To paraphrase Nicholas Negroponte in the article "Phone vs. Laptop," technology lends itself to increased connectivity. The reason that many countries of lower socioeconomic status are called "third world" is because they are truly of a different sphere than prosperous "first world" nations. This disconnect from the resources and advantages of "first world" nations is a contributing factor to their lack of success. Therefore, to improve their chances at success, they must be connected to those nations that can provide them with an example of how to better their status. With this connection comes the possibility and necessity of education.
The value of 1:1 computing is that it allows more people to become more connected, which theoretically should lead to more people becoming education. However, the issue isn't this straightforward. What needs to be realized is that different nations are, simply, different. Every nation will start out at a different level of disconnect and have different needs to bring it up to speed. What may work in one nation may not work in another. To simply hand every child a laptop, expect that child to teach himself how to use it and apply the information he has learned, and that they and their nation will suddenly become that much more educated, is an unreasonable expectation. Specific plans must be developed and implemented to increase the chances of success.
Plan Ceibal, the plan that gave laptops to all Uruguayan children, has specific strategies that it plans to employ, including a new robotics competition and an online nationwide mathematics competition, to enhance the educational experience. Whether these plans have produced results remains to be seen. I do, however, believe that they are a step in the right direction. As much as it is true that children can teach themselves how to use technology, they also need to be steered in the right direction on how to use this technology for the betterment of their educations. Specific academic programs need to be implemented, perhaps in the form of games. These games should teach children marketable skills, such as economics and science. They should be enjoyable and interactive and bring the learning experience outside of the classroom. But the most important aspect of these games is that they need to be appropriate to the audience that is using them. In other words, the use of laptops for children needs to be geographically and age-appropriate to produce the best results. However, to tailor the use of 1:1 computing to differ areas and age brackets is a formidable task, one that will require much time and money. That fact should not be diminished, but it also should not discourage the potential implementation of 1:1 computing. While there is no definitive evidence that it clearly is effective, there is no definitive evidence to the contrary either.
In the above video, children in the Kent (WA) school district talk about the potential advantages that a 1:1 computing program could offer them. While they say that some students may take advantage of the new technology, most expressed gratitude for being able to bring their learning experience home and become more involved in their academic material. Ultimately, Kent's 1:1 program worked excellently, according to studies. Though practices in implementing 1:1 computing would be different in foreign nations than in a struggling community in the United States, there are still concepts from what happened in Kent that can be applied elsewhere. Studies found that the 1:1 computing system created higher expectations for students (and that they rose to the challenge to meet) and that it fostered creativity among teachers, who were expected to come up with innovative ways to encourage students to use their computers. There is no reason to think that similar results could not be occur elsewhere, and to me, this is a strong argument for implementation of 1:1 computing systems. Much of the challenges in third-world countries have to do with poor student-teacher relationships; if both students and teachers were encouraged to put forth extra effort, the learning experience would be extremely enhanced. Increased involvement on the part of both students and teachers is a lacking but essential part of the learning process in many "third world" nations, and perhaps 1:1 computing programs can increase participation and enthusiasm among both parties.
However, the practicality of implementing 1:1 is also questionable. In Benin, the cost of a PC is equivalent to a teacher's salary for eight months. Considering the fact that the success of 1:1 computing is still highly debatable, many wonder if it's a risk worth taking. I argue that yes, it is. We live in a world with such great possibility and as the UN stated, Internet usage- which to me, entails connectivity and education- is a human right. Whether 1:1 computing initiatives succeed or not, they are the best step in the direction of ensuring the existence of a future society that has the right to be as productive as possible.
I like how you relate the OLPC initiatives to those in the United States. Since these programs have wide benefits and help for people in developing countries, and since many American citizens are behind these forces of implementing these programs, I wonder if districts in the United States will adopt them for themselves. Like you said, the Kent School District in WA showed great benefits - will we use this example domestically as well? Is there not that in depth a need? I think it will be interesting the focus that we place between international and domestic needs.
ReplyDelete