OLPC research: Difference between revisions

From OLPC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(use original article link from theconversation (a collaboration between universities to provide open media))
 
(286 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__TOC__
This page provides links to research reports related to the OLPC project. See also [[Experience]], [[Constructionism]], [[Assessment]] and [[ClassActs/Resources|Class Acts]] (a FLOSS Manuals community publication) for articles and other anecdotal evidence.
<center>
'''Research, Outcome Monitoring & Impact Evaluation'''
</center>


==Introduction==
=Literature Review=
This page provides links to reports related to the OLPC project. We begin by looking at the resources used; share instruments and frameworks as well as white papers and inform about the organizations involved.
[[Image:evaluation_of_olpc_programs_globally_literature_review_som.jpg|thumb|200px|Evaluation of OLPC Programs Globally; a Literature Review [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
::Evaluation of OLPC programs globally: a literature review, V2'', by Dita Nugroho and Michele Lonsdale. Australian Council for Educational Research, March 2009. [http://wiki.laptop.org/images/f/fb/Literature_Review_040309.pdf PDF] Country program summaries, with XO deployment data, funding, and impacts.


We then arrange the reports under four main headings:
= Papers =
# Research[http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_research#Research],
# Outcome Monitoring [http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_research#Outcome_Monitoring],
# Impact Evaluation [http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_research#Impact_Evaluation]
# and other works under Miscellaneous [http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_research#Miscellaneous].


Research, Monitoring & Evaluating is not only important as a way of improving, assessing and understanding what is happening in respective OLPC projects around the world, but also to connect this growing community at the forefront of technology integration in education to help build, suggest, and inform this field as it quickly grows and develops. In addition to the work itself, we are also at the apex of rethinking these approaches and models and innovating them to make sure the appropriate information and outcomes are being collected. The OLPC Learning Team, lead by Dr. Claudia Urrea have put forth a paper outlining the need for “Innovation in Evaluation.”[http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_research#Urrea_.26_Bender.2C_Innovation_in_Evaluation]
==Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings==
[[Image:educational_outcomes_and_research_from_computing_settings_som.jpg|thumb|200px|Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment ([http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/ JTLA])


We look forward for OLPC communities to continue contributing and sharing their work as well as welcome those looking for information on OLPC projects.
[http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/1/ Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings]
:''Damian Bebell and Laura O'Dwyer''
::Despite the growing interest in 1:1 computing initiatives, relatively little empirical research has focused on the outcomes of these investments. The current special edition of the Journal of Technology and Assessment presents four empirical studies of K–12 1:1 computing programs and one review of key themes in the conversation about 1:1 computing among advocates and critics. In this introduction to our 1:1 special edition, we synthesize across the studies and discuss the emergent themes. Looking specifically across these studies, we summarize evidence that participation in the 1:1 programs was associated with increased student and teacher technology use, increased student engagement and interest level, and modest increases in student achievement.
{{-}}


Please see also Experience, Constructionism, Reviews of OLPC, and Class Acts (a FLOSS Manuals community publication) for articles and other anecdotal works.
==One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative==
[[Image:one_to_one_computing_a_summary_of_the_quantitative_results_som.jpg|thumb|200px|One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment ([http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/ JTLA])


== Resources ==
[http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/2/ One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative]
:''Damian Bebell and Rachel Kay''
::This paper examines the educational impacts of the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative (BWLI), a pilot program that provided 1:1 technology access to all students and teachers across five public and private middle schools in western Massachusetts. Using a pre/post comparative study design, the current study explores a wide range of program impacts over the three years of the project’s implementation. Specifically, the current document provides an overview of the project background, implementation, research design and methodology, and a summary of the quantitative results. The study details how teaching and learning practices changed when students and teachers were provided with laptops, wireless learning environments, and additional technology resources. The results found that both the implementation and outcomes of the program were varied across the five 1:1 settings and over the three years of the student laptop implementation. Despite these differences, there was evidence that the types of educational access and opportunities afforded by 1:1 computing through the pilot program led to measurable changes in teacher practices, student achievement, student engagement, and students’ research skills.
{{-}}


===Instruments & Framework===
==After Installation: Ubiquitous Computing and High School Science in Three Experienced, High-Technology Schools==
''to be added''
[[Image:after_installation_ubiquitous_computing_and_high_school_science_som.jpg|thumb|200px|After Installation: Ubiquitous Computing and High School Science in Three Experienced, High-Technology Schools [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment ([http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/ JTLA])


===White Papers===
[http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/3/ After Installation: Ubiquitous Computing and High School Science in Three Experienced, High-Technology Schools]
==== [[Media:InnovationinEvaluation-Report.pdf| Innovation in Evaluation]], by Dr. Claudia Urrea & Walter Bender (2012)====
:''Brian Drayton, Joni K. Falk, Rena Stroud, Kathryn Hobbs, and James Hammerman''
A look at the role of innovation in evaluation within OLPC projects and tools available through Sugar. Read more about their work here [http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Innovation_in_Evaluation]
::There are few studies of the impact of ubiquitous computing on high school science, and the majority of studies of ubiquitous computing report on the first period of implementation. The present study presents data on 3 high schools with carefully elaborated ubiquitous computing systems, who have gone through at least one "obsolescence cycle" and are therefore several years past first implementation. Data shows how the affordances of 1:1, wireless environment are being deployed in these science classrooms, and the effects of the environment on science content, data analysis, labs and other uses for visualizations, and classroom interaction. While some positive effects are clearly seen in these classrooms, even 5 years or more into the innovation, problems remain, and school cultural factors seem to play an important role in teacher uptake and integration of the technology. Implications for teacher learning are discussed.
{{-}}


==== [http://wiki.laptop.org/images/5/53/Rwanda_Report-v7.pdf| 2011 OLPC in Rwanda Report] by OLPC HQ (2011) ====
==Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement==
An OLPC HQ report on aspects of the Rwanda implementation.
[[Image:evaluating_the_implementation_fidelity_of_technology_immersion_som.jpg|thumb|200px|Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment ([http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/ JTLA])


