Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional technologyintegration and student learning

Jared Keengwe & Gary Schnellert & Chris Mills

Published online: 8 January 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine how 1:1 laptop initiativeaffected student learning at a selected rural Midwestern high school. A total of 105high school students enrolled in 10th–12th grades during the 2008–2009 school yearparticipated in the study. A survey instrument created by the Mitchell Institute wasmodified and used to collect data on student perceptions and faculty perceptions ofthe impact of 1:1 laptop computing on student learning and instructional integrationof technology in education. Study findings suggest that integration of 1:1 laptopcomputing positively impacts student academic engagement and student learning.Therefore, there is need for teachers to implement appropriate computing practices toenhance student learning. Additionally, teachers need to collaborate with theirstudents to learn and understand various instructional technology applicationsbeyond basic Internet browsing and word processing.

Keywords 1:1 computing . Laptops . Student learning . Instructional technology .

Technology integration . Faculty development

1 Introduction

The creation of 21st Century classrooms has provided opportunities for students touse various forms of technology tools to collect information, and connect to one

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146DOI 10.1007/s10639-010-9150-8

J. Keengwe (*)University of North Dakota, Teaching and Learning Stop #7189, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USAe-mail: jared.keengwe@und.edu

G. SchnellertUniversity of North Dakota, Educational Leadership Stop #7189, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USAe-mail: gary.schnellert@und.edu

C. MillsStephen/Argyle Central School District, PO Box 68, Stephen, MN 56757, USAe-mail: cmills@sac.k12.mn.us

another as well as to other students throughout the world. During the past 10 years,K-12 public schools in the United States have increased the number of computersand also access to the Internet for both students and the teaching staff (Wells andLewis 2006). In 2005, nearly 100% of public schools had access to the Internet(Wells and Lewis 2006). Further, during the same year, 94% of classrooms in publicschools had access to the Internet. These remarkable figures demonstrate a consistentand continued commitment by public school educational stakeholders to supportInternet access as well as technology resources in the process of technologyintegration in education.

Local, state, and federal funding sources have demonstrated a strongcommitment to computer technology use in the classroom by increasedinvestment in hardware and software in schools (Wells and Lewis 2006).Access to the Internet and computers in schools and homes has increased as a resultof the changes in availability and pricing over the past 30 or more years, withwireless computing also been in existence for nearly 20 years (Dunleavy et al.2007). Additionally, many public schools are implementing 1:1 laptop computerprograms to deal with access, mobility, and student engagement issues (Poole2009). However, effective technology integration in schools has yet to be realized(Keengwe 2007; Keengwe et al. 2009a).

Student learning needs could be addressed by technology tools (Solvie and Kloek2007). Laptop use in the classroom changes the way teachers and students thinkabout learning. For instance, laptop use keeps the students more interested in theirschoolwork (Zucker and McGhee 2005). Laptops increased student engagement inwireless classrooms as students participated in more diverse writing activities,analysis of reading, and use of media-production software (Warschauer 2006).Further, there were significant gains in motivation, writing competency, andcritical thinking when laptops were used in the classroom. Laptop computersuse afforded some students a certain amount of privacy that encouraged them toask questions that they would have preferred not to ask in front of their peers(Dunleavy et al. 2007).

While laptop computers are perceived as powerful tools, the goal of technology ineducation is to integrate technology into the classroom so its use advanceslearning goals and helps students focus on the subject, not the technology(Wachira et al. 2008). Further, effective student learning is centered more on whatstudents do with information, not how much information the teacher and learningenvironments can provide (Grabe and Grabe 2008). Instructors perceived bystudents as integrating technology in the curriculum report more interest in thesubject, more engagement, better understanding of the complex issue and improvelearning (Kvavik and Caruso 2005). However, to make their teaching moreeffective, instructors should strive to integrate technology into the curriculum.

There are many barriers to effective technology integration in the classroom(Keengwe et al. 2008). For instance, preparation time is often taken up by learningnew technology versus planning lessons with technology (Zucker and McGhee2005). Laptop computers are also perceived as a competitive or disruptive distractionin the classroom (Dunleavy et al. 2007). Additionally, there are many barriers toeffectively integrating 1:1 laptop programs in schools that include: Poor adminis-trative support; negative staff attitudes and lack of knowledge towards computers;

138 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146

problems with time, access, space, supervision, and operation; poor software;curriculum integration difficulties; and lack of technical support (Schoepp 2005).

