Infrastructures for Low-cost Laptop Use in Mexican Schools

Infrastructures for Low-cost Laptop Use in MexicanSchoolsRuy Cervantes 1 , Mark Warschauer 2 , Bonnie Nardi 1 and Nithya Sambasivan 1Department of Informatics 1Department of Education 2University of California, IrvineUniversity of California, Irvine{ruy,nardi, nsambasi}@ics.uci.edumarkw@uci.eduABSTRACTIn recent years, a number of low-cost laptops have beencreated for children’s education, most notably the XO,developed by One Laptop per Child to embody principlesof constructionist learning, and the ClassmatePC, designedby Intel to fit within and improve traditional education. Wereport on a series of field studies in Mexican elementaryschools that deployed the XO or ClassmatePC. Althoughboth devices are promoted as valuable for improvingeducation in developing countries, our studies suggest thatcreating the social and technical infrastructures needed tosustain school laptop use is far more complex than whattechnology designers assume.Author KeywordsLow-cost laptops, infrastructures, developing countries,OLPC, XO, ClassmatePC, education, Mexico, ICT4DACM Classification KeywordsK.3.1. Computer uses in education: collaborative learning,computer-assisted instruction. K.4.2. Computers andsociety: social issues. H.5.m. Information interfaces andpresentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.General TermsHuman factors.INTRODUCTIONIn the last five years, there has been a strong push to createlow-cost laptops for children in developing countries. Theseefforts—from the computer industry, non-governmentalorganizations, and governments—were triggered by theOne Laptop per Child (OLPC) project [15], which sought tocreate radical educational change by massively distributingits XO laptop to developing countries. Envisioned as aresponse to the problems of educational systems in thedeveloping world, including shortage of teachers and lackof material resources, the XO laptop purportedly embodiedthe principles of constructionist pedagogy to empowerstudents to learn on their own, without support fromPermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copiesbear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires priorspecific permission and/or a fee.CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0267-8/11/05....$10.00.teachers [6,7]. Constructionism [25] departs fromtraditional education by emphasizing students’ constructionof their own artifacts and knowledge. The XO’s mostprominent competitor is the ClassmatePC, created by Intel.Unlike the XO approach, the ClassmatePC was designed tobe compatible with and integrated into traditionaleducational systems [33]. Large sales deals recently securedby Intel in Brazil and Argentina [1] are signaling a growingmarket preference for the ClassmatePC.To further understand the role of laptops in elementaryeducation in developing regions, we conducted case studyresearch on laptop programs in a select group of Mexicanschools. From research conducted in developed countries(e.g., [35]), we know that successful school laptopprograms need supporting socio-technical infrastructures,such as electricity, networks and tech-supportinfrastructures, as well as trained teachers, staff, andpedagogical materials. HCI research has started to look ateducational ICTs in developing countries (e.g., [16]), butthe laptop as an educational tool is yet to be investigated. Abody of research is needed to design educationaltechnologies that can be supported in resource-constrainedenvironments.The objective of our research was to understand whichresources constituted the socio-technical infrastructures thatsupported the use of laptops in elementary education in adeveloping country, the specific functions of theseinfrastructures, and how these infrastructures were createdin resource-constrained environments. We found anecology of socio-technical infrastructures supporting thelaptop programs in schools. These infrastructures includedthe laptops; physical infrastructures, such as the electricalsystem, buildings, and furniture; and social andorganizational infrastructures, such as management,technical support, pedagogical support, and parentalinvolvement. The educational impact of laptops did notsolely depend on the economic resources of the school oron the type of laptops used. Although the socio-economicstatus (SES) of the schools affected their ability to buildinfrastructures, we found that the enthusiasm, commitment,and training of teachers, staff, parents, and students, alongwith the support of external organizations, helped createsupport infrastructures for laptops, despite limitedresources. We found that what laptops can achieve depends

heavily on school context, including factors such as teacherpreferences, organizational values, and existing norms.In this paper, we discuss how school communities achieved,or did not achieve, the support infrastructures for theselaptops. Our study explains the mundane tasks by whichpeople created complex socio-technical supportinfrastructures when resources were constrained. Finally,we articulate some of the opportunities for ICT designers insupporting technology-enabled educational change, such asleveraging the assets of school communities implementinglaptop programs, empowering the community to create thesupport infrastructures for laptop usage, and consideringimplementation models other than one-to-one computing.RELATED WORK AND THEORETICAL MOTIVATIONSSeveral low-cost computers aimed for the developing worldhave failed to be adopted, as designers overlooked users’contexts [24]. Analyses of educational ICTs in developingcountries have studied the different actors and entitiesnecessary to create support infrastructures [8,24,27,34,35],and how the relationships are negotiated [20]. Theseanalyses are useful for aiding policy-making but lack thedetail required for technology design. Recent work in HCIhas started to cover this gap; Kumar et al. [16] identifiededucational opportunities for out-of-school mobile learningin India, concluding that learning will increase according tothe availability of appropriate sociotechnical infrastructures.We need accounts of how laptop infrastructures areconstituted in practice to better understand howrelationships between material resources and communitiescreate these infrastructures [32]. Infrastructures are broadunderlying frameworks encompassing physical, social, andcultural resources that enable groups, organizations, orsocieties to function in certain ways [19]. Given thecentrality of social resources in educational activities, wefocus on the role of the social to study laptopinfrastructures. The question for us is not only whatresources make up laptop infrastructures, but also whenthose resources make an infrastructure [32], i.e., what kindsof interactions between things and people help develop aninfrastructure. Star and Ruhleder found that infrastructuresare built on an installed base of inherited strengths andlimitations, reach beyond a single event or site, areembedded into other structures and social arrangements, arelearned as part of membership with incoming membershaving to learn them, are linked with conventions ofpractice as they shape and are shaped by communities, aretransparent until they break down, and take time andnegotiation to adjust with other systems with which they areinvolved [32]. Star and Ruhleder's framework provides uswith specific notions to discuss the complexities of creatinglaptop infrastructures, allowing us to relate our work to thegrowing body of HCI literature that has looked at theinfrastructures sustaining ICTs in different contexts.Scholars in sociotechnical analysis of computinginfrastructures have studied multiple contexts[17,18,14,19,30,32,38], but we are not aware ofinfrastructure studies of education in the developing world.Social accounts of technological infrastructures used byprofessionals have documented how the material and socialconditions of developing countries constrain interactions[14,38]. Interactions are shaped by a lack of organizationalresources [17] and accountabilities across multipleorganizational levels [18,30]. We argue that manypreviously identified constraints are present in laptopinfrastructures of resource-constrained schools, such asmaterial infrastructures that are less robust than in highincomecountries; concerns of insecurity and theft;underdeveloped staff; and accountabilities at multiple levelsincluding to school boards, districts, and state and federalministries of education. Our study contributes to thesociotechnical analysis literature by showing how creatingsupport infrastructures is a matter of dealing with multiplesocio-technical constraints that interact in complex ways.ICT4D and HCI4D literature have informed our views ofhow infrastructures are built in constrained environments.Studies examining large scale ICT projects for schoolchildren (e.g., [8,24]) have found them sustainable only ifthey address local communities’ current practices [10] or ifthey create opportunities for new practices profiting fromexisting sociotechnical infrastructures [26]. We areinformed by studies critiquing the personal-use privateownershipparadigm in developing countries, where, due tosociotechnical constraints, a shared use model is often moreappropriate [24,31], including multiple mice per computer[31]. Ames has studied the country-wide XO deployment inUruguayan elementary schools [6]. Our work differs fromAmes’ project by comparing deployments of two differenttechnological platforms—Classmate and XO—and bylooking at the Mexican educational system, which hasmany more social and organizational deficiencies than theUruguayan educational system. Our study contributes toICT4D and HCI4D by providing designers with a holisticview of the complexities of creating laptop infrastructuresfor educational change and by showing how communitiescan leverage the ecology of tools, policies, and programs tocreate their self-reliant and sustainable infrastructures. Wecontribute to HCI4D by studying technology use in Mexico,a high mid-income country facing the challenge of unequaldistribution of socio-economic and pedagogical resources.Our understanding of the human infrastructure ineducational ICT has been influenced by the educationliterature, which has established teachers and pedagogicalsupport as crucial resources for educational ICT projects.Mere access to technology does not automatically enablestudents to use computers to educate themselves, especiallyin low-SES environments, if students lack social support athome or school [8,12,22,34,35]. Teachers are a fundamentalpart of the infrastructure to support laptops, providing theinstruction, mentoring, and modeling required for learning.Teachers are also users of the technical and pedagogicalinfrastructures in the classroom. Although ours is not an

education-focused paper, the empirical data presented hereserve the educational community in research and policymakingto better understand the challenges that teachers,staff and parents face when creating laptop supportinfrastructures in resource-constrained environments.BACKGROUNDMexico is a mid-income country with strong socioeconomicdisparities. Since many who can afford it seekeducation in private institutions [11], the majority of publicschools serve less advantaged students. Programs toupgrade infrastructure and introduce ICTs in educationhave sought to overcome disparities with mixed results[21]. Curriculum reform aiming to prepare students for the21 st century has been difficult to implement due todeficiencies in teacher training [28]. The ―Mochila Digital‖(Digital Backpack), a large-scale project started in 2008 bythe private Telmex Foundation, distributed 50,000 XOlaptops in about 1,200 Mexican elementary public schoolsin cooperation with the Ministry of Education [2,3].Participating schools received 40 XO laptops to be sharedamong all students. On a smaller scale, Intel’s World Aheadprogram ran a series of pilot projects in Mexicanelementary schools beginning in 2007 to test itsClassmatePCs [13], providing both laptops and substantialadministrative and training support [33].STUDY RATIONALEOur case study was designed to understand the sociotechnicalinfrastructures that support a laptop program. Weselected five different schools in two Mexican cities,segmenting them by SES and by type of laptop deployed,namely Classmate and XO. We segmented the schools bySES into two high-SES and three low-SES schools (seeTable 1), which allowed us to contrast how people createdlaptop support infrastructures in resource-constrainedenvironments and in high-resource environments.Segmenting by type of laptop helped us determine if thesupport infrastructures were different in each case, and ifdifferences in type of laptop brought changes in theireducational function. The schools in our sample haddifferent degrees of internal organizational maturity and ofsupport from parents and external organizations.Contrasting these differences allowed us to understand howorganization and support enable, or not, the creation ofsocio-technical infrastructures. Another dimension againstwhich we compared how infrastructures were formed wasthe age of the laptop program at each school, varying froma few months to two school years. The final criterion for thedesign of our study was the use model of the laptopfollowed at each school. The largest XO implementation inthe world, Plan Ceibal in Uruguay [4] follows a one-to-oneuse model. However the largest XO implementation inMexico, Mochila Digital, and other smallerimplementations, follow a shared use model. Peru’snationwide implementation [36], and a smaller program inHaiti [23], also have moved towards a shared use model.Given the prevalence of the shared use model in Mexico,we selected a majority of sites that followed this practice.METHODSWe conducted 128 hours of observations (see Table 1) toexamine the role of laptops in teaching and learningactivities, the resources needed to conduct these activities,and how teachers and staff prepared for these activities. Wedocumented our observations with extensive field notes,photographs of in-class interactions of teachers andstudents, and collection of samples of work of students andpedagogical materials. We observed classroom activitiesthat did and did not involve laptops, teacher meetings,school assemblies, parent meetings, and social gatherings ofteachers and staff. We also observed laptop supportactivities, such as how laptops were charged, stored, andtransported to the classroom.We conducted 41 semi-structured interviews of 20 to 60minutes with staff, teachers, parents, and students. In theseinterviews we asked teachers, staff and parents about theirperception of the laptop project, the history anddevelopment of the programs, and the process to implementthe program, and the social, organizational, pedagogical andtechnical resources necessary for the program. We askedstudents, teachers, and staff about the educational uses andpractices that involved laptops, and compared theirresponses against our observations, to be able to understandto what degree the perceived uses corresponded to observeduse. We digitally recorded, coded, and transcribed allConocerte Del Valle Miguel Hidalgo Independencia Octavio PazLocation Guadalajara Guadalajara Puebla Guadalajara GuadalajaraSES High – Private High – Private Low – Public Low – Public Low – PublicLaptop Type ClassmatePC-1 ClassmatePC-1 ClassmatePC-1 XO-1 XO-1Program Independent Intel supported pilot Intel/State govt. pilot Mochila Digital Mochila DigitalActive period 2007-2009 2007- date 2007- date 2009-date 2009-dateLaptop ratio 1-to-1 1st yr., 1-to-1. Then shared. Shared Shared SharedNo. laptops 60 40 50 40 40Observations N/A. Nov/09: 10 days. ~40hrs. Dec/09: 10 days. Dec/09-Mar/10: 6 Dec/09-Mar/10: 6Interviews1 staff member,2 teachers7 students, 1 teacher, 2 staff, 2parents.~40hrs.8 students, 3 teachers,1 staff, 4 parents.days. ~24hrs.5 teachers, 1staff.Table 1: Characteristics of the observed urban elementary schools in Mexico.days. ~24hrs.3 teachers,Principal.

