The Case of the Occasionally Cheap Computer: Low-Cost Devices and Classrooms in the Developing World

The Case of the Occasionally Cheap Computer PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR

Research Article The Case of the Occasionally Cheap Computer: Low-cost Devices and Classrooms in the Developing World

Joyojeet Pal* Abstract [email protected] Research Associate The quest for the low-cost computer has been one of the most signiªcant pur- Center for Information and suits of ICTD since the 1990s. This article examines the experiences of low-cost Society, U. of Washington computing projects in developing regions and looks at some of the common 4311 11th Avenue NE, Ste 400 entrepreneurial and technical problems faced by past and current initiatives. Seattle, WA 98195 USA Focusing speciªcally on the domain of education, we look at the quest for (206)221-0558 low-cost devices and consider their economic and socio-cultural appropriate- Rabin Patra* ness to the typical classroom in the developing world. Using ªeld studies and [email protected] interviews conducted in rural Indian classrooms, we show that shared rather Ph.D. Candidate than single-user devices constitute a more realistic and sustainable approach Department of EECS for low-cost computing projects targeting children’s education. U. of California, Berkeley 2150 Shattuck Ave, Penthouse Berkeley, CA 94704 USA (510)717-2999 I. Introduction

Sergiu Nedevschi The past decade has seen a number of attempts to develop low-cost com- Postdoctoral Researcher puters as a means of greater access to technology for underserved popu- International Computer Science lations. Such projects have employed a range of strategies at designing Institute, Berkeley interfaces and infrastructure differently to serve the unique needs of de- 1947 Center St, Suite 600 veloping regions and populations with limited technology and textual lit- Berkeley, CA 94704 USA (510)282-4253 eracy experience. At the same time, the devices themselves are designed as inexpensively as possible. However, most projects have fared poorly in Madelaine Plauche markets, despite the apparent enthusiasm for many such initiatives. In this Research Associate research, we look at a number of projects in the low-cost computing do- Human Language Technologies main and examine them through the frame of how technology is de- Research Group, Meraka Inst. CSIR Site—Building 43, Meiring signed and used in classrooms in the developing world. As our empirical Naude Road base, we use research from our several years working with schools using Brummeria, Pretoria 0001 computer centers that indicated a salient point: the most striking short- South Africa coming, when considering technology in the classroom, has been the sin- ϩ27 128413028 gle-user model of computer use. As the starting point of our argument, Udai Pawar we introduce evidence that computers tend to be shared by children Assistant Researcher throughout the developing world and present further evidence that this Technologies for Emerging sharing is not just one of economic need, but is strongly embedded in cul- Markets Group tural approaches to learning and asset use. Microsoft Research India Our argument here is divided broadly into three parts and looks pri- Scientia, 196/36 2nd Main Sadashivnagar marily at computer use for young children. First, we discuss brieºy the Bangalore 560080 reasons behind the recent boom in thought about technology and devel- India opment and look speciªcally at major initiatives in the Computers for the ϩ91 80 66586000 Poor domain. We also take a detailed look at some of the practical rea-

*Corresponding Authors

© 2009 USC Annenberg School for Communication. Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. All rights not granted thereunder to the public are reserved to the publisher and may not be exercised without its express written permission. Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009, 49–64 49 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER sons why some of these initiatives, despite their in- (Hanna, 1994; Wehn & Mansell, 1998; Nulens & novation and technological sturdiness, have failed Van Audenhove, 1999; Gaiha, 2001). In addition to and at what newer initiatives may be doing differ- this idea of technology as a potential means of fur- ently. Second, we look at sharing of computers, spe- thering development being fairly well represented, ciªcally at prevalent trends in classrooms of the the work of management gurus like C. K. Prahalad developing world, especially in India where a bulk of on the bottom of the pyramid markets (Prahalad & this research has been done. Finally, after looking at Hammond, 2002) suggested that technology and the economics of sharing versus single-device mod- development may not just be of interest to philan- els of technology, we turn to the mechanics of shar- thropy or government, but may indeed have proªt- ing to examine whether this offers any realistic making consequences for companies that choose to learning games worth pursuing as a serious, practi- develop products for an untapped market further cal option for computing. down the value chain. While the late 1990s had already seen a few ini- II. Background tiatives in technology for low-income regions, we ar- Before we look at the speciªcs of why computers in gue that it was a burst of interest among engineers schools for the developing world are at the center and scientists in issues of technology in the develop- stage of contemporary development discourse, we ing world that created a signiªcant push and a sub- turn brieºy to the recent history of development, sequent slew of projects in this arena. This increase speciªcally at the perceived role of technology in in interest started in the early 2000s with several growth. We believe that several of the key macro- leading academics from key universities forming and micro-economic propositions on the value of small research groups and publishing works in the technology in engineering growth have contributed general area of technological innovation for the to a rise in interest from engineering, industry, and needs of the developing world (Parikh, Ghosh et al., philanthropy in developing low-cost computers. 2003; Bhagwat, Raman et al., 2004; Pentland, Fletcher et al., 2004; Brewer, Demmer et al., 2005). A. IT and Development In addition, concrete international research partner- The relationship between technology and develop- ships in technology and development emerged, a ment has been a consistent theme in social sciences. notable example being MIT’s Media Lab Asia, which At a macro-economic level, the high-tech industry set up shop in India. Also around this time, research has been cast as an important engine for regional wings in major technology groups, including growth, while, at a micro-economic level, computers Hewlett Packard Labs and Microsoft Research, set have been linked with human development. The up establishments in the developing world, which academic community has been interested in the naturally prompted thinking about application ideas macro-economic aspect of this relationship since relevant to the needs of these markets, adding even the 1960s with the emergence of a large body of further momentum. literature that explored the knowledge economy (Machlup, 1962), especially in Japan, where work on B. Inexpensive Computing Devices Knowledge Society studies had emerged as a major Historically, there have been numerous initiatives tar- ªeld around the time of its gaining competitiveness geting the creation of “computers for the poor,” in the global economy (Masuda, 1981). By the late but the quest for such devices has been an elusive 1970s and 1980s, this interest had taken on the hue one (see Table 1 for a selection). Arguably, the origi- of popular literature on post-Industrial economies nal “low-cost PC” was IBM’s PCjr, which was (Bell, 1976; Gouldner, 1979) and a broader body of launched in 1983 with much fanfare, including a knowledge on Information Society theory (Duff, magazine devoted to coverage of it even before its 2000). In the 1990s, the birth and rather rapid ex- actual release. The product led to a wave of clones, plosion of the Internet renewed interest in the idea some fairly successful, including the Tandy 1000, of a changing world across scholarly and industry though it did not itself succeed in the market due to lines, in large part due to the interest of important design issues. This ªrst low-cost computer was not thinkers from all sides of the spectrum (Castells, intended as a “computer for the poor,” but was in- 1996; Negroponte, 1996), including, importantly, by stead an attempt to extend the range of people a number of international development agencies having access to computers—in this case, from busi-

