Introduction to my grant

Central Question:
What impact do OC4D tools have on access to critical content
targeted at lower-literates in Himalayan villages?

Eliminating various forms of poverty in the developing world (economic, social, physical, spiritual) is directly linked to improving opportunities for education (UNESCO, 2009). However, effectively disseminating information in developing countries requires a continuous focus at removing obstacles that stand in the way of the right to education (Tomsasevski, 2006).

This is most likely to be achieved through a holistic approach with concerted focus on sustainable and context-sensitive literacy programming conducted by locals for locals with particular regard to tailored content collection and dissemination (REFLECT, 2007).

Research reveals that local literacy facilitators and change agents desire to develop skills that allow them to advance knowledge, creativity and freedom (Chambers, 2000; Curtis, 2990; Freire, 1977). Furthermore, inadequate attention has been given to these questions: “How do we sustain momentum after funding dies? How do we cultivate environments that can ensure lifelong literacy progress?” (World Education, 2006)

ProLiteracy Worldwide (PLW), an international NGO based in New York, supports a global network of over 130 NGO partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. These partners are connected through the use of ProLiteracy’s FAMA pedagogy anchored in participatory dialogue.

Although these partners share the same theoretical approach of “literacy for social change” (Curtis, 1990), they have not been connected to one another except through ProLiteracy Headquarters in New York (Anderson, 2009).

PLW has facilitated the aggregating of critical content tools from several sites that face similar dilemmas (e.g. AIDS prevention, infectious disease, environmental conservation, health/hygiene, micro-enterprise, and conflict resolution).

PLW has sometimes facilitated the sharing of content between partners and has often funded the localization of critical content developed in one region in order to increase utility and effectiveness in other regions.

PLW has also occasionally assisted in the dissemination of critical content through local partners according to specific donor objectives (e.g. AIDS awareness and family planning).

However, the majority of accessing, localizing and sharing of critical content between ProLiteracy Partners around the world has depended on funding from external donor organizations.

Sustainability of literacy programming at the macro and micro levels depends upon availability, affordability, and accessibility of appropriate content tailored (linguistically and culturally) for lower-literates and tethered to real-world issues.

The Open Content for Development (OC4D) initiative builds upon the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement (Hewlett, 2007) that aims to expand and realize the right to education for all learners. Although there is discussion about ways that OER players may build capacity in developing countries for effective use of OER, extension of these tools to lower-literate groups is nascent at best and nonexistent at worst.

Building from ProLiteracy’s partner base is an effective way to work within an existing structure to bolster the expansion of educational opportunity through access to open content tailored for the neediest learners.

Although many predict that OER is a panacea that will afford great educational benefit in areas where resources are scarce, limited research has been done in lower-literate rural environments. If these tools have the potential to revolutionize access to the right to education in developing countries, then it is imperative to find out what impact OER has in such environments and why.

Answering these questions will expand the focus of the OER movement toward the billion people across the world who are currently deprived the right to education. Are OC4D tools an effective means for sustaining access to quality learning materials for neo-literates in developing country contexts, particularly in the hard-to-reach rural villages of Nepal?

TIMELINE OF ACTIVITIES

I. Design Class (Fall 2009)
(a) Design OC4D portal
• All ProLiteracy manuals (start with English, Nepali, Spanish etc.)
• Accessed by 130+ partner NGOs in developing world
• Asia, Africa, Latin America, Carribbean, Middle East
(b) Design toolkit for OC4D
• Hand-holding tips on accessing, localizing, disseminating content
• Literacy facilitators & YMRC Managers
• Change agents (health workers, ag extension agents, loan officers)


II. Evaluation Project (December 12-22, 2009)
(a) Conduct a pilot study in Sankhu Village to find out viability of OC4D
• evaluation: determine the merit or worth of the design for OC4D tools
• viability: is there a demand (YMRC stakeholders)? Is it user-friendly?
• lower-literates: people without formal education or limited education
• Himalayan villages: limited access to reading material / ed opportunity
(b) Instruments for Evaluation
• Survey, interviews, focus group discussion
• What seems to work? What doesn’t seem to work?


III. Dissertation (April 15 – June 30, 2010)
a. Conduct a larger study in 10 YMRC sites to find out viability of OC4D design
• All YMRC sites that are partnered with CDN
• Youth Summit training in Kathmandu (training, exposure)
• Visits to field sites and exploration of how / if / why OC4D is used.
b. Is OER useful? Does this increase capacity of the facilitators?
c. Formative evaluation: Are these tools desired? Are they useful?


IV. 3IE Funding Proposal (International Initiative Impact Evaluation) Nov 27,09
(a) What is the impact of OER for increasing access to critical content in rural Himalayan telecenters?
• Content is key! Why get connected if there’s nothing useful there?
• Manohar, Mahabir, Karma, TMUC
(b) Conversations with 3IE
• Approved in April 2009 for PPG (could go for open or thematic window)
• Met with Director and others in Jun 2009 in Delhi (post-Nepal trip)
• Funded by Hewlett Fdn, Gates Fdn, DFID
• Conversation with Ron (Program Officer): working with Manohar (HLCIT) – approach is better if nationwide study, longer-term study, could be university
• “Long studies with an ex ante evaluation design, starting with the collection of baseline data and eventual collection of endline data to conduct impact analysis of interventions of relevance to the theme and associated enduring questions. Such studies will usually take place over 3-5 years. The costs of these studies will depend on the extent of the data collection requirements, but are expected to be in the range US$ 0.5 – US$ 1.0 million.”