Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 02:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Information Technology for TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe19
Training Teachers to Use Computers in Third WorldSchoolsDavid Hawkridge a & Harry McMahon ba Institute of Educational Technology , The Open University , United Kingdomb Faculty of Education , University of Ulster , Northern IrelandPublished online: 11 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: David Hawkridge & Harry McMahon (1992) Training Teachers to Use Computers in Third World Schools,Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 1:1, 51-65
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0962029920010104
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol 1, No.1, 1992
Training Teachers to UseComputers in Third World Schools
DAVID HAWKRIDGEInstitute of Educational Technology,The Open University, United KingdomHARRY McMAHONFaculty of Education,University of Ulster, Northern Ireland
ABSTRACT This paper draws on research on the use of computers in ThirdWorld schools undertaken with the help of a grant from the HaroldMacmillan Trust and the assistance of teachers and others in 23 Third Worldcountries. In it we stress tfft importance of training all staff concerned in theintroduction of computers into Third World schools, including the policymakers. We discuss training in the early days of introducing the innovation,and how a training cascade may or may not help. We examine the linkbetween motivation to be trained and the prospect of leading change. Wepoint out the virtues of teachers learning about computers in private and theneed for software evaluation criteria for teachers to use. We look briefly atthe links between training, the curriculum and assessment and at the trainingof programmers and technicians. We conclude that policy makers need toshare with school principals, teachers, teacher educators and computereducation specialists or consultants the task of reframing policy while reliableunderstanding of the state of the innovation emerges and the innovatinggroup matures as a training resource in its own right
Introduction
Ministries of Education setting out on the process of establishing computereducation in Third World schools are typically under considerable pressurefrom various constituencies within their own countries. In seeking to
51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
DAVID HAWKRIDGE & HARRY McMAHON
respond to this pressure, they are aware that the resources needed arephysical, in the form of appropriate hardware, software, space and reliableelectrical power, and human, in the form of trained teachers and other staff.The physical resources can be imported or manufactured, with or withoutthe aid of industrial nations, but the human resource must be trained, evenin the few countries where many teachers are expatriates. There is no escapefrom the fact that putting computers in schools, within a support frameworkwhich allows them to be put to effective use, places a very heavy demand onthe training system of the country carrying through the innovation.
The training needed is complex and the skills required to deliver it arescarce, even in the industrial nations. Those requiring training are not onlythe teachers who will deliver the revised curriculum. Other groups must betargeted, as Jacobsen (1987) points out teacher trainers within the country;principals of schools; those who will revise the curriculum and develop newcurriculum materials; those who will evaluate existing software and specifyrequired software; those who will write new software, and those who willcommission hardware and ensure that trained personnel are available tomaintain it. The list goes on and on: parents need to be aware of what ishappening; employers need to have a chance to express their concerns andbecome aware of implications of the innovation for their employmentpractice and future business plans; and, too easily forgotten, policy makersand advisers in government need the opportunity to prepare themselves forthe complex task of developing policy guidelines for the innovation and formanaging its development With such as enormous training task it is difficultto know where to start A review of the training resource as it currentlyexists within the country is probably the best first step.
Training Resource in the Early Days of the Innovation
Rarely is the situation such that teachers can be deemed to have acquiredthe necessary skills though their initial training. If the country is producingcomputer scientists then they are most unlikely to be found as teachers inthe secondary education sector. These people will be working either inhigher education, industry or commerce, or they will not be found at all,having been tempted out of the country to well paid posts in the industrialnations or other developing countries. So, it is not unnatural that Ministriesof Education search out leaders in the indigenous computer sciencefraternity as a first step in the development of a training cascade. The peoplethey find, themselves a very precious resource in whatever context they areworking, are often hard pressed and naturally keen to find ways to bringrelief in the form of newly trained personnel emerging from the secondaryeducation sector. They will be very happy to train trainers who in turn willproduce more candidates for their own courses in higher education or theirown employment sectors. In seeking out this resource, administrators
52
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
TRAINING FOR THIRD WORLD SCHOOLS
therefore automatically generate or reinforce the status of a pressure groupwhose instinct is to lean towards producing a new generation of fellowcomputer scientists through the medium of a course in computer studies.
