Selected publications (.pdf)

"Education Change, Leadership and the Knowledge Society" 
Global e-Schools Initiative (GeSCI)  

Survey of ICT in education in the Caribbean
Volume 1: Regional trends & analysis
Volume 2: Country reports
infoDev 

Using technology to train teachers:
Appropriate uses of ICT for
teacher professional developmen
t
 
infoDev (Mary Burns, co-author)

Project evaluation:
Uganda rural school-based telecenters

World Bank Institute
(Sara Nadel, co-author)

The Educational Object Economy:
Alternatives in authoring &
aggregation of educational software 

Interactive Learning Environments
(Purchase or subscription req'd) 

Development of multimedia resources 
UNESCO (Cesar Nunes, co-author)

Real Access/Real Impact
Teresa Peters & bridges.org
(hosted for reference; RIP TMP) 

ON TOPIC:

Learning, technology & development

 

Tuesday
Sep202011

First Principles: ICT in Education 


Natoma has completed a "First Principles" document for USAID and American Institutes of Research, called "Designing Effective Education Programs Using Information and Communication Technologies." 

Over the course of the next couple of weeks, I'll share some of the key sections of the paper (or booklet), plus explanatory notes and comments.

The FP docs are focused on education in developing countries--the situation in schools in those countries is usually different from that of schools in the US or in other OECD countries. Perhaps, however, the sections that we're sharing will support a little discussion of main differences and similarities.

(Limited electrical power supplies? Dissimilar. Cost too high? Similar! But I'm sure we can find a deeper level of conversation.) 

----

One of the key questions confronting schools and governments in every country is: "Why invest in education technology?" The answer might stem from a combination of politics, sensitivity to global trends and hope (or desperation). In a few instances, the reason to invest in technology might be found in evidence of impact from other projects.

However, we're living in a dynamic world where the rate of change is accelerated by our tools. Much of the time, the investment is made before the answer to the question is known.

Alvin Toffler kicks off the FP paper:

Introduction

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

—Alvin Toffler, American Futurist

The emergence of information and communication technologies (ICT) as a force in social and economic development presents a wide range of possibilities to the education systems of developed and developing countries. ICT also creates challenges: By accelerating the expansion of information and increasing the value of knowledge, technology challenges schools to support learning that helps them build skills that they can use now and that will support their participation in civic and economic life in a dynamic future.

Technology in schools increases the value of knowledge, introduces new sources of information, helps students build skills that they can use immediately and in the future. 

If true, what's not to like?

Yet donor agencies, which have driven the introduction of technology into schools in developing countries, are waffling (to say the least) in their support of ICT initiatives.

USAID, for example, is focusing on the development of basic-level skills in reading and math for 100 million kids, plus support for vocational and higher education, and for the delivery of education in emergencies. To the extent that ICT promotes these objectives, it might be supported.

(USAID certainly continues to support many ed-tech projects, as we'll see... but the organization's policy focus is not trained on areas, such as system strengthening and improving the quality of instruction, where ICT has typically been deployed in donor-funded projects. There are more clear-cut cases: A friend at another development agency quoted a higher-up-type when considering activities to not fund, as saying something like, "Well, we all know that we're not going to fund ICT." And that's across all sectors, not only education.)

If your funds are limited (and who's aren't?), and if your target beneficiaries are the poorest of the poor, there are a host of factors—lousy infrastructure, teachers who are themselves poorly educated, and scarce books—that complicate the use of technology and that cry out for immediate attention. If literacy and numeracy (and test scores) aren't improving, perhaps value for money isn't being delivered.

But schools in developing countries confront some of the same pressures that schools in OECD countries do: technology is changing all aspects of society, it's almost impossible to think that students and teachers should inhabit some kind of "technology free" zone while they're in school and then re-enter worlds where mobile phones, radios, televisions, cameras and computers are part of life. Or, as the FP booklet puts it:

Technology has transformed social and economic life in countries with emerging economies, in many developing countries, and in many communities in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The scope of change includes sectors such as finance, manufacturing, health, agriculture, and government. As these changes are taking place, ministries of education (MOEs) and donor agencies grapple with questions about appropriate, effective, and valuable uses of education technology for learning, teaching, and strengthening educational systems....

