Jones, David

Shiel, Chris

English

Bournemouth University Research Online

The Development Education Journal Volume 11 Number 3 2005 • 3 THEME ARTICLEInformation and communication technology (ICT)increasingly permeates all aspects of life and the escalatingrole of the Internet in education is incontrovertible. As thegovernment launches its ‘e-learning strategy’ and the DfESidentifies ‘being an international leader in the use of ICT foreducation’ as part of its International Strategy, consideringthe role of ICT in relation to development education (DE)seems particularly timely. It is commonplace to argue that ICT is central toeconomic and social development. So central, that sociallyaware commentators (Hammond 2002) draw attention to anew social and economic divide, the ‘digital divide’. Theyproceed to argue that those (nation states or individuals) wholack ICT capability, run the risk of being excluded in asfundamental a way as those who cannot read or write.ICT has become part of the grand narrative of nationstates and social movements, heralded as the key toeconomic success and social progress, with Governments ofall persuasions setting strategies and targets for internationalleadership in the use of ICT. Alternatively, ICT can be castin the role of ‘villain’, creating new and more insidiousinequalities and further increasing the North-South gap.Whilst such grand narratives alert us to the need to giveserious consideration to the broad economic, ethical andpolitical challenges that ICT poses, they run the risk ofelevating ICT to the role of an exacting master, seeminglybeyond the control not just of individuals but of nationstates. In so doing they critically obscure the more prosaicyet potentially empowering realization that ICT, like thetelephone, is just a tool. This characterization, we argue, iscritical because it calls attention to the possibility that ICTcan be used by each of us to do different things and indifferent ways. This paper takes as its starting point a moremodest prospectus for change and explores how ICT can beused at a local level to promote the goals of DE.Engaging wider society and promoting qualityand learning: technology as an enablerReaders will recognize in the heading two of the goals ofDE; harnessing technology appropriately can support theachievement of both of these goals. The benefits of e-learning (ie. learning that is facilitated by computer/ internettechnology) as a delivery mode in terms of offeringflexibility (time, place and speed); supporting differentlearning styles; providing better information and qualitymaterials; and the potential to enhance communication usingcomputer conferencing software have been commented uponby a number of authors (Weller 2000; Melton 2000; Stamatiset al 1999). It is suggested that e-learning offers realpotential for widening participation, extending knowledgesharing and engaging in collaborative learning acrossboundaries. The ‘any time, any place, any where’ mantrareinforces the ‘flexibility’ provided. If technology offerssuch limitless flexibility and facilitates ‘wider engagement’through the reach it affords, then it has to be seen as anenabler for DE. Knowledge sharing across boundaries iscertainly one way to challenge perspectives on developmentissues and to facilitate global learning.However, is yet another website sufficient to extendknowledge and to achieve high quality learning? It is anunfortunate fact that, for many, developing a website is as faras the use of ICT goes, with a ‘project website’ a toocommon ‘deliverable’ of many funded projects. While thereare undoubtedly many good websites, their proliferationoften results in a vast amount of ‘content-dumping’ andmany offer, at best, a passive learning experience. We wouldsuggest that anyone thinking of developing a websiteconsider carefully whether the content increases knowledgeand understanding, or whether it contributes to duplicationand information overload.Engaging with learners: learning throughinteractionOne way of ensuring that ICT enhances learning is where a‘virtual learning environment’ (VLE) affords1 networkedlearning. A VLE2 is a system that typically provides tools forcontent delivery, communication and collaboration,assessment and administration. Networked learning is wheretechnology is deployed to facilitate connectivity in thelearning process: between learners; between learners andtutors and between a learning community and resources. It iswhere technology supports ‘learner connectivity’ in bothone-to-one and one-to-many forms that that the greatestbenefits are likely to accrue and learning moves from apassive experience, to active learning. The potential of‘connectivity’ and ‘interaction’ seem to offer the greatestopportunity for DE, where the affordance of collaborationenables learning. A focus on pedagogyAn ‘online collaborative learning’ approach is particularlyappropriate for DE, in that it acknowledges that learning is asocial process and respects the authenticity of the learner. Asan active participant in his/her learning; the learner’sperspective is valued and the learner collaborates indeveloping learning by interacting with others. Technology as an enablerChris Shiel and David Jones consider the role of technology as an enabler for development education (DE),underlining the value of information and communication technology (ICT) in promoting learning through interactionand identifying the pedagogic approaches that can be applied. They suggest that the role of ICT in developmentcannot easily be separated from its role in DE, as ICT development projects also contain elements of education.A collaborative approach combined with constructivism,where learning develops from a conversational modelbetween student and tutor (Laurillard 2002) not only utilizesthe full potential of computer conferencing but sits well withDE, where the ‘knowledge/content’ is often contestable(fuzzy) and perspectives develop and become moresolidified, during the learning process. DE regards thecontext of the learner as important: a technology enabled,collaborative approach allows learners’ multiple contexts tocontribute to the learning experience. Approaches whichemphasise ‘information’ over interaction would seem lessappropriate to the principles of DE.Collaborative/constructivist approaches are commonlyapplied in online learning (Weller 2003) and in our view,offer the greatest potential for developing learning. Otherpedagogic approaches (see Weller) such as ‘problem-basedlearning’ and ‘narrative based teaching’, used incombination, would also support DE. The critical issue isthat anyone developing e-learning should consider pedagogyfrom the outset and opt for an approach that plays to thestrengths of the technology, but is not dominated by it.Technology should be the tool to emancipate and enhance,rather than a constraint.The pedagogic approach for online learning needs to beappropriate to the material, the level and types of studentsand the resources available. Combining approaches providesvariety but variety must be balanced with the need todevelop confidence in the learner, through consistency. It isalso important to anticipate the requirements that will beplaced on the tutor. Laurillard (2002) reminds us that theeducator’s function shifts focus in online learning: the tutorbecomes a ‘facilitator of knowledge transformation’, not a‘transmitter of knowledge’. Staff development must equipstaff with IT skills and develop ‘e-tutor’ ability. Further issues to be considered if ‘e’ is to‘enable’Pedagogy and staff development are just two of many issuesthat need consideration. Experience has shown theimportance of careful planning and project management. It iseasy to underestimate the time required to develop contentand appropriate learning activities. Programmes that arelower on ‘content’ and high on ‘interaction’ are oftenquicker to develop but may require a higher level of tutorfacilitation and thus greater delivery costs. Conversely,programmes that are high on content but lower on tutorinteraction often incur greater upfront costs but can becheaper to deliver. Decisions about the balance betweencontent/self-managed learning/tutor facilitated approacheshave to be made within the pragmatic constraints of budgets.However, at the heart of any decision must be theconsideration of the principles of how we learn.Working in partnership, building a team anddeveloping best practiceGiven that developing e-learning is both complex and costly,working in partnership is often one of the best ways toengage. Partnership work brings its own set of challenges(Ahiabenu 2003) but for many in DE, working with a publicor private organisation that already has a VLE and/orexperience may provide the only opportunity. Ahiabenuexplains the benefits of working with a range of stakeholdersin ICT capacity development, highlighting the benefits ofpartnership and the dangers of being ‘technology-centered’rather than focusing on people. This equally applies todeveloping e-learning: if the human element and peopleskills are not taken into account then projects fail.Such developments require a wide skill set and thisshould be considered when selecting a partner. A multi-skilled team including educational technologists, subjectexperts, tutors and administrative staff can increase thechances of project success. Collaborative teamwork isrewarding and is important for sustainability. Projectchampions are necessary but an over-reliance on one or twoindividuals carries risks. It is also important to ensure thatonce a project is implemented processes are in place toensure maintenance and support.  Expertise in ‘SENDA’ (the Special Educational Needsand Disability Act 2001) will enhance any project: thedevelopment has to comply with legislation but by aimingfor best practice (beyond compliance) the project can openup valuable opportunities for those with special needs. Agood editor and a process for checking and recheckingcontent are also vital. Content written from a westernperspective does not always travel well. It is surprising howauthors forget that expressions are culturally specific.But are we ignoring issues of access? The term ‘digital divide’ has been used by policy makers andacademics to describe the gap that exists between those whohave computers and internet access, and those who do not.We suggested earlier that the concept can obscure.Warschauer (2002) argues that it is better to focus on‘technology for social inclusion’ and to learn the lessons ofthose who have been involved in promoting literacy. Weagree. The key issue is not whether to deploy technology asthough technology itself is excluding but to consider how todeploy the technology to enable social inclusion. Thefollowing examples illustrate how connectivity createspotential for inclusion and global learning.ICT enabled social inclusion3Between 2000 and 2004, internet usage in Uzbekistan rosefrom 7000 to half a million. (While this is a huge increase,this only reflects 2% of the population). The ‘SchoolConnectivity for Uzbekistan’ project, funded by the USgovernment and IREX (International Research andExchanges Board) was set up to address the ‘access’ gap andthe development of a more informed population. Sixtyinternet centres were set up in six regions and access wasprovided to approximately 20,000 educators, students andschool communities. One centre trained a group ofseamstresses who were then able to access new styles andclothes patterns. The opportunity to engage in on-line4 • The Development Education Journal Volume 11 Number 3 2005THEMEARTICLEdiscussion was also provided at www.connect.uz. This wasparticularly important in a country where poor transport andtraditional communication systems have acted as inhibitorsto sharing knowledge and experience. This provides a good example of how ICT can enhancedevelopment but what about DE? Other aspects of theproject demonstrate that through ‘connectivity’ educationresults and groups become empowered to take action.Communication online allowed groups to plan communityevents, environmental education sessions and a ‘GlobalYouth Service Day’. They made connections with partners inother countries to develop and share knowledge andperspectives. The ‘connectivity’ led to DE (although notstructured initially) and impetus to take action.The ‘PEOPLink’ and ‘CatGen’ project Empowering aGlobal Network of Artisans, applies the proverb ‘Give a mana fish and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fishand you have fed him for a year’ to e-commerce.Peoplink.org began as a website and developed into anorganization that allows participants to market localcraftwork resulting in enterprises being set up incommunities across a range of countries including Albania,India, Ecuador, Ireland, Siberia and the Ukraine.While these projects explicitly illustrate ICT and‘development’ rather than DE, without development whathope is there for DE? ICT capacity needs to be built initiallybut once established, ‘connectivity’ opens a door for DE.But projects also fail. Warschauer (www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7) documents the Hole in the Wall project, set upby the Government in New Delhi in partnership with an ITcompany. The approach was to provide computer access tostreet children by setting up a computer kiosk with monitorsprotruding through a hole in the wall. Children swarmedaround the site and started to acquire basic IT skills, eventhough no instructors were provided. The project wasrecorded as a success; however, Warschauer reports thatnegative implications were overlooked. No educationalprogrammes were provided, the children only spoke Hindi socontent was largely irrelevant and many parents wereunhappy about the lack of organized instruction. In somecases it encouraged children to play games at the expense offocusing on schooling.So what can we learn from this? These cases are just a few of many that demonstrate thepotential of the technology to enable development andlearning providing the technology is thoughtfully applied. Inthe case of the Hole in the Wall little thought was given tothe context of the learners and education, addressing thedigital divide in the misguided sense of ‘access tocomputers’. A focus on ‘social inclusion’ might have drawnattention to the needs of learners, literacy and locallyrelevant material. Participants require some ICT competencebefore they can engage with e-learning but we suggest thatICT ‘capacity development’ and ‘skills development’ cantake place in parallel. DE might logically follow on the backof ICT development but might even run concurrently?We are convinced that ICT provides a powerful tool in thelearning process. We are also aware that for many,developing e-learning can seem beyond reach and thetechnology mystifies, rather than liberates. ICT presentschallenges and triggers uncertainty and doubt, even for themost experienced educator. However, this should be seen asa positive feature: questions about how to deploy educationaltechnology can ‘raise the lid’ on the ‘taken for granted’ andforce a more critical review of pedagogic practice.  In summary technology affords• additional support for face to face learners; • wider access and alternative forms of learning forthose with special needs;• connectivity and collaboration, sharing ofperspectives and an enhanced view of global issuesacross boundaries.We must envisage a scenario where ICT emancipates andempowers, rather than one where an ICT elite retainscontrol.®ReferencesAhiabenu II, Kwani (2003) Public-private partnerships for ICTdevelopment: the Ghanian experience, www.capacity.org Issue 18, July,epdm (European Centre for Development Policy Management.Hammond, A (2002) The Digital Divide in the New Millenium, CardozoArts and Ent. LJ 135Laurillard, D (2002) Rethinking University Teaching, 2nd Edition,Routledge/Falmer, London.Melton, R. F. (2002) Planning and Developing Open and DistanceLearning: A Quality Assurance Approach, Routledge Falmer, LondonSalomon, G (Ed) (1993) Distributed cognitions – psychological andeducational considerations, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeStamatis, D, Kefalas, P and Kargidis, T (1999) ‘A Muliti-AgentFramework to assist Network Learning’, Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 15 (3), 201-10Warschauer, M Reconceptualising the Digital Divide atwww.firstmonday. dk/issue7 accessed February 2005Warscahuer M (2002) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking thedigital Divide, MIT PressWeller, M (2003) Delivering Learning on the Net: the why, what andhow of online education, Kogan Page: LondonNotes1 ‘afford’ is used in the sense of ‘affordances’, a term developed bySalomon (1993) which is used to refer to the functional properties of aVLE that determine how it can possibly be used.2 There are a variety of commercial VLE packages available in the UK,the most well known being Blackboard, FirstClass, Lotus LearningSpaceand WebCT. In addition to commercial packages there are a largenumber of locally produced applications which offer similar functions.3 others can be found at www.digitaldivide.net/comChris Shiel is Head of Learning and Teaching in theInstitute of Business and Law at Bournemouth University.Her research interests are ‘global perspectives’ and ‘e-learning’. cshiel@bournemouth.ac.ukProfessor David Jones is Pro-Vice Chancellor andDean of the Faculty of Professional Studies at ThamesValley University.The Development Education Journal Volume 11 Number 3 2005 • 5THEMEARTICLE

Technology as an Enabler

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bournemouth University Research Online