wife and I wrk at a private high school in Southern California that has its entire student body (over 1200 students) and all 85 teachers using Thinkpads. It took 4 years to properly implement the plan to switch over the school due to the fact we wanted to ensure that technology was coinciding with the educational aspect. It is alo very expensive. Around $2000 per year, per student, which they have to pay for and another $150,000 or more a year for support. Support includes one full time and two part time information technology professionals to be on hand at the school. Maintainance, equipment, and software license run another $50,000 per year. It is absolutely not possible for a public school to have this or anything even close to this at its campus. Also someone commented earlier about the life span of a device like an ipad. Students need costly repairs and/or replacement on average every 18 months.
Read the article CNET/Apple iBooks in schools: Devil is in the hardware
<>
Your Point is valid. But overall it's a very old and dated way of thinking. The problem in fact is not that the technology is expensive, fragile, and will get out dated. But the problem is that states are not putting enough budget into education.
I have worked in a school that switch over to laptops for every kid and guess what? There were those like you that claimed the kids would break them and they would end up being more than books. But it did not happen. Actually the kids treated the new technology with respect. We didn't have laptops broken like people expected. Yes some did break. But that's why you have warranties and replacement programs. This is the future.
I have three kids and to see my kids carrying around a 30 pound backpack is pretty disturbing. This is causing back problems at a young age. Not to mention this will be a great way to engage children in a way they enjoy. That will cause them to learn more and better.
The United States is far behind than most large countries in school tech and that is directly translating to kids that over all are not as smart as other countries kids. Not to mention the fact that text books are very dated and cost lots of money as well. Using this new technology the text books can be updated on a consistent basis.
That will save money. Also it will save trees which will help save our environment. Have you even looked at the new iTunes U? It's amazing. Most of the stuff there is FREE! Yes FREE. There are books from k - college level. It's amazing. What you need to do is stop living in the past and move forward. The days of information on print are numbered. It's a massive waste, expensive, and hurts the environment. Apple always leads in education. Embrace this awesome new tech and let's as Americans make our government invest more in educating our children and not in jails and war. Just the war in Iraq alone could have given every kid in the US an iPad. Lol I think your really barking up the wrong tree.
Read the article CNET/Apple iBooks in schools: Devil is in the hardware
<>
The problems you are talking about is not with Apple, it's with the public education system as a whole. And no amount of innovation will solve those problems. I'm just glad Apple is doing something like this even if it's limited to schools that can afford it.
The fact that public schools use decades old books is a big part of the problem. You're teaching your kids old knowledge. In the first place schools should be updating their books regularly. The same way teachers should be required to update their knowledge regularly. By implementing a one time iPad program, schools can save more in the long run. If you're worried about things breaking, Apple has one of the best warranty programs out there. Not to mention they give the best discount to schools and students. It's all about a school implementing it.
Granted public schools have bigger problems than trying to update their books but that's a problem by the public education system as a whole. Steve Jobs said it himself, no amount of technology can help unless we fix the socio-political problems that our public education system has right now. And it starts with teacher's unions focusing more on improving schools rather than securing their jobs and pensions.
Of course the whole point of having a teacher's union is to secure teacher's jobs which is why they tend to be a hindrance more than a help in improving education in this country. Teachers should be like any other employee, their job security should be dependent on their performance not because of some union. That way schools administrators can focus on improving their schools instead of appeasing some union.
Read the article CNET/Apple iBooks in schools: Devil is in the hardware
APPLE in EDUCATION I-BOOKS TEXT BOOKS
Great article. I think this is a realistic point of view. I own a technology company and absolutely love technology. I have all the latest gadgets when or before they come out. I also learned on an Apple and played Oregon Trail (loved that game!). I have started a program that refurbishes old traded-in hardware and donates to local area school for underprivileged students and non-profit organizations. I see what difference technology makes, especially when a student can take it home.
That being said...I do see how keeping up with the technology, repairs, training can become an issue, because it has been one of the main problems we face. We are in the midst of an IPad/Tablet craze that has all wanting one. I do have one and they are great for multi-media, browsing the internet, news, etc. However, if institutions or schools are looking to take advantage of the latest technology, they should look at E-Ink and the Kindle. They are much cheaper, less complex, and easier on the eyes. I can only see our kids eyesight getting worse and worse the more they read on a tablet.
Maintaining any type of technology is expensive. Parts are expensive, labor is intensive, the infrastructure is extensive, and not to mention whether it be software or hardware, e.g., rooting or jailbreaking a device, is difficult to control. A simple search shows you how!
All in all...its hardly a cost efficient decision to implement iPads into most public schools.
Read the article CNET/Apple iBooks in schools: Devil is in the hardware
<>
I really do appreciate the idea of moving education forward by leveraging technology in innovative ways. The problem here is that any innovation in the education space will come up against vigorous and powerful opposition from vested interests. There's a reason we are still "Waiting for Superman." If basic educational reforms such as teacher qualifications and class room size can't even be implemented, how the heck would something like digital textbooks ever take hold in a meaningful way?
And that's the rub. I'm sure there will be - and are - select K-12 districts in this country that have explored outfitting kids with everything from iPads to laptops. But to get this kind of technology adoption across all communities, rich and poor, is near impossible. My wife works for a non-profit that redesigns and restocks elementary school libraries, as well as directs book donations and distributions to schools and students in poor communities. A lot of the kids she works with are on funded meal programs and their families are on welfare. They don't have any books at home, let alone digital gadgets. The sad thing is, one of the primary reasons they don't have books at home is because any book that comes into the house is immediately sold - either by the child or the parent - to pay for food or drugs. I can tell you from experience that if one of these schools received an angel grant to completely outfit the students with iPads, a large percentage of those would go missing in the first month, sold on street corners by kids or their parents. And where's the school's recourse? Are they going to force a parent on welfare to cover the cost? Are they going to kick the kid out of school? Are they going to have 50% of the kids or their parents arrested for "losing" an iPad? And don't even get me started on the possibility of one of these poor and underfunded schools footing the bill for $15 textbooks per child, per year, or passing that cost on to their students.
These are real-world problems that have nothing to do with Apple. I applaud Apple for following up on the initiatives driving technology in the classroom. But without real education, economic, and social reform in this country, many students will be left out in the cold during this "revolution" in education. That will only increase the vast educational disparities we have in this country, solidifying class lines - largely along race - that will further separate the haves from the havenots. And this separation will be all the worse because it will happen at the very earliest levels of education through absolutely no fault of the kids we're trying to help.
Read the article CNET/Apple iBooks in schools: Devil is in the hardware
Mental Decline Can Start "as early as age 45"
READ THE STUDY: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
[Memory Tournament Final, Schveningen, Holland /Wikipedia]
If you look after yourself (exercise regularly, eat healthy, sleep well, stay
away from drugs and excess alcohol), there is no reason why the age of decline
can't increases by 20 to even 30 years. I see plenty of my patients who are
mentally fit and healthy and approaching 70. I also see the opposite, in some
cases people younger than 30. Keeping yourself mentally active and challenged is
the key
Read the article BBC/Brain function can start declining 'as early as age 45'
<>
Can such research probe how more complex intellectual capacities such as wisdom
and the accumulation of experience change with age? Maybe the reason why people
can't add up math sums so fast is because their brains are filled with insights
gained from having lived a life. When are we going to start seeing the benefits
aging instead of just viewing the old as deteriorating.
Read the article BBC/Brain function can start declining 'as early as age 45'
<>
I think most people notice this with themselves and partners but won't admit it
and stay in denial. There is clear denial in some of the comments posted
here.
We are in our 50s and have noticed a slow decline in some
capability starting in late 40s. But it is possible to minimise the impact
through regular mental exercise.
If you work in a high pressure complex
job it is much more obvious. BBC/Brain function can start declining 'as early as age 45'
Read the article BBC/Brain function can start declining 'as early as age 45'
<>
It is not a good scientific test to test only civil servants. We cannot conclude
that all adults above 45 have declining cognitive functions, we can conclude
only that civil servants lose their mental reasoning abilities as they age. This
could explain a great deal about the seemingly inexplicable actions of civil
servants.
