Benefits of a "One to One" Technology Initiative

What are the Benefits of Students Having Their  Own Laptop Computer for School Use?

Hello Elementary Friends,

Like many schools and districts across the country Mortensen Elementary School is launching an area wide initiative to put a laptop computer into the hands of each student in grades two through five.  This will be a "two to three year roll-out" starting next year with second graders having a $200 Google Chromebook on the fee sheets at the beginning of school.  I have participated in several planning sessions to get this initiative off the ground, and I have collaborated with my area elementary principal colleagues in discussing the pros and cons of this endeavor.  As we have considered the ramifications of such an ambitious program, I have pondered over the effectiveness of such an effort.  Will having his/her own device actually improve a student's learning experience?  Does the addition of technology increase student achievement in the core content areas?  Will all the planning, organization, expense, maintenance, and oversight be worth the efforts?  To answer these questions for myself as principal and for the benefit of my colleagues, I decided to conduct a bit of research on the topic.

This article by  Leo Doran and Benjamin Herold is found in the May 11, 2016 edition of Education Week.  It reveals some positive results of one-to-one initiatives:

One-to-One Laptop Initiatives Boost Student Scores, Researchers Find

By Leo Doran and Benjamin Herold

Efforts by K-12 schools to give every student a laptop computer increased student achievement and gave a modest boost to their "21st century skills," according to a first-of-its-kind meta-analysis of 15 years' worth of research studies.

"It's not like just providing a laptop to every student will automatically increase student achievement, but we find that it's the first step," said Binbin Zheng, an assistant professor of counseling, educational psychology, and special education at Michigan State University.

Using statistical techniques to analyze already-completed studies, Zheng and her colleagues found that 1-to-1 laptop programs on average had a statistically significant positive impact on student test scores in English/language arts, writing, math and science. The limited number of rigorous quantitative studies available to analyze mean that those findings are not definitive, but they are clearly a good sign for 1-to-1 proponents and underscore the need for more study, Zheng said.

A further review of 86 additional papers by the researchers, meanwhile, found some modest evidence of other positive benefits associated with giving laptops to students, including increased student technology use; more student-centered and project-based instruction; greater student engagement; and better relationships between students and teachers.

The analysis focused solely on 1-to-1 laptop efforts. The researchers cautioned that their results are not generalizable to other devices such as tablets, desktop computers, and smartphones.  

The new findings run counter to the skepticism about educational technology expressed by many researchers and practitioners. A raft of prior studies, for example, have shown that even when technology is present in classrooms, teachers are slow to transform their practice, instead using technology primarily to make administrative tasks and existing forms of instruction more efficient.

The new analysis has the potential to reshape the debate about ed-tech's impact, said Elliot Soloway, a computer science professor at Michigan University who has spent decades studying classroom technology. 

"This is one of those definitive studies that comes along every 20 years," Soloway said. "Schools are going to use [the findings] to justify the move to 1-to-1."

Rapid Growth of 1-to-1 Student Computing

One-to-one student computing was first introduced to K-12 schools in the United States in the late 1990's. In 2002, Maine became the first state to launch a statewide program.

The trend has since gathered steam: In 2013 and 2014 alone, schools purchased more than 23 million laptops, tablets, and Chromebooks for use by students and teachers in the classroom (and sometimes at home.)

Generally, the goal is to enable teachers and software to deliver more personalized content to students, to boost students' technology skills, and to empower children to do more complex and creative work.

A handful of high-profile 1-to-1 disasters resulting from poor purchasing plans, bad planning, and a lack of clear academic vision have raised questions for schools about the wisdom of the approach, however.

And some research has been less than encouraging. A 2009 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics, for example, found that classroom technology was used for practice of basic skills far more often than for design and creation. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that countries where 15-year old students use computers most in the classroom scored the worst on international math and reading tests.

In an attempt to definitively determine the impact of K-12 1-to-1 initiatives, Zheng and her colleagues reviewed 96 journal articles and doctoral dissertations published between January 2001 and May 2015.

Just 10 of those studies met the researchers' criteria for inclusion in the statistical meta-analysis of 1-to-1 laptop initiatives' impact on student achievement, reflecting the still-very-limited research base on student computing initiatives.

"A disproportionate amount of the research to date on this topic consists of small case studies in one or a handful of schools," Zheng and her colleagues wrote in their study, titled "Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis," published online earlier this year in the academic journal Review of Educational Research. 

