tsclientcwellington work - appropriating...

$: TsclientcWellington Work - Appropriating Technologyappropriatingtechnology.org/sites/default/files/Pittaluga and Ricoir... · Title \TsclientcWellington Work... Author: XPMUser Created$
145

Lucía [email protected] de la República(UDELAR)Gonzalo Ramírez 1926Montevideo 11200Uruguay

Ana [email protected] de la República(UDELAR)Constituyente 1502Montevideo 11200Uruguay

One Laptop per Child and Bridging the Digital Divide PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

Research Article

One Laptop per Child andBridging the Digital Divide: TheCase of Plan CEIBAL in UruguayAbstract

This article analyzes the changes experienced in the digital divide as a result ofthe implementation of a one-laptop-per-child national policy. The program hasbeen implemented in Uruguay since 2007, and it is known as the “PlanCEIBAL.” It is an adaptation of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project de-vised by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Two sources of infor-mation have been used: The annual household survey called Encuesta Con-tinua de Hogares (ECH), prepared by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE)of Uruguay, and interviews conducted among relevant local ofªcers and adultpersons from households equipped with Plan CEIBAL laptops. It was con-cluded that Plan CEIBAL has helped to narrow the digital divide in terms of ac-cess to computers and Internet connectivity from education centers. Further-more, additional changes have been veriªed regarding other aspects of thedigital divide relating to the acquisition and use of computers for human de-velopment purposes typical of one-laptop-per-child schemes.

1. IntroductionA paper prepared by the Economic Commission for Latin America and theCaribbean (ECLAC; Katzman, 2010) maintains that, aided by the digitalrevolution, the skills associated with the mastering of information andcommunication technologies (ICTs) are essential assets that every personneeds to have to make the most of the opportunities emerging from theeconomy, the state, and the community, functioning as tools that enablea person to participate fully in a contemporary society. However, the waythe market works in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has resultedin high inequality levels regarding access to ICTs. Such inequalities, asKatzman puts it, “translate into serious social exclusion threats and repre-sent a challenge to the reasons for the integration of societies that claimthe vigorous presence of the State to universalize access opportunities tonew technologies” (ibid., p. 27). The educational system has a leadingrole in the struggle to universalize access to ICTs, the author concludes.

The process aiming at the integration and use of ICTs in educationalsystems has been taking place in LAC since the late 1980s and early1990s. The one-laptop-per-child (1:1) model was ªrst implemented in2007,1 and it was quickly disseminated throughout the region (Severin &Capote, 2010).

Plan CEIBAL (Conectividad Educativa de Informática Básica para el

1. “One-laptop-per-child” makes reference to the proportion of laptops available for each child who attends school,which means that each pupil is given one laptop.

© 2012 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 8, Number 4, Winter 2012 (Special Bilingual Issue: Research on ICT4D from Latin America), 145–159

Aprendizaje en Línea), which began in 2007, alsofalls within the 1:1 model; in fact, it is the world’sªrst experience with such a project on a nationwidescale.2 It was based on the One Laptop per Child(OLPC) project introduced by the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT).

The purpose of this article is to account for theeffects of Plan CEIBAL regarding the digital divide inhouseholds and the community. The digital divide isunderstood here in a manner that is both complexand multilayered. To this end, we take into consider-ation the uses given to the laptops distributed underPlan CEIBAL, as well as the processes that their col-lective incorporation into the household and thecommunity has entailed.

The ªrst part of this article discusses the maintheoretical concepts that guided this work, and thenwe brieºy describe the contents of Plan CEIBAL. Thethird part of this article explains the methodologyused, while the fourth part presents an analysis ofthe impact of Plan CEIBAL on the digital divide. Thisanalysis is based on the data gathered through theannual Uruguayan household survey called EncuestaContinua de Hogares (ECH) prepared by the Insti-tuto Nacional de Estadística (INE). The ªfth part ofthis article examines the uses and acquisition of PlanCEIBAL laptops, based on information gatheredthrough interviews conducted among qualiªedinterviewees and adult persons from householdsequipped with at least one Plan CEIBAL laptop. Thelast part of this article presents the main ªndingsand conclusions.3

2. Bridging the Digital Divide forHuman DevelopmentFrom the perspective of the school of thought thatmaintains that development mainly consists in theprogressive expansion of human capacities (Sen,2000), knowledge is one of the main human capaci-ties, while ICTs are privileged means through whichknowledge is produced and disseminated. Nowa-days, ICTs are associated with essential aspects ofhuman life, and as such, their use may be deemedto be a right (Accuosto, 2004; Cortés & Dubois,

2005; UNDP, 2001). On the one hand, these tech-nologies represent progress for humankind, but onthe other, they result in a new inequality known asthe “digital divide.”

As several authors point out (Mansell, 2002;Stewart, Gil-Egui, Tian, & Pileggi, 2006), the ªrstmeaning of “digital divide” made reference to thedivision between those who had and those who didnot have access to ICTs. However, that was areductionist approach, though one on which infra-structure and connectivity expansion policies werefounded. The dynamics of markets, governmentprocedures, and the regulation of ICTs and serviceswere prioritized.

With the assumption that the beneªt for thepopulation is direct and automatic, this approachoverestimates ICTs, since it concludes that socialwell-being and development are achieved by simplyintroducing them to the communities (Cortés &Dubois, 2005). However, it is clear that the digitaldivide reproduces inequalities that already exist insocieties (Mística, 2002).

The digital divide is the consequence of otherdevelopment gaps which, in turn, cause it todeepen further. There is a recursive relationship atplay in which inequalities feed back upon eachother: the digital divide, itself born of inequality,thus contributes to the consolidation of other exclu-sions. It is obvious that speciªc efforts are requiredto attain human development; that is, policies mustbe implemented to reduce digital inequalities andother inequalities in parallel (Afonso & Soarez, 2006;Gascó-Hernández, Equiza-Lopez, & Acevedo-Ruiz,2007; Sassi, 2005).

Hargittai (2004) states that the digital divide fea-tures several dimensions, such as the access to tech-nology, the autonomy of individuals, the socialsupport on which the user relies, the individual’sabilities, and the types of use. According to thisauthor, digital inequality shows the consequencesthat access to ICTs may have, as well as their differ-entiated uses for social stratiªcation.