==== [http://www.box.net/shared/k6fsitchrvtquv7jvrut One Laptop Per Child Pilot Project: Marshall Islands] by Ministry of Education (2010) ====
[http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/4/ Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement]
This document outlines the Project Implementation Plan for the OLPC Pilot in the Marshall Islands. It is an addendum to the MOE Comprehensive Technology Plan.
:''Kelly S. Shapley, Daniel Sheehan, Catherine Maloney, and Fanny Caranikas-Walker''
::In a pilot study of the Technology Immersion model, high-need middle schools were “immersed” in technology by providing a laptop for each student and teacher, wireless Internet access, curricular and assessment resources, professional development, and technical and pedagogical support. This article examines the fidelity of model implementation and associations between implementation indicators and student achievement. Results across three years for 21 immersion schools show that the average levels of school support for Technology Immersion and teachers’ Classroom Immersion increased slightly, while the level of Student Access and Use declined. Implementation quality varied across schools and classrooms, with a quarter or less of schools and core-content classrooms reaching substantial implementation. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we found that teacher-level implementation components (Immersion Support, Classroom Immersion) were inconsistent and mostly not statistically significant predictors of student achievement, whereas students’ use of laptops outside of school for homework and learning games was the strongest implementation mediator of achievement.
{{-}}


==== [http://wiki.laptop.org/images/2/24/OLPCF_M%26E_Publication.pdf '''Assessment and Overview of international M&E Reports'''], by the the OLPCF Learning Team (2010)====
==Laptops and Fourth Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump==
Recently published assessment of existing international M&E literature by local and government actors on OLPC distributions
[[Image:laptops_and_fourth_grade_literacy_assisting the_jump _over_the_fourth_grade_slump_som.jpg|thumb|200px|Laptops and Fourth Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment ([http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/ JTLA])


==== [[Media:Buchele ICAST OLPC.pdf|Ghana: The One Laptop per Child Project and Its Applicability to Ghana]], by Buchele & Owusu-Aning (2007) ====
[http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/5/ Laptops and Fourth Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump]
An academic overview of work in Ghana, providing data and raising questions for anyone considering a national implementation.
:''Kurt A. Suhr, David A. Hernandez, Doug Grimes, and Mark Warschauer''
::School districts throughout the country are considering how to best integrate technology into instruction. There has been a movement in many districts toward one-to-one laptop instruction, in which all students are provided a laptop computer, but there is concern that these programs may not yield sufficiently improved learning outcomes to justify their substantial cost. And while there has been a great deal of research on the use of laptops in schools, there is little quantitative research systematically investigating the impact of laptop use on test outcomes, and none among students at the fourth-to-fifth grade levels. This study investigated whether a one-to-one laptop program could help improve English language arts (ELA) test scores of upper elementary students, a group that often faces a slowdown of literacy development during the transition from learning to read to reading to learn known as the fourth-grade slump. We explore these questions by comparing changes in the ELA test scores of a group of students who entered a one-to-one laptop program in the fourth grade to a similar group of students in a traditional program in the same school district. After two years’ participation in the program, laptop students outperformed non-laptop students on changes in the ELA total score and in the three subtests that correspond most closely to frequent laptop use: writing strategies, literary response and analysis, and reading comprehension.
{{-}}


===Proposals===
==The End of Techno-Critique: The Naked Truth about 1:1 Laptop Initiatives and Educational Change==
''Please share works in progress''
[[Image:the_end_of_techno_critique_the_naked_truth_about_1_1_laptop_initiatives_and_educational_change_som.jpg|thumb|200px|The End of Techno-Critique: The Naked Truth about 1:1 Laptop Initiatives and Educational Change [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment ([http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/ JTLA])


== Research ==
[http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/6/ The End of Techno-Critique: The Naked Truth about 1:1 Laptop Initiatives and Educational Change]
Research is defined as the intent to add new general knowledge to the field using gathered information and data, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research]
:''Mark E. Weston and Alan Bain''
[http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/JBER/article/viewFile/2532/2578]
::This article responds to a generation of techno-criticism in education. It contains a review of the key themes of that criticism. The context of previous efforts to reform education reframes that criticism. Within that context, the question is raised about what schools need to look and be like in order to take advantage of laptop computers and other technology. In doing so, the article presents a vision for self-organizing schools.
{{-}}


===Literature===
==First Experiences with OLPC in European Classrooms==
==== [http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/1/ Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings (2010)] ====
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/21868291/First-Experiences-with-OLPC-in-European-Classrooms?autodown=pdf First Experiences with OLPC in European Classrooms] describes early programs in Graz, Austria. 10/30/2009
Damian Bebell and Laura O'Dwyer <br>
The current special edition of the Journal of Technology and Assessment presents four empirical studies of K–12 1:1 computing programs and one review of key themes in the conversation about 1:1 computing among advocates and critics.


==== [http://www.scribd.com/doc/21868291/First-Experiences-with-OLPC-in-European-Classrooms?autodown=pdf First Experiences with OLPC in European Classrooms (2009)] ====
== Ethiopia Implementation Report, September - December 2007 ==
Describes early programs in Graz, Austria. 10/30/2009
''[[Image:Ethiopiareport 080227a-mh-som.jpg|thumb|200px|Ethiopia Implementation Report'', September - December 2007 [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
[http://www.gg.rhul.ac.uk/ict4d/ethiopia.pdf Ethiopia Implementation Report, September - December 2007],
:''Bjorn Everts, Matthew Herren, David Hollow, Eduvision, February 2008''
::See the [[Talk:Academic_Papers#Ethiopia_Report| Discussion]] about this document.
{{-}}