Read the article BBC/Brain function can start declining 'as early as age 45'
<>
When I was in my forties people would say that any day now you will find
yourself in a room and wonder 'Why have I come here?'. It has been commonly
understood that short term memory begins to be fallible in one's fifties. So
keep the mind active and not sink into passive activity such as watching too
much television. Read a book or listen to
the radio and use your imagination
instead. It works!
Read the article BBC/Brain function can start declining 'as early as age 45'
<>
Cognitive ability? What the heck does that mean? What did they measure exactly? They need to break this out into steps that are key to accomplishing a task. And what sort of people did they test? Did they test people who think for a living or people who labor for a living? The "thinker" can get rusty after years of disuse.
My guess is that older people struggle more with staying focused on the task than the actual process involved in doing it.
As a person that spends a great deal of time working with people on computer based tasks, I can tell you that many people use the fact that they are too old to learn something new as a scapegoat for the fact that they A: either are not interested enough to bother or B: can get themselves out of something that might be a challenge.
Finally some of the greatest discoveries of the past 1000 years have been made by people that fall into this cognitive breach--for example... Stephan Hawking who turned 70 this week
Read the article MSNBC/Mental decline can begin as early as 45, study finds
<>
I really take issue on this study. There are still a lot of 60-ish people out there in the work force, me being one of them. I feel that my cognitive abilities have actually improved, not diminished. When I was unemployed, I took a test for a position at a company that required a lot of cognitive ability. Guess what? At 60, I aced this quiz, got the highest score and I took it with people much younger than I was. I do believe that you have to do activities to keep your mind sharp, though. BTW - I do walk every day, try to eat right (like everyone), but I have worked on computers for most of my "working" life and play a lot of computer games, as well. I believe that keeping up to date with technology actually improves your mental state and would encourage older people to step up their game and get with it! Getting older should not be an excuse to opt out of the exciting world of technology.
I would also like to see more details of this study. Was it done on men AND women? Were the women going through menopause - this did make me a little goofy, at times, I must admit - cognitive, but goofy and I'm well over that now. What was the education of these people? What type of outside activities did they participate in? Were they employed or unemployed? Passive (couch potatoes) or active? We need to see more details on this study and it's irresponsible for MSNBC to publish this study without further details or a link. There are a lot of older people looking for jobs out there and the "old geezer" label simply doesn't fit the majority of older people in the U.S and the world, in general. Older people have to fight this type of stereotype every single day.
Read the article MSNBC/Mental decline can begin as early as 45, study finds
<>
It says more about civil servants than anything. Think about the type of people who are civil servants at age 45-70 . . . . then consider who is likely to still be civil servants 10 years later . . . those are the test subjects used here.
The test is thus on people who are comfortable working for the government and probably live a very routine life, which is exactly the opposite of what is said to be good for cognitive health, i.e. change, excitement, mental challenges.
To be meaningful the study should be on a random sample of people, then after 10 years it would compare lifestyle and mental abilities. Possibly some of the people that led more exciting lives would show an increase, not a decrease in their 50's.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/Brain decline starts in 40s
<>
I have watched Jeopardy for years. There was a time that I knew all or most of the questions as quick or faster than the contestants. Now, when they respond, I think, I used to know that.
I am 67 years old and I think my own personal research tells me, I have lost it.
On the bright side, I am still productive, learning things and enjoying life. I might be fuzzy about trivia but so far it has not impacted the rest of my life. I guess time will tell how long I can keep it together but with luck, in ten years, if there is another article about this, I will still be able to respond.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/Brain decline starts in 40s
Brain Lobes/Wikipedia
Weight Loss: Calories, not Protein, Matter Most
BALANCED DIET Photo: Aldous Leung/Wikipedia
No one says that calories in/calories out isn't the equation, it is a
misstatement to say that the type of food matters. What most who propound the
low carb diets are saying is that the desire to eat and the metabolic activity
level when calories are reduced is different depending on hormone levels,
specifically insulin, which are affected differently depending on diet. This
study condition was just the opposite, excess calories.
So the bodies aren't at
all looking to eat more, but instead are looking for ways to store the calories.