Knowing how many people use the Internet isnot as relevant as knowing why and for what pur-

146 Information Technologies & International Development

ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD AND BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

2. Argentina launched a 1:1 program in 2007 in the province of San Luis (although 10,000 laptops were promised, asof 2010, only 7,500 had been delivered); Brazil implemented a pilot program the same year, though in this case, aspromised by the government, 150,000 laptops were delivered (Severin & Capote, 2010).3. This article is based on research ªnanced by the Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Cientíªca (CSIC) of the UDELAR(Rivoir, Pittaluga, di Landri, Baldizán, & Escuder, 2010).

pose the Internet is used (Castells, Tubella, Sancho,Díaz, & Wellman, 2007). In this context, the usesgiven are fundamental to devising a more complexconcept of the digital divide. We need to knowwhether people make a “meaningful use” or a “sig-niªcant use,” and we also need to be able to deter-mine when ICTs are effectively used, including usesthat place them in combination with other commu-nication instruments. To make meaningful use ofICTs, users must know the tools involved—which touse and when to use them, as required for speciªcindividual or collective objectives. This type of usedepends on the capacity and possibility of producingone’s own content, of accessing useful knowledgeand information in one’s own language, and of per-forming critical analysis of the information (Attwell,2001; Camacho, 2001; Martínez, 2001; Selwyn,2004; Warschauser, 2003).

To contribute to human development, policiesshould prioritize ICT appropriation processes; meetcommunities’ needs; and lay special emphasis onpeople’s capacities, generation of content, andknowledge (Gómez, Delgadillo, & Stoll, 2003;Mística, 2002). This means that, without speciªcpolicies, or with policies biased to only give regardto access to technology, human development willnot be attained, and the existing inequalities will donothing but grow.

Plan CEIBAL in Uruguay is an initiative aimed atpromoting human development. Studying its effectson the digital divide will help us to understand thistype of policy.

3. Plan CEIBAL: Description andImplementationPlan CEIBAL was implemented at the request of thethen President of Uruguay, Tabaré Vázquez. It wasplanned as a measure against the existing inequali-ties regarding access to ICTs, and to that end, it waspresented as a project for social inclusion.

The main purpose of the plan was, and remains,to attain equality in access to information throughthe distribution of laptops and the provision ofInternet connectivity services to all the schools and

districts in the country. Such services are accessedthrough the distributed laptops, which have beendesigned especially for the needs of children. Theyhave basic operating features that enable them towork in such different environments as classrooms,homes, or even public places. This, in turn, offers anumber of possibilities for teaching purposes. Theproject intends to have a major social impact on therelationship between the school and the family, pro-moting the abilities needed to succeed in a 21st-century society across the whole length of a child’slife in an attempt to bridge the existing digitaldivide.

As a starting point, Plan CEIBAL distributed onelaptop to each child in ªrst through sixth gradeattending a public primary school in Uruguay, aswell as to the children’s teachers. The plan was ªrstimplemented during the ªrst half of 2007. The dis-tribution of laptops to all public schools in Uruguaywas conducted in four phases and completed by theend of 2009.4 In 2010, the plan went on to includesecondary schools.

People call these laptops “XO” after the laptopmodel name, and also “Ceibalitas.” Designed forchildren’s educational use (ReducaWIKI, n.d.), theyfeature Internet connectivity and video camera withaudio, and they also include educational software.Furthermore, thanks to local developers, some appli-cations have been introduced to improve thelaptops’ Internet connection, hardware, andsoftware.

By 2011, more than 500,000 laptops had beendistributed and several activities and complementaryprojects had also been implemented, which showsthat Plan CEIBAL is not merely a policy aiming atnarrowing the digital divide in terms of computersand the Internet (Garibaldi & Ibarra, 2011). Threeeducational portals5 were created, as well as a peda-gogical project (CIEBAL, 2010). Training courseswere delivered to more than 20,000 teachers, andover 500 support and catalyst teachers had beenhired.

Additionally, the plan provided all public educa-tional centers and certain public places with Internet

Volume 8, Number 4, Winter 2012 (Special Bilingual Issue: Research on ICT4D from Latin America) 147

PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

4. These phases were as follows: Phase 1 (ªrst half of 2007), School No. 24 in Villa Cardal, District of Florida (200laptops donated by One Laptop Per Child [OLPC]); Phase 2 (second half of 2007), the rest of the District of Florida;Phase 3 (2008), all the districts in Uruguay, except for Montevideo and its metropolitan area (District of Canelones);and Phase 4 (2009), Montevideo and Canelones.5. See www.ceibal.edu.uy, www.edu.mec.gub.uy, and www.uruguayeduca.edu.uy

connection services. Today, almost every child whoattends a public school has a wireless Internet con-nection.6 Access to the Internet at home is possibleto the extent that the home is located near an edu-cational center or a public place with the requiredinfrastructure. One essential purpose of the plan isto provide wireless connectivity to households suchthat anyone desiring to access the Internet will beable to do so without walking more than 300meters from his or her home. However, this goal hasnot been accomplished yet.7

4. Methods and Techniques

4.1 Quantitative MethodThe ECH, which has been conducted uninterrupt-edly by the INE since 1968, serves as the statisticaldatabase for our study. As its name indicates, it is asurvey conducted on a permanent basis that gathersinformation 365 days a year. The surveyed person isany household member older than 18 years of agewho possesses both full mental capacity andsufªcient information on the rest of the householdmembers. The ECH data for years 2004, 2006(called “Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Ampliada”)and 2007–2010 (most recent survey available as ofthis date) were used.8

Throughout the years, the ECH added questionson the access to and uses of ICTs, as well as on theacquisition of Plan CEIBAL laptops. Since 2001, theECH has included questions related to the introduc-tion of computers and Internet connection to thehousehold. In 2006, the ECH also included, for theªrst time, questions on the use of computers andthe Internet. Since 2008, this module of questionshas been permanently incorporated into the survey.

In 2009, the ECH ªrst included a question onwhether the household was equipped with a PlanCEIBAL laptop.9

Before using the ECH, we determined ªrstwhether the survey was correctly estimating thenumber of laptops distributed. This was veriªed ontwo different occasions. By December 2008, the dis-tribution of Ceibalitas had concluded in every districtof Uruguay except Canelones and Montivedeo. The2009 ECH, which began on January 1 of the sameyear, was supposed to reºect the number of laptopsin the households in that part of the country.According to ofªcial Plan CEIBAL data, as of Decem-ber 2008, 163,081 Ceibalitas had been distributed,while in June (according to 2009 ECH), the numberof Ceibalitas distributed was 159,140.10 The differ-ence between the Ceibalitas actually delivered andthe estimated number of Ceibalitas delivered was3,941 laptops, which is considered to be an accept-able magnitude of error.11

By December 2009, the distribution of laptopsthroughout the entire Uruguayan territory had beencompleted. The factor that rendered the future2010 ECH results variable was the distribution oflaptops to the class of students who began primaryschool in 2010, as Ceibalitas were also given thatyear to secondary school students and sold (at asubsidized price) to secondary school teachers.According to ofªcial Plan CEIBAL data, as of Decem-ber 2010, 406,023 Ceibalitas (without taking intoconsideration the ones given to secondary schoolstudents or teachers) had been given away. The ECH2010 estimated the number of Ceibalitas in house-holds to be 407,270. The difference is 1,247



6. Approximately 10% of the schools have no Internet connection. These are mainly rural schools which have no elec-tric power and are not part of the electric power transmission system of Uruguay.7. In 2010, only about 50% of the households in Montevideo and other urban districts equipped with at least one XOlaptop had Internet connection by being within a distance of 300 meters or less from a school or other wireless-equipped public place. For rural households, this percentage was 38% (Plan CEIBAL, 2011).8. For the technical data obtained from the ECH, as well as the microdata from every year, see the INE website http://www.ine.gub.uy/microdatos/microdatosnew2008.asp#ech9. See the questionnaire (the questions related to ICTs can be found in modules D and E5) of the 2010 ECH at http://www.ine.gub.uy/microdatos/microdatosnew2008.asp#ech10. This moment of the year was selected because the distribution of Ceibalitas in Canelones and Montevideo began inJuly, which means that the incidence of the number of Ceibalitas in households began to vary, whereas during the ªrstsix months, no such variations were noted.11. This difference may be due to the pilot distributions made in Montevideo and Canelones during the last quarter of2008. Moreover, it may also be due to the distribution of laptops taking place not in the surveyed households, but ininstitutions such as Instituto del Niño y el Adolescente del Uruguay (INAU), among secondary schools, and at theUniversidad del Trabajo del Uruguay (UTU).

laptops, which was also deemed an acceptable dif-ference margin.12

4.2 Qualitative MethodInterviews were used to analyze the impacts of PlanCEIBAL on the digital divide and human develop-ment. This qualitative methodology allowed for theadoption of a useful holistic perspective in the studyof a complex phenomenon (Taylor & Bogdan, 1986).Thus, the analysis was enriched with explanatoryelements, since the ºexibility of interviews helped toreformulate the data-gathering tools, based on theinformation needs that became clearer as ourªeldwork progressed (Valles, 1997).

Information was collected at the community andCEIBAL home levels. A total of 39 interviews wereconducted on a wh- question basis with locals whowere acquainted with the plan (school directors,regional inspectors, authorities, and local experts) inorder to know how the program had developed intheir towns, and to gather information on the cur-rent dynamics and characteristics of the activitiesperformed and in progress.

Surveys were also conducted among adults from192 households whose children were beneªciariesof Plan CEIBAL. The questionnaire used had wh-questions that covered the following aspects: socio-economic characteristics of the home andsocioeducational characteristics of the person sur-veyed; opinion of the ICTs in general; changesobserved in children, the home, and the neighbor-hood/town after the implementation of PlanCEIBAL; description of the different uses given tothe Ceibalita (by whom and for what); and opinionon the beneªts of Plan CEIBAL. Fieldwork was con-ducted November 2009–May 2010.

A theoretical sample was designed to select thepersons to be surveyed based on three criteria. First,four socioeconomic regions of Uruguay wereselected with the purpose of covering all the exist-ing diverse backgrounds (Veiga & Rivoir, 2004).

Second, the households were classiªed into threegroups: unfavorable background neighborhoods(UBN), favorable background neighborhoods (FBN),and small towns (ST). The homes were selectedbased on the characterization of the school back-ground, and a subsequent comparison was madewith the socioeconomic situation of the home indi-cated in the form. A school from the district capitalwith a favorable or very favorable background wasselected, as well as another school with an unfavor-able or very unfavorable background. The ST sampleallowed for the incorporation of a background dif-ferent from the urban context in terms of the lim-ited opportunities available as a result of thereduced supply of goods and services in towns withthese characteristics. The towns selected had fewerthan 1,000 inhabitants and only one public school,and they were more than 70 km away from the dis-trict capital.

Third, the homes selected for the surveys had tohave been part of Plan CEIBAL for at least one year,so as to control the time of exposure to the plan.This is considered to be the period during which theCeibalitas were fully incorporated into the dynamicsand routine of users.

Table 1 below shows the distribution of the 192surveys conducted by geographical location andsocioeconomic stratum.

The analysis of the surveys was made usinghand-recorded answers, which were later tran-scribed to a spreadsheet. This allowed for several


PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

12. It is logical that the ECH may reºect a smaller number of laptops than the ones distributed. However, in this case,the distribution to secondary school teachers and students renders the calculation even more uncertain, since we donot positively know what they might have answered when asked whether or not they had a Plan CEIBAL laptop attheir home, given the fact that the program is very much identiªed with primary education.

Table 1. Surveys Conducted by Case and Type of Neighborhood.

District UBN FBN ST Total surveys conducted

Florida 18 14 19 51

Maldonado 17 17 16 50

Rivera 22 13 11 46

Salto 16 16 13 45

Source: Prepared by the author based on the total surveys conducted.

crossings of information (home background, con-nectivity at home, possession of computer or not,and access to the Internet at home, among others).Afterward, each survey conducted was further ana-lyzed to ªnd thorough explanations for each answer.

