Content uploaded by Damian Bebell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Damian Bebell on Jan 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice Volume 13, 2014
Cite as: Bebell, D., Clarkson, A., & Burraston, J. (2014). Cloud computing: Short term impacts of 1:1 computing in the
sixth grade. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, 129-151. Retrieved from
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13IIPp129-152Bebell0739.pdf
Editor Minh Huynh
Submitted August 25, 2014; Revised November 16, 2014; Accepted December 15. 2014
Cloud Computing: Short Term Impacts of 1:1
Computing in the Sixth Grade
Damian Bebell
Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational
Policy, Lynch School of Education, Boston College,
Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
bebell@bc.edu
Apryl Clarkson
Office of Data and Accountability, Boston Public Schools,
Boston, MA, USA
aprylclarkson@gmail.com
James Burraston
Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational
Policy, Lynch School of Education, Boston College,
Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
james.burraston@gmail.com
Abstract
Many parents, educators, and policy makers see great potential for leveraging tools like laptop
computers, tablets, and smartphones in the classrooms of the world. Under budget constraints and
shared access to equipment for students and teachers, the impacts have been irregular but hint at
greater possibilities in 1:1 student computing settings. This study examines practices and short-
term outcomes of a 1:1 program in two suburban 6th grade classrooms that used low-cost netbook
computers and leveraged cloud-based software resources. The mixed-methods pre/post compari-
son study documented that, with planning, teachers and students used 1:1 computing resources to
engage in constructive learning activities across the core curriculum. Teacher surveys and class-
room observations found that students in the 1:1 pilot setting increased the frequency and quality
of their social interactions in class. Pre/post surveys and classroom observation data all indicated
that the technology-enhanced pilot setting had higher levels of engagement than observed in the
conventional classrooms. Pilot students
also achieved larger average achieve-
ment gains on standardized English
Language Arts (ELA) state tests than
their fellow 6th graders.
Keywords: 1:1 computing, student
achievement, cloud computing, net-
books, middle school, communication,
student engagement, social interactions,
educational technology
Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or
in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute.
Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these
works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee
provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit
or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice
in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is per-
missible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To
copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or
to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment
of a fee. Contact Publisher@InformingScience.org to request
redistribution permission.
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
Introduction
In just the last few decades, computing technologies have transformed the personal and profes-
sional lives of large segments of the world’s population. Similarly, the integration of computer
technologies into traditional school settings has been widespread and far-reaching. Many parents,
educators, and policy makers see great potential for leveraging tools like laptop computers, tab-
lets, and smartphones in the classrooms of the world (Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010). At the same
time, critics have decried the lack of evidence from investments on costly educational technology
expenditures, particularly on student achievement (Weston & Bain, 2010). As summarized in a
New York Times feature story: “schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut
budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning”
(Richtel, 2011, para 8).
This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing debate and growing educational literature through
an empirical research study that examined the practices and short-term outcomes of a pilot 1:1
student program in two suburban 6th grade classrooms. This mixed-methods pre/post comparison
study documented how teachers and students used low-cost netbook computers and leveraged
cloud-based software resources to engage in constructive learning activities across the core cur-
riculum resulting in increased social interactions, increased student engagement, and student
achievement gains.
Literature Review
Despite the hopes and concerns of different stakeholders, it is clear that increased access to these
powerful technologies is dramatically changing many of the world’s classrooms and with it
changing the reality of teaching and learning in the 21st century. Students’ access to computing
devices and information in much of the world today would have been nearly impossible to imag-
ine just one generation ago. The ratio of students to computers in schools, a common metric for
indicating students’ access to computing devices, shows this precipitous change since 1983, when
an average of 125 U.S. students shared a single computer (125:1). By 2011, U.S. students’ access
had increased more than 40-fold, with 3 students per computing device (3:1) and nearly 100% of
U.S. classrooms connected to the Internet (Russell, Bebell, & Higgins, 2004; Snyder & Dillow,
2012). As computing technologies have become even more widespread across culture, industry,
and education, many theorists and leadership organizations argue that teaching and learning need
to be re-rooted in real-world tasks that integrate the use of technology to develop higher order
skills and adequately prepare students to learn and work collaboratively with emerging technolo-
gies throughout their lives (International Society for Technology in Education, 2007; Partnership
for 21st Century Skills, 2009; Puentedura, 2013).
