Computers, technology and the universalisation of elementary education

“As a country, we are beginning to explore the ways in which to bring all children to school At the same time we are also exploring ways in which to bridge the digital divide.Combing the two efforts will help to accelerate India’s progress towards education for all.” Rukmini Banerjee "Trishanku was cursed by the gods. The curse was that he could not find place in the universe, not on earth nor in heaven. The sage Vishwamitra felt that the gods had been unfair to Trishanku. He created an alternative universe. The new universe was called Pratishristi”. What does universalisation of primary education mean? The simplest and most basic operational definition would involve “every child going to school, staying in school and learning well.” Discussions and debates about universalisation in many parts of India, even today, revolve around basic issues of access, infrastructure, constraints in provision of adequate number of teachers and textbooks. Given this context, how can the high-tech world of information and communication technology enter the domain of basic education? In what ways can it contribute to the universalisation effort? Pratham’s experiments with computer assisted learning Pratham’s experiments with technology and computers began with a donation of 120 personal computers in 1998. ICICI Bank in Mumbai was upgrading its computers and hence decided to give away the older models. Around that time Pratham was working closely with the municipal primary schools in Mumbai. Pratham decided to place clusters of computers in 11 municipal schools around the city. Pratham’s ‘Pratishrishti’ program was an early attempt to introduce computer assisted learning for municipal school children. Children in each class attended computer classes twice a week in all schools having a Pratishrishti centre. The older hardware of the donated computers constrained the possibilities of using more advanced software. However, simple maths and language computer games in regional languages were generated by Pratham and tested in the Pratishristi centers. The typical perception of municipal (or government) schools, especially in mega-cities like Mumbai and Delhi, is that only the children of the poor attend these schools. Sometimes the school buildings are in poor condition and teachers seem demotivated. In the common man’s mind, it is hard to imagine that innovative teaching-learning activity may occur in such a setting. Given this mindset, the arrival of computers and the creation of a “computer center” in a municipal school building in a slum area was cause for much excitement. At the time, even prestigious private schools in the city did not have computers for children. During 1998-2000, 8,000 municipal school children in Mumbai, each week, had access to computers in their schools. Thus, at least in the Pratishristi schools, the image of a government school in the eyes of the neighbourhood and the middle class people underwent a substantial transformation. Although systematic studies were not done to study attendance and drop-out patterns in comparable municipal schools in Mumbai that did not have computers, the attendance data in Pratishristi centers suggested that the integration of computers into the school timetable had a positive effect on school attendance. Learnings from Pratishrishti Right from initiation, Pratham has believed that learning is a key element in the process of universalisation. Whether it is an out-of-school child who is being prepared for mainstreaming into the regular schools or a school-going child who is lagging behind academically, it is learning that holds the key to ensuring that every child coming to school, attends regularly and continues in school. Availability of an attractive learning environment in school and visible gains in children’s learning are the two critical factors that lead to further educational progress. A ‘learning’ child gets solid support from home even if he or she is a first generation learner. A ‘learning’ child gets much more attention from teachers even in overcrowded class-rooms. And, most importantly, a ‘learning’ child gains confidence and wants to learn more. The Pratishrishti experience suggested that even in municipal primary schools in urban economically backward areas computers enabled the creation of a different learning environment. How was the Pratishristi computer-assisted learning environment different from the typical or traditional classroom setting? The ‘games’ approach in these centers appealed to children. They would come to the computer center to “play games”. The simple mathematics and language games on the computer did not resemble their textbooks or workbooks in any way. Some other perceptible differences were: Children chose to play games of their own choice from the menu that was of interest, experience and capability, children decided what to do each time they came to the computer center. The teacher at the computer center could coax the child to try a new game, move to a new level or play a different combination of games.1 In contrast, in a traditional classroom environment, the teacher is usually the decision-maker and decides what is to be done during a particular lesson. Peer-to-peer learning among children was observed. On average, in each Pratishristi center there were 10 computers. In each period, groups of two or three children played games together on a single machine. The computer center ‘teacher’ could mix and match the combination of children that sat together each time. There could be homogenous groups where all children were more or less at the same learning level in terms of mathematics and language or there could be groups where advanced children were paired with children who were still making progress. The group that worked with one computer worked as a team: if they scored well on a game it was usually seen even by the children as a ‘collective’ achievement. In a traditional classroom, peer-learning possibilities exist but are rarely used in a flexible way. Achievement is seen as an individual effort not as a group effort. Self-motivated learning among children was visible. The computer center ‘teacher’ only facilitated or enabled their learning. Initially when the computer centers started, there were concerns about the length of time children would take to learn to use the mouse and also the time lag before these children could begin navigating their way through the computer. It was found that given an enabling environment children learnt faster on their own. They experimented, observed and worked out the most effective way to move forward by themselves and in consultation with their friends. All that the computer center ‘teacher’ had to do was to observe the children, guide them when they got stuck and point them in the right direction. The above experiment was however, not bereft of problems. By design computer centers were located in municipal schools. The idea was to enhance the image of municipal schools and strengthen learning for children. On the other hand, the installation of computers had implications for space and security. The buildings that eventually housed the Pratishrishti centers were those, which had available space and adequate security. The overcrowded schools with high enrolments in Kurla or Chembur could not accommodate computer centers. There were issues with software as well as hardware. The outdated hardware constrained the use of software of recent vinatge. With older machines, maintenance problems and associated cost considerations mounted over time. In setting up the computer centers, Pratham had paid close attention to learning needs of children but had failed to work closely as was needed with the school teachers to make them feel like partners in the venture. While parents, children and senior officials in the Education department saw the computer classes as an addition to the curriculum, teachers in the Pratishristi schools saw the ‘games’ in the computer centers as an extra-curricular activity. Most teachers in the municipal primary schools in 1998-1999 were not computer literate. Although many were interested in computers, they were also aware that their children became comfortable in the computer environment much faster than the adults. The typical school teacher in India sees himself or herself as a teacher first and not as a learner. To integrate new techniques and new technologies into existing systems needs a shift in thought, practice and identity. This added to the reluctance of the school teachers in involving themselves with the computer-assisted learning programs. More preparatory and on-going work involving teachers in strengthening the learning environment in the computer centers could be done to bring teachers more firmly on board. The positive experiences from the original Pratishrishti experiment has led Pratham and its technology spin off Sanchar Infotech to seek further opportunities for exploring the interaction between computers, technology and children in government schools. Currently, there are 42 computer centers in a variety of locations coordinated by Pratham affliates like Sanchar Infotech across Maharashtra and few other locations.2 Evaluating the impact of computer assisted learning To what extent do computers enhance learning? Although there is wide acceptance of the idea that computer and information technology enhances learning opportunities, there has not been substantial empirical evidence to address this issue. Since 2000, a team of Pratham had been working in Vadodara municipal schools providing remedial education to children through community volunteers. The municipal corporation in 2002 had decided to place computers in each primary school in the city. Using Pratham’s presence in Vadodara and Gujarat, its past experience with computer assisted learning, previous collaborative ventures between collaborative ventures of Pratham and MIT and the opportunity presented by the computer allocation for schools, a team of researchers from Pratham and MIT’s Poverty Action Lab decided to evaluate the impact of the computers on children’s learning. A large-scale randomised evaluation was designed. The program provided fourth standard students with one hour of computer time twice a week. In these sessions, students shared the computer with a fellow student and the pair worked their way through a computer based mathematics curriculum designed to allow them to progress at their own pace. Instructors were available to maintain the computer room, ensure that the students worked on the designated curriculum, and answer specific questions from the students. At no time, did the instructors ‘teach’ the class – instead all interaction was driven by the computer-based curriculum. To ensure that schools not receiving the computer aided learning (CAL) program could be compared to those receiving the intervention, the team used a randomised trial in which 55 of 111 schools in Vadodara where assigned to participate in the program. The remaining 56 schools were used as a comparison or control group. Two cohorts of fourth standard students (for academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004) were tested at the beginning and at the end of the school year, and the average gains from