The high -carb weight difference *might* be the use of undigestible fiber (still
counts calorically) so there's a lot that needs to be understood about this
study befor drawing diet conclusions.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/New Ways Calories Can Add Up to Weight Gain
<>
"The findings suggest that it matters little whether a diet is high or low in
fat, carbohydrates or protein, it's calories that build body
fat."
Carbohydrates were not varied. This study suggests that more fat
and less protein still puts on body fat, more protein with less fat puts on both
more body fat and lean muscle mass, with balanced protein and fat somewhere in
the middle, while still putting on body fat.
To reach any conclusion
about carbohydrates, they would have to be varied as well. They were
not.
It is these kinds of inaccurate headlines that create confusion in
the national discourse. This study does not, in fact, "Challenge [the] Idea That
Varying Amounts of Fat, Protein and Carbohydrates Are Key to Weight Loss" as it
states. It only challenges the idea that more fat and less protein in an
elevated calorie diet is key to weight loss, an idea I believe no one previously
had.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/New Ways Calories Can Add Up to Weight Gain
<>
Studies are fine and all but the end all objective of a good diet is
contributing to overall health. In a nutshell, the tripod of health is proper
Diet, Exercise & Sleep.
Proper Sleep allows the body to rebuild
after exercise and prevent unnecessary food cravings.
Exercise builds
the muscles which consume calories and also contributes to proper cardiovascular
health.
A proper Diet provides the body with protein for muscle
building, fat for our bodies internal functioning, and carbohydrates for energy.
What this experiment seems to point out is that weight gain is the same
no matter what way you scramble the macro-nutrients. However, without a proper
diet one will still not be healthy as imbalances of sugars, fats or even
proteins can contribute to health issues and diminished quality of life. There
is no magic bullet except discipline and some hard work. If you have neither,
you will not be healthy. You may be thin, but you will not be healthy.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/New Ways Calories Can Add Up to Weight Gain
<>
Unfortunately there's a huge money-making industry continually inventing "rules" for how to lose weight. These charlatans can say just about anything -- yeah, calories from chocolate just leave the body and don't cause weight gain -- as long as they have some kind of disclaimer saying that their weight loss technique is unproven and your results may vary. To counteract this misinformation, there is a certain amount of value in news articles confirming that if you consume more calories than you burn, you'll gain weight, no matter what kinds of food those calories come from.
People want to believe they can look like movie stars without having to change their eating & exercise habits. Instead of being willing to make those behavioral changes, they're all too willing to spend money on books, pills, weight-loss program memberships, etc. And the weight-loss industry is only too happy to take their money.
Save yourself a lot of money, effort, and frustration. Eat food, not too much, and move around. You may not look like a movie star, but you'll improve your health (and the condition of your wallet) and the health of the planet.
Read the article NPR/Calories Trump Protein For Weight Loss
<>
"Why do studies like this so often answer questions that no one was asking? As far as I know, nobody was wondering if you can lose weight by eating more."
I've heard people claim that you can eat excess calories of protein and it just leaves the body, doesn't get stored as fat. I've always been of the impression that calories do matter, so it's nice to see confirmation that you can't eat unlimited protein and expect to lose weight.
So, the take-away seems to be: keep protein calories at a "normal" level when dieting, reduce fat and carbs, get exercise, and yes, you will gain muscle and lose fat.
Something we pretty much knew already, but good to see bogus claims debunked because there are a lot of them out there, confusing a lot of people.
Read the article NPR/Calories Trump Protein For Weight Loss
<>
It's funny how reading the comments reveals how everyone got from this brief article what it is they wanted. One reason we keep having these silly studies, as some commenters have asked, is because no matter what's written people will take out what confirms their beliefs.
The article didn't suggest that the study found calories in-calories out is the only thing that matters. The article went out of it's way to say that other things are important and play a factor in weight gain and certainly in body composition. Overall caloric intake plays the biggest factor in weight gain but doesn't speak to what kind of weight is being gained. What kind of calories you eat can aid in reaching and keeping your desired weight as well.
Read the article NPR/Calories Trump Protein For Weight Loss