As increased access and more powerful technologies have permeated the classroom, the variety of
ways in which teachers and students use computer-based technologies has also expanded. For
example, evidence for this can be seen in the findings of research exploring the role and effects of
computers on teaching and learning that suggest a wide variety of potential benefits including the
following: increased student engagement (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Donovan, Green, & Hartley,
2010; Maine Education Policy Research Institute, 2003; Mouza, 2008); increased use of com-
puters for writing, analysis, and research (Bebell & Kay, 2009; Grimes & Warschauer, 2008;
Lowther, Inan, Ross, & Strahl, 2012; Russell, Bebell, & Higgins, 2004); improved standardized
test scores in English Language Arts (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Gulek & Demirtas, 2005; Suhr,
Hernandez, Grimes, & Warschauer, 2010); and a movement towards student-centered pedagogy
(Russell, Bebell, & Higgins, 2004; Mouza, 2008; Lowther et al., 2012). However, for any effect
to be realized from educational technology, the technology must be actively and frequently used.
Understanding this, research has also focused on exploring what factors and conditions are neces-
130
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
sary to allow different technology uses to occur (Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004; Becker,
1999; O’Bannon & Thomas, 2014).
Given the ways in which technology resources have been traditionally distributed within schools
(e.g., in labs, libraries, or on shared carts), many have theorized that the scarcity of major student
achievement outcomes were a consequence of shared technology access resulting in relatively
limited use and impact (Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010; Papert, 1996). In fact, both proponents and
opponents of educational technology agree that the full effects of any digital resource in school
cannot be fully realized until the technology is no longer a shared resource (Weston & Bain,
2010). Recognizing the limitations of sharing technology access across students and classrooms,
there has been a steady and growing interest in 1:1 technology scenarios, wherein each teacher
and student have full and independent access to a computing device. Such programs seek to lev-
erage students’ access to technology in their classrooms so that students’ historically limited or
shared access to technology is no longer an obstacle.
Initiatives to provide computers to students at a 1:1 ratio first began in 1989 when the Methodist
Ladies College in Australia required all incoming students (5th through 12th grade) to purchase
school-approved Toshiba laptops. Other Australian schools have adopted similar initiatives so
that by the late 1990s over 50,000 Australian children were in 1:1 computing programs (Stager,
1998). Within the U.S. as well, several schools experimented with 1:1 programs during the 1990s.
Due to the financial challenge of sustaining 1:1 computing programs, these isolated programs
were often financed through one-time budget opportunities, fund-raisers (Stevenson, 1999), local
foundations and grants (Cromwell, 1999), and increases in tuition at private schools (Thompson,
2001). In addition, district or state funded 1:1 programs have been piloted in South Dakota,
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Texas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Maine, and Michigan
(Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010; Zucker & Hug, 2008). Beginning in 2007, Uruguay launched the
world’s first countrywide 1:1 initiative and has distributed over one million laptops to primary
school students.
Despite the massive investments and expectations of 1:1 computing programs, it is challenging to
summarize the impacts across different 1:1 student computing programs. By definition, 1:1 com-
puting describes only the access ratio of technology to students and says nothing about the actual
teaching and learning practices. Many educational leaders and theorists hold a general presump-
tion that 1:1 access enables more constructivist pedagogies and student centered classrooms, but
the only unifying feature of any 1:1 program is the ubiquity of the student device, not a specific
application or use. Therefore, different 1:1 programs can be initiated for vastly different purposes
and have vastly different expectations for student outcomes.
It is also important to consider that educational technology and its uses are evolving so quickly
that much of the literature from even five years ago fails to address the dynamic digital learning
tools that are now commonplace such as the Apple iPad (Project Tomorrow, 2014). Studies have
also shown that many 1:1 computing programs have been inconsistently implemented leading to
only sporadic impacts (Weston & Bain, 2010). Therefore, in order to fully evaluate the effective-
ness of any 1:1 program it is necessary to first consider and quantify how teachers and students
are actually using the digital tools.
With increased pressure for more quantitative outcomes, a number of studies have focused on the
relationship between student achievement and participation in laptop programs. For example, the
Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment published a special issue on empirical research
emerging from 1:1 technology settings and included three papers that explored student achieve-
ment outcomes. Studies from Massachusetts (Bebell & Kay, 2010), Texas (Shapley, Sheehan,
Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010) and California (Suhr et al., 2010) each examined the im-
131
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
pact of 1:1 participation and practices on measures of student achievement and reported statisti-
cally significant impacts in English Language Arts performance.
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education updated the National Education Technology Plan to
support a technology infrastructure that “is always on, available to students, educators, and
administrators regardless of their location or time of day (p.13)”. This infrastructure would
include universal access to computing devices as well as adequate network facilities (U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010). However, in a sustained
sluggish economy, funding educational technology (particularly laptops for students) remains a
major challenge and obstacle at the federal, state, district, and school levels. Education leaders are
predicting increased technology expenditures in the future, and are increasingly considering dif-
ferent cost-effective options within their budgets to sustain and grow their educational technology
programs (Brown & Green, 2013). As one recent example, there has been huge growth in Bring
Your Own Device (BYOD) programs where schools encourage students and families to purchase
computing devices for students’ use in school (Burns-Sardone, 2014). Laptop alternatives like
tablets, smartphones, and netbooks are also increasingly popular hardware options for providing
students 1:1 access to a digital computing device in budget constrained schools.
Recognizing the limits of the previous research, the current study involved a university research
team and a school district collaborating to study the implementation and efficacy of using low-
cost netbook computers and a cloud network to create a pilot 1:1 computing environment. Cloud
computing represents an emerging model for educational computing whereby software, systems,
and other resources are hosted via the Internet. One of the key advantages of cloud computing is
that the hardware requirements (and costs) are significantly lower than traditional laptops where
the platform, software, and other resources must reside locally, rather than in an Internet-based
“cloud”. Given the limitless scalability and infrastructure inherent in cloud computing, this
model offers an attractive student and teacher computing solution. Although it has only been
documented in a few education settings (Erenben, 2009; Zhang, Cheng, & Boutaba, 2010), the
New Media Consortium predicts increased adoption of cloud computing models across K-12 set-
tings (Johnson, Adams, & Haywood, 2011).
The current paper summarizes the implementation and emerging results from a year-long pre/post
comparative study of a sixth grade pilot 1:1 netbook/cloud computing program. Specifically, this
mixed-methods investigation explored how classroom activities were impacted by 1:1 computing
resources, including the types of projects students worked on, the way social interactions were
articulated, and in what way these activities affected student engagement. In addition, the study
explores how student participation in this pilot 1:1 program impacted standardized test scores and
considers the relationship between student achievement, technology access, and classroom prac-
tices.
Setting and Learning Conditions
This paper presents selected results from the Newton Public Schools 21st Century Pilot Study.
Newton Public Schools is a suburban school district serving approximately 11,500 students
across fifteen elementary schools, four middle schools, and two high schools in eastern Massa-
chusetts. The express aim of this yearlong pilot program and evaluation study was to explore the
implementation and impacts of a 6th grade 1:1 student-computing program. Through a pre/post
comparison study design, it was possible to investigate how traditional teaching and learning
practices evolved with the adoption of 10-inch Dell netbooks for each student, with wireless net-
work accessibility for cloud computing. Principal outcomes that the district sought to document
through the yearlong pilot included changes in:
132
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
teachers’ and students’ technology use and general classroom practices,
types and frequency of products that students created,
social interactions among and between teachers and students,
student engagement, and
measures of student achievement.
Both quantitative (student and teacher surveys, student test score analyses, etc.) and qualitative
(classroom observations, interviews, etc.) research methods documented student and teacher ex-
periences during the implementation period and how the technology-rich setting impacted each of
the targeted outcomes.
By focusing on the student device and its immediate use in the classroom, studies of 1:1 comput-
ing programs too often provide a false impression of the time and money invested to implement
and sustain a successful 1:1 computing initiative. After developing and internally experimenting
with an initial pre-pilot program, Newton Public Schools, with funding from the Newton Schools
Foundation, solicited a district-wide request for proposals for core teaching teams (English, social
studies, math and science) to apply for the 21st Century Classroom grant. After selecting a 6th
grade winning team, the two teachers were requested to develop educational materials and curric-
ula that focused on innovation, critical and creative thinking, and collaborative problem solving.
