Mobile Phones and Language Literacy in Rural Developing Regions Matthew Kam, Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
When analysing what the user is doing with technology, it is very important to have a multidisciplinary approach.
Needs and problem statement: fluency in “power language” (e.g. English), public schools in developing regions (e.g. India) are not succeeding, 101 million primary school-age children do not attend school (36M in South-Asia, 39M in Sub-Saharan Africa).
How can cellphones make education more accessible through out-of-school environments? Can game-like exercises provide an enjoyable learning experience? Can one learn anytime, anywhere without disrupting work?
The project began in India in 2004 with 10 rounds of fieldwork (adding up to more than 12 months of fieldwork). Since 2004 and during that time, there has been several rounds of pilots that included needs assessments, exploratory studies in slums and villages, feasibility studies again in slums and villages, testing, classroom and out-of-school studies and controlled studies.
A classroom study deployed throughout 2008, three times per week, after-school program at a private village school, demonstrated significant post-test improvements on spelling skills, with learning gains correlated with grade levels.
Another out-of-school pilot study focused on the use of cellphones in children’s daily lives over an extended time. The participation in the study was voluntary. m-Learning consisted in cellphone-based game when “working” in the fields to improve English literacy. It was a task-based language teaching, with an instructional sequence around tasks. Much of the methodology was already out in the market (do not reinvent the wheel), so best practices in 2nd language teaching were analysed and more than 50 design patterns where distilled to be applied in the own project.
On the other hand, it was also analysed what were traditional Indian villages games like, how were they different from existing Western videogames. Thus, 296 game design patterns where documented, identifying 37 non-tribial differences. At last, educational games were designed on purpose and based on traditional village games.
Access to electricity was a major issue, and the average user could use the mobile phone for learning during 2:23h per week. Social environment was also an issue, as some kids had to hide the phones away from their parents or brothers, had maintenance issues, etc.
The average participant covered 46 new words over 16 weeks of unsupervised usage of cellphones. At this rate, each participant is expected to learn 150 words in a calendar year. Benchmark is 500 words, given good learning conditions. The problem is that during the first 8 weeks, the rate of number of new words completed is very high (up to 40-65 words per week), while the rate falls to under 10 words per week for the rest of the weeks. So, the novelty effect has a very hight attraction power, but it ends up fading out.
This project has been now on a scaling-up phase with a Nokia grant that enabled the extension of the pilot to 800 low-income children in 40 locations.
A major challenge for this project is not scaling in quantity, but also in quality, making it advance towards the acquisition of advanced literacy skills. The project is now being designed based on Chall’s stages of reading development. On the other hand, one size fits all approach does not scale, which implies quite a complex deployment strategy.
Discussion
Ismael Peña-López: Has there any research been made to analyse the fading out of the novelty effect? Any ideas on how to extend it? A: There are two strategies to extend the novelty effect. The most evident one is, of course, to include more and more novelties along time. This is, usually, not economically sustainable, as content production is very expensive. On the other hand, introduction of more and more novelties might be misleading. A second way, which is not actually extending the novelty effect, is to make the games more engaging. This is the strategy the project is taking and that is why a game designer has joined the team to specifically focus in this aspect.
Eva de Lera: Why not using bigger devices/displays that allow for more users at the same time that the tiny cellphone screen? A: There is not really a single approach. There are many experiences on several users converging on a single device, like the multi-mice PC. On the other hand, engagement in language learning often depends on oneself being in charge of his own learning, and being in control of the game. But, yes, definitely, there is not a single path.
Carlos Fernández: Why not using less multimedia-intensive learning games (e.g. quizzes) with lower requirements of adoption and, especially, with lower power/battery requirements? A: This is already done, but it also has a trade-off with engagement, so it is difficult to tell where the balance is.
Q: How far can we go on in m-learning for language literacy? A: It depends. It certainly can go really far, but we should definitely consider (i.e. do not forget) the role of the teacher. Thus, maybe the upper end of m-learning should more be about teacher training rather than direct student education. Talking about individual vs. group activities, the shortcomings are not obvious; sometimes individual use is better.
