One Laptop Per Child News

Sounds very interesting, Roland.

The problems with all these theories is that they are based on "circular reasoning": if we do the right thing, things will be right.

Of course, if we stimulate kids creativity, kids will be more creative. If we make the learning more exciting, kids will be more excited about learning. If we give kids the opportunity to explore, kids will explore. If we provide kids with activities, kids will become more active.

Duh?

There's nothing new there. The problem is that those are GOALS, and not METHODOLOGIES.

Those "principles" tell you what we should strive for, not how we should actually do.

Tht's why you couldn't find an implementation plan ("How to base a full school education on these new principles is unfortunately neither detailed in this book nor in Papert's subsequent articles that I read so far.").

That's why nobody, including Papert, has put those theories in practice with any success. They sound good, but in the end, they are just "feel good" nonsense, generic advice without any scientific foundation.

The reality inside the classroom is MUCH different and far more complex that a little book will ever convey.

Constructivism is a bit like Socialism. We can't have a socialist collective, but we can universal healthcare, social security, welfare, etc. We can't have a Constructivist utopia, but we can have visual-spatial learning, tangible class excercises, etc.

In a real classroom the teachers use the technology rather than idealogy. LOGO is dialect of LISP programming, and Squeak is an improved version of Smalltalk programming.

In real life the students are older than in the pictures (4th to 8th grade), and the teachers were molding the technology to their purposes.

They should just focus on making low-cost computers to close the digital divide in society and allow wider use of the internet. Low-cost laptops are a good idea, but they should not be used to market an idealogy or propaganda.

I think the real problem is MIT. As I have said this is not a new idea, Alan Kay at Xerox PARC did this in the 1970's with a project called Dynabook, but the Dynabook outstripped the technolgy of the day by several decades. He decided to just focus on visual-spatial learning and programming software.

The top tech guru at MIT, Marvin Minsky, has been promising to make an IBM mainframe think and talk like a person for over 50 years and has yet to deliver. Noam Chomsky, another MIT guru, has been promising the underlying principles of human langauge and thought for over 50 years. MIT has promised a multi-user "Time-Share System" that can beat the personal computer paradigm (Project MAC & Project Athena)for over 40 years: this is how MIT does things. MIT makes vaporware. They should give the project to a more results oriented place. The guy that really made LISP and LOGO, John McCarthy, is at Stanford.

Assuming the above outline of Papert's ideas is reasonably
accurate, I must say that as a person who has closely monitored
the early learning of at least one mini human, it's far from
stressless, joy-laden, self-motivated. It's work, and its nature
varies by the child's age. The Papert summary seems like a
pastoral caricature intended to inspire someone with no direct
experience.

I wouldn't say that nobody have put those ideas into practice. Schools like Sudbury Valley (http://sudval.org) have decades of experience showing that if you just create a stimulating environment, children can learn on their own, without the intervention of teachers.

They seem to have a quite extensive literature documenting their results and success rate.

Dick Einstein,

like many of the bloggers here at OLPCNews.com I became interested in OLPC because of its interesting hardware development. Being no educator instructionism and constructionism were completely new to me. I got interested in constructionism because it is a central issue of the OLPC project. It is difficult to find clear information (for laymen) about it.

I agree that these principles are not clear recipes which you can just follow. These principles are more like guidelines or threads that should be woven into the implementations. Yes, the implementations still need to be worked out. Some are already being created in form of programs for the XO. Then also scientific tests must be carried out to prove the effectiveness of those new implementations which is in itself quite a challenge. But the status of the implementation is still very far from having complete collections of activities to cover a full education. And AFAIK there are no scientific test results yet.

But I do not agree that these principles are nonsense only because they are not simple recipes that we all like so much. Just do this and then that and the revolutionary results are at hand. Unfortunately in real life there are no quick fix solutions for hard problems. Their solution tend to involve hard thinking and then even harder work and also a process of trying and improving.

These principles address the core issues of education and give criteria that should be met by implementations if they are to be successful. They show you the direction but you have to walk on your own.
It is not "feel-good-nonsense" because feeling good is not the primary goal but a side result by learning in a more effective way. Effective medicine does not necessarily have to be bitter.

Although the implementations of those principles need testing, the principles themselves already make sense to me by being compatible with my own experiences as pupil and student.

I just recognized that the link to your hard earned video at the end of my post got lost.
Maybe Wayan can still add it to the post.

In the meantime use this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY&mode=related&search=

Roland wrote:

"These principles address the core issues of education and give criteria that should be met by implementations if they are to be successful. They show you the direction but you have to walk on your own. "

Roland,

educators have known about those issues for centuries. Promting learning, creativity, fun, discipline, motivation, etc., is part of every school's philosophy. It is being practiced today. Papert is not advocating something new or extraordinary.

If he could actually show two things, his position would acquire instant validation:

1. Provide a clear implementation methodology
2. Show measurable results that are consistently and significantly above those of more traditional methods of education.

That's not much to ask, is it?

So far, we have some "feel good" ideas thrown around. Anyone can do that. Educating children in a real classroom is a VERY different ballgame. A teacher is not only an instructor. A teacher wears many hats during the day: social worker, psychologist, mediator, health care worker, disciplinarian, etc.

Remember: not every kid is equally bright, not ever kid is emotionally well-balanced, not every kid shows the same motivation, etc., etc.

Kid's school performance can be drastically affected by emotional, psychological, financial, physical issues and more. A teacher is always attent to the little signals of trouble or progress: is this kid sexually abused? is that kid well fed? is this kid being affected by some family situation? is this kid dyslexic? is that midl autism? should this kid be tested for learning disabilities? Why is this kid so intelligent and yet so unmotivated? There are literally hundreds of issues that go well beyond teaching basic math.

That's why "feel good" goals and the reality of ACTUAL TEACHING are so different.

Regular schools, for better or worse, do their walk every day - has Papert ever even tried to crawl from behind his nebulous ideas? What were the results?

Roland,
The Connected Family was written for an audience of parents--as you noted. Papert's previous book, The Children's Machine (the cover art is in the article) was written for teachers about school. An even earlier book, Mindstorms (again, the cover art is there) was written for academics.

If you are interested in Papert's ideas about school, you should definately read The Children's Machine.

