Alan G. Walker, President of Upper Iowa University wrote a very interesting blog in the Washington Post today advocating a new model for higher education. This model goes against the traditional university structure in America that encourages students to live on campus and attend classes full-time. Instead, Walker offers different models like online education and education centers. Students may choose from a combination of models in order to find the best one that fits their needs. "A student can take any of the four modes of study, or mix and match. They all obtain the same diploma."http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/upper-iowa-university-restructures-to-better-serve-working-students/2011/11/28/gIQAAZaFcO_blog.html
This may not be anything new for such 21st institutions like VUB whose Master’s of Educational Sciences program already allows full time students to study. However, in the hallowed halls of American Universities more and more students are seeing the advantage of working while they obtain their diploma. This is due in large part because of the high cost of tuition in the States and the Great Recession. Open source programs and online courses simply have “bigger bang for the buck.” As tuitions become more prohibitive to those students in the middle and lower classes I believe alternative models like those at Upper Iowa University and VUB will become the norm.
Until now I missed pen and paper...Here we are! An electronical pen and a paper which allows to students to work individualy in their own tasks. The techer has access at the same time in all students' paper. A new enviroment that allows teachers to follow students and give them immediately the feedback they need. I find it quite interesting because students also can be motivated, to work in groups, to realise their fault at the same time and to improve their work. They earn time and knowledge.
Ipads in classroom is a new reality. Teachers and students seems to love the new way of learning. They use in all the levels, primary or secondary school, to improve their knowledge in speeling, in collaboration etc. and they feel it as a useful tool in everydays activities. Students with learning specific difficulties use it in supermarket for example understanding more money exchange or choice of products. But is this new virtual reality a gift? Or it is an excuse for techers and students? Too simly, ipads dive a chanche to combine a sound or a picture with words. Although, why the majority of new teachers don't see the differents in practice? My question watching this video is the follow: Is anyone of us sure that this new enviroment is better that a visit to a museum, a lecture in nature or a walk in a park? I'm afraid that in some years from now, students will have only virtual pictures in their minds.
Yes, it's is attractive... but when you are 6-7 years old, you understand the meaning of the word "tree", "bird", "painting" etc only if you have a real contact with the object. For children is a game at the begging, but we have to protect them and to show that there are many beautiful things except of a screen.
Warning: this article starts on the wrong premise that connectivism would be the same as connectionism. It is not. See the comment section. Frederik Questier.
I recently blogged about connectivism- or connectionism as it is now called - and how it was hailed as 'a learning theory for the digital age". And I was not convinced when I read the article. Is it my age, or the fact that I jumped somewhat reluctantly on the social media bandwagon or just because I believe in good old-fashioned 'real contact' between people?
I can already hear some thinking that the two latter reasons are a consequence of the first one, but would 'being old' disqualify someone from embracing new technologies? I don't think so. Most of the world's great inventions and discoveries were made by people that were older than I am now; even the internet was invented by a guy in his forties ... so I believe that there needs to be more at work here.
There is quite some debate on this 'new' theory and in some form or shape, the discussions are almost as old as, well, the computer... when thinking about cognitive processes became likened to the processes taking place in machines...
I first of all want to expand a bit on the paper of prof. Plon Verhagen from the University of Twente that I cited in the previous blogpost. He provides an early definition of connectives learning, as proffered by Siemens, one of the earliest writers on the subject as a 'theory':
"In connectivism, the starting point for learning occurs when knowledge is actuated through the process of a learner connecting to and feeding information into a learning community. Siemens (2004) states, “A community is the clustering of similar areas of interest that allows for interaction, sharing, dialoguing, and thinking together.”
Verhagen's article offers a review multitude of views on learning, learning theories and development theory, to conclude that:
"A paradigm shift, indeed, may be occurring in educational theory, and a new epistemology may be emerging, but it does not seem that connectivism’s contributions to the new paradigm warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory in and of its own right."
He concedes however that:
"Connectivism, however, continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner."