50 Information Technologies and International Development PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR Design Strategy Complete redesign, PDA form factor laptop form factor ents terminals laptop form factor Status in 2007 Discontd. Never produced Stripped-down desktop PC Buyer Institutions, In- dividuals Govt. / state In prodn.Individuals Complete redesign, small In prodn. Server w/ multiple thin cli- Institutions Discontd. Server w/ multiple dumb sidized Targeted Users Low-income users Low income children Classrooms Ki- osks Children Individuals Inosks prodn. Complete redesign, small 2 1 ϩ ($208) Actual Cost (US$) $200 $66 / access terminal 2 Envisioned Cost (US$) $100 $11 / access terminal Usage Model Single user, sharable Client OLPC Single user $100 $135 Table 1. Selected low-cost computing initiatives: Comparison of costsInitiative and current status ofSimputer implementation. 1. While the estimatedand price Libya for was future $208 sales2. per is Excludes unit. around monitor. $135, the actual cost of ownership (including maintenance) agreed upon in the MoU between OLPC Classmate Single userHP 441 $400 $200 Shared $250 $250 Classrooms Ki- Computador Popular SharedNComputing $300 Shared—Thin — Kiosks Individuals, sub-

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 51 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER nesses to home users—by drastically reducing de- puter,” (Chandru, Deshpande et al., 2001) aimed to vice costs. address these three sets of issues. The device was The second wave of low-cost PCs came in the sold at a considerably lower price point of US$200 early days of the World Wide Web. Products such as compared to the average computer cost of the Net PC were conceptualized (Russel, 1997), but US$1,000 on the market at the time, even though it never made it to widespread production, because was originally envisioned to cost as little as US$100. the 1990s saw such rapid decline in PC prices that a The Simputer attempted to work across the range of low enough threshold for a “computer for the issues in building for developing regions: it had a poor,” as then imagined, could be attained by the damage-resistant casing; a plastic cover for dusty market without any need to innovate. Back then, a and hot weather; large, sturdy buttons for rough $500 computer seemed like a quantum leap use; and an entirely new visual and input interface. (Neugass, 1996), and most attention on the cost- The Simputer group put a signiªcant effort into de- minimizing side was directed toward optimizing the veloping an intuitive UI with an OS interface de- thin client architecture (Gaw, Marsh et al., 1998). signed with the needs of users new to technology This was, in some sense, understandable because of and textual interfaces in mind. The Simputer fea- the dramatic drop in computer prices through most tured icon-based screens and speech synthesis capa- of that period. Yet the computer industry remained bility and was intended to be easily shared, with an proªtable due, quite simply, to the increase in the individual ºash card for each user. number of families in the developed world that an- The Simputer did not do very well in the market, nually became new consumers of home computers for reasons we discuss later, but another project, through this period (Bresnahan & Malerba, 1999). with a somewhat orthogonal strategy toward pro- We argue that, on the business side, it was partly viding low-cost computers, was taking shape in the normalization of demand through the developed Brazil around the same time. Both projects came world that expanded the interest of major compa- from academia in respective countries and were nies in developing products for emerging markets. built with a Linux backbone to reduce the cost of We also contend that a complementary argument the OS. Unlike the Simputer, the Computador Popu- for the rise in thinking around low-cost PCs tailored lar (CP) had very little device-level innovation. In for the developing world came with the liberaliza- fact, the CP was nothing more than a plain, stripped- tion of several economies around the globe, where down version of a PC running Linux, but the project major PC manufacturers found strong competition was more important for a different reason: it was from local non-branded PC assemblers (Dedrick, the ªrst project within the ICTD space to actively Kraemer et al., 2001). seek government intervention to subsidize the cost This new wave of devices aimed to concurrently of personal computers through reduced taxes and deal with what we see as three related, but loans. This device was to be priced at US$300. sufªciently separate issues. The ªrst, and most em- By the turn of the millennium, there was a burst phasized, was the reduction of the device cost. The of projects in this same arena for a number of rea- second was the creation of form factors and sons (cited above) as reºected in the entry of big functionalities speciªc to usage in developing coun- tech companies into this space (Collins, 2007). tries, accounting for the lack of urbanization and in- Arguably, many of these tech companies departed frastructure. This second factor was, at times, slightly from their core businesses and competen- equated with building robust machines that with- cies to try their hand at selling new devices in stood harsh weather, dust, and poor quality power, new markets, often with the unusual business often gleaning inspiration from wearable computers model of designing products meant for markets for combat situations (Zieniewicz, Johnson et al., that could not buy the products themselves. Instead, 2002). The third factor was that of “usage appropri- they had to be sold through institutional buyers, ateness,” including issues related to literacy, cultural such as governments, philanthropies, or interna- appropriateness, and social norms of resource tional agencies. Oracle had a brief brush with the sharing. “New Internet Computer” (started around 2000 The pioneer in this most recent wave was the and abandoned around 2003), which was priced Simputer project that originated in 1998. The roughly at US$199. Chip manufacturer Via Technol- Simputer, or “Simple Inexpensive Multilingual Com- ogies designed a low-cost box-PC similar to the