Sorry Wayan, the link is ok. I was using a Linux box without flash installed. Then I saw nothing about the video not even the link.

Dick Einstein,
I agree with most you say in your last comment.
Maybe I am naive on this but your comment seems helpless to me. Basically you're saying that if Papert or anybody else was insuccessful so far implementing those principles it cannot be done or ist not worth trying. If everybody had this attitude we would still live in dens.

1)Wouldn't the explorative learning liberate teachers from repetitive lecturing and give them more time for all those more valuable tasks you listed?

2) Do you think being passively taught or being punished for mistakes until you never dare to experiment anymore are good concepts? Don't you want to change that? Don't you have some ideas how this could be done?

3)Yes, Papert has not given us clear implementation instructions. Has anybody else come up with some? Although not easy it cannot be impossible to work it out. Somebody just has to start with it and others will improve on that. Negroponte is at least giving it a try. Although his atempt seems less than perfect I have seen nothing better yet.

Sylvia Martinez,
thanks for your hints on Papert's books. Have you read those books? Could you post a short summary?

Quote:

"Another radical change of the early school years is the strong concentration on literacy and arithmetics. This made some sense in the past because only literacy allowed further exploration of mankind's knowledge collection called literature. But nowadays this verbal literature is increasingly replaced by electronic multi-media content directly available in the internet. Today the importance of literacy is still high but decreasing. It is not an absolute precondition anymore for exploration at primary school age. The new multimedia via computers would allow those kids to concentrate on exploration and learn reading and writing naturally on the side because they would experience its usefulness."

I'd be very careful about all the multimedia hype. We live in a saturated multimedia world, with massive amount of information available, but with minimum guide on relevance. A kid may find its way through or get lost on the way. Some sort of literacy background, which means in fact some guided fundamentals, may help forming in the kid some way of discerning and choosing what makes the available material worthed. Reading and studying classic literature although it may sound boring when compared with all the "electronic multi-media content", but at the end tremendously useful. So literacy for me is of primary importance, mostly these days. I'd be happy if a kid, as a result of such literacy training, could see why an entry in a blog is not the same as a properly documented entry in an encyclopedia.

Einstein,

"Of course, if we stimulate kids creativity, kids will be more creative. If we make the learning more exciting, kids will be more excited about learning. If we give kids the opportunity to explore, kids will explore. If we provide kids with activities, kids will become more active.
Duh?
There's nothing new there. The problem is that those are GOALS, and not METHODOLOGIES."

I believe your logic is flowed (or is it just your terminology) and you need to rethink what you've just written in the quote above.

To "stimulate kids creativity", to "make the learning more exciting" and to "give kids the opportunity to explore" _are_ principal methods of a particular educational METHODOLOGY (eg. [1]Constructivism or [2]Montessori method) and are sadly either not used at all or used in a very limited way in the traditional instruction-based education.

The results of using this METHODS, as you yourself stated, is an environment where "kids will be more creative" ,"kids will be more excited about learning" and "kids will become more active" and, ultimately, kids will learn faster and/or more the desired skills, ie the GOALS of the process we had in mind.

Of course, a 'teacher' who will successfully use these methods will not only poses certain characteristics (eg. humor and imagination) but also be able to teach in environment where these methods are encouraged and appropriate tools provided. Which brings us back to XO used as a very versatile tool for such an environment providing (e)books, 'encyclopedias' and 'dictionaries', writing and painting pad, learning music, remote communication and collaboration with others and [3]exploration of ideas...

[1] Constructivism
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory) )

[2] Montessori method
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori )

[3] Selection of Etoys created by kids and adults for your exploration, learning and play.
( http://www.squeakland.org/kids/sqfest_2004.htm )

Nick,
we are talking about primary schoolers here. You don't expect them to read the classic greek literature, do you?

At that age literacy is THE primary topic in traditional schools. And it is taught without letting the kids find out about its usefulness first. So from the kid's perspective it is taught as a topic for its own sake; not as tool for a purpose that can be exciting.

Roland, please, see my ansers below:

"Basically you're saying that if Papert or anybody else was insuccessful so far implementing those principles it cannot be done or ist not worth trying."

That's not what I said. What I said is that:

1. Educators have known about those goals for many years.
2. Reaching those goals in the classroom is a very complex process that requires a lot of work and knowledge. Teachers are doing the best they can under REAL conditions (remember, the world is full of normal people who went through traditional schooling environments). Papert or anyone else who claims that what has been traditionally done is utter failure requires that they show us a better manner of doing it - but they just talk the theory; nobody has ever shown better results than what is being achieved by traditional methods.

"If everybody had this attitude we would still live in dens."

See my previous answer. I'm only asking for proof that these alternative methods actually present an improvement over traditional methods. Is that being "retro"?

"1)Wouldn't the explorative learning liberate teachers from repetitive lecturing and give them more time for all those more valuable tasks you listed?"

Sounds nice, but how do you actually implement it?

"2) Do you think being passively taught or being punished for mistakes until you never dare to experiment anymore are good concepts?"

There is no evidence that the above is true. Kids just work in school.

"Don't you want to change that? Don't you have some ideas how this could be done?"

Change what? The lies fostered upon us about kids being "punished for mistakes until you never dare to experiment anymore "?

That's a transparent lie, Roland. Don't you see it?

"3)Yes, Papert has not given us clear implementation instructions. Has anybody else come up with some?"

That's the problem with Papert's theories.

"Although not easy it cannot be impossible to work it out. Somebody just has to start with it and others will improve on that. Negroponte is at least giving it a try. Although his atempt seems less than perfect I have seen nothing better yet."

That's fine. Give it a try. Just don't expect somebody to foot the humongous bill, in case you are wrong.

Roland,

When would you expect a kid to learn grammar or to write correctly? Should we wait until the kid is a teenager or a college student? Primary school is the best place to start. The problem is not literacy itself, but the way it is thought. The same can be said for arithmetics and sciences.

If everything is handled in a pleasant and unstressed, and active environment you can introduce pretty hard concepts, properly presented for your age target, the kids needs involvement, but also guidance.

The fact that the topic is learnt without context is where the problem is. The solution you propose ("let's the kid find his way, the rest would come"), is utterly optimistic.