In some cases, public schools have invested more time on repairing laptops thanon training teachers to teach with them. On the contrary, there is need for schools toinvest more on their faculty rather than on existing computer resources (Keengwe2007). Schools need to set reasonable timelines when planning for instructionaltechnology initiatives. Professional development and commitment to school’slearning goals also need to be part of this process. Schools must allow ample timefor teachers to learn, understand, and model sound pedagogical practices as well asinnovative computer technology integration models (Bebell and O’Dwyer 2010).Sound fiscal investments and appropriate changes in technology policies areultimately critical to fostering innovations in learning and teaching with technology.

1.1 Purpose of study

The purpose of this study was to examine how 1:1 laptop initiative affected studentlearning at a selected rural Midwestern high school. A total of 105 high schoolstudents enrolled in 10th–12th grades during the 2008–2009 school year participatedin the study. Two research questions were investigated in the study:

1. What effects does a 1:1 laptop initiative have on student academic performancebased on perceptions of participating high school students?

2. What effects does a 1:1 laptop initiative have on student academic performancebased on perceptions of participating faculty?

1.2 Significance of the study

A growing number of states and school districts are purchasing laptop computers forall students and teachers even when the costs of implementation appear to be high.Currently, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Maine have the highest percentage ofschools that have ubiquitous or 1:1 computing programs for their students, whileCalifornia ranks last (Devaney 2009). The largest and earliest state to commit tosuch a massive technology initiative was Maine with a commitment of 34,000computers for the states 7th and 8th grade students. The largest school district to dateis the Henrico County Schools in Virginia with over 23,000 computers. Additionalstate experimentation with 1:1 laptop programs is happening in Indiana, Texas, NewHampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont. As a result, there is on-going research aboutthe effectiveness of 1:1 laptop initiatives on student learning (Devaney 2009).

Technology integration involves establishing the best ways to incorporateeducation technology into the curriculum as teaching tools (Keengwe et al.2009b). Technology integration in public education is a critical element if schoolswish to be successful engaging students in the digital age. Policy makers advocatefor 1:1 laptop programs because of their potential to reduce “digital divide” for allchildren. As a result, 1:1 laptop initiatives are increasing in schools across thecountry, and data collection is critical to support their implementation in schools(Zucker and Light 2009). Due to increased technology investments in schools, moreevidence is needed on the impact of laptop initiatives on technology integration

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146 139139

practices and student learning. Therefore, this study furthers the understanding ofubiquitous computing in public schools and how this practice translates to studentlearning.

2 Methodology

2.1 Participants

A total of 105 high school students enrolled in 10th–12th grades during the 2008–2009 school year participated in the study. Specifically, 23 students were in 10thgrade, 24 in 11th grade, and 34 in 12th grade. Although there were other studentsthat owned personal laptop computers in those classes, only students with schooldistrict laptop computers were required to complete the survey (N=81). Table 1shows the frequency and percentage of the students who participated in the 1:1laptop program per grade level.

2.2 Instrument

A survey instrument created by the Mitchell Institute was modified and used tocollect data on student and faculty perceptions on the impact of 1:1 laptopcomputing on student learning and faculty integration of technology into education.This instrument had been used earlier on and validated by the Mitchell Institute(http://www.mitchellinstitute.org/) to gather assessment data from schools on theperceptions of 1:1 Laptop programs by students, staff, and parents. Permission wasgranted by the Mitchell Institute to use this survey to collect data in the schooldistrict. The researchers also provided the participating school with a formal consentto sign before any data was collected.

2.3 Procedures

The school district provided researchers with existing test scores in reading and mathfrom the state GRAD tests for 2008 and 2009 and grade point average data for all10–12th grade students. The test scores were compared to state GRAD Testsaverages for the 2008 and 2009 testing period. The school district also surveyedstudents and faculty in May of 2009, and obtained data on perceived studentacademic performance and academic engagement in relation to the 1:1 laptopprogram that was implemented during the 2008–2009 school year. Descriptive

Table 1 Frequency and percentage of students who participated in 1:1 laptop program per grade level (N=81)

Grade level Total students in grade level Frequency of participants Percentage of participation

10 33 23 69.6%

11 30 24 80.0%

12 42 34 80.9%

140 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146

analysis of the State GRAD tests, student grade point averages, and surveys wasconducted for students participating and non-participating in the 1:1 laptop program.

2.4 Limitations

The study has some limitations. First, the size of the sample make the results of thesurvey and academic information limited for use in comparison to a larger study.Secondly, the data collected is limited by student population and the voluntary natureof the survey. Finally, the voluntary nature of the survey led to several questions onthe survey not being answered resulting to an inconsistent sample number for thesurvey questions.

