Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for ...

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for sociallydisadvantaged children in India: A case study

Poornima Padmanabhan & Alyssa Friend Wise Pre-print version. Version of record can be found at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.683959

Abstract

Low-cost laptop programs attempt to address gaps in access to computers in developing countries. However, the translation of computing access from intention to actuality is mediated by many situational factors. This research presents a case-study of how access to a set of laptops donated to a school for socially-disadvantaged children in India was shaped by social, logistical, economic and value considerations. Findings illustrate how principles of equity driving the program clashed with limited resources to produce conditions that constrained student agency. Additionally, external dependencies for laptops, knowledge and support restricted the school’s ability to provide computing access and set up uncomfortable internal inequalities within the school. Access increased for just one class of students, and even they only used the laptops for limited periods and in pairs under direct supervision. Seven important access considerations related to equity, resources and agency are identified to support strategic planning of future laptop programs.

Keywords Equal education, Access to computers, Laptop computers, International education, Social influences, Qualitative research, Case studies

1 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Introduction

Access to technology and the digital divide One justification for providing computers in schools focuses on issues of equity (Wiburg, 2003) and overcoming the digital divide: a “perceived gap between those who have access to the latest information technologies and those who do not” (Compaine, 2001, p. xi). This access gap often arises from socioeconomic factors (Sutton 1991), can be considered a form of social exclusion (Servon, 2002), and is thought to initiate a domino effect into other aspects of individuals’ lives and their ability to participate in society (UNDP, 1999). The disparity can be thought of both in terms of a social division between people within a country and a global gap between developed and developing nations (Tiene, 2002). A suggested remedy is to provide children from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to use computers in schools. Many argue that this is an important way to give them an equal footing to participate and compete in a society that is increasingly technology- and information-driven (Martinez, 1999). In developing nations, computers in education are also seen as a way to support literacy (Grace & Kenny, 2003), facilitate participation and competitiveness in world-wide communities (Selwyn, 2002) and help students become “global citizens” (Lima & Brown, 2007). In this way they can enable the larger processes of social and economic development for both individuals and nations (Kozma, 2005). Following this logic, several low-cost laptops have been specifically developed for primary and secondary children in developing countries; one of the most well known is the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative (http://one.laptop.org/). While large amounts of time and money have been invested to disseminate these laptops, little research has investigated how they are providing access in practice. This research addresses this gap by presenting an in depth casestudy of the access provided by a set of laptops donated to a school for socially-disadvantaged children in India. One-to-one computing as a high-access model At a basic level, computing access can be defined as the opportunity to use one or more computers (a have/have-not dichotomy). However, actual access patterns are more usefully conceptualized as a continuum; for example, in terms of student-to-computer ratios (Pelgrum, 2001). At the extreme, a desirable 1:1 ratio is often referred to as a one-to-one computing model; it is on this model that the OLPC program is based. Even with a 1:1 ratio, however, factors such as frequency of use and integration with daily activities can dramatically affect students’ level of access to the technology, and the term “one-to-one computing” has been used to refer to a wide variety of situations, including rotating school lab use in a 1:1 ratio, unlimited access to individual computers in the classroom, and student ownership of laptops for use at home and school (Bielefeldt, 2006). Penuel (2006) has taken one step towards clarifying use of the term by providing a definition of one-to-one computing as a model in which students are provided with personal laptops they can carry within them wherever they go, access to the Internet is provided through 2 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

