The Fonly Institute

Laptops or Phones - both, but start with phones!

Here's a suggestion I posted recently on an "Educational Technology Debate" website sponsored by InfoDev and UNESCO. The topic, run by Wayan Vota, was whether laptops or mobile phones offered the best platforms for educational use in developing countries. The discussion pushed me to think in the direction of a synthesis:

I had attempted to post this earlier, but managed to lose my text and ran out of time. It does seem, though, that this is not a bad time to argue for a synthesis of the phone and the laptop. 

I have long argued for using technology that is economically helpful to the family of the educational user, so that it becomes a tool seen as worth supporting. For this purpose the mobile phone would be best, as it has been shown to assist in raising the economic level of users. But for the purposes of education we need to add some of the functions of the laptop. Depending upon the level of education that it should provide, this could be done with as little as the addition of a stylus touchpad. 

I say this because it appears that the initial big application would be basic literacy - both for children and for adults (presumably with their childrens' help). The introduction to the letters of the alphabet (whichever one is used locally), the correspondence of sounds to the characters and combination of letters, the ability to practice drawing letters and to have the program correct or otherwise indicate improvements, all are functions performed by every teacher in every classroom for the first year of education. The advantage here would be that parents could engage in the same lessons and learn literacy where they never would have the time or be willing to suffer the loss of pride to come into a classroom - even if they would be permitted there by school rules. 

It's certainly true that adults learn more slowly and differently than do children, and the programs would have to take this into account. But the basic technology required is pretty much covered by the mobile phone - given a speakerphone mode and a stylus touchpad. Different modules of the programs could be downloaded from the network, eliminating the need for mass storage, and the screen would have to be capable of a certain amount of resolution, but given the ability of the program to speak and to hear pronunciation of letters, such an enhanced phone could provide the start for great increases in basic literacy (and numeracy as well, since numbers and arithmetic can be handled with the same device). 

To create such a "literacy phone" and the necessary programs in a sufficient number of languages and cultural settings would be a big task, but it would produce results much faster than the expansion of numbers of laptops. Later applications could make the same phone an electronic book, which would give it a place in the education process well beyond the basic stages. 

Laptops are indeed necessary for the higher levels of the educational process - but don't forget you have to start simple.

Seeking Stamp Collectors for OLPC

My brother Joe, who is famous in the world of population genetics, tells how for decades those working in his corner of biology (phylogenetic inference – the science of constructing inheritance trees) were scorned by the reigning molecular biologists as “stamp collectors”. While the molecular biologists pursued the secret of life itself, the stamp collectors puttered around with statistics and large data sets, working out how to make sense out of data patterns.

Then came the crowning triumph of molecular biology – reading the human genome. Note that I do not say “decoding the human genome”, as it suddenly became clear that no one knew how to make sense of gigabytes of gene sequence data. Who, the moleculars wondered, could make some order of all this data?

Then everyone looked at each other and exclaimed in unison, “the stamp collectors!” Joe and his colleagues were showered with money and attention. Their grant requests were now favored for approval, and at Joe’s university a brand-new Department of Genome Sciences was created which welcomed his august presence.

The parallel is this – the OLPC project is about as far as it can go without empowering its own “stamp collectors”, by which I mean those who have long labored in the field of experimental education. Yes, there are others besides Seymour Papert, and the official OLPC line on the topic, that the educational research had already been done and that the engineering was all that was left, was always blatantly untrue.

Not the Vision He Had

(A very slightly edited version of a comment posted to Wayan Vota's blog OLPC News upon the announcement that the OLPC laptop would be manufactured and sold in the industrial world).                               

A thought experiment - give an XO to an American kid and the question will be "what does it do?" The answers will have to be "No, it doesn't run Windows programs. No, you can't run games on it. And it looks like it's for kids because it IS for kids".

This seems to be a setup for most kids to reject it. There will be a few, however, who discover they can get into it and mess around, as well as communicate sending pictures without having to deal with the mobile phone bill and its consequences.

A whole lot more adult geeks will buy it and play with it, which is not a bad thing - I am all for play as a means of exploring the possibilities of technology. And, like the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons of the '60's, which were written to include some jokes with adult appeal so that kids would get the message that it was funny to older folk and thus not "just for kids", there will start to be leakage to lower age levels.

Nothing New

(This commentary is occasioned by the announcement from the OLPC project April 28 that Microsoft Windows will be put on the XO Laptop, that the price will rise to $175 and that the minimum order quantity will be reduced. See OLPC News for further details and history. See here for my initial post on OLPC.)

So, let's say you've got a dysfunctional society and things have to change but nothing is forthcoming from the top. A charismatic leader turns up and convinces a lot of people to help him build a new order with or without the permission of the rulers. Enough people join in and coordinate their work so that things can be done the way everyone agrees they ought to be done and not how they are done.

Eventually this comes to a point of confrontation with the rulers and, surprisingly, they clear out, leaving nothing behind. Your group fills this power vacuum and everything seems to be going great. Your charismatic leader has good political connections with the outside world, and you trust him to set things up right. You've had a peaceful revolution!

Then, with no warning, an invading army appears and begins a march on the capital city.

