Do we need a new paradigm? Human development in the 21st century will depend on how we cope with an explosion of knowledge. We have learnt more in the last fifty years than we did in the last fifty thousand. Or so we believe.
This explosion is a consequence of networking. Humanity is networking itself rapidly into a single collective consciousness. Like a beehive, or a coral reef, or even a snowflake, the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts.
This then is the Gestalt of German psychologist Karl Jung. Made possible by a technology that he could never have imagined.
This project is about education and the shaping of this collective SuperMind.
The present century will be built by children born since 1980 or so. The oldest of these are in their early twenties when this article is being written (May, 2000). While these young architects of the young millennium will use the ideas and wisdom of preceding generations, much of these will not be relevant to them. It is important to realise that a lot of human experiential knowledge is no longer valid, relevant or even correct, today.
These children will need to create many new paradigms and solutions to strange new problems. Imagination, creativity and lateral thinking will become the most important agents of change.
And change is what the new century will be all about.
The children who will shape the new century are being brought up in an educational environment that has remained mostly unchanged for over a thousand years.
Education is "received" in schools. Schools are generally organised into classrooms, libraries, workshops, laboratories and playing fields. Instruction is given mostly in classrooms and the outcomes evaluated through examinations.
Life in the 21st century is considerably different from that in previous times. Homes are smaller, families are more mobile than ever before. As a result, most children need to change schools two or more times.
Money and material success are considered the goals of modern living. As a result, students often perceive their school education to be irrelevant to their lives, now and in the future.
Curriculum and relevance
The most important resource in most school education is the text book. Since the medium of the text book continues to be printed matter, the cycle time for the production of new text books is in years. As a result, curricular change is a very slow process in the school system.
Slow changes in curriculum leads to further loss of relevance in a society where quick acquisition of skills is considered more important than the learning of theory. The dramatic changes taking place in biotechnology, genetics and computer science are reflected very little in the formal school system of most countries.
The entire thinking of generations is shaped by school teachers. However, the status of a school teacher in society has declined steadily in the last 50 years. Teaching is no longer a preferred profession for anybody. Often, a person becomes a teacher only after he or she has not been able to enter any other profession.
This results in teachers who have low motivation to teach and who, additionally, often lack the ability to do so.
Even for the rare teachers who are self motivated, there exists very few means by which they can update their knowledge and skills, both in their subject areas or in their knowledge of pedagogy.
21st century society is characterised by speed, change and material aspiration. Families are small, solitary and very mobile. Marriage, as a social contract, is fast losing its meaning and relevance. Children spend a lot of time on their own. They often grow up with single parents. The concept of permanence is very different today than it was even fifty years ago. Children expect change all the time. They are also aware of the fact that everything can change, including their parents, their home, their school and their friends. They are often solitary and non-communicative. They have few friends although many can be aggressively extroverted. Since they expect rapid change, they see very little relevance in retaining anything, including knowledge.
What do children need to learn? According to the UNESCO, there are four "pillars" of learning:
1. Learning to know
2. Learning to do
3. Learning to live together
4. Learning to be.
It is unfortunate that learning to
know and learning to
do are generally perceived as different activities. It is because of this perception that many people believe that much of what they learnt in school is not relevant to their subsequent lives. This perception is further strengthened by stories of "self-made" businessmen or stories of "rags to riches". There is a great lack of interest in theory and knowledge. This has resulted in a lack of interest in science. This is a potential threat to national and global development in the future.
Learning to live together is dependent on values. Most countries today distinguish between value education and religious instruction. However, there exist few examples of a clear statement of values other than religious texts.
Learning to be is often described as self-actualisation. It is generally believed that this can only be achieved by the learner on his or her own. In a fast changing world where role models are almost non-existent, it is very difficult for a child to either understand or practice self-actualisation. On the contrary, most children have thought very little about who they are, why they are what they are, and what they would like to be.
