“Development was thought to be triggered by the wide-scale diffusion and adoption of modern technologies. Such modernization was planned in the national capitals under the guidance and direction of experts brought-in from developed countries. Chin Saik Yoon - Participatory Communication for Development
I’ve never much thought about "development", or for that matter “participatory communication for development” before, but the recent FLNW2 group discussion around a proposed trip to the Palawan province of the Philippines, and a Beehive media release - “Kiwi education providers score Malaysian education pilot” - a 3-month demonstrator project to build e-learning capability within five schools in the Malaysian state of Perak - has made me look more closely at development and participatory communication, and led me to realise that my role in my day job as a edu_tech missionary in the Auckland Home Group ict_pd cluster schools, is all about participatory communication for development.
Don't believe me - just check out the “exploiting technologies and using ICT effectively across the curriculum”…for the “development of a prosperous and confident knowledge society” bit in the foreword to Enabling the 21st Century Learner An e-learning action plan for schools and how the document focuses on national development through technology.
I am thankful to Bee for this new thinking – she suggested that we look at how actions and processes of participatory communication for development have been perceived throughout time in two readings - Reading 1 and Reading 2
These links reminded me, albeit in a muted way, of Illich’s 1960’s disquiet when ‘developed’ world’s institutions see themselves as catering to ‘underdeveloped’ people’s needs.
I do have deep faith in the enormous good will of the U.S. volunteer. However, his good faith can usually be explained only by an abysmal lack of intuitive delicacy. By definition, you cannot help being ultimately vacationing salesmen for the middle-class "American Way of Life," since that is really the only life you know. To Hell with good Intentions Illich (1968)
Participatory communication for development, whether you are visiting the Phillipines with the FLNW2 crowd, running the KPerak project or facilitating an ICT_PD cluster is full of challenge.
Reading 2 has a checklist that I found useful in evaluating whether I was guilty of technology proselytism when working in the ict_pd cluster participatory development projects in New Zealand. It suggested that when I work with cluster teachers and write milestone reports for the MoE I need to look carefully at what I am doing in the context of Dragon's criteria below
• Horizontal vs. Vertical. People as dynamic actors, actively participating in the process of social change and in control of the communication tools and contents; rather than people perceived as passive receivers of information and behavioural instructions, while others make decisions on their lives.
[I’m not sure that I could describe our cluster teachers as passive receivers of information, they are way too stroppy for the descriptor passive, and lack any myrmidonic tendencies, but their ability to make decisions about the way they use communication technologies in their classrooms is distinctly compromised by the institution of school.]
• Process vs. Campaign. People taking in hand their own future through a process of dialogue and democratic participation in planning communication activities; rather than expensive, unsustainable top-down campaigns that help to mobilise but not to build a capacity to respond from the community level to the needs of change.
[There is much talk about sustainability in the three year ict_pd cluster initiative but I work with too many schools who have been through a three year ict_pd cluster programme and for all sorts of reasons (including staff turnover) not developed sustainable capacity to claim process outcomes]
• Long-term vs. Short-term. Communication and development in general is conceived as a long-term process which needs time to be appropriated by the people; rather than short-term planning, which is seldom sensitive to the cultural environment and mostly concerned with showing “results” for evaluations external to the community.
[Three years falls between short term and long term, and what we do is probably not insensitive to cultural environments. However, the MoE quarterly reporting requirements against externally imposed performance measures could be described as “mostly concerned with showing “results” for evaluations external to the community.”]
• Collective vs. Individual. Urban or rural communities acting collectively in the interest of the majority, preventing the risk of losing power to a few; rather than people targeted individually, detached from their community and from the communal forms of decision-making.
[How does our ict_pd focus on providing professional learning for cluster lead teachers in each school who are then charged with driving change for others fit with claims of collective vs individual?]
• With vs. For. Researching, designing and disseminating messages with participation; rather than designing, pre-testing, launching and evaluating messages that were conceived for the community, and remain external to it.
[This is trickier to answer – we do ask for regular reflection, feedback, feedforward, suggestions and plan learning experiences visits accordingly, but there is still an element of messages conceived for the ict_pd cluster school community]
• Specific vs. Massive. The communication process adapted to each community or social group in terms of content, language, culture and media; rather than the tendency to use the same techniques, the same media and the same messages in diverse cultural settings and for different social sectors of society.
[Reckon we are pretty flexible in our choice of communication process in the work we do with individual schools, teams. teachers and students, but I guess this is something we can always plan for more thoughtfully.]
• People’s needs vs. Donors’ musts. Community-based dialogue and communication tools to help identify, define and discriminate between the felt needs and the real needs; rather than donor-driven communication initiatives based on donor needs (family planning, for example).
[Despite all the talk of Web 2.0, technology promotion in the “walled gardens” of our schools is often aligned to the promotion/ marketing of products by major vendors and this is something we do try to help teachers critique. However the promise of becoming a corporate player will sometimes seem like a need to the people in the schools in an ict_pd cluster programme.]
• Ownership vs. Access. A communication process that is owned by the people to provide equal opportunities to the community; rather than access that is conditioned by social, political or religious factors.
[Communication process is going to be an ongoing issue for our cluster teachers, schools and facilitators but this is more to do with unreasonable expectations of participation in online communities and release time provided by the contract than the lack of equal opportunities.]
• Consciousness vs. Persuasion. A process of raising consciousness and deep understanding about social reality, problems and solutions; rather than persuasion for short-term behavioural changes that are only sustainable with continuous campaigns.
[Raising consciousness is something we are proactive about – our key cluster questions are designed to encourage teachers to challenge and question the value of using ICTs in education. And we encourage the questioning of the questioner]
My ict_pd cluster self evaluation report card reads - “Could do better”
These criteria also help clarify the purpose of the proposed FLNW2 adventure and the KPerak Project in Malaysia where ...
A group of New Zealand education service providers, Innovation New Zealand Education (iNZed), have been appointed to run a pilot education initiative in the Malaysian state of Perak, Economic Development Minister Trevor Mallard said today.
"This important appointment will deliver kiwi education expertise to the Malaysian education sector and will be part of Perak’s knowledge economy strategy. It demonstrates that New Zealand education providers are regarded as having developed world-leading solutions in the area of information and communications technology in education," Trevor Mallard said.
There is an intriguing caveat over the appropriateness of the KPerak intervention on CORE education’s site KPerak Project description
This programme may answer questions related to the appropriateness of our educational modelling as a way ahead for Malaysian teachers and their professional development.
Which suggests the KPerak project designers might also be looking at how the project meets the Eldis checklist conditions of value for participatory communication for development.
And because I am still recovering from early onset statistical angst developed whilst building numerous statistical interpretations of change in capability and effective use data gathered from our cluster teachers I don’t envy the KPerak project facilitators need to show “outcomes in terms of effective use of ICT in teaching and learning, including a positive impact on student achievement.”
As an ict_pd facilitator and MoE milestone writer, two thoughts occur to me
- How would I show valid and reliable change outcomes in terms of “effective use of ICT and positive impacts on student achievement” in a 3 month project?
- How could I show value added [regardless of any “how to blog, podcast and go on a LearnNZ online field trips e learning activity provided] when the KPerak teachers reveal that they are already highly skilled in ICT literacies?
“It was interesting to learn that in the State of Perak where we are currently there has been a programme running to supply teachers with laptops which comes with a programme of training in ICT literacy. The programme began five years ago with all of the year one teachers in the state, and this year will target all of the year five teachers. The competencies addressed in training programme (supported by a full set of CD-based training materials) covers everything from basic computer operation to office applications, web applications and some creativity tools.” Derek's Blog
Recent Comments