Non-Western digital learning theories?

Finishing Neil Selwyn’s “Education in a Digital World: Global Perspectives on Technology and Education,” I came across this passage:

“Most educational technology theorising comes from a very limited and decontextualised set of sources — as can be seen in the continued bearing of 20th-century Russian learning theory over our conceptions of how digital technologies are used all over the world. What would a 21st-century Confucian or Islamic theory of digital learning look like?”

That made me smile, since I took a class on Learning Theories last semester and for the first assignment, we were given a list of names and asked to write about two learning theorists who we weren’t specifically covering during the course. I was surprised that all the names were male, American/European (except for two Russians) and only dated from 1890 onwards. I asked if there weren’t any earlier theories, or theories from outside the West (even if they’d only influenced their own cultures), and the professor said she didn’t know, but that I could investigate on my own.

I figured China and India were good places to start looking, due to having longstanding, well-recorded civilizations. I found that Confucius (551-479 BCE) and Tagore (1861-1941) were considered the main learning theorists in each region, and that some people still consider them relevant today. In a paper titled “Rethinking Teacher Education: Synchronizing Eastern and Western Views of Teaching and Learning to Promote 21st Century Skills and Global Perspectives,” the authors wrote that Confucius

“stressed using individual instruction using personal, informal methods (Analects, 6.21; 11.22); while recognizing the importance of application and requiring students to apply what they learn by putting their knowledge into practice (Analects, 1.1).”

Well, that certainly pre-dated constructivism! Perhaps it was just called “common sense” back then. As far as ed tech goes, I found one academic arguing that “Socrates, Confucius and the medieval inventors of the lecture have been the iconic stimulators of methodologies of eLearning” in legal education.

Although thinkers directly connecting Confucianism to ed tech may be rare, it is easy to find articles such as “What Modern Educators Could Learn from Confucius.” I even found an opinion column from yesterday titled “Revamp education: more Confucians, fewer Kardashians” in which the writer attributes the success of the top seven countries in the PISA assessment test scores (Shanghai-China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Macao and Japan) to being “Confucianism-influenced societies” and that “Confucian values help foster a family’s passion for education, hard-working ethic and perseverance for success.”

As for India, the home of so many global technology services, at least one writer believes a revival of Tagore’s ideas about education would help Indians “meet the challenges of our modern, globalized world.”

And Selwyn’s rhetorical question about Islamic theories? Well, a quick google gives me a paper titled “Psychology Of Learning From An Islamic Perspective,” a blog post on “An Islamic Theory of Learning,” another paper titled “Deciphering the Theory of Multiple Intelligences: An Islamic Perspective,” and even one titled “The Confucius Philosophy and Islamic Teachings of Lifelong Learning“! It seems like it wouldn’t be too difficult to form a hypothesis on how Islamic thought might influence contemporary ed tech design. Perhaps we will even see some interesting developments now that edX will have an Arabic MOOC platform, Edraak, with a mix of Western and local courses, the Lebanese startup Menaversity is offering Arabic MOOCs, and the Saudi MOOC startup Rwaq wants to “disrupt Arab education.”

At any rate, I think Selwyn is right to point out that there are many ways of looking at what works in education, and how best to design educational technology for modern learners. In the book “ICT4D: Information Communication Technology for Development,” which I’m reading as part of an open course (see earlier blog), in the chapter about ICT for education, the author Michelle Selinger quotes L.S. Jeevanantham criticizing the “Eurocentrism of curricula” that is implemented in developing countries (such as South Africa, where he teaches) which reflects “the life experiences of a small segment of our diverse society.” Selinger follows by saying

“Because of ease of delivery, electronic content is more likely to be used across borders than traditional resources. Therefore such content needs to be developed in such a way as to draw on the cultural context of learners and teachers, or be sufficiently adaptable by local users. Unfortunately this is rare; those countries more advanced technologically impose a cultural context in which advanced technologies are perceived to have the potential to improve the learning context for those whose educational systems are yet to develop, and are failing to look behind to ensure that all partners derive benefits. From the perspectives of the less advanced countries these developments are often considered to be culturally imperialistic and technologically determinist.” 

So when ed tech enthusiasts bang on about the entire world needing “21st century skills” while simultaneously ignoring much of the world’s experiences and ideas, it appears either narrow-minded or uncreative. If nothing else, merely knowing what other perspectives are out there in an increasingly globalized world is a step in the right direction. 

MOOCs and developing countries

The big news in my feed recently was about Udacity founder Sebastian Thrun “changing course” and moving away from free online courses to for-profit corporate training. His views on why he thought MOOCs had failed provoked a lot of criticism from educators who wondered how he hadn’t understood the basic premises underlying traditional distance education (such as requiring a high level of self-motivation, discipline and ability to be an independent learner) and they charged him with “blaming the poor” rather than trying to help them. One academic wrote:

“The ‘godfather of free online education’ says that the racially, economically diverse students at SJSU ‘were students from difficult neighborhoods, without good access to computers, and with all kinds of challenges in their lives…[for them] this medium is not a good fit.’ It seems disruption is hard when poor people insist on existing.”

Soon after that news came a report from the University of Pennsylvania that the primary consumers of MOOCs are “elite, young and male.” Based on the approximately 35,000 students registered for Penn’s 32 Coursera classes, the researchers found that 80% of the students from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa came from the wealthiest 6% of the population. As Coursera says that 68% of their students are from outside the U.S., and 40% specifically from developing countries, it reinforces the comment from the study’s author that “Far from realizing the high ideals of their advocates, MOOCs seem to be reinforcing the advantages of the ‘haves’ rather than educating the ‘have-nots’” — on a global scale.

Then came a debate on the impact of MOOCs on developing countries. In Slate, U.S. education writer Anya Kamanetz said that MOOCs compete with existing national systems and “don’t build local capacity for education, research or knowledge creation in the education sector,” while Rwanda-based ed tech entrepreneur Jamie Hodari argued that “the developing world shouldn’t fear MOOCs.” Earlier in November, in the short opinion piece “MOOCs may matter even more in emerging markets,” an Indian writer pointed out that “India lacks higher-education places but foreign universities face barriers to entry. So why not tap the Indian market through MOOCs in combination with targeted assessments?” A similar comment was made in a recent article about whether online courses could narrow Africa’s education gap, that despite the current inequality of online access, the “demand for higher education places is exceeding supply.” Even Forbes defended MOOCs, saying that “there are more than 2 billion potential learners around the world today, and more than 70% of these are unable to afford a college degree.”

Also last month, MOOC provider edX launched its Arab initiative “Edraak,” to provide free edX courses translated into Arabic. edX president Anant Agarwal pointed out that 80% of the Arab world doesn’t speak English, which has left them out of the MOOC phenomenon so far. While this may seem like a good example of trying to address global inequality and educational disparity, earlier this year a writer for elearning Africa specifically addressed Agarwal’s beliefs in an article titled “The underlying inequality of MOOCs,” saying that

“it cannot just be assumed that because something exists and because it is ‘free’, it is equally accessible to all people. […] In practical terms, sustained participation in a MOOC requires a set of resources and infrastructure that is a privilege, as many of us, including Agarwal, often forget. A reliable electricity supply, frequent and uninterrupted access to a device capable of going online and playing video and sound, and a secure, unrestricted Internet connection are essential starting blocks – as is a safe and comfortable space in which to learn.”

Some critics even argue that it’s the content that matters, not merely the access. One article claimed that MOOCs are seen as “too Western” in Tanzania, while an academic opined that MOOCs are a form of “neocolonialism.”

Then there’s the argument that “MOOCs don’t benefit developing countries. Phones do.” So are MOOCs the answer to democratizing education globally, or will it increase inequality? Or is it just a passing fad? I guess we’ll just have to keep watching the debate unfold!