This article examines how laptop computing technology, teacher professional development, and systematic support resulted in changed teaching practices and increased student achievement in 47 K-12 schools in 11 Florida school districts. The overview of a large-scale study documents the type and magnitude of change in student-centered teaching, technology tool-based teaching, and student learning that were observed in 440 classrooms over the course of a school year. By employing multiple observations in all schools, document analysis, interviews, and teacher inquiry, an account of the conditions, processes, and consequences (Hall, 1995) of laptop computing was generated. Based on the analysis of data, laptop computing had a positive impact across districts, particularly in regard to changes in teaching practices. Increases in student achievement were also demonstrated across districts. This study calls attention to systemic issues associated with successful laptop implementation and provides implications for statewide laptop programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DawsonK. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers' experience and reflection during curriculum-based technology-enhanced field experiences. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 265–292.
2.
DawsonK. (2007). The role of teacher inquiry in helping prospective teachers untangle the complexities of technology use in classrooms. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(1), 5–14.
3.
CavanaughC. (2010). Blended education for primary and secondar pupils. Better: Evidence-Based Education, 5(Autumn), 16–17.
4.
BarriosT. (2004). Laptops for learning: Final report and recommendations of the Laptops for Learning Task Force. Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://etc.usf.edu/L4L/
5.
BoardmanA. G.WoodruffA. L. (2004). Teacher changes and “high-stakes” assessment: What happens to professional development?Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 545–557.
CubanL.KirkpatrickH.PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
8.
DanaN. F.Yendol-SilvaD. (2003). The reflective educator's guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
9.
FairmanJ. (2004). Trading roles: Teachers and students learn with technology. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New England Educational Research Organization, Portsmouth, NH.
10.
FisherD.StolarchukE. (1998). The effect of using laptop computers on achievement, attitude to science and classroom environment in science. Proceedings from the Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum. Retrieved February 20, 2007 from http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1998/fisher.html
11.
GardnerJ.MorrisonH.JarmanR. (1993). The impact of high access to computers on learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9(1), 2–16.
12.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teacher. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
13.
GravelleP. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Impact on the digital divide. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/mlti.htm
14.
HallP. M. (1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory: Beyond the microlevel. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(2), 397–423.
15.
HaertelG.MeansB. (2004). Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
HarrisW. J.SmithL. (2004). Laptop use by seventh grade students with disabilities: Perceptions of special education Teachers. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/mlti.htm
17.
HenriquezA.RiconscenteM. (1999). Rhode Island Teachers and Technology Initiative: Program evaluation final report. New York: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology.
18.
HerringtonJ.OliverR. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.
19.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2005). Essential conditions to make it happen. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://osx.latch.edu/students/s_esscond.html
KingK. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers and Education, 39, 283–297.
22.
LewisE. M.RossS. M.AlbergM. (1999, July). School observation measure: Reliability analysis. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
23.
LowtherD. L.RossS. (2000). Survey of computer use: Basic observation guidelines. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis: Center for Research in Educational Policy.
24.
LowtherD. L.RossS. M.MorrisonG. R. (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(03), 23–44.
PattonM. (2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality lesson learned. American Journal of Evaluation22(3), 329–336.
27.
RossS.SmithL.LowtherD. L.AlbergM. J. (2006). The school observation model. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis: Center for Research in Educational Policy.
28.
RossS. M.SmithL. J.AlbergM. (1999). The School Observation Measure (SOM). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
29.
RossmanG. B.RallisS. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA; London/New Delhi: Sage.
30.
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.
31.
RussellM.PlatiT. (2001). Mode of administration effects on MCAS composition performance for grades eight and ten. Teachers College Record. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10709
32.
SchrumL.BurbankM. D.EngleJ.ChambersJ. A.GlassettK. F. (2005). Post-secondary educators' professional development: Investigation of an online approach to enhancing teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 279–289.
33.
SilvernailD. L.LaneD. M. M. (2004). The impact of Maine's one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine.
34.
SterbinskyA.RossS. M.BurkeD., (2004). Tennessee EdTech Accountability Model (TEAM) Reliability Study. The CNA Corporation, Alexandria, VA.
35.
StokesM. E.DavisC. S.KochG. (2000). Categorical data analysis using the SAS System. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
36.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
SwanK.van't HooftM.KratcoskiA.SchenkerJ. (2007). Ubiquitous computing and changing pedagogical possibilities: Representations, conceptualizations, and uses of knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 481–515.
38.
WarschauerM. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
