HopeintheWall? A digital promise for free learning - Payal Arora

14 Pages·2010·0.28 MB·English

BritishJournalof EducationalTechnology(2010)
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01078.x
Hope-in-the-Wall? A digital promise for free learning
_10781..14
PayalArora
PayalAroraisanAssistantProfessorinInternationalCommunicationandMediaatErasmusUniversity
in the Netherlands. Her interests lie in social computing, informatics, new media, ethnography and
internationaldevelopment.Shehaspublishedinseveralpeer-reviewedscholarlyjournalsandherupcom-
ingbook,“DotComMantra:SocialComputingintheCentralHimalayas”,exploressocialpracticewith
computersandtheInternetinAlmorainIndia,includingtheanalysisof keyICTinitiativesatthegrass
roots level. Address for correspondence: Dr Payal Arora, Department of Media and Communication,
Postbus1738,3000DRRotterdam,TheNetherlands.Email:[email protected]
Abstract
Hole-in-the-Wall as a concept has attracted worldwide attention. It involves
providing unconditional access to computer-equipped kiosks in playgrounds
and out-of-school settings, children taking ownership of their learning and
learning driven by the children’s natural curiosity. It is posited that this
approach, which is being used in India, Cambodia and several countries in
Africa, can pave the way for a new education paradigm and be the key to
providingliteracyandbasiceducationandbridgingthedigitaldivideinremote
anddisadvantagedregions.Thispaperseekstoestablishwhytwosuchopen
access,self-directedandcollaborativelearningsystemsfailedtotakerootinthe
CentralHimalayacommunitiesofAlmoraandHawalbagh.Thepurposeofthis
study is not to deny the achievements and potential of such an approach in
othersettings,buttoexaminethetenetsandsustainabilityof suchinitiatives.
ItisarguedthatthereisaneedtodistinguishbetweenHole-in-the-Wallasan
ideaandasaninstitutionandtoreflectonthekeysuppositionsonhowunsu-
pervisedaccess,informal,public,self-guidedandcollaborativeworkcanhelp
inchildren’slearning.
Introduction
Thegoalof achievingeducationalequityinsocietiesmiredbyhistoricalorcontempo-
rarydisadvantageandinjusticehasgreatappeal.However,thepursuitof thisidealcan
varyinitsoutcomesfrominspirationaltodisillusioning.
RuralIndiahasbeenplaguedwithchronicfailureindeliveringqualityeducationtoits
vastyoungpopulace.Therearefrequentlydocumentedcasesof teacherabsenteeism,
thedearthof textbooksandotherteachingandlearningmaterials,poorfacilitiesand
theuseof rotelearningmethods,allof whichdeprivechildrenof opportunitiesforthe
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.PublishedbyBlackwellPublishing,9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ,
UKand350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA.
2 BritishJournalof EducationalTechnology
kindsof teachingandlearningtheyneed(Drèze&Sen,2002).Ratherthanwaitingfor
governmentalandinstitutionalchangeandresolve,someagencieshaveembarkedto
providenew,radicallydifferentlearningenvironments.OnesuchinitiativeisHole-in-
the-Wall.
Hole-in-the-Wallstartedwithasimplebutradicalidea.Acomputerwasembeddedina
wallof aslumareainKalkaji,NewDelhi,toseewhatusethelocalchildrenwouldmake
of thiswithoutinstructionorguidance.Atouchpadwasbuiltintothewall,aWindows
NToperatingsysteminstalledonthePCandavideocameraplacedonanearbytreeto
recordthechildren’sactivity.
Thechildrenthatcametoexplorethecomputerhadlittleformaleducation.Fewerstill
had ever been exposed to a computer or material in English. And yet within eight
months, they had learned all the mouse operations and could open and close pro-
grammes,surf theNetanddownloadgames,musicandvideo.Whenaskedhowthey
didthis,theysaidtheyhadtaughtthemselves.Thepioneerbehindthisproject(Mitra,
2004) defined this new mode of learning as ‘minimally invasive education’ (MIE),
claimingthatit‘usesthelearningenvironmenttogenerateanadequatelevelof moti-
vationtoinducelearningingroupsof children,withminimal,orno,interventionbya
teacher’(Mitra,Dangwal,Chatterjee&Jha,2005,p.2).
Hole-in-the-Wall Education Lit. (HiWEL), a joint venture between NIIT Ltd., and the
International Finance Corporation, has received the World Information Technology
andServicesAlliance‘DigitalOpportunityAward’foritspath-breakingworkininfor-
male-learning.Ithastriggeredaromancethattellsof learningfreefromthechronic
obstacles of formal schooling and children liberated through self-learning. Its many
national and international applications have attracted funding, media coverage and
publications, spawning ingenious means and ways of equipping villages with these
playground-locatedcomputerkiosks.Storieshavebeentoldof childreninventingtheir
ownvocabularytodescribecomputersymbols—forexample,callingthedesktophour-
glass countdown timer damru (Shiva’s drum); of children formerly denied access to
schoolingorrelegatedtothebackgroundinschoolingasnowbeingplacedatthecentre
of thelearningenterprise;of villagerslikeningtheInternettoawellfromwhichthe
children could draw up knowledge and broaden their horizons (Judge, 2000). Also
capturedinthismomentumarechildrenteachingthemselvesandotherstopaint,play
gamesandmusicandcheckouttheirhoroscopesthroughsuchkiosks—anddiscover-
ingthatlearningcouldbefun.Eventhenovel‘Q&A’onwhichthe‘SlumdogMillionaire’
moviewasbasedwasinspiredbytheHiWELinitiative.Theauthor,VikasSwarup,says
‘Mybookisabouthope,optimismandtriumphof thehumanspirit.Iwasinspiredby
theHole-in-the-Wallproject.ThatgotmefascinatedandIrealizedthatthere’saninnate
abilityineveryonetodosomethingextraordinary,providedtheyaregivenanopportu-
nity’(EconomicTimes,2009).
NicholasNegroponteof MassachusettsInstituteof Technology(MIT)likenedtheHole-
in-the-Wallkiosksto‘sharedblackboards’thatchildreninunderprivilegedcommuni-
tiescouldcollectivelyownandaccesstoexplore,learn,collaborate,brainstorm,come
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
Freelearing 3
upwithexcitingideasandexpressthemselves.Morekioskswerelocatedandtrialledin
out-of-the-way,out-of-the-mindlocationsinIndiaandCambodiaandusedinaCom-
monwealthConnectsprojectinUganda.TheHole-in-the-Wallexperimentscontinued
between1999and2004.Thenin2004,HoleintheWallEducationLimitedorHiWEL
(http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/)wasformed,ajointventurebetweenNIITLimited
andtheInternationalFinanceCorporation.
HiWELstrivestoprovidedigitalaccessthroughcomputer-equippedlearningkiosksin
schoolplaygroundsandout-of-schoolsettingsintheunderlyingbeliefthatchildrencan
take ownership of their learning, and that learning can be driven by their natural
curiosity.Itispositedthatthiscanpavethewayforaneweducationparadigmandbe
the key to providing literacy and basic education and bridging the digital divide in
remoteanddisadvantagedregions.Itisalsosuggestedthatthechildcanbothbethe
learnerandtheteacher,collaboratorsintheirownlearning.Notsurprisingly,thiswork
hasreceivedinternationalrecognitionandawards.
While the HiWEL initiative is commendable, it raises some challenging questions. Is
collaborative learning a natural or a taught process? Is informal and public learning
inherently more equitable and democratic? What kinds and depths of learning are
achievable? What, if any, is the role of the teacher and/or mediators in this process?
Whatarethebenchmarksforsuccessandfailure,andhowdothesedifferfromthosein
conventionallearning?Andisthisapproachsustainable?
Theauthor’schanceencounterwithtwofailedHole-in-the-WallschemesinAlmora,a
district in the Kumaun region of the Central Himalayas, provided an opportunity to
considerthesequestionsinaspecificsocio-geographiccontext.Shewasengagedinan
8-month qualitative ethnographic study of computer usage in the region when she
chanceduponallthatremainedof thisinitiativeandhadtheopportunitytodrawon
people’s recollections of it. Given HiWEL’s popularity among development practitio-
ners,itwassurprisingtodiscoverthatdespitesignificantinvestmentof time,resources
and effort, this particular project had ground to a halt and seemingly, had barely
touchedthecommunity.Only2yearsaftertheproject’simplementation,therewaslow
communitymemoryof it.
HiWEL’spromisingresultselsewherecontinuetogiveitlegitimacyincombatingedu-
cational disadvantage. However, it is worth bearing in mind that there is little docu-
mented evidence on HiWEL other than that originating from the HiWEL researchers
themselves. The absence of empirical research independent of its funding source is
sadly not an anomaly in the development field (Davidoff etal., 2001; Samoff, 1992).
Alsotragically,therearealltoomanyexamplesof independentevaluationsof media
applicationsineducationindevelopingcountriesrecordingthedemiseof theseinitia-
tives once funding is withdrawn.This observation does not warrant out-of-hand dis-
missalsof theproject’sworthandpotential,butthefailureof thisparticularprojectin
Almorastrengthensthecaseforposingthequestionsabove.
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
4 BritishJournalof EducationalTechnology
Figure1: HiWELLearningStation:AlmoraTown
Figure2: HiWELLearningStation:HawalbaghVillage
Theethnographerasarchaeologist
In a narrow laneway off the main street of Almora township, just past the typical
motley of tea stalls, fruit vendors and displays of Kumauni woollens, there stands a
four-walled cemented structure in which there are three gaping holes (Figure1). It
mighteasilybemistakenforoneof themanylocalconstructionprojectsthathaverun
outof moneyandbeenabandoned.Butfortheresearcher,theethnographerbecomes
thearchaeologist,thisrelicof aneglectedHole-in-the-Wallcomputer-basedinitiative
calledoutforinvestigation.
Asimilarbutmorerecentprojectdemisewasalsofoundtohaveoccurredatthenearby
village of Hawalbagh, where again the kiosk stood in ruins (Figure2). Both sets of
kioskswereonthecompoundsof thelocalhighschools.TheoneinAlmorawasonthe
pathway leading up to the boy’s school, while the one in Hawalbagh was in the
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
Freelearing 5
co-educational school’s playground. These were all that remained of this particular
Hole-in-the-Wallexperiment.Sowhathadgonewrong?
Diggingupthepast
Discussionswithmembersof thelocalcommunityrevealedthefateof thesetwoini-
tiatives.The Almora kiosk, inaugurated in October 2002, had met an untimely end
withinafewmonthsof itsopeningduetovandalism.OneHiWELstaffmembersubse-
quentlydescribeditastheonlylearningstationevertobeclosedevenbeforeatrialwas
over.TheHawalbaghkiosk,launchedatthesametime,faredsomewhatbetter,surviv-
inguntilitbecameinactivein2007.Avillage‘caretaker’hadbeenappointedtolook
aftertheequipmentwhilethekiosklaydormant,butitappearedthattheNewDelhi-
basedHiWELteamwasunawareof thereasonsfortheHawalbaghstandstillandwas
awaitingenlightenmentonthismatter.TheresearchervolunteeredtoassistHiWELby
enquiringintothestatusof itskiosksandwasgiventhenecessarycontactdetails.
InAlmoratownship,fewof thepeople,includingthestudents,hadanyrecollectionof
theproject.Walkingdownthewindingpathleadinguptotheschooloneafternoon,the
researchercameacrossagroupof teacherssittingaroundintheplaygroundreading
newspapersandchatting.Itwasexamtimeandtheyhadcomeoutforabreak.Oneof
theseniorteacherstooktheleadinansweringthequestionsonwhatwentwrongwith
thekiosk:
Itwasagoodideabut...I’lltellyou,theyspendsomuchmoneyoncomputersandsuchlittleon
takingcareofit.Theygavethekeystothechaukidar[watchman]andtoldhimtocleanitandtake
careofit.Nowyoutellmewhyshouldhetakecareofit?Hedoesn’tgetpaidforitatall.Hesleeps
herebelowandworksattheschoolsowhyshouldhegoupandstayupjustforthis?
Anotherteacherinterjected:
Theproblemisthatthereisnoinstructiongiven.It’sokayif peoplearecomputerliteratebut
whenmostpeopleherearecomputerilliteratetheyneedguidanceandinstruction.Inourschool
wehaveafulllabwhereweinstructchildren.Thiskioskthingwentononlyforamonthortwo
andthenitstoppedbuteventhoughitstoppedworkingwekeptgettingthebillsformonthsand
thenonlyrecentlytheytookthecomputersawayandmovedittoHawalbaghforsomething.
Almora has a population of around 30000 and is a centre for adventure tourism.
