Advertisement

Contextualized-OLPC education project in rural India: measuring learning impact and mediation of computer self-efficacy

  • Komathi Ale
  • Yvonne Ai-Chi Loh
  • Arul Chib
Cultural and Regional Perspectives

Abstract

The One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative has been at the forefront of introducing low-cost computers in developing countries. We argue that the problem is not as much as a focus on the provision of affordable technologies, but the lack of consideration of deeply contextualized implementation design and the lack of understanding of psychological mechanisms at the user-level that influence learning impact. A longitudinal quasi-experimental design among nine rural Indian primary schools involved pre- and post- experiment measures conducted with both test (n = 126) and control groups (n = 79). The study objective was to prioritize local contexts during technology implementation design in order to attain educational impact in terms of improved learning outcomes for students. The Contextualized-OLPC education project utilized strategies identified by the Technology-Community-Management model to address contextually germane factors of teacher training, unbiased gender access, and local language use. A second objective was to assess impact of technology introduction while countering extant techno-determinist approaches of impact assessment. We first demonstrated that technological knowledge was associated positively with functional literacy. We situated the experiment in the social cognitive theory to demonstrate that computer self-efficacy mediates the relationship between technological literacy attained as a consequence of the Contextualized-OLPC education project and a specific learning outcome, functional literacy. Overall, the research illustrated that giving primacy to mere deployment of OLPC laptops has limited relevance to children, both in use and outcome. In support, the results demonstrated the role of contextualized technology in rural classrooms alongside an understanding of user psychology that influence learning impact.

Keywords

ICT Education Computer self-efficacy Evaluation Contextualized implementation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the local team from Unified Development and Academic Activities Network (UDAAN) Foundation. We are especially thankful to UDAAN’s Founder and Chairperson, Dr. Veena Sethi, for her tremendous support to make this ICTD research study in India possible. We also wish to thank OLPC India for its support. This work was supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) under the SIRCA Grant administered by the Singapore Internet Research Centre (SiRC).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abrahamson, K., Arling, P., & Gillette, J. (2013). Does self-efficacy influence the application of evidence-based practice: A survey and structural equation model. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 3(5), 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Adetoro, N., Simisaye, A. O., & Oyefuga, A. B. (2010). Relationship between perceived self-efficacy and information literacy among library and information science undergraduates in a Nigerian university of education. IFE PsychologIA, 18(2), 172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2015). Gender and socioeconomic related differences in performance based ICT competences. Computers & Education, 84, 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communication technology. International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 77–104.Google Scholar
  5. Ait, K., et al. (2015). Students’ self-efficacy and values based on a 21st century vision of scientific literacy: A pilot study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 491–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akin, A., & Kurbanoglu, I. N. (2011). The relationships between math anxiety, math attitudes, and self-efficacy: A structural equation model. Studia Psychologica, 53(3), 263–273.Google Scholar
  7. Ale, K., & Chib, A. (2011). Community factors in technology adoption in primary education: Perspectives from rural India. Information Technologies International Development, 7(4), 53–68.Google Scholar
  8. Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suarez-Rodríguez, J., & Díaz-García, I. (2016). Teachers’ information and communication technology competences: A structural approach. Computers & Education, 100(1), 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Amiel, T. (2006). Mistaking computers for technology: Technology literacy and the digital divide. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 14(3), 235–256.Google Scholar
  10. Andrews, D. (2013). iPads in the classroom: Embedding technology in the primary curriculum. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/mar/06/ipad-ipod-technology-primary-curriculum
  11. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Bandura, A. (1982). The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 13, 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Bandura, A. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 3–38). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  16. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  17. Bandura, A. (2003). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  18. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1–43). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 94–124). MahwaH, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Barrera-Osorio, F., & Linden, L. L. (2009). The use and misuse of computers in education: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Colombia. Policy research working paper series 4836. USA: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  22. Bartimote-Aufflick, K., et al. (2015). The study, evaluation, and improvement of university student self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bernard, R. H. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. MD: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar
  24. Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Technology in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.financialexpress.com/news/technology-in-the-classroom/902435/
