Earlier this year it was whispered behind the scenes that there was a momentous World Bank study on ICT in education to be published around a computers in schools program in Colombia. We were warned it might be quite negative to the One Laptop Per Child project.
If this study, "The Use and Misuse of Computers in Education", is the one that was feared, I find it very tame, nothing new really, and nothing we cannot improve - if we want and dare to face reality.
Focused on classroom integration
Yes, computers in education are mostly useless unless they are integrated to the existing process. Doh, nothing new there! Why don't people focus on that, I don't know. I know we are - the approach we expect to use within OLE Bolivia is to integrate computers to the teaching process, supporting the teachers' work.
Talking with an international expert of UNICEF in Bolivia I was told she had never seen something like that kind of integration, ever, anywhere - go figure, it seems so obvious a need!
Just to spell out what I am talking about right here, constructivism/ionism is not connected to the educational process as exists most everywhere, or curriculum content, pretty much by definition.
But let's go to the report itself for two choice quotes, with my my emphasis added:
"Overall, the program seems to have had little effect on students' test scores and other outcomes. These results are consistent across grade levels, subjects, and gender. The main reason for these results seems to be the failure to incorporate the computers into the educational process."
"The main reason for these results may be the implementation of the program. Surveys of both teachers and students suggest that the program increases computer use among students and teachers by a surprising small amount, and most of the use of computers by students is for the purposes of learning to use a computer rather than studying language. Additionally, the extra computer use reported by teachers is concentrated in the lower grades with older students' teachers reporting almost no computer use in both groups."
Let me be blunt. OLPC needs the World Bank and other major funds sources to support this project - corrupt, poor governments are not likely to pay for it to be done right, and it is their countries that are supposed to benefit the most from something that can bring in quality education. BUT, we need results.
Results that are connected with the reality of what the expectations are. Attempting to short-circuit the process with the "potentials" of Constructivism/ionism won't get us anywhere that counts, like admission to University studies. So far it is nothing to be surprised that actual M&E on OLPC deployments is seldom being made public.
Countries have certain curriculum constraints and expectations. Those may not be perfect, but that's the way of reality, just like the world is not perfect, and we have to do the best we can, with what we have, where we are. That's called being grown up. If we develop our work to fit those constraints, we will have a better chance to be effective, to be welcome, and, finally, to be successful.
Wait what? Education? I thought this was about giving the developing world computers. Preferably without Windows.
Constructivism or not, I haven't really seen any good educational content. We were promised that this computer could help reduce the cost of books via e-books. So where's the free educational content? Where are the free generators to power them? Or foot pedals, or whatever.
author writes:
"Let me be blunt. OLPC needs the World Bank and other major funds sources to support this project"
And why, exactly, would the World bank spend money on this project after the study confirms that Negroponte's promises are just empty rethoric and his "project" is only concerned with selling as many laptops as possible to poor people, regardless of whether they benefit or not.
Todd Oppenheimer wrote an excellent book on the use and misuse of computers in education. Titled "The Flickering Mind: Saving Education from the False Promise of Technology", it is a thorough investigation of what he calls the 'technology fad' in American Schools.
It's not technophobic, however: the book examines educational technology in a fair but critical manner. The book is also rather long, but if you put aside a month to read it, it's well-worth the effort.
I would be the last to argue against the need of content development and development of a platform for easy content development. But let's be fair here, this report can not be even remotely connected to OLPC or Sugar or the approach they try to implement in early education. The report in the introduction clearly says that:
"This article aims to increase the available evidence on the use and the impact of computers in education. We consider the program Computers for Education. The program is an alliance between the public and private sector to refurbish computers donated by private organization, install them in public schools, and run a program that teach teachers to use computer in specific subjects, especially in Spanish"
How on earth this is related to OLPC deployments? Similar attempts have been tried 10-15 years ago in developed countries and the outcome is know. No tangible educational outcome. So we are we discussing THIS now?
So, we can have our arguments about OLPC, Sugar, development etc but at least let's base it on something relevant... Shall we?...
I wait with "baited breath" for quantitative results from the projects that seem the most advanced in supplying content at the same time as the computers (XO): Nepal and Oceania. (Forgive me if I left others out -- my only source of information is this site and laptop.org.) Are there any hints of bust-out numbers from these ?
Secondly, what is the effect of one laptop per child - where the child gets to use the computer 24/7 (with the content). This ownship with content is still such an exciting idea -- can hardly wait for even preliminary quantitative results. (Give'em if you got'em.)
Let's not forget that one of claimed benefits of olpc is that it greatly boosts school attendance by making education more interesting. I hope data is being collected to see if this actually happens.
We believe that we shouldn't pass over the curriculum as defined by governments.
Rather diversify pedagogical approaches using the XO. As defined by Sfard, Hakkarianen, Lipponen and Paavola, learning metaphors cohabit in the learning environment Sugar (acquisition, participation, and knowledge creation). We know that the acquisition learning metaphor predominates throughout educational systems worldwide. Our role is to show teachers that learning can be achieved otherwise. The callenge is that deployments must respect curriculum constraints but also open teachers to new pedagogical approaches and learning views like constructionism and social constructivism.
ghurley - Your Flickering Mind book is available at my library so I put a hold on it. I hope it is as good as Super Crunchers & Disrupting Class - both recommended by people outside the professional field of education but absolutely amazing books.
I'm counting on you ;)
dickey45 - I think I'm allowed to tell you that I'm planning on writing a guest post on olpcnews with a review of the book.
For those of you interested in the Oppenheimer book but who don't have quick access to it, you might want to read his article in the Atlantic Monthly upon which the book draws heavily:
The Computer Delusion
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm
and/or just listen to this interview on American public radio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1617851
Cheers,
Mike
(now blogging at http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech )
I just got The flicking Mind form the library.. It looks like a pretty thick read. better get at it.
Looking forward to the review.
Mike thanks for the liks.
I didn’t have the chance to read the book yet, but I did LISTEN to the interview at ToN (the text link is wrong -your blog link is wrong too- and when you find the ‘97 article it requires a subscription) and it would appear to me that what was said was
a) Computers or technology by themselves are not teaching much specially considering the cost.
b) Computer use, eg typing, point and click, use of the A or B specific program (MSoffice anyone?...) is good to know but does not worth more than a semester of teaching.
c) Computer knowledge (provided by the specific application-s use) is no more than an inch deep (here comes view source and the multiple computer language sugar “games”)
d) Internet access by itself may provide quick and easy answers and nice looking papers but at the expense of imagination, analytical thinking, in-depth comprehension and physical interaction (here comes collaboration and constructivistic approaches)
e) Application developers are focusing of technical issues of the application but have very little, if any, idea of the (application related) problem-s they are trying to solve. Certainly educational/developmental processes (here comes constructivism).
f) Constant software and hardware upgrade dictated/enforced by the fast pace of the technology is an unjustified financial burden (here comes FOSS and the XO)
g) A small class with good teachers, enough funds and a diverse well-organized curriculum with computers in the “right” dosage intergraded in the curriculum, is the best (here comes the MISSING content/curriculum integration).
h) Computers/distal learning are OK when no other options are available (like developing world maybe?).
If that’s what it is I would subscribe to it 100%
Mavrothal,
Sorry about the links:
1. It looks like the OLPCnews web site automatically included the end parenthesis ')' when it added the HTML to make the blog link active. It should be http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech .
2. For some reason I could access the Atlantic Monthly article directly -- it didn't ask me for a log-in or any subscription information. If that link doesn't work for you, it appears that someone has re-posted the article in its entirety at http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/computer.htm .
Cheers,
Mike
Mike,
I've edited your comment to make the links work.
In comments, the URL's are automatically generated to use all characters in the string, including the "." and ")" at the end of your addresses in that comment.
c) As I recall a lot of the source looks like vomit. And the truth is most people don't care to change the code.
d) I absolutely love the quote here:
http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/usbmsd98.php
"I have said it for years now, the implementation strategy does not matter. Give them laptops, give them Internet connectivity, the rest come automatically and the rest is just details in form of Web contents and Web Applications which the developers of the world need to improve to be more useful for education worldwide anyways. Once better educational Youtubes and Wikipedias are available, all OLPC countries will benefit just as any other child with a laptop and an Internet connection on this planet"
That's right, with internet access, educational content will magically appear. Wikipedia as it is is great, but it isn't really structured to fit a curriculum, and it isn't localized into language. Just look at how kids in the developed world have internet access and automatically learn because of it.
I like how once there's educational youtubes learning will take off. Reading the first few pages of "A flickering Mind" that was the thought back in the day on educational filmstrips, and Television... didn't work.
g) I would argue is due not to the computers but the small class sizes and enthusiastic teachers. Enthusiastic teachers can make a different without computers. This was touched on in the first few pages of "The flickering mind" in reference to studies of LOGO as a learning tool.
Besides Panacea and Pandora,Greek mythology has dozens of characters and that's only for those starting from the letter P...
Just in case you prefer literature over technology :-P
For D) I meant this link:
http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/india/to_satish_jha_of_olpc_india.html#comment-269748
While I agree that many teachers are trying to use technology correctly, there are those who use it in place of learning. What needs to be the constant focus is the learning and teaching of the content. Technology should only be used as an additional help in the teaching process. For example, if a teacher would like to teach about volcanoes, she may use a PowerPoint presentation to enhance the lecture, but she should not allow the PowerPoint to disrupt the content. If she were to have too much animation, if there were technical difficulties, or if she began teaching how she put the presentation together, this would not be helping the learning process.
I think that most if not all teachers understand this idea but may not completely be aware of it since they are possibly new to the idea of incorporating technology into their curriculum as well.
I propose that we attempt to teach the teachers of the present and the future to correctly incorporate technology into their classroom so they can utilize their resources and the make the classroom as great experience.
All in all, I do think that technology needs to become an everyday part of the classroom in the end. This is mostly because our society and community centers itself on the growth and continuation of technology. If the students of today were not taught this technology they would become blind to the real world. This is not what we are trying to teach our children. We need to prepare the children to take the ball and keep moving forward with it. Incorporating technology into the classroom through class websites, blogs, presentations, and so much more is just one step to beginning and continuing the growth of our world.
While I agree that many teachers are trying to use technology correctly, there are those who use it in place of learning. What needs to be the constant focus is the learning and teaching of the content. Technology should only be used as an additional help in the teaching process. For example, if a teacher would like to teach about volcanoes, she may use a PowerPoint presentation to enhance the lecture, but she should not allow the PowerPoint to disrupt the content
This is a very important point. It should be used as a tool, and a given tool isn’t always applicable. We don’t try to teach our kids math with a hammer, and like PowerPoint, overhead transparencies can be good for giving a presentation, however we don’t go running around saying overhead transparencies are the way of the future and must be fit in everywhere in education.
In your example a PowerPoint presentation may be a good way to cover volcano, however it may be a poor way of teaching math, in which case a chalk or white board may be better to work out examples on, or perhaps a physical counting blocks (depending on the material). Another example is that Tam-Tam is better than nothing, but if you have real instruments, those would be preferable. Also some basics like mental math and pencil writing / composition should be mastered before moving onto tools like calculators and word processors.
I propose that we attempt to teach the teachers of the present and the future to correctly incorporate technology into their classroom so they can utilize their resources and the make the classroom as great experience.
I agree. Teachers being trained in how to properly use technology is as important as the technology itself. Unfortunately budgets get stretched, and it seems money gets spent on new equipment acquisition, but little is left over for training or support, which leaves the equipment in the corner to gather dust, unless there’s an energetic teacher who tries on her own to incorporate technology, but then, she my be doing it in an ineffective manner.
Incorporating technology into the classroom through class websites, blogs, presentations, and so much more is just one step to beginning and continuing the growth of our world.
Let’s not lose focus. There is a very fine line between appropriate and inappropriate use of technology. We want to prepare kids for the future. If the past is any indication, things you mention may change drastically by the time the kids graduate. When I went through school I used Apple II’s, and Macintosh Classics among other machines. On the Macs we used Hypercard to make presentations. I don’t know how much Hypercard has helped me in my adult world. And I don’t know if the time may have been better spent learning more about the topic we were working on.
Using computers as a tool when appropriate is important. Basic computer literacy / familiarity (so they’re not afraid of technology) that’s important. However it’s the critical thinking and other basic skills that will take them into the future.
I have an electrical engineering degree. Aside from a couple programming courses, the most computer work I did was limited to writing up lab reports or projects in a word processor, and the odd lab in MATLAB. Yes I’d get handouts online, or exchange emails with professors, but the vast majority of my work, and learning, was done with a pencil, a book, and occasionally a calculator. However in the “real world” I’m able to pick up computer applications as I need them because of the critical thinking skills, and the underlying knowledge of my field of specialty.
I think computers in education are mostly useless unless they are integrated to the existing process.