Poverty alleviation through e-learning

I have a strong personal believe in social equality and closing the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Education has been widely viewed as providing the knowledge base necessary to enter higher education that will lead to higher paying occupations (Khan and Williams, 2006). International organisations such as Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has conducted studies into the educational performance of developed versus developing nations, and how higher education has a positive impact on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country and on the levels of wages for individuals (OECD, 2005, OECD, 2007).

Having worked for CSIRO Education I was exposed to the difference in the quality of education between those from high socio-economic status (SES) areas and those from low-SES areas. Scientific literacy of the students between the two SES areas was also vastly different.

When I watched the following two TED talks I realised that it is possible to alleviate poverty through e-Learning and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC). The ability for those from developing countries to learn a wide variety of courses from high standard universities such as Stanford University can be very appealing.

  

Recently there has been an initiative in China to promote e-learning to its citizens, as they realise that “e-learning can offer people new sources of information, improve the range and quality of education available to them, and enable all people, regardless of their physical location, to take best advantage of their learning time” (Spencer-Oatey, 2007). The Chinese Government realised that e-learning can “easily be transmitted to poverty-stricken areas to help spread high-quality education. Thus the “Education aiding poverty project” was established by Tsinghua University to eliminate poverty and spread knowledge.

As the famous saying goes “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime”. Education and knowledge can empower a person, it will help “them to become more proactive and gain control over their lives” (Khan and Williams, 2006). Education can help close the knowledge gap and promote SES equality and gender equality, which are all keys to eliminating poverty.

How else can MOOC help alleviate poverty? E-learning allows students to study at Universities such as Stanford whilst located in countries like India and Africa. As “e-learning is typically web-based and not location- bound. In an online environment, students are not required to physically attend university; the university comes to them” (Khan and Williams, 2006). This way, the student can save on time and travel costs, therefore reducing the cost of a traditional ‘brick-and-mortar’ education. On the other side of the coin though is the fact that MOOC requires dedication and good time management skills for students to remain motivated to complete the course. So the question remains as to whether those from a lower-SES will have the time required to complete the courses, with MOOC currently experiencing a relatively high drop out rate.

Self-instructed learning tested by Mitra and colleagues in the “Hole in the Wall” experiment have shown that given the tools, children and adults can use modern technologies and teach themselves. Children in rural India were given a computer connected to high speed internet (plugged into a wall), and children ended up teaching themselves through Minimally Invasive Education (Mitra, 2003, Mitra and Dangwal, 2010, Dangwal and Gupta, 2012, Dangwal and Sharma, 2013). Mitra and his colleagues also conducted similar experiments in rural UK and low-SES locations in UK, where teachers prefer not to teach at. The ability of modern technologies in these areas allowed students to be able to direct their own learning, therefore maybe just promoting an inquisitive mind in the children is enough to help raise their educational levels.

With modern technology, higher education is no longer just for the privileged. Personally I look forward to the day when everyone will have an equal opportunity to learn.

References

DANGWAL, R. & GUPTA, Z. 2012. The impact of IT literacy through HiWEL learning stations on juvenile children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, E117-E124.

DANGWAL, R. & SHARMA, K. 2013. Impact of HiWEL learning stations on women living in shelter homes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, E26-E30.

KHAN, H. & WILLIAMS, J. 2006. Poverty Alleviation through Access to Educaiton: Can E-Learning Deliver? U21Global. Singapore.

MITRA, S. 2003. Minimally Invasive Education: A Progress Report on the "Hole-in-the-Wall" Experiments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 367-371.

MITRA, S. & DANGWAL, R. 2010. Limits to Self-Organising Systems of Learning--The Kalikuppam Experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 672-688.

OECD 2005. Education Trends in Perspective Analysis of the World Education Indicators -- 2005

Edition: Trend in Education Participation and Outputs. OECD Education. OECD.

OECD 2007. Education at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators. OECD Education. OECD.

SPENCER-OATEY, H. 2007. e-Learning Initiatives in China, Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press.

Computer Based Technologies in Schools

I remember watching Little Women (1949 version) a while back and noticed little Miss Amy March using a personal blackboard tablet during class for learning. It took a while for teachers to adopt the blackboard as a teaching tool when the blackboards were first introduced, society has since moved onto paper and books, and look how far the world has advanced in the last century to the use of computers and computer based technologies in schools.

Children nowadays adapt to new technologies in a much faster fashion, my barely one year old has seen us use the iPhone and the iPad, and even as a toddler he will take a tablet device and swipe his fingers over the screen to try and activate it and press on Apps. So what does having all these new technologies mean, especially in schools and on our education system? If computers and technologies are a part of our everyday lives, and it is becoming the norm, shouldn’t it be the same in our schools. Computer skills should be a fundamental part of primary education curricula to build the basis, and more advanced skills taught in high schools in order to prepare them for higher education and careers.

It is important when bringing technologies to the schools that both the teacher and the student know what to do with it. “When pairing children in a collaborative learning environment, particularly a technology-rich learning environment, teachers need to assess children’s computer proficiency carefully and assign pairs in which peer teaching and learning dynamics would occur naturally” (Hyun, 2005). In this study Hyun noticed that when students did not understand how to use the technology, these students would just click random part of the computer and not know what to do with it. Whereas the students who actually understood how to use the technology, they were able to interact with the technology as well as their peers on different projects. Hyun and Davis believes that in order for computer technologies to become useful in classrooms, “teachers and researchers must: (1) allow lots of student talk both to peers and to experts in learning contexts; (2) permit students to explore technology functions for themselves rather than giving them didactic instructions; and (3) always be available for scaffolding and dialectical talk with learners” (Hyun and Davis, 2005).

There has been different computer based technologies that has been tried and tested throughout schools to support learning. Some of these programs have been “especially useful in developing the higher order skills of critical thinking, analysis, and scientific inquiry. But the mere presence of computers in the classroom does not assure their effective use” (Roschelle et al., 2000). Rochelle et al mentions several examples of computer-based applications that illustrate ways technology can enhance how children learn by supporting “four fundamental characteristics of learning: (1) active engagement, (2) participation in groups, (3) frequent interaction and feedback, and (4) connections to real-world contexts” (Roschelle et al., 2000). The reason why some of these programs have been so popular within the school system is because the students are solving real life problems, and being part of the solution. The student are able to see and understand that what they are doing in class has real impact on their community.

Computer based technologies also allow students to have greater control over their studies (Koschmann, 2009). It has also been used to enhance the learning capabilities of those who are disabled through assistive technologies.

Let’s not be scared about using technologies in the school, let’s embrace what technology can do to enhance the education process. There’s a school in the US as mentioned in a TED talk on personalized education. In this school, each child comes to school each day to a new timetable tailored for them and for their learning, at the end of the day the students fill out a short questionnaire and that helps the computers and teachers determine what type of learning they should be having the next day. Each day is different and each student is different. Personalised learning through computer technology, now that’s futuristic and forward thinking.

References

HYUN, E. 2005. A study of 5- to 6-year-old children’s peer dynamics and dialectical learning in a computer-based technology-rich classroom environment. Computers & Education, 44, 69-91.

HYUN, E. & DAVIS, G. 2005. Kindergartners’ Conversations in a Computer-Based Technology Classroom. Communication Education, 54, 118-135.

KOSCHMANN, T. 2009. CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, USA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

ROSCHELLE, J. M., PEA, R. D., HOADLEY, C. M., GORDIN, D. N. & MEANS, B. M. 2000. Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10, 76-101.

Designing online learning environment to support scientific enquiry

Should science be considered as Traditional Inquiry or Scientific Inquiry? Let’s look at the difference between the two types of inquiries;

·      “Traditional inquiry, rooted in positivism, assumes that students acquire knowledge as they answer teacher-directed questions” (Kim & Hannafin, 2004).

·      Scientific inquiry on the other hand is “grounded in constructivism, posits that students construct their own knowledge in the process of exploring and interpreting scientific phenomena, and communicating with peers, teachers, and scientists. Scientific inquiry requires learners to engage in higher-order problem solving” (Kim & Hannafin, 2004).

