community factors in technology adoption in primary ...birbhum.gov.in/dpsc/reference/65.pdf · the...

53

Komathi [email protected] StudentAnnenberg School forCommunication & JournalismUniversity of SouthernCalifornia3650 Watt WayLos Angeles, CA 90089USA

Arul [email protected] ProfessorNanyang TechnologicalUniversityWee Kim Wee School ofCommunication andInformation31 Nanyang LinkSingapore, 637718Singapore

Community Factors in Technology Adoption in Primary Education ALE, CHIB

Research Article

Community Factors in TechnologyAdoption in Primary Education:Perspectives from Rural IndiaAbstract

The role of information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly inthe domain of education (ICTE), has been recognized to beneªt learning. Thisarticle aims to investigate the inºuential factors that affect the introduction oftechnology in an Indian rural primary school. The objective was to address cur-rent gaps in research by illuminating speciªc community factors that inºuencetechnology adoption. Anchored in the Technology–Community–Management(TCM) theoretical framework as a guide to analysis of community aspects, themain research question investigated the factors that contributed to, or de-tracted from, technology impact on education in a developing country con-text. Primary data were gathered during one month of ªeldwork in the Indianvillage of Pudur. From June to July 2009, ªeldwork was conducted in a ruralprimary school to validate the community claims of ownership, needs, andtraining. Qualitative research methods were employed; the respondents were10 randomly selected children, between the ages of six and nine, studying ingrades 1 through 4, and of both genders. In-depth interviews and focus groupdiscussions were conducted with three school teachers, and nine parents.Findings revealed that community factors that inºuence the adoption of ICTsin the rural education context can be translated into three claims, as sug-gested by the community dimension of the TCM model: a provision for unbi-ased technology access to children; the need to maximize application of locallanguage within technology and content; and equipping teachers with techno-logical skills while creating positive attitudes toward technology adoption. Im-plications for the needs, training, and ownership factors are discussed.

IntroductionA fundamental challenge for developing countries has been the provisionof access to primary education for the young. Globally, almost 115 millionchildren between the ages of 6 and 14 have no access to basic primaryeducation (World Bank, 2009). Of those who do attend school, close toone-third drop out before completing the primary education cycle(Ordonez & Maclean, 2000). These trends, which deny one in every ªvechildren the opportunity to attend school (United Nations DevelopmentProgramme [UNDP], 2005), have drawn international commitment towardthe second Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of achieving universalprimary education by 2015 (United Nations, 2003). Despite various gov-ernmental efforts to provide affordable schooling and school supplies(United States Agency for International Development [USAID], 2005),progress remains slow. Information and communication technologies(ICTs) are increasingly recognized to promote the achievement of develop-

© 2011 USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-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 7, Number 4, Winter 2011, 53–68

mental goals, especially in the education domain.With the United Nations Millennium Declaration to“make available the beneªts of new technologies,speciªcally information and communication” (UnitedNations, 2005, p. 41), it is timely to address issues inthe adoption of ICTs in primary education. Thisstudy does not address fundamental scholasticissues existing prior to technology introduction.Rather, it investigates the factors that most inºuencethe potential beneªcial impact that ICTs may havefor those communities hitherto unfamiliar with tech-nology.Educating the young not only facilitates the

acquisition of basic skills such as literacy and numer-acy, but enables a nation’s long-term social and eco-nomic development (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2005). Thefuture workforce gets equipped with the necessaryskills to succeed in 21st-century global economies(International Society for Technology in Education[ISTE], 2007), while simultaneously contributing topoverty reduction and human development (UNDP,2009). However, the ability to reap much of thebeneªts of educational growth has, for the mostpart, been limited to the developed economies andto afºuent pockets of developing regions.Developing countries have been unable to seizethese advantages fully, as a combined consequenceof poverty, inadequately qualiªed teachers, substan-dard instruction materials and facilities, and genderdiscrimination (Department for International Devel-opment, 2001; infoDev, 2003). For these reasons,there is a growing need to expand the capacity ofthe educational system within developing countriesthat fall short in meeting the MDG’s indicators foreducational progress, namely, net enrollment, com-pletion rate, and literacy rate (United Nations,2003).The role of ICTs, particularly in the domain of

education, has been recognized to beneªt learning(Banerjee, Cole, Duºo, & Linden, 2005). In additionto facilitating technological literacy and familiarity,students who participate in computer-connectedlearning environments show increased motivation,greater willingness to tackle difªcult questions, anddeeper understanding of concepts (Riel, 1992; Weir,1992). As the development of children’s technologi-cal competence is increasingly associated with theirfuture employment (Kinyanjui, 2002) in the globalknowledge-based workforce (Delannoy, 2000),

signiªcant attention has been centered on introduc-ing ICTs in rural schools to assist in leapfroggingeducational challenges (International Telecommuni-cation Union [ITU], 2009).As computer technology becomes increasingly

diffused throughout society, especially for popula-tions in resource-constrained settings for whomthese tools have long been ªnancially and practicallyunfeasible, concerns have been raised about the dif-fering access to learning using this technology, andthe varying conditions that affect how childrenexperience learning. Much debate surrounds the useof ICTs in education (ICTE), with advocates for(Negroponte, 1995; Papert, 1996), and campaignersagainst (Oppenheimer, 1997; Peat & Franklin, 2003)the pedagogical beneªts ICTs can bring. These viewsare balanced by researchers (Apkan, 2002; Bork,2003) who contend that, if properly implemented,ICTs have the potential to enhance teaching andlearning in rural classrooms.However, along with the recognition that rural

schools lack the ªnancial resources to support exten-sive ICT deployments (United Nations Educational,Scientiªc and Cultural Organization [UNESCO],2004), concerns have been raised about the needfor appropriate educational content and softwaredevelopment (Farrell & Wachholz, 2004). On aninfrastructural level, the existence of barriers such asthe absence of Internet connectivity and the lack oftime and resources for technical support and main-tenance, compounded by regular disruptions inpower supply, signiªcantly affect ICT use in rurallocations (Cope & Ward, 2002; Martins, Steil, &Todesco, 2004). Structural requisites, such as ensur-ing that computer rooms are clean, dust-free, anddry, can also be important considerations often over-looked in the rural context (Tinio, 2002). Moreover,limited physical scholastic infrastructure (GlobalE-Schools and Communities Initiative [GESCI], 2009),inadequately trained teachers from a technologicalperspective (Carlson, 2002), and difªculties in inte-grating ICT within existing curricula (Brock, 2001)are fundamental challenges that need to beaddressed.This study investigates the potential of introduc-

ing technology within a rural primary school inIndia. To do so, we identiªed initial factors for suc-cess via a literature review and situated the researchwithin the Technology–Community–Management(Chib & Zhao, 2009; Lee & Chib, 2008) model.

