Chris points to these pictures that show Nigerian students at the first school to receive their laptops in the One Laptop Per Child program. Very cool to see, and it starts my brain to racing with the possibilities. Let’s hope the pedagogies that these kids are taught help them take full advantage of the awesome connection that they now have.
As Chris notes, it does make you wonder what it’s going to take to make this happen in this country as well. I’d heard somewhere that the company who is making these OLPC machines is thinking about a $200 laptop for distribution in the US. Between that and open source and free software, we could really change the picture when it comes to getting kids access in this country.
The other day I was doing a workshop in a place where many, many of the families in the districts lived on welfare or with assistance. The schools had one working computer in a classroom and one lab in the whole building. Few of the kids had computers or access at home. The sad truth is that those kids, and those districts, are falling further and further behind.
I don’t want to look at these pictures as a call to arms…it’s a celebration. It’s no doubt an important moment. But it should give us all pause. In a society that is more concerned with the father of Anna Nicole’s baby, one that spent almost $14 billion on Easter stuff, (the equivalent of 140 million laptops, btw) what’s it going to take before we understand what No Child Left Behind really means?
Will,
You are too right. I look at these kids’ faces in the photograph and think about all the stories they have to tell, and really, how this program will change their lives and the possibilities open to them.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot since I saw this YouTube video by one of Michael Wesch’s students who filmed a video response to the Machine is Us/ing Us. The student asked a lot of very good questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuS1lxEuEAk
I think there’s been a lot of debate about the operating system, the design of the laptops, etc. but when you look at this project–which has come to fruition–all that falls away.
What is left is this–These students are being given a key to a door that has long needed to be opened to them.
And you are right, we need to be doing this at home. Why do we tolerate these inequities in our system and how can we take care of our own children better?
This story touches the heart. Unfortunately more than emotion is required to remove the digital divide between Africa and the rest of the world.
It would have been preferable if these machines, and particularly its usage, were properly piloted in a first world environment, to gain a good sense of how it could be used to enhance education. An entire packaged deal, hardware, connectivity, teaching methodology, etc, is required if one wants to make it work.
The problem in Africa is not so much a lack of technology; a far greater problem is the lack of skilled teachers. So unless the technology is used to enhance teaching one is missing the point (and one is bound to miss the boat as well).
Please don’t read this as cynicism; we have been through wave after wave of technolgy innundations and the same mistake is made time after time: equipment is dumpted without adequate training on its usage.
The comment is made above “… it does make you wonder what it’s going to take to make this happen in this country as well” (I assume the country referred to is the USA). It is a real pity that this initiative was not started in schools in the USA; in that way an educational model of the optimal usage of this particular technology manisfestation would have been developed; Africa could then benefit from this experience and leapfrog over the “trial by error” stages. As this experiment stands at present, Africa is trying to leapfrog over a unicorn.
From looking at the photographs and description on CNET, and reading more at the project’s site(http://www.laptop.org/en/children/) it does appear clear that training is being provided and the community at large is being included in the process.
(Notice the photographs of meetings with parents, of the children being taught the physical parts of the laptop, for example).
Sometimes the argument about the software on the laptop reminds me of arguments in schools about Apple vs. Pc’s. Kids figure it out. I personally think it was brilliant that they designed the software around the philosophy collaborative web 2.0 type capabilities.
Will they be sufficient for these children their entire academic career? Maybe not, but will they learn to create content, tell their stories, and share with the world? Yes, they will.
Will that translate into other tools? I believe it will. Will there be mistakes or choices made along the way-probably.
But someone took a vision, ran with it, asked the web community for help and now it is a reality. That is more than has ever been done before.
One would think that, if school districts and teachers could really see the importance of getting these tools into the hands of all students in America, and if we, in education, could change the way that we teach, then we could probably find the finances to get laptops, even more expensive ones, into student’s hands.
For example, we could cut into a textbook budget for a year, learn to use free internet sources that are certainly more up-to-date than the textbooks we cut out for a year, and spend that money on 21st century tools.
So, what does it take. I think everyone realizes that. Systemic change one person at a time, one small group at a time, and one heck of communication job to get the point across.
We need to gather more data that proves all students meet proficiencies through engaged, technology-enhanced, well-designed learning experiences and get that message out there to the people in charge of decision-making.
What would be really cool is if we could get all of these educational consultants to quit their isolated approaches to what’s best for education and expounding their theories of education in order to just make a buck in the educational marketplace, and get on the same page.
