Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Plan Ceibal; the first nationwide ubiquitous computer program: A comprehensive study of the use of computers in school and home.
Citation preview
!
!!
MA in Media, Culture and Communication 2010/2011
Mauro Carballo
Plan Ceibal; the first nationwide ubiquitous computer program: A comprehensive study of the use of
computers in school and home.
Name of Tutor: David Buckingham
MA in Media, Culture and Communication Institute of Education, University of London
Word count: 21,640
This dissertation can be read without permission from the author. For more information email [email protected]
!
!!
to my mother who marked the journey of life
to Marce, more united than ever – en las buenas y en las malas to my father for his upside-down perspectives
to Mariana for her care and to puki for being puki
!
!!
Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Centenary Fund at the Institute of Education for
supporting my education and allowing me to undertake this program, without
their support I wouldn’t have been able to complete my course of study and this
dissertation.
To David Buckingham and John Potter for their wise advice, guidance, and the
personal support they provided when I needed it.
I would like to give thanks to the head director, teachers and most importantly to
the children who gave up their time and many of their fun breaks after long hours
of class to talk to me.
To Kat for giving it a final read, and to Virginie for being such good a friend.
Last but not least, to my family, friends at home and to my friends Pablo, Yu-
Chun, Estella and Fiona at the IoE and of course to Hannah for their support,
trust and love.
!
!!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
!"#$%&'$()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(*!+%,-&',()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(.!/0!+123(4)(5613789/1576())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(4:!/0!+123(;)(<5123!1932(32=52>()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(4.!
2.1 A long history ......................................................................................................... 18!2.2 Education system ................................................................................................... 22!2.3 ICT in the domestic context ................................................................................... 25!2.4 Social Inclusion ...................................................................................................... 28!
/0!+123(?)(@210787<7AB())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(?;!3.1 Focus of the research ............................................................................................ 32!3.2 Rationality of the methodology ............................................................................... 32!3.3 Research framework .............................................................................................. 36!
"#"#$!%&'&()*+,!################################################################################################################################################!"-!"#"#.!/0)1&2*,3!40)0!####################################################################################################################################!"5!"#"#"!6&)1+47!#################################################################################################################################################!"8!"#"#9!:+,;*4&,)*0'*)<!0,4!&)1*(0'!(+,7*4&20)*+,!##############################################################################!9$!"#"#=!>,0'<7*7!#################################################################################################################################################!9$!"#"#-!?+)&7!0,4!'*@*)0)*+,7!######################################################################################################################!9.!
/0!+123(:)(C56856AD(!68(!6!<BD5D()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(:?!4.1 Teacher’s perspective ............................................................................................ 43!9#$#$!AB&2B*&C!###############################################################################################################################################!9"!9#$#.!>!D2+320@!C*)1+E)!0!(E22*(E'E@!###############################################################################################!99!9#$#"!FGD&()0)*+,7!0,4!D&2(&D)*+,7H!)&0(1&2!)20*,*,3!0,4!2&7+E2(&7!###################################!95!9#$#9!I2&D02*,3!;+2!0!,&C!(10''&,3&!#####################################################################################################!98!9#$#=!/+*,3!J0(K!0!7)&DH!L&0(1&2M7!)20*,*,3!######################################################################################!="!9#$#-!N,;+2@0'!7EDD+2)!,&)C+2K7!##########################################################################################################!=-!9#$#O!FGD'+2*,3!*,!('077!##############################################################################################################################!=5!9#$#5!AJ7)0('&7!0,4!J022*&27!####################################################################################################################!=8!9#$#5!P*,0'!)1+E31)7!#####################################################################################################################################!-$!
4.2 Children and computers in the classroom .............................................................. 62!9#.#$!QJ*RE*)+E7!(+@DE)&2!D2+320@@&7!0,4!7+(*0'!*,)&20()*+,7!###########################################!-.!9#.#.!%)2E()E2&!0,4!7+(*0'!4<,0@*(!######################################################################################################!-O!9#.#"!:1*'42&,M7!,&30)*B&!&GD&2*&,(&7!C*)1!)&(1,+'+3<!*,!)1&!('0772++@!###########################!-5!9#.#9!S*40()*(0'!'&02,*,3!############################################################################################################################!O.!9#.#=!A,'*,&!E7&7!###########################################################################################################################################!O=!9#.#-!L1&!0E20!+;!)1&!TA!############################################################################################################################!O5!9#.#O!>!(+@DE)&2*U&4!&4E(0)*+,!;+2!)1&!;E)E2&!###############################################################################!5V!
!
!!
4.3 Children, the home and computers ........................................................................ 84!9#"#$!W0'K*,3!*,)+!)1&!1+@&!####################################################################################################################!59!9#"#.!%(1++'!X!1+@&!*,)&2;&2&,(&7!########################################################################################################!5-!9#"#"!/0@*,3!07!0!J2*43*,3!(+,(&D)!######################################################################################################!58!9#"#9!FGD&()0)*+,!0,4!0()E0'!E7&7!+;!(+@DE)&2!0)!1+@&!#############################################################!8$!9#"#=!L1&*2!+C,!(+@DE)&27!######################################################################################################################!85!
/0!+123(E)(/76/<9D576())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(4F4!5.1 A Final overview ................................................................................................... 101!5.2 Teacher’s section ................................................................................................. 104!5.3 Children in school context .................................................................................... 106!
5.4 Children at home .................................................................................................. 107!5.4 Final thoughts and future directions ..................................................................... 107!
3,-,%,G',#()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(4FH!!II,GJK',#())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))(44*!
Appendix 1: Tree diagram of participants .................................................................. 116!Appendix 2: Online questionnaire .............................................................................. 117!Appendix 3: Consent Forms ...................................................................................... 118!
>J7)20()Y!-!
!!
Abstract
!"#$%&'()#*(*#+,%-,$,(-."%$*'/0%12.'$,$%23%*",%,4,-5#35%/#5#*()%6-(.*#.,$%(3/%
$'7$,&',3*%4#.-28.')*'-()%#46(.*$%23%/#$*#3.*%/,425-(6"#.$%#46(.*,/%70%*",%1#-$*%
'7#&'#*2'$%3(*#239#/,%.246'*,-%6-25-(4%#3%*",%92-)/:%;)(3%<,#7()%*",%=3,%>(6*26%
;,-%<"#)/%;-25-(4%#3%?-'5'(0@%%
%
A($,/%23%B%$*'/,3*%.($,%$*'/#,$%(3/%+(-#2'$%#3*,-+#,9$%9#*"%2*",-%(.*2-$%#3.)'/#35%
*,(.",-$C%",(/4($*,-$C%(3/%1(4#)#,$C%*"#$%-,$,(-."%(#4$%*2%.#-.'43(+#5(*,%(%3'47,-%21%
6,-$6,.*#+,$%*"(*%"(+,%/,+,)26,/%(-2'3/%*",%(.(/,4#.%(3/%/24,$*#.%.')*'-()%
(66-26-#(*#23%21%*"#$%6-25-(44,@%%
%
!",%-,$,(-."%,D(4#3,$%"29%."#)/-,3%#3.2-62-(*,%E=%.246'*,-$%#3*2%72*"%*",#-%12-4()%
,/'.(*#23%(3/%"24,%$,**#35$%(3/%*",%$'7$,&',3*%$03,-5#,$%(3/%#3*,-(.*#23$%7,*9,,3%
*",%*92%.23*,D*$@%!",%-,$,(-."%()$2%.23$#/,-$%*",%-2),%21%6-21,$$#23()%,/'.(*2-$%(3/%
6(-,3*$%#3%*"#$%)(3/4(-F%6-2G,.*@%%
%
!",%2'*.24,$%21%*",%-,$,(-."%#3/#.(*,%*"(*%*",%"'4(3%-,)(*#23$%*"(*%,+2)+,%(-2'3/%
.246'*,-$%"(+,%$#53#1#.(3*%#46(.*$%23%."#)/-,3H$%(5,3.0%(3/%6,-.,6*#23%21%.246'*,-$%
($%9,))%($%*",%'$,$%*",0%(66)0%*2%*",4@%<23$,&',3*)0C%$'."%$2.#()%/03(4#.$%(-,%",(+#)0%
#31)',3.,/%(..2-/#35%*2%*",%$2.#()%.(6#*()%*"(*%,(."%."#)/%(.&'#-,$%#3%72*"%12-4()%(3/%
#312-4()%$,**#35$%I%$'."%($%$."22)%(3/%"24,@%%J#4#)(-)0%*",%,3*"'$#($4%.247#3,/%9#*"%
*,."3#.()%(3/%6,/(525#.()%$F#))%*,(.",-$%7-#35%*2%*",%.)($$-224%"($%(%/,1#3#35%#46(.*%
23%$*'/,3*$H%,D6,-#,3.,%9#*"%*,."32)250%($%),(-3#35%#3$*-'4,3*@%!"#$%"#5")#5"*$%*",%
>J7)20()Y!O!
!!
3,,/%12-%(/+(3.,/%(3/%.246-,",3$#+,%*,(.",-%*-(#3#35%(3/%#3.)'$#23%21%*",%6,/(5250%
#3%*",%12-4()%.'--#.')'4@%%%
%
!",%-,$,(-."%)22F$%*2%5(#3%#3$#5"*%#3*2%*",%*-(/#*#23()%629,-%$*-'.*'-,$%(3/%*",%$"#1*%21%
$2.#()%/03(4#.$%9#*"#3%(3/%7,*9,,3%*",%.)($$-224%(3/%"2'$,"2)/%#3%*",%1#-$*%.2'3*-0%
#3%*",%92-)/%9",-,%,(."%."#)/%#3%6'7)#.%"($%7,,3%6-2+#/,/%9#*"%(%6,-$23()%.246'*,-@%%
%
!",%(/+(3.,%(3/%1'))%#46),4,3*(*#23%21%*"#$%6-25-(44,%"($%4(-F,/%(3%
'36-,.,/,3*,/%62#3*%#3%42/,-3%,/'.(*#23@%!"#$%#$%(3%,D.#*#35%2662-*'3#*0%*2%7,**,-%
'3/,-$*(3/%*",%#3%$#*'%#46)#.(*#23$%21%(%'3#+,-$()%=>;<%6-25-(44,@%!",%-,$,(-."%#$%
4,(3*%*2%.23*-#7'*,%*2%(%3($.,3*C%0,*%5-29#35C%72/0%21%-,$,(-."%(3/%$'662-*%*",%
12-4(*#23%21%42-,%$6,.#1#.%-,$,(-."%/#-,.*#23$.
I2&;0(&Y!5!
!!
Preface
In 1877 Uruguay became the first country in Latin American to provide free and
compulsory schooling; in 2009 through Plan Ceibal it became the first nationwide
ubiquitous educational computer programme in the world. Ceibal is an acronym for Basic
Informatics Educative Connectivity for Online Learning program, and works as the local
adaptation of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) programme in Uruguay.
It is important to remind ourselves that Plan Ceibal was initially defined as a political
undertaking in the sense that it aims to go much beyond educating children on ICT
(Balanguer, 2009). Miguel Brechner, current director of Plan Ceibal, expressed from the
very beginning the need for autonomy and independence from the actual OLPC model
to effectively adapt the project to the specific realities of Uruguay. Subsequently, Plan
Ceibal is based on three pillars: equity, learning and technology. Through the
amalgamation of its three basic pillars the programme aims to support equal
opportunities, develop new tools for learning and teaching and most importantly,
establish a new relationship between the state, society, and technology.
The government-sponsored programme was initially tested in a small rural village called
Villa Cardal with 150 XO computers donated by the OLPC non-profit organization and
then extended over a period of less than two years to include 400,000 computers. From
2007 to 2009 the programme was extended nationwide to all public schools providing
every student and teacher in public grades one through six with a small laptop
accompanied by an Internet connection in all schools as well as several hotspots. To
date the government has deployed about 400,000 XOs and connected about 98% of the
I2&;0(&Y!8!
!!
child population in 2,332 schools in Uruguay – any child can expect to find a hotspot
within 300 meters of their home.
Plan Ceibal was not established within the educational system and, the justification for
this is that the educational system was not ready to launch and sustain such an initiative.
The programme was implemented by a para-governmental agency called Ceibal
Centre for Educational Support for Children and Adolescents (CITS).!
Plan Ceibal acquires the XO computer at a moderate price from the OLPC organization
in Massachusetts. The OLPC programme assists governments to implement their
concept idea of the programme but local agencies are responsible in setting up and
running the program. Eventually local governments are responsible for implementation
of the programme with different variations according to their needs and possibilities.
Although the OLPC programme provides a specific laptop and software interface, Plan
Ceibal has a large team constantly working and re-working new applications, creating
digital content and adapting the software to the specific needs of the plan.
The government of Uruguay is set on having a strong component of technological
inclusion in various contexts: electronic government, community tele-centers and 1:1
modality in the classroom. The government is conscious that the so-called ‘digital divide’
is part of a social divide that excludes people from the creation and management of
knowledge through the use of ICT. Therefore, the Uruguayan government identifies it as
essential to carry out public policies that contemplate the inclusion of ICT that enables
not only access to information but also capacity building in becoming knowledge
I2&;0(&Y!$V!
!!
producers. Thus, the programme developed a series of overall and specific objectives
that transcend the school boundary and aims to reach families.
AL&M#((
• Contribute to improving the quality of education by integrating technology into the
classroom, the school, and the family unit;
• promoting equal opportunities for all students of primary and, more recently, secondary
education, by bringing a laptop to every student and teacher;
• develop a collaborative culture in four areas: child-child, child-teacher, teacher-teacher
and child-family-school;
• promote literacy and critical electronic educational community in response to ethical
principles.
The authorities are well aware of the ambitious nature of the overall goals that they have
set for themselves. In order to accomplish such goals Plan Ceibal has identified a set of
specific objectives that it is focusing on while always keeping in consideration the
programmes three core pillars.
Specific objectives
• Promote the integral use of the laptop to support pedagogical learning approaches and
school proposals;
• ensure training and updating for teachers, both in the technical and pedagogical arenas,
ensure educational opportunities for the use of new resources;
• produce educational resources to support the technology;
• encourage involvement and ownership of technology by teachers;
• build support systems and technical assistance aimed at specific educational school
experiences ensuring their proper development;
• involve parents in the support and promotion of appropriate and responsible use of
technology for the benefit of the child and family;
I2&;0(&Y!$$!
!!
• enhance participation of everyone involved in the production of information relevant to
decision-making and;
• promote the creation and development of new learning communities to promote their
autonomy.