students participating in the CAL program were compared to the gains of the comparison students to determine the effect of the program. In order to facilitate comparison across the different exams used in each year, scores were ‘normalised’ by measuring changes relative to the distribution of test scores, specifically fractions of a standard deviation. A preliminary analysis of the data suggests that the program was highly effective in improving scores for mathe-metics in both years of the study. On average students participating in the CAL program during the first year improved their score by 0.34 standard deviation more than students in the comparison group. In the second year, this difference increased to 0.41. These gains were very evenly distributed across students with poor students benefiting from the program as much as stronger students.3 Meppel project: interactive learning A new and innovative program was tested out in Pratham Delhi in 2003-2004. This program was based on previous experience of primary and secondary education in developing countries (especially Netherlands in this case) in connecting learning and applying ICT skills and knowledge. Conceived as a pilot collaborative project of Pratham and Pabo Meppel (a teacher training college in the Netherlands), the aim was to create a web-based project in which students and teachers in the two countries would interact with each other and learn from each other. The focus was on creating a “virtual newspaper” on specified agreed upon topics.4 Starting with the question “how big is your world”, children, students and teachers from primary schools in the Netherlands have been linked to their peers in India. Three student teachers from the Netherlands and six “balsakhis” or community volunteers and their respective children participated in this project. Together they agreed on common topics such as favourite music, living conditions, sports that reflect the daily life of children. Each group posted their project on the web and shared their comments and thoughts with the others.5 New partners and new platforms: Information technology as a catalyst The integration of computers and information technology into primary schools opens up a wide array of new opportunities: New mechanisms for collaboration: Technology brings in new people, new partners and new mechanisms for collaboration. Even on the modest scale of operations that Pratham has been involved in, in the field of ICT, we have met with partners who ordinarily may not have been directly involved in basic education. For example – banks, computer companies, telecom companies, institutions of higher education. Different relationships with existing partners: New opportunities open up to interact in other linked and productive ways. Layering of existing network with new uses e.g. information cell in Mumbai: Pratham had initiated the massive task of computerising information generated by the vast municipal school system in Mumbai. In the past, considerable time and effort was put in by school staff and officials in collecting data from schools, collating information and delivering it to the appropriate office. The creation of the Information Cell eased this burden on teachers and school officials, and made data easily available and useable. Once the basic task is completed, school officials and teachers will be trained to access information from any of the computer centres across the city as well as send data electronically to different offices across the city. New ideas and new links: Fee gene-ration possibilities, continuing education initiatives (computer based learning courses for adults in the community) As a country, we are beginning to explore the ways in which to bring all children to school. At the same time we are also exploring ways in which to bridge the digital divide. Combining the two efforts is bound to lead to multiplier effects that will help to accelerate India’s progress towards education for all. End Notes: 1 We noticed quite early on that the Pratishristi “teacher” soon became very popular in the school with the children. During the break, they would be invited to come and play with children in the playground!! The friendship and popularity was not only because most Pratishristi “teachers” were young, but it was also because the role of the computer center “teacher” was that of a facilitator or enabler. The computer assisted learning environment led to the generation of a different relationship between the “teacher” and children. 2 In 2001 Government of Maharashtra announced a scheme for supporting computer education programs in secondary schools. The scheme outlined the syllabus and the framework for forging partnerships with other parties. Under this scheme Sanchar Infotech supports 22 computer centers in 12 districts in Maharashtra. For primary schools, Sanchar has just initiated an IBM Kidsmart program in 20 additional locations in primary schools. 3 Despite these large gains, however, computers are an expensive means of improving average scores of students, especially when compared with Pratham’s community volunteer based balsakhi (community volunteer) program that uses local high school graduates to provide remedial education assistance to students who are lagging behind their peers. 4 The project stressed 7Cs: community based learning, contextual learning, collaborative learning, competence based learning, connected learning, creative learning and care. (See sevenseas@ict-edu.nl) 5 visit www.noviblearn2live.moonfruit.org for the newspapers. Author: Rukmini Banerji heads the Research and Assessment Unit of Pratham (an Indian NGO) Resource Centre.

User comments