interviews, and coded the field notes and pictures. Ourcoding was bottom-up, and the themes reported in ourfindings emerged from the data. The field researcher isMexican and was educated there; all fieldwork wasconducted in Spanish. Translations from Spanish are ours.Pseudonyms are used for schools and people.THE SITESLow-SES schoolsWe had three public, low-SES schools in our sample. TheMiguel Hidalgo School ClassmatePC program wassponsored by Intel and the Puebla State Ministry ofEducation. Independencia and Octavio Paz schools werepart of the Mochila Digital program and used XO laptops.The Miguel Hidalgo School, a public elementary school inthe city of Puebla, started its ClassmatePC program with 50laptops in October 2007 [13]. The school had ample priorexperience using ICTs. It has had a computer room since1998. The principal was supportive of technology projects,and the school’s technology coordinator was trained in bothtechnology and ICT pedagogy. Both sponsors gave ampletechnical and pedagogical support to the school, and theirpedagogical support personnel frequently visited the school.The XO schools, Independencia and Octavio Paz, werelocated in low-SES neighborhoods of Guadalajara.Independencia was a stable older school with veteranteachers. Parents had a seemingly good relationship withthe school authorities. Octavio Paz School was relativelynew and growing fast. Lower grade classes had close to 50students each, and classroom space was running out. Schooladministrators indicated that parental participation was low,which they attributed to long working hours of low-incomeparents. The XO laptops were delivered to Independenciaand Octavio Paz in spring 2009. Technical training wasprovided only to two staff or teachers per school, and notuntil October of that year. Those trained were expected toreplicate the training to their peers. The XO schools facednumerous technical problems, as discussed below.High-SES schoolsThe two high-SES schools were located in wealthyneighborhoods of Guadalajara. Both were runningClassmatePC laptop programs. These private schools hadwell-trained teachers and a good relationship with parents.Both schools have had well-equipped computer rooms forat least 10 years. Most classrooms in these schools hadLCD projectors and a computer for the teacher. The DelValle school program was also initiated as an Intelsponsored pilot project in 2007. During the first year, theschool’s 40 ClassmatePCs were allocated on a one laptopper student basis to all sixth grade students. After the firstyear, laptops were used on a shared basis among gradefour-to-six students. The other private school, Conocerte,independently acquired ClassmatePCs in 2007, toimplement a one-to-one laptop program in grades 5 and 6.The program lasted until spring 2009 (see discussionbelow). Students’ parents covered the cost of purchase oflaptops, and laptops were managed by the school’stechnology coordinator. After several months, studentswere allowed to take the laptops home. As Conocerte hadthe longest running one-to-one laptop program in Mexicothat we were aware of, we decided to include the school inour sample, even though the program was no longer activeat the time of our visit. We interviewed extensively the twoteachers who had used the laptops with their classes and atechnical support staff member.FINDINGSMore than the laptop, it was the support infrastructures thatmade an educational difference. In low-SES schools, bothusing XOs and ClassmatePCs, much effort was expended tobuild infrastructures to enable students to access learningenvironments that they had no access to otherwise. Schoolsthat solved the access issue—all high-SES schools and onelow-SES—built infrastructures to capitalize on students’enthusiasm for technology to motivate them to be moreindependent learners. Schools changed their teaching andlearning practices, only after their infrastructure was solid,and teachers had enough technical and pedagogical supportto change their practices. How laptops were used totransform educational practices was determined by theskills and interests of the teachers, the motivation ofstudents, and the values of the schools, rather than theaffordances of the laptops alone.Learning environments are laptops plus teachersMost of the low-SES students’ previous experience withtechnology was restricted by either limited physical accessor limited social support. According to teachers, between ahalf and one-third of students in the observed schools hadcomputers and Internet access at home. Though cybercaféswere ubiquitous, few low-SES parents felt comfortableletting their elementary school children attend them orcould afford the costs. Low-SES students who did findoutside access to computers often lacked mentors. Onlysome students had parents, older siblings, or other relativeswith extensive computer experience. Many had to learncomputer skills on their own.Laptop programs provided the opportunity to accesseducational resources because students could use laptopswith the guidance of a teacher or technology coordinator inan environment conducive for learning. The use of XOs bytwo 3 rd grade groups at Independencia illustrates howlaptops plus teachers made the difference to create aproductive learning environment. In ―3-A‖, students usedthe XO without teacher supervision, as their teacher was nottrained to use the XO. When the teacher handed out thelaptops, she told students that they could ―chat.‖ Somestudents started communicating using the Chat program, butothers were not able to figure it out, leaving them frustrated.Students of ―3-B‖ conducted an educational activity whichconsisted of playing the popular song ―Brother John‖ usingTamTam, an XO music creation program. Their teacherprinted the activity handout from the Mochila Digital’ssupport site. Using the handout and their teacher’sassistance, students could play the song on their own. The

activity of 3-A had little educational value, as manystudents had chatted before at cybercafés and those whowere not able to chat did not receive guidance to use theprogram. In contrast, the activity of 3-B allowed manystudents to create music on the computer for their first time.It is pretty but not practicalMaking the laptops ―practical‖ to use, and easy to integrateinto teaching and learning practices, was a function of theorganizational capacity of the school, and not necessarilylinked to its SES. Miguel Hidalgo had a solid internalorganization, support from parents, and good relations withthe Ministry of Education. With the advice of the Ministryof Education, the school built a ―charging center‖ to chargeand store all laptops. Its cost of nearly $700 US was paidfor by parents. In contrast, the electrical infrastructure atOctavio Paz was unreliable. The principal bought somepower-strips to charge the laptops at the single electricaloutlet of each classroom, making laptop charging laborintensive.This inconvenience made Octavio Paz’s teacherscharacterize the XO laptops as ―pretty‖ but not ―practical‖.The lack of engagement between Octavio Paz staff and theparents made it impossible to raise funds for a reliableelectrical infrastructure.In high-SES schools, where providing laptops and physicalinfrastructures was not a problem, social organization wasstill crucial for using laptops reliably. When the technologycoordinator at Conocerte, a high-SES school, resigned, thelaptop program was officially ended. Still, many parentscontinued to buy netbooks for their children, and thesestudents regularly brought their netbooks to school.However, teachers had reservations about using thenetbooks in class, as some students had ―inappropriate‖material on their netbooks, such as violent videos, andteachers were also worried about computer viruses.Conocerte teachers told us they had felt much moreconfident in the laptops when the technology coordinatorused to manage the program and help ensure that themachines were used for educational purposes.Elsewhere, lack of local knowledge of its SugarOS madethe XO difficult to maintain. Between a half and a third ofXO machines of the Mochila Digital schools were receivedwith a software-lock, as the security layer of SugarOS,called ―BitFrost,‖ had no activation key. Loading the keyson the computers was relatively complex for a nontechnicaluser. Also, the laptops were not configured toaccess the Internet. Technical support was provided mainlyover the phone, with no in-person support. Technicalsupport of Mochila Digital was slow to respond, andschools could not use local technical expertise sinceSugarOS was virtually unknown.Insecurity and robbery are a reality in Mexico, and it was aconcern in all schools, directly impacting access tocomputing. At the high-SES Del Valle School, all of thelaptops were stolen from a locked room a few weeks beforeour arrival. To carry on with their activities, and also toallow us to perform the study, the school borrowed laptopsused at a sister campus for a few weeks. Staff explained tous that it would take months to replace the stolen laptops.The robbery made evident the vulnerability of computinginfrastructures to the larger social context of a countrywhere even low-cost laptops are valuable items.One-to-one is aspired to, but sharing is more practicalOne-to-one laptop programs were practically achievable inonly one school. Even if a one-to-one laptop program wasan aspiration for most teachers and staff, the laptops’ costand lack of requisite socio-technical support made this goalinfeasible. Only Conocerte, the most privileged school, wasable to sustain a one-to-one program for a prolonged period.For the technology coordinator of Del Valle, a high-SESschool, a sustainable one-to-one program was achievable intwo years, after lobbying with school authorities, building aschool network, and working out financing with parents.Low-SES schools shared laptops, given the lower capacityof their social and physical infrastructures, and theperceived benefit of giving access to all schools students asopposed to a single class with a one-to-one program. At theMiguel Hidalgo School, the principal chose to share their50 ClassmatesPCs laptops among the twelve groups of theschool, over having a single group in a one-to-one program.The principal considered that sharing was better, as allstudents would have a ―chance to open [their] minds‖ tonew ways of learning using the laptops under the guidanceof their teachers. The value of using laptops was inincreasing the access to technology for all students, beyondmaking teaching and learning more efficient.Sharing laptops entailed practical problems, as neitherlaptop was designed for multiple users. First, transportinglaptops between classrooms was an issue. Schoolsestablished weekly schedules to allocate a couple of hoursper group. And moving laptops from classroom toclassroom required coordination and time. For instance, atthe Miguel Hidalgo school, each group picked up thelaptops from the media room and took them to theirclassroom (see figure 1). This routine was time-consuming;it would have been more efficient to set up the laptopspermanently at the media room. But taking ―the technologyinside the classroom‖, the technology coordinatorexplained, was something that students ―liked and wereexcited about‖ as it made students feel closer to technology,especially to those with no computer at home. The secondFigure 1: Students transporting the laptops to their classroom.

issue was storing students’ work. Miguel Hidalgo’s laptopswere labeled so each student would work on the samemachine every time, storing their work in a folder with theirname. In schools using XOs, students were not able to savetheir work on the laptop, as it had limited memory and theOS had no folders. At the Independencia School, someteachers asked students to buy USB flash drives, but onlyone third of parents were able to buy them. Students sharedtheir drives with others who did not have one, but thepractice was ineffective and many times the work was lost.Improving the low-SES schools’ infrastructures forimplementing schoolwide one-to-one laptop programsrequires a holistic approach. Nation-state support isrequired as few parents can pay for laptops or requisiteinfrastructure upgrades. Electrical installations for mostclassrooms were inferior. Storage arrangements would haveto be made in many overpopulated classrooms, andschoolwide wireless networks would need to be established.Outside of a few schools, more attention to building thesocial infrastructure in support of laptop use is required.However, the technology coordinator of Miguel Hidalgofelt that at well-organized low-SES schools such as hers,with ―good teachers and staff,‖ a one-to-one laptop programwould be implemented with positive educational results.Building the community that builds the infrastructureFor low-SES schools, creating organizations that buildreliable infrastructures in a context prone to breakdownswas crucial, and required great effort. Some communitybuildingpractices were mediated by the use of the laptopsthemselves. To increase the involvement of parents atMiguel Hidalgo school, they would be regularly invited toeducational events to use the laptops with their children.We observed an event where parents worked with theirchildren creating a Word document about the mostimportant values of their family. These kinds of eventsallowed parents—with little experience with computers—toexperience first-hand the power of laptops at school.Involving and supporting teachers was fundamental for thecontinuity and success of the program. Technologycoordinators and support staff were key to supportingteachers’ involvement. Ms. Alejandra, a teacher at MiguelHidalgo School explained that ―the teacher‖ was the mostimportant resource for a laptop program. Ms. Marian, thetechnology coordinator at Miguel Hidalgo, explained thather responsibility was ―to guide the teacher so he or she caneffectively see the laptop as something positive‖. For this,Marian had the support of personnel from Intel and theMinistry of Education. Marian invited teachers with poorcomputer literacy skills to follow the computer literacylessons imparted to students. Sometimes students wouldhelp teachers in their learning process (see figure 2). Thisstrategy helped to train teachers and integrate them to thelaptop program by making teachers feel comfortable astechnology learners, without losing face with their students.This way, Marian was able to ―change the culture of theteachers,‖ to become lifelong learners of technology.Building a social network of teachers beyond the schoolwas viewed as important. At Independencia, the laptopprogram coordinator explained that one of the challengesfor program continuity was sustaining teacher motivation.She believed that enabling teachers to acquire continuousICT training would be the key. As part of the solution, shepictured a network of teachers who could share their uses oftechnology in the classroom, creating a sense of belongingand support. But this network was difficult to bring about,as the Mochila Digital schools were spread out around thecity. Online networks could be a solution, but those taketime to build well and had not been developed.Motivating students with their laptop enthusiasmSchools with more stable laptop infrastructures, namely DelValle, Conocerte, and Miguel Hidalgo, were able to usestudents’ enthusiasm for laptops to motivate them to workindependently. Teachers could capitalize on students’enthusiasm by continuously creating activities in whichstudents experienced a new way of learning that was moreenjoyable, more dynamic, and closer to their interests.Laptops became an auxiliary tool to capture students’attention, create supporting material for difficult subjects,and help students produce higher quality work.Developing students’ motivation was a blend of laptopaffordances and social practices. Students enjoyed usinglaptops as they were perceived as aesthetically pleasing.Students of lower grades (1 st through 4 th ) liked the smallsize of the laptops and keyboard, though the keyboard sizestarted to bother some 5 th and 6 th graders. Beyond theaffordances of laptops, their major value was in the socialpractices they allowed. Teachers were able to includemultimedia resources that captured students’ attention andsupported their understanding of complicated material.Using laptops created opportunities to include students’technology interests, such as computer gaming, or usingsocial networking sites. For instance, an English teacherencouraged students to use the Facebook game ―PetSociety‖ to increase their vocabulary. Furthermore, teachersperceived that any activity done at the computer moreeasily caught students’ attention. A Del Valle teachersuggested that students felt more compelled to work whenusing laptops, as technology was ―part of them [...] theywere born with it‖.Since few schools had laptops, owning these devicesbecame an occasion to interact with outsiders interested inFigure 2: Student teaching her teacher how to use the laptop.

the programs. These interactions furthered the sense ofteachers and students participating in something special.Miguel Hidalgo, for example, was featured in the localmedia, closely observed by another research team besidesours, presented in state government meetings as a model forICT integration, and participated in contests and specialactivities. The laptop program there allowed some studentsto gain recognition, such as two 2 nd grade students whoreceived a public award in an inter-school writing contestfor student using ClassmatePCs. Their laptop program alsogave students the opportunity to interact with people fromoutside of the country; one project coordinated by Intelpedagogical support staff brought selected students intoonline discussion with students in Germany to discuss girls’rights in their respective countries.At Independencia, and Octavio Paz, unstable infrastructuresmade it difficult to use laptops as a motivational device. AtOctavio Paz, with little pedagogical support and difficultiesin setting up the laptops, a teacher tried using the XOs as arecompense for her students’ discipline, exchangingstudents’ attention during class for letting them play withthe XOs using any games such as Mazes for a few hours aweek. The strategy only worked a few times, given thedifficulties to charge the XOs and the lack students’ interestto play with the machines without an objective.The use of laptops depends on the infrastructureThe two high-SES schools were able to consistentlyintegrate the laptops into their teaching and learningpractices. How laptops were used was greatly influenced byteachers’ preferences and skills. Both teachers who hadused the laptops at Conocerte were highly competent andready for change, but with different preferences. Adolfo,passionate about electronic music composition,implemented many multimedia production activities.Students in his class made electronic music to representaspects of the city’s geography. To help them, he learnedhow to use free sound editing software, installed it on eachof the machines, and taught students how to use it. Alicia,who was more inclined towards mathematical andanalytical aspects, took advantage of Excel and PowerPointto teach students to create conceptual maps to visualizedifferent perspectives on complex issues.The school’s values were another subtle but powerfulinfluence on how laptop affordances transformed teachingand learning, as seen in differences between the two high-SES schools deploying ClassmatePCs. Conocerte Schoolfocused on cultivating students’ creativity and autonomythrough project work; this was reflected in how laptopswere used as described above. Del Valle, which took amore traditional approach to academic achievement,emphasized more structured learning activities undercareful teacher supervision. The efficiency of laptopshelped students at Del Valle worry less about their workpresentation and focus more on the quality of their answers,yet students adhered closely to teacher instructions per theoverall values of the school.We observed that the capacity to change teaching andlearning practices increased when certain preconditionswere met, including consistent access to technology, aprepared and committed teaching staff, and support fromexternal organizations, district authorities, and parents.Creating the infrastructures for transformative uses was notonly dependent on economic resources. While highereconomic resources at high-SES schools helped to createphysical infrastructures, a strong social organization wasmost important. At the wealthiest school in our study,Conocerte, the laptop program was completely halted oncethe technology coordinator resigned. And the low-SESMiguel Hidalgo school successfully leveraged its strongorganizational capacity and external support to transformeducational practices. Constant dialogue between teachersand technology coordinators at the school greatly facilitatededucational change there. Concrete methods for usinglaptops were worked out during the teachers' weekly lessonplanning time, as the technology coordinator workedtogether with the teachers to plan their their classroomactivities. The dialogue also gave the technologycoordinator an appropriate perspective of the laptops, as―one more tool‖, albeit a powerful one, for education.DISCUSSIONIn each of the five schools, socio-technical infrastructuresshaped the use and educational value of laptops. Thesefindings are in line with other reports [12,20,22,34,36,37]on how the ―social envelope‖ surrounding ICTs influencesthe educational benefits of these technologies. To developsupport infrastructures, the entire school community had towork in concert, making use of local and global resources.We can summarize several features related toinfrastructures for learning with laptops, as follows.Achieving educational change was not a product of theprinciples embodied by the laptops. OLPC believed that asthe XO embodied the principles of constructionism it wouldfunction as a ―Trojan Horse…a backdoor into overhaulingthe entire education system‖ of countries [9,6], makingeducation more creative and student centered. In contrast,Intel described the ClassmatePC as a tool more centered inteachers and traditional learning, which could ―easilyintegrate into their curriculum,‖ that could be ―locallyappropriated, easily deployed‖ [5]. But, in spite of differentintentions of the two laptops designs, in this small sample,the Classmate was being used for constructivist purposesmore than the XO, showing that the way a device is useddepends greatly on its adoption by a community in localcontext, according to its sociotechnical infrastructure, ratherthan just the intent of the designers.Developing a strong human infrastructure allowed schoolsto use laptops to deliver educational value. Even with itsmaterial constraints, the low-SES Miguel Hidalgo schoolwas able to use laptops to educate and motivate its studentsas it had well-trained staff and teachers. As ICTs onlybecome useful when meaningful social practices are createdaround using these technologies [34], strong community

support becomes crucial for effective use of laptops.Practices are learned from peers, parents, teachers and otherrole models. In low-SES schools, children often lack homeaccess to knowledgeable computer users. But theorganization and community support at Miguel Hidalgoallowed creating these social practices. The training andtechnical support programs were key for the success of theIntel sponsored pilots of our sample, showing theimportance to develop social infrastructures. But the resultsof these ClassmatePC pilots, especially of the observedlow-SES school cannot be immediately replicated. MiguelHidalgo was a school out of the norm when compared withthe other low-SES schools of our sample, as it had stronginternal organization and efficient support from Intel andthe government. The Mochila Digital schools we visitedneeded time and support to develop their socialinfrastructures: much stronger technical support, teachertraining, and community support was need at these schoolsto get educational value out of the laptops. Scaling upprograms to support the development of schools’ socialinfrastructures remains a challenge. Comparing to anotherdevelopment effort, even India’s Hole in the Wall project,which began by giving children unfettered access to kioskcomputers without mediation by adults or organizations,has evolved to focus more on building ties with schools,teachers, and local communities as mediators of learning[8]. Walter Bender, former OLPC president of software andcontent, recently suggested that OLPC should also strive forbuilding sociotechnical support infrastructures [34].Building strong infrastructures supporting the laptops wasdependent on the social conditions of each school. Creatingan appropriate physical infrastructure was, especially inlow-SES schools, dependent on the ability of the school toorganize the community. Miguel Hidalgo, which had anefficient organization, was able to create a charging center,whereas the Octavio Paz School, which had problems withits parents’ association, was not. Also, the ability to developthe human infrastructure through teacher training wasaffected by the wage structure. Many teachers had no freetime to attend training sessions as they held multiple jobs tosupplement their income. These dependencies betweeninfrastructures ran across multiple organizational and sociallevels, further increasing their complexity. To take fulladvantage of the capabilities of the laptop infrastructure,educational plans and standardized tests created at federaland state levels have to be updated. Servicing laptops, inresponse for example to the Bitfrost locking of the XOs,depended both on the Mochila Digital tech support teamand the school’s technology coordinator.Working out how laptops could fit into existing practices ofschool communities was fundamental to adoption. MiguelHidalgo’s teachers and technology coordinator couldvisualize new uses of laptops only when working togetherin the teachers' weekly planning sessions, an existingpractice. When infrastructures have matured, they arelearned as part of the membership of a community ofpractice. But the teachers’ community had no precedent forhow to use the laptop infrastructures. So the technologycoordinator and teachers had to work out new uses of thelaptop infrastructures. Technology coordinators werecentral in integrating laptop infrastructures into dailypractices, and thus assumed the role of what Nardi andO'Day termed a ―keystone species‖ [22].But achieving the adoption of laptops needs dialogue atmultiple levels, from curriculum reform at a national level,to the practicalities of each teacher’s weekly lessonplanning. Schools running laptop programs for a longertime had developed more stable infrastructures, as they hadhad greater opportunity to negotiate appropriate changes.The Miguel Hidalgo School had experience in both buildingrelationships with its local community and in developingtraining and curriculum reforms with Intel pedagogicalsupport staff and Puebla state Ministry of Educationofficials. This gave Miguel Hidalgo much more stablelaptop infrastructures than those of the newly implementedMochila Digital’s schools, in which these dialogues andprocesses had not occurred.Laptops had to be shared to work within the