This study examined the design, implementation, and outcomes of a laptop technology initiative in a career and technical education high school, in which many of the students had identified learning disabilities. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected that included teacher and student surveys, classroom observations, teacher interviews, student focus groups, and document analysis. Findings of the study indicated that teachers and students a) exhibited improvements in their technological skills and competence, b) used computers extensively for a range of traditional and innovative tasks, and c) strengthened their beliefs and attitudes toward the role of computers in teaching and learning. Increased access to resources and technical support were factors that facilitated sustained use of laptops. The nature of teacher professional development, the physical set-up of the classrooms, and the lack of accountability mechanisms were factors that hindered the implementation of laptops. Results of the study have implications for researchers and practitioners involved in the implementation of laptop initiatives.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
DanleaveyM., & HeineckeW. (2007). The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 7–22.
5.
GulekJ. C., & DemirtasH. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2). Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://www.jtla.org
6.
HarrisW. J., & SmithL. (2004). Laptop use by seventh grade students with disabilities: Perceptions of special education teachers.Orono, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Maine Office. Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/Reports/MLTI_Report2.pdf
7.
HasselbringT. S., & GlaserC. W. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76–101.
8.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA] of 2004, Public Law 108–446, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (2004).
9.
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2000). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to teach with technology.Eugene, OR: ISTE.
10.
JohnsonB., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm who time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
11.
LajoieS. (Ed.). (2000). Computers as cognitive tools, Volume II: No more walls.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
LevesqueK.LauenD.TeitelbaumP.AltM., & LibreraS. (2000). Vocational education in the United States: Toward the year 2000 (NCES 2000–029). Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000029
13.
LightD.McDermottM., & HoneyM. (2002). The impact of ubiquitous portable technology on an urban school: Project Hiller.New York: Center for Children & Technology.
14.
LowtherD. L.RossS. M., & MorrisonG. M. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–44.
15.
MaxwellJ. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
McGrailE. (2007). Laptop technology and pedagogy in the English language arts classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59–85.
MilesM. M., & HubermanM. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
MuirM.KnezekG., & ChristensenR. (2004). The power of one-to-one: Early findings from the Maine learning technology initiative. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(3), 6–11.
20.
NorrisC., & SolowayE. (2000). The snapshot survey service: A Website for assessing teachers' and administrators' technology activities, beliefs, and needs. Paper presented at the Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
21.
OakesJ. (1985/2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
OakesJ., & SaundersM. (2007). Multiple pathways: High school reform that promises to prepare all students for college, career, and civic responsibility.University of California, Los Angeles: UCLA/IDEA. Retrieved October 18, 2008 from http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/mp/
23.
OrkwisR., & MasonC. (2005). Federal legislation supporting universal design for learning and assistive technology. In Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals (pp. 13–19). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
24.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
PenuelW. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
26.
RockmanS. (2003). Learning from laptops. Threshold, 1(1), 24–28.
27.
RussellM.BebellD., & HigginsJ. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 313–330.
28.
RyanR. M., & DeciE. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
29.
SandholtzJ.RingstaffC., & DwyerD. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student centered classrooms.New York: Teachers College Press.
30.
SchaumburgH. (2001, June). Fostering girls' computer literacy through laptop learning. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://www.notesys.com/Copies/necc01.pdf
31.
SilverbergM.WarnerE.FongM., & GoodwinD. (2004). National assessment of vocational education: A report to Congress.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/sectech/nave/naveexesum.pdf
32.
SilvernailD. L., & LaneD. M. (2004). The impact of Maine's one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evidence.Portland, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern Maine.
33.
SilvernailD. L., & GritterA. (2007). Maine's middle school laptop program: Creating better writers.Portland, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern Maine.
SwanK.van 't HooftM.KratcoskiA., & UngerD. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 99–112.
36.
UngerD., & CookD. (2007). Integrating handheld computers into special education service delivery. In van 't HooftM. & SwanK. (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 41–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
YinR. K. (1993). Applications of case study research (Vol. 34, paperback ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
van 't HooftM.SwanK.CookD., & LinY. (2007). What is ubiquitous computing? In van 't HooftM. & SwanK. (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 3–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41.
ZuckerA. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386.
42.
ZuckerA. A., & McGheeR. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools.Arlington, VA: SRI International. Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://ubiqcomputing.org/FinalReport.pdf
