By Saraswati Dawadi
ReMaLIC explores marginalised children’s, and their parents’ and teachers’ lived experiences of using technology and accessing education, and their perceived value of the English language, in four under-resourced countries: Bangladesh, Nepal, Senegal and Sudan. The main rationale for this study is that it brings the least heard voices to the forefront – so that they can reach educators, policy makers and the public, promoting further discussions on how to provide marginalised children with better access to technology to enhance their learning, improve education systems and reduce marginalisation in the target countries. Hence, the premise of our study is that marginalised children (along with their parents and teachers) have important things to tell us about matters that concern them, and their voices need to be heard. We wanted to give power and voice to our research participants, which may provide insights into their subjective world (i.e., their lived experiences, the way they construct their own identity and perceive themselves, and the ways in which they perceive other members of their society). We believe that giving power and voice to research participants involves issues of research methodology that can create an opportunity for participants “to express their views freely and contribute to research agendas” (Grover, 2004, p.28). We have used a qualitative research design and sought to privilege the voices, experiences, and lives of marginalized children along with their parents and teachers by involving them as active participants in our study.
As Chandler et al. (2015) rightly point out, “one of the tenets of qualitative research is the emphasis and honoring of the participants’ own words as generative of meaning and knowledge” (p.1). We have used semi-structured interviews and focus groups as our main methods of data collection to facilitate conversation and participant engagement. The methods are informed by Creswell (1998), who argues that a qualitative researcher “builds a complex holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting” (p. 15).
Furthermore, having considered Lansdown’s (2004) argument that researchers often misjudge children’s voices because “they assess children from an adult perspective and through an adult filtering process which diminishes children’s contribution” (p.5), we wanted to fully understand the situation of the marginalized children and enable their voices to be heard. Moreover, as de Leeuw et al. (2018) rightly point out, we believe that children are experts in their own situation and can contribute to educational research and initiatives. Therefore, we invited marginalised children to take part in this study and we tried as much as we could to give voice to the children.
During the data collection, our focus was on creating an environment that enables children to express their views freely to an adult researcher. For this, following Johnson et al. (2014), we used some key strategies such as: a) building supportive and trustful relationships with the children; b) creating a safe environment in which children feel able to speak in confidence and give their undivided attention; c) using every child’s name whenever possible as it conveys that the researcher is interested in them; d) praising the children often for their contributions and not dismissing their opinions or cutting across their conversations, and e) ensuring that all children are listened to and feel included.
Indeed, we have made every effort not to impose our views on children, but to encourage them to share their lived experiences of using technology and the English language in their learning. We listened to their views and respected each child. We also provided adequate responses to the questions that arose from children. Additionally, we took power dynamics into account that can lead children to respond in particular ways to interview questions. We even allowed some time for the children to lead discussions as it might make them feel that they have some power (Johnson, et al., 2014).
Furthermore, we are aware that research has long been connected with issues of power. As argued by Esterberg (2002), there is often a power inequality between research participants and researchers who often tend to have more power than the research participants. Therefore, we made efforts to address the power relationships that are embedded in our research. For instance, we tried our best to underplay our identity as a researcher in such a way that the social and knowledge gaps between ourselves and our participants are minimised. Additionally, to make participants feel more comfortable, we met them informally a couple of times and maintained a good rapport with them before interviewing them. We also used their own native languages for the data collection, we made interview questions simple and direct, avoiding jargon, and we used prompts to encourage further elaboration. The participants have been interviewed by local researchers who know their language and culture very well. All the researchers received training before they started their data collection.
References:
Chandler, R., Anstey, E. & Ross, H. (2015). Listening to voices and visualizing data in qualitative research: Hypermodal dissemination possibilities. SAGE Open, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015592166
de Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2018). Student voices on social exclusion in general primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(2), 166-186, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2018.1424783
Esterberg, K.G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. McGraw–Hill.
Grover, S. (2004). Why Won’t they listen to us? On giving power and voice to children participating in social research. SAGE Publications, 11(1), p. 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568204040186
Johnson, V., Hart R., & Colwell, J. (2014). Steps to engaging young children in research. Volumnet 1: The Guide. University of Brighton.
Lansdown, G. (2004). Participation and young children. Early Childhood Matters, 103, 4–14.
Tearfund and Christian Aid (2021). Doing research ethically: Principles and practices for international development practitioners and evaluation. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/sd25784/Work%20Folders/Documents/all%20documents/from%20old%20laptop/Documents/KIX/ethics/resources/2021-Tearfund-Consortium-Doing-research-ethically-En.pdf

By Rubina Khan
In Bangladesh, like elsewhere, marginalisation refers to exclusion, deprivation, inequality, imbalance, and vulnerability and curtailed access to power and resources. There are at least 30 million marginalised people in Bangladesh from diverse categories, cultural identities, races, and ethnicities and “disadvantaged people struggle to gain access to resources and services, and to full participation in social life” (Manusher Jonno Foundation, 2016, p. 6). Educational marginalisation has been a serious problem in the country as large numbers of students are outside mainstream education. In school education, marginalisation particularly affects children from ethnic and religious minorities, children with disabilities and those from hard-to-reach areas. There are several contributing factors that contribute to educational marginalisation in Bangladesh. Three of the major factors are briefly discussed below and we aim to explore the factors further in our fieldwork which is now in progress.

