Slashdot Mirror
OLPC Project Disappoints In Peru
00_NOP writes "The One Laptop Per Child project has disappointed in Peru, reports the Economist, apparently because in general teachers did not make creative use of the technology. As in other cases the computers seem to have been regarded as ends in themselves rather than tools to help change the ways kids are taught. Quite disappointing for those of us looking for Linux-Global-Domination but not really much of a surprise given the experience in richer countries either."
In some circles the project seems to be more about pushing Linux-Global-Domination as opposed to helping educate people.
One Van de Graaff Generator per Child
What if we made sure that every classroom in the world was supplied with a solar-powered, fully recyclable, free-trade produced Van De Graaff generator? We've seen how such devices can spark the interest of physics students in western classrooms over the years. Surely it will have the same effect in classrooms throughout the world! Just present one to the teacher and . . . science!
We always find out how to do the lower layers properly first, with the higher layers lagging behind, the higher the layer the worse its state. We have marvelous manufacturing technologies, slightly less but still sufficiently marvelous CPU architectures, fairly good graphics libraries and toolkits, fairly screwed applications and overall totally incompetent users and processes based on these applications. We can only hope that the situation will improve. Unfortunately, there is human factor involved and that's a spell of doom almost for certain.
Ezekiel 23:20
This kid seems to have gotten the right idea. Maybe even if the teachers aren't using them properly, giving naturally curious kids access to a whole world of information will help them out anyway.
Or maybe that guy was just a unique case, I don't know. That video made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside however.
(If you can't be bothered to watch the video, shame on you! But also, it's about a child in Peru who works cleaning people's shoes on the streets. He has an OLPC laptop, though, and he uses it to educate himself with wikipedia.)
The concept of needing laptops at all for good education is questionable, I think. I'm a teacher in a business college for 15-19-year-olds (Austrian education system has these sorts of schools), and we run some student groups with laptops, while others only use computers for IT classes.
There is a difference in how you need to teach the students, depending on their equipment. But there's no absolute need for laptops, or technology beyond a calculator. For business concepts or for accounting, it's actually better to run things via pen and paper because the students are less tempted to copy and paste, and because it slows down the pace so they have time to think about what they're doing. There is a time and place for internet research, use of spreadsheets for complex accounting or finance calculations, and for plenty of other areas. Get them computer literate, definitely, because a lot of our students end up working in offices and they need the knowledge to use the tools available. But there's no need to get them addicted/dependent on technology to a point where they can't perform simple calculations without Excel anymore, or use their brains without prompting from Google.
The OLPC project is worthy, that's for sure. But I can't say that the results surprise me, they mirror the experiences we're making in a completely different environment. You can run lessons without laptops, and depending on the subject, it's often the more effective way of teaching.
Almost ALL teachers from the richest of schools to the poorest of schools have a horrible education level in computer technology operation and use. I have met multiple PHD holding professors that cant operate a projector to save their life. Even ones that have been dumbed down with a control system that have an ON and OFF button that will do everything. IF the ON button did not work they freak out and never use it again.
WE need to start with all education degrees being REQUIRED to have several computer operation classes. Something a lot more than "how to type letters in word 101" and "internet for idiots 102" They whould be requlred to go through a couple of more advanced classes like "education systems troubleshooting and use 204"
Once you get the teachers comfortable with the technology, they will start using it. Did the OLPC people give the devices to the teachers a YEAR before the kids? Because the teachers should have been given them AND classes on their use in the classroom.
I will bet you the OLPC people simply dropped a shipment in the schools and said "we givith! use this wisely" and walked away.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I own one of the first OLPCs. The problem isn't Linux. (I hate to think of Win XP running in 256MB system, 1GB storage.) The problem is the whole philosophy of "it's not a computer, it's an education tool." (Or however they put it.)
No. A computer is whatever the user wants it to be. If you try to make that difficult, it'll fail sooner or later. The less money behind it, the sooner.