I'd rather suggest a mid-way, pragmatic solution, where a topic is presented by the teacher within a well defined context, which the kid must be comfortable with. It's the context that makes it interesting!

P.S. Classic literature is not necessarily Plato or Socrates. There is a widely available classic literature for children which did a pretty good job so far in providing the necessary level of literacy.

Dick Einstein,
since you seem to even question the basic statements about traditional school you should give us your view on it:

a) Are kids facing artificially *) introduced disadvantages for making mistakes in school or not? Like getting no brownie points, lower grades, not being promoted?

*)real disadvantages for making mistakes might be misunderstanding a written note of a friend due to a language mistake. Or paying too much at the market due to a calculation mistake.

b)if a) is a yes then does that negatively affect the kid's readiness for experimenting?

c) Do you need a scientific study with representative sample size and reference sample to answer b)?

Nick,

I also think that guidance of a teacher is necessary. The kids cannot be totally left on their own. But this guidance should be given if kids loose themselves or get stuck in their explorative activities. The amount of direct lecturing should become the exception and guided explorative learning the rule.

a) Are kids facing artificially introduced disadvantages for making mistakes in school or not? Like getting no brownie points, lower grades, not being promoted?

No, they are not. What you call "artificially introduced disadvantages" is what the entire world call "grading student performance". Some students will naturally get higher scores than others.

b)if a) is a yes then does that negatively affect the kid's readiness for experimenting?

There is no proven relationship WHATSOEVER between a kid's desire to experiment and his academic scores. Don't let the nonsense cloud your judgement. Where do you get the notion that there is a connection?

c) Do you need a scientific study with representative sample size and reference sample to answer b)?

Use your intelligence, Roland. You are losing your objectivity here. The problem with your analysis is that you have accepted a COMPLETELY UNVERIFIED PREMISE: that traditional education stunts creative and intellectual growth. Have you seen any proof that such premise is valid?

Have you ever seen the wonderfully creative humans that constructivism has produced?

Where is that group of superior humans?

It's all bullshit, my friend.

Dick Einstein.

Dick Einstein,
You wrote:
"a) Are kids facing artificially introduced disadvantages for making mistakes in school or not? Like getting no brownie points, lower grades, not being promoted?
No, they are not. What you call "artificially introduced disadvantages" is what the entire world call "grading student performance". Some students will naturally get higher scores than others."

You denied that making mistakes in school does lead to getting no brownie points, getting lower grades, not being promoted. And in the same answer you admit that it is natural that some kids get lower grades. Your answer is self-contradicting!

The point I want to make is not that giving a kid lower grades is "unsocial" or hurting the kid's feelings or such softy-talk.

My point is that the traditional student grading system creates a completely wrong kind of learning motivation. In this system learning is a defense to avoid mistakes. This is a negative, extrinsic motivation i.e. trying to prevent something negative from happening to you in which experimenting is not a successful strategy but memorizing is. Successful students have not achieved something positive but avoided something negative. Having been successful in avoiding mistakes does not wet the appetite to avoid more mistakes.

Instead learning should be driven by a positive, intrinsic motivation to achieve a learning goal based on real interest in it. In this process experimenting and making mistakes are valuable steps to not only reach the learning goal but also to understand it as compared to just memorizing it. Having successfully achieved and understood a learning goal is so satisfying that it wets the appetite to achieve more and harder goals.

Of course in traditional school both types of learning happen. But the negatively motivated learning is predominant. Positively motivated learning should be made the rule not the exception.

Of course, students have to be graded as a feedback. But this grading should be based on what goals they have achieved and not how well they avoided mistakes. The work of a student should be marked based on its achievement not on its mistakes.

Roland,

there is no contradiction in my post, if you read carefully.

You're basing all your reasoning on a simple, unfounded premise: that traditional schooling "punishes mistakes" and therefore, kids become so scared of making mistakes that they stop being "creative" and they stop "experimenting".

Your "reasons":

1. "Kids get no brownie points for making mistakes" - NOT TRUE.

I think you don't know what the expression means, especially within a classroom context. Check a brief explanation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_points

Brownie points have NOTHING to do with kids making or not making mistakes.

2. "Kid get lower grades for making mistakes" - FALSE.

Grades (low or high) are just a numeric representation of a kid's performance within the classroom. Low grades indicate a kid is underperforming (for a great number of reasons) - NOTHING TO DO WITH MISTAKES.

3. "Kids are not promoted when they make mistakes" - FALSE.

Kids are not promoted when they don't reach the minimum performance requirements for promotion. No connection whatsoever with making or not making mistakes.

Once again, Roland, don't fall for the hype, because it is a transparent little lie - a silly play on words. If you have any doubt, go and try to find the superhumans that constructivism has produced. Good luck!

Dick Einstein

Einstein,

"Kids are not promoted when they don't reach the minimum performance requirements for promotion. No connection whatsoever with making or not making mistakes."

Sorry, but this is (as many other of your statements) nonsense. "Performance" is very often directly measured as the result of the least mistakes made. A multiple choice test is an obvious example.

Sorry, Delphi, but nobody has ever seen a kid not being promoted because he "made mistakes" in a multiple choice test. It takes far more than that to deny promotion to a kid.

Mistakes are natural and they are properly dealt with in a normal classroom setting. Everybody knows that.

Dick Einstein

Just a tidbit of interesting information I stumbled across while watching the latest episode of Diggnation (http://revision3.com/diggnation):

Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Google), Kevin Rose (Digg) and a couple of other IT entrepreneurs all went to Montessori schools when they were young.

Dick Einstein,

I don't know in which world you live. But in the traditional school I attended to avoiding mistakes played a very important role.

ChristophD wrote:

"Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Google), Kevin Rose (Digg) and a couple of other IT entrepreneurs all went to Montessori schools when they were young."

Einstein, Descartes, Picasso, Neruda, Hawkins, Jesus, Socrates, Tagore, Gibran, Curie and Paris Hilton did not.

:-)

Nick,

"When would you expect a kid to learn grammar or to write correctly? Should we wait until the kid is a teenager or a college student?"