Technology
UNESCO states that a complete reliance on technology can “increase the learning divide which disproportionately affects hard-to-reach and marginalised communities” (2021, p.24). Indeed, whereas the widespread use of technology and online resources have opened the door towards innovative practices, some reports (e.g., Khan et al., 2020, 2021; The BMJ Opinion, 2021) suggest that ICT has magnified the digital divide. The ECLAC-UNESCO (2021) report rightly points out, “Unequal access to online learning opportunities widens pre-existing gaps in access to information and knowledge, hindering socialisation and inclusion in general, not to mention the learning process that distance education seeks to provide.” Remote areas with poor internet connection and access face more barriers to using technology in education. We believe that future planning needs to ensure engagement, participation and learning of the most marginalised groups. Provision of alternative methods through a range of online, offline and printed packages along with targeted follow-up support will increase the reach and participation for children of different ages and with a variety of learning needs.

English
In Bangladesh, English is seen as a language of development, with those who know English having better career opportunities and able to position themselves in the global economy. Having a good command over English is often linked to higher social status in Bangladesh, so a good command of the language can also open possibilities for members of marginalised communities to be heard and have a voice in making decisions. However, the benefits of English are predominately available to urban elites, who have access to a better standard of teaching – mostly delivered through private education – and higher-paid jobs. Marginalised groups in Bangladesh do not have access to quality English education and are therefore becoming further marginalised.

Gender
Gender is a key social dimension connected to educational marginalisation in Bangladesh. Girls are particularly marginalised as they suffer from being overburdened with household chores and are exposed to different forms of social inequality issues, gender-based violence, biases, gender stereotypes, and discriminatory gender norms which form barriers to girls’ education. In addition, they are subject to harmful cultural practices like child marriage, male favouritism and child labour. Particularly, girls from poor families, internally displaced families, girls with special needs, and girls who live in remote villages become victims of different kinds of violence. These girls do not only miss an opportunity to get educated but also an opportunity to develop themselves as human beings. Hence, girls are doubly or triply marginalised. Dejaeghere and Kyoung (2011) used a capabilities approach (by drawing on a critical feminist perspective) to understand the causes of marginalisation in education in Bangladesh. They pointed out that “gender discrimination remains deeply entrenched in families and in society, preventing many girls from fulfilling their academic potential and achieving well-being through education” (p.29).

References:
DeJaeghere, J., & Lee, S. K. (2011). What matters for marginalised girls and boys in Bangladesh: A capabilities approach for understanding educational well-being and empowerment? Research in Comparative and International Education, 6(1), 27-42. https://doi-org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/10.2304/rcie.2011.6.1.27
ECLAC-UNESCO. (2020, August). Education in the time of COVID-19. Retrieved from https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/45905/1/S2000509_en.pdf

Khan, R., Basu, B. L., Bashir, A. & Uddin, M. E. (2021). Online Instruction during COVID-19 at Public Universities in Bangladesh: Teacher and Student Voices, Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 25(1). https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej97/a19.pdf
Khan, R., Bashir, B. Bijoy L., Basir A. & Uddin Md. E. (2020). Emergency online instruction at higher education in Bangladesh during COVID-19: Challenges and suggestions. The Journal of Asia TEFL 17 (4), 1497-1506. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.4.26.1497
Manusher Jonno Foundation (2016). Annual report: The state of the marginalized in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://www.manusherjonno.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Annual-Report_2016.pdf
The BMJ Opinion (2020, 1 September). Covid-19 is magnifying the digital divide. Retrieved from:https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/09/01/covid-19-is-magnifying-the-digital-divide/
The Guardian (2011, 5 Jul). Research backs English as key to development. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jul/05/research-backs-english-language-delotbiniere

By Abdou Niane

Educational marginalisation has become a burning issue in Senegal, one of the poorest countries on the planet. About 34% people in Senegal live on less than US $ 1.25 per day, with an average per capita income of $121 per month (Ibrahima, 2014). The results of the Harmonized Survey on Household Living Conditions (2018/2019) show that the incidence of individual poverty in Senegal is 37.8%. The country is still lagging behind in education. A large part of the population does not have easy access to education and remains marginalized from formal education, with an enrolment rate of 86.4% (ANSD, 2020). Many factors contribute to the exclusion of many young people from the education system including gender and ICT. Furthermore, languages, particularly the English language, play a role in educational marginalisation in Senegal. What comes next is a brief introduction to the roles of gender, ICT and English in promoting or reducing educational marginalisation in Senegal.

