India was the world's second most populous nation with 1.12 billion people. Its development plan for 2007-2011 envisioned a broad-based and more inclusive economic growth that would result in faster poverty reduction. It aimed to revive agriculture, attract more investments in infrastructure, and improve skills.
1.2.1 The economy
From 1990 to 2005, India's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an average of 4 percent a year.2 From 2005 to 2006, it grew by 9 percent, making it one of the world's fastest growing economies.3 At US$1,103 billion, its GDP was the world's twelfth largest.
An estimated 60 percent of India's labor force of 509.3 million worked in agriculture. On the other hand, 28 percent worked in services, and 12 percent in industry. Services, agriculture, and industry accounted for 54 percent, 28 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, of India's GDP.
India's 2006 exports, such as textiles, jewelries, engineering goods and software, among others, generated US$112 billion. Its high-technology export as a percentage of its exports of manufactured goods grew from 2 percent of GDP in 1990 to 5 percent in 2004.4
Many multinational companies preferred India as an outsourcing site owing to its large base of educated, English-speaking people.
1.2.2 Human Development
Despite significant economic growth, India experienced large disparities in its development. A quarter of its population earned less than US$0.40 a day, the official poverty line. While 70 percent of the population lived in the rural areas, economic opportunities were mostly concentrated in the cities, resulting in a dramatic rise in the population of the country's largest urban centers such as Mumbai, Kolkatta, Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad.
As measured by indicators of quality of people's life, education and health, India's Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.611 ranked Number 126th out of 177 countries.
By 2020, India sees itself as a nation bustling with energy, entrepreneurship and innovation. On the way to achieving this vision, India might need to overcome its weakness in its technological infra structure. (See Table 1.)
Table 1: Technology Diffusion and creation
| Country | 1
HDI Rank | 2
No. of tel. users | 3
No. of cell, users | 4
No. of Internet users | 5
No. of R&D workers | | Norway | 1 | 669 | 861 | 390 | 4,587 | | India | 126 | 41 | 44 | 32 | 119 | | Niger | 177 | 2 | 11 | 2 | - |
|
|
Figures based on UNDP's 2006 Human Development Report (pp. 327-330)
HDI Rank out of 177 countries
Telephone main lines per 1,000 people
Number of cellular subscribers per 1,000 people
Internet users per 1,000 people
Average from 2000 to 2003
Average from 1990 to 2003
1.2.3 Governance
India, a Union of 29 states and six (6) union territories (UTs), had a federal form of government and a bicameral Parliament. It had three branches of government: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Although the President, elected by an electoral college, headed this Union and was the official head of the country, it was the Prime Minister whom the President appointed, who was widely seen as the de facto head of government.
To be considered for appointment by the President, the Prime Minister had to have the support of the majority in the 545-member Lok Sabha, the branch of Parliament whose members were directly elected by their respective constituents. The Rajya Sabha (the Council of States) was the other body of Parliament. It had 250 members.
At the State level, a Governor, who served as the representative of the President, acted as head of the State. The Chief Minister, supported by majority of the members of the unicameral parliament, was the de facto head of state.
All 29 states were subdivided into districts for ease of administration. In the larger states, some districts were grouped into a division.
1.2.4 The education System
Although Hindi was the official language of India, English was also used in education, business and public administration. India's constitution recognized 21 other languages. The country had an estimated 1,652 dialects. These languages and dialects were also used as mediums of instruction at the state level.
State government boards controlled a large number of schools, where a vast majority of children studied.5 The Central Board of Secondary Education and the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations controlled and regulated the other schools.
The national government's role. Before 1976, the States had almost exclusive responsibility over education. A 1976 Constitutional amendment, however, expanded the Union Government's role in education. More specifically, as a result of this constitutional amendment, the Union Government initiated and reinforced a national system of education, maintained educational quality and standards for the teaching profession, and monitored the country's educational requirements.6
The Ministry of Human Resource Development supervised two national education departments on secondary and higher education, on the one hand, and elementary education and literacy, on the other.7
The Union Government played a leading role in education reforms in India. Through the 1986 National Policy on Education (NPE), it advocated reforms that envisioned a National System of Education (NSE) which aimed to standardize and improve the quality of education; provided universal access to education; and established a more decentralized structure for managing education.
8 The NSE also aimed to:
Propagate adult education programs
Educate and retain girls in school
Establish model schools in each district
Establish more state Open Universities
Strengthen technical education
The NPE also aimed to increase education spending to 6 percent of the GDP.
Teacher Education. The NPE aimed to strengthen the institutions for the pre-service and in-service training of teachers. In line with this, the Union Government provided financial assistance to the states for the following:
9The setting up of District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs).
The strengthening of Secondary Teachers Education Institutions into Colleges of Teacher Education (CTEs) and Institutes of Advanced Study in Education (IASEs).
The strengthening of State Councils of Education Research and Training(SCERTs).
Subsequent government programs to improve teacher training aimed to improve the programs of DIETs in order to increase the levels of student learner achievements.
In 1995, the Union Government established the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to improve coordination in developing and implementing teacher education programs in India.10 NCTE accredited teacher education institutions and ensured their observance of national standards for teacher education.
The NCTE had four regional committees based in Jaipur, Bangalore, Bhubaneswar and Bhopal to serve the northern, southern, eastern and western regions of India, respectively. These committees accredited teacher training institutions in their respective regions. They granted permission to these institutions to run teacher training courses.
