By: Nivi Sharma, President of BRCK Education, co-founder of e-Limu
As the tiny bubble on Ngong Road we call “Silicon Savannah” basks in the warm afterglow of Mark Zuckerberg’s visit, an important question is being echoed: is technology truly making a difference in Kenya? In my even smaller “EdTech” bubble, we are constantly being asked for evidence of the impact we have on learning outcomes. Does putting technology in classrooms make students smarter? Fair question, let’s answer that in two parts; first by defining what “technology in classrooms” means and second by determining the ways we assess how “smart” a student is.
Technology in classrooms has meant different things in classrooms all over the world. When I was growing up, there was a trend for large organizations to donate their old computers to schools. The computers were refurbished. Sometimes. Other times, it was a badly disguised form of “digital dumping.”
In 2005 came OLPC - One Laptop Per Child, their mission was to develop a $100 laptop to empower the world’s poorest children through digital access. This seemed like a lofty dream then, and sometimes we need audacious dreams so we can approach big problems with creativity and confidence. From Rwanda to Nepal, Mongolia to Peru, millions of laptops were shipped to schools all over the world that tried to adopt “technology”. However, the program fell under heavy criticism as it neither reached its targeted price point of $100, and nor did it account for the support schools would need in order to use the technology effectively.
Closer to home, our President’s DigiSchool program promises a tablet for every Standard 1 student. From the project design, it’s clear that many learnings from OLPC’s shortcomings have been taken into account so the solution is more holistic.
EdTech is more than devices for schools; the devices need software that is easy and intuitive for learners and teachers to navigate; without dynamic, digital age appropriate and curriculum aligned content that is culturally relevant to the learning environment, the technology is completely meaningless; the solutions also need the capacity to be able to remotely update the content. It goes without saying that any and all technology needs basic infrastructure like a safe place for storage, a source of power and backhaul connectivity. What large projects often forget along the way is training, support and developing a strong mechanism for data collection and feedback.
To bring all these moving parts together in a cohesive and effective program, it’s important that we learn from the past - what worked well, what failed, why and where. Any intervention that results in positive outcomes in Munich won’t have the same effect in Machakos. There’s a growing movement in technology interventions based on human centred design, user experience and glocal thinking. This simply alludes to the obvious fact that we need to build solutions with our end users in mind: we must stop designing solutions for Lodwar from offices in London! If you want to catch fish, you must listen to the sound of the river.
It seems obvious, but almost all of the technology in Kenyan classrooms today is built by and for someone else. Schools in Toronto have a dedicated IT expert on hand to setup, troubleshoot and update the technology; schools in Turkana do not. As technologists, it is our duty to build solutions that do not require our end users to be IT experts themselves. Most teachers in Kenya do not (and should not have to) know the difference between ethernet, HDMI, VGA, USB and power cables. A teacher’s job is to walk into every lesson and achieve a set of planned learning objectives; technology has to make that job easier. Not more modern or cooler.
Governments, development organizations, educators, technologists and private sector must work together to spend time in classrooms, observing good teaching practices to create cost-effective solutions that work. Neither one of these groups can do this alone, collaboration is a must.
Once a school or government makes the investment in solutions, it expects results. How results are defined is the second part of the puzzle. As educators and experts in pedagogy, we all aspire to see higher literacy and numeracy, improved test scores, critical thinkers, creative problem-solvers, better communicators and even happier students. What we can’t agree on is how to measure any of these things. Standardized tests are our only bad option sometimes. We know that business as usual is not working: rote memorization and “chalk and talk” teaching are limiting teachers and learners. The approach we are currently taking to educate the leaders and participants of our Vision 2030 economy needs to be disrupted. The jury is still out on technology as a disruptor. We don’t know for sure that digital access for students today makes for a more informed, responsible, empowered and democratic society tomorrow. There just hasn’t been enough research done on the myriad of interventions out there.
Across the board, research has shown that students from low-income families perform worse than their peers from middle and high-income families. We know that technology has the potential to close this gap, to make access to information more equitable. A child in Korogocho may not have as qualified or motivated a teacher or the same school facilities as her peer in Kilimani, but if she could watch a video that disseminated the same information to her in a fun and engaging way, if she could reinforce what she learned through a game that tracked her progress, this yawning gap between the haves and have nots might narrow. Learning is a beautiful and complicated process. It can never be reduced to a series of algorithms, we can never replace a teacher with a tablet: supportive communities and progressive leadership will always be needed to turn schools into conducive environments in which learners thrive.
One criticism of technology for education that I often hear is: we have bigger problems - schools need desks and toilets, children need food and shoes before we give them fancy tablets. This is true. The “problem of education” is multifaceted, we need to try as many approaches as possible. One solution does not need to wait for another before attempting to make teaching and learning better. Kenya has taken an important step on the long road of exploring solutions that will work best for our children. The question is no longer if technology will become a key tool for learning, but what shape it takes, when, how, and for whom.
Nivi Sharma is the President of BRCK Education (education.BRCK.com) and a co-founder of eLimu (e-Limu.org) the first company to digitize the Kenyan Primary School curriculum for revision and literacy. She is a thought leader in Education Technology for emerging markets having dedicated her career to developing simple and holistic EdTech solutions. BRCK Education’s Kio Kit is digital classroom in a box: in it are 40 wirelessly charged rugged tablets, earphones, connectivity and thousands of digital lessons to make learning fun and engaging. She is passionate about the impact digital access has on learning and changing attitudes. Nivi is also a 2014 East Africa Acumen fellow and a 2016 fellow of the Fast Forward leadership programme led by Sunny Bindra. In her spare time, she bakes, knits, runs and folds origami. Recently, the African Entrepreneurship Awards selected Nivi as one of the Top 50 Entrepreneurs whose business was selected as one of the “Most Significant and Sustainable in Africa”.
