one - Plan Ceibal

First national
monitoring and
evaluation report
on Plan Ceibal
social impact, 2009
Executive Summary
Plan Ceibal basic information | 1

PLAn CEibAL SoCiAL iMPACt Monitoring AnD EvALuAtion ArEA
First national monitoring and evaluation
report on Plan Ceibal social impact, 2009
Executive Summary
Msc. Ana Laura Martínez, Sociologist (Coordinator)
Diego Díaz, Sociologist
Serrana Alonso, Sociologist
December 2009

Research team:
Msc. Ana Laura Martínez, Sociologist (Coordinator)
Soc. Serrana Alonso (researcher)
Soc. Diego Díaz (researcher)
Sampling desing:
Department of research, Evaluation, and Statistics of anep (national bureau
of Public Education): Msc. Soc. Alejandro retamoso
Calculation of the Socioeconomic Level Index:
Department of Statistics of the School of Economic Sciences of the university
of the republic: Dr. Laura nalbarte, br. Cecilia Papalardo, Lic. Fernando
Massa, Lic. gustavo gonzález.
Case weighting calculation:
Department of Statistics of the School of Economic Sciences of the university
of the republic: Dr. Juan José goyeneche,
Lic. Lucía rijo, Lic. Ana Coímbra.
Collaboration in the initial stages of the project:
Msc. Soc. Alejandro retamoso, Dr. Andrés Peri.
Translation into English:
Lic. Federico brum
Picture:
La tribu (Adrián barboza)
Graphic design and printing
monocromo
vázquez 1384, piso 8, apto. 12
Phone: +598 2400 1685
info@monocromo.com.uy
isbn: 978-9974-8285-1-3
Depósito Legal: 353546

Content
introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
01. Plan Ceibal basic information
objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
technology designed to learn and build networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Plan Ceibal’s implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Some important concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
02. Plan Ceibal’s monitoring and evaluation
Short methodological note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
03. Summary of main results
Changes in the inequality pattern regarding access
to computers and the internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Summary of main positive and negative impacts, alerts,
and future challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Introduction
this report contains a summary of Plan Ceibal’s first data obtained at
national level. the Monitoring and Evaluation process’ main objective
is to produce valid and reliable information of the implementation,
results, and impacts of Plan Ceibal, particularly regarding children, families,
schools, and communities.
research methodology used in the monitoring and evaluation of the Plan,
which is in process since 2008, will be briefly described in this report,
together with a presentation of the Plan Ceibal’s main results. these
results are based on a national representative survey carried out in June,
2009, answered by Principals, teachers, Children, and Families; and also
in a qualitative work in which 20 provincial towns were visited to conduct
individual as well as collective in-depth interviews with children and their
families.
this work was carried out by two teams of latu and anep social sciences and
education professionals. the Statistic Department of the School of Economic
Sciences of the university of the republic as well as the Department of
research, Evaluation, and Statistics, dspe (Sectoral Department of Education
Planning), anep, provided their support at different stages of the process.
this report concentrates on aspects related to the implementation of Plan
Ceibal and its first consequences from the social view point, for uruguayan
society in general and for involved populations in particular. using the
same databases and making a shared effort in the different survey stages, a
second report, mainly focused at school level, was ellaborated by anep. the
reader is advised to read both reports.
the full version of this report was printed in november 2010, being available
in Spanish. n
4 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal

01. plan ceibal basic information
Objectives
Plan Ceibal’s objectives focus on the
increase of social equity through
the implementation of measures to
universalize access and use of new technologies
(particularly computers and the
internet) in uruguay, initially through public
primary school and, in a second stage, expanding
the Plan to lower high school and
private education.
According to the Plan objectives (www.Ceibal.
edu.uy and www.ceibal.org.uy) and to Presidential
Decrees 18/April/2007 and 15/December/2008,
to provide primary and high school
students with an information technology tool
that allows connectivity through public education,
will allow students and their families
toaccess, appropriate and produce knowledge
and get involved in new ideas, aiming at generating
positive impacts on:
• other members of the family who will be
able, through the student, to access it
global services, regardless of geographic
location or social condition.
• the way in which citizens relate to information
and knowledge, thus widening access
to new and better services and job
opportunities.
• the increase in the number of original
contributions and in innovation in different
parts of the country as a result of the
massive ict use.
• improvements on teaching and learning
processes, an increase in children’s and
teachers’ motivation to acquire knowledge
and the effective incorporation of it
literacy.
these objectives are explicitly linked to the
bridging of the so called Digital Divide (domestic
and international) and to the inclusion
of large groups of the population into the information
and Knowledge Society.
Plan Ceibal’s main actions to accomplish these
objectives are to provide one laptop to every
public school child and teacher in the country
and also to provide wireless internet connection
to each school. the handing out of laptops
and the wireless provision to education
centers and their surroundings are necessarily
complemented with training strategies aimed
at teachers, with the production of digital
contents, and with supporting actions for the
community.
Since laptops are taken home on a daily basis,
and the connection signal is available in
public places, the Plan has many beneficiary
populations, mainly children, teachers, and
children’s families. n
Plan Ceibal basic information | 5

Technology designed to learn and build networks
regarding the laptops provided, it is
important to mention that their hardware
(small and rugged) as well as its
software (educational contents) have been
specially designed to be used by children,
also they include an interface and a logic
that favor exploration activities rather than
production-storage.
Students take them home after school and
they can access internet-either through
school signals or outdoor access points generally
in public squares. the ultimate objective
regarding connectivity is not limited to
schools but to access at a maximum distance
of 300 meters. in this sense, the provision of
a Wi-Fi service in 300 places of public access
is being implemented across the country.
the technology selected has been conceived
to facilitate the construction of networks
both through the internet or off-line. When a
laptop is on it is possible to visualize(on the
“neighborhood” view) all connected laptops
belonging to Ceibal network in the nearby
area, thus enabling the users to communicate
with each other.
6 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
As said, training, communications and support
actions are taken together with the provision
of equipment and connectivity. these
actions are aimed at education supervisors,
principals, and teachers as well as families
and the general public. Community and family
support actions have been carried out
mainly by volunteers; public centers related
to digital literacy have also been involved,
particularly the so called mec Centers (Ministry
of Education and Culture community
telecenters) and to varying degrees, by the
schools themselves. n