In his paper "Some myths of connectionism' (1997), philosopher István S. N. Berkeley of the University of Southwestern Louisiana tries to contextualise some of the myths and claims that proponents of connectionism put forward:
"These myths are often repeated claims that have been made about connectionist systems, which when closely scrutinized, fail to be adequately justified, or properly qualified. In some instances, such claims are simply false"
Berkley is fair enough however to say that this criticism does not address "...active connectionist researchers... [because] members of the technical community are usually acutely aware of the limitations and shortcomings of their systems". Although the arguments put forward are of a philosophical nature, the conclusions are interesting:
A number of the claims which have been made about connectionist systems in the philosophical literature, and elsewhere, are not as straightforward as they may initially appear. Without appropriate qualification, the claims which have been termed 'myths' here have a great potential to mislead.
Whilst some of the mythical claims have a basis in fact, the uncritical deployment of these claims... is not sound. ... it is important that [people] who think about the issues raised by connectionism, do so in a manner which is more careful than has been the common practice previously.
There are ... interesting and important conclusions which can be drawn on the basis of connectionist research (see for example, Dawson, Medler and Berkeley 1997). However, for those conclusions to become apparent, it is necessary to clear away the connectionist mythology, in order to get to the connectionist facts.
And I am still wondering whether I can find myself in this new theory. My gut-feeling even goes both ways. In some sense, I can see merit in what Siemens says, but I also tend to have an affinity towards good old-fashioned constructivism and (social) cognitivism.
This whole debate brings me back to an (imaginary) conversation in the handbook (Learning theories : an educational perspective / Dale H. Schunk.—6th ed. Pearsons 2011) that we use in the course of prof. Lombaerts, where three students approach their professor at the end of the semester because they are confused. They can not find a 'unified' theory yet they see an overlap between the different theories on learning and knowledge acquisition.
One of the students asks: "So then what are we to do? Am I supposed to be something like an information processing theorist, a social cognitive theorist, a constructivist? That’s what I’m confused about.", to which the professor answers: "you don’t have to be one or the other. There may be one theory that you like better than the others, but maybe that theory doesn’t address everything you want it to. So then you can borrow from other theories."
Maybe I will just do that - use what I can believe in, as long as I can underpin it with scientific evidence.
I was - driven by experience in collaboration through online platforms in my professional and educational life - looking on the internet for (a) an explanation as to why it seems to be difficult to get everyone on board in a project and (b) possible solutions to overcome the difficulties I encounter.
Let me take a step back first. I am not always happy in the way teamwork leads to results. In my work (I write proposals for the EU - with input from other collaborators), I often am the 'last-in-line', waiting for the contributions of others, before I can do my work; yet my deadline for submitting the proposal to the EU is fixed. The people I work with are dispersed all over Europe - and we rarely meet face-2-face. And no matter which agreements have been made, and irrespective of the tools we use, the contributions are often late and elements are missing or not as well elaborated as expected. One could say I would need to manage better - but more dictatorial colleagues have the same experience.
I use my own project management platform - OpenSource, prof. Questier - to manage deadlines, milestones and document flow. At the university, we use PointCarré. In all situations I use email. These are asynchronous platforms that allow people to work at their own pace. Chat programmes such as Skype or google talk - which allow 'real-time conversations' are mainly used as replacements for telephone conversations.
In all these situations - professional & educational - I find that agreements reached, especially on deadlines and quality are not respected as much as after a f2f meeting. Let alone the amount of work done by each of the participants in the process. And I know that I am not alone in having this experience. Although PointCarré provides the tools - fora, document exchange and even chat - we have all held f2f meetings to coordinate group work. And reading the feedback on such meetings on the fora, It seems that all of us have had more use of these real meetings than through online collaboration.
I concede, we do not all start with the same level of confidence, knowledge or even reflex to use a computer. But in my professional life, online life is a must, and all involved are as apt to create things on a computer as the next person.
The following article seems to share some of my views on the necessity for f2f meetings.
"After spending just an hour with my clients, I had a significantly deeper sense of who they were, how they operated and their personalities. All of which will make me more productive in working with them in the future. Besides, when I email them now, or speak to them on the phone, I can see their faces in my mind’s eye."