schools’ wireless networks, and the laptops are loaded with contemporary productivity software to be used in academic tasks and activities. In this model, the almost unlimited access and student ownership of the laptops is thought to support the development of technological literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) and students’ use of 21st century tools as a natural part of their daily lives (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). One-to-one computing has also been seen as a means to foster active, self-directed learning processes (Ross et al., 2003) thus improving learning outcomes (Roschelle et al., 2004). There is some empirical evidence to support this. For example, Russell, et al. (2004) found that when students had access to their own laptop (as opposed to sharing from a cart) technology use across the curriculum was enhanced, large group instructional practices decreased, and students’ writing practices became associated with the laptop. In addition, Dunleavy et al. (2006) demonstrated that peer collaboration and feedback could be enhanced with the presence of laptops and Ross et al. (2003) found students with laptops surpassed those without in writing skills and engaged in more inquiry-based research. While these studies of laptop programs in North America document potential value, returns from one-to-one computing initiatives worldwide are still uneven (Penuel, 2006). The social-embeddedness of technology The lack of consistent laptop program effects can be explained by the reality that the goal of high-access computing is practically realized in distinct ways in different contexts (Kling, 2000). The translation from intention to actuality is shaped by many contextual factors including the teachers and their preparation (Triggs & Sutherland, 2009), the alignment with instructional activities (Warschauer et al., 2004), scheduling and logistical considerations (Cuban et al, 2003), and local educational policies (Hawkins, 2002). In the context of developing countries additional logistical factors such as limited electricity and connectivity may also dramatically shape how the goals of computing access take shape on the ground (Hawkins, 2002). Thus, the multitude of decisions teachers and administrators make about technology use in the classrooms can be thought of as “situationally constrained choices” (Cuban, 1986) embedded in a larger web of social relations, power structures, policies, identity and history. In other words, the technology and its social context of use are a co-constitutive system, both parts of which need to be considered as the tools are mediated and reconstituted by the individuals and groups who take them up (Sassen, 2004). The current study One-to-one computing is intended to be a high access model, but we currently do not have a rich picture of whether and how this type of access translates into practice on the ground in developing country contexts. Given the large investments of time, energy and money put into laptop programs, it is critical to examine how the situational factors shape access in specific contexts, and how theories of one-to-one computing such as Penuel’s (2006) model translate into actualities of daily use. This study explores these issues through a case-study of a set of laptops donated to a school for socially-disadvantaged children in India.

3 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Macro-context: The OLPC Initiative in India Despite the launch of OLPC programs in many countries, the initiative has met with many criticisms (e.g. see Kraemer, Dedrick & Sharma, 2009) including the practicality of the technology in remote rural areas of developing countries where access to electricity and Internet are not consistent (Buchele & Owusu-Aning, 2007). There has also been government-level resistance to the OLPC initiative, most notably by the Indian government, based on the rationale that investment would be better spent on basic needs like classrooms and teachers (Zee News, 2006). Nonetheless, several batches of OLPC laptops have been deployed to schools in India as a result of the OLPC partnering with non-profit organizations (OLPC India, n.d.). This study examined the case of a non-profit school for socially disadvantaged children in India to which a set of OLPC laptops was donated. Micro-context: Yuva, a school for socially-disadvantaged children Yuva (psudeonym) is a private non-profit school located in an urban area of southern India which works with children aged five to fifteen from slums and orphanages, many from families below the poverty line. Six months prior to the study, 29 OLPC laptops were donated by a foreign couple and distributed to the school by an Indian non-profit foundation. Research question The purpose of this study was to inspect the lived experience of how the intent of providing access to one-to-one computing translated into actual use within a specific educational context. The central research question was “How is access to OLPC laptops enabled and regulated on the ground in an implementation for socially disadvantaged children in India?” Methods

Methodology Little empirical work exists about one-to-one computing in developing countries, making it important to represent the complexity of contexts in terms of their particularities. Case studies have already proven useful as an approach for understanding the intricacies of laptop implementation in classrooms with at-risk students (Kemker, Barron & Harmes, 2007). This study adopted an instrumental case study methodology (Stake, 1995) to develop understandings of the phenomenon of implementaing one-to-one computing access for socially disadvantaged children in a developing country context. The bounded system of the case was taken to be all stakeholders and practices associated with the implementation of one-to-one 4 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