As of January 2006, NCTE had recognized 5,854 training institutions offering 6,647 courses that would benefit an estimated 522,000 teacher trainees.
Intel India ran education initiatives designed to mainstream the use of ICT so as to support the goal of digital inclusion and celebrate excellence in math, science and engineering. It implemented several initiatives, as follows:
Intel® Teach
Intel® Learn
Intel Computer Clubhouse
Initiative for Research and Innovation in Science (IRIS)
Intel® Higher Education
Intel® Community Outreach
ICT for Education Program
1.3.1 Program Objectives to Suit the Indian context
Like the global program, the Intel® Teach Program in India aimed to improve the skills of teachers in the use of technology and of the Project-Based Learning (PBL) approach in teaching within the Indian context.11
Among the objectives that drove the content and delivery of the training program in India were the following: to encourage students to be engaged in community-related projects and to improve their math and science skills. Intel also aimed to work with the teachers, encourage greater involvement of the government, and adapt and localize the Intel® Teach curriculum.
1.3.2 Program components
The In-service Program: This component offered K-12 classroom teachers courses on how, when, and where to incorporate technology resources in their teaching. Trainings were conducted for teachers from schools regulated by the Central Board of Secondary Education Board (CBSE), the Indian Certificate of School Examination Board (ICSE), and the State Education Boards.
The Pre-service Program: Run in collaboration with Universities and apex bodies coordinating teacher education in India, this component, which started in 2002, empowered Teacher Educators to train future teachers on how to integrate Technology-Aided Learning (TAL) into their lessons. Partner universities integrated the Intel® Teach Pre-service Curriculum as an official training curriculum of their colleges of education through the following processes:
Curriculum review where they agreed to integrate the Intel® Teach Pre-service Curriculum as either a compulsory or an optional component of the ICT Paper.
Resource building where Intel trained two teacher educators from the University's College of Education as MTs who then trained their co-teachers.
Implementation where teacher educators demonstrated not only the effective use of technology in the Bachelor of Education classes, but also trained Student Teachers on how to plan and implement ICT-supported lessons.
Teacher educators from participating Universities formed a Core Committee that met regularly to discuss program-related issues. Recently, research task forces were formed by these Core Committees to encourage researches in ICT integration across colleges of education in India.
Intel also conducted annual contests for Best Integration of Technology in Education among teacher educators and student teachers.
1.3.3 The evolution of the Intel® Teach Program12
The Intel® Teach Program was started in four states in India toward late 1999 to 2000.
Figure 3: Milestones of Intel® Teach India
Focus on premium private schools: Launched as a global program at that time, Intel® Teach focused on building excellence or innovation in the classrooms. Since it was difficult to demonstrate program success in a vast country like India, Intel piloted the program in only four states, with teachers from premium private schools as the focus. Teachers in these schools had close working relationships with government policymakers.
In the first two years, Intel India trained those teachers from these schools who had computers but did not know how to maximize their use for classroom teaching and student learning. After the training, the teachers gained skills in integrating technology into their teaching.
Intel documented and packaged their improvements and showcased them before various stakeholders, primarily government. The private school teachers who were trained under Intel® Teach also began championing the program before their colleagues from public schools, somehow serving as "brand ambassadors" of the program.
Intel also tried to create and increase the stakeholders' awareness and interest in the program by launching the first contest on Best Integration of Technology in teaching in the first year of program implementation.
Government took no time to notice the program's value. Several state education ministries requested Intel to cover government schools in the program.
During the first two years of program implementation, Intel learned a lot. It realized that there was a need to localize and adapt the global Intel® Teach curriculum so that it would work within the Indian context and become more robust from an impact perspective.
The need to shift focus to government schools: From 2001 to 2002, Intel started realizing that the government schools had a bigger need for the program. Unlike private schools, government schools could not charge fees for improving their infrastructure. Majority of the school children in India studied in government schools.
At the time that Intel began to realize the need for a shift in program focus, state governments were also becoming more aware of the program's initial success in private schools and its potential value in improving the quality of education in government schools. Thus, some state governments asked Intel to expand its professional development program for teachers to government schools.
Although there was a need to shift the program focus, Intel knew that creating an impact was a big challenge, to begin with. In government schools, a large number of teachers were untrained and had no access to computers. At the time of Intel® Teach's launch in 2000, there were 840,000 primary and upper schools employing approximately 6 million in-service teachers.
That there was also no set curriculum to support implementation of the Intel® Teach program in many of the schools led to another concern: that resources would be wasted in training teachers who would be unable to apply their learning because they did not have adequate access to computer technology in their own schools.
Some state governments assured Intel that they were going to build the necessary elements for the program's success. On this assurance, Intel began piloting the program in selected government schools in 2002.
The Pre-service Program: During the first two years of implementation, Intel realized the need to focus on training teacher educators and future teachers. Thus it started the pre-service component of the Intel® Teach Program in 2003. It initially partnered with six (6) universities for this program component.
Formation of the Master Teachers Club: Although it shifted its focus away from private schools, Intel continued its partnerships with them. These partnerships eventually gave private school teachers a more strategic role in the Intel® Teach Program. Intel's continuing partnership with them took on a different and strategic purpose—to make them "brand ambassadors" who would showcase what good implementation of an Intel® Teach program should look like.
Since 2004, Intel had worked with selected private schools that would, in turn, support local government schools, interact with the government and show them the program's successes. The private school teachers would also help Intel build the Master Teachers (MT) Club, a local community organization that would initiate teacher training, organize program-related events and share best practices on technology integration in teaching. In its partnership with these MT Clubs, Intel would give "back-end" support, e.g., small financial support to allow the clubs to assume basic event administration and logistics. This partnership would earn for the Intel® Teach Program the high regard of many state governments that would see the program's positive impact on private school teachers.
Greater focus on building government partnerships: In 2004, Anshul Sonak became Intel India's new K-12 Education Manager. At that time, most of the state governments were beginning the second wave of their school computerization programs. During the first wave, many of the state governments contracted third-party agencies to deliver the computers to the schools and give computer training to the teachers.
State governments learned a lot from this experience. For one, they realized that third-party agencies alone were not able to capture the real complexities of integrating technology in education in their states. They also saw the need for local capacity building on understanding and actually using technology in education.
In his meetings with state governments, Sonak was often asked what Intel could do beyond teacher training because they wanted a program that would sustain the efforts to integrate technology into the education system.
Intel itself, drawing from the lessons learned in running the Intel® Teach program for three years in India, wanted to go beyond teacher training as the focal activity of the program. It realized that, in addition to doing teacher training, the program activities must also aim to remove the policy, infrastructural and other constraints to mainstreaming the use of technology in teaching.
As there was need for governments to play the crucial role of removing these bottlenecks to technology integration in classroom teaching, Intel considered a government buy-in as a necessary condition for the Intel® Teach Program to deliver the desired impact.
As it stood, the program, in first three years of implementation in India, was fully dependent on Intel which paid for the entire fees of trainers and the cost of materials and logistics. Such had been the other challenge articulated to Sonak: how to make the program an equal partnership between Intel and the government. To address it, Intel had to "create a lot of government ownership" for the Intel® Teach Program which meant convincing governments to shoulder some of the cost, such as the salaries and allowances of teacher trainers during the training.
In 2004, however, there was no state government ready or willing to spend for the salary and travel cost of senior trainer teachers and actual participating teachers undergoing Intel® Teach training.
But Sonak had prior work experience in dealing with governments on such technology- based training programs. He was very much familiar with the issues; he knew how governments thought and how they decided matters relative to such types of partnerships. And he thought that such knowledge would guide him in the following processes; making the Intel® Teach Program more focused on government schools and creating more government ownership of the program.
The first task, Sonak said, was how to articulate the program in a simple language that was more appealing to the government. He said that the task was to convince government that what Intel was doing was not just training teachers how to use technology in teaching but helping them improve the overall quality of education in public schools.
Another step that Intel took to build government ownership of the Intel® Teach program was to restructure the activities of the agency that helped it implement the program at the state level. The activities of Intel's implementation partner were fit for the teacher-training focus, but not for the new thrust of building and strengthening government ownership of the program. Thus, Intel had to enhance the capacity of its Regional Training Agency (RTA), as it was called, to undertake community building and relationship building with governments.
In 2005, knowing well the organizational structure of its RTA, Sonak selected its best people and created a team to undertake policy advocacy. This set of individuals from its first RTA worked with him directly, to ensure close interaction with governments and to push them towards curriculum modernization, infrastructure planning, the formulation of teacher motivation policies, and content planning. He also trained them on how to give back-end consultancy support and strategic advice to state governments in efforts to mainstream the use of ICT in teaching.
Compared to the previous setup where Intel's RTA staff merely spoke to the government on teacher training, this time around, program staff interactions with the government went beyond teacher training. Sonak recalled: "We were going to them saying "We have a set of people who will help you train more and more teachers and another set of people who will proactively plan and help you in making the necessary policy amendments and get your curriculum modernized. We have a set of experts who could work with you back-end."
Sonak also hired a second RTA because, as he said, "for such a large country and such a large program, we really need to bring in that sense of fresh air." The second RTA, a leading IT company in the education sector, started to run the program in three states in India.
Sonak encountered difficulties in dealing with state governments, especially when Intel was just starting the roll-out of the program beyond the four pilot states. The initial challenge then was to convince state governments that Intel wanted to do business in an ethical manner and was sincere in its desire to help them improve education.
In some instances, some governments would ask Sonak if buying Intel chips was Intel's precondition for training teachers in their states. In response, Sonak would say: "What I'm interested in is your willingness to make changes in the school curriculum, establish a teacher recognition system, etc. I'm not going to tell you that what you should buy. Intel has a different set of people who can help you in that, if needed."
Intel started working with state governments besides central governments. It used a bottom-up strategy which meant that the success of the program should first be demonstrated at the state level. Then, later on, it could resort to the top-down approach wherein the Union Government would play a more active role in pushing for an India-wide education transformation that was needed for mainstreaming 21st century school education.
Seven years into the program's implementation, Intel collaborated not only with state education ministries but also with national government bodies coordinating the in-service and pre-service training of teachers. As of 2007, Intel had also built alliances with NGOs and with 15 of the 29 Indian states, up from four states upon its inception in 2000 (See Figure 4). The program was also operational in two Union territories.
As of September 2007, in particular, Intel® Teach had benefited more than 32,000 schools in 15 states.
Within a span of seven years, the Intel® Teach Program of India had also benefited 750,000 in-service K-12 teachers, teacher educators and student teachers. Of the total figure, 250,000 were teacher educators and student teachers, while around 500,000 were in-service teachers. Of the 500,000 teachers trained, between 70, 000 and 80,000 were Master Teachers. By the eighth year of implementation, Intel India planned to reach one million in-service and pre-service teachers.