In the same article, Karen Leland quotes author Joanne Black, who is not surprised by the strong feelings businesspeople have about the productivity-enhancing properties of in-person contact:
“We have become so organized around technology that we have almost forgotten what it’s like to talk to people, ... But when you find yourself face-to-face with someone, you realize you can explore, ask questions, keep asking more questions and get to the heart of the matter.”
In the educational setting that we are in, one could argue that there are different learning styles and that e-learning (blended or not) should take these differences into account. And then there is the old (1974) adage of Wilbur Schramm - used in communication theory, but just as pertinent in this context:
... we should not ask whether one means of delivery is better than another, but what are the conditions that determine the appropriate choice of technology...
And I believe that one of these conditions that need to be looked at is the absence of (social) control when people are left to work to their own devices. Online work often is not as closely scrutinized and supervised as 'in situ' work and hence requires a more disciplined approach. Cisco (an IT company) has done some research on the mobile workforce - the category that uses online collaboration to complete its tasks. In it's study, 'self-motivation' is mentioned as the second most important challenge for 'mobile workers':
"...Mobile workers do not receive the same levels of formal or informal supervision as office workers and therefore are more reliant on self-motivation to meet their goals"
The same study also provides some cues for the management, such as the need for weekly contact and regular f2f meetings.
But my online research also led me to some surprising discoveries. One great example of massive online collaborative work - unbeknownst to the 'workers' has helped create hundreds of thousands of digitized books. In the following TED Talk, the inventor of the CAPTCHA, those annoying squiggly letters that you use to authenticate yourself on different websites, explains how - with the new two-word ReCAPTCHA that is used on 300.000+ websites is actually a tool to help with the recognition of scanned words from old books.
To archive human knowledge and to make information more accessible to the world, multiple projects are currently digitizing physical books that were written before the computer age. The book pages are being photographically scanned, and then transformed into text using "Optical Character Recognition" (OCR). The problem is that OCR is not perfect.
reCAPTCHA improves the process of digitizing books by sending words that cannot be read by computers to the Web in the form of CAPTCHAs for humans to decipher.
Each new word that cannot be read correctly by OCR is given to a user in conjunction with another word for which the answer is already known. The user is then asked to read both words. If they solve the one for which th answer is known, the system assumes their answer is correct for the new one. The system then gives the new image to a number of other people to determine, with higher confidence, whether the original answer was correct.
Neat!!!!
Here is the full video of the TED TALK:
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Coursekit in, Blackboard out
Joseph Cohen, Dan Getelman, and Jim Grandpre- students at the University of Pennsylvania- left the school to launch a new education system startup called Coursekit. Coursekit was thought in June of 2010 and has officially launched 6 days ago (on November 29). The history of Coursekit is very interesting. Coursekit founders frustrated with blackboard like many students and they think to create social service instead of blackboard.Coursekit founders slogan is that ‘make your course come alive’. This systemlets teachers create student groups to work on project, email students, post the syllabus and reading materials for their courses, and record their grades.
Co-founder and CEO Joseph Cohen points out in the article by Techcrunch that “It is really a Blackboard replacement with a heavy emphasis on social networking” and he adds“Our goal is to turn courses into communities online. Because when that happens, amazing things follow: people share ideas, make new relationships, ask questions, and get to know each other”.It resembles the Pointcarre system in VUB. In VUB’s online system, students share ideas and ask questions to each other or professor in forum and professors share files, videos or documents in document box and they adjust the online syllabus according to their calendars and announce it. So online systems like Pointcarre and Coursekit are academic social network that these systems help professors and students communicate with each other easily.
Schools across America are now requiring students to take mandatory computer classes in Internet safety and etiquette with a particular effort on cyber-bullying. Back in the good old days students would be expected to regulate themselves with little parental oversight. I remember trolling through "free" Internet porn at my friends house but now with almost 41% of children 8 and under with smartphones these classes have become necessary.
The article equates giving children internet safety classes to driving lessons for a teenager. I would like to believe that using the internet is not as dangerous as giving a 16 year old the keys to daddy's car but there is no question that misuse of the internet can be particularly dangerous.
