Re: Re: Hole in the wall... looking at other issues

Dear Satish et al,

I have read bits and pieces about Hole-in-the-Wall, including some of
the stuff on their website.

> however, point is made- that kids in 6 to 13 age group can learn to
> navigate a compter without anyone's help. but if kids from 2 or 3
> onwards can do it without manual because they could not read anyway,
> what is the gain in proving that point. we presume if something can be
> done by grade 1 students, grade 3 students can do that anyway. if not
> there may be other issues involved.

I am from an education background, having been a teacher in government
schools (amongst other positions in education) in Southern Africa, South
Asia, Eastern Europe, the US, and Australia.  I think the point here is
not just to show that it is possible, but to explore how it works, under
what circumstances, for what types of knowledge, etc, and finally how to
incorporate it into education systems.  The original hole in the wall
had significant monitoring to explore these questions.  As a result of
analysis of this data, modifications were made to the computer interface
they used to increase the accessibility of the computer.

Still, I remember thinking at that time that, just because it worked in
a poor urban setting, that did not necessarily mean it would work in
rural areas.  The work in Maharastra has proven that to be the case as
well.

> i am also sensitive to it because it sounds a little racist to me that
> what the kids in industrial world can do at age 3 the kids in slums
> can do at 6 to 13. I have found some of the children who beg on the
> streets of delhi extraordinarily intelligent in several cases but with
> a lack of opportunities they may not achieve their potential. but does
> that need to be proved. intelligence is almost evenly distributed
> across all societies. it is its application, the learning curve that
> we are on, the experiences we have, the culture we live in may shape
> many of our preferences.

I thoroughly and emphatically agree with all your points here, except
the questioning of the need to prove it.  I have not come across any
such claims, and would like to hear from you where or by whom such
claims were made.  Funding decisions are very political, and whatever
studies supporters of these points have access to, the stronger their
case for funding initiatives that give access to all levels of learning
to disadvantaged youths.  There was a popular film in the US about 15
years ago based on a true story about a teacher in a poor inner city
school called "Stand and Deliver".  He insisted on teaching calculus to
some of his students.  He encountered opposition from other teachers and
school administrators.  After a few years, the students were doing so
well that officials from the Educational Testing Service (ETS) believed
that they must have been cheating.  They did not believe that students
from a poor inner city background could do as well as students from
elite private schools.  The students were forced to retake the exam
under ETS supervision, and they proved that they had not cheated, and
their scores were reinstated.

> i am a child of deprivation myself and after getting an opportunity to
> go to school i went to harvard, fletcher, and half a dozen schools in
> the western world. i perhaps was the youngest editor and heda of a
> newsweekly in the national press in india at under 30 years. but if
> someone carried out an experiment saying that a child of deprivation
> could become the editor of the times of india group at under 30
> therefore......... will that prove anything?

Films such as "Stand and Deliver" and projects such as the
Hole-in-the-Wall experiment help to emphasize that students from
disadvantaged backgrounds have just as much potential as anybody else,
and that, given the right context, they can excel.  They will continue
to be needed until the disadvantages are eliminated.  Those who benefit
from the inequalities will continue to try to maintain the social
structures that give them an advantage, and many from disadvantaged
backgrounds will continue to believe that there is no sense in even
trying to overcome existing obstacles.  I believe that both challenging
the perspectives of people from advantaged backgrounds and giving hope
and methods for overcoming obstacles to those from disadvantaged
backgrounds are equally necessary.  From what you say, you have managed
to overcome the odds, and so your insights would be useful to both
groups.

> where i have an issue is in turning that into a model that will route
> funds into a direction that may not be necessary. that is expensive.
> or not cost-effective. each point has its purpose and helps us move
> forward as a society. but i have an issue when it directs resources in
> a direction that may require greater scrutiny. even more so when the
> resiurces are public.

I see the Hole-in-the-Wall experiment as worthwhile research from both
an education standpoint and a social change standpoint.  I do not know
about the significant funding you object to, and from what I have read,
they are doing more than simply putting computers in different places
and watching.  Also, from a scientific standpoint, the more widely an
experimental result is verified, the more it is taken to be valid.
Nevertheless, your point about prioritising funding initiatives is well
taken.  I would be interested in hearing more specifics about where you
see money within the project being used for unnecessary duplication.

> i get upset when someone like the ceo of globalvision - at the
> strength of the argument provided by one of our own colleagues- comes
> and tells me in an email that 15 year old indian kids could be less
> intelligent than 3 year old american kids. when i know well that his
> asosciate is a child adopted from bihar and brought up in italy and
> now has an italian name. for me he is proof enough that we do not need
> to prove these points anymore. there was a hollywood film with dan
> arkroyd and eddie murphy- for one dollar or something- where the point
> was  proved for masses. i thought that should have closed the issue.
> the point is about how we can better use of technology not about they
> can also learn it and the others can also learn it

I fully agree with you that such statements are upsetting, to say the
least. For you or me the associate may be proof enough, but we are not
the only ones who needs convincing.  Obviously this CEO has not made the
connection even though he is the one with the associate you use as an
example.  Also, the movie, "Trading Places", was pure fiction, and so
cannot be said to prove anything, really.  The premise was so outrageous
that people from both privileged and disadvantaged backgrounds in the US
would view it as little more than humorous fantasy.  Thus it would not
give a sense of hope to anybody.  It would also not challenge anybody's
worldview or show anybody how to improve their situation.  In fact,
achieving success purely by a chance encounter with 2 crazy rich stock
brokers would only add to a sense of fatalism that assumes that success
has nothing to do with ability or effort, and everything to do with just
being in the right place at the right time.

Cheers,

Layton Montgomery




http://careers.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Careers
- 1,000's of jobs waiting online for you!