Running head: SOLE-FUL IDEAS

SOLE-ful Ideas
Jamie B. Williams
University of Central Florida

Sole-ful Ideas

Introduction
At the intersection of improbable and impossible lies innovation. An idea, conjured by a
software engineer and physicist, who was inspired to pose a simple question; gave birth to a bold
experiment conducted with children living in a third-world slum. The purpose for the
experiment was to see what, if anything, poor children could learn with technology tools. What
would happen if children, who live without basic resources in the one of the poorest regions in
the world, were given a complex-question to answer, and unfettered access to a computer with an
internet connection? A camera placed nearby revealed a surprising answer to this question
(Mitra, 2003).
Cameras were installed to record childrens interactions with computers and each other
during use. Computers, mounted in walls and provisioned with internet access -- captured
images of children engaged in collaborative peer-based teaching and learning in English, a
language they did not know, about topics they knew nothing about (see Blendspace 1).
First defined as minimally invasive education (MIE) the experiment ultimately came to be
known as Hole-in-the-Wall Education Limited (HiWEL) (Arora, 2012 & Mitra, 2003). The
updated name came about as the result of a joint venture. The company researcher Mitra worked
for, NIIT Limited, a for profit learning company; partnered with the International Finance
Corporation and HiWEL was born (Arora, 2010; see Blendspace 8). The results of Mitras
experiment gave rise to what today is known as Self-organized Learning Environments, or
SOLEs (Mitra, Leat, Dolan, & Crawley, 2010).
SOLEs are created when students work as a community to answer questions. The specific
structure of a SOLE includes four students between the ages of eight and twelve, forming selfselected/flexible groups, in order to answer self-selected questions utilizing a computer with

Sole-ful Ideas

internet access (Mitra, Leat, Dolan, & Crawley, 2010). SOLEs, were established in New Delhi,
India, during 2009 as way to examine the unsupervised development of computer skills in
functionally illiterate children living in third-world slum (Mitra, 2003).
Mitras comment that pedagogical-services and subject-area expertise are irrelevant or
unnecessary to student learning is dismissive, and shocking (see Blendspace 1). The idea that
teachers are irrelevant is highly suspect given all that is known about the nature of developing
children; and teaching in relation to subject-area expertise. To advance knowledge, we must
have developmentally appropriate teachers with well vetted learning practices based on the
theoretical constructs of child development (Berk, 2009). Subject expertise in physiological
child development is imperative to guiding children with foundational information. In addition,
teachers with the abilities to differentiate information in a manner comprehensible to all in
respect to cultural considerations is also necessary (Bandura, 1991; Berk, 2009).
For those who teach, bearing witness to the knowing that results from innate curiosity,
combined with carefully selected bits of information, draws us in and holds us fast in our
teaching positions. Nothing is as powerful as stoking the fire of knowledge and watching it be
ignited in a student.
Self-organized Learning Environments (SOLEs) pose as much of a threat to the teaching
profession as the autonomous automobile poses to drivers. Drivers are still necessary no matter
the type of machine being driven. Autonomy has its limits, it still relies on people to engage in
complex thought processes and decision making (Costa, 2014).
Mitra, developer of Hole-in-the-Wall computing, claims that children are able to learn
complex content, in a foreign language, using only an internet connected computer and a small
group of peers; without direction or guidance from an educator (Costa, 2014).

Sole-ful Ideas

Controversies
The first controversy surrounding SOLEs concerns educators. Are teachers necessary or
relevant to learning as Mitra suggests in his 2013 speech? In the case of research conducted in
the village of Kalikuppam, Mitra makes the point that because teachers do not seek to teach in
the most impoverished regions of India; there is a dearth of qualified educators to teach
impoverished children (Mitra & Dangwal, 2010). As a result there is a need to seek alternative
pedagogical approaches to educating children in the most disadvantaged regions of the world.
Alternative approaches to pedagogy includes the implementation of unorthodox methods (Mitra
& Dangwal, 2010).
Another significant controversy related to Self-organized Learning Environments, is
motivation and self-directedness. Mitra describes minimally invasive education as generating
adequate levels of motivation which inspires groups of children to learn (Mitra & Dangwal,
2010). In this utopian learning environment, what role does self-directedness and motivation
play in the success or failure of a SOLE? Mitra claims that students, working in small groups,
are able to teach themselves -- given computers and an internet connection.
Social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, and self-regulation are at the heart of learning and
achievement (Bandura, 1991). Self-organizing learning activities are by nature motivational.
Coupled with the novelty aspect of using computers it was almost certain that children would
learn something. Mitra and Dangwal recognized this fact and signaled out its significance by
saying that learning which resulted from HiWels is nothing short of miraculousa
celebration of learning and the power of self-motivation. Learning, it can be argued, is social.
SOLEs encourage learning through collaborative social interactions. We see evidence of the
fact that learning is social within the context of the Hole-in-the-Wall kiosk experiments in the

Sole-ful Ideas

Kalikuppam village. Within the first month of the experiment, children had collaboratively
taught themselves some basic computing, and mathematics skills in addition to learning some
English. However, it was noted that over-time students spent most of their available computing
time on non-academic pursuits such as gaming and looking at things (Mitra & Dangwal,
2010).
Knowing and understanding the procedures necessary for a SOLE is essential to productive
collaboration. Students who are confident in knowledge about procedures are better able to
focus efforts on answering big questions (Bandura, 1991; Shunk & Zimmerman, 2006). On the
other hand, students who lack basic academic knowledge, skills, and abilities either withdraw
from, or intentionally disrupt the learning environment (Shunk & Zimmerman, 2006).
Self-regulation, or the ability to monitor and adjust ones behavior, is central to students
being able to benefit from group interaction. Self-regulation speaks to the learners ability to
regulate their contribution to the learning experience (Bandura, 1991). Enthusiastic learners
engaged in learning may be tempted to dominate the group. Whereas, students who have
mastered the art of self-regulation allow time and space for others participation in the learning
process. (Bandura, 1991; Shunk & Zimmerman, 2006). In the case of the Kalikuppam
experiment, a fourteen year old became proficient enough and she was able to teach other
children what she had learned. While the facilitators were not subject area experts, they
supported, encouraged, and praised the learning that they observed.
Teachers likewise guide and prompt positive group interactions that are beneficial to all
learners. The content that Mitra presented to the students to learn represented lower level
learning domains of recall and recognition. The children did not demonstrate depth of
knowledge, or application of the information they had learned. Depth of knowledge given expert

Sole-ful Ideas

knowledge of the content delivered by a teacher scaffolding of participants roles and

responsibilities can help students to feel Bandura reminds us that much of what students know
about collaborating comes from modeling. Students that know and understand expectations for
appropriate interactions are more successful than those that dont, its just that simple (Shunk &
Zimmerman, 2006).
Criticisms
HiWELs provided collaborative groups of students with equipment, an unstructured
learning environment, and a problem to solve. In the beginning, it was discovered that students
learned from each other and taught each other within the confines of limited resources. SOLEs
are based on flexible collaborations between students for the purpose of answering complex
questions using computers provisioned with internet access; guided by parents, mentors, and
educators (Mitra, Leat, Dolan, & Crawley, 2010). An excellent example of SOLEs can be
viewed through the lens of an organization called, For the Inspiration and Recognition of
Science and Technology (FIRST) (see Blendspace 7).
FIRST consists of small teams of students who have similar limited resources. Students
are charged with designing a brand for themselves, they then collaborate on the design and
construction of a robot in order to complete a well-designed challenge. All while preparing to
compete with other teams doing exactly the same thing, while meeting specific deadlines (see
Blendspace 7). Like SOLEs, FIRST is student-driven problem based learning opportunity.
Students are presented with a challenging task on which their robot design is based (see
Blendspace 5). Like todays SOLEs, teams are provided with an expert support team; including
coaches, team mentors, and subject-area specialist, which come from partnerships developed
within their communities (Costa, 2014).

Sole-ful Ideas

One criticism of SOLEs relates to Mitras contention that subject area expertise is not a
requisite part of learning and that knowing has faded into obsolescence. HiWELs clearly
demonstrate that kids can teach and learn in small self-directed groups. They were able to access
information and develop knowledge of it. They were not able to demonstrate a deep
understanding of the knowledge they gained nor were they able to apply their newfound
knowledge in a meaningful way. In this way, Mitra makes his point that to certain extent
knowing is obsolete. However, it is unrealistic to think that knowing will no longer be necessary
especially in professions where knowledge depends on innateness e.g. emergency room
physicians or fighter-jet pilots.
Reliability of Information/Research
Reliability refers to the accuracy, honesty, and truthful nature of the information gathered
(Shenton, 2004).
In terms of validity, the research conducted by Mitra does, in fact, provide relevant
information about the positive consequences yielded by participation in self-organized learning
environments (Arora, 2012; Mitra, Leat, Dolan, & Crawley, 2010).
Yet, evidence of the validity of the collected research information was not fully
demonstrated because the study was based on a single experimental model which was repeated,
but which lacked the double-blind component commonly associated with research
experimentation. Mitras experiments were conducted exclusively in highly-impoverished
communities. There is no discussion of this type of experiment being conducted elsewhere.
Since the contention is that children can learn on their own, largely without teacher/expert-input
one would reasonably expect to see research conducted on diverse communities which reflects
and thereby support this contention (see Blendspace 5; Shenton, 2004).

Sole-ful Ideas

Personal Reaction
Shifting paradigms in education strive to address the needs of a global twenty-first century
economy by producing students who have mastered the ability to think critically and react in
ways that are beneficial to the individual and any organization they happen to work for or with
(see Blendspace 2). As with all shifts, there are good and not-so-good, ideas emerging. SOLEs,
or self-organized learning environments, have a place in education. However, that place depends
on the context of the learning experience and the proposed learning objectives. SOLEs have a
place in learning. Ultimately, learning objectives and the context in which the learner learns are
of central importance to the decision to implement alternative pedagogical methods.
So, what?
On deeper reflection of my own experiences as a teacher in the classroom, I decided that
there were considerations that needed to be taken into account. First and foremost, students must
be taught what an academic conversation entails and how to engage in academic conversations
(Berk, 2009). This is important because valuing the opinions of others, respectfully disagreeing,
and understanding how rules governing academic conversations benefit students is not
something that comes naturally to children. Missing from SOLEs, as they were initially
conceived, is direct instruction of collaborative conversations. Subject area specialist are
essential in supporting students depth of learning and for valuable high-quality information.
Teacher behavior during SOLEs should mimic that of a rudder. Students take the helm, steering
the ship. The rudder merely changes direction under the leadership of students.
Now, what?
Constructive use of learning time is so very important. In order for SOLEs to be effective
students must have guidance and structure on which to construct understanding. By not adding

Sole-ful Ideas

these components, the door is opened to acceptance of poorly or improperly understood

information.

Sole-ful Ideas

10

Citations
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Berk, L.E. (2009). Development through the lifespan. Boston: Pearson - Allyn & Bacon.
Costa, M. J. (2014). Selforganized learning environments and the future of studentcentered
education. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(2), 160-161.
Mitra, S., & Dangwal, R. (2010). Limits to selforganising systems of learningthe Kalikuppam
experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 672-688.
Mitra, S. (2003). Minimally invasive education: a progress report on the holeinthewall
experiments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 367-371.
Mitra, S., Leat, D., Dolan, P., & Crawley, E. (2010, December). The Self Organised Learning
Environment (SOLE) School Support Pack. ALT.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing childrens self-efficacy and selfregulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 725.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.
Stamp, R. (2013). Of Slumdogs and Schoolmasters: Jacotot, Rancire and Mitra on selforganized learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(6), 647-662.
Warschauer, M. 2009. Digital literacy studies: Progress and prospects. In The Future of
Literacy Studies, edited by Baynham, M; Prinsloo, M. London: Palgrave Macmillan: 123
140.
Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can One Laptop per Child save the world's poor? Journal
of International Affairs, 64(1).

Blendspace page: http://blnds.co/1B7VGjX