computing at the Yuva school. Participants As the time of this study the laptops had been at the school for six month. In this time, they had been used almost exclusively by the “Venus” class (second grade level), thus this class was the primary focus of the research. The 32 children in the Venus class all participated in the study. Lalita was their classroom teacher; she had primary responsibility for the group and taught them English and Math. For the laptop sessions, Lalita worked with Munira, the computer teacher and laptop caretaker, and Veena, a community volunteer. In addition to these primary participants, the school’s principal (Priya), CEO/founder (Sarika), and social worker (Anjana) provided a broader view on the school, the laptop program and how initial use by the Venus class was decided on. Data collection and analysis Extensive observations and interviews were used to collect data, triangulate results and establish structural corroboration, thus strengthening the trustworthiness of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data collection was iterative with interviews and observations mututally informing each other.To understand laptop use in its naturalistic setting from the “inside,” the primary researcher became a full-time participant-observer in the Venus class everyday for a month; this included all laptop sessions as well as non-laptop activities. While the language of instruction was English, the primary researcher also used her knowledge of two local languages (Kannada, Tamil) to understand interactions among children. Fifteen interviews were conducted with 12 different participants over the course of the month. The teachers and volunteer were each interviewed close to the start of the study and again after multiple observations had occurred. The school administrators and social worker were each interviewed once during the month of observations. Six Venus class students were selected for formal interviews based on a maximal variation sampling approach to obtain views of students across genders, religious backgrounds, performance levels, and classroom engagement levels. Interviews were semi-structured, focusing on participants’ views and attidues towards the laptop program in the school. Thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1977) and Atlas.Ti 6.0 qualitative data analysis software. An inductive coding process was followed letting categories, associations, and themes emerge from the data in iterative rounds of progressive abstraction. In the final phase, four key themes emerged.

Findings

While laptops expanded Venus class access to computers, students only used them at school under supervision during fixed hours Despite the one-to-one computing goals of student agency, ownership and unlimited access, 5 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Yuva maintained the laptops within the school premises and regulated the frequency, duration, and mode in which the children used them. In explanation, the principal noted that the OLPC laptops were donated to the school, not specific children and that maintaining school ownership would give other students the opportunity to use them later. Additionally, teachers explained that due to their age and socioeconomic situation, they felt children were not able to care for the laptops adequately at home. Our children come from what environment [emphasis]?! So how will they keep safely, change the battery? They don’t have power also so they can’t even switch it on. (Lalita, teacher)

Children’s access to the laptops was also regulated by a school rule that the laptops were always to be used under adult supervision. Lalita explained that this was done to make sure the laptops were equitably distributed, address questions, check progress, handle technical issues and reduce rough handling of the laptops. This final issue was a major concern as according to Anjana (social worker), several children came from abusive homes and around 50% of the class had been diagnosed with learning or attention disorders. For instance, one group of boys who were often disengaged played a game where they chased each other crawling on hands and legs with the laptops perched on their backs. In other cases, children argued physically over who got to use a laptop. Even within the school day and under supervision, students did not have continuous access to the laptops. Use was severely constrained by the limited number of power outlets available in each classroom and the school’s technology “hub”, the virtual classroom. The Venus classroom had only one power outlet; thus Munira (computer teacher) was tasked with getting the laptops charged for each of the three weekly laptop sessions. The school also faced other infrastructural challenges such as unscheduled power cuts and no wireless internet. One challenge you know, is the charging of the laptops. After every use, we should charge them but we can only charge five at a time because we have that many [power] slots. It takes two hours to charge each one. So we have 24 working ones, we have to do it in five batches. The computer teacher has to remember to charge the others and rotate them… if she forgets on Saturday, Monday no laptop can be used (Veena, volunteer).