There are two dimensions to what children should learn. The first dimension is a generic one that is applicable to all subjects. The second dimension concerns the content of what they should learn.
Anything that is learnt can be described as a skill, an application or a theory. A skill is the ability to carry out a task, an application is a task that has meaning and usefulness. Theory helps the learner understand why an application works the way it does.
For example, using a brush and watercolours for painting is a skill, making a painting using this skill is an application, and knowing why and how colours can be mixed to make other colours is theory.
It is our contention that children will make attempts to learn a skill if they find the end application interesting. If they master the skill and continue to make applications, they will eventually get interested in the theory of how it all works.
In most existing systems of education, the theory is taught separately from applications and skills. Usually a theory is taught first, followed by skills (in the laboratory or workshop) and finally, some application is created or discussed. The end application is generally too far away for a child to relate the theory to it. Hence, they question the relevance of the theory.
There are many ways to list what children should learn. We have classified the necessary material into four categories. These are as follows:
1. Communication, language and media
2. Science and engineering
3. Mathematics and the Arts, and
4. Values and behaviour
We think these classifications are sufficient to represent all that is taught in school.
Table 1 shows the two dimensions of childrens education described above as a matrix:
|
Applications |
Skill |
Theory
|
| Communication, language and media |
Plays, debates, stories, films, CDs, games, etc |
Written and verbal skills, multimedia computing skills, gesture, appearance, manners, etc |
Grammar, linguistics, literature, poetry, film appreciation, etc |
| Science and engineering |
Communications, the Internet, electronics, computers, power and energy, aerospace & military, medical science, software, test and measurement, transportation, the environment, etc |
Computing, programming, laboratory and workshop. Also reading and analysing skills, etc. |
The sciences and engineering |
| Mathematics and the arts |
Accounting, buying and selling, graphic arts and 3D, music, special effects, design, etc |
Arithmetic, painting, crafts, keyboarding, organising, connecting equipment, etc |
Mathematics, Fine arts, graphic arts theory, history, etc |
| Values and behaviour |
Self actualisation, happiness, Personality, popularity, friendship, attractiveness |
Judgement, interpersonal skills, manners, dressing and appearance, behavioural skills, etc |
Cognitive sciences, religion, philosophy, metaphysics, culture, finishing school etc |
Table 1. The two dimensions of school education: The 12 education spaces defined by the matrix are filled in with sample matter only, and are not complete in any sense
.
Using a table of this sort, it is possible to construct a curriculum that starts from application, moves on to skills and finally to theory.
How do children learn? There are many frameworks and theories to explain how learning occurs or how it should be conducted. Each has passionate supporters and detractors who debate on the effectiveness and inherent appropriateness of one over the other.
Broadly, however, almost all teaching-learning interactions can be classified as one of the following:
* Those where the teacher or external resource determines the learning content and methodology.
* Those where the teacher or external resource determines the learning, in consultation with the learners.
* Those where the learners determine their own learning outcomes and how they will go about it.
The last of these encompasses theories such as Piagetian, situated cognition and constructivism.
Constructivism theory talks about cognitive growth and learning. This theory has gained many adherents in recent years (c.f. Forman & Pufall, 1988; Newman, Griffin, and Cole, 1989; Piaget, 1973; Resnick, 1989;Vygotsky, 1978).
One of the foundational premises is that children actively construct their knowledge rather than simply absorbing ideas spoken at them by teachers. It posits that children actually invent their ideas. They assimilate new information to simple, pre-existing notions, and modify their understanding in light of new data. In the process, their ideas gain in complexity and power, and with appropriate support they develop critical insight into how they think and what they know about the world.
The two specific features of this philosophy borrowed from research in child development, is that play and experimentation are valuable forms of learning (c.f. Daiute, 1989; Garvey,1977; Herron & Sutton-Smith, 1971). Play involves the consideration of novel combinations of ideas. It is a form of mental exploration in which children create, reflect on, and work out their understanding.
