BERKELEY, Calif. — UC Berkeley is adding something a little different this year in its welcome package — cotton swabs for a DNA sample.

In the past, incoming freshman and transfer students have received a rather typical welcome book from the College of Letters and Science’s “On the Same Page” program, but this year the students will be asked for more.

The students will be asked to voluntarily submit a DNA sample. The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students own records.

The confidential process is being overseen by Jasper Rine, a campus professor of Genetics and Development Biology, who says the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle.

Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student’s ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose.

Apple generally makes news by publishing new apps, not by unpublishing them. But last week, it made some educators upset when it removed an app, Scratch Viewer, from the iTunes App Store.

Scratch Viewer was designed to let educators and others review a child’s work that was created on an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch using the Scratch programming language, which has become popular in many schools.

The Scratch language was created by the M.I.T. Media Lab, and developed with grant support from the National Science Foundation and others. It is available free as a download. The language embodies the work of Seymour Papert and Alan Kay, and using it with children is a way to give them an authentic, non-watered down programming experience. As of Tuesday, the Scratch site contains nearly 1 million (987,877) projects uploaded for public viewing.

Scratch’s popularity in schools may be why viewing these works on a portable device like an iPad may also be popular, and why Scratch Viewer ($3.99) might have a market. The app’s author, John McIntosh of Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. is a Canadian programmer who has no formal affiliation with the M.I.T. lab. In addition, M.I.T. gets no compensation from the sales of the app.

I’ve always maintained that mobile learning (mLearning) should have the goal of being completely platform agnostic for many reasons. However, in order to prepare for the time when development of mobile applications across platforms is easier, or when HTML5 is more prominent and fully developed, it is critical for institutions to begin experimenting with specific platforms. To do so requires some serious thought as to what steps institutions can and should take in regard to which platform to being working with.

While Apple has created a fantastic consumer experience for individual uses and for media consumption with iTunes, the App Store and the iPhone and iPad, it is my opinion that the closed nature of this ecosystem, as well as the draconian hold that Apple maintains over its devices (even when “owned” by the consumers themselves) is inherently bad for education. At any given time, Apple can determine that an application you are using for critical course work, or otherwise, is unsuitable according to their standards and regulations, and as a result it will be simply removed, as evidenced above.

This is extremely problematic for the development and implementation of innovative and valuable mlearning opportunities and initiatives using the iPhone OS. I understand that this can be negotiated and rectified, but the problem still exists, and can strike at any time. Much of higher education teaching and learning research these days shows that students are most interested and involved in the curricula that allow them to create, to collaborate and to contribute their own viewpoints perspectives and creativity into their courses. mLearning provides a unique opportunity for higher education to bridge a gap that currently exists between the consumption and creation of course content. The possibility of mobile is not the replication of tasks and activities that can be done on laptops, in labs or on desktops, but rather the ability to apply course concepts and activities to the students’ real lives, where they can create, observe and interact with the concepts and share this with their classmates and faculty members. If education is to help foster the development of creative and critical thinking, high-level-problem solving and freedom of thought and speech, then building mLearning efforts on the iPhone and iPad platforms is short-sighted, restrictive and contrary to the goals of education.

While it may be attention grabbing and trendy to launch academic initiatives using the iPhone or iPad, there are serious considerations that will have implications on the long term viability of relying on a closed system to determine if the applications you want to use, or the functionality you are relying on etc etc are deemed appropriate by Apple. While the ease of use of Apple product make them appealing to the masses, most mobile operating systems are moving toward a much easier user interface, and already include much if not all of the functionality the iPhone 4 OS will be launching for the first time. Finally, while the integration with iTunes provides a fantastic user experience, every mobile OS has it’s own application repository now, and they will only continue to get better.

The point of this is simple. Higher education in particular needs to be careful about which path they choose when considering mLearning initiatives. Open is always better than closed in teaching and learning, and while the masses are elbowing each other out of the way to become the first to use iPhones and iPads, think carefully about what the real academic goals are before investing a significant amount of money into an effort that will leave you completely reliant on the whims of Cupertino.

Question: What were your big research findings about student views on technology and teaching? What surprised you? What would be the main things that you would like both professors and the leadership of colleges and universities to understand?

Students really love to feel like their prof cares about how they engage with the material. Most students are inspired by professors who listen to them discuss their opinions, who give them in-depth feedback on assessments, and who ask for student questions. In the discussion forum, almost every student says that their ideal class would be no larger than 20 people, despite the fact that those participating are a blend of Econ, Bio, Pre-med, English, Language, History, Engineering, Gov, and so on. While not every class at Dartmouth can be a small seminar, professors who have virtual, written, or in-person dialogues with their students make those students feel empowered to learn. That’s where technology comes in– even if the format of a class makes discussion tough or one-on-one interaction between students and profs difficult– technology can provide an easy way to begin a dialogue, to be perpetually re-evaluating the new ideas and facts of a course in a multilogue.

Additionally, Dartmouth students love to feel a degree of control of their education. They love a firm set of learning expectations that have open-ended potential for fulfillment. Across the board, students noted that they would like to have the opportunity for many different types of assignments and assessments. With the classroom technology we have today, students could make a movie, create a webinar, write a blog, give a presentation supported by Ppt, or take their exam online; and learning materials can be movies, news links, podcasts, journals from any time or place in the world, virtual tutorials, or online texts. If the professor can establish a universal criteria for what the project conveys, students love to have choice in the way they convey those expectations.

I was surprised that even though some students love Blackboard discussions, Powerpoint slides, and lecture recordings; almost an equal number hate them. It turns out, that while students like to have these technological “accessories” there as resources, when their profs do not read the Bb posts, only use a Powerpoint presentation to teach, or use lecture capture in the place of office hours, that these tools can defeat that valuable personal interaction between the professor and the student that I spoke of before.

More than anything, I would encourage professors to involve students in their own learning experience. Ask your students to take a pre-course survey one week before class starts. How do they learn best? What aspect of the course topic interests them most? What kind of assignments do they like? Is there any skill or aspect of the course that they feel apprehensive about? Best case, this allows professors to set the bar high for personal investment in the course, allows them to tailor the course to the students’ interests, sends a message that the professor genuinely cares about the students’ experience, and takes the first step in establishing that invaluable dialogue. Worst case, the professor gets some info about their students and doesn’t end up changing the course.

As I begin writing my dissertation on the use of mobile devices as a vehicle for faculty to incorporate active learning strategies, I find this interview, and the research conducted enlightening and valuable.

Click through this fascinating presentation on technology and education by Rodd Lucier. (@thecleversheep) Thanks to @courosa for bringing it to my attention.

With the current structure of education, there are significant hurdles preventing educators and students from capitalizing on the convergence technology is capable of providing. How students learn is evolving to include new media, while teaching methodologies are slow to adjust.

This presentation calls for change, but not for change’s sake, rather, because the possibilities of impacting millions of learners around the world are limitless.

Well done, sir!

See http://thecleversheep.com/ for more from Rodd Lucier!