Despite the many constraints, with the arrival of the laptops there was a substantial increase in Venus students’ computing access. Before the OLPC laptops were introduced at Yuva, students had two 40-minute periods per week in the computer lab. With the arrival of the laptops, Venus students used laptops in their primary classroom for seven 40-minute periods each week (see Figure 1). Laptop use was consciously integrated into the existing curricular timetable during English and Math block periods. This decision was primarily based on logistics: the double periods allowed time to set-up and close-down the laptop sessions and both belonged to Lalita who was most familiar with the curriculum and students’ needs. When questioned about why the laptops were not used for all subjects, the principal and teachers explained that they were not averse to the idea; however, the logistical challenges of charging the laptops were substantial, and setup and classroom management during a single class slot might impede the coverage of the weekly syllabus. 6 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Figure 1 – Venus timetable (original computer periods bold outline; laptop periods shaded grey) Though a 1:1 use ratio was desired by stakeholders and showed potential for productive interactions, 2:1 sharing was universally accepted as the norm practically Prior to the introduction of the laptops, computer use occurred in the school’s computer lab where 14 desktop computers were shared with a student-computer ratio between 4:1 and 2:1. With the arrival of the laptops, the student-to-computer ratio for the Venus class fell; 2:1 access was now common, though actual 1:1 access was a rare “treat.” This was primarily due to the limited number of functioning laptops. While 29 laptops were donated, throughout the study at least five were not working at any point in time due to technical problems. With 24 functioning laptops for a class of 32, some sharing was inevitable. The default routine at the start of each session was to ask the children to find their pre-assigned laptop partners and sit together. Even though the children had been accustomed to sharing computers in the lab without problems, the shared laptop sessions revealed challenging social dynamics. Children frequently tried to assert “me-time” when working in pairs. Squabbles occurred over who got to hold the laptop, who typed the answers in, and which activities were used. As well, some children spent time sulking about a squabble and didn’t re-engage right away. They all very much enjoy the laptop. The problem happens because they have to share the laptop. Then some children will get to use more, some children will distract, some will get bored. (Munira)

A similar dynamic was seen in the weekly art sessions when paint, brushes etc. were distributed. When they had to share limited resources, children often fought to gain maximum use or disengaged from the task. Since the laptop sessions usually involved sharing, teachers were faced with recurring classroom management challenges and often resorted to threatening to withhold laptop use to restore order in the classroom.

7 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95. Venus class teachers, when they are misbehaving, they have one advantage, they can say ‘no laptop’ and the children will behave. (Munira)

In a month of observations there was only one session in which the children got to work on the laptops individually (because multiple children were out of class). Interestingly, when children had their own laptops, they voluntarily congregated into groups (working together, alone) based on mutual interest or speeds of working. These groups were often different from the pairs assigned by the teachers. When explicitly asked about their preferences for sharing or independent use, children said that they enjoyed sharing. This was surprising due to the dynamics witnessed. On further probing, the children referred to equity concerns, explaining that even though they enjoyed having a laptop of their own, it would not be fair to their classmates. Yes akka [“older sister”], I like to share. Because my friends will not have laptops means I will give akka (Arif, Venus student).

External dependencies for support and knowledge limited the school’s control over the access they could provide Much of the expertise needed to support the laptops came from outside the school system. These external dependencies can be traced back to the structure and set-up of the laptop program at Yuva. When the laptops were first brought in, the non-profit foundation provided a one-day basic training session for the teachers that focused on the features of the laptop. The teachers found the session helpful initially, but ultimately felt that it fell short in empowering them to utilize the laptops effectively within the curriculum. They didn’t tell us what we can do. They showed us, “see this is there”. Write is there similar to Word. Memorize, Turtle, Paint, Camera, Sounds…They might have thought this is the basic, starting that we must know. (Munira)

The laptops presented new software and affordances for learning, but Munira was too busy running computer activities for all school classes to design a new set of activities for the laptops. This task ended up getting taken on by Veena (volunteer), who would borrow laptops to design activities and started coming in at specific times each week to help run the laptop sessions. The children saw her as the de facto laptop “expert,” flocking to her with their queries. While Veena’s regularity and commitment to Yuva was commended on multiple occasions, her critical role in the program created a strong dependency for knowledge and support on someone who was not formally associated with the school or laptop program. On the technical side, when things went wrong with the laptops, the school did not have sufficient expertise in-house to fix them. They thus depended on the foundation that had provided the initial training. The teachers and principal were frustrated that though communication lines were strong initially, in recent months, attempts to contact the foundation resulted in no response and the initial help was not followed up with a continuing program of support and consultation. This was one cause of the limited number of functioning laptops. 8 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95. A big challenge for us is the lack of continuous technical support…six of the laptops are not working now…A technical flaw always happens. The support has to be ongoing. (Priya, principal)

When asked what formal role and responsibility the foundation had in the ongoing implementation, none of the stakeholders was clear on the relationship. This could be because the terms of support were not clearly laid out by both parties at the time of donation. Despite the lack of a formal contract, the teachers and principal continued to seek help from the foundation because they did not know to whom else they could turn for help with the technical issues that arose with the unique hardware and software in the OLPC laptops. A limited number of laptops set up uncomfortable internal inequalities within the school Stakeholders described initial difficulties in deciding who should get access to the donated laptops. Yuva staff were strongly attentive to issues of equity; for example, the Indian birthday tradition of distributing chocolates to classmates had been extended to require distributing chocolates to the entire school. At the same time, trying to give all students some access to the laptops was seen as likely to dilute the experience too much to be meaningful. Since assigning the laptops to one class was most in line with the intent of a 1:1 program, the school and foundation made the initial decision that the laptops would be used only by the Venus class (the youngest group thought old enough to use the laptops). While this provided opportunity for one set of learners, it also set up an inequality within the school. The whole school was affected I think. Children were coming to me and saying ‘Akka we are not getting laptop’, with that sad face. You can see it in their eyes. When it first came, I had to answer 1000 questions. Earth, Mars, all the classes. When I would walk in the corridor with the laptops they would say, ‘open and show it akka’. I felt so bad. (Munira)

One way the school tried to address the inequality was by giving each class that did not have the laptops their own special activity (e.g. swimming classes). However, the issue remained problematic for the school’s founder who emphasized that equality was one of the core principles of the school. We have tried to coordinate with the foundation that first gave us the laptops to provide both support for the laptops as well as laptops for more children. I said to the distributors, ‘Look, I have four schools and 996 children. I can’t just give it to one class and deny it to the others. I might have to pull it out.’ I don’t want to talk about equality on the one hand and create inequality among my children on the other (Sarika, founder)

A related problem with providing access to just one group of children was the question of how long to provide the access. Yuva staff struggled about whether to advance the laptops with the current students, or keep them behind for future Venus groups. While the former option would promote a pattern of growth in computer use, the latter option would expose more children to the laptops and be more equitable. Teachers also recognized a risk that discontinuing the 9 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

laptops with the current class might make the laptops be seen as a toy to be used for a short time and then taken away. While still undecided, the teachers seemed to see more value in learners continuing to use the laptops to take their knowledge and skills to the next level even though this would perpetuate inequality in access within the school. Discussion The digital divide and equity rationales for using computers in schools focus on providing access to technology as a catalyst for intellectual empowerment and economic development. To achieve these ambitious goals, the notion of access is conceptualized quite broadly—exemplified in the extreme by Penuel’s (2006) definition of one-to-one computing. However, in practice one dimension of access (student-computer ratio) is often overemphasized, leading to a sole focus on the quantity of hardware available. This ignores the multitude of contextual factors that shape the nature of actual access on the ground. The findings from this study showed that even after 29 laptops were provided for 32 students (ratio of 1.1), other factors regulated access in ways that fell substantially short of the ubiquitous and integrated use of a one-to-one model. Specifically, the principle of equity important to the laptop donation program and the school clashed with limited available resources to produce conditions that worked against the goal of student agency and empowerment. This is illustrated through seven important access considerations beyond student-computer ratio that emerged in this study (see Figure 2).

