Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference
Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE 2012)
June 25 - 27, 2012 Napoli, Italy
AFFECTIVE ASPECTS OF THE EXPERIENCE WITH LOW COST LAPTOPS
IN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
Elaine C. S. Hayashi1, Rita M. M. Khater2, Maria Cecília C. Baranauskas1,2
1
Institute of Computing/UNICAMP; Campinas, SP, Brazil
2
NIED/UNICAMP; Campinas, SP, Brazil
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
In addition to the Brazilian government’s program, other
parallel actions are being implemented as well. This is the
case of Project XO, from the Institute of Computing and
Nucleus of Informatics Applied to Education at
UNICAMP.
In 2009 a donation of 520 laptops from OLPC
motivated this research project at a school in Campinas,
SP, Brazil. A community of more than 530 people,
among teachers, students and other school staff started to
use the laptop. The school Padre Emílio Miotti (Miotti) is
part of the city’s public schools and is located at a low
income neighborhood. The appropriation of the laptops is
being constructed in a joint effort with the support of a
research group, which is composed by researchers and
professionals from the areas of Computer Science,
Multimedia, Pedagogy and Psychology.
Being the use of XO laptops such a great opportunity
for developing countries, it seems important to understand
how children affectively react to them. In this work we
report and discuss results of an experiment to investigate
the relation this community established with the laptop
regarding its affective responses to it. This paper presents
the study conducted at Miotti elementary school,
involving children from 6 to 14 years old, teachers and a
few other members of the school community (including
parents and other employees from the school). The
objective of this work was to initiate investigation on the
affective relation the students establish with the laptop
that they started to use. We collected indicators that depict
qualitative states of children from Miotti, showing how
they are enjoying the laptop, how motivated they are and
how in control they feel.
The paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents
a brief literature review on efforts to evaluate the low cost
laptop; section 3 discusses and justifies the method to
assess affective responses used in our experiment,
describes the experiment and presents its results; section 4
discusses these results and section 5 concludes.
ABSTRACT
The dissemination of the use of information and
communication technologies in developing and emerging
countries are
a promise for leveraging education,
contributing to universal and democratic access to
education. The emotional and affective states of students
regarding technology may be an ally in their learning
process. While technology and affective responses are
important in children’s education, little is known about
students’ effective affective responses towards to the use
of technology at school. In the challenge of conducting
quantitative research on such subjective/qualitative aspect
of interaction, this study involved 340 participants from
an elementary school in Brazil where the deployment of
low cost laptops has been taking place recently. We point
out the importance of a systemic approach to assessing the
affective states of children within learning environments
mediated by technology.
KEY WORDS
Human-Computer Interaction, Design for children,
Affective Evaluation, Self-Assessment Manikin, Brazil.
1.
Introduction
Education is vital in the development process of a
country. The use of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) can greatly enhance educational
processes, especially in environments where the access to
this technology is scarce. According to UNESCO[1], ICT
“can contribute to universal access to education, equity in
education, the delivery of quality learning and teaching,
teachers’ professional development and more efficient
education management, governance and administration”.
Elementary schools (from 6 to 14 years old in the
Brazilian educational system) provide the basis for a
person’s education. Roughly 31,700,000 students are
enrolled in the fundamental level in Brazil, from which
around 27,500,000 are in public schools[2]. In a country
where 22% of the population still lives below the poverty
line [3] that number illustrates the dimension of the group
that can be impacted by initiatives that contribute to basic
education.
With the objective of furnishing children in
developing countries with a tool to broaden their access to
knowledge, the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)
organization developed the XO laptop. As part of a
governmental initiative, some public schools in Brazil are
experiencing the idea of having one laptop for each child.
DOI: 10.2316/P.2012.774-033
2.
Related Work
The expansion of projects such as OLPC’s has motivated
researchers to find evidences of the impact of the laptops
usage in education. After having the laptops in use in
many countries for some years already, first results can be
found regarding different aspects of evaluation (e.g.
[4],[5],[6],[7]). Usually what is under evaluation is the
program or project to deploy the use of the laptop in
schools. In such cases, the focus of the evaluation lies on
the results from the project, usually presenting the high
63
level impacts of the project in children’s education. The
evaluation of the XO laptop itself ends up being implicit
in the results, embedded in the evaluation of the
programs. The evaluation presented in [6] resulted in a
list of known characteristics of the laptop instead of a
more detailed analysis of their impact on the students. The
authors in [6] reached the conclusion that the XO is more
appropriate for Russian children from 8 to 12 years old.
According to the authors, children under 8 years old
would need more “conventional learning devices (book,
paper, ink, paint etc.) for their development” and
teenagers too would have other needs not supported by
the laptop, not to mention the fact that the keyboard is too
small for their hands [6].
Cervantes et al. [7] found that the size of the laptops’
keyboards also bothered some of the Mexican students
from 5th and 6th grades (usually 10 to 11 years old). In
[7], the main objective of the authors was to analyze the
socio-technical infrastructures needed as a support for
low-cost laptops (including both XO and Classmate
programs to succeed. Even though the laptops’
characteristics were not the focus of that study, vestiges of
the laptops’ evaluation can be found there. Also among
the accounts on the general experiences of the OLPC
program, Hourcade et al. [8] illustrate an activity with the
children to assess their relationship with the laptop. In the
Stick Note activity [8] children reported on their preferred
or least preferred activities related with the general use of
XO and program initiatives in general. There are other
important works reporting the experience using the laptop
and the overall evaluation of the program in different
countries, from which we can build some understanding
about the issues related to the XO laptop (e.g.
[9],[10],[11], among others).
Although many reviews have been released by the
mass media by the time of the laptop’s launching,
[12],[13],[14], specific evaluation of the artifact itself
(the XO laptop) as, for example, in [15] and [9] – are few.
From a socio-technical perspective, Miranda et al. [9]
compare the XO with other two low cost educational
laptops. The evaluation allowed the authors to analyze
and discuss elements that go beyond technological
aspects, including socio and cultural impacts that may
result from the insertion of the laptops at Brazilian
schools.
The mobility of the laptops – which can be taken
home by the students –, results in the possible digital
inclusion of the children’s parents, relatives, friends and
neighbors. For this reason, Canal et al. [15] argue that the
design of the artifact should fit other possible users
besides the children. In this sense, the authors present
their analysis of the XO laptop design, with a list of
problems and suggested solutions towards more inclusive
design. In both [9] and [15], the evaluations were done by
designers or researchers, based on inspection regarding
specific design guidelines [15] and a socio-technical
framework [9]. The final users – the children themselves
– were not listened, especially the children’s affective
response towards the object under evaluation. Although in
[5] children were interviewed and some emotional related
aspects were included in the questionnaire, the object of
evaluation was the program, not the laptop.
3. Assessing Affective Aspects of the
Experience
The current work presents and discusses the affective
responses from students, teachers and some other
stakeholders after they had been using the XO laptops for
the first six months of the Project. However, we had been
immersed in the context of Miotti Elementary School for
more than just these few months, starting long before the
laptops started being used at the school.
Project XO has been going on for two years so far.
During this time, different research initiatives have taken
place with varied purposes.
In order to understand the ‘relationship’ that students
and teachers have with the laptop, we have been engaged
within the schools activities, as participant observers. In
such activities, researchers are present in the classroom
during regular classes as well as on other intern practices
at the school. Informal interviews with students and
teachers also take place during these interactions.
By ‘relationship’ we mean the experience users
(children, teachers and other members of the school) have
with the new digital technology (the XO laptop). This
enabled experience is related to the concept of affordance
from Gibson [16], in which affordance "is equally a fact
of the environment and a fact of behavior" (p. 129). In this
relation between the object (or the world) and an
individual, the awareness of the object and of the
individual’s reaction to the object are not separable:
affordances concern the two sides, the environment and
the observer [16]. “The perceiving of an affordance is not
a process of perceiving a value-free physical object to
which meaning is somehow added in a way that no one
has been able to agree upon; it is a process of perceiving a
value-rich ecological object." (p.140) [16]. Our immersion
within the school’s ecosystem has been vital for us to
understand how the laptop is being recognized and
perceived, considering the school’s habits, culture and
organization.
Although a qualitative approach to investigate the
relationship between the students and the laptop is
appropriate, some quantitative aspects of this relationship
could also be raised.
3.1 Subjects and Method
In order to confirm and reinforce the positive impressions
resulted from qualitative data, we conducted a
quantitative assessment to have an indication of the
school’s emotional and affective reaction to the XO
laptop in the beginning of the Project.
