INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES KNOWLEDGE PACK Devices for Education EXPLORE INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES KNOWLEDGE PACK DEVICES FOR EDUCATION © 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org INDEX INTRODUCTION License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, Problem statement WHO WHY and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. This report was also supported with funding from the Use cases Global Partnership for Education. Evidence The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the Deployment process part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Devices selection criteria Challenges and trade-offs WHAT HOW Costs and budgeting Some references may appear in this Knowledge Pack to Logos, Products, Brands or Trademarks belonging to Monitoring and others not affiliated with the World Bank. They belong to their respective owners/ holders and are used for Evaluation illustrative purposes only and do not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by them. The World Bank does not endorse, prefer or recommend any of these products. CONCLUSION Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its TO GO FURTHER knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full ANNEXES attribution to this work is given. References Please cite the work as follows: EdTech team. 2022. Knowledge Pack: Devices for education. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Acknowledgment: The EdTech team wants to thank Frederico Carvalho (World Bank Senior Edtech Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; Consultant) for leading the development of this Knowledge Pack, and Alex Twinomugisha, Robert e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org Hawkins, Robert Fogel (Senior Edtech Consultant), Ignacio for their great contributions to this KP. Design : Alejandro Scaff, Sarah Kleinmann 2 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Introduction What is a KP ? About this KP Additional aknowledgement Knowledge Packages (KPs) are short, Devices are a part of a broader EdTech We would also like to thank the pragmatic guides on individual topics Program Framework and should always contribution from several external within EdTech, meant to provide be considered an element of the solution entities namely Absolute Software, sufficient knowledge and understanding that includes adequate software, Critical Links, Inforlandia, Intel, Microsoft, so that non-technical stakeholders incentives, policies and training (see JPIK, Mustek and Plan Ceibal who shared can make key planning, design, and annexes for references). their expertise and experience in this procurement decisions for education. topics. This KP focuses on: They can be used as a starting point for • Personal computers: desktop, laptop, the planning of technology deployment 2-1’s, tablet to improve education, especially with education ministries. • Display: interactive whiteboards, TV’s, video projectors, web-cameras, cameras, smart / interactive screens, Smart Tables • Servers: thin client school servers, school and classroom servers 3 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES WHO are the main stakeholders ? RESPONSIBILITY KPs are designed with a human- • Assist MOE leadership in the application of KPs for in- Task Team Leaders (TTL’s) & country EdTech programs. Help design Bank-financed centered vision. Bank Project Managers projects with practical information to include in project (non-technical) documents. This knowledge pack is meant to provide sufficient MOE Leadership • Use KP to make key planning, design, and procurement knowledge and (non-technical) decisions for in-country EdTech programs. understanding to help decisionmakers make key planning, MOE Program Managers • Use KP to make key planning, design, and procurement design, and (semi-technical) decisions for in-country EdTech programs. procurement decisions of technologies for Donors, NGOs and Other • Use KP to align with Bank EdTech programs and personalized and Partners establish a common EdTech framework. adaptive learning. (non-technical) 4 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Problem Statement | Use case scenarios | Evidence WHY is this KP designed ? PROBLEM STATEMENT Devices Edtech should respond to a vision and AI/ML Cloud goals for education. For example: increase Adaptive access to education, improve quality, Learning Connectivity ensure equity and be relevant. Digital Infrastructure Providing devices should always be Digital identity BE DATA Data visualization DRIVEN ENGAGE the NRENs considered an element of the solution to ECOSYSTEM improve learning and not a goal on its own, as it has been demonstrated that solely distributing Ecosystem Startups Data collection EMIS devices without adequate software, incentives, policies and training to enable a pre-defined use AssistiveTechnologies case can be detrimental to learning. LMS LEARNER Mobile based Devices are part of a much bigger network of DESIGN and Computer based EdTech interventions guided by 5 principles: ACT AT SCALE, Digital ASK WHY? FOR ALL Assessment 1) A clear purpose and focus on educational Literacies objectives – Ask Why Digital Content 2) Reaching all learners – Design and Act at Scale, EMPOWERED for All TEACHERS 3) Empowering teachers Teachers Competencies 4) Engaging an ecosystem of partners 5) Using