In my introductory post, I drew attention to the factors that are impeding the use of low-cost ICT devices as a means of transforming the creation and distribution of OERs in the developing world, and I emphasized the asymmetry of the [problems and the] solutions at each of the country, institution, and staff levels. This asymmetry was highlighted in the subsequent discussion, especially in the following areas:<\/p>\n
ICT Devices:<\/b><\/p>\n
Wayan Vota drew attention to Sony’s decision to adopt a common e-book format, and asked whether this could be the beginning of a unified content publishing system that would lower costs and barriers to entry. I responded that a unified system would certainly overcome some of the compatibility problems, but it would not mitigate the costs of encryption, Digital Rights Management, and host servers. <\/p>\n
Richard Rowe welcomed the idea of a unified system, and expressed the view that Sony was way behind the Kindle with its e-Book Reader, on account of Sony’s requirement for a wired link to a computer for downloading \u2013 which he described as a non-starter.<\/p>\n
My own view is that the current version of the Kindle is a non-starter for developing countries, because it has no web browser, e-mail facility, or applications like Word and Excel. My current preference is the Asus, but new products are being launched all the time, and I have no doubt that more suitable and lower cost ICT devices will continue to appear for the foreseeable future. However, no one device is suitable for all educational needs, and institutions in developing countries need advice on what is best for their students.<\/i> <\/p>\n
Affordability:<\/b> <\/p>\n
Peter Rave expressed the view that ICT devices would remain out of range for the “bottom of the pyramid” unless the price was less than US$50, or as low as US$15 in a country like Nigeria. While this may be true for children in most primary and many secondary schools, it is by no means true for all, especially if the devices are shared.<\/i> Also, most university students can afford at least US$1 per week, which is just enough to purchase a notebook computer, provided the cost is subsidized, and it can be spread over 2-3 years by means of hire purchase facilities or built into the educational fee structure.<\/p>\n
Incentives:<\/b><\/p>\n
Tim Kelly endorsed my view that institutional recognition and financial rewards are needed to encourage more academic staff in developing countries to develop and\/or adapt OERs. Alex Draxler agreed, and pointed out that OERs are being created to some extent in developed countries in higher education, but not at the school level. He added that “the joyous anarchy that reigns in the creation of on-line content for general audiences is not a working model for education”, and then he asked the key question: “How can we create the proper incentives in developing countries?”.<\/p>\n
My response is advocacy, oiled by that scarce educational commodity \u2013 money. The advocacy part needs to focus on the low hanging fruit, namely, the prospective champions. These may be Vice Chancellors, academic staff, head teachers, or even Ministers of Education and civil servants in some countries.<\/i> <\/p>\n
The object is to create good examples of collaborative OER development and adaptation, underpinned by sustainable communities of practice and, most importantly, relevance to the participants. These need to be hailed as examples of best practice, and accompanied by institutional awards as well as financial rewards wherever possible. I could even envisage competitions in certain countries at national or institutional level although, in certain other countries, corruption would likely create a disincentive.<\/i><\/p>\n
Courseware Packages:<\/b> <\/p>\n
Richard Rowe responded to Alex’s incentive question by describing a road map, which started with the creation of courseware packages covering the basics of learning to read and manipulate numbers, including lesson plans, textbooks, and workbooks – the idea being to give people something to work with. <\/p>\n
The next stage was translation and contextualization by NGOs in partnership with government agencies responsible for curriculum development \u2013 the idea here being access to both the core content and the software tools required to convert it into something appropriate for respective regions. The final stage was teacher development, so that teachers learned how to use high quality learning resources effectively.<\/p>\n
In my view, the road map has much to commend it, especially at primary school level; however, I do not believe that “one size fits all” and, in many countries, it would likely falter for reasons of language, capacity, ownership, motivation, and\/or budget \u2013 all of which are asymmetrical.<\/i> As I am sure Richard recognizes, the key ingredient for success is the quality of local input and collaboration; however, this needs to include academic staff and teachers as well as NGOs and civil servants, and I suspect it is needed at stage one, and not left until stage two. <\/p>\n
Also, in many countries, parallel programs will be required to build local capacity in terms of courseware design, computer literacy (especially teachers at primary school level), and to deal with monitoring and evaluation. Above all, a “take it or leave it” package, supplied with the best of intentions from the US and other potential donor countries, is unlikely to fly. <\/p>\n
One final point is that, in Richard’s introductory post, he says that “high quality, free, and open courseware… resources are readily adaptable to local conditions and are inexpensive to produce and distribute.” While this may be true of a few areas of science, my experience has generally been the opposite, especially at primary level, and when interactivity and multimedia are involved. <\/p>\n
Global Library Network:<\/b> <\/p>\n
In Richard’s introductory post, he outlines plans to develop a federated network of national libraries, comprising free and open k-12 content. This is an ambitious program, which recognizes the asymmetry of needs and resources by establishing Open Learning Exchanges (“OLEs”) in each participating country.<\/i> I believe that the program could have great developmental value; however, many obstacles need to be overcome, as I am sure he knows, notably:<\/p>\n Languages:<\/b> <\/p>\n Tim Kelly expressed the view that the development of OERs works much better for widely-spoken languages, such as English, than for local languages. He thought that, while both will co-exist, the wider use of OERs might reinforce the pre-eminence of English as a teaching medium. I acknowledged that English is already the pre-eminent language in which many subjects are taught, especially at universities, and I emphasized the need to find suitable ways of supporting the teaching of language, literacy, and numeracy at primary schools with ICT, where local languages are most commonly used. <\/p>\n Richard thought that English was becoming the common language of the world because the world’s economy is choosing it. He emphasized, that the OLE model provides each country-based center with the tools they need for translation and localization into the languages of their region. Ideally, he thought this would enable literally thousands of local languages [to be supported], with English as the second language. He acknowledged that a centralized system for such translation and localization would, indeed, lead to an almost exclusive focus on English. <\/p>\n Intellectual Property (cost structure):<\/b> <\/p>\n In Richard’s introductory post, he anticipated that commercial producers of educational materials employing Digital Rights Management systems will find it difficult to compete with OERs in the future, and that for-profit publishers will perforce modify their business models. <\/p>\n While I agree that publishers are modifying their business models, I think it is important to compare the cost of producing OERs and proprietory content on the same basis. In particular, educators who produce OERs may not be “in it for the money”, but they are usually paid, as are the editors, formatters, promoters, and reviewers. The difference is that the cost arises at source and is only incurred once, whereas proprietory content is paid for through the mechanism of sales. <\/p>\n The true cost difference therefore lies in the relative cost structures and profit\/loss of the publishers and distributors, which may or may not represent value for money in terms of efficiency, quality, and awareness. I therefore don’t think that publishers are at an intrinsic commercial disadvantage, and I believe that changes in the business model are driven more by perceived new profit opportunities than by fear of competition from OERs. The real concern of publishers is breach of security, since it denies them the income from sales, while continuing to expose them to the costs of production.<\/p>\n Conclusion:<\/b> <\/p>\n The discussion above highlights, among other issues, the asymmetry of requirements in the field of education in developing countries, and it points to the overriding requirement of needs assessments when designing interventions. The maxim “one size fits all” should always be viewed with the greatest caution.<\/p>\n A note on Terminology: In this paper, as in my introductory post, I use the term “e-books” to describe proprietory, full text books that are available in digital format. I use the term “e-book devices” and “ICT devices” to describe the hardware upon which e-books and\/or Open Educational Resources (“OERs”) can be accessed and displayed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In my introductory post, I drew attention to the factors that are impeding the use of low-cost ICT devices as a means of transforming the creation and distribution of OERs in the developing world, and I emphasized the asymmetry of the [problems and the] solutions at each of the country, institution, and staff levels. This […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[132],"tags":[152,149,154,151,153,138,155,140],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=388"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2633,"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388\/revisions\/2633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}