With organizations like George Lucas Educational Foundation and Partnership for 21st century skills who seem so closely aligned in their framework, it would seem that, if the ed consultants really cared about changing the educational world for the better, that they could still make their money by grouping together under one framework that really does encompass all of their philosophies and, as a group, they could make a difference in Washington, D.C., state legislatures, local school districts, and colleges who train new and experienced teachers.
So, I guess what I’m saying is that, the $100 dollar laptop isn’t the problem. It wouldn’t matter if it cost $1000. We in teaching are certainly part of the problem. I’m part of the problem.
Until we can get educators more concerned and more knowledgeable about what student’s really need to know as they enter the adult world, we’ll still be here, 50 years from now, wondering why we can’t get the “$5.00 expandable cell phone/laptop/snickerdoodle” or whatever the technology will be, into the hands of our students.
By the way, enjoyed the etech conference and your keynote/sessions in Columbus. It’s nice to be energized again.
Will – in a way I feel like this is what I am doing with my students. The 7 year old iBooks we are using for our 1:1 program probably aren’t worth more than $100 – $200 (if that). But we are blogging, wiki-ing, using Flickr , Skype and more. My students are just about as “At Risk” as they come (90% free and reduced lunch) and since I am rolling this class on to fifth grade (and later possibly 6th) I will get see what impact these technologies and applications can make. I feel a post coming on.
Brian
I, too, have been wondering about the implementation and sustained professional development that it will take to get this type of project up and running. I looked through the OLPC website and was unable to find the information about sustaining, training and implementing the teaching methods that go along with this type of initiative. Anyone have some info on that?
I hate to break it to you, but right or wrong, OLPC will not be in USA schools due to teacher’s unions and computer retailers.
http://www.olpcnews.com/use_cases/education/childrens_machine_xo_usa_school.html
The OLPC implementation plan is deliberately aimed at providing students with the tools to compute, collaborate and communicate regardless of the intentions of adults to capture and control them.
Saying an implementation plan doesn’t exist is inaccurate. You may not like it, or believe it will work, but it does exist, and has some pretty brilliant minds behind it.
In the US, we’ve spent 30 years teaching teachers how to use technology and hoping that it would change how children learn. Rolling out the same failed technique to the rest of the world based on our percieved superiority would be a huge mistake.
This is about improving learning, not improving teaching.
Will & friends,
I’ve spent 17 years working with 1:1 schools all over the world and I have an ongoing relationship with many of the leading thinkers behind the OLPC. Therefore, I have a number of perspectives I would like to share.
I think you miss the big idea when you say…
“Let’s hope the pedagogies that these kids are taught help them take full advantage of the awesome connection that they now have.”
This is NOT about teaching. Your young children didn’t need a school curriculum or NETS Standards to use the computer. Neither do children in Nigeria.
See http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/india/thestory.html
http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=526
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/10/sugata_mitra_an.html
http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/docs/Paper01.pdf
The power of OLPC is in placing computational technology in the hands of children. The theoretical basis for the OLPC is Seymour Papert’s work (suggested reading, “The Children’s Machine). Papert’s work concerns students using computers to make things – programs, robots, games, simulations, poems, movies, etc… – that are sharable with others. The ability to connect those computers, no matter how cool Web 2.0 tools are, is secondary to the construction of knowledge through the explicit act of making things. What makes the computer special is its ability to make lots of new things in many ways. Modern knowledge is made accessible not just by asking questions or looking things up, but by using computers to do the work of mathematicians, filmmakers, computer scientists, engineers, writers, composers, scientists, etc…
Papert began writing about the promise of every children having a computer back in the mid 1960s. He was mocked for that position then as many mock OLPC now. Alan Kay visited Seymour Papert’s Logo Lab in 1968, observed young children engaged in sophisticated mathematical thinking and was inspired to sketch the Dynabook on the flight back to Xerox Park. In other words, the laptop (and personal computer – also Kay’s term) was invented as an instrument for children.
———-
With all due respect to Brian, we here in the USA are amateurs at poverty compared to much of the world. Comparing free and reduced school lunch percentages to life in Africa really doesn’t cut it. A billion or two people in the world earn less than $1 per day per family. I am however thrilled that his students are doing great things with personal computers.
———-
Carolyn is correct when she points out the community involvement of OLPC. I asked Negroponte why OLPC was bothering with schools at all, “Why not pass the laptops out on street corners and give each kid a purple thumb to signify that they received their computer?” Negroponte told me that they considered that, but that schools offered a distribution channel.