data rigorously and routinely to learn what strategies, policies and programs are effective to maximize student learning – Be Data Driven 5 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Problem Statement | Use case scenarios | Evidence WHY is this KP designed ? USE CASE SCENARIOS Goal Objectives Use Case Scenarios The question: what are the vision and the -Teachers can i) create/ curate and deliver content, goals for your country -Enroll out-of-school youth and promote ii) assess student learning, iii) access professional education system? attendance development & support (coaching, mentoring) should always be -Ensure continuity of Learning/ Remote -Students can i) access learning content, ii) seek preliminary to the Increase Learning support from teachers, iii) communicate and question: what is Access -Build a flexible and resilient education collaborate with peers, iv) participate in regular the role of devices system assessments in materializing the vision? -Drive completion of assessments & -Administrators can i) track student enrollment, graduation rates attendance & performance, ii) communicate with Therefore, here students, teachers & parents are examples of use cases in terms -Teachers can i) have access to and use guided/ of devices, that -Manage class sizes scripted lesson plans, ii) determine the right level are connected to of students, iii) conduct regular assessments, iv) predefined goals and -Increase student engagement create additional learning aids/ content, v) track objectives: Improve -Increase % of Basic literacy to reduce student achievement, vi) communicate with Quality learning poverty parents -Develop teacher skills and competencies Click here to see the -Students can i) access additional practice & deployment process after -Increase Internet access and bandwidth learning resources at school & at home, ii) access defining your vision -Safety, security and privacy support and instruction that is adapted and personalized to the child’s level 6 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Problem Statement | Use case scenarios | Evidence WHY is this KP designed ? USE CASE SCENARIOS Goal Objectives Use Case Scenarios Rest of the previous table : -Teachers can support learning in the classroom and -Support learning in rural/ poor remotely even in remote areas communities -i) Students in low income and poor infrastructure -Inclusion (children with learning conditions have access to learning technologies, ii) Ensure disabilities) Technology is designed and implemented to support Equity students with learning disabilities, iii) Girls are given -Increase girls’ attendance and completion access and encouraged to use technology to learn of school even when unable to attend school. -Reduce the digital Divide – access to -Administrators can i) use data to improve decision learning technologies making, ii) improve distribution and usage of technology resources, iii) increase access to learning support technologies -Teachers can i) implement project based / Learning experiences develop: Experiential learning, ii) Develop more engaging STEM lessons, iii) Learn different pedagogical uses Be -Digital skills -Creativity of technology to transform the learning process Relevant -Communication -Competency -Students can i) access rich digital learning based materials, ii) engage with personalized learning -Critical Thinking -Digital content platforms, iii) participate in remote learning project- based lessons 7 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Problem Statement | Use case scenarios | Evidence WHY is this KP designed ? USE CASE SCENARIOS We can also explore solutions driven by use case scenarios : Use Case Description & Characteristics Solution (example) Scenario -Desktop, Laptop / 2-1, in Admin offices Management -Used for administrative purposes by administrator & teachers -Tablet / Smartphone for data collection and Administration -Not used by students -Server for local storage of data & applications -Teachers use devices for lesson planning, delivery & -Each teacher assigned a mobile device professional development -Teachers share a few mobile devices which Teaching & -Teacher can use device at home, in the office, or in can be in teachers’ office and used in Professional classroom with students (with display device) the classroom with a display device Development -Device can be brought home or fixed in classroom -Teachers use devices fixed in each classroom -Students typically have no access with display device -Each student owns or has assigned a mobile -Students use devices to access learning at home or device to be used in the classroom at school and at home Learning -Students have access to the device either in a -Students use mobile devices (shared or 1:1) in the shared (same device used by several students) or classroom assigned (device used by only one student) mode. -Students go to a PC Lab 8 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Problem Statement | Use case scenarios | Evidence WHY is this KP designed ? USE CASE SCENARIOS DEVICES IN HYBRID LEARNING SCENARIOS Indeed, the relevance of solutions deployed depends on the context. For example, a lot of parameters change from a device perspective when we compare remote and classroom learning: Classroom learning Remote Learning (inside the school) (outside of the school) • Devices can be recharged in school (when • Student takes device home electricity is available) • Charging happens at home • Storage and security can be provided by the school • Requires video conferencing capabilities (webcam, • Teachers can control adequate usage of device microphone, speakers) for synchronous learning using classroom management • Access to online content and device management • Access to content can be done through the school require home connectivity internet access or local content server • Increased maintenance and user-support • Maintenance and repairs can be done in the school complexity and costs • Replacement devices can be made available • In certain families, student access to the device might be restricted 9 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Problem Statement | Use case scenarios | Evidence WHY is this KP designed ? EVIDENCE • Devices are a window into a world of knowledge • Research (1) shows that improved learning outcomes are and information, they enable accessing high quality dependent on choosing the right technology educational content and instruction that would not be available otherwise (Bold et al. 2017; Fredriksen, Brar, • Devices facilitate teaching and learning continuity and and Trucano 2015) flexibility (including in hybrid and remote learning models) • They level the learning ground, and increasing the number of hours invested in learning (Filmer et al. 2020) • They allow students to reach their full potential by: (1) New global data reveal education technology’s impact on learning – McKinsey 2020 Motivating learners to engage more deeply with A Systematic Review of One-to-One Access to Laptop Computing in K-12 educational content (Habyarimana and Sabarwal 2018) Classrooms: An Investigation of Factors That Influence Program Impact - Edward C. Bethel 2014 Enabling individualized instruction and allowing students to learn at their own pace (Duflo, Dupas, and Kremer 2015; Banerjee et al. 2016) Personalizing Learning from the environment perspective, as learners can change personalize the environment to suit their learning preferences • Technology is not a luxury or purely a cost. It is as fundamental as other resources (1) (building, electricity, sanitation) and broadly used in business and homes. Schools should not be an exception. 10 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? DEVICES SELECTION CRITERIA Aspect Technical Considerations The right How will you minimize the number of different SKU’s (product models and versions) Hardware technical specifications computing device over the lifetime of the project to reduce maintenance costs (stock of different parts and that support the usage model firmware updates) ? should be chosen What is the most appropriate form factor for the user and use cases? Mobile? Touch? based on the level Form factor Screen size? technological What connectors will be needed? How are the usage policies enforced (do I accept pen readiness of Connectivity and I/O drives or not?) ? the education Software stack to be installed – How many software images will you have to handle? how will you update the software system, to use software image and applications stack over time to ensure latest versions are available to the users and compatibility is case scenarios it compatibility ensured? needs to support Embedded or external peripherals and the current required to support the usage Does it require card or biometric readers, webcams, digital pens, etc ? level of technology model Is the device well suited for the type of usage (age groups, etc.)? Is it robust and shock- integration. This Safety and ruggedness resistant? Is it safe for the user? How is device usage policy implemented (access to section highlights content, etc.)? the key aspect How will devices be charged? Stored? Device’s power (watts) requirements (Solar versus that need to be Storage and charging grid)? Voltage? considered to How will the device be protected mechanically (theft) and digitally (cyber-security, Security chose the optimal viruses, malware)? device. Privacy How will user information be kept safe and private? How will maximum uptime for all devices be ensured? Who will provide maintenance? Maintenance SLA’s? At what cost? How will the device be managed and updated? 11 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? DEVICES SELECTION CRITERIA WHAT IS THE BEST DEVICE FOR EACH TYPE OF USE CASE SCENARIO? Mobile Portable Stationary Education Smart Chrome Portable Thin Client / Use case scenarios Tablet Laptop 2 in 1 All-in-One Desktop Objective phone book* All-in-One Mini PC Management & Data collection, processing Administration Online learning & support Lacks mobility Teacher PD Using scripted lessons All content for all teachers has to be preloaded on all PC’s Developing digital content Reading Headphones Headphones Headphones Headphones Requires Headphones Numeracy and Writing +Stylus Touch +Stylus + Design Pad / touch screen reading skills Mathematics Video conferencing Remote Collaboration Learning Drawing / handwriting +Stylus Touch screen +Stylus + Touch Screen / a Design Pad Submitting Assignments Basic / intermediate ICT Skills Digital Skills Adv. Digital skills/ Coding / AI STEM Projects Requires extra SW, probes & sensors 21st Century Skills/ Higher Digital content creation Order Thinking  Personalized eLearning Optimal Limited Inadequate 12 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? DEVICES SELECTION CRITERIA MOST