The experiment counted on a total of 340
participants: 174 children from the 1st to 5th grades (years
1 until 5 from the elementary education), 130 children
64
business (call center system) [21], and affective
computing itself [22].
Considering only the Valence and Arousal
dimensions, Cai and Lin [23] have used a twodimensional graph to aid participants who were more
familiar with the use of labels (terms) than with the
arousal and valence concepts to describe their emotional
states. This graph mapped emotion labels in the 2D plane,
serving as a reference.
There are also some related instruments, created
based on SAM, like EWPL [24], Affectbutton [25], Fun
Semantical Differential Scales[26], among others.
In the context of low levels of literacy, the authors of
[27] showed that SAM’s picture-based format makes the
instrument appropriate for the illiterate. The absence of
texts (which is also appropriate for younger children) and
its simplicity are the factors that motivated us to choose
the instrument for our experiment.
from the 6th to 9th grades, and 36 other participants,
including teachers and other employees from the school.
In the next sub-section we describe the instrument
chosen to the experiment and the contexts in which the
instrument has already been used by other researchers.
Also, the choice is justified based on the analysis of other
similar instruments.
3.1.1 The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM)
SAM [17][18] is a picture oriented affective rating
system developed to “directly assess the pleasure,
arousal, and dominance associated in response to an
object or event.” [17]. A continuously varying scale is
used to indicate emotional reactions for each of the three
dimensions: valence (or pleasure – indicating positive or
negative emotional reactions to an object or situation);
arousal (or excitement or activation – indicating the
bodily activation from the emotional experience resulting
from the interaction with that object); and dominance
(describing the feeling of being controlled or being in
control of a situation or object). For the valence
dimension, SAM displays figures that range from a happy
(smiling) to unhappy (frowning) figure. The arousal
dimension is represented by figures going from excited
(eyes wide open) to bored or sleepy. The changes in
control are represented by the changes in the size of the
figures: the large one indicates the control (over a
situation or artifact) and the small one represents the
feeling of being dominated or having no control.
SAM has been used in varied contexts. Google
Scholar indicates that one of the papers that present SAM
[17] has been cited by more than 1,000 other references.
In [19] the authors observed participants reactions during
simulations of a disaster. They assessed participants’
reaction to robots acting in two modes (emotive and
standard non-emotive modes) using SAM. In that
experiment [19] only the arousal dimension of the
instrument was used. Other uses of SAM included
investigation in the areas of elderly healthcare [20],
3.1.2
Measuring Affective Responses
With the objective of assessing the first affective
responses to the laptop, we prepared an online version of
SAM. The form was adjusted to be seen at the XO screen.
The participants were asked to select one picture from
each dimension and click on “submit” at the end. Their
responses were then automatically computed.
The 174 children from the 1st to 5th grades (group A)
were between 6 to 10 years old; and the 130 6th to 9th
graders (group B) were between 11 to 14 years old. Group
C was composed of teachers and other members of the
school community.
Our first hypothesis was that younger children (group
A) had a more positive relationship with the XO laptop
(liked or accepted it) than group B. This hypothesis was
based on results from [7] and [6], mentioned earlier on
this paper, reporting how older children felt annoyed by
some characteristics of the laptop. Moreover, the design
of the laptop from OLPC was precisely intended to
younger children [4].
Figure 1 – Boxplots comparing the results obtained from the three Groups for the three dimensions
65
Table 1 – Analysis of the results
Valence
N
Mean
95% confidence
interval for mean
Standard deviation
High/Low
Median
Average absolute
deviat. from median
Arousal
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
174
8.6839
8.371
thru
8.997
1.28
9/1
9.0
130
6.3692
6.007
thru
6.732
2.94
9/1
7.0
36
7.2222
6.534
thru
7.911
1.55
9/5
7.0
174
8.6092
8.282
thru
8.936
1.46
9/1
9.0
130
5.7231
5.345
thru
6.101
2.93
9/1
6.5
36
6.4722
5.754
thru
7.191
2.04
9/3
7.0
174
7.9770
7.627
thru
8.327
1.87
9/1
9.0
130
5.8846
5.480
thru
6.289
2.89
9/1
5.5
36
4.4444
3.675
thru
5.214
2.21
9/1
5.0
0.316
2.34
1.33
0.391
2.54
1.81
1.02
2.55
1.72
The assessment took place after the laptops had been
distributed and effectively in use at the school for six
months. During these months, teachers had being
including incrementally the laptop in their daily activities,
using basic features like applications to write, calculate,
make graphs, take pictures and make short videos.
