This paper was downloaded from

The Online Educational Research Journal

(OERJ)

www.oerj.org

OERJ is an entirely internet-based educational research journal. It is

available to anyone who can access the web and all articles can be read
and downloaded online. Anybody can submit articles as well as comment
on and rate articles. Submissions are published immediately provided
certain rules are followed.
Self-Organised Learning Environments (SOLEs) in an English School: an
example of transformative pedagogy?
Paul Dolan,1 David Leat,2 Laura Mazzoli Smith,2 Sugata Mitra,2 Liz Todd2 and Kate
Wall3

(1) Northumbria University

(2) Newcastle University
(3) Durham University

Abstract
Self-Organised Learning Environments (SOLEs) are models of learning in which students
self-organise in groups and learn using a computer connected to the internet with minimal
teacher support. The original hole in the wall experiments in India are now applied to
classrooms around the world. The idea of SOLEs is a social innovation that is inspiring
educators (in schooling and also business contexts) everywhere, as demonstrated by Mitra s
award of the 2013 TED prize. However, when SOLEs are located in classrooms, a number of
questions arise. Are SOLEs easily adapted for the classroom context? Is the impact on
learning as transformative as suggested by the original ideas? This paper considers in detail
the application over two years by one teacher, using SOLEs in a Year 4 classroom in an
urban North East England primary school, in partnership with university researchers Dolan,
Mitra and Leat. Issues of innovation and transformation are discussed, informed by the ideas
of Bernstein, Engestrom, and Giroux. The SOLE concept, although flexible, has the potential
to offer a divergent, radical transformative pedagogy. This sits somewhat uncomfortably
alongside more convergent approaches which position the learner as subservient to the
curriculum, with the task of merely mastering subject matter prescribed by the teacher.
However, what is notable from this analysis is that transformative pedagogy seems to be
positioned alongside, rather than in conflict with, the dominant educational framework.

Introduction
Self-organised learning environments as used in schools are minimally supervised, internet-
based learning experiences for groups of three to four children, driven by a research question
(Mitra and Dangwal, 2010; Mitra, 2012). They have developed from Mitra s earlier hole in
the wall experiments (Mitra, 2006, carried out in India between 1999 and 2006), which

1
demonstrated children s facility for learning to use computers when working in small groups
and their ability to learn with computers without the presence of a teacher. The SOLE s
learning environment is characterised by its absence from adult intervention and by
openness and flexibility (Mitra et al., 2005: 3). SOLE sessions have been found to provide
spaces within which spontaneous creativity and unexpected learning can occur, since there
may not be predefined learning objectives.

Briefly, a SOLE session in a school classroom involves a session of from between 30 and 90
minutes in which the teacher will engage the students with a question that they address. The
question is chosen so as to be challenging for the students, not a question that might be
regarded as easy . Questions are indirectly related to the subject area and examples include:
Who built the pyramids and why? , What are fractals? , What are they looking for with the
Large Hadron Collider in CERN, in Geneva? , Who is Gandhi and what did he do? , Where
is Botswana and what is it famous for? , Was the British Raj a good idea? Questions for
primary-aged students to work on are often taken from GCSE papers. However in more
divergent variants of SOLEs, students may well generate questions to pursue. For each
session, the students would form their own groups of approximately four of their own
choosing. Each group is allowed to use one computer with internet access. Students are
allowed to change groups, talk to each other, talk to other groups and walk around looking at
other s work. There are very few rules. The teacher s role at this stage is minimal, to observe
the students and stay out of their way. Teachers facilitate SOLEs through setting the
challenging question, but then have limited pedagogic input until the final plenary stage.
However teachers vary in the degree of scaffolding they offer to students. Sometimes a
student is nominated by the others to take the role of supervisor , to sort out any disputes and
keep noise to manageable levels. It is only the supervisor who can interact with any adults.
About two thirds of the way through, the groups should produce and then present to the class
a one-page report where they describe what they have found. The teacher can then expand on
this in a later class.

Mitra s research on SOLEs typically tests students before and after different kinds of SOLE
situations. The tests are usually curriculum-related but of a standard higher than the level that
students are used to (Mitra, 2012). Detailed critical evidence is still to be published.
However, accumulated case study and small-scale quantitative evidence from a range of
contexts suggests that students tend to answer more challenging questions and retain the

2
information for a longer time than they would usually (Mitra and Rana, 2001; Mitra et al.,
2003; Mitra and Dangwal, 2010; Mitra, 2012; Mitra and Quiroga, 2012). There is a need now
for evidence about mechanisms by which SOLEs impact on student learning, for more
systematic quantitative evaluation of SOLE s impact on student learning outcomes and for
case studies of teachers practical knowledge as they implement SOLEs.

