Limitations of Minimally Invasive Education (MIE):
First segment of my paper will focus on ‘Minimally Invasive Education- MIE’ technique used in the ‘HiWEL’ experiment (Mitra, 2000; 2005). MIE stands on the base of accessible technology and reduced or minimal presence of the teacher (Dangwal and Thounaojam, 2011). In such situation, the learning is assumed to take place within peers, mostly without direct supervision (Inamdar, 2004; Mitra, 2006). Now, if we take a deeper look, it might unfold differently. In this context, continuous exposer to technology during the process of learning is important and technology can be invasive in itself. As in MIE, peers and groups are continuously guiding each other in the knowledge creation process which replicates the scaffolding function (Dangwal and Kapur, 2009). Furthermore, there are interventions to keep the learning momentum going. It can be argued, to what extent the process is actually ‘minimally invasive’. Though, Kirschner, Clark and Sweller (2006) doubted, whether unguided learning can have any impact, claims such as anyone from any background, irrespective of his or her educational background can learn anything just because they could access a computer remained mostly undiscussed in the academic community. The approach aiming to minimize the digital divide, ignored many aspects of inclusive learning.
‘Minimally Supervised Disruptive Learning’:
In the second segment, rationale for having a different approach for seeing learning and teaching using technology will be presented informed by Traxler (2007), Kearney et. al. (2012) and Medhi et al., (2013; 2012; 2011). I will then introduce ‘Minimally Supervised Disruptive Learning’ approach, which aims to contribute to the knowledge gap of how an ‘alien’ technology can be used within a technologically disadvantaged population to motivate and engage them in meaningful learning and knowledge construction. Empirical evidence will be provided, from my research work, where I used tabled devices to provide disaster preparedness training to technologically disadvantaged people with limited literacy in Bangladesh. Evidence to be presented was collected from fieldworks spanned over three years, which covered eight locations of Bangladesh and had more than 200 participants. In what ways the disruptive nature of the approach facilitates learning will be explained using examples from the fieldworks accompanied by a short video clip from the fieldwork. Audiences will get to know about the core components of this approach, including design and five-stage evaluation methods, which was used. Current limitations of this approach and future works will be presented in the final sections. Five minutes will be allocated to audience feedback and Q&A.
Connecting Conference Theme: Creating new learning, teaching and assessment opportunities: play, experiment, discover, embed Learning Technology to enhance learner experience.
Dangwal, R. and Thounaojam, M. (2011), “Self regulatory behaviour and Minimally Invasive (MIE) Education: A Case study in the Indian context”, International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 120–140.
Dangwal, R., & Kapur, P. (2009). Learning through teaching: Peer-mediated instruction in minimally invasive education. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 5–22.
Inamdar, P. (2004), “Computer skills development by children using ‘hole in the wall’ facilities in rural India”, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 1–13.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research In Learning Technology, Vol. 20. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14406
Kirschner, P. A., Clark, R. E., & Sweller, J. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, Vol. 41 No.2, pp. 75–86.
Medhi, I. and Cutrell, E. (2012), “Correlation Between Limited Education and Transfer of Learning”, Information Technologies & International Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 51–65.
Medhi, I., Lakshmanan, M., Toyama, K. and Cutrell, E. (2013), “Some evidence for the impact of limited education on hierarchical user interface navigation”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’13, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p. 2813.
Medhi, I., Patnaik, S., Brunskill, E., Gautama, S.N.N., Thies, W. and Toyama, K. (2011), “Designing mobile interfaces for novice and low-literacy users”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1–28.
Mitra, S. (2000), “Minimally invasive education for mass computer literacy”, Centre for Research in Distance & Adult Learning, pp. 1–22.
Mitra, S. (2005), “Self organising systems for mass computer literacy: Findings from the ‘hole in the wall’ experiments”, International Journal of Development Issues, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 71–81.
Mitra, S. (2006). The hole in the wall. New Delhi: New York, NY.
Traxler, J. (2007) ‘Current state of mobile learning’, International Review on Research in Open and Distance learning, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–10.
Robert Reuter posted an update in the session Exploring limitations of the ‘Minimally Invasive Education’ technique and introducing ‘Minimally Supervised Disruptive Learning’.  1 year, 7 months ago
really interesting presentation. thanks a lot for sharing your project.