TY - JOUR
AU - Hockly,, Nicky
AB - Abstract In this series, we explore technology-related themes and topics. The series aims to discuss and demystify what may be new areas for some readers and to consider their relevance to English language teachers. Over the last decade, decreasing costs in computer manufacturing have enabled an increase in one-to-one computer initiatives the world over. These initiatives involve providing computers, usually laptops or tablet computers, to learners, with one device made available to each student, hence the term one-to-one, or 1:1. However, many of these initiatives have proved to be less than successful, in no small part because they rest on a techno-centric view of technology. Based on a review of available research, this article examines several one-to-one initiatives in a range of contexts, and outlines why so many tend to fail. It also reviews the factors that research suggests need to be taken into account if one-to-one initiatives are to be successful. Although one-to-one initiatives and research often support and focus on education more generally, the discussion is relevant to the planning and implementation of one-to-one initiatives to support English language learning, foregrounding not only the pitfalls to avoid, but also suggesting how to plan for success. The One Laptop per Child project Arguably one of the best-known and most publicized one-to-one initiatives is the international One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project. Launched in 2005, OLPC is a non-profit US-based organization that developed affordable XO portable computers (known as the ‘100-dollar laptop’), with funding provided by founding members including Google, eBay, Nortel, and News Corporation. The aim of the OLPC initiative is to help governments provide these low-cost XO laptops to millions of schoolchildren in the world’s poorest countries. Putting laptops into the hands of children is seen as a way of addressing issues of social inequality by providing access to education through technology, especially in areas where access to trained teachers is difficult or non-existent. The OLPC initiative’s mission—to ‘empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child [thereby] helping these countries develop an essential resource—educated, empowered children’ (‘Mission’, OLPC website)1—is clearly admirable, and OLPC projects have been implemented by governments in countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to date. Materials delivered via the XO laptops often support English language learning as well as other school subjects. Within individual countries, OLPC tends to be implemented first with primary school children, and then possibly expanded to secondary level children. (It is worth noting, however, schoolchildren are not the only target group for one-to-one initiatives. Recently, government-funded initiatives in Uruguay and Mexico have started one-to-one programmes with seniors. The focus in these programmes is on helping individuals develop the fundamental digital literacy skills needed to take part in modern life; see, for example, the Ibirapitá programme in Uruguay, which delivers tablet computers to low-income retirees). OLPC in practice As noted, much of the research into the effects of the OLPC initiative has focused on education in general, although language learning materials are frequently included in the learning content supplied to students via their XO laptops. Very little research directly addresses gains in language learning (apart from the Ceibal en Inglés programme, see below) but the caveats that we explore in this section are clearly as applicable to language learning as to any other curricular area. Despite its laudable social inclusion agenda, the OLPC initiative has received criticism on a number of counts. Foremost among these is a critique of the techno-centric belief that simply by putting computers into the hands of children, quality learning will ensue. However, in practice, the results have been mixed, and the belief that educational challenges can be solved through hardware has turned out to be misguided. For example, an OLPC initiative in Peru, launched in 2007 with 290,000 laptops supplied to primary school children, soon ran into infrastructural problems. Access to electricity and the internet proved patchy, and a lack of technical support and a lack of pedagogical training for teachers seriously hampered early efforts in the programme (Warschauer and Ames 2010; Trucano 2012). In addition, key stakeholders such as parents were not made aware of the aims of the project, although they were held responsible for the safekeeping and maintenance of the XO laptops (Cano Correa 2015). Technical issues such as a lack of connectivity or malfunctioning laptops, and teachers feeling unprepared or unsupported and therefore unable to effectively integrate the use of XO laptops into their lessons, have also been reported in OLPC initiatives in other countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, and Ethiopia (Pereira 2015). As far as language learning is concerned, there has often been little or no regard for local context or the appropriacy of materials preloaded on to laptops in OLPC projects. For example, in Ethiopia and India, Eurocentric English language learning materials were included on the XO laptops, leading to accusations of educational colonialism (Clark 2013; Selwyn 2013). Overall, sustainability has been low on the agenda of OLPC initiatives. There has been a tendency towards nationwide rollouts rather than a staged approach starting with smaller-scale pilot studies that are carefully evaluated. The low-cost XO laptops created for OLPC have proved to be less durable than expected, unreliable, and fraught with hardware and software issues. In addition, governments cannot always afford to supply laptops to all schoolchildren in the countries targeted; even if the initial cost per laptop is around 100 dollars, budgets to maintain and repair the laptops can be unsustainably high for low-income countries. As pointed out by Warschauer and