5. An Overview of the Impact ofPlan CEIBAL on the Digital DivideThis section analyzes the ECH data for the countryto make a ªrst observation on how the implementa-tion of Plan CEIBAL has impacted the digital divide

in Uruguay. To that end, we ªrstexamine the evolution of the pos-sibility of accessing computersfrom households. Then, we studythe geographical reach of PlanCEIBAL, and ªnally, we analyzehow the plan has affected theplaces from which the Internetcan be accessed, and why this isimportant to bridge the digitaldivide.

5.1. The Impact of PlanCEIBAL on the Possibilityof Accessing Computersfrom HouseholdsFigure 1 shows the evolution inthe access to computers fromhouseholds by income decile from2004 to 2010. Since 2008, thepace at which households fromthe lowest income deciles haveacquired computers has acceler-ated. In December 2009, 50% ofthe ªve lowest income decilesmanaged to access computersfrom their households, and in2010, the poorest decile reachedthe same access percentage asthe better-off decile 8.

The bridging of the gapbetween the rich and the poorwith respect to the access tocomputers in households, ascompared with previous data, is

basically due to the implementation of Plan CEIBAL.This follows from the data in Figure 2, which showsthat the members of the poorest deciles receivedlaptops under Plan CEIBAL en masse between 2009and 2010.13 Indeed, in December 2010, 65.7% ofthe respondents from the poorest sectors (from theªrst per capita income distribution decile) statedthat they lived in a CEIBAL home14 (54.6% inDecember 2009), while that percentage was 53.1%for the people in the second decile (42.3% in 2009),a proportion that continued to fall as the incomedeciles increased.



13. In fact, the distribution of Ceibalitas began in 2007 and continued, en masse, in 2008. However, it was not until2009 that the ECH included a question on Plan CEIBAL.14. “CEIBAL homes” are those households equipped with at least one Ceibalita.

Figure 1. Access to computers at households. Percentage of people in eachper capita income decile (without leasing value, excluding rural locationsand towns with a population of less than 5,000).

Figure 2. Percentage of people in each per capita income decile living in aCEIBAL home.

In 2010, 43% of people living in CEIBAL homeswere from the two ªrst deciles. This means thatalmost half the people who owned a Ceibalitawere part of the poorest sectors in Uruguay. Thisresult, though predictable, is not obvious, since theCeibalitas were not distributed to children from poorhomes, but to public school students.

One limitation of the ECH is that it is not possibleto know whether the homes that received aCeibalita already had a standard computer. That is,the respondents were asked, on the one hand,whether the home was equipped with a computer(whether it was from Plan CEIBAL or not), and onthe other, if the home had a Plan CEIBAL laptop.Figure 3 compares the data from the householdswhich had a computer of any sort with the datafrom the households whose members had at leastone Plan CEIBAL laptop.15

It can be observed that practically all of the rich-est households’ computers do not come from PlanCEIBAL (82% of people from those homes areequipped with at least one computer, and only 3%say that they come from Plan CEIBAL). On the otherhand, the poorest households’ computer equipmentcomes almost completely from Plan CEIBAL. Indeed,in decile 1, almost 70% of the people answeredthat they lived at a home equipped with at least onecomputer, and 66% also stated that they resided at

a household equipped with atleast one Ceibalita. So, only 4%of people from those poor homessay that they have a computerthat did not come from PlanCEIBAL.

Also, it is quite likely that theCeibalitas were the ªrst comput-ers at those households. From thedata shown in Figure 1, we canobserve that, in 2006, barely 3%of the people in income decile 1had a computer at their homes(versus 60% in the richest decile),while four years later, in 2010,access to computers had reached70% of the same decile (as com-pared with 83% in the richestdecile). The fact that so many

poor homes were so quickly equipped with comput-ers can only be explained by the distribution ofCeibalitas.

Between 2004 and 2010, the percentage of peo-ple who could access the Internet from their homes(Rivoir et al., 2010) varied slightly for the people inthe lowest income deciles. It may be concluded fromthis that the distribution of Ceibalitas has, to thisdate, only impacted people’s access to computersfrom their homes, and not yet people’s access to theInternet from their homes. This is not a coincidence,since, as mentioned above, the strategy adopted byPlan CEIBAL regarding connectivity does not have,for the time being, the purpose of providingInternet connectivity from households.

In sum, these ªrst data show that the digitaldivide has narrowed in terms of possession of com-puters at homes in Uruguay, and that the narrowingwe have seen is very likely a consequence of theimplementation of Plan CEIBAL.

5.2. Geographical Distribution of PlanCEIBALThe distribution of Ceibalitas in Uruguayan territoryis associated with the distribution of the populationin general. Although Table 2 shows that Ceibalitaswere distributed until December 2010 within Uru-guayan territory in a way that prioritized cities of the


PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

15. It should be noted that the percentages are taken using as a basis the same number of people from the appropri-ate income decile.

Figure 3. Access to computers and to Plan CEIBAL laptops. Percentage ofpeople in each per capita income decile living in households equipped withCeibalitas and computers of any sort. December 2010.

interior to the detriment of Montevideo, in smalltowns (those with less than 5,000 inhabitants) andrural areas, the percentage of people living inhouseholds with Ceibalitas is similar to the distribu-tion of the total population.

To analyze the manner in which the impact ofPlan CEIBAL evolved as the plan continued toexpand throughout the entire national territory, theUruguayan population was grouped according toplace of residence into two regional groups: theInterior, excluding the district of Canelones,16 andMontevideo, including Canelones. Group 1 com-prises almost 43% of the country’s total population,while Group 2 represents the remaining 57%.

As mentioned above, the regional divisionresulted from the fact that the Ceibalitas were dis-tributed at different stages and within different geo-graphical areas. In December 2008, Plan CEIBAL hadcompleted the distribution of laptops in all the citiesof the Interior, excluding the district of Canelones,and by the end of 2009, the distribution of laptops

was completed in the districts of Montevideo andCanelones.

Table 3 shows the progression of Plan CEIBALthroughout the years based on its geographicalreach. As indicated above, the ECH did not includequestions on Plan CEIBAL until year 2009, whichmeans that the CEIBAL homes can only be distin-guished from that year forward. The situation as ofDecember 2010 was similar for both areas in termsof the percentage of CEIBAL homes, whereas theInterior (excluding the district of Canelones) contin-ued to lag overall in the digital divide, since it had alarger percentage of homes without computers.

In sum, from the data presented here, we mayconclude that Plan CEIBAL has encompassed, in arelatively homogenous manner, the entire nationalterritory, both from the perspective of different areas(capital city, cities of the interior, small towns, andrural areas) and from the perspective of the differentdistricts that represent the political division of thecountry.



16. Canelones is, after Montevideo—the capital city—the second most populated district in Uruguay.

Table 2. Regional Distribution of the Population Living in CEIBAL Homes.

December 2010

Distribution of the populationliving in CEIBAL homes

Distribution of thetotal population

Montevideo 29.70% 38.10%

Cities of the interior (more than 5,000 inhabitants) 49.10% 42.80%

Cities of the interior (less than 5,000 inhabitants) 11.70% 10.60%

Rural areas 9.50% 8.50%

Source: Encuesta Continua de Hogares-INE

Table 3. Access to a Computer by Region and Type of Computer (Percentage Over the TotalPopulation of Each Region).

Source: Encuesta Continua de Hogares-INE (*includes Ceibalitas)

5.3. The Impact of Plan CEIBAL on thePlaces from Which the Internet can beAccessedTables 4 and 5 show the existing correlationbetween the places from which the Internet can beaccessed and the type of computers present inhouseholds. Again, we take into consideration thestate of things after the ªrst half of 2009 (Table 4)in order to verify any changes as of December 2010(Table 5).17

It follows that people who own a computer(although not one given under Plan CEIBAL) accessthe Internet from their homes, while those who donot have a computer at their homes access theInternet from cybercafés. This home-cybercafé usepolarization pattern could be observed in the twogeographical groups, and it was more pronouncedin the regions where Plan CEIBAL was not yet imple-mented (Montevideo and Canelones in the ªrst halfof 2009). The users at CEIBAL homes break this usepolarization, since priority access was transferred toeducational centers (and, in the cases of Montevi-deo and Canelones, also to households).

The role of the place from which the Internet isaccessed for information technology literacy is ahighly discussed issue among policy makers. On theone hand, Robinson (2001), among others, main-

tains that the abundance of cybercafés in Latin Amer-ica reºects the lack of public policies implemented bythe region’s countries, which leave the supply ofInternet access services to the market. What Robin-son is most concerned about is that the proliferationof cybercafés shows the consumption model of onlyspeciªc types of available tools, such as chat sites orservices; e-mail accounts; music services; and accessto pornography, favorite artists, and shoppingwebsites, underrates the potential of ICTs. On theother hand, Katzman’s work (2010) on the socialimpact of the incorporation of ICTs into educationalsystems in LAC, to which we referred earlier, alsostresses the importance of the places from which theInternet is accessed. The author concludes that accessto the Internet from educational centers may put thedifferent types of access from polarized economicstrata at the same level and compensate the less-favored sectors. This is, without question, the majorrole that Plan CEIBAL has had in Uruguay.

In addition to the access from educational cen-ters, a greater correlation between the persons fromCEIBAL homes and the use of the Internet in publicplaces can be observed. This certainly reºects theconnectivity policy of the plan, which prioritizes notonly educational centers, but also public places.These newly connected public places signify a differ-


PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

17. It should be noted that the columns in the tables do not total 100 because the places from which people accessthe Internet do not exclude each other, which means that people access the Internet from several places.

Table 4. Place From Which the Internet is Accessed by Type of Access to Computer and Region(Percentage of the Total Population Older than 5 years of Age in Each Region)

Source: Encuesta Continua de Hogares-INE (*unrepresentative data).

ent way of living in a neighborhood or town, whichcan be associated, in turn, with the reach of wirelessnetwork Internet connections. As we shall explainbelow in greater detail, public places thus becomenew learning and meeting places, especially for chil-dren, though they can also be used by adults whodo not have Internet connection at their homes.

To sum up, we may conclude that the data ana-lyzed reºect the ªrst impacts of this nationwide pol-icy. There are positive signs of Plan CEIBAL’s impacton the narrowing of the digital divide, since thedifªculty of accessing computers from the home hasbeen mitigated and the polarization of the placesfrom which the Internet is accessed (home-cybercafé) has been broken. This has happenedbecause educational centers have emerged as newprivileged access places, a strategy that constitutes apowerful mechanism to put people from polarizedsocioeconomic strata at the same level.

6. Use of Plan CEIBAL for HumanDevelopmentThis section analyzes the surveys conducted withlocal ofªcers and adults from CEIBAL homes. Thepurpose is to know what adults and children use theCeibalitas for in towns and neighborhoods—andspeciªcally, at their homes. Thus, we intend tounderstand the ways in which Plan CEIBAL hashelped to bridge the digital divide.

6.1 Plan CEIBAL at the Local LevelThe ªrst aspect that follows from all the surveysconducted is the impression caused by the meresight of children carrying their Ceibalitas, due to thestrong visual and symbolic impact implied. Childrenare frequently seen looking for places with wirelesssignal to access the Internet to play or listen tomusic online. This is an activity they perform eitheralone or accompanied by their peers or adults atschools, parks, and other public places.

This can be mainly observed in UBNs, since 67%of the persons surveyed from that backgroundexpressed that children are more frequently seen inpublic places with their Ceibalitas, especially inplaces with Internet connection. The same happenswith 59% of the persons surveyed from FBNs, whilein STs, the effects associated with public places areless signiªcant, since only 39% of those surveyedmade reference to it.

In these public gathering spaces, some interac-tions take place which were described by a parentfrom the city of Florida thusly: “Families go to thepark, adults talk and drink mate while children playand connect to the Internet. Children approachother children when they see that they have an XO.It serves as an excuse to meet new people.” Thisshows that this technology causes not only children,but also adults to socialize, and that in those inter-actions, personal and virtual experiences arecombined.



Table 5. Place From Which the Internet is Accessed by Type of Access to Computer and Region(Percentage of the Total Population Older than 5 years of Age in Each Region).

Source: Encuesta Continua de Hogares-INE.

This everyday experience that children have withtheir computers in public places causes people tochange the way they perceive the new possibilitiesthat are offered by the Ceibalitas. For instance, amother from an ST said: “Town children feel theyare exactly like city children.” Another motherexpressed that she had never thought that her childwould have a computer, because only people in cit-ies or with greater purchasing power could haveaccess to those goods. This perspective on theaccess to this type of goods, in turn, helps people tofeel that they have equality of opportunities andinclusion, which is also conªrmed by the localofªcers surveyed.

In a nutshell, the 1:1 feature of Plan CEIBALcauses public places to become new learning andmeeting places where children who have no Internetconnection at their homes can go to access net-works. This has a symbolic impact on the perceptionof opportunities and access to these goods by theless-favored sectors of society, and it also leads tochanges in what the neighborhood or city looks likein the eyes of its inhabitants. This is a particularcharacteristic that results from the ubiquitous aspectof the one-laptop-per-child policy.

6.2 Dynamics of Homes after theIncorporation of ICTsThe research work conªrms that Plan CEIBAL hasbeen clearly noticed in the home. More than half ofthe people surveyed mentioned some kind ofspeciªc change taking place at home since theimplementation of Plan CEIBAL. This was even moresigniªcant in homes in UBNs and STs, where approx-imately 60% of the total adults reported some sortof change. The homes in FBNs are the ones thatmentioned this kind of change the least (43%).According to those surveyed, this is because theyalready had access to computers and the Internet,which means that the incorporation of this tool wasnot a novelty for those homes.

Sharing information and the work jointly per-formed by children, parents, and other relativesthrough the XO were the two most highlightedaspects (51 out of the 102 people who observedchanges at their homes made reference to them). Inseveral households, the people surveyed (15 out of102) noted that they were more relaxed becausetheir children were kept amused with their laptops.However, this was also mentioned as a reason forconºict, because the use of the Ceibalita also gave

rise to arguments among siblings (20 out of 102).Other cited changes in the household included thefact that children stayed at home more, were moreentertained, and helped their siblings more. Further-more, the persons surveyed made reference tochanges in the rules and curfews imposed on chil-dren to establish limits and adjust computer uses.

After analyzing the explanations given by thepeople surveyed concerning the changes broughtabout in the home, it is clear that these were theresult of programs and applications of the XO, andof the new activities proposed at schools. In thatregard, the people surveyed stated that one of themost frequent uses of the XO at home was thesearch for educational materials. Audiovisual tools,such as cameras or music players, are also used.These activities are more signiªcant in the pooresthomes, since children from those backgrounds didnot have those tools before. In 37 cases, the peoplesurveyed stated that household members could nowcommunicate through the Ceibalita with relativesand acquaintances living outside the city or in othercountries (17 of those cases came from small towns,showing that, in these areas, the use is much morewidespread).

Finally, respondents also stated that children feelmore encouraged to learn and explore. Six respon-dents described it as a change in their home. Aspointed out by a mother, “They spend quite a lot oftime reading books in their XOs. They play morewith their XOs and have acquired a taste for musicthanks to the Tam Tam.” Another mother statedthat “[the children] are more into exploration. If theygo outside to the garden and see butterºies, thenthey go and search for information on them.”

The home dynamics were mainly modiªed due tothe children’s new habits and activities resultingfrom the use of the XO, either because of theinstructions given by school teachers, or because oftheir own curiosity. Access to new sources of infor-mation and communication and some new familybonds in terms of home cooperation and exchangeare also evidenced, as well as the existence ofconºicts among siblings concerning the use of thelaptops. Children have been especially affected bythis, since no changes are observed in the home asa result of the practices or habits of adults. It is clearthat the less-favored homes are the ones that havebeneªted the most from the distribution of thesetools.


PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

6.3 Uses and Advantages of the CeibalitaWith regard to the use and advantages of the XO,research has conªrmed that children are the mainusers of Plan CEIBAL laptops (90 surveyed childrenpointed out that they are the only users of theirlaptops, and only 57 of 192 persons reported thattheir parents also use them).

The ªrst relevant piece of information is that veryfew respondents have realized that the incorpora-tion of this technology into their homes has allowedthem to solve a problem or meet a need (theanswer of 140 out of 192 surveyed people was anemphatic “no”). The adults who use Ceibalitas doso to give support to their children, or to work orhelp them with their homework. This use isintensiªed when there is an Internet connection athome. Only 15 cases of use by adults for purposesof their own, for appropriation of the device, or forlearning purposes were recorded. The reasons werethe solution of employment or work issues; health,housing and public services issues; and cultural andentertainment purposes.

A thorough analysis of the answers given regard-ing why adults do not use the laptops shows thatthey do not believe that they would beneªt fromtheir use, and that they feel that spending time tolearn how to use them would be too large aninvestment. One of the reasons emphasized by oneof the adults surveyed was that “maybe we havenot considered it important,” which proves that theyare not aware of how useful this tool may be. Somemothers from UBNs and STs have argued that usingthe XO was difªcult for them, that they did notknow much about it, and that they were afraid totouch it and delete information or break it. How-ever, these mothers are homemakers, and as such,they are in permanent contact with their children,something that causes them to be more acquaintedwith the XOs than the children’s fathers, who arenot at home so many hours a day and have littlecontact with school activities.

In households in FBNs, however, the reason thatparents do not use the XO is their preference forstandard computers. They also mentioned that theyfound it difªcult to use the XO, because they werenot familiar with its operating system. Another rea-son cited was the fact that they considered theCeibalita to be the exclusive property of their chil-dren and not for adult use.

In all the cases analyzed, the use of the XO by

the children while not at school and at home wasprimarily for entertainment purposes. This mayinclude downloading games from websites, watch-ing videos, listening to music, ªlming, and takingpictures. As regards speciªc educational purposes, itwas veriªed that children do use their laptops tostudy when teachers or some adult encouragesthem to do so. Several parents have noted this dif-ference, since they have more than one child andcould observe that when teachers use the laptop,children use it, too—and when teachers do not useit, children do not use it, either. Furthermore, schoolwork requires that an adult person be involved tohelp children, and this causes them to getacquainted with that technology.

About 25% of those surveyed pointed out thatchildren have been more eager to learn and exploresince Plan CEIBAL was implemented. In favorablebackgrounds, this phenomenon has grown evenstronger, as a third of those respondents refer to itas a change experienced by children.

