Thanks for your comment and your links.

It is useful to stick with a working definition of constructionism / social constructivism, thank you for pointing that out. When I mention the theory, I understand it in reference to the extension of Piaget's original cognitive theory as later applied to education, and ICT4ED more specifically, by Pappert, Kay, and others: the use of the cognitive process for deep, critical and meaningful exploration, resulting in learning. That is the definition of constructivism as I see it, extracted from the respective works. Such learning could occur individually or in any social context. If applied to a facilitated (or non-facilitated) social environment such as a classroom, it is often called social constructivism, or constructionism as Pappert coined it, stressing the need for the proper tools to assist the process.

I think to label it merely "learning by mistake" is an incorrect oversimplification of the process. Dogs can learn by mistake, but that does not mean they try to understand or question why the invisible fence is shocking them. Rather, it is the deployment of the human psyche in critical understanding, resulting in something more complex than mere memory (i.e. resulting in meaningful learning). Many have likened it to a modern and somewhat more critical approach to the experience-based learning pedagogies long ago advocated by Francis Parker, Helen Parkhurst, John Dewey, and many others.

Using that definition, I can only reiterate that to date I have seen very scant evidence of a constructivist approach to the learning process in OLPC projects. In closely watching the use of the XO and the software running on most XO's with Sugar, I find that the majority of usage would be difficult to classify as constructivist-leaning for now (as I mentioned, the impressive work of Walter Bender and Sugar Labs might soon change this). The features of the Sugar applications that have the potential for interactivity and the social construction of knowledge are, in my experience, either technically dysfunctional or unfit for the environments in which they are deployed. Examples of technical breakdowns are sometimes the result of the XO (speakers are too weak for Tam Tam Jam, mesh network is often a complete failure) and sometimes of the resource-poor environment (no access to internet, minimal access to new texts or supportive materials). In these majority cases, the benefits of using the XO become more focused on ICT skills development, something very distinct and separate from the progressive educational development of constructionism.

You point to David Hollow's talk as evidence of the existence of the constructivist approach, but I in watching Mr. Hollow's video I am not sure I follow how you could come to this conclusion. His research would be interesting to read to see. He does mention that the children used the XO laptop at home and in surprising ways, however I do not see how this equates to practicing constructivism. What were the children actually doing with the laptop? In close observation, most use of the XO is very limited to a few applications, some of which I have seen with the potential of negative educational impact. "Memorize" for example, is a program allowing users to create their own flash cards for a game of memory. Although encouraging of creativity perhaps, allowing young users to make matching pairs of cards reading "2 + 2" with a match to "7" is hardly what I could identify as constructive, be it interactive or otherwise.

I have been absolutely astounded by how fast children can dominate the techniques of the XO, but the two issues must be analyzed as separate: the use of the XO and the development of a critical cognitive process. That is, the use of the XO itself, in any setting, does not necessarily imply the practice of the constructivist approach. This would apply to any ICT4ED tool. The result depends on the input, in this case being "What is being done with the XO? Is it being used for thorough change to the learning process or more for the development of digital literacy skills?"

There are of course, outliers taking exception to this. Clear examples of progressive use can be found where the environment (be it or out of the educational institution) is supportive and fostering of a more probing use of the XO and any software. It has been my experience that these places are typically accompanied by individuals, be them educators, administrators or community members that exert an uncommon effort in helping the project succeed (e.g. Teaching Matters, an NGO in New York City, and some schools connected to Project Ceibal in Uruguay —
http://www.somoslibres.org/modules.php?name=News&…

I think the most significant "rift" that OLPC has exposed would be that between the ICT tool and the educational goal of whichever learning environment the tool is serving. The XO is a leap forward in malleability and innovation, but still quite far from being the great scaffold for critical thinking development as it was originally purported.

According to Seymour Papert (who has done most to bring forward the ideas of constructivism), constructivism is "learning by mistake", and allowing students to be "guided by the work as it proceeds rather than staying with a pre-established plan"[1] . Papert's view is that learning and acceptance comes more easily through making and playing, rather than through traditional guided formal arrangements of teaching

If we use this definition, there has been quite a lot of constructivism going on in the OLPC project! For example, David Hollow talked at Africa Gathering[2] about how children were taking home and playing with their OLPC's in Ethiopia. As Wayan Vota said, commenting on this presentation
''From a Constructionist perspective, the laptops are a great success – children are self-directing their learning around the teachers."[3]

So in fact, we can argue that the OLPC is doing something disruptive. It is exposing a disconnect between the formal 'teaching' environment of the school, and the informal 'learning' spaces where many actually learn (particularly in developing countries), and this the cause of many of its issues to which you refer.

Perhaps we should in reframe the debate then. Do we see education, as taught (and examined) between the four walls of the school, as the key to becoming 'productive' in developing countries? For Hollow and Vota, the focus is on how we can reform the often poor schooling in developing countries to improve education. This is a tenable position, and one where the OLPC can become a distraction.

However, there is an alternative. Others[4] argue that in fact the instuitution of the school in becoming increasingly problematic, both in its forms of teaching, relevance, buracracy etc (and this applies everywhere in the world). From this view, perhaps it is more appropriate to position the OLPC as a creditable attempt (albeit with many problems) to start to disrupt the prevailing visions of such education systems…

[1] Papert – Situating constructivism(91)
[2] http://www.africagathering.org.uk/2009/06/05/davi…
[3] See http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/ethiopia/xo_lap…
[4] Many educational experts like Etienne Wenger, Steven Downes and George Siemens to name but a few

A key element is the emerging movement toward electronic textbooks, or as I prefer to say it, replacing printed textbooks with something better. When computers can be integrated into the curriculum, they can also be integrated into the presentation of materials for learning and into every kind of investigation and construction of real work products. In many countries, homework projects can save lives, and not just be graded and forgotten. I believe that it is at the point where we have these electronic learning materials and accompanying lesson plans for constructing results of real world value that Constructionism can be seen to have immediate value, and will take off.