Ames (op.cit.: 34), these countries ‘would be better off building schools, training teachers, developing curricula, providing books and subsidizing attendance’, measures which research has shown to improve learning outcomes in the world’s poorer countries. One-to-one initiatives in developed contexts The idea of providing one low-cost laptop to every child has not been restricted to developing countries. Developed countries, too, have implemented educational policies at the national, state, district, or school level that attempt to put laptops—or increasingly, these days, tablet computers—into the hands of students of all ages. However, the issues which beset OLPC projects are symptomatic of one-to-one initiatives the world over, in both developed and developing countries. For example, a large-scale, one-to-one initiative in Portugal, the e.escolinha programme, was launched in 2008 and ended four years later, by which time half a million laptop computers (known as Magalhães laptops) had been distributed to schoolchildren. However, issues such as poor quality learning materials and a lack of effective teacher training, as well as wider issues including the economic crisis of the late 2000s and a change of government in 2011, made the project unsustainable over the longer term. This meant that ‘it came to an end in a low-key fashion, which was the exact opposite of how it had been launched’ (Pereira, Pereira, and Melro 2015: 49). A fundamental aim of the initiative—to ‘favour educational success among students’ (ibid.: 31)—was not met, because, it turned out, ‘the “Magalhães” computer was not more effective than traditional methods in terms of involving and stimulating children in the learning processes’ (ibid.: 84). In the USA, the City Council of Birmingham County (Alabama) introduced an OLPC initiative with XO laptops for elementary school children in 2009. The initiative was undertaken despite strong resistance from school district officials who were concerned about the lack of internet access in most Birmingham elementary schools, as well as a lack of funding for curriculum development and teacher training. After a short six-week pilot programme in one school, 15,000 XO laptops were distributed to children in elementary schools in the district. This particular OLPC initiative soon ran into many of the issues that beset one-to-one programmes when they are introduced too quickly and without thought to the necessary infrastructure. For example, 70 per cent of the laptops had technical problems in the first six months, over 80 per cent of the students used the XO laptops very infrequently in school, teachers were uninterested and uninvolved in the initiative, and internet access was either non-existent or unreliable (Warschauer and Ames op.cit.; Warschauer 2011). In addition, research carried out after implementation found that most students in Birmingham County already had access to computers outside of school, but after receiving the XO laptops, students’ use of those computers for academic or content creation purposes decreased, while their use of the XO laptops for chat room communication and instant messaging increased. Also, students’ anxiety with computers increased after receiving the XO laptops, and the percentage of students who reportedly wanted to attend college decreased. The cost of the programme increased significantly over time, as students graduated or moved away with the laptops, or laptops were broken, lost, or misplaced (Warschauer, Cotten, and Ames 2012). Overall, therefore, the Birmingham OLPC programme illustrates the more widespread problem of ‘putting great faith in the power of technology to bring about improvement and insufficient attention to the surrounding factors needed to make technology successful’ (Warschauer op.cit.: 5). Success stories Nevertheless, despite the challenges, there are some relative success stories of one-to-one initiatives in both developing and developed countries. Uruguay is one such example. The Uruguayan OLPC initiative is called Plan Ceibal, and it has an overt social justice agenda based on equality, learning, and technology. One part of the project, Ceibal en Inglés (Ceibal in English), aims to bring English language learning to all primary students in the country. Facing a chronic shortage of trained and proficient English language teachers, Ceibal en Inglés uses videoconferencing to digitally project trained English teachers into classrooms around the country, and English language learning is supported by XO laptops. The project has deliberately tried to avoid making the same mistakes as previous OLPC initiatives (Stanley 2015). With an emphasis on reliable hardware and infrastructure, and ongoing technical support, the project integrates culturally appropriate English language learning materials specially created for Uruguayan primary school children, includes strong online and face-to-face teacher training programmes, and offers continued post-training support for teachers by specialized mentors. Although the relatively small size of Uruguay’s population (around 3.5 million) has undoubtedly helped in achieving a nationwide rollout of Plan Ceibal, the success of Ceibal en Inglés is in no small part also due to a planned and staged rollout over several years. Pilot phases have been evaluated, and adjustments to hardware, learning materials, and training continue to be made as necessary. Initial impact studies of Ceibal en Inglés are encouraging (Banegas 2013; Brovetto in press), with children involved in the project showing progress in English language learning (Woods 2014). Nevertheless, a 2013 study into the wider Plan Ceibal initiative showed no discernible impact on learning in mathematics and reading (subjects delivered in Spanish) for children, suggesting that the initiative is not problem-free (de Melo, Machado, Miranda, and Viera 2013). Another success story is that of Littleton School District in Colorado, USA. In 2008, the district launched a one-to-one laptop programme as part of a new district curricular initiative called the Universal Literacy Framework, which