IMPORTANT DEVICES FEATURES FOR EACH LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGICAL READINESS? No Electricity Unreliable Electricity Reliable Electricity Mobile, low power, large Mobile, low power, No Internet battery capacity, large average battery capacity, Unlikely scenario (Satellite only) storage large storage Mobile, low power, Mobile, low power, large Average power, average average battery capacity, Mobile (3G) only battery capacity, large battery capacity, low large storage, 3G storage storage, 3G optional optional Fixed (DSL / Fiber) Low power, average Average power, average and Unlikely scenario battery capacity, low battery capacity, low High-speed Mobile storage, 4G optional storage, 4G optional (4/5G) 13 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? DEVICES SELECTION CRITERIA WHAT IS THE RIGHT DEVICE GIVEN THE LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION? 1/2 Level of technology integration: Latent opportunistic (start ramp) Few devices deployed CLASSROOM / TEACHER ADMINISTRATIVE PC SHARED COMPUTER PC + PROJECTOR Computer used for administrative Desktop that stays in the classroom Several Students share the same purposes or teacher assigned laptop computer Desktop or Laptop Desktop PC or Laptop Laptop or Desktop + Internet access + Projector or Interactive screen + Internet access + Internet access 14 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? DEVICES SELECTION CRITERIA WHAT IS THE RIGHT DEVICE GIVEN THE LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION? 2/2 Level of technology integration: From ramping to scaling and sustaining Devices deployed for students PC LAB SHARED 1:1 ASSIGNED 1:1 BYOD One room in the school with Set(s) of laptop for all students All students in a classroom / All students bring their own computers (usually desktops) in a classroom that are shared grade or school are assigned or Computing Device amongst classrooms given a computing device • Desktop PCs or Thin Client • Internet access • 1) Ruggedized Tablets for students <7 years old or 2) Laptops / 2:1’s for • Requires user students > 7 years old (can use keyboard) authentication for • Wifi Internet access personal content access • Requires user authentication for personal access* 15 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? DEVICES SELECTION CRITERIA COST-BENEFIT BASED ON LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Indicative cost Deployment Model Benefits Costs ($-$$$$) benefit (Scale 1-5) Administration PC or Digitizing Data & communications. $ shared teacher device Basic use Mobile device for Flexible approach to integrate $$ teacher + Projector technology to support pedagogics Offer all student in a classroom the possibility to use technology Shared 1:1 $$$ for learning during part of the schedule Each students in a classroom, grade or geographic region has Assigned 1:1 their own (or assigned) mobile $$$$ device where technology is fully integrated. 16 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? CHALLENGES AND TRADE-OFFS OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AND OPTIONS WHEN SELECTING DEVICES: OS, ROBUSTNESS, POWER CONSUMPTION AND LOW CONNECTIVITY Operating System (OS) Protection Exhibit 7: Total Cost of Ownership for Mobile DEVICE Microsoft Google Apple Google Apple Key protection Computers in Education Linux TYPE Windows ChromeOS MacOS Android iOS features $700 Annual TCO: $125.4 Desktop Drop resistance from $600 a certain height Thin client $500 Annual TCO: $90.0 Liquid / $400 Laptop Dust resistance $300 2-1 $200 Sealed I/O ports $100 Tablet Resistant screens $0 Phone Non-Rugged Rugged Mobile Reinforced Mobile Computer Computer High Low& charging ports Hardware Replacement High High According to VDC’s research, Costs Market All income Uncom- Medium income income each 1% increase in device Presence markets (connecti- mon income (High cost) (High cost) Fanless design failure will typically yield a 3% IT Supports Costs vity) (Low cost) to 5% percent increase to its total cost of ownership (TCO). Mobile Hardware Costs Guide for Who is What do What type Which What OS? Mid frame In conclusion, protection the decision the user? you want of device are the reduces TCO. of the OS: them to choose ? required to do? application? 17 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? CHALLENGES AND TRADE-OFFS OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AND OPTIONS WHEN SELECTING DEVICES: OS, ROBUSTNESS, POWER CONSUMPTION AND LOW CONNECTIVITY Power Servers Functionalities of a school / Classroom Server: Charging Power Size and duration of • Shared Computing capability • Web Server (host a local instance of (virtualization / Thin Clients) a website for instance Wordpress) Requirements batteries • File/ content Storage • Print server • Centralized User Management • Network services: DHCP / firewall / Smartphone 5.0V ~ 6W-10W (ex : Microsoft Active Directory) Caching and streaming services • Learning & Content Management • Email server (ex: exchange server) (ex: Moodle) • Backup • ERP / Administrative management (EMIS) Tablet 5.0V-12V ~ 10W- 24W 3500mAh-6000mAh -9h+ School / classroom Classroom Thin Schools Servers Content Servers Client Architecture 2-1 12V ~ 18W – 24W 3500-5000 mAh – 10h + 4000mAh – 6000mAh – Laptop 12V ~ 24W -  65W Critical Links JP.IK / ECS RACHEL- Critical Links 3-12h C3 Hybrid Content AP Plus 3.0 C3 School School servers provide