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…
