For my MSc dissertation, I investigated the strengths and limitations of two different projects (One Laptop Per Child and Blue Sparrow) that provide technology to schools to help development in emerging markets. I spent one month conducting ethnographic research in rural Peru, to understand how these types of projects can be successfully implemented in future, and any lessons learned from their approach. These are the slides I used to present this research at CHI conference 2015.

1. “Mástecnología,máscambio”?
Inves&ga&ng an educa&onal technology project in rural Peru
Emeline Therias, Jon Bird, Paul Marshall

2. Overview
Technology implementation projects with educational
objectives in emerging countries
Challenges of top-­‐down large-­‐scale approaches like One
Laptop Per Child [OLPC]
Successes of small grassroots program Blue Sparrow

3. Introduction

4. – rural Andean farmer
“Mástecnología,máscambio.”

5. “Digitaldivide”
ICTs and the “digital divide” [Warschauer et al. 2004]
ICT4D and HCI4D in emerging markets
Half of these projects are failures [Heeks 2002; 2011]

6. “Digitaldivide”
ICTs and the “digital divide” [Warschauer et al. 2004]
ICT4D and HCI4D in emerging markets
Half of these projects are failures [Heeks 2002; 2011]

7. One-­‐to-­‐one computing or shared computers
Constructionist “natural learning” [Papert, 2006]
“Hole-­‐in-­‐the-­‐wall” experiments [Mitra, 2005; Mitra &
Dangwal, 2010]
Educationalprojects

8. OneLaptopperChild
Image via One Laptop Per Child
2.5 million teachers and students, 42 countries in
the world to date

9. XO-Laptops
Over 850 000 laptops purchased in Peru, in 8300
schools (approximately $200 million)

10. Positive “attitudes” [Hourcade et al, 2008]
No significant educational benefits [Cristia et al, 2012]
“One size fits all” failure [Warschauer & Ames, 2010;
Warschauer et al, 2011]
LimitationsofOLPC

11. Howcantheseeducational
technologyprojectsbesuccessful

12. Researchproject

13. BlueSparrow
Partner with 4 different communities, setting up
computer labs in schools and sending volunteers

14. Rapidethnography
Use of a combination of ethnographic methods to
gather rich data in a short time [Millen, 2000]

15. Urban MarginalUrban Rural

16. Findings

17. Urban
Marginal
Urban
Rural
Blue
Sparrow
Daily use Daily use
Intermibent
use*
OLPC No use No use No use
*Dependent on volunteer presence

18. Urban
Marginal
Urban
Rural
Blue
Sparrow
Daily use Daily use
Intermibent
use*
OLPC No use No use No use
*Dependent on volunteer presence

19. OLPCnon-use
“We don’t use them, we don’t know them well…
[…] and they make us a bit nervous! They might
fall or break…” -­‐ Urban Director

20. Lessonslearned

21. Understandlocalcontexts
Understanding the local context avoids making
assumptions about what technology is needed

22. Useabottom-upapproach
Rather than “one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all”, projects should be
tailored to the specific community needs

23. Involvestakeholders
Involve key stakeholders to ensure the technology
will be accepted

24. Empowercommunities
The ultimate goal should be to hand-­‐over
technology to a community that will self-­‐manage

25. Nextsteps

26. ProvideTeacherTraining
Providing teachers with training will motivate
them to incorporate technology into the classroom

27. Integrateintocurriculum
“It’s not about using the technology. It’s about
using it in an effective way.” -­‐ Blue Sparrow

28. Providevolunteerresources
Volunteers need resources and teaching materials
to ensure they are effectively helping

29. Conclusion

30. – rural Andean farmer
“Mástecnología,máscambio.”

31. – rural Andean farmer
“Mástecnología,máscambio.”

32. tl;dr
Blue Sparrow achievements:
Understanding local contexts
Using bobom-­‐up approach
Involving stakeholders
Empowering communi&es

33. Next steps:
Provide training
Learning objec&ves
Teaching materials & support
tl;dr

34. EmelineTherias
UCL Interac&on Centre
UX Consultant -­‐ Spotless
emeline.therias@spotless.co.uk
www.spotless.co.uk