A second source of expertise for training the trainers is the educationalconsultant who has already built up experience in computer education in anindustrial nation. While it is very likely that indigenous computer scientistsare disposed to support or advocate a vocational approach to curriculumdevelopment, it is much more difficult to predict the likely predilections offirst world educational consultants. It will all depend on their personalbackground - higher or secondary education, school teaching or teachereducation, computer science or some other discipline - and on their countryof origin. The choice of which consultant to use can have a major impact onthe direction which a computer education project takes. For example, inMauritius, the character of the first training was largely determined by anexternal consultant who established a course in computer science whichlargely ignored pedagogical issues, so much so that the Ministry ofEducation had later to provide training for the same group of teachers incomputer-related teaching methodology.
What is sometimes not appreciated by innovators seeking to tap atraining resource brought in from one of the industrial nations is that thesecountries experienced a very gradual emergence of the computer studiesteacher at school level, with significant effects on current policy and practicethere. Long before, the advent of microcomputers, teachers (usually ofmathematics) had taken up the study of computers, and had contributed togradual development of courses in computer studies. By the time themicrocomputer was available at an affordable price for schools, theseteachers were already perceived by their colleagues as those whounderstood all about computers, a natural and convenient source of trainingand support. When governments of industrial nations were faced with theneed to spread the use of microcomputers more widely, these teachers werealready there as a training resource. The significant difference between themand their equivalent today in Third World higher education is that they weretrained teachers, motivated to pay attention to pedagogy, ready to exploitthe computer as something to learn with as well as learn about
Interesting side effects followed from these teachers' involvement intraining. First, the hardware resource was perceived as 'belonging' to thecomputer science teachers: children went to the computer scientist on thestaff to be trained to use computers. This meant that teachers of othersubjects could opt out of the innovation without feeling too guilty. It waseasy to accept that the microcomputer had no relevance for your subject ifthe interests of children and nation were being looked after by someoneelse. In some countries, such as France, much computer education hasremained like this, with vocationally-oriented computer studies courses
53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
DAVID HAWKRIDGE & HARRY McMAHON
taught by trained specialists (Dieuzeide, 1987). Tunisia seems to be followinga similar line.
In countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), the microcomputer hashad a wider impact because teachers of other subjects in secondary schools,and particularly teachers in primary schools, began to exploit its pedagogicaland catalytic powers. Soon competition for resources emerged betweenbackers of information technology as a vocational specialism and advocatesof its use as a pedagogical and catalytic tool across the curriculum. Towardsthe end of the 1980s, practice at primary level showed the way and tippedthe balance at secondary level in the latter direction, towards the use of thecomputer as an aid to learning, for example through the use of simulationprograms, and further than this, towards its use as a catalytic tool toempower children as authors, designers, information providers, artists andmusicians. This trend has gone so far in the UK as to influence strongly therole of information technology within the National Curriculum. Informationtechnology use is specified right across the curriculum, and major trainingneeds are surfacing. As yet, no other country has followed suit
In developing nations, imported training resource in the form ofconsultancy can be from either of these schools of thought, which we mightperhaps call the French and the British. Great care must be taken inselecting which consultant to employ, for in the decision there is likely to liean implication that a particular rationale is being backed. And in thedecision too, there can also lie implications for the type of hardware needed.For example, in Egypt in 1989 there was competition between the UK,France and Kuwait for the contract to supply hardware for the nationalcomputer education project To over-simplify the situation, one industrialnation was backing the local educationalists who wanted an 'informationtechnology' route to pedagogical and catalytic use as well as vocational use,while the other two countries were backing the local computer scientists inhigher education who wanted the bias to be towards vocational educationabout computers. Choosing one country's hardware recommendation ratherthan another, accepting aid from one source rather than another, evenselecting one training consultant rather than another, could havedetermined the course of the innovation.