Whilst there have been many blog responses from teachers using SOLEs about changes to
their teaching, there has been little systematic study of the way teachers use SOLEs in
schools. There are a number of questions about the use of SOLEs in the school context. How
can SOLEs be embedded in classroom learning? Are SOLEs easily implemented into
particular contexts (in this case, a particular English primary school)? Do SOLEs support
existing curricular demands? Do impacts appear as transformative, as suggested by the
original ideas? How can they be conceptualised? And, is there a basis for their
conceptualisation as innovative in terms of pedagogy? This paper is a first step in
considering, through data from one case study, the experiences and views of one primary
school teacher using SOLEs over two years.

Research context
Sarah Taylor (ST) (pseudonym to preserve anonymity) used SOLEs over two consecutive
years at Holy Name Church of England Primary School (also a pseudonym) in an urban area
in the North of England. The school has about two hundred students and serves an area of
considerable socio-economic disadvantage, with approximately half the students on free
school meals (26% national average) and 4 per cent of students with special educational
needs (8% national average). A 2007 Ofsted report rated the school as Outstanding.

ST contacted Mitra and invited him to her Year 4 classroom in 2009/10 when she had barely
begun her first year of teaching. During the year Mitra supported ST s development of
SOLEs and together they carried out a number of small-scale projects. These involved testing
the children involved in the SOLEs using GCSE exam questions that were related to the
SOLE questions. ST continued to use SOLEs the following academic year with a new cohort
of Year 4 students. During her 3rd year teaching, ST found SOLEs inappropriate for the
Reception class she had been given. However, she had developed though her use of SOLEs a
collaborative manner of talking to students and took this to her Reception teaching. This was
a pedagogy that assumed that students were knowledgeable and had her asking them what

3
they already knew in any topic. During this third year, although use of SOLEs was not
widespread, it started to be used more often by other teachers at Holy Name Primary.

It should be stated that in ST s implementation of SOLEs in Holy Name, she had regular
support from Mitra and other Newcastle university staff, namely Paul Dolan (PD) and David
Leat (DL). Also, the school has had many visitors looking into the use of SOLEs and there
has been a high level of interest from external parties.

Methodology
This paper will draw primarily on the in-depth case study of one teacher and her classes over
a two-year period spanning 2009/10 and 2010/11 at Holy Name Church of England Primary
School, North-East England. It reports on and discusses themes in ST s interaction with and
use of SOLEs over this time. The context of this research investigating SOLEs is a particular
classroom in England and generalisability to other contexts is not assumed. The questions
being explored are how were SOLEs introduced and developed over time and does this
constitute pedagogical innovation. The detailed nature of the data makes the examination of
these questions possible. An initial dataset was collected by ST in conjunction with Mitra
during the academic year 2009/2010. This included testing the children pre- and post-SOLE
sessions to explore learning. During the academic year 2010-2011 with a university partner,
PD, ST collected a variety of data. This included, from September 2010 to April 2011, videos
of SOLE sessions with transcriptions, and diary entries on all SOLE sessions (recording both
notable events and small incidents). PD both collected data of his own (for instance, through
lesson observations) and, with DL, analysed some of ST s data (for instance her notebooks).
We interviewed ST in October 2013 to enquire about her current views about her
development of SOLEs.

Data collected on students were also analysed for this paper. The purpose of the analysis of
student data was not to evaluate SOLEs so much as to provide a parallel story of student
views of SOLEs to set alongside ST s narrative. Without such a story, knowing (for example)
that ST was often surprised by the impact on student learning of SOLEs would beg the
question on the perspectives of students regarding whether they enjoyed SOLEs and how
they perceived SOLEs in relation to their other learning experiences.

4
Student data took the form of student questionnaires and pupil view templates (PVTs, see
Wall and Higgins, 2006). PVTs were administered to students in ST s class on eight different
occasions, a total of 122 PVTs. There were also some stimulated recall interviews using the
PVTs. The student questionnaires used a mind-mapping exercise that asked for a comparison
of SOLE lessons with other normal lessons (see Figure 1). The PVT provides an image of
the learning situation on which the research is focused, together with empty speech and
thought bubbles. Pupils are invited to write in the bubbles. This could very simply be what
they think about a specific activity, for example independent reading, or it could be more
sophisticated and concern the more abstract thinking processes that they associate with or use
during a specific activity. The templates are a pragmatic tool (Dewey, 1931; Leont'ev,
1981) that, it is hoped, has meaning and value across both learning and research contexts. In
other words, PVT use aims to be a research tool that can be empirically influential and
powerful, while also having an impact upon the pedagogical processes within classrooms.