Now For the Bad News

It has been a little more than one year since I first posted  about the "One Laptop Per Child" project (OLPC), also known as the "$100 laptop". So far as I can tell, these were the first sustained criticisms of the project concept, and they have been linked to extensively, most notably in the Wikipedia entry on the OLPC. Over 26,000 views have occurred since then, the largest number of them originating from the Wikipedia entry.

Wayan Vota has since set up the OLPC News site with daily postings giving an independent look at the progress of the OLPC project and raising issues that are not always comfortable for the principals to discuss, such as the total cost per child. Wayan is the Director of Geekcorps , a division of the International Executive Service Corps, and is directly involved in getting computers and Internet implemented in the developing world. I have met him and I have a high opinion of him. I recommend his site as a primary source of news on the OLPC project.

In all of the discussion on the OLPC News site there is a recognition that the matter of educational approach and content are lagging far behind the development of the hardware and software. However, there is not much commentary that would encourage a sense of alarm about what is and is not being done. I feel that such a sense of alarm may be justified, as the OLPC project is based upon a strong "technology push" approach which has in many other cases led to negative outcomes.

It is my observation that in such cases the leaders say to the technologists "let us worry about the consequences - just do the job", and that afterward they say to the world at large "we're not technologists - how could we have known that there would be such consequences?" As a technologist who takes his responsibilities as a citizen seriously, I feel the occasional need to play the part of the biblical prophet Jeremiah and issue unsolicited warnings about the woe that will betide those who act in unknowingly dangerous ways.

While I very much want to move on to facilitate discussion about what should be done, I feel that I cannot let go of the subject without putting forth my most dire concerns. Perhaps doing so will exorcise my demon, and get it out into public view where it can be defanged.

A Letter to the Editor

(This is a letter I sent to the editors of IT Week, a British publication, in response to the following commentary by Roger Howorth. I apologize to readers for continuing the OLPC thread when I said that I would be more constructive, but this offers a fairly clear opportunity to state my underlying objection to the project.)

Sirs,

Roger Howorth's enthusiasm for the OLPC (one Laptop Per Child) project is not supported by research, whether conducted by him or others. He speaks airly of "40 years of research by (project founder Nicholas) Negroponte and others", of a 1988 project in Costa Rica, and a "recent initiative with about 50 laptops in Cambodia".

I have been looking into the research underpinnings of OLPC and find them remarkably thin. Recently I asked a project member (Mihail Bleitsas, Chief Connectivity Officer) about the Cambodian example. He could not provide the name of the village (though he did send it to me by email later - it is Khum Reaksmey) and when pressed admitted that no research report of that experience exists. This is significant because Negroponte consistently refers to this example as seminal in the formation of the project, though he provides only the sketchiest anecdotes as justification.

In my discussion of the project on my blog <www.fonly.typepad.com/fonlyblog/2005/11/problems_with_t.html> I have received many responses to the effect that "I trust MIT to have thought this through". When talking with members of the project I am told "MIT has done research into education for 35 years, and that's enough - we're going to build the laptop". But nowhere can one find a compilation of the research in question or an argument as to how this particular solution will achieve its vaguely-stated goals of elimination of poverty through education - one is simply expected to accept on faith that this is the best and only solution to the problem of poverty.

We are thus confronted with a project whose basis is: "we will do this because we can and because we have the highest political and economic connections, and any questions about whether and how it will work will be dismissed." This project does not rest on a scientific foundation. If it did there would be research reports, discussion and argumentation on the topic in pursuit of the development of consensus.

I challenge anyone to find such a process of discussion and debate in the history of the OLPC project. For those who tell me how much they trust MIT, I respond that OLPC did not make the most elementary power calculations (which I enumerate in my blog) before announcing the signature hand-cranked power source for the laptop. A few days after I posted these calculations all references to power generation disappeared from the OLPC website. What is there to trust here? Mr. Howorth might look into this question rather than simply join in the cheerleading.

Yours truly,

Lee Felsenstein

Rolling right along

(This thread starts here - all subsequent posts are relevant to the OLPC "$100 laptop" project).

I have recently come from a presentation at a local company by someone who is directly involved in the OLPC effort. The news I can report is:

1. They have given up on claiming that the device can be powered by a hand crank, although they realize that since this is a highly publicized aspect of the design they will have to speak of it as "optional".

2. There will be a few thousand development systems produced in a few months and at present the project has no idea as to how to distribute them.

3. Much software work will lbe needed to adapt software to reduce waste of memory resources. Firefox was cited as eating huge amounts of memory (64MB for a clock applet, 600MB usage after a days' work e.g.). These kinds of problems can no longer be waved away by citing Moore's projection (I refuse to give any "law" that is implemented by humans the status of a law of nature).

4. The project needs someone to handle the immense task of organizing the necessary infrastructure (servers in all the hinterland schools with backhaul Internet communications and power sources). I briefly toyed with the idea of offering my services in this area, but I have never marshalled armies and would hate to become the scapegoat for the project's failure.

5. The primary justification is given as providing electronic textbooks which can be amortized by five such uses (on the assumption that each textbook costs $20 - a figure which I would question). They disclaim any responsibility for the contents of the textbooks, and I still find myself haunted by the thought that this project would establish the continuously-revisable textbook as a way to place history firmly under control of central governments.

In short, while I am pleased to have played a small part in bringing some engineering reality to the power issue, the OLPC project seems to be rolling along on its own momentum without any significant change of focus. But it is still early in the process, with interesting doses of reality yet to come.

He came, he saw, he left muttering...

This will be short. On October 5, 2005 the word was breathlessly passed that Trevor Bayliss, famed inventor of the wind-up radio which is making progress in the developing world, would be involved in the crank-powered aspect of the One Laptop Per Child initiative.

The world waited, and I jokingly told friends that OLPC had gotten "the crank crank" to solve their power problem (note well - "crank" in this context is meant to imply dedication in the face of derision, and should not be taken as disparagement).

Then, on Nov. 25th we learned that Bayliss had withdrawn from the project, citing the incomplete status of the prototype and his perception of various failings in the project management.

Unfortunately the headline under which the latter news emerged has Bayliss "rubbishing" the project, which I do not believe the be true. I am on record as disclaiming any interpretation under which I "rubbish" the OLPC project, and I believe that Bayliss would take the same position. He has in the past experimented with powering an Apple Newton eMate with one of his generators.

I hope some day soon to discuss questions about power generation for such uses with Mr. Bayliss. I would very much like to meet him, but I will first approach him through email. We cranks must make common cause.

(Link to my original post on the OLPC)

some bona fides

Apparently some people commenting on this blog are laboring under the impression that we are simple nay-sayers worthy of criticism by comparison with the dynamic folks at OLPC, who are at least taking action. I realize from this that I have not blown my own horn nearly loud enough.

in 2001 I was approached by Lee Thorn of the Jhai Foundation to discuss possible ways to honor the request made to them by the people of a Laotian village with which they were working. That request was simple - telecommunications for a group of five villages having no electricity or phone lines and shadowed by a mountain from the cell network. They wanted telephone connectivity so that they could get better prices for their agricultural produce.

The resulting design is described here. I volunteered as project engineer through the first attempt to install in February of 2003. From what I learned there and subsequently I determined that a new industry was waiting to be born, and I described it in a paper delivered at the O'reilly Emerging Technologies Conference in 2005.

Since 2003, when the Jhai prototype system was displayed at Geneva and we found that most questions referred to the pedal power generator, we have been concentrating our engineering efforts on designing an all-purpose village power utility in the 100 watt range capable of keeping batteries charged from a number of possible sources, with pedal generation as a backup. I will discuss this design in a later post.

In the meantime people that I recruited into the Jhai effort have gone on to establish their own nonprofit which has installed systems in Uganda and has more in the pipeline. The original Jhai system was installed on the Navajo reservation in Arizona in a slightly different configuration than designed for Laos, where installation was blocked (the valley now has power and cell phone coverage, though I still consider it an unfinished project).

All of this was done on the proverbial shoestring, with parts bought from the proceeds of an on-line appeal for donations over my name. Having had to approach the problem hat in hand has fed my concern that the OLPC might affect funding sources negatively.

Still, if it is to be a real industry, then investment will become available after a certain amount of "internally funded" work gets done. I've been there before, in personal computers,  and I know what to expect. On the other hand, back then we didn't have a huge distraction like OLPC occupying center stage and threatening to drive the audience away.

Moving forward

On my way back from Tunis, laying over in Amsterdam, I have occasion to reflect on events, my writings and other peoples' reactions to both.

This blog is not about rubbishing the One Laptop Per Child project. There are some good and valuable aspects to it and I applaud the effort that is being put into it. I would not try to convince anyone not to work on it. Something like the laptop will be needed as infrastructure develops and it will be good to have the results of a lot of engineering effort put into reducing costs and setting new specifications appropriate to the new IT market in developing countries.

I cannot, however, suspend my critical faculties as I see how the project is presented and marketed. There is a real problem with the assertion (which I have had confirmed) that research is not being pursued - supposedly because MIT has done educational research for 30 years. I do not accept that  everything is now known about the world and that the challenge is to act quickly and decisively. Such assertions have been heard before and usually lead to far different outcomes than intended, at which point those who drove the process throw up their hands and blame the technology or the technologists.

The outcome in this case to be avoided is the perception that "you can't give computers to those people - it won't work for them". I can see this as a very real possibility if we all keep our mouths shut and act as if the laptop is the culmination of computer tehnology as far as the developing world goes.

In my view, design matters a great deal. Measuring computers by tonnage or disk size is illusory - what matters is what happens when people use them. Design places constraints upon how people can use computers. We need to have a critical conversation about the issue of design of products which are intended to have great consequences. Not having seen much in the way of such conversation, I have tried to lay out the issues as I see them in the hopes of fostering one.

I do not expect immunity when it comes to my own design work in this field. No one should be immune from criticism who leads a design and development effort intended to affect people in the millions. The offering of evidence, argumentation, and the appropriate adjustments in the project goals and definitions are what we need more of, not something with which we can dispense in the rush to implement.

Lee Felsenstein