IntenseDebate - Kentaro

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thanks, webrunus... coming back for more!

I have met Sugata Mitra, and I'm familiar with the Hole-in-the-Wall project. I think it's a great demonstration of just how much kids can learn on their own. However, it's also a demonstration of how much kids won't learn on their own -- most kids won't learn how to read, do their multiplication tables, solve quadratic formulae, recite Shakespeare, learn Indian history, etc., simply by being provided a computer with Internet access. One way I think of this is, if this is such a great way to learn, why do parents in the developed world bother with school? They can just sit their kids in front of a connected PC for a few hours a day, and be done with it.

Kids need good adult guidance and mentorship, even if it's only to provide encouragement, inspiration, and occasional discipline. But, those things are hard even for people to provide, and incredibly hard for technology to provide, especially day after day, year after year.

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 0 replies · +1 points

Hello, and thanks for your comment.

I apologize for not including more about what we should do, but as it was, the article was on the long side -- I am actually writing a book about what I think we should focus more on, but it says very little about technology. Also, for how to run a good educational system, it's worth referring to places that do them well (e.g., http://www2.law.columbia.edu/sabel/Individualized....

I disagree that a bad technology replacement is better than even the small benefit you might achieve in improving teachers (or buttressing them with very inexpensive assistants, as for example, studied here: http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/3/3515/papers/dufl... though the details certainly matter. I would rather see small increments in quality of teaching, than trying to scale mediocre solutions as far as possible.

One of the worst things about our society's technology fetish is that we think everything has an easy solution (and when if it doesn't, we keep searching for one, instead of just getting on with the hard task). Which is one reason why I deliberately titled this article "There are no shortcuts...!"

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 0 replies · +1 points

(...cont'd) But, where you and I disagree is whether it makes sense to call computer literacy a "human right." The problem with rights is that they are black and white. Once you decide something is a right, there can be no more discussion about whether provision of it makes sense *relative* to something else that competes for the same resources. A right is non-negotiable, which is exactly why you seem unwilling to engage in the nitty-gritty of what you're calling "micro-economics."

Unfortunately, we have to prioritize, because resources are limited. Many things could be rights, but we're not even able to provide those rights for things that you and I would probably agree to be rights... such as clean water and decent nutrition. (And, these are things which, incidentally, directly contribute to better attendance and performance at school.) Given multiple unmet rights, should we add another one on top? And, if we do, how do we choose among them, when resources are scarce? "Do them all" is not a practicable answer. So, I offerred one way, which was to focus on cost. Ultimately, though, we'd need to focus on cost-effectiveness.

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 0 replies · +1 points

Well, yes... it seems unlikely that I could persuade you that the use of $188 per child on a laptop is an unfortunate use of that money in many very poor contexts, where other needs are far more dire. But, of course, the converse is also true: it seems unlikely that you could convince me of the opposite assertion.

You mention human rights. You and I probably agree on what an ideal world would be: Everyone would have good nutrition, great healthcare, first-class education, great employment opportunities, and the freedom to pursue the life we each value, as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedom of others to do the same, or something along those lines. In that ideal world, everyone would also learn how to use a computer, since there are plenty of jobs that require computer skills. (cont'd...)

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - The question is not wh... · 1 reply · +1 points

First, I'm not at all pessimistic about the possibility of improving education. Children are not "lost" unless we give up on education entirely. But, I disagree that the best way to do so is to focus on technology when improving teachers and administrations (and engaging with parents) is far more important. There is a cost trade-off, because the resources allocated to technology could easily be allocated towards teacher training or more teachers. It's a little strange to imply that if we don't use ICTs, the children are lost! Were all of us lost before ICTs?

Second, I actually believe very much in a constructivist view of education, but in the sense of learning happening when a person cognitively recreates the thing being learned. Learning is an active, rather than a passive process, yes, but good teachers are still critical, and there's no more guarantee of good active learning on PCs than there is of good active learning in a sandbox.

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - The question is not wh... · 2 replies · +2 points

Rob, I agree with you that once someone decides that ICT of any kind -- television, radio, PC, mobile phone -- are to be used in education , it's important to focus on how best to use it. Our disagreement is in fact on the point of "whether," rather than "how." You're sure that it's always "yes," while I believe that there are plenty of instances where "no" is a better response. That's a disagreement we're not likely to resolve, so let's move on...

Two misperceptions of my view that I'd like to correct are below...

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thanks, Mike -- I posted a reply there, as well.

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thanks, @callurrea. I think your comment is related to the "21st century skills" comment I addressed above. There's a difference between learning how to use tools and learning the basics that would allow you to use new tools effectively.

There are lots of technologies in the world that we don't learn how to use in school for the most part. ATMs, subway ticket machines, DVD players, television sets, mobile phones, automobiles, lawn mowers, power drills, etc. Yet, we don't worry that our children won't be able to use them when they grow up. In fact, a good education teaches them how to learn, so that they don't have to have learned all the technologies they'll encounter as an adult. We didn't grow up with Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, or Google, and yet we are able to use them -- because we had a good foundational education. On the other hand, I have personally taught people how to use Google who didn't then know what to do with it, because their foundational education (e.g., reading and comprehension) were so poor.

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 3 replies · +1 points

For example, if OLPC in its current form were to cost $10000 per child, would it be worthwhile in Vanuatu? I, of course, don't think so, but would you? You might, and if you did, what about at $100,000 per child? Conversely, if you didn't, what about at $1000 per child? At some point, we'll find a number where you and I both agree -- an $X OLPC per child in Vanuatu wouldn't make sense. Similarly, for a US school that spends $8000 per child and where the 4th graders are able to do what 4th graders are supposed to be able to do, would I object to $100 per student on a PC? Probably not. $1000? Maybe. $4000? Definitely.

Etc. I think we could carve out more agreement.

14 years ago @ Educational Technology... - There Are No Technolog... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thanks for your comments, Michael. Given that you are critically involved in OLPC, you obviously believe strongly in the mission, and it would be pointless for me to try to persuade you. I'm hoping, after the other articles in this series are in, to start a discussion where we can perhaps shrink the gap between where we agree and disagree, so that we don't become as bad as the U.S. Congress.

For example, I agree that there are ways to use computers in schools such that children will benefit more than if they don't have the computers. Presumably you do, too.

At the other extreme, I very much doubt that just handing a laptop a five-year-old child in a "typical" household where the parents are illiterate and earning less than $2 a day will accomplish much. Hopefully, you'll agreem also (though some of your OLPC colleagues might not).

Assuming we agree at the extremes, we just have to close in from either side to see where we disagree. (cont'd)

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Kentaro_Toyama

People I'm following

Kentaro_Toyama