Home opinion-and-analysis Open Sauce OLPC: no proof, but more spin on 'education'

When an organisation rolls out unproven technology in a given area, who is responsible for ensuring that the testing ground has been made ready for the success of its experiment?

One would think, logically, that the organisation in question would be the one holding the can. One would also think that the technology would never be rolled out until all factors were optimal for its success.

But this does not seem to apply to the One Laptop Per Child project. That is the only way one can explain its most recent effort to try and spin the devastating results of a detailed and scientific survey in Peru which shows clearly that the program does nothing to help education.

Five qualified individuals wrote the study, after surveying 315 schools over 15 months. Peru has the largest deployment of OLPC laptops; there are 850,000 deployed at a cost, to the government, of $US225 million.

Ever since the media wrote about the study - and conclusions were uniform across the spectrum as to the fact that the OLPC program is of zero value in education - the OLPC has been trying to spin this way and that in order to try and hose down evidence that is out there on the net, evidence that clearly indicates that the whole project is just tampering with the early years of the most vulnerable in our world - children in poor and developing countries.

The most recent bid at trying to obfuscate the evidence from the survey comes from Oscar Becerra, former chief educational technologies officer in the Peruvian Ministry of Education. Becerra first wrote a rejoinder to The Economist (its write-up of the study was headlined Error Message).

He then wrote an article for OLPC News, a site that says of itself "dear reader, you should know that the editors behind OLPC News are not objective reporters of the latest news. We are most definitely biased." I don't think I need to specify in which direction the bias lies.

Firstly, when quotes are used from a document, then those exact phrases should be found in the original. Becerra takes some liberties with his quotes; one for example is his claim that the phrase "positive effects were found in general cognitive skills" exists in the survey. The actual phrase is "some positive effects were found in general cognitive skills" (emphasis mine) which does tend to change the meaning to a large extent.


But what exactly does the study say about the increase in cognitive skills? From the footnotes the tests used were, "The Ravens (Progressive Matrices test) are aimed at measuring non-verbal abstract reasoning, the verbal fluency test intends to capture language functions and the Coding test measures processing speed and working memory."

To quote (and correctly): "On the positive side, the results indicate some benefits on cognitive skills. In the three measured dimensions, students in the treatment group surpass those in the control group by between 0.09 and 0.13 standard deviations though the difference is only statistically significant at the 10 percent level for the Raven's Progressive Matrices test (p-value 0.055)." The p-value for tests such as these is usually 0.05, going by scientific convention. In this case, the p-value, or the probability that the null hypothesis is right, is more. How can one then crow about this result?

Becerra's other claims of positivity - increased computer use and competence in using laptops (once again his exact quotes cannot be found anywhere in the study) - do not come under the category of education. Indeed, I could have taught the Peruvian children how to climb coconut trees and then claimed that it was a useful skill (it is, in many Pacific countries) and hence I should receive a grant to teach the entire student population to do so.

Becerra offers up the excuse that the teachers were not up to the mark. Why then were the laptops deployed if, according to him, conditions were sub-optimal? We are talking about $US225 million of public money, not a small sum for a country like Peru despite its increased riches from mining.

He fails to get the point that if the experiment - and it is nothing but that - has proved of no educational benefit, then it has wasted some of the best years of learning for 850,000 children in Peru. Who accepts the responsibility for this form of child abuse?

When one teaches children, no matter what degree of technological change has occurred over the years, the basics are always the same - reading, writing and arithmetic. The ability to absorb anything in later years is totally dependent on these three skills.

The OLPC project does nothing for these skills - in Peru, despite there being 200 e-books provided on the laptops, there was no increase in reading. Neither was there any improvement in maths and language skills.

Why are people so reluctant to accept bare facts like these when they are presented so clearly? Do we need to educate the people behind the project first?

If the OLPC is so confident about the educational impact of its project, why doesn't it do something about the disastrous state of school education in the US?

47 REASONS TO ATTEND YOW! 2018

With 4 keynotes + 33 talks + 10 in-depth workshops from world-class speakers, YOW! is your chance to learn more about the latest software trends, practices and technologies and interact with many of the people who created them.

Speakers this year include Anita Sengupta (Rocket Scientist and Sr. VP Engineering at Hyperloop One), Brendan Gregg (Sr. Performance Architect Netflix), Jessica Kerr (Developer, Speaker, Writer and Lead Engineer at Atomist) and Kent Beck (Author Extreme Programming, Test Driven Development).

YOW! 2018 is a great place to network with the best and brightest software developers in Australia. You’ll be amazed by the great ideas (and perhaps great talent) you’ll take back to the office!

Register now for YOW! Conference

· Sydney 29-30 November
· Brisbane 3-4 December
· Melbourne 6-7 December

Register now for YOW! Workshops

· Sydney 27-28 November
· Melbourne 4-5 December

REGISTER NOW!

LEARN HOW TO REDUCE YOUR RISK OF A CYBER ATTACK

Australia is a cyber espionage hot spot.

As we automate, script and move to the cloud, more and more businesses are reliant on infrastructure that has the high potential to be exposed to risk.

It only takes one awry email to expose an accounts’ payable process, and for cyber attackers to cost a business thousands of dollars.

In the free white paper ‘6 Steps to Improve your Business Cyber Security’ you’ll learn some simple steps you should be taking to prevent devastating and malicious cyber attacks from destroying your business.

Cyber security can no longer be ignored, in this white paper you’ll learn:

· How does business security get breached?
· What can it cost to get it wrong?
· 6 actionable tips

DOWNLOAD NOW!

Sam Varghese

website statistics

Sam Varghese has been writing for iTWire since 2006, a year after the sitecame into existence. For nearly a decade thereafter, he wrote mostly about free and open source software, based on his own use of this genre of software. Since May 2016, he has been writing across many areas of technology. He has been a journalist for nearly 40 years in India (Indian Express and Deccan Herald), the UAE (Khaleej Times) and Australia (Daily Commercial News (now defunct) and The Age). His personal blog is titled Irregular Expression.

 

Popular News

 

Telecommunications

 

Sponsored News

 

 

 

 

Connect