Still *trying* to have fun with the OLPC

asaolpc.jpgMy daughter (9 yrs) has been playing around with the OLPC laptop for about a week now. Her progress has been fairly predictable. The computer really is very easy to figure out. She’s especially drawn to the mutlimedia applications that respond to her in some way. Her favorites until now have been the TamTam musical applications and the face that speaks what she types.
The computer is definitely made for children – small children. There’s no way that I can possibly use the keyboard for blind typing. My fingers are simply too large. But, it’s perfect for my daughter and she finds it much easier to type on the OLPC than, for instance, my “grown-up” laptop. I’ve heard about US schools buying OLPCs for children as old as 12 yrs old and I wonder how suitable the keyboard is for them. I can imagine that for many of them it is already too small to be able to work effectively.
One thing that has bothered me about the OLPC is how many bugs there seem to be still in the system. The computer has frozen many times in the course of just one week. The only solution is to force it off and reboot. Considering that the OLPC has been around for quite some time now, I would have expected fewer bugs. The frequency of the problems is very disruptive. Another problem is how slow the web browsing is. This may be due to the WPA2 security on the wireless network that we’re using. Still, it makes browsing a very time consuming and tedious task.
The OLPC can obviously use more work. Our experience suggests that the notion that the laptop can be handed to a child and they let figure things out with minimal interference is rather farfetched, mainly because of the freezes and other problems that we have regularly encountered.
Posted in Development, Education, ICTs, Internet, Leapfrogging development | 2 Comments

Robot teachers in S. Korea

This is quite interesting. S. Koreans are developing “robot teachers” to function as teaching assistants in public schools. Apparently they are working fairly well. A recent project showed that elementary school students working with these robots in an english class showed “better learning achievements in speaking, as well as greater confidence and motivation”. Nevertheless, the use of robots in education does raise some interesting questions, especially regarding the role of the [human] instructor and the classroom in education. It seems fairly clear that there are no ambitions to replace human teachers with robots, rather that the robots assist teachers in the classroom. But, what does that mean for the human teachers? Will they have more time to develop interesting and effective learning activities or will their extra time go into programming and controlling robots?
Education in S. Korea is in a very interesting predicament. Government expenditure on education is lower than the OECD average. Many parents rely on the “shadow” education system to make up for deficiencies in the public system, i.e. private tutoring for individual and groups of students. Shadow education can be very expensive and places considerable strain on families’ financial resources. The result is a very unequal system that advantages children of well-off families that can afford tutoring. Also, from the students’ perspective, most of their time ends up being spent either in school or attending tutoring sessions, leaving little time for social activities.
While robot teachers may address some problems in education, it’s questionable whether they will minimize the need for shadow tutoring. One wonders then whether it might be a better idea for S. Korean government to spend the money going into developing robots on making qualitative changes to their formal education system to effectively address the issue of shadow education.

Posted in Development, Education, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

m-learning or m-somethingelse?

I rather quickly skimmed over this paper on “m-learning” after listening to a presentation on m-learning at a conference I recently attended. The concept certainly isn’t new to me. m-learning has been getting a lot of attention recently, so the authors’ review of definitions of the concept is much appreciated. But these authors are obviously not talking about “learning” as such. They go to great lengths to formalize the term “learning”, as in “formal education”. The cited definitions refer to “a form of education …” and “any educational provision …”, and the somewhat over-the-top, “the process of coming to know, by which learners in cooperation with their peers and teachers, construct transiently stable interpretations of their world.” So, basically, all of the definitions frame the concept of m-learning in the context of traditional education, involving a teacher and delivered instruction.
Definitions that overemphasize formal educational structures obscure a lot of the meaningful learning accomplished with casual use of mobile technologies. For example, if I come across a nice flower during a walk and use my smartphone to figure out what it is, I have undeniably learned something. This does not qualify as m-learning, however, because, according to the definitions provided in the paper, it was not in the context of “education” and did not involve a teacher. But, how is this learning any less significant for me, the learner, than if a teacher had been involved?
So, how would I define m-learning? Simple – it’s any and all learning that occurs through the use of mobile technologies. There’s no need for any conditionalities. Does this broad definition diminish the potential value of mobile technologies for purposive learning? Not at all. In fact, I think it provides a basis for developing a lot more effective and innovative ways to integrate technology into learning. Mobile technologies have the potential to facilitate experiential and informal learning in ways that we could only have dreamed of once.
If we can’t acknowledge those informal aspects of learning and find ways to accommodate them in formal educational contexts, we run the risk of ending up with a learning dichotomy (I think that a lot of high tech societies are already well on their way down that path). On the one hand we have learning that produces meaningful knowledge that is immediately useful in everyday situations. On the other hand we have learning that produces knowledge that serves specific purposes in the context of the educational system and related institutions (ex. taking tests). I find that a neither useful nor attractive future.

Posted in Education, ICTs | Leave a comment

Having fun with OLPC

OLPC.jpgI finally get to have a little fun with an OLPC laptop. Borrowed this from an institute at the university and plan to follow my daughters path of discovery over the weekend. I’ll probably post some reflections afterwards.
Posted in Education, ICTs, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

Wifi on the schoolbus

This is an excellent example of the impact a seemingly simply (and, I might suggest, obvious) innovation can have.
New York Times: Wi-Fi Turns Rowdy Bus Into Rolling Study Hall

Posted in Education, ICTs, Information Society, Internet, Knowledge development, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

Pew overstating changes in blogging/internet behavior?

The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project has released new findings that they claim show that,
“… young people are losing interest in long-form blogging, as their communication habits have become increasingly brief, and mobile.”
If this is accurate, I would think this a negative development because I think of “long-form blogging” as usually involving some measure of analytical and critical thinking and reflection, which are important skills for participation in information & knowledge societies. However, I’m not convinced that the turn from using blogging sites to using short-form communication sites (ex. twitter, facebook) is as much of a change as the researchers suggest. But, we can’t be sure that this is the case because researchers’ tendency to focus on the technology used, instead of what it’s actually being used for, limits our knowledge.
The big question here is, were young people actually using blogging sites to “long-form blog” or were they using them to “short-form blog”? I think, in fact, that a large number of young people probably used blogging sites to do exactly what the short-form sites are made to do. The transition doesn’t necessarily suggest a change in behavior. Regrettably, I don’t have data to back this up, but it’s consistent with what I’ve seen over many years of casually traversing blogospheres.
The researchers’ claims reveal assumptions based on a deterministic view of technology. It’s sort of like assuming that if someone has a hammer, they can build you a house (okay, that might be a little over the top, but you get the idea). This deterministic thinking about technology is still remarkably prevalent and something we have to turn around if we are to truly expand our knowledge about how individuals interact with, and are affected by, technology.

Posted in Information Society, Internet, Knowledge development | Leave a comment