Foundations for All Toolkit

Technology

There is a wealth of literature on what learning technology can and cannot afford, but a key point to bear in mind from decades of research on the topic is that technology should not drive the design and delivery of the bridging programme, but rather technology should be used as and when available and appropriate (Facer & Selwyn, 2021). There is no perfect solution when setting up a bridging programme, only circumstances and objectives that need to be consistently revisited. In the real world of educating displaced and financially disadvantaged learners in Global South contexts, ready-made ‘plug and play’ approaches are inadequate. An assessment of the technological needs across learning centres and for prospective students, and the ongoing challenges, is essential and needs to come well ahead of the beginning of teaching. The following questions were central in our thinking:

  • Is technology absolutely necessary? How do the resources required and potential limitations compare to the potential benefits to students of its use? Programme teams should be clear about this as many subsequent decisions will be predicated on it. If it is possible to deliver the bridging programme without technology, or if the IT skills students would acquire aren’t as critical as other skills, then consider going without technology. 
  • Is there sufficient electricity available for any technological implementation? If not, consider an advocacy effort or alternative electricity sources ahead of any programme or technological  implementation.
  • Is there existing hardware (laptops, mobile devices) that can be used both within the staff and student groups? 
  • Are there open-source alternatives to common software and applications that can be used to mitigate cost? 
  • If considering providing devices to be taken home, does this put recipients at risk in any way? If a learning centre will be equipped with technology, what is needed to secure and maintain it? 
  • Is there sufficient connectivity available within the learning centres and within the larger community? What is the cost of connectivity? 
  • What is the level of familiarity with technology in both the student and tutor groups? What additional skills are needed before and throughout teaching this blended model? 

The answers to these questions will ultimately determine the technological model that the bridging programme employs with impacts on budget requirements and curriculum and teaching. In the case of FFA (see box below for details), we opted for a blended learning model, one that emphasised the face to face instruction taking place in the learning centres, with the technology supporting that face to face instruction with open educational resources (OER) embedded within a curriculum designed by the project team. We also relied on technology and connectivity in order to collaborate in program design and management across three continents, which increased the collective capacity of the team, but also carried disadvantages in terms of unequal access to technology, connectivity, and related skills resulting in uneven participation in different aspects of the program among participants based in Uganda, Lebanon, and the UK.    

 

It is important to also factor the tutors and teachers in this phase of the design. In FFA, it became apparent that tutors needed time to prepare for classes, support in getting acclimated to using the classroom technology, and processes to request laptops, or loan laptops for a night. Safety concerns, particularly in Kampala, made loaning laptops problematic. The costs associated with longer training periods should be built into future grant proposal budgets, as well as the recognition that tutors will also need ongoing support using technology during the execution of the programme itself.

 

Technology in FFA
Summary
On the basis of a needs assessments, the following was created or procured:

1. Two purpose-built furnished learning centres
2. Twenty laptops and one printer per learning centre 
3. Wifi connectivity for each learning centre
4. Mobile devices and mobile data packages.

In addition to this, we used Kolibri, an open source Learning Management System (LMS) that allowed us to work on the curriculum in a distributed nature, and to maximise existing connectivity by seeding laptops via a local area network (LAN).A training programme for tutors that allowed them to learn about the technology and how to teach with it. In future, we would either significantly extend this training and compensate teachers for the time spent engaged in training, as well as more explicitly provide it to students, as it proved critical for the programme overall.As events dictated, there was an abrupt move to mobile devices, WhatsApp groups for courses, Zoom for live sessions, and Google Drive as a content repository. 

Rationale
As the project team was distributed across three institutions and continents, and the learning centres themselves were located in Kampala and Kiryandongo, the role that technology would play in the overall design and delivery of the programme was explicit. As a result of the technological assessment, two purpose built learning centres were created in Kampala and Kiryandongo, respectively, each able to accommodate twenty learners in keeping with Covid protocols.

Each learning centre was equipped with chairs and tables and 20 laptops per learning centre were procured. Each learning centre was fitted for both wired and wireless connectivity and a printer was available in each learning centre to print copies of the study materials. A generator and fuel was provided for each learning centre in case of power outages. It was determined that staff training on the core technological systems to be used in the programme would be necessary to prepare tutors for working with the technology in their teaching, particularly on the learning management system (LMS). We began the project and the initial instruction with Kolibri, a LMS that allowed the teaching teams in the learning centres to use Local Area Networks (LAN) to seed the laptops with the course content. Kolibri proved suitable for the distributed nature of the project team, and for any connectivity issues that might arise in the learning centres. Some course teams created weekly lessons, loaded these to Kolibri and once a week the LAN seeded the laptops in the learning centres with the content. This allowed the teaching to take place without undue concern over whether the connectivity at the time of the course was sufficient.

This weekly update also enabled course teams to modify teaching plans from week to week informed by students’ and tutors’ ongoing experiences and feedback. It is important to note that not all course teams used Kolibri, or technology in general. Training was provided on Kolibri and Zoom for tutors, yet this was uneven between the two learning centres. As such, the learning centres were not proceeding through the Kolibri content at the same pace; Kiryandongo in particular was several weeks behind Kampala in the delivery of aspects of the overall curriculum. Hardware issues at times led to a lack of tutor access to the technology. It was noted that some of the students were using laptops for the first time and that in future iterations of the programme, students will need more initial technology training than was provided during the program orientation to acclimate themselves to the programme and the technology used therein. It was further noted that some students were more comfortable with the technology and these students might be used to mentor tutors and other students. We feel it is important to note the need for a dedicated role, trained and supported, in each learning centre for a technologist, someone responsible for seeing to the logistics of supporting course teams, tutors, and students. However, the technological landscape shifted often during the design and delivery of the bridging programme due to unforeseen events, necessitating a flexible approach. Due to a nationwide lockdown in the summer of 2021, the learning centres were closed.

The project team determined that a viable way forward to continue with the bridging programme was to purchase mobile devices for the students, use student stipends partly to buy mobile data to facilitate the courses, and to use WhatsApp, Google Drive, and Zoom as the technologies of instruction. All course content was hosted on Google Drive, ongoing asynchronous discussions were held in WhatsApp with each course having their own WhatsApp group, and Zoom was used for a weekly teaching session. Yet, even this switch to mobile technology was problematic as on occasion SIM cards were lost or stolen, thus requiring the student to begin the process of accessing programme spaces anew through the purchase of a new SIM card, and/or through the process of logging in to their learning spaces on Google Drive and WhatsApp. 

References

Facer, K., & Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital technology and the futures of education: Towards ‘Non-Stupid’ optimism. UNESCO Commissioned Report. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377071.