1. 2013 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Technology for Education
Computer Literacy Programs in Rural Communities
Understanding Social Motivators.
Ramanjaneyaraju Chintalapati
Raj Gopal P. Kantamneni
Association for Digital Empowerment of Youth
Hyderabad, India
rajuleadindia2020@gmail.com
Technology Incubation Program
Bhagavatula Charitable Trust Haripuram, India.
kprasad@bctindia.org
between village based trainings and center based training, Is
there a difference between instructor led training and
Instructor mediated peer to peer learning, and how do
students perform when taught computers without using a
mouse.
Abstract—A successful computer literacy program designed for
rural communities would need to work in a diverse set of
conditions such as the lack of electricity, diverse student
educational backgrounds, motivation levels, different levels of
community engagement, community politics, and beliefs. This
paper shares our experience with running computer literacy
training camps in rural Andhra Pradesh, India, and how
changing elements of the program can change the outcome of a
program.
II.
17 computer training camps were held in Rambilli,
Yellamanchili, and Paderu Mandals of Visakhapatnam
District. Of the 17, eight were held in villages while the other
nine camps were held in the Haripuram Center, where
Bhagavatula Charitable Trust (BCT) is headquartered.
Keywords- Design, Computer literacy, Rural development,
Social Motivators.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Delivering computer literacy to rural communities in
India is a challenging task. The hole in the wall[1] program
demonstrated a way to scale up computer literacy programs
using using Minimally Invasive Education (MIE) strategies.
Village based camps involve moving 6 to 7 computers to
a community, and training registered students. The instructor
is expected to stay with the local community for the duration
of the program. Students with a minimum education of 5th
standard are allowed to register for the program. Instruction
in a majority of the villages was delivered using instructor
mediated peer-to-peer learning, where each student is
expected to learn for 40 minutes, and teach for 40 minutes.
The instructor typically teaches the first batch, and steps in
whenever a particular student is unable to teach a particular
concept.
This approach works well with children[3] in rural
communities, where qualified personnel are not as easily
available[2]. That said, any large scale computer literacy
program would need to be inclusive of other demographic
groups present within the community as well.
There is also a need for programs to easily scale up while
at the same time meeting the needs of a diverse community.
Instructor mediated Peer to peer tutoring has been proven to
be one of the more effective ways to personalize teaching
and engage students at scale[4][5]. Research also
demonstrates that the method can be used to teach complex
concepts such as probability theory to students as young as
10 years old [6].
All the communities included in the program were
electrified, though electric supply was limited to an average
of 6 hours during the day time. For most part, the power-cut
information was publicized ahead of time, so planning for
this issue mitigated a majority of the problems. Most houses
and community centers lacked proper electrical wiring; as a
result it was common to see computers with burnt
components, or devices which “shocked” anyone who
touched them.
This paper presents case studies of our experience with
running computer training camps in eight villages in the
Visakhapatnam District. The villages are Dimili, Gokivada,
Somalingapalem, P. K. Palli, Moolajampa, Haripuram,
Munchingput, and Kotha Palem. During the course of these
training camps, we trained approximately 650 students, and
experimented with different design elements of the program
to see how they would change student achievement and
motivation levels within the community. Some of the
research questions we plan to discuss include: Do more
resources equate to better learning, is there a difference
978-0-7695-5141-8/13 $31.00 © 2013 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/T4E.2013.21
BACKGROUND
The most common source of income in the villages is
agriculture. The communities suffer from alcoholism and
under-employment – where people are not qualified or
interested in working. Politics is a polarizing force, with
villages split up along party lines. If members of one party
try to do something positive, members of the other party try
to destabilize the initiative by spreading rumors or by
withholding support.
53

2. TABLE I.
Six of the 17 training camps were self-funded, where the
communities in question donated food and accommodation,
and each of the students was charged ₹ 500 for the 45 day
program. Disabled members and women members of Self
Help Groups (SHG’s) were charged ₹.350. These camps
were open to anybody with an interest in learning computers
and a 5th standard education.
Ms Office
DTP
Self funded Ni-Msme Self funded Ni-Msme
Dimili
2
0
0
1
Haripuram
1
4
0
4
Gokivada
1
0
0
0
Moolajampa
1
0
0
0
PK Palli
1
0
0
0
Munchingput (Tribal)
0
1
0
1
Somalingapalem
0
0
0
0
Kothapalem
0
0
0
0
Total
6
5
0
6
The other 11 training programs were free. Funding was
provided as part of the Entrepreneurship Skill Development
Program (ESDP) administered by the National Institute for
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Ni-Msme). These
programs are focused on providing the necessary skills for
people who are about to enter the workforce. Consequently,
students needed to be at least 18 years old to enroll.
Instructor mediated peer-to-peer learning in the context
of our research, required the instructor to teach key concepts
to the first batch of the day. Once done, each student taught
another student in the following batch. After the first batch,
the instructor was asked to observe the quality teaching, and
steps in whenever a particular student was unable to teach a
concept to their peer. In order to avoid social sensibilities,
care was taken to ensure that girls and boys of a certain age
did not teach each other.
Training covered two courses, namely Office
Automation and Internet (OAI), and Desktop Publishing
(DTP). Both trainings were designed to last approximately
45 days. Student achievement was tested with open book
practical tests. Surprise theory tests were used to keep the
students on their toes. The final practical exam consisted of
200 marks; and would be provided to the students one week
before the final exam date. 100 marks would be directly
related to the material taught in the class. The remaining 100
marks consisted of material that was new to the students.
Students were encouraged to experiment and work in teams
to find the answers for the new content. Any student that
scored more than a 100 marks would demonstrate the ability
to go beyond what was taught in the classroom.
III.
Nine training camps were taught at the Haripuram center,
where students had access to electricity all through the day,
and open computer labs for 5 hours in addition to their class
times. The other eight training camps were run in the
villages, where electricity was limited to less than six hours a
day, and computer time was limited to 40 minutes a day.
Ten training camps were planned in villages. Out of these
10, BCT worked to involve the community in six of the
camps. In three camps, BCT worked to execute the camps
independently. In one of the camps, BCT worked with a
volunteer who took the initiative to request BCT for a
training camp.
METHOD
Table 1 presents and overview of the programs that were
run over a period of two years. Haripuram is an exception
because it is home to the BCT computer training center. The
center is home to 30 computers, broadband Internet, and a 5
KVA power backup.
IV.
All Ni-Msme training camps had a class strength of
approximately 25 students. Self-funded classes had an
average strength of 60 students each. In all around 650
students were trained. Somalingapalem and Kothapalem
have no training camps listed because these camps were
terminated prematurely for reasons that will be discussed in
the following chapter.
FINDINGS
A. Do More Resources Equate to better learning?
At the start of the program, we hypothesized that
providing more resources to students would deliver better
student performance. To this end, the nine training camps at
the BCT center had access to electricity throughout the day,
and provided up to five hours of additional computer time.
Surprisingly, the camps with access to more resources got
40% less marks than their peers in resource constrained
villages. Additionally, the student’s in resource constrained
villages had 20% better attendance and fewer disciplinary
issues. The community and students were also observed to
be more involved and empathetic to each other and to the
instructors who were staying in their village. Students were
also seen self organizing into study groups to help each other
study.
Two of the Ni-Msme MSO training camps were taught
using the mouse, while the rest of the MSO training camps
were taught using keyboard shortcuts. Four training camps
were taught using the instructor led teaching methodology,
where the instructor leads the class in a traditional manner.
The other 13 camps were taught using instructor mediated
peer-to-peer learning, where each student is expected to learn
for 40 minutes, and teach for 40 minutes.
54

3. D. How do students perform when taught computers
without using a mouse?
13 of the camps were taught using keyboard shortcuts.
Conversely four camps were taught using traditional mouse
base curriculum. Keyboard shortcut based curriculum is
language and GUI independent. As a result, we hypothesized
that this was ideally suited for rural students who may not be
able to navigate different versions of the software, or learn
English terms quickly enough.
It was common to see someone in the community
cooking food for the instructors, or offering their house for
free. Post training interviews revealed that students in the
resource rich classes did not feel as much pressure to attend
because they knew they could get extra computer time
whenever they wanted. On the flip side, the resource
constrained students felt that they had to use their time
wisely, and to work with each other so they could get good
marks – as a result, it was common to see students arriving
ahead of their scheduled time to write notes, study, and talk
to the instructors.
The hypothesis was supported when we noticed that
students had 50% better attendance in keyboard based
classes. And surprisingly, we realized that students enjoyed
showing off how quickly they could get a job done using
keyboard shortcuts. The method also impressed people who
know how to use the computer. As a result this aspect of the
training soon ended up becoming the selling point for the
program in rural communities. The marks list was lost for the
mouse based classes as a result we are unable to comment on
the improvement in grades.
B. What is the difference between Village based training
and Center based training camps?
64% of the center based camp students were male, and
the average age was 20 years. Village based training camps
on the other hand had around 48% male students, and the
average student age was 14.5 years old. We also noticed that
students in the center based camps performed worse, had
lower attendance, and had more disciplinary problems. In
contrast, parents and students in the village based training
center were more involved, and were thankful for the
opportunity to learn in the village.
E. What is the best way to manage community politics?
BCT planned 10 training camps in villages. However two
of them (Somalingapalem and Kothapalem) had to be
terminated prematurely. In both the communities BCT did
not build consensus prior to moving the computers. As a
result in one of the villages (Somalingapalem), the members
belonging to the opposition party started telling their
members to boycott the training. The members of the ruling
party promised their members that they would get discounts.
As a result the camp in that village became a political issue,
and we were unable to sign up enough numbers of genuine
students for the program.
The demographics were explained by the fact that parents
are unwilling to send their daughters and children outside the
village. Consequently, when a village based camp was
available, the girls would work hard to convince the parents
to send them to the training camp. Additionally, training
camps in villages tend to be easily accessible to the parent –
which makes it easier to monitor their child’s progress. This
phenomenon also contributed to the higher attendance and
performance rates amongst the village based students.
In the second village (Kothapalem), the initiative was
being run because a volunteer took the initiative to approach
BCT for the training. The volunteer used to run a primary
school. The community however withdrew support because
they believed that the volunteer was planning to expand his
school with the help of the training. In another case
(Gokivada), villagers started demanding exorbitant amounts
of money to provide accommodation for the training camp.
In this camp we set up a meeting with the village youth
groups, and let them know that we would terminate the camp
if the village did not support the effort. This brought a sea
change in the attitudes of the community and the camp was
successful. In all the other training camps, BCT took time to
reach out to the active youth groups, and Women’s Self Help
Groups – which generated the necessary support to deliver
the training camps.
C. Is there a difference between instructor led training and
Instructor mediated peer to peer learning?.
Four of the seventeen camps were taught using a
traditional instructor led training methodology, where
students were taught by an instructor, followed by a 40
minute hands on session with a computer. In the other
camps, students were asked to teach their peers from the
following batch – after their 40 minute session.
Student marks in Instructor mediated peer-to-peer
learning camps was 50% higher than their peers in traditional
instructor led camps. On further investigation we found that
students who did not understand a particular concept would
not normally ask for clarifications. However, when they have
to teach another person, the lack of understanding is quickly
escalated to the instructor. Additionally, students get to
exercise critical thinking skills when helping other students
solve their problems. The students also spend more time
preparing for their classes because they are motivated to
have the answers when one of their peers asks a question.
We also saw an improvement in the younger children’s
confidence levels and ability to verbalize their thought
process.
In Moolajampa village, when one of the political factions
tried to spread wrong information, the youth groups, women,
and elders in the village challenged them, and brought the
situation under control. Similarly, in Dimili village,
community members shared the costs of food for the
instructors and helped the camp become economically
viable.
55

4. V.
DISCUSSION
We hope that this paper will help drive more research
into how rural communities should be engaged, in order to
deliver sustainable results. Because, at the end of the day
success or failure will rest on the communities shoulders.
Center based training focuses on the individual. Where
the individual comes to class, learns, and leaves at their
convenience. Village based programs on the other hand
involve the whole community. Consequently, any program
that desires to bring about sustainable change in rural
communities must consider involving the whole community,
because doing otherwise would sidestep the very people one
is supposed to help. Rural development programs also run
the temptation to “get the job done”, and focus on short-term
metrics such as the number of people involved, or the grades
that the students attain. These metrics are individual in
nature, hence fail to engage the larger community.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was made possible with funding and
support from North South Foundation, Chicago; Cognizant
Foundation, Chennai; the Power Grid Corporation of India,
Visakhapatnam, and the National Institute for Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises, New Delhi.
We would also like to acknowledge Mr. B. S. Murty, Mr.
R. A. Rao, Mr. B. S. Rao, Dr. R. Chitturi, Mr. R. Chalasani,
Mrs. E. Kantamneni, Mrs and Mr. S. Kantamneni, Mrs. and
Mr. Rakasi, Ms. Deorah, Mrs. and Mr. Ojakaar, Ms.
Mamaghani, and Mrs. and Mr. Hausman for their time and
ongoing support.
Long term metrics such as community involvement and
ownership are harder to achieve because it takes time to
build the right partnerships. However, once the partnerships
are in place, the community pitches in to achieve the
sustainability -- because they see the value of the initiative.
Based on these insights, we recommend that rural
development programs focus on village based initiatives.
These initiatives would ideally engage with the women’s
Self Help Groups and with the youth groups in the
community. Individuals with political and personal agendas
are best avoided. Given the goals of BCT, there is a constant
pressure to deliver value driven programs. Consequently,
bandwidth is limited in terms of leveraging strong
experimental designs. To this end, quantitative evaluations of
the observed effects would be the ideal next step. Such a
study would also be able to identify interaction effects
amongst the different variables – something we were not
able to do.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Another interesting question that bears looking at is: how
much resources are enough before students start losing
interest? We hypothesize that the answer would look like a
bell curve. Where too little or too much resources would lead
to sub-optimal results. A more rigorous study in this regard
would help accurately quantify the optimal amount of
resources to be provided to a community.
[5]
[6]
56
S. Mitra, “Minimally Invasive Education for mass computer literacy”,
presented at the CRIDALA 2000 conference, Hong Kong, 21-25
June, 2000
Mitra, S., Dangwal, and R. Thadani, “Effects of remoteness on the
quality of education: a case study from North Indian schools”.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 2, 168–180,
2008.
Ritu Dangwal and Zuleikha Gupta, “The impact of IT literacy
through HiWEL learning stations on juvenile children”, British
Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 43 No 4, E117–E124, 2012.
Bruner, J. S. "Review of A. Gartner, M. Kohler and F.
Riessman.“Children teach Children”. Saturday Review, 62-63 (1972).
Schirmerhorn, S. "Peer teaching." Learning and Development, Vol. 5
No. 3, 1-5, 1973.
Schermerhorn, Shirleen M., Marcel L. Goldschmid, and Bruce M.
Shore. "Learning basic principles of probability in student dyads: A
cross-age comparison." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 67,
No 4, 551 – 557, 1975.