52 Information Technologies and International Development PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR

AMD PIC1 at a price point of approximately US$250. ways, the OLPC has come to exemplify the inexpen- Intel, AMD’s chief competitor, had its Community PC sive computer space, but not just because of its project and Classmate,2 along with a collaborative charismatic promoter, Nicholas Negroponte, and the project in China called the Beijing Rural PC. HP ex- history of the Media Lab behind it. Much of the me- perimented with the 441 device, with a changed dia attention focused on the project, plus its high- Linux kernel to support four keyboards and screens proªle approach (of negotiating sales primarily with from a single processor, and priced at approximately heads of government), made it somewhat of an ex- US$1,200 for the entire unit. This attempt was emplar of a project within the ICTD space. The abandoned, along with its parent e-inclusion pro- OLPC project was in the news for impressive techno- gram, in 2005, although the technology has lived logical innovation as much as for its approach of on in products such as the “Useful Desktop Multi- recommending individualized laptops as a means of plier.” Recently, NComputing released the X300 that better learning for children in the poorest parts of uses low-cost access terminals connected over the world, a position that was sometimes at odds Ethernet to share a single PC with up to seven us- with some of the most inºuential commentators in ers, eventually hitting a price point of US$200 for this area, including Bill Gates himself (Kraemer, three users, excluding monitors and peripherals. Dedrick, et al., 2007). The idea behind the OLPC si- A quick survey of ICTD projects3 shows that over multaneously raised hopes and criticisms; partner or- 50 projects in the past 10 years have attempted to ganizations frequently came and went (both Intel create low-cost computers for developing regions, and Microsoft have, at different times, been sup- a large chunk of them small companies assem- porters and opponents), and their participation fre- bling PCs in the BRIC nations, featuring brands quently raised eyebrows. like Fulong Mini-PC,4 and E-DUC,5 Sirius,6 and C. The Occasionally Cheap Computer SofComp,7 as well as more rugged products such as While the complete fate of the computing-for-the- the SuperGenius Bharat PC, which, like the AMD- poor projects like OLPC remains to be seen, valuable PIC, was built to withstand rough use. An unlikely lessons can be learned from the market experience constituent of the low-cost PC market was the NGO of other similar projects in the past, which, unfortu- world, with a number of experiments like the pedal- nately, were either entirely ineffective or enjoyed powered Jhai PC8 and social entrepreneurship ven- very limited success. Most such projects remained tures like Inveneo9 that again straddled the space occasionally inexpensive at best, often moving between being outright market products and exter- swiftly from being inexpensive computers to aban- nal funding-dependent development projects. doned projects, or to computers that could barely Probably the most discussed project, and argu- be considered cheap. The reasons for these out- ably the one with the largest expectations, is the comes were related to both the supply and the de- One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative. Also origi- mand side of the market. nally known as the $100 laptop, or more recently On the supply side, several of the companies pro- the XO-1, the current price of the device is about ducing these low-cost devices were either not typi- US$208, but is expected to decrease with volume. cal computer companies (e.g., the Simputer, CP), or This device, the brainchild of some of the leading they were somewhat outside of their core compe- scientists of the MIT Media Labs, is an inexpensive, tencies (e.g., Intel, HP, AMD) in terms of production low-power laptop designed for harsh conditions in for the former category, and marketing for the lat- developing countries and intended for distribution ter. In terms of production, these new devices could to children around the developing world. In many not promise large enough volumes at the produc-

1. http://50x15.amd.com/en-us/ 2. http://www.classmatepc.com/ 3. Low-cost computing devices and initiatives for the developing world http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.107.html 4. http://www.lemote.com/ 5. http://www.e-duc.com/ 6. http://www.ªveriverstech.com/sirius.htm 7. http://www.ncoretech.com/mobilis/index.html 8. http://www.jhai.org/jhai_remoteIT.htm 9. http://www.inveneo.org/

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 53 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER tion end for their costs to be signiªcantly competi- risks as Simputer, of not having enough developers tive. Cost considerations also prevented device creating new applications for generic use on the de- customization, and constrained manufacturers to vice. This led to a larger “lack of things to do” prob- building a single version of a device, rather than a lem for these devices, an issue ironically found to be suite of products. For example, you can buy only a problem for another strand of ICTD projects—the one conªguration of the OLPC, two versions of the community computer kiosks (Keniston, 2002). De- Simputer, one of the Classmate, and so on. Such signing applications for adults that do not have a products are difªcult to sell to institutional buyers conscious need for computers in their daily lives is such as schools that are less inclined toward experi- non-trivial, as it is difªcult to convince these adults mentation with untested products. On the market- to incorporate technology in possibly disruptive ing side, a fairly common approach of projects in ways into their livelihoods (Nedevschi, Patra et al., the cheap computing space has been to emphasize 2006). the social relevance of computers to the poor, thus From the free market perspective, the “computer making a case for the government to underwrite for the poor” faced its strongest challenge from the cost of these projects—either directly by being standard low-end desktop computers. Below the the buyer or indirectly through tax concessions. This US$250 mark, there is a whole range of Linux-based has been a risky strategy that has rarely worked well desktop products available both in the U.S. (e.g., due to a range of factors: state priorities in develop- Lindows Family PC), as well as several developing ing countries tend to be focused toward more basic countries (e.g., ApnaPC). However, the largest chal- spending; political stability (the OLPC, in particular, lenger has been the neighborhood PC assembler, has suffered the ºip-ºopping of states on purchase who puts together a computer with parts purchased commitments); equity (thus the problem of selecting off the shelf and shows up at the doorstep to ªx the recipient group of free computers, assuming things when stuff stops working. This segment of- “everyone” would rarely be provided for); and, fered machines with the same form factor and capa- ªnally, procurement processes. Finally, on the distri- bility as a typical branded PC. That most low-cost bution side, working through the government is PCs opted for Linux-based interfaces was an obvious detrimental in that it separates producers from the cost-cutting approach that again turned out to be a micro-environment within which technology sales competitive disadvantage against smaller assemblers and maintenance take place, such as training of lo- in the informal market that could afford to throw in cal suppliers and support staff. a hot copy of the much-desired Windows OS for no On the demand side of the market, the problems additional cost. In all, the real cost advantage of- were even more challenging. Some design decisions, fered by most low-cost computers was very small. while optimized for a certain group of users, could Finally, an unanticipated demerit of the low-cost end up defeating a product’s appeal for a general computing machine may have precisely been its audience, especially when some such designs are branding as a low-cost device. Research showed hard-coded into a device. This was the case with that the association of ICTD products with low- features of the Simputer and perhaps the keyboards income groups or low-attainment populations had of the OLPC or Classmate, which are quite optimal a damaging brand impact, because the target mar- for young children, but a difªcult sell for adults or ket perceives purchasing “computers for the poor” other potential buyers of the otherwise powerful de- as a climb-down of status (Ferraz, 2004). Some simi- vices. A major concern for these devices when the lar ªndings have also been observed in user atti- entire computing paradigm is redesigned has been tudes toward subsidized community computer planning for the creation of appropriate content and centers (Kuriyan, Toyama, et al., 2006). applications. The Simputer, with its custom OS and D. Computers and Children’s Education interface, was especially affected by this, as getting We turn now to the speciªc argument on many an a critical mass of developers working on creating investment plate for the use of low-cost computers applications for it depended on its widespread by children in classrooms of the developing world. usage—a chicken and egg conundrum. Likewise, Frequently, this is the ªrst intended market of such while constructivist learning arguments guided de- initiatives, often engraved with brand names, as in sign arguments for a new OS and interface for the cases of OLPC and Classmate. In developing re- OLPC, the approach exposes the device to the same