Both play and exploration are self-structured and self-motivated processes of learning.
Another growing body of research on collaborative or cooperative learning has demonstrated the benefits of children working with other children in collective learning efforts (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson,Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Rysavy & Sales, 1991). When children collaborate, they share the process of constructing their ideas, instead of simply labouring individually.
The educational application of the above theories lie in creating curricula that matches and also challenges children's understanding, fostering further growth and development of the mind.
It is in the context of collaborative learning and constructivism that networked computing environments become important.
Children are instinctively "good" at using computers. While I could not find a study to support this, I base this impression on twenty years of experience with children using computers. Parents of children who have computers would say, almost without exception, that the child is able to do (what they, the parents) consider complex and impressive. Two explanations could exist for such reports on children using computers:
1. That children are able to self-instruct themselves to use computers for many tasks. This is impressive to adults and other children.
2. That adults are not able to do the above and, therefore, are highly impressed by childrens abilities in this area.
Collaborative computing is a relatively new area, and one that is changing and developing rapidly. The effects of collaborative education in such environments are not very well understood. In what follows, I will report on a number of observational experiments in this area conducted over a ten year period. In the process, a "minimally invasive" model appears to have interesting possibilities.
The idea of unsupervised learning was first pointed out in a paper on the use of diagnostics (debugging) as a learning tool (Mitra, S. and Pawar, R.S., 1982). Of the work done later in this period, two experiments are worth mentioning in the context of this paper. Both experiments were based on a paper (Mitra, S.,1988) where it was suggested that unsupervised use of computers can lead to accelerated learning of skills in children. It is now widely felt that children are more adept at modern computing skills than most adults, although they seldom want or get formal education in this area.
The LEDA experiments
LEDA stands for "Learning through Exploration, Discovery and Adventure". Sets of experiments were conducted in the period from 1991-1996. Each experiment was a one week summer school where groups of heterogeneous urban children in the age group 4-16 years were exposed to highly networked computing environments, provided with media and entertainment resources and allowed to formulate their own projects.
Each summer school received high quality feedback from students and parents. Results showed that children were capable of doing the following:
1. Understanding and using networked environments to exchange data, chat, use e-mail and the Internet
2. Understanding and using graphics, 3D and animation packages. This is an activity they seem to enjoy the most.
3. Discuss complex issues, such as, "Are computers alive?" with each other and come to conclusions.
4. Organise themselves for fair and efficient use of computer time.
5. Entertain each other, particularly the very young children, when bored.
6. Helping each other learn whenever required.
The Udang experiment
In 1994, a computer was installed in a village called Udang in the state of West Bengal in India. The installation was in a school and it was observed that both students and teachers were comfortable with its operation within a few weeks, with minimal instructions. In other words, they were able to teach themselves the fundamentals of computing (Zielenziger, 1995) and found enough self-motivation to do so. The students went on to create a database containing information about their village and the information was subsequently used by the government of India for decision making purposes. The Udang school continues to serve as a computer skills training centre for the local villages of the area.
The Kalkaji experiment
This experiment was conducted in 1999 to find out whether:
1. Potential users will use a PC based outdoor Internet kiosk in India without any instruction.
2. A PC based Internet kiosk can operate without supervision in an outdoor location in India.
An outdoor kiosk was constructed such that it could be accessed from outside the boundary wall of our office in New Delhi. The headquarters of NIIT Limited is situated in Kalkaji in the extreme south of the city. The office is bordered by a slum, as is the case in many Indian cities. The slum contains a large number of children of all ages (0-18), most of whom do not go to school. The few who do go to government schools of very poor quality (that is, low resources, low teacher or student motivation, poor curriculum and general lack of interest). None are particularly familiar with the English language.
The kiosk was constructed such that a monitor was visible through a glass plate built into a wall.
A touch pad was also built into the wall (see photo 1). The PC driving the monitor was