If the OLPC is about empowering children and the future of learning then it should come as no surprise that schooing is NOT the focus.
That is a message that the edublogger community should applaud. I read a great deal on this site about the decline of schooling and need for a replacement. OLPC represents an investment in R&D when research and development is virtually non-existent in education.
Educators seem genetically predisposed to crave professional development even when NO evidence exists that it works. A quarter century after microcomputers arrived in American schools even the wealthiest schools cannot get teachers to use them. “Lack of professional development” is an addiction. The demand for it is insatiable. Let’s move on.
The most important variable of OLPC is the fact that a million or more laptops will be delivered in one country at one time. I have long known that limited access to computers is a major barrier to use.
We have no idea what might result from giving 1 million or more children PERSONAL computers at the same time. Why not support the lucky kids who receive “The Children’s Machine” and see what we might learn from them. Then and only then are we in a credible position to set policy.
Gary…thanks for the thoughtful response.
Isn’t it about the teaching at some level? I mean even my kids can’t use the connection available to them without some modeling, some mentoring in terms of the process of network building, connecting, etc. Maybe I wasn’t clear in saying that I’m not talking about traditional pedagogies here, but there are still pedagogies that need to be delivered, no?
Wouldn’t it be grand if we could do this here in the USA? As incredible as it would be, I still (sadly) have to think that we would sabatoge ourselves … there would have to be study after study as to the feasibility of it … then discussion after discussion of who would best benefit … then meeting after meeting to discuss the findings … then proposal after proposal by company after company to secure a bid …
In a perfect educational world, we would not have to fight for what’s best for our kids, to teach them in a manner that they are accustomed to learning. We would be able to have technology available to each and every one of us at all times and would have a budget equivalent to a one month salary for a sports figure, instead of having to beg and borrow for even a pack of colored pencils.
Until we as a nation can reailgn our priorities and agree that education is at least slightly more important than the latest sports figures or … only then will we begin to ensure that every learner will succeed.
If we were to provide the OLPC to American children there would be an outcry from people saying that the computer will not run Vista and from others who complain that we should be spending education funds for roof repair or professional development.
The marketplace COULD solve this problem if Moore’s Law were not corrupted by marketing departments.
The best selling computer ever was the Commodore 64. It cost either $199 or $299 in 1983. There has never been a $200 since – despite Moore’s Law since the hardware industry competes on features and retail price maintenance.
There ARE things we could to in America to provide laptops at an affordable rate for every child. Here are a few suggestions:
1) Get schools entirely out of the computer business and give a generous tax credit for each parent to buy every child a laptop that can be used at school and home. (not a PDA, but a real computer) This would bring enormous volume discounts, boost our economy and play on the public’s selfishness. You’re not paying more taxes, your kid is getting a laptop.
Poor kids can receive subsidies from the public and private sector.
2) Tear out that Sunday CompUSA or Wal-Mart circular advertising a $399 Toshiba or HP laptop. Then go to Toshiba and HP and say, “I want to buy thousands of these at the $399 price WITHOUT coupon clipping or rebates.” Announce the offer to local media.
Be sure to add funds for a long-term warranty OR require parents to pay for the insurance and warranty – a modest sum that encourages buy-in and care for the machine.
Will,
Sure, lots is learned via modelling, but that can occur in any community of practice – often a community devoid of “official” teachers. Kids can certainly show each other neat web sites and computer operations. However, most of that “instruction” takes minutes to hours, not the years schools often invest in “teaching technology.” School doesn’t teach MySpace.
Now, if you’re arguing for the teaching of formal disciplines, such as computer science or media production beyond the standard “make an ‘iMovie’ about the five food groups,” some source of identifiable expertise (some might say, teacher) should be provided.
Short of that. homeless kids can satisfy the ISTE Standards in a few weeks with a hole in the wall in rural India.
You ask, “is it about teaching on some level?” Yes, but thre is a lot of variability.
Some teachers are going to be cool and run with the OLPC for all it’s worth. Some teachers are going to be threatened. Some won’t care. Some teachers see the kids for a couple of hours a week in classrooms with a hundred kids.
The thing I’ve recently come to understand is that there is a deliberate intent designed into the OLPC interface, software, mesh network, and hardware to allow kids to use the computer no matter what the teacher’s attitude or circumstance is.