Of course, I agree with you that the best time for learning literacy is primary school.
But there are a few important points about that:

a)The kids should be motivated to learn reading and writing because they know its usefulness from first hand experience. E.g. because they experienced that reading helps to do things they like and value.

b)Laptops and multimedia content allows kids to autonomously explore new areas of knowledge with no or little literacy skills. This is new in mankind. This could be used to initially make kids autonomously learn e.g. geography or biology and learn literacy while doing that on the side. Then learning to read has an immediate purpose for the kids. And if some kids take a little longer to master literacy there is not so much pressure necessary anymore because the multimedia contents used in the beginning allows them to continue follow their geography or biology.

During my school time, in the kid's perspective learning to read was for its own sake or for the teacher's sake. And it was a necessary precondition to go on learning other things. So a lot of pressure was usually used if kids had problems with reading.

Dick,

Since you mention him, have you read Einstein's views on traditional education?

Its seems that Dick is taking a beating over his stance that Papert has not 'Provided a clear implementation methodology'.

You dont need to be an Einstein to realise its like asking 'How Do I Teach?'. The good teachers are those that go outside the box and bring their own creativity into the classrom.

Its no accident that teachers that receive awards are the creative minds that bring constructivism to the students. One such teacher started a television station at the school as part of 'Media Studies'. The students learn by doing. Sounds like something Papert might do.

You also don't have to be an Einstein to realize he hasn't gotten much in the way of answers to the perfectly reasonable question, "how are you going to do it?"

It shouldn't be that difficult a question to answer. Create a mock up or small but illustrative segment of the way you plan to do it. Do something, anything to show how the XO will facilitate learning via constructivism.

Does it seem at all unreasonable for the education ministers of the interested nations to want some demonstration of efficacy before committing large, *extra*, funding to public education? And it's not as if anticipating a requirement like that takes any particular insightfulness. The questions will be asked and that won't be the time to come up with answers.

So let's see a sample. The educational software ought to be in a fairly advanced state of development with hardware scheduled for delivery in just a few months. I'd download it in a heartbeat to see how constructivism ought to be done.

allen (et. al), The XO laptop is a tool much like any other tool used in a classroom. You could call it a typewriter, a library, a recording studio, a photograpy lesson...should I go on?

Of course I should, for the benefit of those too stupid to understand. Let me enlighten you.

The student is asked to write a play and act in it with two school friends. They use the XO's to colaborate in writing the play, maybe each one writing their own words in a shared, networked document. They can all open it and see what each other has typed. They set up an XO to record their 2 minute play, with sound. They have it stored on the school server and all the students can take home the play video to watch.

The students decide to look at how drought is affecting their country. They use the information collected by their Government in the on-line database detailing arable land for the last ten years. They go to Google Earth and access images for their country. They use the XO connected to an anemometer to get wind speed and direction and temperature. They start a spreadsheet and log weather information observed from their home every morning. They publish their findings in a web site created on their XO laptops.

Students are doing a study of flora and fauna. They go out into the bushland in pairs and use the XO to photograph plants, take samples of leaves, write a note about the plant and store it in their journal. At shool the children collate their collections and write a book about the plants and possibly insects, fungus etc.
Maybe they also study water quality in the area. They take samples of water. Document acidity measured with litmus paper.

Music is a big part of socialisation. The students decide to compose some music using Tam Tam, the music program that comes in the XO. After two weeks the children have colaborated with each other and play their song from ten different XO laptops around the room. One sounds like a bass drum, another like a violin, a third like an oboe. The children have written a song, lyrics composed on the XO laptop, colaborated together.

These are a few examples of how the laptops might change the lives of school students that, last year, had a lead pencil, a text book and, hopefully, an eraser.

Robert Arrowsmith is correct in saying that laptops MIGHT change the livbes of school children, but consider - for how many kids will these examples occur spontaneously and without adult involvement and motivation?

I think that the answer is: not many. There would always be examples here and there, but the OLPC's approach is based upon a sweeping, universal concept - airdrop the laptops to every kid in the country and you no longer need teachers - the kids will do it all by themselves.

Montessori methods call for a carefully controlled learning environment and for careful supervision by teachers. I would love to see it implemented using XO laptops along with the other items that the computer would not replace (e.g., tactile items).

Montessori teaching has a long and well-documented history, quite unlike "constructionist" learning (whoops, I almost called it "teaching"). Montessori teachers have to be well trained and qualified.

Given universal availability of laptops like XO it would become possible to make Montessori education available universally, but there would be a very great deal more work necessary before this possibility could be realized.

Childhood education is not simply a matter of having the right machine. The machines can only serve as tools which must be prepared by adults for the kids to use. This fact cannot be altered by being ignored.

I refer readers to my blog entry "Alan Kay Comes Through" http://fonly.typepad.com/fonlyblog/2005/11/alan_kay_comes_.html
for Kay's view of the hierarchy of tasks. It shows better than most other commentaries why OLPC has got it backwards.

Lee, I agree that learning using XO laptops should be managed by teachers but in an open and unstructured way. Guidance is important but the whole thrust of my arguement is the student should drive their own road to discovery.

University students learn to search for source information and so write a thesis. This is the way children also learn, by seeking out answers to questions. The source of the questions are normally the teachers but why cant the student ask their own questions.

The examples I've outlined previously are situations where children learn by doing, not being told. These methods let children learn by asking their own questions and searching for answers.

Quote:

"University students learn to search for source information and so write a thesis."

University students also benefit from the presence of a mentor or advisor in find their way. They are not left alone in the process. They enjoy the creative learning process, but the presence of an advisor actually helps the students develop the sense of what type of question he should ask himself.

"They enjoy the creative learning process, but the presence of an advisor actually helps the students develop the sense of what type of question he should ask himself."

All of this is true. But it is also true that the teacher is allowed to allot only a dozen or so hours (often less) for supervise each 3+ month thesis. That is, less than six working days per student per year! This includes reading and correcting the thesis. The student is quite a lot on her own. This organization is helped A LOT by efficient communication and computer technology. Think of putting comments on a text document and email, versus meeting in person and using a hand-written paper only (typing out the final version only).

I reality, most supervisors spend more time. But not THAT much more.

Winter

Robert Arrowsmith wrote:

"Its seems that Dick is taking a beating over his stance that Papert has not 'Provided a clear implementation methodology'."