54 Information Technologies & International Development

COMMUNITY FACTORS IN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN PRIMARY EDUCATION

Literature ReviewInstalling the hardware infrastructure in schools isoften the starting point for ICTE initiatives address-ing the ªrst level of the digital divide (Attewell,2001; Hawkins & Oblinger, 2006). Nonetheless,introducing technology alone may not be sufªcientto achieve educational objectives. In most Asian pro-grams, emphasis is often placed on acquiring hard-ware in schools, with limited consideration given tohow it would be used by teachers and students,how it would be incorporated into the curriculum,or the community’s attitudes toward technologyadoption. Scholars have therefore suggested thataccess to hardware alone rarely leads to change(Adeya, 2002; Bracey, 2005).It is essential to recognize that factors inºuencing

communities in the Asian rural context differ consid-erably from those inºuencing their urban counter-parts, who have an upper hand in using technologydue to existing technological familiarity, and eco-nomic and educational privileges (Chib & Zhao,2009; Jhurree, 2005). Studies from technologicallyadvanced countries have found that ICTs supportproblem-based learning and critical thinking, andthat children should be exposed to a variety of morecomplex programs and approaches that encouragehigher-level learning (McGhee & Kozma, 1999). Inreality, however, rural children who might not havehad the chance even to get basic exposure to tech-nological devices might struggle to engage inhigher-level learning. In this case, equipping childrenwith basic technology knowledge and skill-setsshould be prioritized (Kozma, 2006). Therefore, it isessential that projects are designed with attentionpaid to the needs of the users, as opposed to thecommonly adopted one-size-ªts-all approach.There have been several instances of govern-

ments and manufacturers adopting a one-size-ªts-allapproach that prioritizes technology over users,where consideration for end-user needs and involve-ment of the local community have been ignored(Hollow & Masperi, 2009). While many such projectshave, for the most part, succeeded in providing ICTaccess to previously unserved groups, an equal andrising number of failed initiatives, often due to thelack of timely, accurate evaluations (Heeks, 2002),point toward a common criticism of ICTE researchand implementation: the need to understand therural communities within which the technologies are

implemented. Further, the ICTE literature hasfocused on technology adoption rather than devel-oping a comprehensive understanding of the factorsthat inºuence adoption and, eventually, the impactof ICTs on educational outcome measures.To develop such an understanding requires a

twofold approach: 1) investigating the mechanismsunderlying the process of effects and 2) developingrigorous metrics that capture the inºuence of tech-nology on educational outcomes. This study focuseson the ªrst objective.Supporting the current claims within the ICTE lit-

erature, the present study emphasizes that speciªccommunity aspects need to be addressed, alongwith underlying cultural, psychological, and commu-nity factors that inºuence technology adoption.First, the ability to have physical access to technol-ogy is captured in the ownership aspect. Commu-nity training for technology use and catering tocontextually relevant needs represent the other twofactors.

OwnershipPrior research suggests that the more children usetechnology, the higher their academic achievement(Middleton & Murray, 1999). Access can beexplained in terms of the amount of time one getsto use the technology, the frequency with which it isused, the extent of engagement during usage, aswell as the extent of barriers to usage (Hohlfeld,Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kemker, 2008). Of these com-ponents of access, barriers to use due tosociocultural factors, particularly gender, are oftenhighlighted in the ICT literature (Chib, 2010). Often,implementations do not take into account the needto ensure that girls are given equal contact timewith ICTs, or even the challenges they might face ina setting that privileges education for boys (Mark,1992).

TrainingWhile students are the primary beneªciaries of ICTEinterventions, teachers remain the gatekeepers ofstudents’ access to the educational opportunitiesafforded by technology (Carlson & Gadio, 2002).Thus, teachers play an important role in the use ofcomputers in classrooms (Baki, 2000). Teachers inrural areas, who are not trained in the instructionaluse of technology, face constant challenges inobtaining computer skills and using them for peda-gogical purposes (Fontaine, 2000). In such situa-

Volume 7, Number 4, Winter 2011 55

ALE, CHIB

tions, children might take on the role as leaders inlearning to use the computers in classrooms (Abi-Raad, 1997). However, providing formal technologi-cal training to teachers would better address thechallenges in integrating ICT in teaching in a pro-ductive manner.There are psychological barriers to teachers’ will-

ingness to use technology, beyond having the requi-site technological skills (Zhao, 2008). This isillustrated in the Chinese case, where elder teacherswere afraid to use the technology, being worriedabout not being able to learn the required skills.Though children were able to grasp computer skillsfaster, additional training courses were designed tomake teachers both comfortable and knowledge-able (Zhao, 2008).Thus, teacher training needs to look at equipping

teachers with the right skills and knowledge to sub-sequently train children by themselves. Further, somestudies reported that females tend to exhibit higherlevels of computer anxiety (Chou, 2001; Harris &Davison, 1999; Todman, 2000) and more negativeattitudes toward technology adoption (Durndell &Thompson, 1997) than males. This fact is especiallysigniªcant in rural schools, where most teachers arefemale.

NeedsThe human capabilities approach of Nobel laureateAmartya Sen (1999) prioritizes the role educationplays in the enhancement of capacities and opportu-nities for human development (Saito, 2003).Applying the capabilities approach to ICT diffusionin marginalized communities would then entail thedistribution of relevant information that makesaccess usable and impactful (Garnham, 1997).Access to ICT materials in such communities may belimited by the lack of information in local languagesand on locally relevant subjects (UNESCO, 2007).Providing information with technical details or termi-nologies that users might not need or understand(Keniston, 2002) leads to signiªcant barriers in ICTadoption.Therefore, the provision of locally relevant con-

tent, particularly with language that is familiar,would make content that is easy to ªnd, under-stand, and navigate (Hollow & Masperi, 2009). Sincethe majority of computing technologies do not offersoftware to translate text, some initiatives use cus-

tomized programs for learning that use local lan-guages. Though limited in quantity, there is somesoftware for children that serves speciªc learningobjectives, in subjects such as mathematics and sci-ence, and that incorporates graphics and text. Thissoftware does not, however, place much emphasison the operation of technology (Becker, 2000).Next, we critically review theoretical models that

address the use of ICTs in education. The objective isto select a critical framework within which to situatea study that captures the key factors of ownership,training, and needs.

Theoretical ReviewThe value-of-ICT-to-education model of Banuri,Zaidi, and Spanger-Siegfried (UNDP, 2005) proposesthat learning using ICTs, unlike the traditionalapproach in education, is able to produce fourbeneªts: as a producer of opportunity, as anenhancer of capabilities, as an enabler of social ties,and as a generator of knowledge. This modelfocuses on outcomes, rather than the mechanicsthat lead to successful outcomes. It can be critiquedfor failing to identify the distinguishing factors thatenable community adoption, instead assuming ahomogeneous outcome of ICT adoption acrossusers. This positivist stance of the model veerstoward a technological determinism in guiding thedesign of implementations and sheds little light onhow projects should be managed across a variety ofstakeholders.Conversely, actor-network theory (Callon, 1986)

supports the theoretical review to recognize thesocial entities involved in education, such as teach-ers, students, families, village leaders, governmentbodies, and technology manufacturers. It recognizesthe mutual roles of technology and communitywithin the civic and educational systems (Esnault,2007). This symmetric view of people and technol-ogy as occurring in a network of interactions isespecially meaningful to the study of ICTE, wherecommunities, stakeholders, and technologies inter-act simultaneously to direct the overall impact ofeffective implementations. Nevertheless, this per-spective fails to capture the community characteris-tics of how training needs to be consideredalongside acknowledging different needs of users,while providing undivided access to educationaltechnologies.



Technology–Community–ManagementModelOne possible basis for the examination of ICTs ineducation, and quite possibly for other developmentcontexts as well, is the Technology–Community–Management (TCM) model (refer to Figure 1; Chib& Zhao, 2009; Lee & Chib, 2008), which bringstogether three components that inºuence participa-tion in ICT initiatives relevant to the various stake-holders involved: technology, community, andmanagement, branching out to speciªc characteris-tics within each component (Chib & Zhao, 2009;Lee & Chib, 2008). The model is useful in identifyingcomponents that operate within a social contextfrom a community perspective. It is worthwhile tonote that the model focuses on the mechanisms orfactors inºuencing successful technological adoptionand is not designed to evaluate ICT projects.Developing countries, faced with the challenges

of using ICTs as learning tools to improve and re-form education, ªrst have to deal with the chal-lenges involved in managing these endeavors(Kozma, 2006). First, the model depicts the relation-ships, roles, and constraints involved in the manage-ment of ICTE deployments, arguing thatstakeholders interact to play three primary roles asregulators, ªnanciers, and partners. Although themagnitude of the demands and inºuences of theseroles vary, the critical assessment of community-levelneeds inevitably affects community participation—particularly in rural communities, where parents,peers, opinion leaders, and village heads are pivotal

in directing the needs of childrenas well as the management priori-ties of other stakeholders.Second, the model states that

the hardware and software com-ponents of technology subse-quently drive the informationused in teaching and learning.Hardware, beyond a device-centric view, includes establishingthe communication and physicalinfrastructures within rural areas.However, as argued earlier, someactors behind ICTE initiatives havetended to prioritize technology,viewing computers as standalone

entities to solve problems in rural education. Fur-thermore, technological resources incorporated inschools lack relevant content; hence teachers inthird-world countries struggle to integrate the pro-grams available into existing curricula (UNDP, 2005).Scholars have argued that the plethora of computer-based content resources available, such as onlinedatabases and websites, educational games, CD-ROMs, e-books, open-source software, and multi-media applications, does not often cater to speciªcinformational needs of rural learners (UNESCO,2007).Finally, children as the central beneªciaries in

ICTE programs, accompanied by their teachers, formthe core community connecting to issues of man-agement and technology. The model highlights thattraining for the acquisition of technology literacy,and direct or indirect ownership of the technology,in accordance with needs is essential in community-centric development of ICT initiatives.The community dimension of the TCM model

stresses that the process of technology adoption canbe enabled with the involvement of the users. Com-munity-centric interventions consequently require anunderstanding of (1) ownership (that is, promotingownership by making access available), (2) needs(that is, making ICTs relevant to user needs), and(3) training (that is, building capacity through tech-nology training), which are inºuential factors thatimpact the introduction of technology in a givencontext. These aspects should not be regarded asdistinct entities, as they are likely to be interrelated.


ALE, CHIB

Figure 1. Community Focus of Technology–Community–ManagementModel.

Research FocusThe purpose of this article is to address current gapsin research by illuminating speciªc community fac-tors that inºuence technology adoption in ruralschools of developing countries. Speciªcally, theTechnology–Community–Management model (Chib& Zhao, 2009; Lee & Chib, 2008) focuses on thecommunity component to illustrate the three claimsof ownership, needs, and training. Anchored in theTCM theoretical framework as a guide to analysis ofcommunity aspects, the main research question is:What factors contribute to, or detract from, technol-ogy impact on educational outcomes in a develop-ing country context?

Method

ContextIndia has more than 190 million school-going chil-dren from the ages of six to 14 (Panda & Chaud-hary, 2001), and some eight million children donot have access to education (UNICEF, 2009). Inresponse to the global call for Education for All,India established the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (“Edu-cation for All” Movement) in an effort to make pri-mary education universally available. In reality,however, India has a limited basic school infrastruc-ture in place, with an education system facing chal-lenges similar to those in other developing countries(Manzar, Phalachandra, & Sinha, 2005). Key stake-holders, such as government bodies, nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs), school administrators,donors, and policy makers, recognize the need toshift from traditional brick-and-mortar scholasticsystems to an approach that leverages ICTs astools for learning. Hence, NGOs were receptivewhen approached for collaboration on the project.From June to July 2009, ªeldwork was con-

ducted in an Indian primary school to validate thecommunity claims of ownership, needs, and trainingproposed in the TCM model. A short list of NGOswith access to village schools was created. The NGOAsha Chennai was selected based on a review oftheir work conducted in rural areas, especially inseveral village primary schools—a criterion otherNGOs failed to fulªll. Using convenience sampling, agovernment-run primary school located in Pudur vil-lage in the Thiruvallur district of Tamil Nadu wasidentiªed. This state-run primary school had condi-

tions and facilities that were representative of moststate-run elementary schools in rural India. Whilemany village schools suffer from overcrowding, anumber of schools in remote villages have a studentpopulation ranging from 20 to 50 learners. Theshortage of qualiªed teachers, typical to this con-text, often results in teachers handling multiplegrade-levels simultaneously. Finally, prevailing pov-erty and lack of resources deny most schools theluxury of acquiring mainstream ICTs. The availabilityof power supply for charging the laptops was themain criterion under which the school was short-listed. While most schools were located in extremelyremote locations, access to this school for researchwas possible via local suburban buses. Anotherimportant selection criterion was that the schoolprincipal was agreeable to the research being con-ducted during school hours, while other schoolswere not keen on disrupting their daily curriculumtimetables.The Pudur village elementary school was located

at the center of the village, with a total studentcapacity of 30 children. Two teachers conducted les-sons for grades 1 to 4 en masse in a common room,while the third teacher held ªfth-grade classes inanother classroom. The children belonged to a com-munity of lower-caste Hindus and spoke dialects ofeither the Tamil or the Telugu language. The familieslived below the poverty line; about one in 12 house-holds owned a mobile phone, and every householdhad a government-sponsored television set. Schoolamenities and learning materials were supplementedby the NGO. There was no Internet access availablein the vicinity of the village. Neither the principal northe NGO was keen on establishing an Internet con-nection to the school through a local service pro-vider, because of the expenses involved.

ParticipantsTen children, between the ages of six and nine, ingrades 1 to 4, and including both genders, wererandomly selected to participate in the study. Theselection was guided by the criteria that all childrenwere to be from similar socioeconomic backgroundsand had no prior exposure to any form of comput-ing technologies. For the in-depth interviews, threeschool teachers were selected. The teachers were allin their 30s and had one to ªve years of teachingexperience. Nine parents, represented by mothers of



the participating children, participated in the focus-group discussions conducted.

ProcedureEthnographic research is a qualitative researchmethod that allows the researcher to interpret thecontext under study from the perspective of the par-ticipants in the investigation (Dobbert, 1982),through making inferences from probing questionsand observing people in their natural setting(Spradley, 1979). The ethnographic focus wasexplored through semistructured and in-depth inter-views, focus-group discussions, and participantobservations that emerged from the communityaspects addressed in the theoretical framework. Asample of questions, aimed at speciªc respondentgroups and categorized by identiªed themes, can beseen in Table 1.Over the course of a month, the children inter-

acted with two laptop computers for approximately30 minutes to two hours during each school day, inthe presence of the principal investigator. Daily timeschedules were negotiated with respective teachersso as not to interrupt the established school curric-ula. They gathered either as a large group or atintervals in self-selected smaller groups, comprisingtwo to four children to each computer. It is impor-tant to note that the focus was not on the type ofprogram used or how technologically literate thechildren were, but on understanding how students

used ICTs and the mechanism affecting productiveuse.The principal investigator assumed the role of a

detached observer; presenting the hardware andobserving the interactions between teachers andchildren alike. In some instances, due to teachers’lack of computer literacy, the principal investigatorgave basic instructions on computer usage, such asswitching on the laptops, and moving the on-screencursor. Subsequently, children’s usage of the devices,and their interactions with one another duringusage were observed. Their attitudes toward learn-ing and the kinds of problems faced while gettingfamiliar with the technology were noted. Informal,semistructured interview questions, ranging frombroad to speciªc queries, were asked, with sessionslasting between 10 and 30 minutes per child. Toensure that these interviews did not disrupt studentcomputer use, questions were asked either at vari-ous intervals during their interactions with thelaptops, or at the end of a session. The observationswere also used to form future questions to be askedduring the informal interview sessions. Field andinterview notes were regularly reviewed to deter-mine issues that needed to be expanded on andincluded in subsequent sessions with children. Spe-ciªcally, issues limited to equality in technologyaccess, particularly for those triggered by genderbias were investigated. In addition, difªculties innavigation and content-comprehension in devices


ALE, CHIB

Table 1. Examples of Topics and Sample Questions Asked.

Respondents Topics Sample Question

Children • Attitudes toward learning to use computers• Issues faced in having physical access to/useof computers

• What do you like or dislike most about using thecomputer?

• What are your biggest problems in using thecomputer?

Teachers • Attitudes toward computer use in classroom• Attitudes toward technology training

• What do you think would be some of the chal-lenges you might face in using computers toteach?

• How do you think children will respond to com-puter use?

• How do you think computers can be made rele-vant to children’s learning?

Parents • Attitudes toward technology adoption bychildren

• How do you think computers can help/not helpchildren with learning?

• What do you think will be some issues in givingchildren access to computers?

that used the English language as the primarymedium were observed.In-depth interviews were conducted with the

three teachers at various points during theªeldwork. The ªrst round of interviews was aimedat getting a better understanding of the children’slifestyle and attitudes. The questions to teachersprobed the challenges and involvement of parents,since teachers had maximum contact with the localcommunity. The teachers were later interviewed tounderstand how training in technology could bemade appropriate for them. They were asked if theywere, ªrst and foremost, interested in being trainedto use the ICT, and further, about their attitudes andconcerns toward using technology in theclassrooms.For the focus-group discussion, parents of partici-

pating children were interviewed in the village gath-ering area for about two hours. The questionsfocused on the theme of education for the poor,ownership and acquisition of ICTs for the children,and their attitudes toward technology adoption. Allinterviews and focus group discussions were con-ducted in Tamil by the principal investigator, as thelevel of English literacy was low with both teachersand students despite the language being taught inschools. The participants, from this Tamil-mediumschool, were more comfortable conversing in thelocal language.The principal approved the study and was briefed

on the project procedure and the expected timeallocation during school hours. The purpose of theresearch and protections from possible risks wereexplained to the teachers and the parents of pro-spective participants. Parents of each child wereinformed that participation was voluntary and thatparticipants would be able to withdraw from thestudy at any time. A consent form was translatedinto Tamil to obtain formal parental signed consentfor their child to participate in the study. Individualnames have been withheld for reasons ofconªdentiality.All questions were developed around the theme

of the community aspects. The questions weretranslated into colloquial Tamil and back-translatedto check for errors.Interviews and discussions were audio-recorded

for transcription and translation purposes with therespondents’ informed consent. The comments havebeen summarized as examples. The translations and

transcriptions for analysis were conducted by theprimary investigator, who is bilingual in English andTamil. Throughout this project, the Asha Chennaiteam in India provided logistical support, and spe-ciªc procedures were followed. All the respondentsinvolved in the study were given either stationery orfood hampers in appreciation of participation.

Data AnalysisThematic coding, involving the interpretation andcategorization of information with reference to thethemes in the context of the TCM model’s commu-nity framework, was used for data analysis. Datawere collected and reviewed concurrently, with tran-scripts reviewed and topics catalogued based onrecurring issues. These thematic patterns were usedas a guideline to explain the community factors thatinºuence the impact of ICTE in rural India. A trian-gulation of methods such as interviews and observa-tions allowed for the cross-validation of the ªndingsand to add to the emerging descriptions. Respon-dent comments and interpretations of observationnotes are provided in the next section to highlightthe analysis.

FindingsApplying the participatory-technology design per-spective of the TCM model requires a holistic under-standing of the community involved. Rather thanadopting a technological deterministic approach,this user-centered perspective emphasizes the needto consider communities’ potential responses totechnology introduction. First, with “ownership”deªned as providing access to ICTs, socioculturalbarriers such as gender discrimination and powerissues inºuenced access. Second, the informationalbarriers that teachers faced extended to their atti-tudes toward training, as well as psychologicallyimpeded their perceptions of the importance of ICTin education. Finally, a fundamental user need tounderstand the provided information surfaced fromthe inability of computer programs to function inthe local language.

Ownership Aspect: Unbiased AccessIn the rural context, girls were sometimes kepthome from attending school and instead expectedto perform domestic duties. This disparity carriedover to parents’ attitudes toward computer learningwhere one said, “It will be better for our sons to



learn how to use the computer. [Boys] are the oneswho will be furthering their studies . . . computerswill be useful to them.”Responses from a teacher interview conªrmed

this sociocultural barrier to access, reinforcing thegender divide, although teachers acknowledged thatmany girls were more academically capable thantheir peer group of boys. This historical bias in favorof male children stems from the belief that boysinherit the family wealth and take care of the par-ents in their old age. Girls, on the other hand, areexpected to leave the ancestral property once mar-ried. Thus, greater resources, such as education, aredevoted to the upbringing of male children. Teacher1 commented:

Given a choice, we [teachers] would have chosenonly boys for this project. I am not saying that thisis not necessary for the girls . . . since in my classitself the girls perform much better than boys be-cause they are sharper and learn fast. . . . Maybeit might be more useful for boys to learn since ithas been so difªcult to keep their attention . . . orto make them study as hard as the girls.

Some teachers held the opinion that academi-cally stronger children would be better able to graspcomputer skills, and subsequently beneªt from it, ascompared to academically weaker children. This isillustrated in a teacher’s comment, “Give the com-puters to the smarter kids; they will be able to learnbetter than the rest.”This biased attitude translated to a lack of atten-

tion from the teachers in coordinating equal accessto the technology between both gender groups.Gender discrimination was even exhibited by chil-dren, when boys enforced a sense of power andcontrol over the girls in the classroom. Conse-

quently, boys tended to dominate laptop use, oftenresorting to aggressive methods to gain control anddeter girls from using the devices (see Figure 2).Older boys took “charge” during sessions when

the group had access to the laptops, and orderedtheir peers, largely composed of girls, to “sit aroundand watch.” After many such failed attempts, thegirls got distracted and moved away to engage inalternative play activities among themselves. A stu-dent from grade-level 3 commented:

You see how the boys are hitting us?! They don’teven want to let me see or even touch the com-puter no matter how much we ask. . . . There isno use for me to stand here and wait anymore.

Training Aspect: Teacher TrainingWhile teachers were enthusiastic about technologi-cal training, they expressed resistance to learningabout the laptop for two reasons. Firstly, teacherswere under the impression that ICT training wouldbe too complex and that instructions and expecta-tions would be beyond their capabilities. A teacherrecalled, “At home, my older kids use it and myhusband also knows how to use the computer, butit seems so difªcult. . . . The government did saythat we teachers will be given some kind of com-puter training . . . but I don’t think I can do it.”Second, teachers were reluctant to make the

extra effort or create time for training. In a numberof rural schools, due to the shortage of humanresources, one teacher might have to perform bothadministrative and teaching duties, often across allgrade levels. As one teacher described it, “We haveso much work to do and syllabus to cover. How doyou expect us to learn something new on top of allthis?”


ALE, CHIB

Figure 2. Boys dominating computer use over time, from all children gathering around the PC to fewer girls man-aging to stay, until only the boys remained.

A more pressing issue might be teachers’ coreattitudes toward the adoption of ICT for pedagogi-cal purposes. Teachers unanimously maintained thatprimary-level children would not beneªt from tech-nologies, stating, “What are children going to do bylearning how to use computers? They are only inthe primary level. It is us teachers who need tolearn, not them.”Teachers’ perception of the lack of ICTs’ value to

the children, in addition to a latent curiosity, resultedin teachers interrupting sessions when children usedthe laptops, trying to “snatch” the devices awayfrom the children. Figure 3 shows a teacher trying todominate the computer use in the midst of chil-dren’s learning sessions. One teacher ordered thestudents, “You go away! Let me see what this cando.” She would then perform an action, which ifincorrect and corrected by a child, she would state,“You don’t know! This is how you do it.” Theteacher would thereupon continue to perform theincorrect action.Furthermore, teachers would criticize children

who raised doubts about using the laptops. Theseobservations suggest that teachers did not havesufªcient prior knowledge of computer use. Initia-

tives such as the “Hole in the wall” computing proj-ect allowed informal, unsupervised learning for chil-dren alone or in groups (Simmons, 2005) withoutinstructional aids. However, in a classroom context,teachers played an important role as knowledgeproviders and guides. Thus, it becomes necessarythat they be well equipped with the necessary skillsand information to enable learning for studentsusing ICT. In this particular case, teachers monopo-lized the computers, both to enforce their authorityand to attempt to instruct. It was observed thatteachers who were not computer literate were notopen to being guided by students, and insteaddelivered incorrect information.

Needs Aspect: Local LanguageChildren were not able to read the English text onthe laptops, but referred to corresponding pictureicons to navigate some programs. However, withoutbasic computer literacy, children were not able todecipher the meanings or purposes of various com-puter terms and symbols necessary to use the tech-nology efªciently. This often resulted in childrenrandomly hitting buttons or keys. Many children ulti-mately gave up on constantly trying to ªgure outthe uses of the icons. Once basic information wasprovided in the local language, students were ableto grasp the meaning of particular icons enough toproceed. This was especially signiªcant in an educa-tional system where learners were trained andaccustomed to reading and writing in the local lan-guage. More importantly, the informational barrierdue to language unfamiliarity posed an additionalpsychological impediment to children who deemedthe laptops as “more difªcult to use.” In otherwords, the language barrier added to the sense ofunfamiliarity toward a device completely new tochildren’s understanding. In such conditions, maxi-mizing the application of local language within thetechnology was necessary to make children morefamiliar with technology use and operation, whilereducing informational barriers to technology adop-tion.

DiscussionThis exploratory study intended to better understandexisting values and attitudes toward technologyadoption on the part of teachers and children—theprincipal users of technology in the classrooms.While existing studies examine the integration of



Figure 3. Teacher Dominating the Use of the Laptop.

technology for pedagogical purposes, typically in thedeveloped urban context, we have tried to ªll aresearch gap by answering how technology adop-tion can be enabled within a community of ruralusers. It was found that community factors thatinºuence the adoption of ICTs in the rural educationcontext can be translated into three claims, assuggested by the community dimension of theTechnology–Community–Management model—a need for provision of unbiased technology accessto children; a need for maximizing application oflocal language within technology and content; anda need for equipping teachers with technologicalskills while creating positive attitudes toward tech-nology adoption.Recognizing the imperatives of technology adop-

tion as a fundamental issue in achieving develop-mental goals, this study contributed to anunderstanding of community factors within technol-ogy that need to be addressed, especially in effortsthat seek to use ICTs to improve the educational sys-tem in developing countries. The theoretical claimswere subsequently validated in the ªeldwork ªnd-ings and raised questions about the implementationof ICTE initiatives and policy adjustments. This Indiancase study may help guide rural educational policyin a broader global context. It is important to notethat the successful implementations of these recom-mendations are dependent on understanding thecomplex social and cultural systems in various devel-oping country contexts.

Implications for OwnershipOne of the possible conditions of equal access inscholastic conditions would be to maintain gendersegregation in ICT use. ICTE projects should ensurethat every boy and girl is allowed equal opportuni-ties for use in the classroom, enabling them to workeither individually or collaboratively in groups. How-ever, the beneªts of gender segregation need to beinvestigated further. We hesitate to endorse gendersegregation categorically as an ideal model for opti-mum learning in a rural educational setting. This isfor two reasons. Firstly, enough studies point to thebeneªts arising from collaboration in technologyusage. Second, there are social implications of gen-der segregation at an early age that may have reper-cussions on gender dynamics. Although we maywitness increased access to computing, the negativeunintended consequence of biasing the gender hier-

archy against women needs to be a seriousconsideration.Children and teachers need to be informed from

the time of project commencement that girls andboys are to use the computers equally—separately ifrequired, but only if absolutely necessary. Therefore,an ICTE intervention would ideally allow for unbi-ased usage. Ideally, usage should take place in amixed-gender environment, with project managersand teachers ensuring that girls are given equalopportunities for technological access, without inter-ruption or interference by boys.Further, realities in technology adoption in

schools also require attention. Beyond issues ofsocial status relating to gender, which is only a sin-gle dimension on which discrimination could occur,it was observed that power associated with age alsoplays an important role in technology adoption. Itwas observed that in a setting where children ofmore than one age group are taught together, theolder children tended to dominate laptop use habit-ually. Older boys would inevitably be on the winningend. In addition, children from grades 1 to 3 werefound to be less receptive to laptop use. Perhapsthey had been newly exposed to the school’s learn-ing materials and were still in the process of assimi-lating into a formal education system. Further, it wasalso observed that children in these classes were notas forthcoming about technology use as their olderpeers, probably in response to the dominatingseniors. Hence, alongside existing gender disparities,age, too, becomes a factor that needs to be takeninto account.Although the selected school was a good ªt with

the required criteria of studying the rural village con-text, the similarities between the participants interms of the widely practiced Indian caste make-uplimited the exploration of a host of complexsociocultural issues common in this context. Othersthat could be considered include social, economic,religious, cultural, geographic, and nationaldimensions.

Implications for TrainingInterventions aiming to train teachers in technologi-cal usage should focus on two issues. Firstly, ICTEprogram managers should try to reduce technologi-cal anxiety, including computer anxiety (Chua, Chen,& Wong, 1999), by conducting training using a lessintimidating approach wherein teachers are both


ALE, CHIB

comfortable and conªdent of their capabilities tolearn. In addition, it is essential to promote positiveapproaches in teaching technology to children. Ithas to be instilled in teachers that computer learn-ing could beneªt primary school children and thatteachers would have to take on the role as expertmentors who guide, not compete with, children’suse of the technology.The evidence supports the notion of the TCM

model that teachers should be trained on how tooperate the laptops, as well as be made familiarwith the programs available before children areintroduced to them. In doing so, they would be wellequipped to answer queries arising from childrenand optimally facilitate ICT use in the classroom. Toachieve this, the training sessions need to incorpo-rate a guide on how teachers should ideallyapproach students, in addition to the focus ondeveloping teachers’ technological abilities. Essen-tially, teachers need to be constantly encouraged totreat all students fairly, regardless of differences ingender or academic achievement.In rural schools, which normally adopt a teacher-

directed instructional approach, teachers might ªndit difªcult to change to the role of facilitator or toallow play and experimentation in a new ICT-enabled setting. Claims of enabling collaborativelearning among children with minimal involvementof these authority ªgures might not be relevant inthis context. Hence, as emphasized in the TCMmodel, effectiveness depends on providing suitablydevised training to teachers. In addition to preparingteachers to take on the role as informed mentors inthe classroom, it is also important to communicatethe usefulness of a technology in helping to increasetheir work efªciency and to reduce labor. Thus,training would equip teachers with the technologi-cal know-how, along with fostering positive atti-tudes toward adoption.

Implications for NeedsInformation and communication technology in edu-cation (ICTE) projects should consider devices thatprovide the option of translation to local languages,in the absence of which translated instructions andcontent for schools should be provided in hard-copyformats. It is important to ensure that these transla-tions do not potentially lead to a confusion in navi-gation or impede use of existing content basedpredominantly in English. The design of ICTE pro-jects needs to consider measures to reduce the

potential risk of children being unable to understandcomplex technical words, even when presented inthe local text.To assess community needs holistically, ICTE pro-

gram managers should consider the role of parentsin inºuencing technology adoption. Conversely,there may be situations where parents’ role is madeless important. For instance, although parentsacknowledged the possible beneªts of ICTs for theirchildren’s education, the mothers interviewed wereof the opinion that laptop use and learning oughtto be conªned to schools and monitored solely byteachers. Parents were not prepared to take respon-sibility for a laptop should the child bring it home.This hierarchy, and possible fear, could also be dueto low formal studying and literacy levels of parents,themselves unfamiliar with the technology. It is forthese reasons that the focus of an ICTE interventionoften turns to the community of teachers andstudents.

ConclusionThe study attempted to prove, with research carriedout in a speciªc context where the use of technol-ogy in education is very relevant, the potential valuein the adoption of technology for learning. Thethorough review of sources within the Asian ruralcontext, which is largely generalizable to the Indianperspective, demonstrated and supported the claimsof underlying cultural, psychological, and practicalcommunity factors that inºuence ICT adoption.Addressing the second objective of developing

rigorous measures that capture the impact of tech-nology on educational outcomes is certainly a direc-tion for future research. At the World EconomicForum in 2005, the imagination of the world wascaptured by the excitement surrounding the idea ofa $100 laptop. Since then, numerous initiatives havetargeted affordable computing devices catering tomarginalized populations in a rural situation thatcould not previously afford computing technologies(Ali & Langendoen, 2007; Goldstein, 2004).Explicitly targeting the education sector, low-costcomputers distinguish themselves from the conven-tional personal computers and low-range commer-cial laptops, with a combination of proprietary andopen-source software. These child-centric programs,along with lightweight, bright-colored device bod-ies, claim to be relevant and fun for young learners.Although low-cost computers, such as the One



Laptop per Child (OLPC) laptops, have been consis-tently drawing international attention, academicresearch has only recently begun to understand theimpact of these emerging educational technologieson rural populations. It is at this stage that ªndingson community inºuences on technology adoptioncould be used in the design of ICTE initiatives toexamine the value of teaching using technology.The TCM model shed light on community factors

that need to be addressed in the design of an ICTEproject. It pointed out that early training of teacherswould equip them to be expert mentors in class.Contrary to popular claims that support individualownership of the low-cost OLPC laptops, ruralschools are not in the ideal ªnancial situation toafford one laptop for each child. Consequently, thiswould call for a shared ownership or use of thelaptops, which makes equal access critical. Finally,the importance of using local language to helpfamiliarize students with technology has also beenhighlighted.By addressing the community factors discussed in

this article, and aligning implementation strategiesto these considerations, ICTE initiatives have thepotential not only to achieve the larger goal ofimproving the quality and access to education forall, but to improve the learning outcomes of chil-dren in developing countries. ■

ReferencesAbi-Raad, M. (1997). Rethinking approaches toteaching with telecommunication technologies.Journal of Information Technology for TeacherEducation, 6(2), 207–211.

Adeya, N. C. (2002). ICTs and poverty: A literaturereview. Ottawa: International Development Re-search Centre. Retrieved from web.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10541291550ICTPovertyBiblio.doc

Ali, M., & Langendoen, K. (2007). TinyPC: Enablinglow-cost Internet access in developing regions.Paper presented at the ACM SIGCOMM work-shop on Networked Systems for Developing Re-gions 2007, Kyoto, Japan.

Apkan, J. P. (2002). Which comes ªrst: Computersimulation of dissection or a traditional labora-tory practical method of dissection? ElectronicJournal of Science Education, 6(4), 1–18.

Attewell, P. (2001). The ªrst and second digital di-vides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252–259.

Baki, A. (2000). Preparing student teachers to usecomputers in mathematics classroom through along-term pre-service course in Turkey. Journal ofInformation Technology for Teacher Education,9(3), 343–362.

Banerjee, A, Cole, S., Duºo, E., & Linden, L. (2005).Remedying education: Evidence from two ran-domized experiments in India. The QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235

Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not:Children’s access to and use of computer tech-nology. Children and Computer Technology,10(2), 44–75.

Bork, A. (2003). Interactive learning: Twenty yearslater. Contemporary Issues in Technology andTeacher Education, 2(4), 605–611.

Bracey, B. (2005). Introduction: Uniting people, tech-nology and powerful ideas for learning. InB. Bracey & T. Cluver (Eds.), Harnessing the po-tential of ICT for education: A multi-stakeholderapproach. New York: The United Nations Infor-mation and Communication Technologies TaskForce.

Brock, E. (2001). Integrating real practices experi-ence in ICT education. Journal of InformationSystems Education, 12(3), 133–140.

Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. InM. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping thedynamics of science and technology: Sociology ofscience in the real world (pp. 19–34). London:Macmillan.

Carlson, S. (2002). The missing link in educationaltechnology: Trained teachers. Retrieved fromhttp://www.TechKnowLogia.org/TKL_Articles/PDF/435.pdf

Carlson, S., & Gadio, C. T. (2002). Teacher profes-sional development in the use of technology. InW. Haddad and A. Draxler (Ed.), Technologies foreducation: Potential, parameters and prospects(pp. 118–133). Paris and Washington, DC:UNESCO and AED.


ALE, CHIB

Chib, A. (2010). The Aceh Besar midwives withmobile phones project: Design and evaluationperspectives using the information and communi-cation technologies for healthcare developmentmodel. Journal of Computer-mediated Communi-cation 15(3), 500–525.

Chib, A., & Zhao, J. (2009). Sustainability of ICT in-terventions: Lessons from rural projects in Chinaand India. In L. Harter & M. J. Dutta (Eds.), Com-municating for social impact: Engaging commu-nication theory, research, and pedagogy. ICA2008 Conference Theme Book. Hampton Press.

Chou, H. W. (2001). Effects of training method andcomputer anxiety on learning performance andself-efªcacy. Computers in Human Behaviour,17(1), 51–69.

Chua, S. L., Chen, D., & Wong, A. F. (1999). Com-puter anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis.Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 609–623.

Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learningtechnology into classrooms: The importance ofteachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology &Society, 5(1), 67–74.

Delannoy, F. (2000). Teacher training or lifelong pro-fessional development? Worldwide trends andchallenges. TecKnowLogia, 2(6), 10–13.

Department for International Development (DFID).(2001). Education for all: The challenge of univer-sal primary education. London: DFID.

Dobbert, M. L. (1982). Ethnographic research: The-ory and application for modern schools andsocieties. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Durndell, A., & Thompson, K. (1997). Gender andcomputing: A decade of change? Computers andEducation, 28(1), 1–9.

Esnault, L. (2007). Actor-network theory ande-learning. International Journal of Web-BasedLearning and Teaching Technologies, 2(1), i–iv.Retrieved from http://www.igi-global.com/Files/Ancillary/IJWLTT%20preface%202(1).pdf

Farrell, G., & Wachholz, C. (2004). Integrating infor-mation and communication technologies in edu-cation in Asia and the Paciªc: Trends andobservations. In G. Farrell & C. Wachholz (Eds.),Meta-survey on the use of technologies in educa-

tion in Asia and the Paciªc (pp. 265–272).Bangkok: UNESCO.

Fontaine, M. (2000). Teacher training with technol-ogy: Experience in ªve country programs.TechKnowLogia, 2(6), 69–71.

Garnham, N. (1997). Amartya Sen’s capabilities ap-proach to the evaluation of welfare: Its applica-tion to communications. The Public, 4(4), 25–34.

Global E-Schools and Communities Initiative (GESCI).(2009). Deploying ICTs in schools: A frameworkfor identifying and assessing technology options,their beneªts, feasibility and total cost of owner-ship. Retrieved from http://inesm.education.unesco.org/ªles/TCO-deploying-framework.pdf

Goldstein, H. (2004). Education for all: The global-ization of learning targets. Comparative Educa-tion, 40(1), 7–14.

Harris, R., & Davison, R. (1999). Anxiety and involve-ment: Cultural dimensions of attitudes towardcomputers in developing societies. Journal ofGlobal Information Management, 7(1), 26–38.

Hawkins, B. L., & Oblinger, D. G. (2006). The mythabout the digital divide. Educause Review, 41(4),12–13.

Heeks, R. (2002). Information systems and develop-ing countries: Failure, success, and local improvi-sations. The Information Society, 18, 101–112.

Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., &Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide inK-12 public schools: Four-year trends for support-ing ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Educa-tion, 51(1), 1648–1663.

Hollow, D., & Masperi, P. (2009). An evaluation ofthe use of ICT within primary education in Ma-lawi. Proceedings of the 3rd International IEEE/ACM Conference on Information and Communi-cations Technologies and Development (ICTD),Doha, Qatar.

infoDev. (2003). ICT for development: Contributingto the Millennium Development Goals. Washing-ton, DC: The World Bank.

International Society for Technology in Education(ISTE). (2007). Proªles for technology (ICT) literatestudents. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/



Libraries/PDFs/NETS-S_2007_Student_Proªles_EN.sºb.ashx

International Telecommunication Union. (2009).Information society statistical proªles 2009: Asiaand the Paciªc. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/ISSP09-AP_ªnal.pdf

Jhurree, V. (2005). Technology integration in educa-tion in developing countries: Guidelines to policymakers. International Education Journal, 6(4),467–483.

Keniston, K. (2002). Grassroots ICT projects in India:Some preliminary hypotheses. ASCI Journal ofManagement 31(1&2). Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/�kken/Public/PDF/ASCI_Journal_Intro__ASCI_version_.pdf

Kinyanjui, L. (2002). Preparing a workforce for theevolving information economy: A survey on ICTaccess and use in Kenya secondary schools.Nairobi: SchoolNet Kenya.

Kozma, R. B. (2006). Monitoring and evaluation ofICT for education impact: A review. In D. Wag-ner, R. Day, T. James, R. Kozma, J. Miller, &T. Unwin (Eds.), Monitoring and Evaluation of ICTin education projects. A handbook for develop-ing countries (pp. 11–20). Washington, DC:The International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment/World Bank.

Lee, S., & Chib, A. (2008). Wireless initiatives forconnecting rural areas: Developing a framework.In N. Carpentier & B. De Cleen (Eds.), Participa-tion and media production: Critical reºections oncontent creation. ICA 2007 Conference ThemeBook (pp. 113–128). Newcastle, UK: CambridgeScholars Publishing.

Manzar, O., Phalachandra, B., & Sinha, S. (2005).Technology in India 2005. Retrieved from http://deªndia.net/ªles/ET%20Report%202005.pdf

Mark, J. (1992). Beyond equal access: Gender equityin learning with computers. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edc.org/WomensEquity/pubs/digests/digest-beyond.html

Martins, C. B. M. J., Steil, A. V., & Todesco, J. L.(2004). Factors inºuencing the adoption of theInternet as a teaching tool at foreign languageschools. Computers & Education, 42, 353–374.

McGhee, R., & Kozma, R. B. (1999). World links fordevelopment: Accomplishments and challenges,monitoring and evaluation annual report.Retrieved from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/36013/sri_world_me_report_1999_00.pdf

Middleton, B., & Murray, R. (1999). The impact ofinstructional technology on student academicachievement in reading and mathematics.International Journal of Instructional Media, 26,109–116.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York:Vintage Books.

Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. TheAtlantic Online, 280(1), 45–62.

Ordonez, V., & Maclean, R. (2000). Education inAsia: Some current issues, concerns and pros-pects. Prospects, 30(3), 289–295.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Devel-opment (OECD). (2005). Are students ready for atechnology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us.Paris: OECD.

Panda, S. & Chaudhary, S. (2001). Telelearning andtelelearning centres in India. Retrieved fromhttp://www.share4dev.info/telecentreskb/documents/2236.pdf

Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridgingthe digital generation gap. Atlanta: Longstreet.

Peat, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Has student learningbeen improved by the use of online and ofºinepress. Australian Journal of Educational Technol-ogy, 19(1), 87–99.

Riel, M. (1992). Learning circles: A functional analy-sis of educational telecomputing. InteractiveLearning Environments, 2, 15–30.

Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approachto education: A critical exploration. Journal ofPhilosophy of Education, 37, 17–33.

Sen, A. K. (1999). Democracy as a universal value.Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3–17.

Simmons, D. (2005). The Hole in the Wall project.Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4365350.stm


ALE, CHIB

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview.New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Tinio, V. L. (2002). Survey of information & commu-nication technology utilization in Philippine publichigh schools: Preliminary ªndings. Tokyo, Japan:Center of International Cooperation for Comput-erization.

Todman, J. (2000). Gender differences in computeranxiety among university entrants since 1992.Computers & Education, 34, 27–35.

UNICEF. (2009). India: Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unicef.org/india/education.html

United Nations. (2003). Indicators for monitoringthe Millennium Development Goals. New York:United Nations.

United Nations. (2005). The Millennium Develop-ment Goals Report 2005. New York: Author.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).(2005). Promoting ICT for human development inAsia: Realizing the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. Gurgaon, India: Elsevier.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).(2009). Human development report 2009. Over-

coming barriers: Human mobility and develop-ment. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

United Nations Educational, Scientiªc and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO). (2004). Education for all:The quality imperative. EFA Global MonitoringReport 2005. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Educational, Scientiªc and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO). (2007). ICT and literacy.Retrieved from http://www.unescobkk.org/educa-tion/ict/online-resources/features/ict-and-literacy/

United States Agency for International Development.(2005). Education strategy: Improving livesthrough learning. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/policy/education_policy05.pdf

Weir, S. (1992). Electronic communities of learners:Fact or ªction. TERC Working Paper 3-92. Cam-bridge, MA: TERC Communications.

World Bank. (2009). EdStats: Country proªles. Re-trieved from http://go.worldbank.org/X1LS46NUJ0

Zhao, J. (2008). The Internet and rural developmentin China: The socio-structural paradigm. Bern: Pe-ter Lang AG.



community factors in technology adoption in primary ...birbhum.gov.in/dpsc/reference/65.pdf · the...

Documents