To use a systems example – Teachers are a huge variable. When you have a system with a variable you can’t control, you design around it, not give it control over the system.
Gary – in no way do I equate poverty here with the third world – note I said “in a way” – my comment was based on what we had in common – color of laptops (see my post: http://learningismessy.com/blog/?p=242 for a photo comparison), that we too have poverty in common (level notwithstanding), and we are doing 1:1 laptops. My students are also at a great disadvantage compared to most of their peers here in their experiences with among other things technology. Overall your comments are right on – just don’t stay up on that “high horse” too long – I’m on your side … mostly. ; )
Brian
I agree with 95% of what Gary says. I’m baffled by Will’s take on this. It is inconsistent with the rest of his rhetoric. I don’t agree with Gary that we should accept the hegemony of Vista. There is no reason to be afraid of Microsoft anymore, and while Microsoft may win the argument this year, next year and three years from now, they’ll lose it sooner or later, but only if people make the argument. Also, I don’t agree that getting a low end commercial laptop in every kids hands would work, particularly running Windows. I think it would be a completely unsustainable mess.
Tom,
Vista was used as an example of the inevitable whining that would follow the distribution of $100 laptops in the USA. It is by NO MEANS an endorsement of any Microsoft product or their hegemony.
It’s worth remembering that when the Governor of Maine was being crucified for proposing that every 7th and 8th grader get a personal laptop, not a peep was uttered by ISTE, COSN, SETDA or any of the other self-appointed advocates for educational technology. There were no letters of support written, no testimony, no nothing.
One can only conclude that most of the ed tech leadership is opposed to the democratization of computing and decentralization of control made possible by universal access to one’s own personal computer.
PS: I’m hoping Will is going to post my other comments. They seem to be caught in his spam filter – write your own punchline.
Can’t get the word possibilities out of my mind. Isn’t this what it all comes to?
POSSIBILITIES! Almost every day I am in contact with real teachers who are in real classrooms and find that having them see the possible uses of a particular technology to teach a concept or the possible solution to a problem is a very real challenge for many of them.
Access, lack of training, lacl of time, fear, and pressure to teach only what is on the test, also take part in this.
How do we get educators to begin to take risks and explore with so much emphasis on testing? Is it even possible in the educational environment of today? As much as I believe the access to a computer and the Internet should be a right of every student in the US today, I don’t know if this would change anything.
How do we help our fellow educators not feel overwhelmed and paralyzed? I think we have to start talking not only about all the problems, but the POSSIBLE solutions that can be implemented right now. We have to help everyone see the POSSIBILITIES!!
Gary,
We just disagree on tactics. I think the best opportunity for progress is to push for the full OLPC model in the US. Right now, we can only guess at how likely that is to work, because nobody really knows if OLPC is going to succeed, fail, or muddle along reverting to the mean (countries buy the laptop but install Windows CE, etc.). How successful OLPC is in other countries will determine how likely it is we can sell it here, but I’d prefer to lay the groundwork as aggressively as possible starting now.
Concerns are also being raised about security of these systems and the potentials for harm. See http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5244 for this quote “Ivan was followed by Jason Scott, who used several historical examples of the unintended consequences of technology to illustrate that while the intent of OLPC is benign, it is often the unthought of uses for any system that can be the most dangerous. He was followed by Sean Coyne and Scott Roberts of Vulnerable Minds, who detailed a laundry list of possible misuses, from the obvious potential for botnets, to the social impact of bootstrapping societies into to 21st century, to the possibility of MMORPG sweatshops….”
OLPC has potential for great things. But this truly is a huge social experiment, where many good AND bad results are going to transpire, just like for any technology. We have to be prepared for both results.
To Steve’s comment – Endless possibilities are both scary and exhilarating. Your frustration about never getting off the dime here in the US is felt by a lot of us.
Teaching teachers to use technology and hoping it trickles down to classrooms hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, and won’t work. Sure there is good professional development… sure some teachers are using technology. But we all know it hasn’t been enough. We should be looking for other options and approaches.
That’s exactly what OLPC is. That’s what we do at Generation YES.
We all proclaim the future is in our children’s hands. We have to make it literal. We must trust them, we must guide them, we can show them possibilities and hope for the best. We must help them even as they make mistakes and find their own paths. It’s never about only one way.
Monica says OLPC has the potential for great things and yet there may be unintended consequences of all sorts. I agree. But we already know the consequences of introducing computers in schools the US way – it’s not working the way we need it to work. I remember a psych experiment from college where they showed that people will stay with familiar actions even when those actions don’t work for them. The way we run technology PD in the US (and most of the Western world) is just that– the devil we know.
Let’s try something new that has a promise to change the lives of children world-wide for the better. Really, what’s the alternative?
Those kids are very lucky to have an early knowledge about computers with the help of one loptop per kid program. I hope that this kind of program will continue to support other kids who lack the necessary equipments for their education.
Monica,
What does it say about us that we must counter ever potential for good with a disclaimer that something bad might happen “as an unintended consequence?”
Is there data on how many children have been hit over the head with textbooks? Is there a call for a study to determine the impact interscholastic football has had on the learning of social studies?
I LOVE that one of the threats mentioned is “bootstrapping societies into the 21st Century.” That’s a a bad thing? Shouldn’t educators applaud such “acts of subversion?”
In the media-rich world one must remember that computer security magazines need to find a security angle for every news story in order to remain relevant. It won’t be long until someone expresses concern about 6 year-old Nigerian children being the victims of identity theft.
That of course won’t be possible until we get them all credit cards.
Tom,
I’m reminded of a question Seymour Papert asked.
“When we describe other countries as ‘developing,’ does that mean that we stopped.”
For any number of reasons I think that parallel initiatives to the OLPC should take place in the USA. Our technocentrism and wealth makes OLPC a bad tactic here in the USA.
My own views are pretty much exactly what Gary Stager’s are in this forum. In particular I support the argument that the children ought to be the ones who decide how these computers are used.
There is always a response on the part of those who want to control. It’s hard to let go. You can see it in the opposition of those who opposed the Maine program, you can see it when people express concerns that the computers weren’t well enough researched or that they won’t be used properly, you can even see it in Will’s concerns about pedagogy.
What surprises me is Stager’s (correct) association between marketing (or economic considerations) and the desire for control. If we were thinking of the best interests of the kids we’d be giving them this capacity and then standing back, interfering only if they were going to genuinely hurt someone. The desire for control is too often rooted in our interests, not the students’.
My thanks to Gary Stager for the informed and spirited defense of the program in this space.
Whew…ok…I’m chagrined, once again. (I’m getting tired of this…) First, I totally support the idea that we should get kids connected by whatever means possible. The OLPC program is an amazing attempt to do that. I heard that “do we really want to bring kids into the 21st Century?” argument from an acquaintance and was pretty shocked. Of course we do.
I guess what I’m struggling with now is the equation of any teaching with control. To take that to the extreme, since I try to teach my own children things, I guess I am polluting and controlling their ability to reach their full potential. I have no economic interest in their success (at least not at the moment). My primary interest is that I love them and I want them to find their passions and pursue them with tenacity. Yet by bringing my experiences and opinions to the table, it now appears that I’m harming, not helping. Is that right?
I’m curious…is there nothing a teacher can do besides stand back and make sure no harm comes to her students? Is everything else “control?”
It’s great that the less fortunate were given the chance to experience the full advantage of having a loptop to assist them in their education. I am sure that it will very much aid them in their task as students.
Will,
I think we reacted to your initial phrasing “the pedagogies that these kids are taught” in part because it sticks out from your usual phrasing. You’re usually Mr. Learner-in-Chief.
Oooo… just when you think it’s over… Will asks the most interesting question of all…
“..is there nothing a teacher can do besides stand back and make sure no harm comes to her students? Is everything else “control?—
The difference is a teacher who brings in essential questions, big ideas, creates opportunities, shows interest, models good habits of mind, expecte excellence, shows their own passions and loves kids.
When a student (or child) lives under these conditions, they can flourish no matter where their own interests take them: history, music, math, journalism or anything. Control is a word that never comes up.
Roots and wings, stuff like that 😉
It’s great to see this discussion take this turn and shine a light on one of the great failings of ed tech leadership. We are entirely too earnest about our profession at times and our good intentions and over-thinking can get in the way of the transformative power of technology. Sylvia certainly does an excellent job of summing up the role of the teacher in this endeavor, but far too often we mire ourselves in programs and standards when what we really need to do is stand back and let the creative process flower. I applaud the OLPC for getting the value of that process and for rejecting the bureaucratic thinking that would have pedagogies and practices replace discovery and imagination.
Most of us have seen this in action many times. The class blog that takes off in an explosion of creative thinking and interesting discourses, the student who begins creating fabulous drawings after (seemingly only) minutes of instruction in a painting program, the kid who just has to figure out a way to make his game work correctly, and the shy girl in the back of the class who sits down and does a moving video documentary. A light goes on in the minds of our kids and fabulous things happen because of the new ways of thinking that computers provide.
Ironically, we can become our own worst enemies when we attempt to codify that process through pedagogies in an attempt to duplicate it amongst the unwilling (through more professional development that doesn’t work, as Gary points out) or worse, we allow a software vendor to convince us that they have the entire solution in a box–and it’s measurable!
At any rate, it’s always great to hear Gary’s provocative thoughts and Will, you did get the Number One question right when you wondered what it would take to “get kids access” here in the US. That’s the thing that has to come first–access.
If people are still watching this discussion, a guest blog I wrote just posted on the OLPC News website. It talks about some of the experiences we’ve had with GenYES (students mentoring teachers with technology,) and how that might shed light on some of the questions about the OLPC implementation, in particular, of whether teachers will oppose OLPC because they’ve been “left out” of implementation plans. (which isn’t true, by the way, but is a commonly repeated criticism of OLPC)
OLPC News guest blog: http://www.olpcnews.com/use_cases/education/generation_yes_laptop.html
Generation YES blog post on OLPC:
http://blog.genyes.com/index.php/2007/04/17/one-laptop-per-child/
It’s amazing how we can make technology and education available to children in developing countries around the world. Education is one of best tool to helping cultures gain control of there freedom and gain rights.
It would be a great benefit for all students if they could have class materials made available and affordable. The cost of education at any level is highly expensive. This system is a way to provide a higher quality of education to greater number of students. We should find funding and push to use this style of materials in our class rooms.
I’ve read all the comments in this thread with interest. The whole thing of the $100 laptop is something that pulls me two ways. I spent just over two years working in Papua New Guinea, working with children with disabilities (and in particular their teachers). There, as in so many countries in the majority world, many kids weren’t in school.
While I think that the whole concept of getting children used to technology is wonderful – and projects like the Hole in the Wall in India have demonstrated that kids can teach themselves if they need to, though I can see where Will was coming from with his comments about pedagogy. Many of the teachers that I worked with used whole class teaching [not entirely surprising when you have 50+ in a class], and experimentation wasn’t encouraged. So, I think that it will need teachers to have a fairly serious re-think about how children can be allowed to experiment – in the classroom, not just outside it.
However, to return to the laptops / no laptops debate; as I’ve already mentioned – many kids aren’t in school.
Next week (April 23rd-29th) is Global Education Action week – when groups are trying to raise awareness of the 80million or so children who are not in school at all. There’s more at http://vso.org.uk/awareness_action/take_action/education/gce_main.asp – with ideas for teachers, students & interested individuals.
Gary,
Thanks for your response. I’d like to take just a minute to clarify.
In no way am I saying “the sky is falling”. I don’t think we should stick our heads in sand and think there aren’t going to be repercussions of this technology. It’s not a cure-all, and no edtech tools are. There are serious issues at stake, and a lot of people working behind the scenes to identify vulnerabilities and fix them. Most of these people are researchers in academia and support the OLPC effort. The sense I get is they want this to be a good tool for students.
If engineers went into Africa to build bridges with materials that have not been used before, and other engineers pointed out flaws that could cause the bridge to collapse, would it be best to ignore these flaws? Or to address them and build a much stronger bridge? I would hope, for the people who will be using the bridge everyday, that we would opt for the latter.
Neil Postman has spoken and written on the premise that for every technology there are “winners” and “losers”. That does not mean we stop the technology from being deployed. But we can be aware of the societal repercussions as they progress. In this way we might be able to minimize the negative repercussions while maximizing the positive.
Hope this helps clarify my thoughts.
Monica
I think it is totally awesome that those kids now have a door open to them to a whole new world that they can now explore and really take advantage of. I think this country needs to realize what we have and what we could have. There are a bunch of kids in this very nation that don’t have what they should as far as educational right go. I think we need to pay more attention to that.
Please i am an Economics student of the University of Nigeria. It has been my wish to own a laptop, the only thing is that I cannot afford one. please I would like you to help me. Thanks
The cost of education at any level is highly expensive. This system is a way to provide a higher quality of education to greater number of students.A light goes on in the minds of our kids and fabulous things happen because of the new ways of thinking that computers provide.