XP on OLPC - a contrarian view

[Albert Cahalan]

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
> complementary.

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.