Google yesterday announced that it will offer offline capability for Google Docs. That means users can use the free word-processing program even when they’re not connected to the Internet. Last month Zoho also began allowing users to use its word processor Writer while offline.
Some colleges have already started outsourcing e-mail and other software applications to free services like Google Apps Education Edition and Microsoft Live@edu.
Will more extended offline offerings encourage other campuses to forgo traditional e-mail and word-processing programs and instead adopt these hosted freebies? —Catherine Rampell
9 Responses to Google Docs Moves Offline
Raphael - November 2, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Maybe existing student complaints of the kind typically ignored were just used as formal reasons to get rid of somebody they wanted gone. Happens.
cerebellum - November 3, 2011 at 11:24 am
Nice commentary. From the source article in Inside Higher Ed, it is clear that Maranville SAYS he is using the Socratic method, but it is not really clear whether what he was doing really IS the Socratic method. True Socratic method is not usually experienced by students as being unsupportive; it typically involves very positive interactions with the instructor who is guiding the discussion and the students’ learning. The link to the Wikipedia piece on the Socratic method is helpful. There is no hint in the Inside Higher Ed piece that Maranville was using practices that are typical of the Socratic method. I don’t think other talented teachers with high standards who use the Socratic method have to fear for their jobs after reading about Maranville. Thanks for the balanced presentation of issues.
gasstationwithoutpumps - November 3, 2011 at 11:48 am
Professors who have tenure generally only move to other jobs with tenure—it is unusual to go through tenure review twice, particularly given how traumatic the process can be. One wonders what was going wrong at the first university to entice him to give up tenure.
beedhamm - November 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm
“I’m ready for some stories about profs who come in and do great things with Kids These Days, aren’t you?”
Yeah, sure. But then, why didn’t you write that story instead of this thinly veiled attack on the guy who lost his job? (where “there must be more to the story” equals something like “it’s probably the prof’s fault”)
And what does this have to do with math?
Robert Talbert - November 4, 2011 at 6:20 am
We do education around here too, not just math. There’s a tagline at the top that says so. Sorry if this isn’t your cup of tea. For those of us who teach math, math and technology and education are all of a piece, and these areas can’t be so cleanly extricated from each other.
This isn’t a hit piece on Maranville. It is a series of questions nobody has asked yet that has a lot to do with the case involved. Do you not agree that there must be more to it than the simple version being touted?
Robert Talbert - November 4, 2011 at 8:46 am
Good points. I think one of the hidden stories here is the lack of consensus on what certain educational practices actually are. There’s what you mentioned about the “Socratic method” — people are quick to defend the “Socratic method”, but what’s the line between true Socratic dialogue and a Paper Chase-style inquisition? And where did Maranville’s teaching actually fall in that spectrum? Again, we don’t know — hence my question about what was really going on in the classroom here.
Robert Talbert - November 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
I think some of the phraseology in the main article was telling. Prof. Maranville is suing UVU for, among other things, “breach of contract” — which makes it almost sound like he was *promised* tenure after a one-year “probationary” period. Hence there was no potential trauma in going through the tenure process because tenure in his case was a fait accompli. Again, I have no idea if that’s the case, but if automatic tenure isn’t part of the hiring deal, why would you sue for breach of contract?
beedhamm - November 6, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Your tagline: ”Where
math, technology, and education cross.”
How can one
thing—say a line—cross another if one of those things is not present? That is, how can math and education (I generally overlook “technology” in these instances as an empty buzzword) cross here if there’s no math?
“For those of us who teach math, math and technology and education are all of a piece, and these areas can’t be so cleanly extricated from each other.”
If you can’t answer my initial “where’s the math question?” it would seem that, yes, you can cleanly extricate math from the discussion of education because you’ve done so here.
“Do you not agree that there must be more to it than the simple version being touted?”
Without a doubt. When is there not? The fact that the prof isn’t saying more before the case goes to court pretty much spells that out doesn’t it? But what you’ve done is use that obvious point to speculate on how the students’ claims were probably merited, a leap for which there is no evidence. In fact, that his teaching was the issue strikes me as one of the least likely explanations. Administrators twice evaluated his teaching and found no problem (not to mention the previous instances along the road to tenure in which his teaching must have been evaluated).
This leap from no evidence to idle speculation is what led me to characterize your “few thoughts” as an “attack.” You open and close with the insinuation that the students are not at fault and continually refer to possible problems with the prof, again with no real reason for believing this to be true other than the “where there’s smoke there must be fire” logic. I strongly doubt that you would like to be on the wrong end of such speculation.
I notice that the professor is blind and can’t help but wonder, having never met a blind professor, what that adds to the equation. In fact, one interested in education might ask what effect does a professor’s disability have on students? (There has been research that shows “good-looking” profs are evaluated better, so let’s not pretend that students (and pretty much everyone else) aren’t affected by such superficialities.
p.s. I liked your earlier columns on “casting out the nines” and cryptography.
Robert Talbert - November 6, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I’m glad you liked the math posts. There will be more of those, and I hope you like those too. But just be aware this isn’t a “math blog” like Gowers or Terry Tao. (Even those guys write about education every now and then.) Casting Out Nines has been around since 2005 and the posts have always been a mix of topics, sometimes with zero math content. I blog about what I think about, and sometimes that has math in it and sometimes not. I’m sorry if this one didn’t have enough for you. Just ignore posts that don’t have the content you want.
I’m still failing to see how bringing up the points I’ve brought up is what you call “idle speculation”. Let me recap the points I’ve made:
1. The real situation is probably more complicated than it seems.
2. The tenure deal UVU offered to Maranville contributed to the way his situation turned out.
3. Maranville’s pedagogical style might have played a role here.
4. The students and administration of UVU have a sizeable role in how this turned out if the news reports really are as simple as they seem.
Point #1 is obvious. Point #2, I’ve argued, is fact and not speculation. Point #3 is more of a question than anything — did Maranville employ good pedagogy or didn’t he? If not, do the student complaints actually have some basis? And #4 has nothing to do with Maranville whatsoever. I have not said or suggested that the students’ claims were “probably merited”. Nor have I even attempted to explain why this situation is what it is other than the tenure deal.
If you feel that some of these points are wrong, then please argue against them. I welcome rational debate on these things. I even appreciate being called out if I am wrong. But I don’t see this as “idle speculation” or “attacks”. If I’m wrong on that, explain.