The evaluation activity was first conducted with
teachers during a meeting with researchers, other
employees from the school (e.g. director, pedagogues,
cook, janitor), parents and even some of the children
(classrooms’ representatives). The activity not only served
as a rehearsal for the next ones, helping researchers to
check if the online form and spreadsheet were working
properly, but it also allowed teachers to understand
beforehand the evaluation activity their students would
also be doing. On the next day from the activity with the
school community, we submitted the instrument to the
younger children (group A). On yet another day, the
children from group B participated in the activity. They
all answered the questionnaire using the XO laptop.
3.2
Dominance
A
from [23], the response from group A would fall around
the area labeled as “Excitement”; group B would stand
between “Calm” and “Surprise”; and group C, between
“Pleasure” and “Happiness”. It seems that, considering
only Valence and Arousal, teachers and other members of
school community are having a more positive response
than the older children. Considering the mean for the
entire group (all participants from groups A, B and C), the
school’s response stand in the area labeled as
“Happiness”.
4
Discussion
This assessment with students from Miotti took place in
the first months of the laptops deployment in the school.
The data shown in the previous section can be considered
as the initial impact of the insertion of the laptops at the
school. The insertion of something new in the daily
activities might always have an impact in the motivation.
In this sense, the same assessment is planned to be
performed again other times, when the laptops will not be
a
novelty
anymore.
Nevertheless,
interesting
considerations can be already discussed from the data
collected.
Results
In order to analyze the data from SAM, values were
attributed to each option in the columns of the form. We
graded each dimension in a scale from 1 to 9.
The results from each group (A: younger children, B:
older children and C: members of school’s community)
and each dimension (Valence, Arousal and Dominance)
were analyzed. Graph I (from Fig. 1) represents the
variations for the Valence dimension, comparing the
responses from groups A, B and C. Graphs II and III also
represent the variations for these groups, now for the
dimensions of Arousal and Dominance, respectively.
These boxplots provide direct visual information on
medians (bold horizontal lines), range of data (whiskers)
and extreme values or outliers (dots). Exact values for
means, medians and standard deviations are in Table 1.
Our initial hypothesis that the affective response
raised by the laptop in younger children is more positive
than the affective response from older children was
confirmed. If the results from the Valence and Arousal
dimensions were plotted in the two dimensional graph
4.1 Dominance x Valence
Dominance means were lower than the means from the
other dimensions for groups A and C – and slightly higher
(0.1615) for group B. The variance between means for
dominance and valence was smaller for group A. The
dominance ratings in group C was the smallest of the
three groups. For one aspect, computer technology does
seem to be rapidly grasped by younger children. For
another, adults (which form the majority of group C) not
only have more difficulties when using technology, but
they also can be more critical about their capabilities and
performance. The majority of the teachers from the school
took part in the activity, being all in group C. In this
sense, another possible explanation for the low
Dominance mean at group C is that the old school
teacher-stereotype (as someone who knows more rather
66
than someone who facilitates the collective construction
of knowledge) may still exist. A third hypothesis is that
there were participants in group C who might have very
few or no contact at all with ICT.
In any case, an important finding is that it seems that
both children and adults like the laptop even when they do
not feel domain over it. This is an indication that it does
not matter how big the challenge in dealing with a new
artifact might be, the motivation (arousal) can still be kept
in high levels when the general affective response
(valence) is high.
Questions that might progress from here include: to what
extent do affective states facilitate learning processes?
This awareness of the emotional states towards the artifact
may also help teachers to conduct their classes in the
direction of more interesting activities, exploring
possibilities of the artifact that might fit students
according to their age, interests and curriculum objectives.
4.5 The Self-Assessment Manikin
A technical manual from Lang, Bradley and Cuthbert
[18] presents a detailed example on how to instruct
children participants to use SAM, carefully explaining to
them each dimension in simple terms.
The subjects from Bradley and Lang [17], however,
were 78 college students (and no children). The authors
state that SAM can be used with children and as an
example they refer to a work related to the assessment of
children’s response to voices of dentists. McManis et al.
[28] used SAM to access children’s reactions to pictures
in works not at all related to the design of technology or
evaluation of digital artifacts.
Our participants could easily identify the meaning of
the pictures from the Valence level, but few guessed what
the pictures from the Arousal and Dominance level meant.
Some effort from the researcher was needed to explain the
second and third lines of the questionnaire. This indicates
that a change in the format might be needed if an online
assessment at distance should be applied, considering that
younger children (and sometimes even older children)
may have difficulty understanding written explanations.
4.2 Prior Experience
As informally observed at school, teachers and older
children have different rhythm than younger children and
the speed in which the XO laptop responds does not seem
to match their needs or expectation when compared to
other computers they already have experienced in the
school lab. Ergonomic factors might also have had an
impact, as the size of adults’ hands makes typing slower
and less comfortable.
The differences from SUGAR to other operational
systems may also be the cause of some estranging to those
that are familiar with the office metaphor. The expectation
of those who have access to desktop or other laptops
might have had impact on the responses. It might be
interesting to further correlate the results with their digital
literacy and frequency of use of other technologies.
4.3 Tailored fit
The XO design , made especially
for younger
children, might have reflected in older children’s affective
responses. Even though most of the older children from
Miotti may not seem intimidated by the size of the
keyboard or the laptop’s look – as often reported by them
–, they seem to have expected more from the laptop
(during the assessment, some children complained that the
laptop was too slow, referring to processing speed). In
spite of that, an important fact is that the affective
response from the younger children, for whom the laptop
was designed, was very positive. It does not mean that
older children cannot use the laptop, on the contrary. It
might indicate that they have not yet explored the laptop’s
features in deep. There are plenty of activities
(applications) that were developed for them and, as we
had witnessed during immersions in the school activities
they had not yet had the chance to discover them.
5
Conclusion
This paper has shown the use of SAM [17][18] as an
instrument to measure affective responses of children
towards the OLPC’s XO laptop. A quantitative analysis of
data has confirmed our initial hypothesis that younger
children (from 6 to 10 years old) present more positive
affective responses to this new technology than older
children (from 11 to 14 years old). Other contributions of
this work are:
• It has corroborated previous result [18] suggesting that
SAM can be successfully used with children, as long as
proper explanation on the pictures are provided;
• It has provided original and specific evaluation for the
laptop from OLPC, indicating that the design that was
carefully considered especially for younger children has
a positive affective quality for them. It also indicates
some challenges to be faced to accommodate the older
children and teachers;
4.4 Design implications
Knowing how users respond to an artifact might be
useful for designers interested in creating appealing
products. While SAM does not answer more specific
questions (e.g. the reason they like something or not), it is
an important tool that provides a picture of how the target
audience is feeling at that moment regarding the object.
Designing more appealing products may contribute to
children’s educational experience, as they might become
more engaged and free to construct their knowledge.
• It serves as an example for designers of educational
technologies interested in assessing how children
respond to their products, extending the product of
design to software applications;
• It showed that subjective qualities evoked by the design
of educational products may be measured and compared
within the learning scenario to inform the design.
67
Proc. SBIE 2006.
[12] N. Devantier, Experts Test XO Laptop – And the
Kids Love It. PCWorld, September 23, 2007.
[13] D. Dumas, Review: OLPC XO Laptop - The Eagle
Has Landed. Wired Magazine, December 10, 2007.
[14] Laptop with a Mission Widens its Audience. The
New York Times, Oct. 4th, 2007.
[15] M. C. Canal, L. C. Miranda, L.D.A., Almeida,
M.C.C. Baranauskas, Analisando a Simplicidade do
Laptop da OLPC: Desafios e Propostas de Soluções de
Design. Proc. SEMISH'11, Brazil, 2011.
[16] J.J. Gibson, The ecological approach to visual
perception (New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986).
[17] M.M. Bradley, P.J. Lang, Measuring Emotion: The
Self Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential.
Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 25, 1994, 49-59.
[18] P.J. Lang, M.M. Bradley,B.N. Cuthbert, International
affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of
pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-6.
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2005
[19] C.L. Bethel, K. Salomon, R.R. Murphy, Preliminary
Results: Humans Find Emotive Non-Anthropomorphic
Robots More Calming. Proc. HRI’09, California, USA,
2009.
[20] L. Mamykina, E.D. Mynatt, D. Kaufman,
Investigating Health Management Practices of Individuals
with Diabetes. Proc. CHI 2006, Montréal, Québec, 2006,
927-935.
[21] C. Nass, D. Kerkow, The Fulfillment of User Needs
and the Course of Time in Field Investigation. Proc. CHI
2010, Atlanta, GA, 2010, 4541-4552.
[22] L. Axelrod, K. Hone, E-motional Advantage:
Performance and Satisfaction Gains with Affective
Computing. Proc. CHI-EA 2005, Portland, Oregon, 2005,
1192-11955.
[23] H. Cai, Y. Lin, Modeling of operators' emotion and
task performance in a virtual driving environment.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
69(9), 2011, , 2011, 571-586.
[24] H. Petrie, C. Harrison, Measuring users' emotional
reactions to websites. Proc. CHI-EA 2009, Boston, MA,
2009, 3847-3852.
[25] J. Broekens, A. Pronker, M. Neuteboom, Real time
labeling of affect in music using the affectbutton. Proc.
AFFINE 2010, Firenze, 21-26.
[26] Y. M. Yusoff, I. Ruthven,M. Landoni, The fun
semantic differential scales. Proc IDC 2011, Ann Arbor,
2011, 221-224
[27] R. Romani, M.C.C Baranauskas, GWIDO – Games
With Interaction Design Objective. IADIS-WWW/Internet
2009, Rome, 351-358.
[28] M.H. McManis, , M.M. Bradley, W.K. Berg,B.N.
Cuthbert, P.J. Lang, P.J. Emotional reactions in children
verbal, physiological, and behavioral responses to
affective pictures. Psychophysiology, 38, 2001, 222–231.
Next steps of this research include the application of
the experiment using SAM systematically, after other
initiatives take place at the school (e.g. after specific
training courses for teachers and after implantation of a
program for student monitors).
Acknowledgements
We thank CNpQ (processes# 143487/2011, 475105/20109 and 560044/2010-0) for financial support, our
colleagues from UNICAMP and EMEF Padre Emílio
Miotti.
References
[1] UNESCO:
ICT
in
education:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/themes/icts/
[2] MEC/INEP. Resumo técnico - censo escolar 2010.
Available at http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?optio
n=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=7277&Itemid
= (last accessed: Feb., 2012)
[3] Worldbank, Data & Statistics: Country at a Glance
tables.
Brazil
(2011):
estimate
from
2009:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/AAG/bra_aag.pdf
Last
accessed: Feb., 2012.
[4] P. Flores, J.P. Hourcade, J.P. One Year of
Experiences with XO Laptops in Uruguay. Interactions,
16(4), 2009, 52-55.
[5] E. Näslund-Hadley, S. Kipp, J. Cruz, P. Ibarrarán, G.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. OLPC Pre-Pilot Evaluation Report
(Haiti). Inter-American Develpment Back Education,
working paper #2, 2009.
[6] Foundation Making Miles for Millennium,
Evaluation Report: Introduction of XO laptops for
(visually impaired) school students in Pskov and Nizhny
Novgorod, Russia. Harrie Vollaard/Gertie Clabbers, The
Netherlands.
[7] R. Cervantes, M. Warschauer, B. Nardi,
N.,
Sambasivan, Infrastructures for Low-cost Laptop Use in
Mexican Schools. Proc. CHI’11, Vancouver, Canada,
2011, 945-954.
[8] J.P. Hourcade, D. Beitler, D., F. Cormenzana, P.
Flores, Early OLPC Experiences in a Rural Uruguayan
School. Proc. CHI'08, Florence, Italy, 2503-2511.
[9] L.C. Miranda,, H. Hornung, D.S. M. Solarte,R.
Romani, M.R. Weinfurter, V.P.A Neris, M.C.C.
Baranauskas, Laptops Educacionais de Baixo Custo:
Prospectos e Desafios. SBIE 2007, São Paulo, Brazil.
[10] V. Venâncio, E. O. Telles, J.F. Franco, E. Aquino,
I.K. Ficheman, R.D. Lopes, UCA - Um Computador por
Aluno: relato dos protagonistas do piloto de São Paulo.
NATE- Núcleo de Aprendizagem, Trabalho e
Entretenimento, 2009.
[11] A.G.D., Corrêa, , G.A. Assis, I.K. Ficheman, V.
Venâncio, R.D. Lopes, Avaliação de Aceitabilidade de
um Computador Portátil de Baixo Custo por Criança.
68