I believe that the OLPC XO-3 is an impressive device. It includes technologies that I look forward to in the mainstream devices like the iPad and the Android tablets. The flexible display is a precursor to Nokia’s flexible displays and the screens ability to shift in sunlight is what it will take to render the e-reader obsolete. Great features do not make an item a suitable replacement.
Jeff Dunn’s post “Five Reasons the OLPC Could Replace Classroom iPads” on Edudemic gave decent, albeit naive, reasons. I am the Technology Director for a school district in a small, rural, financially challenged area. The theory behind the OLPC tablet makes perfect sense for us. On average our students have fewer technology choices in their home and providing them a laptop to take home is logical. This product does not fulfill the requirements that our students need and here is why:
Poor Hardware = Limited Ecosystem
You cannot produce a $100 tablet without sacrificing on the hardware. Innovation and economies of scale can only help so much. In the end, you have to sacrifice to accomplish your mission.
Many hardware companies have run into this problem with Android. It is true that Android is a free, open source, operating system available to anyone that wants to use it but if you want to put the Android Market, Gmail and other things on your device, Google has specs and they do this for good reason.
Low-end devices cannot run most of the software that is being put into the Android eco-system. This device doesn’t even run Android but logically that is the direction it should be headed in to take advantage of an eco-system other than the Ubuntu repositories.
Built for Early Education
OLPC explains in their mission videos that one of their core principles is that the device is built for early education which they suggest is 6-12 year olds. I can see this device being usable all the way up to second grade but once you cross that line you are losing the imagination of the students. Even the very young students will be frustrated with the delay that is currently in the software and I would venture to say that it isn’t the software that is the problem but rather the poor hardware (see reason #1).
Second grade will get you to 7-8 year olds but that leaves 10 years of students that will find the device clunky and quite unusable. Some Educational Technology people would argue that if a district has few technology items the students would be happy to have SOMETHING. I’ve been through that. I introduced netbooks to our students at Addison 3 years ago and the reception has been fairly positive but these devices run Intel Atom processors with 1 GB of RAM. Fairly positive. Our mission in our districts is to prepare students for what they will encounter in the real world. The XO-3 stands no chance of being used in the enterprise.
Teacher Anxiety
Gary Stager wrote a post arguing against Bring Your Own Device and I think he hit on a good point when applied to the XO-3:
“Schools have largely failed to inspire teachers to use computers in even pedestrian ways after three decades of attempts. A cornucopia of various devices in the classroom will only amplify teacher anxiety and reduce use.”
I am a huge fan of my teachers. I believe that the teachers I work with integrate technology, not because they are forced to, but because the technology will provide a real value to their classroom. The XO-3 will not provide that value but it will increase their anxiety. I have already shared a video with a reviewer noticing the delays on the unit. Students complain, and when they do, teachers want to fix the issue. Unfortunately, you can’t fix poor hardware.
Purchasing Requires Big Numbers
“We have to deal in large numbers of laptops… so no one gets left out.”
I am sure if you could come up with a large purchase you could probably get a trial unit from OLPC but the commitment would have to be dramatic. One comment left on Mr. Dunn’s post mentioned that OLPC had told that person he would need to put together a purchase of 10,000 units. That is 10 times the number of students we have in our district. Our entire county would have to commit to this purchase and getting all districts on the same page is unlikely. The iPad has no purchasing requirements and no hassle in purchasing.
Value
I have mentioned very little about the iPad in this post. The iPad is an incredible value to school districts. The hardware has the ability to do just about anything you need a computer to do but more importantly the ecosystem provides educators the ability to diversify their teaching while still using the same piece of technology. The XO-3 cannot do this.
The XO-3 value would be high in very early education if you could purchase small quantities. I can see this unit being very useful with our first and second graders much like I can see Leap Frog products being useful at their level. However, you would not put a Leap Frog product in a middle school classroom or even a 4th grade classroom. The iPad carries value from a year old to 99 years old.
I can understand the excitement when a project like this comes along promising low price products that are so sorely needed in our classrooms. It is irresponsible to not fully investigate these items to make sure they provide value to our students. A low price does not always mean high value. You get what you pay for… usually.