These objectives are coordinated from CITS in cooperation with the Technological
Laboratory of Uruguay (LATU) as well as the following public agencies: National Agency
for Research and Innovation (ANII), the Agency for the Development of Government
Electronic Management and Information Society and Knowledge (AGESIC), the National
Telecommunications Administration (ANTEL), the Ministry of Education and Culture
(MEC), the Primary Education Council (CEP), and the National Public Education
Administration (ANEP).
In addition there is an important network of 50 teachers and 500 university students (Flor
de Ceibo) dedicated to support and strengthen the programme’s impact. Plan Ceibals’
support network is a cloud of more than two thousand volunteers that make contributions
ranging from delivering the machines, answering questions and offering instruction on
how to use the XO.
Uruguay enjoys some specific strengths that enable it to engage in the ambitious
initiative to approach social inclusion and equity through a ubiquitous computer plan:
- A well-organized Ministry of Education and Culture;
- a nationally owned telecommunication company;
- an adult literacy rate of 97.9 %;
- a teacher-student ratio of 1:21;
- a well established public university;
I2&;0(&Y!$.!
!!
- a relatively small and flat geography;
- a population of less than 3.5 million people and a concentration of 1.8 million in the
capital city of Montevideo;
- a single spoken language in the whole country;
- a large software industry;
- indisputable popular support behind the programme and;
- relative political and economic stability.
If you take into consideration all of these aspects it becomes clear that a programme
designed and designated for the poor of the world actually requires a large share of
human capital and an even bigger monetary investment. Hence, the poorest of countries
targeted by OLPC are often unable to carry out such programmes without a huge
technological determinism (Warschauver and Ames, 2010).
Today Plan Ceibal has been extended and children keep their XO as they transition into
high school. During the 2011 school year all students from first to third grade of
secondary school had been provided with a more sophisticated computer - either the XO
1.5 or the Magallanes prototype called Classmate PC used in computer educational
initiatives in Portugal. Therefore, by the end of 2011 more than 600,000 children and
teenagers will be equipped with computers. In addition, Plan Ceibal has increased the
challenge and will equip preschools with laptops for children age three to five years old.
Unlike the rest, these computers will belong to the institution and will be used only during
school time.
Uruguay has embarked on a unique and ambitious experience. With no mirror in the
world to exchange and compare ideas, various and unprecedented challenges have
I2&;0(&Y!$"!
!!
emerged during its implementation. This project has implied taking on many risks but it
was decided that the biggest risk the country could take would be to do nothing in a
society that is rapidly changing due to technological advancement and allow only the
most privileged people to benefit.
N,)2+4E()*+,Y!$9!
!!
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last five years Uruguay, like many other countries, has embraced the
need to make serious investments in technology in the education system. Initially
implemented in the primary school system the Uruguayan version of the One
Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program; Plan Ceibal has grown to include secondary
schools and the technical careers programs and is currently expanding into pre-
schools.
Uruguay has become a vanguard for the OLPC programme as the only country
globally to provide a take home laptop for every child in primary public school.
This unprecedented initiative is complex on almost every level ranging from the
logistics to the pedagogy and social impacts. This study aims to contribute to a
nascent, yet growing, body of research that addresses the effects of providing
ubiquitous access to computers to all children in the primary public education
system.
This study focused on exploring and observing the implications of how children
engage with their laptops within the domestic and school contexts. The study
navigates through a number of individual perspectives including head masters,
teachers, family, friends, and, most extensively, the children. Six case studies
were completed with students from a single sixth-grade class who had been
participants in the programme since its implementation three years ago.
N,)2+4E()*+,Y!$=!
!!
Additional information was collected through interviews with parents and
teachers.
Previous authors (see Buckingham, 2007) had already detected a clear division
between how differently children engage with technology at school and at home.
This study investigates these differences within the context of Uruguay’s OLPC
programme. The study aimed to observe the difference and similarities between
the home and school cultures of computer use, and how they interacted with and
impacted on one another.
The analysis is structured in three sections; one based on teachers’ perspectives
and experiences, one based on the six case studies in the school context, and
one based on the six case studies in the home context. These three sections are
deeply interlinked and a holistic analysis is necessary in order to consider the
macro impacts of Plan Ceibal.
The first section concentrates on the experiences teachers have had integrating
the technology into their teaching. This section covers many of the difficulties
teachers encountered including prejudices, technical limitations, the traditional
institutional cultures of teaching, and most significantly the lack of training and
preparation, and absence of curriculum direction.
N,)2+4E()*+,Y!$-!
!!
The second section considers the use children give to computers in school. It
looks at the interaction and social dynamics formed around computer use in the
institutional setting. This dimension of the research is of particular interest as
previous data in other contexts has shown that collective and interactive
computer use was predominant in the home context, which was not the case
within this small sample.
The section shows a need to expand our understanding of different
manifestations of collective computer use under these unparalleled
circumstances. This dimension of the research also addresses the impact of
individual student’s domestic cultures on the uses the student gives to the
computer at school. In this respect we can observe a number of issues that arise
especially around the risks of enhancing the experience of privileged children,
while putting children with less home support and traditional literacy skills at a
more serious disadvantage widening the digital divide where it is meant to be
reduced.
The third and final section recognizes the interwoven nature of relationships and
behaviours that cross-pollinate between the school and home settings and that
are strongly canalized through the use of computers. This section aims to
connect the theoretical perception and expectation for computers in students’
lives and the actual uses given by the students themselves as they appropriate
both the computers themselves and the evolving cultures.
N,)2+4E()*+,Y!$O!
!!
The conclusions and analysis of this study proposes to combine previous
research experiences and descriptive data with personal analysis from the
fieldwork. The ideas extracted in this research are not intended to be
comprehensive due to the lack of previous qualitative research in this specific
program and context; indeed many of the issues discussed here were not pre-
identified and emerged as part of the complexities this field hosts. This research
is indeed one of the first to make a descriptive and qualitative comparative
analysis of the use of computers in school and home in the only nation-wide
ubiquitous computer programme in the world.
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&![&B*&CY!$8!
!!
mathematician, he argued that difficulties in learning a subject should not be
confined to the discipline (ie: mathematics) but instead analysed from the
learning mode. Modes of learning grow, he proposed, from the interrelation of
intellectual structures at the points in the learning process when they develop
logical and emotional forms.
For Papert (1996), children naturally fall in love with technology despite their
country of origin, cultures, boundaries or inequalities. Children are capable to see
and transform computers into a meaningful object that makes sense beyond its
practical use. Papert’s theory of constructionism was elaborated on learning to
use LOGO, a programming language he developed for educational use.
According to his theories, mastering computers and learning to programme in
LOGO in education would create new modes of learning capable of supporting
different intellectual styles. Furthermore, understanding the meta-language of
LOGO would allow children to understand their modes and ways of thinking and
learning. In coding with LOGO students would assimilate the logic of its meta-
language that leads them to a process or a set of systems in a problem solving
operation. Donald Knuth (1974) explains the process in which students
assimilate learning with computers as the following:
“Actually a person does not really understand something until he can teach it
to a computer, i. e., express it as an algorithm. [!] The attempt to formalize
things as algorithms leads to a much deeper understanding than if we simply
try to comprehend things in the traditional way.”
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
Z*)&20)E2&
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!".!
!!
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Focus of the research
The aim of this research is to unveil and understand the particularities of a
nationally unprecedented ubiquitous deployment of computers in the public
education system. The approach of this research is grounded in semi-
comparative analysis of how children respond and make use of computers
according to the context - both physical and social – around the school and home
settings.
The investigation is based on previous research that has looked at how children
interact with technology across contexts and contrasted this with the data
collected during the fieldwork. Due to the limited time and access to teachers
and other key social actors involved, the analysis and findings of this research
are not intend to make bold statements but rather, by acknowledging its
limitations, provide a body of understanding to be used to identify further areas
for in depth research.
3.2 Rationality of the methodology
The methodology of this research, as in any social science, is a construction of
the agents that participate in it. The meaning of the research, which might not
necessarily be the same one that the participants attribute to it, is partially an
imaginary construction from the decodification and an interpretation of the data.
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!""!
!!
An important issue to be considered was how to discern the discrepancies of
what children articulate versus what they mean. Thus, it is important to
triangulate the same data from multiple angles and methods to assure both
participants and researcher have a common understanding of the meaning and
text produced.
Those meanings and texts produced in collaboration do not just have an impact
in the academic world but reflect and reinforce ideas, values, and discourses in
the social landscape where they come from. Such repercussions bring a degree
of compromise in the methodology that needs to be addressed.
As the study focuses on describing some of the different relationships children
develop according to the contexts and social interaction from around the
technology provided by Plan Ceibal, an ethnographic approach has been
adopted as the central methodology of investigation. This research reflects the
approach of the milestone work of James Lull in the field of media studies, ‘The
social uses of television’ in 1980. Thus, participant observation and semi-
structured interviews were integrated as the most frequent methods used along
the research.
Such methods are grounded in the overall ethnographic methodology of the
research piece to interpret the different ‘episodes’ children experience regarding
ICT in education and in their social life. Bryman (1998) describes ‘episodes’ as
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!"9!
!!
series of interlocking human actions. As the research seeks to make sense of
children’s social practices regarding ICT it draws on methods developed within
the fields of sociology (qualitative) and anthropology (ethnographic).
This leads to consideration of both the usefulness and limitations of
ethnographies in cultural studies. Gray (2003) states that capturing the ‘truth’ of
a social or cultural aspect becomes a version of truth presented to others from
the vantage point of the researcher. Thus, there is not a fixed and prescribed
method to analyse it and as Gray (2003:21) quotes Myrdal: ‘ethnography
involves a series of experiments with truth that can never be completed
conclusively’. Jensen and Jankowski (1991) describe the ethnomethodology as,
‘inquiry seeks to identify the rules people apply in order to make sense of their
world’.
Developing an in-depth understanding of the use of technology by children
implies considering several variables. Examples of questions that must be
considered are:
- How are children learning to use this technology?
- How and what do they use this technology for in their context?
- What are the different ways children engage with the technology?
- How do children perceive and give meaning to the use of the new technology?
- What links can be made between the use of technology at home and at school?
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!"=!
!!
Stressing the differences and complex relations across the distinctive contexts
and case studies will help to understand the complexities of Plan Ceibal in a
broader and multifaceted context. The aim of the research is to understand,
analyse and compare the different children’s computer practices. Unlike most
research carried out by government agencies, this study aims to provide limited
but in-depth details of the social practices outside of the school. Because of the
importance of observing the different ways children interact, participant
observation was the primary method to collect the qualitative data. As Paul Willis
in Gray (2003) specifies the following techniques as a primary method for
ethnographies:
• Participation
• Observation
• Participation as observer
• Observation as participant
• Just ‘being around’
• Group discussion
• Recorded group discussion
• Unfocused interviews
• Recorded unfocused interview
In order to narrow the subject of study and gather more specific data, a
participant observation methodology was carried out in connection with a system
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!"-!
!!
of case studies. Such a combination of approaches allowed for observation of
how the case studies interacted and were bound within the context they were to
use technology. Robert Stake in Gray (2003) describes it as ‘the study of the
particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity
within important circumstances’. While case studies can provide a limited larger
representation, this method can be extremely useful to identify key issues to be
further investigated.
3.3 Research framework
3.3.1 Selection
The primary school where the research was carried out was selected for its
particular characteristics as well as the authorities’ consent to participation. The
school is a public institution that is located in a favoured economic area. This
school was part of a special plan where children attend on an extended time
schedule from 10 am to 5 pm with lunch provided by the school. This is an
important factor since it brings a rich diversity of student to the school with a mix
of more privileged children from the area and children from working families
whose parents work in the area and bring their children from further
neighbourhoods because it fits their working schedule and they provide free food
to children. One important factor in the eventual selection of the schools was to
identify a geographical location that shares students coming from more and less
economically privileged families.
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!"O!
!!
The school director suggested the sixth grade class in the school and children
were selected from the children whose parents approved their participation in the
research and filled an online survey. All children in the class participated in an
anonymous short online survey answered from their XO computer, which was
explained and demonstrated in class but was to be filled out as homework. This
presented a good initial opportunity to observe students’ reaction and behaviour
with technology as well as to help to define parameters and ideas for the case
studies. The online survey outlined basic demographic factors, access to
technology outside of the school and children’s personal interest with the XO.
Attention was given to the consequences of using technology even while trying to
detect apathies and forms of rejection towards computers. Hence, the head
teacher’s assistance was crucial to review and pick the case studies.
All of the children that participated in the research were between 11 and 12 years
old. Differences or inequalities among the sample group is crucial: gender, social
class, educational background, interests, gaming sympathy, academic
performance, access to more sophisticated computers at home, home Internet
access, usage time, and number of XO at the children’s home were some of the
key factors considered in the case studies. These children have been using the
XOs for at least two years and by now may be expected to have developed some
more critical affinities or rejections towards the technology. Despite their initial
approval, these children have been exposed and transitioned away from the
initial period of exploration, novelty and fascination.
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!"5!
!!
In addition to the director, sub-director and head teacher of the class where the
research was conducted, the English and plastic arts teachers volunteered to be
part of the investigation and allow observations during their lessons. Finally, four
others teachers from others school contexts and ages were included to have a
wider view of the teacher’s experience with technology in the school. Aspects
such as affinity and interest by students and the head teacher in charge of the
class were crucial for the project research. The availability and consent from the
parents to take part in the study and approve home visits and observations
around their children were also vital. In order to get a third point of view, other
than the participants and my own, family members – parents and siblings – as
well as friends also participated in selected interviews.
3.3.2 Gathering data
The comparative analysis investigated six children with different characteristics
and backgrounds. The comparative analysis between the different case studies
was grounded on: individual interviews, group interviews, a survey, class
observations, home visits and family interviews. This research was
supplemented with various interviews with the head teacher, the director and
sub-director of the school as well as external teacher interviews to diversify the
data.
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!"8!
!!
The comparative analysis was determined by the individual characteristics and
differences between each context such as; adult supervision; instruction; or
complete freedom. Even though this research is framed on the use of technology
provided by Plan Ceibal and indeed the entry point for selecting the participants
was schools, the research aims to look further than school boundaries and
therefore the methods used had to be adjusted to each context.
As mentioned earlier, the two contexts investigated were schools and homes, the
two places that research have indicated that children use their XOs most
consistently.
