When each one has one: The influences on teaching ......When Each One Has One: The Influences on Teaching Strategies and Student Achievement of Using Laptops in the Classroom Deborah

When Each One Has One: The Influences onTeaching Strategies and StudentAchievement of Using Laptops in theClassroom

Deborah L. LowtherSteven M. RossGary M. Morrison

In this study, we examined the educationaleffects of providing fifth-, sixth-, andseventh-grade students with 24-hour access tolaptop computers. Specifically we examinedthe impact of laptops on classroom activities,and on student use of technology and theirwriting and problem-solving skills.Participating teachers received computerintegration training using the iNtegratingTechnology for inQuiry (NTeQ) model todevelop problem-based lessons that engagestudents in critically examining authenticissues, and strengthen research and writingskills. A matched treatment-control groupdesign was employed, in which classes taughtat the same grade levels in five participatingschools served as the laptop (1 computer perstudent) and control (5+ computers per class)contexts. Participants included students,teachers, and parents from the two groups.Although systematic observations revealedrelatively few differences in teaching methodsbetween laptop and control classrooms, laptopstudents used computers more frequently,extensively, and independently. Writingassessment results showed substantial andsignificant advantages for laptop over controlstudents, with six of eight effect sizesexceeding +0.80. Results also showedsignificant advantages for the laptop group onfive of the seven components of theproblem-solving task.

Almost 20 years ago, Alfred Bork presentedthe following vision of how computers wouldsoon affect education:

We stand at the beginning of a major revolution in theway people learn . . .. We are moving rapidly toward afuture when computers will comprise the dominantdelivery system in education for almost all age levelsand in most subject areas. Not since the invention ofthe printing press has a technological device bornesuch implications for the learning process (1985, p. 3).

Judging by the recent developments in com-puter acquisitions, at least part of Bork’sprophesy might appear close to becoming real-ized in today’s schools. Not only are there manymore computers in schools than there were adecade ago, the proportion in classrooms rela-tive to computer laboratories is also increasing.For example, in 1995, 84% of 7,000 fourth-gradestudents reported that they had computers intheir classroom, and 79% had computer labs attheir schools (Jerald & Orlofsky, 1999). The ratioof students to computers is also declining everyyear (Meyer, 2001). In 1992, there were 19.2 stu-dents per instructional computer, whereas in2000, the number decreased to 4.0.

Realization of Bork’s “revolution,” however,would appear to require developments beyondmerely increasing the number of computersavailable to students. That is, whether there aremany or few computers at a school, the key fac-tor influencing teaching and learning is howcomputers are used. Accordingly, Windschitl

ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2003, pp. 23–44 ISSN 1042–1629 23

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 09-15-2003 / 18:20

and Sahl (2002) concluded from their study ofclassrooms in a laptop computer school, “theavailability of technology was neither a neces-sary nor a sufficient condition to affect peda-gogy” (p. 201). Although all of the students inthat study had their own computers, two out ofthe three teachers observed failed to use thetechnology in ways that substantially changedtheir former, teacher-centered approaches. In astudy of a middle-school context, Orrill (2001)found that even with extensive professionaldevelopment and student access to technology,teachers struggled to use computers in promot-ing student-centered learning.

From their review of events over the pastseveral decades, Morrison and Lowther (2002)concluded that society is increasingly recogniz-ing the need for developing computer skills thatare applicable to solving real-life problems. Inthis regard, the constructivist theoretical orienta-tions encourage student uses of the computer-as-a-tool for active inquiry and problem solving.Examples of constructivist environments inrecent literature are numerous, for example,Jasper Woodbury (Cognition & TechnologyGroup at Vanderbilt, 1992), education partner-ships such as the Computer as a LearningPartner Curriculum (Linn, Shear, Bell, & Slotta,1999), visualization tools for collaborative in-quiry such as CoVis (Edelson, Pea, & Gomez,1996), and Open-ended Learning Environments(e.g., Hannafin, Hall, Land, & Hill, 1994; Land &Hannafin, 1997; Oliver & Hannafin, 2001). Suchorientations, unfortunately, still occur infre-quently in typical classroom settings across theUnited States. (Hokanson & Hooper, 2000; Ross& Lowther, 2003). Notably, the most commoncomputer uses in elementary schools wererecently identified as word processing and skillgames (Becker, Ravitz, & Wong, 1999).

The educational technology applications rep-resented in many research studies and sup-ported in the literature as optimal for fosteringhigher-level learning often are based on the as-sumption that the hardware and softwareneeded to perform the tasks are readily availableto students. Despite increased access to com-puters by today’s K–12 students (National Cen-ter for Education Statistics, 2000), the challengesof designing effective instruction in general, let

alone computer-based lessons that addressstate-mandated content and standards of tech-nology practices (International Society for Tech-nology in Education, 1998), remain asdemanding on teachers as ever—perhaps evenmore so in the present high accountability era ofthe No Child Left Behind legislation (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 2001).

Teachers at many schools may find thatdespite their interest in integrating computerswith instruction, implementation of an effectivelesson can be hindered when each computer hasto be shared with five or more students (Hester,2002). Further, while teacher skills in workingwith technology are increasing (Pianfetti, 2001),recent findings indicate that nearly two thirds ofall teachers feel not at all or only somewhatprepared to use technology in their teaching(U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Further,in a different study, two thirds of the teachersreported never having used a computer prior tobeing introduced to one while working in aschool setting (Moe & Blodgett, 2000).

Thus, the question is whether or not thedesign and delivery of technology-supported in-struction would be more reasonable for teachersif every student had access to a computer. Whileit is common to try to resolve the access problemby having students work together in a group(Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990),cooperative learning in itself can be quitedemanding to design and deliver effectively(Nath & Ross, 2001). The teacher-designer isthus faced with trying to orchestrate studentsworking cooperatively while trying to manipu-late possibly unfamiliar technology applicationsto perform relatively complex learner-centeredtasks. Similarly, computer laboratories, al-though possibly providing students high accessto computers, bring the obvious inconvenienceof scheduling class time and moving studentsfrom the reference material and other resourcesof their regular classrooms.

These considerations suggest advantages for“laptop classrooms” as potentially optimal con-texts for integrating technology usage with cur-riculum. It was recently estimated that morethan a thousand schools are employing sometype of laptop program, and the number is in-creasing significantly (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).


24 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

An obvious advantage of laptops is that whenthey are brought to class, a student-to-computerratio of 1 : 1 can be achieved. Another advantageis increasing home-to-school linkages (Funk-hauser, Steif, & Allen, 1998). However, despitethese appealing features and the growing use oflaptops in schools, there are relatively few con-trolled studies of their effectiveness for learning.In a recent comprehensive review of research ontechnology used to enhance home-to-schoolconnections, Penuel et al. (2002) found only 12studies dealing with classroom laptops. Ofthese, only one was published in a refereed jour-nal. The studies in combination showed smallpositive effects of the laptop treatments on stu-dent achievement. Why such effects occurred,however, was unclear, because of inadequatedescriptions of the applications as well as ap-parent research design limitations in the iden-tified studies.

The present study was designed to providefurther insight into the degree to which schoollaptop programs can influence students’ educa-tional experiences and learning. The decision bya school district (to be referred to by the pseudo-nym, Crossriver School District) to implement astructured laptop program and provide bothlaptop and control classrooms within each par-ticipating school created an opportunity to ex-plore these basic questions. Research questionsand methodology for the study evolved from thepilot investigation described below.

Pilot Study: First-Year Laptop Program

The purpose of the pilot study (Ross, Lowther,Plants, & Morrison, 2000) was to examine first-year outcomes of Crossriver School District’simplementation in seven schools (four elemen-tary and three middle) of the laptop programbased on Anytime, Anywhere Learning (AAL,2000). Through the program, laptop computerswere made available to students for a monthlylease fee of fifty dollars. Because Crossriverpredominantly serves suburban middle-classfamilies, many students in the district were ableto participate. Grants from local foundationsprovided support to a limited number of stu-dents whose families could not afford the lease

fee. Still, because district capacity to support im-plementation of the program restricted the num-ber of laptop classrooms to only one or two pergrade, sampling was subject to whatever biaswould occur from families’ interest in andability to have their child participate.

Study context. The Laptop Pilot Program beganwith 26 teachers who taught grades 5 and 6.These teachers received more than 70 hours oftraining based on the iNtegrating Technologyfor inQuiry (NTeQ) model (Morrison & Low-ther, 2002). NTeQ provides teachers a frame-work to develop problem-based lessons thatutilize real-world resources, student collabora-tion, and the use of computer tools to reach solu-tions. The lessons are typically structuredaround projects that engage students in criticallyexamining community and global issues, whilestrengthening student research and computerskills.

Method. The research design for the pilot studywas based on the collection of quantitative andqualitative data from students, teachers, andparents associated with the laptop and control(nonlaptop) classrooms in the seven schools.The data set included 50 one-hour systematicclassroom observations of both basic pedagogyand technology usage, a district-administeredwriting sample, student surveys and focusgroups, a teacher survey and interview, and aparent survey and interview.

Results. The pilot study findings showed thatteaching was noticeably different in laptop com-pared to control classes. Statistically significanteffects favored laptop classes (with effect sizes >+0.59) on using more student-centered instruc-tional strategies. Examinations of specific tech-nology use also favored the laptop students overthe controls; for example, better computer skills,and more extensive use of computer applica-tions for research, production, writing, anddesign. With regard to achievement differences,laptop students outperformed control studentson a district writing test, with effect sizes rang-ing from +0.61 to +0.78.

The qualitative data overall painted a posi-tive picture of experiences in the pilot program.


USING LAPTOPS IN THE CLASSROOM 25

Both students and teachers viewed the laptopsas increasing interest in learning and stimulat-ing more meaningful classroom activities (as theobservation data confirmed). Parents felt thatthe laptops had increased their children’s inter-est in school. Drawbacks of the program werediscussed in relation to the logistics of carryingthe computers to and from school, equipmentbreakdowns, and demands for more teacherprofessional development.

Purposes of the Present Research

Aside from the positive qualitative results, ofparticular interest in the pilot study was thefinding of higher writing performance by laptopstudents. If laptops stimulate more active teach-ing and learning, it would seem logical thatstudents might achieve better than their counter-parts in more passive learning contexts. Unfor-tunately, internal validity threats reduce thelevel of confidence with which these prelimi-nary findings can be viewed. First, because thelaptop program was voluntary, it might be as-sumed that more capable or motivated studentsrelative to the control sample would participate.Because student identification was not collected,preprogram achievement data could not be ac-cessed for purposes of comparing the equiv-alence of the laptop and control students andmaking statistical adjustments if needed in writ-ing test scores.

Second, only laptop teachers had received theNTeQ training (Morrison & Lowther, 2002),which provided fairly extensive professionaldevelopment not only on technology integrationbut also on associated student-centered teachingmethods. Thus, the pilot study might have beenreflecting the effects of positive pedagogicalchanges that could just as easily have occurredin the absence of the laptop program. Third, al-though raising student achievement is an essen-tial criterion for identifying “proven practices”(U.S. Department of Education, 2002), the writ-ing assessment employed in the pilot studymight be viewed as a fairly limited indicator oflaptop program effects.

Given these considerations, we refined thedesign of the pilot study to incorporate: (a) ananalysis of preprogram achievement scores of

laptop and control students, (b) participantsamples of only those laptop and controlteachers who had participated in the sameNTeQ training, and (c) dependent measures ofstudent performance in both problem-solvingand writing skill. The two primary researchquestions were: (a) Is teaching and student be-havior different in laptop compared to controlclassrooms; and (b) Do students achieve dif-ferently in laptop classrooms? Also of interestfor explaining student classroom outcomes werethe reactions and interests of key stakeholdergroups (i.e., teachers, students, and parents).

METHOD

Participants and Design

Classroom selections for the study were madeacross the district under the criterion that a lap-top class and one or more comparable controlclasses were taught at the same grade level inthe same school. Control classes were defined asones where teachers received computer integra-tion (NTeQ) training and the classrooms wereequipped with 5–6 desktop computers, morethan the usual number for classrooms in the dis-trict. Five different schools, four middle and oneelementary, met these criteria. In Grade 6, twolaptop classes were linked to a single controlclass in the same school; thus, fewer control clas-ses than laptop classes participated. The resul-tant sample consisted of 21 classrooms (12laptop; 9 control) distributed across three gradelevels: 6 in Grade 5 (3 laptop; 3 control), 9 inGrade 6 (6 laptop; 3 control), and 6 in Grade 7 (3laptop; 3 control). From these grades, the par-ticipant sampling pools consisted of all teachers,students, and parents associated with the laptopprogram and comparable participant groups incontrol classrooms. Cross-treatment group con-tamination was not considered an issue becausethe only differing variable was access to com-puters. Varying numbers of participants wereincluded for different types of data collection asdescribed in Table 1 and in the sections below.

Importantly, for the purpose of establishinggroup equivalence, the district granted us per-mission to analyze the fifth-grade writing scores


26 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

on the district test, and science scores on thestate-mandated test, for 41 laptop and 39 controlseventh-graders. Fifth-grade scores were chosenbecause they reflect achievement prior to im-plementation of the laptop program. The resultsyielded an unanticipated mixed pattern. On thescience test, the laptop group (M = 43.49)demonstrated a significant advantage over thecontrol group (M = 37.18), F(1,78) = 10.18, p < .01,ES = +0.72. In contrast, on the writing test, thecontrol group (M = 2.82) demonstrated a sig-nificant advantage over the laptop group (M =2.53), F(1,78) = 10.18, p < .01, ES = –0.64. There isno clear explanation of this reversed pattern.However, these results still help to establish thatthe laptop sample, while superior to the controlgroup on a multiple-choice science test, clearlydid not enter the present study with an ad-vantage (and perhaps was at a disadvantage) forthe present achievement measures (writingsample and problem solving), both of whichwere open-ended writing-oriented tasks. In anycase, results must be interpreted in view of thelimitations of the ex post facto (subjectspreselected for treatments) research design.

Data Sources and Instrumentation

School Observation Measure (SOM©). Classroomvisits were conducted by trained observers fromgraduate education programs at Wayne StateUniversity. They collected data regarding ob-served instructional practices. While the ob-servers should have noticed that some classeshad more computers than others, they were un-aware of the purposes of the study and had nospecial interest in the results. The observation in-strument used, the SOM, was developed todetermine the extent to which different commonand alternative teaching practices are usedthroughout an entire school (Ross, Smith, & Al-berg, 1999). The standard SOM procedure invol-ves observers visiting 10–12 randomly selectedclassrooms, for 15 min each, during a 3-hr visita-tion period. The observer examines classroomevents and activities descriptively, not judgmen-tally. Notes are taken relative to the use or non-use of 24 target strategies. At the conclusion ofthe 3-hr visit, the observer summarizes the fre-quency with which each of the strategies was ob-served across all classes in general on a data

Table 1 Data source sample sizes by participant group

Total Number by Participant GroupEvaluation Measure Number Group Laptop classes Control classes

School Observation Measure 55 5th Grade 08 106th Grade 17 067th Grade 07 07

Survey of Computer Use 55 5th Grade 08 106th Grade 17 067th Grade 07 07

Writing Test 118 6th Grade 29 297th Grade 30 30

Problem-Solving Test 111 6th Grade 52 59

Student Survey 391 6th and 257 1347th Grade

Student Focus Group 71 5th Grade 06 056th Grade 05 067th Grade 27 22

Teacher Interview 03 Laptop teachers 03(1 @ 5th, 6th, & 7th)

03 Control teachers 03(1 @ 5th, 6th, & 7th)

District Parent Survey 66 Laptop parents orcaretakers



summary form. The frequency is recorded via a5-point rubric that ranges from 0 = not observedto 4 = extensively observed. Two global items use3-point scales (low, moderate, high) to rate, respec-tively, the use of academically focused instruc-tional time and degree of student attention andinterest.

The target SOM strategies include both tradi-tional practices (e.g., direct instruction andindependent seatwork) and alternative, pre-dominately student-centered methods associ-ated with educational reforms (e.g., cooperativelearning, project-based learning, inquiry, discus-sion, using technology as a learning tool). Afterreceiving the manual and instruction in a groupsession, each observer participates in sufficientpractice exercises to ensure that his or her dataare comparable with those of experienced ob-servers (i.e., the trainers). In a reliability study(Lewis, Ross, & Alberg, 1999), pairs of trainedobservers selected the identical overall responseon the 5-category rubric on 67% of the items andwere within one category on 95% of the items.Further results establishing the reliability andvalidity of SOM are provided in Ross, Smith, Al-berg, & Lowther (in press).

For the present study, the focus was the pro-gram within the school (laptop vs. control) ratherthan the whole school. Accordingly, laptop andcontrol teachers comprised the observationsamples. One SOM was based on 60 continuousminutes of prescheduled observation in oneclassroom. This observation was divided intoabout 4 (rather than 10–12) 15-min segments thatwere then summarized on one SOM Data Sum-mary form.