That's your opinion, based on...nothing, as Allen pointed out.

Do you have a simple, clear answer to the obvious question: what's the implementation plan?

Look at your "implementation plan" example:

[quote]
"The students decide to look at how drought is affecting their country. They use the information collected by their Government in the on-line database detailing arable land for the last ten years. They go to Google Earth and access images for their country. They use the XO connected to an anemometer to get wind speed and direction and temperature. They start a spreadsheet and log weather information observed from their home every morning. They publish their findings in a web site created on their XO laptops."
[/quote]

That's chid's fantasy, at best. Not different than this other "use" (based on your "brilliant" sample above):

"The students decide to look at how poverty is affecting their country. They use the information collected by their Government in the on-line database detailing economic conditions for the last sixty years. They go to Google and access financial data for their country. They use the XO connected to the American Stock Exchange and begin trading on a small amount of stock. They start a spreadsheet and log transaction information from their home every morning. They save their profits and publish their trading strategy in a web site created on their XO laptops. Soon, all kids in their poor village are millionaires"

Not what anyone would call an "implementation plan", to put it in a polite way.

Dick,
"That's chid's fantasy, at best. Not different than this other "use" (based on your "brilliant" sample above)"

I think that's exactly what you are lacking: imagination. It is sad that every child seems to have more. You seem to be a severe victim of the old schoolsystem yourself that constructionism is invented to prevent in the future.

"Not what anyone would call an "implementation plan", to put it in a polite way."

Only because those examples do not fit your image and you cannot imagine how these two proposed themes can help education and could indeed be part of an implementation plan and be examples for more similar activities in that implementation plan is no reason that they are not valid.

And please, do not write on behalf of "anyone" because that could include also me. And I certainly do not share your views. Moreover, I doubt very much that the majority of "anyone" shares it.

Instead of always calling all the comments wrong but not telling what you think would be right why don't you explain us what learning method (instructionism, constructionism or else) you would prefer for kids and what your idea of an implementation plan for that would be.

Robert, I find your examples intriguing, not necessarily by the right reasons. Besides that almost all of them can be done without a computer, there's one in particular that I find at least baffling:

"The students decide to look at how drought is affecting their country. They use the information collected by their Government in the on-line database detailing arable land for the last ten years. They go to Google Earth and access images for their country. They use the XO connected to an anemometer to get wind speed and direction and temperature. They start a spreadsheet and log weather information observed from their home every morning. They publish their findings in a web site created on their XO laptops."

First of all: why do you assume that there's such a thing as a "on-line database detailing arable land"? Why do you assume that such a database is conceptually and methodologically useful for the kids? Why do you assume that any of the data will make any sense at all, without at least some fundamentals on how, why and when to collect it?

Most probably, your answer would be that kids interested in this line of inquiry will be able to surmount all the hurdles through their own initiative. OK. So we're talking about less-than-average kids.

I cannot imagine that there will be such a large number of kids under 14 with the abilities, the intellectual curiosity and the time to do so many things. We could probably discuss about the innate ability kids have to do great feats of learning when the environment is right, something that is so far wishfulthinking instead of at least a sound hypothesis.

At least from my point of view, this kind of self-learning is the best argument for NOT providing all kids with computers. There are bright children, with a lot of potential, that are underserved by education as it currently works. They'll do wonders in such an environment, and with such tools. But does it make sense to bring tools, fit for a minority, to all the kids in one country? Wouldn't it be better for all those involved to provide this kind of opportunities for those that may be able to take the better advantage from them?

"I think that's exactly what you are lacking: imagination. It is sad that every child seems to have more. You seem to be a severe victim of the old schoolsystem yourself that constructionism is invented to prevent in the future."

I'm not lacking in "imagination", Roland. Unlike you, I use common sense. You just read the wrong book, and are sold on ideas you can't begin to comprehend.

Use some intelligence to read Arrowsmith's example and you will see how it is pure fantasy. Look at how "possible" or contrived his example is - let me show you.

"They use the information collected by their Government in the on-line database detailing arable land for the last ten years."

Can you post a link to ANY of these "on-line databases"?

"They use the XO connected to an anemometer to get wind speed and direction and temperature."

Is there any evidence that these two PARTICULAR (read carefully to avoid nonsense)devices can be connected and made to work together?

"They start a spreadsheet and log weather information observed from their home every morning. "

Aren't the kids supposed to be at school on mornings?

"They publish their findings in a web site created on their XO laptops."

The kids (ages 6-14) are now web developers, designers and content publishers!

C'mon, Roland! How obtuse can you be?

Don't you see the whole thing amounts to a simple: "if you give these laptops to kids, they will do wonderful things with them" - a promise and nothing more than that.

What is needed is not "imagination" - any person can come up with thousands of contrived, unrealistic scenarios like the one presented by Arrowsmith. What is really needed is intelligence to objectively examine the claims and ask for proof that there is, indeed, a SERIOUS, REALISTIC implementation plan that goes beyond the empty promises.

Dick,
if you are so intelligent, serious and realistic then why don't you tell us what your preferred serious learning method is and how to realistically implement it?

Roland wrote:

"Dick,
if you are so intelligent, serious and realistic then why don't you tell us what your preferred serious learning method is and how to realistically implement it?"

Very easy answer, Roland: the current methodology, as implemented throughout the world - with teachers in charge of teaching and students in charge of learning - is the best method. It's tried and true. Implemented and tested.

Is it perfect? No, it is not.

Can it be improved? Yes, it can.

Should we try to improve it? Yes, we should.

Is constructivism the way to improve it? Nobody knows, because it has not been done in a DOCUMENTED manner (as in showing "before" and "after" results).

The good news, Roland, is that you don't need to be an Einstein to understand these ideas; they are so simple even a real Dick can get them ;-)

Dick Einstein

Shouldn't all this be less personal, avoiding name-calling and the like? While I can find the ideas interesting, the actual discussion is getting unnecessarily ugly.

Dick,
I agree that the current system is proven but not perfect.
I would like to learn from you how to improve it.

And before you can prove constructionism in a comparative test you need to have an idea how to implement it because you can only prove implementations not general theories.
So I would also like to learn from you what implementation of constructionism has the best chances to be proven superior to the current instructionism.

