jrte, (4), 447–472 learning with laptops: implementation ... · learning with laptops:...

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 447

JRTE,40(4),447–472

LearningwithLaptops:ImplementationandOutcomesinan

Urban,Under-PrivilegedSchoolChrystallaMouza

University of Delaware

AbstractThis study examined the implementation and outcomes of a laptop program initiative in a predominantly low-income, minority school. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, analyzed, and compared with students in non-laptop classrooms within the same school. Results of the study revealed that in the hands of well prepared teachers, laptops enabled disadvantaged students to engage in powerful learning experiences. Although quantitative data did not reveal significant differences in student attitudes towards computers and school between laptop and comparison students, qualitative data indicated that laptop integration created enhanced motivation and engagement with schoolwork, influenced classroom interac-tions, and empowered students. Such behaviors were not evident among comparison students. Furthermore, qualitative data indicated that the laptop program produced academic gains in writing and mathematics within the laptop group. Results of the study have implications for policy makers, researchers, and practitioners, especially those interested in bridging the digital divide in education. (Keywords: laptops, ubiquitous computing, quasi-experiment, urban-elementary students, digital divide.)

INTRODUCTIONCurrentlegislativemandates,suchastheNoChildLeftBehind(NCLB)Act,

haveincreasedthedemandonschooldistrictstoprovideeverychildwithac-cesstohigh-qualityeducationandclosetheachievementgap.TheEnhancingEducationthroughTechnologyprogramoftheNCLB,inparticular,seekstoleveragethepoweroftechnologyinallareasofK–12educationinwaysthatimpactthequalityofteachingandlearning(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2001).Despitethisambitiousgoal,ithasbeendemonstratedthatstudentswhocomefromlow-incomeminoritybackgroundsoftensufferfrompooraccessandutilizationoftechnologywhileconfrontedwithinferiorqualitylearningoppor-tunities(Donahue,Finnegan,Lutkus,Allen,&Campbell,2001;NTIA,1999).Infact,internationalassessmentsrevealthatschoolsintheUnitedStates(U.S.)arethemostunequalintheindustrializedworldintermsofspending,curricu-lumofferings,teachingquality,andoutcomes(Darling-Hammond,2006).Asaresult,low-incomeminoritystudentsoftenhavelimitedaccesstointellectuallychallengingcurriculummaterialandinstruction(Darling-Hammond,2004).

Inresponsetotheseinequities,andwithassistancefromtheprivatesector,severalschooldistrictsintheU.S.havecommittedthemselvestolaptoptech-nologyprogramsasameanstoimproveaccesstodigitalresources,increaseop-portunitiesforbetterqualityinstruction,andpreparestudentsforthedemands

448 Summer�008:Volume 40 Number 4

ofthemodernworkplace.Yet,researchintotheeducationalusesandstudentoutcomesoflaptopprogramsisstillinitsinfancy.Inarecentexaminationofstudiesanalyzingtheimplementationandeffectsoflaptopinitiativesinmul-tiplecountries,Penuel(2006)foundonly30studiesthatusedrigorousresearchprocedures,withthemajorityofthosestudiesfocusingonmiddle/highschoolstudentsinaffluentschools.Clearly,thereisaneedformoreresearchonthebenefitsoflaptopprogramsforteachingandlearningandtheirpotentialtobridgethedigitalanddidacticdividethatcurrentlyexists(Fulton&Sibley,2003).Specifically,thereisaneedtostudythenewlearningenvironmentscre-atedbythepresenceoflaptopsanddeterminetheconditionsunderwhichposi-tiveeffectsonlearningoutcomesmaybeachieved(VanHover,Berson,Bolick,&Swan,2006).

Thepurposeofthisstudyistoinvestigatetheimplementationandoutcomesofalaptopprograminapredominantlylow-incomeminorityschool.Specifi-cally,thestudyexaminesthewaysinwhichtwoprimarygradeteachersinte-gratedlaptopsintheirinstructionalpracticesandtheimpactofsuchintegrationonstudenteducationalexperiencescomparedtonon-laptoppeersinthesameschool.Threeprimaryquestionsguidedthisresearch:

1. Duringaone-yearperiod(2002–2003),inwhatwaysdidteachersandstu-dentsutilizelaptopcomputersintheirclassroomstoachieveinstructionalgoals?

2. Howdidaccesstolaptopsinfluencestudentattitudestowardcomputersandschoolcomparedtotheirnon-laptoppeers?

3. Howdidstudentuseoflaptopcomputerssupportlearningprocesses?1

THEORETICALFRAMEWORkDigitalDivideandLaptopInitiatives

ThereisurgencyintheU.S.toimprovethequalityofeducation,closetheachievementgap,andequipstudentswith21stcenturyknowledgeandskills(Ladson-Billings,2006;Partnershipfor21stCenturySkills,2003).Gener-ally,21stcenturyskillsareidentifiedasinformationandcommunicationskills,thinkingandproblem-solvingskills,andinterpersonalandself-directionalskills(Partnershipfor21stCenturySkills,2003).Toachievethesegoals,studentsmustbegiven21stcenturytoolsthatsimulateauthenticworkenvironments.Theyalsoneedtolearnacademiccontentthroughreal-worldexamples.Recentdataindicatedthatgreatstrideshavebeenmadetoprovideschoolswith21stcenturytools(e.g.,computersandInternetconnections)thatcanhelpteach-erscreatemoreauthenticlearningenvironmentsforstudents(Wells&Lewis,

1Thisstudydidnotexaminedifferencesinstudentachievementbetweenlaptopandcom-parisonclassroomsasmeasuredbytestscores.Existingresearchindicatesthatitisexceedinglydifficulttolinkfulltimeaccesstolaptopstotheoutcomesofstandardizedtestscurrentlyinuse,particularlyduringthefirstyearofalaptopinitiative(Muir,Knezek,&Christensen,2004;Rockman,2000,2003).Themainreasonbehindthisdifficultyisthemismatchbe-tweenthecontentofstandardizedteststhatoftenincludelower-levelskillsandthetypeofhigher-orderskillssupportedbylaptops(Roschelle,Pea,Hoadley,Gordin,&Means,2000).


2006).In2005,theratioofstudentstoinstructionalcomputerswithInternetaccessinpublicschoolswas3.8:1comparedto12.1:1in1998.Despitetheseimprovements,schoolswithlowerlevelofminorityenrollmentstillhavefewerstudentspercomputerthanschoolswithhigherminorityenrollment(Wells&Lewis,2006).

Inadditiontolimitedaccesstotechnologyinschool,low-incomeminorityhouseholdsarealsotheleastlikelytobeonline.Itwasestimatedthatapproxi-mately68%oflow-incomeWhitehouseholdsdidnothaveaccesstotheInter-net,comparedto75%ofAfricanAmericanand74%ofHispaniclow-incomehouseholds(Pew,2000).Thisdisparityinhomeaccesstotechnologyfurtherlimitstheopportunitiesoflow-incomeminoritystudentstopracticeessentiallearningskillsandexperienceacademicsuccess.AccordingtoFultonandSibley(2003),justasthepresenceofbooksandreadingmaterialathomecanimpactthereadingreadinessofachild,theavailabilityofcomputersandInternetac-cessathomecanalsoinfluenceachild’stechnologyliteracyreadiness.

Inanefforttobridgethedigitaldivide,severaldistrictshaveembarkedintheimplementationoflaptopprograms.Providingeverystudentwithalaptop,whichcanalsobetakenhome,canhaveatremendousimpactonstudentswhoarecurrentlyleftoutfromtheworldoftechnology.Accesstolaptopcomputerscanchangebothhowandwhatstudentslearn,withinaswellasoutsideschoolboundaries(Roschelleetal.,2000).Useofcomputerscanenhancehowchil-drenlearnbysupportingfourfundamentalcharacteristicsoflearning:(a)activeengagement,(b)participationingroups,(c)frequentinteractionandfeedback,and(d)connectionstoreal-worldcontexts(Roschelleetal.,2000).Useofcom-puterscanalsochangewhatstudentslearnbyprovidingexposuretoideasandexperiencesthatotherwisewouldbeinaccessible.Suchopportunitiesarepartic-ularlyusefulindevelopingthehigher-orderskillsofcriticalthinking,analysis,andinquirythatarenecessaryforsuccessinthe21stcentury(Rockman,2003).

Theoverarchingobjectiveofthisstudyistoinvestigatetheimplementationofalaptopprograminapredominantlylow-incomeminorityschoolanditspotentialtobridgethedigitalanddidacticdividebyprovidingstudentswithen-richedlearningexperiencesbothwithinandoutsideschoolborders.

StudentLearningandLaptopInitiativesCognitiveresearchemphasizestheimportanceofstudentintrinsicmotivation

inthelearningprocess(Ryan&Deci,2000).Studentswithhigherintrinsicmotivationhaveexhibitedhigherachievement,morefavorableperceptionsoftheiracademiccompetence,andloweracademicanxiety(Gottfried,1990;Gottfried&Gottfried,1996).Manyofthetasksthatteacherswanttheirstu-dentstoperform,however,arenotinherentlyinterestingorenjoyable(Ryan&Deci,2000).Asaresult,asupportiveschoolenvironmentthatgivesstudentschoicesinselectinglearningtasksandopportunitiesforself-directedlearningcancatalyzegreaterintrinsicmotivationanddesiretolearn(Ryan&Grolnick,1986).Incontrast,acontrollingenvironmentcanforestallstudentmotivationandlearningdesire.

