This is proving to be a long post. Unless you are willing to actually read – not skim – this post and engage with the ideas presented, it’s better not to read it at all. I’m just sayin’…
Theoretical Foundation
The Give 1 Get 1 XO laptop designed by the MIT media lab and touted by Nicholas Negroponte. Lest we forget that part of the articulated goal of the OLPC program is to offer children a notably constructionist (not to be confused with constructivist) atmosphere for education. The core foundation of the constructionist theory is that children develop knowledge through experience and the developing of mental models around social objects. It is remarkably related to constructivism according to the Wikipedia article. I find this noteworthy because the laptop.org site articulates that the XO embodies constructionist theories (look under standing still section).
So is it fair for folks to say that the XO is not useful for education or to be disappointed in it? Is it perhaps true that naysayers have misunderstood the machine’s intent?
The machine has been tested in lots of different ways but I have yet to see anything other than anecdotal results. I watched a video linked to by Silvia Martinez in this post (which you should read).
Now remember, I speak Spanish and lived in Peru so I understand both the language and cultural context behind the video. I also understand the unique needs of a small town like Arahuay where kids come to stay the week since the school is so far from home.
Affordances
In dealing with new technologies, be it a fancy web 2.0 tool or a shiny new computer, the question has to be asked what the affordances are, that is to ask, what can you do with the new tool that you could not do before, or cannot do with something else. For example, a teacher assigns students to create a travel brochure for ancient Egypt, which they have been studying recently. The goal would be to ask students to highlight three tourist attractions from ancient Egypt. Is there really a benefit for students to complete this assignment (assignment criticism aside) using a computer (i.e. MS Publisher, a Wiki, Powerpoint/Keynote, a digital story) as opposed to just drawing it on paper? Is the use of the computer (given that limited scenario and goal) really going to offer a change?
Naturally, what seems to follow here is a suggestion that a shift in pedagogy needs to happen. Lots of folks offer lots of rhetoric about the skills and literacies needed for the next century. Ok, but given this assignment, is the benefit to students really there to do it via computer?
I’d say no.
I would fall into the category of people that would suggest a change in assignment. What if kids told the story of a kid about their own age who was traveling through Egypt. What if it were more creative and more about storytelling and less about just the facts of a spot. Now I can justify lots of things using buzzwords like higher-order thinking skills, storytelling and can justify the potential use of technology.
Flash back to the video I mentioned earlier. As opposed to just walking outside and looking at the plants and flowers around the school the kids are taking pictures of them. What’s the benefit there? Is it that they are learning to take pictures along with learning about the plants? How is this more beneficial than taking pictures with an older camera and having the pictures developed, assuming the cost difference is negligible?
I highlight this due to the lack of sharing ability with the outside world. Ok, so the kids can take pictures of flowers and share it with their neighborhood. Perhaps kids can share the pictures they’ve taken with their classmates. Is that beneficial? I wonder if it really is.
Now, if there was a built in way they could share those pictures with the outside world, well, now we’re talking! If Flickr export capabilities were built-in with an automatic tag that would make all pictures taken with an OLPC accessible, I’d posit immediate benefits due to the interaction with the greater world.
Same with video. Because there are no editing capabilities inherent within Sugar I find it hard to believe that the videos created will be of any real value. Perhaps a student might create something noteworthy, but I’d imagine that many,many more are created just for fun and are not of any real sharable value.
If there were built-in Youtube export (and of course even watching Youtube videos is awfully poor quality) perhaps the level of accountability and global interaction would spur kids on to greater heights of video production.
Maybe.
I’ve managed to get Flash, Skype, and even Doom installed on my XO. My plan is to do all of the things I’ve mentioned in this post and then post the results. I’ll make a video using my XO, and not just a proof-of-concept video. I’ll make something that I think is at least watchable. Maybe a day-in-the-life-of video or something, I’m not sure.
The point is this, in the edubloc we talk so much about openness and transparency in education. The XO is a fantastic opportunity for that to happen. Maybe in future builds it will get better and easier to use. I could spend an entire nother post talking about the high levels of cognitive load I’ve experienced and my daughter’s experienced trying to interact with the machine. It’s also noteworthy that kids need instruction on how to use it, and alongside the use, which sort of defeats the whole constructionist/constructivist ideal. Maybe kids are still creating their own mental models but I’d bet the models don’t differ too much from child to child.
Curious as to your thoughts…
Chris
Update: Added the picture of my my daughter’s XO running Skype out. Didn’t want to show my contacts…
Tom Hoffman says:
There is a lot I could say in response to this. First, it would be good if you spent some time researching the previous work of David Cavallo and other researchers and educators on the project. You don’t have to speculate about what they are trying to do, and they aren’t trying to do anything they haven’t be doing for a decade or more. Just look at their track record. These aren’t “magical” ideas that haven’t been tested.
Also, I think it is hard for people who aren’t programmers to understand the extent to which this software is not finished. I don’t even feel comfortable calling the system as a whole “beta quality.” Even within given applications, like Write, some parts are very mature (the core AbiWord engine) and other parts were built on sand (Sugar integration in Write). The scope of their ambitions for the software was completely out of line with the time they had to develop it. Not even close, really, but you could say the same thing about the hardware, which I think turned out wonderfully.
So what happens now? Who knows? A year from know most OLPC deployments may be running a much more conventional Linux desktop. Or maybe in January 2009 we’ll all love a vastly improved Sugar. Or maybe it’ll drag down the beautiful hardware like an anchor. Nobody has done this before… we’ll see.
3rd January 2008 at 12:00 am
Christy says:
Interesting post, but I think you missed the boat on what constructionism really is. I think most of the complaints about the XO capabilities are due to a misunderstanding about what the laptops are intended for. The model is not just about learning by going through the paces, but about exploring your own ideas and following through on your own theories. Your examples about how they’ll complete classroom assignments are a bit short-sighted, as are all of the jabs (from other bloggers) about not using a “standard” operating system. Children are naturally curious and creative. Conforming to formal classroom rules and expectations often beats that out of folks, but we do start with it.
So, what might a child with photo capabilities do? Who knows? They might create a guide of dangerous plants to teach younger kids what to avoid. Or, they might create a mini-dictionary of pictures/words for a parent who can’t read. Regardless, it’s not the end result that’s important. It’s the process of asking questions and coming up with solutions. Who cares if a video is “sharable?” A child who writes a script for a play and directs her friends in acting it out is learning something and the video process may be the catalyst for that learning. Having a sharable end product is not a good indicator of learning.
I also think you underestimate children and their capacity to learn without an adult hovering over them. I’m not sure how old your daughter is, but if she needs your help navigating the computer, she’s either too young or she’s learned that it’s not ok to make mistakes. A child who has no fear of “breaking something” or “doing the wrong thing” and who is old enough to physically manipulate a machine will explore freely and figure it out. They’ll click on everything they see and find out what it is. For children who have never used a computer, the XO is an open slate. They aren’t worried about ITunes and MySpace and all of the things that keep other kids from actually learning something.
My husband and I were discussing our experiences on early PCs in the 80′s. We both learned to program, with pretty much no assistance from adults (who had no idea how the computers worked) by trial and error. We had no fear of breaking the machines or destroying something (perhaps we should have) and there was no “right or wrong” answer. We were free to wonder… “What will happen if I…?” and then to actually find out.
I’m sorry this is so long, but I have become fascinated by the number of adults who cannot let go of their pre-conceived notions of what a computer should DO (and what it means to learn). For some, it’s a word processor, for others it’s a video game. You mention Flickr and YouTube. What is lost is the memory that there was a time when we didn’t have any of those things… someone had a vision and CREATED something brand new. Let’s stop trying to turn the XO into a Windows-laden word processor or a Macbook and see what the kids will do with no constraints. And, you know what? A lot of playing is good too… that is the way that children (and some adults!) learn.
3rd January 2008 at 10:04 am
Sylvia Martinez says:
I appreciate you thinking out loud, but I have to agree with both Tom and Christy – I think you are using a test case (your daughter) who is not the intended audience, and on an operating system that is version 0.0001
The idea is that every kid doesn’t have to puzzle this out by themselves, but is with other kids all looking at each other’s screens and saying, “hey, how did you do that?!” If there are interested teachers/adults around, so much the better. Your daughter is in a unique and unfortunately lonely situation. It’s hard to replicate the context of having a vibrant collaborative community.
It’s also a common misconception that constructivism/constructionism means that you never instruct or guide a child. It’s just not true. Besides Cavallo’s work, you might like to read The Connected Family, by Seymour Papert. It was written for parents.
Those of use who got the G1G1s are going to have to remember to balance our comments and temper our expectations with the fact that whatever we do is completely irrelevant to every other implementation.
3rd January 2008 at 10:20 pm