And don't worry I will not jump on irrelevant details to prove you wrong, as you often do e.g. whether an anemometer has a thermometer or not... I am ready to discuss your ideas on conceptual level.

Eduardo,

"Besides that almost all of them can be done without a computer,...."

If a learning method could be found that is superior to the current school system, that can be applied in the 3rd world and in which computers are not needed or play only a peripheral role, we could all be very happy, couldn't we?

Roland wrote:

"So I would also like to learn from you what implementation of constructionism has the best chances to be proven superior to the current instructionism."

I have no idea, Roland.

That question is best sent to those who make the claim, don't you think?

I don't even know - and neither do you - that "constructionism can be proven superior to the current instructionism". That's for Papert and Co. to demonstrate with documented "before" and "after" trials.

So far, NOBODY has conducted a controlled, documented study where Papert theories on education have been:

1. Implemented AND
2. Once implemented, produced better results than conventional methods.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm NOT against trying new approaches in education. I'm all for positive change and innovation (as in trying new things - YES, including constructionism).

However, I'm against poor countries spending billions of dollars to finance the testing of Papert's theories. If the laptops were given to kids on a free basis, I'm behind Negroponte 100%.But they are not free, unfortunately.

To close my post and in all fairness to Negroponte, I'll propose a revolutionary idea: why not offer the XO to rich countries first (USA, Germany, France, Israel, Canada, etc)?

There are several good reasons for doing so:

1. They have the money and can better afford the inherent financial risk

2. Their kids can also take advantage of the wonderful new learning possibilities that the XO brings to the table - the OLPC concept is a first in history - for rich and poor alike

3. The OLPC Project is not delayed anymore - orders will be placed on the spot

4. Rich countries have a very good technological infrastructure in place where the XO will shine

5. Rich countries have the resources to best evaluate the effectiveness of the XO in elementary schools and the extent to which they can improve a kid's school performance.

6. Poor countris will get a chance to make an informed purchasing decision based on a tested product, thus eliminating their financial risk.

What do you think?

I would love to see OLPC XO in American schools. Or European ones. In fact, I am surprised that a progressive country like Sweden or Norway isn't already on the participating countries list. Not only would they have the purchase money, they would also have more resources for implementation experimentation - refining the process to save poor countries the expense and hassle.

Wow, to my surprise I agree with you with with everything but point 3.

Rich countries could have afforded to implement constructionism with standard laptops also, if they really would have wanted to. But constructionism did not succeed yet in the 1st world. And I doubt that 1st world countries will place orders with OLPC on the spot. Now this could be blamed to the method or implementation being wrong or unproven although it could start on a small scale to be proven.
But there could also be other reasons for being not interested.
a) Inertia against and fear of change.
b) Lack of imagination. "If I got my education instructional style and I became so serious and intelligent then it has also to be the best for my kids"
c) Instructionism makes many kids submissive to authorities also later as adults. Those who do not become submissive and do not hide it are filtered out. Maybe the authorities fear a large number of independent thinkers that ask uncomfortable questions let alone come up with their own solutions.
d) The educators fear they might not qualify for the new challenges of supporting those learning methods.

So we cannot expect the ministries of education to turn themselves upside down. The movement must be coming from the public. The public should be made more aware of the shortcomings of our current system and the improvements, although yet to be proven, that alternative methods promise which might be worth to get active.

Therefore, we should discuss the educational methods of OLPC and others much more than its technological side.

"Instructionism makes many kids submissive to authorities also later as adults."

Can you substantiate this claim, or are you just parroting other people's claims?

"Those who do not become submissive and do not hide it are filtered out."

Where are you getting these ideas from? (own experience doesn't count - let's save time)

"Maybe the authorities fear a large number of independent thinkers that ask uncomfortable questions let alone come up with their own solutions."

Pure nonsense.
Are we going to believe that the "authorities" are keeping mankind "ignorant" for fear of "uncomfortable questions"?

Are people in Sweden, USA, France, Israel, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, etc., "dependent thinkers", unable to ask "uncomfortable questions" because they were "subjected" to traditional teaching methods?

I must admit that my "imagination" is not as rich as yours. Perhaps deep down I'm just afraid of looking at things in a different manner! :-)

Dick,
discussion style:
this is a blog discussion not a court of law. I express my opinion based on my experiences that I do not have to prove by literature references and statistical studies. Why should my own experience not count? Maybe you made different experiences. Then tell about them.

Of course you are free to call them wrong. But then I would appreciate it if you gave a reason why you think they are wrong apart from saying I could not prove it. You give no proof for your opinions either. But don't worry I don't require it.

To your point 3.):
What makes you think that western countries would order OLPC on the spot? Or why do you think they don't.

Roland wrote:

"this is a blog discussion not a court of law. I express my opinion based on my experiences that I do not have to prove by literature references and statistical studies."

Claims are only taken seriously when backed up by documented data.

"Why should my own experience not count? Maybe you made different experiences. Then tell about them."

Because your personal experiences (just like mine) are STATISTICALLY IRRELEVANT. Let me give you an example:

'People usually survive 20-story falls. I base my statement on the fact that my nephew fell 20 floors and survived with only a few fractured bones'

While it is TRUE that the nephew survived the 20-story fall, that DOESN'T MEAN that it applies to all people or all falls.

"Of course you are free to call them wrong. But then I would appreciate it if you gave a reason why you think they are wrong apart from saying I could not prove it."

They are just "unsubstantiated" claims (like "Instructionism makes many kids submissive to authorities also later as adults."). Your intentions are good, Roland - I have read every one of your previous posts in this blog and have great respect for you. However, on this issue of contructionism and its positive effect on people vs. traditional methods, you are making claims based on...what you read from the person making the claim. More is needed in order to support your ideas.

"You give no proof for your opinions either. But don't worry I don't require it."

I'm not making any claims. I have NEVER said that traditional methods are the best or only ones. I'm only pointing out the evidence: so far nobody has implemented a better way that we know of.

"To your point 3.):
What makes you think that western countries would order OLPC on the spot? Or why do you think they don't."

