Learning and XO - a.k.a. the $100 computer

Steve Jobs of Apple, Inc. was once quoted as saying, “We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.” Unlike pre-Internet media consumers, today’s generation of media consumers are also publishers. They are blogging, producing their own videos and podcasting. They are chatting about the TV they watch, while watching them. It is a far cry from a world that flopped itself on a couch to be mesmerized by the evening’s lineup of electrons.

Yet this is still not as engaging as writing a computer program. Whether the program is a game, a simulation, or a tool, the programmer needs to understand the world that is being modeled. For example, if you want to write a game where a cannonball is shot out of a cannon, you have to understand quite a bit about gravity and momentum. Programming is much more engaging and rewarding than just shooting the aliens. I have expanded on this theme in my article Learning by Interactive Programming (L.I.P.).

What does this have to do with the XO - a.k.a. the $100 computer? XO comes with a number of very advanced programming environments. The most exciting of these for education are Squeak (a version of SmallTalk), eToys (built in Squeak), and LOGO, of turtle-graphics fame. These languages are student and teacher-friendly. Given what I regard as the inevitable success of the XO, this is exciting news.

It will mean millions of students potentially learning how to turn their brains on! In future postings I hope to explore for you how these languages work and how they can be used educationally.

Differentiated Learning

The question of how we can improve our schools is a perennial one.

Some statistics seem to indicate that the Unites States' educational system needs a major overhaul. In a recent interview, Representative Bart Gordon (Tennessee 6th District), Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, was quoted as saying that 50% of U.S. high school seniors are not proficient in math. He states that U.S. students score near the bottom of all countries in math and science scores. Only Cyprus and South Africa scored worst. His hypothesis for why U.S. schools score so low is that teachers in the U.S. are not sufficiently proficient in math and science. He says that only 50% of math teachers have a major in, or are certified, to teach math, and that 92% of science teachers in K-12 have neither a certification nor a major degree in science. If these statistics are to be believed, then a solution would be to increase the level of instructional expertise, either by training more teachers, or by somehow attracting professional mathematicians or scientists to teach. Bringing in additional expertise might be a solution.

On the other hand, do the scores take into account the great cultural, ethnic, and economic diversity that exists in the U.S.? No other country in the world, not even Russia or China, can claim to have as much diversity and thus, as many challenges, to their educational system. Most every public school in the country has poor and rich children; has children from supportive and abusive families; has children from English literate families or English illiterate ones. This is what this country has to contend with. How can one deal with such diversity? Having more individualized education would be the answer.

The key word in United States education today is differentiated learning: providing education that takes into account the different learning needs and styles of a diverse population. Whether the problem is low expertise in teaching personnel or the need to have individualized instruction for a diverse student population, how can society pay for such custom instruction?

The technology exists today to develop virtual experts that are pros at differentiated learning. Although an initial development investment would be required, once developed, such virtual experts would exist indefinitely, requiring only a maintenance cost. I have developed working versions of these virtual experts. Ironically, my biggest customer so far has been China. Will any group in the U.S. have the patience and futuristic foresight to invest in developing more mature versions of this technology?

How to improve the No Child Left Behind Act

Recently, President Bush declared that the No Child Left Behind Act has been successful at improving test scores across the country. The Act is up for renewal. Should it be renewed?

Perhaps the No Child Left Behind Act works like a placebo. Any placebo is likely to have a positive effect. The question is whether the positive effect is significantly better than what would have occurred without it, or with an alternative. That is the subject for some future research but we can form some hypothesi. For example, are improved scores the result of a greater focus on teaching towards the successful completion of the tests? Or, could it be the result of a common measuring system, the result of standardizing what is taught across the country?

Whether we believe these test results, or not, there are good reasons why teachers across the country disagree with the Act. It is because teachers recognize that learning is a complex activity that cannot be adequately tested for in a few short hours. Educators agree that testing is necessary. It is how to adequately test that is the issue. How can we reconcile the need for testing and the need for a rich educational experience?

In my GE.E.K. model of teaching, testing would be incorporated into students' daily activities. Every concept needs to be tested for to ensure that students achieve mastery of a concept before moving on to new concepts. At appropriate times students should be tested on clusters of concepts to determine if they understand the relationship between concepts. An ongoing teaching-testing-feedback loop enhances the learning process and eliminates the need for "big brother" style testing.