Whatever rationale underpins the innovation, often the only availableindigenous resource in Third World countries lies in the computer sciencedepartments in higher education. Tapping this resource can lead to pressure,sometimes hidden from those in charge, to migrate towards what is knownand familiar in higher education, namely computer science. In the early daysof the CLASS project in India, despite the fact that the project leadershiphad stressed repeatedly the importance of introducing pedagogical elements
• in the training, a small number of the training centres mounting the firstwave of courses approached the task as if it was exclusively one of teaching
54
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
TRAINING FOR THIRD WORLD SCHOOLS
teachers about computers, and avoided any attempt to train them to usecomputers as pedagogical tools.
These are the kinds of training issues that leaders of the innovationmust face in its earliest days. In such complex circumstances, probably thebest second step of these leaders will be to train themselves!
Training for the Policy Makers
In the early stages of development there will be competition from vestedinterests to control the training. Whoever controls training and trainingobjectives at the pilot stage has a good chance of strongly influencing majordecisions at the development stage of the programme: choice of hardware,method of development of software, location and character of furthertraining, and so on. Local computer companies representing differentindustrial nations, local professors of computer science wanting to increasethe throughput in their university courses or wanting to steer softwaredevelopment towards software houses they are involved in, and localprofessors of education wanting capital investment in informationtechnology in their colleges will all compete for control. This competition isinevitable in the early stages of an innovation which is often perceived aslikely to have a profound influence on the rate and direction of developmentof the country as a whole.
It follows that those leading the innovation need to have a steadypurpose under such pressure and that policy objectives need to be clear sothat all these sources of support can be employed within an agreedunderstanding of where the innovation is going. This suggests that one ofthe very early training needs is to enable senior policy makers, particularlyin the ministry of education, to survey policy and practice in other countriesand, if possible, to experience first hand the realities of working in a majordevelopment programme. Many Third World countries, such as India,Jordan, Mauritius and Egypt, have recognised this need early and havereleased senior administrators from their normal duties to allow them toundertake study tours abroad. A wise precaution is to tour more than oneindustrial country, because each has its idiosyncrasies, and to include visitsto developing countries that have built up some experience in this field.
Whatever steps are taken by policy makers to inform themselves ofcurrent practice and future possibilities in the field of computer education,they face the daunting task of creating a cascade of training expertise whichnourishes radical educational change in the classrooms of the nation.
Use of the Cascade Approach to Training
A cascade approach to training is one in which those who initiate thetraining programme set out to train a group of trainers rather than the
55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
DAVID HAWKRIDGE & HARRY McMAHON
classroom teachers themselves. These trainers then go on to train the nextlevel down in the cascade, and so on until the training is focused onclassroom teachers who will not themselves have any responsibility forproviding further training for their peers. Clearly, the number of levels in thetraining cascade depends on how many teachers are to be trained and thenumber of teachers/trainers trained at each level.
This approach to training, in which the final stage is peer trainingwithin the school itself, has been used to quite good effect in industrialcountries. But its success depends heavily on the trainers at each levelhaving available a robust support structure and an effective communicationssystem to help them as they carry the training further and further down thecascade. In-service training support materials need to be produced. Adviceneeds to be readily available, ideally at the end of a telephone. Trainers fromhigher levels in the system should visit training sessions at lower levels toprovide support and to check on standards. Technical support needs to bereadily accessible so that problems with hardware and software can bequickly sorted out
Can developing countries readily use cascade training where a stronginfrastructure for supporting the lower levels of the cascade may not exist?However effective the people trained at the intermediate levels might be,they are not going to be able to operate effectively at lower levels withoutadvice from those above them in the training cascade or without technicalsupport in the form of rapid response to hardware and software problems.In industrial countries, if the education authorities cannot provide fullsupport there is always a local infrastructure supporting development in thecommercial sector and this can be tapped by teacher trainers at lower levelsin the cascade. In developing countries this parallel support structure forcommercial users may not exist, and even if it does, the financial resourcesneeded to tap into it may not be available.
Training cascades catalyse change in teachers who become part-timetrainers at intermediate levels. Without doubt, the computer can have acatalytic effect on children's work in the classroom, encouraging discussion,enquiry and self-motivated learning. Similarly, teachers who take leadingroles in the cascade find that the responsibility for carrying through trainingin a rapidly changing educational and technical environment can only beexercised if they make decisions for themselves, argue out possibilities withtheir peers and report to their superiors about unexpected new dimensionsof their work which have emerged in the hurly burly of getting things donein difficult circumstances. The cumulative impact of these experiences is toproduce teachers who are much less likely than they were in the past tofollow direction from above without questioning its purpose and its likelyeffects. These teachers are also much more acutely aware of the significanceof their classroom experiences as feedback for decision making and of theirobligation to speak with authority to those above them in the decision
56
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
TRAINING FOR THIRD WORLD SCHOOLS
making hierarchy. Inaugurating a training cascade is a step towardsincreasing the autonomy and self-reliance of the teaching profession andshould be recognised as such.
Indeed, using the cascade metaphor to describe the gradual spread oftraining is unhelpful, for it implies a particular interpretation of the teacher'srole and, in so doing, limits the possibilities for energising change. Callingthe system a cascade implies an hierarchical structure and suggests that theteacher/trainer's role at the intermediate level is to repeat passively thetraining previously experienced, this time acting as a student, next time as atrainer, to accept direction from those above and then give direction tothose below. This view of a cascade fails to take account of its catalytic effecton the teachers being trained and doing the training.
Perhaps a better way of describing what can be made to happen is touse the metaphor of a network or a web, gradually extending over time tocover the nation's schools. Each node in the web is a person or group undercontinuous training to act with autonomy and responsibility within a sharedvalue system, summed up in the programme goals. The learning continueswhether the teacher is enrolled in a formal course or back in the classroom.This conceptualisation of the training system stresses on-going professionaldevelopment of everyone involved. It has the advantage of drawing attentionto the need for teachers, trainers, administrators and policy makers alike toshare common purposes. Continuous communication throughout thenetwork is vital, for only by the constant flow of information cancommitment to evolving policy goals be shared, the impact of evolution inthe technological environment be monitored and classroom experience usedto enrich a shared understanding of the state of the enterprise. In this modelof training, formal courses become opportunities for creating a sharedmeaning of the project in all its ramifications and not simply occasions forpassing pre-packaged information down the educational hierarchy.
The Link Between the Motivation to beTrained and the Prospect of Leading Change
Involving teachers in the pedagogical aspects of computer education cangenerate great enthusiasm for curriculum development (Broderick &Trushell, 1985). Bell (1981) notes that as teachers engage in theintroduction of microcomputers in their classrooms, they became involvedwith colleagues facing the same problems and respond very positively to theopportunities afforded to them to talk about their experiences. They alsointeract effectively with advisory staff. A most significant observation aboutthese discussions is that they involve a close examination of the theory andstructure of the subjects being taught Bell was probably dealing with a veryspecial group of teachers, however, who found ways to get involved in theinnovation at its earliest stage. It seems that, in the early stages of an
57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
DAVID HAWKRIDGE & HARRY McMAHON
innovation, the 'cosmopolitan' teachers, the risk-takers, the change-seekersare willing to be trained and to act as trainers partly because there isenough openness and devolved responsibility in the system to allow them toanticipate making changes to curriculum and methodology (Eraut, 1987).The same effect was noted in Mauritius, where the earliest teacher users ofmicrocomputers were to be found in private schools where there was greateropportunity for experimentation with curriculum change (Orton, 1987).