Gender
Gender is a major dimension of educational marginalisation in Senegal as 54% of Senegalese, including 62% of women, are illiterate (Quotidien, 2017). Angers-Sall (2009) points out that in Senegal, from an early age, children internalize the sexual division of labour, namely that girls recognize themselves as family helpers and boys as financial supports of the family or agricultural workers to help their fathers. She further mentions the prevailing image of woman as wife, mother and housewife, especially in remote villages. Early marriage of girls is still prevalent in Senegal, and girls living in the poorest, rural areas of Senegal are the most vulnerable. Most mothers, from their daughters’ earliest years, introduce them to good manners that will make them future good wives and mothers. However, this trend is receding. Since 2000, Senegal has formulated many programs (Girls’ Schooling Program, Girls’ Education Support Project, etc.) which aim to promote girls’ education to be in line with the Millennium Development Goals 2 (Achieve universal primary education).

A study carried out by the National Agency for Statistics and Demography of Senegal shows that the gross primary school enrolment rate increased from 86.1% in 2016 to 86.4 % in 2018. Interestingly, analysis of the parity index shows that the intensity of primary schooling is more intense among girls (92.1%), compared to boys (80.4%), in all regions, except the regions of Kedougou, Sédhiou and Ziguinchor.

English
Senegal is a multilingual country with 38 recognised languages, Wolof being the most widely spoken language. Among them, only French is an official language. Official languages in Africa are languages resulting from colonisation, and although spoken by the educated minorities in these countries, they assume the status of official language, constituting the working languages of the whole state apparatus and all its organs and institutions (Sarr, 2017). As a result, local languages are neither taught in the school system, nor used in administrative exchanges. In the case of Senegal, French is used by the State, the administration, education, the media and the business world, to the detriment of local languages. Half of Senegal’s population cannot read or write in the official language.

The English language is considered a foreign language in Senegal. English Language Teaching (ELT) was introduced in the Senegalese curriculum during colonialism with the French educational system, which was obligatory for all French colonies (Djigo, 2016). At present, knowledge of English is expected to provide better career prospects and choices. Therefore, there has been a high demand for English in Senegalese society. Factors that have contributed to the importance of English in the lives of Senegalese people include: the country’s diplomatic relations with other countries, its heavy dependence on foreign aid and job opportunities. The government has also shown an enduring interest in promoting English language teaching. Therefore, English has been taught as a subject from 6th grade to 12th grade. However, it has been argued that students do not have equal opportunities to learn English.

ICT
Senegal, through its highest authorities, has shown a real political will to promote ICT in all sectors of economic and social life. For instance, in 2016, it laid out a national ICT policy document, the ‘Digital Senegal Strategy’ (Ministère des Postes et Télécommunication, 2016) which laid out an aim to make broadband a priority by supporting public–private partnerships for infrastructure sharing and deploying networks in unserved areas. The policy’s ambitious “digital for all” vision seeks to provide broadband access across different areas such as schools, government services, and commerce by 2025 (Upadhyay, 2020). However, people still have limited access to tools such as smartphones, tablets and computers, coupled with weak network coverage, especially in rural areas.

The country has witnessed a big digital divide between the haves and have-nots during the Covid-19 pandemic. A huge number of students nationwide could not attend online classes during the pandemic as they did not have access to any network or could not afford any technology tools such as smartphones or tablets, as they live in dire poverty or in rural areas. Less than 1% were accessing online courses, pointing to the importance of a wider range of educational technologies, particularly to reach poorer children (Le Nestour, Mbaye, Sandefur & Moscoviz, 2020). Hence, the closure of schools and the adoption of e-learning in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the social disparities between children of wealthy parents and children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

References
Angers-Sall, S. (2009). La scolarisation à l’échelle du Sénégal : vers une marginalisation des filles des zones rurales (p. 481-495), Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre.

ANSD (2020). Situation économique et sociale du Sénégal : édition 2017-2018 : https://www.ansd.sn/ressources/ses/SES_2017-2018.pdf

Djigo, O. M. (2016). The status of English and other languages in Senegal. https://thewarwickeltezine.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/77/

Ibrahima Sy, (2014). La pauvreté au Sénégal : une évaluation multidimensionnelle de la pauvreté et des disparités interrégionales entre 2001 et 2006 :
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01015944/document

Le Nestour, A., Mbaye, S., Sandefur, J. & Moscoviz. L. (2020). Covid-19 Phone survey Senegal, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/9XE95F/95RW9C, Harvard Dataverse, V3. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/9XE95F/95RW9C&version=3.0

Ministère des Postes et Télécommunication. (2016). Stratégie Sénégal Numérique 2016 – 2025 https://www.sec.gouv.sn/sites/default/files/Strat%C3%A9gie%20S%C3%A9n%C3%A9gal%20Num%C3%A9rique%202016-2025.pdf

Quotidien, L. (2017, 05 December). CONSTAT – Alphabétisation: 54% de Sénégalais analphabètes dont 62% de femmes. https://lequotidien.sn/constat-alphabetisation-54-de-senegalais-analphabetes-dont-62-de-femmes/

Sarr, B. (2017). Plurilinguisme et traduction au Sénégal : le rôle de la traduction pour la reconnaissance des langues nationales et la promotion d’une politique des échanges linguistiques. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02391470/document

Upadhyay, A. (2020). EdTech in Senegal: A rapid scan. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3936687. Available at: https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/XI5PXVB3