Implementation and Effects of One-to-One Computing Initiatives: A Research Synthesis

A summary of William R. Penuel's article in the Spring 2006 Journal of Research on Tecnhology in Education

Introduction

A combination of lighter weight laptops and the decreasing costs of this personal computing technology, along with improved access to reliable wireless networks has meant a rapid expansion of school programs that aim to provide a laptop and internet access to each student.  Large districts in the USA are providing laptops to all middle and high school students, and states such as Maine and Texas have invested in statewide programs to equip every high school student with a laptop.

Despite the rapid expansion of these programs, the educational technology research community has not kept up to date.  In 1991, a study under contract with the US Department of Education found only 19 studies that analyzed the outcomes of these programes.  While expansion since 1991 has been rapid, particularly in the provision of wireless Internet access for students, research has not kept up.  This paper attempts to synthesize the recent research into these initiatives by asking:

• What new studies have been conducted?
• What is the focus of the new studies?
• How are teachers and students using the provided technology?
• What new information has arisen about successful implementation?
• Have any well-designed outcome studies been done?
• What outcomes have they measured?
• What research is still needed?

One-to-one initiatives: A definition

Each initiating institution develops their own definition of one-to-one computing.  While most initiatives agree that all students must have individual access to computers, there are different policies about whether students can take the computers home, and whether students will pay for or lease the computers.  Policy makers and program managers of different inititives have a variety of goals for the programs, usually in line with what will convince school boards, foundation, state legislatures and others to pay for the program.

For the purposes of this study, we define one-to-one computing in the following ways:

• All students are provided laptop computers loaded with current productivity software
• All students can access the Internet throught the school's wireless network
• A focus on using the laptops to help complete academic tasks.

Theoretical Framework: Why wireless one-to-one computing matters for learning and conditions for successful implementation

We looked at two kinds of research for this synthesis: theories of implementation and theories of possible learning outcomes.

The potential of wireless laptop computing for student learning

Many schools in the 1980s and 1990s chose to purchase a large number of computers and place them in laboratories when they could afford to purchase technology.  The lab use of computers has been found effective the the short term, but the limited access to labs is often cited as a reason teachers make limited use of technology.

One-to-one access to computers helps students and teachers make the move towards frequent, integral use of technology across the curriculum, allowing students to access a wide variety of resources to support learning, communication, and organization.  Many argue that this increased access also provides students with more equitable access to learning opportunities.

Further, researches have argued that networked computers can transform learning environments through collaboration and participation in complex simulations, thereby improving student learning outcomes.

Framework for analyzing conditions for successful implementation

While communities are justifiably excited about the imlementation of these programs, they are also aware of the complexities of technology use in the classroom.  Concerns exist about ensuring adequate resources to purchase and maintain the computers, about the reliability of wireless networks, and about providing teachers adequate technical support.

Methodology used for the research synthesis

This synthesis limited itself to identifying high-quality research studies that analyzed implementation or reported outcomes on one-to-one initiatives that used laptop computers with wireless connectivity in K-12 educational settings.  The studies were found in peer-reviewed journals, dissertation abstracts, and the Web.  A total of 30 studies were included.

Outcome studies to be analyzed must have used experimental designs, and implementation studies must have used systematic methods of analysis.

Research team members independently reviewed summaries of the studies to identify a set of recurring themes to highlight in the synthesis, within the broad categories of professional development, technical support, teacher beliefs, and student uses of technology. 

Findings from the synthesis

Goals and scale of one-to-one initiatives

Four outcomes were repeatedly mentioned in the studies, of which one was generally focused on by each initiative.  These outcomes were:

• improving academic achievement with the use of technology
• increasing equity of access to digital resources
• increasing economic competitveness of a region by better preparing students for technology-saturated workplaces
• effecting a transformation in the quality of instruction

In addition, many of the studies sought to specifically make instruction more student-centred.

The initiatives varied widely in scale, ranging from tens of thousands of students across a state to experimenting with implementation classroom by classroom.

Classroom uses of laptops in one-to-one initiatives

Across most studies, students used their laptops mostly for writing, taking notes, completing homework, keeping organized, communicating with peers and teachers, and researching topics on the Internet.  Software designed to teach basic skills is less common.

The uses reported indicate that most teachers are in the adaptation stage of technology adoption, meaning they are adapting traditional teaching methods to incorporate the technology, rather than implementing more student-centred strategies for instruction such as project-based learning.

How teacher attitudes and beliefs shape implementation

There is evidence that teacher attitudes and beliefs influence a program's implementation success.

When teachers believe that their students are capable of completing complex assignments, they are more likely to assign extended projects that require the use of the computers and to allow students to determine their own research topics.

Teachers are more likely to use laptops with students when they believe the technology has a wide variety of potential applications.

Teachers who believe that there are adequate software-based and Internet-based resources to help in their content area are more likely to use the laptops.

Teachers concerned students will use the laptops for games or other recreational purposes use the laptops less often.

A project that required teachers to engage in two extended projects with students had the positive effect of increasing the occurence and quality of informal, project-based and small group interactions between students and teachers as teachers reported that their expectations increased upon seeing how skilled the students were at using multimedia tools.

The roles of professional development and technical support in fostering implementation

Professional development activities that focus on helping teachers use laptop technology themselves, as well as help teachers integrate technology with their instruction have proven critical for many of the large-scale and smaller one-to-one programs.

Some other kinds of professional development have focused on helping teachers find appropriate digital resources, helping teachers on an as-needed basis with technology integration, and informal help between colleagues.  This last form of development has been reported as preffered by teachers and especially important to implementation success.

Some professional development has focused on increasding student-centred teaching with the laptops, which helps teachers design extended problems and projects that use real-world resources, student collaboration and computer tools.

Readily available technical support, making sure all students have working laptops, and a reliable wireless network have been critical to the success of one-to-one programs.  In some cases, students have played a role as the first line of technical support for the programs, both formally and informally. 

Findings from outcomes studies

Only four of the studies reviewed were quasi-experimental outcome studies.  The most promising results of these studies were reflected in an earlier review of research that found laptops had positive effects on computer literacy and writing.

One study compared classrooms within a school equipped with either four-to-one, two-to-one, or one-to-one computers, and found that in classrooms with one-to-one computers, students used computers more across the curriculum, and there was less large-group instruction.  Similar studies found that students with ubiquitous access to computers used them for a wider array of purposes than students with more restricted access.

Another study found that students with one-to-one laptops made greater gains in computer literacy than comparison groups, and four different studies reported positive effects on writing skills for students with one-to-one laptops.  The research regarding writing skills was, however, less rigorous than that of the computer literacy study.  More research is needed in this area.

Discussion and conclusion 

The students in one-to-one initiatives use productivity and design tools in ways that are integrated into general classroom activities and assignments, in contrast to students that use technology solely as part of basic skills or assessment programs.  Students in one-to-one intiatives thereby increase their technology literacy and possibly their writing skills.

Programs that incorporate rigorous professional development and technical support have the greatest chance of success.  Support from peers may pay a particularly important role in supporting implementation.

Few studies have specifically tested the links between different implementation measures and hypothesized outcomes.

Including information about core aspects of design and implementtion of one-to-one initiatives would make the research more useful to policymakers and program developers in order to establish funding priorities.

Many of the studies attempted to measure things like motivation or better job preparation, things that are difficult to measure quantitatively on in short term studies.  Other skills, like organizational skills were reported to have improved, despite the lack of a widely accepted scale for measuring such skills.

While difficult to conduct, there is a need for more experimental or quasi-experimental studies of one-to-one initiatives in order to provide more research-based evidence to prove the benefit of these initiatives and convince policymakers of their worth.

Penuel, W.R. (2006) Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education.  p.329-348, 38(3)

How does this research connect with Dunleavy's article?

Dunleavy's article is an example of an outcome study.  The schools studied by Dunleavy's team were already into at least their second year of 1:1 computing, so the implementation phase of the initiative had been completed.  Dunleavy's research would not have been included in Penuel's research synthesis because it was not experimental or quasi-experimental in nature.  Rather than quantitatively examine the benefits of 1:1 computing, Dunleavy chose to observe classrooms using 1:1 computing technology and determine through those observations whether the learning occuring was different (and better) than learning occuring in ordinary classrooms.

While the kind of outcome studies that Penuel looked at could provide policymakers and program directors with hard, statistical evidence that laptop programs improve achievement (the kind that of evidence that opens government coffers), Dunleavy's study provides administrators, teachers, media specialists, and technology coordinators with the kind of practical examples and advice that will help them implement a program of their own after those policymakers and program managers have made their decisions.

The implementation studies examined by Penuel expressed many of the same benefits and challenges observed by the Dunleavy team, and expressed by teachers at those two middle schools.  It is worth noting that even two or more years into a 1:1 laptop initiative, challenges such as safe access to the Internet and an ongoing need for professional development remain.  This could be an important insight for policymakers and administrators: the laptop program will need attention far into it's second year and beyond.  Both articles expressed that 1:1 computing is a complex matter, not one to put into place and ignore.  It may be wise for school districts and individual schools to develop long-term implementation plans that take into account this complexity.

Overall, both the Penuel synthesis and the Dunleavy study point to the benefits of such programs outweighing the challenges, although Penuel remains more cautious in this claim.  I agree that further research is needed, both the quasi-experimental outcome studies suggested by Penuel, and further observational implementation and outcome studies similar to the Dunleavy study.  Both articles suggest further questions that bear examination to help educators and policymakers understand the benefits and challenges of these programs.