Education technology 3

Computers in Education

 Indian experiments in taking computers to schools involved the participation of a large number of institutions for tasks such as the supply of hardware and software, the development of Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) packages, and the training of teachers. A project called Computer Literacy and Studies (CLASS) launched in 1984 was a joint initiative of MHRD, Department of Electronics, and NCERT. It covered 42 Resource Centres and 2,582 schools. It made use of microcomputers provided by the BBC. The evaluation of the project by SAC revealed the need for greater interaction between resource centers and project schools, the need to reduce the time gap between the training of teachers, the installation of systems, and the initiation of activities in schools, the imparting of adequate hands-on experience to teachers and students, and the provision of computer literacy programmes in the timetable. The project had only a limited success, and has been described at best as a “spectator sport”.6 A revised CLASS project during 1993–2004 saw the introduction of PC machines in keeping with broad global trends. Subsequently, the government. initiated the CLASS 2000 programme with the aim of providing computer literacy in 10,000 schools, computer-assisted learning in 1,000 schools, and computer-based learning in 100 schools. These 100 schools were called smart schools, and were designed to be agents of change seeking to promote the extensive use of computers in the teaching-learning process. This, too, has not yielded the expected results. In the words of Prof. Utpal Mallik, “Ambiguity of purpose, tentative policies and faltering practices marked the major computing initiatives in India during the last two decades . . . Schools are using IT as an add-on, not as an integral part of a new pedagogy.”7 Though all these interventions did make some impact, where the schools and teachers went the extra mile to avail of the facilities provided using their own ingenuity, many of these schemes have been half-hearted attempts even at the conceptual level. Computer literacy is not so much about knowing the technical jargon, but rather learning to use computers in a meaningful way, that is, meaningful to children. Two programmes illustrate this fact quite well. The first project—which the media has dubbed the Hole in the Wall—uses the method of Minimal Invasive Education (MIE). (See Appendix No. 8.) The second programme was carried out by the TeNet group from 5. 7 IIT Madras as a one-month summer course for students of Class V.8 (See Appendix No. 7.) The governmentsponsored programmes lacked not only conceptual clarity but there were also no provisions for a number of other essential aspects, such as students and teachers having easy access to computers, problems of scalability, timetables, etc. None of these issues was discussed, nor were the relevant solutions worked out. Without such clarity and preparation, and lacking the machinery to make mid-course corrections, these programmes failed to bring about the desired changes; some were given up half way. Given this void, many international corporations, and Indian companies as well, have entered the arena in recent years. Their programmes have limited objectives. Appendix No. 9 provides information on some of them.



 M. Mukhopadhyay et al. 1993. Utilization of media facilities in schools: An evaluative study of the ET scheme of the Ministry of HRD. Prof. Mukhopadhyaya describes his study not as a study of an educational technology scheme, but rather as a study of the utilization of media facilities. 6 A study of CLASS, as part of a larger international study entitled “Schools, Teachers, Students, and Computers: A Cross-national Perspective, IEA 1993. University of Twente. referred to in a paper presented to the Focus Group by Prof. Utpal Mallik. 7 Prof. Mallik and Ms. Kamal Deep Peter, both members of the Focus Group, stated that though the SMART schools were to be the showcase for educational innovation, the definition had been watered down to meet the size of the infra structure of a school rather than the educational programme that it pursued. The quotation given in the text is taken from Prof. Mallik’s paper “A bit of history to learn from . . . “, presented to the Focus Group