54 Information Technologies and International Development PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR gions, we see two major reasons for the focus of have been made. The OLPC approach of selling in computer projects on children within the environ- huge quantities (orders for one million or more ment of a broader developmental focus toward pieces) is good for cost reduction, but seems to be sustainability and human development investment. better suited for countries with a comparatively The ªrst reason has been the shortage of existing more centralized decision-making process on large trained teachers, thus shifting the emphasis toward state purchases. In India, for instance, the idea of what can be done independent of the systemic OLPCs in classrooms was rejected with the argu- shortcomings. The relative importance of this is evi- ment that “it would be impossible to justify an ex- dent in the structuring not just of the low-cost com- penditure of this scale on a debatable scheme when puter projects, but also in some of the more recent public funds continue to be in inadequate supply for applications of technology toward learning in the well-established needs” (Mukul, 2006). ICTD space, such as language acquisition using tech- This leads to a larger question, given the thrust nology that has been designed to largely eliminate of spending on technology for classes: Can comput- the teacher and allow for greater independent inter- ers actually complement teachers and make learning action between the child and the system (Kam, more valuable? This question is actually far from set- Ramachandran, et al., 2007). A second factor has tled as there is very little consensus on what the been an increase in interest in constructivist ap- beneªts of technology in classrooms are and even proaches to learning that have inºuenced not just less consensus on the comparative beneªts of com- the building of devices, as in the case of the OLPC, puters versus other kinds of interventions. While or for that matter, historically, in a number of past studies show that children’s access to computers projects on children and learning (Papert, 1993), but yields clear gains in certain types of skill building also in the structuring of technology projects for (Attewell & Battle, 1999), especially when these are children more broadly (Baggio, 2000). home computers, there is an abundance of material In addition to these factors speciªc to computers to suggest that the context within which the com- and children, the wave of increasing investment in puters are used is critical to ensuring both education ICTD projects created a number of shared technol- efªciency and equity in education opportunity. There ogy centers offering public access to computers, a is strong evidence that investment in computers can number of which were co-located in schools be highly inefªcient (Cuban, 2001), particularly (Proenza & Montero, 2001; Colle, 2005). Some when it is driven by an enthusiasm for technology of the low-cost computing products such as the rather than the needs of the children. There is also HP 441 were speciªcally designed for use by multi- evidence that the positive impact of access to and ple users in school classrooms or telecenters. use of computing facilities can be highly biased NComputing’s X300 was designed as a thin client (Becker, 2000) due to cultural and cognitive factors. solution for building school computer labs, and the VIA low-cost PC was also envisioned originally for III. Approaches to Classroom classrooms. The Simputer featured a number of chil- Computing: Usage Models and dren’s applications in its original design, but was in- Economics tended to be shared, not in simultaneous sessions, but passed along from one child to another in turns. We seek to address here the rather provocative Though made for classrooms, the Classmate and question of how computers should be used in pri- OLPC were not intended as shared devices; instead, mary school classrooms from a supply perspective. they were to be used as take-home computers with We consider the devices and the means of using which children explored learning techniques. No them, not the larger issues of what speciªc learning broad estimates are published on the extent of ac- end goals computers work stronger toward. We cess to computers in schools in the developing turn thus to shared computing, which is central to world, but both computer centers and individual our argument from this point on. Part of the goal of computer purchases are on the overall rise. In the looking at past initiatives targeting computers for case of the OLPC, it has been reported that at least children was not only to understand what they did 15 unbinding purchase discussions with countries, wrong from a market perspective, but also to under- including Nigeria, Libya, and Rwanda, have oc- stand how well these projects ªt with the curred, but it is unclear how many actual purchases practicalities of computer use in classrooms. Moving

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 55 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER

Figure 2. A typical shared computer lab for middle school children in India.

usage model must match existing contexts and practices to have a long-term impact on establishing more equitable education. Given the comparatively greater portion of India-related research in this article, our sample has biases toward the speciªc conditions there, but our work in other countries leads us to believe that most of our ªndings resonate across Figure 1. A single-child usage scenario for OLPCs in Iraq. (© Wikimedia Commons) conditions in other developing regions. 1. Single ownership: OLPC and Classmate: The OLPC and Classmate are both designed for single on, we ªnd that the single biggest missing factor users, and while the Classmate is oriented to indi- that perhaps explains why computers in the class- vidual and institutional purchases, the OLPC was room of the developing world have borne the bur- originally meant only to be purchased in quantities den of looking gimmicky has probably been the lack of one million-plus by governments. The recom- of attention to sharing. In our collective experience mended usage is individual child learning, parent- from India, South Africa, Rwanda, and Brazil, the child collaboration, or teacher-child collaboration. one constant feature of computer centers in poor The Simputer had a PDA form factor with a durable primary schools has been that computers were casing, and a few buttons designed for dust and shared among multiple users, anywhere between head were also trying to target the same application two and 10 children per PC. We propose a few domain. This device was also intended for individual shared- and single-use models of computer use to use, but it was easily sharable, with pluggable ºash look at some of the merits and disadvantages of memory cards for each user. Given these features, both. the Simputer could be passed from child to child, or A. Usage Models from home to home, with each child or home re- We distinguish here between three models of com- sponsible for its individual ºash memory. This fact, puter usage for child education: single ownership as well as other design characteristics of the design (Figure 1), single user per classroom computer/ (such as speech synthesis for illiterate users), points terminal (Figure 2), and multiple users per shared to some level of consideration for existing cultural classroom computer (Figure 3). More models are practices and economic realities of the targeted user possible, and indeed, as we will note, some initia- base. The OLPC probably presents a number of in- tives share properties with each model. We ªnd novations on the interface front, including a smaller, these categories useful, however, for understanding ºatter keyboard, a dual mode screen with low- the design decisions of speciªc initiatives and for power consumption, and white reºective sunlight to demonstrating, in later sections, how the choice of allow readability for open air conditions. However,

56 Information Technologies and International Development PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR

cannot be shared further by groups of children, and indeed, in most cases, this is how the computers are actually used. Products such as the HP 441 or X300 have the computing capability of a typical stand- alone PC. While not speciªcally marketed to multiple users per terminal, these devices could cater to groups of children huddled around each terminal as they’d been designed. In fact, space and power re- strictions make it such that computers are most likely to be shared in simultaneous sessions, if they ever make it to a school in most parts of the developing world. Given this, we ªnd that a striking miss- Figure 3. Shared computer using multiple mice. (Photo ing factor is the lack of innovation in the courtesy of Microsoft Research India) “computers for the poor” space on efªcient shared computing. One initiative, started by some of the authors of this article, looked at the use of multiple mice (on a single machine) to support up to ªve si- both the OLPC and the Classmate are designed as multaneous students; this would require adding take-home devices, and their small screens make minimal peripheral spending and tinkering with the them difªcult to share without an externally con- applications for better use across children (Pawar, nected screen. Pal, et al., 2006). While this is clearly a restrictive 2. Single user per community-owned computer/ format of interaction with a computer, we ªnd that, terminal: A second usage model, which has been for the unique needs of primary schoolers using de- the standard in U.S. primary schools as well as some vices for computer-aided learning, a mouse alone is slightly better-off schools in the developing world, is usually enough, given that the typical “narrative- the computer lab: a classroom dedicated to com- interactive” loop of practically all of children’s learn- puter usage where each child has access to a coming software relies mostly on multiple choice click puter in the classroom environment. In this model, screens. That being said, the potential of multiple the responsibility of purchasing and paying for com- keyboard usage (Tse & Greenberg, 2004) and alter- puter maintenance is shared by the community. The nate text-entry, using mice or other devices, is both teacher plays a primary role in educational settings a possibility and an existing area of research. Fur- that adopt this model, guiding and supervising ther, we could also draw learnings in this area from child-computer interactions. The HP 441 was meant some of the other projects, including the Simputer, to share a single processor over multiple users, but to expand the use of ºash memory to give each only have a single user per terminal. NComputing’s child proªle individual memory for shared sessions. X300 was, likewise, designed to be shared by up to The intuitiveness of such usage models and screen six individual users, each at a terminal with its own sharing has been shown (Moed, Otto, et al., 2009), monitor and keyboard. Devices that target the us- and there is already much precedent for screen use age model in which single users operate computers within the realm of multi-player video games that are shared by the community tend to feature (Nintendo, Playstation, etc.) that allow for the same low-cost versions of standard PCs. The ownership by variety of interaction modes (parallel, competitive, the community allows for higher prices per unit, but and collaborative). in practice, the cost is comparable to devices that Given what we know about the various models target a single ownership model. Community- of technology use in classrooms and the prevalence owned computers operate in a group setting, where of the shared-use model in actual practice, we need group interactions external to the child-computer in- a clearer idea of how this could work in practice and teraction play a central role in their overall use. what the major beneªts or drawbacks of such a us- 3. Multiple users per shared computer: In age model would be. We approach this question by practice, there is no reason why the second mode of comparing shared-usage models with the two sin- desktops in computer centers, as mentioned above, gle-user scenarios, based on cost, educational effectiveness, and socio-cultural appropriateness of the

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 57 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER shared model. For the two latter cases, we reference move certain components from the ªnal device. existing research on educational effectiveness of Such initiatives often use low-end processors (OLPC multiple-mice models and an interview-based study uses the AMD Geode, Classmate uses low-power of socio-cultural attitudes toward device sharing in Intel processors), replace hard disk with ºash mem- rural India. ory, and remove other capabilities like high-end graphics, optical drives, and peripheral connectors. IV. Economic Feasibility The cost of ownership can be reduced by lowering In this section, we evaluate the economic feasibility the running cost of power. Power consumption can of various computing initiatives for schools and their be reduced by using lower-power displays and associated usage models. Given the harsh ªnancial smarter sleeping techniques. Interestingly, refur- constraints, cost is one of the most important con- bished computers have performed poorly due both siderations for any of these initiatives. We consider to maintenance and to disenchantment with “sec- both initial capital costs and running costs, including ond rate” computers (Fonseca, 2004). replacement, maintenance, and additional expendi- Though the overall cost of computing has gone tures for developing appropriate content and train- down, none of the low-cost devices have broken the ing of teachers. off-the-shelf US$200 mark (not including the cost of An economic analysis of the “computers for the maintenance). OLPC’s XO-1 laptop expects to poor” projects is necessary, because these projects achieve this by selling the hardware in batches of at have typically targeted government buyers, project- least one million. However, according to the con- ing the provision of computers to children as a state tract between OLPC and Libya, the cost per device, responsibility. The most important criticism of such including maintenance, is US$208. Interestingly, projects, and often one very difªcult to address, is Intel’s Classmate PCs were initially sold at a price of the argument that money would be better spent on US$400, but their price is expected to fall to around school buildings, safe drinking water and toilets in US$200 as well. The cost of NComputing’s X300 is these schools, books, additional teachers and so also expected to fall to US$11 per access terminal in 10 on—all basic needs and with immediate returns on large production volumes (Dukker, 2007). investment. In contrast, computers-in-education ini- B. Cost Comparison tiatives address less stringent needs and can only To compare the economic viability of various deploy- show a long-term return on investment. It is not our ment models, we consider the capital and opera- goal to claim here that the hierarchy of needs argu- tional cost of providing computers in the whole of ment applies absolutely, and that investment in India. As discussed earlier in Section III, we consider computers should be preceded by the solving of all three scenarios: other world problems. Governments all around the 1. Single ownership model. world are introducing computers in schools in mod- eration, attempting to balance these expenditures 2. Single user per community-owned com- with more basic ones. However, it is essential to en- puter/terminal: We assume a ratio of one sure that already scarce resources are utilized in the computer per 10 children in the school. Dur- most effective way. It is notable that the two coun- ing classes, each child gets his or her own tries making the most progress in adopting OLPC- computer. type programs are Libya and Nigeria, both nations 3. Multiple users: We assume a ratio of one with limited political opposition to getting them ac- computer per 40 children. During computer cepted at the highest levels. classes, three to ªve children share a computer. This can be done with or without A. Reduction of Computing Cost multiple input devices. Most low-cost computing initiatives are reducing the capital cost of hardware by riding on the computer We use data about schoolchildren distribution in industry’s exponential trends of increasing integra- India from the Department of Education, Govt. of tion and performance. They also downgrade or re- India (2008). Approximately 1.04 million schools in

10. Dukker, S., & Bender, W. (2007). “Will Low-Cost Laptops Help Kids in Developing Countries?” The Wall Street Jour- nal, 5 September.

58 Information Technologies and International Development PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR

Table 2. Parameters for cost comparison (budgeted on state school computers in India). Cost of desktop PC that is shared Rs 25000 or US$530 Cost of maintenance paid by Govt. for each PC (per year) Rs 1800 or US$38 Cost of teacher (per year) Rs 24000 or US$510 Cost of laptop (e.g., XO-1) Rs 9770 or US$208

Table 3. Comparison of costs for various scenarios for deployment of computers in all rural schools of India (total of 165 million students in 1.04 million schools).