When asked if they consider that the plan hasfavored the education of children, the vast majorityof those surveyed (181 out of 192) replied that theyobserved positive impacts. Among the negativeanswers we ªnd those who claim that the Ceibalitais an outrage against traditional learning techniques(writing with pencil and paper, sketching maps,reading, among others). Some parents argued thatthe introduction of computers was not beneªcialbecause the children cannot access the Internetfrom their homes, while others maintained that theirchildren’s teacher did not use it, and as a result,their children only used them to play.

From the analysis of the answers given by par-ents concerning changes in the use of the Ceibalitaby their children throughout time, we could identifyan evolution with two different trends. On the onehand was the evolution of those who make anintensive initial use of the device that progressivelyweakens and ends in a less intense use; and on theother was the evolution of children who intensifythe use of their laptops with the passing of time.

According to the answers obtained in the surveysregarding how frequently and for what Ceibalitaswere used both before and now, most of the chil-dren from the surveyed homes (89 out of 146answers) have followed the ªrst trend. This meansthat after their initial enthusiasm, children havetended to use their laptops progressively less. Some



of the reasons for which the use of Ceibalitas is dis-continued or lessens in intensity are the repetitiveuse of the same applications, technical problems orbreakdowns, failure to use them at school, and thelack of Internet connection at home. The existenceof another computer at home also contributed tothis.

According to the second trend, children increasethe use of their laptops or maintain the intensity ofthe initial use (57 out of 146). Some of the reasonsfound for this is that children who continued usingtheir laptops for entertainment purposes sometimeschanged and upgraded the games they used, thattheir use was required at school or by their teachers,that the uses were diverse and not for entertain-ment purposes only, and that these children whoseuse has not dropped off either have Internet con-nection at their homes or live in homes that arelocated near a place with Internet connection.Moreover, what children who have shown this trendhave in common is that they belong to householdsthat were not equipped with computers before PlanCEIBAL was implemented, and that they live inUBNs or STs.

In a word, it follows from the data analyzed thatthe use of Ceibalitas by adults is not a signiªcantaspect of acquisition and human developmentprocesses.

Additionally, the availability of Ceibalitas consti-tutes an important educational resource, especiallyto access material and information and increase themotivation for learning. In turn, the differentiatedtrends in the evolution of the use of Ceibalitas bychildren show how important encouragement byeducational centers or adults in the child’s back-ground is to consolidate the meaningful use of com-puters and contribute to the narrowing of the digitaldivide.

7. ConclusionsThe purpose of this article is to show the extent towhich a one-laptop-per-child initiative like PlanCEIBAL, implemented in Uruguay in 2007, has bothhelped to narrow the digital divide and increasedthe use of ICTs for human development.

We found that Plan CEIBAL has contributed tothe bridging of the digital divide in terms of thepossibility to access computers and the Internetfrom educational centers. Laptops have been distrib-

uted homogeneously throughout the Uruguayanterritory, including small towns and rural areas.

The implementation of Plan CEIBAL has brokenthe polarization of the places from which theInternet can be accessed (homes as opposed tocybercafés), since it has facilitated access from edu-cational centers and new public places. This is veryimportant, since we know that access to theInternet from educational centers is a powerfulmechanism that puts children from polarized eco-nomic strata at the same level. Furthermore, thiswork also veriªed the creation of public places forgathering, information exchange, and cooperationpurposes, and also for learning through ICTs. Theseobservations lead us to wonder whether the indica-tors of Internet connectivity at households and edu-cational centers are sufªcient to account for theaccess and use of computers by part of a speciªcpopulation inºuenced by one-laptop-per-child uni-versal public policies.

The use of XO in CEIBAL homes is proof of thedigital inclusion of the least favored sectors of soci-ety. This resource mitigates inequalities associatedwith access to information and communications,which causes opportunities to arise mainly for thesocioeconomically, culturally, and geographicallyless-favored sectors. The use of Ceibalitas showslearning beneªts for children, and even thoughadults also use them, they do so to a lesser extent.The ubiquitous nature of this technology translatesinto the gathering of children with laptops at publicplaces, which is seen as a symbol of inclusion andequality in society.

Finally, despite universal access to laptops andthe possibility to access the Internet from theirhomes, the children who use this technology in ameaningful way for self-development have provento be those who have the support, guidance, andencouragement of adults. Without such support,children may cease to use their laptops or may onlydo so for entertainment purposes.

These conclusions conªrm that even mere accessto laptops can make an enormous contribution tohuman development in excluded populations, assuch access facilitates further access to communica-tion and information. It also consolidates the rela-tionship between digital inequalities and other typesof inequalities, and shows that unfavorable back-ground neighborhoods or cities are those where thebeneªcial uses for human development encounter


PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

more difªculties. In the case under analysis, we canobserve that the contribution that the one-laptop-per-child policy makes to narrow the digital dividemay be a very small one if the target populationdoes not receive additional stimuli and support. Ifschools fail to fulªll their roles—especially those inthe least favored areas—children may not make themost of the opportunities that this policy gives themthrough the access to computers and Internet con-nectivity. ■

ReferencesAccuosto, P., & Johnson, N. (2004). Financing the in-

formation society in the south: A global publicgoods perspective. Prepared for the Associationfor Progressive Communications (APC) by theThird World Institute. Retrieved from http://www.apc.org/en/system/ªles/ªnancing.pdf

Afonso, C., & Soarez, L. (2005). Desenvolvimentohumano e a apropriação das TICs [Human Devel-opment and ICTs Appropriation]. Available atCGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil)[Internet Management Committee of Brazil].Pesquisa sobre o uso das tecnologias dainformação e da comunicação 2005 [2005 re-search on the use of information and communi-cations technologies]. São Paulo, 2006 (pp. 27–30).

Attwell, P. (2001). The ªrst and second digital di-vides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259.

Camacho, K. (2001). Internet: ¿Una herramientapara el cambio social? Elementos para una discu-sión necesaria [Internet: A tool for social change?Elements for a necessary discussion]. Retrievedfrom http://www.sulabatsu.com/publicaciones/internet-%C2%BFuna-herramienta-para-el-cambio-social-elementos-para-una-discusi%C3%B3n-necesaria

Castells, M., Tubella, I., Sancho, T., Díaz, M., &Wellman, B. (2007). Proyecto Internet Catalunya:La sociedad red en Catalunya. [Catalonia InternetProject: The network society in Catalonia]. Re-trieved from http://www.uoc.edu/in3/pic/esp/sociedad_red/informe.html

CEIBAL. (2010). El proyecto pedágico [The pedagog-ical project]. Retrieved from http://www.ceibal

.edu.uy/Articulos/Paginas/Ceibal%20%20El%20proyecto%20pedag%C3%B3gico.aspx

Cortés, J., & Dubois, A. (2005). Nuevas tecnologíasde la comunicación para el desarrollo humano[New communication technologies for humandevelopment]. Retrieved from http://biblioteca.hegoa.ehu.es/system/ebooks/15190/original/Cuaderno_de_trabajo_37.pdf

Garibaldi, L., & Ibarra, M. (2011). Plan CEIBAL:Mucho más que distribución de computadoras,La Educ@ción [Plan CEIBAL: Not just the meredistribution of laptops, Educ@tion]. Revista Digi-tal, No. 145, May, Organization of AmericanStates. Retrieved from http://www.educoas.org/portal/La_Educacion_Digital/laeducacion_145/studies/EyEP_garibaldi_ES.pdf

Gascó-Hernández, M., Equiza-Lopez, F., & Acevedo-Ruiz, M. (2007). Information communicationtechnologies and human development: Opportu-nities and challenges. Hershey, PA: Idea GroupPublishing.

Gómez, R., Delgadillo, K., & Stoll, K. (2003). Tele-centros . . . ¿Para qué? Lecciones sobre telecen-tros comunitarios en América Latina y el Caribe[Telecenters . . . what for? Lessons on communitytelecenters in Latin America and the Caribbean].Montevideo, Uruguay: Fundación Chasquinet,IDRC.

Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet access and use in con-text. New Media and Society, 6(1), 115–121.

Katzman, R. (2010, October). Impacto social de laincorporación de las nuevas tecnologías de infor-mación y comunicación (TIC) en el sistema educa-tivo [Social impact of the incorporation of newinformation and communication technologies(ICTs) into the educational system]. ECLAC, SocialDevelopment Division, Serie Políticas SocialesNo. 166, Santiago, Chile, October 2010.

Mansell, R. (2002). From digital divides to digitalentitlements in knowledge societies. CurrentSociology, 50(3), 407–426.

Martínez, J. (2001). Internet y políticas públicassocialmente relevantes: ¿Por qué, cómo y en quéincidir? [The Internet and socially relevant publicpolicies: Why, how and on what should weinºuence?]. In M. Bonilla and G. Cliche (Eds.),



Internet y sociedad en América Latina y el Caribe[Internet and society in Latin America and theCaribbean]. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO-IDRC.

Mística, Comunidad Virtual Mística. (2002). Comuni-dad virtual trabajando la Internet con visión so-cial. En otro lado de la brecha: Perspectivaslatinoamericanas y del Caribe ante la CMSI [Vir-tual community working the Internet with a so-cial vision. On the other side of the divide:Perspectives in Latin America and the Caribbeanbefore the World Summit on the Information So-ciety (WSIS)]. Caracas, Venezuela: RedISTIC.

Plan CEIBAL. (2011). Segundo informe nacional demonitoreo y evaluación del plan CEIBAL [Secondnational monitoring and assessment report onPlan CEIBAL]. Departamento de Monitoreo yEvaluación del Plan CEIBAL [Department of Moni-toring and Assessment of the Plan CEIBAL]. Re-trieved from http://www.CEIBAL.org.uy/docs/Segundo-informe-nacional-de-monitoreo-y-evaluacion-del-Plan-CEIBAL-2010.pdf

ReducaWIKI. (n.d.). Proyecto OLPC-Plan Ceibal. Re-trieved from http://www.reducativa.com/wiki2/index.php?title�Proyecto_OLPC_-_Plan_Ceibal

Rivoir, A., Pittaluga, L., di Landri, F., Baldizán, S., &Escuder, S. (2010). El Plan Ceibal: Impacto comu-nitario e inclusión social [Plan Ceibal: Communityimpact and social inclusion]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.observatic.edu.uy/inicio?p�437

Robinson, S. (2001). Conferencia: El jardín de lossenderos: Caminos que se bifurcan [Conference:The road garden: Forks-in-the-road]. Retrievedfrom http://www.eslared.org.ve/articulos/scott/scottconferencia.pdf

Sassi, S. (2005). Cultural differentiation or social seg-regation? Four approaches to the digital divide.New Media & Society, 7(5), 684–700.

Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popu-lar understanding of the digital divide. New Me-dia & Society, 6(3), 341–362.

Sen, A. (2000). Desarrollo y libertad [Developmentand freedom]. Barcelona: Editorial Planeta.

Severin, E., & Capote, C. (2010). Modelos uno auno en América Latina y el Caribe: Panorama yperspectivas [One-laptop-per-child models inLatin America and the Caribbean: Overview andperspectives]. Washington, DC: Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank (IDB).

Stewart, C., Gil-Egui, G., Tian, Y., & Pileggi, M. I.(2006). Framing the digital divide: a comparisonof U.S. and EU policy approaches. New Media &Society, 8(5), 731–751.

Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1986). Introducción a losmétodos cualitativos en investigación [An intro-duction to qualitative research methods]. Barce-lona: Paidós.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).(2001). Informe sobre desarrollo humano 2001:Poner el adelanto tecnológico al servicio deldesarrollo humano [Human Development Report2001: Making new technologies work for humandevelopment]. Washington, DC: UNDP.

Valles, M. (1997). Técnicas cualitativas de investiga-ción social: Reºexión metodológica y prácticaprofesional [Social research qualitative techni-ques: Methodological reºection and professionalpractice]. Madrid: Síntesis SA.

Veiga, D., & Rivoir, A. (2004). Desigualdades socialesen el Uruguay [Social inequalities in Uruguay]. Ed.Fac. Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de laRepública, Montevideo.

Warschauser, M. (2003). Technology and social in-clusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.


PITTALUGA, RIVOIR

tsclientcwellington work - appropriating...

Documents