Figure 2— Access considerations related to resources, equity and agency

10 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Infrastructure-supported  –Limited Without a reliable power supply or sufficient outlets, the challenge of keeping the laptops charged at Yuva strongly determined how the laptops were used. In this sense, access was not simply regulated by the laptop as an isolated piece of technology but also by the associated electricity services. This is a non-trivial problem for a school that already works hard to meet operating costs. As a basic step, providing additional power outlets for charging in the virtual classroom is a relatively small investment that could allow the laptops to be used for considerably more time each week. Another option would be to provide outlets in the Venus classroom and encourage children to charge their own laptops as needed. This adds a logistical burden but also offers the children an opportunity to develop practical knowledge about the laptops. By recognizing that their use of the laptops depends on attentiveness to aspects like charging, students might also develop a sense of responsibility, moving one step closer to the ownership mentality of a one-to-one model. Knowledge-empowered  Learn-as-you-go The limited availability of knowledge, training, and support for teachers implementing the laptop program constrained laptop use. Without a formal connection to the OLPC initiative or consistent support from the non-profit foundation, the teachers were left to a learn-as-you-go approach to figure out the laptops and develop instructional practices around it. While several informal mechanisms for learning about the OLPC laptops exist (e.g. wikis and mailing lists), at this early stage of implementation the teachers felt they needed more structured support. In addition while Veena’s presence and commitment as a volunteer was viewed as extremely helpful, it may have also contributed to a lack of developing skills by Munira and Lalita. On the technical side a lack of knowledge about how to resolve problems left Yuva with a reduced number of functioning laptops. The dependence on external parties for technical support constrained the school’s agency in managing their own laptop use as well as any plans to prepare students and their families to be independent laptop users in the future (see “owned” section below). Unlimited (24/7)  Restricted use Contrary to the unlimited access that one-to-one computing aims to achieve, the school consciously administered the frequency and duration of laptop use: Venus class children only used the laptops for around five hours each week. In addition to the challenges associated with charging the laptops, the main reasons given for the limited access were the priority to cover weekly subjects in the curriculum and the fit with the current teaching schedule. In giving this rationale, the teachers seemed to view use of the laptops and coverage of the curriculum as competing aims. This conflicts with the logic of bringing the laptops into regular Math and English classes and the one-to-one goal of tight integration with curricular activities in the usual classroom space. Laptop use was also constrained by the school’s commitment to the Venus class’ traditional weekly schedule. The teachers did not seem to consider how changing the schedule might facilitate laptop use. This may in part be due to concerns with curricular coverage 11 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

and maintaining equity by not giving the Venus class a different schedule from other students. This also highlights the school’s tension in exploring new programs and activities while trying to complete the curriculum prescribed by an external centralized board. Owned by students  Loaned by school A key goal of one-to-one computing is to shift ownership and control for learning to the hands of learners. However, in this context, considerations related to resources and equity regulated access such that laptops were “loaned” to students only for supervised use within the school environment. Despite these concerns, the founder and principal did point out that the school was considering eventual ownership of the laptops by the children, supported by a family orientation program to include parents in the laptop program and provide them with the knowledge to help care for the laptops. However, this plan did not address the equity concerns with giving the laptops to some students and not others and was contingent on electricity becoming available in student homes. Teacher-supervised  Student-led Teachers at Yuva felt the need to supervise children constantly when they were using the laptops to handle negative behaviors including rough handling of the laptops and picking on other children. These behaviors were attributed to both psychological and environmental factors, including the high proportion of students diagnosed with learning disabilities and coming from abusive homes. While the socioeconomic and socio-psychological factors in this context are particularly extreme, they represent real concerns in many developmental contexts and need to be considered when planning for one-to-one computing initiatives, particularly if the goal is to foster an environment conducive to student-led learning. In addition to classroom dynamics, teachers felt the need to supervise children’s laptop use to ensure coverage of subject lessons (English and Math). While there may be reasons to take such an approach in this situation, it again set up an environment of learning that was teacher-driven rather than student-led, which is at cross purposes with the goal of high-access computing models that involve enhancing learners’ agency. Sharing  Independent use As observed in this study, not only were the laptops not used in a one-to-one computing model, but the actual ratio of use was also rarely 1:1. Sharing was the practical solution teachers devised to address the laptop shortage; however it also seemed to embody equity concerns since 24 laptops would have been enough for some, but not all, students to work with their own laptop during a class period. In choosing to follow the shared use approach, one trade-off was unproductive social dynamics in which students fought to use the laptops. Besides the particular shortage of laptops in the class, this may also have been influenced by the heavy regulation of their use, teachers’ employment of a reward / penalty approach, and the scarcity of desired objects in the children’s lives more generally. These factors seemed to override the students’ 12 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

expressed willingness to share the laptops so that all students could have access. Some students  All students While equity may be a concern in any school, it is particularly salient in a laptop program driven by concerns with societal inequities. However, the school’s principles of equity clashed with the very limited number of laptops available. In order for the laptops to be used in a way that provided value, the staff felt that they had to tolerate an internal inequality between classes. This is not an uncommon problem in laptop donation programs where a limited quantity of laptops often requires targeting a specific class or grade level rather than the entire school. A decision to restrict use to a single group of students may make sense when the laptops are “owned” by the students in the sense of one-to-one computing described earlier; however, if other factors constrain use to a “loaned” paradigm as seen here, there may be benefits in having different groups of students and teachers work with the laptops to distribute access and develop networks of sharing and learning that could benefit the school as a whole. Conclusions This study demonstrated that distributing technology without comparable attention to social and systemic factors can foster use quite different than intended. This is particularly the case in developing-context school environments, where infrastructural resources and local expertise may be limited, teachers have little background and training in computers, and learners come from low socio-economic backgrounds. In contrast to Penuel’s (2006) rich definition of one-to-one computing, children in the Venus class did not have the opportunity to extend their learning with computing beyond a few additional hours exposure in school during structured teacher-led tasks. Instead of technology acting as a transformative agent driving social change, access to the laptops was shaped by the values and constraints embedded within the school’s context. Regulation of access occurred at multiple levels, with the donors limiting the number of laptops available to the school, the local infrastructure and culture constraining where and when laptops could be used, the school’s curricula, schedule and values framing how the teachers brought the laptops into the classroom, and the teachers closely managing students’ laptop use. These findings support and extend previous work on how contextual factors shape computing access (Grimes & Warschauer, 2008; Hawkins, 2002) and align with Cuban’s (1986) notion of situationally constrained choice. At the same time, some of the apparent constraints might be addressed with conscious attention during the initial implementation. Creative up-front strategic planning to identify parallel changes in infrastructure and scheduling that would support laptop use, as well as a plan to develop teachers’ pedagogical and technical expertise could support the provision of greater computing access. Teacher preparation in particular is a key element in the success of any classroom technology integration effort (Triggs & Sutherland, 2009). Without their understanding and support, donated laptops run the danger of simply being perceived as a shiny toy. Some evidence of this was seen at Yuva in reference to laptops as a “treat” which the students enjoyed, but could be taken away if they misbehaved. Similarly, the addition of special activities (e.g. swimming) to equalize the situation for other classes positioned 13 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