The educational philosophy they were pushing works for some subjects, some of the time. But they should have made it easy to use the OLPCs any way people wanted much earlier. It was only some time last year that a simple desktop switcher (sugar - gnome) was included with the basic OS. For me, at least, not having an ordinary filesystem available was a showstopper. I'd been dualbooting debian since the beginning, but all the trial and error to accomplish that isn't something a lot of teachers would do. But initially, for the first four years!, there was a lot of resistance to just giving people a familiar interface.
Then there were the hardware limitations. Even for Linux, at least the Fedora they're using, 256MB is barely enough to breathe. The keyboard takes a lot of getting used to. I'm not sure they ever got the expanded touchpad working.
So, like I said, nice idea, but they should have put more effort into improving hardware, providing the software people want, better distribution so they had a larger community of enthusiasts to write code for the project and help on (better organized!) forums, and kept their goofy educational philosophy for the people who wanted it.
If your project is led by somebody who believes that the way forward is to drop OLPC laptops out of helicopters into villages and completely bypass locally respected educators, because of the belief that outsiders giving people technology will educate them, what hope have you got?
If the project doesn't seem to respect local teachers, then claims that the reason the project has failed is because of the teachers, well I am suspicious of the findings, or maybe at least suspect a bias.
Is the project too technology led rather than built on sound pedagogical frameworks to support children's education?
Providing teacher training to enable teachers to better employ the technology in their teaching practice (what The Economist article suggests) before dropping all the laptops into classrooms would have been less media friendly but perhaps a more successful strategy.
It does feel like the old story of rusting high tech white elephants in developing countries: well meaning, lots of money spent, not much time understanding local grassroots needs, working with the local educators on the ground. Stuff just gets dropped in with no support and surprise surprise doesn't get used well or technically maintained.
The technology is the easy bit. Engaging with local communities to understand their needs is time consuming and more difficult.
First, the project couldn't have even been done financially using any other OS/hardware combination. Second, the real reason technology doesn't improve education is we are treating it like magic and not as a productivity enhancement tool. The first computers used by government and business replaced rooms full of people by calculating stuff faster and with fewer errors. Even today, a smart phone replaces the need to have a map, newspaper and phone booth in a strange city when you want to see a movie (recent experience). In education, you don't have the incentive, or the viewpoint, to use technology to make the teacher more efficient at educating, and/or the student better at learning. For example, in the United States, teachers and other workers in education, but not educating, spend a significant amount of time on non-educational activities. Putting effort into automating and reducing the impact of those activities on the learning day, is a good use of technology. A bad use of technology, is replacing an existing working tool with a complex device that does the same thing, but adds overhead and requires more effort.
Before educating the students, they should have taught the teachers how to use the tehnology.
Since once they're out in the working world, they'll find what they're used to already: Windows!
By the time any of them are out in the working world, Microsoft will have gone through several generations of Ribbons and Metro and whatnot other changes. What kids need is to learn to write and structure documents, not the finer points of style and formatting. They need to be able to use their math in spreadsheets, making formulas and chaining them together, not making pretty management reports. That's not to say it won't be important in the future, but that's it's mostly pointless to learn it now to know how it'll be in Word and Excel 2022.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Somehow we have developed this absurd idea that you simply have to place a computer in front of a child and ~POOF~ they are magically educated, with no thought or work required by a teacher or anyone else. As a result, many billions of dollars have been spent putting computers in every classroom, and it has been a gigantic waste of money, because computers are completely unneccesary in education. Maybe in the last couple of years of highschool it makes sense, but in the early years, a computer serves no useful purpose in school and actually hinders important learning.
Computers are fantastic, powerful and useful tools. but so is a bulldozer, and we don't insist that young children must learn to operate a bulldozer or else they will not get a proper education.
Amen on the comfort level of teachers with technology. But you also need to get them to a point where they know when to use computers and when to stay away from them, or you'll raise students who're incapable of solving problems without internet access.
... this doesn't come as a surprise to me. Teaching in Ecuador is mostly "frontal assault", the kids are told all the time what to do. Copy that, etc. One student told me - after I quit - I was a go teacher and he liked me, because I didn't tell them all the time "copy that fast"... Basically my impression was that the schools condition the students to be "recipients of orders" ("Befehlsempfänger").Now on the one hand there is quite an authoritarian rule and on the other they just don't care too much mixed up with some totally unnecessary bureaucracy, e.g. every teacher had to sign that he arrived on that day in school and that he left, also entering the time - makes sense. But you would sign twice at once, also if I was late, it wouldn't matter I should write the time I should have been there... furthermore a teacher was running around and taking these signatures, usually interrupting the lessons by doing it...
Also I worked a bit in an Internet cafe, what you consider a power (or even normal user) in Western Europe would be an admin there...
Ecuador and Perú are quite similar. I was in the jungle region, which is probably the least "developed" one.
Now wait though, this guy has provided a perfectly good point. As you can see, there are some instances where a computer is a complete waste on some individuals.
I mean, of course most adults, anywhere, won't know how to take advantage of a computing engine or how it can help their child (even if they had explicit instructions). I kind of thought half the idea was to open a path for some of the children to find something special after tinkering with that little box.
The idea that you can automate something isn't something that just occurs to everyone. The young are most able to see something repetitive or annoying, and decide to figure out how to use a tool in a new way to make their lives less lame.
Those young people grow up, and start to see how they can do that to a lot more around them. They start to use resources in ways that would be seen as completely impractical just to automate more things... and change the country completely.
Yeah - the teachers and other adults aren't going to be 'creatively' using these things for much - because they're busy providing minimal resources however they can. Creativity takes time, something they almost never have anymore.
The adults teach the children by showing them the wrong ways to do things.
Ryan Fenton
Part of the problem with the standard approach to computers in education is that they are treated as tools for helping students learn how to use pre-computer techniques for solving problems. There is a tendency to treat computers like a combination flash-card/homework-grading system. We give students prepackaged education "solutions" that are supposed to reinforce traditional book learning, and lock down their computers so that they can only use the software they were given.
We should instead focus on teaching children how to solve problems by writing programs. We should have a completely different approach to computers in education, because computers are different sorts of tools than what we had previously. Let students hack, and moreover create an environment that is friendly toward programming. We live in a computerized world; programming should be considered a matter of basic literacy at this point.
Palm trees and 8
WE need to start with all education degrees being REQUIRED to have several computer operation classes. Something a lot more than "how to type letters in word 101" and "internet for idiots 102" They whould be requlred to go through a couple of more advanced classes like "education systems troubleshooting and use 204"
Well, if this is what you're trying to accomplish, just print out this handy graphic and you're done.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You need the balance, just like with calculators. Give them calculators. But also make sure they're able to estimate whether the result of their calculation/research/query is correct. If you train them solely by using a specific sort of tool, they become dependent on that. Show them a few alternatives to get to a result, then let them choose.
It may depend on student age, but the amount of times I run into teenage students who blindly trust their calculators and don't pause to think whether 4% of 200 really can be 500 is startling. I'm not a fan of deprieving them of the technology, but they need to realise that they'd better do a rough mental double-check as well.
Seriously, I just returned six days ago from a week in Lima, where I visited partners who buy used computers (for repair, refurbishing, recycling business). At one of the shops (which had 22 repair employees) they showed me one of the One Laptop Per Child laptops they'd gotten their hands on. They were absolutely ridiculing it compared to the price of used Pentium III laptops they buy in bulk from off-lease. I just wrote about the trip a few days ago. http://preview.tinyurl.com/peruewaste
The refurbishing business itself is falling off in Lima, however. (No joke, I saw used CHINESE CRT televisions - the Chinese cities are upgrading and selling their own used goods to South America and Africa). But the cheap white box models from China show the most growth in the market.
In short it's a mature market and the whole charity command-and-control, of "e-waste" and white box laptop sales, is rife with at best piss poor market research, and at worst just making things up out of thin air. Read Harvard Business Review Article, http://tinyurl.com/chinagoodnuff The Battle for China's Good Enough Market (2007, written by Bain & Co consultants), to see how the changing consumer demand is being mis-marketed to. Lima had 9M residents, I had no problem finding wifi, and the geeks of color in the used electronics markets all had smartphones.
Gently reply
The concept of needing anything/em> for a good education is questionable. The computer is a tool which is capable of good (through assisting the teaching of subjects), evil (distracting the students or supplanting the teacher), or pointlessness.
First, the tool has to be assessed, to see if it's suitable to assist in the teaching of a subject. The computer can be mighty flexible, and beside running Excel to actually do the accounting, it can present information, quiz students on topics being learned, and even make corrections based on incorrect answers. (And yes, I include properly done Powerpoint under the heading "present information." LibreOffice's Presentation tool qualifies too.)
Second, the tool may need to be tweaked to work for a specific purpose. The last two, quizzing and correcting, ride on the assumption that somewhere behind the scenes, someone in the school's employ is using a relatively simple scripting tool (LiveCode comes to mind) to create the lessons, and to further present on correct techniques when wrong answers are given.
Third, the tool has to be accepted and understood by the teacher. A tool unused is meaningless, but a tool misapplied can do more harm than good.
And fourth, the tool has to be accepted and used correctly by the students. Same principle as above: if they don't know how to get the information out of it, they won't larn nuffin'. A sweet UI and finely honed educational software stand no chance against a blithering idiot.
My mother taught learning disabled preschoolers. I watched with some horror as she sent one student after another back for "computer time" unattended, and they kind of puttered around with it. The worst was what I dub a "click-monster"—he might as well have been blindfolded and firing a machine-gun the way he was clicking. It was like recess, but nothing was being exercised except index finger and wrist.
With a little time, expense, and staff education, the computer can be a fantastic tool for teaching and learning. I can appreciate that without that time and expense, the tool isn't nearly as useful.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
I remember getting an F in "computer class" (elementary school in the early 90s) because when we were supposed to be learning to use a drawing program, I instead wrote a BASIC script to draw the image we were supposed to draw. It didn't matter in the slightest to the teacher that I was able to attain the result in a far more efficient way or that I was able to actually write my own program, nope, I didn't do it exactly the way she said to (and thus exactly as the book said).
This always annoyed me in school, you put this incredible, mysterious and powerful machine in front of a student, the student already has a basic understanding of some of the amazing things this machine is capable of, so the student is incredibly excited. Five or so years later when the only thing the student has been taught to do is use the computer as an alternative to a pencil and paper, then you have a problem.
It's like putting kids in a giant room filled with Legos and only allowing them to use the blocks to build 3" tall numbers to answer math equations straight from a book.
And in other news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and gravity sucks.
Seriously, let's stop looking for magic cures and start focusing on fundamentals, such as better teacher recruitment, selection, training, and retention. The add a layer of technology and facilities on top of that. Not sexy and a lot of hard work, but this approach will probably get the best results.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The OLPC project was always one step near the infamous "Bibles for Haiti" project - a condescending view that an "easy answer", one which is easily mass-manufactured will miraculously solve a hard social problem. That the OLPC-ers are technocratic instead of theocratic makes little difference with regards to the efficiency of the approach. What *should* have been sent are *teachers*, but it's much, much harder to send teachers into the wilderness when they are already so lowly regarded in the western world.
-- Sig down
yes, Apple and Google should just shut down shop and go home because Microsoft has the answer today and into the future. FAIL!
Did you ever hear that the reason companies hire college grads is not so much because of what the learned in school be the fact that they could be taught something new? And if kids are being taught what pictures to click on and not the concepts of word processing, spreadsheets... oh wait, you were talking about the user interface(UI)... I guess by default all Windows users know Microsoft's Metro UI?
In other words, your comment is a big FAIL. It's about learning to learn, not what the tool's UI or apps look like.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
For the same reason Justin Beiber has the most viewed video to his name on youtube.
Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
Kids that young do not need computers to learn. They need to be taught the same 3 simple basics that have been taught in every primary school for decades: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. You do not need computers to learn or teach any of those. Introduce them to music and art to round out their education. Then in high school start introducing them to computers. And no, contrary to what some people like to think, these students will not fall behind the other kids that had access to computers. Using a computer is a skill. A very easily obtained skill. And high school is early enough to start teaching kids this skill.
Cliff Stoll is probably unsurprised. As am I. A computer is a tool to accomplish a task, and giving computers to kids who don't have any use for them is likely to be less productive than giving them all math textbooks.
This idea is nothing new. In the sixties it was typewriter skills which led to a lot of schools using IBM selectrics for typing class. In the seventies, it was ten key calculators which led to 6 to 8 week courses in using a calculator to add and subtract. In the late seventies, it was programming on cards in a high school lab and then led into Apple IIs in a dedicated computer lab. In all of these cases, the idea was that the technology was so earthshaking, that you just drop these machines in front of teachers and have a coherent lesson plan materialise out of nothing. (and if I sound biased, it is because my mother, a jr.high math teacher, was given the plum job of running the computer lab where her major worry was keeping the students from stealing the computers, keyboards or mice. She was the best available choice for the job but had no training or experience, only that she was a math teacher was over thirty years teaching experience.. She was provided with little materials other than showing students how to turn the computer on, copy files to a floppy, and use a notepad type editor. Not a lot to work with.)
Right now, these technology grants are being spent on tablets. What would be a good curriculum for those devices?
You mean like microsoft does when, for example, Argentina was going to move it's schools to Free Software, the local GLUGS where going to donate the work, RMS traveled to Buenos Aires and had a meeting with the ministry of education, and the next day microsoft pushed a few buttons, greased some politicians, and managed to sell a shitload of licenses at a discounted price, forcing the ministry of education to stop the project so the money invested in "discount licenses" wouldn't go to waste? That's what I call a new low. Anyway, bad troll, 0/10.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
And if well teachers were a problem too (both for the ones that didnt worked with computers, as for the ones did, as the interface is not the usual desktop) that , would not put the experience as something dissapointing, heck, in a good amount of cases were the children that showed their teachers how to use it. At least here Is evaluated as something very possitive, not just for the children, but also for their families. Is not perfect, but is making possitive changes that probably will be more visible in 5-10 years.
Well to start with, I worked for Hilton Corp in Memphis, TN (headquarters) and we used exclusively Solaris servers. There isn't one Windows Server, going as far as OpenLDAP for authentication and not windows.
Now for most of these I read "Managing X customers using Active Directory" And you are right, since most companies use Microsoft for personal computers, most use Active Directory to manage authentication. However, Troll is Troll, and because they have one server that has to make them windows dominate. Get real, get a life microsoft shit...err shill. The sad thing is, I think you guys make a great desktop, I really do, and the fact that you are so hardcore going after Linux means you are actually threatened by it. It has the server market, almost every company (Microsoft included) uses a *nix based system to manage there main servers.(http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/18814901/microsofts-freebsd-move-aimed-at-next-generation-of-developers.htm). Note that's 2001, and since that scandal, I bet they aren't any longer. It was running their hotmail servers, and I can say around 2003 their servers have had a hard time managing content (probably when they switched back) so people left hotmail in troves. Awesome switch to windows servers guys.
History is history, but I am an enterprise architect for a living, and I care about what I use. But I waste money on buying server X from microsoft every new release and test it. It has nothing on linux and we'd be paying almost an additional 2million a year for mips if we used it. So long point around, because companies use microsoft somewhere just once doesn't mean it's better than linux. It means it's more effective for what it does (like integrating with OTHER windows PCs). I should also note I love the most recent version of MS SQL Server, another reason for using Windows. For everything else, linux.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
I live in a tribal village in Peru, and the kids here have OLPC laptops. The trouble is bigger than teachers who have not been educated to make good use of the laptops (although that is an issue too). There isn't electricity here, much less internet (except my personal VSAT). While a computer loaded with educational resources is useful without an internet connection, it is a nice shiny green and white brick without power. For all of the hoopla about hand-crank or foot pedal chargers, I haven't seen one. When my solar panels are pulling in enough power, I'll charge one up for a kid or even let them on the internet, but my resources are limited in these areas too. So...it will be hard to REALLY evaluate the effectiveness of a machine like the OLPC until we have solved these basic infrastructure issues.