The impact of technology is unquestioned. But the importance of technology in schools is unclear. In the US, for example, debate about the limited impact of technology on test scores continues.

But are we asking the right questions? Of ourselves? And of our tools? 

High school teacher in West Java shows his laptop while another teacher works at her (laptopless) desk

I've visited maybe 50 schools in countries from Indonesia to Uganda to Rwanda to Turkey to Bhutan to, well, a few other places, where parents and school committees (the internationally generic name for the PTA) have coughed up scarce dough to purchase computers for teachers and kids. They believe that their hard-won earnings are well spent. They show off their school computer rooms with pride. They don't question the value of the investment.

In any case, country governments, and schools themselves, continue to invest in costly, complex tools that demonstrate limited impact on learning. 

What's going on? 

The First Principles: Designing Effective Education Programs Using ICT paper is, on one hand, a set of cautionary statements (or "principles") intended to help program planners and designers follow proven good practices and minimize expensive mistakes. Underlying that nuts-and-bolts compendium, however, is the heartfelt encouragement to the international donor community to get out in front of the use of education technology: It's a new moment, with inexpensive but powerful information tools and ways of connecting users to each other and to mighty rivers of information. It's a moment when basic skills are decreasing in value, but when high-value, contextualized skills have never been easier to acquire. 

The FP paper also presents information about projects that are noteworthy because they're: a) big; b) innovative; c) effective, or; d) all of these. As in the T4 Project in Bihar...

IRI and more in India: Technology Tools for Teaching & Training (T4) Project

...India’s T4 project uses Interactive Radio Instruction (IRI) as its central means of improving instruction. T4 IRI is focused on English language learning and, in the Jhil Mil series, on math, environmental science, and social science. Program evaluations have found high levels of impact on student learning: In the state of Bihar, for example, Class 5 IRI students performed significantly better than their non-IRI peers in math (8.5 percent better), environmental science (10.1 percent) and social science (8.9 percent). In all eight states, evaluations have found that students using IRI make learning gains.

These positive results and other factors have led to rapid expansion of T4, made possible in part by the low capital costs and requirements for support of IRI. Begun in 900 schools in three states in 2003, T4 has grown to provide instruction and support in over 300,000 schools in eight states, and has reached over 42 million students.

In addition to IRI, T4 also provides resources for use in one-computer classrooms. One example is Group Teaching and Learning (GTL) software, which provides CD-based multimedia programming that engages both teachers and students in classroom learning activities. Building off of the IRI model, GTL (via teachers’ manuals) guides teachers in conducting whole-class activities that involve song, movement, small groups, and students interacting with the computer. In addition to GTL, the T4 project also provides instructional audio and video support for learning life skills, plus multimedia kits—incorporating audio, video and print content on CD-ROMs—that help students understand concepts and practices in math and science.

 So. Investments—both large-scale and small—are being made. New tools are having impact. What are the pitfalls (real or imagined) that might be convincing donors to scale back their support for ICT in schools? 

Coming next: A quick look at the 10 "first principles" for ICT in education

Monday
Sep192011

E.D. Hirsch lays it out for you

Dr. Hirsch yet again extends for our review the importance of an authentic, contextualized approach to early childhood development and elementary-grades learning. Eloquently. A not-complex defense of complexity. Don't miss it!

Monday
Sep122011

nine eleven and sustainable ICT in schools 

Prompted by remembrances of the Sept 11 2001 attacks on the New York and Washington DC served up by radio and other media (I don't have a TV, thank goodness), I'm led to recall _where_ _I_ _was_ on that fateful day: In Jinja Town in Uganda, about 100 KM east of Kampala, delivering a workshop to school principals on sustainability strategies for their school-based telecenters. My colleagues there at that time were the redoubtable Meddie Mayanja (!) and the formidable Tony Bloome (!). With the Ugandan school heads, we clustered around the one TV set to watch replayed footage of the Twin Towers crashing down. At that distance, frankly, it was difficult to grasp what was really happening. Instead of a dream within a dream, we experienced a dream within reality. I walked around Jinja, which _still_ featured burnt-out houses and wastelands from the purging of Indians and others that had happened 20 years before. At some point, I think, Tony and I went rafting on the Nile. Eventually I caught my flight home, passing through Heathrow and discovering a world that had been upended in my absence. 

The school heads at our training workshop were remarkable. The program--VSAT-enabled school-based telecenters--launched and it was successful in the short term. Then the VSAT provider went bankrupt ("who are you callin' 'sustainable'?") and connectivity was shut down. Eventually, however, because the school heads, the students and their parents all saw value in the Internet connection, things began to re-emerge in sustainable forms with a new, local ISP. Today, the original 20-something broadband-supplied schools have increased 4x, at least. And all (or almost all) are running sustainably. (!)

 

 

Tony Bloome and a school head confer




Thursday
Jul072011

Now this is interesting. Venture capital for ed tech...

From today's NY Times we learn: 

Piazza, the Italian term for a public square, is part of a growing group of technology start-ups hoping to disrupt the education market. Its peers include Kno and Inkling, two platforms for interactive, digital textbooks. The trend has also given birth to its own Silicon Valley-based incubator, Imagine K12, which announced its first batch of investments in June.


“Education is a big focus area for us. You’re going to see big fundamental shifts in the way education is performed,” said Aydin Senkut, an investor in Piazza who made his fortune as an early Google employee. “With Piazza, it’s about turning data into actionable intelligence. We want to empower people to ask and answer questions, and we’re going to measure every aspect of it.”

It's been a while since there were buckets of cash in Silicon Valley for education technology for schools. What gives? 

 

In part, the tools have advanced a long ways. We're far, far away from multimedia CDs (which were generally built for consumers, or the kids of consumers, and were then marketed to schools). Social-networking tools in combination with online databases and boatloads of free content have changed the way teachers think about technology. (They still _might_ think that it's a better resource for them than it is for their students, but they are damn sure that it's important for them.) 

As important, the topography of tech in education has radically changed in higher education. Ten years ago, professors were unclear about how to incorporate new tools into teaching. Today there is much more widespread adoption and experimentation. 

So. Last time I was around a bunch of Silicon Valley cash for ed-tech, I observed some pretty miserable, non-student-centered innovations. PLATO and its offshoots (WASATCH or SASQUATCH or SOMETHING, if I recall correctly). Using algorithms to deliver remediation to kids automatically, based on their quiz results. Large-scale teacher-replacement tools. With funds shifting to Voyager and other companies making high-end (and costly) multimedia content to be delivered via videodisc and CD. Again, wildly inappropriate for K12 schools. 

The emergence of the internet as a key factor in the development and use of technology -- I don't have numbers or comparable numbers to back this up -- started to constrict spending on ed-tech. (We are perhaps talking 1999 to 2000 and with a follow-on drop after the internet bubble burst in 2001.) The internet makes things cheap, more user-centered, more collaborative. Sites like BigChalk were providing content and professional development, but they lagged in terms of social features, which were emerging, and they had lousy revenue models. 

It'll be interesting to see where these new pots of cash show up, and how much difference they really make in schooling. 

Thursday
Mar312011

STEM video award winner: Congratulations to Derek Lomas & Dixie Ching

From HASTAC: 

DML Competition Winner Derek Lomas & HASTAC Scholar Dixie Ching Win 1st National STEM Video Game Challenge!

NumberPower: Numbaland!, produced by graduate students Derek Lomas of Carnegie Mellon University, Dixie Ching of New York University and Jeanine Sun of the University of California at San Diego, was the winner of the Collegiate and Impact Prizes and will receive $50,000 in total. The collection of four games allows children in kindergarten to grade 4 to construct a set of skills that helps develop their sense of number concepts. The games will be available on different platforms, including the iPad later this spring. The prototype can be viewed at http://numbaland.com.NumbalandTitle

The awards were announced by the United States Chief Technology Officer, Aneesh Chopra. The competition was designed to motivate interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) learning by tapping into the natural passion of youth for playing and making video games. "Three cheers for the National STEM Video Game Challenge for catalyzing this entertaining and educational approach to harnessing American ingenuity..." said Chopra. "It is efforts like these that will ensure our nation's continued economic and technological leadership well into the 21st century."

To read the rest of the press release, about the National STEM Video Game Challenge, go tohttp://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/Press-Releases-53.html.