the laptops as a diversion, rather than a core teaching tool. In other work (Blinded Citation), we have explored the interplay between the technology values and identities at Yuva and the ways in which the laptops were used instructionally. The naturalistic approach taken in this study does not aim to make “time- and context-free generalizations” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 37) but rather represent this case deeply. While transferability of the particular findings of this study to future times and contexts need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, the types of access considerations raised may provide analytical generality as a useful framework for others examining computing access in educational contexts. Future work can compare findings emerging from other developing and developed country implementations and use them to test and refine this set of access considerations. By developing both a deep and a wide understanding of how access is shaped in practice, we can refine theoretical frameworks of high-access computing with empirical grounding and support informed policymaking that suitably serves the diversity of different school and country contexts. Acknowledgements This work was funded in part by the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute and Simon Fraser University References Bielefeldt, T. (2006). Teaching, learning, and one-to-one computing. Background paper for Ubiquitous Computing: Near Future and Far Horizons. Panel discussion, NECC 2006. San Diego, July 2006. Buchele, S. F., & Owusu-Aning, R. (2007). The one laptop per child (OLPC) project and its applicability to Ghana. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Adaptive Science and Technology(pp. 113––118). Compaine, B. M. (Ed.). (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2003). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813––834. Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2006). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Ubiquitous Computing Implementation Research Technical Report #7. Charlottesville, VA: UVA. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93––106. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1977). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Grace, J., & Kenny, C. (2003). A short review of information and communication technologies and basic education in LDCs—what is useful, what is sustainable? International Journal of Educational Development, 23(6), 627––636. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305––332. 14 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Hawkins, R. J. (2002). Ten lessons for ICT and education in the developing world. In The Global Information Technology Report 2001––2002: Readiness for the Networked World (chap. 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kemker, K. Barron, A. E. & Harmes, J. C. (2007). Laptop computers in the elementary classroom: Authentic instruction with at-risk students. Educational Media International, 44(4), 305-321. Kling, R. (2000). Social informatics: A new perspective on social research about information and communication technologies, Prometheus, 18(3), 245-264. Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology, 1(2), 117––156. Kraemer, K., Dedrick, J. & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66-73. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lima, C. O. & Brown, S. W. (2007). ICT for development: Are Brazilian students well prepared to become global citizens? Educational Media International, 44(2), 141-153. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications. Martinez, M. E. (1999). Access to information technologies among school-age children: Implications for a democratic society. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45 (6), 395––400. OLPC India (n.d.). Retrieved from the OLPC Wiki: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_India. Patra, R., Pal, J., Nedevschi, S., Plauche, M., & Pawar, U. S. (2007). Usage models of classroom computing in developing regions. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technologies and Development (pp. 158––167), Bangalore, India: IEEE Computer Society. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37, 163––178. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of 1:1 computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329––348. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, A. L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50––54. Ross, S. M., Lowther, D. L., Wilson-Relyea, B., & Wang, W. (2003). Anytime, Anywhere Learning: Final evaluation report of the laptop program: Year 3. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis. Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Higgins, J. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 313––330. Sassen, S. (2004). Towards a sociology of information technology. In C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, & F. Land (Eds), The social study of information and communication technology, (pp. 7799). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341––362. 15 of 16

Padmanabhan, P & Wise, A. F. (2012) Exploring situational factors shaping access in a laptop program for socially disadvantaged children in India: A case study. Educational Media International, 49(2),81-95.

Servon, L. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community and public policy. Melbourne: Blackwell Publishing. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Sutton, R. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 475––503. Tiene, D. (2002). Addressing the global digital divide and its impact on educational opportunity. Educational Media International, 39(3/4), 212-222. Triggs, P., & Sutherland, R. (2009). A holistic approach to understanding teaching and learning with ICT. In R. Sutherland, S. Robertson, & P. John (Eds.), Improving classroom learning with ICT (pp. 3––26). New York: Routledge. United Nations Development Program (1999). Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press. Warschauer, M., Knobel. M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562––588. Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and the new meaning of educational equity. In D. L. Johnson & C. D. Maddux (Eds.), Technology in education: A twenty-year retrospective. USA: The Haworth Press, Inc. Zee News (2006, July 24). HRD ministry rejects plan panel’s idea of laptop per child. Zee News India. Retrieved from http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/hrd-ministry-rejects-planpanel-s-idea-of-laptop-per-child_311216.html.

16 of 16