For this paper the data was analysed using a repeated process of systematic analysis to
identify key themes. However, the data was also used in cycles of action research. During the
course of 2010/11 the data and analyses were fed back to ST, often by PD but also by DL,
and this close relationship supported her development. It is therefore a critical part of the
context in which ST used SOLEs at her school, and in which interpretations of the data
reported in this paper were developed.

The Development by ST of SOLEs in Holy Name Primary

The first SOLEs carried out with ST s Year 4 students, supported regularly by Mitra, used
GCSE questions. Three months after the SOLEs, ST asked the children the same GCSE
questions under examination conditions (no speaking to others, no use of internet). Surprised
that the children had retained the answers assumed to be gained by SOLEs, the tests were
repeated on two further occasions all with high achievement. ST was the curriculum leader in
science and found SOLEs generated student interest and knowledge from science questions.
She then started to use SOLEs in other areas: history, geography and English, and then
mathematics. During this first year, when ST first used SOLEs without Mitra s presence, she
reported feeling deeply worried at the level of noise and with low expectations of the
outcomes. However, she also reported feeling greatly surprised at what the children came up
with. The science curriculum topic on one occasion was friction , so ST chose the question,

5
 Why do you slip on wet surfaces? The children were talking in their groups about friction,
snow tyres, grips on football boots, different surfaces, racing cars, all in twenty minutes.

ST said that SOLEs can work in conjunction with the curriculum at different times in
different ways. As information is gathered so quickly it is ST s view that SOLEs can come to
the aid of teachers with little time to complete a topic. For example, at the start of a topic a
SOLE is a useful way of introducing a new area, but it is equally useful at the end of a topic
with only a week of teaching time remaining but much material to cover:

I was absolutely stunned with what they [the students] came back with. They had
practically covered the whole scheme of work in one lesson. I was totally amazed
because these 8/9-year -olds were coming back with such complex information. (ST
final interview)

Here, ST gives as an example a SOLE session from her second year of using SOLEs, on
Vikings and religion. What impresses ST is the complex discussions that this initial question
led to:

We taught the Vikings once and we hadn t really touched on religion and I was thinking
I haven t got much time and we gave them the question What did the Vikings believe
about God? and they went off and came back with the most amazing information ever.
Stuff that I didn t know at all and they ended up having this really big debate. They
found out that the Vikings weren t necessarily fierce fighters by their nature but they
had to be because they believed that if they didn t fight and didn t show that they were
aggressive and manly that they wouldn t go to heaven, they wouldn t have an afterlife.
So the children were starting to say things like well maybe people didn t really want to
but they had to because they had this really strong belief that if they didn t fight for
their cause to take over land that they wouldn t have an afterlife, so maybe a lot of
them weren t really like that but they just had to pretend to be . And I was thinking how
on earth would I ever have been able to do a lesson to 8-year-olds about that massive
issue in an hour? There is just no way! But they re the kind of jewels that they come
back with and then a whole discussion started about religion should you do
everything that a religion tells you to do even if you don t believe in it yourself but your
parents do. And they were talking about the school because it s a church school and so

6
 are there any things that they learn in school that they didn t agree with. As a teacher I
would never in a million years have planned a lesson about all of that. It would never
have crossed my mind! It made them look back over the whole topic as well. (ST final
interview)
This extract is evidence of the influence that ST s first hand experience was having on her
stance on SOLEs, as she was seeing significant potential for learning in her pupils.

Journal analysis: A year of SOLEs

We conducted an analysis of ST s 2010/11 journal to identify themes. The journal contains
reflections based both on ST s presence in the room and to a lesser extent reviewing the video
recordings of sessions and discussion with university colleagues or visitors. The 20 entries
were divided into four time periods, each covering five entries: September-mid-October
2010, mid-October-November 2010, early December 2010-early January 2011, mid-January
2010-April 2011. Early on there was considerable emphasis on general behaviour and the
functioning of the supervisor , with some consideration of the SOLE process and the quality
of information being found and analysed. In the second period the scrutiny of behaviour
lessened and there was more consideration of how students were responding. This continued
into the 3rd period when the focus became student response and learning, along with
reflections on planning. Reflections on learning in many cases were prompted by
observations on individual students.

