Week 2 of the H800 course, and two main focus areas this week. One is the role of participation in learning (the subject of one of the next blog posts) and the other is about the introduction of technology in learning in developing countries.
Starting point of the discussion is a paper the situation in higher education in Bhutan and Nepal, two of the poorer countries in Asia, investigated by Frank Rennie and Robin Mason. I'll add some reflections on the situation in Cambodia, based on my experiences and a study from Abdon, Nimomiya and Raab in 2007.
1. E-learning makes sense
Access to higher education in all three countries is severely limited by geographical factors. Mountains and bad roads in Nepal and Bhutan, monsoon rains and lack of infrastructure in Cambodia. Academic institutions are usually limited to the capital. In Cambodia only approximately 10% of the population lives in the capital. Outside the capital the availability of quality education is very rare. The few academic institutions have to deal with shortages in qualified personnel to deal with a growing demand for higher education. Cambodia still has a low participation rate in higher education, with just 1.2 per cent of the population enrolled, compared with an average of 20.7 per cent in all the ASEAN countries (Cambodia Cultural Profile, 2005).
All three countries have a very high proportion of young people (see chart below or here). The large proportion of young people, combined with decreasing fertility rates, generates a "demographic dividend" in Cambodia. This is a large generation of young people, with less obligations to take care of large families themselves. This demographic dividend offers tremendous possibilities for development and economic growth, but is requires sufficient generation of access to higher education and employment opportunities afterwards. Lack of these may result in a large group of frustrated and angry youth (not unlike the demographic situation in Tunisia). A degree in higher education is also more and more a necessary prerequisite for a well-paid job afterwards. Providing access to qualitative higher education seems hardly possible with traditional ways of education.
2. Yes, there are important technological barriers...
Rennie and Mason list in their paper some technological challenges for the introduction of e-learning in Nepal and Bhutan:
- regular power cuts
- slow, unreliable and expensive internet costs
- low IT literacy skills
These are also valid for Cambodia, although access to internet has improved dramatically the last few years. Broadband and mobile internet have become more widely accessible at around 20 USD per month, although it's still more expensive than in neighbouring countries. Poor mastery of English in Cambodia is not really a technological barrier, but could be classified here as an additional "external" barrier.
These technological challenges can be overcome however (or are being overcome) with a large enough investment of human and financial resources, such as the installation of resource and computer rooms in teacher training colleges by VVOB.
3. ...But cultural barriers are more important
Rennie and Mason discuss a set of cultural values that form an impediment to the introduction of online learning:
In both countries is a widespread suspicion towards the quality and the value of degrees achieved online. The authors point to the fact that this was the case in the West as well until 20 years ago, so this barrier may disappear as more people experience online learning. In Cambodia, the reputation of (the country of) the university seems very important. Online learning programmes have not yet established a strong reputation in Asian minds.
Pedagogies in these countries are still very much teacher-centered, based on lectures, taking notes and accepting the teacher as a knowledge expert. Online pedagogies on the other hand are based on pedagogies of self-directed learning, where the teacher acts as a facilitator and mentor, who motivates students, guides them to interesting resources and stimulates critical thinking, independent working and creativity. The authors suggest a contrast between "traditional" and "modern" educational thinking. The prevalence of a teacher-centered pedagogy is enhanced by the lack of resources (in the native language) in the classroom, although there are student-centered approaches that don't require (expensive) materials and are suitable for large groups.
A strong centralisation of education coupled with a lack of resources (books, magazines, computers) makes it also more difficult to promote self-directed learning, where learners select and evaluate resources themselves. In Cambodia educational resources need to be approved by the Ministry of Education.
4. The way forward
The authors suggest that "quick wins" can be made by incorporating some elements of e-learning into existing, campus-based programmes. For example, the integration of video-conferencing lectures or the provision of key articles in an online or digital format. These allow learners to get used to online learning without disrupting too much the current pedagogical approaches.
On the medium term e-learning requires important changes in the organisation of education, such as the structure of the curriculum or the way of assessment. Assessment in Cambodia, for example, is still very strongly focused on fact recollection and does not strongly support teachers in adopting a student-centered approach that fosters creativity or critical thinking.
A pilot study in Cambodia in 2006 suggests that online learning can be successful in increasing access to quality education to students outside Phnom Penh, female students (strongly underrepresented in Cambodian higher education) and to working students. Cultural barriers or prejudices with online education seem to evaporate quickly, once enrolled in an online course.
Reflections on technology-enhanced learning and education in Cambodia. Hope you enjoy it.
13 February 2011
8 February 2011
Evidence about the "Google generation"
Much of the attention during the first week goes to the notion of Digital Natives, a term coined by Marc Prensky in 2001 (ref), to characterize a generation of young learners (roughly born after 1990) grown up with the internet and the corresponding information overload. According to Prensky, this generation is qualitatively "different" from earlier generations because of their ICT proficiency, their different way of accessing information and even the way their brains are structured (a claim repeated put forward by Nicholas Carr in The Shallows and here).
This generation is very good at horizontal skimming of webpages, searching information and multitasking, prefers visual information to texts and is very impatient to find immediately the correct information. Prensky warns that teachers and educators, dubbed digital immigrants, should adapt their teaching style urgently to accommodate this information behaviour.
Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language. (Prensky, 2001)
Two large-scale studies were presented to test students' experiences with technology. One study, on 1200 first-year students at the University of Melbourne, looked at:
1/ students' access to IT
2/ students' proficiency with IT
3/ students' willingness to use IT in the classroom
The authors pointed out that digital literacy is very different from information literacy. Having access to computers and using search engines can disguise the lack of information literacy skills. These are the skills to define information needs, select appropriate instruments and evaluate the accuracy, relevance and quality of the information. Moreover, the Google generation is a diverse generation, counting around 25% of proficient IT users but with an equal share of digital dissidents, those who avoid technology where possible. The study does not discourage the use of ICT in education, but states that information literacy should be explicitly taught, and not taken for granted.
Secondly, the authors warn that familiarity with the tools in their private sphere (what they call "living technologies") does not automatically mean that learners would like to use these tools for their education. However, the results seem to imply that familiarity with a tool is strongly correlated with the agreeing on its potential for education.
Thirdly, agreeing on the educational potential of a tool does not mean that there is agreement between learners and educators about the best use of a tool. Texting, for example, could be used to inform students about cancelled lectures or their grades, but also to text them questions prior to a lecture.
The second study (CIBER) uses literature research and the use of two e-library portals to analyze whether:
1/ The Google generation searches for and researches content in new ways.
2/ This generation is different from other generations;
3/ (Physical) libraries will become obsolete.
The conclusions are similar. The authors also point to a trend that young people tend to skim horizontally through information, spend very little time on websites, download lots of resources (probably) without reading them (squirelling behaviour, great term) and hardly check the quality of the information. However, they point that older generations display the same characteristics, with older scholars just reading the abstracts of journals. The Google generation (and the previous Y generation) were early adopters of this trend, but are quickly caught up by others, such as the Silver Surfers (55- plus, who on average turn out to spend more time online than the Google generation).
Both studies refrain from judging the new information behaviour. They point out that copyright seems to be less respected (in some cases), but both projects didn't really investigate whether this different way of dealing with information would produce better learning outcomes.
Effects of the internet on brain structure were not discussed, but here is an excellent discussion on Scienceblogs, after the publication of The Shallows (Nicholas Carr).
5 February 2011
#H800 - Week1 - Technological Innovations and the First Law (of technology)
How are technological innovations adopted by a society? The First Law of Technology (also dubbed Amara's Law) states that technological innovations are overestimated in the short term and underestimated in the long term.
In an article for the Observer, OU professor John Naughton, explains the Law by referring to the invention of the printing press.
They didn't know, for example, that Gutenberg's technology, which enabled lay people to read and interpret the bible for themselves, would undermine the authority of the Catholic church and fuel the Reformation. Or that it would enable the rise of modern science by facilitating the rapid and accurate dissemination of ideas. Or create new social classes of clerks, teachers and intellectuals. Or alter our conception of 'childhood' as a protected early stage in the lives of young people. In an oral culture, childhood effectively ended at the age when an individual could be regarded as a competent communicator, ie, about seven - which is why the Vatican defined that as 'the age of reason' after which individuals could be held accountable for their sins.
The article makes a nice attempt to try to generalize how (technological) innovations are adopted in a society. It keeps a neutral tone, but doesn't try to offer a deeper explanation about the Law.
The overestimation part relates to what we call "hypes" about new technologies. It would be interesting to learn about the origins of this overestimation. Is it related to "salespeople" trying to sell or get funding for their latest thing? Or is it related to the tendency to find everything that is new exciting 'for a while, until we find something else? Gardner's hype cycle of emerging technologies is interesting in this respect. I found the argument in the article not very clear though. It seems like the invention of the printing press wasn't really overestimated, it had a huge impact right away. I didn't find that there was a period of inflated expectations with this particular innovation.
The underestimation part of the law is a bit more troubling. Of course the inventor of a new technology will probably not be able to correctly assess the full societal impact of their innovation, as one cannot predict the future. However, inventors may realize they're one to something big, and just lack the information to fill in the details. Cause and effect may also be confused. Do technological innovations have societal effects or do changes in society make the spread of certain technological innovations possible?
Counterexamples of the Law are available. Nuclear fusion has been endlessly presented as the future for our energy problems, but it's still 20 years away from adoption (as it was 20 years ago and probably will be in 20 years). The overestimation may stem from exaggerated claims in order to attract funds or from scientific ignorance with the public and politicians (probably a combination from both). However, in the long term, it may still live up to its high expectations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.



