technoculture314-09

Upon agreeing whole heartedly with Winston’s views about One Laptop per Child in “Let them eat their laptops: the limits of technicism,” I thought it only fair to read the views of the makers of One Laptop per Child. However, after thorough investigation of the One Laptop per Child website, I was able to reaffirm my prior beliefs that this project, although quite admirable, seems to give technology more credit than is due.

The mission statement for the project illustrates laptops as a necessity that will ultimately allow those in under-developed countries to be on par with the rest of the world. The foundation emphasizes that One Laptop per Child is “an education project,” (OLPC2 2009) an “[empowering]” (OLPC2 2009) tool if you will. The laptops are said to “[give] [children] a window to the outside world, access to vast amounts of information, a way to connect with each other, and a springboard into their future” (OLPC 2009). The project is claimed to be a revolutionary tool and that access to this tool will allow children to be “engaged in their own education.” (OLPC2 2009) Essentially this mission statement means that learning through new technology is the only way in which learning can be achieved. It seems rather premature to put so much hope into a plan that has never actually been tested, and to ignore traditional methods of teaching which have proven to be successful. Although learning with a computer may offer more opportunities that were previously unavailable, it is not justifiable to assume that computers are the only way to learn

The website does indeed offer “proof” that the project has worked over the past two years. According to the website, attendance in schools that have participated in One Laptop per Child has “increased dramatically” (OLPC 1) I find this statement problematic for two reasons. The first being is that the only notable good that One Laptop per Child has produced is an increase in attendance. If the project were to be working as expected, results such as increased test scores or increased knowledge of computing programs should be happening. The second reason is that like the mission statement which claims (in an implicit way) that computers are the only way to learn, the project fails to recognize that the increase in attendance may be because of the increase of better qualified teachers. According to the One Laptop per Child wiki, the foundation organizes workshops for teachers to attend to familiarize them with the new laptops. However, these workshops not only teach the how-to’s of a computer but also other beneficial things such as “learning and child development”, “teacher development,” and “curriculum, content and materials in 1-to-1 environments” (The OLPC Wiki 2009) Thus because teachers gain more knowledge about teaching, they would be able to teach the children better. However, this fact is completely ignored, and all the glory is yet again given to the laptops.

My tad too critical assessment of One Laptop per Child may paint me out to be a technophobiac but really I am a firm believer in technology. However, I also believe that computers are a luxury not a necessity (although in modern day, and in developed countries, they do seem like a necessity). Instead of spending millions (if not billions) of dollars manufacturing and distributing laptops for better education, it seems more wise to spend the money on training teachers and bettering school environments.

Works Cited

"Deployment Guide/Teacher Preparation Student Facilitation - OLPC." The OLPC Wiki - OLPC. Web. 11 Oct. 2009. .

"One Laptop per Child (OLPC): Children." One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a low-cost, connected laptop for the world's children's education. Web. 11 Oct. 2009. .

"One Laptop per Child (OLPC): Mission." One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a low-cost, connected laptop for the world's children's education. Web. 11 Oct. 2009. .