The “Mobile Game Based Learning” Project Thomas Putz, Project manager at Evolaris Next Level, Austria
The project project aims at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of learning in the target group of people in the age of 16-24. To do so, games were put into the equation by means of a free software platform called mGBL – mobile Game-Based Learning.
The main idea was not to port some PC-style gaming platform into mobile phones (neither PDAs, nor gaming devices). Games should be geared around real life communication, intertwined in daily lives. The learning concept had to be mapped to the game style, embedded naturally in the game.
Game 1: Fastest First!
The game had two different parts: a first one where knowledge was checked, a second one where the game took the approach of a simulation where that knowledge had to be practically applied.
Game 2: MOGABAL
This game has a multiuser version where several players can play the same game. The game has also quizzes, but is much more visual and the various choices have no immediate reward but a link to a subsequent level.
Game 3: Get Real!
This was a server side game where collaboration was a key issue. Indeed, a planning part was also included in the game, so it was not only about “doing” but also about “wanting to do”. Communication was really enhanced and was enabled by texting, with MMS, etc. The game had also a very interesting online-offline combination of activities, including QR codes that could be transmitted via the mobile phone to the game, and there enrich the information about e.g. a building by means of other sources.
Game 4: Digital Economy
The game consisted in finding and mapping e-business initiatives in the city.
Conclusions
The students actually learnt the contents related to the syllabus/curriculum, with a stress on cross-curricular competences; they got new digital skills; teamwork and cooperation skills were also improved, including social skills, self-confidence, etc.
Discussion
Q: Is it true that first the game was developed and then the it was decided what its applications would be? A: Absolutely. The reason was that the game applied different pedagogical theories or methodologies, and these actually came before the games themselves. The practical application, though, of such methodologies did come later.
Q: How many people participated in this project? What is the best way to reach everyone? A: It is definitely not a way to reach everyone to focus on the state-of-the-art devices that are the latest to come to the market. It is preferable to target less powerful but more popular devices that everybody has access to and, more important, whose usage has become widespread in terms of mastering their technical possibilities.
Share:
UOC UNESCO Chair in Elearning VII International Seminar: Mobile Technologies for Learning and Development (2010)
A Blended Mobile Learning Model-Context Oriented (BML-CO) Fernando Moreira, Associated Professor at the Universidade Portucalense, Portugal
There is a difference between “traditional” mobile learning and “real” mobile learning: the real thing requires not only migrating content from one platform to the other one, but a change of attitudes, methodologies, goals, etc.
In-class use of mobile technologies: Students:
Focus their learning on areas of weakness.
Diminish misunderstanding.
Enhanced learning.
In-class use of mobile technologies: Teachers:
Identify sudents’ misconceptions, challenges.
Adapt teaching practices.
Enhanced assessment and feedback.
Enhanced teaching.
The problem, though, is that we have theorized about traditional learning, e-learning, blended learning, but not m-learning. Thus, we need a pedagogical theory for mobile learning, and one that takes into account the different types of content that a mobile device can display and how this content should be made available to students.
To do so, context is very important. Bahaskar defines context as any information taht can be used to characterize the situation of learning entitites that are considered relevant to the interactions between a learner and an application. In other words: when, where and why.
A recent investigation by Bahaskar himself shows that audio is mostly used when walking, video when being stationary and photo while in group. Related to the place, video is more used at the classroom or hotel, etc.
The context will also define the technological constraints and/or the associated costs of a specific m-learning model.
m-Learning contents will be based in short texts that will indicate the theoretical concepts that will be studied, practical examples and statements of problems to solve. Image/video will be mostly tutorials and audio be used in small podcasts.
The m-learner is not stationary, so the content has to be adapted to their changing situations.
Ismael Peña-López: Is the blended mobile learning model compulsory? If yes, how do students feel about having their teachers constantly “invading” their own lives/cellphones? A: The model is compulsory, but we’ll have to wait until the end of the implementation to know about the level of acceptance of the learning model by students [it is made clear later that this is (a) but an aditional layer which actually makes mobile access non-compulsory and that (b) students decide whether to join the model or not].
Julià Minguillón: What if people do not have hi-tech cellphones? A: Everything in the course/model can be followed either on an m-learning basis or an e-learning basis.
Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol: What happens when mobile devices are not used on the move, but from fixed places? Evidence shows that mobile devices are actually “portable” devices that are carried on from one place to another one and then used there, not in itinere.
Q: What kind of content is it used? A: The idea is to produce new content for the students taking the m-courses.
Julià Minguillón: Why using an LMS and not a social networking site on top of the system? Why using a centralized system that hinders the advantages of decentralized learning that m-learning provides? A: This is definitely a possibility. In its first phase, the LMS will be chosen because it is a more familiar and controlled environment, but the future is totally open.
Share:
UOC UNESCO Chair in Elearning VII International Seminar: Mobile Technologies for Learning and Development (2010)
Integrating technology and pedagogy in the classroom Miguel Nussbaum, Universidad Católica de Chile
We have evolved from classroom where students were passive to classrooms where students ask for more interactivity — especially where they have notebooks in their desks. So, what does it mean to change the classroom dynamics?
Still, in many classrooms the participatory literacy has not yet been reached. So, even if the computers have been introduced in the classroom, still lots of thing remain unaltered.
Collaborative or participative learning is based in two issues:
The social network, where learning actually occurs. There is an interchange of knowledge amongst children, there is a collaborative construction of knowledge. And technology is there to support the social network, to make it work.
The role of the teacher is to support the groups that are learning together. Thus, the teacher has to have the tools to perform this supporting task.
[NOTE: the conference was made remotely and the connection crashed, so these are just the notes of the first minutes]
Share:
UOC UNESCO Chair in Elearning VII International Seminar: Mobile Technologies for Learning and Development (2010)
Mobile Learning in rural environments and development countries Dolors Reig, Consultant & editor-in-chief at the ICT – educational weblog El Caparazón, Spain
The Internet is not about empowerment of new leaders, it is about the empowerment of everyone (Levinson).
The context of m-learning is changing: the penetration of the feature phone and the penetration of the smartphone is converging and the latter could catch up with the former by 2011 Q3 according to Nielsen. Today, 14% of total web traffic comes from mobile phones and for 70% of 16-25 youth mobiles are the most important media.
Of course, the context in which education takes place is also changing and the system is in a dire crisis. There is an increasing trend towards open social learning. Clay Shirky states that there is a cognitive surplus, a social surplus and a creative surplus in collaborating and creating collectively.
The social web is definitely boosting the upper stages of Maslow’s pyramid. And the social component is now more important than ever. This rising social component is having a positive impact on education: it is now more easy than ever to get information and, indeed, to get answers to one’s queries. The web is a research, knowledge platform. John Seely Brown states that mobiles are curiosity amplifiers.
The digital divide is increasingly a participation divide.
Discussion
Eva de Lera: How much are institutions an obstacle to m-learning by trying to replicate the “ancient” methodologies to mobile phones? How much is it about technologies and how much about pedagogies? A: Yes, we should adapt the pedagogies and methodologies to the new devices, but not only the devices, but the new paradigms that the new platforms imply.
Share:
UOC UNESCO Chair in Elearning VII International Seminar: Mobile Technologies for Learning and Development (2010)
m4Lit project is about mobiles for literacy, a project set out to explore the viability of using mobile phones to support reading and writing by youth in South Africa.
South Africa has an excellent mobile infrastructure, with good mobile coverage and relatively cheap mobile data plans.
Most people in South Africa do their reading at school, but 51% of homes have no books at home, there is no leisure in reading. Thus, reading activity is really low, which has a negative impact in literacy as a whole.
The project created Kontax, a mobile novel (m-novel) was written and published in September 2009 on a mobisite and on MXit. The story, called Kontax, was published in English and in isiXhosa. Readers were invited to interact with it as it unfolded – teens could discuss the unfolding plot, vote in polls, leave comments, and finally submit a written piece as part of a competition for story sequel ideas.
The project got more than 63,000 subscribers, +28,000 aged 11-18 and 27,000 aged 19-24. That is a lot of youngsters, but not all of them where. On the other hand, not everyone read the whole story, but only 17,200 did, of which +7,000 teens. Nevertheless, this are astonishingly high reading figures for South Africa.
Findings
Most digital writing takes place on mobile phones, but it tend to be short, like SMS.
Most reading took place on mobile phones or on paper.
Word-of-mouth was the main channel by which people came to know about the project.
The isiXhosa became very popular, especially in relationship with the presence of the language in written literature in South Africa.
The pilot project became Kontax 2, Kontax 3, Kontax 4 and then Yoza, a mobisite that brings content (literature) to mobile phones. Even Shakespeare (Romeo & Juliet, on the public domain) has been uploaded to the site for it to be read on a mobile phone.
Some topics (youngs, romance) work better than others on mobile phones. And we find that people do comment on the works and even enter in a “dialogue” with the characters of the novels.
Lessons learnt:
Mobile is a content monster. People wait for more content to read.
Mobile content is instant. And people will participate, comment, engage in conversations.
The readers never sleep, they connect at any time to the website. Content is read anytime, anywhere.
The platform matters: to create one’s own platform is hard. It is better to use someone else’s platform that has already caught in the market.
Interest is difficult to maintain.
Audience is fickle, fans are loyal. Fans left lots of comments and spent many time on the stories.
When reading becomes “snacky”, it is hard to make it sticky. You’re waiting for the bus, you read; when the bus comes, you quit reading: you have to take this context into account.
You might end up with something you didn’t expect.
The economic sustainability of the project is definitely an issue. Either you partner with a funder, or you embed your project in the educational system so that, in mainstreaming it, diffusion becomes more easy and straightforward.
South Africa is book poor, but it is mobile rich: Africa’s e-readers use mobiles as their Kindle.
Open questions:
What are the effects on non-English mother-tongue speakers?
To what extent will teens allow “us” to occupy “their” space?
Who is excluded from the mobile Internet?
When reading becomes “snacky”, what does it do to concentration abilities?
There is a distance and conflict between mobile literacies and school literacies. This needs to be explored and better understood because mobile literacies are so pervasive in young peoples’ lives (Walton, 2010). What do we do with this?
Discussion
Q: Was there any criticism for having people with their eyes stuck on a small screen? A: Not at all.
Emma Kiselyova: When the project is over, what’ll be next? A: The main goal now is looking at sustainability options. These options range from other sponsors, ads in the stories, etc.
Gardner Campbell: What is going to happen with the generated content? A: Everything is online and it is available for everyone and under an open license.
Q: Wasn’t it possible to stablish agreements with book publishers? A: It seemed that their tempos were really slow. Q: But, nevertheless, now that the project has shown success, a second contact may be advisable. A: Maybe, but there still is the issue of affordability of content. For now, content has been freely available on the net. If it’s put behind a paywall, audience may decrease dramatically, and the goals were not making money, but contributing to increase literacy.
Interesting round of comments on “texting literacy” here. On the one hand, some people state that young people underestimate their own literacy or their own language skills. On the other hand, there is also the debate whether “texting” can be applied anywhere and whether there is a need to teach the critical skills to be able to tell when this text-speak is appropriate. Personally, I’ve always thought that e-mail and SMS is not written language, but transcribed oral language. We should address the issue from this standpoint of view.
Share:
UOC UNESCO Chair in Elearning VII International Seminar: Mobile Technologies for Learning and Development (2010)
