October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

It is also difficult—and to some extent meaningless—to attempt to categorize the work of the Laureates into
narrow niches, such as saying that solutions are hardware, software, or services since in most cases the work was
recognized precisely because it is not just a technology but a systemic, socio-technical approach that
encompasses other critical elements for success. A clear example of this is Costa Rica’s Omar Dengo Foundation
(2003 Laureate), which not only provides hardware and software for schools throughout the country but is also
in charge of teacher training, community outreach, and other essential services needed to make the introduction
of technology a success (Ringstaff & Kelly, 2002). The pattern makes clear that one of the criteria the Tech
Awards judges use is not just how impressive for its own sake the technology in use may be, but also the factors
surrounding its implementation in the intended contexts for the target audiences. There is an appreciation for the
value of designing systems around tools to accomplish complex objectives. Given the contexts in which many of
the Laureates work, simple technologies with good systems around them may be better than the latest
technologies but with less support. A very good example of this approach is Fahamu (2005 Laureate), which
relies on CD-ROMs, email, and in-person workshops to build capacity for human rights organizations given that
the Web is simply not as accessible or affordable as these older, technically simpler media.
Among these first 25 Laureates there are three outstanding examples of hardware and software technologies
developed to address the unique learning needs of people with disabilities, whether physical or cognitive: Center
for Spoken Language Research (2002 Laureate), Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2002
Laureate), and Baruch College Computer Center for Visually Impaired People and Touch Graphics (2004
Laureate). Development of the hardware and/or software was only the starting point in all three cases. For
example, CAST created the Thinking Reader software as well as a broader framework, the Universal Design for
Learning, to help teachers differentiate their lessons so that the needs of all learners—including those with
disabilities in integrated classrooms—are successfully met. Thus, CAST provides a critical scaffold (the software
to support learners with reading difficulties) as well as the pedagogical framework within which the scaffolding
technology is best used.
Students with disabilities raise significant challenges for educators interested in affording them the same quality
of learning experiences as “normal” students. These solutions tend to be initially expensive, which limits their
dissemination, although it is not hard to imagine how all learners could eventually benefit from these advances.
The analogy to curb cuts in sidewalks, initially seen as a benefit for wheelchair-bound individuals, is also a help
to mothers pushing baby strollers, bicyclists, older people, and so on. This is an exciting prospect for education
around the world, given that if the pattern of rapidly decreasing costs of new technologies continues (as it is
likely to), disabled learners in countries other than those originating the technology (in these three cases, the
United States) are likely to eventually benefit. One strategy being pursued is to encourage Laureates to enter into
licensing agreements that extend the reach beyond the original developers to others who can include the
technology in their products.
Looking beyond from developed world contexts has the benefit of allowing us to see how practitioners in other
parts of the world define and then address common problems in education such as funding, training, access to
resources, and serving a wide variety of learners including those with physical or other learning disabilities.
Also, it allows us to consider both formal and informal education settings, since the educational infrastructure of
the formal systems (including inadequate funding, poor buildings, insufficiently trained teachers, resource
deficiencies, and so on) some times makes it more efficient to address the problem through alternative strategies.
Discussion
The 20 Laureates share some distinguishing characteristics even across their widely different approaches to the
integration of technology in education and learning. Perhaps among the most salient is the recognition that
educational technology is not simply computers and the Internet, as much of the discourse in developed countries
seems to have focused, but should adopt a broader view of technological innovation. Such a view goes beyond
cutting-edge hardware and software to include older technologies and, critically, a holistic approach to the
implementation of complex systems that recognize the social dimensions of technology-based innovations. On
the other hand, those who have been recognized for truly innovative technological solutions have clearly
identified how their approach is better than any alternatives available to the populations they aim to serve (e.g.,
disabled learners).
From a learning theory perspective, it is striking to recognize how many of these projects are working—
explicitly or implicitly—from a constructivist perspective (e.g., Fosnot, 2005; Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999),
to afford learners meaningful experiences connected to or in the “real world” and giving them access to the
209