Two visions for EdTech: Lessons from yesterday for the technology of tomorrow

Two big initiatives emerged 20 years ago to help underprivileged kids access technology: One Laptop per Child (OLPC) and Hole in the Wall. OLPC gave each child their own laptop, while Hole in the Wall put one computer in a community for all to share.

Today, we're still debating educational tech. We're also facing new questions about AI in learning. Looking at these past efforts could give us fresh insights.

Two visions for EdTech

The OLPC initiative was started by Nicholas Negroponte, former director of MIT Media Labs, in 2005. The idea was that a low-cost tablet full of learning materials could transform learning opportunities. The key was to ensure each child had their own device. This idea generated a huge buzz around the potential of this technology. Millions of laptops were eventually shipped to children around the world, though the vision of providing hundreds of millions of laptops was never achieved.

At that time in India, Sugata Mitra came up with a similar idea but with a different and cheaper approach. The Hole in the Wall initiative placed kiosks in school playgrounds with two or three computers that could be used by the entire school. It was a simple but ingenious idea: put a hole in the wall separating Prof. Mitra’s office from a bordering slum, insert a monitor, keyboard and mouse facing the slum, and watch what happens. Later, kiosks were placed in diverse and often remote locations throughout India and usage was tracked through computer logs and screenshots, and in some locations through direct observation.

Comparing the two models

We are writing this comparison as people who have been closely involved in EdTech initiatives for many years. We outline some takeaways when comparing these two models:

1. Shared vs. individual devices: Both initiatives offer valuable insights into the debate around individual vs. shared devices. While OLPC promotes deeper exploration and enables personalized learning, cost is a crucial consideration for both purchasing and maintenance. Hole in the Wall highlights the power of collaborative learning, but risks replicating existing social inequalities. Shared computer usage allowed children to learn with and from each other and pick up digital skills more quickly. However, as they were unsupervised, the kiosks perpetuated or even accentuated existing divides—including gender (boys usually dominated the use of the kiosks), caste (for instance, in one location children from a historically marginalized Dalit community were excluded), as well as digital literacy and linguistic divides (favoring those proficient in English and possessing the most advanced computer skills).

2. Learning beyond devices: Both initiatives showcase that access to devices alone is insufficient for effective learning. Connectivity, quality digital learning platforms and content, accessibility, teacher training and support, curriculum integration, digital literacy, and social dynamics all play crucial roles. The “one size fits all” approach doesn't work. (The World Bank has documented the OLPC and its impact in learning.) Interestingly, Hole in the Wall demonstrated that offline usage could lead to students learning when there is no supervision. In the absence of connectivity, children could use only the installed educational games or apps.

3. The power of learning communities: Despite their differences, both OLPC and Hole in the Wall—also analyzed by several World Bank publications—underscore the importance of creating and nurturing learning communities. Whether through shared devices or individual ones, fostering collaboration, peer-to-peer learning, and supportive environments can enhance educational outcomes and enrich the learning experience.

4. Equity and inclusion: Both initiatives highlight the risk of technology exacerbating existing inequalities. Bridging the digital divide demands a multifaceted approach. Marginalized communities face unique challenges, from limited internet connectivity to language barriers and a lack of social capital. These barriers can create divides within and across communities. Inclusivity requires active community involvement and tailoring solutions to ensure equitable access and relevance for all learners, regardless of background.

5. Supervised and unsupervised use of computers: Hole in the Wall accentuated both the flaws and promises of unsupervised use of computers for learning. At its best, children collaborated on educational activities, picked up digital skills from each other and developed their creativity and out-of-the box thinking—for example, writing one’s name using electrical circuits, switches and lightbulbs in a game teaching electricity.

What are the lessons for EdTech and AI today?

There are certainly many benefits to collaborative, shared use of devices, suggesting that a low device-to-learner ratio is not necessary, especially in resource constrained environments. Hole in the Wall has also shown that children are adept at picking up digital skills quickly and from their peers, even without formal guidance or supervision. A balance needs to be found to mitigate the negative effects of unsupervised use, so some form of guidance and facilitation is necessary, not least to ensure equal opportunities to benefit from technology and to not exacerbate existing inequalities of access and use.

Just as we have learned with devices and connectivity, AI will not magically transform learning. Rather than focusing solely on gadgets we need to see how they fit into the bigger educational picture. Like these device-led initiatives, AI shouldn’t be considered as an automated, stand-alone technology, but one that needs to be integrated in learning environments with adult supervision and guidance. While self-learning is an essential skill that learners require, it must be balanced with the ability to work collaboratively.

Like past tech, AI has potential to help but could widen the gap between students. Policies that promote AI fluency need to provide guidance and support. AI policies should prioritize accessibility for marginalized learners, low-cost devices, and offline use. Careful planning, teacher training, and expert supervision are crucial. Not all educators will adopt these changes with equal enthusiasm. System changes won't happen overnight. However, working collaboratively and with a focus on inclusivity, we can harness the potential of technology, and AI to create a more equitable educational landscape for all learners.

To receive weekly articles, sign-up here