Philosophy

For Sugata Mitra, technology + small groups + natural curiosity =  self-organising learning environments.

The 'hole in the wall' experiment is designed around groups of 4 or 5 teaching each other, but the content of their learning is defined by the 'courseware' that is already installed on the computer.

I find this useful on one level, because the kids learn some foundational IT literacy (using a mouse, opening folders/ files) but I struggle with the 'what next?' question. Mitra loaded the computer with some science courseware and claims that the children taught themselves this complex content with no intervention from a teacher. This is incredible if it is true, but knowledge of this alone will not bring great new advantages to the lives of the village children. Society is still set up for the children from the private schools to succeed, and it is not within the capability of Mitra's experiments to change this.

Being able to speak English is a skill that could make a difference, and the experiments using Skype are to be highly commended. This does, however, limit access to areas with good internet connections, and where English is already taught (the technology improved pronunciation in this case).

This worries me on two levels - it means this kind of work can only be carried out with lots of continuing money, and because of this lots of people are cut out where technology can still make a difference. We have to start 'offline' and work up rather than wait for worldwide broadband coverage. I believe just the presence of technology will empower communities to imagine and then build their own networks.

At this point we have to think carefully about what we want the technology to do, and this takes us back to the fundamental question of what educational experiences will empower vs what will make no difference in the long run.

There is no single answer to this question. It will vary from situation to situation. I do believe that the answer lies in the learners' imagination, and I think this is something that Mitra would agree with. In his experiments, he provides resources, and the small group re-imagines the content in each re-telling, creating something new together (a new understanding of what they think they know).

My take is that the hole needs to come out of the wall. The technology needs to be mobile, and more creative. What is learned needs to come from inside each community based on their imagination of what their situation could be like, not my imagination of what would be good for them.


...more to follow