many Classroom servers provide The computing power from of the functionalities listed Desktop 100-200W offline access to pre-loaded a central PC in the classroom above at the school level, learning content for a group is shared amongst several so not needing to rely on of students terminals connectivity for many of them 18 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? CHALLENGES AND TRADE-OFFS OPTIONS FOR CLASSROOM LARGE SIZE DISPLAYS Display When defining a display device, you need to consider the following aspects: Implications for Technology Indicative Key features objectives & use Pros & Cons TCO* • Size of classroom and distance from the projection area cases • Ambient luminosity and device luminosity (for small dark -LCD TV Image Used by teacher -Well-supported by local $ (TV) classroom min 2500 lumens. For a large, bright room minimum size up to 60”. to improve services industry $-$$ of 4500 lumens) Computer monitor conceptual (monitor) -Least foreign to teachers typically up to 23” understanding $$$ (LCD/ -LCD larger screen size plasma) • Portability - the need to move the equipment to different TV/monitor -HDMI connection can be expensive classrooms -Very large image -Moderately well- • I/O ports (minimum 2 x HDMI, flashcard / USB, audio in and out) projection -Used by teacher supported by local to improve services • Power consumption and battery life (especially in environments -Image quality conceptual varies according to understanding -Modern LED projectors where solar power /UPS might be required) luminosity have long life and are less $$-$$$ -Might allow expensive than DLP • Durability and– LED projectors are more durable under harsh Projector -Mobility facilitates interaction with sharing content -Ambient light of the conditions than DLP. environment may require -HDMI or Wifi higher luminosity from connection • Easy maintenance – does the supplier have a local presence or the projector partners. Are parts easily available and low cost? -Allows user to Used by teacher -Not well-supported by make changes on to improve the local services industry • Security features (can the device be attached, locked) whiteboard, which conceptual (both procurement is recognized by understanding in and maintenance) in $$-$$$ the application a highly interactive developing countries • Software included (management and learning content) way (students can Interactive -Requires internal -May not be appropriate • Connectivity (Wifi, Ethernet) draw on board) whiteboard or external for teachers with lower projector ICT skills 19 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? CHALLENGES AND TRADE-OFFS UNDERSTANDING CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT DIFFERENT USE CASE SCENRAIOS Education Activities Bandwidth requirements Connectivity Activity Broadband speeds How much data do students / teachers need? Taking an online class (LMS) 0.25 Mbit/s Searching the web 1 Mbit/s Req. Bandwidth Data consumption Checking / sending e-mail 0.5 to 1 Mbit/s Depending on CODEC’s 1:1 video conferencing SD (480p) 3 Mbps 540 MB / hour Downloading digital instructional materials (including OER) 1 Mbit/s MDM activities Updating content or SW in the device 1 Mbit/s Group video conferencing SD (480p) 5 Mbps 810 MB / hour Sending commands to the device (manage device) 0.03 Mbit/s Webinar / Video / Youtube Streaming SD (480p) 3 Mbps 560 – 800 MB / hour Engaging with social media / messaging 0.03 Mbit/s Online course / Social media 1 Mbps 100 MB /hour Completing multiple choice assessments 0.06 Mbit/s Searching the web /online gaming 1 Mbps 200MB / hour Music streaming 2 Mbit/s Podcast / Music streaming 40-150 MB / Hour Video streaming – standard definition quality 3 Mbit/s Video Streaming / Group Video conf. HD Video streaming – HD quality 5 Mbit/s 10 Mbps 2 - 3 GB / hour (720p-1080p) Video streaming – Ultra HD quality 25 Mbit/s Video Streaming UHD (4K - 2160p) 15-35 Mbps 7 – 16 GB / hour Streaming HD video or a university lecture 4 Mbit/s Remote Learning Students – single student using Standard Definition Video conferencing would Watching a video conference 1 Mbit/s require a minimum bandwidth of 10Mbps (smooth experience) and a monthly data bundle / data cap > Participating in HD videoconferencing 4 Mbit/s 100Gb (allowing for 4h-6h/day group video conferencing / webinars + web browsing / LMS usage) Solution: Home Connectivity through Fiber, ADSL or Fixed Wireless is the best option where available Participating in a video conference (per user) 1 Mbit/s Source: ITU Last Mile (not 4G) connectivity Solutions Engaging with a simulation and gaming 1 Mbit/s Guide Students attending classes in School / Campus – Connectivity would be mostly provided by the Engaging with two-way online gaming 4 Mbit/s School or TEI and mobile data would be used when out of campus & at home after school hours. Solution: data bundle of Mobile internet access (4G) with 5-10GB data cap. Data cap can be extended when required. 