Plan Ceibal’s Implementation
Phases and Data up to 27 November,
2009
• 2007: Pilot villa Cardal.
• 2008: Provinces.
• 2009: Montevideo.
Number of laptops handed out
up to December 2009
• 341,259 xo provided to public schools.
• 6,000 xo to High Schools, Private Primary
Schools, inau (uruguayan Agency for
Children and Adolescents).
Connectivity provision
up to December 2009
• At the moment of writing this report,
95% of children were attending public
schools with wireless connectivity.
Schools currently without connectivity
are mainly rural schools without electric
energy. For these cases Plan Ceibal has
carried out 5 pilot plans using solar panels
and is studying alternative energy solutions
to be implemented.
• on the other hand, internet connectivity
has been provided to education centers,
inau Centers where there are children attending
classes in primary schools, and
other anep premises, such as teacher
training Centers, Municipal inspection
Centers, etc.
• Forty outdoor connectivity points have
been set up in public places (300 are
scheduled for 2010). n
Plan Ceibal basic information | 7

Some important concepts
Digital Divide, Knowledge Gap
and conceptualizations beyond gaps:
Digital Inclusion
inequality in Access to computers has been
an attention focal point since the 90’s. it obviously
represents a barrier to access information,
to get involved in communication
networks, to innovation, among and within
countries. Focus of attention has, however,
shifted to the relationship between this divide
and the so called Knowledge gap.
the concept of Digital Divide is enough to express
the difference between those who have
internet access and those who do not. the
Access issue is preceded by the problem of
having the knowledge to make a meaningful
use of internet in order to make the most out
of the information available, and even more
to create contents or take active part in the
so called information and Knowledge Society.
Authors like Warschauer (2003) integrate
both concepts pointing out that since access
to ict has spread considerably, studies should
switch their focus from inequality based on dichotomous
measures of access–no access, to
the degree of digital inclusion, which encompasses
both quality of access and knowledge
to support networks available for the citizens.
in this sense, Digital Inclusion encompasses
at least 5 main variables:
• Technical Means: shades of inequality in
the access to quality resources, for example
internet through dial up versus Wideband.
• Autonomy: whether users log on from
home or at work, monitored or unmonitored,
during limited times or at will.
8 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
• Skill: knowledge of how to search for,
download or eventually generate information.
• Social Support: access to advice from
more experienced users.
• Purpose: whether they use the internet
for increase of economic productivity, improvement
of social capital, or consumption
and entertainment.
Linked to points 4 and 5, apart from the increase
in the last years of access to computers
and internet by young people, there
was an evident differentiation in uruguay
between access environments, described by
Pittaluga and Sienra (2007) among others,
mainly between children and adolescents accessing
from their homes and schools, with
adults monitoring and in a context that allows
the cultural capital to flow, and those
accessing from cybercafes where access is
mostly limited to playing without parents or
teachers control.
Another aspect of the problem is what Hopenhaym
(2004) calls “meaning divide”, making
reference to the difference between the experiences,
visions, and practices of children and
adolescents in relation to new technologies
as a constituent part of their daily lives, and
those practices and visions characteristic of
education centers, frequently explicitly unwilling
to incorporate said technologies to
the teaching and learning processes.
We should add to this inequality in the quality
and in the environments of access what
has been known as intergenerational gap, a
concept that describes the distance between
adults and young people regarding the Dig-

ital Experience. this phenomenon has been
studied by uca Silva (2001) among others,
and represents one more layer of inequality
in the access, use, and degree of appropriation
behind the Digital Divide in households.
the starting point of a progressive approach
to the inclusion of new technologies in any institution
or social group should also consider
wider social structures and their functions,
and how ict should be used to make them
more democratic, equitable, and socially inclusive
(Warschauer, 2003).
Considering these differences that constitute
the digital inclusion in its widest sense, the
way in which Plan Ceibal was implemented,
that is to say, introducing technology into education
centers and at the same time making
it available in the households, has the potential
of generating changes in all the dimensions
linked to the digital inclusion. n
Plan Ceibal basic information | 9

02. plan ceibal’s monitoring
and evaluation
Short methodological note
Phases
Phase 1 consisted of a pilot operation carried
out in December 2008, in 4 provinces. the
first data gathered were related to access,
use, achievements, perceptions, and difficulties
of the different populations provided
with Plan Ceibal. this phase allowed for the
fine-tuning of survey instruments and strategies.
Phase 2 implied a national-scale survey
(June 2009) described below. Phase 3 consists
of the annual repetition of this survey
to analyze changes in the indicators over the
Plan’s implementation period, starting from
implementation “time 0” for Montevideo and
“time 1” for the rest of the country.
Sources of Information and Techniques
Sources of information are mainly primary,
secondary sources are used subsidiarily. the
following techniques were used in phase 2
from which this report is made.
National Representative Survey aimed at 3º
and 6º form children, 6º form teachers, principals,
and families.
Specific activity carried out in the use of xo
with systematic observation of processes and
results obtained by 3 rd and 6 th form children.
Individual in-depth and collective interviews.
this technique was applied while visiting
20 towns that had implemented Plan
Ceibal at least 6 months before. it was applied
to parents, children, teachers, princi-
10 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
pals, key local stakeholders, and members of
social organizations, community call centers,
and mec Centers.
Analysis of national statistics information.
the Expanded national Home Survey 2006 by
the national Statistics institute (ine) was analyzed
to study changes in the Digital Divide in
the Access and use of computers and internet.
Sample
Universe: regular Public Schools with at least
20 students. this decision was made on a costeffectiveness
basis, when considering the possibility
of using the different survey instruments
in schools with a low number of students. this
methodological decision implies working with
97.5% of the total number of students, but with
the 58.3% of public schools due to the large
number of schools with a very low number of
students in rural areas.
Sample Type: Stratified with systematic sampling
of groups within each stratum.
Definition of 3 strata: rural and urban with
Plan Ceibal distribution, and Capital of the
country, without distribution at the moment
of the study.
Sample final size:
Families: 6720
Children: 5682
teachers: 1050
Principals: 198 n

03. summary of main results
Changes in the inequality pattern regarding
access to computers and the internet
Figure 1 shows how universalization of
access to computers in households with
children attending public schools clearly
breaks an inequality pattern that would not
have been modified by market mechanisms.
it is important to mention that there is a high
probability that those children without computers
at home where attending schools without an
it room, thus reinforcing a double exclusion, according
to the diee (2007) report.
Apart from the Access to computers it is useful
to show other inequalities in the access
figure 1
Computers at home by ses.
Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
87
13
78
22
70
30
Low-Low Low Medium
Low
Has got XO
computer only
46
54
14
86
Medium Medium
High
Has got PC
and XO computer
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
to information and knowledge means recursively
related to inequalities in the Digital Divide.
these are expressed for example in the
unequal ownership of books.
At household level, the structure resembles
the one of access to computers, those households
that do not have computers, do not have
books either. At the lowest socio-economic
level, almost 1 every 5 households has no
books at all, and 60% have between 1 and 10.
Even in households considered of Medium level,
almost the third part has less than 11 books
figure 2
Number of book in the household,
by ses. Whole country
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
17
9
4 2
28
16
54
43
21
57
30
23
29
21
23 17
17
6 1
1 3
9
4
14
6
4
8
9
23
Low-low Low Medium-
Low
Medium Medium-
High
None From 1 a 10 11 - 30
31 - 60 61 - 100 More than 100
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Summary of main results | 11