Their classroom environment would be transformed from possessing a few shared computers to
one when where a suite of digital resources would be highly accessible and supported. Specifi-
cally, each classroom was equipped with:
1:1 student netbooks for use throughout the school day,
an interactive white board with mounted projector,
a new teacher laptop,
a student response system (clickers), and
targeted technical and instructional support.
The participating teacher team was required to measure “student performance using a variety of
assessments, such as rubrics and exemplars” and work collaboratively with the school-based In-
structional Technology Specialist (ITS), library teachers, and Curriculum Coordinators to align
classroom uses of technology with district benchmarks. Additional requirements and responsibili-
ties for the participating teachers included:
1. Attend a two-day introduction/training workshop.
2. Participate in staff development and team meetings once a month after school.
3. Share knowledge with other teachers by posting lessons on the district website and pre-
senting at a faculty meeting.
4. Host visitors in order to demonstrate best practices of teaching with technology tools.
5. Participate in the evaluation of the 21st Century Classroom Initiative by assessing student
work, facilitating and completing questionnaires, and writing reflections about the value
of the project.
Given that this was a pilot program, an important component of the initiative was a third party
research and evaluation study. The overall aim of the evaluation study was to provide formative
data to facilitate the implementation process as well as summative results to empirically address
the educational outcomes of the new technology investments and classroom environment. A
summary of the study timeline and data collection procedures is presented in Table 1.
133
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
Table 1 - 21st Century Classroom Project and data collection timeline
Timeline 21C Pilot Activity Evaluation Activity
Aug 2009 Introduction Develop survey instruments; Identify 2 traditional “control”
classrooms
Sep/Oct 2009 Orientation, Focus and
Design
Pre-pilot data collection student and teacher survey in pilot and
control classes, student drawings, teacher interviews
January 2010 Students get wireless
laptops
Classroom observations in pilot and comparison classrooms
Mar/Apr
2010
Design /State Assess-
ment
Classroom observations continued
May/Jun
2010
Publish Lessons Classroom observations continued, final student and teacher
surveys in pilot and control classrooms, student focus group,
student drawings, teacher interviews
Summer 2010 Collection of records and student achievement data, analyses of
observation data, interview, drawing, and survey data
Sep 2010 Exhibition, Next Steps Final evaluation report
Below, the study methods are presented in more detail, followed by a summary of the study re-
sults and a discussion of the relevant findings as they may apply to other schools and future 1:1
implementations.
Methodology for the Evaluation Study
A 13-month pre/post matched comparison evaluation study was designed and implemented to
examine how a suite of newly introduced digital resources might potentially impact teaching and
learning in a traditional middle school environment. As previously described, the pilot class-
rooms received 1:1 student netbooks and other resources while the two comparison classrooms
(in the same school and serving the same grade level) had only traditional technology access in-
cluding a teacher’s laptop, access to the school’s computer lab, access to mobile laptop carts
shared across the school, and one LCD projector and document camera per class. As one would
expect within the same school and grade, students in both the pilot and comparison settings
shared similar demographic characteristics. Table 2 provides a general description of student
background characteristics and a summary of the number of student participants in each study
setting.
Table 2 – Pilot and comparison student demographic information
Gender Race/Ethnicity
Setting Participating
students Male Female White Other
Primary home lan-
guage is not English
Pilot 46 48% 52% 67% 33% 17%
Comparison 45 53% 47% 73% 27% 4%
Total 91 51% 49% 70% 30% 11%
To best capture the wide range of potential outcomes, the study relied on an assortment of data
collection tools and instruments. Specifically, both quantitative (student and teacher surveys,
134
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
student test score analyses, and school record analysis) and qualitative (classroom observations,
teacher interviews, student drawings, and teacher weblogs) research methods were employed to
ascertain how the pilot setting may impact student achievement, student engagement, classroom
interactions, and teaching and learning practices over the course of the year-long study period.
Student Survey
All pilot (n=46) and comparison students (n=45) completed a survey in September 2009 to record
baseline conditions, resulting in a 100% response rate. After about six months of 1:1 computing,
a post-pilot survey was conducted in June 2010, with a 96% response rate. Customized from pre-
viously validated instruments, the student survey included measures of students’ perceived access
to technology in school, their use of technology in school across subject areas, personal comfort
level with technology, attitudes and perspectives towards technology and digital content, access
to technology at home, and the frequency of a variety home technology uses.