3.3.3 Methods
• The first step of the research was to introduce the investigation to both
authorities and children in the class. This step was extremely important to
communicate to children that it was not the role of the researcher to evaluate
their use, habits or perception of the XO. Several visits were made to the school
before observations began to informally chat with students and gain their trust.
• The introduction of the online survey was the first official activity with children
and was followed by an extensive question and answer time about the research
and other questions. The survey did not intend to gather any significant data but
rather understand the demographics available to define the case studies and
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!9V!
!!
assist in setting parameters for in-depth case studies. The response rate was low
with one third of the 24 students in the class filling out the survey on time.
• Participant observation was the main method of collecting data for the research.
This constrains the data and results partially to the interpretation of the
researcher. As every research method contains advantages and limitations, data
from observation was triangulated and complemented with other methods such
as interviews and as Gray (2003) suggests, connected to other theoretical work.
The status and objective of the observer were explained numerous times in order
to capture their most ‘natural’ behaviour and avoid pre-thought performances
during observation and interviews. However, distance was something that was
especially considered since either too much proximity or too much distance to the
subject can be problematic while conducting an observation. Observations were
not to last more than an hour and a half at one time, in total 15 hours of class
observation in 12 visits were recorded. Most visits were made when teachers
planned some sort of short activity with the XO but a small number of observation
were made with no use of the XO in class for better comparison.
• Semi structured interviews were the second most used method in this research.
Initially interviews were used to follow more in-depth data that might seem vague
or unclear during observations in class. Eventually interviews started to produce
their own data to follow up in future interviews. The six case studies were
interviewed individually in school three times, one group interview of three
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!9$!
!!
students in school and one interview with their family in a home visit. All
interviews were recorded and did not last more then 45 minutes. Group
interviews were productive but raised an issue of managing the power dynamics
in the group that was also counted as important data.
• The interview method used for home visits was much more open than
interviews at school. This was due to the fact that family members who until then
had only heard of the research through their kids and notes were especially
eager to have their input and talk about how their children used the XO.
3.3.4 Confidentiality and ethical consideration
The obvious and foremost step was getting the proper consent from authorities,
teachers, students, and parents. The ethical procedure was extended beyond the
completion of the field research and names have been altered in this analysis,
among other assurances of confidentiality.
3.3.5 Analysis
A flexible approach was implemented during the analysis, however it was built on
a discourse analysis employing an assortment of different types of research
material. Such an approach allowed examination of the micro and macro
dimensions of the discourses and power structures. Examining the different
discourse relations within the local context made it possible to connect the data
6&)1+4+'+3<Y!9.!
!!
analysed to larger contexts and more theoretical frameworks. Gray (2003)
advocates that a discourse methodology for cultural and media studies has the
great advantage that a similar framework analysis can be used for a wide range
of texts to be studied.
3.3.6 Notes and limitations
The final revision of the research design was developed during the
implementation. The methods used were fully quantitative and descriptive. The
six case studies and observation do not purport to represent the overall
experience of Plan Ceibal nationwide. The research was conducted in only one
urban area in the capital city and does not reflect the contexts of poor urban or
rural areas.
In education where things are not as simple as straightforward research studies,
researchers should aim not only to prove or disprove a hypothesis but also
generate a body of knowledge that recognizes the strengths and limitations of the
research and ultimately generates more questions to be studied. The subjects
under study are not static but rather in constant movement; subsequently it is
imperative to link the research findings to relevant social theory.
>,0'<7*7Y!9"!
!!
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Teacher’s perspective
4.1.1 Overview
This section covers some of the teachers’ initial experiences with the XO
computers and the struggle that teachers have faced to integrate these new
technologies into their teaching practices. Many of the cases in this section are
marked by the teacher’s first experiences, training sessions, as well as the way
the academic curriculum accommodates new practices.
Ineffective dimensions of ubiquitous computer programs are often a result of
hardware driven initiatives that lack sufficient planning and thought as to how
computers would be used in the classroom (Selwyn, 1999). Plan Ceibal suffered
similar growing pains, and is now working to compensate for the lack of focus on
pedagogy and training.
Ms. Pereira, director of the school where the research and observation was
conducted, stated that refusal to use the XO in teaching is rare among the faculty
and should not lead one to question the value of the programme. A study from
Plan Ceibal reports that among teachers the non-user population falls below 2%
(cases of non-users did not appear in the research study) (Martinez et al., 2009).
Rather than not being able to find the value of adopting new technologies,
teachers ended up battling to overcome personal difficulties and the program’s
>,0'<7*7Y!99!
!!
inefficiencies with different results. For Pereira, non-users or teachers who
struggled were usually older teachers.
Teachers with more experience teaching with chalk and a blackboard tended to
have an engrained mode of teaching that is hard to change. On some occasions
teachers choose to alienate themselves from ICT as a self defense mechanism.
Such approaches should not be interpreted the same as rejecting or denying the
value of new technologies. This experience also shows that when new computer
practices meet the classrooms, teachers often remain entrenched in deep-rooted
forms of teaching and values (Paechter cited in Selwyn, 1999).
During the research teachers could be identified as i) having no pre-existing
computer skills or ii) having computer skills but lacking the tools and training to
integrate their skills into teaching or iii) having skills as well as the ability to
integrate computers into teaching. Teachers could also be identified as either i)
having the desire to learn both the technical and pedagogical skills or ii) having
resistance to learning either or both the technical and pedagogical skills. Such
pattern groups were not necessarily sharply defined and a given teacher could
change groups according to the circumstance, context or subject taught.
4.1.2 A program without a curriculum
Although Plan Ceibal has been approved by the education system it does not
contemplate the XO in the official curricula. This leads to a series of
>,0'<7*7Y!9=!
!!
consequences that are reflected in the way teachers prepare, perceive and
implement the technology in the classroom. Warschauer and Ames (2010) note
that changes in the curricula to accommodate the introduction of the XO often
arrive after the computers arrive into classrooms.
In the case of Uruguay, Plan Ceibal was built outside of the educational system
to save time and deal less with bureaucracy. As a result technology was
introduced into the education system with many uncertainties and the intention of
learning as they went. Although all teachers in the study made efforts to use the
XO in class to varying degrees, none of the teachers in the research were fully
proficient on any of the educational applications that came with the XO. The most
used application by teachers was the Internet and even then it was not always
implemented in very creative and innovative ways but rather as a tool of self
consumption.
Schools, and therefore teachers, do not appropriate technological changes at the
same pace as other institutions such as business or after school programs
(Cuban, 1993). This is not due to the incompetence of schools or teachers to
catch up with technology - but instead a cultural belief about teaching and what
type of knowledge is suitable in schools.
Mrs. Fajardo, the teacher of the class where the research was conducted,
acknowledged the complexity of appropriating the technology to teach.
>,0'<7*7Y!9-!
!!
Appropriating and integrating technology into the traditional education system
involves a much longer process than using computers for personal tasks. There
are sets of power relations that are bound in an argument where the traditional
school culture around teacher-student relationships does not facilitate the
implementation of new technology.
In theory teachers are among the first ones to recognize whether implemented
ICT has the potential to assists their pedagogical practices and the student
learning skills (Bingimlas, 2009). Although, teachers struggle in many areas on
how to use computers, and the fact that the official curriculum is not specific
regarding the use of the XO, the vast majority of teachers have good intentions to
use computers in the class, but ultimately do not use them to their full potential.
The biggest problem arose when teachers had to move from theory to practice.
Teachers themselves were not aware of the skills they needed or were lacking in
how to make use of such technologies in the class.
In many cases teachers realized the difficulties of integrating technology into the
classroom during the middle of the actual lessons. That resulted in having to stop
the activity because they did not know how to manage one of the educational
resources on the XO subsequently ‘wasting’ the time used and leading to
frustration among students and the teacher. Drenoyianni and Selwood's (1998)
study observes that even if teachers manage to make use of computers in the
>,0'<7*7Y!9O!
!!
classroom, this is not automatically adequate for effective use in support of the
academic curriculum.
Computers’ absenteeism in the formal curricula was noted to be one of the
biggest problems with the overall implementation of Plan Ceibal. Despite the fact
that there is no formal evaluation of teachers, it places teachers in the very
difficult situation of being expected to teach everything included in an existing
curricula as well as finding the time and tools to properly use the XO in class.
Although, teachers are not officially required to use the XO in any form or
frequency there are multiple expectations to make the best use of the technology.
Teachers admitted that although they agree to use computers with children they
also remarked that it was what is expected from them -- even if was not officially
indicated, parents, politicians, media and children expected classroom computer
use in school.
According to Dawes (2001) the problems arise when teachers are given the
responsibility to implement changes with little guidance or help in adverse
circumstances. This is not to say teachers were not provided with training
courses but indeed it was not a priority during the development stages of the
program.
The experience of Plan Ceibal to date suggests that the introduction and use of
computers in classrooms is not an easy task. The fact that the official curriculum
>,0'<7*7Y!95!
!!
does not specify how and when computers should be used has made it harder
for teachers to introduce new tools in the classroom environment. One limited
advantage to this approach however is that it allows teachers to enjoy the liberty
to apply the computers as they feel most comfortable, and adapt its use to
specific classroom exercises in creative ways. As Judge et at. (2004) suggests,
professional development is essential for integrating technology in the classroom.
These findings do not differ substantially from what was observed during this
research project with the XO; teachers were not properly prepared before they
launched the program and they have experienced several problems in adapting
the XO to their teaching.
4.1.3 Expectations and perceptions: teacher training and resources
Plan Ceibal stands behind an initiative of creating a twenty-first century
educational system (Vazquez, 2009). Attached to this type of initiative is a set of
new expectations that education will become more sophisticated and efficient
(Freebody, 2007). During observation time it was noted that in order to use the
computers to their full potential, teachers and children needed to become fluent
computer users. More sophistication has been achieved but efficiency is where
teachers and the educational system present signs of difficulty.
Teachers have complained that the faculty’s inspector who observes their overall
performance encourages them to makes use of the XO on daily basis but is
unable to answer or suggest how to apply them in the classroom. Instead
>,0'<7*7Y!98!
!!
teachers were provided with facilitators that would come to their classes to help
them integrate computers to what they were teaching. Teachers reported this to
be a helpful resource, although it did not address technical challenges. In
addition, the facilitator made sporadic visits for a period of about two months – so
teachers were never fully engaged in a systemic learning program. When talking
about how they learned to use the XO, teachers and students made several
remarks about the value of the facilitators that would visit their classroom. The
problem was that teachers did, and still do, lack the basic technical experience to
carry on with pedagogy with the XO in class.
Providing pedagogical training becomes beneficial once teachers are capable of
overcoming basic technical issues, where in fact there has been substantial
progress. Nonetheless, the way teachers struggle due to lack of computer skills
is reflected in a negative attitude towards computers in general. Paradoxically,
bad experiences with computers also negatively impacts teachers desire to
participate in training courses. In an interview with Miss Bellora, a young teacher
who works in an inner-city school, she affirmed that older teachers would argue
that computers were just not for them and refuse to use them in class or
participate in training courses to overcome those barriers.
4.1.4 Preparing for a new challenge
Classroom observation coincides with Newhouse (2002) who says that teacher’s
computer skills are almost irrelevant if they lack the skills to integrate computers
>,0'<7*7Y!=V!
!!
into their teaching. Students claim that in the last three years since the XO have
arrived at school they have used them with quite a few teachers but none of them
have shown high technical levels of expertise with the XO. Teachers therefore
struggled in two areas with the XO. First with technical aspects of the XO and
secondly with the use of computers as classroom teaching tools.
Sicilia’s (2005) doctoral research finds teachers’ most common challenges at the
time of implementing computers in the classroom to be lack of effective training
and this implies a combination of technical issues such as connectivity, slow
computer processors, and malfunctioning and damaged computers. Mrs. Fajardo
explains her experience when in 2009 they first handed the XO to the teachers
as follows:
‘We started hearing that computers were arriving to the education system
about six months before they arrived. At first it was confusing, none of the
teachers I know had ever heard of OLPC program or we imagined different
computers. Finally they announced the program it became clearer but
teachers only received the XO two weeks before the students did. No
training or anything!’
From that perspective it is understandable that the program had faced a body of
teachers that were perhaps happy in theory and but less so in practice. In
addition to this, computers did not arrive all at the same time or at the
commencement of the academic year. When teachers first had the opportunity to
>,0'<7*7Y!=$!
!!
experiment with the XO, most had no previous training and it was too early in the
learning process to benefit from more advanced tips from colleagues with more
experience. When the first year computers arrived they had very little practical
educational value in the classroom as teachers and students were essentially
going through the same discovery stage. While children were passionate about
having a computer for themselves, teachers in general were panicking about how
they were going to use them.
’They thought that teachers, like children, were going to be able to teach
themselves the uses of the computers and develop a passion for using the
technology. The reality was that this implied a lot of extra work and having to
reformulate the way we have been teaching for very long time.’
Mrs. Fajardo
It was found that there was a body of teachers who were not convinced on the
utility of the XO and were not willing to invest extra time in order to learn how to
implement such a technology. Initial training was limited and even the computer
instructors were not very familiar with the XO or Linux. At the same time an
overwhelming negative impression thanks to short notice and no previous
training led to further disinterest from teachers who were non-computer users.
Small exploratory steps that were taken by teachers in the beginning to introduce
the XO into their teaching were often confined to their comfort zones, mostly
using the Internet for web searches and using computers as a gratification
>,0'<7*7Y!=.!
!!
method to non-technological activities and as a routine rather than reflective
process (Selwyn et al., 2010).
For many teachers their first encounter with the XO - even before meeting a
classroom full of children with computers - was intimidating and frustrating at
times. The technical dimensions of the XO were already very complicated for
some teachers, so by adding in a lack of pedagogical training it is not entirely
surprising that some teachers avoided using the XO in class as much as possible.
Mrs. Fajardo explained her first impression, indicating that the process was not
simple and that she had to work a lot to overcome initially inhibiting impressions.
‘In my case I came back from a medical break, I entered the classroom on
the first day of class and saw that the children did not even register me, they
were immersed in their computers. I really came to a crisis ... they walked
down the stairs with their computers opened, walked with computers and
even boarded the bus with their computer. They were alienated from
everything’.
Mrs. Fajardo
Mrs. Fajardo did not consider herself an expert with computers and she has been
trying to make use of the available resources to become more fluent with the XO.
Computers not only changed teaching and learning modes but they also changed
the social dynamics inside the classroom. Mrs. Fajardo did initially take an 80-
hour course although she was not sure how helpful it was.
>,0'<7*7Y!="!
!!
Bingimlas (2009) highlights how lack of training in new technology in education
and teacher’s lack of confidence resulted in poor and sporadic use of computers
in schools. Even though optional teacher training has been available since the
beginning of the program it has received a lot of criticism from the faculty.
4.1.5 Going back a step: Teacher’s training
For the most part teachers did not have a very positive impression regarding
training. First of all, training courses were outside their working hours and unpaid
with teachers even having to assume the costs of transportation. Once taking
part in the training sessions, many teachers were not impressed by the quality of
the classes. This meant that, based on reputation, many teachers chose not
even to give the classes a chance. Not surprisingly the teachers interviewed felt
that they should have been paid to participate in the training.
One of the problems from the teacher’s side with the workshops was that nobody
really knew what they were going to learn. Teachers expected to complete a
short training with technical skills and pedagogical tools to be implemented in the
classroom. In his research Cuban (1986) identified a ‘love – hate’ sentiment from
teachers while talking about training courses, similarly teachers in Uruguay
expressed a sentiment of expectation but also a high degree of frustration with
the training courses.
>,0'<7*7Y!=9!
!!
The wide range of expectations was partly due to poor planning on how to
properly equip teachers to appropriate this technology and resulted in teachers
with very different skills and expectations in the same course. This often led to
one teacher abandoning the course because it was too basic and the other
abandoning the course because it was too intimidating. Mrs. Alacalá, a
passionate young teacher in her late twenties, described the situation:
‘I signed up for one of the training courses, and really it was after having been
teaching all day (eight hours) so I arrived so tired but I wanted to do it because
I felt it was necessary not only for me but the kids. I went for a couple of days
and I stopped going – it was such a waste of time. When I arrived many of the
teachers did not even know how to turn on the computers - that was not what
the course was suppose to be about.’
A clear problem is that the course did not evaluate the teacher’s pre-existing
knowledge of computers and the course turned out to be more about computing
then about using computers in the classroom. This kind of experience is not only
negative for teachers like Mrs. Alacalá who knew how to use computers but
again it exposes older teacher’s lack of computer knowledge. Luckily, unlike
other teachers, she understood that even if the training was not good she had to
find other ways to keep exploring the potential of the XO. She assumed this was
not about her knowledge, but the skills her students needed develop in school.
Informal conversation with older teachers in the school suggested that for those
>,0'<7*7Y!==!
!!
who were not convinced or felt daunted by the XO - bad and unprepared training
sessions worked as good excuses to continue with their traditional teaching.
For enthusiastic teachers who wanted to learn more about both the operation of
the XO and new teaching practices -- courses were their only option at first.
Teachers’ training ended up having limited value due to teacher absenteeism
and a wide range of teacher experience with computers. The current philosophy
marks that computers’ deployment and implementation must continue despite the
imperfections. Although teachers especially criticized the quality and value of the
training sessions offered to them, most teachers showed intentions of using and
experimenting with technology in the class even if they were aware and
uncomfortable with their own limitations.
Mrs. Pereira explained resistance to integrate computers as largely a result of a
lack of confidence that was reinforced by a lack of personal experience with
computers and weak non-paid optional training courses. However, all teachers
interviewed owned a desktop or a laptop computer and made at least some use
of computers for communication, online activities and administrative work.
Buckingham (2007) notes how most teachers are already users of these
technologies but they struggle and resist when it comes to implementation in the
classroom. As Selwyn (1999) argues the inability to incorporate technology in
very creative ways is partially due to lack of proper training and experience with
technology in the classroom.
>,0'<7*7Y!=-!
!!
4.1.6 Informal support networks
Mr. Alem, a teacher in the school, indicated that he felt very lucky to have found
an extremely motivated teacher in his school who liked to spend a significant
amount of time at home searching for new tips, ways to use XO applications, and
educational portals. She was kind and enthusiastic to share her findings and
often offered several tips to the rest of the faculty in informal settings and on
occasion would swap classes to work with the XO with other children in the
school. For Mr. Alem who had not had a very positive experience with formal
training, found such help from a knowledgeable peer in the same school had a
very positive impact.
Mrs. Pereira noted that computer use in her school significantly changed
according to the amount of motivated teachers that integrated into the faculty
each year. Computer implementation in the school was highly influenced by a
small pocket of motivated teachers who voluntarily offered to share their skills
and advice on computer use in the classroom. Because part of the teaching body
changes yearly it also changes the social networks that form at the school.
All teachers interviewed during the research expressed that informal networks
were the most helpful and reliable methods in learning about integrating the XO
into their teaching. For teachers it was much easier and more effective to meet a
colleague at the faculty room who they knew and has a personal interest to use
computers and that was willing to guide you or share their experiences rather
>,0'<7*7Y!=O!
!!
then relying on official resources that were much more sporadic and external to
the local situation.
‘For me having someone in my school who was not there for just a visit and
was very good at exploring digital resources was of much more help than
any course you could offer me. It was also more enjoyable and personalized,
and you know most tips she had were shared simply during break in the
faculty room – nothing fancy. After a while a lot of teachers were returning to
her for help, she was happy to share’.
Mr. Alem
Something not necessarily anticipated by the authorities developed into an
important source of support for teachers. As Bebell and Kay (2010) argue,
participants in 1:1 schools varied the management of the laptop to best suit the
needs of their own distinct educational community, teachers employ informal
networks to respond to their needs in school. In the impetus to use the XO,
teachers have begun to form different mechanisms of reciprocity for learning
based on informal relations in the schools.
Another advantage of such informal and sustained support was that teachers
could try a suggestion in class and come back for complementary help. Having
one person in the school through the whole year allowed them to try new things
and return for additional help. Also more durable peer-to-peer conversation
>,0'<7*7Y!=5!
!!
among colleagues worked for brainstorming. Alternative informal and
unconventional education patterns emerged including older children showing
leadership both in supporting the teacher but also helping younger children with
the XO. This will be looked at in more detail in a later section. These types of
initiatives have been proven to have the potential to be extremely useful when
teachers are also partaking in the learning process.
The problem with these informal methods is the inconstancy over time as these
aid networks are constantly broken and reformed every academic year. The
constant breakdown means that there is no assurance that students will receive
the same quality of education regarding ICT from year to year. At the same time,
the process and uses which children are exposed to with technology is not
systematic. The way teachers are learning to introduce computers in the
classroom does not assure a methodological learning in the sense that the level
of engagement and complexity does not assure a constant growth year-by-year.
4.1.7 Exploring in class
During the interviews it was clear that younger teachers who frequently use
computers for personal matters understood the need to play around with
computers in order to become more fluent and develop creative ideas. Younger
teachers were keener in establishing exploratory sessions with computers during
class time as Mrs. Alacalá highlights:
>,0'<7*7Y!=8!
!!
‘I have used a computer for quite a while, well I always used a PC so
everything is related to the PC and I am familiar with it, so I can teach them.
I have no problem to teach them how use the more traditional programs.
Now we are learning with a manual but in general kids like to explore !in
the agenda I prepare everyday I always consider the use of the XO. I usually
prepare activities but I also give them a lot of free time to explore specific
programs, that way we call all learn and share!and when they go home
they have something to keep working on.’
Mrs. Alacalá seemed to be an exception to most teachers that were interviewed
or observed during class. According to her she managed fine when it came to
introducing the computer into her teaching. Her criticism was more focused on
the technical problems, limitations of the XO or the amount of computers that
break. For Mrs. Alacalá her personal interest was a significant factor in making it
easier and enjoyable to introduce the computer into her teaching.
4.1.8 Obstacles and barriers
Research shows that when computers arrive teachers aspire to integrate ICT
within the classroom but that they encounter different barriers (Bingimlas, 2009).
Becta (2004) grouped lack of time, confidence and resistance as teacher-level
barriers while ineffective training, technical problems and lack of resources were
identified as school-level barriers.
>,0'<7*7Y!-V!
!!
These types of barriers can be expected to change in different contexts and over
time, nevertheless Schoepp (2005) found that available technology was not a
major issue in schools but that teachers were not being supported, instructed or
properly rewarded for the extra time and effort required to integrate technology
into their teaching. For teachers preparing and teaching their classes with new
technology, extra time was required and it meant exposing themselves to new
challenges as Mrs. Fajardo explains:
‘Is not that we don’t want to use them but it does take more time to teach the
lesson with the XO, especially when not all children bring the computer on
daily basis, many bring them but they are not charged and sometimes we
cannot connect all at the same time. Its not as simple as it looks from the
outside!.’
Planning their lessons with computers requires teachers to spend their time at
home searching, viewing and evaluating websites that can be used in class.
Even when using Plan Ceibal’s portal, this implied extra time for adapting the
activity to their class dynamics and forms of teaching. Not only do teachers use
their home time to plan their lessons but if they want to include web activities
they also use their personal Internet service, such as Mr. Alem who had an
Internet contract that charged by the traffic such that he was also paying from his
own pocket to plan activities with the XO. Even then, expecting teachers to plan
and review educational material is not inherent to the use of technology.
>,0'<7*7Y!-$!
!!
A common complaint by teachers during the interviews’ was that they already
struggle to fit all of the content of the official curriculum in one year and while
using computers in the class might be important they simply lacked time. One of
the teachers admitted to decreasing their attempts to use the XO in class as they
got closer to the end of the year and still had to cover sections of the curricula
that were vital. As Newhouse (2002) notes, even slight changes in the content or
pedagogy involves extra time and effort. Previous studies (see Cuban et al.,
2001; Osborne and Hennesy, 2003; Becta, 2004) state that teachers already
struggled with time to teach and plan lessons, including computers in their
lessons required extra time in the planning and delivering of class.
Teachers have to be extremely resourceful and creative in order to make things
work. As Lankshear and Snyder (2000) state, teachers who engage with ICT in
the classroom, especially among the early adopters, exhibit continuous effort and
perseverance in a journey full of obstacles.
4.1.8 Final thoughts
During the research all teachers that were interviewed or participated in class
observation made use of the XO in the classroom directly or indirectly assisted
by other teachers or older students who volunteered to help. For the most part
class observations indicated that most teachers used the XO in passive ways –
for consuming information rather than producing new material, but even then it
>,0'<7*7Y!-.!
!!
was interesting to observe how teachers had in less than three years with little
support found ways to introduce computers into their teaching.
4.2 Children and computers in the classroom
4.2.1 Ubiquitous computer programmes and social interactions
This section focuses on presenting children as the consumers of teachers’
endeavours with technology in class and what they create based on this
experience. Unlike the teacher’s section where additional teachers were
interviewed to gain diversity, this section builds on the information from 6 case
studies in a sixth grade class.
During the research the children’s use of technology in school was dominated by
education-related activities, however it was clear that children’s employment of
computers in school existed in constant negotiations between education and
leisure driven interests such as gaming or social networking. As the initial
novelty of the XO wears off, the computers dominance of social time is in decline
at school with children choosing to leave their XOs inside during breaks instead
of hovering around them playing games. On the other hand, during the frequent
rainy days of winter, computer playing remained the most popular back-up plan
when children were unable to play outside. Children also engaged in a
considerable amount of gaming and social networking in class when they
finished projects ahead of others, or they would simply hide their gaming
windows when the teacher was watching during regular class activities.
>,0'<7*7Y!-"!
!!
Despite occasional misuse in class, most children reported to like using the XO
for educational activities as well as for the dynamics and interaction created
during classroom activities thanks to the use of the computers in class. It was
found that much of the motivation individual children had to work with their XOs
was a result of the collective social dynamics of computer use in the classroom. If
children were not given the opportunity to interact or comment on each other’s
work while using computers the overall levels of engagement rapidly declined.
Hence, the success of computer activity in class not only depended on the
educational value of it but the level at which children engaged and interacted.
‘Yes I like using the XO in class it also makes the lesson a lot more relaxed
when we use it. Instead of looking at the blackboard and having to
concentrate on what the teacher says all the time you can search things on
your own and ask your friends for help when you cannot find things.’
Carol
Overall most children reported to enjoy using computers in class, though there
was a thin line between liking the pedagogies and dynamics created around the
computer and the actual use. Even when each children had their own computer
to work individually, computers were shown to enhance more personal
interactivity among children than working with paper and pen. Children found it
easier to work alternating between short periods of concentration, interacting and
navigating with the computer, and personal communication than traditional skill
>,0'<7*7Y!-9!
!!
and drill practices. Children themselves manifested that when it came to
educational activities with the XO at school that long periods working with
computer alone was tiring and hard to stay on track. Leandro explained:
‘We always like to use the computer in class but the truth is that if we have
to write something that takes very long it gets boring as well, I liked the
activity we did about the scolopendra (a type of insect) -- that was fun
because it wasn’t easy but we finally figured out.’
Good practices with the XO appeared to involve designing activities that children
engaged in and felt passionate about, that presented a moderate challenge to
keep them interested but were not so difficult that it resulted in high levels of
frustration. During one of the English lessons children found a big insect – a
scolopendra. While children screamed in excitement and fear, the teacher used
the opportunity to developed a class activity and ask them to find the name of the
insect in English.
When using the XO for activities such as searches children almost instinctively
wanted to be the first one to resolve the task and this sentiment was more
accentuated on the XO than when resolving math problems. This was partially
because children themselves celebrated and rewarded the work on the XO more
than on traditional tasks.
>,0'<7*7Y!-=!
!!
Solving computer tasks quickly usually combined a set of non-computer skills
such as the ability to plan and develop a strategy with the technical ability to
navigate the XO. Some students (anecdotally female students) preferred to focus
more on the strategy while others (anecdotally male students) went directly to the
computer. According to the teacher when working with the XO girls had an easier
time at listening and incorporating ideas throughout the exercise. She explained
this noting that in her experience male students were more hyperactive and
make different uses of the computer in the same way that they participate
differently in most classroom activities.
Teachers, for the most part, were learning from their experiences and often
needed to rely on student’s knowledge, which leads them to more participatory
methods than conventional skill and drill practices. Children valued the self-
empowered autonomy they exercised when using the computer. However, the
agency children enjoyed when using technology in the classroom was conditional
on the structural organization with institutional norms and values. Children live in
a constant negotiation within the hierarchical structure of the educational system.
Selwyn (2003) explains how technology has duality that, although it lives out of
human action, assumes structural properties that are at the same time products
of preceding agency.
Class observation and further interviews with children indicated that meaningful
uses of technology at schools are surrounded by an important set of human
>,0'<7*7Y!--!