Hawalbaghisasmallvillagewithapopulationof about600.Thereisrampantunem-
ploymentherebecausethereislittleindustry.Themajorityof thepeopledependupon
subsistencefarming.Alocalagriculturalresearchcentreoffersemploymenttoathird
of Hawalbagh’s population, but only on an intermittent basis. As in all government
schoolsintheseregions,KumauniisspokenwidelybutHindiisthemediumof instruc-
tion, and English is taught from the 6th grade onwards. There is only one primary
school,onegovernmenthighschoolandoneprivateschoolinthearea.Morethanhalf
of thestudentsatthegovernmentco-educationalhighschoolwheretheremainsof the
HiWELLearningStationstoodcamefromtheneighbouringvillages.Talkingtothem
revealed few insights. They were either unaware of the kiosk or acknowledged its
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
6 BritishJournalof EducationalTechnology
existencewithashrugof theshoulders,asif acceptingitsfateaspartof thegeneral
stateof thingsinthevillage.Somecommentedthattheyhad‘justplayedaround’with
thecomputers.Theteachersalsorevealedagenerallackof curiosityover,orconcern
for,thefateof thekiosk.Theyobservedthatthecomputershadbeeninuseforsome
time,butthenusagestopped.Theyrecalledafewboysusingthesekiosks,but‘usually
forthingslikegames,that’sall.’Thecaretakerontheotherhand,ayoungmaninhis
20s,wasmoreinformative.HehadbeenemployedbyHiWELbutnotpaidtosupportor
maintaintheequipmentandhadnotheardfromtheorganisationinmonths.Hesaid:
Thestudentsmainlycamefromthelocalhighschoolandsometimesnearbycolleges.Atthat
time,itwasgoingwell.Forsomefourtofiveyearsstudentswereusingitbecausetheircollegesdid
nothaveanycomputersanditwasfree.They[HiWEL]putafulltimeinstructorthereatthesite
toguidestudents.They[students]didalotontheirowntogetherbutonceinawhiletheywould
asktheinstructorforhelp.Butwhentheelectricitybilldidnotgetpaidforawhile,theauthorities
cutthepoweroff.Itoldthem[HiWEL]topay,buttheydidnotgetbacktome.SoIjustputthe
computersinasaferoomandlockeditfornow.Theyarestillthere.
SharingthisfeedbackwithpeopleatHiWELyieldedtheresponsesthattherewasneed
to‘empowerthecommunity’totakecareof theLearningStationandthattherehad
beenanexpectationthatthesarpanch(villagehead)wouldtakecareof it,buthehad
failedtodothis.Threehundredrupees(abouteightUSdollars)permonthwasallthat
wasneededtosustainthisLearningStation.Theprovidersevidentlysawtheirroleas
‘handholding’forthefirst3years,beyondwhichtimetheyexpectedthecommunityto
takeoverthebaton.
It is of course all too easy to become caught up in the usual development politics of
communityparticipationandcorporateresponsibilityandcauseandeffect.However,
thisdoesnothelpinestablishingthereasonsforthegoalsnotbeingrealised,adream
turning sour.Things should have gone right; there should have been a happy ending.
Afterall,whowouldnotwishtoseechildrentakingoverthedrivingseatintheirown
learningandhavinganopportunityformoreextendedandenhancedlearning?
Togaininsightsintowhathadoccurred,theresearcherthenturnedherattentiontothe
pillars of HiWEL—free and open informal public learning, unsupervised access, col-
laborativepeerlearningandself-guidedlearning—anddelvedintotherelationshipsof
informalandformaleducation,perceptionsof computers,andsocialprocessesof in-
andout-of-schoollearninginsuchapplications.
Schoolasyougo
Theconceptof freelearningisnotsimplyconcernedwithliberationfromlong-standing
inequitableaccesstoeducation.Itentailsthetransformativecapacityof learningthatis
more dialogic and less didactic (Freire, 1998). It disregards hierarchies and formal
structures and promotes the alluring proposition that learning can take place any-
where and with anyone. It does not take much stretch of the imagination to draw
linkages between such advocacies and the HiWEL experiment in trying to provide
educationwithoutdependencyupontheteacherandtheschool.