One of the most significant challenges was learning how to conduct plenaries during which
groups present their work. ST saw this as an opportunity to deepen and broaden learning and
to challenge students. Planning was both short term, on how to proceed to the next lesson,
and longer term in respect of managing different aspects of SOLEs. In the fourth period,
student response/learning and group interaction seemed to be dominant categories, and there
was more general reflection on the year so far. Another emerging category was observations
on how groups were working together, perhaps in terms of accommodating individuals.
Behaviour does not disappear; there were still three references in the last five entries, but it
seemed to have had less relative significance. There were two particularly interesting trends.
Firstly, those aspects concerned with strictly organisation/ teaching aspects seemed to
diminish over time and, secondly, those concerned with learning increased.

7
ST broadly recognised the pattern reflected from her journal:

I think you get more precise at what you re looking for. At first, you re just looking at a
whole class picture of behaviour, everybody getting on with work, and then you start
looking for other things: groups, individuals, the effect of the question. I think once
you re satisfied that they understand the process, the structure of a SOLE, then you can
start to think about the significance of things. They need time to settle in to the process.
If they get stuck then you talk about how to overcome problems. In those lessons, there
isn t a problem that can t be discussed and overcome, some lessons, it s harder to talk
about things in structured lessons. I think meetings with Paul and David probably also
prompted me to reflect on whole school issues. (ST diary)

The SOLE method seems to have allowed Sarah opportunities to observe her class from a
distance during extended periods of time when the students are self-organising. The
notebooks show she had reflected on how the SOLE method could be modified in order to
suit the needs of her class better. This reflection led to planning and interventions. The
notebooks also showed Sarah thinking about the effect of SOLEs on her class at different
levels: the effect on specific students; the effect on a group of students working together; the
effect on the class as a whole; and the effect on the school and staff. Sarah found SOLEs
enabled her to notice changes in the social relationships in her classroom. At first, children
worked on SOLEs in friendship groups, but as time went on she noticed a range of changes,
including children making other kinds of choices about who to work with, such as perceived
skills in different subject areas. ST spoke about how difficult it was not to intervene in
SOLEs, such as when you saw a child working alone. Her observations of the different
approaches taken by children to a particular SOLE might be discussed with them afterwards
individually, to encourage them to reflect on their own learning.

Our data suggests that ST s approach to teaching, to her planning over the term and her
delivery of individual lessons changed as a result of using SOLEs. Not only did ST find
discussions on topics (such as the Viking approach to theology) that she would not have
thought within the capability of her students, she found herself using vocabulary of a greater
complexity as a result of students doing so in their SOLE discussions and panel presentations.
In order to consolidate children s understanding she collected words from SOLE
presentations into a word bank and explored these further in subsequent lessons. There

8
seemed to be a knock-on effect into her wider thinking and practice, reinforced by the
students:

Whatever I do now, I think, would a SOLE question be useful here or not? I don t do it
for the sake of it, I think would it be valuable?. The SOLE method bleeds into
everything else I do. The students start to take SOLE experiences into other lessons too
they ask why can t we work in groups of four in this lesson? sometimes I think, well,
actually OK you can, whereas sometimes I have to explain it s just not appropriate. (ST
final interview)

What seemed most striking from ST s data was the impact of SOLEs on her appreciation of
the children:

A lot of the time we don't listen to the children and we don't listen to how they would
like to learn and what they would like to know. (ST Youtube video)

Y4 Pupil responses to SOLEs in Holy Name Primary

Analysis of all student data showed the children to be generally positive about SOLEs and
also (in the case of one student, a response in keeping with that of many other students in the
class) to see SOLEs as different to normal lessons (Figure 1). A positive response may, of
course, result from novelty. However, the novelty effect diminished since the SOLE approach
became a regular feature of student work across the whole year. Pupils reported remembering
more, working with others, having more choice and being more excited in relation to SOLES.
There was also evidence of metacognitive thinking from the use of PVTs, in that students
evidenced the development of sensitivity to their work habits and the accuracy of their work.
In general, the students reported positively on school, so there were many positive comments
about both approaches (SOLEs and normal lessons). However, they were slightly more
explicit about learning processes in SOLES, which might be because it was the approach that
was perceived as different. The main difference, however, was in the large number of
negative comments made about normal lessons against a much smaller number for SOLEs.

Figure 1. The response of one student to a comparison of SOLE lessons to normal lessons

9
Placing student data alongside the data from ST, it seemed as if it was not only ST s thinking
and behaviour that developed, but also that of the students. As ST suggested:

The increase in notebook observations of student dialogue and learning-centred talk

might be to do with an increase in student confidence later in the year they tended to
tell me more about what they re doing they were more likely to talk about learning
rather than behaviour issues. (ST diary)

The process of reviewing student data with ST seemed to have been valuable for her in both
reinforcing perceptions and adding justification:

The formal data showed me what the children actually thought about it. It s their point
of view. It confirmed/ dispelled ideas that I was having throughout the process.
Sometimes it s really surprising to see what they write. I was amazed at how brutally
honest they are as soon as you say it s not a test, you can write what you want they
really do! It confirms what you think you re seeing, what you think you re changing, is
real, because the children see the benefits of working in this way as well. It s quite
important with this kind of thing, that you know the children are enjoying it and
benefiting from it. [The data] made me more aware of their views on all the aspects of

10
 the SOLE process. You don t really realise how many decisions are going on in their
heads at the different stages of an enquiry. (ST, video)

Discussion
One of the most obvious of all the many possible questions arising from our focus on SOLEs
in the English primary school is the extent to which this particular practice of SOLEs can be
regarded as transformative and innovative. We suggest that some of the other questions that
are asked of SOLEs, such as whether the teacher involvement really can be conceptualised as
minimal, can be considered within a critical analysis of SOLEs as innovation.

Transformative pedagogy?
SOLEs have garnered international acclaim in part because they are perceived to be so
innovative and also because of exciting early results (Mitra, 2006; Mitra and Dangwal, 2010).
There is compelling evidence that Mitra s ideas about SOLEs, and the implications of these
ideas for pedagogy, have inspired educators across five continents including India, UK,
Argentina, USA, Australia, China, Finland and Qatar. Mitra s ideas have also inspired the
film, Slumdog Millionaire. Mitra has been awarded the 2013 annual TED prize ($1 million)
for his wish to build the school in the cloud, an invitation to everyone to create their own
miniature child-driven learning environments and share their discoveries. Mitra s TED prize-
winning talk (Mitra, 2013a) on SOLEs has been viewed over 1,750,000 times on TED.com
and TED's YouTube channel and over sixty major press articles have been written about the
work (including New York Times, TIME, the BBC and Times of India). The SOLE Toolkit
(Mitra, 2013b) on the TED website, based on work in classrooms carried out with colleagues
Dolan and Leat), has been downloaded over 16,000 times and many blogs posted by teachers
inspired to make classroom changes. The TED website lists five ways in which the public can
become involved in the prize-winner s wish and the first of these is to: Try out a Self-
Organized Learning Environment (SOLE) in your home, school or community , with links to
the TED SOLE Toolkit (Mitra, 2013b). There is therefore enormous momentum behind
SOLEs, both within and also beyond educational spheres. This kind of attention creates a
powerful discourse around SOLEs and is therefore part of the context in which draws
teachers to them.

11
Innovation, however, is a thorny topic in educational policy, as the school system seems
remarkably resistant to change (Sarason, 1990). According to Tyack and Cuban (1995), there
is a grammar of schooling , reflecting patterns of teaching, which is hard to shift. So despite
a continued barrage of educational reform in many advanced economies, which are often
structural in nature or related to assessment regimes, change can be an illusion. Using
Bernstein s (1990) terms, many systems are characterised by strong classification (subjects
taught in isolation from each one another) and strong framing in which students have little
control over the selection, sequencing or pacing of subject matter. Framing reflects power
structures in education and strong framing has many associations with convergent pedagogy
and assessment. In such settings there are unwritten, but usually well understood, rules which
influence the shaping of social conduct and roles in the classroom. SOLEs have the potential,
particularly when pupils have some responsibility for generating and refining questions, to
reframe the relationship between learner and teacher, and learner and curriculum.

Neither are SOLEs without their critics. Clark s (2013) blogged critique rests on claims of the
lack of permanence of the previous Hole in the Wall computers in India and other countries,
and his view that many of the particular requirements of classroom SOLEs lack novelty. For
example, he suggests there is nothing new in the organisation of a lesson to involve groups of
students exploring answers to challenging questions set by teachers. We suggest that in order
to consider whether or not SOLEs represent a form of innovation requires a consideration of
SOLEs in their entirety rather than of particular elements. And finally, we propose the
discussion of SOLEs in relation to various understandings of innovative.

