Do One-to-One Initiatives Bridge the Way to 21st Century Knowledge and Skills?

Abstract

This article presents findings from an investigation of the overall effectiveness of Michigan's Freedom to Learn (FTL) One-to-One initiative. The major goal of the FTL initiative was to help students to gain 21st century knowledge and skills while increasing their learning and achievement through the integration of over 20,000 laptop computers with comprehensive teacher professional development. This study used a mixed-methods descriptive and quasi-experimental design. Data were collected with validated observation and survey instruments. The findings reveal greater use of research-based best practices in FTL classrooms and greater teacher confidence to integrate technology as compared to normative data. FTL students performed as well as control students yet demonstrated greater 21st century knowledge and skills.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abell Foundation. (2008). One-to-one computing in public schools: Lessons from “laptops for all” programs. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Bebell

Kay

(2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2), 5–59.

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Casner-Lotto

Barrington

(2006). Are they really ready to work: Employers perspectives on the knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. The Conference Board, Inc., The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved January 21, 2008 from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. Plano

(2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). School matters. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from http://www.schoolmatters.com

Dawson

Cavanaugh

Ritzhaupt

A. D.

(2008). Florida's EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143–159.

Dunleavy

Dexter

Heinecke

W. F.

(2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440–452.

Ertmer

P. A.

(2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

10.

Ertmer

P. A.

Addison

Lane

Ross

Woods

(1999). Examining teachers' beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–72.

11.

Ertmer

P. A.

Gopalakrishnan

Ross

E. M.

(2001). Technology-using teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5), 45–53.

12.

Grimes

Warschauer

(2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.

13.

Hayes

Greaves

(2008). America's digital schools 2008: The six trends to watch. Encinitas, CA: The Greaves Group, The Hayes Connection.

14.

Inan

F. A.

Lowther

D. L.

(2010a). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.

15.

Inan

F. A.

Lowther

D. L.

(2010b). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937–944.

16.

Inan

F. A.

Lowther

D. L.

Ross

S. M.

Strahl

(2010). Pattern of classroom activities during students' use of computers: Relations between instructional strategies and computer applications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 540–546.

17.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2007). National educational technology standards for students: Technology foundation standards for all students. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_stands.html

18.

Jonassen

Howland

Marra

Crismond

(2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

19.

Kleiman

G. M.

(2000). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools. Leadership and New Technologies, 14. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from http://www2.edc.org/LNT/news/Issue14/feature1.htm

20.

Lei

Conway

P. F.

Zhao

(2008). The digital pencil: One-to-one computing for children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Lei

Zhao

(2008). One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.

22.

Lowther

D. L.

Inan

F. A.

Strahl

J. D.

Ross

S. M.

(2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–213.

23.

Lowther

D. L.

Ross

S. M.

(2001). Survey of Computer Use (SCU). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.

24.

Lowther

D. L.

Ross

S. M.

(2003). Formative evaluation process for school improvement: Technology instrument suite. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

25.

Lowther

D. L.

Ross

S. M.

Morrison

G. R.

(2001). Evaluation of a laptop program: Successes and recommendations. Paper presented at the National Education Computing Conference, Chicago, IL.

26.

Lowther

D. L.

Ross

S. M.

Morrison

G. 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(3), 23–44.

27.

Morrison

G. R.

Lowther

D. L.

(2010). Integrating computer technology into the classroom: Skills for the 21st century (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

28.

Mouza

(2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472.

29.

Murphy

King

Brown

(2007). Laptop initiative impact: Assessed using student, parent and teacher data. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 57–73.

30.

Newhouse

Rennie

(2001). A longitudinal study of the use of student-owned portable computers in a secondary school. Computers & Education, 36(3), 223–243.

31.

Niederhauser

D. S.

Lindstrom

D. L.

(2006). Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 91–128.

32.

Onwuegbuzie

Teddlie

(2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

33.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Partnership for 21st century skills. Retrieved July 3, 2011 from http://www.p21.org/

34.

Penuel

W. 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.

35.

Ross

S. M.

Lowther

D. L.

(2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student achievement in inner-city schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 215–246.

36.

Ross

S. M.

Smith

L. J.

Alberg

(1999). The School Observation Measure. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.

37.

Ross

S. M.

Smith

L. J.

Alberg

Lowther

D. L.

(2004). Using classroom observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The School Observation Measure. In Waxman

H. C.

Tharp

R. G.

Hilberg

R. S.

(Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cape Town, South Africa: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Russell

Bebell

Higgins

(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.

39.

Silvernail

D. L.

Gritter

A. K.

(2007). Maine's middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from http://etsb.awebconcept.com/media/etsb_pdf.file/fr-CA/Maine.pdf

40.

Smith

Ross

McNelis

Squires

Wasson

Maxwell

(1998). The Memphis Restructuring Initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that affect implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 276–325.

41.

Sterbinsky

Burke

(2004). Summary of CSRTQ reliability studies. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.

42.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA). (2003). Digital economy 2003. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 17, 2008 from https://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/DE-Chap4.pdf

43.

U.S. Department of Education (DOE). (2001). No child left behind Act of 2001: Enhancing education through technology (II-D-1&2). Retrieved August 2, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page_pg28.html#iid1

44.

U.S. Department of Education (DOE). (2003). Federal funding for educational technology and how it is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/evaluation.html

45.

Windschitl

Sahl

(2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

46.

Zucker

(2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386.

47.

Zucker

A. A.

King

K. E.

(2009). Teaching with laptops. The Science Teacher, 76(9), 22–26.