Teacher Survey
Both of the pilot class teachers (n=2) and comparison class teachers (n=2) completed a teacher
survey on two occasions during the 2009/2010 school year. Specifically, teachers completed a
pre-1:1 survey very early in the school year to provide an approximation of baseline conditions
across each setting and again in May 2010 to demonstrate how changes in digital resources and
training may have impacted teaching and learning. More specifically the teacher survey was de-
veloped to capture the variety and extent of teachers’ technology use, teachers’ attitude toward
technology, teaching, and learning, as well as teachers’ beliefs on student motivation and en-
gagement. The survey also included a brief item set that measured more general pedagogical
practices and classroom practices. Collectively, these items provide a source of evidence for
changes in the approach and delivery of the curriculum (as well as various aspects of
teacher/student interactions) from the teachers’ own perspective. Looking across the teacher sur-
veys over time from both pilot and control classrooms, the survey can provide additional docu-
mentation on the impacts of the pilot initiative on teacher and student practices. In addition, the
May 2010 teacher survey captures teachers’ perceptions of the impacts of 1:1 computing on their
students, including student engagement, student achievement and discipline.
Classroom Observations
A total of 107 classroom observations were recorded across all pre and post conditions in both
pilot and comparison classrooms. Class periods were sampled according to the teachers’ and ob-
server’s convenience with some effort made to get equal time from both pilot and comparison
classes as well as the core subject areas (English Language Arts, science, math, and world geog-
raphy). Typically, each observation lasted for one class period or about 45 minutes.
Fifty classroom observations were conducted in December 2009 and January 2010, before stu-
dents had received the netbooks. Student netbooks were deployed in January and the observations
were not conducted throughout February to allow pilot teachers time to integrate the new equip-
ment into their procedures. The remaining 57 observations were made from March through the
end of May 2010. Collectively, observations were recorded across a total of 1,828 and 2,438
minutes of classroom lessons, before and after implementation.
As developed over prior research studies (Russell, Bebell, & Higgins, 2004; Russell, Bebell,
Cowan, & Corbelli, 2003), a trained researcher conducted classroom observations using custom-
ized data collection software for capturing and categorizing observation notes (See the Appen-
dix). During an observation, students’ engagement level, the number of students working with
technology, the number of students working independently, in pairs, in small groups, or in large
135
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
groups and the role of the teacher were quantitatively recorded every ten minutes via an auto-
mated observational checklist. In addition, the observer recorded narrative accounts of the activi-
ties occurring throughout each class observation, with a specific emphasis on teacher-student in-
teractions, student-student interactions, uses of technology, and student engagement. Observation
notes were coded by blinded readers using holistic coding, while emergent analytic content analy-
sis was applied to explore potential differences in recorded practices between the pilot and com-
parison classrooms over the pre and post observation periods (Stemler, 2001).
Student Test Score Analyses
Given the overall climate of test score-based accountability, the impact of varied classroom prac-
tices on student achievement in English Language Arts (ELA) was measured through analysis of
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) results. As we have demonstrated
through past research, such analysis using the MCAS as the primary outcome measure has nu-
merous limitations, and the analysis of such a relatively small sample of students in the two learn-
ing conditions also presents limitations (Bebell & Kay, 2009; O’Dwyer, Russell, Bebell, &
Tucker- Seeley, 2005, 2008). However, until PARCC [The Partnership for Assessment of Readi-
ness for College and Careers] is fully implemented, the MCAS remains the de facto measure of
student achievement for many policy makers and educational leaders in the district and state.
For those with parent consent, a unique student ID was used to merge the student survey data
with school record data including state test scores. Three previous years of student level test score
results were accessed from students’ pre-grade 6 records to provide a covariate of prior student
achievement. This rich database allows for a nuanced exploration of the relative gain or loss in
test scores experienced by pilot and comparison students and the relationship between achieve-
ment, classroom practices, and learning conditions as reported in the surveys.
Data Analysis
A variety of methodological approaches were used to analyze each of these data sources. Due to
the low sample size of the study, most analyses can be categorized as descriptive statistics. Infer-
ential statistics were only used when comparing the MCAS test performances for all sixth grade
students. For all of the descriptive and inferential techniques used to analyze the data, the Statisti-
cal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used.