In general, it may not be easy to exploit this effect in developingcountries. There, curriculum planning is likely to be centralised to a degreewhich inhibits teachers from taking personal risks by experimenting with anew approach and advocating radical change. If the general expectationamong teachers is for all change to be generated from the centre, then thosebeing trained are likely to perceive the training mechanism as one designedto tell them what they are supposed to do. They are not as likely to see it asan invitation and opportunity to experiment for themselves, in the fullknowledge of their peers and superiors, with what might be possible inclassrooms. The inclination to play safe and wait to be told what to do bythe trainer will be all the more likely when conservative teachers realise thatone outcome of computer education can be increased pupil autonomy. Thiscould be a discomforting prospect for some if the education system is onewhere the norm is for both students and teachers to wait to be told what todo (Heywood, 1987).
This argument runs counter to the one we presented in the previoussection, where we suggested that teachers involved as trainers are likely toseek and welcome greater autonomy and decision-making power. The twoeffects are not inconsistent Teachers react in different ways to training incomputer education: some take hold of the new openness with enthusiasm,others find it hard to tolerate the ambiguity that it brings. People setting upa training cascade, network or web need to recognise that these two effectsoccur. At the extremes the effects can cause substantial upset to thecoherence of a training programme. On the one hand, teacher trainers withtoo much freedom can choose to explore beyond the limits of the innovationand use up precious resources in the process. On the other, conservativeteachers can too readily reject the innovation simply because they cannotcope with demands which require them to exercise self-direction inunfamiliar, complex and rapidly changing situations. A key differencebetween the two groups is their level of self-confidence, the degree ofmastery they feel they have over the technology. While the former feel incontrol, the latter feel inadequate. Such 'computer phobia' can be overcomeif they are given the opportunity and the time to master the computers inprivate.
58
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
TRAINING FOR THIRD WORLD SCHOOLS
Learning in Private
Many studies of computer education as an innovation have shown that thelevel of teacher familiarity with the hardware and software is a major factorin success or failure of the innovation (Cox et al, 1987; DES, 1987; Heywood& Norman, 1988; Hall & Rhodes, 1986). Where teachers have the chance toconsolidate work undertaken in short in-service courses, their confidence intheir capacity to handle the innovation in the classroom increases rapidly(Bleach, 1986).
Teachers who have the opportunity to learn in private, by working in aquiet corner in the staffroom or by taking the microcomputer home atweekends and during vacations, become effective users in the classroom.Many teachers still think that it is wrong ever to make a mistake in front oftheir students; only gradually do they learn that working in partnership withtheir students to solve a genuine problem which temporarily puzzles theteacher is a valuable learning strategy in itself. Talking through the problemwhich has unexpectedly arisen, exploring possible strategies for its solution,gathering evidence as to its cause, testing out the best hypothesis forcircumventing it, confirming that the solution applies in all expectedcircumstances, all these steps, taken in consort with the students, arevaluable learning experiences in themselves. They are all the more rewardingif they arise from a genuine problem which has the teacher as baffled as thechildren, at least in the first instance. It has to be recognised, however, thatteachers prepared to risk their credibility in this way are rare. Most greatlyprefer to have classroom practice so well rehearsed before the event thatsuch problems never arise. Where teachers want to get things in theclassroom right first time and every time, as in many Third World schools,giving teachers opportunities to work on the microcomputer in private cangreatly improve the chances of the innovation succeeding.
Regrettably, in developing countries the microcomputer is oftenperceived as too precious to be used privately: it is a public resource whichhas to be used publicly. Teachers may find it much harder than their peersin industrial countries to become confident enough to make and solve their'mistakes' in public as they join their students in genuine problem-solving.
