Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 23–44 | Cite as

When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom

  • Deborah L. Lowther
  • Steven M. Ross
  • Gary M. Morrison


In this study, we examined the educational effects of providing fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-grade students with 24-hour access to laptop computers. Specifically we examined the impact of laptops on classroom activities, and on student use of technology and their writing and problem-solving skills. Participating teachers received computer integration training using the iNtegrating Technology for inQuiry (NTeQ) model to develop problem-based lessons that engage students in critically examining authentic issues, and strengthen research and writing skills. A matched treatment-control group design was employed, in which classes taught at the same grade levels in five participating schools served as the laptop (1 computer per student) and control (5+ computers per class) contexts. Participants included students, teachers, and parents from the two groups. Although systematic observations revealed relatively few differences in teaching methods between laptop and control classrooms, laptop students used computers more frequently, extensively, and independently. Writing assessment results showed substantial and significant advantages for laptop over control students, with six of eight effect sizes exceeding +0.80. Results also showed significant advantages for the laptop group on five of the seven components of the problem-solving task.


Word Processing Cooperative Learning Control Class Student Survey Control Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anytime, Anywhere Learning. (2000).Introduction to getting started. Retrieved September 22, 2002, from intro.aspGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, H., Ravitz, J.L., Wong, Y. (1999).Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey. Report #3. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Retrieved September 17, 2002 from http: // /html/startpage.htm.Google Scholar
  3. Bellanca, J. (1998). Teaching for intelligence: In search of best practices.Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 658–660.Google Scholar
  4. Bork, A. (1985).Personal computers for education. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  5. Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins.Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185–210.Google Scholar
  8. Edelson, D.C., Pea, R.D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments (pp. 151–164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Funkhauser, J.E., Steif, E.A., & Allen, S.E. (1998).Title I school-parent compacts: Supporting partnerships to improve learning. Final report. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S.M., & Hill, J.R. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications.Educational Technology, 34(8), 48–55.Google Scholar
  11. Hester, J. (2002).The influence of select variables on the instructional use of computers in Shelby County School District. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  12. Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: Examining the potential of computers in education.Computers in Human Behavior, 16(5), 537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. International Society for Technology in Education. (1998).National educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: ISTE.Google Scholar
  14. Jerald, C.D., & Orlofsky, G.F. (1999). Raising the bar on school technology.Technology Counts ’99, Education Week, 19(4), 58–69.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Stanne, M.B., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups.The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Land, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(2), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, E.M., Ross, S.M., & Alberg, M. (1999).School Observation Measure: Reliability analysis. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  18. Linn, M.C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J.D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students’ learning about “rats in space” and “deformed frogs.”Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability.Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowther, D.L., & Ross, S.M. (1999).Survey of computer use: Reliability analysis. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, L. (2001). New challenges.Education Week, 20(35), 49–64.Google Scholar
  22. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (Eds.). (1994).An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Moe, M., & Blodgett, H. (2000).The knowledge web. Washington, DC: Merrill Lynch, & Co., Global Securities Research & Economics Group.Google Scholar
  24. Morrison, G.R., & Lowther, D.L. (2002).Integrating computer technology into the classroom (2nd ed.). NJ: Upper Saddle River, Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Nath, L.R., & Ross, S.M. (2001). The influence of a peertutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementary students.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Center for Education Statistics, (2000, September).Teachers’ tools for the 21st Century. A report on teachers’ use of technology. Washington, DC: Author. (ED 444 599)Retrieved October 2, 2002, from 102.shtml Google Scholar
  27. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orrill, C.H. (2001). Building technology-based, learner-centered classrooms: The evolution of a professional development framework.Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Penuel, W.R., Kim, D.Y., Michalchik, V., Lewis, S. Means, B., Murphy, R., Korbak, C., Whaley, A., & Allen, J.E. (2002)Using technology to enhance connections between home and school: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education, DHHS Contract # 282-00-008-Task 1.Google Scholar
  30. Peterson, P. (1991).Profiles of practice: Elementary teachers’ views of their mathematics teaching. (Elementary Subjects Center Series, No. 39). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 341546.)Google Scholar
  31. Pianfetti, E.S. (2001). Teachers and technology: Digital literacy through professional development.Language Arts, 78(3), 255–262.Google Scholar
  32. President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997).Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Ravitch, D. (1985).The troubled crusade: American education 1945–1980. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Reiber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross, S.M., & Lowther, D.L. (2003). Impacts of the Conect school reform design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student achievement in inner-city schools.Journal for Educational Research on Students Placed At Risk, 8(3), 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ross, S.M., Lowther, D.L., & Morrison, G.R. (2001).Anytime, anywhere learning: Final evaluation report. Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  37. Ross, S.M., Lowther, D.L., Plants, R.T., & Morrison, G.R. (2000).Anytime, anywhere learning: Final evaluation report. Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  38. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., & Alberg, M. (1999).The school observation measure (SOM), Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  39. Ross, S.M., Smith, L., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (in press) Using classroom observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The school observation measure. In S. Hilberg and H. Waxman (Eds.),New directions for observational research in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.Google Scholar
  40. Shavelson, R.J., & Towne, L. (2002).Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture.Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slavin, R.E. (2002). Evidence-based policies: Transforming educational practice and research.Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.Google Scholar
  43. Stuebing, S., Celsi, J., Cousineau, L. (1994).Environments that support new modes of learning: The results of two interactive design workshops. ACOT report #19. California: Apple Computer Inc.Google Scholar
  44. U.S. Department of Education. (2000, April).Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. (Publication No. 20000090). Retrieved October 9, 2002, from pubid=2000090.Google Scholar
  45. U.S. Department of Education. (2001).No child left behind. Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Education. (2002, September).Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2001. (Publication No. 20020018). Retrieved October 9, 2002 from pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002018.Google Scholar
  47. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah L. Lowther
    • 1
  • Steven M. Ross
    • 1
  • Gary M. Morrison
    • 2
  1. 1.The Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Wayne State UniversityDetroit

Personalised recommendations