The call for a ‘Digital India’ has been absolutely timely keeping in view the global dynamics in the investment of technology into life styles and management systems. There appears to be a conscious shift towards digital transformation, both in Micro and Macro management systems, as well at the personal and public domains. The vision of Alvin Toffler in his book “The Future Shock” in mid-sixties on the use of electronic currency is almost in place and so too, several of his thoughts on how the future holds promise for a digitalized world. However, if one examines the school education sector the impact of ‘digital India’ has been far below the expected levels, thanks to our regressive policies that lack freedom for creativity, innovation and growth in learning centres, still dwelling in the conventional models of learning. We have still not moved away from exercising authority in learning structures and processes least realizing that learning has already broken the walls of all institutionalized structures.
Down the memory lane, I recall the introduction of computers as a subject in schools in early eighties with the box-structures occupying air-conditioned rooms and holding a memory of 256Kb. Running a multiplication table on the screen was a thrilling experience for the students. While most of the computer solutions depended on the languages COBOL AND FORTRAN, the emergence of the BASIC language was indeed a milestone. The Indian schools got the gift of a few hundred BBC computers following the visit of Her Excellency the Queen of Britain. The computers were well guarded inside the shelves of school heads for the fear of being stolen or because of no expertise in handling them. The CLASS PROJECT which had a life time of over a decade, tried to familiarise the schools with the foundations of computing. It took quite a lot of time to demystify the idea that the computers are not calculating tools with limited values but as one which can bring about a big change in our thought architectures and in decision making processes. The fear that one needs strong foundations in mathematics to be learning the use the computers was indeed an initial roadblock. I fondly recall attending the International Conference on Computer Aided Learning in Nottingham UK in 1984. The objective of education has not yet changed much in our country though it was a wishbone. The vision of technology as one which empowers integrated learning and as inclusive tools that helped in assisting and enabling took a lot of time to emerge and consolidate.
A few decades have passed with the school systems displaying technology in their corridors both as a fashion as well as a purpose. It did open a wild opportunity to hardware markets to push their products into classrooms in various designs and packages. It created some amount of awe and happiness in the school leaders to be harbingers of such products. The schools did find excellent opportunities for branding themselves as premier institutions, thanks to the flashes and sounds the monitors made in their computer laboratories. (Happy to note that we have moved far ahead of those days!) Well, one could say the speed with which technology picked up on its heels was indeed slow, but one should acknowledge that it did gather momentum to open the corridors for some progress, though it was limited to a small number.
In terms of the academic support, there was indeed a huge competition, with scores of entrepreneurs expressing their commitment to reform the entire educational system with a few pieces of classroom software, but it did not hold promise anywhere close to what they ever imagined. Unlimited plagiarism, duplication of concepts, poor levels of pedagogy, inability to facilitate learning, replication of textual contents in electronic pages were but a few reasons. There was absolute lack synergy between the vision makers, the designers and the pedagogues.each trying to dominate and project technology with their prevailing perceptions. Consequently, many of the materials did not stand to quality audit of the content and pedagogy leave alone their ability to impact creativity and innovation. On the educational front, many of the national organizations did not provide either the real time support to private enterprises or did any worthwhile constructive work on delivery of content. This was both due to a potential fear of association with the private sector and fear of loss of self-esteem at their organizational levels. The "Big Boss" syndrome of these organizations to protect their well earned wisdom through their certificates and degrees posed a threat to innovative functional research and response to the speed of changing learning and learner dynamics.
As a business prospect, the private entrepreneurs found huge opportunities to put systems in managerial operations through technology like in communication, staff management, time-tabling, school resources management and in a few other potentialities that brought the much sought after visibility to technology. Such ERP efforts were considered as a huge intervention of technology in school systems though they did in no way impact the school’s core teaching-learning environment or the need to bring about a paradigm shift in the thinking styles of the learner
To put in a nutshell, the mismatch between the dream and the reality is too large and obvious. The availability of technology was given as a false claim for effective use of technology. It did not impact the methods of teaching – except for a few interventions through power-point presentations, animations as exemplifications, play-way techniques to bring some elements of edutainment in the management of learning. These could not impact the types, levels, depth, styles and purposes of thinking, utility and application of knowledge, synthesis of knowledge or re-engineering of knowledge systems. Hence there has been essentially an adoption of technology rather than integration of technology. The diffusion of technology into the educational environment has indeed brought some aroma for those who get influenced with their flavor. This indeed is not the integration of technology.
I do not intend to cast aspersions on the achievers in the field who have contributed in one way or the other, but the business intentions of quick conversions of technology has sometimes defeated the very depth to which they could have made their inroads and journeys.. They are not to be blamed exclusively because the "ivory towers" of educational administration and their inflexible attitudes and policies that wisdom flows only from their heavens was a potential roadblock, It means we have a long way to go. It also calls for a change in the mindset of the entire spectrum of stakeholders in the field right from policy makers to platform speakers.
Technology integration is not a threat to conventional education or the values and ethics embedded in or through the conventional profiles of learning. Possibly it could bring a greater transparency and accountability. But it calls for giving the learner the freedom to learn, freedom to experiment, freedom to create and freedom to communicate. It could indeed unravel the mysteries of fathomed oceans of knowledge to the learners and to realize their immense inner strength. It calls for trusting the teaching community and liberating them from structures and parameters of standardized lesson plans and structured learning outcomes. It is indeed an opportunity given to them to explore and discover their own talents so that they may do so the same with their own learners.
With learning becoming increasingly informal, technology integration is no more a choice. It will be a continuous evolution at the personal level or societal level. It will be good if the educational system in the country not only takes cognizance of the impending needs without inhibition but also engages into a meaningful real time digital integration.
No comments:
Post a Comment