Online learning is here to stay and the increasingly availability of Web 2.0 tools will making e-learning experience more rewarding though some challenges exist.

Making a case for online training of Journalists in Africa, Kwami Ahiabenu II from the International Institute for ICT Journalism (PenPlusBytes) observed that online training was going to become dominant means of training and that there was need to invest time and energy to ensure that it becomes  part of a capacity building projects and programmes application.

He noted that though there are costs associated with online training in the long run online training was relatively cheaper and cost effective. An achievement was that online learning provided an opportunity for Journalists to learn about new tools and use them in the process of learning 

In overcoming the challenges, Ahiabenu II explained that the course used a group e-mail list as their primary course delivery tool in order to ensure low bandwidth participants are not left out of the course.

Meanwhile, to over come issues of time and commitment, they encouraged the participants to devote more time to the online learning experience in order to derive maximum benefits. They had also developed strategies about coping with change and developing “online” mindset by adapting the course to the learner’s environment via flexibility.

“For example when participants could not participate in a session because his or her internet was down, we modify our time table to take this problem into consideration,” said Ahiabenu.

He explained that the tools of the online course were skype, blogging, yahoo groups, google groups, wiki’s, flicker, like del.icio.us, digg.com, flicker, youtube and myspace to allow for participants to comment on content of the web. 

In order to facilitate group communication in real time he explained that they asked participants to create a skype account the unfortunate part was that this was not successful because skype was banned in some of the participants’ countries.

He said the three months online training organised with the help of partners’ course involved research, Web2.0 tools and Knowledge Management for newsrooms.

Some of the online topics included chat forums, reporting ICTs and Content Management System for Journalists.

“Our lecture notes designed for a quick read, straight to the point and written in a narrative format. At the end of each lecture notes reference are provided as well as mandatory further online reading. Links to additional relevant online resources are also provided,” he said.

In additional to online content, the trainers encourage participants to buy relevant books as well by providing them with a list of books. They also pointed out to participants relevant articles in magazines and newspapers as they are publish during the course.

At the Web2forDev conference, everyone has been saying that it’s not about the technology – it’s about the people. It’s about what people can do with the technology – and what ‘mash-ups’ of tools and approaches are appropriate and really working.

I came to this conference to find people who are really doing participatory web – not just using the technology, but facilitating real empowerment and positive change. Our plan at IIED is to co-publish with CTA a special issue of the Participatory Learning and Action series on participatory web for development – so I needed to find real examples.

Well, yesterday I was lucky enough to see Ednah Karamagi give her presentation, Enhancing Knowledge Sharing in the Rural Community through Adoption of Web 2.0 tools.  

I felt like I had found a magic bean.  Ednah works for a Ugandan NGO, Busoga Rural Open Source & Development (BROSDI). It’s a not-for-profit organisation that works with government and civil society in improving rural livelihoods. Within BROSDI is a project called Collecting and Exchanging of Local Agriculture Content (CELAC).                       

Both BROSDI and CELAC project make extensive use of Web 2.0 approaches. But it’s a real combination of Web 2.0 and grassroots participation. For example, CELAC is almost entirely populated with locally generated content. As Ednah says, ‘We are sharing information from our great grandfathers that we are losing in our generation.’  

Essentially, it’s a great combination of the online – Blogs, Google Maps, Wikis, online documentation, chatrooms – and the offline – a weekly mobile phone SMS farmers’ information service, village knowledge brokers, monthly farmer forum meetings, village meetings, radio, and hard copy documentation. They are even developing an e-learning tool for primary school children. 

Ednah is candid about the challenges they face. ‘The Internet is expensive, and needs power,’ she says. ‘It’s a problem in a country where access to electricity is intermittent.’ There is also the issue that people need to change their attitudes towards sharing information, rather than ‘hoarding’ it. And sometimes the technology doesn’t work – and is abandoned. ‘We did have a Wiki,’ Ednah says. ‘But the staff rejected it, as it was too complicated. But we plan to have a new Wiki for developing training material so that we can all comment and add to it.’ 

Ednah was a real inspiration. There was a long list of real life examples – not just the different technologies – but how the technology has made a real, positive change to people’s lives. My favourite was Cissy and her turkey farm. Ednah told us, ‘She learnt how to rear turkeys on SMS!’

This morning, I overheard Dr Hansjorg Neun of CTA talking to Ednah Karamagi. He asked Ednah, ‘Why do you think you have been so successful?’

Ednah’s reply was, ‘You have to use as many methods as you can to reach your community.’

Well, BROSDI are doing that in style. Let’s hope they continue to get the support they need to keep this pioneering organisation going from strength to strength.    

Scholar literature is underrepresented on Internet and Southern researchers’ content remains invisible. There is a critical mass of “grey” knowledge which could highly benefit from the web2 opportunities. Ismael Peña-López from the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) expressed the importance of facilitating access to researchers’ work in a provocative manner “If you exist on Internet, you exist for real”.

