October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

or underserved populations. For example, the United Nations Development Program’s (2003) Human
Development Report argued that “Technological innovations advance human development in two ways—by
increasing productivity that raises household incomes (Goal 1 [of the MDGs]) and by providing solutions to
problems of disease, transport, energy, water supply, sanitation and information and communications technology
for education, all important for achieving Goals 2–7 [of the MDGs]” (p. 158).
On the other hand, there is also a body of literature that questions the commitment to technology in the future of
education (e.g., Cuban, 2001; Ferneding, 2003). Part of the challenge comes from understanding the profound
structural changes that the integration of technology requires of education systems: financial, social, cultural, and
of course pedagogical. The “failures” of past attempts to integrate technology into teachers’ daily practice (e.g.,
Cuban, 1986) also serve as an argument used by critics to request or demand a change in directions away from
technology investments (mainly computers and Internet access), and by extension, away from many of the
pedagogical practices associated with the use of technology for teaching and learning. The point made for
education specifically can be generalized for national economic and social development, as the Markle
Foundation’s report, Global Digital Opportunities (Tipson & Frittelli, 2003), argued by stating that, “Simply
increasing connectivity or distributing computers and software will not lead to development impacts unless the
range of other factors—enterprise, applications, human capacity, policy—converge to make that possible”
[emphasis in original] (p.8).
The fact that technologies by themselves are incapable of achieving widespread and deep changes in education is
the key argument offered by critics of educational technology. It happens to be, as well, a point easily
acknowledged by even the most ardent proponents of the use of technology in education (e.g., Fisher, Dwyer, &
Yocam, 1996; Osin, 1998). Tipson & Frittelli (2003) summarized it neatly by stating that
ICTs [Information and Communication Technologies] clearly have major contributions to make
in education, healthcare, gender equality, environmental sustainability and the other MDGs, but
to be successful, that contribution should always be viewed as dependent on a range of other
factors and subject to comparisons with other, less technology dependent approaches (p.13).
The balance of this article will focus on the work of the first 25 Laureates (2001–2005) in the Education category
of the Technology Benefiting Humanity Awards (http://www.techawards.org/), most of whom are operating in
less developed countries. A major goal of this awards program is to recognize and motivate the work of
innovators around the world who are working to benefit humanity (“social entrepreneurs”) through the
development or application of technology. This Awards program has quickly established itself as a global
positive force for change and innovation, attracting hundreds of applications. The five Education Laureates
selected each year come from among dozens of applicants (over 100 each year so far). An international judging
panel selects only one Education Laureate each year to receive a prize of US$50,000. A brief summary of their
work is presented next, followed by analysis of the patterns and trends that can be deduced from the range of
their activities. It will end with conclusions and recommendations for future actions and research.
The Education Laureates
Cardwell (1995) wrote that, “All that can be said is that it would be unwise to assume that all or even most
innovators are motivated by purely mercenary hopes. Personal satisfaction and the hope of social distinction are,
no doubt, factors in the lives of many technologists as well as in the lives of many ‘pure’ scientists” (p. 495).
This definition of an innovator certainly applies to social entrepreneurs, which in turn have been defined as,
“One who has created and leads an organization, whether for-profit or not, that is aimed at creating large scale,
lasting, and systemic change through the introduction of new ideas, methodologies, and changes in attitude”
(Kramer, 2005, p.6).
The five Education Laureates in each of the first five years certainly would fit that description, since their work
seems motivated more by the desire to improve the human condition than financial gain. Table 1 presents a
summary of the problem and solution(s) offered by each Laureate. (See also Hernández-Ramos, Soukup, &
McAnany, 2001; Soukup, 2002; Hernández-Ramos, 2003; Raphael, 2004; and Raphael, 2005.)
Table 1. Summary of Problems Identified and Solutions Offered by Education Laureates
Year Laureate Problem Solution(s)
2001 Freeplay Foundation Lack of access to education, Windup radios and programming
health information; cost of aimed at populations in critical
206