  25. Bhola, H. S. (1995). Functional literacy, workplace literacy and technical and vocational education: Interfaces and policy perspectives. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  26. Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.Google Scholar
  27. Burn, E., & Pratt-Adams, S. (2016). Men teaching children 3–11: Dismantling gender barriers. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Byker, E. J. (2014). Sociotechnical narratives in rural, high-poverty elementary schools: Comparative findings from East Texas and South India. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 10(2), 29–40.Google Scholar
  29. Carrasco, M. R., & Torrecilla, J. M. (2012). Learning environments with technological resources: a look at their contribution to student performance in Latin American elementary schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1107–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cartelli, A. (2013). Fostering 21st century digital literacy and technical competency. PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Castells, M., & Himanen, P. (Eds.). (2014). Reconceptualizing development in the global information age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Chib, A. (2010). The Aceh Besar midwives with mobile phones project: Design and evaluation perspectives using the information and communication technologies for healthcare development model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(3), 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chib, A., & Ale, K. (2009). Extending the technology-community-management model to disaster recovery: Assessing vulnerability in rural asia. Proceedings of the 3rd International IEEE/ACM Conference on Information and Communications Technologies and Development (ICTD) (pp. 328–336). Doha, Qatar.Google Scholar
  35. Chib, A., & Zhao, J. (2009). Sustainability of ICT interventions: Lessons from rural projects in China and India. In L. Harter & M. J. Dutta (Eds.), Communicating for Social Impact: Engaging Communication Theory, Research, and Pedagogy (pp. 145–159). Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  36. Chu, R. J., & Chu, A. Z. (2010). Multi-level analysis of peer support, Internet self-efficacy and e-learning outcomes – The contextual effects of collectivism and group potency. Computers & Education, 55, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Coombe, C. (1992). The relationship between self-assessment ratings of functional literacy skills and basic English skills test results in adult refugee ESL learners. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation).Google Scholar
  39. Cristia, J., Ibarrarán, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severín, E. (2012). Technology and child development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child program. Working paper IDB-WP-304. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  40. Derndorfer, C. (2010). OLPC in Uruguay: Impressions of Plan Ceibal’s primary school XO Laptop saturation. Retrieved from https://edutechdebate.org/olpc-in-south-america/olpc-in-uruguay-impressions-of-plan-ceibal/
  41. Dlodlo, N. (2009). Access to ICT education for girls and women in rural South Africa: A case study. Technology in Society, 31(2), 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(18), 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Echeverría, A., et al. (2011). A framework for the design and integration of collaborative classroom games. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1127–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Elwood, J., & MacLean, G. R. (2009). ICT usage and student perceptions in Cambodia and Japan. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 65–82.Google Scholar
  45. Ertmer, P., Evenbeck, E., Cennamo, K., & Lehman, J. (1994). Enhancing self-efficacy for computer technologies through the use of positive classroom experiences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ferrando, M., et al. (2011). Una Primer Evaluación de los Efectos del Plan CEIBAL en Base a Datos de Panel (A first assessment of the effects of Plan Ceibal in panel data base). Montevideo, Uruguay: Instituto de Economía de la FCEydeA.Google Scholar
  47. Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fiorini, M. (2010). The effect of home computer use on children’s cognitive and non-cognitive skills. Economics of Education Review, 29(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Flores, P., & Hourcade, J. P. (2009). Under development: One year of experiences with XO laptop in Uruguay. Interactions, 16(4), 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Garba, S. A., Byabazaire, Y., & Busthami, A. H. (2015). Toward the use of 21st century teaching-learning approaches: The trend of development in Malaysian schools within the context of Asia Pacific. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10(4), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Georgsen, M., & Zander, P. (Eds.). (2013). Changing education through ICT in developing countries. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ghonsooly, B., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2013). Self-efficacy and self-regulation and their relationship: A study of Iranian EFL teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 41(1), 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gill, T. G. (2009). Technology in the classroom. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), Management learning, education and development (pp. 213–230). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Glewwe, P. (2013). Overview of education issues in developing countries. In P. Glewwe (Ed.), Education policy in developing countries (pp. 1–12). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. A. (2012). The nonexperimental and quasi-experimental research strategies. In F. J. Gravetter & L.-A. B. Forzano (Eds.), Research methods for the behavioral sciences (pp. 333–360). Wadsworth, Canada: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  56. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., O’Halloran, S., & Romac, D. (1990). The effects of verbal and mathematics task performance on task and career self-efficacy and interest. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hansen, N., et al. (2012). Laptop usage affects abstract reasoning of children in the developing world. Computers & Education, 59, 989–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Heeks, R., & Molla, A. (2009). Compendium on impact assessment of ICT-for-Development projects. Development informatics working paper series, No.36/2009. Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management.Google Scholar
