I agree with that. I subscribe fully to the notion that nothing can be an adequate replacement for human-to-human interaction when it comes to learning. Given a choice, I will take a great teacher with papyrus paper and feather pen over a gadget chokeful with educational materials and an average teacher. Any day.
In an ideal situation, I would have a system not unlike what we have here - access to technology is there but always supplementing human teaching. You learn something in class and either you do a field trip, or you get online for some exercises and reinforcement.
I think that is what they are trying to do in Kenya. But they have to take it one step further because the kids don't have access to basic resources e.g. a computer with an internet connection at home, like in the developed countries. So they give them a tablet loaded with educational material - to be fair I am a bit fuzzy on the actual mechanics or workflow.
That they are doing this, does not seem like a problem per se. It is only bad if it is conceived as a workaround to fixing the fundamentals. Even if they had the fundamentals down, this program would still be a good idea in the sense of the advantages I highlight in paragraph 2. In the absence of the fundamentals, it is still better than the alternative(in practice, not in principle) - as a sort of consolation.
I see nothing wrong with the basic idea of giving out tablets loaded with educational material. The fundamental issue, as I see it, is that there are
scarce resources to be allocated, and people should therefore consider what is the best possible allocation.
So, the first question is whether educational material on a digital device is somehow better or cheaper than educational material in print form. In particular, have the long-term costs been considered in Kenya? (I am not aware that there has even been an attempt to look beyond Year 1.). On such, Toyama notes that
The most common error in computing costs is to assume that hardware and software are the dominant costs of technology. In reality, the total cost of ownership (TCO) for information technology is comfortably several times the cost of hardware, with a range of 5-10x being a good rule of thumb. Beyond hardware, necessary costs include costs of distribution, maintenance, power infrastructure, teacher training, repair and replacement, and curriculum integration
The second problem I see is that this, being a con, is not being sold as just "educational materials on a tablet". Rather, there are all sorts of claims about how this will transform Kenya---knowledge economy, services, blah blah blah---how parents will have their kids turn out to be Bill Gates/Zuckerberg (each bring in US$ 10 billion per year), etc. And people actually buy and believe this stuff! It is actually
near-tragic, given that the people buying the con are those most in need of basics and fundamentals that will actually make a difference.
Toyama also states that:
Pro-Technology Rhetoric 1: 21st-century skills require 21st-century technologies. The modern world uses e-mail, PowerPoint, and filing systems. Computers teach you those skills.
Reality:Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmetic
Indeed, as a matter of fact, an observation of ICT over two decades (or even just a decade) shows at least two things:
(a) the field changes quite rapidly, and
(b) (more significantly) the end result of these changes are that people actually need to know less about computers in order to make effective use of them.
So the idea being peddled by supporters of this program---that giving laptops/tablets to kids in Std. 1 is somehow preparing them for a technological world 20 years from now---is simple-minded idiocy (on the part of the True Believers). What
exactly are the kids do with these tablets that will make them "21st Century" types? As has been noted, simply saying "
oh, this is modern technology, and therefore!" is not good enough. (Ref: Toyama's comment on Silicon Valley's "upper crust" working to keep these things away from their kids.)
And bad ideas simply lead to other bad ideas: universities will now get into the business of assembling tablets and laptops!, university IT graduates will now get jobs on assembly lines!
I would consider the Peru example not so much an indictment of the program as a conclusion that it is generally neutral. Even then there are some caveats as shown below. Does it mean the conclusion may be better than neutral if they had setup the gadgets with relevant educational material?
This was considered in the study, and the report briefly looks the possibility of
software aligned with Math and Language curriculum ... computer programs that diagnose student's skills in sub-areas and adjusts contents and contents and exercises in order to focus on where the student shows weaknesses.
The authors think that there is "the possibility of positive effects of substantial magnitude" but state that the evidence for that is "not overwhelmingly positive". A statement buried in the footnote adds to that:
Still, there is no evidence showing the long lasting academic benefits of this type of software.
The authors then state that the alternative to such dubious software is to focus on specific software and a "strong component on
teacher professional development". (See also studies on the even more ambitious Uruguay programme---Plan Ceibal---and conclusions on the role of teachers.) And further down in the report there is this:
However, to improve learning in Math and Language, there is a need for high-quality instruction.
On:
There would even appear to be some cognitive gains.
Yes, there are. But, as I have noted above, under-5 stunting is a serious problem in Kenya, with
irreversible damage to cognitive abilities; to my mind, ensuring that kids start school with fully functional brains is better than hoping that tablets will somehow undo what cannot be undone.
Also, with the "positive gains in cognitive skills" and with consideration of possible improvements in other areas, the Peruvian report has this:
Still, governments should consider alternative uses of public funds before implementing large-scale technology in education programs. In particular, in poor countries where teachers' salaries are low, the opportunity costs of implementing (capital-intensive) technology programs may be substantial compared with alternative labor-intensive education interventions including reductions in class size and professional development.
Is there any evidence that GoK has seriously looked into such matters?
But if one is to judge the program purely on the basis of its goals, you can still agree that it is not ill-advised, even when there are other more pressing issues. They can be treated as orthogonal issues - more-so where they are likely to remain a constant, for various annoying reasons, with or without the program.
My view is that they are ill-advised precisely because there are more pressing issues. In theory, these can be treated as "orthogonal issues"; but, in practice, limitations in resources means that the nominal "independence" in "orthogonal" doesn't really exist. Before high-tech, Kenyans school kids are more in need of proper basic nutrition, clean water (think of the numerous easily-preventable diseases that keep kids out of school and incapable of learning), walls, roofs, toilets (look at the effects of shit-borne diseases), shoes etc to keep away jiggers, and so on and so forth. What we have here is just yet another example of the misplaced priorities that have bedeviled the continent for the last 50+ years.