The student surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics to understand the distribution of
responses across the pilot and comparison groups. With a sample size of two, the teacher surveys
were too small to analyze using statistical software and so the results of the teacher survey were
used to add support to the findings of the student surveys.
The classroom observations were collected using customized Access software which categorized
and coded all student to student, student to technology, and student to teacher interactions. With
such a robust dataset, SPSS software was used to perform a series of descriptive analyses to un-
derstand how the distribution of responses differed in the pilot and comparison groups for the
counts and frequencies that were collected in observations. As for the narrative components of the
observations, blinded researchers coded each narrative using a content analysis technique as pre-
scribed by Stemler (2001).
Lastly, as mentioned before, the student test score analysis was performed using both descriptive
and inferential statistics in SPSS. While the achievement scores were analyzed using descriptive
statistics, the difference in growth for each group was analyzed using Somer’s D measures of as-
sociation to understand whether the difference in median growth percentiles is statistically sig-
nificant.
136
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
Results
This section summarizes the results of the analyses performed on four of the collected data
sources from the pilot evaluation: student survey, teacher survey, observations, and MCAS data.
To better organize the information collected through each data source, the current paper focuses
on five major findings:
1. teachers’ and students’ technology use and general classroom practices,
2. types and frequency of products that students created,
3. social interactions among and between teachers and students,
4. student engagement, and
5. measures of student achievement.
Increased Resources, Increased Technology Use
Perhaps one of the most universal and salient results from most 1:1 computing implementations is
the major increase in students’ use of technology in school (Bebell & O’Dywer, 2010). Within
the first months of the Newton pilot implementation, students’ 1:1 computer access was clearly
associated with increased levels of computer use in the classroom. As shown in Figure 1, the fre-
quency of classroom observation where students were using computers increased dramatically in
the post-1:1 pilot setting.
Specifically, Figure 1 shows the pilot students use of computers in class increase from 23% to
61% across observations, while decreasing slightly in the comparison setting. Similarly, when
analyzing the ten-minute interval data from the observation notes, the average number of pilot
students using computers in the pre-pilot classes was about two. After the netbooks were intro-
duced, an average of 10.5 students, or about half of the class, were found to be using computers in
each ten-minute interval. Across the comparison settings, however, the average number of stu-
dents using computers remained below two students throughout of the study.
Figure 1 - Percent of class periods where students were observed using
technology including computers, calculators, and projectors
137
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
Student survey data, collected both before and after the pilot 1:1 implementation, triangulates the
observation results showing major increases in students use in class (% of class time) across dif-
ferent subject areas and school locations. Figure 2a shows the average number of days that pilot
and comparison students reported using computing devices in different locations across pre- and
post-1:1 conditions, while Figure 2b shows this information for each of the core subject areas.
Figure 2b – Average percent of school days where students reported using
computers across subject areas
Figure 2a – Average percent of school days where students reported using
computers across spaces in school
As shown in Figure 2a, pilot students reported that their average frequency of computer use in the
classroom more than doubled during the year-long pilot, but was basically unchanged in non-
classroom settings (computer lab and library). Similarly, Figure 2b shows that the 1:1 pilot stu-
dents reported increased technology use across all of their core subject areas by the end of the
year, with largest increases reported in English and Social studies, echoing classroom observa-
tions and teacher survey results. Examining the hundreds of interval data points observed across
English classes, pilot students were observed using computers in class during only 2% of pre-
pilot sessions, compared to 76% of the observed intervals recorded in the 1:1 English classes.
138
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
Student survey, teacher survey, and classroom observation results all suggest that pilot students in
the 1:1 environment used computers in class and across the curriculum with much greater fre-
quency than comparison students and recorded past levels.
Students’ Computer Use Goes Beyond Writing
Analyses across the different data sources not only demonstrate that 1:1 access significantly in-
creased the frequency of students computer use in class, but also provided an opportunity to ex-
plore more of the contextual characteristics associated with students’ technology use in a 1:1 set-
ting. For example, the pilot students increased use of computers in ELA and social studies was
found to be partially due to the ease of word processor use in writing and geographic information
systems (GIS) in social studies. Given that pilot teachers were already experienced and comfort-
able with these types of student activities in their pre-1:1 classes, students’ increased access to
computers allowed for a nearly immediate increase in these types of uses.
