ICTlogy

I’ve been “suggested” to post info on this site: ICTliteracy.info.

I don’t think it is exactly non-profit, neither highly updated, but its resources section is quite fair.

done! ;)

[2nd part of 2]
[go to IV Conference on Technology for Human Development: impressions (part I)]

Impressions on the IV Conferencia Tecnología para el Desarrollo (IV Conference on Technology for Human Development), organized by Ingeniería Sin Fronteras (Engineers Without Borders).

Pilar Vélez and Antonio Cáceres (Diputación de Huelva) presented ADITAL, a project to give ICT based services to “farmers, ranchers and technicians of the agricultural sector throughout the world and especially the partner countries, Spain, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Denmark and Sweden”. Main services are:

• Virtual community
• e-Learning platform: digital literacy, specific training, etc.
• On-line traceability application for agricultural products
• On-line on-time information platform with: market prices, product characteristics, etc.

Really impressive!

Karin Delgadillo (Fundación Chasquinet) and Michel Menou presented a network of telecenters (somos @ telecentros).

I really laughed when Michel Menou, talking about e-government, said “when designing e-government projects, if you do not know what to do, just upload it to the Internet”.

They gave some hints on ICT4D project design:

How to surely fail:

• No participation of beneficiaries in the design
• Projects based in cooperation agencies agendas (instead of target agendas)
• Support isolated unities instead of already established networks
• Short term economic profit
• Contact vs. foster
• Do not keep in mind that technology will evolve
• Publicity vs. results

How to ease success:

• Long run
• Flexibility
• Minimum bureaucracy
• Networked local partners
• Stress in training
• Lower Internet costs

Mairiana Morales (ISF) presented the Cuadernos Internacionales de Tecnología para el Desarrollo Humano (Technology for Human Development International Papers). Number 2 has just seen the light and its subject is Information and Communication Technologies.

Very, very interesting… for those who can read Spanish ;)

Manuel Acevedo, talking about ICT4D and ICT related to Cooperation for Development reminded me of some great resources:

• ICT Forum 4-5 March 2003
• OCDE’s
  Development Co-operation Directorate (DAC)
• UN ICT Task Force
• United Nations Development Programme
• Millennium Development Goals

Elena Vuolo (ISF) talked also about ICT and Cooperation for development and pointed to the following institutions and their projects:

• Bellanet and their assessment to institutions, studies and information
• ELDIS, Gateway to Development Information, with research, guides…
• IICD, the International Institute for Communication and Development, and Building Digital Opportunities: ICT Case Studies
• GKP, Global Knowledge Partnership
• UNITeS, and their OnlineVolunteering

During the closing session, Christian Blanquart (ITU), talked about the right of ICT access in quite a pessimistic way (“an optimistic well informed” he defined himself ;) and ended saying:

We’ve got everything. We’ve got convergence in technology, in content and in services. There’s just the lack of a convergence in policy.”

From Online Learning Update, as enlightening as always! :))

Jozef Hvorecký, from the Vysoká škola manažmentu, publishes in the European Journal of Distance Learning an article entitled Can E-learning break the Digital Divide? – not very optimistic, I dare say…

He starts stating some counterarguments against the optimistics’ vision of “students in Third-World countries. In accordance to well-known practices of e-learning the students would study on their own pace by self-learning”:

Language barrier: Evident, specially at primary school level.

Absence of prerequisites: Say, lack of national qualified teachers to carry on with (especially) e-learning.

Technology hurdles: Evident too. The author passes quickly over this subject – maybe it’s too evident to spend too much time – but there’s lot more problems than he states: power (electricity), hardware, software, connectivity, digital illiteracy…

Difficulties with translation: (I guess it is same point than the first one, but under a new point of view)

He then explains his own experience in teaching three courses and, with some statistical data collected in these courses, he concludes:

Economic and organizational aspects of e-learning are often overlooked by its proponents, the necessity of building a proper infrastructure as well (Hvorecký, Rebro, 2004). The expenses generated by e-learning are high (preparation of courses, instructor training, class control, costs of supporting software, reliable mainframe as the carrier of the communication, network expenditure, etc.). The tuition must be such, too. It is naïve to believe that this will change soon.

To profit from e-learning, one should live on “the right side” of the Digital Divide.

Oh, my… :(

[via The Development Gateway]

UNESCO Bangkok May Features deals about ICT and literacy.

Some quotes:

ICT is now too cheap to ignore

Advanced ICT tools may be relatively more cost-effective for the poor than for the rich

Projects within the digital divide must first and foremost be about learning, and about culturally appropriate content

ICT tools must be consumer-oriented and context/culture sensitive [I really love this one]

Literacy and technology are becoming inter-dependent

The article has also led me to know Bridges to the Future Initiative

The Bridges to the Future Initiative (BFI) will address the Digital Divide of education and technology in emerging economies by improving literacy, basic education, and technological literacy, thereby assisting the world’s poorest peoples to better determine their own social and economic future.

The site is a little bit cryptic. Projects are found under the names of the countries where they take place.

On Monday I attended the International Workshop “Social perspective of e-Learning and Development in the Information Era”, organized by the UNESCO Chair in e-Learning of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya

Here come the notes I took:

Mónica G. Luque. Organization of American States.
American vision of the social perspective of e-learning in higher education

e-Learning brings a new concept: learning management. It might not seem new, but it actually is. In presencial learning there’s no learning to manage as everything is in the lecturer’s head: content, the syllabus of the course, students’ feedback, etc.

She quoted Humberto Maturana and his term “lenguajear” (languagize), which is a way of emphasizing the dynamic relational character of language: the definition of terminology, policies, real incorporation of terms and actions, etc. is the path we’re on right now in e-learning, we’re just languagizing e-learning more than learning its language.

Some links she gave:

• OAS’s Educational portal of the Americas
• Institute for Connectivity in the Americas
• Inter-American Telecommunication Commission
• Funredes
• K-Net

And the four “distances” that e-Learning helps to save:

• Geographical
• Temporal
• Technological
• Cultural

Tapio Varis. University of Tampere.
Social perspective of e-learning in national education systems.

Quote: “you cannot look at the University if you don’t look at the educational system as a whole”

Ramiro Wahrhafitg. Universidad Electrónica del Paraná.
Social perspective of e-learning in Brasil’s higher education system.

Quote: “e-Learning is a borderless education”
I think this was already true in distance education, but e-learning has overwhelmingly updated the concept.

David Casacuberta. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
E-Learning and social inclusion in the spanish higher education framework.

3 main activity lines in e-development:

• infrastructure
• digital literacy
• development for disabilities: accessibility for Administration websites, etc.

Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize in Economics), in his book Development as Freedom, makes the difference amongst “functions” and “capacities”, i.e., send e-mails or organize a flashmob by using e-mails

We’re used to think in functions but we’d rather shift to capacities: there’s a need of empowerment of ICT

This lack of education in capacities makes it more difficult to accept new technologies, motivation, etc.: “what’s in it for me?” (note to self: I think this is quite related to the success in our online volunteering programme, in the side of the e-volunteer and in the side of the people and organizations receiving e-volunteers).

Marco Antonio Rodrígues Gies. United Nations University.
Social perspective of e-learning in the University: a UNESCO’s vision.

Quote: “we have to control intangible goods: education, culture, environment, etc.”

Quote: “education is often dealed as a commodity, but it is too related to a country’s culture or social reality to deal with it under such a concept only”

During last year I’ve been one of the tutors of the Degree on Human Sciences Project of a UOC student, Josep Maria Bars (Education, a challenge of the future).

In his final text I find a quotation of this work:
FEITO, Rafael. Nacidos para perder. Un análisis sociológico del rechazo y del abandono escolares. [Born to loose. A sociological analysis on scholarship crack] Secretaría de Estado de Educación. CIDE. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Madrid. 1990
concerning the effect of non-scholarship in kids. Besides illiteracy, learning in the school of life makes them behave and think in some specific ways.

Thinking about it I find real parallelism between these facts and computer illiteracy, ICT illiteracy or technophobia. In this post I’ll try and translate the facts pointed by Feito and, after, reinterpret them in the key of ICT illiteracy or basic knowledge. #a will be the original statement and #b my own.

Please don’t understand what I say in a pejorative way, but in a barrier to be eliminated in order to fully get the advantages of ICT application to development goals.

So, personal characteristics of (a) lack of scholarship and (b) lack of ICT (intensive) literacy are:

1a. Kids think in general terms and real things, touchable and near him, not on abstract or nor primary things. The street is the place where nobody will control them but never think in how they’ll get their food

1b. Basic ICT users think on how to use their ofimatic suites, their mail reader, their internet browser, but rarely plan upgrading to intensive digitalization of content, databasing information or enhanced programming or use of more complex applications. They live in front of ICT but don’t think in a “digital” or in a “connected” way.

2a. Their vocabulary is limited and base on usual words and short statements. They have trouble expressing themselves.

2b. Their technical knowledge is limited and based on usual shortcuts and commands. They have trouble programming and customization and “talking” with the computer is a rough thing to do. They even have trouble talking to other people more used to ICT than them.

3a. They develop non-verbal communication: gestures…

3b. They rely on shortcuts and predefined menus: all at mouse’s reach…

4a. They develop speed, strength and balance, but not more precise skills

4b. (Well, I guess this is too physical to translate to ICT illiteracy but, nevertheless) They develop speed in routine and self-confidence, but feel uncomfortable (and slow) in new environments he’s unable to understand due to learning by doing but not learning by thinking.

5a. They don’t plan in the long run and aim having their efforts immediately accomplished. They refuse getting a long term job that might help them to survive and look for alternatives to get easy and daily income.

5b. they don’t plan in the long run and won’t invest time (or effort or money) in new applications, more complex but with more features. Having today’s tasks done is a must and no wonder thinking on investing some delay in order to get them done quicker and easier in some days/months.

6a. They are based not in their expectations but in their own experiences. They think according to their bad experiences and not according a better future

6b. They are based not in their expectations but in their own experiences. They think according to their bad experiences and not according a better future [that was an easy one ;) ]

7a. They don’t try to improve personally

7b. They don’t try to improve personally in the field of ICT and their knowledge related to them. Progress in ICT means nothing to them but a headache to avoid and more and more strange people jargon

8a. It’s hard for them to reflect

8b. It’s hard for them to reflect on the state of ICT and what they can bring to his work and professional commitments

9a. They have rough emotional changes. They’re used to uncomfortable situations

9b. Their technophobia might make them act angrily in front of unknown things and concepts. They’re used to uncomfortable situations in the use of ICT in general, especially hardware or software bugs.

10a. They give up easily and have trouble finding ways to improve, they can use violence to feel released

10b. They give up easily and have trouble finding ways to improve their illiteracy in front of some problems and negation of technological dead-ends is the easiest way to keep on with the statu quo

11a. They’re physically and verbally aggressive

11b. [I guess this one has no translation in any way]

12a. They usually don’t have the conscience of having the greatest part of control upon their own lives. They attribute their problems to other people, never to themselves

12b. They usually don’t have the conscience of having the greatest part of control upon their ICT knowledge and application to daily tasks. They attribute their problems to other people (developers, computer technicians…) and technology, never to themselves

It’s sure this kind of profile might be a little bit forced, but I’m also sure we’ve found plenty of people that has done anything but ease the implementation of ICT in some projects. It’s surely not their fault, but a matter of ICT illiteracy that makes them behave that way.

Thus, when bridging the digital divide we surely have to pay some more attention to be well understood, have people know what we plan to do and why, and try that everyone shares same point of view.