SOLEs can be seen from at least two perspectives as an educational innovation. Firstly, it is a
technological innovation that potentially disturbs classroom ecology as the teacher shifts
from being centre stage and, secondly, it is an enquiry-based approach where greater student
autonomy is anticipated. From the first perspective, a major challenge is orchestration
(Dillenbourg and Jermann, 2010), which represents how classroom teachers accommodate
technology into their practice. From the second perspective, classification and framing are
both thrown open to being re-cast. SOLEs can be conceptualised as non-dominant activity
(and therefore innovative), being weakly framed and having unpredictable learning outcomes
in comparison with the dominant model of highly directive learning outcomes (Sannino,
2008). Enquiry approaches are divergent, in which a number of important learning
parameters may change; for example assessment is less concerned with testing the mastery of

12
a set body of knowledge and more geared to evaluating what exactly has been learned, and
teachers assume a greater role in mediating learning rather than instructing. Such changes can
be extremely challenging for some teachers (Leat, 1999; Williamson and Morgan, 2009).

The notion of challenging our expectations of student s outcomes, evident in ST s experience

of SOLEs, is consistent both with dominant and non-dominant educational activities.
However, it is possible that SOLEs are a challenge to the essentialist and individualist notions
of ability and learning implicit in the pedagogical models that follow from strong
classification and framing. This seems to happen in two aspects of SOLEs. Firstly, learning is
both distributed and democratised rather than individualised. This frustrates the evaluation of
children in terms of more or less ability (Mazzoli Smith and Campbell, 2012), since the
children s movement between groups, taking knowledge with them, stealing knowledge
through sharing or building from one group to another, leads to a more uniform learning
across the class. This concurs with notions of distributed and collective cognition (Littleton
and Mercer, 2013). Secondly, student agency seems to be greater in SOLEs than in the more
usual teacher-directed lessons (Todd, 2007). Children have been observed choosing a more
difficult question for a SOLE when it was explained to them there would be no competition,
whereas initially an easy question was chosen due to fear of failure (Mitra, 2012). SOLEs are
associated with a curriculum which relates more strongly to students interests, questions and
experiences (Payton and Williamson, 2009). One of the main themes of ST s experience was
the insight into the benefits of student agency, and also learning to give greater opportunities
for student agency in her teaching. Indeed, there is evidence that ST was at the centre of her
own learning and became an active agent in the production of pedagogic discourse (Edwards
and Brunton, 1995).

At least superficially, it appears that there is a considerable conflict between the dominant
English model of teacher-led education, with highly specified learning outcomes, and the
SOLE method. This is supported by a body of scholarship that recognises the limiting impact
of policy discourses on teacher thinking and reflection (for instance Edwards and Thomas,
2010; Priestly and Biesta et al., 2013) The issue is whether teachers presuppose that SOLEs
come pre-packaged with an inherent educational philosophy. Seen this way, this case study
suggests that SOLEs may be less likely to be sustained in mainstream schools. We can
speculate that this orientation comes from a wider climate where dominant theories of
cultural reproduction in education, such as those of Bernstein (1990) and Bourdieu and

13
Passeron (1990), promote narratives of the impossibility of spaces for resistance and
contestation in educational practice and a uni-directional flow of power. Giroux (2003)
argues that this has in part fostered a pervasive cynicism amongst educators about forms of
radical pedagogy and transformation.

However, it is also possible to conceptualise SOLEs as both innovative / transformative - and

at the same time supporting current strong classification and framing. The way in which
SOLEs are presented in the TED training manual (Mitra, 2013b) accommodates both a
human capital model of education within the neo-liberal paradigm and a progressive child-
centred model focusing on the importance of creativity and transformation within a more
liberal tradition:

To prepare for the realities of the future workplace and the rapidly changing
technological landscape, it is critical for educators to invite kids to get good at asking
big questions that lead them on intellectual journeys to pursue answers, rather than
only memorizing facts. (Mitra, 2013b, SOLE Toolkit, p. 2)

The SOLE mindset is transformative. Children have the ability to think critically and
can learn astonishingly quickly. ((Mitra, 2013b, SOLE Toolkit, p. 6)