Existingresearchindicatesthatuseoflaptopshasthepotentialtocreatesup-portiveschoolenvironmentsthatcanfosterstudentresponsibility,competence,


andautonomyinrelationshiptotechnologyandlearning,therebyleadingtoincreasedmotivationandgreateracademicaspirations(Light,McDermott,&Honey,2002;Newhouse&Rennie,2001;Zucker&McGhee,2005).Find-ingsfromProject Hiller,alaptopinitiativeforurbanhigh-schoolstudents,dem-onstratedthatubiquitousaccesstotechnologyalteredclassroominteractions,fosteredasenseofautonomyandownershipoflearning,andcreatedastudent-centeredenvironmentthatfacilitatedthedevelopmentofmotivationandaca-demicengagement(Lightetal.,2002).

Inaddition,initialfindingsfromone-to-oneinitiativeshaveindicatedpositiveoutcomesonstudentlearning.Ubiquitousaccesstocomputershasshowntohelpstudentsacquireincreasedcomfortlevelwitharangeofsoftwareapplica-tionsandtheabilitytoapplytechnologytoaccess,manipulate,andorganizeinformation(Lowther,Ross,&Morrison,2003;Rockman,2003).Ithasalsoshowntoimprovestudentwritingskillsandfosterincreasedconfidenceandself-efficacy(Penuel,2006;Russell,Bebell,&Higgins,2004).

Buildinguponearlierwork,thisstudyfurtherinvestigatestheimpactofalaptopinitiativeonurban elementarystudentattitudestowardscomputersandschool.Italsoexamineswaysinwhichaccessandutilizationoflaptopscanben-efitstudentlearningprocesses.Instillinganinterestinschoolandlearninghasimplicationsforfutureschoolsuccess(Gottfried,1990).

TeacherProfessionalDevelopmentandLaptopInitiativesProvidinglaptopcomputerssothateverystudentcanhaveaccesstodigital

resourcesisimportantforbridgingthedigitaldivide.Thebiggestchallenge,however,ishelpingteachersdeveloptheexpertiserequiredtoharnessthepoweroftechnology.Thechallengegoesbeyondthelackofteachers’technologyskillsandinvolvescriticalissuesrelatedtoteachers’pedagogyandbeliefstowardstechnology(Garthwait&Weller,2005;Windschitl&Sahl,2002).

Designingqualitycomputer-basedlessonsthataddressmandatedcontentandstandardsisverydemandingonteachers(Lowtheretal.,2003).Asaresult,teachersoftenusetechnologywithintheirexistingpractice.Inlow-incomemi-norityschools,inparticular,teachersaremorelikelytohavestudentsusecom-putersforroutineskillspracticeandarelesslikelytohavestudentsusecomput-erstomakepresentations,doanalyticwork,reviseandpublishtext,orengageinexploratoryandproblem-solvingactivities(Becker,2001).Tocreaterealimprovements,teachersneedtousetechnologytosupportknowledge-buildinganddiscourseratherthanreinforcetraditionalwaysofteachingwherestudentsactprimarilyasreceiversofinformation(Donahueetal.,2001).Theyalsoneedtoshifttonewpedagogicalstrategieswheretheybecomefacilitatorsoflearning.

Agrowingbodyofliteratureindicatesthataccesstolaptopcomputerscanchangetheteachingandlearningdynamicsintheclassroom.Initialfindingsindicatethataccesstolaptopsfacilitatestheimplementationofinquiry-basedmethodsasopposedtomemorizationandpractice,aswellasmoreinterdisci-plinaryapproachesthatvaluecooperativelearning(Fairman,2004).Further-more,ubiquitouscomputingcanactasacatalystthatcouldfacilitatemovementtowardsconstructivistpractices,whereteachersactprimarilyascoaches(Rock-

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 45�

man,2000).Nevertheless,suchchangesdonothappenautomatically.Teachersneedaccesstohigh-qualityprofessionaldevelopmentsinceuseoftechnologyinthisscaleisneitherintuitivenorautomatic.

Thisstudyinvestigatesthewaysinwhichtwoprimaryteacherswhopartici-patedinaresearch-basedprofessionaldevelopmentprogramintegratedlaptopsintheirinstructionalpracticeatanurban,under-privilegedschool.Italsoin-vestigatesclassroominteractions,suchastheinteractionsbetweenteachersandstudents,andamongstudentsthemselves,asaresultoflaptopintegration.

CONTEXTOFTHESTUDYThelaptopinitiativeemployedinthisstudywaspartoftheMicrosoft Anytime,

Anywhere, Learningprogram.Schoolsandparentsparticipatinginthispro-gramleasetheirnotebooksfromToshibaresellers.Hardwareandsoftwarearediscounted,asareserviceandinsurancecontracts.Theschoolwherethestudytookplacewasoneof52otherparticipatingpilotschoolslocatedinanurbanNewYorkCity(NYC)schooldistrict.Theschoolwasserving1,277studentsingradesK–5.Approximately94%ofthestudentswereHispanicwhoqualifiedforfreelunch.Thegoaloftheprogramwastohelpbridgethedigitaldividebyprovidingdisadvantagedstudentswithincreasedaccesstotechnologyandim-provedlearningexperiences.

Atotalofthreeclassroomsparticipatedintheschool’slaptopprogram—onefromeachgradelevelingradesthreetofive.Participatingstudentshadleasedtheirnotebooksandwererequiredtopay$100forinsurancecosts2.Unlikeoth-erinitiativesinwhichstudentsreceivedstateoftheartequipment,studentsinthisstudyreceivedrefurbishedlaptops.Moreover,laptopswerenotnetworkedorconnectedtoprintersbecausetheschoollackedtheappropriateinfrastruc-ture.StudentshadInternetaccessandprintingcapabilitiesthroughtwodesk-topcomputerslocatedintheirclassrooms.TheseareimportantconsiderationswhentryingtoassesstheoutcomesofalaptopprogrambecauseconvenientaccesstotheInternetprovidesincrementaladvantagescomparedtocomputerenvironmentslackingInternetaccess(Penuel,2006).

METHODSStudyDesignandParticipants

Thisstudyemployedaquasi-experimentaldesigntoinvestigatethebenefitsoflaptopsonstudentacademicexperiencescomparedtonon-laptoppeersinthesameschool.Classroomswerenotrandomlyassigned.Threelaptopclass-roomswereinitiallyselectedbytheschool’stechnologycoordinatorbasedonthefollowingcriteria:(a)theclassroomteacherhadparticipatedinsubstantialprofessionaldevelopmentontheuseoftechnology;(b)theclassroomteacherhaddemonstratedpriorevidenceofintegratingtechnology(i.e.,desktopcom-puters);and(c)theclassroomteacherwaswillingtoparticipateintheprogram.Controlclassroomswereselectedbytheresearchertoincludecomparablestu-dentpopulations.

2Theschoolcontributedthisamountforstudentswhocouldnotaffordit.

45� Summer�008:Volume 40 Number 4

Thestudyincludedtwoofthelaptopclassrooms—thethirdgradeclass(22students)andthefourthgradeclass(28students)3.Foreachlaptopclass,onecomparablenon-laptopclassatthesamegradelevelinthesameschoolwasse-lected4.Comparisonclasseshadonlytwocomputersavailable,whichwasthetypicalnumberintheschoolandwerecarefullymatchedtoincludestudentswhodemonstratedachievementlevelssimilartothoseofstudentsinlaptopclasses.Theparticularschoolwasprimarilyorganizedinhomogeneousratherthanmixedabilityclassrooms.Asaresult,someclassesincludedonlystudentswhoexceededormetlearningstandardsinlanguagearts(i.e.,listening,reading,andwriting)andmathematicalskillswhileotherclassesincludedonlystudentswhopartiallymetlearningstandardsorwerestrugglingtoachieveabasiclevelofproficiency.Furthermore,theschoolhadbilingualclassesinwhichinstruc-tionwasdeliveredbothinEnglishandinSpanish5.

Todeterminestudentplacement,theschoolreliedonresultsfromlocaldi-agnosticassessmentsandotherteachermeasuresofstudentachievement.Boththethirdandfourthgradelaptopclasseswereconsideredadvancedclassesintheschool,wherebyallstudentsexceededormetgradelevellearningstandardsinlanguageartsandmathematics.Asaresult,thematchedcomparisonclassesselectedwerealsoadvancedclassesintheschool,whereallstudentsexhibitedgradelevelproficiencyinlanguageartsandmathematics.Todetermineappro-priatematchedcomparisonclasses,theresearchersoughttheinputoftheschooladministratorswhonominatedthirdandfourthgradeadvancedclassesintheschool.Alllaptopandcomparisonclassesweremonolingualclasses(i.e.,in-structionwasonlyprovidedinEnglish)inwhichstudentscamefromthesamesocio-economicandethnicbackground.

Afinalmeasureconsideredinselectingcomparisonclassroomswasteachercredentialsandprofessionaldevelopmentontheuseoftechnology.Allteach-ershadabachelorsandamaster’sdegreewithintheeducationfield.Moreover,bothlaptop(BetsyandLisa)andcomparison(JohnandTony)teachershadpre-viouslyparticipatedinayearlong,research-basedprofessionaldevelopmentpro-gram(2000–2001)ontheuseoftechnologyofferedbyaleadinguniversity.Thepurposeoftheprogramwastoenhanceteachers’technologicalcompetenceandunderstandingoftechnologyintegrationintoclassroominstruction,particularlywithinastudent-centeredframework.Genderwasnotconsideredwhenselect-ingteacherparticipantsbecauseofthesmallsampleofpotentialparticipants.Asaresult,bothlaptopteacherswerefemalesandbothcomparisonteachersweremales.Althoughthereisnoevidencethatthisinfluencedthefindingsofthestudy,itrepresentsalimitationofthiswork.

3Thefifthgradeclasswasnotincludedbecauseitwouldhaverequiredtheuseofdifferentdatacollectioninstruments,therebymakingitdifficulttocomparestudentresultsacrossgrades.Specifically,theYoungChildren’sComputerInventory(YCCI)wasused,whichismostappropriateforgradesK–4.

4Eachcomparisonclassincluded25students.5Theschoolhadeightthird-gradeclassroomsandsevenfourth-gradeclassrooms.


DataCollectionQualitativeandquantitativedatafrombothlaptopandnon-laptopclass-

roomswerecollectedthroughoutthe2002–2003academicyear.Datasourcesincludedclassroomobservations,teacherinterviews,studentquestionnaires,andstudentfocusgroups.

Classroom Observations:Eachlaptopclassroomwasobservedonsevendiffer-entoccasions.Comparisonclassroomswereobservedtwice.Allobservationswereconductedbytheauthor.Observationsrangedfrom90minutestothreehoursandfocusedonbothpedagogyandlaptop(ordesktop)usage,suchas:(a)thetypeofhardwareandsoftwareused;(b)theroleoftheteacher;(c)theroleofthestudents;(d)thetypesofactivitiesemployed(e.g.,cooperativelearning,directinstruction,etc.);and(e)theinteractionamongstudents,andbetweentheteacherandthestudents.Detailedfieldnoteswerekeptforeveryobserva-tionandrelevantartifactswerecollected(e.g.,teacherlessonplans,studentmultimediapresentations,etc.).

Teacher Interviews:Bothlaptopandcomparisonteacherswereinterviewedtwice—atthebeginningandattheendoftheyear.Allinterviewswerecon-ductedbytheauthor.Interviewswerepartiallystructuredandelicitedinfor-mationon:(a)teacherbeliefswithregardtotheuseoftechnologyinteachingandlearning(e.g.,Whatdoyouthinkistheroleoftechnologyineducation?);(b)instructionalpractices(e.g.,Inwhatwaysdoyouutilizecomputersinyourclassroom?);and(c)impactoftechnologyonstudentlearning(e.g.,Inwhatwaysdoyouthinkimplementationoflaptopcomputersinfluencesstudentlearning,motivationtolearn,andattitudestowardsschool?).Eachinterviewwasapproximatelyfortyminuteslong.Allinterviewswereaudio-tapedandtranscribed.

Student Questionnaires:QuantitativedatawerecollectedthroughtheYoungChildren’sComputerInventory(YCCI;Knezek,Christensen,Miyashita,&Ropp,2000).TheYCCIisa52-item,3-pointscaleLikertinstrumentformea-suringelementaryschoolchildren’sattitudesacrosssevenmajorindices:(a)ComputerImportance(perceivedvalueorsignificanceofknowingaboutcom-puters);(b)ComputerEnjoyment(pleasurederivedfromusingcomputers);(c)Motivation/Persistence(effortandperseverance);(d)StudyHabits(waysofpursuingacademicexercises);(e)Empathy(caringaboutothers);(f )CreativeTendencies(inclinationstowardfindinguniquesolutionstoproblems);and(g)AttitudestowardSchool(perceivedvalueofschooleducation)6.TheYCCIwasdevelopedacrossmultiplestudiesovera10-yearperiod(1991-2001).Inallstudies,individualscaleinternalconsistencyreliabilities(Cronbach’sAlpha)rangedfrom.66to.85forelementaryschoolstudents(Christensen,Knezek,&Overall,2005).

Atotalof100studentscompletedtheinstrumentduringthemonthsofAprilandMay2003—50laptopand50comparisonstudents.Alldataweregatheredinasmallgroupsettingtoensurethecollectionofusablesurveys.Eachstudent

6Althoughthisresearchwasnotinterestedinmeasuringempathy,studentscompletedallscalesofYCCItoavoidinfluencingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheinstrument.


inthegroupwasgivenasheetlistingonlytheresponsechoices.Theauthorandaresearchassistantreadthesurveyitemstothestudentsandprovidedanynec-essaryexplanations.Thepersonnotreadingmonitoredstudentscloselytomakesuretheyweremarkingtheiranswertoeachiteminthecorrespondinglocation.All100questionnaireswerefullycompletedandyieldedusabledata.

Student Focus Groups:Additionalqualitativedatawerecollectedfromatotalof32studentsduringeightfocusgroups(fourstudentspergroup).Twogroupsofstudentsfromeachclasswereselectedtoparticipate—onehigh-achievinggroupandonelower-achievinggroup.High-achievingstudentsweredefinedasthosewhoclearlymetorexceeded(demonstratedadvanced proficiency)theirrespectivegradelevellearningstandardsinlanguageartsandmathematicsbasedonlocalassessmentsandotherteachermeasuresofstudentachievement(e.g.,writingsamples,quizzes,etc.).Lower-achievingstudentsweredefinedasthosewhominimallymet(demonstratedproficiency)theirrespectivegradelevellearn-ingstandardsinlanguageartsandmathematicsbasedonthesameassessments.Allfocusgroupparticipantswereidentifiedbytheirclassroomteacherswhohadadequateopportunitiesthroughouttheyeartoassessstudentproficiencyofgradelevellearningstandards.

Focusgroupquestionsweretargetedtowardfivemajortopics:(a)computerimportance(i.e.,Doyouthinkisimportanttoknowaboutcomputers?Whyorwhynot?);(b)computerenjoyment(i.e.,Whatdoyoulike/dislikeaboutcomputers?);(c)computerusageathome(i.e.,Howdoyouuseyourcomputerathome?);(d)student-studentandstudent-teacherinteractions(i.e.,Doyoueverworkwithotherstudentsinyourclass?Ifso,inwhatways?Haveyouevertaughtsomethingtootherstudentsinyourclass?Haveyouevertaughttheteachersomething?);and(e)motivationtowardschoolandlearning(i.e.,Howdoyoulikecomingtoschool?).Eachfocusgrouplastedapproximately40minutes.Allfocusgroupswerevideo-taped.Inallfocusgroupstheresearcherallowedenoughtimeforeachquestionandencouragedallindividualstovoicetheirideas.Transcriptexaminationrevealedthatalmostallstudentsrespondedtoallquestionsandmultipleperspectivesweregenerated.

DataAnalysisDatafromclassroomobservationsandteacherinterviewswerefirsttran-

scribed.Subsequently,theresearcherandagraduateassistantrepeatedlyreadthetranscriptsandidentifiedexcerptsthatdiscussedteacherbeliefsandprac-ticestowardtechnology.Excerptsonteacherbeliefsincludedstatementsrelatedtotheroleoftechnologyintheschoolcurriculumaswellasbenefitsanddraw-backsofcomputersforstudentlearning.Excerptsrelatedtopracticeincludedstatementsonthewaysinwhichstudentsutilizedcomputersforinstructionaltasks.Asanalysisofeachindividualteacherwascompleted,datawerecom-paredwiththoseoftheotherteacherstoidentifysimilaritiesanddifferencesamonglaptopandcomparisonteachers(Miles&Huberman,1994).Classroomartifactsandexcerptsfromstudentfocusgroupswereusedtotriangulatefind-ings(Maxwell,1996).Disagreementswereonlyminimalandwereallresolvedthroughconsensus.


DatafromstudentquestionnaireswereanalyzedusingstatisticalmethodsandtheSPSSsoftwarepackage7.Studentfocusgroupswerefirsttranscribedandanalyzedusingagroundedtheoryapproach(Glaser&Strauss,1967)tolookforemergentpatternsaswellasforcommonalitiesanddifferencesacrossstudentresponses.Initially,theresearcherandthreegraduatestudents,whohadnotbeenpartofconceptualizingthestudy,repeatedlyreadandopen-codedportionsofthetranscripts.Basedonthisanalysisaninitialcodingschemewasdeveloped.Thisinitialcodingschemewassubsequentlyappliedtoadditionaldataandseveralrevisionsweremade.Thefinalcodingschemeincludedthefol-lowingcategories:(a)studentbeliefsaboutcomputers,(b)studentenjoymentfromusingcomputers,(c)studentusesoftechnologyathome,(d)motivationandattitudestowardsschool,(e)benefitsfromusingcomputers,(f )classroominteractionswithteachersandpeers,and(g)studentempowerment.There-searcherandtwoofthegraduateassistantsappliedthefinalcodingschemeinalleightfocusgrouptranscripts.Disagreementswereresolvedandaconsistentinter-ratercodingwasachieved.

FINDINGSFindingsofthestudyarepresentedinthissectionorganizedbyresearch

question.Inwhatwaysdidteachersandstudentsutilizelaptopsintheirclassrooms

toachieveinstructionalgoals?ResultsfromobservationsandinterviewsindicatedthatBetsyandLisa,the

laptopteachers,usedtechnologytocreatemeaningfullearningactivitiesthatengagedstudentsincomplex,authentictasks.Technologywasusedaspartofamodelthatemphasizedproject-basedlearningandconstructionofknowledgeratherthanrecitationordrillandpractice.

Throughouttheyear,Lisathethirdgradeteacherwasabletoimplementavarietyofsustainedprojectsthatintegratedlaptopcomputers.Inlanguagearts,studentsusedTimeLiner8tocreateinteractivetimelinesthatfeaturedthebiographiesofauthorsstudiedinclass(e.g.,TomiedePaola).Theyalsousedmultimediatocreateelectronicstorybooksmodeledafterfairytalesreadinclassandpublishreportsthatweresupplementedwiththeirownillustrations.Inmathematics,theyworkedincooperativegroupsusingspreadsheetstogatherandanalyzedatacollectedfromconductingclassroompolls.Theseactivitieswereessentialformasteringelementsofgraphing,arequiredcurriculumunit.Finally,inscience,theyfrequentlyusedtheInternettolookupinformationandInspiration9toorganizetheirunderstandingintoconceptmaps.Conceptmaps

7Afulldescriptionofthequantitativedataanalysisispresentedlaterinthe“ResultsfromStudentQuestionnaires.”8Timeliner(TomSnyderProductions)isasoftwarepackagethatallowsstudentstotacklechallengingcontentandconceptsbyvisuallyorganizinginformationonatimelineornum-berline.9Inspiration(Inspiration,Inc.)isasoftwarepackagethatallowsstudentstocreategraphicorganizerstovisuallyrepresentconceptsandrelationships.


revealedstudents’thinkingandhelpedLisaidentifymisconceptionsandplanappropriateinstructionalactivities.

Toaccommodateuseoftechnology,Lisareworkedherdailyscheduleandusedblocksoftimetoworkonprojectsthatintegratedlaptops.Assheex-plained,shealsoimplementedmuchmorecooperativeworkthaninherpastpractices.Intheclassroom,sheoftenactedastheguide-on-the-side;sheprovidedindividualsupport,facilitatedsharingamongstudents(Figure1),andencour-agedexplorationthroughtheuseoftechnology.

InBetsy’sfourthgradeclass,learningwasalsoprimarilystructuredaroundsustainedprojectsthatutilizedlaptopstopromoteproblemsolvingandknowl-edgeconstructionwithinameaningfulcontext.Studentshadopportunitiestochoosetopicsbasedontheirowninterests,collaboratewiththeirpeers,andas-sumedifferentroles.Theyalsohadopportunitiestoraisequestions,gatherandanalyzesciencedatafromtheirlocalschoolyardusingspreadsheets,andcreatelearningmaterialfortheirpeersintheformofelectronicnewsletters.Intheprocess,studentswereforcedtoexplainanddefendtheirideasthusdevelopingabetterconceptualunderstandingoftheissuesathand.Thefollowingexcerptdescribesatechnology-integrationprojectrelatedtothetopicoftheAmerican Revolutionary War,whichisillustrativeofBetsy’spractice.Betsydescribed:

Aspartoftheproject,studentsworkedingroupstoprepareanewslet-terrelatedtotheRevolutionaryWarusingdesktop publishingsoftware(Figure2).Eachstudentinthegroupconductedresearchusinglibrary

Figure 1: Peer sharing in the third grade laptop class.


andInternetresourcesandpreparedadiaryentry,abiographicalessay,orareportbasedonaRevolutionaryWarpersonoreventoftheirchoice(e.g.,abiographyofanAfrican-Americansoldier,areportonamajorbattlesuchastheBostonTeaParty,etc.).Thosestudentswhochosetoresearchparticulareventsusedtheirknowledgeofspreadsheetstocreategraphsdemonstrating thenumberofBritishandAmericansoldierskilledduringthebattle.Wearenowworkingasaclasstodevelopaninteractivetimelineusingmultimediathatfeaturesthemajorbattlesoftherevolution(Figure3,p.458).

Describingtheroleoflaptopsinherinstructionalplanning,Betsyexplained:“Havingthelaptopshasdefinitelyhelpedmetothinkdifferently.Inolongerthinkof45minutelessons;Inowplansustainedprojectsthatinvolvestudentsworkingcollaborativelyaroundanimportantissue.”Furthermore,becauseac-cesstolaptopsenabledstudentstodevelopartifacts(e.g.,multimediapresenta-tions,websitesetc.),Betsyoftenhadherstudentspubliclysharetheirworkwithotherpeersandadults.Infact,Betsy’sstudentsdescribedwithprideaneventwheretheydemonstratedtheschoolWebsitetheyhadcreatedduringaparentnight.

Thesefindingsdemonstratedthatinsteadofbeingrestrictedbyimpoverishedenvironmentstypicalinlow-incomeminorityschools,BetsyandLisausedlap-topstocreaterichlearningenvironmentsthatfacilitatedknowledgeconstruc-

Figure 2: Electronic newsletters on the Revolutionary War created by fourth grade laptop students.


tion.Contrarytolaptopteachers,observationandinterviewdatarevealedthatcomparisonteachersusedtechnologyformundaneinstructionaltasks,suchaswordprocessingandInternetresearch.Further,computersweresometimesusedasarewardforstudentsfinishingtheirwork.John,thethirdgradeteacher,indicated:“Ihavethestudentsrotateonthecomputerinpairstoword-pro-cessdocuments.However,studentswhoarenotbehavingdonotgetaturn.”Althoughsuchusesoftechnologyhelpedstudentsautomatesometasks(e.g.,lookingupinformation),theydidnotpromotenewmodelsofinstruction.Ac-cordingtoJohnandTony,thenonlaptopteachers,limitedaccesstohardware,software,andtechnicalandpedagogicalsupportwereallkeyfactorsinhibitingextensiveuseoftechnology.

Howdidaccesstolaptopsinfluencestudentattitudestowardcomputersandschoolcomparedtotheirnon-laptoppeers?

ResultsfromStudentQuestionnairesThequantitativedatawereanalyzedusingthestatisticalanalysispackage

SPSS.ReliabilityanalyseswerefirstperformedtodeterminewhethereachofthesevensubscalesoftheYCCIwereinternallyconsistentandcouldbeusedinaMANOVA.TheCronbachalphaofascaleshouldbegreaterthan.70foritemstobeusedtogetherasascale(Nunnally,1978).Resultsoftheseanalysesrevealedthatonlytwoofthesubscalesachievedalphalevelsexceeding.70(Cre-ative Tendenciesalpha=.71andAttitudes toward Schoolalpha=.75).Additionalanalysesandmodificationswereperformedinattemptstoimprovetheinternal

Figure 3: Battles of the American Revolution created by the fourth grade laptop students.

1781

1777

1776

1775


consistencyoftheotherfivesubscales.Althoughtheinternalconsistencyofthedeficientscalesimproved,noneoftheimprovementsledtoacceptableal-phalevelsfortheremainingfivescales10.MANOVAsandseparateunivariateANOVAsweresubsequentlyusedtodeterminewhethergradelevelandhavinglaptopsintheclassroominfluencedstudentattitudes(Creative TendenciesandAttitudes toward School).

InordertodeterminehowtechnologyintheclassroominfluencedCreative TendenciesandAttitudes toward School,a2(technologyinclassroom)x2(gradelevel)MANOVAwasperformedonthetworeliablesubscalesoftheYCCI.Creative TendenciesandAttitudes toward Schoolsubscaleswereusedasdependentvariables.Allothersubscaleswereexcludedfromtheanalysisbecauseoftheirpoorreliability.MANOVAassumesthatvariancesandco-variancesarehomogeneous.Box’sTestofEqualityteststhenullhypothesisthattheobservedcovariancematricesofthedependentvariablesareequalacrossgroups.Resultsindicatedthatthenullhypothesiswasretained(Box’sM=13.01,p=ns),suggestingthatthecovariancematricesforthegroupswereequaltooneanother.

ResultsfromMANOVAsuggestedthataccesstolaptopsdidnotinfluencestudentCreative TendenciesorAttitudes toward School(Wilk’sλ=.99,F(2,95)=.37,p=ns).Thesignificantoverallmultivariateeffectforgradelevel,how-ever,suggestedthatgradelevelaloneinfluencedstudentoutcomes(Wilk’sλ=.90,F(2,95)=5.27,p<.01,Partialη2=.100).SeparateunivariateANOVAsdemonstratedthatgradelevelhadasignificantinfluenceonCreative Tendencies(F(1,96)=5.71,p<.05,Partial η2=.056,r=0.24whichrepresentsasmalleffectsize)andAttitudes toward School(F(1,96)=8.86,p<.01,Partialη2=.085,r=0.29whichrepresentsasmalltomediumeffectsize).WhenaBonfer-roniadjustmentwasmadetodetertheinflationofTypeIerror,amorestrin-gent,family-wisealphalevel(.025)resulted.Theadjustedresultsshowedthatthirdgraders(M=2.65)weresignificantlymorelikelythanfourthgraders(M=2.51)toreporthavingCreative Tendencies.Additionally,thecorrectedresultsreflectedthatthirdgraders(M=2.19)weresignificantlymorelikelytohavepositiveAttitudes toward Schoolthanfourthgraders(M=1.85).

Inordertodeterminewhethertheuniquecombinationoftechnologyintheclassroomandgradelevelhadaninfluenceonstudentattitudes,resultsfromtheMANOVAwereanalyzed.Resultsyieldedamarginallysignificantmultivariateeffectfortheinteraction(Wilk’sλ=.94,F(2,95)=2.88,p=.06,Partial η2=.057).AlthoughseparateunivariateanalysesrevealednosignificantinteractionbetweentechnologyandgradelevelonCreative Tendencies(F(1,96)=.283,p=ns),theydidrevealasignificantinteractionbetweengradelevelandtechnologyintheclassroomonAttitudes toward School,displayedinFigure4,p.460(F(1,96)=3.84,p=.05).AfteraBonferroniadjustmentwasmadetodetertheinflationofTypeIerror,amorestringentalphalevel(.025)preventedtheinteractioninvolvingAttitudes toward Schoolfrombeing

10Tothebestofourknowledge,nootherinstrumentsexistformeasuringyoungchildren’sattitudestowardtechnology.


significant.Despitethelackofstatisticallysignificantinteraction,themeansdemonstratedthatthirdgraderswhohadlaptops(M=2.12)didnotdifferconsiderablyfromthirdgraderswhodidnothavelaptops(M=2.26)onAtti-tudes toward School.However,fourthgraderswhohadlaptops(M=2.00)hadsignificantlymore positiveattitudestowardschoolthanfourthgraderswhodidnot(M=1.68)11.

ResultsfromStudentFocusGroupsFindingsfromfocusgroupsindicatedthatallstudentsperceivedcomputers

tobeimportanttoolsbecausetheyserveasaninformationresource,theyareusefulforfutureemployment,andtheyassistinthelearningprocess.Bothlap-topandcomparisonstudentsviewedthecomputerasatoolthatcouldprovideinformationandhelppeoplelearnmoreabouttheworld,particularlythroughtheuseoftheInternet.Allstudentsalsocommentedontheimportanceofac-quiringcomputerskillsforfutureemployment.Diego,afourthgradelaptopstudentexplained:“Ifyouwouldliketobecomesomethinginyourlife,youreallyneedtoknowhowtousecomputers.”Furthermore,moststudentsre-portedthatcomputerscanfacilitatelearningbyhelpingthemfindinformation,developprofessionalproducts,andcorrectspellingandgrammar.Finally,they

11Consideringthatthesamplesizewassmallandthatresultsfromtheunivariateanalysesweremarginallysignificant,webelieveitisimportanttoinformreadersofthesignificantdif-ferenceinthemeansscores.At-testbetweenfourthgraderswhohadlaptops(n=28)andthosewhodidnot(n=25)alsodemonstratedthatlaptopstudentsweresignificantlymorelikelythancomparisonstudentstohavepositiveattitudestowardschool,t(51)=2.06,p<.05.

Figure 4: Interaction between Technology and Grade Level on Attitudes toward School.


indicatedthatuseofcomputersfosterscreativityandexploration(e.g.,userscanchoosetheirownfontsandcanexploredifferentprograms).

Oneinterestingfindingwasthatlaptopstudentsemphasizedtheimportanceofusingcomputersforexplorationandlearningwhilecomparisonstudentsplacedmoreemphasisontheadvantagesofusingcomputersasaninformationresourceandforsecuringfutureemployment.Whenaskedtoexplaintheroleofcomputersinlearning,forexample,anon-laptopthirdgradestudentindi-cated:“Whenmyteacherasksaquestiononthetest,Icanusethecomputertofindouttheanswer.”Moreover,somecomparisonstudentsexhibitedambiva-lenceontheimportanceofcomputersinlearning.Jose,afourthgradestudent,noted:“Idonotthinkcomputerscanhelpyoulearn.Thatiswhatteachersarefor;computersarejust for fun.”Wilfredagreedwiththeabovecommentandadded:“Computersmighttellyousomethingorshowyouhowtodosome-thingbuttheywillnothelpyouunderstandit.Onlytheteacherwilldothat.”

Resultsfromfocusgroupsalsoindicatedthatallstudentsenjoyedworkingoncomputers.Studentsreportedbeingenthusiasticaboutusingcomputerstoplaygames,visitdifferentWebsites,orlistentomusic.Furthermore,allstudentspreferredword-processingonacomputerratherthanhandwritingdocuments.Thethirdgradelaptopstudents,forexample,indicatedthattheypreferredtyp-ingthanhandwritingbecausecomputersmadeiteasiertoidentifymistakes,editordeletetext,andprepareneatdocuments.Theyalsonotedthattypingwaslesslaborintensivethanhandwriting.Inaddition,fourthgradelaptopstu-dentsindicatedthattheyenjoyedchoosingdifferentfontsandcolorswhenus-ingword-processingsoftwarebecauseitallowedthemtobecreativeandcreateprofessionallookingreports.

Besideswordprocessingandplayinggames,laptopstudentswerealsoenthu-siasticaboutusingeducationalandproductivitysoftware,suchasInspiration,MicrosoftPowerPoint,andTimeliner.Infact,whenaskedtoindicatetheirfa-voriteaspectofusingcomputers,thefollowingconversationtranspiredamongthehigh-achievingfourthgradelaptopstudents:

Diego:MyfavoriteactivityonthelaptopisusingTimeliner.Researcher:WhyisTimelineryourfavoriteprogram?Diego:Becauseyoucancreatetimelineswithallthingsyoudidinthepastandallthingsyouwilldointhefuture.Forexample,weevendidatimelineonourselvesaboutourpastandfuture12.Jen:Ilikeusinglaptopstocreateslideshowsandmultimediapresenta-tions.YoucanusetheInternettodownloadpicturesandinserttheminyourpresentation.Carlos:Andwhenyoupresentit[slideshow]tosomeone,theyaskyou:“Howdidyoudothat?”IalsolikeMicrosoftPublisherandFrontPage.Youcancreatenewsarticlesandwebsites.Weused it tocreateourschoolnewsletter.

12Studentsconductedthisactivityintheirclassroom.Specifically,theteacheraskedthemtocreateautobiographicaltimelinesinpreparationofcreatingauthorbiographies.


Theabovestatementsdemonstratethatstudentstrulyenjoyedusingtheirlap-topstocompletesophisticatedschoolprojects.Infact,studentspreferredusingeducationalandproductivitytoolsforschoolworkinsteadofplayinggamesontheirlaptops.Incontrast,whenaskedtodescribetheirfavoriteactivitiesonthecomputer,comparisonstudentsprovidedexamplesofInternetgaming,chat-ting,andmusicsites.Resultsfromfocusgroupsalsoindicatedthatincreasedenjoymentfromusinglaptopstocompleteschoolworkanddevelopcomputerskillspositivelyinfluencedstudentattitudestowardsschool.Thefourthgradelaptopstudentsexplained:

Luis:BeforewegotthelaptopsIthoughtschoolwasalittleboring.Stephanie:We learned the same things everyday.Sincewegot thelaptopwelearndifferentthings.Luis:Andwelearnmoreaboutcomputerseachday.Ashley:Iamsoexcitedtohavealaptop.

Whenaskedtoreporttheirleastfavoriteaspectsofusingcomputers,allstudentsindicatedthatcomputersareoftenslowtorespond,theyfreeze,andcrash.Interestingly,thethirdgradelaptopstudentsalsoreportedthattheywereinitiallyverynervousaboutusinglaptopsbecausetheyknewnothingaboutcomputers.Manuel,athirdgradestudentnoted:“InitiallyIfeltnervousabouthavingalaptopbecauseIdidnotknowhowtouseit.IdidnotevenknowhowtoturnitonandIwasafraidIwilldamageit.”Furthermore,thirdgradestu-dentsindicatedthattheywereconcernedaboutthesafetyoftheirlaptopsuchashavingitstolen.Theyexplained:

Mike:SometimesIfeelthatthelaptopisholdingmebackbecausewhenIhaveitwithme,Ihavetoguardit.That’swhyIdon’ttakeithomeeveryday.kiara:Yes,wehavetowatchourbackpacks.Wecan’tjustleavethemonthefloor.Theylookdifferentfromtheotherbackpacksandsomeonemightjustgrabthem.Atschool,theytoldusthatifsomeoneoutsidegrabsourlaptopwehavetoletitgosothatwewon’tgethurt13.Mario:ThereisnowayIamgivingupmylaptop!It’sveryimportanttome.

Theabovecommentsprovideimportantinsightsrelatedtotheconcernsoflaptopstudentsinhighpovertyschools.Infact,studentsafetywasamajorconcernofthedistrict’ssuperintendentwhenthelaptopprogramwaslaunched.TheschoolwaslocatedinaroughNYCneighborhoodandadministratorsoftenwarnedstudentstoputtheirsafetyabovethesafetyoftheirlaptops.Yet,Mario’scommentshowsthevalueandimportancethatthesestudentsattributedtotheirlaptops.

Howdidstudentuseoflaptopcomputerssupportlearningprocesses?Findingsindicatedthatstudentuseoflaptopssupportedlearninginfour

ways:(a)itincreasedstudentmotivationandpersistenceindoingschoolwork;

13Despitestudentconcerns,notheftorviolenceincidentswerereportedthroughouttheyear.


(b)itfacilitatedincreasedinteractionswithpeersandteachers;(c)itempoweredstudentsbyfosteringconfidenceintheiracademicabilities;and(d)itfosteredacademicgainsinwritingandmathematicswithinthelaptopgroup.

StudentmotivationAnimportantoutcomeofusinglaptopswasincreasedstudentmotivationand

persistenceincompletingschoolwork.Focusgroupandteacherinterviewdataindicatedthatlaptopstudentsbecamemoremotivatedtocompleteschoolworkandoftenwentbeyondrequiredassignments,therebyimprovingthequalityoftheirwork.Inoneinstance,fourthgradelaptopstudentsstudiedtheworkofWilliam Shakespearebyreadinganage-appropriateadaptationofMacbeth.Subsequently,theycreatedelectronicnewslettersonvariouseventsembeddedinthestory,suchasthemurderofKingDuncan.Betsyexplainedthatthestudentsreally lovedtheprojectandcontinuedworkingonitontheirown:

The students were so excited about creating electronic newslettersrelated toMacbeth. They completed outstanding work and we puteverythingon a bulletinboard in our schoolhallway. Someof thestudentsreallywantedtocontinueworkingontheproject.TheywenttothelibraryandreadotherbooksfromShakespeareontheirown.TheyreadHamletandRomeo and Julietandusedtheirlaptopstowriteentrieseverytimeamajoreventhappenedinthestory.SomestudentswroteandillustratedpoemsontheirlaptopsthatsupposedlyHamletwrotetohislovedones.Sotheyweredoingallthesehigher-ordertasksontheirown.Thereissomethingaboutpublishingtheirworkonthecomputerthatreallyexcitesthemandmotivatesthemtokeepgoingfurtherandfurther.ItaughtShakespeareinpreviousyearsbutthistimestudentsreallydevelopedabetterappreciationofShakespearebecauseoftheirincreased engagementwithhiswork.

Furthermore,studentstooktheinitiativetocomeupwiththeirownclass-roomprojectsthatmadeuseoftechnology.Agroupoffourthgradelaptopstu-dentsinitiatedaprojectwheretheyusedtheInterneteverymorningtorecordthetemperatureandpreparereportsontemperaturehighsandlows.Atthesametime,theypolledstudentsandcreatedgraphsonvarioustopics,suchashowmanystudentshadasweateronduringacolddayorhowmanystudentshadabottleofwaterwiththemduringahotday.Inanotherinitiative,studentsconductedtheirownschoolpollsandgeneratedreportswiththeirfindingsafterreadingarticlesfromanonlinemagazinecalledTIME for Kids14.Arlene,withmuchpride,explainedthisproject:

Firstwestartedtheprojectbyresearchingtopicsof interestsuchassports,famouspeopleetc.,ontheInternetandpresentingourfind-ingsbyactingasreporters.Butonedaywethought…whyshouldwe

14TIMEForKids(TFK)isaweeklyclassroomnewsmagazinepackedwithstoriesaboutworldandnationalevents,scientificdiscoveries,sports,entertainment,kidsinthenewsandmore.Morethan4millionstudentsreadTFKeveryweek.


alwaysbereportingaboutotherpeople?Weshouldbereportingonthingsthathavetodowithus.Soweconductedsurveyswithfourthandfifthgradestudentsaboutimprovementstheywantedtoseeatourschool.MostofthefifthgraderssaidtheywantedpizzaonFridaysandice-creaminthesummer.Otherkidssaidtheywantedair-conditioningforthesummerandsodamachines.

Theaboveexamplesclearlyillustratehowuseoflaptopsenabledlow-incomeminoritystudentstogobeyondrequiredschoolwork,directtheirownlearning,andengageinhigher-orderactivities.Manyoftheseactivitieswererefineddur-ingafter-schoolhoursasstudentscarriedtheirlaptopsathome.Duringfocusgroups,laptopstudentsreportedusingtheirlaptopsfrequentlyathometoim-provetheirhomework,practicetyping,learnnewcomputersskills,andfigureoutshortcutsthathelpedthemimprovetheefficiencyinwhichtheyperformedtasksonthecomputer.Incontrast,comparisonstudentsreportedusinghomecomputerswhenavailableprimarilyforgamesortochatonline.TheyindicatedavarietyofgamestheylikedtoplayonlinesuchasthoseavailablethroughtheCartoonNetwork,chess,andtradingcards.

ClassroomInteractionsandEmpowermentFindingsofthestudyalsodemonstratedincreasedinteractionamongstudents

andteachersinlaptopclassrooms.Specifically,laptopstudentsfrequentlytradedskillswithotherstudents,sharedtechnologyrelatedtips,andservedaspeertu-torsforbothtechnologyandnon-technologyrelatedtopics.Lisaemphasizedhowpeersharingandcollaborationwaskeytotheimplementationoflaptopsinherclassroom.Shenotedhowstudentswhofinishedtheirworkwouldvol-unteertohelptheirpeersbyprovidingtechnicaloracademicsupport.Betsyalsoacknowledgedthepowerfulroleoflaptopsinpromotingcollaborationandsharing.Shenoted:

Studentsareinteractinginamuchnicermannerwhentheyusetheirlaptopsthanwhentheyjustworkonaregulargroupactivityorinde-pendently.Whenwedoindependentwork,itismoredifficulttokeepthemontask.Butwhentheyworkingroupsusingtheirlaptops,theybehaveinaverycivilizedway,theyhelpeachother,andacceptthattheirpeerscanhelp themtoo.Even those studentswhomightnothavebeenlookedupontoprovidehelpinareassuchasmath,theyarenowaskedtoparticipateandprovidehelpwithotherrelatedskillsonthecomputer.

Inadditiontotradingskillswiththeirpeers,laptopstudentsoftensharedtheircompetencieswiththeirteacher.Infact,bothlaptopteachersattendedtrainingsessionsontheuseofWebdesignsoftwarealongwiththeirstudentssothattheycansupporteachotherbackintheclassroom.Intheirinterviews,teachersacknowledgedthatovertime,theylearnedtorelyontheirstudentsfortechnicalsupportsincetheywerefrequentlyverymuchquickerinpickinguptechnologyskills.Inessence,computershelpedexposesomeoftheteachers’


ownlimitationswithtechnology,empoweringthestudentstousetheircoach-ingandteachingskills.Joshua,afourthgradelaptopstudentexplained:

Weoftenteach the teachervarioustechnicalskills.Ifshedoesn’tknowsomethingsheasks:“Howdidyoudothat?”Liketheothertime,IhighlightedanddeletedalotofitemsatonceandshedidnotknowhowtodothatandItaughther.IwassurprisedbecauseIreallythoughtsheknewhowtodoit.

Otherteachersalsobeganacknowledgingstudentexpertiseandaskingfortech-nicalsupport.

Onthecontrary,comparisonstudentsofferedfarmorelimitedincidentsofhelpingtheirpeersortheteacher(e.g.,correctingsomethingthattheteacherwroteontheblackboard).Infact,whenaskediftheyevertaughttheteacheranything,athirdgradestudentreported:“Ihavenevertaughtmyteacherany-thing.Whenwetrytotellhimsomething,hedoesnotreallypayattention—hethinksheissmartanddoesnotneedourhelp.”

Inadditiontoassistingtheirpeersandotherteachers,laptopstudentswerefrequentlylookeduponbyfamilymembersandfriendstoprovidehelpwithtechnology.Asstudentsexplained,theyoftentaughttheirfriendshowtousethelaptopathome.Acquiringincreasedtechnologicalcompetenceandtradingskillswiththeteacher,aswellastheirpeers,providedlaptopstudentswithasenseofprideandempowerment.Thefourthgradeteachernoted:

Therearesomestudentswhoarequietandmightnotbeparticularlynoticedbyotherstudentsorteachers.Butwhentheygettotheirlap-top,theyshowcaseaspecialtalentandtheygetaconfidenceboost.Consequently,whentheygetpraisedandrealizethat theycanhelpotherstudents,theytryevenharder.

Will,alower-achievingfourthgradestudent,corroboratedBetsy’sobservationswhenhesaid:“IfeelproudwhenIteachtheteachersomething.Theteacherisalwaysteachingus,sonowIfeellikeit is my turn to teach you.”Whenfurtheraskedabouthowitfeelstobealaptopstudent,Luis,anotherfourthgrader,explained:“IfeelreallysmartbecauseIthinklaptopclassesareforsmartkids.”Thirdgradersalsoexpressedmoreconfidenceintheiracademicabilitiesandfeltthattheywouldbebetteroffastheyprogressinfourthgradebecauseoftheirtechnologyskillsandallthethingstheyhadlearnedthroughtheuseoftheirlaptops.

AcademicGainswithintheLaptopGroupUseoflaptopcomputersdidnotonlyimprovestudentmotivationandaltered

classroominteractionsbutitalsoproducedacademicgainsinwritingandmath-ematicswithinthelaptopgroup.Useofwordprocessingandconceptmappingsoftwareenhancedwritingby:(a)providingassistancewithspellingandgram-mar,(b)helpingstudentscommunicateideasmoreclearly,(c)redirectingatten-tiontothecontentratherthanthemechanicsofwriting,and(d)enablingtheproductionoflongerandmoresophisticatedwritingpieces.Betsydescribed:


Studentwriting improveddramaticallyover theyear.Useofword-processingsoftwarekeepsstudentsawareofwhat isgoingonwhentheywrite.Itupsetsthemseeingthegreenlineshighlightinggram-maticalerrorssotheygobackandtrytofixthem.Moreover,becauseuseofword-processingsoftwaremakesiteasiertoedit,studentsaremorewilling to rework theirwriting.Thisyear, I startedprovidingcommentselectronicallyandsavingthemonstudentdocuments.Thisway,thestudentscouldseemycommentsandreworktheirwritingbyaddingmoredetails,explainingthingsbetter,etc.Aswekeptgoingoverthistechniquethroughouttheyear,theirwritingbecamebetterandbetter.

Lisa,thethirdgradeteacher,alsoexplainedthatuseofword-processingandconceptmappingsoftwareenabledstudentstowritemoredetailedandsophis-ticatedpieces.Italsomotivatedstudentstoreadtheirpeers’writingbecauseofthelegibleprint.Asshenoted,therewasdefinitelyanincreaseinboththequal-ityandquantityofstudentwritingthroughouttheyear.

Studentsalsoindicatedthatuseoflaptopsimprovedtheirwritingbyprovid-ingassistancewithspelling,grammar,andthemechanicsofwriting.Fourthgradelaptopstudentsreported:

Carlos:Computershelpyoulearnhowtospell.Ifyoudonotknowhowtospellaword,youcanfigureitoutveryquickly.Diego:Youcanjusttypeitthewayyouknowandthenlookitupusingspell-checker.Also,ifyouspellsomethingwrong,thecomputerputsaredlineunderneathandyoucanrightclickonittohelpyoufindthecorrectword.Arlene:Andwhenyouuseapencil,sometimesitissloppy.Onthecomputeryoucanedityourworkwithoutmessingitup.

Besideswriting,useoflaptopsfosteredimprovementsinmathematics.BothBetsyandLisaexplainedhowextensiveuseofspreadsheetsreinforcedstudentunderstandingofmathematicalconcepts,fosteredanappreciationformath-ematics,andimprovedtheirgraphingcapabilities(e.g.,abilitytoconstructandinterpretdifferenttypesofgraphs).Lisaexplainedthatgraphingbecameasecondnatureforherstudentswhobecameaccustomedtoconstructinggraphsusingage-appropriatesoftware.Further,Betsyexplainedthatuseofspreadsheetsinmathematicshelpedstudentsenhancetheirunderstandingofdatamanipula-tionandanalysis.Sheindicatedthatstudentsbecameverygoodatcomparingdifferentsetsofdataandformulatingquestionsbasedonthosedata.

Focusgroupdatacorroboratedteacherresponses.Whenaskedontheimpor-tanceoflaptopsforlearning,thefourthgradestudentsexplained:

Carlos:Laptopshelpedus inmathematics.We learnedhowtousespreadsheetstodographs—wemadeadoublegraphforthesciencefairthatcomparedfindingsfromthescienceexperimentsweconductedthisyearwithfindingsfromlastyear’sfourthgradestudents.


Researcher:Howdoesmakinggraphsonthecomputerhelpyoulearnmore?Can’tyouusepaperandpencil?Carlos:Noit’sdifferent.WhenyoumakethebarsinMicrosoftExcelitiseasierandmoreaccurate.Ifyoudothemonpaper,theycomeoutcrookedormisleading.Theycomeoutperfectlyonthecomputer.Jen:Youcanalsopickdifferentkindsofgraphslikebargraphsorpiechartsandcanaddcolortocomparedata.Andwhenyoufinish,youcancopyandpastethegraphsinanotherprogramlikeWord,andthencomeupwithquestionsandanswersrelatedtothegraphs.

Thesefindingsaresignificantbecauselow-incomeminoritystudentsrarelyhaveextendedopportunitiestoworkoncomputersforlongperiodsoftimetoimprovetheirwritinganddevelophigher-ordermathematicalskillsinvolvedindatamanipulation.

Giventhelimiteduseofcomputersinnon-laptopclassrooms,neithertheteachersnorthestudentsdiscussedwaysinwhichtechnologyfacilitatedaca-demicimprovements.Useofcomputersforword-processingandInternetresearchdidnotalterinstructionalpracticesorthenatureoftheclassroomen-vironmentandteacherswereunabletowitnessclearbenefitsfortheirstudents.Comparisonteachers,however,didindicatethatword-processingsoftwarehelpedthosestudentswhocontinuedtostrugglewithfinemotorskillsandof-tenincreasedtheirmotivationforcompletingtheirwritingassignments.

DISCUSSIONThisstudyinvestigatedtheimplementationandoutcomesofalaptoppro-

graminanurban,under-privilegedschool.Thestudyfocusedonalimitednumberofclassroomsinordertoproviderichdatarelatedtolow-incomemi-noritystudentexperiencesinubiquitouscomputingenvironments.Specifically,thestudylookedatthewaysinwhichlaptopscanserveasvehiclesforbridgingthedigitaldivideandprovidinglow-incomeminoritystudentswithenrichedlearningexperiences.Laptopandnon-laptopclassroomswerepurposelyselectedtorepresentacomparablestudentpopulationthatwouldrevealinstructivedata.Although,toagreatextent,quantitativedatadidnotrevealsignificantdiffer-encesinattitudestowardcomputersandschoolbetweenlaptopandcomparisonstudents,theyprovidedcrucialinsightsthatcanguidefutureresearch.

Oneimportantinsightfromquantitativedatainvolvedtheinfluenceofgradelevelonstudentresponses.Findingsrevealedthatthirdgradersexhibitedhighercreativetendenciesthanfourthgradersandmorepositiveattitudestowardschool.Thisfindingmightbeattributedtodifferencesinthirdandfourthgradecurriculaandschoolcontext.Asstudentsprogresstohighergrades,curriculabecomemorecomplexandteachers’expectationsbecomehigher.Furthermore,fourthgradersareunderpressurebecauseofhigh-stakestestingrequirements.Duringtheyearthatthestudywasconducted,schooladministratorsconductedseveralextensivetestpreparationsessionswithallfourthgradersintheschool,oftenresultinginbothteachersandstudentsbecomingfrustrated.Theseeventslimitedtheamountoftimethatstudentscouldspendonsolvingproblemsin


differentwaysusingtechnologyandmighthavealsoinfluencedtheiroverallat-titudetowardschoolduetofrustrationandanxiety.Studiesonacademicintrin-sicmotivationwhichincludesschoolenjoymentandcreativetendencies,suchaspersistenceandthelearningofchallengingtasks,havedemonstratedthatacontrollingschoolenvironmentandacademicanxietyareinverselyrelatedtointrinsicmotivation(Gottfried,Fleming,&Gottfried,2001).

Quantitativedataalsosuggestedthatfourthgradelaptopstudentshadmorepositiveattitudestowardschoolthannon-laptopstudents.Thisfindingwasalsoclearlyevidentinfourthgradelaptopstudents’qualitativeresponses.Studentsappearedenthusiasticabouthavinglaptopsandreportedenjoyingschoolmore,sincecomputersallowedthemtolearnthingsindifferentwaysanddirecttheirownlearning.Asaresult,theybecamemoremotivated,exhibitedgreateraca-demicengagement,andoftenwentbeyondrequiredassignments.Thisfindinghasimportantimplicationsforstudentlearning.Whileresearchhasdemon-stratedthatmotivationdeclinesasstudentsprogresstohighergrades(Gottfriedetal.,2001),itappearsthatmeaningfuluseoftechnologycanhelpteacherssustainorincreasestudentmotivation.Developingsuchmotivationisimpor-tantforstudents’effectiveparticipationinschoolfunctionsandcanpredictacademicachievementasmeasuredbyreportcardgradesandteachers’ratings(Gottfried,1990).

Quantitativedata,however,demonstratedthatthirdgradelaptopstudentsdidnotenjoyschoolmorethanthirdgradenon-laptopstudents.Itispossiblethattheanxietyoverlearningnewcomputerskillsandthefearofdamagingorhavingtheequipmentstoleninfluencedstudentresponses.Thisfindingsuggeststhatfuturelaptopinitiativeswithyoungurbanstudentsmayneedtodevotetimefortechnicaltrainingtofamiliarizestudentswithcomputerequipment.Theymayalsoneedtoarticulatesecuritymeasurestohelpstudentsfeelprotected.

Resultsfromqualitativedatarevealedthatinthehandsofwellpreparedteacherswhovaluedtheuseoftechnology,laptopsenabledstudentstoengageinpowerfullearningexperiences.Laptopstudentsusedcomputersforsophisti-catedactivitiesthatincludedwrittenexpression,preparationofmultimediapre-sentationsforanaudience,anddataanalysisandinterpretation.Theseactivitiesnotonlycreatedenhancedmotivationandengagementwithschoolwork,butalsoinfluencedclassroominteractionsandcreatedasenseofprideandempow-ermentamonglaptopstudents.Suchbehaviorswerenotevidentamongcom-parisonstudents.Qualitativedataalsoshowedthatlaptopsproducedacademicgainsinareassuchaswritingandmathematicswithinthelaptopgroup.

Itisworthnotingthatdataforthestudywerecollectedduringthe2002–2003yearwhenlaptopinitiativeswerestillintheirinfancy.Infact,Microsoft’sAnytime,AnywhereLearningprogramwasthefirstlarge-scalelaptopinitia-tiveintheU.S.Sincethen,majoradvancesintechnology,includingpervasiveInternetconnectivity,provideadditionalteachingadvantagessuchasincreasedaccesstoinformationandresources.Accesstoinformation,however,doesnotautomaticallyresultinimprovedlearningopportunities.Specifically,Darling-Hammond(2007)foundthatwhilehistoricallyunderservedgroupsareget-tingimprovedaccesstoinformation,suchaccessdoesnottranslateintomore


challengingcurriculaandactivitiesthatemphasizeproblem-solvingandcriticalthinking.Thecurrentstudydemonstratedhowaccesstolaptopcomputersandproductivitysoftwarecanassistwell-preparedteachersdesignactivitiesthatallowstudentstothink,write,create,anddevelopmeaningfulprojects.Suchactivitieshavethepotentialtobridgedisparitiesineducationalaccesspresentintoday’sschools.

LIMITATIONSAswithotherempiricalinvestigations,thisstudyreflectssomelimitations.

First,thestudywasconductedinasingleschool.Studentsintheschoolwerepredominantlyminoritystudentsfromlow-incomehouseholdswhohadverylimitedaccesstotechnologyathome.Therefore,theresultsofthestudymaynotreflectalargerpopulationwithdifferentdemographiccharacteristicsandgreaterexposuretotechnologyathome.Second,neitherteachersnorstudentswererandomlyselected;laptopteachershadalreadydemonstratedacommit-menttointegratingdesktoptechnologyintheirclassroomandwereenthusias-ticabouttheopportunitytoteachinalaptopenvironment.Thus,resultsmaylookdifferentinlaptopinitiativeswhereteachersarenotgiventhechoiceofparticipation.Third,thelackofpre-testdatalimitsthestudyfromestablish-ingastrongercausalrelationshipbetweenaccesstolaptopsanddifferentiatedoutcomesinstudentattitudestowardscomputersandschool.Finally,thestudyspecificallyexaminestheimplementationandoutcomesofthelaptopinitiativeduringitsearlystages.Longer-termeffectsonteachingandlearningneedtobeevaluatedinfuturestudies.

CONCLUSIONLaptopprogramsrepresentanimportantclassofinitiativesinthefieldofedu-

cationaltechnologybecauseoftheirincreasedpopularityandtheirpotentialtobridgethedigitalanddidacticdividethatcurrentlyexistsinschools.Asaresult,abetterunderstandingofhow,when,andto what degreetheyworktosupportstudentlearning,particularlywithstudentpopulationsthathavenotreceivedmuchattentiontodateisneeded.Researchstudies,liketheoneundertakenhere,thatlinklaptopimplementationstrategiestospecificstudentattitudesandoutcomescanenhancetheeffectivenessoflaptopprogramsandtheirpotentialtoprovidelow-incomeminoritystudentswithenriched,authenticlearningexperiencesandskillsneededtoliveandworkinthe21stcentury.Asthisworkdemonstrated,ubiquitousaccesstotechnologyandaccesstowell-preparedteacherswhovaluetheexperiencesthattechnologyofferscanhelpensureequal-ityofdigitalopportunitiesamonglessadvantagedstudents.

Futurestudieswillneedtoincludealargerpopulationofteachersandstu-dentsinvolvedintheimplementationoflaptopprogramsinurbanschoolstofurtherinvestigatetheconditionsunderwhichsuchprogramscanhelpbridgethedigitaldivideineducation.Suchstudiesshouldalsofocusondevelopingmorereliabledatacollectioninstrumentsthatmeasureyoungchildren’satti-tudestowardtechnologyaswellasreliableassessmentsthatcanbettercapturecognitivegainsamongstudentsinlaptopclassrooms.


ACkNOWLEDGEMENTSThisworkwaspartlysupportedbyapostdoctoralfellowshipfromtheEdu-

cationalTestingService(ETS)andaGeneralUniversityResearchGrantfromtheUniversityofDelaware.Allopinionsaretheauthor’s.IwanttothankCarlTurner,KarenRege,NancyO’Laughlin,DarleneWinnington,RickKralevich,andMichaelGutierrezfortheirassistanceindataanalysis.

ContributorChrystallaMouzaisassistantprofessorofInstructionalTechnologyatthe

UniversityofDelaware.SheearnedherEdDininstructionaltechnologyandmediafromTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.Herresearchinvestigatesteachingandlearninginubiquitouscomputingenvironments,teacherprofes-sionaldevelopment,andconstructivistusesoftechnologyinK–12classrooms.(Address:ChrystallaMouza,132EWillardHall,SchoolofEducation,Uni-versityofDelaware,Newark,DE19716;Email:[email protected];Phone:302.831.3108;Fax:302.831.4110.)

ReferencesBecker,H.(2001,April).How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper

presentedattheAnnualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAs-sociation,Seattle,WA.RetrievedOctober8,2007fromhttp://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/how_are_teachers_using.pdf

Christensen,R.,Knezek,G.,&Overall,T.(2005).Transitionpointsforthegendergapincomputerenjoyment.Journal of Research on Technology in Edu-cation, 38(1),23–38.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2004).ThecolorlineinAmericaneducation:Race,resources,andstudentachievement.W.E.B. Du Bois Review: Social Science Re-search on Race, 1(2),213–246.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2006).Securingtherighttolearn:Policyandpracticeforpowerfulteachingandlearning.Educational Researcher, 35(7),13–24.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2007).Theflatearthandeducation:HowAmerica’scommitmenttoequitywilldetermineourfuture.Educational Researcher, 36(6),318–334.

Donahue,P.L.,Finnegan,P.L.,Lutkus,A.D.,Allen,N.L.,&Campbell,J.R.(2001).The nation’s report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000.NationalCenterforEducationStatisticsOfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovement,NCES2001-499.

Fairman,J.(2004).Trading roles: Teachers and students learn with technology. PaperpresentedattheAnnualConferenceoftheNewEnglandEducationalResearchOrganization,Portsmouth,NH.RetrievedOctober8,2007fromhttp://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/Reports/MLTI_Report3.pdf

Fulton,K.,&Sibley,R.(2003).Barrierstoequity.InG.Solomon,N.Allen,&P.Resta(Eds.).Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education(pp.14–24).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.


Garthwait,A.,&Weller,H.(2005).Ayearinthelife:Twoseventhgradeteach-ersimplementone-to-onecomputing.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4),361–377.

Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.L.(1967).Discovery of grounded theory: The strate-gies of qualitative research.Hawthorne,NY:AldinedeGruyter.

Gottfried,A.E.(1990).Academicintrinsicmotivationinyoungelementaryschoolchildren.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3),525–538.

Gottfried,A.,Fleming,J.S.,&Gottfried,A.W.(2001).Continuityofaca-demicintrinsicmotivationfromchildhoodthroughlateadolescence:Alongi-tudinalstudy.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,3–13.

Gottfried,A.E.,&Gottfried,A.W.(1996).Alongitudinalstudyofacademicintrinsicmotivationinintellectuallygiftedchildren:Childhoodthroughearlyadolescence.Gifted Child Quarterly, 40,179–183.

Knezek,G.,Christensen,R.,Miyashita,K.,&Ropp,M.(2000).Instruments for assessing educator progress in technology integration.Denton,TX:InstitutefortheIntegrationofTechnologyintoTeachingandLearning.

Ladson-Billings,G.(2006).Fromtheachievementgaptotheeducationdebt:UnderstandingachievementinU.S.schools.Educational Researcher, 35(7),3–12.

Light,D.,McDermott,M.,&Honey,M.(2002).The impact of ubiquitous por-table technology on an urban school: Project Hiller.NewYork:EDC/CenterforChildren&Technology.

Lowther,D.L.,Ross,S.M.,&Morrison,G.M.(2003).Wheneachonehasone:Theinfluencesonteachingstrategiesandstudentachievementofusinglaptopsintheclassroom.Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3),23–44.

Maxwell,J.A.(1996).Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Miles,M.M.,&Huberman,M.A.(1994).Qualitative data analysis(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Muir,M.,Knezek,G.,&Christensen,R.(2004).Thepowerofone-to-one:EarlyfindingsfromtheMainelearningtechnologyinitiative.Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(3),6–11.

NationalTelecommunicationsandInformationAdministration(NTIA).(1999).Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide.Availableat:http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/

Newhouse,C.P.,&Rennie,L.(2001).Alongitudinalstudyoftheuseofstu-dent-ownedportablecomputersinasecondaryschool.Computers & Educa-tion, 36(3),223–243.

Nunnally,J.C.(1978).Psychometric theory(2nded.).NewYork:McGrawHill.Partnershipfor21stCenturySkills(2003).The road to 21st Century

Learning: A Policymakers’ guide to 21st century skills.Available:http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/images/stories/otherdocs/p21up_Policy_Paper.pdf

Penuel,W.R.(2006).Implementationandeffectsofone-to-onecomputinginitiatives:Aresearchsynthesis.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3),329–348.


PewResearchCenter’sInternet&AmericanLifeProject(2000).Who’s not online.Available:http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Pew_Those_Not_On-line_Report.pdf

Rockman,S.(2000).A more complex picture: Laptop use and impact in the con-text of changing home and school access.SanFrancisco:Author.RetrievedOcto-ber8,2007fromhttp://www.microsoft.com/Education/aalresearch3.mspx

Rockman,S.(2003).Learning from laptops:Threshold. SanFrancisco:Author.Available:http://www.rockman.com/publications

Roschelle,J.,Pea,R.D.,Hoadley,C.M.,Gordin,D.G.,&Means,B.(2000).Changinghowandwhatchildrenlearninschoolwithcomputer-basedtech-nologies.The Future of Children, 10(2),76–101.

Russell,M.,Bebell,D.,&Higgins,J.(2004).Laptoplearning:Acomparisonofteachingandlearninginupperelementaryclassroomsequippedwithsharedcartsoflaptopsandpermanent1:1laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4),313–330.

Ryan,R.M.,&Deci,E.L.(2000).Intrinsicandextrinsicmotivations:Clas-sicdefinitionsandnewdirections.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,54–67.

Ryan,R.M.,&Grolnick,W.S.(1986).Originsandpawnsintheclassroom:Self-reportandprojectiveassessmentsofindividualdifferencesinchildren’sperceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,550–558.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation(2001).The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation.

VanHover,S.D.,Berson,M.J.,Bolick,C.M.,&Swan,K.O.(2006).Impli-cationsofubiquitouscomputingforthesocialstudiescurriculum(Repub-lished).Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,6(2).Avail-able:http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss2/socialstudies/article3.cfm

Wells,J.,&Lewis,L.(2006).Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,InstituteofEducationSciences.NCES2007-020.

Windschitl,M.,&Sahl,K.(2002).Tracingteachers’useoftechnologyinalaptopcomputerschool:Theinterplayofteacherbeliefs,socialdynamics,andinstitutionalculture.American Educational Research Journal, 39(1),165–205.

Zucker,A.A.,&McGhee,R.(2005).A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics andscience instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. Arlington,VA:SRIInternational.

jrte, (4), 447–472 learning with laptops: implementation ... · learning with laptops:...

Documents