All these achievements might be attributed to three major factors:
the quality of management support,
the credibility of the process used by Intel to build partnerships, and
the sustained build-up of partnership structures and processes.
Figure 4: Intel® Teach Presence in India
1.3.4 Program Methods and Strategies
Intel adopted key strategies to ensure the effective implementation of the program in the Indian context.
Selection of ready schools: To participate in the program, schools had to have a minimum of 10 networked computers with Microsoft Office and Internet connectivity. The computerized schools were selected in consultation with state education ministries.
Train-the-Trainer Model: Intel believed this to be a more appropriate approach for scaling up the program, given India's vastness. Using this model, Intel India trained Senior Trainers who, in turn, trained 10-20 Master Teachers from selected government schools. These MTs then trained other Participant Teachers from their own schools.
This model, according to Anshul Sonak, was replicable for as long as trainer support was sustained. By building the local base of experts and program champions, Intel would slowly build and strengthen local capacity for sustained program implementation. Education ministries would also provide greater support for the program with the presence and participation of local experts and champions. Lastly, using the model would also reduce the dependence of local stakeholders on Intel for resources to help them sustain initiatives to mainstream the use of ICT in education.
Government partnerships: Intel partnered with national and state governments in running the training. It paid for the salaries of Senior Trainers and for the cost of training materials, while governments bore the cost of training infrastructure and the allowances of teachers. In a more mature partnership, the State government shouldered the entire cost of the training materials.
Before launching the program in any state, Intel and the state government signed an agreement specifying their respective roles and responsibilities in program implementation.
Partnerships with Program Execution Agencies: Intel partnered with program execution agencies, which had a bigger staff complement at the State level. These agencies helped Intel build, strengthen and maintain crucial relationships with state governments, education officials, principals and other key program stakeholders.
Content Localization: The localization of the global Intel® Teach program was the key strategy to making the program relevant to Indian stakeholders. That Intel offered global content in a local format because of the different stages of ICT development in the states was a big challenge in itself.
In localizing content in partnership with Indian educators, Intel brought its content expertise to the process while ensuring the alignment of the program with the objectives of national and state curricula, and with the standards for teacher training.
A result of this localization effort and of the drive to make content relevant for Indian teachers was the translation of Intel® Teach curriculum, including refresher courses, in nine (9) Indian languages.
Practical training: The localized Intel® Teach training program consisted of 17 modules of three hours each. The modules, which could be completed in 60 hours, provided teachers with extensive hands-on training on the use of multimedia resources for understanding abstract concepts.
These modules offered pedagogical discussions to conquer actual problems in ICT integration in the classroom. They also taught teachers how to develop curriculum-framing questions and learning objectives that would pose challenging, real-world problem solving opportunities for students.
Teachers also learned about innovative teaching methods such as PBL approaches that promoted higher-thinking skills and self-learning among students.
During face-to-face trainings, Intel encouraged the development of the teachers' unit plans or subject lesson plans that would foster ICT integration and the 21st century learning skills of students. It also encouraged teachers to design lesson plans that would engage students in class projects that addressed relevant community issues.
To make sure that the training resulted in the greater frequency of technology use in teaching and other desired impacts, Intel provided post-training support to schools and teachers who benefited from the training.
The Intel® Teach Program certificate was given to teachers who successfully completed the training and submitted unit plans for implementation in the school after the training. The certificate given was jointly signed by the government and Intel, making it highly valued by teacher communities.
Consistent evaluation: Another key strategy used globally and in India was the consistent and systematic evaluation to guide program improvements. In India, Intel partnered with a credible research firm, which undertook annual program evaluation to track the program's impact and the satisfaction of principals, teachers and students.
Intel also conducted periodic half-day roundtable discussions (RTD) with internal and external stakeholders on program-relevant issues such as the manpower of Intel, the skills needed to effectively carry out the program, and the government's support for the program.
1.3.5 Management support
The existence of a formal management structure facilitated program implementation. At Intel India, a Corporate Affairs Division oversaw the implementation of Intel's CSR programs. This division, headed by Rahul Bedi, held quarterly meetings to review the accomplishments of the CSR programs. (See Box 1). Bedi, an engineer by profession and also a development volunteer, became head of Intel India's Corporate Affairs in April 2007.
Bedi said that the Intel® Teach program not only helped improve education in India, but also enhanced the company's prospects for long-term stability and success. He said that the program improved the computer skills of children who had the potential to become Intel employees in 15 to 20 years.
Sonak said that the high-level management ownership of CSR programs made it easier to generate larger organizational support for the Intel® Teach Program and the program innovations needed to suit the varied program implementation contexts in Indian states. These adjustments were needed to make the Intel® Teach curriculum more relevant to Indian teachers.
As a number of rural Indian teachers had less exposure to technology and modern teaching learning practices like inquiry-based learning, Sonak had to present a case before internal stakeholders to allow the localization of the curriculum and content. A healthy managerial discussion on this issue ensued. One major concern of internal stakeholders was the past investment on developing more advanced curriculum and content for the Intel® Teach program.