Of course they WILL NOT, Roland. For the exact same reasons poor countries won't: the claims made by Negroponte and his team are not verifyable and a bit hard to believe. There is no implementation plan, which essentially makes this a "laptop" project, not an "education project". And even then, nobody knows how good or bad the hardware will perform once deployed. In short, too many questions surround this project for anyone to risk billions of dollars on Negroponte's word alone.

Finally: I'm the first one to admit that I have NO IDEA as to how many of his promises Negroponte will deliver. It is very possible he will reach all his goals - it's also possible he won't do very well. I remain a simple spectator.

Dick,

"Claims are only taken seriously when backed up by documented data."

Unfortunately, often in life you have to take sides without objective facts at hand. Then you have to rely on subjective methods. One of them is to check the claims against your experiences. Another method, called "intersubjective", is to discuss the claims with others and see how it checks against their experiences. That increases the likelyhood of it to be correct somewhat. Generalization from single experiences is a problem. But often one person has more than one experience of similar cases. Then it is called empiricism and is even accepted as a scientific method given the necessary caution. And several people might have even more relevant experiences.

"I'm not making any claims."

Of course you did:
"the current methodology, as implemented throughout the world - with teachers in charge of teaching and students in charge of learning - is the best method. It's tried and true. Implemented and tested."

Did you check whether there are also other implementations that are tested with higher success rates. There are also innovative and successful private schools.
Only because it is tested makes it not the best system. We only know better what it can do and what not. And the results of the PISA studies should make everybody worry. And moreover a lot of relevant things are not tested like independent thinking, understanding content compared to memorizing it, ability to autonomously learn etc., ability to apply learned rules in different problem circumstances etc.

To your point 3.):
OK, I accept your reasons for the western countries not placing large scale orders of OLPC equipment. But these reasons do not explain why they are not even ordering equipment for running pilot tests. This would not be prohibitively risky or costly. How would you explain that?

I think that people have bought into the belief that OLPC will somehow revolutionize education. A machine can only be powerful if the person knows how to use it. Education in most places is not even ready to use hi-tech.

Another problem I see with OLPC discussions is that it has the same flaws as the "No Child Left Behind" programs. It tries to have a one-size-fits-all answer for everyone.

Cognitve Sciences, Learning Theory, Instructional Theory, etc have all concluded that there are different types of learners. So, how can one "No Child Left Behind" test really capture everyone? How can one OLPC laptop be for everyone?

Some students are linear learners, and some are visual-spatial. Some students are remedial, and some are gifted. You cannot just hand out a fancy test or fancy computer, and say it' s THE solution. Nothing in studies of the mind would agree with that attitude.

Teachers should make the education first to fit the students, and then adopt the different technologies where appropriate.

Part of the reason for the failure of "New Math" is because it was over applied. It was really only suited to certain types on students. The use of computers, Squeak/LOGO, or whatever can't possibly apply everywhere.

They should focus on something realistic and attainable like: "On-laptop-per-gifted-child", "One-laptop-per-visual learner", or "one-computer-lab-per-school".

Roland wrote:

"OK, I accept your reasons for the western countries not placing large scale orders of OLPC equipment. But these reasons do not explain why they are not even ordering equipment for running pilot tests. This would not be prohibitively risky or costly. How would you explain that?"

The obvious reason is that the hardware is far from finished:

1. Mesh Network - Not finished or tested
2. Storage Solution - Not yet determined
3. School Server - Not available
4. Power Consumption Goals - Not achieved yet

As of today, there is not a finished product that Negroponte could show to an interested country - so far he has relied on the hope that potential clients (rich or poor) will place orders without seeing a finished product. It is a Catch-22 situation: he won't manufacture the XO because there are no orders and there are no orders because he has not manufactured the XO. It's hard to see how Negroponte will make progress from here - in the end, he will need some funding capital to get the ball rolling...

Robert Lane,
I very much agree that individual learning styles should be accounted for.

So far OLPC has only documented their technological side quite well but not the educational side. This may be caused by the target countries' authority over the implementation and their resulting diversity. Probably not all of them will be using the XO laptops the same way. Their implementations might differ considerably. Therefore I think much more depends on the local implementation than on the XO hard- and software.
In order to take the individual learning styles of the students in to account I expect two factor to be decisive.
a) the time a teacher has for individual interaction with each kid.
b) providing a choice of parallel learning contents adapted to the different learning styles and letting the students choose.

Neither of the two depend directly on OLPC because the countries are responsible for the content and the number of teachers. If the OLPC hardware is used in a constructionist style then the teacher is liberated from a lot of repetitive lecturing. This time could be used for individual interaction with the students. Since the multiplication and distribution of learning content via OLPC equipment is getting almost free also poor countries might afford to supply parallel learning content for different learning styles. Only with low cost laptops a supply of video and audio learning content is affordable for poor countries.

Therefore IMHO OLPC hardware is rather part of the solution than part of problem of one-size-fits-all.

Dick,

of course your right that most things are not finished yet. But there is much more than nothing. Obviously the project is mature enough to run pilot projects in different countries. I don't think the alpha and beta status of the development is a reason for not running pilot tests in western countries. In fact if western countries would be interested they should run pilot tests as early as possible to still take influence on necessary changes.

Eduardo, any substantive discussion about education will, sooner or later, descend to name-calling although it isn't always obvious. People who have fond illusions generally don't react well to having them shown to be hollow or even having uncomfortable questions asked about them. Hence Robert's dismissal of me as stupid.

What's important about his post though are the three charming vignettes he offers in support of constructivism.

Does it take much imagination to predict the response of a minister of education to Dr. Negroponte relating the stories in support of the XO?

Of course it doesn't. Someone who has to deal with the realities of politics and budgets would be upset his time was wasted by these stories even if they were true. The fact that they aren't and no effort has been made to determine if they can be made true would, in all probability, earn Dr. Negroponte a quick referral to an underling if not a somewhat more brusque dismissal.

But that's the reality of constructivism. It's not so much a technique, a technology, a theoretical framework for understanding as it is a school of thought, a philosophy and no one expects substantive results from a school of thought. But the funding that would go toward the purchase of XOs is very substantive and generates the sorts of questions constructivists can't answer so reflexively avoid.

Robert's insult also serves as a warning to anyone who isn't quite sure about this stuff. The warning, along with the heart-warming stories of constructivism in action, indicate the school of thought to which you should cleave if you don't want to be thought of as stupid.

Roland, the reason the XO should be sold in the U.S. and not bought by the U.S. is, rather then making, or not making, one huge sale you have millions of individual buy/don't-buy decisions. If the XO could be retailed for, say, $250 there would be lots of people who'd buy them out of curiosity. More people would buy them because they're cheap, rugged and cute. I guarantee that there'd be a vigorous hacking community that'd grow up around the XO because it's cheap, rugged, cute and has some really interesting possibilities.

The XO is already causing Intel and Asus to seriously consider this new price-point/form-factor. As a commercial success it would set a standard that other vendors would have to meet to the benefit of everyone with a use for portable, personal computing power.

And, if lightning strikes and someone figures out how to marry constructivism with the XO to produce that substantive outcome then the cost of development will have been born by the people most capable of bearing that cost, not the people who can't.

allen,
your comments about education methods:

I feel I do by far not know enough about available learning methods, implementations that were tried and their results. And I have the impression that I am not the only one here for whom this is valid. If we had a better overview over those methods and studies made our discussion and our judgment would be on a much higher more informed level. We should collect more information on those topics and post it here for the benefit of all.

your comment about selling XOs in the US. I would support that. But it is obvious that this would bring OLPC in a difficult situation.
a) the credibility of their non-profit organization would suffer from making profits (even for a good cause) in a commercial market.
b) Some of the suppliers and financiers of OLPC might not be happy if OLPC undermines their business models in their home markets. Maybe, there are even contracts prohibiting that.

Well the discussion has certainly developed into a lengthy one.

I would first like to point out to Dick that my examples of ways to use the XO in school are the first that came to mind. They were not researched and I did not perform an extensive search of the internet or government sites (Im sure the WHO or other agencies have information available - maybe you should research that?).

Having said that, are the other examples I mentioned workable? Could Tam Tam introduce children to composing music? Could the XO camera be used to photograph flora and fauna? Could it also record a play performed by the students?

The weather monitoring example using an anemometer is already on the drawing boards at OLPC (under hardware I believe) and I had first mentioned details of the design here late last year. In fact the microphone input is perfect for measuring wind speed using a simple 'revolution counter' and a small software driver.

Getting children involved in their environment is extremely important and the XO laptop can become their 'Log Book' to allow them to collate and present information in a modern way.

I note that Eduardo mentioned that most, if not all of my examples could be done without the XO laptop. I thought the point here was to discover ways that students could use the laptop in school.

Dick seems to think that this 'blog discussion' provides a sufficient forum for presentation of 'An Implementation Method'. The fact that I offered a few ways that schoolwork could be taken 'out of the box' has not satisfied him.

Perhaps Dick might like to take himself in hand and seriously look at ways that laptops can be used or, failing that, point out ways to improve education standards in other ways. Remember Dick, we need to make the students think for themselves, not recite facts to pass exams.

Lastly, the suggestions I made are real world, achievable education methods. They are in practice now in schools (by students using laptops). They have been in practice in schools for the last thirty years that I know of since many similar tasks (of course without laptops) were performed by myself and fellow students at the Private School I attended.

I guess I just had better quality teachers.

Roland wrote:

"Obviously the project is mature enough to run pilot projects in different countries. I don't think the alpha and beta status of the development is a reason for not running pilot tests in western countries."

It's more realistic to expect Negroponte to be the one conducting the tests that could validate his product and theories.

Can you imagine the USA financing Intel's Classmate pilot projects?

"In fact if western countries would be interested they should run pilot tests as early as possible to still take influence on necessary changes."

Countries could possibly agree to run tests if interested, but why should they be interested in the first place?

It's not like Negroponte has made a strong case for his project. In fact, I think a lot of the problems are the direct result of Negroponte's blatant exaggerations and unnecessary hype.

Dick,
"It's more realistic to expect Negroponte to be the one conducting the tests that could validate his product and theories."

There must be a close collaboration. Since the target countries have the authority they make the rules and decide what rights and duties they impose on OLPC.

"Countries could possibly agree to run tests if interested, but why should they be interested in the first place?"

E.g. in order to test whether OLPC's claims are true and would allow western countries to improve on their PISA records?

"There must be a close collaboration. Since the target countries have the authority they make the rules and decide what rights and duties they impose on OLPC."

You must have forgotten that the only rights Negroponte is willing to give to target countries is the right to pay for the laptops.

"E.g. in order to test whether OLPC's claims are true and would allow western countries to improve on their PISA records?"

Countries would only do that if there is no money involved, though. Once again, why should ANY country do the testing that Negroponte so openly opposes?

Remember his infamous words? I'll quote Negroponte:

“This is not something you have to test; the days of pilot projects are over. When people say ”well, we’d like to do 3 or 4 thousand in our country to see how it works..” SCREW YOU! Go to the back of the line and someone else will do it, and then when you figure out that this works, then you can join as well”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5ySOqtxhbw&mode=related&search=

at 5:28 into the video.

Robert Arrowsmith,
"They are in practice now in schools (by students using laptops). They have been in practice in schools for the last thirty years that I know of since many similar tasks (of course without laptops) were performed by myself and fellow students at the Private School I attended."

That sounds interesting. Could you tell a little bit more about the learning methods applied at those schools with and without laptops.

Dick,
"You must have forgotten that the only rights Negroponte is willing to give to target countries is the right to pay for the laptops."

Obviously the countries do not subject themselves to his will.

"Countries would only do that if there is no money involved, though. Once again, why should ANY country do the testing that Negroponte so openly opposes?"

One realistic scenario could be that OLPC provides the material and trains teachers while the target countries define and carry out the tests and do the statistics and reporting.

Roland, Here's some entertaining reading. Obviously the document is biased towards using the product but it is relevant to the discussion.

http://docs.moodle.org/en/The_Good_Teacher

Now due to limitations of this Blog I cant post many links to documents but I promise over the next few days I will collate the relevant information and make it available.

If you take a little time yourself and research documentary evidence on advanced classroom methods I'm sure you'll find some of the innovations The_Good_Teachers are using.