We have often focused on Open Educational Resources (OER) in the Educational Technology Debates. We talked about the need for creating digital content and examples of existing Open Educational Resources. But this month we’re going to ask a controversial question:

Does OER actually expand the digital divide?

The proponents of Open Educational Resources are right to point out the need for digital content. There are few if any locally relevant resources for educators in the developing world – local language being a major issue. So is access – to the hardware required to view content and often the Internet access to reach it. In addition to content, and the access to reach it, teachers need the skills and training to convert good content into great lessons.

But let us say that all these prerequisites exist – content, access, training:

1. Does that mean teachers will actually use it?
2. And who will they use it with? Students already advantaged with socio-economic resources or the underprivileged learners that are the ostensible focus of many educational technology interventions?
3. Most importantly, regardless of the benefits for the privileged, how can we create better OER benefits for the poor?

Please join us this month for what we all expect to be a lively and informative conversation – your input can start right now in the comments below. You can also submit your extended thoughts as a longer independent Guest Post of at least 500 words. Please email Guest Posts to editors@edutechdebate.org. We will be publishing Guest Posts throughout the month to maintain the conversation.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

D is for desktop. L is for laptop. M is for mobile. E is for expensive!

For the time being, traditional technologies are too expensive and complicated to implement in scale, while also allowing sufficient funding for teacher training and learning materials development.

Desktops in school computer rooms require a dedicated, secure classroom that would otherwise serve as an instructional space in an often-overcrowded school. The opportunity cost associated with losing an instructional space alone, is incalculable.  Some initiatives adopt a “mobile lab” approach, where they introduce laptops – or increasingly, tablets – to provide students with 1:1 instruction, without losing instructional space. 

Another approach is mobile phone technology.  Nokia recently announced a Linux-based smartphone for $100, and there have been announcements about Google-powered Android smartphones, also priced in the $100 range.

Yet, the challenges with all three approaches remain more or less the same. First, there may never been enough computers and smartphones available (at least not in the foreseeable future) to adequately serve every student. Second, assuring the necessary maintenance of equipment, networks, and access to reliable electricity is a particularly expensive proposition when a nation considers equipping the majority of its schools.

And finally, the responsibility placed on the individual teacher to effectively integrate technology into instruction is immense. He must be trained to facilitate use of high-quality software, facilitate student use, troubleshoot technical issues during facilitation, and monitor individual and collective student progress in order to achieve measurable goals – in addition to his regular teaching responsibilities!

For technology that relies on the delivery of web-based content, there are even greater risks for abandoning use of computers altogether if the network is not fast or reliable enough, or if the cost is prohibitive over a longer period.

Providing a whole-class learning solution to reach more schools

In partnership with USAID/Senegal and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, CyberSmart Africa has introduced a whole-class learning solution that integrates the use of a specially adapted interactive whiteboard directly into classroom instruction. We started the program in 2010 and now operate in three primary schools and six middle schools. The objective is to focus on learning, as teachers facilitate an active, student-centered classroom that integrates the use of digital resources in support of all core academic subjects.

The whole class learns together as an interactive whiteboard moves between classrooms, impacting hundreds of students during a single school day. More than a dozen students will actually use the interactive whiteboard during a single class session, while all students become active learners as they benefit from the experience of observing and influencing their peers’ work at the board.

Implementation is simplified and the Total Cost of Ownership is low compared to laptop and school computer room initiatives because there is less equipment to be maintained and managed; and there are minimal installation costs because all of the equipment is portable. Resources are primarily directed toward ongoing teacher training, the single investment in education that is most closely associated with student success.

Many of the classrooms in our partner schools have rusted ceilings, and some lack electricity. Power is supplied with a solar-charged battery that moves between classrooms along with the equipment. The technology consists primarily of a lightweight screen manufactured in-country, a netbook, a low-power video projector, and an interactive “controller” that enables the touch-screen capability. Users interact with the computer – opening files, playing games, searching for content – by touching the screen with a special infrared pen that acts like a mouse.

All the necessary software to run the applications resides in the stand-alone netbook, and Internet connectivity is optional. The equipment is easily moved between classrooms, over sand and sometimes even through the village to an off-site space, and can be completely set up in under ten minutes.

In contrast to using a regular video projector, the teacher and students are not glued to a computer keyboard – which will most likely be controlled by the teacher – in order to manipulate desktop content on an interactive whiteboard. Lessons are purposely designed to be participatory, and viewable by the whole class so that students are more engaged in the learning process. Interactive whiteboard software also makes use of a suite of “blackboard-like” annotation tools – underlining, circling, coloring – among other capabilities.

Success requires a “toolbox” consisting of ongoing training, content, and support

As ICT has become central to the USAID Education Strategy (February 2011), it is essential to keep in mind that ICT use in schools will accomplish very little if not integrated within a toolbox full of supporting educational content, ongoing teacher training and support, and a context that nurtures evolving teaching and learning styles.

Our work at CyberSmart Africa has been motivated by the unfortunate reality of too many education initiatives who introduce ICT simply for ICT’s sake, and whose budget and program activities go to supporting only the use of the provided equipment. Our approach extends directly into the pedagogical implications of ICT; the bulk of our activities support the ongoing teacher training necessary to successfully integrate ICT to improve the quality of instruction, and thus impact student learning.

A Focus on Professional Development including use of SMS

Through our ongoing professional development activities, we support the teachers in a shift toward learner-centered strategies. The teachers gradually move away from the traditional lecture-style approach and become facilitators of the learning process.

As part of our teacher professional development activities, we nurture professional learning communities where teachers support one another and create their own technology-integrated lessons. With ongoing teacher-to-teacher support, the content shared in the classroom is guaranteed to align with the Senegalese national curriculum, as well as the teacher’s personal instructional objectives.

Relying again on simple, available, and affordable technology, CyberSmart Africa uses SMS to extend our professional development. Every Monday, teachers receive by SMS a  “Weekly Challenge” exercise, a follow-up on themes introduced during face-to-face meetings and classroom observations.

The challenge may simply require a response to a question, such as “What software did you use the previous week?”. Other challenges may be task-oriented, such as “Co-facilitate a technology-integrated lesson with a colleague this week.” The challenges are designed to both provide direction, and encourage teachers to put their learning into practice. We have found that the challenges are motivating and fun, while also providing CyberSmart Africa with valuable feedback concerning the level of teacher participation.

Teaching reading in support of the USAID Education Strategy

The USAID Education Strategy (2011) intends to leverage ICT to improve reading in primary grades; and we observe that the possibilities to use the interactive whiteboard for reading instruction are seemingly endless. It provides a way to accommodate for different learning styles, as students not only write on the interactive whiteboard, but also read, speak, listen, and even manipulate otherwise static content.

As part of CyberSmart Africa’s Senegal implementation, for example, we have created the framework for a word magnet exercise, where students form sentences by dragging disassociated words, and sometimes images, from one part of the screen to the other. This creative learning exercise sharpens students’ ability to think critically, as they learn sentence construction and vocabulary.

With an interactive whiteboard in their classrooms, teachers and their students are not limited to the static content of their textbooks – often in short supply – nor are they obligated to search very far for content presented in different formats – audio, visual, and text. In an effort to produce appropriate localized reading materials, CyberSmart Africa has collaborated with teachers to create various talking books that integrate different learning modalities.

With each talking book, students are able to listen to the story, read the text themselves, participate in discussions based on the pictures, annotate the story directly on the interactive whiteboard screen, and more. These stories can be shared among teachers, and enriched and shared again. They present a unique learning opportunity for students who otherwise have little, if any regular exposure to a variety of reading materials.

Learning to read does, of course, require practice and ongoing support beyond the classroom. Still, the classroom is, and will be for the foreseeable future, the place where students learn to read. When teachers facilitate technology-integrated lessons directly in the classroom, they can draw from engaging content originating from teachers, the community, packaged software, and other sources globally.

Conclusion

Although use of an interactive whiteboard by no means represents a complete solution for reading improvement, our experience in Senegal indicates that teachers and students enthusiastically embrace use of the interactive whiteboard for active, whole class learning. The approach impacts large numbers of students with minimal equipment, and has the potential to scale because the Total Cost of Ownership is low. Still, it is important to emphasize that teachers need ongoing professional development in order to prepare high quality technology-integrated lessons, and to facilitate an active, learner-centered classroom. With the appropriate support, use of an interactive whiteboard holds tremendous potential to shape the classroom learning environment in Sub Saharan Africa, and globally.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

I will explain the project design and implementation below. First, however, I want to pose three questions to readers:

1. What funding mechanisms are most secure for telecenter sustainability?
2. Are videoconferencing training programs effective when trainees have no prior experience with these technologies?
3. What pedagogical assumptions are instilled into videoconferencing trainings and what repercussions do these assumptions cause?

THE NEED

For the first time, local schoolteachers in rural Mexico could receive teacher training, many of whom had never received formal teacher training. The non-profit planned to put these teachers through a 50-hour training course via videoconferencing tools and a satellite broadband Internet connection.

In a Mexican government program, and with assistance from the IDB, villagers from underserved areas in Mexico can receive a financial scholarship for college and a modest stipend in exchange for teaching elementary or middle school for two years in other rural communities. The program, CONAFE (which stands for National Council for to Promote Education), is a great asset to these communities who are otherwise without teachers.

The problem, however, is that the CONAFE teachers have not gone to college or received much formal training. Though the teachers are required to attend monthly seminars and receive a few weeks of training before entering the classroom, they are otherwise without preparation and come with no more than a high school education.

THE PROJECT

To solve this problem, a technology-focused LLC who provides Internet connectivity via satellite to rural villages worldwide partnered with a local NGO to open an Internet café in the largest village (about 80 families) in the area. A local social entrepreneur was selected, who bought the technological equipment from the local NGO at low interest rates, and the Internet café quickly opened. Then, the local NGO partnered with the non-profit who trains undereducated teachers to put the CONAFE teachers through a 50-hour training course via videoconferencing tools.

Considering the unfamiliarity with computers that the CONAFE teachers have, it was apparent that they would have to rely heavily on the local Internet café owner to help them connect to a videoconferencing platform and to use the computers. Some of the teachers had never used a computer before, and even the most advanced had only used them a dozen times. The idea was that through this training, the CONAFE schoolteachers would not only become better teachers, but they would learn the basics of computer and Internet usage, invaluable skills without which they would be lost once entering college.

DIFFICULTIES AND QUESTIONS

Unfortunately, however, the Internet service was cut after just three months of service to the café. The cost of the service increased ten-fold in the contract with the satellite service provider after three months, a key detail in the contract that the local NGO had overlooked. Now, it has been over one hundred days that the Internet café has been without service. The social entrepreneur feels disgruntled and embarrassed in front of the other villagers, and wants nothing to do with the local NGOs efforts to reconnect the café with new service providers.

Without this connection, the videoconferencing training obviously stopped. Consequently, it is unclear whether the training would have been effective. The first training took place just one week before the Internet was cut off. I was at the training and afterwards I had a series of question regarding the program. How would the mentor relationship between the teacher trainer from the non-profit and the recipient CONAFE teachers affect their self-confidence and later self-development efforts? How would the training affect the teachers’ actual actions in the classroom? How much freedom would the CONAFE teachers have to modify the national curriculums that they were mandated to teach? Was a certification from the non-profit organization enough to motivate the CONAFE teachers to participate in the program? Would the certificate actually prove to be helpful in securing future employment?

It is impossible to find these answers from the short-lived project in Mexico. What experiences have you, reader, had that could shed light on the effectiveness of videoconferencing training over international boundaries? And can telecenters be financially sustainable in rural villages as they are in urban cities in developing countries? What increases the probability of financial success? If not funded through user fees, what are implications of government sponsorship or subsidies in telecenter projects?

I’d appreciate your comments and feedback from your own experiences.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

SchoolNet SA is a not-for-profit NGO, operating in South Africa since 1997. In the early days we attempted to cover all aspects of ICT in schools by sourcing and providing hardware and software as well as training teachers. Our mission has always been to create communities of teachers using ICT to enhance teaching and learning. These days we concentrate on teacher development with a particular emphasis on ICT integration and on underserved schools. These two areas often appear to be incompatible, as I will try to explain.

What we do

Our most supportive funders are Intel and Microsoft but we also have other partners such as Oracle, Vodacom, Commonwealth of Learning, SITA, Nokia, Multichoice, Peermont, Adobe, Uniforum, provincial departments of education, and a number of universities. We could claim that SchoolNet has trained vast volumes of teachers, which we have, but we do not like to fixate on numbers. We would prefer to consider how effective our initiatives have been. Hit-and-run interventions are not our style; we like to prolong our relationships with schools.

Sadly we often fall into the trap of chasing numbers to satisfy funding targets, sometimes losing contact with schools after training. This is the reason why we have recently embarked on a SchoolNet SA premium membership drive with the intention of engaging with individual teachers and encouraging them to stay in touch with each other. Our focus on social networking through our Facebook page, newsletter, blog and twitter (@SchoolNetSA) accounts all contribute to this aim.

The biggest challenge we face is in encouraging teachers to improve the way they teach. This applies to teachers across a range of schools. At the e-Learning Africa conference, Tom Power from the Open University UK said that the only way there could be any hope of changing existing pedagogies was to provide new classroom activities involving new technologies. This is a philosophy to which SchoolNet SA has always subscribed.

Our strategy for growing teachers into more advanced stages of ICT use is an incremental one. Teachers are often unable to make the leap from their own ICT literacy to its classroom application where they engage learners in the use of ICT in the curriculum. To combat this, we designed a range of courses to cover each stage of maturity with ICT, from basic literacy to project-based learning and the higher levels of innovation.

The 3 key pillars that uphold this strategy and that should be in place from the moment that technology is introduced to the school are leadership, technical support, and a culture of professional development. The Partners in Learning ICT Leadership for Education Managers course introduces school leaders and local ICT government officials to a range of crucial educational ICT issues.

The Partners in Learning Student Help Desk course is an effective course for computer clubs of learners. This is relevant to schools where there is no option for first-level trouble-shooting other than costly companies which are even more expensive if the school is remote.

Schools that work hard at staff development find that the most effective method of sustaining teachers’ motivation in ICT integration is through peer coaching; pairs or small groups of teachers planning lessons together and sparking off ideas has an instant and positive effect on the quality of teaching and learning.

SchoolNet SA is just beginning to venture into m-learning, training teachers to track students who are participating in the NOKIA MoMaths project using MXit and Moodle. We see a viral uptake of any new project using MXit – e.g. HIV 360 had 39 000 teenage users within a couple of months.

SchoolNet has always tried to contribute towards national ICT discourse and policy and we are grateful that South Africa does have in place the e-Education White Paper (2003) and the Guidelines for Teacher Training and Professional Development in ICT (2007). Implementation of these policies on the other hand has been slow.

Lessons learned

1. Educational Technology interventions often forget about the “educational” part and consider it to be completed once they have installed the technology. This results in teachers not being trained and consequently hardware remaining unused.
2. We must split training sessions and revisit schools to allow for a period of practice and self study before the trainer returns to the school to consolidate.
3. Teachers complain that training sessions are too short and that they do not have enough time for training or for practice.
4. Cascaded training, where multiple training of trainers takes place, does not work; it dilutes learning and quality is jeopardised. If a project requires a high degree of scale, trainers should be trained by a national master trainer and thereafter train directly in schools themselves.
5. We are not reaching the knowledge deepening level of the UNESCO Framework. Intel Teach project based courses are at this level, where the emphasis is on higher order thinking skills. Insufficient teachers are completing Intel courses; only two provinces have invested seriously in Intel Teach. If we study the TPACK theory (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) it becomes clear that teachers in many of our schools have challenges in each of the 3 separate knowledge areas let alone in the 4 sections where these areas intersect.
6. Teachers are unaware of what is available. From the Gauteng Department of Education evaluation we conducted with SAIDE, it became evident that not only do teachers have little knowledge of what resources are available to them online, but they are unaware of the array of educational software provided on their own school networks. This is directly due to insufficient teacher professional development in initiatives that are technology driven.
7. Access for learners in high schools is reduced when schools decide to offer external exam subjects such as IT and CAT because these monopolise the computer rooms. Only schools with alternative access such as two computer rooms or a mobile lab should consider offering these subjects.
8. High school teachers often argue that they cannot integrate ICT because they have to complete their syllabus, instead of realising that ICT can greatly assist to achieve this.
9. The disconnect between teachers and learners is growing. Schools need to be connected and pedagogy has to adapt. Children are online and becoming more connected, living in an exciting world of communication and “instant” everything. Then in classrooms, teachers say, “open your books and turn to page …. “ A high dropout rate should not be a surprise. As the saying goes, “If children do not learn the way we teach then we must teach the way they learn.”
10. Beware of Interactive Whiteboards (IAW). IAW have proliferated in schools despite the expense and yet in many instances this has resulted in teaching methodology reverting back to being teacher-centred.
11. Sugata Mitra’s TED Talk, Child-driven Education, illustrates through the cognitive studies that he has conducted. that children learn more effectively through discourse in groups. Mitra takes “child-centred” one step further to become “child-driven”.
12. At SchoolNet we are sceptical of educational software that does not require 21st Century learning skills and wary that some m-learning projects use merely drill and kill content.
13. It is important to commence ICT initiatives with the school leadership because they have great influence over the future take-up of technology by teaching staff.

What we recommend

We recommend sustainable plans for staff development in schools; ICT planning that is focused on the teaching and learning needs of educators. Teachers require lifelong learning opportunities.
Connectivity in schools has to be provided and at a reduced, or no cost, to the school.

We are seeing the value of android handheld and mobile devices with charging trolleys because these satisfy the need for learners to be involved, hands on and not just one learner at a time; they have to share the technology and share ideas, just as Mitra advocates.

Mobile phone use in schools has to be accepted. Teachers can collect second hand phones and allow working in groups to ensure that learners without phones are not excluded.

Obviously the one recommendation that SchoolNet is going to make time and time again is that there has to be greater investment in teacher development. The business community has to be strategically involved; they must specify the skills they require school leavers to have so that teaching is forced to adapt to developing those skills.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

Computer labs were established throughout the University to expand access to computers for students. There are just over 5,000 computers available for students in more than 100 computer labs, and this number is increasing annually. The ratio of computers to students is approximately 6:1.

Infrastructure was put in place, and training courses have been introduced to enable academics to optimise the opportunities that web-based learning can bring and to further enrich the learning environment. Infrastructure was also put in place for lecturers to communicate with their students via SMS technology.

The University also uses Blackboard as its learning management system (LMS). This system was specifically adapted to suit the needs of the University of Pretoria and is called ClickUP. All students receive an e-mail address by default when they enrol at the University, and can access the University’s online environment via their student number, not just on campus, but from wherever they are. All contact students must successfully complete a compulsory semester course in computer literacy in their first year of study.

The growth in the number of modules with online (Click UP) support has grown substantially in all faculties/schools since 2005. The total percentage of modules with web support grew from 37.7% in 2005 to more than 75% in 2010.

The table below provides an overview of the growth in e-teaching and learning at the University of Pretoria since 2002. In 2009, all academic departments at the University made use of online teaching and learning to a greater or lesser extent.

E-assessment has also developed momentum since 2002. More and more academics started to introduce e-assessment, with the result that more than 380,000 e-tests were conducted in 2009 and 405,877 in 2010.

The profile of the University of Pretoria, as described above, mirrors that of any good university in any developed context. The reason why the University embarked on this e-learning strategy is because the technology is available, affordable, and appropriate to use. Any university that ignores the enrichment that online programmes can bring is irresponsible. It is, however, also true that, universities that embark on IT-enabled learning that cannot be supported by the bandwidth, financial resources, adequate hardware and a target market that can access the technology can be described as irresponsible.

The problem in all developing contexts is that the distribution of ICT is limited to “developed” pockets in these countries. This is also true for South Africa, and is clearly evident in the distance programmes of the University of Pretoria.

In 2002, the Faculty of Education at the University of Pretoria established a Unit for Distance Education to manage the distance education initiative of the Faculty. The Faculty of Education is the only faculty at the University that also presents dedicated distance education programmes over and above the contact programmes. Thousands of teachers (specifically black teachers) were seriously disadvantaged in the apartheid era by inadequate and low-quality teacher training programmes at inferior teacher training colleges established specifically for black teachers.

These teachers teach predominantly in rural areas throughout South Africa. The only way that these teachers can improve their qualifications is through the mode of distance education. In order to play a constructive and significant role in the upgrading of teacher qualifications in South Africa, the Faculty developed distance education programmes in specific subject areas.

In 2002, the University recognised that the student population for distance education differs in many ways from that of contact students. It was therefore decided that the presentation of the distance programmes should predominantly be paper-based, with structured opportunities for face-to-face sessions and other student support services. It was decided that, once students enrolled, an analysis of the student profile would be done to direct the introduction of appropriate ICT to support and enhance learning. The LMS and necessary ICT infrastructure for contact students was available to deliver the distance education programmes online.

Since 2002, just over 39,000 students have enrolled in the distance education programme. Since then, almost 17,000 have graduated. At present, there are approximately 20,000 students in the programme. The distance education students at the University of Pretoria are all teachers with a minimum three-year qualification. Almost 80% of these students are women and more than 85% are older than 35. Just over 50% of the student population are graduate students. The majority, by far, lives and teaches in rural communities throughout South Africa. This profile differs fundamentally from the profile of the University’s contact students.

The technology profile of the distance education students in 2002 and 2003 showed that almost all students had access to or owned a mobile phone. Very few students indicated that they had an e-mail address. Fewer than 5% of the students indicated that they had access to a computer at home or at work. Only 1% indicated that they had access to the Internet.

Profile of students who enrolled for the first time: 2002 to 2003

The above statistics directed the University’s decision about whether or not to introduce the web based/online delivery mode for distance students. This profile also prompted the University to start exploring ways of using mobile phones in its distance programmes. A decision was taken to load all the programme material, with the exception of the textbooks, on the University’s LMS (ClickUP). It was, however, decided that this would not be an interactive site, but only a depository where distance students could access their learning material, as well as the latest tutorial letters and administrative information. Information on the availability of learning material on the website and how to access the site is continuously communicated to existing and new students. Almost no students have ever accessed the site over the years.

Profile of students who enrolled for the first time: 2004 to 2006

For the period 2004 to 2006, the mobile phone profile stayed the same. The number of students who have an e-mail address remained very low. This is also the case for Internet access.

For the period 2007 to 2009, a growth started to be observed in the percentage of students with both e-mail addresses and Internet access. The growth in Internet access rose annually from 2% in 2007 to 7% in 2009, while growth in e-mail use grew from 20% in 2007 to 35% in 2008. However, it declined again in 2009 to less than 20%.

Profile of students who enrolled for the first time: 2007 to 2009

There is, however, a noticeable growth in ownership or availability of computers for distance education students from 2002 to 2010. The figures below give a clear indication of this trend.

The technology profile of the distance education students at the University of Pretoria mirrors the reality of the broader technology profile in South Africa and also in Africa. There are those communities – especially in urban areas – that have comprehensive and adequate ICT connectivity, while the majority of the population living in rural areas have limited or no ICT connectivity.

It was mentioned earlier that, as early as 2003, the University accepted that the technology profile of distance education students differs significantly from that of students on campus and that the delivery of distance education programmes should reflect this reality. It was, therefore, decided that the University should continue to improve the quality of its paper-based learning material and expand and strengthen its student support services within the limitations of the technology profile of the students.

Over the years, the University carefully monitored the technology profile of its students and introduced – in a carefully planned manner – technologies that were accessible, dependable, and affordable to students. This included extensive use of SMSs and, because of the growth in ownership/access to computers, the inclusion of CDs in the learning material. However, because not all students have access to a computer, the information on the CDs is not compulsory content, but information that will enrich their studies, for example, an e-library with recommended readings.

Because a greater number of students have access to computers, more students are typing their assignments and the University has even experienced a rise in the number of students who submit their assignments via e-mail.

The University will continue to monitor the technology profile of its distance education students and introduce appropriate use of technologies to suit this profile. The University foresees a time when the distance education programmes will migrate from being predominantly paper-based to being predominantly delivered online. This is, however, not likely to happen in the near future.

In 2002, a decision was taken to develop a comprehensive and integrated SMS support service for distance students.

The table below provides an overview of the number of SMSs students receive in the course of a year.

In the first two years, students received a limited number of SMSs. These were mainly to remind them about due dates of assignments. From 2004, the student database was adjusted so that, when a parcel is sent to students, they receive an SMS with the tracking number of the parcel by default. The University also moved away from ad hoc SMSs to a structured SMS communication plan that was carefully designed to enhance and support learning.

It was clear from the start of the study that SMSs could not be used for in-depth academic conversations or to convey complex academic content. It is more about students’ perceptions and how they react when they receive an SMS from the University. In a study among 3,121 students conducted by the Unit for Distance Education (Hendrikz, Viljoen and Adams, 2006), students indicated that they like receiving SMSs from the University. They reported that the SMSs made them feel closer to the University, supported them in structuring their studies, and increased their level of motivation.

The University also embarked on a pilot project to use academic SMSs to support learning. The purpose of this was to try and mimic what a lecturer does in a classroom situation and to translate that into an SMS to support distance students academically.

Conclusion

The Internet and mobile phone penetration rate, as well as South Africa’s ICT development index (IDI), is reflected in the ICT profile of the University of Pretoria as a micro reflection of the reality of South Africa. The University is capable of delivering online distance education programmes, but that would have excluded thousands of students from continuing their studies.

Africa needs to guard against ignorance about the realities of the availability and use of ICT. It must not pretend that it is on par with the developed world and should avoid introducing strategies that are not in line with the realities and context of Africa. Millions of dollars have been wasted on poor ICT decisions in Africa because strategies are not aligned with the realities and context of this continent.

Africa can learn a very important lesson from the experience of the University of Pretoria. One could argue that, if the most advanced sub-Saharan country in Africa reflects this reality in its student population, this student population should be very similar to that of other African countries. We are challenged by the ICT realities in Africa to carefully plan and contextualise our e-learning strategies before introducing them.

In education, it should not be about technology, but rather about how we can expand access to study and how we can improve support to our students in a way that will at least give them a fair opportunity at success.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

Often, the word competency and skill are used interchangeably. While they are related, they are not the same. A competency is a demonstrated ability to perform a particular job or task. A competency includes skills, but also behaviors and the ability to apply those skills in order to perform a job or task. For example, a teacher may know how to use a computer and productivity software (skill), but may not know how to use those skills to increase collaboration and critical thinking in their students (competency).

“Through the ongoing and effective use of technology in the schooling process, students have the opportunity to acquire important technology capabilities. The key individual in helping students develop those capabilities is the classroom teacher. The teacher is responsible for establishing the classroom environment and preparing the learning opportunities that facilitate students’ use of technology to learn, and communicate. Consequently, it is critical that all classroom teachers are prepared to provide their students with these opportunities.” (UNESCO)

Continuing professional development in the teaching profession has always been a priority: after all, how can one expect to create a classroom full of life-long learners if one isn’t a life-long learner oneself? However, the way professional development has traditionally been structured can be ineffective and expensive at best, and a waste of time at worst. Unless a teacher understands the requirements, or competencies, necessary to perform their job as well as which competencies they are lacking, effective professional development with lasting impact is not attainable.

Other challenges to effective professional development of ICT integration:

• Many teachers are aware that they should integrate ICT into their teaching practices, but are uncertain as to what that actually means. While brain science, teaching strategies and classroom management are part of most formal teacher preparatory curriculums, the integration of ICT into teaching and learning is not broadly offered outside of technology oriented courses.
• The absence of a common internationally recognized standard in the area of ICT integration, as well as training based on those standards, prevents having a consistent method to measure whether teachers are effectively using technology to achieve desired student outcomes.
• A “one size fits all” training approach fails to meet the needs of individuals. Teachers within one school will have very different needs with regards to ICT training. While some may have never used a computer, others may be using multiple devices and applications to achieve desired outcomes.
• Mandating training which is not relevant to a teacher. Buy-in by the learner, including the assessment and planning of their development goals, decreases teacher resistance to training and increases the likelihood that what is presented actually results in a change in their teaching strategies.

In 2008 UNESCO, in partnership with Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, and ISTE, formalized the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT-CFT) with an aim to measure the ICT proficiency of teachers against a common international standard and to aid in their professional development. Governments everywhere are striving to improve student outcomes and meet the challenges of preparing a 21st Century workforce for a global, knowledge-based economy. The UNESCO Competency Framework for Teachers is a response to these challenges.

Objectives of the Framework:

• Create a common core syllabus that can be used to develop learning materials sharable at a global level
• Provide a basic set of qualifications that allows teachers to integrate ICT into their teaching
• Extend teachers’ professional development to advance their skills in pedagogy, collaboration, and school innovation using ICTs
• Harmonize different views and vocabulary regarding the uses of ICTs in teacher education

The UNESCO ICT-CFT helps ensure continuity of competencies across teacher populations and geographies. For example, in Ireland, teachers have taken a self-assessment written to the UNESCO ICT-CFT standards in order to better understand what professional development resources and support they need. Countries like Mexico, Russia, and Australia are using the UNESCO ICT-CFT as the foundational competency framework on which they will build future ICT Continuing Professional Development offerings.

How Competency Based Professional Development is Different

In closing, effective competency-based professional development includes the following components:

1. Adoption of a common set of competency standards defined by role. A computer science teacher may require different competencies contained in the ICT-CFT than a 3rd grade literacy teacher.
2. Teachers identify areas where they need competency improvement.
3. A rich and varied set of aligned resources is provided to teachers to fill those competency gaps which could include job shadowing, classes, workshops, or eLearning.
4. Improved teacher competencies are verified through assessments, observation, or portfolio work.
5. Peer support or mentoring is offered to help teachers carry forward ICT use to the classroom.
6. Teacher competency development is refined and iterated in a continuous-improvement cycle.

This is competency-based professional development. The difference is that teacher’s build their competencies where needed, so there is no need to study what they already know. Emphasis is on application, performance and understanding, not simply on the recall of knowledge. With time to focus on new challenges, teachers can work toward enabling both themselves and students with the technical skills, knowledge and attitudes needed for success in life and the 21st Century workplace.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

In the final phase of this aspect of our research, we have commissioned a series of essays on Teacher Professional Development, with an emphasis on the contextualization and implementation of a teacher competency framework for ICT in education.

Researchers and practitioners working in the area of educational technology have established that successful implementation of educational technology to a large extent depends on teachers’ ability to integrate the technologies effectively into their teaching, and facilitate learner use of these technologies. The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers makes it clear that all teacher preparation should focus broadly on preparing teachers to use technology and to understand how best technology can support student learning, as these have become integral skills for teachers. To this end, internationally and regionally within Africa, there are several initiatives on teacher development for ICT integration aimed at supporting roll out of technology infrastructure in education.

We have several exciting and thought-provoking essays lined up in this theme. Tune in on Friday for the first posting from Tracy Immel from Microsoft, who makes a compelling case for focusing on competency frameworks in teacher professional development.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

Tablet form factor computers are undoubtedly an exciting way to interact with technology, especially, when they are touch screen enabled. The intimacy and immediacy of the personal screen and the ease of use and intuitive design of modern touch screen operating systems greatly eases user fears and facilitates user adoption.

This ease of use is exciting technologists and educators, both of whom are thinking of new ways to use technology like the iPad in educational systems of the developing world. Now I agree with them. I believe the iPad’s sleek user interface and ease of use will transform the ICT in education experience – but not for everyone.

As part of the Slide2learn conference in Queensland, Australia this week, I made the following presentation to deep dive into the promise and pitfalls of an iPad education in the developing world. Watch the video or read on for details for why I think that tablets are good, content is better, and teachers are the best educational ICT investments

Content is Better

Yes, the iPad has great promise, especially since there are now thousands of apps that provide an almost limitless assortment of learning experiences through the touch screen tablet form factor. From simple acts like counting numbers and recognizing letters to reading interactive books and connecting with social media, it’s the wealth of digital content that keeps teachers and students engaged.

Yet where is this content in the developing world? The iPad may be amazing when connected to iTunes in the English-speaking world, but it’s of limited use if there is no digital content. For example, the Wikipedia’s article count by language shows millions of English language articles, but the 8 million people Xhosa speakers – 20% of South Africa’s population – are served by only 118 articles in their language. And not a single iTunes app.

There are a number of initiatives that seek to build educational digital content in local languages, and even ones focusing on developing content that aligns with national curriculum in the developing world. These efforts are nascent at the moment, though they are expanding rapidly as more electronic devices are present to access them.

Teachers are Best

What isn’t growing, what is lacking are the skilled teachers that can take a digital device – any digital tool – and incorporate it into the classroom, into student-centric learning.

Right now, the vast majoring of teaching that occurs in the developing world is rote memorization. This “chalk and talk” teaching instruction is often just transposed from analog to digital form when technology is deployed. In OLPC Peru, the largest 1:1 laptop deployment using XO laptops, students use their 400,000+ computers to transcribe texts from notebooks or chalkboards to their laptops. Are you surprised then that pedagogical use of the laptops has decreased among students and teachers over time?

Teachers require training to understand how to teach differently. How methods like student-centric learning can be applied to the classroom, and shown how this learning style will increase educational outcomes. Yet who is investing in teacher training? If you look around, Ministers of Education get excited about shiny, flashy things, not human capacity building. And who can blame them? It’s a lot easier to show off a technology implementation than a trained teacher, and children and their voting parents can see a quick difference with a computer that isn’t so noticeable with a trained teacher.

So regardless of how amazing the iPad is, until we invest in trained teachers who know how to use technology to improve their teaching activities, until we have parents and politicians focused on learning outcomes and not iTunes apps, regardless of how many apps or how easy the technology is, I fear that iPad educations in the developing world will be wasted.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.

In 2009, I traveled to Macedonia to carry out a monitoring and evaluation study of a nation-wide computers-in-the-schools project that had already been in place for three years. The project was a USAID-funded and AED-led program, Macedonia Connects, originally initiated by request of the president of Macedonia, which provided one computer lab per school.

At the same time, was a public-private-partnership that laid the backbone for competitive broadband wireless Internet service provision to the entire country, by leveraging all primary and secondary schools throughout Macedonia as anchor tenants. That project in itself is a fascinating case, and I have written about it elsewhere

Now I was on-site, three years later, to follow up and see what was happening in the classroom. A major aim of this project was to modernize the Macedonian educational experience so that the children would be able to use technology proficiently, with the goal that eventually Macedonia could become a technology hub for the region.

Teacher Training

The training of the teachers, which was spearheaded by USAID/AED, began prior to the computers arriving in the schools. Training was comprehensive: all primary and secondary-level teachers received training in basic computer use, and then in how to effectively and creatively utilize the technology in their classrooms and pedagogy.

Internationally-recognized experts were brought in to develop and carry out the initial training. All of the trainings aimed to build local capacities by involving teachers as trainers and contributors to the creation of learning materials as well as equipment operators. For many of the trainings, master trainers and teacher trainers were selected from among the teachers by either self-identification or nomination by school directors.

The capacity building also involved advisors from the Ministry of Educational Development as master trainers and active members in the development of materials teams.

During the wave of trainings, a number of progressively advancing skills-development courses were offered, ranging from basic ICT skills classes aimed at enabling teachers with basic technical computer skills, to trainings aimed at integration of the technology into the curriculum.

They were organized over a period of four years, during which time 14,000 teachers from all 360 primary schools and 100 secondary schools received training. The trainings were comprehensive and directed at empowering teachers and school administrations to use technology to improve the teaching process and to enable students to develop the skills and knowledge necessary in a modern society.

We had the impression that the teacher training was state-of-the-art, and of a very high quality. It was additionally impressive for having been carried out on such a large scale, in so short a time-frame.

Data Collection

Data collection and interviews informing this study were carried out from February–December, 2009. The methodology was based on a combination of field methods, such as individual interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions. Quantitative data collection was carried out primarily by a team of 12 local final-year university students or recent graduates with previous experience in carrying out surveys and leading focus group interviews.

The sample was designed as a combination of stratified and convenience sample: all eight regions in the country are represented by two schools (one city and one village school), including schools with both dominantly Macedonian and Albanian language of instruction (represented accordingly). The actual schools were randomly selected from the list of all schools.

Surveys were carried out at each school, while focus group discussions took place in randomly selected schools. In addition, there were individual interviews with the school director or some representative of the administration in each school. All of the surveys, interviews, and focus groups were carried out in the local language, either Macedonian or Albanian, and subsequently translated into English.

Findings

As we published in Technology, Teachers, and Training: Combining Theory with Macedonia’s Experience, in terms of assessing the training they received, three years after the trainings, 51% of the teachers surveyed believed it was sufficient or more than sufficient, while 49% of the total assessed the training as being less than sufficient. A large percentage of teachers expressed the need for further training:

• 95% would like training in specialized educational software;
• 82% in subject specific training;
• 65% in the use of Internet technologies; and
• 37% in basic training for use of ICT.

Also, many teachers expressed uncertainty regarding the use of computers vis-à-vis their students: they consider their students to be far more skilled and knowledgeable then they are and do not want to compromise their authority as teachers by putting themselves into situations where they might encounter a problem that they cannot handle.

When asked how often they have used computers in class during the previous two months, 65% of teachers responded that they had not used them at all, while an additional 25% had used them only a few times.

Given the statistics above then, it was surprising to us that a rather large percentage (75%) of teachers reported using ICT in their personal lives, either occasionally or very often. A similarly high percentage of teachers reported using ICT in preparing teaching materials and tests (72%), and for lesson-planning (63%).

These could be seen as very positive results, if the goal of the project had been to increase teachers’ use of ICT in their own lives. Yet less than a third of the surveyed teachers use ICT for activities with students, including activities such as: projects (30%); research (34%); working with data (26%); and student assessment (23%). This meant that the goal of actually having the students using the computers in the classroom was far from being realized.

Another remarkable finding for us was that the teachers as a whole were very positive about the idea of ICT in the schools. An overwhelming majority (86%) indicated that they believe that the school is the right place for students to learn basic computer skills.

The Disconnect

What we discovered, therefore, was a marked disconnect between the positive attitude about ICT in the schools and the high level of teachers’ ICT use in everyday life and to prepare lesson plans, and the flip side of the coin, where nearly 60% of the teachers indicated that have never used ICT in their instruction.

This apparent contradiction may be attributable to a number of factors. We believed that one of these factors was an overriding concern, expressed by the teachers themselves during the focus groups discussions, that they lose control over the class when students each have a computer that they can pay attention to instead of the teacher, and that for successful realization of ICT in the instruction, it is necessary that the teacher retains control and knows when to turn off the computer, as one cannot learn solely using the computer. Another factor was the higher degree of technological expertise teachers attribute to their students vis-à-vis themselves, which leads to a feeling of insecurity and loss of authority.

Yet, we felt that this only explained part of the puzzle, since the teachers were using ICT a great deal in their daily lives, and even to plan lessons. Thus, we began to take another look at the training the teachers had received, for clues to help us understand this disconnect. We also looked to theory – one that would take into consideration the teachers’ concerns about adopting technology.

The Theory

We came upon the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), which (in a nutshell) argues that change is not a one-time event, and that teachers are the key to educational improvement; their willingness to adopt innovations will determine whether those innovations succeed or fail.

The CBAM model views change as a process experienced by individuals seeking to – or asked to – change their behavior in particular ways. Thus, instead of focusing on improvement of student test scores or other final stage outcomes resulting from a technological intervention – the metric(s) of many policymakers and development and/or aid-organizations – this theory focuses on the process itself and on the individuals crucial to innovation adoption – the teachers.

Several additional points regarding the concept of change underpin the CBAM model: change is accomplished by individuals, and it is a highly personal experience. It involves developmental growth in feelings and skills, and it can be facilitated by interventions directed toward the individuals, innovations, and contexts involved.

CBAM comprises two major dimensions. The first – Stages of Concern (SoC) – describes the feelings and concerns experienced by individuals with regard to an innovation. The second – Levels of Use (LoU) – involves the individuals’ behaviors as they experience the process of change. Both of these are progressive and predictable. Concerns will progress along a continuum as users’ needs and concerns are addressed, to the point where they begin thinking about higher-level concerns (focused on others and impact, instead of on one’s-self), such as the impact of technology on students’ educational experience, from lower-level concerns, such as the fear of how much time it will take them to learn how to use the technology in the first place.

The Levels of Use correspond to and mirror the Stages of Concern – Use of technology will progress to higher-order undertakings, such as working with colleagues to design better ICT-enabled curriculum or even redesigning related software, from lower level usage, which includes basic mastery of how to use the technology.

The bigger point is that concerns and use will not progress unless the concerns evidenced at each stage are effectively addressed, over time, as the individuals/teachers are experiencing them. Since we can predict these stages, we can plan for interventions and trainings that will address the concerns as competence progresses, and concerns and use evolve to higher levels.

This means that the one-and-done format of training, which had been employed in Macedonia, was not going to be effective. We realized that training needed to be ongoing, addressing the teachers’ concerns and needs as they arose, and that they needed support throughout the years-long process of change (which they weren’t getting). Principals and other key school administrators had not expressly received relevant training, and did not understand their key role in supporting the teachers through the change process – and therefore, were not performing this role.

Our recommendations included:

• implementing ongoing training for the next round of technology that will be introduced into the classroom (the government has embarked on a One-Computer-per-Child program, exponentially increasing the number of computers in the schools);
• initiating training that includes the school principals and administration, so that they understand the process of change and their role in supporting this process;
• employing a “technology support teacher” in each school (with the acknowledgement that not all developing world school systems will be able to support this financially),
• making sure that teachers are stakeholders in the technology-in-education process from the beginning, starting with seeking their input on a yearly ICT-in-the-schools plan-of-action promulgated from within each individual school.

Download the full Technology, Teachers, and Training: Combining Theory with Macedonia’s Experience report by Laura Hosman and Maja Cvetanoska

A Few Ruminations

I was only able to carry out this extensive research and survey with the help of Maja Cvetanoska, a local monitoring-and-evaluation expert/practitioner from Macedonia. In other words, as a foreign academic working alone, I never could have carried out this research.

Also, based upon the results we obtained, the M&E specialist (my co-author) was able to work with the educational team to redesign the training that teachers would receive, so that, going forward, it would be revamped and implemented over the long-haul. My colleague also incorporated training for school administrators so that they realized their crucial role over the years-long process of change for the teachers, which was an essential component of the training that had been missing theretofore.

My partnering and working with a practitioner in this case brought about concrete changes as a result of our study and findings. This example underscores the possibility for more widespread effects, as well as positive outcomes, when cross-disciplinary, cross-industry partnerships are formed.

The theory we found, CBAM, had been written in the 1970s and was widely adopted and validated in the academic fields of education and educational psychology since its introduction, but has not, to our knowledge, spread beyond these fields. Yet, because educational projects are frequently the result of policy decisions, and they require the hands-on contributions of people from wide-ranging backgrounds and areas of expertise to be carried out, this framework has much to offer to those from nearly any field studying or implementing technology for development, because the process of change in adopting innovations must be understood and addressed if similar projects are to have a greater chance at succeeding. This is an additional argument for increasing multi-disciplinarity and including expertise from many different areas when working on ICT4D & E projects.

These two points are anecdotal, but are offered up to make the larger case for something I see a great need for in ICT4D or E: working together across disciplines, areas of expertise, and points of view. I am beyond grateful for forums such as this one, where ideas can be shared from experts and interested parties, from across the spectrum of involvement in the subject. When our views are challenged, we are forced to confront them, discard faulty assumptions, or sharpen our arguments and beliefs, etc. This is how we move forward.

Staying in our silos and blindly pursuing a multi-faceted, complex problem from our single point of view or area of expertise is not working. I believe this forum provides a great opportunity to utilize technology to (hopefully) make progress in our ways of thinking about how to better utilize technology.

I’ve been making the case for years that, coming from our various backgrounds and bringing with us our diverse areas of knowledge and expertise, we all have something to offer. As such, the social scientists (like me) need to talk with and work with the engineers and technologists and practitioners and business and industry people and innovators and entrepreneurs.

Because in fact, when we are dealing with trying to harness ICT for Development, we are actually dealing with complex social issues that no single person or area or field can address alone. It’s not easy, but a forum like this one is a great starting point. So, a final word of thanks for the existence of this forum/website and for the spirited viewpoints and contributions of the participants

the implementation of ‘one laptop per child’ strategy at the Eastern Townships School Board is a primary factor to explain its leap from 66th position in 2003 to 23rd in 2010 (out of 70 school boards), and why the student dropout rate has plunged from 39.4% in 2004–2005 to 22.7% in 2008–2009.

This progress, which we may at least partly attribute to the ‘one laptop per child’ strategy, would certainly never have been possible without the complete commitment and outstanding skills of the teachers, the school administrations and other education stakeholders at the Eastern Townships School Board.

Yet at the same time, even this very successful ICT deployment was not so successful in its teacher training. The following is an excerpt from that report that should give insight on how to improve teacher training around ICT deployments in education:

Excerpt from Benefits and challenges of using laptops in primary and secondary school: An investigation at the Eastern Townships School Board. Summary of main results, Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2011). Montreal, QC: CRIFPE.

4.3 Technological Skills

Figure 5. Impact of ICT training on the professional development of teachers who participated in the study (%).

From the teachers’ standpoint, the use of laptops is related more to the issue of training in the pedagogical integration of ICT. From the results obtained, the teachers who participated in the study did not seem to have received the ICT training that they needed. In fact, 69.4% of the teachers felt that their training had little or no impact on their teaching practices, versus 30.6% who felt that the impact on their pedagogical use of ICT ranged from slight to major (see Figure 5).

These results, derived from the closed questionnaire responses, are corroborated by the results on the interviews and the open questionnaire responses.

T. “I did not have a useful professional development course.”

More precisely, a number of participants reported that some of the suggested activities were not doable in their classrooms, and that their efforts were usually in vain. They also complained that their training was usually too intense, too short or redundant.

T. “I haven’t found any to be particularly helpful in that not enough time is given to learning how to use the technology efficiently and effectively enough to take it back to the classroom and use it right away.”

Consequently, the professional development of teachers in the pedagogical integration of ICT seemed to be largely trial and error

T. “I have learned mostly on my own, ‘playing around’ on my computer and with the various programs.”

Among the training needs mentioned by the teachers was the suggestion to better align the training with the realities of teaching and learning. To do so, they recommended that the training:

• Include time so that teachers could exchange experiences with their colleagues about ICT activities they had used;
• Be given in small groups of teachers who share something in common (cycle, subject, ICT experience(or)expertise);
• Involve the students, or hold the training in the classroom with the students. T. “I want to bring students with me, as they are excellent teaching assistants in the classroom.”

Thus, training the teachers and students at the same time, and in the classroom, would appear particularly useful.

Excerpt from Benefits and challenges of using laptops in primary and secondary school: An investigation at the Eastern Townships School Board. Summary of main results, Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2011). Montreal, QC: CRIFPE.

Don’t miss a moment of the action!

Subscribe now and get the latest articles from Educational Technology Debate sent directly to your inbox.