3 Results

Research question #1 What effects does a 1:1 laptop initiative have on studentacademic performance based on perceptions of participating high school students?

A Likert-type scale was used in the modified Mitchell Institute survey instrumentto measure student perceptions of the academic achievement and learning in regardsto the laptop program. Participants were asked to select their response on a Likert-type scale that ranged from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree. Theresearchers used eight questions in the survey to measure the effect that the laptopprogram has on students’ academic achievement and learning.

Of the forty student responses, thirty-seven (92.5%) agreed or strongly agreedwith the statement that laptops make schoolwork easier to do. Thirty-four (85.0%)agreed or strongly agreed that Laptops have improved the quality of their work whilethirty-one (79.5%) of the students that responded agreed or strongly agreed that whatthey learn in school is helping me to prepare for the future. A lower number ofstudents, twenty-eight (70.0%) indicated that they did more homework outside ofschool if they were able to use laptops. Finally, twenty-five (62.5%) expressed thatthey were more motivated to do school work when they used a laptop. Table 2represents the student responses in regards to the effect that the laptop program hadon their academic achievement and learning.

Research question #2 What effects does a 1:1 laptop initiative have on studentacademic performance based on perceptions of participating faculty?

Faculty participants were asked to select their response on a Likert-type scale thatranged from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree. The faculty members werealso asked to identify the impact of laptop programs on academic achievement andlearning for traditional, at-risk, and high-achieving students.

Thirty-nine (90.7%) of the participants indicated that they used their laptops on adaily and weekly basis to search for information while thirty-four (80.9%) used theirlaptops to complete homework, thirty (69.8%) to organize information, and twenty-nine (67.4%) to communicate using e-mail or instant messaging on a daily andweekly basis. Table 3 represents a summary of these responses.

Ten (76.9%) of the faculty stated that engagement and interest level improved as aresult of the integration of laptops into the earning environment. In addition, ten

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146 141141

(76.9%) of the faculty members indicated that student’s ability to work indepen-dently improved during the laptop program while nine (69.2%) reported that studentmotivation was improved as a result of the use of laptops. Thirteen (100%) of thefaculty members indicated that they observed no effect on attendance as a result ofthe laptop program while ten (76.9%) indicated no effect on behavior or the abilityto work in groups. Table 4 represents a summary of these responses.

Ten (83.3%) of faculty members felt that the use of laptops improved engagementand interest level in learning for at-risk or low achieving students while nine (75%)perceived that student motivation improved as a result of student laptops. Eight

Table 3 Frequency and percentage of students using laptops to complete the identified tasks (N=42)

Tasks Never Less thanmonthly

Monthly Weekly Daily

N % N % N % N % N %

Search for information 1 2.3 0 0.0 3 7.0 20 46.5 19 44.2

Creates presentations and projects on your own 2 4.8 3 7.0 11 26.2 17 40.5 9 21.4

Work on assignments in small groups 3 7.0 4 9.3 14 32.6 19 44.2 3 7.0

Organize information 3 7.0 1 2.3 9 20.9 16 37.2 14 32.6

Take notes in class 17 47.5 5 11.9 3 7.1 8 19.0 9 21.4

Communicate using e-mail or instant messaging 6 14.0 3 7.0 5 11.6 12 27.9 17 9.5

Take a quiz, test, or assignment 12 28.6 7 16.7 9 21.4 10 23.8 4 9.5

Complete homework 3 7.1 2 4.8 3 7.1 14 33.3 20 47.6

Do drills to increase skills in math, English, etc. 20 47.6 9 21.4 4 9.5 5 11.9 4 9.5

Work on website, digital, film/media, etc. 16 37.2 2 4.7 2 4.7 4 9.3 19 44.2

Table 2 Frequency and percentage of students perceptions regarding changes in their academicachievement and learning as a result of 1:1 laptop program (N=40)

Statements Stronglyagree

Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree

N % N % N % N % N %

Laptops make school work more interesting. 13 32.4 18 45.0 8 20.0 1 2.5 0 0.0

Laptops make schoolwork easier to do. 19 47.5 18 45.0 3 7.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Laptops have improved the quality of my work. 16 40.0 18 45.0 6 15.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Having a laptop has improved my grades. 9 22.5 17 42.5 13 32.5 1 2.5 0 0.0

I do more homework outside of school if I amable to use my laptop.

13 32.5 15 37.5 11 27.5 1 2.5 0 0.0

I am more motivated to do schoolwork whenI use my laptop.

10 25.0 15 37.5 13 32.5 2 5.0 0 0.0

What I learn in school is relevant to my life now. 7 17.0 15 37.5 16 40.0 2 5.0 0 0.0

What I learn in school is helping me to preparefor the future.

16 41.0 15 38.5 8 20.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

142 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146

(66.7%) indicated that student motivation had improved through the integration oflaptops while ten (90.9%) identified that there was no improvement in studentattendance as a result of the integration of laptops. Nine (81.9%) of faculty members,perceived no effect on student preparation for class while eight (66.7%) identified noeffect on participation in class, discipline, or interaction with teachers as a result ofthe integration of laptops into the classroom for low achieving or at-risk students.Table 5 represents a summary of these responses.

Table 4 Frequency and percentage of faculty perceptions on the impact of the 1:1 laptop program ontraditional student achievement and learning (N=13)

Activity Declined No effect Improved

N % N % N %

Participation in class 0 0.0 7 58.3 5 47.5

Preparation for class 0 0.0 7 58.3 5 47.5

Attendance 0 0.0 13 100.0 0 0.0

Behavior 0 0.0 10 76.9 3 23.1

Motivation 0 0.0 4 30.8 9 69.2

Engagement and interest level 0 0.0 3 23.1 10 76.9

Ability to work independently 0 0.0 3 23.1 10 76.9

Ability to work in groups 0 0.0 10 83.3 2 16.7

Ability to retain content material 0 0.0 7 58.3 5 41.7

Quality of work 0 0.0 6 50.0 6 50.0

Interaction with teachers 1 8.3 7 58.3 4 33.3

Interaction with other students 0 0.0 7 53.8 6 46.2

Table 5 Frequency and percentage of faculty perceptions on the impact of the 1:1 laptop program on at-risk or low achieving student achievement and learning (N=12)

Activity Declined No effect Improved

N % N % N %

Participation in class 0 0.0 8 66.7 4 33.3

Preparation for class 0 0.0 9 81.9 3 25.0

Attendance 0 0.0 10 90.9 2 9.1

Behavior 0 0.0 8 66.7 4 33.3

Motivation 0 0.0 4 33.3 8 66.7

Engagement and interest level 0 0.0 2 16.7 10 83.3

Ability to work independently 0 0.0 3 25.0 9 75.0

Ability to work in groups 0 0.0 8 66.7 4 33.3

Ability to retain content material 0 0.0 6 50.0 6 50.0

Quality of work 0 0.0 6 50.0 6 50.0

Interaction with teachers 0 0.0 8 66.7 4 33.3

Interaction with other students 0 0.0 6 50.0 6 50.0

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146 143143

Nine (90%) of faculty members indicated that there was an improved level ofengagement/interest level by high achieving students while eight (80%) identifiedthat there was an improvement in student motivation for achievement and learning.Seven (70%) of faculty members perceived an improved ability to workindependently by high achieving students while ten (100%) indicated that theyobserved no effect on attendance as a result of the integration of laptops withstudents. In addition, nine (90%) of faculty members that participated in the surveyindicated that they observed no effect on student behavior as a result of laptopintegration while seven (70%) indicated that they observed no effect on studentparticipation as a result of the laptop program. Table 6 represents a summary of theseresponses.

4 Conclusion

Based on the study findings, the following conclusions were reached. First, thefindings suggest that the integration of 1:1 laptop computing increased studentengagement and learning, motivation, and ability to work individually. Secondly, thedata provided evidence to suggest that the implementation of 1:1 laptop computingincreased the use of technology in the classroom and in the home by students.Finally, the data provided evidence to indicate that faculty believed that theintegration of 1:1 computing improved traditional, at-risk, and high-achievingstudents learning experiences.

The most common uses for laptops at school were, in order: writing papers,browsing the Internet, creating presentations, maintaining a personal calendar,managing photos, working with movies, and taking quizzes (Suhr et al. 2010). A

Table 6 Frequency and percentage of faculty perceptions on the impact of the 1:1 laptop program on highachieving student achievement and learning (N=10)

Activities Declined No effect Improved

N % N % N %

Participation in class 0 0.0 7 70.0 3 30.0

Preparation for class 0 0.0 4 40.0 6 60.0

Attendance 0 0.0 10 100.0 0 0.0

Behavior 0 0.0 9 90.0 1 10.0

Motivation 0 0.0 2 20.0 8 80.0

Engagement and interest level 0 0.0 1 10.0 9 90.0

Ability to work independently 0 0.0 3 30.0 7 70.0

Ability to work in groups 0 0.0 6 60.0 4 40.0

Ability to retain content material 0 0.0 6 60.0 4 40.0

Quality of work 0 0.0 4 40.0 6 60.0

Interaction with teachers 0 0.0 5 50.0 5 50.0

Interaction with other students 0 0.0 6 60.0 4 40.0

144 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146

related study indicated that most often students use laptops in the classroom toconduct Internet research, create presentations, word process, and to complete a testor quiz (Shapely et al. 2009).

The data also indicated that science was a developing curriculum area in the useof technology. In science, 35.6% of the student participants indicated that the laptopswere used for class projects, and 27.3% of the student participants indicated that thelaptop was beneficial to their learning. Bebell and Kay (2009) also reported in theirstudy that technology was used somewhat less frequently in mathematics andscience than for English, language arts, and social studies.

Some key outcomes of successful 1:1 Laptop programs show laptop students spendmore time engaging in collaborative work than non-laptop students, participate more inproject-based instruction, write more and write better access more information, andshow better research analysis skills (Apple, Inc., 2007). The implementation of 1:1Laptop programs for students and staff demonstrate a number of benefits to studentsand teachers in the new digital world that may include: improved academicachievement, higher rates of attendance, better student engagement in the 21stCentury learning process, parental satisfaction with educational systems, improvedteacher ability to prepare students for the 21st Century, and a greater ability to meet thechanging needs of students, teachers, and parents (Winking 2009).

Schools must develop strong use policies and practices to deter irrelevantcomputer use during instruction. A focus on learner outcomes and the possiblelearning experiences created by 1:1 technology use, rather than the possiblenegatives created by inappropriate use of the Internet is very important to thesuccess of the 1:1 laptop program. There is need for faculty to develop appropriatecomputing practices to enhance student learning. Additionally, faculty shouldcollaborate with their students to learn and understand various classroom technologyapplications beyond basic Internet browsing and word processing (Keengwe 2007).Proper student usage, student-teacher interaction, and staff development ontechnology integration can translate to proactive laptop implementation that willenhance meaningful student learning.

References

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2009). Berkshire wireless learning initiative: Final evaluation report. Boston, MA:Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College. Retrieved November 22, 2010,from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/researchprojects/ bwli/pdf/BWLI_Final_Report.pdf.

Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Special edition: Educational outcomes and research from 1:1computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1). Retrieved November22, 2010, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1236&context=jtla.

Devaney, L. (2009). Study: Ed tech leads to significant gains. Benton Foundation. eSchool News.Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2009/04/22/study-ed-tech-leads-to-significant-gains/.

Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student laptop ratio bring totechnology supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 440–452.

Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2008). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (5th ed.). Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions ofcomputer technology to improve student learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6,169–180.

Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146 145145

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning:barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565.

Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009a). Faculty and technology: implications for facultytraining and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 23–28.

Keengwe, J., Pearson, D., & Smart, K. (2009b). Technology integration: mobile devices (iPods),constructivist pedagogy, and student learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation Journal (AACEJ), 17(4), 333–346.

Kvavik, R. B., & Caruso, J. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005:convenience, connection, control, and learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR)publication, 6.

Poole, B. J. (2009). Ten pillars of successful technology implementation—education for an informationage: Teaching in a computerized education world. Retrieved October 5, 2010, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/columnists/poole/poole011.shtml.

Schoepp, K. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology rich environment: Learning andteaching in higher education. Retrieved August 12, 2010 from http://www.zu.ac.ae/lthe.

Shapely, K., Sheenan, 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 (2004–05to 2007–08). Austin: Texas Center for Educational Research.

Solvie, P., & Kloek, M. (2007). Using technology tools to engage students with multiple learning styles ina constructivist learning environment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 7–27.

Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and fourth-grade literacy:assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(5), 5–45.

Wachira, P., Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2008). Mathematics preservice teachers’ beliefs andconceptions of appropriate technology use. Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation Journal, 16(3), 293–306.

Warschauer, W. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005.Washington: National Center for Education Statistics.

Winking, D. (2009). Preparing every child for the challenges of changing world: Strategies. Secaucus:Panasonic Foundation.

Zucker, A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323(5910), 82–85. RetrievedOctober 27, 2010, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/323/5910/82.

Zucker, A., & McGhee, R. (Eds.). (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and scienceinstruction at the secondary level in Henrico county public schools. SRI International.

146 Educ Inf Technol (2012) 17:137–146