He presented the Personal research portal (PRP), a combination of various Web2 applications, more than a mere communication tool for scientists, but a way to keep growing and learning. “It forces you to read and be well informed and, at the same time, you get connected to a network; it is a way to manage the knowledge you’re giving away and the one you’re gaining. The more you expose your work, the more you get comment and can reflect on your topic of interest.”

I asked him how he would describe the web2 and how that would be an opportunity for Southern researchers. I was also interested in what one’s could achieve through a PRP and why the individuals should complement institutional repository.
And a few other things…

Download audio

Additional info:

http://ismael.ictlogy.net

http://ictlogy.net

http://www.km4dev.org/journal/index.php/km4dj/article/view/92

Report back - Anti Social-Computing: Indigenous language, Intellectual Property Rights and Digital Video 

A presentation by Tim Kulchyski and Jon Corbett 

This was a fascinating presentation about a project initiated by the Hul’q’umi’num’ Treaty group in Canada. Like Kado Muir’s accounts of the Ngalia people in Australia, this is another inspiring example of how First Nations communities are revitalising their culture and language using Web 2.0.The Hul’q’umi’num Elders approached the University of Victory in Canada and asked them to collaborate with them on a project. The Elders had identified language as a key element in strengthening their culture and cultural identity.They wanted to use participatory video within their community to record songs, stories, and skills. In Tim and Jon’s presentation, we saw many photos of Hul’q’umi’num community members engaged in ‘everyday’ activities, such as storytelling and weaving cedar bark. But as Tim explains: ‘It was about bringing it back into people’s everyday lives – they’re things that we’re losing, these activities are becoming extinct.’The key thing though, was the carefully developed process involved. All material generated within the community was overseen by Elders Advisory Boards – and in particular, to protect and preserve sensitive cultural information.Essentially, many Web 2.0 processes are often referred to as ’social computing’, about sharing information with the rest of the world. But here, the information generated is closely protected within the community. So it is, in fact anti ’social-computing.

Why? ‘There is a need for caution,’ co-presenter Jon Corbett observes. ‘Caution about what information goes online, and who has access. There has been really significant knowledge expropriation for generations – so what remains, the communities must have control of.’ 

Corbett continues: ‘Imagine a pyramid. Data is at the bottom, information next, then knowledge – and only wisdom is at the top. Social computing is a good way of sharing information, but less so knowledge, and certainly not wisdom.’

Essentially, what this means is that the learning and growth of community wisdom that is perhaps the most significant indicator of success.

‘It’s not the final product that’s important, it’s the process,’ Tim Kulchyski says in conclusion. ‘Like a dictionary, it’s never really done. If we’ve learnt something from it, to me that means the project has been a success.’       

Interview with Jon Corbett, Steering Committee, Web2forDev Conference, Rome, 25th September 2007

On my second day at the conference venue here at FAO in Rome, I feel that I am delving a little deeper into how – and whether – Web 2.0 is actually participatory. But I still want to investigate this further: exactly how are the Web 2.0 community of practice integrating participatory approaches to development with ‘participatory’ web?

I wanted to get to grips with some comments I had heard about Web 2.0 since I had arrived in Rome. First, I wanted I wanted to question Steering Committee member Jon Corbett about what the differences are between ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) and Web 2.0, with its plethora of applications such as blogging, vblogging, audioblogging, wikis, and social bookmarking.

According to Corbett, Web 2.0 is still a form of ICT – ICT is just an umbrella term, which covers all forms of digital information technologies. ‘But,’ Corbett argues, ‘Web 2.0 is markedly different from other ICTs. It doesn’t just solicit; it thrives on the participation of people. It’s what fundamentally makes it different. Web 2.0 wouldn’t exist if it weren’t populated by people using it.’

But perhaps more importantly, I also wanted to probe deeper into a comment Corbett made on Sunday, before the conference.

‘Web 2.0 is parallel to participatory development,’ Corbett had stated. ‘It’s about empowering people to take a role, it’s about citizen media.’ So I asked him today, why do you describe it as parallel to participatory development?

‘Ah, it’s not exactly parallel,’ he says, and goes on to explain. ‘I’ve been working with digital information technology with indigenous communities since 1995. In the past, it was different. All the content was produced with communities, but there was a steep learning curve in terms of the technology. But with Web 2.0, it simplifies how people interact – and it thrives on people contributing knowledge, and hence the comparison to participatory development.’

Essentially, what Corbett argues is that Web 2.0 requires the active participation of people in creating the content online – unlike in the past, when technical experts traditionally drove the uses of ICTs, in both the set-up and populating with content.

‘The technical experts were essentially the gatekeepers of the technology,’ Corbett says. ‘But Web 2.0 now offers opportunities for communities to interact with the technology – anyone can create content, you don’t have to be an expert.’

So is this why he describes it as parallel to participatory development? ‘Yes, as it’s about direct engagement, not about being represented by experts,’ says Corbett.

But, I argue, what about those without the time, access or inclination to take part in Web 2.0 for development?

‘There will still be a lot of people who are passive recipients rather than active participants,’ agrees Corbett, ‘But you could argue that this is the same as any other form of development today. The main difference is that Web 2.0 invites everyone to participate – and there’s no requirement any longer for it to be expert driven.’

‘It’s about early adopters,’ Corbett continues. ‘Early adopters of the technologies and applications get on board – just look at the people who are attending this conference. People like Ethan Zuckerman with Global Voices , or Kado Muir [who is presenting a session at Web2forDev on the ‘Outback Movement for Cultural Survival Using Web 2.0: An Aboriginal Case Study’]. These people have already identified that their communities, or the communities they work with, can benefit from Web 2.0.’  

It’s good to know that there are real examples of participatory development integrated with Web 2.0 applications out there, within this community of practice. I feel that I am a little closer to understanding this ‘mash-up’ of participatory approaches and ‘participatory web’. But I still have more questions to ask….

African Journalists need to embrace the new revolution of Web 2.0 tools if they are to catch up in this globalised World. Below find an interview on Web 2.0 with Matongo Maumbi a journalist from Zambia whose blog matongo.blogspot.com

Maumbi recently attended an online training focusing on Web2.0 tools organized by PenPlusBytes, the International Institute for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Journalism. In 2006, PenPlusBytes launched an online course on ICT Journalism in Africa and it attracted about forty three participants from nine countries spread across Africa, Europe and Asia. You were one of these fortunate students.

Why did you want to engage in such a course? What were your needs?

Matongo: I engaged in the course because I have an interest in exploiting ICTs at personal level and also professionally. I have been working as a broadcast journalist since 2002 and I was lucky to have been exposed to the computer and internet right from the early days of my career. My ICT knowledge is driven by personal interest and enthusiasm. I needed some professional guidance on using ICTs in my career as well as how I would fully utilize them. I needed to know the pros and cons of using ICTs . The limits, the potential benefits the fun of using the internet and how to explore it better.

What did you learn? What did you prefer (e.g.,. learning about new tools, engaging with other journalists, sharing your ideas and knowledge with others, working together on a common article, networking and interacting…)?

Matongo: I leant quite a number of things. I initially only took blogging as an adventure. Writing whatever came to my mind without any real set objective or target. I guess this was because I did it just out of interest and curiosity. I learnt how to conduct better online research for background information. How to source documents, how to set good parameters for searching. My knowledge on Web 2.0 was improved. Blogging is a good place to express oneself freely without the censorship of your editor or superiors on your work.

How does, what your learnt, influence your current journalism practice? How did it modify your way of working? How did it nurture your work (if so)? How do you apply what you learnt?

Matongo: I preferred learning new tools and also interacting with other journalists from across the continent and globe. As curiosity satisfaction was among my needs, I was really looking forward to learning new tools on ICTs. My mind was more set on learning new tools from what I already taught myself. I guess from the many things I learnt, I now spend less time on the internet. I spend less time because I know better how to conduct my online research with in the shortest possible time but with maximum information. As I am now working better with internet, it has encouraged me to continue getting a local touch to what I read on the internet. During the course I found my self working on fewer but better researched programmes that are of great relevance to our catchments community.

You created your own blog. How do you use this blog? What is the main purpose (PR, information sharing, interacting….?). Did you reach your goal? What are the strength and the weakness of such an exercise?

Matongo: Initially had a website aimed at doing radical campaigns online on things that affect Zambia. Time and resources could not allow me to continue and my site died out. Then I though of creating blog with a similar aim. I basically transferred what my site to the blog. I use the blog to make and achieve my thoughts online. As my blog is more of expressing my self, I have not yet set a good objective. In a small way I have reached my goal of transferring my thoughts online. The greatest strength is that you are your own editor and can write anything you fell is morally right at your own pace and space. You get unlimited freedom besides that fact that you have sensitive stories. Weakness comes in as most of the time I only write about my thoughts without backup professional thoughts. This creates a sense of non credibility from readers. Updates are seldom coming on the blog as I use company equipment and internet to do the updates.

What are the main challenges for African journalists to use Web2.0 tools? Do you think that most journalists have already a “mindset” for Web2 tools? What would the African Media community gain by using Web2.0?

Matongo: The main challenges of African journalists using web 2.0 tools is that we do not have our own working space. We have to rely on computers and internet from our offices. How on earth could one fully use web 2.0 tools when one does not have their own resources? The mindset for most journalists is there but a mindset with out resources is meaningless. Internet connection and access is very expensive for most journalists and even when it is affordable it is very slow. There is plenty to gain such as information sharing, unlimited power to express oneself (group) without the trouble of going through the censoring editors and managers.

Do you think that web2.0 applications - if well used by African journalists - can make the Internet more “relevant”? How so?

Matongo: I think Web 2.0 tools if properly used can make it more relevant. There is a lot of information that African Journalists have but because they have to go through editors, such info is suppressed. Mostly it is as a result of editors, managers not appreciating the role of ICTS tools.

Have you advertised your blog. If yes to whom and how?

Matongo: I think my blog is an isolated one. I have not advertised it. The only people that know about are my friends. I never thought of advertising it mainly because I think I do not update it regularly.

Are you making money from your blog?

Matongo: I am not in any way making money from my blog . I still do not fully know how I can tap into that potential. I do not really see how I can make money. I guess this is something I have to learn next. I know I have what it takes; I just do not have the right guidance.

Have you taught other about blogging?

Matongo: I have not taught any of my close friends’ blogging and taking full advantage of the internet besides e-mail messaging. Training for African Journalists in necessary on new web tools because these are new things which are not taught in Journalism. It is also important to note that a blog helps to store content online for African Journalists which has been for a long time been stored in paper form. The content put on a blog is shared and people learn from that kind of content.

Thanks to Michael, Peter and Lawrence for giving interesting answers to my questions some while ago. Let’s face it, web2.0 is just a concept, but there is a lot more behind it and even more perspectives on it. I am still curious, so here are some more questions:

1. Can web2.0 really work on grassroot level or does it need intermediate organizations such as NGOs?
2. Is “user generated content” of high value for development?
3. If so, what kind of user generated content could or already does have impact on social change?
4. What are the challenges to motivate people to engage in networking and creating social media?
5. Is web2.0, in the context of development, so far only a thing for and between organizations?
6. Will web2.0 promote transparency and feedback (evaluation) to development projects?
7. Will the collaborative web be trully multilangual, or will English be again the lingua franca?
8. Is this networking and aggregation of information giving us more knowledge when needed?
9. What are and will be the tools of the web2.0 buzz which could really help the people get involved in development?

Please contribute also some questions. Everybody’s questions are welcome.

Hello Christian,

Many of your questions seem to be based on the premise that “web2.0″ is a single, identifiable phenomenon. In fact, it is many different things, though they all share some common features e.g. user-generated content.

With that caution in mind, please find below some brief answers to your questions:

Christian Kreutz (CK): What are the key challenges to be tackled for web2.0 for rural development?
Lawrence Agbemabiese (LA): In the short-term, poor rural connectivity and connectivity costs relative to average rural incomes. However, the technological and economic issue aside, I think the biggest potential challenge/threats will be legal in nature–things like copyright infringement battles with Microsoft, royalty rate increases (which for example recently caused the shut-down of last.fm, government control over content (like what YouTube seems to suffer constantly nowadays) etc..

CK: Is free and open source software the main driver for web2.0 technology?
LA: Yes, especially from the perspective of low-income developing country users.

CK: Does web2.0 is all about connecting people or does it really involve knowledge sharing?
LA: It is a lot more than connecting people. I think the most important potential value of web2.0 is “collective intelligence” although for this to be realized, a lot more work is needed on means to “filter” useful/relevant data from the junk.

CK: Is connectivity one of the main issues around web2fordev or only a shortterm challenge?
LA: Definitely short-term, I predict that 10 years from now the connectivity challenge–even at the most remote sites on earth–will be
history.

CK: How can developing countries realize their own web2.0 applications?
LA: Is this absolutely necessary?! One thing about web2.0 and the internet in general is that it offers at last the real opportunity for
collective intelligence to transcend national boundaries (and hopefully, one day language barriers as well…!). But anyway, there is already a lot of promising ‘developing country’ web2.0 applications starting to appear out there. Muti, for example is one, and there is also Afrigadget and a few others.

CK: Does the increase of social networks enhance potential for learning?
LA: Definitely.

Well those are my thoughts.

Cheers,
Lawrence

I really like the dropping knowledge initiative and think that through questions a lot can be expressed. The basic idea behind Dropping knowledge is that only by posing the right questions can a global conversation be started which can change the world to the better.

That’s why I want to start here with some questions, which can be discussed during the conference:

1. What are the key challenges to be tackled for web2.0 for rural development?
2. Is free and open source software the main driver for web2.0 technology?
3. Does web2.0 is all about connecting people or does it really involve knowledge sharing?
4. Is connectivity one of the main issues around web2fordev or only a shortterm challenge?
5. How can developing countries realize their own web2.0 applications?
6. Does the increase of social networks enhance potential for learning?
7. …

What are your answers? Do you have more questions?

Thanks in advance!