==== [[Media:SDBhatta.pdf|Tackling the Problems of Quality and Disparity in Nepal's School - Education: The OLPC Model (2008)]] ====
==Nepal==
Dr. Saurav Dev Bhatta, OLE Nepal, June 2008 <br>
[[Image:Olpc-model-in-nepal-som.jpg|thumb|200px|Tackling the Problems of Quality and Disparity in Nepal's School - Education: The OLPC Model [http://sugarlabs.org/go/Community/SOM SOM] from text]]
The paper argues that utilizing the full potential of the OLPC concept requires simultaneous work in four areas: digital content development, teacher preparation, network and power infrastructure development, and government capacity development.
Tackling the Problems of Quality and Disparity in Nepal's School - Education: The OLPC Model. [[Image:SDBhatta.pdf]].
:''Dr. Saurav Dev Bhatta, OLE Nepal, June 2008''
::... The paper argues that utilizing the full potential of the OLPC concept requires simultaneous work in four areas: digital content development, teacher preparation, network and power infrastructure development, and government capacity development. And it also emphasizes the need for a systematic approach to implementation where the implementers start by learning to solve implementation challenges in a test phase...
{{-}}


==== [http://www.gesci.org/old/files/docman/1_to_1_Technologies_Computing_in_the_Developing_World_by_M._Hooker_GeSCI.doc 1:1 Technologies/Computing in the Developing World: Challenging the Digital Divide (2008)] ====
== Evaluation of the Teaching Matters One Laptop Per Child (XO) Pilot at Kappa I V ==
Mary Hooker, Education Specialist, [http://www.gesci.org Global e-Schools and Communities Initiative]. Requires ACM Membership to view.
[[Image:Olpc kappa-som.jpg|thumb|200px|Evaluation of the Teaching Matters One Laptop Per Child [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
Evaluation of the Teaching Matters One Laptop Per Child (XO) Pilot at Kappa I V. The link that previously led to this PDF has gone dead. Please fix the entry if you find the document.


===Proposals===
:''Dr. Susan Lowes, Director, Research and Evaluation; and Cyrus Luhr, Research Assistant. Institute for Learning Technologies, Teachers College/Columbia University, June 2008.''
''Please share works in progress''
::"Although the students saw the advantages of the XO in terms of its various specific functions or pieces of software, one theme that ties all these reported activities together is the several ways that the XOs allowed students to share: whether they were using the XOs for writing, taking photos, making videos, chatting, or whether they were rotating their screens or using the software to share them virtually, they were in every case sharing their thoughts or sharing their work.


== Outcome Monitoring ==
::"When asked if there were existing functions that they would like to use more frequently, [the students] listed the creative software (Etoys, TurtleArt, and TamTamEdit) that could have educational uses but are not currently integrated into the Teaching Matters curriculum."
Outcome Monitoring is a form of evaluation or assessment. It allows programs to determine what is working, and what is not working, based from expected results, so that it may be addressed and improved on an on-going basis.
{{-}}
[http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/340-evaluation-monitoring-outcome-and-impact.html]


===Literature===
==1:1 Technologies/Computing (Ethiopia)==
==== [[Media:Ceri Whatley Conference Paper.pdf| The role of Headmasters in the successful implementation of One Laptop per Child: A case study in Rwanda” Ceri Whatley]] ====
[[Image:Technologies computing in developing world m hooker som.jpg|thumb|200px|Technologies/Computing in the Developing World: Challenging the Digital Divide [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM SOM] from text]]
[http://www.gesci.org/.../1_to_1_Technologies_Computing_in_the_Developing_World_by_M._Hooker_GeSCI.doc 1:1 Technologies/Computing in the Developing World: Challenging the Digital Divide] (.doc file), by
[mailto:mary.hooker@gesci.org Mary Hooker] Education Specialist, [http://www.gesci.org Global e-Schools and Communities Initiative]. Requires ACM Membership to view.


==== [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2011.559266?journalCode=rics20#preview Results from Birmingham's One Laptop per Child XO laptop project (2011)] ====
:Very conventional, and not at all helpful in coming to grips with OLPC innovation and its consequences.--[[User:Mokurai|Mokurai]] 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
[http://blog.laptop.org/2011/07/05/birmingham-first-surveys/ Shelia Cotten, et al]. This report focused on positive results for students who chose to take advantage of the program, differences that might account for teacher and student interest in taking advantage of it, and the value of bridging the digitial divide.
{{-}}


==== [[Media:Ceibal Assessment 2010 Summary Document .doc| Ceibal Assessment 2010 Summary Document (2010)]] ====
==The shape of disruption==
English translation of Evaluación del Plan Ceibal 2010 DOCUMENTO RESUMEN [http://www.anep.edu.uy/anepweb/servlet/main004?403]
A study of the influence that the XO Laptop (the One Laptop Per Child Laptop) has on a middle school learning environment
http://web.me.com/geraldar/The_Shape_of_Disruption/Documents.html


==== [http://www.ceibal.org.uy/docs/Plan_Ceibal____Informe_Estado_XO__Abril_2010.pdf Síntesis del informe de monitoreo del estado del parque de XO a abril de (2010) ] ====
Data to be collected:
Executive Summary of the 2010 OLPC monitoring report (Spanish)
1) Surveys that will examine the students’ ability to work effectively on projects; their comfort and proficiency with technology; and their autonomy as learners.


==== [http://www.ceibal.org.uy/docs/evaluacion_educativa_plan_ceibal_resumen.pdf Monitoreo y evaluación educativa del Plan Ceibal: Primeros resultados a nivel nacional (2010)] ====
2) Interviews with teachers and students in small groups.
Plan Ceibal 2010 Monitoring Report (Spanish)
Salamano, I., Pagés, P., Baraibar, A., Ferro, H., Pérez, L., & Pérez, M.


==== [http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/3/ After Installation: Ubiquitous Computing and High School Science in Three Experienced, High-Technology Schools (2010)] ====
3) Samples of student work.
Brian Drayton, Joni K. Falk, Rena Stroud, Kathryn Hobbs, and James Hammerman <br>
The present study presents data on 3 high schools with carefully elaborated ubiquitous computing systems, who have gone through at least one "obsolescence cycle" and are therefore several years past first implementation.