Students prefer hands on experiments(Swan, 2001) and this is more reflected in scientific learning, where they can explore their own learning. Studies have shown that a student’s learning process is optimum when it is assisted and personalised (Gell-Mann, 1996; Thorn, 2003). In order for “educators accustomed to traditional inquiry, scientific inquiry represents a significant epistemological and pedagogical shift” (Kim & Hannafin, 2004).

In our current technological world, there have been moves to blended learning and to incorporate the world wide web and e-learning to assist with the teaching process. The web contains a wealth of information and resources that are accessible to the learners (Kim & Hannafin, 2004; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003), therefore why not utilise it to allow students to gain more up to date knowledge to support scientific enquiry.

So how can educators use online learning environments to support scientific enquiry? One cannot just put a couple of lectures onto the web and call that online learning environment. Thorn describes “blended learning as a way of meeting the challenges of tailoring learning and development to the needs of individuals by integrating the innovative and technological advances offered by online learning with the interaction and participation offered in the best of traditional learning” (Thorn, 2003).

This is especially so in science, considering students still enjoy hands on experiments, at the same time the benefits of online components will allow students greater flexibility in terms of time. There have been suggestions that the “preparation of practical kits that could be sent to students to the preparation of virtual field trips” (Clark & James, 2005) may allow online students to still participate in hands on experiments. However “most experiences of these approaches have found them to be too expensive (both financially and in preparation time) and/or too difficult to manage”. (Clark & James, 2005).

So how do we best design an online learning environment that will support scientific enquiry. It is important that these online learning tools and activities “are useful in supporting self-learning, a precondition for a creative approach to lab activities and projects. Synchronous online sessions for problem-solving were highly appreciated, because they allow software sharing and immersive remote communication. On the contrary, web- forums did not reach the expected results” (Di Marco, Maneira, Ribeiro, & Maneira, 2009). Students themselves need to be engaged in the learning process and the teachers need to ensure that the e-learning activities contain “collaborative projects and rich learning environments are two key features in constructivist instructional design and help students to develop a proactive attitude towards learning” (Di Marco et al., 2009). It is important that these projects do reflect real-life ‘R&D’ situations, and to find a list of recommendations to help build collaborative online activities, it can be found in the Di Marco paper.

I think it is important to remember that while scientific learning needs to be hands on through experiments, blended learning opportunities will allow us to take advantage of the advances in global technology. It may mean that the current pedagogy needs to be challenged.

As mentioned above, personalised learning will help a student’s understanding and retain their interest in learning. Therefore it is possible to use the technology we have now, “computers are the potential saviours of the education system, because they can be used to personalise learning. They can design our learning according to our knowledge and needs, record the progress we make, and tell us if any thought process is wrong so it can be corrected” (Alonso, López, Manrique, & Viñes, 2005). Personalised learning can help us find a balance between online and face-to-face components. . (Clark & James, 2005).

Therefore it is possible to design an online environment where students are able to pursue scientific enquiry. Students can personalise their own learning base on their own interest. Teachers and students can also take advantage of online teaching tool such as WISE and BLOSSOMS to build their online environment. By taking advantage of an online environment, students will be encouraged to taken an interest in science in their daily lives, and not be restricted to the classroom.

References

Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-235. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x

Clark, I., & James, P. (2005). Blended learning: an approach to delivering science courses on-line. Paper presented at the UniServe Science Blended Learning Symposium Proceedings.

Di Marco, S., Maneira, A., Ribeiro, P., & Maneira, M. J. P. (2009). Blended-learning in Science and Technology. A Collaborative Project-Based Course in Experimental Physics. 16. Retrieved from

Gell-Mann, M. (1996). The third culture: beyond the scientific revolution: Touchtone Books.

Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2004). DESIGNING ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS TO SUPPORT SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 1-10,73-74.

Osguthorpe, R. a., & Graham, C. (2003). Blended learning environments definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 43(3), 227-233.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

Thorn, K. (2003). Blended learning: how to integrate online and traditional: Kogan Page Publishers.