Survey of Computer Use (SCU©). A companioninstrument to SOM in this study was the SCU(Lowther & Ross, 1999). The SCU was com-pleted as part of the 1-hr observation. The SCUitems were compiled through examination of re-search, existing instruments (e.g., Apple Class-rooms of Tomorrow researched by Stuebing,Celsi, & Cousineau, 1994), focus groups of K–12teachers and administrators, researchers, collegefaculty, and a series of formative evaluationstrategies.

The SCU was designed to capture exclusivelystudent access to, ability with, and use of com-

puters rather than teacher use of technology.Therefore, four primary types of data arerecorded: (a) computer capacity and currency,(b) configuration, (c) student computer ability,and (d) student activities while using com-puters. Computer capacity and currency is definedas the age and type of computers available forstudent use and whether or not Internet access isavailable. Configuration refers to the number ofstudents working at each computer (e.g., alone,in pairs, in small groups). Student computerability is assessed by recording the number ofstudents who are computer literate (e.g., easilyused software features and menus, saved orprinted documents) and the number of studentswho easily use the keyboard to enter text ornumerical information.

The next section of the SCU focuses on stu-dent use of computers with regard to the types ofactivities, subject areas of activities, and softwarebeing used. The computer activities are dividedinto three categories based on the type ofsoftware tools used: (a) production tools (wordprocessing, databases, spreadsheets, draw-paint-graphics, presentation authoring, concept map-ping, and planning), (b) Internet or research tools(Internet browser, CD reference materials, andcommunications), and (c) educational software(drill-practice-tutorial, problem solving, andprocess tools). This section ends by identifyingthe subject area of each computer activity (lan-guage arts, mathematics, science, social studies,and other). The computer activities and softwarebeing used are summarized and recorded using a5-point rubric that ranges from (0) not observed to(4) extensively observed. The final section of theSCU is an “overall rubric” designed to assess thedegree to which the activity reflects “meaningfuluse” of computers as a tool to enhance learning.The rubric has four levels: 1 = low-level use of com-puters, 2 = somewhat meaningful, 3 = meaningful,and 4 = very meaningful.

The reliability of SCU was determined in astudy involving pairs of trained observers con-ducting SCU observations in 42 targeted visits toclassrooms that were scheduled to have stu-dents using technology. Results from the studyrevealed that overall, the paired observersselected the identical SCU response on 86% ofthe items, with all other responses being only


28 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

one rating apart. When looking at subcategoriesof the SCU, the percentage of times that pairedobservers selected the same response was as fol-lows: computer capacity and currency—83%;configuration—95%; student computer ability—70%; student activities while using computers—92%; subject areas of computer activities—88%,and overall rubric rating meaningfulness ofcomputer activities—88% (Lowther & Ross,1999).

Because computer capacity and currency wasan established condition of the study (laptop—1new computer per student; control—5+ newcomputers per classroom) and configurationdata were collected via the Student Survey, thepresent study used the last two SCU data sets,(a) computer ability and (b) student activitieswhile using computers.

Writing assessment. As a means of determiningthe impact of the laptop program on studentperformance, the school district’s Writing Scor-ing Guide was used to assess prompted writingsamples from laptop and control students. Thedistrict assessment examines four dimensions ofwriting: (a) ideas and content, (b) organization,(c) style, and (d) conventions. The rubricemployed categorizes the writing sample intoone of four levels on each dimension: 4 = mature,3 = capable, 2 = developing, and 1 = emerging. Acopy of the rubric criteria for each Dimension ×Level category is provided in Ross, Lowther, &Morrison, (2001).

All district students in Grades 3 through 8complete the writing test at the end of theacademic year. The assessment involves stu-dents being asked to write a letter of introduc-tion to their “new” teacher for next year. For thisstudy, the school district made available thesixth- and seventh grade writing scores. Fromthese data sets, 59 laptop and 59 control (seeTable 1) writing samples were randomlyselected for analysis. Experienced reviewersused the district’s 4-point rubric to conduct ablind assessment of the writing samples for eachof the four dimensions, yielding four scores perstudent.

Problem-solving assessment. To assess the abilityof students to comprehend problems and for-

mulate solutions, a problem-solving task wasdevised for this study with the assistance of agroup of sixth grade teachers. The task posed asituation dealing with the problem of used sodacans accumulating at city parks. The overallproblem was to help the Parks Commissionmotivate visitors to recycle their used cans.Specifically, students were asked to describe:

• How they would solve the problem,

• What materials and resources they woulduse, and

• If they would work with others.

They were then asked to answer the follow-ing questions:

• Which park has the largest number of cans inthe trash?

• How much money does the vending com-pany keep from cans that are turned in fordeposit?

• What are the benefits of recycling?

• What could be done to encourage people torecycle cans rather than put them in thetrash?

• How would one would determine if increas-ing the deposit amount would act as an in-centive to increased return of cans?

• How should the results be presented to theParks Commission?

Laptop and control teachers received writteninstructions for administering the problem-solv-ing task: Students had 45 min to complete thetask and were to take the test via computer,given that all sixth grade students in the districthad received computer literacy training;teachers were to read a statement instructingstudents not to include their name or any otheridentifying marks on their work.

Random samples of 52 laptop and 59 controlstudents in the sixth grade were administeredthe task. Trained reviewers from the graduateeducation programs at Wayne State Universityjudged the student responses on a rubric com-posed of 7 Components × 3 Performance Levels(see Figure 1). Components consisted of (a) un-derstands problem, (b) identifies what is knownabout problem, (c) identifies what needs to beknown to solve the problem, (d) determines howthe data need to be manipulated to solve the



problem, (e) describes use of technology, (f)describes how to present findings, and (g) col-laborative learning. The reliability of ratings wasassessed by having three raters independentlyevaluate 15 sets of randomly selected responses.Component means were computed for eachrater. Differences between the highest andlowest means on each component ranged fromonly 0.05 (technology) to 0.33 (understands

problem) with a median difference of 0.18. Inter-rater correlations across all components weremoderately high: +0.73, +0.75, and +0.79. Allreviews were done blindly, without knowingeither student identities or treatment conditions.

Student survey. The 36-item Laptop StudentSurvey was developed and field-tested duringthe pilot study (Ross et al., 2000). The Control

Component or Rating Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Understands problem. The overall problem- The overall problem- The overall problem-solving approach solving approach solving approach demonstrates a very somewhat demonstrates strongly demonstrates limited understanding a general understand- clear understanding of of the problem. ing of the problem. the problem.

Identifies what is known Provides a very limited Provides an incomplete Provides a complete and about the problem. or no description of what description of what is detailed list of what is

is known. known. known about problem.

Identifies what needs Provides no or a very Provides some reasoning Provides developed to be known to solve limited relationship as to how data and what rationale as to how data and the problem. between data and needs to be known what needs to be known

what needs to be known are related to problem- are related to solving to solve problem. solving. the problem.

Determines how the data Does not address data Provides indication Describes specific ways of needs to be manipu- manipulation. that data must be manipulating data to solve lated to solve the manipulated. problem.problem.

Describes use of Description of technology Describes specific Describes specific technol-technology. use is not included or technology or software ogy or software and specific

very limited, e.g., the that will be used to solve tasks that will be used to computer will be used to problem, but only provides solve problem, e.g., the get information. general tasks to be Internet will be used to

completed, e.g., the find information about Internet will be used to recycling paper.find information.

Describes how to Provides no or very Provides a general Describes details of how present findings. limited detail as to how description of how results and what results will be

results will be presented. will be presented. presented.

Collaborative learning. No mention of collab- Describes limited Describes a collaborative oration or independent collaboration, mostly for orientation with assigned orientation. sharing information or responsibilities and

obtaining help. extensive interactions with partners.

Figure 1 Problem-solving rubric.


30 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

Student Survey was designed to be identical inlength and context to the laptop version, exceptthat it referred to “school computers” or “homecomputers” rather than the “laptop computers.”The content included multiple choice, Likert-type items and open-ended questions. Internalconsistency reliability computed for the two sec-tions of the Laptop Student Survey involvingmultiple item scales (Section 1 on personal effectand Section 4 on skills, see below), usingCronbach’s alpha, was r = .795 and .854, respec-tively. For the control survey, the respectivereliabilities were r = .735 and .806. The surveyswere administered online during class time to257 laptop students and 134 control students.

Section 1 of the survey began by asking stu-dents how having the laptop had affected thempersonally. These items (n = 8) addressed thestudent’s writing ability, interest, and improve-ment in school, and if the laptop made school-work easier. A 3-point scale consisting of theresponse categories none, somewhat, and a lotmore was employed. A sample item is, “My com-puter skills are better because I have a laptop.”Section 2 (n = 7) explored if students workedwith other students while using the laptop andasked students to identify the subject areascovered in laptop lessons. A 4-point scale con-sisting of never, once a week, several times a week,and almost every day was used. The students thenwere asked in Section 3 (n = 3) to rate on thesame 4-point scale how often they used the lap-top at home, what laptop activities they did athome, and if other family members used thecomputer. The last questions in this section in-quired about Internet access in the home (n = 1,yes or no). If Internet access was available, stu-dents were asked to rate (n = 2), again using the4-point scale, how frequently it was used forschoolwork and other activities. In Section 4,students were asked to rate (n = 11) how wellthey used 11 different types of computersoftware (e.g., database, drawing, e-mail, games,etc.). The rating scale ranged from not at all tovery well. The final section asked open-endedquestions regarding the best and worst aspectsof having a laptop, how the laptop programshould be changed, and any other comments.

Student focus group. The student-focus-group

questions were targeted toward four majorareas: (a) overall impressions of the laptop (orgeneral computer) program, (b) classroom levelchanges, (c) student results, and (d) parentalsupport. Questions concerning classroom effectsasked students if they had more projects thisyear than previously, if the assignments weremore involved, if their schoolwork requiredmore research and writing, and if authentic as-sessment tools such as portfolios or rubrics wereused. Six focus groups, consisting of 71 random-ly selected students, were conducted by univer-sity researchers (see Table 1).

Teacher interview. Teacher-interview questionswere grouped into the same four areas as thestudent focus group, while including a fiftharea—impact on teachers. The latter sectionasked teachers how the program had affectedthem personally and in their relationship withother teachers. The teacher-interview par-ticipants were randomly selected from the poolof fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-grade laptop andcontrol teachers, resulting in six teachers beinginterviewed (one teacher per grade level pergroup; see Table 1). The interviews were con-ducted by university researchers.

District parent survey. In addition to the abovemeasures, we also informally examined resultsfrom a district parent survey. Survey items ad-dressed the best and worst aspects of the laptopprogram and asked for general comments.

RESULTS

The results are described below by instrument.Quantitative results were analyzed via ap-propriate nonparametic tests, analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA), for the dependent meas-ures of concern. Qualitative analyses, guided byMiles and Huberman’s (1994) analysis model,were performed on open-ended survey and in-terview responses. The procedure consisted oftranscribing ideas and concepts, deriving pat-terns and concepts, identifying themes, andrevising and refining results, based on memberchecking and inter-rater review. Once a final set



of themes was established for each question, thedata were examined to derive frequencies of oc-currence for the respondent groups. Using thisprocedure, we were able to supplement theclosed-ended responses by determining for eachquestion the major themes, and the manner andfrequency with which the themes were ex-perienced by individuals.

SOM

As indicated in the description of SOM, the ob-servation procedure focused on 24 instructionalstrategies using a 5-point rubric (0 = not observed,1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 =extensively). Two additional items use a 3-pointscale (1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = high) to rate thedegree to which academically focused class timeand student engagement are evidenced. Thetotal number of observations completed was 32for the laptop teachers and 23 for the controlteachers.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results for thelaptop and control classrooms, respectively. Forlaptop, strategies viewed occasionally or morein at least 40% of the classrooms include directinstruction (44% total), teacher acting as coach orfacilitator (44%), independent seatwork (41%),and technology as a learning tool (59%). For con-trol classrooms, the parallel listing includesdirect instruction (57%), higher-level question-ing (52%), and independent seatwork (52%) (seeTable 4). Generally, control classes reflectedusage of more traditional, teacher-centeredstrategies than did laptop classes. It should alsobe noted that on the final two summary items,academically focused class time was rated ashigh in 72% of the laptop visits (Table 2), whilelevel of student interest or engagement wasrated as high in 62%. In control classes (Table 3),by comparison, these ratings were 70% and 44%,respectively. The higher level of student interestor engagement in the laptop classrooms couldlogically be attributed to students having con-tinual computer access.

Because of unequal variances across items,the large number of items, and the somewhatsmall sample sizes, statistical assumptions forMANOVA were not met. Instead, we employed

separate t tests for independent samples com-paring the means for laptop and control classeson each SOM item in each grade. To determinethe strength of any significant outcomes, wecomputed effect sizes by Cohen’s d formula(Cohen, 1988) using the pooled standard devia-tion in the denominator. Significant results aresummarized in Table 5. All showed effect sizesexceeding +0.80 in absolute value, indicatingstrong and educationally meaningful effects.

In Grade 5, results strongly favored the lap-top classes on using technology as a learningtool (ES = +1.25) and on level of student atten-tion or interest (ES = +0.89). The control group,however, was favored on use of higher-levelquestioning (ES = –1.08) and integration of sub-ject areas (ES = –0.98). Only one significant dif-ference occurred in Grade 6: Laptop classesmade more extensive use of technology as alearning tool than did control classes (ES =+1.31). None of the comparisons was significantin Grade 7.

SCU

Findings on the SCU are summarized for allgrades combined for both laptop and controlstudents in Table 6. Comparisons between lap-top and control classes were made using chi-square tests of independence. Due to insufficientcell frequencies, the three grades were combinedfor these analyses. With regard to computerabilities, laptop students were rated significant-ly higher than were control students on com-puter literacy (p < .05) and keyboarding skills (p< .05). The Production Tools section of Table 5reflects use of word processing as the primaryproduction activity in both laptop and controlclasses. At least occasional use of word process-ing was observed in 57% of the laptop classesand in 24% of the control classes, a significantcontrast (p < .05). There were directional butnonsignificant tendencies for laptop students tomake greater use of the Internet browser andCD-ROM referencing than did control students.

Scores on the overall rubric concerningmeaningfulness of computer usage (1 = low-leveluse, 4 = very meaningful use) were analyzed via at test for independent samples. Results showed


32 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

the laptop classes (M = 2.12) to have a nonsig-nificant advantage (p < .10) over control classes(M = 1.78). Analyses conducted separately bygrade showed comparable outcomes. However,in Grade 6 only, laptop students (M = 2.50) wererated significantly higher than control students(M = 1.00) on the overall rubric, t(17) = 5.14, p <.001, ES = +1.43.

Writing Achievement

Sixth grade. The performed MANOVA on thefour writing dimensions yielded F(4, 53) = 8.87,p < .001, indicating a highly significant programeffect favoring the laptop group (see means onTable 7). ANOVAs were highly significant (p <.001) on three of the four ratings: (a) Ideas andContent, (b) Organization, and (c) Style. Thefourth (Conventions) approached significance (p= .053). Effect sizes ranged from +0.53 to +1.47,with those for the three significant componentsall exceeding +1.00. Effects of this magnituderepresent strong and educationally importantinfluences (Cohen, 1988).

Seventh grade. The MANOVA yielded F(4, 55) =4.133, p < .005, again indicating a highly sig-nificant program effect. Univariate analysesyielded significant differences favoring the lap-top students on each of the four dimensions (seeTable 6). Effect sizes were moderate to strong inmagnitude, ranging from +0.59 on Conventionsto +0.94 on Style.

Problem-Solving Achievement

A MANOVA comparing the means of laptopand control sixth-grade students on the sevenproblem-solving components yielded a highlysignificant difference, F(7, 103) = 3.378, p = .003.Follow-up analyses (see Table 8) showed sig-nificant advantages for the laptop group on fiveof the seven components. Effect sizes rangedfrom +0.38 to +0.76, the latter associated with“Understands Problem.”

Student Survey

Laptop students. A total of 257 laptop studentscompleted the student survey (see Table 1).Return rate approximated 100% of the studentsattending class on the day of administration.Given the many items and the extensiveness ofthe descriptive data, we will provide only asummary of major findings here. A moredetailed reporting can be found in a comprehen-sive technical report (Ross et al., 2001).

With regard to possible program effects, thelaptop students were highly positive that theircomputer skills had increased (75% responded,“a lot more”), and they could do Internet re-search to find information (74.%). A strongmajority (80%) were glad that they had a laptopcomputer and wanted to use a laptop computeragain the following year (78%). Students wereless committal that having a laptop increasedtheir interest in learning (34% responded, “a lotmore”), in getting better grades (24%), or inworking with other students (30%).

Other survey questions dealt with the condi-tions under which computers were used inschool and at home. Almost one half (46.2%) ofthe students generally worked with the laptopby themselves in the classroom every day. How-ever, nearly all (91%) worked with one other stu-dent at least once a week, while about 76%worked with a group or team at least once aweek. The most common subjects involved inlaptop uses were language arts (53% “almostevery day”) and social studies (32%). More thanhalf of the students (64%) reported using the lap-top at least several times a week for completinghomework, while even more (71%) reportedregular uses for “other things.” About a third ofthe respondents (31%) reported use by otherfamily members at least one time a week.

There was moderate use of the laptop for In-ternet access to complete homework (47% atleast several times a week), but more frequentuse of the Internet for “things other than school-work” (71% at least several times a week). Thetypes of school-related activities included re-search for projects, checking class Web pages forassignments, meeting in chat rooms to discussprojects, or asking the teacher or other studentsschool-related questions. When asked to assess



Table 2 SOM descriptive data for laptop classrooms: Frequency of observed strategies (allgrades combined)

None Rarely Occasionally Frequently ExtensivelyStrategies (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Instructional OrientationDirect instruction (lecture) 31.3 25.0 18.8 15.6 9.4Team teaching 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cooperative or 78.1 6.3 9.4 6.3 0.0 collaborative learningIndividual tutoring (teacher, 96.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 peer, aide, adult volunteer)

Classroom OrganizationAbility groups 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Multiage grouping 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Work centers (for individuals or groups) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Instructional StrategiesHigher-level instructional 59.4 15.6 12.5 6.3 6.3 feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learningIntegration of subject areas 93.8 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 (interdisciplinary-thematic units)Project-based learning 77.4 0.0 3.2 3.2 16.1Use of higher-level 50.0 12.5 9.4 21.9 6.3 questioning strategiesTeacher acting as a coach 43.8 12.5 12.5 18.8 12.5 or facilitatorParent/community involve- 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ment in learning activities

Student ActivitiesIndependent seatwork 59.4 0.0 6.3 12.5 21.9 (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments)Experiential, hands-on 84.4 3.1 0.0 3.1 9.4 learningSystematic individual instruction 96.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 (differential assignments geared to individual needs)Sustained writing- 65.6 3.1 6.3 15.6 9.4 composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics)Sustained reading 87.5 3.1 0.0 6.3 3.1Independent inquiry-research 62.5 9.4 6.3 9.4 12.5 on the part of studentsStudent discussion 78.1 0.0 3.1 6.3 12.5

Technology UseComputer for instructional 87.5 6.3 3.1 3.1 0.0 delivery (e.g. CAI, drill & practice)Technology as a learning tool 34.4 6.3 6.3 15.6 37.5 or resource (e.g. Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD-ROM, laser disk)

AssessmentPerformance assessment strategies 90.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 6.3Student self-assessment (portfolios, 84.4 6.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 individual record books)

Summary Items Low Moderate High

Academically focused class time 10.3 17.2 72.4Level of student attention/interest/engagement 10.3 27.6 62.1

Note. SOM = School Observation Measure


34 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

Table 3 SOM descriptive data for control classrooms: Frequency of observed strategies (allgrades combined)

None Rarely Occasionally Frequently ExtensivelyStrategies (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Instructional OrientationDirect instruction (lecture) 39.1 4.3 13.0 26.1 17.4Team teaching 95.7 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0Cooperative or 82.6 0.0 8.7 4.3 4.3 collaborative learningIndividual tutoring (teacher, 91.3 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 peer, aide, adult volunteer)

Classroom OrganizationAbility groups 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Multiage grouping 95.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3Work centers (for individuals 91.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.3 or groups)

Instructional StrategiesHigher-level instructional 65.2 0.0 4.3 26.1 4.3 feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learningIntegration of subject areas 52.2 13.0 13.0 13.0 8.7 (interdisciplinary-thematic units)Project-based learning 69.6 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4Use of higher-level 47.8 0.0 17.4 26.1 8.7 questioning strategiesTeacher acting as a coach 47.8 17.4 8.7 21.7 4.3 or facilitatorParent/community involve- 95.7 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 ment in learning activities

Student ActivitiesIndependent seatwork 39.1 8.7 17.4 21.7 13.0 (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments)Experiential, hands-on 82.6 0.0 4.3 8.7 4.3 learningSystematic individual instruction 91.3 0.0 4.3 4.3 0.0 (differential assignments geared to individual needs)Sustained writing- 60.9 0.0 13.0 21.7 4.3 composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics)Sustained reading 73.9 4.3 8.7 4.3 8.7Independent inquiry-research 78.3 0.0 4.3 4.3 13.0 on the part of studentsStudent discussion 73.9 4.3 8.7 13.0 0.0

Technology UseComputer for instructional 95.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 delivery (e.g. CAI, drill & practice)Technology as a learning tool 82.6 0.0 4.3 4.3 8.7 or resource (e.g. Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multimedia, CD-ROM, laser disk)

AssessmentPerformance assessment strategies 73.9 4.3 8.7 8.7 4.3Student self-assessment (portfolios, 87.0 4.3 4.3 0.0 4.3 individual record books)

Summary Items Low Moderate High

Academically focused class time 8.7 21.7 69.6Level of student attention/interest/engagement 17.4 39.1 43.5

Note. SOM = School Observation Measure



their skills in using different types of software,the laptop students rated themselves the highestin word processing (78% “very well”), followedby CD-ROM encyclopedias (67%), and Power-Point® (66%).

The four final survey items were open ended.The first asked students what they felt were thebest aspects of the laptop program. The majorityof the responses (56% of 257) indicated that thelaptop made schoolwork easier, faster, and morevaried due to the use of the Internet and CD-ROM resources. The next most common

response was playing games and visiting newWeb sites (16%). The next question asked aboutthe hardest part of the laptop program. Almosthalf (42%) of the students responded that thelaptop computer was heavy and difficult tocarry when combined with books and band in-struments. Less frequent comments referred tocomputer breakage, slow or poor service, main-taining the laptop, and learning how to use it.When asked what they would change about thelaptop program, students wanted fewer restric-tions and rules regarding the use of games andthe Internet 20%), more time to use the com-puters during class (19%), a different brand oflaptop (19%), and computers that were lighterand easier to carry (16%). About one third (35%)of “additional comments” (f = 82) were positiveaffirmations that the students liked having a lap-top. Many students (20%) also indicated thatthey wanted the program to continue but to in-clude all students.

Control student survey. A total of 134 control stu-dents completed the student survey. Because thedescriptive results for the control students are oflimited interest in the present study, we willfocus primarily below on items associated withsignificant relationships (in two-way chi-squaretests of independence) between survey responseand participant groups (see Ross et al., 2001, fora full reporting of control group responses).

Regarding program effects, most of the con-

Table 4 SOM strategies viewedoccasionally or more in 40% ofthe classrooms

Laptop ControlStrategies % %

Technology as a Learning Tool 59 17Direct Instruction 44 57Teacher as Coach or Facilitator 44 35Independent Seatwork 41 52Higher-level Questioning 38 52

Note. Scale: 0 = not observed, 1 = rarely observed, 2 =occasionally observed, 3 = frequently observed, 4 =extensively observedSOM = School Observation Measure

Table 5 Summary of items showing significant program differences on the SOM by grade

Laptop ControlSignificant Items M SD M SD t ES

Grade 5Technology as a learning tool 1.88 1.89 0.20 0.63 2.41* 1.25Use of higher-level questioning 0.38 0.52 1.60 1.43 –2.51* –1.08Integration of subject areas 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.95 –2.33* –0.98Level of student attention or interest 3.00 0.00 2.50 0.71 2.24* 0.89Grade 6Technology as a learning tool 2.18 1.91 0.00 0.00 4.69** 1.31

Note. Scale: 0 = not observed, 1 = rarely observed, 2 = occasionally observed, 3 = frequently observed, 4 = extensivelyobserved*p < .05, **p < .01SOM = School Observation Measure


36 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

Table 6 Survey of computer use data summary: Laptop vs. Control for all grades combined

Not observed Rarely Occasionally Frequently ExtensivlyGroups % % % % %

Student Computer AbilityLaptop Students were computer literate* 25.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 67.9

Students easily used keyboard* 25.0 0.0 3.6 7.1 64.3Control Students were computer literate 64.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 28.0

Students easily used keyboard 64.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 24.0

Production Tools Used by StudentsLaptop Word Processing 39.3 3.6 3.6 7.1 46.4

Database 96.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6Spreadsheet 96.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6Draw, paint, or graphics 85.7 3.6 3.6 7.1 0.0Presentation (e.g., PowerPoint) 89.3 0.0 3.6 3.6 3.6Authoring (e.g., HyperStudio) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Concept mapping (e.g., Inspiration) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Planning (e.g., MS Project) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control Word Processing 76.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 16.0Database 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Spreadsheet 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Draw, paint, or graphics 92.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0Presentation 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Authoring 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Concept mapping 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Planning 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Internet or Research Tools Used by StudentsLaptop Internet browser (e.g., Netscape) 60.7 3.6 10.7 7.1 17.9

CD reference (encyclopedias, etc.) 82.1 3.6 3.6 3.6 7.1Communications 96.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control Internet browser 76.0 4.0 12.0 0.0 8.0CD reference 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Communications 96.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Educational Software Used by StudentsLaptop Drill, practice, tutorial 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Problem solving (e.g., SimCity,) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Process tools (Geo. Sketchpad) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control Drill, practice, tutorial 96.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0Problem solving 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Process tools 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Language Social Other Arts Mathematics Science Science

Subject Areas of Computer Activities % % % % %

Laptop Production tools** 5.6 44.4 5.6 11.1 33.3Internet or research tools* 8.3 33.3 8.3 8.3 41.7Educational software 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control Production tools 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Internet or research tools 66.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 25.0Educational software 88.9 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0

*p < .05, ** p < .001



trol students (54%), but significantly (p < .001)fewer than the laptop group (75%) felt that theircomputer skills had increased as a result ofhaving access to classroom computers. The con-trol students tended to feel less strongly that ac-cess to computers increased their interest inlearning (p < .001) and in earning better grades(p < .05). About half (compared to three fourthsof the laptop group) felt that using school com-puters improved their skills in writing to somedegree (p < .001). Although 65% of the controlgroup wanted to use computers again in classnext year, this response was less positive (p <.05) than the 78% agreement by the laptop group.

Understandably, only 32% of the control stu-dents, as compared to 46% of the laptop stu-dents, worked with the computer by themselves

every day (p < .001). In general, control studentshad relatively few opportunities compared tolaptop students to complete computer workwith another student (p < .001) or with a team (p< .001). For each school subject listed on the sur-vey (e.g., language arts, mathematics, socialstudies, science), control students conveyed sig-nificantly less (p < .001) usage of computers thandid laptop students.

Control students reported less use of the In-ternet to complete homework than did laptopstudents (p < .001), but more frequent use of theInternet for “things other than schoolwork” (p <.05). Control students tended to rate themselvessignificantly lower (p < .05) in skills than did lap-top students on the majority of software types:database, drawing, Internet searches, Power-

Table 8 Descriptive and inferential results for comparisons between laptop and control 6thgrade students on the problem solving assessment

Laptop ControlComponent or rating M SD M SD F(7,103) p ES

1. Understands problem 2.56 0.67 1.98 0.84 15.59 .000 +0.762. Identifies what is known

about the problem 2.29 0.78 1.71 0.85 13.76 .000 +0.723. Identifies what needs to be

known to solve the problem 1.88 0.73 1.56 0.70 5.70 .019 +0.454. Determines how data

should be manipulated to solve problem 1.67 0.76 1.41 0.62 4.13 .044 +0.38

5. Describes the use of technology 1.33 0.71 1.08 0.38 5.19 .025 +0.44

Table 7 Descriptive and inferential results from comparisons between laptop and controlstudents’ writing dimensions

Laptop ControlComponent or Rating M SD M SD F(1, 58) p ES

Grade 61. Ideas and content 3.45 0.73 2.17 1.04 23.60 .000 +1.432. Organization 3.55 0.78 2.34 0.86 21.12 .000 +1.473. Style 3.20 0.82 2.34 0.77 10.78 .000 +1.104. Conventions 3.52 0.74 3.21 0.41 1.40 .053 +0.53

Grade 71. Ideas and content 2.73 0.91 2.00 0.69 12.36 .001 +0.902. Organization 2.60 1.00 1.87 0.73 10.47 .002 +0.833. Style 2.63 0.96 1.90 0.55 13.12 .001 +0.944. Conventions 3.43 0.50 3.13 0.51 5.28 .025 +0.59

Note. Scale: Mature (4), Capable (3), Developing (2), Emerging (1).


38 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

Point®, Excel®, word processing, encyclopedia,and calendar or telephone book.

In summary, the survey results showed thatthe control students were acquiring regularcomputer experiences but in ways less diver-sified in scope and less connected to everydayclassroom instruction than did laptop students.Control students felt positively about usingcomputers and were fairly regular users of theInternet, albeit mostly for activities other thanschool work. They mostly worked with com-puters individually, and viewed themselves asskilled in more routine software applicationssuch as e-mail, games, and word processing.Their perceived skill levels with more sophisti-cated tool software was consistently less thanthat of the laptop group.

Student Focus Groups

Results of the six student focus groups (3 laptop;3 control) are synthesized below.

Laptop students. Students were very positiveabout having a laptop, and indicated that thebest aspects were easy access to online resour-ces, ease of creating and editing work, andability to make assignments look much better.Students indicated that the worst aspects ofhaving the laptop was dealing with technicaldifficulties and carrying it to and from school.

All of the students indicated that the laptophad influenced classroom-level changes infostering more project work, research, higher-level thinking, writing, and cooperative learn-ing. When asked if having the laptop hadinfluenced their personal learning, studentresponses were positive, with some indicatingthat it had helped them to be more organizedand that access to online resources had in-creased their knowledge. Responses were mixedwith regard to the impact on student-to-studentor student-to-teacher communication. Somestated that communications had increased fromthe use of e-mail and instant messenger, where-as some indicated no noticeable changes.

Students reported that their parents weregenerally very positive about the program butthat some became frustrated when the laptopwas not working or repairs took too long. The

most common reply regarding reactions of otherfamily members was “jealousy.” Students feltthat communication between parents andteachers had not really increased, but many indi-cated that the form had changed from face-to-face to e-mail correspondence.

Control students. In general, the control studentsliked having computers in their classroom, stat-ing that the best parts were that it made writingassignments easier than with paper and pencil,that research is easier, and that they like thespell-checker. The worst parts were having towait to use a computer, forgetting to save work,and experiencing technical difficulties.

In contrast to the laptop students, the controlstudent responses were mixed with regard towhether or not having classroom computers hadcaused an increase in project work, required re-search, amount of writing, working with otherstudents, or the use of portfolios and rubrics.Control students gave similar mixed responseswhen asked about the impact of the computerson student learning. In general, control studentswere positive about classroom computers butdid not see the technology as substantivelychanging teaching and learning activities.

Teacher Interviews

A total of six teacher interviews were conductedwith one randomly selected laptop and one con-trol teacher from each grade level (fifth, sixth,and seventh).

Laptop teachers. The three laptop teachers werevery positive about the overall laptop program.They identified the most effective aspects of theprogram as the improved ability of students touse the computer and to conduct Internet-basedresearch. There was general agreement that thetwo most difficult aspects of the program were(a) monitoring use of the Internet and (b) techni-cal difficulties, yet each teacher indicated thatthe positive aspects of having laptops out-weighed the negatives. Detailed reporting ofresults are provided in Ross et al. (2001); a sum-mary of primary themes are presented here.

According to the fifth-grade teacher, laptopstudents were more eager to engage in project-



based activities, worked more cooperativelyduring projects because they could e-mailproducts to team members, and were better ableto “find current information quicker.” Thisteacher also indicated that students were betterwriters because they “are not afraid to write—they can delete and redo a paper much easier.”The sixth-grade teacher reported that morescience and social studies projects were as-signed, more cooperative learning was used,and student writing skills had improved. Thatteacher also indicated that the degree of higher-level learning had increased because “I expectmore out of my students.” The seventh-gradeteacher felt that the laptops enhanced student re-search skills, ability to work together, and inter-disciplinary learning because content areainformation, such as in social studies, could betransferred into graphing software to reinforcemath skills. This teacher was less certain thatwriting was positively affected because of stu-dent reliance on grammar and spell check tools.

Control teachers. The classrooms of the threecontrol teachers each had five or more com-puters available for student use. Overall, theteachers were supportive about the computers,but indicated a desire for more computers todecrease the student-to-computer ratio. Themost effective aspects of having computers werenoted as access to the Internet, and assignmentsthat were word processed and thus easier toread. Like the laptop teachers, the controlteachers felt that the most difficult aspects weremanagement of student Internet use, and equip-ment failures. However, unlike the laptopteachers, they also experienced difficulty due tostudent unfamiliarity with computer use.

The control teachers were mixed concerningpositive effect of computer use on classroom ac-tivities, students, parental support, and theteachers themselves. For example, regarding in-fluence of the computer on student writing, thesixth-grade teacher saw positive effects, whilethe seventh-grade teacher felt that students“think the grammar and spell check are suffi-cient, so they are not as willing to correct theirpapers.” All three indicated little if any impactof computers on the use of cooperative learning.

Control teacher responses with regard to ef-

fect of classroom computers on students wereagain mixed. The sixth-grade teacher indicatedthat students “stayed on task, listened, focused,and worked harder when using computers.”The seventh-grade teacher, on the other hand,reported that students, “become irritated whenequipment does not work, fight over time con-straints on the computer, and are disgruntledabout lack of supplies (e.g., ink, paper).” Theyalso indicated increased classroom managementdemands because of technical difficulties andstudent lack of interpersonal and technical skills.

Parent-Caretaker Reactions

Laptop parents were given the opportunity toreact to their child’s involvement as part of theschool district’s formative evaluation of the pro-gram. A total of 66 laptop parents or caretakers(out of approximately 300) returned open-endedcomments in response to three general ques-tions. Although these responses cannot beviewed as necessarily representative of percep-tions by the total parent population, they arebriefly reviewed as possible indicators of pro-gram strengths and weaknesses.

In commenting on the “best thing about thelaptop program,” more than one third of therespondents indicated that having the laptophad increased their child’s level of computerskills, 31% thought the laptop had helped theirchild with school-related work such as researchand writing skills, and 20% felt the laptop hadhelped increase other skills such as organizationand ability to accept responsibility. For example,one respondent wrote, “Her ability to work withcomputers, all types, is unbelievable . . . this willdo wonders for success in her future.” Anotherindicated, “He has stopped complaining aboutwriting and doing projects. He spends timecreating his papers instead of rewriting them.”

On the other hand, about one fourth of theparent responses indicated that the worst aspectof having the laptop was that it was hard fortheir child to carry, especially when other booksand a band instrument also had to be carried.Approximately the same number (24%) thoughtthat computer breakage and dealing with arepair service was the most difficult aspect (e.g.,


40 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

“My daughter’s laptop was down for almostthree weeks and they do not have loaners touse.”). Other comments included concerns thatthe laptops were not used enough for education-al purposes (13%) and that they decreased theirchild’s practice with handwriting, spelling, andlibrary use (11%).

In making additional comments, sevenrespondents expressed concerns about the equi-ty of laptop distribution and use. Such senti-ments are exemplified by the followingcomments:

The school has made some major mistakes in their im-plementation of this program. There is a separation be-tween the “laptop” kids and the “nonlaptop” kids, andour district makes this separation wider by such thingsas having the “laptop” students in one hall, and all“nonlaptop” students in another. Technology is notthe “be all and the end all” in education. It is simplyanother tool. I wish as much effort was put into myson’s fifth grade math book selection as was put intothis program.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study suggest varied effects of thelaptop program on students, teachers, and fami-ly members. These findings are discussed belowin reference to the two primary research ques-tions.

Is Teaching Different in a LaptopClassroom?

Research on schools indicates that classroomteaching methods are remarkably resistant tochange (Cuban, 1993). From the 1890s to today,teacher-centered practices still dominate theclass arrangement, communication dynamics,and instructional activities (Bellanca, 1998;Peterson, 1991; Ravitch, 1985). In the more con-fined context of technology usage, such tenden-cies have been mirrored by teacher reliance oncomputers for delivering instruction (e.g., “drill-and-practice”) and entertainment rather than forfacilitating student-centered activities such asinquiry and problem solving (Hokanson &Hooper, 2000; President’s Committee of Ad-visors on Science and Technology, 1997).

In the Year 1 evaluation of the program, lap-

top classes were compared to control classes thatdid not have extraordinary access to computers(Ross et al., 2000). Results indicated greater usesin the laptop classes of student-centered teach-ing strategies, such as project-based learning,independent inquiry, teacher as coach, andcooperative learning. Overall, the laptop classeswere busier and more active learning environ-ments. Most revealing was the laptop students’superiority in using the computer as a learningtool.

The present descriptive results mirrored thetrend for more extensive student-centered learn-ing in laptop than in control classes, and alsorelative to national norms for the SOM instru-ment (Ross et al., 1999). However, in contrast toYear 1, few differences were statistically sig-nificant. Objectively, the most obvious explana-tion of the discrepancies is that the presentsample of laptop classes tended to use student-centered teaching approaches less frequentlythan did the Year 1 group. A clear difference, forexample, was in cooperative learning, whichwas observed in 65% of the Year 1 laptop visitsas compared to only 22% of the Year 2 laptopvisits. While the present (Year 2) laptop classeswere busy and active places compared to typicalclassrooms that we have observed (Ross & Low-ther, 2003) perhaps the teachers were less in-fluenced by a “Hawthorne-type” effect than inYear 1, and thus were less likely to demonstrate“model” lessons when observers visited. Someteachers may have felt more confident about in-termixing traditional practices to ensure thatstate content standards were being addressed.At the same time, because of their exposure tothe NTeQ training, control teachers may havebeen oriented to use constructivist practicesmore than in the past (see Hokanson & Hooper,2000; Reiber, 1992).

Consistent across both years of the study wasthe laptop students’ more frequent usage of thecomputer as a learning tool rather than todeliver instruction. Specifically, such applica-tions were observed in 66% of the visits to laptopclasses compared to only 17% of the control clas-ses—a highly significant and educationally im-portant difference. The SCU findings furtherrevealed greater use of word processing in thelaptop classes and more meaningful overall



usage of the computer in Grade 6. These resultswere not as striking as in the first year, but espe-cially in view of control classes also havingNTeQ-trained teachers and enhanced technol-ogy resources, they were still suggestive of posi-tive impacts of the laptop program for infusingtechnology use into teaching practices.

Another positive effect is suggested from thesignificant finding in Grade 5 (and directionaltrend in Grades 6 and 7) for laptop students tobe more attentive and interested in learning rela-tive to control students. This finding may bepartly attributable to the tendency of controlteachers to rely more on teacher-centereddelivery of instruction. For example, SOMresults showed direct instruction to be frequent-ly or extensively observed in 45% of the controlclasses compared to only 25% of the laptop clas-ses.

Do Students Achieve Differently in aLaptop Classroom?

Two measures of achievement—a writingprompt and a problem-solving task—were ad-ministered in this study to assess achievement.The present results corroborated the pilot studyfindings for writing in both Grades 6 and 7. Sixof the eight effect sizes (4 Components × 2Grades) exceeded +0.80, while the mean dif-ferences in many cases approximated or ex-ceeded a full rubric point. Clearly, the laptopstudents were demonstrating superior writingskills.

Although the SOM data were inconclusiveabout writing activity, SCU results did revealsignificantly more involvement by laptop thancontrol students in the use of word processing.Laptop students frequently or extensively usedword processing in more than half (54%) of theclassroom visits compared to only 16% of thecontrol classes. In their survey responses, nearly75% of the laptop students and 100% of theteachers felt that use of the laptop had improvedstudent writing skills. Notably, open-endedcomments on the Student Survey identified thefacilitation of writing as the “best aspect” ofhaving a computer.

Results on the problem-solving test were fur-

ther suggestive of the laptop program’s positiveimpact on student achievement. These differen-ces may have been influenced by laptopstudents’ engagement in research activities, asevidenced in teacher and student survey respon-ses. Teachers explicitly conveyed that theavailability of the laptops facilitated lessondesign and activities that increased student re-search skills. They also indicated that they in-tegrated computer tools, such as wordprocessing, Internet, and presentation, into theircoursework for the specific purpose of en-gendering research and inquiry.

Not surprisingly, student survey responsesrevealed significantly higher confidence by lap-top students compared to control students forusing all the basic software applications.Responses also indicated that 95% of the laptopstudents felt confident to conduct Internet sear-ches. As revealed in the following student com-ments, engagement in research activities wasoften perceived as one of the most valuableaspects of the laptop program: “It opens up awhole variety of resources”; “I like Excel whichis very useful for organizing and creating graphsfor science and math”; “The best thing is beingable to find information really fast and use it inclass for projects”; “It helps you to be or-ganized”; and “It makes it easier to do researchprojects and write essays.”

Research- and project-oriented tasks wouldseem likely to enhance student performance inthe types of problem-solving skills assessed inthis study (e.g., understanding a problem, iden-tifying what is needed to solve it, using technol-ogy). In this respect, laptop students had twoseemingly important advantages over their con-trol counterparts. One was that their teachersplaced greater emphasis on such tasks than didthe control teachers. Second, laptop studentshad greater accessibility to and better skills atusing application software geared to solvingopen-ended learning problems (i.e., arrangingdata, obtaining information, presenting results,etc.). This combination of factors conceivably in-creased their range for planning and concep-tualizing how a new, complex problem could beapproached and systematically solved.

