I agree that the headline here hugely over-summarizes the actual paper, but your counterpoints aren’t accurate either.
The “even one” argument isn’t really correct - the post title says “kids” as a cohort. The academic performance of that cohort didn’t significantly improve.
The study states that pretty much the only skill that improved substantially was use of the XO laptop, not desktop or Internet skills. The learned skills weren’t particularly portable.
The study was performed against a control group, that either entered the program later or not at all.
Exxept the title just says “kids,” not “kids as a cohort in this particular study,” which can be read by anyone to mean all kids, including those not involved in the study. Without modifiers, it’s a very vague and generalized statement that can be read as an absolute statement saying laptop access isn’t academically beneficial for any kid anywhere. Hence the need for nuance.
“Some of the kids in a group in Peru involved in this particular study didn’t show significantly improved academic performance with access to a particular laptop.”
The study states that pretty much the only skill that improved substantially was use of the XO laptop, not desktop or Internet skills. The learned skills weren’t particularly portable.
That assumes the research sufficiently studied the portability of those skills or even could. I wouldn’t make such an assumption. I’ve worked in digital literacy and some students do have skills that they just haven’t learned to transfer yet, but they are still transferrable. And if it’s specific to the OLPC laptop, that might only be indicative of a need for access to a more robust device or better digital literacy instruction.
The study was performed against a control group, that either entered the program later or not at all.
But was the control group students in another country with a different educational system or different teachers or different laptops or access to desktops instead, etc. et al?
There are too many factors to draw definitive conclusions here.
I agree that the headline here hugely over-summarizes the actual paper, but your counterpoints aren’t accurate either.
The “even one” argument isn’t really correct - the post title says “kids” as a cohort. The academic performance of that cohort didn’t significantly improve.
The study states that pretty much the only skill that improved substantially was use of the XO laptop, not desktop or Internet skills. The learned skills weren’t particularly portable.
The study was performed against a control group, that either entered the program later or not at all.
Exxept the title just says “kids,” not “kids as a cohort in this particular study,” which can be read by anyone to mean all kids, including those not involved in the study. Without modifiers, it’s a very vague and generalized statement that can be read as an absolute statement saying laptop access isn’t academically beneficial for any kid anywhere. Hence the need for nuance.
“Some of the kids in a group in Peru involved in this particular study didn’t show significantly improved academic performance with access to a particular laptop.”
That assumes the research sufficiently studied the portability of those skills or even could. I wouldn’t make such an assumption. I’ve worked in digital literacy and some students do have skills that they just haven’t learned to transfer yet, but they are still transferrable. And if it’s specific to the OLPC laptop, that might only be indicative of a need for access to a more robust device or better digital literacy instruction.
But was the control group students in another country with a different educational system or different teachers or different laptops or access to desktops instead, etc. et al?
There are too many factors to draw definitive conclusions here.