ST s own perspective is that SOLEs are indeed both transformative of current pedagogical
understandings and supportive of current curricular demands, enabling the established
curriculum to be covered . Much of the history of the implementation of SOLEs, and indeed
the origin of ST s work, has been higher than expected student performance in terms of the
prescribed learning outcomes of the English curriculum (i.e., using GCSE questions), rather
than a focus on other kinds of creative learning outcomes. Similarly, whilst SOLEs challenge
teacher control and enable student agency, in the plenary ST spoke of taking back control and
being able to challenge students to reflect on their discoveries, hoping to deepen their
learning, drawing on her observations of students during a particular SOLE. Is it possible that
SOLEs help ST to establish and maintain what we call a Normal Desirable State (NDS) of
pupil activity in the classroom (Brown and McIntyre, 1993)? Different teachers have
different NDSs at different times and, from this case study, we can see how ST incorporated
SOLEs into one of her NDSs in the classroom.

14
Mitra has identified current assessment practices as being a possible or perceived barrier to
the implementation of SOLEs, internationally as well as nationally, referring to the rigidity of
a system that does not prioritise creativity in children. However, this case study has shown
that ST does not perceive these as being in conflict in her teaching practice. Of course, this
might not be the case in secondary school classrooms. In the context of ST s classroom,
SOLEs do not inherently resist or contest dominant pedagogies. Mitra s reference to SOLEs
as learning tools rather than teacher pedagogies is a deliberate way of highlighting their
neutrality and protean quality. Like computers, SOLEs are tools to be used in a multitude of
ways and to service a host of different agendas (Marshall, 2004). The blurring, confusion or
reversal of tool and object (Engestrom, 1987: 101-103; Virkkunen et al., 2010: 18),
highlighted by Engestrom s cultural historical activity theory, is useful here. Thus SOLEs
become a means for better maintaining the status quo (i.e. enhanced exam results), rather than
an object of pedagogical transformation.

What counts for innovation is likely to be susceptible to current discourses of teaching, to

normalised understandings of what counts as a good teacher, student, or lesson. It is maybe
not surprising that the implication of the success of SOLEs, from much of the media
attention, is that students no longer need teachers. The role of the teacher has become one that
is contested rather than the respected role of a previous age. However, we suggest what is
innovative about SOLEs is that they have us revise the role of the teacher, and indeed other
aspects of teaching. In other words, what can be understood to be innovative about SOLEs
may be the questions they have us asking about education as a whole, rather than the
innovative nature of SOLEs themselves:

We don't need to improve schools. We need to reinvent them for our times, our
requirements and our future. We don't need efficient clerks to fuel an administrative
machine that is no longer needed. Machines will do that for us. We need people who
can think divergently, across outdated "disciplines", connecting ideas across the entire
mass of humanity. We need people who can think like children. (Mitra, 2013c)

SOLEs therefore are not necessarily a form of radical pedagogy (Giroux, 2003), although in
transforming education there is evidence that SOLEs can be used in this way. Giroux
identifies radical pedagogy as overtly political, bringing to the fore the experiences and
interests of pupils and social transformation. It is not usually seen as reproducing the

15
desirable skills and knowledge base of education. Giroux identifies curricular justice (2003:
10) as more inclusive and equitable forms of teaching that serve to lessen the individualistic
principles on which much learning is founded, and that a radical form of pedagogy
problematises the mechanisms of transmission and teacher authority, as arguably SOLEs do.
In this sense, the SOLE method can be used as a form of radical transformative pedagogy,
working in antagonism to the dominant framework of largely individualised learning,
fostering curricular justice without a need for teachers to position themselves as contesting
the curriculum arguably one of the main barriers to transformative education. A radical
pedagogy has to have relevance for educators as a mode of viable praxis (Giroux, 1981) and,
in ST s case, it has this precisely because it does not necessarily place the teacher in an arena
of conflict.

If the SOLE method can indeed be adapted and adopted by teachers for a multitude of
different ends, transformative and yet not necessarily in conflict with other demands, it
requires a subtle understanding of the way in which power circulates and transformation is
effected in educational practice. For instance, a Foucauldian understanding of discourse sees
power not as uni-directional or hegemonic, but, as Giroux has argued, riddled with
contradictions and tensions that open up the possibility for counter-hegemonic struggle
(1981:17). What is particularly interesting about this case study is that the transformative
impact of SOLEs appears to open up spaces for counter-hegemonic practice without this
necessarily being experienced by teachers or students as in conflict with the dominant
educational framework.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the time given by Sarah Taylor to the development of SOLEs
and the collection and analysis of data over the last three years.

