This article presents findings from an investigation of the overall effectiveness of Michigan's Freedom to Learn (FTL) One-to-One initiative. The major goal of the FTL initiative was to help students to gain 21st century knowledge and skills while increasing their learning and achievement through the integration of over 20,000 laptop computers with comprehensive teacher professional development. This study used a mixed-methods descriptive and quasi-experimental design. Data were collected with validated observation and survey instruments. The findings reveal greater use of research-based best practices in FTL classrooms and greater teacher confidence to integrate technology as compared to normative data. FTL students performed as well as control students yet demonstrated greater 21st century knowledge and skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abell Foundation. (2008). One-to-one computing in public schools: Lessons from “laptops for all” programs. Baltimore, MD: Author.
2.
BebellD.KayR. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2), 5–59.
3.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Casner-LottoJ.BarringtonL. (2006). Are they really ready to work: Employers perspectives on the knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce.The Conference Board, Inc., The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved January 21, 2008 from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org
5.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. Plano (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). School matters. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from http://www.schoolmatters.com
7.
DawsonK.CavanaughC.RitzhauptA. D. (2008). Florida's EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143–159.
8.
DunleavyM.DexterS.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.
9.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
10.
ErtmerP. A.AddisonP.LaneM.RossE.WoodsD. (1999). Examining teachers' beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–72.
11.
ErtmerP. A.GopalakrishnanS.RossE. M. (2001). Technology-using teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5), 45–53.
12.
GrimesD.WarschauerM. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.
13.
HayesJ.GreavesT. (2008). America's digital schools 2008: The six trends to watch. Encinitas, CA: The Greaves Group, The Hayes Connection.
14.
InanF. A.LowtherD. L. (2010a). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.
15.
InanF. A.LowtherD. L. (2010b). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937–944.
16.
InanF. A.LowtherD. L.RossS. M.StrahlD. (2010). Pattern of classroom activities during students' use of computers: Relations between instructional strategies and computer applications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 540–546.
17.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2007). National educational technology standards for students: Technology foundation standards for all students. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_stands.html
18.
JonassenD.HowlandJ.MarraR.CrismondD. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
LeiJ.ConwayP. F.ZhaoY. (2008). The digital pencil: One-to-one computing for children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
LeiJ.ZhaoY. (2008). One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.
22.
LowtherD. L.InanF. A.StrahlJ. D.RossS. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed?Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–213.
23.
LowtherD. L.RossS. M. (2001). Survey of Computer Use (SCU). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
24.
LowtherD. L.RossS. M. (2003). Formative evaluation process for school improvement: Technology instrument suite. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
25.
LowtherD. L.RossS. M.MorrisonG. R. (2001). Evaluation of a laptop program: Successes and recommendations. Paper presented at the National Education Computing Conference, Chicago, IL.
26.
LowtherD. L.RossS. M.MorrisonG. R. (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.
27.
MorrisonG. R.LowtherD. L. (2010). Integrating computer technology into the classroom: Skills for the 21st century (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
28.
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.
29.
MurphyD.KingF.BrownS. (2007). Laptop initiative impact: Assessed using student, parent and teacher data. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 57–73.
30.
NewhouseP.RennieL. (2001). A longitudinal study of the use of student-owned portable computers in a secondary school. Computers & Education, 36(3), 223–243.
31.
NiederhauserD. S.LindstromD. L. (2006). Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 91–128.
32.
OnwuegbuzieA.TeddlieC. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Partnership for 21st century skills. Retrieved July 3, 2011 from http://www.p21.org/
34.
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.
35.
RossS. M.LowtherD. L. (2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student achievement in inner-city schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 215–246.
36.
RossS. M.SmithL. J.AlbergM. (1999). The School Observation Measure. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
37.
RossS. M.SmithL. J.AlbergM.LowtherD. L. (2004). Using classroom observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The School Observation Measure. In WaxmanH. C.TharpR. G.HilbergR. S. (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cape Town, South Africa: Cambridge University Press.
38.
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 Research, 30(4), 313–330.
SmithL.RossS.McNelisM.SquiresM.WassonR.MaxwellS. (1998). The Memphis Restructuring Initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that affect implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 276–325.
41.
SterbinskyA.BurkeD. (2004). Summary of CSRTQ reliability studies. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
42.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA). (2003). Digital economy 2003. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 17, 2008 from https://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/DE-Chap4.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (DOE). (2003). Federal funding for educational technology and how it is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/evaluation.html
45.
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.
46.
ZuckerA. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386.
47.
ZuckerA. A.KingK. E. (2009). Teaching with laptops. The Science Teacher, 76(9), 22–26.
