Technology as a Change Agent in the Classroom

  • Gary R. MorrisonEmail author
  • Steven M. Ross
  • Deborah L. Lowther


The focus of this chapter is the results of a 3-year implementation of a one-on-one laptop program in a Midwestern school district. Using a mixed methods quasi-experimental design including classroom observations; perception data from students, teachers, and parents; and achievement scores from state-mandated and supplementary assessments of writing and problem-solving, we found that a technological innovation can serve as a change agent in making learning more problem-based and constructivist in nature. Further, the combination of the student “owned” laptops and the transformed classroom environment resulted in sustained gains in writing and problem-solving relative to comparison students. Implications for practice and research in technology integration are drawn from the results.


K-12 Change agent Laptop classrooms Laptop teachers Innovation Teacher use of technology Technology integration Achievement Technology accessibility Problem-solving Teacher perceptions about technology Project-based learning 


  1. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from teaching, learning, and computing: Is Larry Cuban right ? Retrieved May 19, 2006, from
  2. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  3. Cobb, P., & Bowles, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28, 4–15.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. CREP. (2006). National SOM norms for middle schools. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  6. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (2000). Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  8. Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (2001). Survey of Computer Use (SCU). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  9. McCombs, B. L. (2003). Learner-Centered Principles: A Framework for Teaching [Symposium].. Theory into Practice, 4(2), 93–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2005). Integrating computer technology into the classroom (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  11. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. L. (2000). Using classroom observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The school observation measure. In S. Hilberg & H. Waxman (Eds.), New directions for observational research in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Santa Cruz, VA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.Google Scholar
  14. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self regulated learning and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 3–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary R. Morrison
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steven M. Ross
  • Deborah L. Lowther
  1. 1.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations