Shiny Semantics: Why the Chromebook is not 121

I think first, we need to be on the same page with the overall topic since many 121 discussions bog down in semantics. Here are two definitions of one-to-one (121) computing. The first from the Center for Digital Education’s One-to-One Computing Handbook:

“One-to-one computing simply means "anytime, anywhere technology for every student.” http://media.centerdigitalgov.com/reg2view/K12_6_23.pdf

And the second from Wikipedia citing an Educational World article.

“One to One Computing in education refers to a computer for every student which is an initiative created by many companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Dell, HP, and Intel. One-to-one computing means that every student or teacher is given a computer, the Internet and software anytime and anywhere. The term computer is used to mean a personal computer, laptop, netbook, handheld, or tablet.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_to_one_computing

So the short explanation for my comment is that although the Chromebook provides access to an extensive array of online resources, Web2.0 tools, and digital storage/sharing solutions, it works only* with an active and fast enough internet connection, only with software tools available online, and only with peripherals whose drivers are installable on the device.

I did incorrectly profess that the Chromebook is incapable doing anything in the absence of an Internet connection. Since June, Chrome has had limited access to recently updated word-processing Google Docs, calendar, and Gmail, and quite recently, more companies are making offline apps beyond games and reading material.

Here’s what seems available thus far for offline use:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/collection/offline_enabled?utm_campaign=en&utm_medium=social&utm_source=en-social-na-us-social-gplus-post

I’m sure there will be great advances in offline use as the Chrome/Google Docs interaction matures, however, at the moment the blogosphere seems undecided as to what apps actually work well offline, and what provide such limited access as to not qualify as “working” offline. Other’s still require a mandatory “downloading” or “updating” of content ahead of time to have any offline capabilities, which, of course, requires preparation and forethought. Not deal breakers, but certainly concentration breakers.

But back to the question. The spirit of a 121 as defined above does not impose limits on use or connectivity, but instead encourages the anywhere-anytime access to the technology. It is within that “anywhere-anytime” aspect that I find the Chromebook concept in its current iteration as a “substantial limitation” if applied as the one-to-one device.

Personally I am a fan of the Chromebook, and enjoy watching it evolve just as I have many other technologies. It is especially exciting to consider it as a disruptive tech that in many cases unabashedly plays by its own set of rules. But that said, I do not feel that the Chromebook should be endorsed as a true 121 solution. I do feel comfortable supporting it if the integration effort assumes the limitation of the device, and does not overrepresented or oversell the instructional capabilities of the Chromebook.

As you know from my prior writings, I might react quickly and viciously when a technology tells me what I can and cannot do. And I feel qualified as an advocate for students and teachers who want to use technology in pursuit of the best educational experience possible.

I know first-hand, as do you, the importance of an Internet connection in education as well as almost everything else.  But I also know that there is a very rich world of instructional technology that does not need a dedicated Internet connection. My fear with the Chromebooks is that through their current dependence on an active Internet connection they will begin to dictate curriculum after we have fought so hard to put the teacher back in charge of the classroom. If the only realistic solutions a teacher, administrator, curriculum director, or parent has involve an active Internet connection, then we are wildly underestimating what we can do with instructional technology.

The Chromebook is dancing a fine line between its dependency on the Internet and stand-alone apps. At the moment, the internet rules, but even within a year, there could be an effective compromise that 1) won’t open up the machine to mal-everything, 2) require an expensive “hard drive” storage platform raising the price, and 3) diminish Google’s bottom line which is completely invested in devices being tied to the internet.

Remember, all the above is strictly my opinion. It should be take with a gain of salt, or heck, perhaps the entire shaker full. But if the true spirit of a one-to-one requires anytime, anywhere, then the Chromebook, great as it is, has, in my opinion, substantial limitations.

That said, I believe the Chromebook would make an ideal platform for a school-wide integration where the strengths of the device are maximized, and its limitations are minimized. But the term one-to-one should be avoided in that case.

Of course this being tech, and especially Google, it could all be a different story tomorrow.