next »

[marcin]

An evaluation of the laptop programme by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) found that the children receiving the computers did not show any improvement in maths or reading. Nor did it find evidence that access to a laptop increased motivation, or time devoted to homework or reading.

http://www.economist.com/node/21552202

[mavrothal]

Interesting.

Also the response from Oscar Becerra, former Chief Educational Technology Officer at the Ministry of Education of Peru.

While we spent close to US$200M in XO’s, about twice that amount was spent in reeducating teachers (teaching them to read better, to understand math, etc.) much more was spent in textbooks, desks, manipulative material, etc. etc. Even more was spent in feeding children better at elementary schools. In spite of all that, results are still dismal but nobody is asking to stop giving breakfasts, or textbooks, or maintaining schools or training teachers. In spite of the so called null impact of all those expenses in tests results. In my opinion, because, all those decision seem unquestionable because they are traditional approaches.
The Economist states OLPC is a failure because the test results are poor, why they assign all the impact of the results on only one of the multiple things we did?

http://mashable.com/2012/04/09/one-laptop-per-child-study/#comment-18097871

[mavrothal]

Media....politics....media ....politics....media...

The actual report says in the abstarct:

No evidence is found of effects on enrollment and test scores in Math and Language. Some positive effects are found, however, in general cognitive skills as measured by Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a verbal fluency test and a Coding test

The reporter did not finish reading the abstract I guess...

No wonder he never mentioned the conclusions, where it reads:

Results indicate limited effects on academic achievement but positive impacts on cognitive skills and competences related to computer use. Cognitive abilities may arise through using the programs included in the laptops, given that they are aimed at improving thinking processes. However, to improve learning in Math and Language, there is a need for high-quality instruction. From previous studies, this does not seem the norm in public schools in Peru, where much rote learning takes place

Full report HERE


Oh,... did I mentioned that this is really "old news" that for "some reason" appeared now in the Economist? The report was published in February


PS: I do believe that a computer (even with Sugar) can not teach a kid math and language by itself. But form there to "indeed it does not accomplish anything in particular" as the article claims, is quite some distance.