schools’existing infrastructural capacity. The initial designs of theXO (explicitly) and ClassmatePC (implicitly) assuming aone-to-one model of student use were out of synch with theinfrastructures of the resource-constrained schools in ourstudy. None of the laptop implementations at low-SESschools had a one-to-one program. Only Conocerte, thewealthiest school in our sample, was able to sustain a oneto-onelaptop program for a prolonged period, and that latercollapsed as well. The inability to move to a one-to-oneprogram was not only due to the cost of laptops, but alsodue to the insufficient physical and social infrastructure tomaintain, deploy, and effectively use a large number oflaptops. In contrast, a shared use model at low-SES schoolsallowed all students a chance to meaningfully usecomputers, while not straining infrastructures. Thisobservation is consistent with the case of the large XOimplementation in Peru, first launched as a one-to-oneprogram but then expanded as a shared use program tobetter match the country's infrastructural capacity [36].Most of those we interviewed understood that schools hadto upgrade their physical and organizational infrastructuresbefore venturing into one-to-one programs. This belief wasagainst OLPC's ―saturation‖ principle of immediate one-tooneimplementation. This principle downplays the need fora physical and social infrastructure to sustain a large-scalelaptop deployment, whether to charge, maintain, and repairlaptops or to ensure that they are used effectively. Thisdownplaying of the critical role of community support—from technology coordinators, teachers, parents andothers—has had negative consequences in OLPCdeployments around the world [36]. For example inUruguay, more than a quarter of the country's 400,000 XOsare non-functioning due to hardware of software problems[29]. In Alabama, after the Mayor and City Council

launched a program despite opposition from teachers andthe school district, laptops were seldom used in schools,large numbers become unusable due to hardware orsoftware problems, and funding for the program waseventually discontinued [36].Technology designers should understand that the natureand development of infrastructures depends on context.What was taken for granted in high-SES schools, such asadequate electrical systems or physical space, became amajor obstacle for some low-SES schools. Simple schemesfor distributing technology do not work if a suitablesociotechnical infrastructure is lacking. We saw how thelaptop program in the highest SES school collapsed whenthe technology coordinator resigned, even as parentscontinued buying laptops for their children. Furthermore,the opportunities to change educational practices dependedon the context: the skills and preferences of teachers andstudents, the values of the school, and the values of thelarger educational systems in Mexico all determine what ispractical to change. In the cases of the Del Valle andConocerte schools, similar laptop affordances were usedvery differently, suggesting that laptop infrastructures areshaped by school values. It is not possible to introduce neweducational models, as OLPC sought to do withconstructionism, without a comprehensive approach tochange the culture and practices of schools and teachers.The only way to transform education is to engage the wholecommunity in a dialogue for creating change, as was beingdone at Miguel Hidalgo. The involvement of teachers isvital, as it is their role to facilitate learning practices inclassroom. As teaching and learning practices with laptopswere new in these schools, it was necessary to create anenvironment where teachers could be seen as learners oftechnology and experiment with new ways of working.OPPORTUNITIES FOR LAPTOPS IN EDUCATIONWe face the challenge of creating sociotechnicalinfrastructures that support large-scale educational change.The design of XO and Classmate assume a one-to-one usemodel. However, this model for personal use and privateownership makes assumptions based on the conditions ofdeveloped countries [31]. In most of our cases, laptops hadto be shared to increase reach, lower costs, and be sustainedwithin limited physical and social infrastructures. ―Onelaptop per child‖ obscures the complexity of supportinglaptop usage. The whole school community contributes tolaptop infrastructures and use.An ecology of technologies, community programs, andpolicies is needed to make effective use of laptops ineducation. Support technologies include hardware andsoftware to share, maintain, and secure laptops, and tofacilitate interactions among teachers, students, and parents.Programs to build technical and pedagogical capacities,motivate, and engage the school community can helpensure the sustainability the laptop infrastructures. To takeadvantage of laptops, educational systems in developingcountries have to engage in comprehensive reforms toupdate their curricula, transform student testing, andpromote the professional development of teachers. Theseecologies must operate within educational systems withchronic organizational deficiencies and within the socioeconomicproblems of developing nations. Actors from alllevels (policy makers, technology developers, educationalauthorities, school staff, teachers, and parents) have toparticipate in these ecologies. Monolithic approaches forchange through injection of a new device will not work.Schools need building blocks that can be shaped accordingto their particular context, to cultivate the conditions inwhich educational change can emerge.The designers of these ecologies can take advantage of anumber of assets school communities have to create laptopinfrastructures. Enthusiasm for technology can becapitalized on to build the motivation of both students andadults, as laptop activities with parents and pupils at MiguelHidalgo School showed. A motivated community will havethe creativity and perseverance needed to build a laptopinfrastructure. Changing certain community rules canpositively impact individuals' abilities to contribute towardsthe laptop infrastructures. For example, providing normsand structures for teachers to be learners of technology intheir own groups can encourage teachers to update theirskills and practices and strengthen the human component ofinfrastructures for laptop use. Dialogue is central to expandthe construction and use of laptop infrastructures. Spacesfor dialogue have to be created within existing practices.We saw how, if members of the community are questionedat the right moment, new uses for the infrastructuresbecome clear, as shown when the technology coordinatortalked to teachers during their weekly planning.Each school should cultivate the ―keystone species‖ [22] ofteachers and technology coordinators. Mentor teachers willrequire support in the educational system, for example,through extra paid professional development time. Whilepaid technology coordinators require extra resources, theycan have an enormous impact on helping teachers integratelaptops with school practices. Socio-technicalinfrastructures supporting laptops cannot be immediatelyimplemented, as communities take time to mature.We agree with Pal et al. [24] on the appropriateness of theshared laptop use model for most of the schools in thedeveloping world. In low-income countries, sharing alimited number of laptops puts much less stress on fragileschool infrastructures, both physical and social, thanproviding one laptop to every child. In mid- and highincomecountries, it is possible to transition to a one-to-onemodel, as the infrastructures of the whole educationalsystem and each school strengthen, as demonstrated by theevolution of many laptop programs in US schools [35].Software for laptop infrastructures should be suitable for ashared use model. Rollout strategies for large laptopprograms should follow a staged implementation in certaingrade levels or subject areas first, so that requisite physicaland social infrastructures can be developed over time.

CONCLUSIONIn the near future we will likely see more governments andinstitutions investing in laptops for basic education. Theemphasis of these projects should be on building the basicsociotechnical infrastructures that will enable students toengage in meaningful learning with laptops. Given thecomplex environment of schools in developing countries,introducing new technologies is not easy. Supportinfrastructures for laptops are dependent on the context ofeach community, and it is only with full communityparticipation that laptop infrastructures can be developed.As designers of technology, we should understand thatlaptops for education are not devices for individuals, butrather are part of a large sociotechnical infrastructurecreated by the whole school community. Designs shouldtake a holistic approach, thinking about the ecology oftools, policies, and programs that each community will mixand match to create their own laptop infrastructure. Lowcostlaptops can be used to promote educational change indeveloping countries, if the enthusiasm that these devicesevoke is leveraged to promote the growth of organizationalcapacities, upgrade teachers’ skills, and create a betteroverall educational environment for students.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank teachers, staff, and the Ministries of Education inJalisco and Puebla for facilitating our visit. A UC MEXUSgrant made this work possible.REFERENCES1. Brazilian Ministry of Education plan large deployment withMandriva Linux on Intel-powered classmate PCs.http://www2.mandriva.com/en/news/?p=145&s=0.2. Mochila Digital. www.mochiladigitaltelmex.com.mx/.3. OLPC Mexico. wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Mexico.4. Plan Ceibal. www.ceibal.edu.uy/.5. Intel's Vision for Low Cost Netbook Laptops for Childrenand Schools Worldwide. www.classmatepc.com/vision/.6. Ames, M. Hacker Learning? The Social Meanings of OneLaptop Per Child. 2008.7. Ananny, M. and Winters, N. Designing for Development:Understanding One Laptop Per Child in its HistoricalContext. ICTD (2007).8. Arora, P. Hope-in-the-Wall? A digital promise for freelearning. British Journal of Educ. Technology 41, 5 (2010).9. Bender, W. Radio Open Source interview. 2007. olpctalks.com/walter_bender/bender_radio_open_source.html.10. Best, M.L. and Kumar, R. Sustainability failures of ruraltelecenters: Challenges from the sustainable access in ruralindia (sari) project. ITID 4, 4 (2008).11. Bracho, T. Desigualdad educativa. Un tema recurrente.Revista Mexicana de investigación educativa 7, (2002).12. Giacquinta, J.B., Bauer, J.A., and Levin, J.E. Beyondtechnology's promise: an examination of children's educationalcomputing at home. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993.13. Heredia Escorza, Y. and Lozano Rodríguez, A. El uso decomputadoras ClassmatePC en una escuela primaria delestado de Puebla: un estudio descriptivo. 2008.14. Irani, L., Dourish, P., and Mazmanian, M. Shopping forsharpies in Seattle: mundane infrastructures of transnationaldesign. ICIC (2010).15. Kraemer, K., Dedrick, J., and Sharma, P. One laptop perchild: vision vs. reality. Commun. ACM 52, (2009).16. Kumar, A., Tewari, A., Shroff, G., Chittamuru, D., Kam, M.,and Canny, J. An exploratory study of unsupervised mobilelearning in rural India. CHI (2010).17. LeDantec, C. and Edwards, K. The view from the trenches:organization, power, and technology at two nonprofithomeless outreach centers. CSCW (2008).18. LeDantec, C. and Edwards, K. Across boundaries ofinfluence and accountability: the multiple scales of publicsector information systems. CHI (2010).19. Lee, C.P., Dourish, P., and Mark, G. The humaninfrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. CSCW (2006).20. Luyt, B. The One Laptop Per Child Project and the negotiationof technological meaning. First Monday 13, (2008).21. Muñoz-Izquierdo, C. and Magaña Rodriguez, R. Un acercamientoa la eficacia de los Programas del gobierno federalorientados a mejorar la calidad de la educación básica.Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa 13, (2008).22. Nardi, B. and O'Day, V. Information Ecologies: UsingTechnology with Heart. MIT Press, 2000.23. Näslund-Hadley, E., Kipp, S., Cruz, J., Ibarrarán, P., andSteiner-Khamsi, G. OLPC Pre-Pilot Evaluation Report(Haiti). Inter-American Bank Education Division.24. Pal, J., Patra, R., Nedevschi, S., Plauche, M., and Pawar,U.S. The Case of the Occasionally Cheap Computer. ITID 5,(2009).25. Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerfulideas. Basic Books, 1993.26. Patel, N., Chittamuru, D., Jain, A., Dave, P., and Parikh, T.S.Avaaj Otalo: a field study of an interactive voice forum forsmall farmers in rural India. CHI, (2010).27. Peña-Lopez, I. From Laptops to Competences: Bridging theDigital Divide in Education. Revista de Universidad ySociedad del Conocimiento 7, (2010).28. Pineda Pineda, I. Compentencias para el desarrollo deltrabajo docente en la escuela primaria. Congreso Nacional deInvestigación Educativa, (2010).29. Plan Ceibal. Síntesis del informe de monitoreo del estado delparque de XO a abril de 2010. http://www.ceibal.org.uy/.30. Ribes, D. and Finholt, T. Tensions across the scales:planning infrastructure for the long-term. GROUP, (2007).31. Sambasivan, N., Cutrell, E., Toyama, K., and Nardi, B.Intermediated technology use in developing communities.CHI (2010), 2583-2592.32. Star, S.L. and Ruhleder, K. Steps toward an ecology ofinfrastructure: Design and access for large informationspaces. In J. Yates and J. Van Maanen, eds., Informationtechnology and organizational transformation: history,rhetoric, and practice. SAGE, 2001.33. Vota, W., Derndorfer, C., and Berry, B. One laptop per childoverview. 2009. www.olpcnews.com/files/One_Laptop_Per_Child_Overview_2009.pdf.34. Warschauer, M. Technology and social inclusion: rethinkingthe digital divide. MIT Press, 2004.35. Warschauer, M. Laptops And Literacy: Learning in theWireless Classroom. Teachers College Press, 2006.36. Warschauer, M. and Ames, M. Can One Laptop per ChildSave the World’s Poor? Journal of Intl. Affairs, (2010).37. Warschauer, M., Cotten, S., and Morgan, A. One Laptop PerChild Birmingham: Case Study of a Radical Experiment.manuscript submitted for publication.38. Wyche, S.P., Smyth, T.N., Chetty, M., Aoki, P.M., andGrinter, R.E. Deliberate interactions: characterizingtechnology use in Nairobi, Kenya. CHI, ACM (2010)