Metric Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 No. of computers (million) 149.40 15.19 4.00 Total initial cost ($billion/year) 31.06 8.08 2.15 Cost of replacement ($billion/year) 6.21 1.62 0.43 Cost of maintenance ($billion/year) 5.72 0.58 0.15 Cost of teachers ($billion/year) 0.48 0.48 0.48 Total cost ($billion/year) 12.42 2.68 1.06

India serve about 165 million children between the Table 3. As can be seen, the annual cost of provid- ages of 6 and 13. The schools vary in size, serving ing shared computers (one per 40 children) to all of less than 30 students to more than 300 students. 165 million Indian students is only about US$1.06 Approximately 91% of all schools in India, and over- billion a year. In contrast, the annual expenditure of whelmingly so in rural India, are government-aided providing laptops to every child is about 12 times and/or managed schools (Ministry of Human Re- higher at US$12.42 billion. These are conservative sources, Govt. of India, 2008). Infrastructure re- estimates that ignore the additional costs of running sources in these schools are very scarce: 59% of all such a large program, such as costs associated with Indian schools have no safe drinking water, 26% no recurring power and other infrastructure needs in blackboards, 89% no toilets, and less than a quarter schools, with developing educational content in lo- of the schools have functional access to electricity cal languages, and with providing Internet connec- (UNESCO, 2006). tivity to schools. Table 2 summarizes the cost parameters involved The total public expenditure for India on educa- in our comparison, based on latest ªgures from tion was about US$22.9 billion (3.3% of GDP) in OLPC and the Indian government. For scenarios 2004, of which 30%, or US$6.8 billion, was allo- (2 and 3) where desktop computers are used in cated for primary schooling. In these conditions, it is classrooms, we use cost ªgures reported from cur- unrealistic to expect the Indian government to rent deployments of computers in Indian schools (in- spend more than half of the education budget on cluding expenditures for teacher salaries and buying computers, especially without having any maintenance of equipment that the Government guarantees on the educational beneªts of such a provides) and recent market prices for desktops. We program. assume a gradual deployment model where computers are introduced over ªve years. Assuming that V. Education Effectiveness the lifetime of the computers is also about ªve An important way to compare across usage models years, the replacement capital cost for the hardware is by looking at the educational value provided by every year is one-ªfth of the total capital cost. We those models. The question of how to best deªne also assume that each school has only one com- value would be better settled in open debate by ed- puter teacher. ucation scientists. However, it is possible to compare The cost comparison, showing the total cost per across usage models by relying on studies with easily year for all the three scenarios, is presented in

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 59 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER quantiªable metrics based on objectively assessable grew impatient with their role as surrogate teachers learning outcomes. and wanted complete control for themselves. Few studies focus on learning outcomes in the Due to teacher shortages, children are often re- single computer per student model. The OLPC proj- quired to learn and manage how to use computers ect is starting ªeld studies with the XO-1 project in a themselves with limited teacher intervention, mak- few countries. Maine’s One Laptop per Child project ing supervision-intensive tasks difªcult. As a result, (Muir, 2004) conducted some studies, but results did children who established dominance among their not ªnd that a separate computer per child leads to own small groups of colleagues tended to repeat- strong and measurable changes in learning outcome edly be “mouse controllers” who dictated the pace metrics. However, for scenarios with computers in- of computer-aided learning sessions. Observations of side the classroom, we present preliminary results eye contact with screens showed that mouse con- from India for various single- and multi-user scenar- trollers were predominantly in command of the en- ios, using single or multiple input devices. We ªnd tire interaction and learning trickled down from that learning effectiveness with collaborative usage them to other children. Thus, the main ªnding was on multiple input computers can be as pronounced that, with regard to computers in schools, even as learning with single-user computers in class- where equitable access was available, the dynamics rooms. This is a ªnding we attribute to the inherent of sharing among children often created new forms social nature of learning provided in shared comput- of power structures, generally to the detriment of ing scenarios. the children who are most in need. A. Study Methodology in India B. Experiments with Multiple Input We conducted observations and qualitative inter- Devices in India views during May 2005 and August 2006 at 22 Following our initial ªndings on device sharing, we schools in India, all catering to children from disad- tried using a single computer with multiple mice on vantaged backgrounds. Selection of schools was test applications to see if there was any difference in based on regional proªle and longevity of their com- children’s learning in the new modality. Looking at puter-aided learning programs. These programs the educational applications being used in the were state supported and contracted to Azim Premji schools, we tested a word learning application in Foundation, an NGO that sets up computer-aided September 2006 with 238 children (11–12-year- learning centers for children. A total of 179 inter- olds) in various single- and multi-user scenarios, us- views were conducted with parents, teachers, vari- ing single or multiple input devices. The children ous stakeholders in local education, and policy were shown a number of words that were new to makers on their views about computers in schools, them and then asked to identify the words from and the short- and long-term goals of their pro- multiple choice options. The application used a grams. We observed ªfth and sixth grade children as game format and was tested in real classroom set- they sat in front of computers and used the applica- tings in rural India—two schools selected from tions provided to them by the schools visited. among recently-instituted computer-aided learning We tried two approaches to work toward the programs. goal of providing equity to all users around the Children were tested for a list of English words shared resource (the PC with the learning applica- before and immediately after the test, and the tion): ªrst, enforced resource sharing, and second, words were included in the test application. multiple input. Results published elsewhere (Pawar, Children were asked to play in four modes: (1) sin- Pal, et al., 2007) showed that, in the former case, gle-user, single input mode; (2) multi-user, single in- there was often some degree of collaboration put mode; (3) multi-user, multi-input competitive among children, especially as the “alpha children” mode; and (4) multi-user, multi-input collaborative (i.e., the typical mouse controllers and usually the mode. All multi-user modes had ªve users. The sim- scholastic achievers within groups) tended to discuss ple single-user, single-child mode (mode 1) is the learning material with others in a group, leading to model for which most applications are designed. some impact on learning. However, in practice, this Mode 2 is the closest to the typical usage scenario was a difªcult goal to realize as the alpha children observed in India (and elsewhere) with many children at one computer, but only one controlling the

60 Information Technologies and International Development PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR

Table 4. Words learned during tests across single- and multiple-user shared-input modes (N ϭ238, ␣ϭ0.5).

Domination by Mode Word Gain Engagement Response Error Decision making single child 1 4.11 High, tails off Low Individual n/a 2 3.77 Low Very Low Collaborative Varied 3 3.60 Very high High Individual None 4 4.30 High Very Low Collaborative Varied

mouse. In mode 3, each child had a mouse, and the consideration is suitable in the actual social context one who clicked the right answer ªrst earned and whether it would ªt well with existing teaching points. In mode 4, each child had a mouse, but the methods in developing countries. Our goal is to application moved to the next stage only if all chil- work within the limitations of the current deploy- dren had identiªed the correct response. ments that are already happening and work During two rounds of experiments (Pawar, 2007) incrementally to increase access for all children. with a total of 238 children, we found that, for the Parents’ beliefs about computers and educa- speciªc application of word learning, children were tion: Our primary research showed that both par- able to consistently retain the most in mode 4 (see ents and teachers controlled the amount of time results in Table 4). The stark differences in results that children were allowed to work on computers in came when we looked at results separately by gen- India, often very restrictively since the computer was der, and this emphasizes the social nature of learn- the most expensive, or the only electronic gadget at ing, as gender inºuences social behavior and home. As many as three years into having access to engagement which, in turn, affects learning. Over- computers, teachers in some schools still let children all, a key observation for this learning task was that use the computers only under their supervision. multiple mice could offer the same beneªts. In the Likewise, many parents did not allow their children competitive mode however, learning was hampered, to use the television sets at home. The idea that par- as competition lead to a decrease in collaboration. ents, especially those in very poor families with no Hence, we found that increasing access to input household assets, will allow and encourage use of was not sufªcient in itself to make the learning computers in the same way as parents in developed more effective; collaboration was an essential part countries may be a gross overestimation. to improve the quality of learning. More detailed re- To dig deeper, we conducted interviews with 165 sults from these tests are included in a work of parents across four districts to determine parents’ greater exploration elsewhere (Pawar, 2007). The feelings about the use of computers in schools and tests were used only to establish short-term reten- homes. The interviews sampled a wide range of par- tion. On the whole, they were useful in creating a ents whose ages ranged from 24 to 70 and who case for collaborative learning over single display had completed between 0 and 12 years of educa- groupware (SDG), a case that has in the past also tion. The interviews revealed an extremely important been made of mathematics (Bricker, 1995; Inkpen, role played by parents in decisions about children’s 1995) and visual learning (Inkpen, 1999). use of computers in schools: When asked if computers should be in schools, in the home, or both, par- VI. Socio-Cultural Suitability ents overwhelmingly chose schools (Table 5). In A common criticism of “computers for the poor” other words, they disfavored the single ownership devices has been that they have not been grounded model adopted by OLPC and Intel Classmate. Most in good design principles (i.e., that look at devices of them cited the primary role of teachers as their contextually), but are designed in a lab-centric reason for preferring computers in schools. rather than need-oriented paradigm (Fonseca, Due to a system of education very centered on 2006). Two important factors that need to be evalu- structured learning coming from the teachers to the ated are whether the computer usage model under students, parents were not convinced that games

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 61 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER

Table 5. Parents’ beliefs about computer usage models.

Preference for location Fraction of Reasoning of computer parents (%) Cannot learn at home School 31 Only teachers can teach School 32 Children will learn better in collaboration School 24 Don’t want responsibility School 8 Lack of power, etc., at home School 4 Ease of access, device safety Home 3

could have a positive role to play in children’s learn- VII. Conclusion ing. They were more concerned with ensuring chil- Our reference to the “Occasionally Cheap Com- dren’s progression through curriculum. Computers puter” is meant to underscore the dilemma of low- are generally seen in a positive light and beneªcial cost computing in the developing regions. Many ini- to children, but mostly when working on them leads tiatives in this space have attempted and succeeded toward immediate better learning. For example, in bringing down the cost of computing devices, when asked if the same amount of money should and in the process have often brought about re- be spent on teacher salaries or a new computer, markable new breakthroughs that will beneªt tech- 60% of parents felt that additional teachers would nological advancement on the whole. Yet the be a better investment for learning, whereas 40% market experience of these projects has been poor thought that the one-time purchase of a computer overall so far, and many of the projects don’t end up would positively impact student learning. looking so cheap after all once they get in shape for Compatibility with existing teaching methods: distribution. Our argument here is that there is a We also found that early exposure to computers in need to take a step back and look at what the mar- developing countries comes through curricular con- ket seems to be telling us. We propose that an in- tent based on the dominant teaching methodolo- cremental approach to bringing technology to the gies, which tend to be highly structured and classroom in the developing world is the direction to instructive rather than constructive. Almost univer- take ahead. Instead of building new devices that re- sally, we found that computer-based learning mate- quire both expensive R&D and a greater threshold of rial for children reºected the classroom: it is created arguing for adoption, considering the institutional in a “narrative-interactive” loop fashion, with the buying modes these projects operate in, it is far eas- application feeding some content ªrst, and then fol- ier to work within the realm of “off-the-shelf” com- lows up with multiple choice-type questions that puters, as we propose here. The shared-computer test a child’s understanding of the material. We use model that we propose here may not have the found this to be highly compatible with content on best case beneªts of an ideal “laptops for all” sce- multi-input, single-screen computers. nario, but our argument is that it is not feasible to The central role played by teachers in making think of the former, and besides the core economic such programs effective has been much discussed arguments, we have also provided learning gain (Scott, 1992), as has the idea that class and cogni- potentials and parental attitudes toward shared- tive issues impact the level and complexity of access computer use to support our position. This approach that is available to children. Social class can also to shared computing thus explores how we can best have an impact on computer learning: There is evi- maximize the beneªts of computers for children that dence that children from marginalized and under- are likely to be used in primary schools in the devel- served groups tend to do more drill-type activity, oping world and in small computer centers where whereas children from afºuent backgrounds tend to children sit in groups. ■ get greater access to higher-level activities and creative resources on computers (Means, 2001).

