Category: Culture

Culture, Technology in Developing Nations

Planning for Worldwide Technology Implementation – Fall 2018

sksj13gmailcom
Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay

After watching the video and then reading the piece by Voice of America and the OLPC: Vision vs. Reality, I was introduced to the OLPC program and also became aware of some of the shortcomings of the program. In the third article I read, I came across the mission, and I could better see the intention of the program.

“To create educational opportunities for the world’s poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. When children have access to this type of tool, they get engaged in their own education. They learn, share, create, and collaborate. They become connected to each other, to the world and to a brighter future.”
(Cristia et al., 2012, p. 6)

My first thought was – this sounds wonderful! The first part of the mission shows careful thought into designing a device that could deliver the goods and stand up to the elements. The second part of the mission addressed the joy of learning – and the the type of learning we often envision with 1:1 initiatives in our classrooms. Providing this opportunity for every child is admirable and a lofty goal. Unfortunately, it is is not as simple as it sounds, and there have been a few snags in the implementation.

Planning seems to have been short-sided. Planning in the design of the device was intensive, however planning past delivery of the laptops appears to have been glossed over. Much of this was left to the individual countries/governments and in some cases has fallen into the cracks. The program would benefit greatly from careful research and planning for infrastructure, distribution, diffusion of the innovation, training, actual use, evaluation, cultural awareness, and involvement of all stakeholders (Kraemer et al., 2009).

The mission reminds me of the two types of learning. First, it reminds me of “hole in the wall” experiments when thinking of informal, self-directed learning (Mitra, 2005). It also reminds me of 1:1 classrooms facilitated by teachers who have had extensive training to deliver instruction using this format. In either case, it seems that this initiative falls short. As far as the informal learning, many students didn’t have the laptops available for home use and for those that did – internet may not have been readily available. In the classroom many teachers simply weren’t provided training for teaching with this technology, so once again students were shortchanged – not receiving the intended benefit of the technology (Cristia et al., 2012).

Though there is not a lot of evaluation data available, one study examined achievement, cognitive growth, and computer skills as a result of the OLPC deployment in Peru. There was evidence of improvement in cognitive skills and basic computer use. When comparing achievement in using the technology, there seemed to be no significant difference. As a result, math and language skills didn’t see marked improvement (Cristia et al., 2012). This is typical of media comparison studies.

Once again, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs comes to mind. When basic needs aren’t met, is a laptop going to fill the bill? Colombant (2011) parlayed comments from a conference panel who pointed out that deworming, school lunches, teachers salaries would be more efficient educational improvements. He also pointed out that weak infrastructure and corruption were problems that need to be addressed. My personal opinion is that people or organizations wishing to implement technology in developing countries should partner with organizations who are working to meet basic needs. Meet the basic needs first, then follow up with the technology when applicable.

Cristia, J.P., Ibarraran, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severin, E. (2012). Technology and child development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child program.

Colombant, N. (2011) Some development experts criticize ‘One Laptop Per Child’ initiative in Africa. Voice of America. March 6, 2011

Kraemer, K.L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009), One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66-73.

Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, S., Bisht, R. S., & Kapur, P. (2005). Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the “Hole in the Wall.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 407-426.

Informal Learning, Technology in Developing Nations, Uncategorized

Informal Learning at the Kiosk – Fall 2018

sksj13gmailcom
Image by April Lamb-Hunter from Pixabay

I first heard of the “hole in the wall” experiments back around 2013, and I was intrigued by the idea. I couldn’t wait to watch the video. Then as I watched the video, I was kind of mesmerized by the idea and even sent my kids the link to watch it. However, after reading the piece by Payal Arora, and then reading the article by Mitra, Dangwal, Chatterjee, Jha, Bisht, and Kapur, I’m a little less enthusiastic about the “hole in the wall” project’s claims. So I must say that both Sugata Mitra and his critics have good points to consider on the topic of teaching and learning.

Formal and informal learning have their places, and we can take note of the strengths and weaknesses each type of learning provides. One doesn’t need to replace the other. Both types of learning are valuable for meeting varied needs. As with any instructional design, first of all needs should be assessed. What is the goal of the instruction? Then it can be determined whether formal or informal instruction can meet the need.

Formal instruction is planned. It usually includes stated objectives which may be tied to standards and aligned with an assessment, and then appropriate instruction and materials complete the package. It seems like connected learning where the student selects a topic and is guided by an instructor would be more of a semi-formal approach. Both of these are important when learning goals are present and specific.

Informal learning picks up where formal learning ends. We participate in informal learning from birth to death basically. On the job, we are constantly learning from coworkers, clients, experience, and information. This learning is so important, however it cannot be relied upon as a efficient way to meet specific learning goals. Formal learning and measurement by assessment is best for meeting and measuring specific goals especially for a group of students during a specific time period.

Arora (2010) argues that a move from formal education can lead to students picking up misinformation – information that can be a detriment on exams with teachers having to take the blame. As a former classroom teacher, I understand the concern. Teachers are held accountable for what students learn, so students learning inappropriate strategies, methods, or erroneous information can at best skew data, be detrimental to teacher evaluation, and most importantly require time for reteaching to make sure students have the correct information and skills.

Mitra (2005) installed the kiosks in locations that were accessible and usually near a school or playground. While playgrounds are often thought to be a place for free time, free expression, and free learning, Arora (2010) explains that playgrounds were designed to be a controlled place where specific values could be instilled – an offering to replace less than desirable activities that might entice children. “…playgrounds were a manifestation of the benign dictatorship of adults over children” (p. 11). That’s interesting! I’ve always associated playgrounds with free time as well. This insight into the development of playgrounds reminds me of our discussions on modernization and the influence of politics and religion on culture and technology and vice versa. Though the playground seems like a place that is mainly free, there were ulterior motives in original intent, anyway. Perhaps the same can be said of the “free learning” available at the kiosk.

I still find the “hole in the wall’ experiments extremely fascinating and something to be considered in solving some education problems and inspiring further research into the ideas. However, I don’t think they provide all of the answers to some of the problems with education in these areas.

Arora, P. (2010). Hope-in-the-Wall? A digital promise for free learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01078.x

Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, S., Bisht, R. S., & Kapur, P. (2005). Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the “Hole in the Wall.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 407-426.

Cultural Adaptation, Discussion

Cultural Adaptation – Fall 2018

sksj13gmailcom

Image by Mahesh Patel from Pixabay

Writing is the written record of a culture, and it paints a picture of a culture’s very essence. I’ve heard it said that our words are to us as juice is to a fruit. When pressure is applied, what comes out? Taking this thought further, it is writing that it preserves that “juice” for others to consume or enjoy. One way writing systems are important in terms of cultural adaptability is that they allow others to have a window in to other cultures. When we visit or move to a new location, chances are that we will read about the new place and it’s culture as we begin the process of adaptation.

Writing systems provide a workspace for cultural adaptability. Tools and techniques can be developed to aid in translation, and these can continue to be built upon as time goes on. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is one of the those tools – “a sort of decoder ring for alphabets” (Gnanadesikan, 2009, p. 11). I found it fascinating that the IPA includes every phoneme from all languages, and that using it with an alphabet can crack the phoneme code for that alphabet (Gnanadesikan, 2009).

Moving from the written word to the written code – this type of writing also provides a workspace for improving cultural adaptability. The American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) works with one alphabet – Latin (Friesen, Ockel, McGinnis, & Hinck, p. 2). This was good, but with globalization in many sectors, a standardized universal code was needed for computer systems to communicate worldwide. Unicode met the need. It goes quite a bit further – being a sort of umbrella code that works with many alphabets. Not only does it cover a multitude of alphabets, there is room to grow, and it is efficiently utilizes ASCII. When systems, software, and websites use Unicode – internationalizing – we can think of it as an expansion of communication capability. At this point, communicating with a variety of alphabets is possible. Localization happens when that alphabet is selected, and communication ensues using that alphabet (Friesen et al.).

I’m reminded of when I worked as a computer lab manager at a large school district. The population of English Language Learners in this district was also large. Frequently new students would arrive at our school with no experience with English. In the computer lab, we had a fun phonics-based program called Help Me to Learn. With just a little help logging in and learning to use the mouse, it was a good place to begin the journey to listening, reading, writing, and speaking English.

Gnanadesikan, A.E. (2009). The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the internet. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Friesen, N., Ockel, D., McGinnis, P., & Hinck, G. For the Web to truly be “world wide.”Image by <a 

Technology in Developing Nations

Cultural Changes and Technology – Fall 2018

sksj13gmailcom
Image by Ana Krach from Pixabay

Feenberg, (2010), Marcus and Gould (2000), and Sterbenz (2014) seem to agree that though technology affects culture, culture also affects technology. Culture is fluid and change occurs continuously and somewhat predictably and incrementally as a result of advances in technology and related economic success tempered by the influence of long-standing cultural traditions. Political and religious ideals help to define a culture and how it perceives and interacts with technology. As a result, cultures also dictate the best practices for optimum working relations with regard to technology, not to mention other aspects of business.

The Sterbenz (2014) diagram maps the values of nations. When comparing the maps over time, it shows the movement of nations across the plane as they change culturally. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Marcus, 2000) focus our attention on related ideas. Together these tools can be helpful in our interactions, planning, and design for work with various cultures. Although this information can be helpful, one has to be careful with generalizations and remember that people are individuals.

Feenberg (2010) and Inglehart and Welzel (2010) speak to technology kickstarting change that improves the economy, and from there begins to affect change that radiates to all areas of society. That there seems to be a predictable path nations follow on their path to modernity.

According to Inglehart and Welzel (2010), modernization is a sense of growth, of society’s progress or moving forward, and it usually begins with “technological and economic changes” (p. 3073). It brings an increase in financial resources, job opportunities, social groups, state growth, political activity, and “rationalization and secularization” (p. 3074). I tend to agree with most of those points, because that is what I have seen. The part I disagree with is a departure from spiritual values as a result of modernization as a generalization, because I know so many people that hold fast to their spiritual values. Of course, some people may have become more secular as a result of modernization, however that can’t be said of everyone. God is still credited by many for inspiring people with creativity, innovations, and ingenuity. Inglehart and Welzel (2010) later note an increase in spirituality and state that the departure from spiritual values is only temporary.

When considering Hofstede’s cultural dimensions’ implications for web design (Marcus & Gould, 2000) along with the other reading from this week, thoughtful consideration should be given to culture – whether designing websites, instruction, training, products, or processes. In any context, knowing your customer or student provides a strong foundation for interaction.

Feenberg, A. (2010). Technology in a global world. In R. Figueroa & S. Harding (eds.), Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology (pp. 237-251). United Kingdom: Routledge.

Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C. (2010). Modernization. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Marcus, A., & Gould, E.W. (2000). Cultural dimensions and global web user-interface design: What? so what? now what? White Paper: Cultural Dimensions and Global Web User Design, 1-27.

Sterbenz, C. (July 3, 2014). This chart explains every culture in the world. Business Insider.

Technology in Developing Nations

Technology and Education in Developing Nations – Fall 2018

sksj13gmailcom

Image by Dung Tran from Pixabay

I wouldn’t say either article completely confirmed or challenged my views on edtech, however I would say that both articles opened my eyes to new information, ideas, and perspectives to consider. Baker and Gualiti both express the importance of education and its influence on individuals and on society (Baker, 2014; Gualiti, 2008). However Baker’s piece focuses more on the extent that an “education revolution” has taken place through “mass schooling”, influenced society’s institutions, and yielded a “schooled society” and culture (Baker, 2014, p.1-8).

Gualiti’s article focuses more on the gaps where society, especially in developing nations, has not been influenced by widespread formal education. He emphasizes the current use and impact of older technologies where formal education is available. Internet availability and technology-enhanced learning are far from ubiquitous in developing nations (Gualiti, 2008).
When faced with the question of whether to continue to invest in new technology, I thought of an article I’ve read on dual transformation where Apple and Amazon improved on older products while at the same time rolling out new ones (Anthony & Schwartz, 2017). Perhaps continuing to use older technologies for education as it makes sense, and then continuing to develop technology-based education at the same time seems like a good strategy.

I was reminded of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs when Gualiti wondered how technology could help those whose basic needs are not met (Gualiti, 2008). Then I thought of organizations like World Vision that go into villages and work to provide the basic needs for people in addition to providing educational opportunities. For future outreach efforts with educational technology, this is an important element to consider.

Gualiti (2008) stated “The Internet is often seen as a value-neutral learning tool that potentially allows individuals to overcome the constraints of traditional elitist spaces and gain unhindered access to learning” (p. 1 ). Gualiti seems to be saying that many perceive the internet as an almost magical solution for balancing the playing field in education. Though the internet is a valuable tool for learning and certainly allows access to opportunities for learning that have been unavailable to many of us in the past, those opportunities are not universally available at this time. Potentially? Possibly. Many challenges must be overcome for the internet to truly provide “unhindered access to learning” for all (Gualiti, 2008, p.1). The internet as a tool may be value-neutral as a conduit for information, but the information itself is definitely not value-neutral. It’s up to each of us to assess the nature of the information that we receive online.

Anthony, S., Schwartz, E. (2017, March 8). What the best transformational leaders do. Retrieved
from Harvard Business Review website:
https://hbr.org/2017/05/what-the-best-transformational-leaders-do

Baker, D.P. (2014). The schooled society: The transformation of global culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gualiti, S. (2008), Technology-enhanced learning in developing nations: A review. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1) 49-64.