16
References
Bernstein, B. (1990) The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Vol. 4.
Sage.
Brown, S. and McIntyre, D. (1993) Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Clark, D. (2013) More holes in Mitra s Hole in the Wall Project. Blog: Donald Clark Plan
B. Accessed on 20th Oct from:
http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/more-holes-in-sugata-mitras-hole-in.html
Dewey, J. (1931) The way out of educational confusion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Dillenbourg, P. and Jermann, P. (2010) Technology for classroom orchestration, in: M. S.
Khine (eds), New science of learning: cognition, computers and collaboration in
education, pp. 525-552. Dordrecht: Springer.
Edwards, A. and Brunton, D. (1995) Supporting reflection in teachers learning , in: J.
Calderhead and P. Gates (eds) Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development.
London: Falmer.
Edwards, G. and Thomas, G. (2010) Can Reflective Practice be Taught?. Educational
Studies, 36(4), 403-414.
Engestrom, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
Giroux, H.A. (1981) Hegemony, Resistance, and the Paradox of Educational Reform.
Interchange, Vol. 12 (2-3), pp. 3-26.
Giroux, H.A. (2003) Public Pedagogy and the Politics of Resistance: Notes on a critical
theory of educational struggle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 35 (1), pp.
5-16.
Leat, D. (1999) Rolling the stone uphill: Teacher development and the implementation of
Thinking Skills programmes, Oxford Review of Education, 25 (3), 387-403.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (ed.), The
concept of activity in Soviet psychology, pp. 37-71. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Littleton, K. and Mercer, N. (2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon: Routledge.
Marshall, T. (2004) ICT: don t believe the hype. In D. Hayes (ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer
Guide to Key Debates in Education, pp. 113-116. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

17
Mazzoli Smith, L. and Campbell, J. (2012) Families, Education and Giftedness. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Mitra S. (2006) The hole in the wall: Self-organising systems in education. New Delhi and
New York: Tata-McGraw-Hill.
Mitra, S. (2012) Beyond the hole in the wall: Discover the power of self-organized learning.
TED Books.
Mitra, S. (2013a) TED talk: Sugata Mitra, Build a school in the cloud. Accessed 12 October
2013: http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_ build_a_school_in_the_cloud.html
Mitra, S. (2013b) SOLE: How to bring Self-Organised Learning Environments to your
community. TED, Accessed 12 October 2013: http://www.ted.com/pages/sole_toolkit
Mitra, S. (2013c) Google means we must rethink our approach to education, The Observer,
15th June 2013.
Mitra, S. and Dangwal, R. (2010) Limits to self-organised learning: The Kalikuppam
experiment, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 672-688.
Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, S., Bisht R.S. and Kapur, P. (2005) Acquisition of
computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the hole in the wall ,
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 407-426.
Mitra, S. and Rana, V. (2001) Children and the Internet: Experiments with minimally
invasive education in India, British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 221-
232.
Mitra, S, Tooley, J. N., Inamdar, P. and Dixon, P. (2003) Improving English pronunciation:
An automated instructional approach, Information Technologies and International
Development, 1(1), 75-84.
Mitra, S. and Quiroga, M. (2012) Children and the Internet A preliminary study in
Uruguay, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(15), 123-129.
Payton, S. and Williamson, B. (2009) Enquiring minds Innovative approaches to
curriculum reform. Bristol: Futurelab.
Priestly, M., Biesta, G. and Robinson, S. (2013) Teachers as agents of change: Teacher
Agency and emerging models of curriculum, in: M. Priestly and G Biesta (eds),
Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice. London:
Bloomsbury.
Sannino, A. (2008) Sustaining a non-dominant activity in school: Only a Utopia?, Journal of
Educational Change, 9: 329-338.

18
Sarason, S. B. (1990) The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course
before it s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Todd L. (2007) Partnerships for Inclusive Education: A critical approach to collaborative
working. London: Routledge.
Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Virkkunen, J., Makinen, E. and Lintula, L. (2010) From diagnosis to clients. Constructing the
object of collaborative development between physiotherapy educators and
workplaces, in: H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engestrom, T. Gallagher and S. R.
Ludvigsen, S.R. (eds), Activity Theory in Practice. Promoting learning across
boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.
Wall, K. and Higgins, S. (2006) Facilitating metacognitive talk: A research and learning tool,
International Journal of Research and Methods in Education, 29(1): 39-53.
Williamson, B. and Morgan, J. (2009). Educational reform, enquiry-based learning and the
re-professionalisation of teachers, Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 287-304.

19