Samsung Windfall: All Of South Korea's Textbooks To Go Digital By 2015
By 2014, all of South Korea's elementary-level educational materials will be digitized, and by 2015, the entire school-age curriculum will be
delivered on an array of computers, smart phones and tablets. While the country's education ministry is yet to announce the make or model of the
devices it will purchase, it has revealed it will spend $2.4 billion buying the requisite tablets and digitizing material for them.
Some schools on the peninsula are already using textbooks displayed on notebook computers, but when it comes to choice of tablets, how likely is it
that the government will choose the iPad or any other tablet other than those manufactured by South Korean electronics giant Samsung, such as the
Samsung Galaxy Tab or some larger variant of it?
This move also re-ignites the age-old debate about whether or not students learn better from screens or printed material. Equally important, there's
the issue of whether or not devices with smaller form factors are as effective as current textbooks, which tend to have significantly more area on
each page.
As evidenced by the quote above, this article deals primarily with the financial implications of this policy for both Samsung (or other manufacturers)
and the government of South Korea. While it is important to recognize that there is undoubtedly state corporatism at work here (i.e., heavy lobbying
by technology corporations to implement the policy and therefore reap the financial benefits of a lucrative government contract, with reciprocity to
supportive politicians, of course), which in and of itself is repugnant, I have some other thoughts on the matter.
Once this technology is operative in the classroom, is there even a need for a classroom at all? When I first attended university in 1996, public
networking technologies such as the Internet were in their toddler years, but nonetheless we still had remote learning systems. For instance, a
closed-circuit campus television network allowed us to watch class lectures live from our dormitories (and a limited local broadcast network for the
immediate region), and operated a switchboard that could be used to call in if we had a question for the instructor in real time. The only instances
wherein we had to physically meet were for exams, submitting papers, etc., and it was a fairly efficient and effective system.
Recent advances in technology as they relate to remote learning systems, such as live chat, videoconferencing and the like, are quickly making the
classroom obsolete; especially when all resources and communication systems can be accessed and utilized from a single, portable source, such as pad
technology. Yet I rarely hear of proposals to eliminate the classroom altogether.
There may be a few benefits in doing so. If a student were reading the curriculum at home and receiving instruction via remote technology, it would
also mean that (hopefully) parents would be more engaged in their children’s education, simply by mere proximity to the process. Not only could
parents provide timely assistance when there are gaps in understanding between student and instructor, the potential exists that they would be more
cognizant of
what is actually being taught and
how it is presented. A higher level of community awareness of what is going on in the
schools would result in a higher degree of accountability for those charged with the responsibility of executing state education policy.
And for the environmentally sensitive, just think of the reduced carbon emissions that would be facilitated by the lack of all those school buses and
SUVs carting the kids to and fro on a daily basis. This of course would be more prevalent in America, should such a policy be implemented, than in
South Korea.
However, supporters of state education systems have long been opposed to any form of home schooling, if this can even be classified as that, as the
state would still largely maintain control of the material presented. They will say that the students will not develop proper (whatever that is)
social skills without a classroom atmosphere. But these skills can be developed in other, private, ways, such as through community sports, clubs, etc.
And God forbid parents get to know their neighbors and let their kids together wreak innocent havoc on the neighborhood like we did in the days of
old.
Another primary criticism is the lack of an effective disciplinary atmosphere. In a classroom environment, when a student is disruptive, he or she can
be held in detention at the end of the day or endure some other punishment. Discipline is assured in this manner, efficacy aside, whereas if a child
is being inattentive or misbehaving at home, the state cannot be certain that effective, or acceptable, discipline is being meted out by the parents.
In my own humble opinion, I believe parents know their children best, and should use their own discretion in the discipline of their children.
In short, it is time to systemically re-evaluate the entire elementary and secondary education process. In this day and age, with the available
technology, is it really necessary to transport students en masse to another location to receive schooling under the traditional 8am-3pm glorified
daycare structure? The state certainly thinks so, and we know why—any loss of control in regard to the socialization of children, as well as the
information presented to them, is simply unacceptable as it represents a threat to the state’s authority.
Without me getting into the other ramifications inherent in this article here (computers vs. books, contributing to the electromagnetic soup we
constantly swim in, etc.), I’d like to know what you think about the role of technology in 21st-century education, specifically as it pertains to
the continuation or evolution of the current system.
But of course feel free to discuss other issues which may arise from the implementation of this policy in South Korea and elsewhere.