XP on OLPC - a contrarian view
acahalan at gmail.com
Sat May 17 05:34:32 EDT 2008
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Martin Langhoff
<martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You don't need computers for constructionism. If pushing educational
>> theories of questionable value is your thing,
> Can we stop beating constructionism for no reason, and without any facts?
Reason: it's not at all related to laptop computers
Fact: it's not universally valued by teachers
Constructionism might be a great idea. I have doubts, particularly
in a classroom with 40 students and a below-average teacher.
(remember, about half of the teachers are below-average)
Martin Dougiamas won't be teaching all the classes.
In any case, you simply don't need laptop computers for this.
It's a matter of teaching style; you need to teach teachers.
> Formal research is widespread into this, and seems to consistently
> show that it works, as can be seen in the work of Martin Dougiamas
I'm sure. Researchers tend to get the results they desire.
>> I'd rather give the gift of software freedom. Unlike your theories,
> This project has people with different focus from yours Albert. We
> need them all. _You_ care mainly about the sw freedom, others care
> mainly about education. But the overall goal needs both as they are
Oh, I care about education. I even think the laptop is wonderful
for education. The laptop can show flash cards. :-) There is no
need to tie the laptop to constructionism. You can have a laptop
without constructionism, and constructionism without a laptop.
Software freedom does however require some kind of hardware.
More information about the Devel