Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1069–1089 | Cite as

The effects on the student-teacher relationship in a one-to-one technology classroom

  • Kevin Higgins
  • Shawna BuShellEmail author


This embedded case study explores the student-teacher relationship in a one-to-one technology environment. The actual change in relationship in a one-to-one classroom was examined. The study was guided by the self-system theory of motivation and its three characteristics of autonomy, relatedness, and competency as a theoretical framework. To explore this topic, the researchers considered the perspectives of four classroom teachers and 207 high school students at a suburban public high school in New Jersey. The case study research utilized teacher interviews, classroom observations, student surveys, and a student focus group. The findings revealed a notable change in the relationship between teachers and students within the one-to-one environment. The change existed in the connectivity between the teachers and their students beyond the classroom and school. The researchers concluded that the teachers and their students did have a positive relationship in a one-to-one environment and that relationship depended on the teacher’s ability to engage students using the one-to-one device. The researchers concluded that the one-to-one environment creates an autonomous learning environment for students; teachers and students have a relatedness that extends beyond the traditional boundaries of a school; and a higher level of competency in both teachers and students creates a more engaging classroom. As one-to-one technology environments are becoming more popular across the country, this study contributes to a better understanding of the expected changes in teacher-student relationships before issues of conflict occur.


One-to-one Educational technology Teacher-student relationships Classroom technology Self-system theory Student motivation Technology classroom environment 


  1. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: a motivational analysis of self-system process. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development: the Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferlazzo, L. (2015). Strategies for helping students motivate themselves. Edutopia. Retrieved from
  5. Foote, C. (2012). The evolution of a 1:1 iPad program. Internet@Schools. 15-18. Retrieved from:
  6. Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Harris, A. (2011). Social motivation in the secondary classroom: assessing teacher-student relationships and student outcomes. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  7. Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 275–386). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Healy, J. M. (2011). Endangered minds: why children don’t think and what we can do about it. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  9. Krathwohl, D. R., & Smith, N. L. (2005). How to prepare a dissertation proposal: suggestions for students in education and the social and behavioral sciences. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: what does it bring to schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalization in qualitative research. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 4(3), 324.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Links between community violence and the family system: evidence for children’s feelings of relatedness and perceptions of parent behavior. Family Process, 41(3), 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mann, D. (2008). Documenting outcomes from Henrico county public school’s laptop computing initiative: 2005-06 Through 2007-08. Henrico County public schools Board of Education. Retrieved from 112408.pdf.
  15. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Monroe Township. (2011). 21st century learning initiative. Retrieved from
  18. Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newman, R. S. (2002). How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: the role of adaptive help seeking. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 132–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ozdemir, M. (2015). Practices and attitudes of students and teachers using iPads in high school mathematics classes. Tablets in K-12 Education: Integrated Experiences and Implications, 262.Google Scholar
  21. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pierson, L. H., & Connell, J. P. (1992). Effect of grade retention on self-system processes, school engagement, and academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 300–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinkham, C. A., & Johnson A. F. (2013). Spring 2013 teacher’s survey: MEPRI/MLTI middle and high school technology report. University of Southern Maine. Retrieved from
  25. Rockman, S., & Walker, L. (1997). Report of a laptop program pilot: a project for anytime anywhere learning by Microsoft Corporation, notebooks for schools by Toshiba America information systems. San Francisco: Rockman et al.Google Scholar
  26. Rockman, S., Chessler, M., & Walker, L. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: second year study of the laptop program. San Francisco: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M. (2002). An AlphaSmart for each student: does teaching and learning change with full access to word processors? Boston College: Technology and Study Collaborative Retrieved from: Scholar
  28. Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (Vol. 14). San Francisco: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2016). Educational technologies and twenty-first century leadership for learning. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(1), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. M. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students. Gorham: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor, D. (2012). Writing the literature review (part one): step by step tutorial for graduate students. [vvideo file]. Retrieved from
  35. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82–83 Retrieved from content/uploads/2015/07/the_flipped_classroom_article_2.pdf.Google Scholar
  36. Warschauer, M. (2005). Going one-to-one. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 34–38.Google Scholar
  37. Wellborn, J. G. (2013). Motivating unmotivated students: from theory to practice. Canadian School Counsellor, 39–42. Retrieved from
  38. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  39. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rowan UniversityGlassboroUSA
  2. 2.Manhattan CollegeRiverdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations