If you click on the link below, it will take you to the One Laptop Per Child website. There are two videos on the page presented. The first video explains more the mission statement of OLPC and how the organization works. Emphasizing how "kids are the mission, not the market" and detailing five binding principal: 1. Kids get to keep the laptops. 2. Focus on early education. 3. No one gets left out. 4. Connection to the internet. 5. Free to grow and adapt.
The second video (which is fairly long at 16 or 17 minutes) feature a conference where Miguel Brechner speaks about the CEIBEL plan which is a social inclusion, equality plan that will allow children and teens to have a real opportunity at life and solve educatuional problems. This plan includes using OLPC in the discussed South American countries. Brechner identifies the difficulty to find cures for social problems and possibility of loosing generations of children if nothing done to improve education. There is a need for economic growth which lies in the future of the children of those nations.
I believe OLPC has created a great way for children to have educational opportunities they would not normally have access to, allowing not only national growth but also global growth and connectedness. However, I would like to raise a couple of important questions addressing OLPC's organization effectiveness:
1. Will teachers, parents and communities fully support the mission of this organization and give children participating the guidance they need to fully take advantage of this program and benefit from it?
2. Will parents lack the knowledge to aid their children when they bring theses laptops home to complete assignments or explore the internet themselves or with this subsequently teach and educate parents at the same time?
http://laptop.org/en/vision/index.shtml
This draws parallels to the Frontline documentary “Digital Nation.” The idea of all kids having computers in order to improve the quality of their education is incredibly value-laden. The documentary emphasizes that the excessive use of computers not only teaches us different skills, it causes us to lose other important skills that society once valued; it isn’t a win-win situation, it’s a tradeoff. Another concept established in readings for class is that simply providing media and technology for under-developed countries does not necessarily lead to development or improved conditions. The concept of choosing the “world’s poorest children” in particular is an extreme example of overlooking basic needs such as food, fresh water and housing in favor of computers, i.e. western luxuries.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons why online classes and educational opportunities aren't currently feasible in say Russia or Bangledesh is that outside of the cities, few people have computers. Some similar projects provide a computer for a rural village and broadcast a professor or class in a university. OPLC attempts to solve this aspect of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to consider why people who currently use online and distance learning choose online and distance learning. Many students in the US are adult and professional students, who have a difficult time getting to a campus but would like to further their skills and qualify for a higher level job. Tess brings up a great point, in poor villages, how would the skills you learn online apply to your life or advance your situation? What if the computer itself just became a commodty to gain other more vital needs? I'm not suggesting that this program is not a great initiative, but I think it is important to consider specifcally the skills the program will provide the target group with and their application when thinking about how and how much the program will benefit the children.As far as your second question, technology literacy is a second challenge of online learning. It's a valuable skill set, but perhaps only in certain contexts or enviornments.