!!
relations that constructs the children’s experience with technology. Those sets of
social relations worked in conjunction with a sense of belonging that children had
been able to establish in a space that for the longest time had been dominated
by teachers and a traditional school culture. This allowed students to break with
traditional teacher centred approaches that were used. This became clearer
when children were asked whether they used to like the old informatics classes
they had in the computer room and the response was overwhelmingly negative.
Children rejected the structure of the old days.
Such classes were characterized by instructional teaching, a unidirectional
teacher to student relationship, and learning-precise software. Facer et al. (2003)
remarks how children dislike computer guided classes in schools because being
instructed in a linear step-by-step manner narrows the possibilities for
experimentation and trial and error methods. For children the old informatics
classes created student-teacher dependence and the over-controlled use of
computers in schools contrasts with the degree of agency that children purported
to enjoy when using computers at home. It was clear that children valued the
idea of working with computers that implicated a change on the instructional
pedagogies and hierarchical structure of the traditional schooling. The XO in the
class has opened a door for children to negotiate their culture as part of the class.
>,0'<7*7Y!-O!
!!
4.2.2 Structure and social dynamic
‘When we work with the XO it is natural that the children are teaching me –
they are what they call digital natives. About the XO they learn more from
each other that they will ever learn from me. We have to understand that
things have changed with the XO, nothing is like it used to be.’
Mrs. Fajardo
Mrs. Fajardo was conscious that without the help that the children provided to
one another and herself she would not be able to use the XO in the class and
that the children were conscious of that fact. The way children themselves
organized and interacted in class had a lot to do with creating a student centered
learning environment.
Previous research (see Bebell and Kay, 2010; Mouza, 2008; Osborne and
Hennessy, 2003) agrees that use of ICT in classrooms can improve student’s
motivation and engagement towards education. Plan Ceibal’s research states
that bringing the XO into the classroom had in many contexts a positive impact
on student’s motivation and school attendance (Martinez et al., 2009). Such data
coincides with what all teachers interviewed for the research indicated. Although
not all children equally liked using computers for educational activities in class,
they were similarly permeable to the social interaction created by the use of
>,0'<7*7Y!-5!
!!
technology. The use of the XO in the school was characterized by children’s high
level of sociability and interaction with teachers. The experiences during the
research suggest that sometimes these novel levels of interactions could get out
of control, sometimes resulting in small chaotic situations.
Mrs. Fajardo noted that children manifested extra motivation to learn and to be in
school when using the XO in class. Roschelle et al. (2000) argues that computer
use motivates children to learn through four distinct characteristics: (i) active
engagement, (ii) participation in groups, (iii) frequent interaction and feedback,
and (iv) connection to real-world contexts.
Participatory activities with technology allowed children to compare and share
tips during and after an activity. There is no clear evidence that computers in
school have encouraged children to interact with others who they have not
previously been friends with. At best, computers may have reinforced pre-
existing senses of trust and interaction. It was noted that teachers and students
alike integrally associated the use of the computer in class with personal
interaction.
4.2.3 Children’s negative experiences with technology in the classroom
While most children in the research positively approved of the use of computers
in class, some issues were raised. As stated before, concerns about using
computers in class were linked to very specific situations and even then it had
>,0'<7*7Y!-8!
!!
more to do with the social implications that it created than disaffection with the
computer itself. Among the six children interviewed during the research two of
them had shown some sort of rejection towards the use of computers in school.
However, they seemed to find both positive and negative aspects regarding ICT
and they still approved the use of computers in education. Katia was one of the
very few students who had no other computer other than the XO at home. The
logic of the programme would suggest that she would highly value having a
computer given by the programme. Although she was one of the students who
brought the computer to class more often, she felt that within the group she
entered the class at a disadvantage to her peers. Extending the amount of
computer activities in school had made it more difficult for her to compete with
other kids in the class.
Because she had no Internet at home and the nearest hot spot was not very safe
after dark, when the Internet was required to complete her homework Katia could
only arrive twenty minutes before class to complete her homework as she lived in
a working class neighbourhood far from the school. She had a short window of
time outside of the school when it was still closed to accomplish what most
students had done at home the day before and with the supervision of an adult.
In retrospect Katia was not directly opposed to having a computer though she
found it hard to accompany the collective practices of computers in school.
>,0'<7*7Y!OV!
!!
Limited access to Internet and the XO being the only computer in her house was
not Katia biggest disadvantage. Studies of the characteristics of how children
generally make use of computers at schools and homes demonstrates that
children carry a certain human capital that distinguishes how they embark with
these technologies no matter the context in which they are used. When
computers were required to complete homework tasks, Katia was unfortunate to
receive no assistance from her single father who worked from dawn to sunset in
a construction site. Such is the case of Uruguay and the provision of ICT
programmes and hardware in schools, this project cannot be decontextualized
from the wider social and political variables in which it is framed (Selwyn, 1999).
While Plan Ceibal had enabled Katia to have more access to digital technology it
also unveiled another layer where the cultural capital separates more privileged
children from disadvantaged ones.
Notably the greater differences of how children engage with computers beyond
the context in which they are used is marked by the disparity between household
income and education. Households with lower economic income and basic
formal education tend to be able to provide less assistance to children in
developing technological academic skills (Warschauer and Matuchniak 2010).
The case of Katia reflects what the strong body of academics (see Buckingham,
2007; Mumtaz, 2001, Warschauer and Matuchniak, 2010) have elaborated on
based on Attewell and Battle’s (1999) concept of the ‘Sesame street effect’ with
children’s home computer experiences. If not implemented properly, ubiquitous
>,0'<7*7Y!O$!
!!
computer programmes may very well produce results on another ‘Sesame street
effect’ where programmes that aim to balance out the gap between affluent and
poor might reproduce and amplify the existing social inequalities pushing groups
further apart. The argument about social differences and the educational use of
computers becomes circular and hard to break. As Selwyn (2005) argues, even
when access is provided we need to move away from the assumption that ICT is
available to all.
Guzman, one of the children who was more passionate about computers, stated
that although he spends large amounts of time on the computer at home he
preferred schooling like the old days – with no computers. His comments
stemmed from two negatives experiences with computer tasks over a two years
period. He was asked to prepare a group presentation for his English class
where they spent over two weeks working on Etoys but the day they were to
present in front of the class they had erased the file by mistake and were unable
to recover it. The other was a more common case, when using a web portal his
computer would not connect properly while the rest of the students had already
finished the activity. The fact that all students had finished the task before him
had made him feel very discouraged.
Children were found to be extremely vulnerable to negative experiences and
social exposure and were shown to hold on to this for quite a while. Both
gratification and frustration with ICT practices in school were moderately driven
>,0'<7*7Y!O.!
!!
by interaction and participation in what Ito et al. (2008) refer to as a broader
social and cultural ecology. Accordingly, ubiquitous programs need to develop
scaffolding in traditional and cultural literacy and avoid competition between
home and school computer use, which results in devaluation of each other and
amplifying the different cultural capital brought from each context (Brown,
Cummins and Sayers, 2007).
4.2.4 Didactical learning
Because of traditional concepts of schooling -- or the type of schooling they
receive when they are not using computers -- children associated collaboration
and peer sharing activities to more informal settings such as school breaks or at
home. In the subconscious of the child this type of activity did not belong to the
classroom environment.
Similarly to how teachers learned to support and share regarding using the XO,
children also developed support systems, sharing and discovering new things or
games on the XO. Malú explained that although she knew how to use the
computer when the XO arrived, there were always new things to discover and
learn from others. She noted:
‘I had a computer in my house before so I knew how to use the computer
more or less but I also learned from the teacher and my friends here at
school. There are kids that are experts and know how to do everything on
>,0'<7*7Y!O"!
!!
the XO and how to download the best games. Once there is a good game
everyone is talking about at school, you know where to go and get it. So we
download the game during break and then we share tips on how to play it as
well.’
Malu
Such as Hollaway and Valentine (2003) note, computers, in this case the XO,
emerge in some children’s imagination as an ‘educational tool’ while for others it
is a ‘leisure machine’ - most likely some mixture of the two with an inclination
towards the latter. For Giacquinta et al. (1993) the added educational and
didactical value of computers depends on the social context and the social
relationship where they are being used. While this happened to be true, children
in school were also highly receptive to casual interaction. Children live in a
constant flux between changing the meaning and attributes of computers
according to their contexts that are renegotiated between local and global
processes.
Mouza (2008) found that peer sharing was a strong feature while using
computers during class and children often volunteer to help each other after they
complete their work. During the research children’s use of computers in class
was characterized by a constant sharing of both technological and academic tips
during and after completing their task. Much of the way children worked and
engaged on computerized activities in class recreated informal social dynamics
where children spent more time with computers. The way children collectively
>,0'<7*7Y!O9!
!!
handled educational tasks replicated much of the way children interacted and
played with computers during breaks or free time during class. Trojan Chicken,
one of the most serious game developers for the XO in Uruguay, reported that
unlike any other videogame platforms children using the XO recurrently played
games collectively even when they all have their own computers.
It was prominent that students struggled while in class to discern the distinctive
dynamics and social norms between academic and leisure time when using
computers – notably children translated the more didactical uses of computer into
the classroom. Authors such as Prensky or Gee would agree that ‘good’
videogames are characterized to be interactive and compelling – videogames are
fun and they can act as a set of problems to be solved. Likewise, students
engaged with computerized academic tasks in class as educational games, given
that much of the programming available to the XO is educational games.
When children were given the option to say a word for what the XO was for or
what they used it for, the majority said gaming. Although lots of the games
available to the XO have an educational value built into them, special attention
should be put towards not turning the XO into a gaming console with an
educational component. Gaming was the most popular activity on the XO in
terms of time spent although gaming was more frequent at home than it was at
school where children learned about where to download them, shared tips and
play them collectively. Something that is initially perceived as private enjoyment
>,0'<7*7Y!O=!
!!
happened to be a highly social event, especially at school. As Mumtaz, (2001)
argues, teachers could find ways to formalize the integration of computer games
into the classroom with the aim being exploratory learning, problem solving skills,
thinking skills, memory, perseverance, imagination, collaboration, and team work.
School needs to play a stronger role as an initial point of introduction to ICT and
move beyond mundane and passive consumption of online material (Selwyn,
2003). The fact that children established a didactical appreciation for solving
academic tasks through technology does not remove the challenging endeavour
of solving the problem. Teachers need to be aware that many of the skills
learned in the context of games or in the context of simulating educational
activities as games might not necessary transfer to other contexts (Buckingham
and Sefton-Green, 2004).
The XO inter-face and package, called Sugar, is designed to be fun and easy to
use, but it is also extremely limited in comparison with other popular operating
systems. In comparison to other digital technology children were exposed to, the
limited technical features and design of the children’s computer tended to allow
children to perceive the XO as a toy. For Warschauer and Ames (2010), the
hardware and software design has suffered the same utopianism as the program
implementation design approach.
4.2.5 Online uses
>,0'<7*7Y!O-!
!!
Internet use at school during class-time was dominated by online information
searching. Such practice was often carried out without much planning from the
teacher at the students’ inquiry about specific topics during a lesson. Teachers
would often allow the use of the Internet to answer questions that go beyond the
teacher’s knowledge. Using the Internet for searching information was much
faster and covered much more than looking in the books available in school.
However, the fact they could access information almost instantly did not mean
they would find it right away. Furthermore, processing and understanding the
information available online was often difficult and time consuming for children.
Unlike using educational books that are designed for specific audiences with
different reading and reasoning skills, children were accessing lots of raw
information that was often simply too difficult for them to digest and analyze.
Without teacher intervention children were for the most part vulnerable to the
syndrome of first page results (Baron and Bruillard, 2007). Unlike other tasks with
computers when children were not able to find the information they were looking
for they preferred seeking help with the teacher rather than their peers.
Using the Internet for searching information in class revealed that children were
aware of the importance of traditional literacy skills in order to access what they
are looking for. Class observation showed that children have incorporated who to
ask for help according to what they needed. Basic tips or comments were
common between close friends in class, more technical issues were usually
>,0'<7*7Y!OO!
!!
directed to a few students that were known to be good with computers while
students turned to teachers when they could not find or understand the material
they found online.
Children acknowledged and valued the type of non-technical help they could get
from teachers that supplemented their technical skill in the computers. Students
highly regarded that type of knowledge and teacher intervention that helped them
to avoid getting frustrated with the Internet. Research clearly shows that
implementing new technologies in the classrooms does not replace teachers but
in fact amplifies the role and importance of human mentorship in the use of new
technologies, such to manage the intent of bridging the social divides which new
technology amplifies in formal schooling (Warschauer, 2007). When students
were asked whether the teacher knew how to use the computer they usually
referred to the use of the Internet:
‘Nancy knows how to use the computer well, sometimes we help her too
and we all learn together!but she teaches us how to look for information,
where to look and compare it with other websites to know if what we seeing
is true, she taught us what a digital text is.’
Carol
Children were more receptive than teachers themselves when asked about
teacher’s performance with computers. Such is the amount of time children
spend online that it was vital to them to learn how to search the web more
>,0'<7*7Y!O5!
!!
effectively and obtain what they needed in less time. Children admitted that
sometimes the amount of information available on the Internet was overwhelming
and too hard to understand.
A common skill children developed in the class was to add the term ‘for children’
in the search engine following the topic they were researching. While it worked
on topics where there was material especially published for children such as
‘World War One for children ’ it proved to be rather problematic on other topics
where there was insufficient material for children. Adding more words into the
search engine, in this case the term ‘for children,’ broadened the list of results
obtained making it harder for children. The educational use of computers
exposed how traditional and new literacy complement each other, and how ICT
should not be about learning to use the computer but the ability to learn to learn
(Facer et at., 2003).
4.2.6 The aura of the XO
La Ceibalita ya fue!(the little XO is out of date). That was what many children
said when they were informally asked in the playground about the XO.
When computers first arrived to school, children described the playground
becoming covered in green (the colour of the computer) and how they used to
walk with their XO everywhere. Children enjoyed an initial period of fascination
with the XO where they used to continually exchange tips on games, websites or
social networks. As Livingston (2002) makes a similar argument to understand
>,0'<7*7Y!O8!
!!
the place media occupies in children’s lives, after an initial period of fascination
the XO should be understood while taking into account the alternative
opportunities children have available to them.