62 Information Technologies and International Development PAL, PATRA, NEDEVSCHI, PLAUCHE, PAWAR

Acknowledgments Colle, R. D. (2005). “Building ICT4D capacity in and by African universities.’” International Journal of We would like to acknowledge the valuable com- Education and Development using ICT 1(1). ments of six anonymous reviewers and the editors P. Balaji, Krithi Ramamritham, and Arlene Luck, as well Collins, L. (2007). “Cutting the Cost of Com- as the various people who have supported this proj- puting.” Engineering & Technology 2(2): 34–37. ect, including Eric Brewer, Meera Lakshmanan, Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Com- Kentaro Toyama, and Rodrigo Fonseca. This material puters in the Classroom, Harvard University Press. is based upon work supported by the National Sci- ence Foundation under Grant No. 0326582. Dedrick, J., Kraemer, K. L., et al. (2001). “Impacts of Liberalization and Economic Integration on Mex- References ico’s Computer Sector.” INFORMATION SOCIETY Attewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). “Home Computers 17(2): 119–132. and School Performance.” The Information Soci- Department of Education, Ministry of Human Re- ety 15(1): 1–10. source Development, Government of India. Baggio, R. (2000). “A Sociedade da Informação ea (2008). Statistics. Retrieved March 1, 2008, Infoexclusão.” Ciência da Informação 29(2): 16– http://www.education.nic.in/Elementary/ 21. elementary.asp Becker, H. J. (2000). “Who’s wired and who’s not: Duff, A. S. (2000). Information Society Studies, Children’s access to and use of computer tech- Routledge. nology.” The Future of Children 10(2): 44–75. Ferraz, C., Fonseca, R., et al. (2004). Computing for Bell, D. (1976). “The Coming of the Post-Industrial Social Inclusion in Brazil: A Study of the CDI and Society.” The Educational Forum 40(4): 574–579. Other Initiatives. First UCB-UNIDO Bridging the Divide Conference, 2004, Berkeley, CA. Bhagwat, P., Raman, B. et al. (2004). “Turning 802.11 inside-out.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Fonseca, R., & Pal, J. (2004). “Computing Devices Communication Review 34(1): 33–38. for All: Creating and selling the low-cost computer.” 1st International Conference on ICT and Bresnahan, T., & Malerba, F. (1999). “Industrial Dy- Development, Berkeley, CA. ACM IEEE Confer- namics and the Evolution of Firms’ and Nations’ ence Proceedings. Competitive Capabilities in the World Computer Industry.” Sources of Industrial Leadership: Gaiha, R. (2001). “Decentralization and Poverty Alle- Studies of Seven Industries: 79–132. viation in Developing Asia.” Economics and De- velopment Resource Center, Asian Development Brewer, E., Demmer, M., et al. (2005). “The case for Bank, Manila. Processed. technology in developing regions.” Computer 38(6): 25–38. Gaw, D., Marsh, A., et al. (1998). Low-Cost Multi- Service Home Gateway Creates New Business Bricker, L., Inkpen, K., Stewart, J., Myers, B., et al. Opportunities, Coactive Networks, http:// (1998). “Single Display Groupware: Exploring www.coactive.com Computer Support for Co-Located Collabora- tion,” Panel submitted at ACM SIGCHI’99, Pitts- Gouldner, A. W. (1979). The Future of Intellectuals burgh. and the Rise of the New Class: A Frame of Refer- ence, Theses, Conjectures, Arguments, and an Castells, M. (1996). Rise of the Network Society. Historical Perspective on the Role of Intellectuals Cambridge, MA, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub- and Intelligentsia in the International Class Con- lishers. test of the Modern Era, Seabury. Chandru, V., Deshpande, V. L., et al. (2001). The Hanna, N. (1994). Exploiting information technology Simputer: Radical Simplicity for Universal Access. for development: a case study of India, The Development by Design: ThinkCycle Open Col- World Bank. laborative Conference, Bangalore 2002. Inkpen, K. M., et al. (1999). “This is fun! We’re all

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 63 THE CASE OF THE OCCASIONALLY CHEAP COMPUTER

best friends and we’re all playing: Supporting Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: rethinking children’s synchronous collaboration.” school in the age of the computer, Basic Books, International Society of the Learning Sciences. Inc. New York. Kam, M., Ramachandran, D., et al. (2007). “MILLEE: Parikh, T., Ghosh, K., et al. (2003). “Design studies Mobile and Immersive Learning for Literacy in for a ªnancial management system for micro- Emerging Economies.” TIER Research Group, Uni- credit groups in rural India.” Proceedings of the versity of California at Berkeley. 2003 conference on Universal usability: 15–22

Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., et al. (2007). “One Lap- Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., et al. (2006). “Multiple Mice for top Per Child (OLPC): An Education Project or a Computers in Education in Developing Coun- Laptop Project?” tries.” International Conference on Information Technologies and Development, May 2006, IEEE Kuriyan, R., Toyama, K., et al. (2006). “Integrating Conference Proceedings. Social Development and Financial Sustainability: The Challenges of Rural Computer Kiosks in Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., et al. (2007). “Multiple mice for Kerala.” Information,Technologies and Interna- retention tasks in disadvantaged schools.” Pro- tional Development 2006. ICTD’06. International ceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Conference: 121–130. factors in computing systems: 1581–1590. Machlup, F. (1962). The Production and Distribution Pawar, U., Pal, J., Gupta, R., & Toyama, K. (2007). of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton “Multiple mice for retention tasks in disadvan- University Press. taged schools.” ACM SIGCHI’07 Conference Pro- ceedings, pp. 1581–1590. Masuda, Y. (1981). The Information Society as Post- industrial Society, World Future Society. Pentland, A. S., Fletcher, R., et al. (2004). “DakNet: Rethinking Connectivity in Developing Nations.” Moed, A., Otto, O., et al. (2009). Reducing Domi- nance Behavior in Multiple-Mouse Learning Ac- Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). “Serving tivities. 8th International Conference on the World’s Poor, Proªtably.” Harvard Business Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Review 80(9): 48–57. (CSCL 2009)—Submitted, Rhodes, Greece. Proenza, F., & Montero, R. (2001). “Telecenters for Muir, M., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2004). socioeconomic and rural development.” Inter “The power of one-to-one: Early finding from American Development Bank, Working Papers. the Maine Learning Technology Initiative.” Russel, J. (1997). “No End in Sight Over NC/NetPC Learning & Leading with Technology 32(3): 6–11. Debate.” Communications Week. Nedevschi, S., Patra, R., et al. (2006). “A Tse, E., & Greenberg, S. (2004). Rapidly prototyping Multidisciplinary Approach to Studying Village Single Display Groupware through the Internet Kiosk Initiatives: The Case of Akshaya.” SDGToolkit, Australian Computer Society, Inc. E-Learning 3(3): 291–316. Darlinghurst, Australia. Negroponte, N. (1996). Being digital, Random UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). (2005). House Inc. New York. Children out of school: Measuring exclusion from Neugass, H. (1996). The $500 Internet Computer. primary education. Montreal: UIS. 13th TRON Project International Symposium, Wehn, U., & Mansell, R. (1998). Knowledge socie- Washington, DC. IEEE Computer Society. ties, Published for and on behalf of the United Nulens, G., & Van Audenhove, L. (1999). “An Infor- Nations by Oxford University Press, New York. mation Society in Africa?: An Analysis of the In- Zieniewicz, M. J., Johnson, D. C., et al. (2002). “The formation Society Policy of the World Bank, ITU Evolution of Army Wearable Computers.” IEEE and ECA.” International Communication Gazette PERVASIVE COMPUTING: 30–40. 61(6): 451.

64 Information Technologies and International Development