Generally the reported study appears to have identified some important challenges and lessons in the implementation of the "One Laptop per Child" (OLPC) scheme in Ethiopia. For instance, it has noted the need to introduce the laptops with care; students' interest in getting more content; the need to provide adequate training for teachers; and, involving beneficiaries to discover their perceived needs. On the other hand, I have found some of the criticisms as stated in this brief news report to be somewhat poorly considered. Just to point out a few: – [The laptops] "... become little more than distracting toys in the classroom". I thought that was the idea, i.e., for the children to use the laptops as something more than toys. – "students tended to play with the machines, largely for taking pictures with the built-in digital camera". Well, how do people in general and children in particular learn to use a computer? I remember how playing the then famous "Doom 95" game improved my use of the Mouse (and I had already graduated from the AAU with virtually no computer skills). Lacking such skills, a lot of young people joining the universities have and are still failing to graduate. – "Hollow said that in Ethiopia many children only attend school for a year or two so the priority is to give them good basic literacy and numeracy skills".: I believe the idea of formal education goes beyond literacy and for good reason too. As things stand now, in Ethiopia or anywhere else, one cannot succeed in school without computer skills as early as possible. For any student at any level (primary or secondary), having the requisite skills would mean accessing educational materials in the form of cheaper and easier to use digital media. Thus, they should learn it as early as possible rather than waiting until they join high school at more than 15 years of age. Moreover, do not forget the higher proportion of girls in primary (as opposed to secondary) level. – "Teachers were left frustrated because the students were better at using the laptops": With all due respect to Ethiopian teachers (one among whom happens to be my mother) I think schools are created for the children, not the teachers. Thus, the students should be allowed to make progress at their own pace rather than wait for their teachers to catch up. – The approach "doesn't actually empower people in the way that we'd like. It just undermines the teacher ... It's impossible to integrate it": The researchers are asking if having computer skills and access to a laptop would empower Ethiopian children. In all honesty, such a comment would give one enough reason to question the researchers' grasp of empowerment and/or computer skills. As a process of self-learning, the scheme is inherently empowering for the children. Moreover, I know from experience that computer skills have fast become the core tools for empowerment - access to information, employability, self-perception, .... – "If I had the money, I would not spend it on laptops," Hollow told SciDev.Net. "It will cost about US$3 billion dollars to give every [Ethiopian] child a laptop. And as a proportion of the national budget for education, that's just ridiculous." While it is good for Mr Hollow to have clarified his budgetary priorities, it is good for the Ethiopian student that the decision on whether to buy laptops or not is not up to Mr. Hollow. More to the point, the researcher is proposing that we should not help Ethiopian children access to computers since we cannot currently afford to buy enough computers for all of them. By the same token, one could argue that we should not build them schools since building schools able to hold 51% of the Ethiopian population, i.e. children, would be just ridiculous. Generally, since we cannot solve all our problems right now, lets lie down and die. Generally, I would agree more with Matt Keller, OLPC's director of Europe, the Middle East and Africa, rather than David Hollow on these points.

Having spent 25 years training teachers who are already in place in the classroom, this report is of no surprise to me at all. It is an everyday occurance that teachers who are not extensively prepared to integrate new resources (from technology to simply manipulative learning tools) do not properly apply the resources in their instructional program. The process of preparing teachers to successfully use laptops in instruction is complex in any environment: teachers must learn how to use the basic tool, must learn how to load proper applications that are aligned to the curriculum being taught, must learn how to create lessons that appropriately integrate the software into the learning process - for the right purposes and at the right juncture, and then must learn how to manage the student process in the classroom to keep the lessons running within the parameters of intent. As you can see, a monumental undertaking.

Combine this with the generally limited and outdated pre-service teacher training approaches currently in place in northern and sub-saharan African countries, and you have a recipe for not only mis-use, but actual disaster in the classroom. Good tools used for poor purposes are worse that poor tools used for good purposes. Anyone who understands teacher training and classroom practice could have anticipated seeing these early results.

That said, I agree with the comment in the article that moving the focus of laptop integration to the secondary school is the wrong choice. First, the percentage of students who make it to secondary school is extremely limited in these areas, and this choice would only further stratify the eventual adult community into those who merit and have access to global communications and 21st century skills, and those who do not. Second, developmental learning research demonstrates that these technologies need to be introduced and used when students are very young, as the tools themselves shape how students think, problem-solve, and process information. At the secondary level, it is far too late to influence the learning processes of the student, and the laptop would simply be replacing the pencil and paper, becoming a word processing tool.

