Sugata Mitra Austral Asian Journal of Educational Technology 2005

8/8/2019 Sugata Mitra Austral Asian Journal of Educational Technology 2005

1/19

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology2005, 21(3), 407-426.

AJET 21

Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public

computers: Children and the "hole in the wall"

SugataMitra, Ritu Dangwal, Shiffon Chatterjee, Swati Jha, RavinderS. BishtandPreeti KapurCentre forResearch in CognitiveSystems, NIIT Limited, IndiaEarlierwork, oftenreferredto as the "hole inthewall" experiments, has shownthatgroups ofchildrencanlearnto usepubliccomputers ontheirown. Thispaperpresents themethodandresults ofanexperimentconductedto investigatewhethersuchunsupervisedgrouplearning insharedpublic spaces is universal. Theexperimentwas conductedwith "hole inthewall"(minimally invasiveeducation, orMIE) computers in 17 locations inrural India. Focus groups in

eachlocationweretested forcomputerliteracy for9 months.

Results, whicharediscussed inthepaper, showthatgroups ofchildrencanlearnto usecomputers andthe Internet ontheirown, irrespective ofwho orwheretheyare. Furthermore,suchgroup self instruction is as effectiveas traditionalclassroom instruction, whilstthis learningis considerablyless expensiveand is independent ofteachers and schools. Theresultspointto anewpedagogy forchildren's education inthosecircumstances where schools andteachers areeitherabsent ornoteffectivedueto anyreason.

Introduction

Currentresearch oncomputers ineducation is, generally, onthe influenceandconsequences ofcomputers inthe school settings thatarecharacterisedbydirect instructionalmethods ofthelastcentury. Thesemethods areeffective in structuredteaching systems whereall students trytoachieveacommongoal. Thesemethods consist ofdrill, practice, fixedways ofassessment, rotememory, passing on ofestablishedknowledgeareas to students, andexaminations. Whilethesemethods areeffective inthehands ofgoodeducators and schools, theyhave severelimitations ofscalabilityandquality. Good schools areexpensive, unviableanddifficultto build inremoteareas. Goodteachers ofcomputers and informationtechnologyareunlikelyto exist in ormovetoruraland otherremoteareas. Goodteachers arerareandexpensiveandthis trend is likelyto

continue. Atthe sametime, computers are, andwillcontinueto be, more functional, cheaperandfaster. It is necessaryto assess howcomputers, as apedagogicmechanism, canhelpprovideequal opportunityandtherequiredcontextto children fromalltypes of socioeconomicandculturalbackgrounds, to learnandachievebasiclevels ofliteracyandeducation.

Thepresentpaperis abouttheacquisition ofcomputerliteracy inchildren intheagegroup of 6-14 years, itputs forwardthe followinghypothesis, "if given appropriate access and connectivity,


2/19

groups of children can learn to operate and use computers with none or minimal interventionfrom adults".

Thepaper is intwo sections:

yItevaluates theresults ofexperiments carried out in 17 locations all overIndia, where 48computers havebeenplaced inurban slumandrurallocations. Findings indicatethatcomputers canplayaneffectiverole inensuringequallearning opportunity forthelessadvantagedchildren, thereby impactingthe socio-economicdevelopment ofanycountryintheworld.

y Itcompares thecomputerliteracy of selftaughtchildrento students who gained formalcomputereducationbyconventionaland structuredclassroom, teacher-centric instructiondelivery systems.

The "hole in the wall" and minimally invasive education

Many studies indicatethatchildrenbenefit fromexposureto computers as theyuse it formultiplepurposes. Clement (1999) observedthatcomputers givechildren opportunities thatcannotbe offered inthephysicalworld. In otherwords, technology offers childrenuniqueintellectualexperiences and opportunities. Childrenhavethe opportunityto completeagiventaskontheirown, andthus theyhavethechanceto developtheirthinking skills (Papert, 1980).

Minimally invasiveeducation (MIE) is apedagogicmethod, deriving its namepartly fromthemedicalterm'minimally invasive surgery' (Mitra & Rana, 2001; Mitra, 2003). The idea of MIEcrystallised overaperiod oftime, based on observations andeducationalexperiments conductedat NIIT. Theexperiments were firstconducted in Kalkaji, a suburb of New Delhi, India. Acomputerwas connectedto the Internetandembedded into abrickwallneara slum. Themedia

oftendescribes this experimentas "thehole inthewall". Itwas reportedthatmost ofthe slumchildrenwereableto usethecomputerto browse,playgames, createdocuments andpaintpictures withina fewdays. Thus, itwas observedthat, even intheabsence ofanydirect input,merecuriosityledgroups ofchildrento explore, whichresulted inlearning. This, coupledwithminimal input frompeers, orfromanyone familiarwithcomputers, helpedthechildrenlearnmore. This leads us to believethatanylearningenvironmentthatprovides anadequatelevel ofcuriositycancauselearningamonggroups ofchildren. Children's desireto learn, alongwiththeircuriosityandpeer interaction, drives themto exploretheenvironment in orderto satisfytheir inquisitiveness. As thechildrenexploretheirenvironment, theyrelatetheirnewexperiencewiththeirprevious experienceandtherebynewlearningtakes place (Frontline World, 2002;Education Guardian, 2000;Businessweek Online, 2000; Mitra, 2000; Mitra 2003; van Cappelle,

Evers & Mitra, 2004; Wullenweber, 2001). Hence, wedefineMIE as apedagogicmethodthatuses thelearningenvironmentto generateanadequatelevel ofmotivationto inducelearning ingroups ofchildren, withnone orminimal intervention fromateacher. InMIE, therole oftheteacher is limitedto providing, orguidinglearners to, environments thatgenerateadequatelevelsof interest. A knownexample of MIE is thetype oflearningthattakes placewhenanappropriatepuzzle is givento childrenwithlittle orno input from others. Thecomputeritself is capable ofgenerating such intervention fromtimeto time.


3/19

The originalhole inthewall of 1999 has evolved into abrickstructurewithcomputersembedded in it. Intherest ofthispaperwewillreferto this arrangementas "Minimally InvasiveEducation LearningStations" (MIE learning stations). Thesehavebeen setup in 22 ruralandurbanlocations across Indiaand similarresults arereportedthrough field observations as wellasthrougha GUI Icon Association Inventorytest (Mitra, 2003) administeredto children.

Observations across locations showalearningprocess ofrandomexploration, collaboration,discovery, vocabularyconstruction, generalisation, practiceandpeertutoring (Inamdar, 2004).

Minimally invasiveeducation (MIE) is based onapaper(Mitra, 1988) that speculatedthatchildrencanlearnto useacomputerontheirown. Empiricalresearch forfiveyears (Mitra, 1999,2000, 2001, 2003, 2004) substantiatedthis speculation. It is anapproachthatpromises to bridgethe "digitaldivide"byhelpingdiversepopulations achievecomputerliteracy. MIE is also aconcept of importantconsequences to thearea ofeducation ingeneral. "Minimally invasive"refers to theleastpossible, negligible, ortheminimumhelprequiredbythechildto initiateandcontinuetheprocess oflearningbasiccomputing skills. This minimalamount ofhelp from otherchildrenattheMIE learning station is necessaryand sufficient forthechildrento become

computerliterate. This "help", which is the fundamentalaspect of MIE, couldbe frompeers,siblings, friends, orany otherchild familiarwithcomputers. Childrenare foundto collaborateand supporteach other. Thelearningenvironment is characterisedby its absence fromadultintervention, openness and flexibility. Childrenare freeto operatethecomputerattheirconvenience, theycanconsultand seekhelp fromany otherchild orotherchildren, andarenotdictatedto byany structured settings. It is observedthatchildrentendto relyuponthemselves togeneratethenecessarylearningenvironment, andto organisethemselves forlearning. It is to benotedthatMIE learning stations arelocated in safe, openpublic spaces andareeasilyaccessibleto children. Theyhavebeendesigned forusebychildren (Mitra, 2004).

MIE experiments arelocated inurban slumandrural India. This has resulted inadesign forMIElearning stations thataddress issues ofaccess to technology, financialresources, andcostconstraints. Indiahasproblems ofpoverty, illiteracy, inadequate infrastructure, diversity ofsocio-culturalcommunities, ofvaried socio-economic status, spread overalargegeographicalregion.


4/19

Figure 1: A MIE learning stationat Village D. Salhundi, Karnataka, India

MIE experiments clearly indicatethatchildrenareableto learnto usecomputers andthe Internetontheirown, irrespective oftheirsocial, cultural oreconomicbackgrounds (Mitra & Rana, 2001;Mitra, 2004). Thediversity of Indianconditions is, ironically, useful forapplyingtheseresultsanywhere intheworld.

Present study

Salient features of children at MIE learning station

The 22 locations whereMIE learning stations existrange fromthe Himalayas to thetip oftheIndianpeninsula (Northto South) and fromthe Rajasthandeserts to the Ganges Delta (WesttoEast). Ofthe 22 locations studied in India, children frequentingMIE learning stations are intheagerange of 6-14 years, withamean of 10-11 years. Themajority ofthesechildren studyattheelementary schoollevel (belowgrade 8). Mostare students ofgovernment schools. Theycomefromdiverseethnicandculturalbackgrounds, andhavedifferent firstlanguages suchas Hindi,Tamil, Kannada, Marathi and Bengali. Mosthavearudimentaryunderstanding ofthe Englishlanguage. Theyaretypically Hindus, Muslims and Christians. Withinagivencommunity, as isoftenthecase inrural India, theyaredifferentiatedbycaste.

Thebackground oftheparents is equallydiverse; fromdailywagelabourto farmers, shopowners, auto-rickshawdrivers, working incottage industries or inagovernment organisation, etc.Menare foundto bemoreeducated (8thgrade), whilethewomenaremostly illiterate.

In orderto studythe impact of MIE learning stations oncomputerliteracyamongstchildren, wehaveconsideredexperimental orfocus groups, frequentusers andcontrolgroups fromdifferentstates. Wehavegroupedthe states into fourzones, eachzoneconsisting ofaparticularstate.


5/19

South Zone 2 States - Karnatakaand TamilNadu

North Zone 3 States - Uttaranchal, Jammuand Kashmir, UttarPradesh

East Zone 1 State - West Bengal

West Zone 2 States - RajasthanandMaharashtra

a. Experimental orfocus groups - 15 children fromeachlocation (except foronelocation,wheretheexperimentalgroupconsisted of 10 children) were selectedrandomlyto bepartofthis group. Forthis study, theexperimental (focus) groupconsisted ofatotal of 250children from 17 locations. TheIcon Association Inventory (IAI), ameasure ofcomputerliteracy (Mitra, 2003, 2004 anddescribedbelow) was administeredatregular intervals tothe focus group.b. Frequentusers - This groupconsisted of 250 children fromallthe 17 locations andthe

IAI was administered only intheninthmonth, thelastmonth ofmeasurement. ThesechildrenvisittheMIE learning station frequentlybutarenotpart ofthe focus group.

Measurements onthis groupweremade in orderto checkwhetherthe focus group scoreshaveanybias dueto test familiarity (the Hawthorneeffect).c. Controlgroups - Controlgroups are selected fromnearbyvillages with similarsocio-economic features as theexperimentalgroup's village. A total of 119 children (7 childrenperlocation) were selected forthis study. Thesegroups didnothaveaccess to MIElearning stations orto any othercomputers. Wedidnottestthecontrolgroupuntilattheend oftheexperimentalperiod. This is importantbecausecomputers generate suchcuriosityamongstchildrenthatevenahint ofanearbycomputerwouldencouragechildrento visittheMIE learning stations orotherplaces wheretheymayencountercomputers.

Students following other learning systems

It is necessaryto comparetheresults ofchildrenexposedto MIE learning stations withthose ofothers who learnto usecomputers in other, moretraditionalways. We selectedtwo groups ofsuchlearners:

a. The firstgroup oftraditionallearners was ofthe sameagegroupas MIE students, butenrolledas regularstudents ina school. Theyaretaughtcomputers intheclassroomsetting, withaprescribedcurriculumalongwithcomputerlaboratory facilities. Themedium of instructionwas Englishandthe Central Board ofSecondary Education (CBSE)prescribes the syllabus. The CBSE is agovernmentbodythatdecides thecurriculum forprimaryand secondaryeducation in Indiangovernment schools. Computereducation isan integralpart oftheirformalcurriculumandprofessionallytrainedteachers teachthecourse. Forourstudy, 50 students intheagerange from 10 to 13 years wererandomlyselected fromthe sixthgrade ofthe Delhi Police PublicSchoollocated in New Delhi,India. Ofthese, 35 students were finallyassessed overaperiod of 5 months. The other15childrenleftthe schooldueto transferofparents, orwereabsent onthedays whenassessmentwas done.


6/19

b. The secondgroup oftraditionallearners were students enrolled fora one-yearDiploma inInformation Technology (DIT hereafter) atan NIIT Centre in New Delhi. NIIT ispredominantlyaneducationcompanyand operates over3000 educationcentres in 26countries. These students wereengaged inrigorous training inthe fundamentals ofcomputers as wellas incertainprogramminglanguages. Thecontent ofthe DIT course is

variedand is taughtby skilledprofessional instructors. Thepedagogy is "highly invasive",whereinthe instructorfollows instructions in structuredandprescribedcoursewarefollowedby structured sessions inacomputerlab. We selectedanewbatch of studentsandmeasuredtheirIAI scores overa fivemonthperiod. Therewere 27 students inthebatchwithages ranging from 18 to 21 years. Most ofthe students wereenrolled incollegeand some ofthemhadalreadygraduated. This group of students was older inage,educationallymorequalified, andhadaccess to state ofthearttechnology.

The Icon Association Inventory

Theexperimentaldesign (to bedescribed indetailbelow) consistedmainly ofperiodictests for

computerliteracyamongst focus groups of 15 childrenateachlocation overninemonths. Inorderto do so, atestwas requiredthatcouldbe:

1. Administered outdoors, sincemanylocations didnothavea facilitywhere indoortestingcouldbeconducted.

2. Administered ina shortperiod oftime, since it is difficultto assembleandretainthefocus groups in outdoorenvironments formorethan 30 minutes atatime.

3. Evaluated ina shorttimebydifferentevaluators, sincethenumbers oftests to beevaluatedwererelativelylarge (around 300 results everymonth).

4. Administeredandevaluatedusingpaperandpencilalone, since otherfacilities orequipmentmaynotbeavailableat fieldlocations. Also, wedecidedto havethetest

results sentto acentrallocation (New Delhi) forevaluationbyagroup oftrainedevaluators to ensureconsistency ofevaluation.

Wecouldnot findatestmeetingtheseconditions anddecidedto develop one. Whilethedesignandvalidation ofthis testwillbedescribed indetailelsewhere, we includebelowabriefaccountoftheprocedures weusedto developandvalidatethetest.

In orderto developatest forcomputerliteracy, we startedwithchildrenwho hadtaughtthemselves to usecomputers at some of ourearliestplayground facilities (Mitra & Rana, 2001).Thesechildrenhaddevelopedtheirownvocabularyto describe icons intheMicrosoftWindowsenvironment. Forexample, theyreferredto themousecursoras "teer" or"sui", Hindi words forarrowandneedle, respectively. The foldersymbolwas describedas acupboard forkeeping otherobjects. Whilethewords usedto describethe icons werechosen fromtheirownlanguageandexperience, theirdescriptions ofthe functionality ofthe icons wereaccurate.

Wethenconstructedalist ofthe 77 icons present intheMicrosoftWindowsandMicrosoftOfficeenvironment. Thetest (see Figure 2) consisted ofalist ofthesecommoncomputerGUI(Graphical UserInterface) icons andpersons takingthetestareaskedto describethepurpose of


7/19

each icon. It is assumedthatthenumberofcorrectdescriptions of icons is correlatedto the ITliteracylevel ofthepersontakingthetest. Wedecidedto testthis assumption.

Figure 2: The GUI Icon Association Inventory, samplelayout

Notallpersons who areadeptatusingcomputers use icons. Indeed, manyusers do notuse iconsatallbutpreferto usedropdownmenus instead. Itwould, therefore, appearthattheabilitytoidentifythe function ofan iconmaynotcorrelatewellwiththeability ofarespondentto useacomputer.

We selected 74 users ofcomputers inanurbanenvironmentandadministeredthe IAI. Theseusers werepeoplewho usedthe standard functions of MSWindowsandMSOffice suchas wordprocessing, spreadsheets, emailand so on. Theyconsisted ofaheterogeneous group of office

administrative staff, students of informationtechnology, researchassistants and faculty. Allwerecompetentandexperiencedusers.

Theaverage score obtainedwas 49%, witha standarddeviation of 18%. Themaximum scoreobtainedwas 76%, whiletheminimumwas 7%. Theresults seemedto indicatethatusers,irrespective ofwhethertheyused icons ornot, couldguess the function ofan iconprovided itwas from softwarethattheyused frequently. Forexample, a secretarywho uses awordprocessoroftenwouldbeableto guess the function ofthe icons ofwordprocessingcorrectly, while, ifthesecretarialjobdidnot involveusing spreadsheets, wouldnotbeableto guess the functions oftheicons used in spreadsheets.

Next, we identifiedtwo frequentusers (Pawan, age 16 and Lalit, age 12) ina slumarea of NewDelhi, andaskedthemto studythe icons, andwritedowntheirdescriptions. These independentdescriptions werethenmatched forconsistency. Wethenaskedthetwo childrento worktogetherto resolveany inconsistencies andalso describethe functions ofthe icons theyhadbeenunableto, whenworking independently. Overaperiod ofaweektheydevelopeddescriptions ofmostthe icons theywere shown.


8/19

Thechildrencouldnot identifythe functions ofthe icons used inthe spreadsheetprogram, MSExcel,becausethisprogramwas notavailableto them. This was doneto checkwhethertheycouldarriveatacorrect functionaldescription ofan iconusingguessworkandreasoningalone.

Attheend ofthis exercise, wematchedthedescriptions providedbythechildrenwiththe

descriptions given intheWindowsandOffice "Help" files. Finally, wedevelopeda scoringkeyforthe IAI thatlistedthe'correct'descriptions foreach ofthe 77 icons. Anevaluatorwouldcomparethesedescriptions withthoseprovidedbyauserinresponseto thetest, andmakeasubjectiveevaluation ofhowcloselythetwo matched forany iconanddecidewhetherto awardacorrect score forthat item.

Wethenadministeredthetestto 9 children inMadangir, a slumarea in New Delhi. Thesechildrenhadbeenexposedto playgroundcomputers for15 days. Theresults showedthatfrequentusers ofcomputers tookless timeand identifiedmore icons correctlythan others did.

Itnowbecamenecessaryto investigatetwo aspects ofthetest:

1. Theevaluation ofthe IAI is dependent onthe subjectivejudgment oftheevaluatorindecidingwhetherachild's description ofthe function ofan icon is adequatelyclosetothatgiven intheevaluationkey. Weneedto find out if such subjectiveevaluation issufficientlycloseto any otherobjectiveevaluation, so thatthe subjectiveevaluationmethodcanbeconsideredaccurate.

2. Whethera score inthe IAI, forexample 7 correct identifications out of 77, is agoodmeasure ofthecomputerliteracy ofthechildconcernedas comparedwithhis orherscore inany other, standard, test ofcomputerliteracy.

The IAI contains 77 icons andrequires about 30 minutes to completeandabout 10 minutes to

evaluate. Sincetheevaluation isboth subjectiveandtimeconsuming, anautomatedversion ofthetest (see Figure 3) was developedby Batra, Dangwal & Inamdar(NIIT 2003, unpublished).This testconsists ofthe same 77 icons, as inthe IAI, alongwith 4 multiplechoiceanswers todescribeeach icon. Thetest is administered onacomputerandthenevaluatedautomatically.This eliminates any subjectiveelement intheevaluation. Wewillcallthis softwareversion oftheIAI, the IAI-S.


9/19

Figure 3: The GUI Icon Association InventorySoftware, a sample screen

Notethatwhilethe IAI-S is an objectivemethod foradministeringthe IAI, its use is restrictedtourban, English speakingpopulations, wherecomputers areavailableto allrespondents.

A taskbasedcomputerliteracy (TBCL) test (see Figure 4) has beendevisedby "Outreachand

Extension", University of Missouri and Lincoln University, USA. This testconsists oftasks thataperson is askedto perform onacomputerand its subsequentevaluation.

As such, the TBCL test is aliteraltest ofcomputerliteracy. Ittakes overanhourto completethetestandabout 30 minutes to evaluatetheresults. Whilewecouldnot findavalidation study onthe TBCL, wedecidedthattheresults ofthis testwereagoodbenchmarkforevaluatingtheeffectiveness ofthetwo versions ofthe IAI. This decisionwas based onthe factthataliteraltest,suchas the TBCL, is closeto howexaminations areconducted in schools, and shouldbeagoodmeasure ofactualperformance.


10/19

Figure 4: Taskbasedcomputerskills assessmenttest. Some samplequestions.[http://outreach.missouri.edu/fcrp/evaluation/computerskills.htm]

It is importantto mentionherethatwecouldnot findavalidatedcomputerliteracytesttomeasurethe IAI against. Hence, wehadto rely onthe selfconsistency ofthe IAI to establish itsvalidity.

Weadministeredthreetests, namely, the IAI, the IAI-Sandthe TBCL to agroup of 18 students(allyoungadults) enrolled foracourse in IT skills. These students consisted ofanentire,randomlychosen, cohort of students takingthesecourses inatraditionalcomputertraininginstitute in New Delhi. Therewere 9 menand 9 women inthe sample. Theresults, to bereported

indetailelsewhere, showedallthreetests results to behighlycorrelated (intheregion of 0.95withaverylowprobability oferror).

Weconcludedthatthe GUI Icon Association Inventory ineitherof its two versions is aneffective instrument formeasuringcomputerliteracy. Themeasurement ofcomputerliteracy ofchildrenat MIE learning stations was, therefore, doneusingthe Icon Association Inventory, atestcreatedandvalidated forthispurpose.

Ofthe 77 icons inthe IAI, 26 icons (inthe Exceland Text Formatcategories) arenotpresent inthecomputers as configured forusebychildrenatMIE learning stations. Measurements were,therefore, carried outusing 51 ofthe 77 icons. Thechildrenarealso tested ontheremaining 26

icons, as acheckoftheeffectiveness ofthe IAI inmeasuringcomputing skills (there shouldbeanuniformlylow score onthese icons throughoutthetestingperiod).

Measurement schedule of the IAI

The IAI was administeredto allthethreegroups- childrenat MIE learning stations, traditionallearners in schooland studentspursuingprofessionaltraining in Information Technology (DIT),inthe followingmanner.


11/19

Figure 5: Time intervals fortesting

Figure 5 shows thetime intervals atwhichthe IAI was administered. Itwas administered forthefirsttime onthedaytheMIE learning stations werecommissioned forthevillagechildren. Forthe othertwo groups of formallearners itwas firstadministered ontheday ofthe start oftherespectivecourses. Thetestwas thenadministered onthe 3rdday, the 7thdayandevery 30 daysforaninemonthperiod. Thetotalduration ofthetesting spanned 248 days, as shown in Figure 5.

Dueto unavoidablecircumstances, data forstudents pursuingprofessional IT course (DIT) couldbecollected foraperiod of only 8 months and fortheregularschool students, only 5 months.

Wereporttheresults intwo sections below. Firstlytheresults ofthemeasurements onchildrenusingMIE learning stations in 17 locations, and secondly, theresults ofthemeasurements onthetwo learnergroups in New Delhi, namely, school students and students at NIIT.

Results for MIE learning station users

Figure 6 shows thelearningcurve forchildrenusing MIE learning stations. Theaverage scoresincreased from 6.65% to 43.07% overtheexperimentalperiod ofninemonths. A high standarddeviation is observedthroughout. Indeed, this high standarddeviation is observedatallindividuallocations as well.


12/19

Figure 6: Nationallevel - performance of MIE LSusers in Icon Association Inventory

Figure 7 compares theaverage scores forthe focus, controland frequentusergroups overtheexperimentalperiod. The focus group score is seento rise from 6.65% to 43.07% whilethecontrolgroup score onthe 9thmonth is seento be 6.94%. The frequentusers scoreanaverage of43.73% intheninthmonth. We observethat:

y There is a significantdifference intheperformance oftheexperimental (focus) group ontheday of inaugurationas comparedto theirperformance onthe 9thmonth.

y There is a significantdifference intheperformance oftheexperimental (focus) groupandthecontrolgroup intheninthmonth.

y There is negligibledifferencebetweenthe focus and frequentusergroup scores intheninthmonth. The Hawthorneeffecthas notbeen observed.

y There is a significantdifferencebetweenthecontrolgroupandthe frequentusers groupscores intheninthmonth.


13/19

Figure 7: Nationallevelperformance in Icon Association Inventory

Results from formal learning systems

a. Regular/conventional schoolchildren - Thedata forthis group is available for5 months.Figure 8 shows theperformance inthe IAI (without Excelandtext format icons). It isseenthatthe IAI average scores rise from 10.44 to 35.96 inthe first fivemonths.b. Students ofaprofessional IT course - Thedata forthis group is available for8 months.

Figure 9 shows theperformance inthe IAI (without Excelandtext format icons). It isseenthatthe IAI average scores rise from 11.96 to 49.17 inthe firsteightmonths.

Figure 8: Performances ofregularschoolchildren in Icon Association Inventory


14/19

Figure 9: Performances ofprofessionalcourse students (DIT) in Icon Association Inventory

Discussion

Table 1 provides acomparativeanalysis ofthethreegroups onthebasis ofgeneralattributes,learningenvironmentand financialcosts. There is a significantdifference intheageranges ofMIE learning stationusers andregularschool students (10-11 years) versus IT professionals (18-

21 years). Also, theMIE learning stationusers are fromaneconomicallydisadvan-tagedgroupincontrastto the othergroups.

Table 1: Comparativeanalysis ofthegeneralattributes, learningenvironmentandcost forthethreegroups studied

Table 1a: Generalattributes ofthethreegroups studied

MIE learning stations Regularschool IT professional school

Age Ranging from 7-14 years.Averageage 10-11 years

Ranging fromage 10-13years

Ranging from 18-21 years

Gender Males and females Males and females Males and females

Background Majority fromeconomicallyweakersections

Lowerto middle incomegroups

Middleto upper incomegroups

Education Primaryto middle Middle Undergraduates tograduates. [All students


15/19

havecompleted 12thgrade]

Access tocomputers

SharedpublicMIElearning stations

Classroom instructionandcomputerlab

Classroom instructionandcomputerlab

Assessment Throughthe IAI Assignments, exams-theory, practicals andprojects. IAI

Assignments,projects,assessments andpracticals. IAI

Teachingmethod

Self, collaborative, littleorno intervention fromadults

Teacherdependentapproach

Facultydependentapproach

Time spent No timerestriction 2.5-4 hours perweek 6 hoursperweek

Table 1b: Thelearningenvironment

MIE learning stations Regularschool IT professional school

Context SharedpublicMIElearning stations Classroom instructionandcomputerlab. Classroom instructionsandcomputerlab

Access tocomputersduringworkinghours

- onanaverage, theusageisbetween 10am-4 pm[MIE learning stationsremain open from 9am-5.30pm, beyondwhichtheyare shutdown]- no timerestriction,childrencanaccesscomputers as longas the

learning station is open- accessibleto allchildren- visit MIE learningstationbeforegoingtoschool oronreturn oronholidays, nearlythewholeday

- 2.4-4 hoursperweek- attendclass at fixedtime- accessible onlytostudents ofagivenclass

- 6 hours perweek- attendclass at fixedtime- accessible onlytostudents ofallottedbatch

Teachingmethod

- children organisethemselves into smallgroups. Eachchild is bothstudent (learns fromothers) andteacher(teaches childrenwhohaveless knowledgethanhim/her). Hence, student-teacherboundaries areblurred.- peers, siblings, friends

- teachercentricapproach- entireclass taughtbyoneteacher- childrennotallowedtointeract orconsulteachotherduringclass time.

- teachercentricapproach- facultydependent- entireclass taughtbyoneteacher- students notallowedtointeract orconsulteachotherduringclass time.


16/19

and others- absence ofadultintervention- absence of formalteaching

Qualifications Mainlyprimary schoolchildren

Teachers areprofessionallytrainedandqualifiedandhaveteachingexperience

Teachers areprofessionallytrainedandqualifiedandhaveteachingexperience

Learningmethods/strategy

Mainlycollaborativelearningthroughthemethods of observation,modeling, trialanderrorand selfdiscovery

Individualbasedlearning Individualbasedlearning

Assessment/

evaluation

No evaluationexcept IAI

which is not seenasassessment. Noexamination.

Assignments, tests and

finalexamination forboththeoryandpracticals, andprojects.

Assignments,periodic

assessmentandpracticals.Finalexamination.

Table 1c: Cost oflearning(1 US$ = Rs 44, April 2005)

MIE group Regularschool IT professionalgroup

Rupee 1 perchildperday,based onanestimate ofanaverage of 200 childrenusingeachlearning station.

Annualcost Rs. 365/- perchild

Rs. 1250/- permonthperchildAnnualcost Rs. 15000/-

Rs. 17000/- persemesterperstudent.Annualcost Rs. 34000/-

Table 2: Comparativeanalysis ofperformance on IAI forthethree studygroups:MIE learning stationusers, regularschool students and IT professionalcourse students

MIE group RegularschoolIT professionalgroup

Inauguration (1stday) 6.65 10.44 11.96

3rdmonth (62 days) 22.12 24.01 23.73

5thmonth (124 days) 29.36 35.96 34.6

8thmonth (217 days) 38.18 Notavailable 49.17

Regardingthelearningenvironment inwhichall ofthethreegroups accomplishcomputerliteracy, thedifferences betweenMIE learning stationusers and others is significant. ThelearningmethodusedbyMIE learning stationusers draws upontheexpertise ofpeers, siblingsand friends. Eachlearnerisbothalearnerandatrainer.


17/19

Table 2 provides theperformance on IAI forthethreegroups studied. TheMIE learning stationusersbeginatthelowestlevel ofperformance - 6.65%, incomparisonto regularschool students(10.44%) andthe IT professionalcourse students (11.96%). Bythethirdmonth, thethreegroupsareatpar. Bytheeighthmonth, the IT professionalgroup of students stands at 49% incomparisonto MIE learning stationusers at 38.18%. So, the IT professionalgroup of students

performedthebest, to beginwith, whichwas perhaps not surprising, giventheirbackground.However, the othergroups caughtupwiththembytheeighthmonth. Inthis connection, itmaybenotedthat office secretaries scorebetween 30% and 50% inthe IAI, as seen fromanindependent (as yetunpublished) study.

Theunstructured, openand flexibleenvironment oftheMIE learning station seems to producecomparablelevels ofcomputerliteracyamongstlearners as comparedto formalmethods. Itdoesso ataconsiderablylowercost.

Conclusions

Weconcludethatgroups ofchildrencanlearnto usecomputers ontheirown, irrespective ofwho orwheretheyare. This willhappen ifcomputers areprovidedto them in safe, publiclocations.

This method ofacquisition ofcomputerliteracydoes notdepend ontheexistence of schools orteachers. It is also considerablyless expensivethantraditionalmethods ofcomputereducation.Therefore, inthosecircumstances where schools andteachers areabsent, MIE learning stationsareanadequate substitute. Places affectedbynaturaldisasters, suchas therecenttsunami intheIndian Ocean, orplaces affectedbywar, suchas Afghanistan orIraq, orplaces affectedbyeconomic orsocialproblems suchaspoverty orHIV/AIDS in Africa, arelikelyto benefitquicklyandreliablythrough such selflearningmethods.

Whilethispaper is abouttheacquisition ofcomputerliteracy, thereare indications thatMIElearning stationsproduce otherchanges inchildren's socialandeducationalachievements. Suchchanges (Inamdar, 2004; and others to bepublished) aredescribedelsewhere.

Acknowledgements

Anexperiment ofthis nature involves manypeople, muchtraveling, dataanalysis anddiscussion.Specialacknowledgements aredueto Vikram Kumar, DineshMehta, NitinSharma, AshooDubey, andthe seventeen field observers atthevillages. It iswiththeirhelpthatthevillageswere identifiedandthelearning stations constructed. Sanjay Gupta, VivekRana, Meera Dutta,

Himanshu TayalandShailenderMinz's contributions to thehardwareand softwaredevelopmentaspects oftheexperimentwere invaluableto thedevelopment ofthelearning stations.

Wewishto acknowledgethecontributions of MarmarMukhopadhyay (NIEPA), KennethKenniston (MIT), Bruno Bondetdela Bernardie (IFC), Anil Inamdar(The Aquarians), ManasChakrabarti andSuneeta Kulkarni (Soham), inadvisingtheresearcheffort.


18/19

Financialassistance fromthe International Finance Corporation, the Government of Delhi, theICICI bankand NIIT Limited is gratefullyacknowledged.

References

Bathla, G. (2002); Self-developmentthroughcollaborativelearning: A constructivistapproach.Unpublishedprojectreport, D.R. College, University of Delhi.

Clement, D.H. (1999). Youngchildrenandtechnology. InDialogue on early childhood science,mathematics and technology education. Washington DC: American Association fortheAdvancement ofScience Project 2061.http://www.project2061.org/publications/earlychild/online/experience/clements.htm

Inamdar, P. (2004). Computerskills developmentbychildrenusing'hole inthewall' facilities inrural India.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3), 337-350.http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/inamdar.html

Mitra, S. (1988). A computerassistedlearning strategy forcomputerliteracyprogrammes.Presentedatthe Annual Convention ofthe All-India Association forEducational Technology,December1988, Goa, India.

Mitra, S. (2000). Minimally invasiveeducation formass computerliteracy. PaperpresentedatCRIDALA 2000 Conference, Hong Kong, 21-25.

Mitra, S. & Rana, V. (2001). Childrenandthe Internet: Experiments withminimally invasiveeducation in India.British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 221-232. http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/docs/Paper02.pdf

Mitra, S. (2003). Minimally Invasive Education: A progress report onthe "Hole-in-the-wall"experiments.British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 367-371.

Mitra, S. (2004). Thehole inthewall. Dataquest, 23 September.http://www.dqindia.com/content/industrymarket/2004/104092301.asp#interact

MIE Users Manual(2003). Hole-in-the-wall Education Limited (HiWEL), NIIT Ltd. New Delhi,India. Contacthttp://www.niitholeinthewall.com/

Papert, S. (1980).Mindstorms: Children, Microcomputers and powerful ideas. New YorkBasic

Books.

van Cappelle, F., Evers, V. & Mitra, S. (2004). Investigatingtheeffects ofunsupervisedcomputeruse oneducationallydisadvantagedchildren's knowledgeandunderstanding ofcomputers. Proceedings of CATaC 2004, Karlstad, Sweden. (pp528-542)


19/19

Wullenweber, W. (2001). Das Loch inderWand. Stern Magazine, No. 42, October11,pp 97-102. http://www.indien-netzwerk.de/navigation/kulturgesellschaft/gesellschaft/artikel/computer_slumkids.htm

Authors:SugataMitra, Ritu Dangwal, Shiffon Chatterjee, Swati Jha, RavinderS. Bishtand Preeti

Kapur.Centre forResearch in CognitiveSystems, NIIT Limited, SynergyBuilding, IIT Campus, Haus Khas,

New Delhi 110016, India. Email: [email protected]: http://www.niitholeinthewall.com/

Please cite as: Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, S., Bisht, R. S. and Kapur, P. (2005).Acquisition ofcomputingliteracy on sharedpubliccomputers: Childrenandthe "hole inthewall".

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 407-426.

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/mitra.html

Sugata Mitra Austral Asian Journal of Educational Technology 2005

Documents

Transcript of Sugata Mitra Austral Asian Journal of Educational Technology 2005