Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: teachers and students weigh in

  • Divya Varier
  • Erika K. Dumke
  • Lisa M. Abrams
  • Sarah B. Conklin
  • Jamie S. Barnes
  • Nancy R. Hoover
Development Article

Abstract

Increased efforts to promote 21st century learning emphasize the central role of technology in instructional delivery in order to advance the multifaceted abilities and skills required for student success in an increasingly technology-rich learning and work environment. A qualitative study was conducted in a large, economically diverse, mid-Atlantic school district to examine the implementation of six technology devices in 18 elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. The purpose was to understand teachers’ and students’ experiences related to the instructional implications of each device to inform long term, one-to-one implementation of an appropriate technology device to meet the district’s strategic goals for a 21st century learning environment. Teacher interviews and student focus groups revealed several themes related to technology integration, factors influencing implementation, impact on instruction, and impact on student motivation and engagement. Findings are discussed in relation to the district infrastructure and other considerations to support a one-to-one teaching and learning environment and how each of the six devices support the establishment of 21st century learning environments.

Keywords

One-to-one computing 21st century learning Blended learning Tablets Learner-centered classrooms Qualitative study 

References

  1. Bebell, D. (2005). Technology promoting student excellence: An investigation of the first year of 1:1 computing in New Hampshire middle schools. Retrieved March 11, 2014 from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/PDF/NH1to1_2004.pdf
  2. Bjerede, M., & Bondi, T. (2012). Learning is personal: Stories of Android tablet use in the 5th grade. Retrieved July 5, 2013, from: http://www.learninguntethered.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Learning-is-Personal.pdf
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corn, J., Tagsold, J. T., & Patel, R. K. (2011). The tech-savvy teacher: Instruction in a 1: 1 learning environment. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 1(1), 15.Google Scholar
  6. Donovan, S., Wigdor, A. K., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Strategic education research partnership. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  7. Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review, 7, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2012). Revolutionizing education through technology: The Project RED roadmap for transformation. Retrieved July 13, 2013 from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/books/projectred
  9. Groff, J. (2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments. Retrieved March 11, 2013 from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/Technology-Rich%20Innovative%20Learning%20Environments%20by%20Jennifer%20Groff.pdf
  10. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.Google Scholar
  11. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25(3), 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannon, V. (2012). Learning futures. Retrieved March 11, 2014 from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/Valerie%20Hannon.Learning%20Futures.pdf.
  13. Herold, B. (2014). Hard lessons learned in ambitious L.A. iPad initiative. Education Week, 34(3). Retrieved April 9, 2016 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/09/10/03lausd.h34.html.
  14. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010b). Laptops in K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55, 937–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  19. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Lambert, J.L. (2011). Measuring the effectiveness of a one-to-one laptop initiative in a rural school district. Paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from the AERA Online Paper Repository.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magley, G. (2011). Grade 8 mobile one-to-one with iPads: Component of the Millis Schools personalized learning initiative. Millis Public Schools Evaluation Report. Retrieved July 5, 2013, from: http://www.millisps.org/sites/default/files/iPadEvaluation_Final_0.pdf
  25. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, D. (2012). Learning 21st century skills requires 21st century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silvernail, D.L. & MLTI Research and Evaluation Team. (2011). A middle school one-to-one laptop program: The Maine experience. University of Southern Maine. Retrieved July 5, 2013, from: http://www.usm.maine.edu/sites/default/files/cepare/6MLTIBrief2011_MEExp.pdf
  32. Staker, H. & Horn, M.B. (2012). Classifying K-12 Blended Learning. Retrieved November 4, 2014, from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf
  33. Storz, M. G., & Hoffman, A. R. (2013). Examining response to a one-to-one computer initiative: Student and teacher voices. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 36(6), 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Tater, D., Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Handhelds go to school: Lessons learned. IEEE Computer, 36(9), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tseng, V., & Nutley, S. (2014). Building a infrastructure to improve the use of and usefulness of research in education. In K. S. Finnigan & A. J. Daly (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 163–176). New York: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. Systems, 32, 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiliam, D. (2013). Feedback and instructional correctives. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE Handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 197–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  39. Yim, S., Warschauer, M., & Zheng, B. (2016). Google Docs in the classroom: A district-wide case study. Teachers College Record, 118(9), 1–32.Google Scholar
  40. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654316628645.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations