by jayson | Apr 13, 2007 | Guest Bloggers, International, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding |
I previously posted about wireless technologies in less developed nations. Kofi Annan supported this view nearly 4 years ago! One cool indigenous Wi-Fi innovation, is the Cambodian motoman. Here, motorcycle drivers equipped with with Wi-Fi contraptions, drive past schools and health centers to download and retrieve email.
"As they pass each school and one health centre, they transmit the messages they have downloaded and retrieve any outgoing mail queued in the school or health centre computer, also equipped with a similar book-sized transmission box. They then go on to the next school. At the end of the day they return to the hub to transmit all the collected e-mail to the Internet for any point on the globe."
Less developed nations are indeed making strides to leapfrog old technologies. This leapfrog effect can be seen in education, health care, information, energy, economies, and more. Thomas Friedman wrote how globalization has essentially created a ‘flat’ world. The globalized processes Friedman refers to have really made possible the leapfrog effect.
The question remains, how will these nations tap into digital possibilities and genuinely leapfrog industrialized nations?
by jayson | Apr 12, 2007 | Guest Bloggers, International, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding |
Wired magazine ran an interesting story in their April 2007 edition about an entrepreneur in the Ivory Coast who bought a cell phone, rigged up a ‘telephone booth’ and earned $200 the first month charging community members 80 cents per minute. The same man bought a PlayStation and charged 10-20 cents to play a game earning him $20 in the first three days!
I mention this story because with ICT in international development, there is much promise and a lot of the best solutions are indeed indigenous (Thanks John). A main role for ICT4D planners and policy makers is localizing technology to the needs of the community. This is evident from my experiences in Cambodia where outside experts were not in touch with the needs of the teachers yet some teachers simply found applicable ways to use the skills that were outside of the scope of the training.
ICT has promise in the less developed world. However experts from more developed countries have the onus to not just plop ICTs into a nations without thinking about localization and sustainability. After all, development is not about giving fish, it is about teaching others to fish for themselves!
by jayson | Apr 11, 2007 | Guest Bloggers, International, Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision |
The mission of the One Laptop per Child initiative begins:
"Most of the nearly two–billion children in the developing world are inadequately educated, or receive no education at all. One in three does not complete the fifth grade.
The individual and societal consequences of this chronic global crisis are profound. Children are consigned to poverty and isolation—just like their parents—never knowing what the light of learning could mean in their lives. At the same time, their governments struggle to compete in a rapidly evolving, global information economy, hobbled by a vast and increasingly urban underclass that cannot support itself, much less contribute to the commonweal, because it lacks the tools to do so."
I have been talking with collegues lately about the future of education and technologies that will fuel change. The question is usually how will advances in technology such the Nokia N800, a Wi-Fi Internet tablet which includes VoIP support and WiMax which enables long range wireless broadband access change society in less developed nations? Will these tools along with initiatives like the One Laptop per Child change education in less developed nations?
I read a lot of work by naysayers who claim that less developed nations simply do not have the capacity to embrace such technologies. I agree if we restrict our discussion to a physically tangible ICT environment…but wireless technologies change the game. For starters, simply look at how many developing nations now have more cell phones than landline telephones. When I was recently in Cambodia I had cell phone access everywhere! Even in rural areas 6 hours away from any major town I always had good reception and never had a dropped call. There is promise if planners and policymakers think outside of the box.
by jayson | Apr 10, 2007 | Guest Bloggers, International, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding |
The Networked Readiness Index measures how prepared countries are to tap into the power of ICTs by focusing on the readiness of the environment and stakeholders as well as measuring the usage of stakeholders. You can read parts of the 2006-2007 Global Information Technology Report here.
The top ten nations are:
- Denmark
- Sweden
- Singapore
- Finland
- Switzerland
- Netherlands
- United States
- Iceland
- United Kingdom
- Norway
The bottom ten nations are (position 113-122):
- Cameroon
- Paraguay
- Mozambique
- Lesotho
- Zimbabwe
- Bangladesh
- Ethiopia
- Angola
- Burundi
- Chad
Take note that the U.S. is seventh while European nations dominate the top ten. Eight out of 10 of the bottom entries actually lost positions and fell in their rankings while six of the top ten entries gained ground and improved their NRI.
The nations that gained 10 or more position are Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Croatia, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Guyana. The nations that lost 10 or more positions are Cyprus, Pakistan, Jordan, Botswana, South Africa, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Uganda, Cameroon, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe.
Since nations in Europe are dominating this list with regard to the NRI, some nations in South America are making great strides upward, and some African nations are falling further behind, what does this mean for educational development?
I give you this background data because I am often asked about the future of ICT4D and the ability of less developed nations to really embrace ICTs. In general the pressing issues for the near future of ICT4D as I see it are:
- Professional development and technology leadership issues in South America (showing the most promise for Web 2.0 advances);
- Infrastructural development issues in Africa; and
- A balance of infrastructure, professional development, and technology leadership issues in Asia and the Middle East.
by jayson | Apr 9, 2007 | Guest Bloggers, International, Leadership and Vision, Professional Development, Tech Integration |
Have you ever thought about technology issues facing less developed nations? Well…that is my perspective for this week. To begin my guest blogging week, I would like to share some of my experiences working in Cambodia on an ICT in education project.
First off, let me say I address the issue of technology leadership from an ICT4D (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) perspective. My focus is how less developed nations can address social, political, and educational issues through ICTs. An awesome source for grey literature on ICT4D can be found via the Washington Post. The grey literature is a great source for current and relevant pieces on this topic. If you are interested in reading only one piece, you can download ICT4D – Connecting People for a Better World as a good resource.
I could ramble on endlessly about how great my experience in Cambodia was or how amazing the Khmer people were to me. I did keep a blog about my time in Cambodia that included many cool pics but was unable to make entries regularly due to issues of time and technology. But today I would like to focus on challenges of actually implementing an ICT in education project in a less developed nation.
Imagine an expert training you how to ride a motorcycle by using a stationary bicycle. The stationary bike is great, but you do not know how to balance or turn the motorcycle; you do not know how the motorcycle will help you get to work faster when you cannot even start the contraption; once you figure out how to start the beast, you have no idea how to troubleshoot or repair when issues arise; the motorcycle given to you is old, breaks often, and it is difficult to find replacement parts; the only repair guide you have is in another language; and your trainer had little experience riding a motorcycle in your neighborhood and is thus uncertain of traffic rules and road conditions. This analogy aptly describes my experiences:
1) Experts were brought in without knowing the job demands of the teachers. Additionally, the training was focused on skills acquisition versus skills utilization. The skills were not localized to the needs of the teachers.
2) The computers donated to the country were used units. The Ministry had to literally piece together parts to build Frankenstein units.
3) There is no software support for languages such as Khmer. Thus, using drop-down menus to help figure out software was not possible.
4) The keyboards had Roman keys whereas the Khmer language uses Pallava script. Thus, teachers had learn to type using a Roman script QWERTY keyboard with a paper cutout of a Khmer keyboard taped beside the actual keyboard.
5) Donated computers are often old and slow. It was difficult to find replacement parts and find software that worked well together given hardware limitations.
6) The training was not ongoing. The lack of opportunities to practice, seek help, correct misunderstanding, and apply learnings hindered the adoption of ICTs.
Don’t get me wrong…this project did some amazing things like training every teacher trainer in the country, making ICT in education a national issue, creating a national ICT in education policy, providing colleges with over 800 computers, and generally raising the ICT awareness in the country as a whole. However, I see there is still a lot of work yet to do.
by Scott McLeod | Mar 14, 2007 | International, Law, Policy, and Ethics, Leadership and Vision, Planning and Funding, Quotes, Tech Integration |
[cross-posted at the TechLearning blog]
[Law students learn to argue both sides of any issue because as attorneys
they may be hired for either side of a case. Knowledge of the other side’s
arguments also allows attorneys to counter those arguments and thus strengthen
their own side. So with that in mind, here’s a little contrarian perspective on
School 2.0. As technology advocates, we must be able to offer real solutions,
not just empty rhetoric.]
Dear School 2.0 advocates,
We’ve heard it all before. The sky is falling.
America is in danger of losing its role as lead actor on the global stage. What
else is new?
National commissions? Esteemed task forces? Corporate leaders as education
critics? We’ll see your Bill Gates and raise you a Sputnik.
We heard it in the 1950s:
We are engaged in a grim duel. We are beginning to recognize the threat
to American technical supremacy which could materialize if Russia succeeds in
her ambitious program of achieving world scientific and engineering supremacy by
turning out vast numbers of well-trained scientists and engineers. . . We have
let our educational problem grow much too big for comfort and safety. We are
beginning to see now that we must solve it without delay. – Admiral Hyman
Rickover, 1959
We heard it in the 1980s:
The risk is not only that the Japanese make automobiles more efficiently
than Americans and have government subsidies for development and export. It is
not just that the South Koreans recently built the world’s most efficient steel
mill, or that American machine tools, once the pride of the world, are being
displaced by German products. It is also that these developments signify a
redistribution of trained capability throughout the globe. . . If only to keep
and improve on the slim competitive edge we still retain in world markets, we
must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system for the benefit
of all–old and young alike, affluent and poor, majority and minority. Learning
is the indispensable investment required for success in the "information age" we
are entering. – A
Nation at Risk, 1983
We heard it in the 1990s:
America’s education system is broken. – IBM
CEO Louis Gerstner, 1994
And we’re hearing it again today:
Whereas for most of the 20th century the United States could take pride
in having the best-educated workforce in the world, that is no longer true. Over
the past 30 years, one country after another has surpassed us. . . . While our
international counterparts are increasingly getting more education, their young
people are getting a better education as well. . . . Our relative position in
the world’s education league tables [continues] its long slow decline. – The New Commission on the
Skills of the American Workforce, 2006
America’s high schools are obsolete. – Microsoft CEO Bill Gates,
2005
And yet, somehow, despite our educational system’s long history of alleged
mediocrity, our country and our economy keep chugging along quite nicely. Our standard
of living is the envy of most of the world. Our gross
domestic product per capita literally dwarfs those of China or India, the
latest international competition du jour. Despite our country’s
creativity-stifling schools, our citizens and workers continue, quite
astonishingly, to build upon our nation’s well recognized and long-standing
traditions of innovation and excellence to create new products, new systems, and
new markets.
We’ve heard it all before. Creative thinking.
Problem solving. Independent, self-directed learning. Daniel Pink, Richard
Florida, John Seely Brown…
Ho hum. Ever heard of progressive education? The turn of the LAST century?
Summerhill? John Dewey? Neil Postman? The 1960s? Been there, done that. Why is
THIS time any different? Why is it that THIS time we should replace the entire
system?
Yes, we get it. Most kids think schools are boring. Big surprise. John
Goodlad told us that long ago. As if we needed ANYONE to tell us that. Isn’t
that just the way school is?
Fine. School 2.0 is the “right” thing to do. Technology has the potential to
transform education. Our educational institutions could be doing so much more.
Educators should feel more of a moral imperative to do things differently. Blah
blah blah… Let’s be honest: isn’t this true for ANY bureaucratic government
entity? Do we really expect our public schools to be any different?
We’ve heard it all before. The status quo is
inadequate. Too many kids drop out, our assessment systems are all wrong, and
we’re squandering our children’s future. The problem is that you offer no
concrete, tangible, publicly- and politically-viable alternatives.
It’s easy to throw stones at glass houses. It’s much harder to replace a
venerable system that’s served us well for a century with something else. The
old saw, “Never make a complaint without offering potential solutions” applies
here in spades. Just for argument’s sake, let’s say that we “tore down the
walls” tomorrow. What would education look like instead? How would we ever get
there from where we are now? How are you going to persuade educators, and
politicians, and your local community members that this is worth moving toward?
That it’s not just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking?
What’s your plan? We mean a real plan. Not just “kids learning
independently on matters of personal interest, taking advantage of the power of
digital technology to help them do so.” What will the structures look like?
Policies? Laws? Funding streams? How will we know if kids have learned anything
important? How will we handle parents’ very real needs for someone to take their
kids while they go to work?
Quit offering us wishes. Quit offering us dreams. Quit preaching to us about
what is morally right and educationally appropriate. Help us realize, in terms
we can understand, what this new thing might actually look like AT SCALE and how
we might reasonably get here. Even if we agree with you that this is important,
without a vision AND a plan we’re just as stuck as you are.
We’ve heard it all before. What else you got?