Teacher Involvement in Software Evaluation
To date, the experience of computer education in Third World countriessuggests that most, if not all, decisions about which software packagesshould be used have been made centrally. This is to be expected whenpurchase of software licences is related to initial hardware purchase or toconversion of software originating in industrial countries. As experiencegrows, however, and objectives of the innovation broaden (for example, as
59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
DAVID HAWKRIDGE & HARRY McMAHON
they appear to be doing in Mauritius), or if an indigenous software industrybegins to supply software, so the need to involve classroom teachers insoftware evaluation grows. After all, who is better placed to tell whether apiece of software is suitable for students than their teachers, provided, ofcourse, that the teachers are fully aware of the Ministry of Education's aimsand goals.
A developing country needs to move as quickly as possible to establishevaluation criteria. These should take into account national aims for overalldevelopment, how the aims are reflected in goals of educationaldevelopment, and the role that information technology in the curriculumand pedagogy is expected to take in realising these goals. Teachers will needto be trained to evaluate software in the broadest sense: they must learn toassess technical qualities such as reliability or level of difficulty, and how toevaluate the extent to which its educational goals and cultural characteristicssatisfy criteria agreed and published at the national level. The MicroSIFTproject of the early 1980s in the USA provided one model, but recognition ofits faults led to an improved model used by Canadian teachers. This focusedon subject matter, pedagogical approach, technical qualities, possibility ofusing the software under classroom conditions and an overall evaluationrelated to the software's objectives (Leclerc et al, 1987).
Teacher Involvement in Software Development
There can be no better example to students than teachers who are confidentin their mastery of the new technology. There is evidence that those whohave a chance to write software in high level languages or authoringlanguages, or who work on the definition of software to be written byothers, often acquire this confidence. Hoyles et al (1988) show that theprocess of constructing programs for exploring mathematical topics (vectors,angles, scaling, and so on) is extremely important in building a sense ofcompetence among mathematics teachers beginning to use computers in theclassroom. During training, when work focuses on learning and curriculumissues such as identifying student conceptions and misconceptions andmodifying content and purpose of computer programs in the light of thisknowledge, teachers realise that their existing subject-related expertise isneeded in the innovation. Their self-esteem and feeling of mastery over thetechnology rises accordingly.
But is not software development by teachers a waste of a preciousresource? And is there not an even greater danger in developing countries -that of brain drain at teacher level? The criteria that some teachers whobecome software developers use for success may not be what the authoritieshope for. It was interesting to note that in the early days of the CLASSproject in India, several teachers turned out to be extremely proficientprogrammers, but they began to develop culturally inappropriate software,
60
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
TRAINING FOR THIRD WORLD SCHOOLS
and trainers always had an uneasy feeling that teachers were doing this todemonstrate their potential as employees in the software industry ofindustrial nations.
The Link Between Curriculum,Assessment Methodology and Training
Pilot and development stages of Third World computer education aresometimes separated from the 'real' work of schools in that studentsundertaking the new curriculum are not assessed in any formal sense. Forexample, in the CLASS project in India and in the Kenyan CEPAK projectthe innovation lies outside the formal structure of the assessed curriculum.Teachers and students engaged in the extra-curricular study of computersand their applications may take the work very seriously indeed, but the veryfact that it lies outside the formally recognised and examined curriculummay lead others, in particular, parents, employers, principals and Ministryofficials not directly involved, to regard the innovation as peripheral and ofno great significance.
This problem can be countered in several ways. One easy method is tooffer, within the formal curriculum, computer awareness courses on thecomputer and its uses in society, taking advantage of the fact that suchcourses fit easily into classical assessment methodology. Such courses canbe offered with limited computing resources, and didactic teaching aboutcomputers can be accompanied by assessment through written tests ofknowledge and understanding. Establishing a training mechanism for thiskind of computer education is simple. The computer scientists andassessment experts can train and test the teachers.