at home. it is redundant to say that these differences
in the access to books or computers
are associated to lower education and socioeconomic
status (components that are part of
the index used to rate the households), therefore
we are facing the mutual reinforcement of
inequalities in education, culture, economy,
and the access to ict and other resources that
allow access to information and knowledge.
Social appraisal of computer use
in order to examine some of the aspects of
the social imaginary and the appraisal of
new technologies (computers in particular)
the mother of the child was asked about the
importance of computers in children studies,
and the role they think that using computers
play in getting a job in the future. All those
surveyed were asked the same question, in
Montevideo (without implementation) and in
the provinces (with implementation), thus it
does not refer to the xo appraisal in particular
but to computers in general.
Figure 3 shows the contrast between the unequal
access to computers in households
figure 3
Opinion of child mother: regarding
importance of computers. Whole country
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
5
5
32
56
2
Computers
are important
for children to study
Completely disagrees
Neither agrees nor disagrees
Agrees
4
12 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
7
25
61
3
Using a computer
is crucial
to get a job
Disagrees
Completely agrees
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
showed above and the almost unanimous
positive social appraisal of the use of computers.
the aim of this analysis is not to consider
whether this resource is actually being over
or undervalued but to show the importance
given to it at social level. if we compare the unequal
access to computers previously shown,
with this almost complete agreement on their
importance, it is possible to ponder the degree
to which current access to computers is
socially valued, both practically and symbolically,
particularly by those families that now
own a computer for the first time, but also by
those who, even previously owning one, realize
about the importance of providing one to
those who were unable to afford it.
Households with Internet access
Having considered the unequal pattern of access
to computers, the Figure 4 shows unequal
access to internet connection. According
to data provided by enha (Expanded national
Home Survey) in 2006, approximately 93%
of households in the country had no connection
to the internet, while in 2009 this figure
figure 4
Internet connection in the household,
by ses. Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
96
97
93
4 3 7
Low-Low Low Medium-
Low
No Yes
78
22
33
67
Medium Medium-
High
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.

figure 5
Number of blocks the child walks
from home to access the internet
with the xo. Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
23
18
18
41
changed to 77%. Distribution according to
socio-economic status shows as in the case
of pcs, an evident pattern of inequality in the
access to the internet among households,
phenomenon repeated regardless of the geographic
region considered.
Apart from the individual internet connection
of each household, there is, in the provinces,
wireless connection installed by Plan Ceibal
in schools and some public places. Figure 5
shows household access to Plan Ceibal’s signal
generated at the school.
in June 2009, half of urban provinces households
in the country received a signal for internet
connection less than 3 blocks away. Eight
out of ten households were able to access
internet connection less than 6 blocks away,
regardless of the household socio-economic
status, thus widening access to this medium.
one of Plan Ceibal’s objectives is to provide
connectivity to public schools across the
country, and regarding households, the goal
for 2010 is that no child should walk more
than 3 blocks to get access to internet con-
21
25
28
28
Province - Rural Province - Urban
Up to 1 block
2-3 blocks
4-6 blocks
7 blocks and more
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
figure 6
Has the child ever browsed the Internet?
Answers by ses. Montevideo
(Without Plan Ceibal)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
29
71
32
68
nection. Charts 6 and 7 represent answers to
the question “Has the child ever browsed the
internet?” the figures in those charts show
the situation in Montevideo and the Provinces,
sorted by household socio-economic
status.
For the population in Montevideo (without
Ceibal), it has been observed that there is an
inverse relationship between the Low–Low
and the Medium–High levels in the percentage
of mothers stating that the child has
browsed the internet at least once: 71% of
children from the lowest level have never
browsed the internet. For the provinces, the
percentage of children that browsed the internet
ranged between 85% and 100%, in the
lowest and highest levels respectively. this
evidences once again, a greater and more
equal use of the internet after Plan Ceibal.
the section below describes how this change
in the access is experienced from another
point of view: the handing out of computers,
in those points furthest from the capital represents
a symbolic inclusion by itself:
39
61
Low-Low Low Medium-
Low
56
44
75
25
Medium Medium-
High
Summary of main results | 13
85
8
15 1
Low-Low Lo
Yes No Yes
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

56
44
75
25
Medium Medium-
High
Ceibal “away from Montevideo”
During the group interviews with parents, in
particular those carried out north of río negro
one of the most important aspects of the arrival
of Plan Ceibal seems to be its very arrival.
the interviews are generally started asking
what was the first thing they thought of when
informed about the handing out of computers
to the children. Added to the expectations,
happiness, fears, and illusions there was, in
the most distant towns, a factor of skepticism.
Some parents stated,
“I thought the computers were only for kids
from Montevideo. I even told the rest: don’t
even think we’re having those computers,
we’re from the provinces and we don’t exist…
we’re poor and we’re not on the map”
(Mother from vergara, treinta y tres)
“I thought, this town is so far away… they’ll
never get here. I thought these computers
were for other kind of children”
– “What kind?”
– Well, children from Montevideo”
(Mother from rio branco)
figure 7
Has the child browsed the Internet?
Provinces (With Plan Ceibal)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
85
87
90
15 13 10 8 3
Low-Low Low Medium- Medium Medium-
Low
High
Yes No
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
figure 8
14 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
92
97
these parents thought that providing each
child with a computer was unfeasible, and
that they were receiving empty promises.
“If having one computer per classroom
was impossible, imagine having one per
child” (Mother from Melo)
this mother, who had never used a computer
before, has learned to use the xo assisted by
her children. When they are asleep, she likes to
connect to the internet to send e-mails, search
information on health and, she admitted, downloading
information on brazilian Soap operas.
Beyond access: computer
and Internet use by children
Figure 8 below shows computer use by children
in Montevideo and the Provinces in the
last month (in this case, between 15 May – 15
June 2009).
According to Figure 8 more than 90% of the
children in the Provinces used computers at
home in the last month, while 69% of children
did so in Montevideo.
Has the child used a computer
at home within the last month?
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
No
31
69
Montevideo -
Without Ceibal
Yes
9
91
Provinces -
With Ceibal
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.