==== [http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/2/ One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative (2010)] ====
4) Information about what programs are being used on the laptops and for how long.
Damian Bebell and Rachel Kay <br>
This paper examines the educational impacts of the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative (BWLI), a pilot program that provided 1:1 technology access to all students and teachers across five public and private middle schools in western Massachusetts.


==== [http://www.ceibal.org.uy/docs/evaluacion_educativa_plan_ceibal_resumen.pdf Evaluacion Educativa, Plan Ceibal (Uruguay) (2009)] ====
5) Observational recordings of classroom activities, in the form of notes as well as audio and video recordings.
El presente resumen de evaluación educativa contiene los primeros datos representativos a nivel nacional producidos en torno al Plan Ceibal.


==== [http://ideas.repec.org/p/idb/brikps/23758.html Haiti pre-pilot evaluation report (2009)] ====
6) Samples of lesson plans.
This IDB report provides an analysis of usage trends and outcomes for grades 1-5 after studying 50 students, assessed by interviews and observations. Gains were observed particularly in literacy (reading and writing) and student preparedness for the future (research about envisioning their future work options.


==== [http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~hourcade/alt04-hourcade.pdf Early OLPC experiences in an Uruguayan School (2008) ]====
7) Assessments of student work.
This report on the first Uruguayan XO pilot, with 150 students in a rural school, provides a good observational overview of XO activities in the classroom.


==== [http://blog.olenepal.org/index.php/archives/321 Formative Evaluation of OLPC Project Nepal: A Summary (2008)] ====
= Conference materials =
Rabi Karmacharya, OLE Nepal, June-August 2008 <br>
This is a summary of the findings of a formative evaluation carried out by Mr. Uttam Sharma, a doctoral student at at the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. The evaluation was carried out for OLE Nepal’s internal purpose.


==== [http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=olpcnyc.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teachingmatters.org%2Ffiles%2Folpc_kappa.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Folpcnyc.wordpress.com%2Fevaluation%2F Evaluation of the Teaching Matters One Laptop Per Child (XO) Pilot at Kappa IV (2008)] ====
== Designing Appropriate Collaborative Learning Technologies for the Developing World ==
Dr. Susan Lowes, Director, Research and Evaluation; and Cyrus Luhr, Research Assistant. Institute for Learning Technologies, Teachers College/Columbia University, June 2008.<br>
[[Image:OpenEd2007-Hoadley2-som.jpg|thumb|200px|Designing Appropriate Collaborative Learning Technologies for the Developing World [http://sugarlabs.org/go/Community/SOM SOM] from text]]
Look at the impact of the implementation of XO laptops in Teaching Matters program in New York, USA.
[http://www.51weeks.com/events/3/presentations/16 Designing Appropriate Collaborative Learning Technologies for the Developing World]
:''Christopher Hoadley, Sameer Honwad, Kenneth Tamminga. 205 ECC. September 26, 2007 10:00''
::In this presentation we report on two attempts to intervene in rural Himalayan villages with educational technology, one involving desktop computer technology, and one involving participatory video. We describe the unique constraints of designing appropriate educational technology for the developing world, and we propose a fourfold framework for design.<br>''A criticism of OLPC appears in the last section of this presentation.''
{{-}}


== Laptop Power ==
===Proposals===
''Please share works in progress''
[[Image:Olpc.power2-som.jpg|thumb|200px|Laptop Power [http://sugarlabs.org/go/Community/SOM SOM] from text]]
[http://download.laptop.org/content/conf/20080520-country-wkshp/Presentations/OLPC%20Country%20Meeting%20-%20Day%203%20-%20May%2022nd,%202008/power2.pdf Laptop Power]
:''Richard Smith, OLPC, Cambridge Country Workshop, May 20 2008''
{{-}}


== Impact Evaluation ==
= Scholarly articles =
Impact Evaluations are a particular type of evaluation that seeks to answer cause-and-effect questions. Unlike general evaluations, which can answer many types of questions, impact evaluations are structured around one particular type of question: What is the impact (or causal effect) of a program on an outcome of interest.” [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTHDOFFICE/Resources/5485726-1295455628620/Impact_Evaluation_in_Practice.pdf] [http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/340-evaluation-monitoring-outcome-and-impact.html]


===Literature===
==== [http://www.iadb.org/en/research-and-data/publication-details,3169.html?pub_id=IDB-WP-304)Working Papers, Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program in Peru (2012)] ====
Inter-American Development Bank February 2012 - 40 pages


The study measured
== Reflections on a Pilot OLPC Experience in Uruguay ==
# academic achievement in Math
# academic achievement in Language
# cognitive skills - over the 15 months of the study, olpc kids are about six months ahead of peer group without OLPC XO's
# verbal fluency - over the 15 months of the study, olpc kids are about six months ahead of their peer group without OLPC XO's
# Laptop Competence - olpc kids have a good understanding of their XO and know how to work with them, search the internet, the wikipedia, use the word processor, read books, take pictures & movies, etc. - average score 65%


Not measured is e.g. the effect on the family when kids take the laptops home.
[http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~hourcade/ceibal-workshop.pdf Reflections on a Pilot OLPC Experience in Uruguay],
:''Juan Pablo Hourcade, Daiana Beitler, Fernando Cormenzana, and Pablo Flores, 2007, Uruguay ''
::...A two-page position paper presenting opinions regarding a pilot in Uruguay. From empirical data and observations, a positive impact on the children and their school activities is claimed by this Uruguayan team...
:::''one of the authors has indicated current challenges are different, see Pablo Flores' May 2009 comment [http://rising.globalvoicesonline.org/blog/2009/04/30/uruguay-one-blog-per-child/ here]''
{{-}}