Recently, cyber-bullying has made national headlines as it has led several children to commit suicide. Teaching proper internet use and accountability is important.
From an educator's perspective teaching about plagarism and copyright laws is also a valuable lesson for children. Today's generation (what the BBC labeled "homo interneticus") blurs the line when it comes to ownership as they can simply copy and paste articles from the internet.
I think we still have a lot to learn in teaching about proper responsibility when it comes to using the internet. Websites likehttp://creativecommons.org/ are helping redefine ownership and a step in the right direction. In the end it will take a concerned effort by both educators, parents and children alike to make the internet a safer place.
Today, 3D learning resources and tools are used increasingly in schools. This technology needs 3D glasses for each pupil and 3D projector. Studies about the influence of 3D in classroom show that it has a positive effect on student’s understanding and focusing on lesson. So it brings successful scores for students. Also, 3D learning tools help shy student to involve in class activities. Even teachers realize the impact of 3D on student concentration.
According to the study, which was conducted by international research agency on behalf of Texas instruments DLP products, 740 students were assessed by researchers in schools of Turkey, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, and the UK. Researchers test the students before and after the lessons. This technique of test, which is done before and after the lessons, shows us differences between 3D and traditional teaching methods. On average, “86% of pupils in 3D classrooms improved in test results, compared to 52% of children using traditional teaching methods. It also found that attention levels soared - with 92% of the class paying attention during 3D lessons compared to 46% in the traditional learning environment”.
It seems to me that 3D will take the place of traditional teaching methods. It is used in some schools in Europe but it should be used by other part of the world. With the aid of 3D resources, students have long term learning. By experiencing virtual world, students more concentrate on lessons and they improve their scores. Also students interact with each other and this interaction enhances the attentiveness of student to the lesson. Even quiet students, who cannot involve in class activities, answer the questions of their classmates.
Students learn everything about lessons virtually and they cannot forget it easily. As an example, Students learn about the functions of the body in biology lesson by experiencing it in virtual world. 3D brings biology lesson to real life. Prof Anne Bamford who is the Director of the International Research Agency points out that
"Children can see how things function. Instead of learning about the heart statically they can see it in a solid way, literally see blood passing through the valves, see exchange of oxygen, rotate it, tilt it and zoom in".
That most witty and accessible of American writers, Samuel Longhome Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, was born on the 30th of November 1835.
Probably most read are those most wonderful icons Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn, but Twain wrote a great deal of other books - he still is in fact one of America's most prolific writers - and the topics he has touched upon in his writings span almost all aspects of life.
"And why would one write about Twain on a blog on educational technology?", one might ask... because Twain had a thing or two to say about education... the technology of his day was the schoolboard, on which he had to say the following:
In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards.
Following the Equator; Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar
_________________
"To be good is noble, but to teach others how to be good is nobler--and less trouble."
Doctor Van Dyke speech, 1906
The first quote brings me to another reason why I believe that Twain has earned a spot on a VUB blog: his attitude towards God and religion. Though born in a family of believers, Clemens was what we would now call a 'free thinker' who questioned organised religion and the outward aspects of it. He wrote, for example, "If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian."
But he was not an agnost - nor did he ever reject his beliefs! He made that all-important distinction between believing and religion: "Faith is believing; what you know ain't so," and as such, he fulminated often against missionaries who abused faith for the suppression of others. Twain was also Freemason, a member of the Polar Star Lodge No. 79 in St.-Louis.
All of the above, but most of all the days of fun Mark Twain's books gave me, and millions like me, until this day, make that he deserves to be remembered here!
Under the new policy, students must first obtain written permission from their professors and classmates.
The new policy “protects the sanctity of the classroom for our students so they can freely discuss their thoughts and opinions,” said Steve Graham, senior associate vice president for academic affairs for the four-campus Missouri system.
But some Missouri professors are crying foul. They say the restrictions are impractical and contradict the public university’s goal of promoting shared knowledge.
“…We are public, taxpayer-funded faculty, and so we should think long and hard about any sort of restrictions on the rights of our students to record us as we work,” said Charles Davis, a journalism professor and former executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition.
The proposal, which awaits approval by campus attorneys, is a response to a video of a labor studies lecture by University of Missouri-Kansas City professor Judy Ancel. Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website obtained a leaked copy and edited hours of classroom lectures to suggest that she and a classroom colleague advocated union violence.
Have you heard of "grid computing"? It's a term referring to the combination of computer resources from multiple administrative domains to reach a common goal (Wikipedia). The people behind the World Community Grid have a new project out.
Malaria is one of the one of the three deadliest infectious diseases on earth and is caused by parasites that infect both humans and animals. Half of the entire human population is at risk: in 2006, 247 million people became infected with malaria. Of the nearly one million deaths caused by malaria each year, 85% of those are children.
The researchers at The Scripps Research Institute, are running the GO Fight Against Malaria project on World Community Grid to evaluate millions of candidate compounds to advance the search for new drugs that can cure patients who are infected with multi-drug-resistant mutant “superbugs” of malaria.
GO Fight Against Malaria is the nineteenth research project to be launched on World Community Grid and one of ten projects currently running on World Community Grid. The other nine research projects are:
Drug Search for Leishmaniasis (launched August, 2011
Computing for Clean Water (launched August, 2010)
The Clean Energy Project – Phase 2 (launched June, 2010)
Help Cure Muscular Dystrophy – Phase 2 (launched May, 2009)
Help Fight Childhood Cancer (launched March, 2009)
Help Conquer Cancer (launched November, 2007)
Human Proteome Folding - Phase 2 (launched July, 2006)
FightAIDS@Home (launched November, 2005)
However, grid computing is considered as dangerous by some. Even though it sounds like an easy thing to do (just installing software which uses spare CPU cycles), could we be sure that the results will be used by the right people?
With the technology of smartphone, people have more access to information, news, weather forecast... Therefore developers want create some apps used in smartphone to help solving practical problems in the daily life. One is the "School app"
"Imagine checking your child's school grades and lunch menu, and then emailing the principal with a quick tap—all from a dedicated application on your smartphone.
Even better, the app is free.
School districts across Oklahoma are snapping up the free apps, while many across the country and Canada are inquiring about getting a mobile application for their districts just from word-of-mouth, said Steve McDaniel, a founder of Norman-based SCHOOL CONNECT.
The app provides GPS features, push notifications, secure access to students' grades, school lunch menus, class schedules and more."
With this technology, which is free to download, parents can know exactly if their children go to the school or not, whether their children are safe in campus or on the road.
In addition, in the future, each school probably can apply this app into their teaching- sending teaching schedules, campus news, students feedbacks to parents, and may contact with teachers more easily.
However, from a critical point of view, does this app harmful to the students' personal privacy? If everything of the children can be watched and managed by parents, it could be a bad news for children...
Hallelujah Aida! I couldn't agree more with this idea of connectivism. It's not a new idea at all but incorporates all the existing theories in a more informal process. The picture of the metro map reminds me of the Boston subway system. It's totally messy, made-up of many different colours and squiggly lines but is nevertheless connected. If we don't adjust our teaching style to this new network we are doomed to be left out of the cloud.
Connectivism - prof. Lombaert please take note - is hailed as 'a learning theory for the digital age' - it contends that learning has changed so much over the last several decades that a new theory is in order because the existing theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism et al.) fall short when learning moves into informal, networked, technology-enabled arena. Some principles of connectivism, according to a blog are listed here:
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. A learner can exponentially improve their own learning by plugging into an existing network.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances. Learning (in the sense that something is known, but not necessarily actuated) can rest in a community, a network, or a database.
Knowing where to find information is more important than knowing information.
Learning happens in many different ways. Courses, email, communities, conversations, web search, email lists, reading blogs, etc. Courses are not the primary conduit for learning.
The list on the blog is of course a lot longer - but the elements above illustrate (IMHO) best what the technology element has to offer... although, I am not convinced that the arguments in themselves need to be ICT-based (people can network without a computer, or a book is also a non-human appliance...), but I do agree with the fact that an additional/expanded view on the theories on learning are a welcome addition to the theoretic framework
Wikipedia (in all its fallibility) actually sees similarities with the Activity theory of Vygotsky as it regards knowledge to exist within systems which are accessed through people participating in activities. It also bears some similarity with the Social Learning Theory of Bandura that proposes that people learn through contact.
Wikipedia also traces the term 'connectivism' to a 2008 online course by Siemens and Downes delivered "Connectivism and Connective Knowledge". Downes, on his blog, defines the concept as:
"At its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks."
Where, according Downes, connectivism differs from existing theories theories, is that connectivism is 'connectionist', literally the set of connections formed by actions and experience. The following video tries to explain the concept...
There still is a great deal of criticism of connectivism as a theory. The most often cited is prof Plon Verhagen from the University of Twente - as retrieved from on the web - who criticises connectivism as a new theory, primarily because he can distil no new principles from connectivism that are not already present in other existing learning theories.
The jury, it seems, is still out. And I would like to see your views in this blog...
Joe's post - especially the cartoon at the end - made me remember a famous French comedy of the '80, "Les sous-doués (passent le bac)" (The under-gifted) about a bunch of under-achievers that have to pass their qualifying exams at the end of secondary school ... the plot-line is not all that important, except for the fact that the school has invested in a learning machine!
The dialogue is in French, but I am sure that everyone will get the idea...
Over the past few years schools in America have invested billions to acquire the latest technologies in order to increase test scores and enhance the learning experience. In a NYTimesarticle by Matt Richtel one school district in Chandler, Arizona invested 33 million dollars’ in technology in the classroom only to see test scores stagnate in an effort to improve basic learning skills (See graph). While most educators would agree that technology enhances the classroom experience, there is actually little proof to show that educational technologies make students smarter. This is the one billion dollar question; if you can't quantify whether technology improves a student’s education, how do you justify its investment?
My own school has invested much in one to one computers, interactive boards and online textbooks in an effort to improve student’s growth in the classroom. The jury is still out on its effectiveness in the classroom but it certainly has made teaching more fun. In fact, as a teacher almost everything I do in the classroom is in some way or another connected the computer. On the rare days the internet goes down, or we lose power the learning process virtually shuts down. Now, I do not propose we go back to chalk boards and writing essays out in long hand but there is certainly something to say about traditional education that is free and separate from 21st century technology.
Matt Richtel goes on to point out in another NYTimes article that employees of Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlet-Packard send their children to schools that do not use computers. Here you have some of the most computer savvy people in the country that believe (whether right or wrong) that a computer-free education has more value than a computer obsessed one. Simply food for thought, but there is something to be said about balancing technology in the classroom with traditional learning modules.
After commenting on Simeon's article I looked for news on technology and education in Africa and this one on solar-powered internet schools in Boksburg (South Africa) caught my eye.
As part of its social responsibility programme, Samsung try to address Africa’s electrification limits by “Positively impacting lives”. The solar-powered, mobile and completely independent classroom is geared at increasing accessibility to education and connectivity across Africa. It is designed particularly for use in remote rural areas with limited or no access to electricity. The solar panels are made of rubber and can power the classroom’s devices for up to 9 hours daily.
[JV]Having recently re-visited South Africa, possibly the most developed of the sub-saharan African nations, I remain shocked that - other for reasons of energy efficiency - the country still has areas where these types of projects make sense. But, as the article continues, South Africa can export its insights to the rest of the continent...
The Solar Powered Internet Schools model addresses one of Africa's largest economic challenges - electrification. On average, less than 25% of rural areas on the continent benefit from electricity, resulting in isolated communities with limited access to education and connectivity both of which are key to fast-tracking a nation's development.
Each classroom is fitted with an electronic E-board and different Samsung notebooks and netbooks, including the solar powered netbooks and Galaxy tablets for student and teacher interface, all of which are optimised for use in a solar powered environment. According to KK Park, president and CEO of Samsung Electronics Africa
"The amount of power generated by the schools each day means they can be used beyond the traditional school day as an adult education centre in the afternoons or a community centre over weekends. Our goal was to create an environment that would facilitate learning for whole communities in remote areas that otherwise don't have access to education tools or internet connectivity."
All over Africa, similar initiatives are springing up. This container being transported along a remote Zambian road holds one of three ZubaBox internet cafes that technology charity Computer Aid International has set up in Kenya and Zambia since 2010. Zuba is the word for Sun in Nyanja - a language spoken in Zimbabwe, Malawi and Southern Zambia - the area where the first ZubaBox was deployed to harness power from the sun and provide internet connectivity for the community.
The ZubaBox has been designed to help rural communities access the IT and internet, which can have a huge impact on poverty reduction. Additionally, learning IT skills at school means children will be able to gain better paid employment in the future. In 2008, the UN found that there were only 5.6 internet users in Zambia per 100 people, compared to nearly 80 internet users per 100 people in the UK.
The internet cafes, the first of which was installed in early 2010, have brought internet connectivity to communities in sub-Saharan Africa in an effort to boost IT skills, education and day-to-day communications in remote rural areas.
[JV]: As I said in an earlier comment, it is not so much the access to technology in itself that is important, but the access to knowledge that such technology brings. In that sense, it does not have to be the latest gadget that will power the knowledge society's first steps in Africa, but old, often discarded pc's that organisations such as Computer Aid refurbish for a 'second life'. And that's I Second Life I can wholeheartedly support!
I guess the comment I placed under the article on toddlers and technology got me thinking ... and I did some research. According to a new ‘Digital Diaries’ study from Internet Security Company AVG,
"Small children today are more likely to navigate with a mouse, play a computer game and increasingly – operate a smartphone – than swim, tie their shoelaces or make their own breakfast."
The AVG Digital Diaries is a series of studies looking at how children's interaction with technology has changed. In one of the studies, researchers polled 2,200 mothers with Internet access and with children aged 2-5 in the U.S., Canada, the EU5 (U.K., France, Italy, Germany, Spain), Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The mothers were given a list of tech skills and a list of life skills and asked which ones their very young children had mastered. Some of the results are as follows:
More kids aged 2-5 can play with a smartphone application (19 percent) than tie his or her shoelaces (9 percent).
Almost as many 2-3 year olds (17 percent) can play with a smartphone application as 4-5 year olds (21 percent)
There is no tech gender divide between young boys and girls. As many boys (58 percent) as girls (59 percent) can play a computer game or make a mobile phone call (28 percent boys, 29 percent girls)
European children aged 2-5 lead their U.S. counterparts in knowing how to make a mobile phone call (44 percent in Italy vs. 25 percent for the U.S.), playing a computer game (70 percent U.K. vs. 61 percent U.S.) and operating a computer mouse (78 percent France vs. 67 percent U.S.)
The study received quite some attention - and criticism. One of the more recurrent commentaries was that "It's much harder to learn how to swim or learn how to ride a bike than move your wrist or press a button..." and that it requires a different set of skills to successfully ride a bike than to use a computer.
A more profound studyon the use of touch screen technology in early learning, undertaken as part of a study for the U.S. Department of EducationReady to Learn Media Grant, theMichael Cohen Group contends that there is a compelling case for using touch screen devices as learning tools - but the study also places a lot of emphasis on the design of the learning app's that "...is as critical as the platform and needs to be intuitive in order to easily afford access."
According to the study, from a developmental perspective iPad usage can be organized in six ability and preference categories. These categories include:
motor skills
approaches to exploration
game concept
generalization of skills
preferences for activities and designs
comprehension of App interface
The study makes some recommendations on application design, both from a usability and a content perspective and ends with an interesting overview table, including recommendations.
AVG's Tony Anscombe, meanwhile, recommends finding a healthy equilibrium between tech and tradition, and urges parents to exercise what he calls their "digital responsibility." Anscombe thinks that today's parents "need to look at making sure that we give our children a balanced life and a mix of both life skills and technical skills." I couldn't agree more.