figure 9
First computer the child learned to use,
by ses, Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
25
71
36
60
4 4 4
Low-Low Low Medium-
Low
A 9% of mothers surveyed in the provinces,
answered that children did not use computers
in the last month. this figure is consistent
with the percentage of children with their xo
damaged, blocked, or being repaired at the
moment of the survey.
How did the children learn to use
computers? How long did it take them?
Mothers in the provinces were asked which
type of computers their children first learned
to use, possible answers were, and the possible
answers were: with the Ceibal computer,
with an ordinary computer, with both.
the data in Figure 9 cleary show that the lower
the socio-economic status in the household,
the higher the percentage of children
learning to use computers with the xo. in the
Low-Low level, three out of four mothers associate
the child’s first computer skills with
the use of Ceibal laptops.
Additionally, parents were asked about the
way and the environment in which children
55
41
64
84
31
10
5 6
Medium Medium-
High
With a regular computer With the XO computer
With both of them
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
figure 10
How the child learned to use computers
by socio-economic level
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
6 7
23 20
1
1
1 1 2
5
1
24 24 23
60
54
14
19
28
Low-Low Low Medium-
Low
Does not know how
to use them
Learned by themselves
Was taught by relatives
or friends
learned to use computers. Figure 10 shows
distribution of answers received, by ses.
Figure 10 shows the strong association between
the household socio-economic status
and the way in which the child learned to use
computers.
it is observed that while 53% of children
from a Medium-High socio-economic status
learned to use computers with relatives and
friends, only 13% from a Low-Low level did
so; this reflects the different social capital
of families and how children from the highest
socio-economic status manage to acquire
the skills needed for computer use. the importance
of public policies’ role for the poorest
sectors is evidenced when 60% of Low-
Low level and 54% of Low level mention the
school as the place where the child’s learning
concerning computers use takes place.
the importance of learning in school context
reflects a growing role of the school as
a monitoring agent of the learning processes
of those students with it resources, through
individual exploration or collaborative work.
44
36
34
19
53
Medium Medium-
High
Took a private
course
Learned at school
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Summary of main results | 15

figure 11
Time it took children to learn how
to use the xo, by school context.
Provinces 3rd - 6th grade.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
31 29 24 26 27
0%
3
11
23
32
7
21
15
28
in this sense, the structure of opportunities
to access knowledge and computers
handling is broaden for children from lowincome
levels, compensating with knowledge
acquired at school what children from
medium and high levels had already learned
with relatives and friends thanks to their social
networks.
Finally, Figure 10 shows that the percentage
of mothers who answered that the child does
not know how to use computers oscillates
between 2 and 3% in lower levels and it is
practically insignificant in the rest of the levels
for the provinces.
However, when mothers from Montevideo
(without Ceibal) were asked how the child
learned to use computers, in the Low-Low
level and in the Low level, an average of 30%
answered that children did not know how to
use them.
Concerning the time it took children to learn
how to use the xo, it can be observed that
regardless of the school socio-cultural context,
according to a teacher’s survey, approxi-
7
11
18
40
16 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
4
17
16
37
Favorable Medium Adverse Very
adverse
3-4 weeks
Less than a week
1-2 weeks
6
15
17
35
Total
Do no use them still More than a month
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
teachers national Survey-2009.
mately 30% of children learn to use the xo in
fifteen days or less and other 30% do it in a
period between 3 and 4 weeks (Figure 11).
in this sense, the structure of inequity found
breaking down the data by school context is
blurred to make a more equal structure in the
acquisition of skills to handle the xo Computer
from Plan Ceibal.
Figure 12 shows how children learn to handle
the xo. in this sense, it is important to remember
that the model 1:1 has among its pillars
the promotion of collaborative work and
learning among peers as a way of promoting
skills in the use of it tools as well as those
skills concerning the respect and tolerance
required to work together.
Figure 12, product of the survey carried out
to teachers, shows the way in which the child
learns to use the xo. it is observed that 45%
of children learn by exploring the tool together
with other children of the same age group,
more than the third part learn individually
and one every five children do so with the
teacher’s assistance.
Plan Ceibal has among its objectives getting
the child’s family involved in the appropriation
of the new resource to develop their capacities
and strengths. in this sense children
can act as a motivator within their family, en-
figure 12
How do children learn to use the xo?
19%
45%
36%
Individual exploration
Peer exploration
With teacher’s help
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.

figure 13
Did the child teach someone to use
the xo?
No
13%
Yes
87%
Who?
Parents: 73%
Siblings: 46%
Other children: 42%
Teachers: 9%
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
couraging their relatives to use the xo. in a
high percentage of low-income houses this
means the first steps into “digital literacy”
for adults.
Likewise, there are signs of a possible reconfiguration
of the relationship between children
and teachers in an ict context where
children acquire a more active role and where
the students’ autonomy would be promoted,
and at the same time generating new spaces
for knowledge sharing and exchanging between
children, children and the teacher, and
children and their family.
it is interesting to observe the children’s answer
when asked if they had taught somebody
to use the xo computer. As seen in
Figure 13, out of the 87% of the children who
answered that they did, 73% taught their parents,
46% their siblings, 42% other children,
and 9% their teacher.
Traditional and virtual social networks
Children were asked if they had related with
other children using the xo.
As shown in Figure 14, 63% answered affirmatively.
once more, the importance of the
new resource for the children is pointed out
as they can share the digital experience with
figure 14
Did the child make new friends using
the xo?
No
37%
Yes
63%
Where are they from?
Their school: 74%
Other schools: 34%
Other provinces: 9%
Other countries: 6%
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
their peers, an aspect that results moving
and motivating. this is also mention in the interviews
and in the open answers in surveys
where they spontaneously highlight the possibility
of learning, sharing knowledge, and
“making new friends”.
in the interviews carried out in different
towns in the provinces, it was possible to go
deeper into the perceptions parents have on
the positive effects that Plan Ceibal may have
in the future. these coincide on the concept
of society “development” at different levels.
in the first level it is the role they consider
that the access to a computer and the internet
has on the child’s personal development.
As they perceive that handling iCts is one
of the current demands in the labor market,
they think their sons/daughters will be more
prepared to face its requirements.
“The thing is that as they grow, jobs are
all about computing, and this is what
they are going to need [to know]”
(Mother from Florida)
Furthermore, the view of a “democratic access”
to ict has been pointed out in the workshops.
in this sense, most of the interviewees
believe that Plan Ceibal generates equal opportunities
for all children in the country and
Summary of main results | 17

highlight how difficult it would be for many
uruguayan families to pay for a computer.
“We consider that for us [parents] it is
something beyond our possibilities and
we appreciate to have an antenna close
by because once you get here, you have
Internet […] we believe it connected him
to the world” (Father from Mercedes)
“Plan Ceibal is good because everybody
gets the same, some children had the
possibility of having a computer at home
while others did not, so this is the same
for everybody, poor and rich people have
one […] It is accessible for everybody, it is
like the public school…”
(Mother form Minas)
As a consequence, national pride was enhanced
in some citizens as it is summarized
in the following statement:
“What happens is that we are a small
country with three million people, in a
few years we are going to be one of the
best countries in Latin America regarding
it use because our children are getting
into it while in other countries they
are not. That’s why there is no place like
Uruguay” (Mother form Florida)
How much and what for do children
use the xo computers in their
everyday life?
We present the number of hours of xo weekly
use by children at home.
According to Figure 15, 37.5% of children
use the computer between 3 and 7 hours per
week and a little bit more than a quarter of
these do so between 10 and 14 hours a week.
on average, children use the xo at home 10
hours a week. of all mothers asked, 5.5% answered
that the child does not use the xo at
home. the first reason not to use the xo at
home was that the device was damaged. it is
table 1
18 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
Number of weekly hours children
use the xo
Weekly hours % of children
up to 3 hours 11.7
3h10’ - 7hs 37.5
7hs10’- 14hs 26.6
14h10’ - 20hs 9.7
20h10’ and more 9.0
Do not use it at home 5.5
total 100.0
Weekly hours of xo use outside school
Average: 10 hs 20’
Median: 7 hs
Quartiles: 25 3 hs 30’
50 7 hs
75 13 hs
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
interesting to point out that the percentage
of non-use at home is lower than the percentage
of damaged computers. this shows computers
being shared within one household, in
one out of three households there are more
than one xo. the second reason not to use
the xo at home was the lack of electricity.
there are virtually no limitations linked to
the fact that parents consider the use of the
computer unsuitable.
From the observation of the distribution of
hours of xo use at home, it can be said that
even though the majority of children use
the device in a moderate way, a first warning
can be issued since almost one child
every ten is using the computer more than 20
hours a week, which represents an intense

figure 16
Frequency of Xo use by children by period
in which they received the computer.
Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
53
55
and lengthy use. in this sense several studies
(among them, one carried out in Chile
in 2007) point out the negative relationship
between the excessive use of computers by
children and adolescents, and their academic
results.
After having seen these general figures, it
is interesting to know how the use varies as
the time children have had the computer increases.
Figure 16 shows that there is a small
decrease in the intensity of xo use at home
as the time children have had the computer
increases.
Figure 17 shows the different ways in which
children use their xo in their free time. the
xo owners, as children, mainly use it to play,
88.2% of mothers stated that their children
play, 78.8% said they draw,and 35.5% said
they download music or videos from the internet.
When talking about playing it is important
to mention that, while there has traditionally
been a dividing line between playing and
65
79
22
23
5
15
5
6
13
3
4
18
10
3
1
14
6
Up to April From May From August From May to
2008 to July 2008 to December
2008
June 2009
Every day 3 or 4 times a week
Once or twice a week Several times
in a month
Do not use it at home
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
learning, this not necessarily so; many of the
games available in the xo have the potential
of developing different skills, some clearly
aim at mathematical thinking or memory development.
However, it is necessary to study
this specific aspect in depth focusing on
which are the most popular games and to
what extent their effects are negative or positive
for their children’s cognitive and sociocultural
development.
the use of computers and the connection to
the internet imply, for the children, the possibility
of appropriating the world from their
own perspective since the computers offer,
through different applications, the possibility
of creating animations, programming, reading,
taking pictures, drawing, and filming,
this is to say, to model the world and express
it through digital codes.
figure 17
xo use by children in their free time.
Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
4
8
Create blogs, facebook,
web sites
Send e-mails
18,6 20 22,7
34,6 35,5
58,7
Search for news
on the Internet
Chat
Create animations,
programs
Compose songs,
make music
Download music
or videos
Search for information
for school
Draw
Use by children and their relatives
Play: 74%
Take pictures and film: 72%
Search for school information : 57%
Download music: 28%
88,2
82,9
78,8 79,3
Write
Take pictures
or film
Play
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Summary of main results | 19

egarding activities directly linked to school
work, six every ten children use their xo to
search for information for school, and 18.6%
use them to find pieces of news on the internet.
Finally, 20% pointed out that their children
use the xo to chat and 8% to send e-mails.
this activity, even though it does not represent
a great percentage of the distribution,
is qualitatively significant because it implies
the fact that these children are appropriating
these new communication means.
it can be added that the intensity of xo uses
does not vary among children with or without
connectivity access at home; what varies is
the intensity of on-line and off-line use outside
school and the number of blocks they
have to walk from home to get the signal.
it is important to mention that mothers were
asked about the activities children do in the
xo together with members of their family.
While the numbers only drop a little when
compared to the ones presented in the previous
section, it could be said that the xo
is being used to spend time with the family.
Among these shared uses, the most important
ones are: playing (74%) and talking
pictures or filming (72%). Looking for school
information (58.7%) also occupies an important
place among the activities carried out
together between family and children.
Changes in children’s behavior
according to mothers
Having observed how and for which purposes
children use their xos and taking into account
the impact at subjective level for children to
have access to this new too incorporating it
to their everyday life, it was interesting to ask
mothers which changes they noticed in their
children’s behavior, attitudes and motivation.
Mothers’ perception regarding changes in their
children as from the moment they received and
started using the xo is detailed in Figure 18.
20 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
figure 18
Mother’s perception of impact on child’s
behaviour as from Ceibal Plan. Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
64,8
35,2
Watches TV
Less than
before
6,9
78,7
14,4
Plays with other
children (without
using the
computer)
22,9
71,4
The same as
before
More than
before
in the first place 35.2% of mothers notice
that their children watch less television than
before having the xo. Also, 22.9% observe
they are more motivated to go to school and
37.4% consider that they look for more material
to do their homework or to take to school.
the study of troubled behavior needs a special
analysis. on the one hand, 23.2% of
mothers consider that their children showed
less problem behavior towardsother children.
on the contrary, 12.2% state that this
problem has increased among their children.
in this sense conflicts arising among children
when one of the xos at home is damaged are
mentioned by parents in interviews. Within
the school, teachers and principals, especially
from low-income contexts, also report the
general conflicts generated when children
quarrel over the use of the xo or when they
mutually damage their xos.
these changes are clearly connected to the
fact of already having a computer at home,
being natural that those children who had al-
5,7
Is motivated to
go to school
37,4
55,2
7,4
Searches for
material to do
homework or to
take to class
12,2
64,6
23,2
Troubled
behavior with
other children
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.