Even though this program has only recently been implemented, this document presents a few preliminary findings that could be relevant for its future development. On the one hand, we find evidence of better attitudes and expectations among teachers and parents; students that are more critical of school work and of their own performance; and a greater development of technological skills among girls and boys. On the other hand, there seems to be a decrease in the intensity of computer use in the classroom, as time passes and difficulties arise in the implementation of the project.
= Ongoing Research (not yet published)=


More:
Please add topics and links
# [https://edutechdebate.org/olpc-in-peru/oscar-becerra-on-olpc-perus-long-term-impact/ Complementary info & reaction by Oscar BECERRA - Responsible for designing and implementing OLPC in Peru - on the Inter-American Development Bank paper on OLPC of February 2012]
## "In the case of the IDB study, having participated in the design and first stages I can assure the study was very well thought. However, as soon as the initial findings were reported, every interested party tried to “llevar agua para su molino” (bring water to its mill). For example, I heard many advocates of the ICT industry (the main detractor of the OLPC approach because it impacted its market share numbers) use the results to say the project was a failure and their approach should have been used."
##"attitudes and expectations of students parents and teachers which actually showed improvement. Students became more critical of the schools system and expected more of it. That is an important outcome that will certainly impact the quality for the system in the long term."
## "I did a study of impact of the program on intrinsic motivation towards school work and the results confirmed all the hypothesis. Students feel better and their readiness to work hard to learn things they think are important improves significantly more for participants in “Una Laptop por Niño” than for those who did not participate."


# [http://blog.laptop.org/2012/04/10/rodrigos-response-to-the-economist/#.VgspSI-qqko Complementary info & reaction by OLPC Association CEO Rodrigo Arboleda - on the Inter-American Development Bank paper on OLPC of February 2012]
* Pre and post test survey results from the Birmingham, Alabama USA XO laptop dissemination (Shelia Cotten, University of Alabama-Birmingham, PI of the project)


==== [http://wiki.laptop.org/images/0/0b/SolomonIslandsOLPCTrialsEvaluationByACER2010.pdf Evaluation of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), Trial project in the Solomon Islands (2010)] ====
* [[Projects/TestUsabilityOLPC | Evaluation of the OLPC with Usability Engineering ]]
Australian Centre for Education Research 2010<br>
The Trials described below in three schools in rural [[Solomon Islands]] were evaluated independently by Australian Centre for Education Research, the report was commissioned and is now published by the Solomon Islands Ministry of Education


==== [http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35422036 Experimental Assessment of the Program "One Laptop Per Child" in Peru (2010)] ====
* Results of portfolio methods for children with disabilities and for ESL learners
Inter-American Development Bank July 2010<br>
This paper presents the impact of the first large-scale randomized evaluation of the OLPC program, using data collected after 15 months of implementation in 319 primary schools in rural Peru. The results indicate that the program increased the ratio of computers per student from 0.12 to 1.18 in treatment schools.


==== [http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/5/ Laptops and Fourth Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump (2010)] ====
* Bryan Berry on a counting program that brought Nepalese children up several grade levels in arithmetic
Kurt A. Suhr, David A. Hernandez, Doug Grimes, and Mark Warschauer'<br>
This study investigated whether a one-to-one laptop program could help improve English language arts (ELA) test scores of upper elementary students.


==== [http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/4/ Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement (2010)] ====
* Increases in attendance
Kelly S. Shapley, Daniel Sheehan, Catherine Maloney, and Fanny Caranikas-Walker <br>
This article examines the fidelity of model implementation and associations between implementation indicators and student achievement.


==== [http://wiki.laptop.org/images/a/a5/OLPC_Lit_Review_v4_Aug2010.pdf Evaluation of OLPC programs globally: a literature review, Version 4 (2010)] ====
* Laptop hospital created by six-year-olds
by Dita Nugroho and Michele Lonsdale. Australian Council for Educational Research, August 2010
Country program summaries, with XO deployment data, funding, and reported outcomes and impacts.


==== [http://varlyproject.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/evaluation_olpc_varly.pdf L’évaluation des déploiements OLPC : quelles méthodes ?] French by Pierre Varly, consultant, member of [http://olpc-france.org OLPC France (2010)] ====
* Programming for children
[http://varlyproject.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/evaluations-in-olpc-varly-eng-fin1.pdf English version]


==== [http://unimauro.blogspot.com/2009/11/diapositivas-de-la-sustentacion-de.html Evaluación de OLPC con Ingeniería de Usabilidad (2009)] ====
= Other Resources=
An academic thesis by Ingeniero Carlos Mauro Cárdenas, Perú
==== Education Bibliographies ====
Moved to [http://www.sugarlabs.org/go/Education_Team/Education_Bibliographies Sugar Labs wiki page]


==== [http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/dec01_1/a2459 Extending the Benefits of OLPC for Health'' (Fontelo, BMJ) (2009)] ====
:''The following selected bibliographical links have some connection with the Sugar enterprise and Constructionist education, including information on uses of a variety of technologies in education, research on child development (especially Constructivism), and evaluations of programs in use. Resources are also included bearing on other approaches to education, and resistance to Constructionism or to any other education reforms.''


==== [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656055/ OLPC for Health Clinics in Developing Countries'' Fontelo, et. al. in AMIA symposium (2008) ]====
[[Category:Documentation]]

[[Category:Projects]]
==== [http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/viewFile/791/332 Community Factors in Technology Adoption in Primary Education: Perspectives from Rural India 2100] ====

''Komathi Ale, Arul Chib''. 2011 USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. CC-by-nc-sa.3

One more survey-only research, 10 children and 3 teachers, India

===Proposals===
''Please share works in progress''

== Miscellaneous ==

==== [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/One-to-One_Laptop_Schools One to One Laptop Schools review (2012) ] ====
High-level overviews of the major 1:1 projects around the world, including the Magellan project and many OLPC projects.