  60. Hinostroza, E., Jara, I., & Brun, M. (2011). Case study: Uruguay. In R. Kozma (Ed.), Transforming education: The power of ICT policies (pp. 133–172). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  61. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(1), 1648–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hollow, D., & Masperi, P. (2009). An evaluation of the use of ICT within primary education in Malawi. Presented at the Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD), 2009 International Conference, Doha, 17–19 April 2009.Google Scholar
  63. Hsia, J. W., Chang, C. C., & Tseng, A. H. (2014). Effects of individuals’ locus of control and computer self-efficacy on their e-learning acceptance in high-tech companies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(1), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Huang, C. (2012). Discriminant and incremental validity of self-concept and academic self-efficacy: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 32(6), 777–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. infoDev. (2010). Quick guide: Low-cost computing devices and initiatives for the developing world. India: infoDev.Google Scholar
  66. Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Jegede, P. O. (2007). Computer attitudes as correlation of computer self-efficacy among South-Western Nigerian higher education teachers. Paper presented at Sixth International Internet Education Conference, Cairo, Egypt, September 2–4, 2007.Google Scholar
  68. Jones-Kavalier, B., & Flannigan, S. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Educause Quarterly, 2, 8–10.Google Scholar
  69. Kabakci Yurdakul, I., & Coklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 30(4), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kapucu, S., & Bahçivan, E. (2015). High school students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy in learning physics and attitudes toward physics: A structural equation model. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Karami, M., Karami, Z., & Attaran, M. (2013). Integrating problem-based learning with ICT for developing trainee teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skill. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
  72. Kennedy, G. E., et al. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Khani, R., & Mirzaee, A. (2015). How do self-efficacy, contextual variables and stressors affect teacher burnout in an EFL context? Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 35(1), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kher, H. V., Downey, J. P., & Monk, E. (2013). A longitudinal examination of computer self-efficacy change trajectories during training. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1816–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kingir, S., Tas, Y., Gok, G., & Vural, S. S. (2013). Relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, motivational beliefs, self-regulation and science achievement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kleine, D., Hollow, D., & Poveda, S. (2014). Children, ICT and development: Capturing the potential, meeting the challenges. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research.Google Scholar
  77. Kozma, R. B., & Vota, W. S. (2014). ICT in developing countries: Policies, implementation, and impact. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 885–894). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kurbanoglu, S. S. (2003). Self-efficacy: A concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 730–743.Google Scholar
  80. Lang, J. M., Waterman, J., & Baker, B. L. (2009). Computeen: A randomized trial of a preventive computer and psychosocial skills curriculum for at-risk adolescents. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Leaning, M. (2010). The One Laptop per Child Project and the problems of technology-led educational development. In I. R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High-techtots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 231–248). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  82. Lee, S. & Chib, A. (2008). Wireless initiatives for connecting rural areas: Developing a framework. In N. Carpentier & B. De Cleen (Eds.), Participation and media production. Critical reflections on content creation (pp. 113–128). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  83. Leino, K. (2014). The relationship between ICT use and reading literacy. Retrieved from https://ktl.jyu.fi/julkaisut/julkaisuluettelo/julkaisut/2014/t030.pdf
  84. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.Google Scholar
  85. Li, Z. (2014). Rethinking the relationship between learner, learning contexts, and technology: a critique and exploration of Archer’s morphogenetic approach. Learning, Media and Technology, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17439884.2014.978336
  86. Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting cognitive engagement, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Liou, P. Y., & Kuo, P. J. (2014). Validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation towards technology learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Literacy House. (1967). Definitions and concept of functional literacy: An analysis and interpretation. Research Studies, 2, 1–85.Google Scholar
  89. Lowther, D. L., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. A., & Bates, J. (2007). Freedom to learn program. Michigan 20052006 Evaluation Report. Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, USA. Retrieved from http://www.memphis.edu/crep/pdfs/michighan_freedom_to_learn_laptop_program.pdf
  90. Martino, J. (2010). One laptop per child and Uruguay’s Plan Ceibal: Impact on special education. Dissertation, University of Guelph, Canada.Google Scholar
  91. Martins, C. B. M. J., Steil, A. V., & Todesco, J. L. (2004). Factors influencing the adoption of the internet as a teaching tool at foreign language schools. Computers & Education, 42, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W., Jr. (2013). An expanded self is a more capable self: The association between self-concept size and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 12, 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Mejia, F. (2014). Laptops, children and Darth Vader. Retrieved from http://blogs.iadb.org/desarrolloefectivo_en/2014/09/19/laptops-children-darth-vader/
  94. Melo, G., Machado, A., & Miranda, A. (2014). The Impact of a One Laptop per Child Program on Learning: Evidence from Uruguay. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp8489.pdfGoogle Scholar
  95. Mills-Tettey, G. A. et al. (2009). Improving child literacy in Africa: Experiments with an automated reading tour. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=robotics
  96. Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(4), 893–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Nugroho, D., & Lonsdale, M. (2009). Evaluation of OLPC programs globally: A literature review. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  99. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  100. OECD. (2010). Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA. Paris: CERI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Olivera, P., Ale, K., & Chib, A. (2015). (Un)Balanced conversations in participatory action research: Technology design and development in Peruvian primary schools. In A. Chib, J. May & R. Barrantes (Eds.), Impact of Information Society Research in the Global South (pp. 147–165). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  102. OLPC. (2014). About the project: Countries. Retrieved from http://one.laptop.org/about/countries
  103. Ottestad, G. (2010). Innovative pedagogical practice with ICT in three Nordic countries - differences and similarities. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(6), 478–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Pal, J., et al. (2009). The case of the occasionally cheap computer: Low-cost devices and classrooms in the developing regions. Information Technologies & International Development, 5(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
  106. Paran, A., & Williams, E. (2007). Editorial: reading and literacy in developing countries. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Technology Teacher, 62(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
  108. Pillai, P. P. (2014). Life in India: Culture. India: Ponram.Google Scholar
  109. Pischetola, M. (2011). Digital media and learning evolution: A research on sustainable local empowerment. Global Media Journal, 11(18), 1–11.Google Scholar
  110. Potosky, D. (2002). A field study of computer efficacy beliefs as an outcome of training: The role of computer playfulness, computer knowledge, and performance during training. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Prime, G. (1998). Tailoring assesment of technological literacy learning. The Journal of Technology Studies, 24(1), 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Psetizki, V. (2009). Laptop for every pupil in Uruguay. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8309583.stm
  113. Quadir, I., & Negroponte, N. (2009). Developing and using indicators of ICT use in education. Phone versus laptop: Which is a more effective tool for development? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 4(1), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Reicher, S., & Taylor, S. (2005). Dialoguing across divisions: Similarities and differences between traditions. The Psychologist, 18(9), 547–549.Google Scholar
  115. Richardson, J. W. (2011). Technology adoption in Cambodia: Measuring factors impacting adoption rates. Journal of International Development, 23(5), 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Richardson, J. W., Nash, J. B., & Flora, K. L. (2014). Unsystematic technology adoption in Cambodia: Students’ perceptions of computer and internet use. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 10(2), 63–76.Google Scholar
  117. Richtel, M. (2012). Technology changing how students learn, teachers say. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/education/technology-is-changing-how-students-learn-teachers-say.html?_r=0
  118. Rogers, E. M., & Herzog, W. (1966). Functional literacy among Colombian peasants. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 14, 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Ryan, J. (1995). Functional literacy. In T. L. Harris & R. E. Hodges (Eds.), The literacy dictionary. The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  120. Saariluoma, P., & Oulasvirta, A. (2010). User psychology: Re-assessing the boundaries of a discipline. Psychology, 1, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Saleh, H. K. (2008). Computer self-efficacy of university faculty in Lebanon. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Santiago, A. (2010). Experimental evaluation of the ‘‘Una Laptop Por Nino’ program in Peru (IDB Briefly Noted No.5). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  123. Savage, N. (2012). PC sales decline, laptops evolve. Communications of the ACM, 55(12), 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. School Education Government of Uttarakhand. (2015). Demography. Retrieved from http://www.schooleducation.uk.gov.in/pages/display/96-demography
  125. Schulte, B. (2015). (Dis) Empowering technologies: ICT for education (ICT4E) in China, past and present. Chinese Journal of Communication, 8(1), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(4), 207–231.Google Scholar
  127. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied evidence. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 115–138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  128. Sivandani, A., Koohbanani, S. E., & Vahidi, T. (2013). The relation between social support and self-efficacy with academic achievement and school satisfaction among female junior high school students in Birjand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Streatfield, D., & Markless, S. (2008). Evaluating the impact of information literacy in higher education: Progress and prospects. LIBRI, 58(2), 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sundaram, A., & Vanneman, R. (2008). Gender differentials in literacy in India: The intriguing relationship with women’s labor force participation. World Development, 36(1), 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Szewkis, E., et al. (2010). Collaboration between large groups in the classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 1042–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Thang, S. M., & Wong, S. L. (2010). Impact of ICT on teaching and learning in Asia: Focusing on emerging trends, patterns and practice. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 6(3), 3–6.Google Scholar