Although the changes to the model Intel® Teach course had to be approved by Intel, both at the India and headquarters level, securing such approval was not difficult because of the announcement of Craig Barrett, Intel's Chairman of the Board, that 10 million more teachers in developing countries worldwide should be trained by 2011. In addition, "there was already a realization at all levels at Intel that we should have a multiple bouquet of curriculum and content," Sonak said. He added that it was just a question of articulating how much the innovations would cost, what returns they would bring to Intel and its external stakeholders and what benefits they would bring to the education community.
Program changes also needed to be explained to the other internal stakeholders like the Sales and Marketing Group of Intel. "We closely work with and show them the value of the program changes in two ways: 1) we articulate very clearly how our program is enhancing Intel's reputation at the state level, and 2) we say that because of all these efforts, governments are now finding stronger and better reasons for adopting technology," he added.
1.3.6 CSR protocol
Sonak said that Intel had a well-defined protocol in its CSR practice: In line with the company's goal of building trusted partnerships with external stakeholders such as governments, no CSR projects should be associated with sales efforts. "Business calls, with both CSR and Sales Manager in attendance, were not allowed."
This protocol, he pointed out, helped Intel maintain its credibility as a development partner. In turn, this credibility facilitated its success in securing the support of governments for the Intel® Teach Program.
Box 1Inside Corporate Affairs
Before joining Intel, Anshul Sonak worked with a leading IT-in-education organization in Asia on strategic planning for their K-12 business around the world. He brought with him a rich experience in understanding K-12 technology segment, particularly the various public-private partnerships models on the ground, and expertise in strategic planning and actual ICT in Education marketing when he became Intel India's K-12 Education Manager in 2004.
Intel had a Corporate Affairs Group (CAG) whose missions were to drive community, education and policy agendas around the world and around the countries; and to drive positive impact in order to enhance Intel's reputation and business. It had a Corporate Affairs head for Asia who supervised Intel's Education Manager in the region. Each Intel site per country had a Corporate Affairs Manager who handled three key functions: education, community affairs, and government affairs.
In his capacity as K-12 Education Manager, Sonak was under the supervision of the Corporate Affairs Manager of Intel India. For product support, planning, strategy and budgetary support, he also worked with Intel's Education Manager for Asia who played a crucial role in ensuring that country-level program plans were aligned with the global directions.
Intel's Education Manager throughout Asia held monthly virtual meetings. At each Intel site, the Corporate Affairs division had a quarterly review to monitor and evaluate the progress of the education programs. Once a year, Intel organized an Education Summit where all Intel Education Managers around the world convened in one place, typically in the United States.
1.3.7 The program management structure
Intel implemented the program through its network of partners consisting of NGOs, education service providers, and teachers' clubs, national and state education ministries, and universities.
Partnerships with an NGO and an education Service Provider: In these partnerships, Intel, through its K-12 Education Manager, set the strategies, the goals, the activities, and the program budget for India. It also set its expectations with regard to government's contribution or role in the program.
Intel's partners, on the other hand, deployed trainers in the ground. Together with Intel's Education Manager and the government, they planned how to conduct the training and determined what the best training model was and the extent of content localization needed.
Intel's program implementation partners assigned staff to run the program at the state level. Its first RTA, for example, had 120 people-State Coordinators and Senior Trainers—run trainings and provide continuing program support. The State Coordinators and Senior Trainers also liaised with education officials at the state and district levels. They supported Intel's policy-advocacy work with the state governments. As trainers and providers of program support, they also regularly interacted with principals and teachers. They were the ground face of the Intel® Teach Program at the state level. (See Boxes 2 and 3).
Box 2
The Face of the Intel® Teach Program
Milap Mehta, State Coordinator of Intel® Teach in Gujarat, announces the winners of the 2007 Gujarat Government Technology in Education Awards.
Milap was a former Mathematics teacher who was trained as Senior Trainer under the Intel® Teach Program in 2000. He soon joined Intel's first program implementation partner as Senior Trainer in Gujarat. After seven years, he became a State Coordinator whose job included serving as the program's liaison with state education officials, principals, teachers and other local stakeholders. He planned the program-related events and arranged the training schedules.
Over the years, he established a good working relationship with state education officials- a product, he said, of patient and continuous efforts to build and maintain trusted partnerships with them. When requested, he often advised them on needed policy support for mainstreaming the use of ICT in teaching in the State of Gujarat.
Projects with the Union Government: Intel partnered with the Ministry of Human Resource Development in establishing and managing schools, covering Standard (Grade) VI to XII known as Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNVs). The Vidyalayas sought to promote and develop talented, bright and gifted children from the rural areas. Around 3,000 teachers were trained under Intel® Teach through this partnership.
Box 3
Experiences of Intel’s NGO Partner in Implementing the Intel® Teach Program in Gujarat
Value of the programMost teachers complained about the difficulty of the training on the first day. But as the training progressed, they began to appreciate its value.
Some MTs did not have access to computers.
Some principals were not supportive but their attitudes became favorable after they attended a one-day briefing on the program.
In the first two years of implementation, some District Education Officers (DEOs) were not very supportive. But now, they were the ones asking about the schedule of the training.
The ease of explanation, time management and student receptivity to lessons made Intel® Teach very valuable to teachers.
Strategies for obtaining government supportLLF's state coordinator established ongoing and personal relationships with education board officials.
Regular visits, the updating, and sharing of success stories were found to be effective strategies in getting the support of education officials.
ResultsThe attitude of student and teachers towards technology changed.
Demand for computerization in public schools rose after the implementation of Intel® Teach. Some students and teachers bought their own PCs.
Student absenteeism declined in subjects where computers were used for instruction.
Proposals for program improvementJoint ventures between Intel and the state government to enhance the teachers' access to computer hardware and software
Alignment of ICT policy to integrate PBL in the routine coursework sanctioned by the state
Regular post-training support for MTs
More government participation in program monitoring and evaluation
Intel partnered with the Ministry of Information Technology (MOIT) for the capacity building of teachers from the rural areas under the ministry's Vidya Vahini Project. The project aimed to connect 140 public schools in seven districts across the country. Around 1,400 teachers were trained under Intel® Teach through this partnership.
In-service State Government Projects: Intel partnered with 15 state governments and 2 Union Territories (UTs) in the implementation of the Intel® Teach Program. A memorandum of understanding defined the partnership and specified the roles and responsibilities of Intel and the state education departments. State education departments appointed focal officers for Intel® Teach implementation under the partnership and allocated budget to support the program.
In some states, the education departments made it mandatory for teachers trained under the program to implement one to two technology-supported lessons.
Another type of support extended by the states was the mandatory allocation of two periods per week for technology-supported project-based learning.
Box 4
Partnership with the State Government of Gujarat on the Intel® Teach Program
Rahul Bedi (third from left), Corporate Affairs Director of Intel India, joined State Education Minister Anandiben Patel and R.K. Pathak, Chair of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board during the 2007 Gujarat Government Technology in Education Awards.
Value of the programSupport given by the State GovernmentOrganized workshops in support of the program
Printed 10,000 copies of Intel® Teach materials
Allowed duty leave and provided an allowance for teachers who attended Intel® Teach training
Made computer education compulsory in secondary and higher secondary levels
Mandated computer training for all teachers
Required DEOs to extend logistical and administrative support to STs of Intel® Teach
Planned to improve the schools' access to technology
Factors facilitating the success of the programTop-down support of the State Government
Education's being given high priority by the state
Computer training as an educational priority
Free training from Intel
Constraints to technology integrationEnglish was not widely spoken in Gujarat
50 percent of the 8,000 schools in the had no computers
The quality of teacher training in some cases was diluted when only MTs trained other school teachers.
Intel had apparently gained recognition as a policy expert on technology integration because of the Intel® Teach Program. In Haryana, for example, the state education department invited Intel to become a part of the state's "ICT in Education Committee", making it the only non-government member in the said committee.
In Gujarat, Intel also worked with the state education departmentand the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (elementary education program) as consultant for ICT in education.
Thus far, Intel had trained over 62,000 teachers in this State. For the first time, the partnership was moving towards developing and mainstreaming Technology Standards for secondary schools. Implementation of these technology standards had been piloted in 52 schools. (See also Box 4)
Partnerships with Universities for the Pre-service Program: Since the inception of the Pre-service component of Intel® Teach, Intel had been working with more than 28 universities in India on integrating the Intel® Teach curriculum in the Bachelor of Education curriculum of these universities. Intel was also working with four State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) on improving teacher education.
Intel likewise collaborated with the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on a training program that aimed to integrate ICT in teacher education.
The pre-service component was piloted in two universities in 2002. From that experience, the need to secure the buy-in of Teacher Educators and the heads of the Colleges of Education in these Universities became evident.
As the program expanded, concerns over the program's direction, ownership and sustainability began to emerge. To address these, Intel helped organized the Pre-service Core Committee in 2003 that would provide the program guidance and strengthen its relationship with national bodies coordinating teacher training and education in India.
The 14 members of the Core Committee were representatives of the Apex Education Bodies, namely, NCTE, NCERT, NAAC, and of the universities associated with the program. The committee, which met two to three times a year, provided valuable help in pushing the integration of the Intel® Teach curriculum into the Bachelor of Education curricula in affiliated universities.
The Master Trainers' (MT) Clubs: Teachers trained under Intel® Teach formed these MT Clubs of which there were 20 all over India as of 2007. Intel handed out cash prizes to the best clubs every year. (See also Box 5).
These clubs established convergence in all education initiatives taken by Intel India and encouraged integration of technology-supported PBL curriculum. They also aimed to do the following: 1) showcase success stories so as to give others ideas and strategies for successful integration, 2) facilitate policy changes to make technology-supported PBL part of the state education curricula. The clubs executed the following activities:
Orientation and enhancement workshops on technology-supported PBL for teachers and students
Leadership forums for school principals
Seminars on the role of technology in addressing learning disabilities
Orientation seminars for senior citizens, parents and students on the use of computers in daily life
PBL contests for teachers and students
Intel India spent considerable resources on regular and systematic evaluations not only to improve the Intel® Teach Program, but also to demonstrate program impact to crucial stakeholders like State governments.
Independent research firms conducted these evaluations for Intel worldwide. In India, Intel's partner in program evaluations was a highly known market research firm. Third-party evaluation done by this independent research firm contributed to the program's success in India.
Intel India used formative and summative evaluation studies to measure the program's performance. It reported the results of these evaluation studies to governments during policy workshops.
One way to measure the program's impact was to monitor the number and quality of education policy changes related to the curriculum and teaching processes. Another indicator tracked was the number of awards and recognitions that Intel India received from the government and the number of invitations it received from government policy taskforces on ICT mainstreaming.13
Evaluation studies done by Intel's program evaluation partner usually focused on three items:
the implementation of the program among school teachers and principals,
the impact of the program on teaching methods and the lesson preparations of teachers who received Intel® Teaching training, and
its impact on student learning.
In addition, evaluators also measured the satisfaction level of principals, teachers and students relative to the Intel® Teach Program.
Box 5
Partnership with the Master Teachers Club in Baroda District in Gujarat
Background of the MT ClubIntel trained MTs in Baroda in 2001
40 MTs in Baroda organized themselves as Kshitij Educators Network
The mission of the club was to integrate technology in the school curricula, champion Intel® Teach, and showcase the successes and benefits of ICT integration in teaching
Had a Memorandum of Understanding with Intel on the conduct of teacher training activities and the publication of newsletters
Received funding support from Intel on some of its activities
Value of the programClassroom teaching became more interactive; teachers enjoyed teaching more
The introduction of PBL approaches made the MTs realize the value of interactive teaching
Students became more interested and involved in technology-supported lessons
Students learned more about project teamwork
Confidence of students increased
MT Club ActivitiesAssisted teachers in formulating unit plans
Trained other teachers on ICT integration so that almost all teachers in Baroda had been trained
Showcased schools as evidence of successful ICT integration in education
Mentored student teachers
Supported the placement of new teachers who were trained under Intel® Teach
Organized technology carnivals with Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
Organized awareness workshops to educate parents on the value of ICT in their child's education
Constraints to technology integrationLack of resources to buy computers
Lack of time to integrate ICT in the lesson plan
Lack of support from school leaders
Suggestions for program improvementInclude ICT integration training as part of the education curriculum; update state curriculum to be at par with other developed countries
Create a flexible curriculum with governments that allowed the integration of ICT in teaching
Establish a "clubhouse" to ensure easy implementation among the MTs
Government to recognize the teachers under the Intel® Teach program
1.4.1 The In-service Program
Among the major findings of the 2006 program evaluation survey on the in-service component of the Intel® Teach program in India were the following:
77 percent of the randomly drawn sample of public school teachers who received Intel® Teach training used computer technology in teaching.
88 percent implemented technology-supported lesson plans at least once.
68 percent of the teachers worked with their students in computer labs at least once a week.
Computer technology continued to be used primarily for Computer Literacy and for Computer-Aided Teaching purposes.
Most teachers were increasing the frequency of their usage of computers, i.e., they worked with students to enhance computer skills and presented information to students through the use of computers.
Majority of the teachers were implementing technology in new ways.
A sample case on how the in-service program worked at the school level is presented in Box 6.
Box 6
Caselet on the Ground-Level experiences of School Stakeholders of Intel® Teach
The Fatehpura(P) Anupam Primary School in Gujarat
The Principal
In 2006, Bhikhabhai B. Chaudhary, the School Principal, requested that teachers in Fatehpura Primary School, a government school, be trained under Intel® Teach. He said that teachers in his school initially thought that Intel® Teach was a computer literacy program. Before the teachers received the Intel® Teach training, they had very little knowledge of the use of computers and other student-centered, participative, and collaborative teaching methods.
According to the Principal, when the teachers became more familiar with the program, they realized its value in improving classroom teaching and student learning.
Upon completion of the training, the school created a mission statement saying that it was the center for village development. The mission statement addressed the school's needs such as electricity, water, and the prevention of tobacco addiction. The school asked Intel® Teach for advice on how to meet the objectives, how to involve the stakeholders, and how to get information from the Internet.
After some time, Chaudhary said that the students claimed they had had positive experiences with Intel® Teach. They found the program's PBL approach engaging. By developing "projects", the students were also able to participate in efforts to address community needs. Further, the students became more engaged in developing computer-aided school projects on rain harvesting, tobacco control, solar energy and agriculture.
The principal provided policy and administrative support to make the program more useful to the school. For example, to accommodate the need of the teachers and the students for more time in the computer laboratory, he allowed its use before school hours (from 9:00-10:30 a.m.) and even on Sundays.
He said that although Intel's office was far away, his school received good support from LLF, Intel's partner, in implementing the program in the state of Gujarat. He suggested that Intel should provide support for the acquisition of additional computers and the LCD projector for his school. He expressed the school's willingness to finance 50 percent of the cost of acquiring additional computers.
Teachers
Suresh R. Raval, 40 years old, had taught science in the school for seven years. In 2006, the teachers in one of the teacher-preparation institutes in the state trained him on Intel® Teach. On the first day of the training, basic computer skills were introduced. They posed a problem for him, initially, since he was not very knowledgeable about computers. But as the training progressed, he had an easier time.
During the training, he developed a unit plan about the "Human Body" which he implemented upon completion of the training. Using technology-supported lesson plans, he explained the components of the human body to his students. When he finished teaching the components of his unit plan, he noted how his students were able to explain the functions of the various organs of the human body well. Intel® Teach Senior Trainers provided him technical assistance throughout the plan's implementation.
Raval said that when he had used the chalk-and-board method, students were less interested in the lessons and absenteeism was high; but after he integrated computer technology in his classroom teaching, students became more interested in learning and absences went down. Attendance in his class increased to 98.99 percent.
To improve the Intel® Teach Prog ram, he suggested that govern ment should have a policy on the use of computers in the classroom. The state government, in partnership with Intel, should also provide support for strengthening the ICT infrastructure in his school, he said.
Hasumatiben M. Kadia taught English and Hindi in Grades 5 to 7. In 2005, she became one of the few teachers who trained on the Intel® Teach curriculum in a teacher-preparation institute. She became more confident about using technology in her subjects after the Intel® Teach training, while her students grew more interested in her classes and became smarter than her because they learned how to get additional information on her subjects from the Internet. To sustain the program, she suggested that continuing training of teachers be undertaken. She also said that government support was needed to improve teachers' access to computer technology inside the classroom. Intel, for its part, could provide laptop computers for the teachers, she said.
Sureshbhai S. Patel, 39 years old, received Intel® Teach training in 2006. During the training, he developed a unit on stopping tobacco addiction in the village of Fatehpura which he implemented after the training. His students, aged 10-12 years old, collected and analyze data from the Internet and from field interviews. They came up with estimates on the amount spent per day by tobacco smokers in the village. After six months of working on the project, students presented the results of the study to the village council, which took action by regulating tobacco smoking in the village. Patel said that government support for the purchase of additional computers was needed to improve the impact of the Intel® Teach program.
Surekhaben M. Prajapati had been teaching in the school for eight years. She liked the Intel® Teach training but, she said, the best thing about the program was the recognition given to schools and teachers who made the best use of technology in improving the quality of teaching. She mentioned encountering technical problems when she implemented her unit plan and found its implementation difficult, as well, due to the lack of resources. She underscored, however, that the Intel® Teach pedagogy improved student learning and made them more excited to attend classes. To improve the program, Intel, she said, should provide training in addition to the existing ones. She recommended that government also integrate the pre-service training of teachers into the public school system.
Students
In behalf of his group, Nishant Chaudhary, 12 years old, presented the project on tobacco control in his village. With the use of the Project-Based Learning (PBL) approach, Nishant and his group mates conducted a study on tobacco control. They searched for information in the Internet. They conducted a survey using close-ended questionnaires and analyzed the information they gathered. They then presented the results of the study to the village council. The project that they developed with their teacher, Sureshbhai S. Patel, won in the recent Gujarat Government Technology in Education Awards.
The students gave the following answers when asked what they liked best about using computer technology in class:
We can understand things in a better way.
I enjoyed.
Audio visuals make us take more interest in class.
We can concentrate more.
I like the Internet
I could reach the whole world via the Internet.
I liked to research more on the Internet.
I learned various things.
I liked to search for the whole day.
I don't want to lose any of such kind of lectures.
"Say No to Tobacco"
Place: Anupam Prathmik Shala, Fatehpura, Gujarat
Nishant Chaudhary (third from right) with Rahul Bedi and the Principal of the FPS during the awards.
Problem statement: High usage of tobacco, high incidence of tobacco related ailments, low productivity of consumers, increasing social evils in the village.
Project Idea: Banning tobacco usage by school students of the village. Students worked on a school project with the help of Arts teacher and understood the ill-effects of prolonged usage of tobacco. They vowed to address the problem in their own community and in their homes.
21st Century Education: The students extensively used technology tools to support their project, made presentations, brochures and flyers, interacted with people and created awareness.
Key Outcomes of the Project: The Sarpanch banned all the shops in the village from the selling of "Gutakha." And 80 percent of the youth from the village vowed to stay away from such addiction.
Best Practices in the In-service Program: Some best practices in public-private sector collaborations emerged in the In-service Program. Among these were the following:
Local curriculum ownership
Project-based curriculum integration in the state education departments
Teacher recognition and incentives for MTs
Convergence of Pre-service University Program and local in-service needs
The Private school MT Clubs' adoption of public schools
The development of technology standards
Principal-led technology planning workshops
1.4.2 Pre-service Program
In 2006, IMRB carried out an evaluation survey across eight colleges of education in six states. Among the key findings were:
Technology-Aided Learning (TAL) is transforming education into a more 'student-centric' learning process.
65 percent of the student teachers were able to use PBL and ask essential questions as part of their technology-based lessons, either moderately or to a large extent, during Practice Teaching sessions in schools.
78 percent of the student teachers were able to conduct technology-based lessons in their practice teaching, while 79 percent of the new teachers reported that they implemented at least one technology-based lesson with the students.
A sample of Intel's partnership on the pre-service program and its impact is presented in Box 7.
Box 7
Pre-service Program Partnership with the Waymade College of Education in Gujarat
Value of the programFostered higher-level thinking of students
Faster and clearer understanding of concepts
Increased the confidence of student teachers
100-percent placement of graduates due to the school's reputation of using the Intel® Teach curriculum
Support for the programRequired students to undergo Intel® Teach training
Required students to prepare a technology plan
Required an ICT paper that followed Intel® Teach
Required faculty to use PBL in teaching
Facilitating factors in technology integrationPrincipal was trained under Intel® Teach
Desire of the college to become a leader in the field of education
Crucial role of the program in bridging the digital divide
Suggestions for program improvementIntel to support the college in disseminating its experience on technology integration before an international audience
Make computer education compulsory in all colleges
Improve infrastructure support to schools
Publish research conducted by the school regarding the influence of ICT on education
Best Practices in the Pre-service Program Some of the best practices in running Intel® Teach's pre-service program were the following:
Core Committee of eminent educators' guiding strategies and plans
Development of a common curriculum for Computer Education for the eight partner Universities
Contest for Best Integration of Technology
Publication of PBL Booklet
E-Forums and Alumni Associations
Job Fairs for Student Teachers