If the innovation's goals are pedagogical and catalytic as well asvocational, however, this approach to formalising the computer's placewithin the curriculum will be educationally limiting. The trainingimplications are profound. All teachers must be taught something aboutcomputers and their application in society, and trained to use them aslearning tools within their own classrooms. Their trainers must becompetent in pedagogical use of computers across the curriculum as well asknowledgeable about their application outside the classroom. This approachplaces very heavy burdens on the training system, for the expertise at thetop of the cascade needs to be spread across several subjects. In the UK, theNational Curriculum requires training of this type, and trainers struggle tocope with the increased load despite the fact that the innovation has beenmaturing for several years.
All the Third World countries we studied (Hawkridge et al, 1990)appear to be well aware of the massive training implications, over and abovegreatly increased hardware and software requirements, of applying thepedagogical and catalytic rationales across the curriculum. Nevertheless,
61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
DAVID HAWKRIDGE & HARRY McMAHON
some countries, such as India, Kenya, Mauritius and Egypt, areexperimenting with this type of use and are ensuring that at the very leastthe 'elite' trainers at the top of the training cascade are competent in usingcomputers as teaching and learning tools. They are equally aware of aconcomitant training need, that of building awareness, amongst fellow policymakers, principals, employers and the general public, of the pedagogicalpower and catalytic effect of computers. If the sharply increased cost ofmoving the innovation towards a comprehensive 'across the curriculum'approach is to be politically acceptable, then this type of awareness buildingin the general public, through the popular press, television, conferences andexhibitions, must feature in plans for the innovation.
Training Programmers and Techniciansfor Work in Computer Education
Involving staff whose responsibility is to make sure that hardware andsoftware perform reliably in schools is vital to the success of computereducation initiatives (Heywood & Norman, 1988). Most, if not all, ThirdWorld countries involved in computer education already have a growingcomputer-using sector which itself needs the services of trained personnel.In fact, a country's inability to supply systems designers, programmers andhardware technicians needed by industry, commerce, government andagriculture often generates the political will to establish computer educationin schools. It follows that technical support for the schools is likely to beextremely difficult to find and even harder to hold on to.
Some countries, for example Jordan, have'taken the approach ofemploying young graduate computer scientists and giving them specialised(overseas) training in the production of educational software in exchange fora commitment to stay within the education sector for a number of years.Other countries, such as India and China, have turned adversity, in the formof lack of culturally appropriate educational software, into advantage bycommissioning software from the indigenous, fledgling, but rapidly growingsoftware industry. Such is the scale of operation in India that this approachis of itself generating development within the software industry. Smallsoftware houses are able to specialise in the production of educationalsoftware and survive.
These examples illustrate two contrasting approaches to finding anddeploying technical support for computer education. One is to train theresource in-house and to provide sufficient incentives for those withexpertise to stay in employment in the education sector. The alternative is tocommission software from the commercial sector and, if one is consistent, tosupply schools with enough financial resources to allow them to buysoftware and technical expertise (for hardware maintenance, for example)from the commercial sector.
62
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
TRAINING FOR THIRD WORLD SCHOOLS
Probably it pays to use the first approach at the start of theinnovation, to invest in the necessary training within the developmentprogramme, so that during the early years a central pool of technical as wellas educational expertise is firmly established under the control of theMinistry of Education or one of its sister departments. Later, that expertisecan be brought to bear in the commissioning process rather than indevelopment itself, in the negotiation of software ideas with teachers, in thespecification of new products to be commissioned from the commercialsector, in evaluation and in the monitoring of standards. In this way, thecommercial benefits of the innovation which flow from growing softwaredevelopment requirements and increasing need for technical support canaccrue to the country as a whole.
