<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ICT4D Blog &#187; Seugnet Blignaut</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ictlogy.net/tag/seugnet-blignaut/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ictlogy.net</link>
	<description>Information Society, Digital Divide, ICT4D</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:48:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Third Annual ICT4D Postgraduate Symposium (VI).  Seugnet Blignaut: ICT development in South Africa, a comparison between Finland and South Africa using SITES 2006 project data</title>
		<link>http://ictlogy.net/20080909-third-annual-ict4d-postgraduate-symposium-vi-seugnet-blignaut-ict-development-in-south-africa-a-comparison-between-finland-and-south-africa-using-sites-2006-project-data/</link>
		<comments>http://ictlogy.net/20080909-third-annual-ict4d-postgraduate-symposium-vi-seugnet-blignaut-ict-development-in-south-africa-a-comparison-between-finland-and-south-africa-using-sites-2006-project-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ismael Peña-López</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ICT4D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ict4d_symposium_2008]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seugnet Blignaut]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ictlogy.net/?p=969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Notes from the IPID ICT4D PG symposium 2008, Mekrijärvi Research Station, Joensuu University, Finland. 8 and 9 September, 2008. Keynote speechSeugnet Blignaut: ICT development in South Africa, a comparison between Finland and South Africa using SITES 2006 project data Sometimes education (specially syllabuses designed in the &#8220;North&#8221; for the &#8220;South&#8221;) do not takes into account [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Notes from the <a href="http://cs.joensuu.fi/ipid2008/">IPID ICT4D PG symposium 2008</a>, Mekrijärvi Research Station, Joensuu University, Finland. 8 and 9 September, 2008.</em></p>
<h4>Keynote speech<br/><a href="http://hagar.up.ac.za/cie/staff/seugnet/index.htm">Seugnet Blignaut</a>: <em>ICT development in South Africa, a comparison between Finland and South Africa using SITES 2006 project data</em></h4>
<p>Sometimes education (specially syllabuses designed in the &#8220;North&#8221; for the &#8220;South&#8221;) do not takes into account everyday skills, skills and literacy used during daily tasks: reading, writing, numeracy skills, social skills, information literacy, communication, Internet browsing, etc.</p>
<p>So we have to design — as South Africa is doing right now — an e-Education Policy that aims at the achievement of such ICT or digital skills for everyday life. And a priority of this policy is equity: poverty and equal opportunities is a must.</p>
<h5>SITES</h5>
<p><a href="http://www.sites2006.net/">SITES</a>, fostered by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), studies measure the evident of impact of ICTs in education, based on a comparative international quantitative studies.</p>
<ul>
<li>How ICT affects learning and tgeaching in schools</li>
<li>Is there any indication taht education policies make any impact on pedagogy</li>
</ul>
<p>Main problems found in Module 1:</p>
<ul>
<li>Computers not connected to the Interent</li>
<li>Lack of peripherals (e.g. printers)</li>
<li>Licensed copies of software</li>
<li>Teachers&#8217; inadequate ICT knowledge and skills</li>
</ul>
<p>Module 2 was more based on a constructivist approach, which means the design of surveys and activities followed this pedagogical model too.</p>
<h5>Findings</h5>
<ul>
<li>Major concern in preparing students to use the Internet &#8220;responsibly&#8221;</li>
<li>Out of five, most countries score around 3.3 in ICT vision, connectedness,&#8230;</li>
<li>Almost 100% of kids in the sampled schools had access to both a computer and the Internet</li>
<li>But the student/computer ration varies within a wide range depending on country and even inside each country</li>
<li>A majority of teachers believe they need more computers and, actually, more technology in general, as e.g. smartboards</li>
</ul>
<p>There is content, there is technology&#8230; but it does not reach the non-initiated (non-geek) teacher. So more effort should be put not in creating more content or installing more infrastructures, but on making the existing ones more findable, known, accessible, etc.</p>
<p>ICTs in Education is still an add on at two levels. First, it has to be integrated in curricula. Second, it has to be integrated in the teachers&#8217; mindset by, among other things, providing them with digital literacy too.</p>
 <img src="http://ictlogy.net/blog/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-feed-statistics/feed-statistics.php?view=1&post_id=969" width="1" height="1" style="display: none;" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ictlogy.net/20080909-third-annual-ict4d-postgraduate-symposium-vi-seugnet-blignaut-ict-development-in-south-africa-a-comparison-between-finland-and-south-africa-using-sites-2006-project-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