Analyses comparing the pre/post classroom observations show how teaching, learning, and tech-
nology use changed during the implementation period. For students, “listening to a presentation”
and “producing artifacts in non-written media” were the two activities that changed the most in
the pilot classrooms relative to changes in the comparison setting. More specifically, students in
the 1:1 setting were observed spending less time in class “listening to a presentation”, an activity
that increased throughout the school year in the comparison classrooms. Observations also
showed that 1:1 students produced a wider variety of artifacts when using netbooks, while writing
remained the predominant artifact in the comparison group. Indeed, across all of the recorded
classroom observations conducted in the 1:1 pilot setting, 55% recorded students using technol-
ogy to produce multimedia or non-written artifacts in class.
In addition to the observation findings, the student survey also measured the change in frequency
and variety of products students created in the different study settings. Figure 3, shows the per-
centage of school days that students reported creating different kinds of products and work.
Figure 3 – Percentage of school days that students reported generating various products
139
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
A
ct
the evaluation
n
verage number of students working across various configurations recorded
s shown in Figure 3, students reported that web pages were the most frequently created product
in the 1:1 implementation period. In addition, the frequency with which students created presenta-
tion materials and gave presentations increased dramatically. On average, 1:1 pilot students were
three times more likely to make presentation slides and four times as likely to give presentations
as were comparison group students. One example of the new generation of student products be-
ing in the 1:1 setting was a “glog”, for “graphic blog”. Glogs, hosted by Glogster EDU at
www.glogster.com, are essentially websites that can accommodate text, images, audio, and video
content. In one observed chemistry class, each student used their netbook to conduct online re-
search about a specific element. Students assembled their resources and information into per-
sonal glogs that they later presented and shared with the rest of the class. Throughout this proje
the teacher worked with students to master the technical skills for navigating the platform, ma-
nipulating glog components, and adding audio and video that the students had created themselves.
The teacher also used the activity to encourage students to think critically about design issues. In
another observed example, 1:1 students worked together across a series of ELA classes to create
online multimedia versions of Beowulf. Students worked collaborative using Aviary Myna, a
web-based audio editor to create mood music and narrative tracks. Students then scanned their
own artwork and used a web-based video editor to add animation and publish their video books.
Upon completion, each student group presented their online videos to the class.
Increases in Collaboration and Student Interaction
In addition to the changes in teaching and learning practices in the 1:1 setting,
study expressly sought to measure the potential impacts of the program on student collaboratio
and social interactions in the classroom. Table 3 summarizes the observational interval data
showing the average number of students working across various configurations across the differ-
ent settings and conditions. Note that throughout the observations, students were reported as
working individually when they had their own material at their desk and worked with it on their
own. If students shared their work with others then they were recorded as working in pairs or
groups. Students worked as a “whole class” if the structure of the work was a presentation or
class discussion where it was clearly expected that all students should be paying attention to the
same thing.
Table 3 - A
across the ten-minute interval classroom observations
Students
working as: Pre/Pilot Post/Pilot Pre/Comparison Post/Comparison Total
Individuals 10.25 8.53 6.62 4.84 7.46
Pairs 1.63 2.83 3.05 2.70 2.57
G roups 3.25 3.51 0.74 1.38 2.22
Whole class 7.56 5.48 10.70 11.16 8.77
It is apparent from the interval observation records shown in Table 3 that students in the pilot
e
classes most often worked individually in the pre-1:1 environment, while comparison students
most often worked as a whole class. With the implementation of the 1:1 program, students in th
1:1 setting were less likely to be observed working individually, as they joined in more pairs and
groups. Moreover, while comparison students also increased the frequency of working in groups,
this remained their least frequent configuration; whereas whole-class configurations also slightly
increased and remained dominant throughout the year. These findings suggest that with the im-
plementation of the 1:1 computing resources students increased smaller group work, while de-
creasing the percentage of time students engaged in both whole-class and individual work. Ex-
amining the pre/post teacher surveys, both pilot and comparison teachers similarly reported that
140
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
student interactions increased when working with technology. After the 1:1 implementation pe-
riod, pilot teachers reported this belief even more strongly. Triangulating this teacher belief with
the observation data in Figure 4 confirms that student interactions occurred in tangent with tech-
nology use. Note that student social interactions were primarily verbal exchanges, but also in-
cluded physical contact, and playing games.