In the current era of heightened educationalaccountability (Slavin, 2002), applications of


42 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

technology in K–12 classrooms will be increas-ingly judged on the basis of demonstrating suc-cess in raising student achievement. While thedebate regarding the appropriateness of high-stakes standardized testing continues (Linn,2000), it seems reasonable to question the degreeto which classroom uses of involving, tech-nologically supported constructivist activitieswould be the most direct route to raising scoreson group-administered multiple-choice tests(see Shepard, 2000). The dearth of studies show-ing the effect of laptop programs on studentachievement, therefore, does not seem surprising(Penuel et al., 2002). On the other hand, the as-sumption that such programs might affect direct-ly supported learning skills such as writing andproblem solving, as evidenced in the present re-search, seems logical. Given the ex post factodesign employed in this study, the presentresults can be considered only suggestive ratherthan conclusive about the benefits of the laptopprogram. Additional research, using experimen-tal-type methodology (Shavelson & Towne, 2002)is needed to demonstrate similar findings, indiverse contexts and with other student groups(e.g., disadvantaged populations). Issues relatedto implementation, such as ensuring equitableaccess to laptop computers within a school, anddealing with problems of transport and equip-ment maintenance, also require further explora-tion to inform educational practice.

Deborah L. Lowther [[email protected]] andSteven M. Ross are with The Center for Research inEducational Policy (CREP) at The University ofMemphis. Gary M. Morrison is at Wayne State University,Detroit, Michigan. The authors would like to acknowledge thecooperation and support of Walled LakeConsolidated Schools (WLCS), William A. Hamilton,Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, WLCS,and Pamela Shoemaker, Technology IntegrationCoordinator, WLCS. They would also like to thankAaron McDonald and Weiping Wang of CREP.

REFERENCES

Anytime, Anywhere Learning. (2000). Introduction togetting started. Retrieved September 22, 2002, fromhttp://www.microsoft.com/education/aal/guideintro.asp

Becker, H., Ravitz, J.L., Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and

teacher-directed student use of computers and software.Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 NationalSurvey. Report #3. Center for Research on Informa-tion Technology and Organizations. University ofCalifornia, Irvine and University of Minnesota.Retrieved September 17, 2002 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ComputerUse/html/startpage.htm.

Bellanca, J. (1998). Teaching for intelligence: In searchof best practices. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 658–660.

Bork, A. (1985). Personal computers for education. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992).The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues inlearning and instructional design. Educational Tech-nology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the be-havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Class-room wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185–210.

Edelson, D.C., Pea, R.D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Con-structivism in the collaboratory. In B.G. Wilson(Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 151–164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational TechnologyPublications.

Funkhauser, J.E., Steif, E.A., & Allen, S.E. (1998). Title Ischool-parent compacts: Supporting partnerships to im-prove learning. Final report. Washington, DC: PolicyStudies Associates.

Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S.M., & Hill, J.R. (1994).Learning in open-ended environments: Assump-tions, methods, and implications. Educational Tech-nology, 34(8), 48–55.

Hester, J. (2002). The influence of select variables on the in-structional use of computers in Shelby County SchoolDistrict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. TheUniversity of Memphis.

Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2000). Computers as cog-nitive media: Examining the potential of computersin education. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(5),537–552.

International Society for Technology in Education.(1998). National educational technology standards forstudents. Eugene, OR: ISTE.

Jerald, C.D., & Orlofsky, G.F. (1999). Raising the bar onschool technology. Technology Counts ’99, EducationWeek, 19(4), 58–69.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Stanne, M.B., & Garibal-di, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achieve-ment in cooperative groups. The Journal of SocialPsychology, 130(4), 507–516.

Land, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Patterns of under-standing with open-ended learning environments:A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research& Development, 45(2), 47–73.

Lewis, E.M., Ross, S.M., & Alberg, M. (1999). School Ob-servation Measure: Reliability analysis. Memphis, TN:Center for Research in Educational Policy, TheUniversity of Memphis.



Linn, M.C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J.D. (1999). Or-ganizing principles for science education partner-ships: Case studies of students’ learning about “ratsin space” and “deformed frogs.” Educational Technol-ogy Research and Development, 47(2), 61–84.

Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessments and accountability.Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4–14.

Lowther, D.L., & Ross, S.M. (1999). Survey of computeruse: Reliability analysis. Memphis, TN: Center for Re-search in Educational Policy, The University ofMemphis.

Meyer, L. (2001). New challenges. Education Week,20(35), 49–64.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (Eds.). (1994). An ex-panded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Moe, M., & Blodgett, H. (2000). The knowledge web.Washington, DC: Merrill Lynch, & Co., GlobalSecurities Research & Economics Group.

Morrison, G.R., & Lowther, D.L. (2002). Integratingcomputer technology into the classroom (2nd ed.). NJ:Upper Saddle River, Merrill Prentice Hall.

Nath, L.R., & Ross, S.M. (2001). The influence of a peer-tutoring training model for implementing coopera-tive groupings with elementary students.Educational Technology Research and Development,49(2), 41–56.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, Sep-tember). Teachers’ tools for the 21st Century. A reporton teachers’ use of technology. Washington, DC:Author. (ED 444 599) Retrieved October 2, 2002,from http://nces.ed.gov/spider/webspider/2000102.shtml.

Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Developing andrefining mental models in open-ended learning en-vironments: A case study. Educational Technology Re-search and Development, 49(4), 5–32.

Orrill, C.H. (2001). Building technology-based, learner-centered classrooms: The evolution of a professionaldevelopment framework. Educational Technology Re-search and Development, 49(1), 15–34.

Penuel, W.R., Kim, D.Y., Michalchik, V., Lewis, S.Means, B., Murphy, R., Korbak, C., Whaley, A., &Allen, J.E. (2002). Using technology to enhance connec-tions between home and school: A research synthesis.Washington, DC: Planning and Evaluation Service,U.S. Department of Education, DHHS Contract #282-00-008-Task 1.

Peterson, P. (1991). Profiles of practice: Elementaryteachers’ views of their mathematics teaching. (Elemen-tary Subjects Center Series, No. 39). East Lansing,MI: Institute for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. 341546.)

Pianfetti, E.S. (2001). Teachers and technology: Digitalliteracy through professional development. Lan-guage Arts, 78(3), 255–262.

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science andTechnology. (1997). Report to the President on the use oftechnology to strengthen K–12 education in the UnitedStates. Washington, D.C.

Ravitch, D. (1985). The troubled crusade: American educa-tion 1945–1980. New York: Basic Books.

Reiber, L.P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: Abridge between constructivism and direct instruc-tion. Educational Technology Research and Develop-ment, 40(1), 93–106.

Ross, S.M., & Lowther, D.L. (2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform design on classroom instruction,school climate, and student achievement in inner-city schools. Journal for Educational Research on Stu-dents Placed At Risk, 8(3), 215–246.

Ross, S.M., Lowther, D.L., & Morrison, G.R. (2001).Anytime, anywhere learning: Final evaluation report.Center for Research in Educational Policy, Univer-sity of Memphis.

Ross, S.M., Lowther, D.L., Plants, R.T., & Morrison,G.R. (2000). Anytime, anywhere learning: Final evalua-tion report. Center for Research in EducationalPolicy, University of Memphis.

Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., & Alberg, M. (1999). The schoolobservation measure (SOM). Memphis, TN: Center forResearch in Educational Policy, The University ofMemphis.

Ross, S.M., Smith, L. Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (inpress) Using classroom observations as a researchand formative evaluation tool in educational reform:The school observation measure. In S. Hilberg andH. Waxman (Eds.), New directions for observational re-search in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education,Diversity & Excellence.

Shavelson, R.J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research ineducation. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learn-ing culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.

Slavin, R.E. (2002). Evidence-based policies: Trans-forming educational practice and research. Educa-tional Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.

Stuebing, S., Celsi, J., Cousineau, L. (1994). Environ-ments that support new modes of learning: The results oftwo interactive design workshops. ACOT report # 19.California: Apple Computer Inc.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000, April). Teacheruse of computers and the Internet in public schools. (Pub-lication No. 20000090). Retrieved October 9, 2002,from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000090.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left be-hind. Washington, DC: The White House.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002, September). In-ternet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms:1994–2001. (Publication No. 20020018). RetrievedOctober 9, 2002 from http://nces.ed.gov/pub-search/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002018.

Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ useof technology in a laptop computer school: The in-terplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and in-stitutional culture. American Educational ResearchJournal, 39(1), 165–205.


44 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 3

Documents

When each one has one: The influences on teaching ......When Each One Has One: The Influences on Teaching Strategies and Student Achievement of Using Laptops in the Classroom Deborah