  135. Tilfarlioglu, F., & Ciftci, F. (2011). Supporting self-efficacy and learner autonomy in relation to academic success in EFL classrooms (a case study). Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(10), 1284–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Tømte, C. (2011). Challenging our views on ICT, gender and education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 309–324.Google Scholar
  137. Torgerson, C., & Zhu, D. (2003). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on literacy learning in English, 5–16. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  138. Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X., & Pflughoeft, K. (2003). Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(2), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Toyama, K. (2015). Geek heresy: rescuing social change from the cult of technology. NY: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  140. Traxler, J. (2010). Will student devices deliver innovation, inclusion and transformation? Journal of the Research Centre for Educational Technologies, 6(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  141. UNESCO. (2007a). ICT in teacher education: Case studies from the Asia-Pacific region. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  142. UNESCO. (2007b). Samvidha: Making internet content available to rural schools in India. Bangkok: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  143. UNESCO. (2008) The global literacy challenge. France, Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/GAW2009/TheGlobalLiteracyChallenge.pdf
  144. UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002134/213475e.pdfGoogle Scholar
  145. UNESCO. (2012). ICT in primary education: Analytical survey. Moscow, Russian Federation: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.Google Scholar
  146. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). Adult and youth literacy UIS Fact sheet. Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.Google Scholar
  147. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2009). (2009). Human development report. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  148. United Nations. (2011). Measuring the impacts of information and communication technology for development. Switzerland: United Nations. Retrieved from http://unctad.org/en/docs/dtlstict2011d1_en.pdf
  149. Makwana, R. (2011). Poor education for poor: Can vouchers be the answer in Gujarat, India. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 3(3), 721–742.Google Scholar
  150. USAID. (2008). Education from a gender equality perspective. Retrieved from http://www.ungei.org/resources/files/Education_from_a_Gender_Equality_Perspective.pdf
  151. Uzuntiryaki, E., & Capa Aydin, Y. (2009). Development and validation of chemistry self-efficacy scale for college students. Research in Science Education, 39, 539–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Vanderlinde, R., Aesaert, K., & Van Braak, J. (2014). Institutionalised ICT use in primary education: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 72, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Vanessa, C. W. T., Huimin, M. L., Rodricks, R. M., Jiao-Lei, C. Q., & Chib, A. (2012). Adoption, usage and impact of Family Folder Collection (FFC) on a mobile Android tablet device in rural Thailand. In ICoCMTD. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  154. Vekiri, I. (2012). Users and experts: Greek primary teachers’ views about boys, girls, ICTs and computing. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Villanueva-Mansilla, E., & Olivera, P. (2012). Institutional barriers to development innovation: Assessing the implementation of XO-1 computers in two Peri-urban schools in Peru. Information Technologies & International Development, 8(4), 177–189.Google Scholar
  156. Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers & Education, 45, 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A Call to Action. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Wang, M. T., et al. (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in STEM career choice. Psychological Science, 24, 770–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can One Laptop per Child save the world’s poor? Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
  160. Warschauer, M., Cotten, S. R., & Ames, M. G. (2012). One laptop per child Birmingham: Case study of a radical experiment. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(2), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Warschauer, M., & Newhart, V. A. (2016). Broadening our concepts of universal access. Universal Access in the Information Society, 15, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Wartella, E. A., & Jennings, N. (2000). Children and computers: New technology, old concerns. The Future of Children: Children and computer technology, 10(2), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Wastiau, P., et al. (2013). The use of ICT in education: a survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Wood, C., Pillinger, C., & Jackson, E. (2010). Understanding the nature and impact of young readers’ literacy interactions with talking books and during adult reading support. Computers & Education, 54(1), 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Yola, E. W. (2014, July 7). Using technology for education in Nigeria: A tablet a day. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2014/07/using-technology-education-nigeria
  166. Zhao, J. (2008). The Internet and rural development in China: The socio-structural paradigm. Bern: Peter Lang AG.Google Scholar
  167. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., & Farkas, G. (2013). Digital writing and diversity: The effects of school laptop programs on literacy processes and outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(3), 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations