Descriptive and Prescriptive Aspects of ICT in Education – Case of FATIH
Project
Demet Cengiz
Matematics Teacher
M.S. Student, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Univercity of Usak
TURKEY
cengizdemet@hotmail.com
Osman Coskunoglu
Researcher Writer
Retired University Professor
Two Terms Member of Turkish Parliament
TURKEY
ocoskunoglu@gmail.com
Abstract: Significant findings of brain sciences and exciting advances in information and
communication technologies – mainly due to the Internet and mobile communication – are
expected to have significant effects on the education systems. However, the nature of these effects
are still highly controversial and inconclusive. Thus, for any prescriptive recommendation,
additional descriptive studies are needed. One approach to this end is to observe and investigate the
attitudes of students, teachers and administrators during a particular ICT implementation project in
education. FATİH Project for the Turkish K-12 education system claims to be one of the most, if
not the most, ambitious project of this nature in the world, that has just started in 57 schools of 17
pilot provinces. In one pilot province, detailed interviews are conducted with students, teachers and
school administrators in order to understand their experiences regarding implementation of ICT in
their classrooms in general and regarding FATİH Project in particular. The findings are not in
accordance with the expectations and claims regarding the both.
Introduction
Last 30 years have witnessed enormous strides in neuro-sciences and cognitive sciences research towards
understanding how the brain and mind work (Eagleman, 2012). One would expect that better understanding of the
brain and mind would generate significant benefits to education. Yet, despite some recent studies attempting to
apply the findings of science to education (Sousa, 2011, Willingham, 2009), the gap is still there.
During the last two decades, another set of exciting advances has occurred in information and
communication technologies (ICT), especially due to the Internet and mobile communication which have become
ubiquitous in our lives. We observe the disruptive effects of the Internet and mobile communication (in this paper,
ICT refers specifically to these two technologies which include complementary ones such as cloud technology,
tablets, and others) in almost every facet of our lives, but in education.
The descriptive aspects of how learning takes place in mind and how ICT affects this process is a highly
controversial area. For instance, it is widely claimed that (Anderson, 2010), minds of digital natives (Prensky, 2001),
those who were born after 1990 into the digital world, work fundamentally different than their predecessors. Hence,
their thinking and learning capabilities and patterns are expected to be different[1]. Moreover, ICT provides students
with multi-modal systems of information exchange. Hence, many believe that the education system ought to be
taking advantage of this to improve learning. The problem with this type of reasoning is that, a normative statement
[1]For example, since The Atlantic article of Nicholas Carr (Carr, 2008) a big debate on the Internet’s effects has
been going on. In fact, a highly visible debate on this issue has recently taken place in New York.
is often made as if it is a descriptive one. In fact, there are convincing arguments that ICT does not have a
significant impact on how a student’s mind works (Willingham, 2010), and compelling observations that ICT does
not necessarily improve learning in the schools 2 .
It can be concluded that neither the current theoretical and applied research nor the empirical findings of
the implementations have shed sufficient light on the following descriptive questions: What are the implications of
the research findings of the brain sciences to learning and education? What exactly are the effects of ICT on human
information processing, learning and memory? Thus, the following prescriptive question does not have satisfactory
answers: Whether and how to change the education system in the light of recent findings of brain sciences and
recent developments in ICT?
The issue is further complicated with the following normative question: What exactly are the skills and
knowledge that 21. Century students have to be equipped with? The ability to undertake lifelong learning, to be
innovative and critical thinking ability are some of the skills often mentioned in literature in contrast with rote
learning and memorizing. However, thinking without having much factual knowledge – which had been stored in
the memory – to think about does not make sense. Moreover, “critical thinking processes such as reasoning and
problem solving are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in the long term memory”
(Willingham, 2009).
Having said most of the controversial and inconclusive issues related to the implications of brain sciences
and ICT for learning and education, we cannot ignore the realities facing the lucrative education sector. While the
technology corporations are relentlessly pushing ICT for classrooms, politicians are also attracted by the lure of
“education in the information age” slogan3 in front of the public - majority of which is dazzled by the new
technologies. As a result, there are substantial projects that have started in different countries around the world
which involve employing ICT in classrooms. In other words, prescriptive recommendations are abound without
sufficient descriptive studies.
In fact, one such major project has recently started in Turkey: FATİH (the Movement to Increase
Opportunities and Technology)4 . The project inaugurated in February 2012 is currently in its pilot implementation
phase. In this phase, 57 schools in 17 provinces will be equipped with interactive whiteboards, and 12,800 tablet
PCs will be distributed to the students and teachers in those schools. Eventually, the project entails distributing
tablets to 17 million students, equipping over 620,000 classrooms with digital technologies, providing 42,000
schools with internet access, and digitizing all textbooks. If accomplished, a project of this scale in education will be
the first in the world.
Objectives and Scope of the Study
This study has two main objectives. (1) Contributing towards understanding and describing the effects of
ICT on students’ learning. (2) To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Fatih Project currently under pilot
implementation, in order to make prescriptive recommendations for improved educational outcomes. As such, the
research has descriptive as well as prescriptive implications.
For understanding the process of learning, the cognitive model of thinking, detailed by Willingham (2009)
is adopted. According to this model, Environment is the source of signals describing the information and/or problem
while the factual knowledge is stored in the Long-term memory. Thinking and/or problem solving occurs when both
signals and factual knowledge are combined in the Working memory which has a limited space and capacity.
Learning something or how to deal with a given situation or a problem then requires understanding the signals from
the Environment and recalling the necessary knowledge from the Long-term memory and thinking about them in
the Short-term memory. This rough and a brief description of the learning allows us to hypothesize that ICT can
[2] On this debate, The New York Times has ran a series entitled “Grading Digital School”:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/technology/series/grading_the_digital_school/index.html
[3] For instance, just recently, US Education Secretary Arne Duncan declared that “over the next few years, paper textbooks
should be obsolete.” This started yet another hot debate in education circles.
[4] For details, official page (also in English) of the Project: http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/duyuruincele.php?id=17
have three potential use: (1) To increase the capacity of Short-term memory by for instance helping to understand
the signals from the Environment by visualization; (2) to extend the Long-term memory by acquiring a missing
piece of essential knowledge from elsewhere. These potentials are investigated in this study.
Beyond how we learn are the questions of how much can we learn and retain what we learn. According to
Bourdieu, economic, cultural and social capital possessed by an individual affects the answers to these questions.
Those who come from reasonably good economic, cultural and social families have greater potential for
accumulating and retaining the knowledge in the Long-term memory. The digital divide arises from the differences
between the economic, cultural and social capital among individuals. Implications of using ICT in the classrooms on
the digital divide are also investigated in this study.
Method
In this study, in order to be able to produce detailed analyses, one-on-one and face-to-face interviews are
conducted with each of the 40 teachers, 32 students and 10 administrators from 4 high schools in which the pilot
implementation of the Fatih Project had started. In selecting the sample, due consideration was given to social,
economic and cultural backgrounds of the students and neighborhoods that the schools were located, in order to
maintain the diversity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the students. With teachers and
administrators open ended interviews were conducted. Details of the responses were recorded for content analysis.
The questions were asked on each interviewee’s experience with the use of interactive whiteboards in
different courses and on the specific implementation issues of the Fatih Project.
Questions and Responses
Space limitation does not allow us to list all the questions and answers. Those, which we believe to be the
most revealing and relevant for the purposes of this paper, are summarized below5.
Teachers
Teachers from different schools, ages and subjects are interviewed.