aimed to improve writing and literacy in elementary schools. The district included a special school for English language learners, who made up roughly 70 per cent of the school population. A particular need for supporting the literacy development of these English language learners was identified, and an approach to supporting their writing skills through the use of blogs, wikis, and social media was developed. Professional development for principals and teachers was provided, to ensure that they understood the nature of the new curriculum and how technology could support this through an increased emphasis on communicative student writing. The hardware and software for the project were chosen to fit the curricular objectives: a low-cost netbook (i.e. a small laptop) with open source software, and free cloud-based online resources rather than commercial educational software, which is often expensive. A pilot programme was carried out in the first year with the fifth-grade students in the district and then evaluated. The programme was subsequently expanded to sixth- and ninth-grade students and evaluated at the end of its second year. Evaluation of these pilot stages found improved test scores and an enthusiastic response to the initiative from teachers and students, and consequently the programme was expanded to all students between fifth and tenth grades. The success of Littleton’s one-to-one programme rests on the fact that a range of key factors was taken into account in the design and implementation of the programme. For example, training was provided to teachers, reliable low-cost hardware was purchased, and the necessary technical infrastructure to support the programme was put in place in schools. In addition, the pilot stages were evaluated before the initiative was rolled out to the whole district (Warschauer op.cit.). Significantly, the adoption of laptops was undertaken as part of the strategy of developing learners’ writing and literacy skills, rather than as an end in itself. These success stories highlight some of the principles that lie behind the effective implementation of one-to-one initiatives: ongoing technical costs, infrastructure, and support are factored in; a clear pedagogical framework is developed to support delivery of the programme; relevant, robust, and culturally appropriate learning materials are developed; initial teacher training and ongoing mentoring programmes are offered; and last but not least, the programmes are regularly and critically evaluated, and changes made as necessary. Tablet one-to-one initiatives More recently, and particularly in developed contexts, one-to-one initiatives have favoured tablet mobile devices over laptops, citing reasons of portability, affordability, ubiquitous access, improved internet coverage, and the potential for more individualized and personalized learning experiences (Melhuish and Falloon 2010). Three broad approaches can be identified in tablet initiatives: schools provide the devices; ‘bring your own technology’ initiatives, in which students use their own mobile devices in and out of school; and shared expense plans, where the cost of devices and broadband access is shared between the school and parents via leasing options or parental contributions (Fritschi and Wolf 2012). Although research into the effectiveness of one-to-one tablet initiatives is still relatively thin on the ground, a report by Clark and Luckin (2013) on one-to-one iPad implementation in the UK and elsewhere identified several benefits for students and teachers. For example, many of the tablet projects reviewed in the report appeared to promote seamless learning, that is learning across formal classroom contexts and informal, personal, and social contexts. In addition, the report found that the tactile interface of tablets motivated and engaged students, and that the devices enabled learning to be enhanced in ways that were not previously possible. Taking the devices home improved home–school communication, and the devices could work in combination with other technologies to create learning data that could be used for reflection, assessment, and evaluation. Nevertheless, the researchers pointed to the importance for schools of having a clear rationale for tablet implementation as well as the need for long-term planning before, during, and after rollout. Crucial to successful implementation were reliable infrastructure and technical support, as well as the involvement of all stakeholders, including parents. Schemes to support English language learning through tablet initiatives would do well to take these lessons into account. Tablet initiatives appear to hold particular promise for special educational needs (SEN) learners. For example, the L4All K-12 Regional Project in Ontario (Canada) had 1,000 students working with tablets during the academic year of 2012 to 2013, and this included SEN learners who worked with individual educational plans on the tablets. A subsequent evaluation of this programme (Wachnuk 2013) found gains in literacy for students using the tablets, and especially for the SEN students following individual learning plans. For more on the potential of assistive technologies to support SEN English language learners, see Hockly 2016. Conclusion One-to-one initiatives require substantial funding for infrastructure, hardware, and software. This means that stakeholders (from students and parents to schools and Ministries of Education) can come under pressure from educational technology vendors. A significant amount of hype surrounds one-to-one initiatives the world over. For example, a 2015 Commonwealth of Learning report on government-sponsored tablet initiatives around the world found that many of the reasons for investing in these initiatives rested on ‘catchphrases and buzzwords that may have been more fitting for public relations and political campaigns than for educational reform actions’ (Tamim, Borokhovski, Pickup, and Bernard 2015: 23). What is more, educational technology purchases in schools and districts are often made without consideration for the end users—essentially students and teachers—as vendors pitch their hardware and software products to education ministers, district supervisors, and school managers (Cuban 2015). Wider political and economic decisions, rather than educational decisions based on research, frequently impact on large-scale technology adoption, and this includes one-to-one initiatives. All of these issues have implications for institutions or individual teachers wishing to implement one-to-one initiatives to support English language learning programmes. Thus, with more than a decade of implementation to look back on, we are now in a better position to make informed decisions about whether to implement one-to-one initiatives, and if so, how best to ensure that these initiatives are as effective as possible. References Banegas D . 2013 . ‘ELT through videoconferencing in primary schools in Uruguay: first steps’ . Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 7 / 2 : 179 – 88 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Brovetto C. In press. ‘Language policy and language practice in Uruguay: a case of innovation in English language teaching in primary schools’ in L. D. Kamhi-Stein G. Díaz Maggioli L. C. de Oliveira (eds.). English Language Teaching in South America: Policy, Preparation, and Practices . Clevedon : Multilingual Matters . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Cano Correa A. M . 2015 . ‘Digital technology in public education. One laptop per child programme in Peru’ in S. Pereira (ed.). Clark D . 2013 . ‘ Negroponte: 10 reasons why his Ethiopian project smacks of educational colonialism’ . Blog post. Available at http://goo.gl/h8qAXd ( accessed on 8 September 2016 ). Clark W. and Luckin R. . 2013 . What the Research Says: iPads in the Classroom . London : London Knowledge Lab and Institute of Education, University of London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Cuban L . 2015 . ‘District purchasing of high-tech devices: how teachers continue to lose out’ . Blog post. Available at http://goo.gl/9lTf5K ( accessed on 8 September 2016 ). de Melo G. Machado A. Miranda A. Viera M. . 2013 . Profundizando en los Efectos del Plan Ceibal . Mexico City : CIDE . Available at http://goo.gl/VyyB4F (accessed on 8 September 2016). Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Fritschi J. and Wolf M. A. . 2012 . Turning on Mobile Learning in North America: Illustrative Initiatives and Policy Implications . Paris : UNESCO . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hockly N . 2016 . ‘Special educational needs and technology in language learning’ . ELT Journal 70 / 3 : 332 – 8 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Melhuish K. and Falloon G. . 2010 . ‘Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad’ . Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology 22 / 3 : 1 – 16 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Pereira S . (ed.). 2015 . Digital Literacy, Technology and Social Inclusion: Making Sense of One-to-One Computer Programmes Around the World . Ribeirão : Edições Húmus . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pereira S. Pereira L. Melro A. . 2015 . ‘The Portguese programme One Laptop Per Child: political, educational, and social impact’ in S. Pereira (ed.). Selwyn N . 2013 . Education in a Digital World: Global Perspectives on Technology and Education . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Stanley G . 2015 . ‘Plan Ceibal English: remote teaching of primary schoolchildren in Uruguay through videoconferencing’ in C. Giannikas (ed.). Children Learning English: From Research to Practice . Reading : Garnet . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Tamim R. M. Borokhovski E. Pickup D. Bernard R. M. . 2015 . Large-scale, Government-supported Educational Tablet Initiatives . Burnaby : Commonwealth of Learning . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Trucano M . 2012 . ‘Evaluating one laptop per child (OLPC) in Peru’ . Blog post. Available at http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/olpc-peru2 ( accessed on 8 September 2016 ). Wachnuk K . 2013 . ‘Learning for all K–12 regional project report’. Ontario: Rainbow District School Board . Available at http://goo.gl/sWh6S5 ( accessed on 8 September 2016 ). Warschauer M . 2011 . Learning in the Cloud: How (and Why) to Transform Schools with Digital Media . New York, NY : Teachers College Press . Warschauer M. and Ames M. . 2010 . ‘Can one laptop per child save the world’s poor?’ . Journal of International Affairs 64 / 1 : 33 – 51 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Warschauer M. Cotten S. Ames M. . 2012 . ‘One laptop per child Birmingham: case study of a radical experiment’ . International Journal of Learning and Media 3 / 2 : 61 – 76 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Woods P . 2014 . ‘Do laptops in schools promote learner autonomy and achievement in English language learning?’ in T. Pattison (ed.). IATEFL 2013: Liverpool Conference Selections . Faversham : IATEFL . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Note 1 " Further details regarding the OLPC project mission can be found at http://www.laptop.org/en/vision/mission/index.shtml. Author notes " Nicky Hockly is a Director of Pedagogy of The Consultants-E (www.theconsultants-e.com), an online training and development organization. She has been involved in EFL teaching and teacher training since 1987 and is co-author of How to Teach English with Technology, Learning English as a Foreign Language for Dummies, Teaching Online, Digital Literacies, Going Mobile, and, most recently, Focus on Learning Technologies (2016). She maintains a blog about e-learning at www.emoderationskills.com and is a keen user of new technologies. Email:nicky.hockly@theconsultants-e.com © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
TI - One-to-one computer initiatives
JF - ELT Journal
DO - 10.1093/elt/ccw077
DA - 2017-01-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/one-to-one-computer-initiatives-6TzYTHxtAw
SP - 80
VL - 71
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -