With this achievement Uruguay pulls far ahead of other countries, including the most developed, in equipping its schools to make effective use of information and communication in technology.

One of the remarkable things about Uruguay's achievement is that the total cost, including the laptops, maintenance, connectivity and teacher training amounts to only 5% of country's education budget.

I am in total agreement with Siemens regarding the issues of the systemic nature of education and the need for future oriented policies. However, I think there is another equally important issue that Siemens misses and that is often left unmentioned, especially in discourse about technology and educational change. This is that policy making is a very difficult process and changing educational policy even more so because education is so closely tied to society, culture, and individuals' value systems. Siemens says, "When trying to change a complex integrated system that includes numerous stakeholders - such as universities - a seat is required at the power table." This is certainly true, but I would argue that in the case of education, especially when significant change is involved, a "seat at the power table" is not enough. The type and level of change we can expect to achieve will also depend on the social values of the broader stakeholders, which in the case of education includes the general public. Before we can expect considerable change in education, we have to ensure that those changes are consistent with society's values.

Ensuring consistency with social values can take at least two routes. The first is that expectations for change are modified. This is the most common process and usually results in lesser expectations. The second is to change the value system. This can be a lengthy and complicated process but is most likely to result in significant change. There are, however, some successful examples of the latter. One of the most talked about (and that I tend to mention a lot) is Finland (See for example Hargreaves, 2008). Finland has radically transformed their educational system over a couple of decades. What I think are a couple of the key developments in Finland that have facilitated these changes. First, the social status of teachers was raised considerably to one where they are a trusted authoritative voice on educational matters. Second, educational policy is closely integrated with several other policies that have to do with social change and economic growth. Thus, they have created a society that values and promotes change and is able to bring about change fairly rapidly based on expert authority.

Many people point out that a country like Finland has it fairly easy in this regard because it is a largely homogenous society. This is certainly a viable point, but I still think that the Finnish experience can provide valuable lessons for any society, including multi-cultural societies. True, it'll probably be more difficult, but it's still a reasonable goal.

Hargreaves, A. (2008). The coming of post-standardization: Three weddings and a funeral. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), The future of educational change: International perspectives. (pp. 15-33). New York, NY: Rougledge.

A very good example of technological skepticism in education is the cell phone. Cell phone ownership and cell phone use has spread all over the world at a phenomenal rate. According to a BECTA report from last year, cell phone ownership among 12 year olds in the UK is almost universal and there is little reason to think that other developed countries are any different. One would think that this would be an exciting opportunity for learning, which is essentially a communicative activity. But, no, instead they are most often treated with suspicion and skepticism, labeled distracting, and very often banned. Yet, for students these devices have become one of their primary means of exchange and transfer of knowledge and opinions. The educational system, however, seems determined to encourage the belief that these exchanges using accessible technology are inherently inferior to the exchanges that go on within the classroom, and students seem very prepared to accept these beliefs.

An anomaly in all this is that many in development circles have been quick to point out that cell phones may be the transformative technology that will bring education to parts of the world where opportunities for learning have been few. Why this difference in attitudes toward cell phones in developing countries? The only response to that question that I can think of is that it takes a dire situation for cell phones to be seriously considered as a learning technology.

The few and limited experiments that have been carried out using cell phones in education show that educational systems have already missed out on an exciting opportunity and will have a lot of catching up to do. While they are catching up, technology will continue to develop and they will likely fall behind in regards to those as well.

One way that educational policy can perhaps address this issue is by formulating clearer policies regarding the relationship between formal, non-formal and informal learning. Many policies already do address these different arenas of learning, but the do so in a manner that keeps each seperate, i.e. there's one policy for formal learning, one for non-formal, etc. What is needed is a more holistic view of learning that incorporates all of these learning arenas into one systemic vision of learning that views the classroom as an open conduite for the flow of information and knowledge from a range of sources. Perhaps the reason that cell phones have received more attention in the context of developing countries is that in many regions traditional classrooms haven't existed and education is more closely integrated within the community as a whole (I really don't know - this is pure conjecture). Whether or not this is the case, it might suggest that a more open approach to educational institutions could be helpful.

At this point, it's probably best I stop with the guesswork and refer back to a previous post on "Opening Up Education".

Exam students can 'phone a friend'. (2009). Ananova. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3391974.html

Coopman, T. M. (2008). Toward a pervasive communication environment perspective. First Monday, 14(1). Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2277/2069

Costabile, M. F., Angeli, A. D., Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., Buono, P., & Pederson, T. (2008). Explore! Possibilities and challenges of mobile learning. Paper presented at the CHI 2008.

Edweek.org (2009). Cellphones as Instructional Tools Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=lobby.jsp&eventid=154461&sessionid=1&key=F6D1D2D288709C1B15A12F74A57B0660&eventuserid=26731318

Hartnell-Young, E., & Heym, N. (2008). How mobile phones help learing in secondary schools. Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute - University of Nottingham.

Kolb, L. (2008). Toys to tools: Connecting student cell phones to education. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.

Librero, F., Ramos, A. J., Ranga, A. I., Trinona, J., & Lambert, D. (2007). Uses of the cell phone for education in the Philippines and Mongolia. Distance Education, 28(2), 231-244.

Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything! Innovate, 1(5).

A teacher in Austria allowed secondary-school students to use their cell phones to call a specialist and ask questions during an exam. This is an effective example of a very simple and innovative way educators can use cell phones in education.

Coopman, T. M. (2008). Toward a pervasive communication environment perspective. First Monday, 14(1). Retrieved April 9, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2277/2069

The author puts forth a theoretical framework about how communications from a variety of sources impact specific situations. The framework is based on a holistic consideration of communications through a range of media, whether they are present in the specific situation or not. This is particularly relevant for discourse on the use of cell phones in education since we know from existing research that cell phone use is widespread among students and that they use these and other devices for a range of learning activities outside of the classroom.
Coopman particularly emphasizes the way that messages are filtered through multiple means of communication and feedback loops to impact a specific situation. Coopman seems to assume that communications device impact equally on situations, forming "multi-modal and trans-locational access to an integrated communications infrastructure". This may well be the case, however Coopman fails to address tendencies to try to block certain communications devices in certain situations. This is certainly a tendency that would be relevant to educational situations, but may also be relevant for other situations. It seems reasonable to assume that, despite "blocking", messages that have previously been communicated using the blocked devices may nevertheless impact the situation. However, the blocking tendency may also affect perceptions about the appropriateness of certain technologies and types of communication as they relate to specific situations.

Costabile, M. F., Angeli, A. D., Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., Buono, P., & Pederson, T. (2008). Explore! Possibilities and challenges of mobile learning. Paper presented at the CHI 2008.

The authors describe a study involving the use of mobile communications technology in an "excursion-game" learning activity at the middle school level. Excursion-games are activities that combine exploration and discovery with gameplay and learning. For this study, the researchers had one group of students using technology and another not using technology. The non-technology group received a pamphlet in which the stage was set for the activity in story-form and included a number of "missions" that the students had to complete. The technology group received text messages, 3D images and maps by cell phone, in a predetermined sequence, that included the plot and the missions to be completed.
The researchers discovered a problem with the technology-based version of the game in that the pre-determined sequence constrained the group. This was not the case with the paper-based version. However, the learning outcomes of both groups were the same. The authors conclude that, despite the limitations of the technology-based activity, the technology did not distract the students from the learning activity. Further experimentation and development of the technology-based activity is warranted and likely to deliver better results.
This paper provides valuable insights for educators wanting to use mobile communications technology in learning activities by highlighting both benefits and potential weaknesses in the design of activities.

Edweek.org (2009). Cellphones as Instructional Tools Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=lobby.jsp&eventid=154461&sessionid=1&key=F6D1D2D288709C1B15A12F74A57B0660&eventuserid=26731318

This archived webinar includes three presentations on the use of cell phones and other mobile communications technologies in primary school education.
The first presentation describes the way that mobile communications technologies are already transforming education in various parts of the world. The presenters claim that mobile technologies can make learning more personal, more engaging, and produce better learning outcomes.
The second presentation describes a specific project carried out in an elementary school in Keller, TX. The goals of this project were to increase technology skills, increase students knowledge and understanding, and to extend learning beyond the confines of the classroom and school day. The project produced very admirable results, both intended and unintended. The presenter concludes with a number of useful points for anyone wanting to do something similar in their classrooms, including curriculum considerations, cyber-safety, resources, and how to garner support from administrators and parents.
The third presentation is a general overview of a variety of possible ways to use cell phones in education. The presenter demonstrates a number of freely available tools that can be used by teachers. The presenter also points out important policy considerations regarding the use of cell phones in education.

Hartnell-Young, E., & Heym, N. (2008). How mobile phones help learing in secondary schools. Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute - University of Nottingham.

This report was the result of a BECTA (the UK government agency concerned with the use of technology throughout learning) research grant. The researchers found that cell phone ownership among 12 year olds in the UK is nearly universal. However, existing policies discourage the use of cell phones in schools. The authors of the report evaluate a number of initiatives that have tested the viability of using cell phones for education. They conclude that cell phones do support learning in a number of ways and make several recommendations concerning the use of cell phones in education.
The authors 8 primary recommendations are:

1. Identify and support champions: volunteer teachers who are
prepared to take some risks

2. Involve those who have responsibility for curriculum, student
management, technical support to plan and work through
responses to the issues raised in this report.

3. Initiate discussions about using mobile phones for learning
(perhaps using student voice work) and survey current
ownership, device capability and the ways mobile phones are
already being used in the school.

4. Provide hands-on, small-scale opportunities for teachers to try
out appropriate uses for mobile phones.

5. Encourage teachers to design activities that make the learning
purpose clear and to anticipate management issues at the
classroom level (such as rules, etiquette)

6. Inform parents of the learning purposes for mobile phones, and
involve them in establishing appropriate ownership,
management and ethical arrangements.

7. Anticipate and address technical issues ranging from battery
charging to network access and security, data protection, etc.

8. Develop new school policies that shift the focus of policy
attention away from the device to the uses, security and
behavioural issues that are the real concern.

This report highlights important considerations concerning the use of cell phones in education from the point of view of policy makers, administrators, teachers and students.

Kolb, L. (2008). Toys to tools: Connecting student cell phones to education. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.

The author, Liz Kolb, is currently one of the main authorities in the U.S. on the use of cell phones in education, having recently completed her doctoral research on the subject. This book is a very practical handbook for K-12 teachers interested in using cell phones in education.
Kolb's approach to the use of cell phones in education is based on the way that students use their cell phones in their daily lives. She considers the currently prevailing tendency to limit the use of cell phones in schools to constitute a "digital divide" between students' school lives and their daily lives. Increasing the use of cell phones in schools are considered a means of opening up the classroom to youth culture.
This book provides valuable insights into various aspects of young people's use of communications technologies and how these can be used in formal education environments to make learning more meaningful and relevant. It includes a number of sample lesson plans that teachers can work from to incorporate cell phones into their classroom activities.

Librero, F., Ramos, A. J., Ranga, A. I., Trinona, J., & Lambert, D. (2007). Uses of the cell phone for education in the Philippines and Mongolia. Distance Education, 28(2), 231-244.

This paper describes a study of the use of cell phones in non-formal education administered by higher education affiliated institutions in the Philippines and Mongolia. The authors discuss the instructional design aspects of the use of cell phones and other mobile communications devices. The project discussed uses a blended learning approach combining cell phone use with traditional classroom activities.
The authors found that cell phones are an attractive option for enhancing and expanding learning opportunities. They emphasize the need for preparation and clear design goals to ensure that learners remain engaged. The authors claim that cell phone learners are very quick to terminate learning activities when they feel that they are not engaged. The authors also emphasize the importance of design when dealing with technology that is rapidly changing.
This paper offers a comparative perspective to the largely Western focus of much of the available literature on the use of cell phones in education. Cell phones have achieved considerable penetration in many developing countries and can be an effective means of expanding learning opportunities, as the projects described in this paper demonstrate.

Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything! Innovate, 1(5).

Marc Prensky coined the term "digital natives" which has been stirring up a fair amount of debate recently. In this article, Prensky turns his attention to the cell phone as a computing platform. He emphasizes the need for sound instructional design to turn cell phones into learning tools. Prensky discusses the various functions of cell phones, such as voice communications, text communications, etc., and how each might be used to facilitate learning. He provides several examples of each type of use. Finally, he discusses the need to change educator's attitudes regarding cell phones. Cell phones continue to be perceived as "toys" that have no place in an educational environment. Prensky, however, points out that students already use these devices for a range of learning activities. He urges educators to consider these aspects of their students' social lives and think about how they can deliver their product (i.e. learning) in a way that suits students' social reality.

Included with the article is a brief interview with education secretary Arne Duncan. He has some interesting ideas about how to solve the US education problems. First, he thinks students should spend more time in school; lots more time. He wants longer school days, a longer school week, and a longer school year. One might even be led to believe that he would like most for children to simply move into schools at a tender young age and stay there until they're ready to graduate. Secondly, he supports "alternative routes" for teacher training, i.e. suggesting that current teacher certification requirements are too rigid.

The comical part of all this is that on the page before the Duncan interview is a table ranking countries by their outcomes in international student surveys in math and reading (not included in the online version of the article). Topping both lists is Finland. In Finland, students start school later than in the US, their school days are shorter, and the school year is roughly the same. There are national curriculum guidelines but not the incessant standards based testing we find in the US. Teacher certification requirements are very demanding. Master's degrees are required and only the best of the best are accepted.

So, here it is, sitting right under Duncan's nose, that more time in school need not make a difference. Rigid standards and assessment need not make a difference. What makes a difference is that teachers are highly qualified and have the flexibility to do what is needed to help their students learn (Duncan suggests that "teachers give students knowledge" - I don't think so).

The Finnish example suggests that there are other, potentially more effective, ways of achieving the educational goals we strive for. For example, one way would be to standardize around teaching processes. Rather than testing the students to death, we could use a sort of "total quality control" formative evaluation to ensure that teachers do everything they can to meet students' learning needs.

Before anything like this can happen in a country like the US, there needs to be significant change in the underlying system. In the US it seems like education officials have become so engrossed in standards and standards based assessment that they can't even entertain the notion of even slightly more radical change. But, I think there's another reason for this. US educational institutions (and this probably goes for many other countries as well) are so resistant to change that the only possible reforms are incremental. They've launched themselves onto the standards and assessment path and can't change course. To get around this hindrance we need firm and decisive leadership. I'm getting the sense that Arne Duncan might not be it.

EB's approach will be very different than Wikipedia's. Hardly surprising since EB is not Wikipedia and does not want to be Wikipedia - and rightly so. It will certainly be interesting to see what sort of effect this has on EB.

Meanwhile, more and more educators are finding ways to use Wikipedia. Here's an interesting article on one educator's experience. A lot of the experiments of this type that I've been coming across involve higher education students. I see no reason why this couldn't be done with others, including elementary, upper-secondary students, and especially students (at all levels) in developing regions. This is an exceptional and very real way to develop an understanding of the social aspects of information and knowledge development.

Given the emphasis on the impact of ICTs on learning and education, some may question the relevance of this book for educators in parts of the world where access to ICTs is limited, if it exists at all. In fact, I think it may be even more relevant for educators in those parts of the world because the authors approach education from a very non-traditional point of view. We have learned that development of education is most successful when it conforms to the needs and expectations of those whom it is meant to serve. The approaches covered in this book do just that by looking at the ways that learners learn in their daily lives and what formal educational institutions can do to support those activities.

In his foreword titled "Creating a Culture of Learning", John Seely Brown covers a wide range of topics, as do the articles included in the book. His case for open approaches to education hinges on what is to be expected given the book's title, free-flowing information, learners' engagement in communities of practice and the socially constructed nature of knowledge. He also highlights some interesting novel issues that should be of concern to the modern educator. One is the concept of "immersion":

"Immersion comes from being surrounded by others talking and interacting with us and is furthered [sic] facilitated by our deep desire to interact, be understood and express our needs."

As we see more and more deeply engaging activities supported by ICTs, such as role-playing games, this is a very interesting and relevant point.

Another interesting, and somewhat provocative, point that Seely Brown makes is that, "... no one pedagogical or technical approach is the answer to ensuring that students are engaged and prepared." (pg. xiv). The alternative is then a shift of focus to the ways that individuals learn in various informal and formal settings, or what is referred to in a broad sense as "learningscapes".

I don't know why Seely Brown chooses to use the term "learningscapes" (and elsewhere "learning landscape"). I don't think this term captures the emphasis on processes which, nonetheless, I think is his main point. His concept of "learning ecologies" would have made much more sense here.

Lastly, Seely Brown tells a very thought provoking story of his exchanges with an associate provost of the University of Michigan. He suggested that, despite offical enrollment of approx. 40,000 students, UM teaches approx. 250,000 students each year because of students' involvement in widespread social networks.

I think the Finnish systemic approach to education is illustrative of at least some of what the authors of the articles in this book are talking about. See for example:
Interesting video about how ICT is integrated in the Finnish classroom
Robert B. Kozma's very informative paper on ICT & education in Finland, Singapore and Egypt (note how Singapore is following Finland's lead)

"New role for education? Youths’ participation in this networked world suggests new ways of thinking about the role of education. What would it mean to really exploit the potential of the learning opportunities available through online resources and networks? Rather than assuming that education is primarily about preparing for jobs and careers, what would it mean to think of it as a process guiding youths’ participation in public life more generally? Finally, what would it mean to enlist help in this endeavor from engaged and diverse publics that are broader than what we traditionally think of as educational and civic institutions? "

The implications of these research findings are fairly obvious for those parts of the world where we can pretty much assume that young people are able to access ICTs in one way or another, but what of the developing regions where this is not as much of a given? I think there are obvious implications for them as well, because I believe that these findings should be taken as not relating specifically to education for the ICT savvy, but as an orientation for education in an increasingly globally connected world in general. In the case of developing regions, however, we probably need to dig a bit deeper to uncover appropriate educational practices than in the case of developed regions.

Heeks sees this as an important issue for many fields including economics and the ICT4D (ICT for development) field. Heeks claims:

"Gold farming presents two things [for ICT4D]. First, a current model for earning money via an Internet-connected PC. Second, an example of a possible future model in which Internet-connected workers in developing countries produce a wide range of virtual goods and services. For both these reasons, the ICT4D field should be taking a keen interest in gold farming."

I certainly agree with Heeks that this is something that the ICT4D field should be aware of, but I do not see this as being something that the ICT4D field should be especially occupied with. First of all, as far as I can tell, gold farming is merely about making money and has little, if anything, to do with the types of impact the ICT4D agenda hopes to achieve in terms of the advancement of the knowledge economy, education and encouraging equal access to, and distribution of, the fruits of globalization. Tying up scarce computers in schools and telecenters in developing countries with dubious activities in online virtual worlds is something I hope that few would condone, no matter what the fiscal returns might be. Heeks does address some negative sides of this development, ex. when he compares it to the exploitation of Chinese immigrant workers in the US in the 19th century (hence the "quaint" title given to some Chinese gold farmers, "playbourers").

A large part of what is driving the spread of the mobile web is the increase in social web services, ex. blogs, twitter.com, digg.com, etc. In the early years the web was something that you sat down with and worked on, whether you were looking for information, making a web page or just cruising. Now, the web is a place where people share their daily experiences, not with summaries of a few days or so or pulling together a number of experiences into a coherent narrative, but with instantly communicated little tidbits. These are posted as they happen so it has become important for people to be able to access the web wherever and whenever people feel the need to communicate something.

This has some obvious consequences for the web as a knowledge repository because much of what is posted is presented in a limited context and/or is very subjective. Before these services became available, effective searches for specific topics were very likely to yield entire websites full of relevant information and references to supporting information. The type of communication that we see increasing on the web today with mobile services yield a very different set of resources - often simple "this is what I saw..." or "something I picked up somewhere" communication with little if any reference to supporting information to back up any conclusions drawn or suggested. With the spread of the mobile web this is very likely to increase. Things start to look a little more like a rumor mill than a knowledge repository.

I'm not suggesting that real valuable objective information is going to disappear off the web. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to suspect that it may become somewhat separated from the information that web users will increasingly interact with on a regular basis. There are probably several ways to address this. I think the semantic web could make a big difference if it makes it possible to evaluate and tag information contextually. But, most important is educating users about the impact that their actions are likely to have when they interact using information through a public medium like the web. I think one of the most important elements in this is that web users be aware that information always travels in a chain, i.e. source and context are as important, if not more, than the information being conveyed. To illustrate:

I think that, in general, we consider our assumptions to be strengthened if we can point out sources to back them up, i.e. "I know that ... because of ..." This needs to be turned on its head such that our assumptions are first shown to be directly derived from sources, i.e. "[Source] says that ... therefore ..." This is a very simple and almost too obvious distinction, but makes all the difference in how we communicate information. Consider this, if in both of these cases you neglect the latter part of the equation, the first (I know that ...) really says nothing other than conveying a personal opinion that we may have no reason to believe while the second ([Source] says that ...) conveys a truthful and useful statement.

The spread of the mobile web is a good thing. But, it does have the potential to considerably change the nature of the web-user experience and there there is a mix of potential good and potential bad. Attitudes toward the mobile web seem to be very positive and very little attention has been given to potential downsides. There's more of a "It's coming, it's coming!!!" anticipatory excitement but now is the time to start thinking very seriously about what this really means.

"We are in the learning business and what the operating system is underneath is less germane"

Hogwash! The openness of the underlying system is an extremely important factor given what we have been told about the aims of the laptop project. The whole project was supposed to be firmly based on Papert's constructionist theory. Running a closed proprietary system (and the inevitable software that goes with it) entirely defeats this purpose. If Windows is an included OS on the OLPC laptop the nature of the project completely changes.

The problems that OLPC are facing are not because they don't have Windows. They are due to the fact that they have utterly failed to get potential buyers to buy into the theoretical underpinnings of the project and the goals that they suggest (hardly surprising - I don't think they've really tried). People that ask for an OLPC laptop with Windows are asking for something entirely different than what OLPC initially set out to produce. If OLPC goes through with the Windows-ization of their laptops, it's just not the same project as they set out with.

Then there is the matter of cost. Microsoft may be willing to donate Windows to OLPC so that OLPC's selling price isn't effected but only because they hope to recover it elsewhere. That's just how business in the proprietary software world works. The cost of computing in general (e.g. upgrades and future choices resulting from computing=Windows indoctrination) will be higher in the long term.

Finally, a couple of links to interesting articles on the BBC web by a reporter that had his child try out an OLPC laptop running open source software and an Intel Classmates laptop running Windows. I think this speaks for itself.

OLPC laptop with open source software
Windows based Intel Classmate

Many efforts to introduce and diffuse ICTs, computers in particular, in developing countries assume that ICTs have become well-defined tools with well-defined roles and "appropriate" interfaces suited to those roles, and therefore, a "tried and true" "westernized" ideal of these technologies are promoted. In fact, there is little evidence to support such assumptions. In the past few decades computer interfaces have changed dramatically and existing metaphors (esp. the desktop metaphor) become increasingly unsuitable as computers have taken on roles that may have been somewhat unexpected by mainstream users ca. 10-15 years ago, ex. social networking, vehicles for personal commentary, media centers, etc. It would seem more reasonable to say that computers have served as a flexible platform that each generation of users has been able to shape to meet its own needs and expectations. What's more, these types of changes, or expansions, of the roles of computers have become increasingly rapid as their use has become more widespread. So, why the tendency to expect new users in developing regions to embrace technology presented in a manner so far removed from the experience of others? I think it may be, at least in part, due to a tendency to focus on anticipated general results of widespread diffusion of computers rather than focusing on the way things are done with computers and what is done with them.

From an educational point of view there are a few notable trends that can be identified where computers have achieved considerable diffusion (this is not to be taken as a claim that computers in education have been a raging success). Over the last four decades, the most notable impact that computers have had in a very general sense is obviously that the flow of information has increased, is more diverse, and has become more rapid. Over the same period, changes in thinking about education have corresponded with the impact that computers have had such that there is now a greater trend toward individual-based learning, constructivism and lifelong learning. This makes perfect sense when we consider the ways that use and manipulation of information flows has developed. For example, increased information flows have challenged existing notions of "truth" and we now generally accept that even seemingly well grounded scientific "truths" may be more relative to social and cultural norms than was previously assumed. This has become one of the primary justifications for individual-based and constructive learning, i.e. that "truth" is, at least in part, subject to individual conceptualizations and understandings of the elements involved. This in turn has underlined the importance of lifelong learning, which has evolved into a concept that not only encourages continuous learning, but also acknowledges that learning is an inherent aspect of human life, i.e. we are always learning and what, where and how we learn affects the way we internalise information that we receive in formal and non-formal interactions (I take this to be the gist of the Delors' report's definition of learning as "lifelong, life-wide and life-deep").

ICTs didn't change education overnight. We can identify trends, as I've done above, and in hindsight it may seem to us that the impact of ICTs was rapid and dramatic. But, I think that this is mostly because they have been very effectively rationalised, i.e. they have subtly changed whole conceptual frameworks, which in turn bounces back to effect ICTs. So, to get back to leapfrogging, do we introduce ICTs to promote novel forms of social interaction that may accelerate development or do we highlight the aspects of social interaction that may accelerate development and introduce ICTs to facilitate these? The ICT for development agenda is commonly referred to as ICT4D, but I'm going to make a distinction here and refer to the former path described above as ICT2D, i.e. ICT to develop - the assumption being that ICTs will spur on development, and the latter path I will refer to as ICT&D, i.e. ICT and development - ICTs can augment other development initiatives.

The question I raise above is not one that I am prepared to answer. But, I think that ICT2D carries a risk of introducing ICTs that are not relevant to the existing social fabric in the community involved because, at any point in time, technologies tend to reflect the societal values from which they emerge, and current ICTs have primarily emerged from western societies (obvious examples that come to mind are initiatives that are based on the "we need Windows" assumption). Therefore, outcomes ranging from total failure to diffuse the technology to cultural homogenization would hardly be surprising. However, ICT&D would launch ICTs in an environment where there may already be a perceived need for the types and levels of communication and information exchange that ICTs can provide, making for a more "organic" integration of the technologies into existing societal structures (examples would include initiatives in countries where they already have well educated computer scientists, like in Estonia and India). ICT&D is no less a potential "leapfrogging" path than ICT2D even though the diffusion of the technology itself may be somewhat delayed because it seeks to accelerate development in the same way as the former. The problem is that ICT2D is undeniably the easier to implement quickly and progress can be easily measured by simply counting cell phones and computers, measuring fiber optic cables, etc. (whatever that's supposed to tell us about levels of development...). I think it is this "easier" path that is usually envisioned in regards to leapfrogging development. In light of recent experiences we might want to take a better look at the other path.