This comes down to one simple - yet complex - issue. Proper and extensive teacher training - that acknowledges all aspects of what needs to be learned by the teacher to successfully implement the tool in the classroom. This means virtually re-training teachers in all aspects of their instructional approach, while at the same time tackling their foundational vision of what teaching and learning means. It is a sea-change of thought, not simply the technical skills of how to turn on computers and then hand them to students.

I would be curious to see the type and extent of training provided to these teachers, as well as the experience and global educational understanding of those who are providing the training.

Access to technology and the internet is critical for students in developing countries. It is the bridge of equity that will bring those students into the global community, economically and culturally. As a very worthwhile effort, with massive funds already allocated, it is critical to expend the funds and high quality training efforts necessary to make this project succeed.

“Don’t throw the baby out with the dirty water!” The OLPC program is an excellent concept and is filling a much-needed gap in teaching and learning, globally. It always amazes me how one generation attempts to limit the aspirations of the upcoming generations. Too often, the reason for the gap is due to the limitations of teachers, training, and the need for governments to control what is taught and learned by its constituents. Making available laptops to the young reduces the influence of both generational and political barriers. Bravo!!!

However, I do have one issue with OLPC because last year I attempted to purchase a laptop, but I wanted it to go to a specific school in Ghana. My reason was that I had already established a working relationship with the school. As one who has trained teachers for several years in the U.S., I was ready to embark on a way to work with willing teachers and students internationally by connecting them with their counterparts in the U.S. Imagine, pre-kindergarteners on both sides of the Atlantic looking at one another as they shared similar lessons!

When OLPC informed me that I could not determine where the laptop would be sent, I lost interest. It was then that I also realized that very little concern was being given to the educational foundation of the laptop program, specifically as it related to teacher training and student assessment.

Unless the donor is able to assist in the direction of the learning process-especially if the donor is an “educator”- the author of this news commentary has addressed valid points. The laptop becomes yet another gadget without a educational focus that supports the needs of the users…and we all know what has happened to cyberspace because of its limited protocol, ethics, and standards.

“Don’t throw the baby out with the dirty water!” The OLPC program is an excellent concept and is filling a much-needed gap in teaching and learning, globally. It always amazes me how one generation attempts to limit the aspirations of the upcoming generations. Too often, the reason for the gap is due to the limitations of teachers, training, and the need for governments to control what is taught and learned by its constituents. Making available laptops to the young reduces the influence of both generational and political barriers. Bravo!!!

However, I do have one issue with OLPC because last year I attempted to purchase a laptop, but I wanted it to go to a specific school in Ghana. My reason was that I had already established a working relationship with the school. As one who has trained teachers for several years in the U.S., I was ready to embark on a way to work with willing teachers and students internationally by connecting them with their counterparts in the U.S. Imagine, pre-kindergarteners on both sides of the Atlantic looking at one another as they shared similar lessons!

When OLPC informed me that I could not determine where the laptop would be sent, I lost interest. It was then that I also realized that very little concern was being given to the educational foundation of the laptop program, specifically as it related to teacher training and student assessment.

Unless the donor is able to assist in the direction of the learning process-especially if the donor is an “educator”- the author of this news commentary has a valid point. The laptop becomes yet another gadget without a educational focus that supports the needs of the users…and we all know what has happened to cyberspace because of its limited protocol, ethics, and standards.

I would like to clarify that the quotations attributed to me in the article above were presented out of context and portray only one side of my perspective on the XO 5000 programme in Ethiopia. While I did indeed criticise aspects of the model and implementation of this programme, I also drew attention to positive aspects. In any monitoring and evaluation, it is essential to draw attention to both the positive issues and challenges associated with such an initiative. The research I conducted was just one dimension of ongoing efforts to assess the educational effectiveness of the programme and I believe that the Ethiopia implementation team at ECBP are doing a fantastic job at addressing the significant challenges surrounding teacher training, content provision and classroom integration. A balanced perspective on both the successes and challenges of the initiative will be available shortly on the website of the ICT4D Collective at Royal Holloway University. There are other parties (including the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen) also in the process of conducting monitoring and evaluation activities regarding the XO 5000 programme and these findings will also be available shortly in a joint working paper.