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
Freelearing 7
Theclassroomcanbeseenasasuffocatingaswellasanurturingenvironment.Through
theschool,thestateattemptstoachieveconsensusonthevoiceof wisdomandlearning
deemednecessaryforthesocialisationofanewgeneration.Aschoolisthereforeasmuch
aconceptualasaconcretecreation.Theorganisationof learningthroughsuchasingle
agencyisseenasapoliticalact.Foucault’s‘schoolasprison’analogyhasbecomeawell
knownemblemof theforcesatplayincreatinglearningspacestoassembleandshape
humanthoughtandaction(Foucault,1977).Thefourwallspromisetocloseinatany
timeandthispromiseoffear,itissupposed,candriveschoolingfarmorepowerfullythan
any alternative vision. Thereby, school is perceived to be as much an instrument of
politicalwillasanembodimentof avisionof democracy.
SoitisnotsurprisingthatHiWEL’sfreeandopenlearningshouldexcitemany.Itholds
promise of a ‘minimal interventionist’ grassroots approach to education with
maximumbenefit.Learningescapestheconfinesof theschoolwalls,isavailableany-
whereanytime,andovercomestheyearsof injusticeineducationalaccessincountries
suchasIndiawheretheprovisionsforandexpectationsof somanychildrenarelow
(Arora,2006).InAlmoraitself,storiesaboundof teachershandingoverthekeystothe
classroomtoseniorstudentswhiletheystayathomeorundertakeotherwork.
Of course,weareattractedtothepromisethatchildrencanlearnanddolearnwithno
orlittlesupervisionusingcomputersinenvironmentsfreefromthechronicbarriersto
achievingschoolingindisadvantagedareas.Butinthecaseof AlmoraandHawalbagh,
whatweseeistheideaof freelearninggoingintofreefall.Inotherwords,theactof
learning without conventional schooling constraints is contingent on the support of
institutional,socialandotherfactors,makingitless‘free’inthatsense.Wouldthefate
of thekioskshavebeendifferentif therehadbeenmoresupervision?Andwouldthis
havemeantlessormorefreedominlearning?
Thevandalismof thekioskatAlmorathathasalsooccurredinothersettingsasMitra
(2006) himself admits and the neglect of the Hawalbagh facility suggest that too
muchfreedommaybeabadthing.ThisiswhyHiWEL,whileaimingforindependence
fromthecontemporarydrawbacksof ruralschools,isstillcompelledtochoosesiteson
the school compounds, hereby associating the free offer with schooling, classes and
teachers.
Letusbeclearaboutthis.HiWELdoesnotaimtodismissordisregardschooling;itseeks
toprovideanalternativespaceforlearninginplaceswhereschoolsystemshavefailed
toprovideforchildren.Sotherearetwoaspectstobeing‘free’inlearning:freefromthe
dearthof educationalsupportduetoteacherabsenteeismbygivingchildrenopportu-
nities to learn with the computer kiosks and free from ‘bad’ teaching by providing
spaces for collaborative, self-organised and peer teaching and learning—making the
childtheagentinhis/herlearningprocess.Inthisformula,however,liesafundamental
paradox.HiWELexistsbecausetherearefewteachersinruralareastoguidestudents.
HiWELalsoexistsbecausetheyofferaninnovativeFreireanpedagogythatopposesthe
rotelinearlearningthatoftentakesplacewithinruralschools.Soatonce,itissupport-
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
8 BritishJournalof EducationalTechnology
iveof existingschoolingpracticesandyet,againstthewaytheycurrentlystand,pro-
vidingseeminglybetterpedagogicstrategiestolearning.Sowhywouldthisdualitybea
problem?
TheconundrumHiWELhastofaceisthatithastostrategicallyengagewithschoolsto
justifyitspresenceduetotheabsenceof instruction,andyethastostrategicallydisen-
gageinthepresenceof certaintypesof instruction.SoforHiWELtosustainitself,ithas
to involve the school. However, if it involves the school to a point of carrying over
certainroteandlinearschoolingpractices,itisindangerof becomingnothingbutan
extensionof thatschool.
This is seen, for instance, where HiWEL benchmarks its achievements in computer
literacy, English language and other academic areas against conventional schools
(Inamdar & Kulkarni, 2007).Thus, while pedagogical expectations can be perceived
here as being ‘invasive’ on child-centred growth, HiWEL strives to match and even
exceedsuchcurriculargoals.Thereisalsoanunderlyingnotionthattheself-organising
learningorchestratedbychildrenisinherentlybetter,moreliberatingandmoreegali-
tarianthaninformalschooling.Sothisapproachcouldimplythatteachersshouldstay
awaytoencouragechildrentowardsfreelearning.
Infact,HiWELasanexperimenthasmaturedconsiderablyinthelastfewyears.Ithas
movedfromprimarilyprovingthatchildrencanlearnbythemselvesthroughcomput-
ers to the how and what of learning. They have also started to focus more on the
buildingof tieswiththeschool,particularlyinregardtousingtheteachersorothersin
thelocalcommunitiesasmediatorsinlearning.Whilethiscanbeapromisingmovefor
sustainability through the integration of outside interventions, the question here is
how can HiWEL control the kinds of instruction that occurs if the teacher becomes
involved?Whathappenstoknowledgediscoveryandknowledgecreationif theinstruc-
tion by the rural teacher is embedded in rote learning—what would this do to the
HiWELkiosklearningspacesanditsspecificnovelpedagogicactivities?Whattrade-off
wouldHiWELbewillingtomaketoachievesustainability—andwouldthisintheend,
beself-defeatist?Andwithcomputerlaboratoriesspringingupacrossschoolsinrural
Indiaaspartof thenewdigitaldivideinvestmentpolicybytheState(Garai&Shadrach,
2006), how will HiWEL maintain its distinctive character?This would surely require
HiWEL to move beyond the uses of computers as tools of liberation and learning for
children and take into account their more diverse applications. With its hard-earned
SiliconValleystatus,Indianowregardsthecomputerasasymbolof nationhood;the
extent to which institutions are willing to let go or participate in letting go of such
‘instruments’of powerandpersuasionmaybeworthyof investigation.
Privatedistancefrompubliceducation
If HiWEL involves teachers in the usage of the kiosks, it might run the danger of
defeatingthepurposesoftheproject.Suchistheteachingtraditionintheseschoolsthat
thereisahighlikelihoodthattheteacherswouldinstruct,reprimand,correct,direct
and tame the spirit of the child—doing what they are trained and required to do,
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
Freelearing 9
convertthechildrenintopupils,disciplesof learning.Theremightwellbelesssponta-
neous self-directed or group learning. Playing games and music downloads may be
supplantedbyExcelchartsandPowerPoint.Thelimitedaccesstothefewcomputersin
theschoolscouldfurtherimposeconstraintsonlearningandthetimetableschedules
andcurriculumdemandswoulddictatethenatureandpaceof learningatthesekiosks.
Theuseof theterm‘minimallyinvasiveeducation’maynothelpHiWEL’scaseeither
since this implies that teachers are typically ‘invasive’. Indeed, this may be why the
concept of MIE did not appeal to many of the teachers in these two villages. It is
importanttorememberthattheissuesof participationinthelearningactivitiesinthe
playgroundkiosksarenotsimplyinthehandsof HiWELastheproviders,butthelocal
principalsandteachers.Whichbringsustotheissueof whethertheteacherswantto
becomeinvolvedinsucheducationalinitiativesinthefirstplace.
Schoolsregardthemselvesasthecentresof theeducationalenterpriseandinnovative
projectssuchasHiWELasbeingattheperiphery.Sodistancingitself fromclassrooms,
itmayexposeitself toresistancefromtheteachers.Of course,changeisoftenneeded
intheseschoolsandtheyareunlikelytochangebythemselves.Externalagentssuch
asHiWELwiththeirnewideasof Internet-basedlearningcanbeimportantcatalysts
for educational change. Indeed, this is apparent in the recent changes of approach
that involve striving to meet similar desirable outcomes to those of formal school
systems. But then, as HiWEL’s goals align more with those of the state, is there a
danger that it becomes too institutionalised and that its experimental approach
becomescompromised?
Inattemptingeducationalchangeandinnovationinschools,itisnotjustthelackof
incentivestoparticipateinsuchlearningthatinhibitsschoolsbutagenuineconcern
thatmovingawayfromtheformalcurriculumcanleadtothe‘wrong’kindsof knowl-
edgeandteaching(‘mis-education’).Teachersarefearfulof beingheldresponsiblefor
this,andfornotpreparingtheirchildrenforthesettestsandexamsforwhichtheyare
heldaccountable.HiWELhasforthemostpartfocusedonprocessesof learning,with
littleemphasisoncontent,anarenathatisequallyif notmorecontestedwhenitcomes
toschooling,particularlyinitsmoreconventionalforms.
