4.4.1 PLC in Action and SOLE at PLC
The HiWel project intended to address health, sanitation and hygiene related awareness through the provision of related content in the PLCs. The content was to be funded by the government (JMC) and delivered by HiWel. However, during the field visit to the PLCs, I did not come across content developed by HiWel. The children were mostly observed playing with MS Paint application and at another site the content introduction mentioned that it belonged to Madhya Pradesh, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission (a government programme for elementary education). This seems to imply that HiWel acted as procurer of the content funded by the government.
The literature on the PLCs projects portrays it as a programme for self guided learning. The project also aimed at slum development through increasing learning achievement in children in the age group of 6 – 16 years besides helping them acquire functional computer literacy. While the MoU with JMC does not use phrases such as ‘minimally invasive learning’ or ‘self organising learning environment’ but it does discuss the aspect of self-guided learning approach (See Box 6.1).
Box 6.2 Excerpt from HiWel-JMC MoU
“When the computers are first installed, and the children explore this new “toy,” most of the discoveries are around navigating the operating system. Apart from learning how to operate the computer, this phase is critical to establishing a mindset of discovery and problem-solving. Once the children get used to operating the computer, they start discovering the Learning Content loaded on the local hard drive. The learning Content typically includes curricular content in the local language. In addition, for the Jaipur project, HiWel will create and deploy critical content on issues such as personal hygiene, sanitation and water conservation. Unlike traditional settings where the content works as transmission of information, in the PLC settings the content generates conversation among the children. The conversation is critical to ensuring learning outcomes.” (GoR-HiWel-JMC, 2007)
Amongst certain proponents of ICTs, it is very common to classify everything other than ICT settings as ‘traditional’ and ‘archaic’ (See Box 6.2) and therefore having limitation in generating critical learning situations. However the field experience of HiWel PLC settings where the content is assumed to generate conversation leading to learning outcomes suggests that the outcome depends on how the setting is used by the users.
I will first discuss issues with the learning content. The learning content is only vaguely termed `critical’ in the MoU document. The REI did not set up any content development or learning content approval team for the content brought into the public education domain by partners. This is not something specific to HiWel and is true for other ICT based content.
Since HiWel was in partnership with the JMC, there was no particular DD in-charge of the project in REI. Initially I was informed by DD, REI that DD,IT is in charge of all ICT based partnerships but in an introductory conversation, the officer declined an interview saying that he had been given the charge of several partnerships because of his helpful nature and that it was a JMC partnership. The HiWel team and the project manager however shared that the learning content has been approved by an IT curriculum committee within REI/SSA. This information was unofficially shared by several ICT based intervention partners who were on board in the committee but interestingly this information was never discussed openly or officially.
Though the approval of learning content remains an issue, it was interesting to see how the content was being used in the actual field situation. The following observation (See Box 6.3) at one of the PLCs in Jaipur municipal area reveals how school children are using the PLC and learning about WATER from the content loaded in the PLC computer. This school runs in the premises of a temple located in the old city area in Jaipur. The PLC is installed in the temple premises and was being used by the school children.
conversation amongst children on the content. Rather, as the supervisor mentioned, the whole exercise was simply to reinforce the content in the textbooks. The learning, reading
and reflection on the content is certainly important and even in the absence of any conversation, in the act of copying the content, the children might have learnt something about water. However the claim in the HiWel MoU, setting itself apart and the PLC from what it calls ‘traditional’ cuts no ice.
Location of the PLCs in the physical space also had design issues. During my field visit I found that most of the kiosks were in the open and were built in such a manner that with the changing position of the sun there were times when nothing was visible on
Box 6.3 Observations from a PLC in Jaipur
The school was buzzing with activity and the sight of children talking, playing; moving around in the premises was quite heartening. There was a group of about 25 children around the two computers of the PLC. All the children had notebooks and pencil/pen with them and they were busy writing in their notebooks. A girl and a boy were standing next to one of the computers and trying to copy the content displayed on one of the computer screens. On both sides of these two children there were children sitting on the floor and very often, one or two of them would stand up and run up to the children standing next to the screen, read from their notebook or from the screen, come back and begin writing in their notebook. Though the computers had overhead shade but the sun had changed position and the light was falling on to the screen of the computer from which children were trying to read and copy. They had to come very close to the computer and read content in the little shadow of their body falling on to the screen. There was one girl who had probably finished copying the content and was reading out aloud from her notebook and taking a peep on to the screen in between. Rest of the children, sitting on the floor, were writing down as she read out. Some of them who were almost done were correcting their work, carefully listening and writing the words left out. The volunteer of the PLC and a supervisor stood and observed as the children worked. The content on the screen was about sources of water and the language was Hindi. The children around the PLC, all school going children from grade VII, were copying the content displayed on the screen. I asked the project volunteer and the supervisor, why the children were copying the content in their notebooks. The volunteer pointed towards the supervisor. She said that water and environment are part of the curriculum in grade VI and VII so children are studying it as an extension of what is already there in the textbooks and relevant to their coursework. (Field notes, Jaipur, 2009)
screens.50 JMC was responsible for building kiosks for PLCs and clearly had not considered sunlight glare, making PLCs unusable. There were delays in construction of kiosks as well.
4.4.2 Partnering with other Organisations for Programme Implementation
Bodh Shiksha Samiti
When I was working in Rajasthan with Bodh Shiksha Samiti (an NGO), the HiWel team had approached Bodh to help them in project implementation. Bodh has done extensive work with government schools in the slums of Jaipur city. The initial discussions revolved around how Bodh would help in monitoring and evaluation of PLCs in the slum localities. The collaboration however did not take off.
Pratham-Rajasthan
Pratham-Rajasthan (see next case study for an introduction to Pratham) had collaborated with HiWel for part of their work with communities and in monitoring and evaluation (see Box 6.4).
We can see from the above observation (Box 6.3), the facilitators were eliciting responses from the children and reinforcing learning through revision and recapitulation. Guided learning techniques were being used to discuss the film after the children had watched the movie. Children were not left to learn on their own. I would not be amazed if these children were tested later and in future the HiWel team is able to show learning of the content in their tests.
50
4.4.3 Examining SOLE claims
There was evidence in the field that the Pratham team was supporting the education of children through video film shows (Box 6.4). So the claim that simply placing the material on computers locked in a kiosk will enable communities to educate themselves on issues of health, hygiene etc is not factually correct. There are some inherent contradictions in terms of what HiWel experiments project in their research material and what actually goes on in field.
Whilst Mitra (2010) can quote Arthur C. Clarke: ‘A teacher that can be replaced by a machine should be’, to strike a balance, the input provided by volunteers, trainers and
partner organisations in the claimed success of HiWel experiments, needs also to be highlighted by HiWel. The reality of the field is that if not government school teachers then other workers (volunteers) have engaged with children according to their capacities and have been able to reflect on the necessary requirements for children’s learning. This is again brought out by the following observation from the field (See Box 6.5).
Box 6.4 Pratham’s Involvement in the Project
All the children were assembled in a big room. This room served as a computer classroom in the government school. A silent movie on the theme of water being shown by Pratham-team, projected on one of the walls of the room. The movie had captivating music and it showed people from around the globe in search of water, enjoying water, drinking water and doing various activities with water. There were visuals of ponds, lakes, seas and rains. After the movie a facilitator from the group of three people stood up and started asking the children questions such as what they liked in the movie? What the movie was trying to show etc. The children were initially reluctant to speak but on constant prodding by the facilitator one boy replied, “I liked the sound of water.” The facilitator went on to ask, “Did you see people using water?” Children replied in chorus, “Yes.” Facilitator: “What were they using water for?” Another boy: “Drinking.” Just then three boys sitting around him started making gestures of drinking water from a glass and other children around them started laughing. The facilitator summarized the various activities which the children had seen in the movie, just then the bell rung. The children were now eager to go out of the room. (Field notes, Jaipur, 2009)
Here is a very important point raised by the volunteer-teacher regarding reading and writing skills of the children and the limits of the benefit they can obtain from the content on PCs. Sugata Mitra and the HiWel project on the other hand have ignored this practical issue faced by the teachers and learning facilitators when they claim that children can learn content on their own – “… children will learn to do what they want to learn to do” (ibid. ).
These children who were using the PLCs were studying in the school and also attended tuition classes. They could not use the PLCs for self-learning without further guided learning intervention in the 3Rs. I did not ask if the children were paying any fee for this extra tutoring by the volunteer teacher. Even if this tutoring was privately funded or emerged from the anxiety of the project team to show success of the HiWel experiment, in both cases a conclusion can easily be drawn which is: that external guidance or additional learning inputs were being given to the children and young people who are using the PLCs in under-developed localities of JMC.
At another PLC at a kiosk built in the vicinity of a JMC school, I observed that amongst a group of six children, there were only two children who were regular users and who could show me how they can use joystick to draw circles and other figures. However
Box 6.5 Involvement of Volunteers in the HiWel project
When we reached the school premises where the PLC was located, we found the PLC locked. The school shift was over and there were no children in the school. The coordinator of the project who was accompanying me phoned the volunteer who was a local resident in the community. The volunteer brought the keys with him and along with him followed three children (one girl and two boys aged 7-8 years old). He opened the locks of the computers and asked the children to show me how they work and play with the computers. The children were hesitant to begin with but as the three adults around them got into conversation with each other, the children started playing on the computer. The content was from the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission, Madhya Pradesh. The coordinator asked the facilitator how the preparations for function on the Independence Day were going. He said that he is working with children and also teaching the students beyond the school hours as added instruction in reading and writing. He said that if the children do not know how to read and write then they cannot make better use of the computer. (Field notes, Jaipur, 2009)
private school in the vicinity which also has provision for computer training for children. The HiWel staff accompanying me on the visit stated that the several private schools in the area were interested in HiWel PLCs and wanted them to install their kiosks in their schools. He thought that it was a good idea because these low fee private schools cater to children from poor families.
The project claims that HiWel will be able to show enhancement in students learning by use of playground learning centres through achievement tests. Could that be the reason for this extra effort by the volunteers at the PLCs? It seems that more than anything this extra coaching or intervention to enhance learning was strategic in order to show the success of the project through achievement tests. This is a paradox that the programme which claims itself to be based on the concept of self organising learning environments (SOLEs) was in practice employing volunteers to tutor children in this project.
4.4.4 Teachers’ Participation and the Role of the Volunteer
Interviews with the HiWel team reveal that their experience of another UNICEF supported project under REI in three districts in Rajasthan was not very encouraging in terms of the participation of the government school teachers. Even though the computers were located in school premises, the teachers would not let children leave the classroom and go near the PLCs as they feared their officers, in case they came for a surprise visit and found children outside the classroom, might penalise them. According to the team, most of the teachers would not let the children out because they feel that the PLCs were not part of the formal school curriculum.
In one of the Jaipur slum localities next to the National Highway, the PLC station had been constructed in the wall of the school building. I could go inside the main hall of the building and look at the bunker sort of enclosure for the computers which was locked from inside. The PLC were locked from outside as well and so the screen and the joystick
were not accessible. I asked the head teacher about the timings when they open the PLC for use. She said,
“I cannot keep the PLC unlocked when the school is on. The PLC attracts so many out of school young boys and men. They stand there on the pretext of using the computer. When the boys started visiting the PLC, this made an adverse impact on attendance of girls in schools.” (Interview, 2009)
It seemed however from my conversation with the head teacher, that she was pleased with the PLC volunteer who used to work there. She told me,
“Now when the programme has been withdrawn and the volunteer has left the school, there is no one to open and lock the PLC. The volunteer was good. He used to share his plan to work with children with us.” (ibid.)
The government teacher could not throw any light on the nature of the volunteer’s work at the PLC in her school which was an indication of non-involvement of the teacher in the HiWel programme. At the time of this visit the project had ended and the PLCs were given over to schools. The PLCs were locked without any trace of children or youth. Two months later when travelling along this highway I saw one of the PLCs unlocked. I was happy to see group of young men standing around the PLC and thought the PLC had again become operational. I phoned one of the teachers in the school and found out that the PLC had been vandalised. Someone had broken the lock and removed the iron cover and as there was no electricity connection the PLC was still not usable.51 A really sorry predicament for an innovative experiment which hoped to bring new ideas to the field.