Classroom of the future

There are a number of issues related to BackPack.Net, Technology, Learning and Marketing that we believe, if addressed with a little sensitivity, could benefit educational development in Asia and Other Developing Countries.

A problem for school/education administrators in developing countries is that they are rarely exposed to Student-Centred Learning and Contextual Learning in their schools. Not being familiar with contextual learning, they can tend to view the wonderful activities taking place in technology marketing photos as activities that are being ENABLED by the technology, and often don't realize that in general they can be achieved without the technology (at virtually no cost).Photo/s (iDA): Students using tablet PCs in the field
Key Issue: The marketing is projecting images of technology which are really images of good teaching practice (not necessarily technology dependent). In general, if you were to replace the tablet PCs in the photos (above/below) with plain sheets of paper, the photos could be depicting typical contextual-based learning activities.(A sheet of paper is much lighter, more portable, less fragile, and the batteries don't go flat just when you need it most).
Singapore, being an Asian country should be sensitive to these issues and explain clearly in their education technology marketing that "in general the good teaching practices being displayed in the photographs can also be achieved with low or no technology" (in multiple languages). This would hopefully encourage other Asian and developing countries to improve their teaching and learning quality through the implementation of Contextual Learning practices. But what effect would this have upon technology marketing? If the effects were negative we would have to question, is it the technology or the "learning paradigm" that really appeals?
Technology marketing should be focused upon the specific features of the technology. Teachers can decide whether they require these specific features or not, and whether they are worth the cost (not only financial!). For instance, aren't there educational advantages to be gained from our students handling and processing data manually? Are we really enhancing their education or de-skilling our students? (Are we removing educational processes?)
Key Issue: I believe that using images of Good Teaching Practice to Market Products without explaining that the practices are based upon contextual learning principles 'that can be employed successfully without technology' is counter-productive. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to help and inform developing countries about such issues, and an obligation to avoid creating a "Cargo Cult" attitude to quality in education.
Having worked in Australian education institutions for 24 years (including a Centre for Language Teaching and Research 4 years) I feel qualified to state that the "Cargo Cult" syndrome also exists in our Western Institutions. We often pursue technological solutions "without measurable/'concrete' evidence" of real benefits to our students. From research I conducted in 1996 I discovered that this was frequently due to "the need to be seen to be progressive". One of the members of my education network (relating to e-technology) recently (even though he said he didn't agree with the technology) stated "kalau kita tidak "ikut-ikutan" maka kita pasti akan ketinggalan jauh" [If we don't follow-along we will certainly be left far behind]. I believe this response is fairly typical of many people concerned about education in developing countries. However, we need clear evidence that what we are following will enhance student learning. I believe it is time to stop following blindly! We need measurable (not rhetorical) proof, and the onus of proof (and expense) should be the responsibility of equipment suppliers (not our students and parents). Maybe we can afford the continual turnover of 'unproven' technologies, but please remember that developing countries can't.
BackPack evaluation processes are not clear. Are there control groups "with the same support systems", for instance; no-technology and low-technology groups in the same schools? What measurable evidence (not rhetorical) is available to prove that students do learn more effectively through use of the tablet PCs? "We need to be relentless in measuring and assessing the impact that technology has on education and on academic achievement. We need evidence that teaching and learning are improved as the result of technology." (Ref: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory)
Definition needed for "Classroom Of The Future" - Which future? For instance, the technology being showcased will probably be old technology within five (5) years and may even be "obsolete". What are we really showcasing? I suspect that the manufacturers will actually be working hard to make the technology obsolete (but better!) as soon as possible so that they can sell us more products (that's business).However, the Good Teaching Practices (Contextual Learning) being showcased will remain relevant, regardless of the technology (or no technology).Isn't the Classroom Of The Future "Our Environment" ? Do we really need to take technology along with us?
My comments above relate mainly to the information provided in the BackPack.Net Brochure and Chronicles documents. Their website is professional, however, my main concern with the website is that I still couldn't find any 'measurable evidence' to support the notion of enhanced learning from the use of the tablet PCs. Notes:
If you are interested in some local experience with laptops in a school in Indonesia please continue down below the image, I think you will find it interesting! (in English).
Most of my experience discussing and writing about education issues during the past 10 years has been in the Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia) so I would appreciate your comments.Phillip Rekdale (10/2/2008)Education & Technology ConsultantPendidikan (Education) Network Indonesia(Contact / Comments)