Over 1 million students and teachers in the United States are using laptop computers. Maine and Michigan have gained national headlines with statewide initiatives. This chapter of the MAR*TEC Technology Coordinators’ Handbook considers evaluation reports from five laptop programs. Proponents of laptop programs suggest that one-to-one computing access increases student learning; critics contend that money would be better spent on other educational programs (Oppenheimer, 2003). Educational communities are beginning to conduct scientifically based evaluation studies; however, only a few have included academic achievement and used statistical methods to control for independent variables such as ethnicity, gender, economic status, and prior knowledge. This chapter highlights several laptop projects and summarizes their evaluation findings

 

Anytime Anywhere Learning: Notebooks for Schools

Microsoft, Inc. and Toshiba America cosponsored a laptop program across the United States for three academic years from 1996 to 1999. The program started with 23 schools; 53 schools participated in the second year, and 800 schools were involved by the 1998–1999 school year. Students in elementary, middle, and high schools acquired Toshiba notebook computers loaded with Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. The goals of this program were to demonstrate that one-to-one computing ability produces substantial educational benefits. However, the schools in the project implemented the program differently. Some schools used a concentrated model in which all students in a classroom had their own laptops. Other schools implemented disbursed models so that, in any particular class, there were both laptop and nonlaptop students. Still other schools purchased class models or rotating labs that teachers could “check-out”; the class laptops rarely traveled home with students. Finally, some schools implemented a mixed model and combined aspects of the other models. An independent research organization, Rockman Et Al, assessed the impact of the laptops on the learning environment. The research was conducted by observing schools and documenting usage polices and practices. It also included teacher, student, administrator, and parent surveys; shadow studies and interviews with students and teachers; and an analysis of writing assessments.

The Anytime Anywhere Learning Program found that most students used their laptops for word processing and note taking. They also used them to do homework, create and display presentations, conduct Internet research, and use learning software applications. Students most often used their laptops in core subjects—most frequently in English, social studies, and science. Researchers also found that changes in student attitudes, motivation, and behavior are realized quickly. Benefits reported include increased collaboration, movement toward independent learning, greater enthusiasm for schooling, and more engagement in problem solving. To describe the impact on student achievement, Rockman Et Al matched laptop students with nonlaptop students within the same school or from a school with similar demographics. It found that laptop students’ writing assessments were rated higher than the matched nonlaptop students’ writing assessments. Furthermore, teachers report that laptops lead to increased writing and improved writing quality (Rockman Et Al, 1997, 1998, 2000).

 

Beaufort County School District: Middle School Laptop Project

During a 3-year period, the Beaufort County School District in South Carolina implemented a middle school laptop program. Sixth-grade students participated in the program during the first year; another cohort of sixth-grade students participated in the program’s second year, which allowed participation from both sixth and seventh graders; and a third cohort of sixth-grade students joined the program during its third year. Participation in the program was voluntary. Therefore, classes contained both students with laptops and students without. The Beaufort County School District formed a nonprofit foundation to purchase the laptops, and the district leased the computers to parents based on their ability to pay (Johnstone, 2003).

A 3-year evaluation was conducted using teacher and student surveys and an analysis of standardized achievement test scores. The attitudinal data reports the following:

 

Third year teachers (those who had been with the project the longest) appeared to use the laptops less with students overall. However, students in their classes (first and second year participants) were more positive about the laptop project. The experience of these teachers may have helped them to determine how best and when to use the laptops, as opposed to the idea that the computers had to be used all the time, or for everything (Johnstone, 2003, p. 18).

 

The achievement test analysis reported that across the three middle schools, third-year students in the laptop program scored significantly higher on the Metropolitan Achievement Test version 7 (MAT7) than their peers. Furthermore, when the data was disaggregated, seventh-grade laptop students qualifying for free or reduced lunch scored as well on the MAT7 as their peers not receiving free or reduced lunch. Interestingly, when these same students were in fifth-grade (before the laptop program), they scored significantly lower on the MAT7 than their peers not on free or reduced lunch. Additionally, minority students with laptops significantly outscored minority students without laptops (Stevenson, 1999).

 

Harvest Park Laptop Immersion Program

Another middle school laptop program in Pleasanton, California conducted an investigation to determine the impact on students’ grade point average, end-of-course grades, writing assessment scores, and standardized test scores. Participation in the Harvest Park Laptop Immersion Program was voluntary, and parents purchased the laptops. A loaner program was developed for low-income families. Computer camp was mandatory for all students participating in the program. Laptop students were taught the same curriculum as other students in the district, and laptop teachers volunteered for the program. One quarter of Harvest Park’s middle school students participated in the program. The students in the program were not statistically different from the general population in terms of race; ethnicity; and participation in free and reduced lunch programs, special education, or gifted and talented education.

The laptop immersion program had significant impact on student achievement. Laptop students earned a higher grade point average than nonlaptop students, a higher percentage of laptop students received “A” grades, and a significantly lower percentage earned “F” grades. Furthermore, a higher percentage of laptop students met or exceeded grade level expectations on the statewide writing assessment. Finally, laptop students exceeded their peers on standardized test scores. The researchers compared prior achievement data on all laptop students to learn if these students started the program ahead of their peers. By conducting a cross-section analysis on longitudinal data, the authors concluded that there was no statistical significance between the laptop students and nonlaptop students before they started the program (in writing assessment scores, grades, or standardized test scores). The authors concluded, “Participation in the laptop program is associated with an average per student gain of 16 points for mathematics scores and 13 points for language scores” (Gulek & Demirtas, 2005, p. 28). These gains were realized during the first year and were maintained throughout the 3 years of the program.

 

Maine’s One-to-One Laptop Program

In 2002, Maine provided all seventh- and eighth-grade students and teachers laptop computers with integrated wireless access and technical assistance. In addition, it provided professional development for teachers. The initial evaluation report used teacher, student, administrator, and parent surveys to document laptop use and attitudinal data. Teachers used their laptops to develop instructional materials, conduct research related to instruction, and communicate with colleagues. Students used their laptops to find information, organize information, and take class notes. Teachers perceived that students were more engaged in their learning and produced better quality work. Ninth-grade students (who no longer have their laptops) reported that they got less work done and that the quality of their work had declined (Silvernail & Lane, 2004).

Special education teachers reported that the laptop program particularly benefited their students. These benefits included writing, organization, motivation, and self-esteem. However, a few special education students were distracted by the increased stimuli (Harris & Smith, 2004).

Critics of Maine’s program suggest that participation in the laptop program has not increased scores on the statewide standardized achievement test.

 

Michigan’s Freedom to Learn

Michigan distributed laptops or other handheld devices to sixth-grade students in the state during the 2004–2005 school year. The goals of the Freedom to Learn (FTL) project included student learning and achievement in core subjects, access to educational opportunities through technology, effective use of wireless technology through systemic professional development, parental involvement, and sharing of best practices in teaching. A diverse evaluation strategy is designed and will be implemented during the 2005–2006 school year. This study will include a global descriptive study and a quasi-experimental study of 10 FTL schools and 10 matched control schools.

A preliminary evaluation of the pilot project has been released. This preliminary evaluation used data from surveys of teachers, students, parents, and administrators collected from 15 schools during the 2003–2004 school year. The perception of participants was positive and indicated that students spend more time on homework and are better prepared; parents are more involved in their children’s schooling; and teachers are using technology more frequently. Other reactions included the following: laptops are preferred to personal digital assistants (PDAs); most schools lack a technology vision statement for using FTL; technology leadership is undefined and confusing; teachers are overwhelmed with their teaching responsibilities; technology policies are limited; more content-specific software is needed, and teachers should be involved in choosing the software; FTL has increased the workload for technical support staff; and networks and infrastructure may need to be upgraded to support increased demands (Urban-Lurain & Zhao, 2004).

Conclusion

 

Initial evaluations of laptop programs indicate that teachers, students, administrators, and parents perceive that one-to-one computing access is beneficial to education. However, perceptions are not a solid basis for spending millions of dollars on technology equipment. Three evaluation studies matched laptop students with similar nonlaptop peers; the research showed a positive correlation between participation in laptop programs and increased academic achievement. Since students and some teachers volunteered for these programs, there is no scientific way to determine if the laptop, teachers, or participation in a new program accounted for the added value.

 

References

 

Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 3(2). Retrieved June 2005, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v3n2.shtml

 

Harris, W., & Smith, L. (2004) Laptop use by seventh grade students with disabilities: Perceptions of special education teachers. Retrieved June 2005, from http://libraries.maine.edu

 

Johnstone, B. (2003). Never mind the laptops: Kids, computers, and the transformation of learning. iUniverse Inc: Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind. Random House: New York.

Rockman, Et Al. (1997) Report of a laptop program pilot:A project for anytime anywhere learning by Microsoft corporation notebooks for schools by Toshiba American information systems. Retrieved June 2005, from http://cdgenp01.csd.toshiba.com

 

Rockman Et Al (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the laptop program. Retrieved June 2005, from http://rockman.com/projects/laptop/laptop2exec.htm

 

Rockman Et Al (2000). A more complex picture: Laptop use and impact in the context of changing home and school access. Retrieved June 2005, from http://rockman.com/projects/laptop/laptop3exec.htm

 

Silvernail, D., & Lane, D. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evidence research report #1. Retrieved June 2005, from http://mainegov-images.informe.org

 

Stevenson, K. (1999.) Evaluation report–Year 3 middle school laptop program. Retrieved June 2005, from http://www.beaufort.k12.sc.us/district/evalreport3.htm

 

Urban-Lurain, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004) Freedom to learn evaluation report: 2003 project implementation. Retrieved June 2005, from www.hflcsd.org/ftlsummary.pdf