The scenario Mrs. Fajardo described when she first walked into a class full of
children with XOs after they handed the computer to children has significantly
changed since then and children have matured from such intensive use. In
general children from the sixth grade class expressed that along the last three
years they had started becoming jaded from repetitive similar tasks on computers.
There was an impression among students and teachers that the XO has started
to decline from the peak excitement and the precious aura as a commodity in
children’s minds.
Such perception might espouse multiple consequences such as children opting
to not bring the XO on a daily basis with the excuse that it is too heavy (3.20 lbs),
or the high frequency in which they are ‘accidently’ broken from improper care. It
is clear that such perceptions differ from context to context and on the personal
experiences students have had with different teachers in class.
Older children, who have been using the XO for three years and had passed their
initial peak, maintain the argument that computers in school are now essential.
Children were very receptive to the concept that computers were a sign of
>,0'<7*7Y!5V!
!!
educational innovation and change and are therefore perceived with greater
benefits than previous traditional practices (Rogers, 1995).
4.2.7 A computerized education for the future
Children were asked if they thought having a computer integrated in their
schooling was important for them and they all built similar arguments about
learning with technology given the fact they live surrounded by electronic gadgets
such as mp3 players, phones, cameras or computers. Children felt a need to be
educated on technological aspects to keep up as they considered themselves
heavy consumers of technology. Children implicitly associated the importance of
mastering technology with a set of social relations that surround them.
On the other hand, when asked if they thought ICT in school was important for
their future, they formulated different ideas. The notion each student articulated
was correlated to his or her home context and in some cases – when possible –
to adult models of computer use. The way children gave a symbolic social
meaning to the computer depended on the type of access and guidance children
brought from home. As Giacquinta et al. (1993) suggests, children’s educational
use is dependent upon parent’s involvement; children evidenced different
perceptions according to the ‘social envelope’ they have at home regarding
computers.
>,0'<7*7Y!5$!
!!
Children’s experience with technology reflected what Warschauer (2003) states
in that although technology exerts an independent force, it exists within
technological and social domains of a social structure. The study found that the
way children thought about using computers in the future was linked to how
computers were used at home. The following are excerpts from the interviews
describing different realities:
Carol
Interviewer: I noticed you often speak about technology, is that true?
Carol: Yes I like technology, we are all very technological at home -- we all have cell
phones, I got this new phone because I lost mine last week!.
Interviewer: So how is all to going to help you in future?
Carol: Well technology is very important; I want to be a cook and a hairdresser. So in
the kitchen there are a lot of electrical appliances that use technology like the mixer or
blender and if I want to be a hairdresser I need to learn how to use the little iron to
straighten your hair. So I need to learn, I think computers in schools are very important.
Carol came from a working class neighbourhood far from the school and she
attended this institution because her mother used to work as a cleaning lady in
one of the buildings in the area. Her father worked in construction and had
migrated to the city when he was 18. Carol had a slow desktop computer at
home and Internet connection, but neither her father nor her mother used the
computer at work or home.
>,0'<7*7Y!5.!
!!
Guzman
Interviewer: what do you think computers at school will help you with in your future?
Guzman: I think it is good, but we need more informatics classes so we can learn things
that we can use for work like Windows. Like my uncle who fixes computers, he
assembled the one we got at home and gave it to my dad. What we learn with
computers here is not very useful, it wont get you a job.
Guzman did not live very close to the school but his grandparent did and he was
dropped off there when his parents were at work. His mother worked at a cell
phone retail shop and his father worked in a factory and was a musician.
Guzman had a computer since his early years, which his father had brought from
his house. His desire to learn about computers comes from his uncle who has a
business fixing and assembling computers and he expressed admiration for him.
His parents’ job did not require computer skills but they used the computer at
home.
Camilo
Interviewer: How do you think computers will!
Camilo: Yes, it is important that we use them in school!
Interviewer: I didn’t even finish asking the question and you already answer!
Camilo: I knew what you were going to ask!and so yes I think it is important for the
future. It is really important to have a computer to study. My father works on the
computer all day when he is at work (he is a computer engineer), I’d much rather work in
>,0'<7*7Y!5"!
!!
an office typing keys than being a construction worker and having to work all day, it is
too harsh on your body.
Camilo was one of the most computer literate children in the class, not only using
technology very frequently but he also found ways to expand his knowledge
without becoming obsessed with technology. Until last year he attended a private
school where he also used an XO. His father is a computer engineer and his
mother was a primary school teacher with a proven knowledge of having
investigated different aspects of the XO.
It is understandable that children’s actual use of technology and purposes of ICT
correspond with their experience at home, yet it was intriguing that children from
lower income families did not associate computers as a vehicle for social mobility
outside of their social groups. Unlike other research such as Volman et al. (2005),
children did not associate computers with higher paying jobs; rather they
concluded that computer knowledge was important to all jobs regardless of the
type. For Carol and Camilo computers played an important role in their
professional careers despite the obvious differences. For children at this age
computers did not represent white-collar jobs such as shown in previous
research. Providing all students with computers may have changed the feeling
that computers were associated to only certain jobs usually filled by privileged
demographics. Unlike other research studies (see Ito, 2009 or Stolzoff et al.,
2000) that have shown perceptions of computers as a symbol of class distinction,
perhaps because of its mass implementation through Plan Ceibal, computers
were not perceived as vehicles of social mobility.
>,0'<7*7Y!59!
!!
The different realities among children exemplify the way they imagine their use
and future application of computers. This again was found to be associated with
the type of technological exposure children received in the family context. Even
more evident was the case of Guzman who contrasted the educational use of
computers at school with the technical skills he wished to learn to work like his
uncle. In this matter children were found to be very receptive to associate the use
of technology to specific adult models; such as Carol whose parents did not know
how to use computers - she connected her mother’s knowledge of household
electrical appliances to explain why ICT was important in school.
Until now computers and the social symbolic meaning that comes with them was
allocated to specific social groups. The 1:1 computer program in all schools has
changed such perceptions, transforming computers into a ubiquitous tool across
much more diverse demographics. The way Carol explains the significance of
computers in her life illustrates the wide range of perceptions children have of the
applications of computers.
4.3 Children, the home and computers
4.3.1 Walking into the home
This section focuses on seeking to understand how children interact with the
same technology provided at school in the home environment. This analysis will
include some of the similarities and differences between children’s use and
>,0'<7*7Y!5=!
!!
interaction both with ‘la grande’ and ‘la chica’ – the ‘big’ desktop and the ‘small’
XO computer, as children often refer to them.
During the research, common features such as high informal interaction or
structural teaching modes were found to coexist both at home and at school.
Previous research (see Buckingham, 2007) indicates a clear division between
the ways children use and give purpose to computers at home and at school.
Despite the different uses children make of it, Facer et al. (2003) recalls the
importance of not forgetting the ubiquitous nature of learning. It is clear that
children move in and out of different environments carrying the content
knowledge they learn from different contexts.
Like the teacher Mrs. Fajardo had described, the first impression she got when
she first walked into a class full of XOs was that children would alienate
themselves with the computers and deprive themselves from any personal
contact or interaction. But as time went by an opposite effect came into place and
children developed high levels of interaction while using the XO in class. Until
three years ago computers were exclusively home-use devices and because
children spent significantly more time with computers at home than at school it
the social dynamics that surrounded the computer in the home were
unconsciously transferred to the school environment.
>,0'<7*7Y!5-!
!!
Today high levels of interaction at the home was not accentuated during
computer use, rather it was a solitary practice surrounded by the complex social
systems inherent to the home. Different families had appropriated computers to
obtain resources for a variety of non-digital activities as well. The day Malu was
interviewed at home she had just looked for a recipe online to bake a cake. Carol
reported that she and her mom also used the Internet for cooking quite often
while she was also a big fan of searching for jokes online to tell at the dinner
table and later at school. Camilo’s family had fully integrated computers into
ordinary daily routines from paying bills and doing their banking online, to
searching movies screening in theatres and buying bus tickets for summer trips.
Katia, who only had the XO and had no Internet connection at home, still found
ways to integrate the XO into the social dynamics of the household and
sometimes used the XO to play music at home.
4.3.2 School – home interferences
An interesting case of how the school system has influenced the social and
power structures of the home was the way children intended to show or teach
their parents or adults about the XO. Children would change from a mode of
sharing that was common in informal settings like the home to a mode imitating
teacher centred approaches. The case with Malu revealed how children are able
to imitate the role of the educator assimilating modes of tutoring and
communicating when helping her parents about the XO.
>,0'<7*7Y!5O!
!!
In class Malu always sat next to Carol and other students in class who teamed
up to work on tasks involving the XO. Trust and fluent communication was
noticeable in how they worked together and established a horizontal structure
where most comprehensive knowledge was stressed as a collective body of
integrations that was more functional and complete than each individual
knowledge base. Interaction, questioning and constant interruption was the basis
of their group work.
Very different was when Malu helped her father at simple computer tasks at
home. In the home context she replicated instructional drill practices, techniques
that children consistently proclaimed to dislike. Her father recalled the time when
he asked her for help him make a folder and save it in the documents section.
Between laughs and smiles he described how Malu would not let him talk and
became very authoritarian. Her father would joke how Malu treated their
computer ‘lessons’ in the same way that she would play teacher to her dolls.
Malu would remind her father to listen, stay quite or pay attention on several
occasions when explaining computer related tasks to him. Our interview (done
with both Malu and her father) did not go too far before she intervened and
remarked:
Malu: He just does not get computers! And even worse he does not listen to what I
say!That time I was teaching him how to make a folder and save it he would not listen
to me and got lost so quickly again. I told him to go to ‘my document’ in ‘my computer’
and!(interrupted by her father)
>,0'<7*7Y!55!
!!
Father: What would you expect Malu? You were telling me to do ten things at the same
time and you have to understand I am a slow student...You are such a strict teacher!
(both laughed together).
Malu and other children described teaching their parents and teachers with the
XO, it was a chance to be perceived as an active agent in an otherwise
hierarchical structure where children are usually positioned in the bottom. Other
family interviews also revealed when it comes to computer skills children assume
the role as educators and tend to replicate teacher-centred practices. Ubiquitous
computer programs are known to have led to the development of more student-
centered approaches in education, beyond the teaching itself students enjoy
becoming active agents in the classroom. Similar results were observed in the
household with the arrival of the XO. Children were suddenly positioned to be
more active and valuable agents in the family structure – they had a body of
knowledge that their parents tended not to.
In the informal setting of the household, Malu and her father had exchanged
roles changing the usual power structures between family members. In
retrospect, Malu did not mean to emulate her experiences with teacher-centred
approaches at school because she considered those to be good practices –
indeed she had proclaimed to dislike such approaches – but she wanted to be
appreciated and show she could make important contributions. Through the XO
she has found a way to challenge the family structures even if it was momentarily.
>,0'<7*7Y!58!
!!
In the context and trust among individuals in the home, the XO served as a
channel to break power structures and escape the passive stereotype of the child
as container of knowledge to be filled, instead defining themselves also as
agents with knowledge to contribute.
4.3.3 Gaming as a bridging concept
Echoing previous research work, gaming was found to be one of children’s
favourite activities at home with the small and the big computer (see Selwyn et
al., 2009; Warschauer and Ames, 2010). The way children play games on the XO
is perhaps one of the most evident activities where children’s behaviour modes
connected the home and school.
Children usually found out about the latest games developed for the XO at school
and initially experimented immediately with their peers. Although usually their
initial examination of the game happened at school, it was at home under no time
restrictions or supervision that children fully embarked on the game.
‘Once there is a good game everyone is talking about at school, you know
where to go and get it. So we download the game during break and then we
share tips on how to play it as well.’
Malu
>,0'<7*7Y!8V!
!!
Playing videos games in school was characterized by a high degree of
interactivity and even collective participation on one computer, which had both
negative and positive aspects with regards to the experience of playing the
videogame. High interaction at school stimulated the sharing of tips and tricks but
it also limited the type of risks they were willing to take and narrowed their focus.
Playing at school with other peers was more impulsive, while playing at home
involved longer and more focused gaming sessions.
‘When you play games at school you want to show your friends what you
can do and challenge them, it is like we compete all the time but in a good
way, we have fun like that.’
Leandro
The home environment provided longer time periods and no supervision where
children were not afraid of experimenting and trying new things. Facer et al.
(2001) observe that the time available at home is an important factor that
determines how children relate to computers differently than in schools. More
unstructured environments and time available allows children to embark on trial
and error approaches where children feel comfortable and unpressured.
Authors such as Downes (1996) highlight how playing video games can teach
children to solve problems, develop thinking skills, patience, and perseverance
as well as memory and imagination. Irrespective of this though, playing video
>,0'<7*7Y!8$!
!!
games requires certain literate skills that children need to acquire outside of the
game. Many of the skills Downes outlined are initially taught at school, but can
evolve and change in some aspects when playing videogames including learning
modes, dedication and time. In this way gaming acts more as a form of
reinforcement of previous skills than teaching new ones.
‘Sometimes there is a new game everybody is playing at school, so when I
come home I try really hard to get good so I can show it to my friends they
day after at school!home is where you play the most and school is where
you play with others and see who is better at it’.
Guzman
What children learn through playing games at home with the XO would never be
of any help alone, but if used in moderation, smartly and depending on the game
could possibly add value to the learning of certain skills.
4.3.4 Expectation and actual uses of computer at home
Giacquinta et al. (1993) argue that the common reasons parents bring computers
into the household tends to have almost nothing to do with the actual uses that
children give to them. Home interviews revealed that the conception of
computers being almost indispensible for children’s education was mainly a
parental construct. For Selwyn (2003) the acquisition of computers in a
>,0'<7*7Y!8.!
!!
household with children is linked to a conception that such a technological tool
would enhance children’s schoolwork.
‘Today everything passes through computers, is like if they don’t learn
anything about it now it will be very hard for them in the future. So we made
an effort a few years ago and we got this computer to give them something
so they could learn, I don’t want my children to be like me who cant even
turn on the computer.’
Carol’s father
However, children’s engagement with computers at home was dominated by
gaming and surfing the web, this is not to say that there might not be an
educational aspect in such practices but that it differs from the conception on
which it was brought to the household. Buckingham (2007) also reflects on this
stating that teachers and parents often sense the provision of technology to
children as adding value to their education.
Beyond the actual use of computers, which is the material consequence of a
series of factors at play around the child, what marked a difference was the
modes and amount of child-parent interaction related to the use of the computer.
Interaction with parents provided resourceful topics to further engage and
diversify children’s computer use. What children searched online was often
influenced by the type of conversations at home and parental advice to look
further at certain topics. Children were observed to struggle to independently
>,0'<7*7Y!8"!
!!
think about new things to look for when in front of a computer. Often, activities
with the XO at home were an unplanned pastime – passing time between other
household events.
‘A lot of times I play with the XO after school in the evening when I am alone
at home and a bit scared, that way I get distracted and time goes faster.’
Leandro
Naturally, children used their XO for doing their homework but those were
predetermined and mandatory activities that usually consumed a small fraction of
their time with the computer. Children alone struggled to find new activities to
engage computers, often landing on similar dull routines. Warschauer (2003)
states the importance of guidance and teacher involvement; children with low
literacy skills are often the least able to cope with unstructured learning heavily
based on cognitive environments such as the use of computers at home.
Leandro’s mother commented:
‘At home we have a strong culture of reading, as you can see from all the
books we have, so we try very hard that Leandro gets interested in reading
books and uses the computer for mindful activities. The Internet can be a
good resource but it can also be addictive and harmful -- it just depends how
you use it. We don’t pretend he does not use the computer but try to ensure
that he does not get lost there!’
>,0'<7*7Y!89!
!!
Such attitudes not only reflect the perception parents have of computers and the
Internet as important for their educational value, but also the importance of
parent intervention in technology consumption. Warschauer and Ames (2010)
state that students with high literacy and strong language skills are more likely to
benefit while surfing the web, social networking or gaming at home. Parental
intervention was usually intended to motivate and administrate computer usage
among children. To follow this idea Stolzoff et al. (2000) argues that children’s
computer use is in fact highly mediated by parents although gaining more
autonomy as they move to their teenage years.
All six children clearly acknowledged that computer use at home was widely
dominated by leisure activities, mostly playing videogames. Data suggests that
children who spend less time on computers but more time in company with their
parents when using the computer tended to engage in more creative and
educational uses. Large amounts of unaccompanied time developed a tendency
to engage in more monotonous and passive activities often visiting the same
websites or searching same topics. Parents might in some cases lack the
technical expertise to teach their children about computers but they made
valuable contributions providing ideas for what to look for or do with the computer.
For Carol the XO and the web were her main past-time activities – though her
engagement with digital technology was observed to be passive. One of the
reasons Carol valued bringing the XO to class on daily basis was having the
>,0'<7*7Y!8=!
!!
independence to play with on the bus during the two hours she commuted from
and to school. She reported to use the XO for at least an hour daily while at
home and more on weekends when she could walk to a school near by to use
the Internet.
Camilo shared his out of school-time between private English classes and sport
activities and spent significantly less time using computers. At home, he used the
XO on occasion after finishing his homework and for particular deeds or specific
games available only for the XO. For the last year he had acquired the habit of
picking a topic that interested him, such as football stadiums and making folders
with detailed index cards he did himself with different information and pictures for
each card. In a highly computerized home like Camilo’s, computer use did not
dominate the children’s pastime activities. As his father recalled when they got
the last Harry Potter novel he would prefer to read for hours at a time and during
vacation he would not even bother to bring his computer as he preferred to play
outside.
Carol and Camilo’s engagement with the computers were as opposite as their
realities. Likewise, the type of affordance and assistance that children receive
from their families was very different. As Mumtaz (2001) states, the different
social qualities may affect the frequency in which children make use of
computers as well as their educational outcomes. In addition to distinctive uses
among students according to the family background and context, parents with
>,0'<7*7Y!8-!
!!
higher education did not deny children access to computer as a form of
punishment. Such practice was found to be more common in cases from lower
economic groups that often happened to be more active users. Guzman’s father
explained how disallowing Guzman and his brother to play on computers was
one of the ‘only’ parental discipline measures that was effective. His sons not
only felt affected but they also made an effort to re-gain access to computers
when restricted. Such measures did not appear to sustainably change computer
behaviour from children or maintain efforts for academic improvement -- as soon
as they regained access they would engage in the same passive consumption
activities as before. Similarly, Carol also received casual threats of forbidding
computer use if she did not complete her home choirs. Beyond being a
disciplinary measure, these practices showed the importance of computers in
some of the children’s lives or at least in the minds of their parents.
On the other hand, Camilo and Leadro’s parents did not find forbidding access to
computers as effective for discipline. Camilo’s father commented on the issue:
‘It might upset him if you stop him when he is halfway through a game but he
would find something else to do quick enough and forget what you told him. I
mean every situation is different it is not that we have a recipe for educating
our kids – though it would be nice!’
Venkatesh et al. (2010) states there is a common academic understanding that
the level of education and economic income in the household, which are often
>,0'<7*7Y!8O!
!!
interrelated, may influence how children make use of computers and their
intentions. At home, shared and quality time between children and parents drives
a brainstorming process that incentivized more diverse use of computers.
Achieving educational and innovative computer uses at home meant becoming a
community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Also, children from families with higher
educational backgrounds and who had at least one parent who had integrated
the use of computers into both their professional and personal life showed far
more advanced uses of the XO. As Volman et al. (2005) states, the increasing
role of ICT in children’s education can be detrimental on children who have less
exposure to technology at home.
It is likely that as the program moves forward and ICT becomes more integrated
into the education system, children – such as Katia - with less guidance might
feel a disadvantageous impact. Children’s interactions with technology were
much more than a series of isolated individually based experiences. Rather,
children have multifaceted experiences connecting their skills acquired from
different contexts.
Although, the arrival of the XO aims to approach such differences, the digital
divide now manifests itself from the type of uses children give to the computer --
and not as merely matter of access. For the ones who had access to ‘big’
computers and whose parents have been able to guide and support their uses of
>,0'<7*7Y!85!
!!
the XO, the journey appears to have been more fruitful educationally than for the
ones with no support and no ‘big’ computers.
4.3.5 Their own computers
The XO became the first device that children could safely take out of the home
unlike other expensive computers. Also, the government assumed most costs of
repairs in cases of malfunctioning, and as such the regular use and transport of
the XO with children back and forth not only to school but wherever they felt like
became common. This in and of itself represents a significant change for both
children that had no computers before and children who had access to a desktop
or laptop computer but were not willing or allowed to take them outside of their
home. This mobility also resulted in another major difference between the XO
and other computers children had access to which was the possibility for the
children to meet in real life with their XOs.
Five out of the six children in the researches’ primary computer access were
somewhat outdated desktop computers. Except for Carol whose family only had
an old desktop computer and Katia’s family who had no other computer than the
XO the rest of the households had at least one other laptop computer. Such
machines belonged exclusively to their parents and in none of the cases laptop
computers were considered the main computer access for the household. In the
cases of Leandro, Camilo and Malu sporadic permission to use their parents
>,0'<7*7Y!88!
!!
laptops was given usually for accessing networking sites or for playing more
advanced games.
Even though five of the children in the research had a desktop computer in the
house that was mostly used by children it was still a shared resource among
siblings, which again required parental mediation. Children value having their
own computers, something that each of them were in control of and had
responsibility for. The fact children owned a computer carried with it a strong
meaning that was displayed in the social dynamics of the household. These
computers had reformulated many of the household cultural dynamics but the
symbolic meaning that comes associated with those computers also carries
significance.
The meaning given to the XO is connected to what children do and how they do
things on the computer, which was also tied to the specific context where they
used the computer. With such computers constantly moving between at least two
contexts they served as a fast vehicle that linked the home and the school. The
XO has boosted the way children mobilize skills as well as modes of learning and
interaction between home and school. As Selwyn (2003) states, the
domestication and incorporation of technology requires a stage of appropriation
reformulating the physical, symbolic and social place within our lives. In addition
Venkatesh et al. (2001) argues that digital technology in the home is no longer a
>,0'<7*7Y!$VV!
!!
fixed space, what we are seeing is a slow amalgamation of social spaces --
bringing the school home and vice versa.
Despite the fact that children, teachers and family members might not yet have
discovered the full potential of the XO and the Internet as a learning and
exploratory tool it has repositioned the learning structures. Although it is not
completely without comparisons in the history of education, no other resource
before has been as deeply integrated into both the school and the home contexts
as the XO. As good as it might sound it can be a double-edged sword, both
extending schooling into the home environment but also bringing to school the
leisure attitudes that children attribute to the XO at home and an underestimation
of the role of formal education.
:+,('E7*+,Y!$V$!
!!
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION
5.1 A Final overview
The study reaffirmed that even though all children were provided with the
computers through plan Ceibal; children as well as teachers and parents
appropriated and perceived the technology in very distinctive manners according
to diverse contexts. Preceding agencies and the independent reality of each
context modifies the intervention and the structural properties technology
assumes. Plan Ceibal is not merely an in-school programme; it is a programme
with implications that extend well beyond the classroom, with various effects in
larger social settings including the household and personal time of teachers,
students and families.
Teacher, parent and children’s agency were indeed deeply interconnected to the
contexts. Computers have served as a nexus for evolving social relationships
that are emerging in this new technological setting. Naturally, the social dynamics
evolved differently according the negotiations between agents and structural
contexts. In the school setting for example, students were often constrained to
exercise their technological agency within the traditional power structures of
school politics. The evolution of the institutional culture, or lack thereof, was also
compelled to work within the limitations of the overall education system – which
presented with no doubt one of the biggest challenges to the programme.
:+,('E7*+,Y!$V.!
!!
Children have developed a degree of agency that overshadows challenges and
confidence felt by faculty members in schools. Through the XO children found a
way to challenge the traditional education structures and shift towards more
student-centred pedagogies. Likewise, the way children perceived computers in
school was thoroughly different in comparison with their teachers; it seemed that
learning with computers was substantially more accessible than teaching with the
same technology. Hence, the perception and attitude towards the XO were very
different even while both teacher and students acknowledged the value of
technology in education. Their value and use is an evolving process that is
heavily dependent on pre-existing characteristics as well as the process of
appropriation and adaptation for students and teachers alike. Such as Facer et al.
(2003) encountered, the socially transformative nature of technology has
changed the core of the student, therefore it has also reconceptualised the
relation of teaching and learning as teacher and student.
As a result of this emerging model, children are motivated differently in the
classroom. With the incorporation of the XO they have managed to progressively
negotiate and bring more off-school practices into the classroom. For children,
migrating off-school practices to the classroom did not only make education more
appealing but also added meaning to it by connecting their formal education with
the outside world. Computers have trigged a constant and daring negotiation to
achieve a balanced education that builds synergies between a traditionally
:+,('E7*+,Y!$V"!
!!
important education and the digital world that is evolving around the children both
inside and outside of school.
Problems arose when teachers were caught between the antiquated and old
academic curriculums and the fast-paced changes occurring outside of the
school.
Children have developed a discourse explaining the importance of technology in
their educations, however even in the home context with less supervision and
fewer restrictions computers practices did not reflect this discourse—computers
were still used predominately for entertainment. Yet children did not perceive
computers, the XO included, as a device for entertainment but rather as an
integrated tool in most aspects of their lives. Children did not necessarily
prioritize computer use ahead of other typical childhood activities; it was a shift in
perception more than anything else. Children’s perception and actual use of
computers were also intimately linked to the sociocultural context of the home
and their social envelope.
This leads to an important issue regarding children’s cultural capital and the
provision of an education that is comparably rewarding to all children. Schools
should be prepared to provide a structured environment where it intends to
deliver a systematic curriculum making knowledge and learning available to all.
Yet, the lack of curriculum that ensures a constant growth in computer
:+,('E7*+,Y!$V9!
!!
knowledge makes it difficult for teachers to implement and deliver an education
that is ‘equally’ rewarding to all. Equipping all children with computers no doubt
helped to bridge some aspects of the digital divide, although the lack of
consistency and curriculum dimension limits the effectiveness of the hardware
provided. Furthermore it is critical to understand and frame the digital divide as
part of a broader social and cultural divide.
Further understanding of the digital divide requires modifying the super structures
inside of the educational system to stimulate and configure an education that
implements technology in meaningful and scholastic ways. As Livingston (2009)
outlines, the central debate on ICT and formal education needs to focus more on
developing new teaching practices that favour the student’s learning than the
insertion of new technology into schools.
5.2 Teacher’s section
In general teachers proved to have a hard time incorporating the XO into the
classroom beyond web searches or other basic consumption based activities.
With the inadequate attention given to training to begin with, there was also a
pessimistic sentiment and lack of motivation to learn and explore the XO. In
addition to the barriers and difficulties encountered on technical and pedagogical
levels, most teachers did not see this as an opportunity to become more
knowledgeable and innovative in their teaching career – or at least not as
students did. Becta (2004) found that resistance to carry out change in education
:+,('E7*+,Y!$V=!
!!
is becoming one of the biggest barriers for teacher’s use of technology in the
school.
This does not intend to blame teachers for the sporadic and modest use of the
XO in the class but to highlight attitudes towards the work, change of status and
dynamics those teachers were observed to have related the XO and
subsequently the challenges that must be overcome to maximize the impact of
the programme. Roschelle et al. (2000) states that the mastery of the structure
and domain being taught affects the aptitude for teachers to assist and engage
with students to make creative uses of computers in the classroom.
Informal networks that teachers were able to form appeared to be very useful not
only for practical help but as an alternative way to promote and feel supported in
working with the XO in a more familiar and positive atmosphere. In addition to the
advantages of having a knowledgeable peer available on daily basis, teachers
seemed to exhibit less prejudices towards other educators than to computer
technicians that were contracted to support them. This suggests a need for more
bottom-up approaches and collaboration with the faculty. For students to
become technology literate and critical users teachers must first acquire those
skills themselves (Garmire and Pearson, 2006) – then they must find the ways to
integrate the new sets of literacies into their teaching learning programmes
(Newhouse, 2002).
:+,('E7*+,Y!$V-!
!!
5.3 Children in school context
Observation of children’s computer use in school exposed two especially
important issues: the social dynamics when working with the XO and the
enduring inequalities of the digital divide reflected in the cultural capital of each
student.
As stated in the research, there are potentially dangerous outcomes with non-
scholastic cultures invading, rather than being integrated into, today’s education
and subsequently diminishing the importance of formal education and decreasing
its relevancy in children’s minds. Nonetheless, it is also natural for children to
make sense of their education by maintaining a permeable boundary between
their school lives and their home lives. It is therefore even more critical to ensure
that large-scale projects with social consequences such as Plan Ceibal ensure
adequate attention is given to all dimensions and impacts of implementation.
As the study confirmed, children with less home-based support continue to be in
a very disadvantaged position. Available time with computers did not necessarily
translate into better use, indeed children with more extracurricular activities and
more parental support but less time with computers showed more active and
educational use of computers. Facer et al. (2003) notes that children unable to
meaningfully engage with ICT at home are missing out on the experience of
combining multiple resources to support their education and the ability to discern
:+,('E7*+,Y!$VO!
!!
and interchange work and play, teaching and learning, and creating and
consuming.
5.4 Children at home
The fact that children became individual owners of their computers has facilitated
the perception of computers as an integral part of their lives. This in fact has
changed many of the social dynamics in the home and the school, challenging
the traditional power structures in both settings. Children have found through the
XO an attractive alternative for leisure activities and also a sense of ownership,
worthiness and responsibility. With this in mind it is understandable that children
perceive computers, especially the XO, as an integral part of their lives beyond
their actual use. Convincing contractions between the theoretical conception and
the practical use of computers was a common theme among children.
5.4 Final thoughts and future directions
The sample population in the research by no means represents the overall
picture of Uruguay and does not intend to do so. The conclusions and
observations gathered from this research are a reflection of a holistic approach
that examined the many interwoven relationships and cultures that interact in
new and evolving ways as a result of the XO. There is a need for further
longitudinal research to be done in this field in order to obtain more quantitative
and large-scale information.
:+,('E7*+,Y!$V5!
!!
There is also a need for more in-depth qualitative research to better understand
the implications and emerging patterns not only in the fields of education and
schooling but on the social implication in everyday lives. The implementation of
the 1:1 computer programme does indeed reduce some dimensions of the digital
divide, but it simultaneously creates others that must be taken into consideration.
At the same time, and if approached reasonably from all sectors, this type of
programme represents an opportunity to deliver a set of skills, especially those
related to digital literacy, that up until now were available only to selected sectors.
It was observed that for the most part the XO is not used as a tool for generating
new content but rather for consuming pre-existing knowledge. Furthermore, it is
not used in a constant or systematic way in the school, in part due to the lack of a
curriculum that stipulates so. Yet, the programme is ambitious and in its infancy
and appears self-aware and enthusiastic to work to accommodate the rapid
adaptation necessary to boost the formal education system up to the social and
technological changes of society. For this to happen many things will have to be
revised as new challenges continue to arise but above all the educational system
will have to give up some of its old traditional ideals and understand the need for
schooling to play a much more proactive role in the education of children in new
digital arenas.
[&;&2&,(&7Y!$V8!
!!
References
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’ s Constructivism , Papert’ s Constructionism!: What’ s the difference!? Usages et Perspectives en Education, 1(2), 1-11.
Agengy British Educational Communications and Technology (BECTA). (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers.
Attewell, P., and Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15, 1-10.
Baguley, M, Pullen, D and Short, M. (2010). Multiliteracies and Technology, Enhanced Education: Social Practice and the Global Classroom. In D. Pullen, P and Cole (Ed.), (pp. 1-17). New York: IGI Global.
Baron, L. and Bruillard, E. (2007). The New Millennium Learners: Digital technologies, educational results and learning expectations. Some considerations. Draft Unpublished. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/38/38359244.pdf
Barrier to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. (2005). Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspective, 2(1), 1-24.
Bebell, D. and Kay, R. (2010). One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2).
Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the Successful Integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
Brown, K. R., Cummins, J., and Sayer, D. (2007). Literacy, Technology, and Diversity: Teaching for Success in Changing Times. (Ally and Bacon, Ed.). Boston.
Bryman, A. (1998). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond Technology: Children’s Learning in the Age of Digital Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (2007b). Digital Media Literacies!: rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2(1), 43-55.
[&;&2&,(&7Y!$$V!
!!
Buckingham, D. and Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Gotta catch “em all: structure, agency and pedagogy in children”s media culture. In J. Tobin (Ed.), Pikachu’s Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokemon (12-33). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Buckingham, D., Banaji, S., Burn, A., Carr, D., Cranmer, S., and Willett, R. (2005). The media literacy of children and young people. London: University of London. Citeseer
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers Meet Classroom: Classroom Wins. Teachers College, 95 (2), 185-210.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Understructure: Computers in the Classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., and Peck, C. (2001). High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Dawes, L. (2001). Issues in Teaching using ICT. In M. Leask (Ed.), (61-79). London: Routledge.
Dividing Lines. (2001). Educational Week, 20, 12-13.
Donahue, P. L., Finnegan, P. L., Lutkus, A. D., Allen, N. L., and Campbell, J. R. (2001). The nation’s report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000. Washington, DC.
Downes, T. (1996). The computer as a toy and tool in the home. Education and Information Technologies, 1, 191-202.
Drenoyianni, H. and Selwood, I. (1998). Conceptions or misconceptions? Primary teacher’s perception and use of computers in the classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 3, 87-99.
Facer, K., Furlong, J. and Sutherlund, R. (2001). Constructing the Child Computer User: from public policy to private practices. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(1), 91-108.
Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., and Sutherland, R. (2003). Screenplay:Chidren and Computing in the Home. London: Routledge.
Foreman, J. (2004). Game-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21st
[&;&2&,(&7Y!$$$!
!!
Century. Educase review, (October).
Garmire, E., and Pearson, G. (2006). Garmire, E., and Pearson, G. (2006). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Garthwait, A., and Weller, H. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 361-377.
Gee, P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.
Gianquinta, J. B., Bauer, J., and Levin, J. E. (1993). Beyond Technology’s Promise: An examination of Children's Educational Computing at Home. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Gray, A. (2003). Research practice for cultural studie: ethnographic methods and lived cultures. London: SAGE Publications.
Hollaway, S., and Valentine, G. (2003). Cyberkids: Children in the Information Age. London: Routledge.
Ito, M. (2009). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006). An Occasional Paper on Digital Media and Learning. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for 21st Century. Chicago.
Jensen, K., and Jankowski, N. (1991). A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. London: Routledge.
Judge, S., Pucket, K. and Cabuk, B. (2004). Digital Equity!: New Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study *. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383-396.
Knuth, D. E. (1974). Surreal numbers. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Kraut, R., . Mukhopadhyay, J. Szczypula, S. Kiesler, B. S. (1998). Communication and Information: Alternative uses of the Internet in the Households. Conference Proceedings on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 368-375.
Lankshear, C., and Snyder, I. (2000). Teacher and technoliteracy. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Lave, J and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
[&;&2&,(&7Y!$$.!
!!
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and the media: special issue. London: SAGE Publications.
Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Martinez, A., Alonso, S., and Diaz,. D. (2009) 'First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal social impact' Executive Summary. Montevideo: Plan Ceibal Social Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Area
Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with Laptops: implementation and Outcomes in an Urban, Under-Privileged School. The Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 447-472.
Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home and the school. Computers and Education, 36(4), 347-362.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Knopf.
Newhouse, P. (2002). Literature review: The Impact of ICT on learning and teaching. Department of Education. Perth, Autralia.
Osborne, J., and Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions. London: Futurelab.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas (p. 230). New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1987). A new opportunity for science education. NSF Grant Application
Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1996). Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap. Atlanta: Longstreet.
Poor, W. S., Warschauer, Mark, and Ames, M. (2010). CAN ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD SAVE THE. Communications, 64(1), 33-51.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, digital imigrants. On the Horizont, 9(5), 1-6.
Pullen, DL and Cole, D. (2009). Multiliteracies and technology enhanced education: Social practice and the global classroom. Information Science Reference (p. 310). USA.
[&;&2&,(&7Y!$$"!
!!
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
Selwyn, N. (2003). Apart from technology: understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society, 25(1), 99-116. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00062-3
Selwyn, N. (2003). `Doing IT for the Kids’: Re-examining Children, Computers and the `Information Society'. Media, Culture and Society, 25(3), 351-378.
Selwyn, N. (2005). Whose Internet is it Anyway?: Exploring Adults’ (Non)Use of the Internet in Everyday Life. European Journal of Communication, 20(1), 5-26.
Selwyn, N. and Bullon, K. (2000). Primary school children’s use of ICT. British Journal of Educa- tional Technology, 31(4), 321–332.
Selwyn, N. and Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide: Rethinking digital inclusion for the twenty-first century. Futurelab. Bristol.
Selwyn, N., Potter, J. and Cranmer, S. (2009). Primary pupils’ use of information and communication technologies at school and home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39.
Selwyn, N., Potter, J. and Cranmer, S. (2010). Primary schools and ICT. London: Continuum.
Selwyn, N. (1997). The Continuing Weaknesses of Educational Computing Research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 305-307.
Selwyn, N. (1999). Why the Computer is not Dominating Schools: a failure of policy or a failure of practice? Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(1), 77-91.
Selwyn, N. (2006). Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low-users of computers. Poetics, 34(4-5), 273-292.
Sicilia, C. (2005). The Challenges and Benefits to Teacher’s Practices in Constructivist Learning Environments Supported by Technology. McGill University, Montreal.
Simpson, A. (Ed.). (2007). Building literacy education: pasts, futures, and “the sum of effort. Future directions in literacy: International conversations conference 2007 (pp. 95-113). University of Sydney Press.
[&;&2&,(&7Y!$$9!
!!
Stolzoff, N. C., Shih, E. C. and Venkatesh, A. (2000). The Home of the future: an ethnographic Study of new information technologies in the home. New York.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Vazquez, T. (2009) 'Connectivity and the Digital Divide', Quarterly Americas [online]. Available at:< http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/370 > [May, 2011].
Venkatesh, A., Dunkle D. E. and Wortman, A. (2011). Evolving Patterns of Household Computer Use: 1999-2010. Irvine, California.
Venkatesh, A., Kruse, E., and Shih, E. C.-F. (2003). The networked home: an analysis of current developments and future trends. Cognition, Technology and Work, 5(1), 23-32. Springer London.
Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemsker, I. and Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers and Education, 45(1), 35-55.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., and Ames, M. (2010). Can One Laptop per Child save the world’s poor? Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 33-51.
Warschauer, M., and Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225.
Warschauer, M., Knoble, M. and Sotne, L. (2004). Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. English Teachers’ Journal, 53, 61-67.
Warschauer, M (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 41-49.
Watson, D. (1993). The Impact Report: an evaluation of the impact of information technology on children’s achievements in primary and secondary schools. London: Kings College.
[&;&2&,(&7Y!$$=!
!!
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
>DD&,4*(&7Y!$$-!
!!
Appendices
Appendix 1: Tree diagram of participants Diagram explaining the line of thought followed to interview the participants according to the focus of the research.
* Three additional teachers outside the school where the research was conducted were interviewed in order to get alternative perspectives of teachers in regard with technology according to age, gender and experience.
!"#$%#&'()$#%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"#!$%&'()*+,-!./012+3!42)5'3!6*2+()53!72'/3!421&'5!2+(!8292!
*+,$!!+-&$.&%%
/"0$-&#%%":*)*!+5;!&+(*+9<*(,!!
123++4!!+-&$.&%%
*$"(!&$"23$0!!!!!!!"7)=>!?2@2)(5,!!
5)0$2&+0%+6%&3$%#23++4%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"7)=>!A*)*&)2,!
7(()8+-"4%&$"23$0#9%"7)=>!B'2$2'C3!7)=>!D*''5)2!2+(!7)>!
B'*1!,!!
>DD&,4*(&7Y!$$O!
!!
Appendix 2: Online questionnaire Personal data. Name: Age: E-mail: Neighborhood you live: Number of XO in the house. 1 2 3 4 +5 In addition to the XO do you have other computers in the home? Yes No Do you have access to Internet at home through a Ceibal web? Yes No Do you have a private Internet provider at home? Yes No How often do you use the XO at home? Everyday 5-4 days a week 2-3 days a week Once a week Never What do you use the XO for t home? Who you uses the XO in your household? Indicate the occupation of your family members in your home. Mother: Father: Siblings: Others member of the family that lives with you: Describe in a few words what you like and you don’t like about the XO: * Questionnaire used to pre-select the participants to become case studies
>DD&,4*(&7Y!$$5!
!!
Appendix 3: Consent Forms Parental consent form.
A quien corresponda: La misma es una carta de consentimiento (permiso) para formar parte de una investigación del uso de las XOs en las escuela y en el hogar. La investigación forma parte del proyecto teséis del licenciado Mauro Carballo para el programa de maestría del Instituto de Educación de Londres. Me dirijo hacia usted validar la participación de su hijo/a en dicha investigación, la misma requiere un periodo observación grupal en la clase, entrevistas con el estudiante y entrevistas con padres o tutores a domicilio. La investigación intenta hacer una análisis comparativo de cómo el niño hace uso y aprende con la XO en la escuela a diferencia del hogar. La investigación también crea un espacio y oportunidad para que los padres y niños cuenten sus historias y anécdotas desde la creación del Plan Ceibal. Como investigador me comprometo a adecuarme a sus horarios y necesidades para llevar a cabo la investigación. Desde ya mucha gracias y en caso de cualquier incertidumbre no dude contactarse conmigo y tratare de asistirle en como me sea posible. Si desea forma parte de esta investigación por favor retorne este papel firmado a la maestra y me comunicare con ustedes a la brevedad. Nombre del estudiante: Nombre: del padre/madre o tutor
!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
Firma:
!!!!!!!!!
Lic. Mauro Carballo Tel: XXXX Email: XXXX
>DD&,4*(&7Y!$$8!
!!
Home visit
Hola, Ya en las ultimas instancias de la investigación sobre las XOs me vuelvo a dirigir hacia ustedes para coordinar una visita domiciliaria con el fin de dialogar con los padres y estudiante. En la primera carta de aprobación que fue firmada por los padres se detallaba la una visita domiciliaria, la intención es dialogar con los padres y el estudiante sobre temas que tienen que ver con las XO, el Plan Ceibal y el futuro de los niños en el mundo de las tecnologías. Para facilitar las tareas las visitas domiciliarias están programas para el fin de semana de el sábado 25 y domingo 26 de junio durante la mañana o tarde. Por favor marque el día y hora que es de su mejor conveniencia en la tabla a continuación.
Mañana Tarde Sábado 25 Domingo 26
La entrevista domiciliaria tiene una duración de 30 minutos mas o menos. Por cualquier interrogante no dude en comunicarse conmigo ya sea por teléfono, email o el propio estudiante. Por favor indique su dirección y algún teléfono en que pueda contactarme, desde ya muchas gracias. Nombre del padre/madre o tutor: Teléfono:
!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
Domicilio: Firma:
!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
Lic. Mauro Carballo Tel: XXXX
>DD&,4*(&7Y!$.V!
!!
