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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Anytime, Anywhere Learning. (2000).Introduction to getting started. Retrieved September 22, 2002, from http://www.microsoft.com/education/aal/guide intro.asp
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: //www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ComputerUse /html/startpage.htm.
Bellanca, J. (1998). Teaching for intelligence: In search of best practices.Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 658–660.
Bork, A. (1985).Personal computers for education. New York: Harper & Row.
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.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins.Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185–210.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: Examining the potential of computers in education.Computers in Human Behavior, 16(5), 537–552.
International Society for Technology in Education. (1998).National educational technology standards for students. Eugene, OR: ISTE.
Jerald, C.D., & Orlofsky, G.F. (1999). Raising the bar on school technology.Technology Counts ’99, Education Week, 19(4), 58–69.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability.Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4–14.
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.
Meyer, L. (2001). New challenges.Education Week, 20(35), 49–64.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (Eds.). (1994).An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moe, M., & Blodgett, H. (2000).The knowledge web. Washington, DC: Merrill Lynch, & Co., Global Securities Research & Economics Group.
Morrison, G.R., & Lowther, D.L. (2002).Integrating computer technology into the classroom (2nd ed.). NJ: Upper Saddle River, Merrill Prentice Hall.
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.
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 http://nces.ed.gov/spider/webspider/2000 102.shtml
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Pianfetti, E.S. (2001). Teachers and technology: Digital literacy through professional development.Language Arts, 78(3), 255–262.
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.
Ravitch, D. (1985).The troubled crusade: American education 1945–1980. New York: Basic Books.
Reiber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shavelson, R.J., & Towne, L. (2002).Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture.Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–14.
Slavin, R.E. (2002). Evidence-based policies: Transforming educational practice and research.Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.
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.
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 http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? pubid=2000090.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001).No child left behind. Washington, DC: The White House.
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 http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002018.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Lowther, D.L., Ross, S.M. & Morrison, G.M. When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. ETR&D 51, 23–44 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504551
- Word Processing
- Cooperative Learning
- Control Class
- Student Survey
- Control Student