This study explores configurations of laptop use in a one-to-one environment. Guided by methodologies of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model of change, an Innovation Configuration Map (description of the multiple ways an innovation is implemented) of a 1:1 laptop program at a middle school was developed and analyzed. Three distinct configurations showed a range in fidelity of laptop integration at the school. A second finding showed a range of off-task behaviors as part of each configuration. We chose to more deeply explore if a relationship between the individual configurations and student off-task behaviors existed. We found that increased access to laptop computers does not always equate to increased student engagement. Implications of this study extend to teachers, school administrators, and teacher educators.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtalibH. (2002). The use of mobile-wireless technology for education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475184).
2.
BakerR. S.CorbettA. T.KoedlingerK. R., & WagnerA. Z. (2004). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students game the system. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2004: Computer-Human Interaction, 383–390.
3.
Bangert-DrownsR. L., & PykeC. (2001). Student engagement with educational software: An exploration of literate thinking with electronic literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 213–234.
4.
BarronA. E.HarmesJ. C., & KemkerK. J. (2006). Technology as a classroom tool: Learning with laptop computers. In Tan Wee HinL. & SubramaniamR. (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy in technology at the K-12 level (pp. 271–286) Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.
CrystalJ. (2001). One-to-one technology: A model for 21st century education? In MontgomerieC. & ViteliJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2001 (pp. 337–341). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
7.
DoyleW. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). New York: Macmillan.
HallG. E.AlquistA.HendricksonM. B.GeorgeA. A.JohnsonM.ThortonE. (1999). Using constructs and techniques from research to facilitate and assess implementation of an innovative mathematics curriculum. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 34(1), 1–8.
10.
HallG. E., & GeorgeA. A. (2000). The use of innovation configuration maps in assessing implementation: The bridge between development and student outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445099).
11.
HallG. E., & HordS. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
12.
Hartnell-YoungE. (2001). Successful integration of learning technologies in school classrooms (SILT). In MontgomerieC. & ViteliJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2001 (pp. 680–681). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
13.
HeckS.StiegelbauerS. M.HallG. E., & LoucksS. F. (1981). Measuring innovation configurations: Procedures and application.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
14.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). National educational technology standards. Retrieved December 26, 2008 from http://cnets.iste.org/
15.
LinnenbrinkE. A., & PintrichP. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 119–137.
16.
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 Development, 51(3), 23–44.
17.
McHaleT. (2007). One-to-one in Alaska. Technology and Learning, 27(8), 24–16.
18.
MouzaC. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472.
19.
PenuelW. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
20.
RichardsonV., & PlacierP. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
RussellM.BebellD.CowanJ., & CorbelliM. (2002). An AlphaSmart for each student: Does teaching and learning change with full access to word processors? Paper presented at National Educational Computing Conference, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475950).
24.
SchaumburgH. (2001). Fostering girl's computer literacy through laptop learning: Can mobile computers help to level out the gender difference?National Educational Computing Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED462945).
25.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observer.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.
26.
WardR.KellerM., & FiggC. (2003). Emerging technologies and forestry: Using handhelds and an interdisciplinary approach to introduce forestry in the middle school classroom. In CrawfordC. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 1353–1356). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
27.
WindschitlM., & SahlK. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
28.
ZuckerA. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386.
