Tag Archive for: Barriers

Photo Credit: National University of Singapore

A new working paper released by the Global Economy and Development at Brookings concludes that if smartly and strategically deployed, modern information and communications technology (ICT) holds great promise in helping bring quality learning to some of the world’s poorest and hardest-to reach communities.

As part of the Brooke Shearer Working Paper Series, the paper entitled “A New Face of Education Bringing Technology into the Classroom in the Developing World” focused on the potentials of using information and communication technologies to improve teaching and learning in the developing nations.

Using two examples of ICTs application in education from Peru and Pakistan – “failed” and “successful”, the paper stated that experience shows that while there are numerous examples of how technology is used to the great benefit of teachers and learners alike, there are also many cases in which it does little to impact educational processes and outcomes.

The example from Peru, South America recalls a number of colorful laptops sitting in a corner of a classroom covered with dust. It argues that the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program which was arranged by the Ministry of Education, had the good intention of improving students’ information communication technology (ICT) skills, as well as their content-related skills through the laptops. But because there was no proper support for teacher training in how the laptops are to be used; no follow-up or repair and maintenance contingencies; and with outdated and bug-infested software, the laptops are seen as unusable and serve little purpose.

On the other hand, the successful example recalled a young girl in the small village of Hafizibad in Pakistan using her mobile phone to send an SMS message in Urdu to her teacher. After sending, she receives messages from her teacher in response, which she diligently copies by hand in her notebook to practice her writing skills. She does this from the safety of her home, and with her parents’ permission. The girl is part of a Mobilink-UNESCO program to increase literacy skills among girls in Pakistan which has shown some positive improvements so far.

Based on the above examples, the authors identified some barriers to quality education in the developing world.

Barriers to Learning for All – Primary, Secondary & Higher Education

  • Distance and Cost – limited availability of schools in remote, inaccessible, or particularly impoverished regions of developing countries with direct and indirect costs barriers.
  • Quality of Faculty/Teachers – poor quality of teacher training programs, lack of in-service training for those on the field, and lack of graduate level faculty members affect how much time teachers spend and how they teach.
  • Resources, Materials and Language –  limited budget for tertiary education leads to poor quality teaching and learning materials, in appropriate format and language are barriers especially to the early learners.
  • Management – poor education system management including unwieldy teacher payment systems, limited information collection and management capabilities, and poor learning assessment processes.
  • Students Academically Unprepared – due to the poor quality of education at the basic and secondary levels, students entering higher education are unprepared and usually with poor performance.

The paper continues that even with the extraordinary growth in access to ICT, its use in multiple sectors of society is uneven because of certain interconnected conditions that needs to be taken care of including the following:

Enabling Conditions for Effective Technology (ICT) Use

  • Access to Electricity – the use of ICTs requires access to power such as electricity, solar power, batteries, etc.
  • Internet Connectivity – access to the Internet and wireless capabilities is key for the use of ICTs in classroom
  • Human Resource Capacity – the need to attract, recruit and train skilled and qualified IT professionals
  • Political will and Management – development of national and institutional ICT policies and the will to act on them
  • Financial Resources – most of the developing countries need external support in implementing successful ICT projects in the educational sector
  • Link between Infrastructure Availability and Ability to Integrate – these countries also need to effectively integrate ICTs into the various sectors once the infrastructure is in place.

The paper then mentioned different types of ICTs for use in education in the developing nations.

Technology Types and their Prevalence

  • Radio – Even though is being referred to as “old technology,” radio and radio instruction such as Interactive Radio Instruction (IRI) has been utilized across the developing world as a tool to help facilitate learning and increase access to educational opportunities.
  • Television – Television is used to supplement classroom instruction with educational videos that teach and support lessons in language learning, mathematics, history, life skills and among other subjects.
  • Computers – Personal computers (PCs) are one of the most frequently cited and used forms of technology in education in the developing world and act as indicators of technological progress.
  • Mobile Phones – Cell phones and smart phones have been seen as increasingly useful educational tools in developing countries.
  • Tablets and E-readers – Tablet PCs like the iPad and ereaders are becoming a trend in education technology, and many experts see an important future for them in developing countries, due to the relatively low procurement cost.
  • Multimedia Projectors – These are devices used to project documents and/or computer images onto a wall in an effort to display the image to an entire classroom and allow the teacher to interact with the material along with the students, etc.
  • Open Educational Resources (OER) – OER are “teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits the free use and repurposing by others”.
  • Cloud Computing – Cloud computing allows organizations to increase computing capacity or add computing capabilities without needing to invest in infrastructure or train additional personnel.

The paper suggests seven guiding principles for the use of ICTs in education to be able to achieve the intended teaching and learning goal.

Seven Principles for Smart use of Technology in Education

  1. Educational Problem First – First, identify the educational problem that needs to be addressed, and then assess which, if any, is the best technology to do the job.
  2. Added Value – make sure that the technology will add value to other existing solutions.
  3. Sustainability – Carefully consider the full range of enabling conditions such as the total cost of ownership, the ultimate relevance of the technology to the particular location, access to appropriate infrastructure, and human resource capacity.
  4. Multiple Uses -Where possible, select a technology and design an intervention so that the technology can be used for multiple purposes.
  5. Lowest Cost – While there may be many different types of technologies that can provide the assistance sought, other things being equal, it is best to select the least expensive option for the job(s) desired.
  6. Reliability – Before deploying a technology, ensure it is reliable and will not rapidly break down. Nothing slows a project down more than unresolved problems.
  7. Ease of Use – Finally, in educational interventions, technology should be easy to use.

It concludes that, if these principles are followed it can help avoid many future problems and, more importantly help leverage the power of ICT in educating young people in some of the poorest regions of the world.

The full paper can be accessed here.

Photo Credit: Spore

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question two from the forum. This post is the second in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

One of the objectives of the mFarmer Initiative is to drive scalable, replicable and commercially successful mobile agricultural solutions that bridge the information gap and increase the productivity and income of rural smallholders. With this mind, the second forum question was about barriers to scaling mobile agricultural services as stated below:

Question 2: What are the barriers to reaching scale with mobile agriculture information services and how can partnering with a mobile network operator (MNO) reduce these?

To really answer this second question, discussants needed to first understand what a successful ‘scaled’ mobile agricultural service is; identify the barriers to scale; and then look at the unique value propositions that each partner brings and their roles in the partnership.

Successful Scaled Mobile Agricultural Service?

The challenges associated with scaling ICT projects in general and mobile services in specific came up several times during the discussion. Scale by default may be seen in terms of wide-reaching impact of the service through adoption by a large number of individuals, communities, regions, etc. It is about moving projects from being islands of excellence to serve and empower a larger audience. Others also look at quality benefits of the service to more people over a wider geographical area, more equitably, more quickly, and more lastingly. So what are the barriers to taking mobile agricultural services from small-scale level to a larger scale and at the same time maintaining the quality and ensuring sustainability?

Below is my summary of barriers to scale of mobile agricultural services from the forum:

  • Infrastructure strength – weak presence in terms of infrastructure of MNOs could be a challenge to scaling
  • Reliability of message delivery – less reliability in delivery of messages to the customers may prevent future expansion
  • Cost of delivery mechanism – high cost of the delivery mechanism could also be a challenge to the MNO
  • Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) – low ARPU of customers shows how unprofitable the MNO will be and a barrier to scale
  • Language – high diversity of local languages within a given country/region of service deployment could affect smooth scaling
  • Literacy – low illiteracy rate in a country or region may affect successful scaling of mobile agriculture service
  • Technology – highly complex mobile handsets, difficult-to-use interface and medium of delivery could be a barrier
  • Government Policies – since most of these mobile agricultural services are private sector driven, without sound government information and agricultural policies and regulations, it will be difficult to scale
  • Accessibility – to MNO for smooth and easy enrolment process and Point of Presence for post-sales service
  • Affordability – expensive services to the user will prevent wide-scale adoption
  • Local needs of users – lack of understanding of local needs and demands of the users

“If right products in which the targeted beneficiaries find value are created, scaling should happen by itself.”

Part B: How can partnering with a mobile network operator (MNO) reduce barriers to scaling mobile agricultural services?

The first post in response to the main question seemed to address this second part of the question that focus more on “intermediaries.” The post argued that barriers to scale of market information systems are more about the ‘architecture’ of the system than the kind/type of partnerships formed between and among the service providers and MNOs. In other words, partnership with MNOs is not a magic wand for scaling mobile agricultural services.

So does it worth it for agricultural value added service provider to partner with MNO for scaling?

This interesting post critiqued the role of intermediaries in delivering market information to users within the agricultural value chain. The contributor argued that the cost involved in identifying potential intermediaries, training and maintaining them to access agricultural information through SMS or helpline services and then delivering it to the farmers is a huge challenge to scaling and sustainability.

Based on the contributions from the forum, I have identified two types of intermediaries namely ‘human intermediaries’ and ‘technological intermediaries’ in the context of mobile agricultural service delivery.

Human Intermediaries

This includes intermediaries working directly with farmers such as the agricultural extension agents and also the Grameen Foundations Community Knowledge Workers (CKWs). The challenges associated with the human intermediaries have led to the enormous utilization of the technological intermediaries.

Technological Intermediaries

The technological intermediaries are the communication technologies that ensure direct-to-farmer services, and in this case mobile services such as SMS, data, voice, etc. that are all critical channels for delivering targeted, relevant and actionable information to as many farmers as possible. But the need to use the right technology at the right stage of the value chain for effective content delivery was deliberated upon.

a) SMS services: The ability of SMS services like Esoko and Reuters Market Light (RML) to timely deliver market information to farmers has been well documented but the actual impact of these services on the production of the farmers and their living conditions is yet to be documented. Meanwhile, the social and technological challenges associated with SMS in these rural areas have been mentioned as a barrier. While the cost of providing SMS service may be cheap, due to the low literacy rates in these areas and the complexity with some of the user interface, some discussants do not see the future of SMS in providing mobile agricultural services to farmers.

Some other contributions pointed out the challenge with illiteracy and SMS use but cited examples where farmers are overcoming this by engaging other family members to read and translate the SMS messages for them, especially with Mobile Money services. With agricultural information, farmer groups/cooperatives are the target rather than individual farmers so that within each group, at least one literate member can play the intermediary role by reading and translating text messages to other group members.

The idea of using volunteers or exploring national service or youth service schemes in some parts of Africa to provide agricultural information through the technological intermediaries to smoothly transition into more sustainable economic models was also brought up.

b) Voice-based services: When it comes to voice-based services, discussants were concerned with their economic sustainability. They argued that interactive voice response (IVR) that allows computers to interact with humans, and call centers are the most costly information delivery mechanisms. And since farmers’ willingness to pay for agronomic information tends to be low, any business model that depends on IVR or call centers may need some other funding alternatives for sustenance. So the key question to ask is, if there are any indications that farmers’ willingness-to-pay will increase to the point of equilibrium with the cost of these services?

Another view is to go automatically with IVR without any real time human input, which can empower farmers directly to search and find information they need, or feed the system with information they have through voice technology. Some examples of systems currently exploring this system includes Voice Browsing Acceptance and Trust (VBAT), Web Alliance for Re-greening in Africa (W4RA), and Voice-based Community-Centric Mobile Services (VOICES).

And so What?

The need to take some of the existing mobile agricultural services from one level to another has been acknowledged. Even though partnering with a MNO is not a magic wand to scaling of these projects, the potentials for such a partnership as noted in the discussion of question one, and the barriers outlined above may necessitate collaboration for scaling.

The issues of intermediaries that dominated the second part of the discussion is a good example for experts (both from MNOs and agricultural partners) to understand all the complexities with mobile agricultural services. It is more than technology. It is about using the right technology at the right time to deliver content in the right format for users. It is about combining social and technological processes to deliver user-centered content.

The success story of IKSL in India came up again to attest to the fact that, partnership can help in scaling mobile agricultural services. But the success of IKSL is linked to the partnership with IFFCO, a 40 year old co-operative that has a strong base with the users. The idea of working towards removing human intermediaries in mobile agricultural system can me catastrophic. The citing of Direct2Farm project of CABI which aims at enabling farmers to seek and source information, tailor-made to their individual need, at any time in any form/format sounds great. But a search on this Direct2Farm project does not give any further information.

We will have to wait to see how this works – either through the automatic IVR system or the CABI’s Direct2Farm project. But I believe the consensus at the end of the discussion is that the technological intermediaries are not to replace the human intermediaries but to be used in stages of the value chain where the human intermediaries are not needed. I agree with another contributor who stated that “The issue is to remove people where they are not critical, so that services can increase in quality, quantity, and efficiency.”

The next in series (3rd) is Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers? and available on 12/29/2011.

The first post is “Reflections on mAg Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs”

Copyright © 2020 Integra Government Services International LLC