Lickety-split, I banged out the words “$100 laptop” yesterday on reading of a critical U.S. Department of Ed study on ed tech. I’m open minded. But I don’t see how you can consider the educational value of the OLPC laptop project without factoring in here-and-now use of technology. Wayan at OLPC News, not part of OLPC, seems to agree.
Aiding the laptop cause might be software to make it easier for teachers to build, structure and manage courses for use on the machine. OLPC News has just run an item on the Moodle course management system. That said, whatever the system in use, hardware and software can’t do away with teacher training—in terms of content, pedagogy and use of the technology. Perhaps with a well-integrated, truly comprehensive approach, teachers unions and others will be better disposed toward the OLPC machine, especially if the software can allow schools to use their preferred pedagogies. Reform teaching methods if you want. But please, let’s not bundle pedagogy in with hardware.
Too late David, way too late to not bundle pedagogy in with hardware. From the OLPC Wiki… oh my GOD!
The OLPC website just dropped its old tag line that this was a Constructionist program, and the XO the medium to achieve that. It now has a bland, pro-general education tag line.
Might this be a signal of change to less extreme Constructionist basis?
I love Google cache… here’s what OLPC used to say, emphasis mine….
OLPC is not at heart a technology program and the XO is not a product in any conventional sense of the word. We are non-profit: constructionism is our goal; XO is our means of getting there. It is a very cool, even revolutionary machine, and we are very proud of it. But we would also be delighted if someone built something better, and at a lower price.
This ‘constructionism’ seems to be controversial, as Mr Rothman cannot post a single mention of OLPC without mentioning constructionism as well.
So it seems a wise move on the OLPC’s part to back away from their aggressive (?) support of it. After all, Negroponte used to say that the project was getting the laptops into poor children’s hands; he didn’t build so much hype and goodwill around statements like “We want to force all education ministries to use constructionism, and this device is our way of doing that.”
The OLPC is, or ought to be, a tool — like a pencil. What you use it for ought to be open, flexible, and controlled by the end users. Or else what is the point of insisting on open-source software and hardware?
The irony, Pond, is that in many ways I’m pro-constructivist—I myself often learn better using that approach. But constructivism needs to be balanced with enough structure to master the fundamentals of any topic, which, if known, allow you to be more creative.
Meanwhile I totally agree with your pencil analogy. Shame on OLPC for a top-down approach. I love the project and have consistently supported it in my writings. I just hope Negroponte, who has done the world a great service, will listen to TeleRead and the unofficial OLPC News. Years ago I proposed a program to create a market for e-book-suitable devices for U.S. schools—that’s one of the key elements of the original TeleRead plan—and it’s a trip to see OLPC doing the same thing internationally. And domestically, too, I hope in time.
Thanks,
David
(Not a professional educator, just an ex-child whose sister spent decades in education.)
OLPC Mission Change: Constructionism, Competition, Gone!…
OLPC History isn’t the only mysterious change to the One Laptop Per Child website, laptop.org. If you read the OLPC Mission you’ll notice that the goals of One Laptop Per Child itself are starting to shift.
First let us review the last paragraph …