Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 279–298 | Cite as

The initial response of secondary mathematics teachers to a one-to-one laptop program

  • Edward Nordin Zuber
  • Judy Anderson
Original Article


Studies of one-to-one programs consistently report lower use of laptops in mathematics classrooms compared to other subjects but do not elaborate reasons for these observations. This mixed-method study investigated the experiences and beliefs of 28 mathematics teachers at five secondary schools during the second year of the New South Wales Digital Education Revolution laptop program. While some mathematics teachers planned for students to use their laptops up to once a week, most reported less frequent use in the classroom. Teachers were grouped into categories “Non Adopters,” “Cautious Adopters,” and “Early Adopters” according to reported classroom use of laptops, then analysed for differences in confidence, knowledge, and beliefs relating to technology for teaching and learning mathematics. A prevalent belief limiting laptop use is that students authentically learn mathematics only using pen and paper. Cautious Adopters and Non Adopters expressed beliefs that laptops exacerbate classroom management problems, especially for lower-achieving students. In the context of ability-streamed classes these beliefs effectively ruled out use of laptops for entire classrooms.


One-to-one laptop Secondary mathematics Teacher beliefs Technology 


  1. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes: OUP.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J., White, P., & Sullivan, P. (2005). Using a schematic model to represent influences on, and relationships between, teachers’ problem-solving beliefs and practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). Technical paperindex of community socio-economic advantage (ICSEA). Retrieved June 20, 2010 from
  4. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 6–59.Google Scholar
  5. Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  6. Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined context. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39–68.Google Scholar
  7. Cavanagh, M. (2006a). Mathematics teachers and working mathematically: Responses to curriculum change. In G. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, Cultures and Learning Spaces Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (Vol 1 (pp. 115–122). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  8. Cavanagh, M. (2006b). Implementing a reform-oriented mathematics syllabus: A survey of secondary teachers. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, pp. 273–280. Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  9. Constant, M. D. (2011). One-to-one laptop project: Perceptions of teachers, parents, and students. Dissertations. Paper 5. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from
  10. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Cross, D. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: Examining mathematics teachers’ belief structures and their influence on instructional practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2008). Florida’s EETT leveraging laptops initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143–159.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Listening to students and educators voices. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from
  15. Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2007(23), 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forgasz, H. (2006). Factors that encourage or inhibit computer use for secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 77–93.Google Scholar
  18. Forgasz, H. (2010). Streaming for mathematics in years 7–10 in Victoria: An issue of equity? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Francis, J., Eccles, M., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., Kaner, E., Smith, L., & Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health services researchers. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
  20. Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2007). Technology-enriched teaching of secondary mathematics: Factors influencing innovative practice. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential Research, Essential Practice—Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 315–324). Wahroonga: MERGA.Google Scholar
  21. Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics Classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inan, F., & Lowther, F. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Education Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Hack, S., Clark, H., & Plewis, I. (2002). Ability grouping in English secondary school: Effects on attainment in English, mathematics, and science. Educational Research and Evaluation: an International Journal on Theory and Practice, 8(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher development, 11(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lei, J. (2009). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology (2009) Early View.Google Scholar
  27. Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a longitudinal study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397.Google Scholar
  30. Lowther, D., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (2003). When each has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers in Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2009). Digital education revolutionNSW Policy. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from
  34. Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.Google Scholar
  35. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(71), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reynolds, R., Treharne, D., & Tripp, H. (2003). ICT—the hopes and the reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rockman, R,. Chessler, M., & Walker, L. (2003). A more complex picture: laptop use and impact in the context of changing home and school access. Anytime Anywhere Learning. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from
  38. Silvernail, D. (2009). Research and evaluation of the Maine learning technology initiative (MLTI) laptop program. Maine Internal Centre for Digital Learning. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from
  39. Thomas, M. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotná & H. Moraová (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 265–272). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  40. Thomas, M., & Hong, Y. (2005). Teacher factors in integration of graphic calculators into mathematics learning. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 257–264). Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  41. Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(6), 5–25.Google Scholar
  42. Zbiek, R., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by in-service and preservice teachers. In M. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (Research Syntheses, Vol. 1, pp. 287–344). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Reforming mathematics education: A case study within the context of new times. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice (Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 791–798). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  44. Zucker, A. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zucker, A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County public schools. Arlington: SRI International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations