Oh yeah.   The MIT wonks gushed over the educational potential of their One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program, but somehow, I don'’t think this is quite the "educational opportunity" they had in mind...

Via Gecko & Fly, I read a Reuters news article reporting that a pilot group of Nigerian schoolchildren who received some of the first OLPC notebook PCs have been caught using them to explore pornographic sites on the Internet.

Well, sure enough, that is educational...

An OLPC representative pledged that the computers will now be fitted with content filters.   Of course, installing safeguards to ensure that these PCs cannot freely browse adult sites with explicit sexual materials is vital — and I’m baffled how this was overlooked to begin with.   But there are core-level, big-ticket issues that’re far beyond this embarrassing incident.   For me, there are two separate but equally important concerns:

First, should we really be in such a hurry to place computers in Third World childrens' hands when basic survival needs have not first been met?   While I appaud the good intentions & ideals behind this project — namely, to provide educational opportunities for children who’ve not had them before — I’m still convinced that the money would be better spent establishing self-sustaining agriculture, sewage & water systems, and/or disease prevention & cure rather than on PCs.   I’m not advocating quick-fix handouts - I’m talking about helping these people build infrastructures needed to become self-reliant.

Second, as I’ve wondered before, do computers magically equate to better learning (or life) for children?   As a parent-to-be, I’m nervous about how computer-use skills are being made a priority for very young kids.   Are we wise to so casually rush to acclimate children - impoverished or otherwise - to the digital world?   And in doing so, are we robbing them of real world learning opportunities?

What’s your take on the OLPC project?
 

Labels: education, parenting, technology

On The Bamboo Project Blog, Michele Martin recently noted an article Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops from The New York Times.   Although she cited this as a prime example of how technology cannot create change if culture remains unchanged, but there’s also an underlying theme that echoes one of my chief arguments against MIT’s OLPC project.   The article observes that many schools that had launched programs to provide laptop computers are now reconsidering because they seem to have no impact on student achievement.

Author Winnie Hu referenced studies showing no real difference on state test scores in schools with laptops - although some data suggest better math class performance from high-achieving students with laptops than those without.

Diehard proponents insist these programs are failing simply because teachers haven’t been trained to integrate the use of this technology into their classes.   But when 6 of one of the study’s control group schools (ones whose students didn’t have laptops) were offered computers this year, they opted not to accept them.

As I’ve commented before, I worry about making computer-use skills a priority for kids.   Could computers, in fact, be a barrier to kids learning to think creatively and solve problems?   Are we naive to assume that technology will magically equate to a more efficient learning environment for children?   Does this concern anyone else?   Post a comment!
 

Labels: education, opinion, parenting, technology

Reader response to a Nov. 30th article on the New York Times site reflects some of the raging debate being stirred up by MIT's OLPC project that I blogged about last week.

Some responses have been glowing, even naively positive, calling the distribution of these $150 notebook computers to 3rd world children a pivotal accomplishment in human history, on par with Gutenberg's movable type that made possible the mass-production of books. Enthusiastic believers are quick to suggest that ready access to the Internet will introduce and bring acceptance to concepts of racial & gender equality, tolerance, and nonviolence in developing nations.

But some comments were more rational, with common-sense concerns about doling out computers in third-world nations where — at least in the western mindset — it seems people have more immediate needs, like clean water, food, medical supplies, and basic educational opportunities. And even more felt OLPC to be a technological solution to a social problem. For example:

"Is there some vast, unrestricted pool of [financial] resources dedicated to educational enterprises in developing countries? No, the $100 laptop idea is a notion that is attracting attention — and investment — where little had existed before. In fact, rather than take (arguably imaginary) funds away from teacher training and curriculum development, this project, naive or not, offers great potential to draw supplementary funding to such endeavors. At the very least, it's laying the groundwork for a cooperative effort to produce palpable results in the education of the world's children."

"Governments should spend the little amounts they have for education on bulking up their respective teaching communities. If these laptops only last five years but teachers can teach for 20, 30 or 40 more years, what has the most benefit to any society as a whole?"

But most of the comments seemed in sync with my biggest concern — do computers in the classroom pay off for any child, third-world or otherwise:

"The track record to date [in the U.S.] is dismal, where 95% of K-12 classrooms have Internet connections, and the average ratio of students to computers is better than 4:1. Why would technology be any more effective in the developing world? Note, by the way, that in previous generations movies, radio, & television all were touted as educational panaceas."

"Good teachers first, computers second. Information accumulated in the absence of a conceptual foundation is confusing, not elucidating. If laptops were the key to 'learning how to learn' for the average student, America’s students would stand apart as the best & brightest in the Western world. [Yet] the data suggest otherwise. Educators have been seduced by technology [and corporate] marketing."

"The U.S. is awash in computers, but it hasn’t done anything much to improve learning or knowledge. If anything, it has made things worse. Test scores are falling. Our youth can't do math, but can play games & surf the net just fine. Computers have proven to be a false panacea."

"To believe 'learning how to learn' is more valuable than traditional memorization and testing flies in the face of plunging U.S. science & math scores. [And] reports of poor preparation for many recent graduates entering the workplace further fuels the debate."

"Laptops for students means a loss of eye-contact. How is [the teacher] supposed to know if they're listening or playing Tetris?"

And of course, there were some bluntly anti-OLPC opinions:

"[$100 notebooks] will make a tremendous difference... assuming they're edible."

"While beautiful in theory, this sounds a lot like giving out free ATM cards to Katrina victims."

"To give [third-world children] laptops would be like giving flashlights to blind pupils led by blind teachers."

"This seems like a good idea but might be analogous to giving everyone in the third-world a car but no money to buy gas. Eventually the computers will break and networks will fail — where's the budget to support, replace, & maintain the computers?"

"This is simply the next link in a long chain of the abuse of the less sophisticated by the more technologically elite — to turn them into consumers of our own culture."

So, what's your take on this?

Labels: education, technology

There’s been lots of buzz in the past months about MIT Media Lab’s One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.   According to a WorldChanging article posted Saturday, the OLPC is now a reality — the first 1,000 units rolled off the assembly line in Shanghai and headed for Argentina & Brazil last week.

On one level, a self-powering, portable, kid-friendly computer — and for under $150, no less — is very appealing.   And sure, the idea of giving children in underdeveloped countries like Cambodia, Nigeria, Libya, & Thailand the opportunity to connect to the sum of human knowledge on the Internet seems a noble notion.   But Randy over at electrogeek.com wisely posed a question that’s been weighing on my mind too...   Do Starving Children Really Need a $100 Laptop?

Are notebook PCs really the key to a better life (or even better learning) for children?   Countless genuises — people whose ideas changed the world — existed long before the advent of semiconductors, so it hardly seems likely that the lack of a computer will truly hamper any child’s learning ability or intellectual potential.

I’m baffled why more people can’t see that funding books, teachers, & schools is more appropriate than placing gadgets in the hands of impoverished children.   John Wood, founder of Room to Read, sensibly notes that a $2000 library can serve 400 children, costing just $5 per child.   A $10,000 school can serve 400-500 children, or under $25 each.

As I’ve wondered before, maybe we need to seriously consider the wisdom of introducing computers into kids’ lives at too early an age.   Does technology magically equate to a more efficient learning environment for children — or could it actually become a barrier to kids learning to think creatively and solve problems?
 

Labels: education, technology

This week’s edition of Deb Shinder’s WXPnews featured an editorial that centered around a short essay entitled "Handwriting on The Wall for Cursive" by Jodi Upton.   It seems the growing trend is for elementary schools to stop teaching cursive writing as a mandatory part of their curriculum and, like Deb, I’m both surprised and saddened by this.

Unquestionably, I believe there’s no price you can place on the value of teaching children handwriting.   But there’s an underlying issue at stake that’s even bigger than that.   It is the ever-increasing emphasis on making computer-use skills a priority at such an early age that truly disturbs me. That kids now start using computers in kindergarten is just a bit stunning.   Seems to me that kids need time to just be kids.   They need to learn how to interact with the world around them and develop social skills.   Since I don’t yet have a parent’s perspective, maybe I’m off the mark, but isn’t it more important that kids learn to doodle with crayons or play ball before they learn Powerpoint, video games and/or instant messaging?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a bona fide techno-junkie and I love my PCs, MP3s, TiVo, & other electronic goodies.   And I’m certainly in favor of teaching keyboarding skills in school — every day, I see firsthand how not being able to type well hinders people in the workplace.   But I’m tentative about introducing computers into kids’ lives at too early an age. The next generation will be enslaved by technology to a degree that we may not even be able to fully forsee.   Computers will undoubtedly dominate nearly every facet of their lives.   So, maybe we need to make sure kids have ample opportunities to learn how to exist & succeed in the real world before thrusting them headlong into the inescapable cyber-world.

What do you think?   Post a comment!
 

Labels: education, parenting, technology