Although school 1:1 computing programs have been around for over 20 years, the literature base on such programs remains sparse. Despite limited research on efficacy and implementation, 1:1 initiatives are increasingly popular in P-12 schools. The impact of these programs is not yet certain. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact that 1:1 schools had on teachers’ technology competency and instructional integration. Propensity score matching was used in order to have similar control (non-1:1) and treatment (1:1) schools in the sample. The final sample included 110 high schools and 922 secondary school teachers in the state of Iowa. Data were collected from public databases as well as from teacher surveys. The final data analysis was conducted using a multilevel model with three separate models for each of the dependent variables (competency and integration). Results indicated that teachers in schools with 1:1 student computing initiatives report higher levels of personal technology competency and classroom integration of learning technologies.
BainA.WestonM. E. (2009) The future of computers and 1:1 laptop initiatives: Which side of the border are you on?Independent School68(2): 50–56.
2.
BebellD. (2005) Technology promoting student excellence: An investigation of the first year of 1:1 computing in New Hampshire middle schools, Boston, MA: Boston College Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative.
3.
BebellD.KayR. (2010) One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment9(2): Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org.
4.
BebellD.O’DwyerL. M. (2010) Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment9(1): Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org.
5.
BerryA. M.WintleS. E. (2009) Using laptops to facilitate middle school science learning: The results of hard fun, Gorham: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
6.
BianchiW. (2008) Education by radio: America’s schools of the air. TechTrends52(2): 36–44.
7.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992) Hierarchical linear models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
ClarianaR. (2009) Ubiquitous wireless laptops in upper elementary mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching28(1): 5–21.
9.
CubanL. (1986) Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
D’AgostinoR. B. (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine17(19): 2265–2281.
11.
DawsonK.CavanaughC.RitzhauptA. D. (2006) Florida’s EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education41(2): 143–159.
12.
DunleavyM.HeineckeW. F. (2008) The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Computers in the Schools24(3–4): 7–22.
13.
DwyerD. (1994) Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we’ve learned. Educational Leadership51(7): 4–10.
14.
ErtmerP. A. (2005) Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development53(4): 25–40.
15.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed., 11.0 Update). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
GulekJ. C.DemirtasH. (2005) Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. ERS Spectrum23(4): 4–20.
17.
HarrisJ.MishraP.KoehlerM. (2009) Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education41(4): 393–416.
18.
HeroldB. (2015, June 11) Why ed tech is not transforming teaching: Student-centered, technology-driven instruction remains elusive for most. Education Week: Technology Counts 201534(35): 8–14.
HutchinsonA.ReinkingD. (2011) Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly46(4): 312–333. doi:10.1002/RRQ.002.
KoehlerM. J.MishraP. (2009) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal)9(1): 60–70.
24.
LeiJ.ZhaoY. (2008) 1:1 computing: What does it bring to schools?Journal of Educational Computing Research39(2): 97–122.
25.
LemkeC.MartinC. (2004a) One to one computing in Michigan: A state profile, Los Angeles, CA: Metiri Group.
26.
LemkeC.MartinC. (2004b) 1:1 computing in Indiana: A state profile, Los Angeles, CA: Metiri Group.
27.
LightD.McDermottM.HoneyM. (2002) Project Hiller: The impact of ubiquitous portable technology on an urban school, New York, NY: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
28.
LowtherD. L.RossS. M.MorrisonG. M. (2003) When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development51(3): 23–44.
29.
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216–240.
MouzaC. (2008) Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education40(4): 447–472.
32.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Number and Internet access of instructional computers and rooms in public schools, by selected school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2008 [Table 108]. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_108.asp.
PapertS. (1984) Trying to predict the future. Popular Computing3(13): 30–44.
35.
PenuelW. R. (2006) Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education38(3): 329–348.
36.
ReiserR. A. (2001) A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology, Research and Development49: 53–64.
37.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70(1): 41–55.
38.
RosenbergJ. M.KoehlerM. J. (2015) Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education47(3): 186–210. doi:10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663.
39.
RussellM.BebellD.HigginsJ. (2004) Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research30(4): 313–330.
40.
SaettlerP. (2004) The evolution of American educational technology, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
41.
Sauers, N. J., & McLeod, S. (2012, October). What does the research say about school one-to-one computing initiatives? [white paper]. University Council for Educational Administration Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education, Lexington, KY. Available at: http://schooltechleadership.org/briefs.
42.
ShapleyK.SheehanD.SturgesK.Caranikas-WalkerF.HuntsbergerB.MaloneyC. (2006) Evaluation of the Texas technology immersion pilot, Austin: Texas Center for Educational Research.
43.
ShulmanL. S. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher15(2): 4–14.
44.
ShulmanL. S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review57(1): 1–22.
45.
SiegleD.FosterT. (2000) Effects of laptop computers with multimedia and presentation software on student achievement, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
46.
SilvernailD. L.GritterA. K. (2007) Maine’s middle school laptop program: Creating better writers (Research brief), Gorham: University of Southern Maine, Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
47.
SmithH. L. (1997) Matching with multiple controls to estimate treatment effects in observational studies. Sociological Methodology27: 325–353.
48.
SnijdersT.BoskerR. (1999) Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.
49.
SuhrK. A.HernandezD. A.GrimesD.WarschauerM. (2010) Laptops and fourth-grade literacy: Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment9(5): 4–45.
50.
Superville, D. (2016, March 28). Academic, tech staff team up for Rochester’s 1-to-1 rollout. Education Week.
WestonM. E.BainA. (2010) The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment9(6): Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org.
53.
ZhengB.WarschauerM.LinC.ChangC. (2016) Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research86(4): 1052–1084. doi:10.3102/0034654316628645.