The responses to “what are to positive and negative contributions of using an interactive white board in
your course” question along with the percentages are as follows. Positive responses: It saves time during the lectures
(26%); visual representation helps learning and retaining (26%); students don’t have to take notes during the lecture
(15%) (two thirds of whom provide lecture notes as handouts, one third don’t); a necessity of the digital age (%13);
having the lecture material ready and loaded makes teaching easier (13%); no more chalk dust (5%); motivates the
students (2%). Negative responses: Renders the teacher passive (21%); since not connected to the Internet, can’t
access information outside the textbooks (13%); loaded lecture material was not well prepared (13%); the
technology behind the interactive white board provided is not adequate (e.g., Poor in recognizing the written
character, difficult to correct a mistake) (12%); when students use the interactive whiteboard for entertainment (such
as, listening music, playing video-games that they bring in a flash disc) during the breaks, it becomes difficult to
motivate them for the lecture after the break (11%); inadequacy in using the board (8%); inadequacy of the training
given to teachers to use the interactive whiteboard (8%); after the first 10 minutes, students lose concentration, get
dull and unmotivated (7%); bad for eyes (7%); gaining time increases the efficiency of lecturing, eliminates note
taking while decreasing the effectiveness of learning (5%); student-teacher interaction decreases since students are
not given enough opportunity to practice on the board in front of the class (5%).
The responses to the “do students like this new implementation in the classroom; any feedback from them”
can be summarized under four categories: students like it and demand using the interactive board (40%); they enjoy
it for entertainment purposes during the breaks (37%); when the board was first installed, they were very
[5]A more detailed report of the interview results can be obtained by sending an e-mail to the first author of this paper.
enthusiastic about it but not anymore (13%); they don’t like it and want me to lecture as if there is no interactive
board installed (10%).
There was a consensus on the answers to the “Does exposure to interactive whiteboard technology help
reduce the digital divide” question: No! Those students who don’t have economic means to access digital
technologies at home were intimidated by using the technology in the classroom with the fear of doing something
wrong and even braking it. This is striking since the most noteworthy claim behind the Fatih Project was the
expectation that it would level the field between “have”s and “have not”s.
We asked the question intensely debated by scholars and pundits: “How does digital technology affect the
thinking and reasoning capabilities of students and their innovativeness and creativity? Why?” 45% responded
negatively, claiming that the easy access to information decreases the motivation and ability to think, and reason,
reduce the need for imagination; hence, have a negative impact on creativity and innovativeness. 30% argued that,
visualization and variety of modes provided by digital technologies can help imagination, strengthen reasoning and
thinking capabilities. Remaining 25% didn’t think technology itself would make any difference but the content
could.
Students
Students who come from different schools and neighborhoods and socio-economic backgrounds were
interviewed with questions similar to the ones asked to the teachers. Only those responses shared by at least 3
students are listed below.
Contribution of the current pilot implementation of the Fatih Project on their education: (1) It helps us to
understand the geometry lectures better by visualization and by enabling to solve more examples. All of these
students have the same geometry teacher, and they had been equally happy with that teacher’s lectures before the
interactive boards were installed. (2) We don’t have to take notes. Those students receiving lecture handouts were
content; however, those who are not given handouts, while enjoying the convenience of not taking notes in the class,
complained about having difficulty in preparing for the exams. (3) Visualization helps understanding geometry and
geography and makes the lecture more appealing when the teacher is boring. (4) Interactive board allows the lecture
go faster hence we have more time to practice by solving more problems. (5) We can charge our cellular phones,
enjoy music and video-games during the brakes.
Regarding negative or inadequate aspects of the Fatih Project: (1) We had higher expectations and had been
expecting a better technology (like the ones that exist in private tutoring centers) than the ones installed. (2) We
can’t study during the brakes because of the noise of those who play with the board. (3) Teachers are not adequately
trained to use the technology and ask our help. (4) Not more useful than the overhead projectors. (5) Either because
teachers don’t give enough chance for us to practice on board in front of the class or because we are intimidated of
the board, we remain disengaged and passive in the class. (6) The teachers remain at their desks to write on the
tablet that reflects on the board which makes them passive, as well. (7) We get bored, lose our concentration and get
sleepy when only the interactive board is used. (8) Teacher can lecture faster which makes us difficult to understand.
Responding to the question regarding the type of the course, 64% of the students think that interactive
board is useful in quantitative courses where 36% in verbal courses. A large majority agree that it is the specific
subject rather than the course itself that makes the interactive board useful or not.
Regarding the teacher, there was a consensus: “a good teacher is successful with or without technology,
poor teacher remains so with or without technology”.
Administrators
Since the number of administrators interviewed is small, only the most meaningful responses are listed
here: inadequacy of majority of teachers in the use of technology; students are content; we receive complaints from
the students for the increased speed of lecturing especially for demanding courses; not having internet connection is
a critical shortcoming; convenience for the teachers may render them inattentive and passive; pedagogical
dimension of the project is missing; without asking our opinions or contributions, the project is imposed on us; we
are concerned about the costs of repair and maintenance; technology does not improve the reasoning capabilities or
creativity, but it can make the lectures more enjoyable;
Main Findings and Conclusion
The main findings can be categorized into two: Those pertaining the implementation of Fatih Project and
those shedding some light on the descriptive aspect of the technology’s impact on students’ minds and on education.
The root cause of the main shortcomings of the Fatih Project is fairly obvious: It started without any
master plan; instead it was aimed to develop the specifics during the pilot implementation phase. Thus, inadequately
trained teachers and neglecting pedagogical dimension while concentrating on the hardware to be deployed created
many negative feelings about this important project. At this point, it is a good idea to slow the implementation and
concentrate on the prescriptive implications of the shortcomings listed in this paper.
What is the impact of technology on students’ minds and their learning capacity? Our findings somewhat
agree with the concerns raised by Carr (2010) that technology has the potential of making the students “shallow”
and passive thinkers. However, our findings are more in line with the arguments given by Willingham (2010). That
is, technology can be useful depending “on how it is used, and the content it conveys.” Moreover, we also concur
“effective use of interactive whiteboards might be more complex than was first guessed.” Since ICT is so new, more
empirical research is needed in this area.
Does technology in the classrooms level the field between the “have”s and “have not”s? Both students and
teachers agreed that technology use in the classrooms does not reduce the digital divide. This is a striking conclusion
and conflicts with the main purpose of the Fatih Project. Offering courses on information and digital literacy with
hands-on experience could help to eliminate the intimidation of those students who are not comfortable with the
technology.
The other significant findings are: the teacher is the main facilitator for learning, not the technology;
according to teachers the technology renders them passive in the classroom and according to students they become
passive; majority of administrators, teachers and students agree that technology improves neither reasoning capacity
nor creativity; majority of teachers and students agree that students know more about the technology than the
teachers.
Conclusions and Further Research
For successful integration of ICT into education, normative, descriptive and prescriptive aspects should be
delineated carefully and each has to be considered in the given order.
The normative question is: What skills should the 21. Century students have? Critical thinking,
collaborative problem solving, being innovative are frequently listed ones. These are not necessarily new emerging
skills, they have always been paramount. However, the standard tests that the students have to take do not
necessarily assess these skills. This area requires more elaboration and discussion among scholars and business
world, together.
The main descriptive question is: How does the mind work and ICT affect the mind and learning? The
danger here is that, many intuitive suggestions of those dazzled by the technology are not supported by the scholarly
research on this question. Moreover, scholarly research results are often either inconclusive or controversial. This
should not be surprising because both the workings of mind and ICT are fairly new areas. Further research is needed
in this area.
However, it is unrealistic to expect more definitive results for descriptive question before starting
technology projects in education. Prescriptions regarding implementation of ICT in education should be carefully
evaluated in the course of the project through feedbacks from the field.
References
Anderson, J. (2010). ICT Transforming Education: A Regional Guide. UNESCO, Bangkok.
Carr, N. (2008). Is Google Making Us Stupid? The Atlantic Magazine. July-August.
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows. W.W. Norton & Company. New York.
Eagleman, D. (2011). Incognito. Random House, Inc.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, 2001, On the Horizon, MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No.
5, October 2001.
Sousa, D. A. (2011). How The Brain Learns. Corwin Press.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why Don’t Students Like School? Jossey-Bass.
Willingham, D. T. (2010). Have Technology and Multitasking Rewired How Students Learn? American Educator.
P. 23, Summer 2010.