==== [http://olpcvichada.blogspot.com/2011/06/education-and-technology-for.html Autonomous Learning Skills: Education and Technology for Strengthening Culture: Colombia (2011)] ====
Sandra Barragán

==== [http://cl.ly/201M0s2q2l1R1K082e1V New Technology in Developing Countries: A Critique of the One-Laptop-Per-Child Program (2010)] ====
Jeffrey James <br>
A critical economic analysis of OLPC as development policy in resource limited environments

==== [http://www.paiwastoon.net/olpcbn/OLPC-BriefingNote.pdf Briefing Note – One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) in Afghanistan (2010)] ====
Lima Ahmad (AIMS), Kenneth Adams (AIMS), Mike Dawson (PAIWASTOON), Carol Ruth Silver (MTSA) <br>

==== [http://edutechdebate.org/one-laptop-per-child-impact/ EduTech Debate: discussion on OLPC impact (2010)] ====

==== [http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1551997&type=html&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=82694215&CFTOKEN=95533515 One year of experiences with XO laptops in Uruguay (2009)] ====
HTML Overview

==== Teacher Logs from Uruguay (2009) ====
Objective research in Uruguay done by sampling the previously recorded Lesson Plan logs of teachers for one week, to ascertain how many had included activities involving using XOs for learning activities.[http://www.cep.edu.uy/archivos/tecnica/Circular10Tecnica_09.pdf] and [http://www.cep.edu.uy/archivos/tecnica/Circular06Tecnica_09.pdf] give basic data, such as an average use of the XO for learning activities of less than 1.5 times per week, further interpretation would be useful.

==== OLPCNews: OLPC Overview (2009) ====
By Wayan Vota, Christoph Derndorfer and Bryan Berry of OLPC News ('''completely independent of OLPC''')<br>
* http://www.olpcnews.com/commentary/olpc_news/one_laptop_per_child_overview_2009.html<br>
* http://www.olpcnews.com/files/One_Laptop_Per_Child_Overview_2009.pdf

==== [[OLPC_Rochester,_NY/Usability_testing_class_project|OLPC Rochester, NY/Usability testing class project (2008)]] ====

==== [http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~hourcade/ceibal-workshop.pdf Reflections on a Pilot OLPC Experience in Uruguay (2007)] ====
Juan Pablo Hourcade, Daiana Beitler, Fernando Cormenzana, and Pablo Flores, 2007, Uruguay
A two-page position paper presenting opinions regarding a pilot in Uruguay. From empirical data and observations, a positive impact on the children and their school activities is claimed by this Uruguayan team.
====IDE de programación orientado al desarrollo de arquitecturas robóticas basadas en comportamientos====
''Andrés Aguirre'' Nov. 2013, proyecto de grado (Universidad de la República, Uruguay)

Existen dentro de la educación distintos entornos para implementar comportamientos robóticos para el robot Butiá. Sin embargo, ninguno de estos promueve la estructuración de los programas desarrollados utilizando una arquitectura del paradigma reactivo... ...este proyecto se realizó como una extensión del entorno de desarrollo existente Etoys orientado a la arquitectura reactiva Subsumption.

==== [https://theconversation.com/why-schools-should-provide-one-laptop-per-child-58696 Why Schools Should Provide One Laptop Per Child (2016) ] ====
By Binbin Zheng, Michigan State University and Mark Warschauer, University of California, both researchers of technology and learning in K-12 environments for over 10 years, write about their conclusions based upon their own research, experiences and results of 96 published global studies and found significant benefits: students’ test scores in science, writing, math and English language arts improved significantly and the benefits were not limited to test scores. OLPC is regularly mentioned.

=== External links ===
* [http://www.ceibal.edu.uy/ Portal Ceibal] (Uruguay)
* [http://www.perueduca.edu.pe/olpc/OLPC_Home.html Peru Educa] (Peru)
* [http://wiki.paraguayeduca.org/index.php/Portada Paraguay Educa] (Paraguay)
* [http://www.mochiladigitaltelmex.com.mx/olpc/index.php/Herramientas_pedag%C3%B3gicas Mochila Digital] (Mexico)

[[Category:Evaluation]]
[[Category:Research]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Metrics]]

Latest revision as of 10:24, 27 July 2016

Research, Outcome Monitoring & Impact Evaluation

Introduction

This page provides links to reports related to the OLPC project. We begin by looking at the resources used; share instruments and frameworks as well as white papers and inform about the organizations involved.

We then arrange the reports under four main headings:

  1. Research[1],
  2. Outcome Monitoring [2],
  3. Impact Evaluation [3]
  4. and other works under Miscellaneous [4].

Research, Monitoring & Evaluating is not only important as a way of improving, assessing and understanding what is happening in respective OLPC projects around the world, but also to connect this growing community at the forefront of technology integration in education to help build, suggest, and inform this field as it quickly grows and develops. In addition to the work itself, we are also at the apex of rethinking these approaches and models and innovating them to make sure the appropriate information and outcomes are being collected. The OLPC Learning Team, lead by Dr. Claudia Urrea have put forth a paper outlining the need for “Innovation in Evaluation.”[5]

We look forward for OLPC communities to continue contributing and sharing their work as well as welcome those looking for information on OLPC projects.

Please see also Experience, Constructionism, Reviews of OLPC, and Class Acts (a FLOSS Manuals community publication) for articles and other anecdotal works.

Resources

Instruments & Framework

to be added

White Papers

Innovation in Evaluation, by Dr. Claudia Urrea & Walter Bender (2012)

A look at the role of innovation in evaluation within OLPC projects and tools available through Sugar. Read more about their work here [6]

2011 OLPC in Rwanda Report by OLPC HQ (2011)

An OLPC HQ report on aspects of the Rwanda implementation.

One Laptop Per Child Pilot Project: Marshall Islands by Ministry of Education (2010)

This document outlines the Project Implementation Plan for the OLPC Pilot in the Marshall Islands. It is an addendum to the MOE Comprehensive Technology Plan.

