Since unveiling the iPad, Apple has sold nearly 15 million units—89 of those were purchased through the Duke Digital Initiative last Fall for loan to students and faculty.
The iPad has recently found its way into the classroom as well. Professor Richard Lucic has integrated iPads into the curriculum for his computer science course, and other faculty members may soon follow suit. With the release of the iPad 2 and the emergence of dozens of competing tablet models, it is an appropriate time to examine the role of new technologies on campus.
There is considerable potential for the iPad at Duke for both academics and personal use. In the classroom, the iPad’s colorful and interactive surface can vividly bring to life otherwise normal coursework. Lucic’s course encourages students to develop and program their own applications for mobile devices.
One can imagine experimenting with the magic of the iPad in a variety of other fields as well. Biology students expand and rotate a molecule with a single touch. Art history students zoom to view the tiny detail of a painting. Math students play around with graphical functions in three-dimensional space. The possibilities are tantalizing.
When it comes to personal use, the iPad is already quite popular, as the devices are frequently checked out from the Link, and many students already own tablets. To better integrate existing iPad technology, the University should learn from its existing successes, including DukeMobile, the widespread Duke application for Apple products, and Froshlife, a digital video competition that acquaints numerous freshmen with filmmaking technology every year. Such demand-driven initiatives are popular and provide natural opportunities to use new technology in innovative ways.
The University should not repeat with the iPad what it mistakenly did in years past with the iPod—heavy-handedly force a new technology down the throats of students and faculty. In 2004, Duke launched a program to give each incoming freshman an iPod, hoping that they would be used in the classroom. Not surprisingly, few students used their free iPod for academic purposes. The failed experiment, which amounted to a publicity stunt, cost Duke about $500,000.
Wholly top-down initiatives to spur new technology use, such as the iPod program, do not work. The administration must think carefully about the advantages and disadvantages of a new device. For example, the iPod is primarily meant for audio and has few functions beyond that.
The iPad may have more potential but it still presents problems. The slow typing capability actually makes written coursework more difficult. Its inability to annotate texts is a huge drawback. Furthermore, many software programs and electronic textbooks are currently incompatible with the iPad. And iPads can, of course, be distracting.
The iPad is not a substitute for the laptop. An initiative similar to the 2004 iPod program would certainly fail. Instead, the University should look for ways to encourage the use of new technologies in innovative but appropriate ways. This includes using the iPad selectively in classes where it enhances the learning experience and in student-driven programs outside of the classroom.
The iPad may well be a game-changer in education technology, but it is a change that must occur naturally and thoughtfully.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.