figure 19
“They watch less television”, by ses.
Provinces
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
43
38
ready incorporated the use of these devices
to their everyday life showed fewer changes
in their behavior than those who experienced
this as a new phenomenon. in other words,
these impacts are more visible in the contexts
with the lowest income.
related with the above mentioned, it is interesting
to analyze what happens when considering
the household socio-economic status
in the analysis of less tv exposure and more
motivation to go to school.
As show in Figure 19, forty-three per cent
(43%) of mothers from the lowest ses notice
their children watch less tv since the arrival
of the xo, compared to 25% of mothers from
a Medium-High level.
Likewise, mothers who notice that their children
are now more motivated to go to school,
represent 31% of the Low-Low ses (and 23%
of the Low).
Changes reported by School Principals
Additionally, principals from primary schools
were asked about their perception of Plan
Ceibal’s influence over several aspects of
36
Low-Low Low Medium-
Low
30
25
Medium Medium-
High
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
figure 20
“The are more motivated to go to
school”, by ses. Provinces
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
31
25
children’s attitudes and behaviors in the
classroom and at home. it is of special note
that regarding motivational, learning, and
self-esteem factors, approximately 80% of
principals believe that Plan Ceibal had a positive
influence. regarding Plan Ceibal’s influence
on attendance, more than 40% of principals
believe it had a positive impact. in the
figure 21
21
Low-Low Low Medium-
Low
22
16
Medium Medium-
High
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Opinion of Principals regarding Ceibal
Plan’s impact in six dimensions
100%
80%
60%
40%
39
58
Positive way
Negative way
82
20%
0% 3 1
16
1
19
1
5
12
8
12
1
10
Children's Motivation Motivation Children's Learning
attendance to work to do self esteem
in class homework
75
Did not impact
Does not know
80
77
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Summary of main results | 21

qualitative work, more positive impacts are
reported on children with less previous motivation
for school learning. the distribution
of such perceptions are swhown in Figure 21.
Use of the xo by the child’s family
members
Figure 22 to 24 present detailed information
on the use of xo by the child’s family, members
that use it, how much time they use it,
and what they use it for.
When analyzing which computer is the most
used by household socio-economic status in
the Provinces, it is observed that in the lowest
level the Ceibal computer is the most used by
the family member who best operates it. it is
in these levels where the lowest percentage
of computer ownership is observed; therefore
it is due to Ceibal that these family members
can have access to a computer. the xo is
the most used computer in six every ten Low-
Low level households and in half of Low level
households.
figure 22
Family member that uses computers best:
computer most frequently used, by ses.
Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
4
14
60
5
18
51
7
19
38
14 21
31
8 5 5
Low-Low Low Medium-
Low
Computer Computer in
at work Cyber Cafe
22 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
16
14
18
48
Computer at home Other place
20
3
7
67
4 3
Medium Medium-
High
Ceibal's
computer
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
regarding the person in the family that uses
the xo the most (except for the child), results
highlight the use of the xo by older siblings.
this way, 6 every 10 older siblings use the
xo at least once a month and 4 every 10 use
it at least once a week. results place use
among mothers and younger siblings in second
place. in both cases 25% use the computer
at least once a week. Parents are the
ones who have used the computers the least.
the majority of parents have not approached
the tool even when they do not have another
computer at home.
the mere presence of the equipment does not
ensure a significant impact on digital literacy
at home. the main reason for adults not to use
the computer is their lack of knowledge, followed
by the idea that the laptop is “only for
kids”. this limiting interpretation is often reinforced
from schools. it is important to mention
that in those places where training workshops
were carried out by volunteers, or where mec
Centers had high levels of attendance, there is
a better use of computers by parents.
figure 23
Frequency of use of xo by other
household members. Provinces
100%
80%
60%
40%
42,5
17,6
62,2
69,1 75,9
20%
0%
39,9
14,7
23,1
6,8
24,1
10,9
13,2
Older brothers Mother Younger brothers Father
Never or hardly ever
At least once a week
At least once a month
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.

figure 24
Frecquency of use of xo within the
child’s family, by type of computer in the
household. Provinces
50%
40%
35
30%
20%
10%
0%
21
PC and
XO
45
Only
XO
18 20
25
22
16 15
PC and
XO
Only
XO
PC and
XO
Only
XO
Older siblings Mother Younger
siblings
PC and
XO
Father
Only
XO
At least once a week At least once a month
Figure 24 shows that the xo is used even in
those households with another computer, yet
with a lower frequency than in households
where the xo is the only computer.
it is among older siblings where the difference
in frequency of use of xo becomes more
evident when comparing those who have a pc
at home and those who do not. it is highlighted,
however, that in households where there
is a pc, one every three people uses the xo
at least once a week. Among the other family
members no significant differences can be
appreciated in the frequency of use of the xo
in households with or without a pc, except for
the older sibling, it seems that the use of the
xo is not affected by having a pc or not.
the main xo uses, apart from school work,
by other family members are presented in
Figure 25.
in 55% of households the main use of the xo
is for entertainment such as playing or downloading
music and videos. in almost 40%
7
21
5
13 12 14 11
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
figure 25
Main xo uses by other family members.
Provinces
60%
48%
36%
24%
12%
0%
55
38 38
Entertainment
(play, download
music or videos)
Search for
general
information
Search for
information to
study
of households the main uses are related to
the search for information, either for general
information or school-related information.
Even though this is a really positive aspect,
and although it is positive for some households
to have an entertainment alternative,
it reveals the need of supporting homes to
profit more from the new resource.
With lower percentages, between 5% and
10% of the population studied use the computer
to read the news, look for health information,
use the e-mail, and look for information
related to their job.
Most of the activities carried out by family
members with the xo are related to the use
of the internet; this clearly shows the importance
of connectivity to extend the use of xos
to the rest of the family.
Some of the challenges pending
Apart from pointing out achieved successes,
we must analyze arisingdifficulties so as to
10
Read the news
8 8
Search for health
information
Use e-mail
or chat
Search for
information
for work
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Summary of main results | 23
5