Microsoft'll still be there as it's been 4 decades: Ur point's what? The kids'll grow w\ changes as we all did on MS or anyone's wares. Change is a fact of life in the field of computing, get used to it.
U fail to note that there are radically differing versions of *NIX desktops too, ala KDE vs. GNOME (& others like xfce & more and changes in them as well over time), plus the changes that occur on its attendant softwares that ride on it too (that aren't used 1/100th as much as Windows & its wares are).
Thus, Your very argument is defeated on its very basis, albeit, turned around on Linux, ala "reverse-psychology" and the numbers prove the rest for me in terms of usership/mindshare (as well as marketshare).
Wait, what?
The argument was basically "Microsoft software will have a different interface by the time these kids leave school, so the important thing is teaching the kids to use computers, not about teaching them about using a particular flavour of computers."
So whose argument has been defeated? I'd say it's yours. We don't need to teach kids Microsoft software, just software. I started learning word processing on BBC Masters and Acorn Archimedeses, and I'm better with Microsoft Word than many of my colleagues who've only ever used Microsoft Word...
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I was born in 1986, and at that time personal computers were on the rise. Yes, personal computers existed long before that, but back then many people still did not have them. At the time computers were more expensive and not as interesting to intellectually challenged people. It wasn't for several years that every member of society absolutely had to have a computer and an e-mail address. I know people who held out for a decade after it became ubiquitous.
Ever since I was in kindergarten, the prevailing [ignorant] viewpoint in society was that computers just magically made people smarter and improved your child's education a billion percent. Every school that I attended had to have computers, and they always bragged about how many computers they had. Idiots in the administration talked about how technology was revolutionizing education and how the students were being prepared for the future by being taught computer skills. By the time I was in high school, they made sure that every single classroom had at least one computer in them, sometimes two or three or five. Nothing relevant about computers was actually taught.
Ultimately, it was pointless. We didn't use the computers in effective or creative ways; both teachers and students ignored the computers and studied our textbooks. All we used the computers for was to browse the web in our free time and play Counterstrike. Some kids utilized the school's network infrastructure to upload porn and warez. I went to college with a bunch of computer illiterate people who grew up with computers, and now I work with a bunch of computer illiterate people. My mom went adult education classes to become "computer literate," and they taught her that computer expertise meant knowing how to use Google search and Microsoft Office.
As someone who is very into computer technology and software, it has been a hobby that I pursued since a young age, and it ended up becoming my trade. I think I'm qualified to speak a little bit about computing technology, and I've said this many times in the past: computers don't improve education. They just don't. The money that schools waste on computer equipment could be put to use in so many much better ways. Throwing computers at education is just a mutated form of our cultural tendency to throw money at problems--it's stupid and doesn't work.
Can computers be used in education? Sure, they can, but if and only if it makes sense. Right now in my studies I have to use a computer constantly to look up reference material--it's a huge time saver and makes my field of study dramatically easier than it once was. The reason why computing helps is because the computer is a tool that provides a function necessary for the completion of my work. It's not because I learn better with computers than without them, or that computers solve all of my problems in school; rather, sometimes you have a particular need for them, and in many cases you don't.
I support OLPC because it connects people to the Internet who weren't connected before, which basically gives them access to limitless reading material should they choose to utilize it. 99% of people do not take advantage of the knowledge that can be read on the Internet. That's fine. If even a small group of intelligent children can find a way to benefit from having access to a computer, then those people might learn something that they can use to improve their own lives and the lives of people around them.
That olpcnews link was very informative. And your comments are exactly to the point.
A while ago I saved a comment (I think from slashdot, I'm too lazy to google for it) that summarizes the situation:
OLPC is a rich man's idea of what poor men need. It's like donating an expresso machine to a homeless shelter.