20 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Devices selection criteria | Challenges and trade-offs WHAT are the potential solutions? CHALLENGES AND TRADE-OFFS REDUCING RISK OF DEVICES BEING STOLEN OR UNUSABLE A common issue with education devices is that users change configurations and delete application many times rendering the device unusable. Also, in many situations devices get lost, stolen or locked by criminals looking to get paid to unlock those devices (Ransomware). We can reduce these risks by ensuring the Persistence of applications and theft deterrent solutions and by personalizing the devices shell. Example of software theft deterrent - CUCo Cover personalization through printing or engraving logos CUCo is an endpoint security solution that is factory-embedded into the firmware of the OEM devices. CUCo enables customers to control their entire endpoint population from a single console of glass, even when devices are off the network. CUCo Security Solution also serves as a theft deterrent successfully locking down the device in case it is lost or stolen. In conjunction with hard drive encryption, sensitive data is kept out of the hands of anyone who should not have access to it. The owner of the device simply makes a phone call to the support team and, after confirmation of the identity, the device is immediately locked down. Source: https://cuco.inforlandia.com/ Source: https://www.ceibal.edu.uy 21 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Deployment process | Costs and budgeting | Monitoring and Evaluation HOW to implement next steps ? DEPLOYMENT PROCESS HOW TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT DEVICE FOR EDUCATION? 1 Identify the Use case scenarios that will achieve your objectives and goals. • List all the use case scenarios you want to support – what do you want the users to be able to do Deployment Key Decisions to support better learning? Do I spread my budget to cover everyone • Check each use case scenario within each readiness scenario and see what might not be possible by purchasing cheaper technology? and define mitigation approaches Or do I start with one group and provide 2 Assess your current situation: Geographic diversity, tech environment, skills, resources the right technology? of your country where the technology will be deployed Define each Readiness Level scenario you want to address within your country. Do I start with early grades or older The technological solutions would be different between major cities where electricity is stable and learners internet bandwidth is high versus rural areas where infrastructure access is limited, and connectivity is poor. Hence the technological solutions would be different. Which subjects do I focus on ? 3 Identify solutions (the technology stack components and infrastructure) most adequate and cost effective according to their Total Cost of Ownership to support each case scenario according to the technology readiness How often do I need to replace the This is the point when you should define which devices are the most adequate to improve devices (lifetime)? learning. Making these decisions before assessing the current situation and use case scenarios will most How do I start the project? 4 Iterate to improve your choices by evaluating previous experiences and the real TCO For instance, the costs of user support and maintenance can vary significantly from one level of readiness to another and from one device to another 22 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Deployment process | Costs and budgeting | Monitoring and Evaluation HOW to implement next steps ? DEPLOYMENT PROCESS PLANNING DESIGN DEPLOY SUSTAIN • Establish Project Management Team • Request For Information (market • Capacity Building and Skills • Vision, Goals and Objectives consultation) Development • Define Use Cases • Define Technical specifications • Governance & Compliance • Evaluate Readiness and • Define Software stack • Partner & Stakeholder Management interdependencies • Request for Proposal • User Support • Identify appropriate devices • Procurement • Maintenance • Adoption & Change management • Delivery • Decommission • Budget (considering TCO) • Distribution • Replace / update • Risk & Mitigation • Set-up • e-waste management • Communication CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROJECT KPI’S 23 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Deployment process | Costs and budgeting | Monitoring and Evaluation HOW to implement next steps ? COSTS AND BUDGETING Bill of Materials (BOM) = Assembly cost + Packaging cost + Chargers costs + Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) = Freight costs + Cost of any other component used in the device. Acquisition costs (Hardware, Software, Infrastructure) + Deployment costs Note: Devices are built by assembling several components, usually purchased from different (Logistics, Installation, Training) + Operation costs (Maintenance, support etc) + manufacturers. Freight cost is usually FOB (Free-on-board) which means the device is delivered Disposal / replacement costs: refresh, recycling, etc.) in the port closest to the factory where it was assembled. Transportation costs can vary greatly depending on distance and vehicle. One device shipped in a container can add US$1 - US$2 (takes Example of TCOs 1-2 months) to the cost while air shipment could be US$10- US$20 (takes 1-2 weeks). Entry / Mid range Tablet Entry / Mid range Laptop / Convertible Example of BOMs • Usually lower acquisition cost (100- • Higher acquisition cost (200 -450 USD) 2-1 (convertible laptop) - 11.6” 4GB/64GB Wifi/ LTE 300 USD) • Lifespan of 4-5 years • Lifespan of 2-3 years • Usually used laying in a desk, so less Brand 1 Brand 2 • Hand-held device, so prone to being prone to falling Electrical Components: dropped by user • Can be designed to be ruggedized PCBA, Gyro, Sensors, LCD, $120 $153 • Smaller, more sensitive parts (touch • Easier to service as it can be broken Touch Panel, Battery, screen, charging connector) – low-cost down in many components’ parts (HDD/ Power Adapter, Camera(s) models usually not ruggedized SDD is easy to replace) Mechanical Components: Hinges, Handle, IO cover, $45 $44 • More difficult and costly to service as • Maintenance during lifetime estimated Antenas, Keyboard, Pad most components are soldered 50% of initial investment Other: • Assumption: Maintenance during $21 $30 Stylus, Packaging, Royalties lifetime estimated as much as Comodities: initial cost (especially screen and CPU, Wifi/LTE, Memory, $95 $58 motherboard) Storage TCO on a $100 USD Tablet replaced TCO on a $250 USD Laptop replaced TOTAL $281 $284 every 2 years every 4 years $400 USD over 4 years $375 USD over 4 years Any change to a single component will alter the cost of the device and can affect its performance and functionalities. Devices with same high-level specificities can have very different performance and price. Detailing specificities in RFP and running comparison benchmarks improve decision making. 24 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Deployment process | Costs and budgeting | Monitoring and Evaluation HOW to implement next steps ? MONITORING AND EVALUATION Key performance indicators (KPIs) are measurable values that track the progress of Rigorous impact evaluation of a program is frequently more challenging a project towards its key implementation goals/milestones. KPIs form the core of a than tracking KPIs. Some useful evaluation approaches are: monitoring system, providing fast and actionable information that can be used to course-correct, reallocate resources, target problem areas, and inform long-term • Process evaluations. Assessing whether project implementation is strategy. running on schedule. Compare what happens on the ground to the steps laid out in the theory of change. • Ratio of students per operating device • Impact evaluations. Understanding the impact of the project on the desired outcomes (e.g. improving math literacy). • Percentage of trained facilitators/teachers to instruct with devices • Percentage of schools ready to offer EdTech devices programs (internet »» A/B testing. Piloting and evaluating different approaches of a connectivity, security, devices configuration and insurance) program to identify the most cost-effective solutions to enhance learning. • Percentage of devices that are not operational, broken-down by cause (theft, broken screen, electrical failure...) »» Structured experiential learning (MEe). Structured experiential Potential KPIs • Percentage of learners who do not have the digital skills to productively learning is an approach in which project implementers use use e-learning programs many impact evaluations to continually learn and improve their implementation over the course of a project. (see Pritchett et al • Percentage of learners that attend X hours of sessions per week, 2013). disaggregated by relevant demographics • Minimum and average number of hours that learners are active on the educational software per week, broken-down by relevant demographics • Percentage of learners that are behind schedule in their progress on the usage of educational software, broken-down by relevant demographics In EdTech devices projects, the challenges (and need) to evaluate • Percentage of class time during which computers are used are likely to be greater than in • Percentage of teachers enabled with laptops well-established, unidimensional • Percentage of teachers actively using emails education projects. • Percentage of assessments that can be conducted online • Percentage of tech-enabled students using online content 25 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Conclusion WHO WHY In this KP framework, MoE, MoICT and WB Identifying the right devices to be provided is an TTLs are the adequate decision makers who element of the solution that aims at enhancing can act and make a difference for the students, learning in a specific context and it should be teachers, parents and community who use guided by a clear and precise vision of bettering the education devices. education’s quality, accessibility, equity and relevance. The devices question addressed in this KP is only one component of a larger set of EdTech interventions lead by the 5 principles: (i) Ask why, (ii) Design and act at scale for all, (iii) Empower teachers, (iv) Engage the ecosystem, (v) Be data driven. In order to define the right computing To implement the solution, the deployment device, it is necessary to consider technical process should include three phases : Design, HOW WHAT considerations, and to adapt the device to Deploy, and Sustain. It should be accompanied technological readiness, to the use case by the choice of KPIs continuously monitored scenario it applies to and to the level of and evaluated. Important decisions should technology integration. Selecting a solution be reflected on beforehand, relying on key also includes underlying challenges and decisions trees, and calculation of costs and trade-offs in terms of device OS, protection, budgeting should take into account devices’ power, servers, display and connectivity. BOMs and TCOs. 26 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES To go further CLOUD OF KPs B LO G R E L AT E D Devices AI/ML Cloud Adaptive What is Hybrid Learning? After the Learning global school lockdown due to the Connectivity COVID-19 pandemic, countries have Digital Infrastructure been exploring a variety of hybrid Digital identity BE DATA Data visualization DRIVEN ENGAGE the NRENs learning modalities as they re-open ECOSYSTEM Procurement schools. Ecosystem Startups Data collection EMIS AssistiveTechnologies LMS LEARNER Mobile based S T AY C O N N E C T E D DESIGN and Computer based ACT AT SCALE, Digital ASK WHY? FOR ALL Assessment Literacies Follow us on Twitter Digital Content EMPOWERED Subscribe to our podcast channel TEACHERS Spotify & Anchor Teachers Competencies More updates on Medium Subscribe to our EduTech Newsletter OTHER EXISTING RELATED KPs EdTech website Tv Radio Mobile Phones 27 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Annexes REFERENCES • Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis - Binbin Zheng, Mark Warschauer, Chin-Hsi Lin, Chi Chang • A Systematic Review of One-to-One Access to Laptop Computing in K-12 Classrooms: An Investigation of Insights REPORTS Factors That Influence Program Impact Edward C. Bethel from the reports are • Technology-Enabled Learning: Policy, Pedagogy and Practice - Mishra Sanjaya, Panda Santosh available in • The Impact of a One Laptop per Child Program on Learning: Evidence from Uruguay - Gioia de Melo, Alina next slides Machado, Alfonso Miranda • SABER-ICT Framework Paper for Policy Analysis • https://www.edweek.org/technology/1-to-1-laptop-initiatives-boost-student-scores-study-finds/2016/05 • https://www.edweek.org/technology/why-ed-tech-is-not-transforming-how-teachers-teach/2015/06 BLOGS • https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2016/does-learning-improve-when-every-student-gets-a-laptop/ • https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/new-global-data-reveal- education-technologys-impact-on-learning# 28 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Annexes REFERENCES “Just putting a laptop before a student doesn’t really help them with anything,” Zheng said. “Technology should not be implemented for technology’s sake.” But one-to-one laptop programs, in which each student in a class, grade level, school or district gets a computer, can improve educational outcomes when there is teacher buy-in, suitable technical support and professional development for teachers, and appropriate implementation with the curriculum. In addition to improved scores on standardized tests, the benefits of successful laptop programs include an improved writing process. “Students received more feedback on their writing, edited and revised their papers more often, drew on a wider range of resources to write and published or shared their work with others more often,” Zheng said. Source: Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis Where technologies were used as learning tools such as cognitive supports (0.59), communication supports (0.31) and search and retrieval tools (0.54 –not significant) larger effects were found than when technologies were used as content delivery mechanisms (0.24). It should be noted also that in both meta-analyses, although technology used as delivery mechanisms resulted in the smallest gains, these gains were significant nonetheless. Media influence learning after all, small though that influence might be. […] The two variables that had the deepest impact on technology use, proficiency and achievement were technology integration and program duration. Unsurprisingly, the degree of technology integration impacted both technology use and student achievement. In fact technology integration was more important moderator of student achievement than technology use. Source: A Systematic Review of One-to-One Access to Laptop Computing in K-12 Classrooms: An Investigation of Factors That Influence Program Impact 29 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Annexes REFERENCES Research shows the prevalent misconception that putting technology in the hands of students will reduce access issues and transform education (cf. Mitra & Crawley, 2014). A meta-analytics study by Tamim et al. (2015b) for COL on teaching and learning from tablets further corroborated this. The study showed a significant preference for more student-centred pedagogical use of technology. The researchers found that when the devices were used with a student-centred approach, rather than within teacher-led environments, the effect size was greater. Further, it was reported that the use of mobile devices elicited positive perceptions within more student-active contexts. Source: Technology-Enabled Learning: Policy, Pedagogy and Practice Both Nesta (2012) and Fullan and Langworthy (2013) highlight that technology cannot impact learning unless the teaching- learning process is transformed. In order to impact learning, technology must no longer be conceived as a tool to gather information, but rather as a tool that radically changes the teaching and learning process. In this context, the role of teachers should no longer be to transmit knowledge but to convey learning attitudes, support peer learning, and help children in converting information into knowledge (Nesta, 2012; Fullan and Langworthy, 2013) Source: The Impact of a One Laptop per Child Program on Learning: Evidence from Uruguay 30 INTRODUCTION WHO WHY WHAT HOW CONCLUSION ANNEXES Supported with funding from