figure 26
xo condition according to school
sociocultural context. Provinces.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
99
86
identify in which areas to work for the Plan’s
steady improvement and sustainability.
the Figure 26 shows the conditions of the xo
according to the school socio-cultural context.
As it can be seen and as it was foreseeable
according to previous programs experiences
(for example, “one child, one book”)
the damage sustained by materials handed
out is greater in low-income social sectors.
up to June 2009 there were, only in the Provinces,
approximately 20,000 xos not being
used because they were damaged. the highest
damage probabilities as well as the lowest
repair probabilities mainly affect families
from low-income areas.
Due to the limited payment capacity of these
social sectors, the initial option was to replace
the equipment damaged free of charge,
but according to reports by teachers and
principals this generated a negative effect
and a higher level of carelessness among
children. thus, a different alternative was
83
1 3
6
5
2
6
9
8
10
1
3
6
12
1
5
Very Favorable Medium Unfavorable Very
favorable
unfavorable
24 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
78
It can be used and it is in good condition
Though it is damaged, it can be used
It can not be used because it is damaged
76
It can not be used because it is full and blocked
Other situation
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
figure 27
Reasons for other family members not to
not use the xo. Provinces
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
32
Do not know
how to use it
27
Have another
computer
at home
20
Think it is only
for the child
Afraid of
damaging it
implemented; it consists of giving the school,
not the children, a number of xos (3% of each
school's population) to be used in the classroom
when their computer breaks down, so
as to ensure that children can use them at
least during school time.
this represents as a reasonable palliative solution
for the situation, but it will be necessary
to implement other measures eventually involving
civil organizations at a local level, apart
from the setting up of training workshops for
parents that allow a better appropriation and
knowledge of the tool so as to have an impact
on damage prevention. this strategy will be
even more important in the future in order
to prevent these children from having fewer
opportunities than their peers. However, the
higher level of damage in low-income areas
is partially mitigated by the fact that there are
usually more than one xo in these households
and so there is a shared use of the computers.
Even though the chosen model has clear advantages
over the it Lab model regarding its
15
12
Not interested
3
It is too small
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.

impact on the free use for children and families,
this is one of the model’s weak spots;
the good is handed out to children and families
for them to own it and there are differences
in terms of caring habits and payment capacity
once the equipment is damaged. the
need for the implementation of combined
strategies for the handing out of the goods
and the creation of alternative guarantees of
access for those children who were not able
to keep their computer working becomes, at
this point, evident.
on the other hand, the majority of the family
members do not use the xo. However, as
the Figure 27 shows, the main reasons for
this are not related to lack of interest in the
computer but to other factors among which
the lack of knowledge on how to use it or the
misconception that it is meant to be used
exclusively by the child represent two of the
most important reasons. A better training
of families is needed to foster their use of
the xo.
figure 28
Principal’s level of agreement with Plan
Ceibal. Whole country
34%
2% 1%
5%
58%
Totally agrees Agrees
Neither agrees nor disagrees
Totally disagrees
Disagrees
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Level of Agreement of Principals
and Parents with Plan Ceibal
Figure 28 shows the level of agreement with
Plan Ceibal of principals of regular schools
across the country, in the Provinces as well as
in Montevideo (in the case of the capital the
Plan had not been implemented at the time
of the survey). As it can be observed, more
than 90% agree with the Plan, a figure similar
to the one obtained last year within the Pilot
operation carried out in 44 schools with maximum
and minimum exposure to Plan Ceibal
and also similar to the figures obtained in independent
polls.
this level of agreement with the plan can be
compared to the level of population approval
regarding the investment of resources on
Plan Ceibal, study carried out by local consultant
companies. Equipos-Mori, for example,
reports that this action was approved
by 78% of the people surveyed (Source:
Equipos-Mori, Survey of May 2009). this
way, although the question was not exactly
figure 29
Mother’s level of agreement with Plan
Ceibal. Whole country
20%
1%
1%
4%
74%
Totally agrees Agrees
Neither agrees nor disagrees
Totally disagrees
Disagrees
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.
Summary of main results | 25

the same, it could be said that the level of
approval is higher in the directly affected
population (Principals in this case) than in
the general population.
the fact that the principals’ opinion about
Plan Ceibal is favorable. is an important aspect
since this stakeholder is in charge of
leading the school and it is undoubtedly necessary
(but not sufficient), to have their support
in order to achievegood results.
Figure 29 shows mothers’ level of agreement
with Plan Ceibal.
it is clear that there is a favorable attitude
from the mothers regarding the Plan Ceibal.
Approximately 95% of them state that they
agree with it.
Mothers were also asked about their expectations
about Plan Ceibal in terms of their
children’s learning. it is important to mention
that it was not specified whether it was curricular
or school learning but learning in the
broad sense. there are no social differences
here: almost all mothers, from all socio-economic
statuses, hold high expectations about
their children’s learning. Compared to Figure
29, it can be seen that they are considering
learning in a broad sense, beyond achievements
in formal education; Plan Ceibal is
actually regarded by the population as an opportunity
to access knowledge. n
26 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
figure 30
Expectations on what the child’s learning
is going to be like, by school ses
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
58
32
8
2
Very
Favorable
54
35
59
29
61
31
67
26
10 9
1
6 6
1 2 1 1 1
Favorable Medium Unfavorable Very
Unfavorable
Much better Somehow better The same
Somehow worse Much worse
source: Monitoring and Evaluation Area. Plan Ceibal.
Families national Survey-2009.

Summary of main positive and negative impacts,
alerts, and future challenges
From the results obtained to date, the following
main positive and negative impacts can
be summarized as follows:
Positive impacts
• on children and adults that did not have
access to a pc and/or to the internet
• on children and adults who showed an interest
in general learning and particularly
in school learning.
• on communities and institutions actively
involved and motivated to face the new
challenge and/or that have networks of
support.
• on society in general, as a result of the
perception of expanded opportunities for
all.
Moderate positive impacts
• on children and families that already had
access to a pc and/or to the internet
• on contexts where key stakeholders have
been more passive and/or did not receive
enough support.
• on users that do not know or do not use
the resource’s potential to its full capacity
or those who use it but do not attain appropriation
yet.
Negative impacts and/or missed
opportunities
on children that do not have the xo (due to
damage) in a context where most children do.
Potentially, on children who are overusing the
device and/or are not monitored by adults.
the fact that children and families mainly
use the computer for recreation. Although
this trend is expected to continue, it appears
necessary to strengthen institutional coordination
and support strategies to increase use
related to information and the production of
knowledge.
there follow some recommendations to increase
positive impacts and to reduce negative
ones.
Recommendations for action
Preventive Measures
Increase in family-oriented training. Mass
access to computers goes together with an
important diversity in their effective use. As
it was observed, although some adults were
taught how to use xo by their children, this
does not apply for the majority of them. Family
exploration should be complemented with
the strong support of voluntary groups and
specific organizations such as mec Centers
and other institutions whose task is to promote
or support digital literacy. the activity
of these organizations, according to what
was observed in the visits to 20 towns and in
their low occurrence in surveys, is less than
the activity required to achieve a significant
use of the new device in the households.
Summary of main results | 27

As seen, one of the reasons for which adults
not to use the xo is that they are afraid of
damaging it, and another reason is that they
think the computer is only for the child. this
distance between the adult and the new device
makes the adult lose the opportunity of
using a tool that, even though it belongs to
the child, could be useful for the whole family.
besides, this distance makes parents not
to commit to the caring of the device or to the
monitoring of its use by their children.
to sum up, more institutional coordination
and more resource allocation on specific
projects are recommended in order to develop
capacities in the families.
in this aspect of previous preparation and
subsequent support, neither schools nor
voluntary groups will be able to handle this
requirement. it is fundamental to reach an
agreement with programs such as “Childhood
and Family” program from mides (Ministry
of Social Development), and to analyze
and improve the strategies used by Centers
mec to approach the population, and to allot
specific resources for the training of the
community.
to achieve this, apart from the meetings
held at school, the involvement of Childhood
and Families socat (orientation, Advice
and territorial Cooperation Services), and
groups of volunteers, it would be important
to train several agents that work within the
neighborhood such as ngo’s members, Area
Councils, managers of Community Dining
Centers, etc. Local agents by area could be
sensitized and could act as multiplier agents
and face-to-face referents in the most deprived
communities.
Palliative measures
28 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
Payment facilities. to date xo repair costs
due to misuse or accidental damage of the
laptop should be paid by parents in just one
installment. this represents an obstacle for
a significant number of families. it would be
important to implement payment facilities
in coordination with different institutions
that might be involved (Ministry of Social
Development, bps –Social Welfare bank–,
etc). this will not entirely solve the problem
of xo damage but may help those families
who want to pay but cannot do it with the
current system.
Remedial work
to facilitate school repair, particularly in
schools in critical socio-cultural contexts.
• to implement, as a pilot plan in large
schools, the training of 5 and 6 grade students,
former students, and it teachers to
do some basic repairs, to unblock the xos
or eliminate those applications that fill
its capacity. those trained in these workshops
should work as multiplier agents
of this knowledge and help users to solve
easy problems.
• the laptop’s capacity at its maximum and
its slowing down, the lack of knowledge
about its correct use, the accidental deletion
of software and other minor difficulties
increase the number of laptops that
cannot be used in the household. to sum
up, the concept is to empower advisors
and referents within the communities
and to build capacities for the training

of the new users in order to increase the
number of available and operational computers
within the population.
Social Promotion Measures
• Another recommendation is to implement
a system of scholarships for outstanding
children from adverse social contexts who
are interested in the use of the xo. Cases
of children who are skilled in animation
and handle the basics of programming
have been detected. Schools, families
and social organizations could be called
to nominate children to be awarded to
these scholarships.
• besides, we suggest organizing workshops
where children with an outstanding
ability in the use of the xo gather to
show and explain what they can do. in
this workshop, their knowledge on the xo
could be registered as well.
• Vocational training and guidance in this
field we add the pertinence of guiding
those children about to graduate from
primary school who are interested in it,
especially in the poorest areas, where
the dropout rates are particularly high in
the first year of secondary school. these
children can be informed of the places
where they can continue their studies
for free or through a scholarship system,
and support to do so can be provided.
otherwise the potential gained in terms
of knowledge and use of this tool could
be lost. Plan Ceibal is, as a matter of fact,
creating ict capacities in children but it is
necessary to guide these potential technicians
and programmers towards a real
study opportunity and subsequent job.
in order to achieve this objective, specific
actions and the appropriate coordination
among institutions and the private sector
are needed.
• not only are community teachers in
charge of a specific group of students,
they are also able to reach those children
in greater need of learning support
within their own homes; it is because of
this fact that we suggest providing them
with a differential ict training. Community
teachers have an important role in
the transmission and promotion of the
meaningful use of computers within the
families and the advantage of personally
approaching families in complex social
situations.
• to generate specific events and/or to
finance projects that make visible and
recognize those teachers who make an
innovative use of the new tool or education
institutions where computers and
the internet are successfully included in
regular teaching. n
Summary of main results | 29

Bibliography
agesic (Agency for the development of E-government
and the Society of information and Knowledge),
(2008). «Agenda Digital uruguay 2008-2010
para la Sociedad de la información
y el Conocimiento».
www.agesic.gub.uy/innovaportal/file/297/1/
Agenda_Digital2008-2010.pdf
camacho, Kemly (2001). The Internet: A Tool for Social
Change? Elements of a Necessary Discussion.
Acceso Foundation, Costa rica.
www.acceso.or.cr/node/35.
castells, Manuel (2001). «tecnología de la información
y capitalismo global». En el límite. La vida en el
capitalismo global, Hutton y giddens (coord.)
tusquets, España.
diee (Agency of research, evaluation and statistics
(2007). «Diagnóstico sobre el equipamiento
informático de las escuelas públicas».
anep, uruguay.
filgueira, Fernando et al. (2003). Evaluación del sistema
de adquisición y distribución del libros de Texto
de mecaep. anep, uruguay.
finquelievich, Susana (2006). «innovación, información
y prácticas sociales». Paper presented at
Primer Congreso Internacional de Investigación
en Ciencias de la Información. Chile:
universidad de Antioquia.
hopenhaym, Martín (2004). «brechas de sentido: entre
las tic, la cultura y la educación». Perspectiva
Journal, n.° 5, pp. 64-67, Colombia.
Websites
Plan Ceibal educational portal. www.ceibal.edu.uy
Plan Ceibal institutional portal. www.ceibal.org.uy
Portal of ursec (regulatory Agency of
telecommunication services).
www.ursec.gub.uy.
30 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal
iaia (international Association for impact Assessment),
(2004). Principios internacionales de
la evaluación de impacto social. Serie
Publicaciones especiales, n.° 2.
pittaluga, Lucía; Sienra, Mariana (2007). «utilización
de las tecnologías de la información y las
Comunicaciones en el uruguay». ine, uruguay.
rivoir, Ana Laura (2008). «El Plan Ceibal: ¿mucho
más que conectividad y acceso?».
En revista «bitácora», La República, uruguay.
www.bitacora. com.uy/noticia_1482_1.html
rodríguez gustá, Ana (2008). «inclusión e innovación
social: algunas reflexiones para el diseño
de políticas públicas». isbn : 9974816602.
anii, uruguay.
rueda ortiz, rocío (2005). «Apropiación social de las
tecnologías de información: ciberciudadanías
emergentes». Tecnología y comunicación
educativas Journal, issn 0187-0785, n.° 41,
2005. Pp. 19-32.
silva, uca (2001). «un futuro por comunicar. El impacto
de las nuevas tecnologías de comunicación
e información en la vida cotidiana». Temas
Sociales Journal, n.° 38. Sur Profesionales,
Chile.
Warschauer, Mark (2003). Technology and Social
Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide.
the mit Press, usa.
observatorio Para la Sociedad de la información en
Latinoamérica y el Caribe, cepal.
www.eclac.org/Socinfo/osilac/

PlanCeibal
PLAN CEIBAL SOCIAL IMPACT MONITORING
AND EVALUATION AREA
2 | First national monitoring and evaluation report on Plan Ceibal