Conclusion
Our experience in working with Third World professional colleagues overseveral years has taught us, above all, that managing a successful innovationin the use of computers in Third World schools is an extremely complex anddemanding task. Many influences in the education sector, and in the nation'scommercial and cultural life, overlap and interact in changing andunexpected ways. There is a constant search for clarity in understanding.Innovators need clarity of purpose, for it is against criteria establishedwithin an agreed policy that progress or lack of it can be assessed. Theinnovators must recruit school principals, teachers, teacher educators andcomputer education specialists or consultants of exceptional ability who areprepared to work within policy guidelines and at the same time contribute tothe evolution of policy. All must be clear about the rationale behind theinnovation. (See Hawkridge, 1990, for a discussion of alternative rationales.)
In essence the training task is nurturing of the professional welfare ofthis group in a context characterised more than anything else by rapidchange. Part of the answer to the training problem lies in realising that thegroup itself is to a very large extent the source of its own training. Once'front-end' training has kicked the innovation into action, innovatorsworking in a well-managed training network will develop shared perceptionsand intentions concerning the direction, relevance and value of theinnovation to the nation. They will do so through their knowledge of what ishappening in classrooms and their consequent grounded understanding ofrealities of the implementation and opportunities for change that it presents.Policy makers need to regard themselves as full members of this communityof innovators; they should tap into its growing experience and expertise.They need to be ready to share with the group the task of reframing andrecasting intentions and actions. Reliable understanding of the state of theinnovation then emerges. The group matures in its ability to train others to
63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
DAVID HAWKRIDGE & HARRY McMAHON
join the group in bringing about what will be seen by many as radicaleducational change.
Acknowledgements
This paper is developed from Chapter 5 in Hawkridge et al (1990). Theresearch was undertaken with the help of a grant from the HaroldMacmillan Trust and the assistance of teachers and others in 23 Third Worldcountries.
Correspondence
David Hawkridge, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University,Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom. Fax: (0)908 653744.Email: [email protected] McMahon, Faculty of Education, University of Ulster, ColeraineBT52 ISA, Northern Ireland. Fax: (0)265-40918.Email: [email protected]
References
Bell, G.H. (1981) Informatics in Primary Education: a feasibility study of acollaborative research project. Teesside Polytechnic Department ofEducational Studies.
Bleach, P. (1986) The Use of Computers in Primary Schools. Reading andLanguage Information Centre, University of Reading.
Broderick, C. & Trushell, J. (1985) Problems and processes: junior school childrenusing word processors to produce an information leaflet, English in Education,19 (2), pp. 29-35.
Cox, M., Rhodes, V. & Hall, J. (1987) The use of computer assisted learning inprimary schools: some factors affecting the uptake. Paper presented at CAL87conference, University of Strathclyde.
DES (1987) Aspects of Work of the Microelectronics Education Programme.London: Department of Education and Science.
Eraut, M. (1987) Policy Analysis in the 9-14 IT School Curriculum: interim report,Occasional Paper ITE/25b/88. ESRC, University of Lancaster. '
Hall, J. & Rhodes, V. (1986) Microcomputers in Primary Schools: someobservations and recommendations for good practice. London: EducationalComputing Unit, Centre for Educational Studies, King's College.
Hawkridge, D. (1990) Who needs computers in schools, and why? Computers andEducation, 15, pp. 1-6.
Hawkridge, D., Jaworski, J. & McMahon, H. (1990) Computers in Third WorldSchools. London: Macmillan.
64
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
TRAINING FOR THIRD WORLD SCHOOLS
Heywood, G. (1987) Primary practice - a call for illumination, The TimesEducational Supplement, 19 June 1987.
Heywood, G. & Norman, P. (1988) Problems of educational innovation: the primaryteacher's response to using the microcomputer, Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 4, pp. 3443.
Hoyles C, Noss, R. & Sutherland, R. (1988) An INSET programme for secondarymathematics teachers, Occasional Paper ITE/25b/88. ESRC, University ofLancaster.
Orton, J. (1987) Report of a Visit to Mauritius. University of Leeds.
65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
2:42
10
Oct
ober
201
4
