After watching the video and then reading the piece by Voice of America and the OLPC: Vision vs. Reality, I was introduced to the OLPC program and also became aware of some of the shortcomings of the program. In the third article I read, I came across the mission, and I could better see the intention of the program.
“To create educational opportunities for the world’s poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. When children have access to this type of tool, they get engaged in their own education. They learn, share, create, and collaborate. They become connected to each other, to the world and to a brighter future.”
(Cristia et al., 2012, p. 6)
My first thought was – this sounds wonderful! The first part of the mission shows careful thought into designing a device that could deliver the goods and stand up to the elements. The second part of the mission addressed the joy of learning – and the the type of learning we often envision with 1:1 initiatives in our classrooms. Providing this opportunity for every child is admirable and a lofty goal. Unfortunately, it is is not as simple as it sounds, and there have been a few snags in the implementation.
Planning seems to have been short-sided. Planning in the design of the device was intensive, however planning past delivery of the laptops appears to have been glossed over. Much of this was left to the individual countries/governments and in some cases has fallen into the cracks. The program would benefit greatly from careful research and planning for infrastructure, distribution, diffusion of the innovation, training, actual use, evaluation, cultural awareness, and involvement of all stakeholders (Kraemer et al., 2009).
The mission reminds me of the two types of learning. First, it reminds me of “hole in the wall” experiments when thinking of informal, self-directed learning (Mitra, 2005). It also reminds me of 1:1 classrooms facilitated by teachers who have had extensive training to deliver instruction using this format. In either case, it seems that this initiative falls short. As far as the informal learning, many students didn’t have the laptops available for home use and for those that did – internet may not have been readily available. In the classroom many teachers simply weren’t provided training for teaching with this technology, so once again students were shortchanged – not receiving the intended benefit of the technology (Cristia et al., 2012).
Though there is not a lot of evaluation data available, one study examined achievement, cognitive growth, and computer skills as a result of the OLPC deployment in Peru. There was evidence of improvement in cognitive skills and basic computer use. When comparing achievement in using the technology, there seemed to be no significant difference. As a result, math and language skills didn’t see marked improvement (Cristia et al., 2012). This is typical of media comparison studies.
Once again, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs comes to mind. When basic needs aren’t met, is a laptop going to fill the bill? Colombant (2011) parlayed comments from a conference panel who pointed out that deworming, school lunches, teachers salaries would be more efficient educational improvements. He also pointed out that weak infrastructure and corruption were problems that need to be addressed. My personal opinion is that people or organizations wishing to implement technology in developing countries should partner with organizations who are working to meet basic needs. Meet the basic needs first, then follow up with the technology when applicable.
Cristia, J.P., Ibarraran, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severin, E. (2012). Technology and child development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child program.
Colombant, N. (2011) Some development experts criticize ‘One Laptop Per Child’ initiative in Africa. Voice of America. March 6, 2011
Kraemer, K.L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009), One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66-73.
Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, S., Bisht, R. S., & Kapur, P. (2005). Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the “Hole in the Wall.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 407-426.
Catalyst 