Assessment and Overview of international M&E Reports, by the the OLPCF Learning Team (2010)

Recently published assessment of existing international M&E literature by local and government actors on OLPC distributions

Ghana: The One Laptop per Child Project and Its Applicability to Ghana, by Buchele & Owusu-Aning (2007)

An academic overview of work in Ghana, providing data and raising questions for anyone considering a national implementation.

Proposals

Please share works in progress

Research

Research is defined as the intent to add new general knowledge to the field using gathered information and data, [7] [8]

Literature

Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings (2010)

Damian Bebell and Laura O'Dwyer
The current special edition of the Journal of Technology and Assessment presents four empirical studies of K–12 1:1 computing programs and one review of key themes in the conversation about 1:1 computing among advocates and critics.

First Experiences with OLPC in European Classrooms (2009)

Describes early programs in Graz, Austria. 10/30/2009

Tackling the Problems of Quality and Disparity in Nepal's School - Education: The OLPC Model (2008)

Dr. Saurav Dev Bhatta, OLE Nepal, June 2008
The paper argues that utilizing the full potential of the OLPC concept requires simultaneous work in four areas: digital content development, teacher preparation, network and power infrastructure development, and government capacity development.

1:1 Technologies/Computing in the Developing World: Challenging the Digital Divide (2008)

Mary Hooker, Education Specialist, Global e-Schools and Communities Initiative. Requires ACM Membership to view.

Proposals

Please share works in progress

Outcome Monitoring

Outcome Monitoring is a form of evaluation or assessment. It allows programs to determine what is working, and what is not working, based from expected results, so that it may be addressed and improved on an on-going basis. [9]

Literature

The role of Headmasters in the successful implementation of One Laptop per Child: A case study in Rwanda” Ceri Whatley

Results from Birmingham's One Laptop per Child XO laptop project (2011)

Shelia Cotten, et al. This report focused on positive results for students who chose to take advantage of the program, differences that might account for teacher and student interest in taking advantage of it, and the value of bridging the digitial divide.

Ceibal Assessment 2010 Summary Document (2010)

English translation of Evaluación del Plan Ceibal 2010 DOCUMENTO RESUMEN [10]

Síntesis del informe de monitoreo del estado del parque de XO a abril de (2010)

Executive Summary of the 2010 OLPC monitoring report (Spanish)

Monitoreo y evaluación educativa del Plan Ceibal: Primeros resultados a nivel nacional (2010)

Plan Ceibal 2010 Monitoring Report (Spanish) Salamano, I., Pagés, P., Baraibar, A., Ferro, H., Pérez, L., & Pérez, M.

After Installation: Ubiquitous Computing and High School Science in Three Experienced, High-Technology Schools (2010)

Brian Drayton, Joni K. Falk, Rena Stroud, Kathryn Hobbs, and James Hammerman
The present study presents data on 3 high schools with carefully elaborated ubiquitous computing systems, who have gone through at least one "obsolescence cycle" and are therefore several years past first implementation.

One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative (2010)

Damian Bebell and Rachel Kay
This paper examines the educational impacts of the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative (BWLI), a pilot program that provided 1:1 technology access to all students and teachers across five public and private middle schools in western Massachusetts.

Evaluacion Educativa, Plan Ceibal (Uruguay) (2009)

El presente resumen de evaluación educativa contiene los primeros datos representativos a nivel nacional producidos en torno al Plan Ceibal.

Haiti pre-pilot evaluation report (2009)

This IDB report provides an analysis of usage trends and outcomes for grades 1-5 after studying 50 students, assessed by interviews and observations. Gains were observed particularly in literacy (reading and writing) and student preparedness for the future (research about envisioning their future work options.

Early OLPC experiences in an Uruguayan School (2008)

This report on the first Uruguayan XO pilot, with 150 students in a rural school, provides a good observational overview of XO activities in the classroom.

Formative Evaluation of OLPC Project Nepal: A Summary (2008)

Rabi Karmacharya, OLE Nepal, June-August 2008
This is a summary of the findings of a formative evaluation carried out by Mr. Uttam Sharma, a doctoral student at at the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. The evaluation was carried out for OLE Nepal’s internal purpose.

Evaluation of the Teaching Matters One Laptop Per Child (XO) Pilot at Kappa IV (2008)

Dr. Susan Lowes, Director, Research and Evaluation; and Cyrus Luhr, Research Assistant. Institute for Learning Technologies, Teachers College/Columbia University, June 2008.
Look at the impact of the implementation of XO laptops in Teaching Matters program in New York, USA.

Proposals

Please share works in progress

Impact Evaluation

Impact Evaluations are a particular type of evaluation that seeks to answer cause-and-effect questions. Unlike general evaluations, which can answer many types of questions, impact evaluations are structured around one particular type of question: What is the impact (or causal effect) of a program on an outcome of interest.” [11] [12]

Literature

Papers, Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program in Peru (2012)

Inter-American Development Bank February 2012 - 40 pages

The study measured

  1. academic achievement in Math
  2. academic achievement in Language
  3. cognitive skills - over the 15 months of the study, olpc kids are about six months ahead of peer group without OLPC XO's
  4. verbal fluency - over the 15 months of the study, olpc kids are about six months ahead of their peer group without OLPC XO's
  5. Laptop Competence - olpc kids have a good understanding of their XO and know how to work with them, search the internet, the wikipedia, use the word processor, read books, take pictures & movies, etc. - average score 65%

Not measured is e.g. the effect on the family when kids take the laptops home.

Even though this program has only recently been implemented, this document presents a few preliminary findings that could be relevant for its future development. On the one hand, we find evidence of better attitudes and expectations among teachers and parents; students that are more critical of school work and of their own performance; and a greater development of technological skills among girls and boys. On the other hand, there seems to be a decrease in the intensity of computer use in the classroom, as time passes and difficulties arise in the implementation of the project.

More:

  1. Complementary info & reaction by Oscar BECERRA - Responsible for designing and implementing OLPC in Peru - on the Inter-American Development Bank paper on OLPC of February 2012
    1. "In the case of the IDB study, having participated in the design and first stages I can assure the study was very well thought. However, as soon as the initial findings were reported, every interested party tried to “llevar agua para su molino” (bring water to its mill). For example, I heard many advocates of the ICT industry (the main detractor of the OLPC approach because it impacted its market share numbers) use the results to say the project was a failure and their approach should have been used."
    2. "attitudes and expectations of students parents and teachers which actually showed improvement. Students became more critical of the schools system and expected more of it. That is an important outcome that will certainly impact the quality for the system in the long term."
    3. "I did a study of impact of the program on intrinsic motivation towards school work and the results confirmed all the hypothesis. Students feel better and their readiness to work hard to learn things they think are important improves significantly more for participants in “Una Laptop por Niño” than for those who did not participate."
  1. Complementary info & reaction by OLPC Association CEO Rodrigo Arboleda - on the Inter-American Development Bank paper on OLPC of February 2012

Evaluation of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), Trial project in the Solomon Islands (2010)

Australian Centre for Education Research 2010
The Trials described below in three schools in rural Solomon Islands were evaluated independently by Australian Centre for Education Research, the report was commissioned and is now published by the Solomon Islands Ministry of Education

Experimental Assessment of the Program "One Laptop Per Child" in Peru (2010)

Inter-American Development Bank July 2010
This paper presents the impact of the first large-scale randomized evaluation of the OLPC program, using data collected after 15 months of implementation in 319 primary schools in rural Peru. The results indicate that the program increased the ratio of computers per student from 0.12 to 1.18 in treatment schools.

Laptops and Fourth Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump (2010)

Kurt A. Suhr, David A. Hernandez, Doug Grimes, and Mark Warschauer'
This study investigated whether a one-to-one laptop program could help improve English language arts (ELA) test scores of upper elementary students.

Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement (2010)

Kelly S. Shapley, Daniel Sheehan, Catherine Maloney, and Fanny Caranikas-Walker
This article examines the fidelity of model implementation and associations between implementation indicators and student achievement.

Evaluation of OLPC programs globally: a literature review, Version 4 (2010)

by Dita Nugroho and Michele Lonsdale. Australian Council for Educational Research, August 2010 Country program summaries, with XO deployment data, funding, and reported outcomes and impacts.

L’évaluation des déploiements OLPC : quelles méthodes ? French by Pierre Varly, consultant, member of OLPC France (2010)

English version

Evaluación de OLPC con Ingeniería de Usabilidad (2009)

An academic thesis by Ingeniero Carlos Mauro Cárdenas, Perú

Extending the Benefits of OLPC for Health (Fontelo, BMJ) (2009)

OLPC for Health Clinics in Developing Countries Fontelo, et. al. in AMIA symposium (2008)

Community Factors in Technology Adoption in Primary Education: Perspectives from Rural India 2100

Komathi Ale, Arul Chib. 2011 USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. CC-by-nc-sa.3

One more survey-only research, 10 children and 3 teachers, India

Proposals

Please share works in progress

Miscellaneous

One to One Laptop Schools review (2012)

High-level overviews of the major 1:1 projects around the world, including the Magellan project and many OLPC projects.

Autonomous Learning Skills: Education and Technology for Strengthening Culture: Colombia (2011)

Sandra Barragán

New Technology in Developing Countries: A Critique of the One-Laptop-Per-Child Program (2010)

Jeffrey James
A critical economic analysis of OLPC as development policy in resource limited environments

Briefing Note – One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) in Afghanistan (2010)

Lima Ahmad (AIMS), Kenneth Adams (AIMS), Mike Dawson (PAIWASTOON), Carol Ruth Silver (MTSA)

EduTech Debate: discussion on OLPC impact (2010)

One year of experiences with XO laptops in Uruguay (2009)

HTML Overview

Teacher Logs from Uruguay (2009)

Objective research in Uruguay done by sampling the previously recorded Lesson Plan logs of teachers for one week, to ascertain how many had included activities involving using XOs for learning activities.[13] and [14] give basic data, such as an average use of the XO for learning activities of less than 1.5 times per week, further interpretation would be useful.

OLPCNews: OLPC Overview (2009)

By Wayan Vota, Christoph Derndorfer and Bryan Berry of OLPC News (completely independent of OLPC)

OLPC Rochester, NY/Usability testing class project (2008)

Reflections on a Pilot OLPC Experience in Uruguay (2007)

Juan Pablo Hourcade, Daiana Beitler, Fernando Cormenzana, and Pablo Flores, 2007, Uruguay A two-page position paper presenting opinions regarding a pilot in Uruguay. From empirical data and observations, a positive impact on the children and their school activities is claimed by this Uruguayan team.

IDE de programación orientado al desarrollo de arquitecturas robóticas basadas en comportamientos

Andrés Aguirre Nov. 2013, proyecto de grado (Universidad de la República, Uruguay)

Existen dentro de la educación distintos entornos para implementar comportamientos robóticos para el robot Butiá. Sin embargo, ninguno de estos promueve la estructuración de los programas desarrollados utilizando una arquitectura del paradigma reactivo... ...este proyecto se realizó como una extensión del entorno de desarrollo existente Etoys orientado a la arquitectura reactiva Subsumption.

Why Schools Should Provide One Laptop Per Child (2016)

By Binbin Zheng, Michigan State University and Mark Warschauer, University of California, both researchers of technology and learning in K-12 environments for over 10 years, write about their conclusions based upon their own research, experiences and results of 96 published global studies and found significant benefits: students’ test scores in science, writing, math and English language arts improved significantly and the benefits were not limited to test scores. OLPC is regularly mentioned.

External links

Retrieved from "http://wiki.laptop.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=OLPC_research&oldid=298852"