Becta’s closing: Loss of an important leader in research

If anyone wants to retain copies of the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency’s (Becta) excellent research and reports, they might think about hurrying over to the website. As a result of cutbacks in the UK, the agency will stop receiving government funds as of the end of this month (May, 2010). Some people have suggested that the agency may attempt to continue running without government funding.
Becta is the UK agency charged with managing procurement for public schools. But it does so much more than that. In recent years Becta has produced a phenomenal amount of high quality research on the use of ICT in education, much of which I have discussed here on this blog. During the last decade Becta research has made important contributions to our understanding of how ICT can, and does, work in education. It has been invaluable to the UK, but also to the global community of ICT and education researchers. Becta reports have been translated into numerous languages immediately on their publication because the agency is known for high quality objective research.
It’s not clear what will happen to Becta once it stops receiving government funding, but it is doubtful that it will have the resources to sustain the type and level of activity that it has become renowned for. It will be sorely missed.

Posted in Education, ICTs, Information Society, Knowledge development | 1 Comment

Mobile carriers in a conundrum as data traffic grows

The Swedish Mobile technology company, Ericsson, reported at the recent CTIA 2010 conference that data traffic has now surpassed voice traffic on mobile networks worldwide. The really surprising thing about this is that this growth occurs despite the rather dismal state of data service on mobile networks. Let’s face it, mobile data capabilities are still, in almost all parts of the world, limited by service, limited by usage quotas, and limited by high costs. The limits imposed by carriers on data service is hardly surprising when you consider that voice is their real cash cow, as the Ericsson presenters stated. It’s a bit of a conundrum for carriers – do they stick with voice, the old-skool cash cow, or do they pursue data, where the growth is. Sounds like it’s time for mobile carriers to start thinking about some real innovation rather than promising me access to college basketball games while I ride the bus.

Posted in Information Society, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010

The World Economic Forum has just published its Global Information Technology Report for 2009-2010. There’s some interesting movement on the accompanying Network Readiness Index. A few E. Asian countries are continuing their upward move, most notably Hong Kong and Taiwan. Consequently, some former chart toppers are being pushed down in the list. Most notably Norway and my own native Iceland. At least in the case of Iceland, I know that this is due to a combination of policy changes in Iceland and changes in the way that the index is calculated. Going down to #12 is a rather dramatic drop, though, for a country that peaked at #2 for two years, 2004 & 2005.
Several helpful changes have been made this year in the way the index is presented. Countries are now categorized according to country income groups. The list indicates countries’ places in the overall list and also within their specific income group. For example, we see that the highest ranking upper-middle income (UM) country is Malaysia, which is a full 13 places higher than the next UM country and well above many high income (HI) countries. The highest ranking lower-middle income (LM) country is China and the highest ranking low income (LO) country is Vietnam. Interestingly, Trinidad & Tobago is the lowest ranking HI country at #79 despite a number of projects in recent years to increase access to and use of information and communication technology. The web-based analysis tool also makes it possible to conduct some informative “quick & dirty” analyses.
One of the things that I looked for especially (albeit without conducting any rigorous analysis) was whether there might be any noticeable relationship between aggressive censorship policies and rankings in the index. Other than a few UM countries known to censor internet access ranking quite low, there doesn’t seem to be any significant relationship. In fact, countries known to control access to information appear pretty randomly distributed (just look at China way up there at #37). This might be considered somewhat surprising. It seems to me that free access to information via technology would be a significant factor in determining “network readiness” on a global scale.

Posted in Development, ICTs, Information Society, Internet, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

Still *trying* to have fun with the OLPC

asaolpc.jpgMy daughter (9 yrs) has been playing around with the OLPC laptop for about a week now. Her progress has been fairly predictable. The computer really is very easy to figure out. She’s especially drawn to the mutlimedia applications that respond to her in some way. Her favorites until now have been the TamTam musical applications and the face that speaks what she types.
The computer is definitely made for children – small children. There’s no way that I can possibly use the keyboard for blind typing. My fingers are simply too large. But, it’s perfect for my daughter and she finds it much easier to type on the OLPC than, for instance, my “grown-up” laptop. I’ve heard about US schools buying OLPCs for children as old as 12 yrs old and I wonder how suitable the keyboard is for them. I can imagine that for many of them it is already too small to be able to work effectively.
One thing that has bothered me about the OLPC is how many bugs there seem to be still in the system. The computer has frozen many times in the course of just one week. The only solution is to force it off and reboot. Considering that the OLPC has been around for quite some time now, I would have expected fewer bugs. The frequency of the problems is very disruptive. Another problem is how slow the web browsing is. This may be due to the WPA2 security on the wireless network that we’re using. Still, it makes browsing a very time consuming and tedious task.
The OLPC can obviously use more work. Our experience suggests that the notion that the laptop can be handed to a child and they let figure things out with minimal interference is rather farfetched, mainly because of the freezes and other problems that we have regularly encountered.

Posted in Development, Education, ICTs, Internet, Leapfrogging development | 2 Comments

Robot teachers in S. Korea

This is quite interesting. S. Koreans are developing “robot teachers” to function as teaching assistants in public schools. Apparently they are working fairly well. A recent project showed that elementary school students working with these robots in an english class showed “better learning achievements in speaking, as well as greater confidence and motivation”. Nevertheless, the use of robots in education does raise some interesting questions, especially regarding the role of the [human] instructor and the classroom in education. It seems fairly clear that there are no ambitions to replace human teachers with robots, rather that the robots assist teachers in the classroom. But, what does that mean for the human teachers? Will they have more time to develop interesting and effective learning activities or will their extra time go into programming and controlling robots?
Education in S. Korea is in a very interesting predicament. Government expenditure on education is lower than the OECD average. Many parents rely on the “shadow” education system to make up for deficiencies in the public system, i.e. private tutoring for individual and groups of students. Shadow education can be very expensive and places considerable strain on families’ financial resources. The result is a very unequal system that advantages children of well-off families that can afford tutoring. Also, from the students’ perspective, most of their time ends up being spent either in school or attending tutoring sessions, leaving little time for social activities.
While robot teachers may address some problems in education, it’s questionable whether they will minimize the need for shadow tutoring. One wonders then whether it might be a better idea for S. Korean government to spend the money going into developing robots on making qualitative changes to their formal education system to effectively address the issue of shadow education.

Posted in Development, Education, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

m-learning or m-somethingelse?

I rather quickly skimmed over this paper on “m-learning” after listening to a presentation on m-learning at a conference I recently attended. The concept certainly isn’t new to me. m-learning has been getting a lot of attention recently, so the authors’ review of definitions of the concept is much appreciated. But these authors are obviously not talking about “learning” as such. They go to great lengths to formalize the term “learning”, as in “formal education”. The cited definitions refer to “a form of education …” and “any educational provision …”, and the somewhat over-the-top, “the process of coming to know, by which learners in cooperation with their peers and teachers, construct transiently stable interpretations of their world.” So, basically, all of the definitions frame the concept of m-learning in the context of traditional education, involving a teacher and delivered instruction.
Definitions that overemphasize formal educational structures obscure a lot of the meaningful learning accomplished with casual use of mobile technologies. For example, if I come across a nice flower during a walk and use my smartphone to figure out what it is, I have undeniably learned something. This does not qualify as m-learning, however, because, according to the definitions provided in the paper, it was not in the context of “education” and did not involve a teacher. But, how is this learning any less significant for me, the learner, than if a teacher had been involved?
So, how would I define m-learning? Simple – it’s any and all learning that occurs through the use of mobile technologies. There’s no need for any conditionalities. Does this broad definition diminish the potential value of mobile technologies for purposive learning? Not at all. In fact, I think it provides a basis for developing a lot more effective and innovative ways to integrate technology into learning. Mobile technologies have the potential to facilitate experiential and informal learning in ways that we could only have dreamed of once.
If we can’t acknowledge those informal aspects of learning and find ways to accommodate them in formal educational contexts, we run the risk of ending up with a learning dichotomy (I think that a lot of high tech societies are already well on their way down that path). On the one hand we have learning that produces meaningful knowledge that is immediately useful in everyday situations. On the other hand we have learning that produces knowledge that serves specific purposes in the context of the educational system and related institutions (ex. taking tests). I find that a neither useful nor attractive future.

Posted in Education, ICTs | Leave a comment