Education will be transformed by technology, but not until the technologists have fully appreciated the Culture question.
This is EdTech's blind spot. Culture is 'soft' - it is hard to capture in a spreadsheet - and yet Education is a 'cultural activity', deeply embedded in the society that surrounds the learner and constantly informed by its history. Tech, on the other hand, at least in its modern, global, incarnation, wants to be culture agnostic: Its quest for scale is intricately linked to its ability to operate culture blind.
The EdTech businesses fail to account for culture for more reasons than just its inherent claim for scale. They also assume technology is used in an uniform way, despite all evidence on the contrary. The users almost always adapt technology to their own purpose, rather than changing their habits to suit what the technologists originally intended, but such ideas are not welcome in technology circles addicted to the idea of 'habit-forming' technologies. Besides, one believes technologies would 'disrupt', but often leaves what is to disrupted in the realm of conjecture: The technology disruption is often assumed to play out similarly across sectors, for example, similarly in FinTech and EdTech, regardless of the sectoral differences.
This is also partly because the term 'culture' is misunderstood. Peter Drucker may have thought Culture would eat Strategy for breakfast, but he meant Company Culture, and this is the sense the modern EdTech entrepreneurs are comfortable with. For them, after technology, company culture is the great leveller: An outstanding company culture is expected to be the cultural answer to everything. Here, of course, by culture, I mean the culture of the marketplace, the assumptions consumers operate with. In the world of supply-side cultural thinking, the demand-side culture is often deemed unimportant.
But culture matters, and greatly. I learnt my lessons through my deep disagreements, but eventual enlightenment, regarding how we teach Chinese students. When I started U-Aspire, the idea was to create a 'blend', synchronous online lectures combined with hands-on project work at location, and I spent time and money figuring out how to implement this model in China, which emerged as our market. But when my Chinese partners, who eventually took over the project, implemented it, they reduced it to a sequence of recorded videos and readings, much to my dismay about the stripped down educational experience that this would mean. However, this was not just about technical feasibility (online conferences are a challenge given China's Great Firewall), but also what the students wanted. In fact, I can see now that the students like Recorded Lectures more than Synchronous interactions, because of the way they are used to learn. So, as a matter of admission, I have had my brush with demand-side culture, and it was a humbling experience.
There is also another thing that I am learning in my current work. What I do now is to offer 'Experiences' to students. The essential idea is that people learn best through application, and conventional Higher Education does not offer its learners any opportunity to apply their knowledge. The 'experiences' we offer - projects of different levels of exposure and complexity - allows the students to work hands-on, in groups, with clear deadlines and deliverable, just as the real life work will be, accumulating a 'score' as they go along. This option allows learners to start building a CV even before they have started working.
This is like 'Internships', as I often get told, but more accessible across locations and social classes (see my take on Internships here). And, indeed, it is easy to assume that this will work everywhere, regardless of the country and culture. However, after watching the model for a considerable period of time, I have come to appreciate an important issue of demand-side culture. The best way to describe it is to use a theoretical model that Erin Meyer of Insead uses, the distinction between Application First and Principles First culture. Professor Meyer's idea is indeed limited to the context of persuasion, but I shall claim that it applies to the broader context of knowledge and understanding, and therefore, to what I am involved in.
Briefly, in some cultures, one learns by internalising the principles first; in some others, they learn through application, making mistakes, and learning general principles in the context. As an illustration, in some countries, language learning would start with grammar and vocabulary, getting into sentence construction only later; but in other places, one would start with attempting to speak and make sense - just as I am doing in my attempt to learn German on Duolingo - with the support mechanisms, which will be gradually withdrawn. From one vantage point, the other approach may look dated or accidental; but this is what demand-side cultures of learning are all about.
Applied to the context of my own work, people anticipate and approach 'experiences' differently in different cultures. Regardless of the 'common sense' appeal of the model, and the smart technology underpinning it, some students love being thrown at the deep end of the pool more than others. And, while this issue is clearly visible in terms of 'individual differences' and therefore, factored in constructing the 'score', there are clear macro-cultural patterns in this behaviour, which not only makes the experiences less enjoyable, but also the 'score' culturally biased and therefore, less reliable.
Issues such as these, I shall contend, need more attention in EdTech than it has done so far. This is relevant across industries, true, but even more so in EdTech; and particularly sensitive as we attempt to assess and grade people. It may be regarded as a 'soft' issue, but we are indeed allowing it, through ignorance, to seep into our hard data and scientific judgement. And, indeed, ignorance of this undermines our business models on a daily basis.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.