Still, there were enough historical findings to conclude that 1-to-1 laptop programs helped improve students' academic achievement by an overall effect size of .16 standard deviations—a figure that Zheng said indicates statistical significance, but is noticeably less than the effect sizes of other established interventions, such as small class sizes or individual tutoring.   

The researchers found the following effect sizes for specific subjects:

• English/language arts, by .15 standard deviations
• Writing, by .20 standard deviations
• Math, by .17 standard deviations
• Science, by .25 standard deviations.
• Reading, by .12 standard deviations

The impact on students' reading achievement was positive, but not statistically significant. Only two studies included science results that could be analyzed.

The results are "small but noteworthy," Zheng said.

Measuring Impact Beyond Test Scores

The researchers also looked beyond test scores, reviewing 85 additional studies that did include an empirical examination of 1-to-1 laptop initiatives' impact in K-12 schools, but did not include an experimental design and/or quantitative results.

Among the findings from that review: 

• A 1-to-1 laptop environment often led to increased frequency and breadth of student technology use, typically for writing, Internet research, note-taking, completing assignments, and reading.
• Students used laptops extensively throughout the writing process, expanding the genres and formats of their work to include writing for email, chats, blogs, wikis, and the like.
• Student-centered, individualized, and project-based learning appeared to increase in at least some instances of 1-to-1 laptop rollouts. 
  
• Student-teacher communications (via email and Google docs, for example) and parental involvement in their children's school work increased in some instances.
• Students expressed "very positive" attitudes about using laptops in the classroom, as findings consistently showed higher student engagement, motivation, and persistence when laptops were deployed to all students.
• Students' technology and problem-solving skills improved and their ownership of their own learning increased, according to some evidence.
• There were mixed findings on whether 1-to-1 laptop programs helped overcome inequities among students and schools.

Those results should be interpreted with caution, the researchers said, because they tended to rely on observation, survey, and interview data.

"There was a wide consensus in the studies we reviewed that use of laptops promotes 21st-century learning skills," the authors wrote. "However, studies rarely attempted to operationalize and systematically measure the growth of 21st-century skills in laptop students compared with control students."

Leslie Wilson, the CEO of the One-to-One Institute, a nonprofit that consults with schools and districts, said she was "thrilled" to see the new research, though she cautioned that educational leaders shouldn't leap to conclude that going 1-to-1 is enough on its own to increase student achievement.

For such a program to be effective, she said, schools must focus on crafting comprehensive plans that cover everything from infrastructure to curriculum to pedagogy to professional development.

And the real benefits of giving every student an access to a computer, contended Soloway of the University of Michigan, come when school move from "instructive" to "constructive" learning, or from "teaching kids to remember something to teaching them how to figure something out."

To best measure the extent to which that change is taking place, Zheng said, researchers and educators will have to look beyond standardized test scores.

Hopefully, she said, the new research will prompt further effort to develop assessments for students' digital literacy skills, as well as their creativity, independence, and leadership.

"Many of the benefits of 1-to-1 laptop programs are not detected by standardized tests," Zheng said. "For the many programs whose purpose is to help students be a better 21st-century citizen, we need to develop and use corresponding measurements."

Research Says… / One-to-One Laptop Programs Are No Silver Bullet

Bryan Goodwin

Nearly a decade ago, when school systems began forking over millions of dollars to purchase laptop computers for every student, these programs (often called one-to-one or ubiquitous computing initiatives) were heralded as having the potential to close persistent technology gaps.

Today, however, some school systems that ushered in one-to-one laptop programs amid great fanfare have begun to scrap them because of budget cuts (Lemagie, 2010); mushrooming maintenance costs (Vascellaro, 2006); and concerns about how students are using the computers (Hu, 2007).

Many district leaders continue to believe that one-to-one programs are worth the expense and headaches. A recent survey of 364 leaders of large districts with one-to-one initiatives found that 33 percent believed the laptops were having a significant effect on student achievement, and another 45 percent believed they were having a moderate effect (Greaves & Hayes, 2008). Of course, such self-reporting is prone to subjectivity. What does more objective research say about one-to-one initiatives?

The Encouraging News

Let's start with what we can say from careful research about the benefits of these programs.

More engaged learners. A four-year study of 5,000 middle school students in Texas found that those engaged in laptop immersion programs were less likely to have disciplinary problems (but slightly more likely to be absent from school) than students in schools without laptops (Shapley et al., 2009).

Better technology skills. The Texas study also found that the technology skills of students in the laptop programs improved significantly— so much so that after three years, low-income students in the laptop schools displayed the same levels of technology proficiency as wealthier students in the control schools (Shapley et al., 2009).

Cost efficiencies. Proponents of one-to-one programs also assert that such programs create savings in other areas, including reduced costs for textbooks, paper, assessments, and paperwork, as well as a reduction in disciplinary actions (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson, 2010).

The Discouraging News

Overall, however, most large-scale evaluations have found mixed or no results for one-to-one initiatives. After five years of implementation of the largest one-to-one initiative in the United States, Maine's statewide program, evaluations found little effect on student achievement—with one exception, writing, where scores edged up 3.44 points (in a range of 80 points) in five years (Silvernail & Gritter, 2007). The evaluators speculated that the reason other subjects have not shown measurable improvement could be that the state assessment does not measure the 21st century technology skills that laptop initiatives promote.

An evaluation of Michigan's one-to-one laptop program found similarly mixed results. It examined eight matched pairs of schools and found higher achievement in four laptop schools, lower achievement in three, and no difference in the final pair (Lowther, Strahl, Inan, & Bates, 2007).

The study of Texas middle school students referenced earlier found slightly higher student growth in mathematics, but no higher growth in reading for students in laptop programs (Shapley et al., 2009). And unlike in Maine, writing scores were actually lower (although not significantly so) for students in the laptop group; the researchers reasoned that students may have grown so accustomed to writing with computers that they had trouble adjusting to the pencil-and-paper format of the state test.

The Devil Is in the Details

Certainly, the anemic results for laptop programs should give educators pause. However, like most interventions, the reality may be that one-to-one laptop programs are only as effective—or ineffective—as the schools that adopt them.

A study of one-to-one programs in five middle schools in western Massachusetts, for example, found that one of these schools struggled so mightily with incorporating laptops into learning that even three years after implementation, its students were not using technology any more than students in schools without laptops (Bebell & Kay, 2010). These researchers attributed the poor implementation to lack of teacher knowledge and buy-in, concluding, "It is impossible to overstate the power of individual teachers in the success or failure of 1:1 computing" (p. 47).

A recent study of 997 schools across the United States (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, et al., 2010) identified nine factors that, if present, appear to contribute to higher levels of achievement in schools that have adopted one-to-one programs. The top three factors were:

1. Ensuring uniform integration of technology in every class.
2. Providing time for teacher learning and collaboration (at least monthly).
3. Using technology daily for student online collaboration and cooperative learning.

It is perhaps no coincidence that these factors mirror key predictors of effective schools and districts in general. For example, ensuring uniform integration of technology in every class implies a district with a clearly articulated, districtwide approach to instruction—a key trait of high-performing districts (Marzano & Waters, 2009). Similarly, teacher collaboration is an important school-level predictor of achievement (Marzano, 2003), and meaningful cooperative-learning experiences have been linked to higher achievement (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).

The Bottom Line

Rather than being a cure-all or silver bullet, one-to-one laptop programs may simply amplify what's already occurring—for better or worse—in classrooms, schools, and districts. Jim Collins (2001) arrived at a similar conclusion about technology in the business world. "Technology alone," he observed in Good to Great, "never holds the key to success." However, "when used right, technology is an essential driver in accelerating forward momentum" (p. 159).

The same thing could be said of one-to-one computing initiatives in schools and districts.

References

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) [Online journal]. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=jtla

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap … and others don't. New York: HarperBusiness.

Greaves, T., & Hayes, J. (2008). America's digital schools 2008: Six trends to watch. Shelton, CT: MDR.

Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, E. (2010). Project RED key findings. Shelton, CT: MDR. Retrieved from One-to-One Institute at www.one-to-oneinstitute.org/NewsDetail.aspx?id=85

Hu, W. (2007, May 4). Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops. The New York Times, p. 1. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html

Lemagie, S. (2010, November 21). 1 student, 1 laptop proves costly. Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Retrieved from www.startribune.com/local/109779099.html

Lowther, D. L., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. A., & Bates, J. (2007). Freedom to Learn program: Michigan 2005–2006 evaluation report. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year study (2004–05 to 2007–08). Austin: Texas Center for Educational Research.

Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine's middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Portland: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.

Vascellaro, J. E. (2006, August 31). Saying no to school laptops. Wall Street Journal, p. D1.

Bryan Goodwin is vice president of communications, McREL, Denver, Colorado; bgoodwin@mcrel.org.

So - what do you think?  Will our initiative actually increase student achievement?  I will keep you informed over the course of the next couple years!