This study was conducted in the context of a college course involving students enrolled in the university’s teacher-preparation program. In an effort to facilitate in-class activities and promote student satisfaction, the instructor developed web-based agendas for students to access via their laptop computers. The research spans two semesters in which the interactive agendas were provided for all class sessions. The agendas were posted in the learning management system and were actively used by 60 students during class. They formed a gateway to various cloud-based materials including databases, Google documents, forms, and slides. Students used the daily agendas to engage in target content and collaborate with one another during class. Based on positive responses from participants and the observed productivity among students, findings suggest interactive agendas may be a viable alternative to hardware/devices, software, and policy-based attempts to control or limit student technology use in the 1:1 classroom.
AaronL. S.LiptonT. (2018).
Digital distraction: Shedding light on the 21st-century college classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
46(3), 363–378.
2.
AlmerothK.ZhangH. (2013).
Alternatives for monitoring and limiting network access to students in network-connected classrooms. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
24(3), 237–265.
3.
AnderssonA.RäisänenK. (2014).
Using class blogs in 1:1 schools—Searching for unexplored opportunities. Computers in the Schools,
31(3), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.932622
4.
AsinoT. I.PulayA. (2018).
Student perceptions on the role of the classroom environment on computer supported collaborative learning. TechTrends,
63(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0353-y
BorgeM.MercierE. (2019).
Towards a micro-ecological approach to CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
14(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09301-6
7.
DillenbourgP.EvansM. (2011).
Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
6(4), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9127-7
8.
DunleavyM.DextertS.HeineckeW. F. (2007).
What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
23(5), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.x
9.
FalckO.MangC.WoessmannL. (2018).
Virtually no effect? Different uses of classroom computers and their effect on student achievement. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
80(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12192
GrundmeyerT.PetersR. (2016).
Learning from the learners: Preparing future teachers to leverage the benefits of laptop computers. Computers in the Schools,
33(4), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1249757
12.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). ISTE Standards. ISTE National Educational Technology Standards (NETS).http://iste.org/standards
13.
JärvelaS.KirschnerP. A.HadwinA.JärvenojaH.MalmbergJ.MillerM.LaruJ. (2016).
Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual-and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
11(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9238-2
14.
KayR.BenzimraD.LiJ. (2017).
Exploring factors that influence technology-based distractions in bring your own device classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
55(7), 274–995. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117690004
15.
KepplerM.WeilerS. C.MaasD. (2014).
Focused ubiquity: A purposeful approach to providing students with laptops. Educational Technology in Society,
17(4), 278–288.
LaMasterJ.StagerG. S. (2012).
Should students use their own devices in the classroom?Learning and Leading with Technology,
39(5), 6.
18.
OltP. (2018).
Toward a web-enhanced model of interaction in freshman general education history courses. Journal of Classroom Interaction,
53(1), 37–51.
SantosI. M.BochecoO.HabakC. (2018).
A survey of student and instructor perceptions of personal mobile technology usage and policies for the classroom. Education and Information Technologies,
23(2), 617–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9625-y
22.
SelwynN.NemorinS.BulfinS.JohnsonN. F. (2017).
Left to their own devices: The everyday realities of one-to-one classrooms. Oxford Review of Education,
43(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305047
23.
SpiresH. A., Oliver, K., & Corn, J. (2011).
The new learning ecology of one-to-one computing environments: Preparing teachers for shifting dynamics and relationships. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
28(2), 63–73.
24.
TallvidM.LundinJ.SvenssonL.LindströmB. (2015).
Exploring the relationship between sanctioned and unsanctioned laptop use in a 1:1 classroom. Educational Technology & Society,
18(1), 237–249.
25.
van LeeuwenA.RummelN.van GogT. (2019).
What information should CSCL teacher dashboards provide to help teachers interpret CSCL situations?International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
14, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09299-x
26.
WashingtonG. Y. (2019).
The learning management system matters in face-to-face higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
48(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519874037
27.
WhiteT. (2018).
Connecting levels of activity with classroom network technology. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
13(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9272-3