Theseobservationsleadtotheconclusionthatindifferenceof theteachersinAlmora
andHawalbaghmaynothavealtogetherbeenduetodisinterest.Theteachersmaycare
deeplyfortheirpupilsandwhattheyseeasconstitutingteachingandlearning.Butthey
mayhaveviewedHiWEL’sinterventionsaspossibleviolationsof theirturf.
To return to the point made earlier regarding computers, studies show that in many
differentcultures,childrenessentiallyusecomputersmoreforsocialandrecreational
purposes than formal learning (e.g. Arora, Forthcoming; Bremer, 2005; Livingstone,
2003).Theremayevenbeproblemswithsuggestionsof ‘learningasfun’usingcom-
puters.InIndia,thecomputerhassupplantedthetraditionalimagesof thenation—the
malnourished child, the sacred cow, the slow moving elephant trying to outrun the
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.
10 BritishJournalof EducationalTechnology
Asiantigerandsoon.Thestateandthepoliticsof publiceducationendorsetheidea
thatthecomputerblazesthepathwayforthenewgeneration—the‘netizens’—gearing
themselvesupnotnowjusttoworkintheback-officesof multinationalcorporations
butattheforefrontof innovation.Sowhataretheculturalimplicationsof associating
suchasymbolwith‘fun?’andthecasualplacementof thisartefactwithoutanovert
agendaoutsidetheschools?
Playgroundkioskdemocracy
Mitra&Rana(2001)opinethataccidentalorincidentaldiscoveriesif repeatedwithin
a collective environment leads to learning. In this regard, the Hole-in-the-Wall
approach might be seen as following a constructivist Vygotsky (1978) approach to
learning.Itespousespeer-collaborativelearningastheroottoactiveconstructionand
inventionof ideas.MitraandRana(2002,p.222)suggestthat‘thelearnersdetermine
their own learning outcomes’, pointing to the spontaneous emerging collectives of
childrenastheyaredrawntothekiosks—touching,feeling,fiddlingwiththecomputer
andsurfingtheInternet.Soitmightbesaidthatplacingkiosksinplaygroundsisnot
justameansof attractingchildren,butissymbolic.Itmakesthestatementthatlearn-
ingwithcomputersinthiswayisfreelearning,learningisplay,andplayispossibleby
allchildren,andaccessibletoallinsuchpublicenvironments.
HiWELisnotaloneincelebratingcollaborationandplayinlearning.Muchresearchhas
goneintodemonstratingthatself-structureandself-motivationforlearningisembed-
dedwithinplay(Zimmerman,2008;Sutton-Smith,1997).Ratherthanlearningindi-
vidually, HiWEL sees ‘collective learning efforts’ as more natural and rational for
children as they play together with the computer and share ideas and strategies for
learning.Thechildren‘formtheirownsocialnetworksattheselearningstations,which
facilitate information to percolate from the perceived leader(s) to various learners’
(Dangwal,Jha&Kapur,2006,p.296).Theassumptionisthatchildrenwillorganise
themselvesintoleaders,connectorsandnovices,createlinkagesandsharetheirlearn-
ing.HiWELgoessofarastostatethatthisdemocraticlearningcircumventsbarriers
suchasage,casteandclassandthat‘thereisalsonogenderrestrictionastheremaybe
incertainsocialsituations’(Mitra,2005,p.80).
However,thisdoesnottakeintoaccountthedynamicasymmetriesinpeople’sbehav-
iour (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Evidence from HiWEL’s own experiments suggest that
thereareoftenfewergirlsthanboysaccessingthesekiosks(Mitra,2003).Theresearch-
er’s own 6-month experience with Hewlett Packard-supported community computer
kiosksinruralAndhraPradesh(Figure3)establishedthatthesewereprimarilyusedby
boysflockingtoplaygames(Arora,2005).Thesekiosksquicklygainedthereputation
as‘playstations’inthelocality,creatingafurtherdisconnectfromschools.Often,the
same group of boys dominated these spaces. The point here is to not dwell on sex
inequalityincomputerusageorgenderdynamicswithtechnology(see,e.g.Solomon,
Allen & Resta, 2003), but to suggest that collaborative learning is not necessarily
democratic or egalitarian, especially amongst children. In fact, it may be shown that
peer collaboration does not necessarily improve learning and can have a detrimental
©2010TheAuthor.Journalcompilation©2010Becta.