Figure 4 shows how the proportion of students’ social interactions involving technology increased
up
t
the constructive nature of student interactions in class, a secondary
-
Figure 4 - Proportion of observed student social interactions
involving technology
for the 1:1 pilot class. One example of how students’ social interactions developed in the 1:1 set-
ting can be found in a social studies class observation. In this specific lesson, the teacher asked
students to work in groups of four to research and prepare a class presentation on specific aspects
of Chinese culture. Students were initially directed to a teacher-created Google Doc that provided
further details and requirements of the assignment. One group of boys took their netbooks and
sat together on the floor at the back of the room. Students throughout the rest of the class talked
to each other, making strategies for their work, helping each other with technology skills, and
asking for leads to “good” information. As the planning phase finished up, students in each gro
were observed working on different facets of the assignment. For example, one student would be
searching the internet for information, another may be editing a photo, and a third might be writ-
ing text into their Google presentation. During this small group work, the teacher wandered the
room answering students’ questions, helping with technical issues, and providing encouragemen
and feedback to students.
In order to better understand
analysis of the observation notes was completed by a “blinded” reviewer. We were interested in
quantifying the degree that student interactions were either on-task and academically relevant
versus off-task and not relevant or constructive to the class. The level of productivity observed
across all student interactions in the observation notes were blindly scored using a simple di-
chotomous rubric: ‘less constructive’ or ‘very constructive’. If an observation described social
interactions that were disconnected from the lesson or that were disruptive to the class, the obser
vation was coded as ‘less constructive’. Conversely, if the observed interactions lacked off-task
discussion or included details consistent with engaged or on-task behavior, the observation was
141
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
coded as ‘very constructive’. Figure 5 summarizes the distribution of the constructiveness of ob-
served student interactions in each of the study settings.
Figure 5 - Proportion of observed student interactions
that were academicall
y
constructive
Figure 5 shows that in the pilot setting, the proportion of constructive student interactions in-
creased from 65% to 78%. Nearly the opposite trend was observed in the comparison classrooms
where the proportion of observations coded as ‘very constructive’ decreased from 85% to about
66%. This observational data suggests that student interactions not only increased in frequency
over the short 1:1 implementation period, but also increased in their relevance to their curriculum
and class.
Maintained Higher Levels of Engagement
The current study sought to measure changes in student engagement using a number of different
approaches including classroom observations, student surveys, and teacher surveys. For example
on both pre and post surveys, teachers were asked to estimate the percentage of time that their
students were engaged in their classes. Although many prior studies have operational defined
“student engagement” in different ways, we expressly did not define this term for teachers com-
pleting the survey, leaving the meaning up to the responding teachers. Figure 6 shows teachers’
average estimation of student engagement across pre/post and pilot and comparison settings.
As reported across both administrations of the teacher survey, pilot classroom teachers reported
higher levels of student engagement than comparison teachers, on average. From the teachers’
own perspective, student engagement decreased over their sixth grade school year in the compari-
son classrooms, while proportion of class time students were engaged in the 1:1 classes remained
over 90%. In other words, teachers reported that student engagement remained high throughout
the duration of the school year in the 1:1 settings, whereas student engagement rates dropped in
the traditional settings. An analysis of the classroom observation records yield a similar result
with pilot students’ engagement declining slightly towards the end of the school year, while com-
parison students’ engagement levels declined more drastically. Across all classroom observations,
student engagement was coded from the observer’s impression of students’ level of attention and
effort towards learning using a five-point scale ranging from “low engagement” to “high en-
gagement”.
142
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
Stronger Growth in Standardized ELA Test Performance
To demonstrate the potential impact of teaching and learning conditions in 1:1 settings, an analy-
sis of student achievement was conducted. As previously described, students’ English Language
Arts (ELA) MCAS scores were analyzed as a measure of student achievement across both set-
tings. Figure 7 shows the median ELA MCAS scale scores for the pilot and comparison student
cohorts during each of their annual grade level assessments, from 2007 as third graders to 2010 as
sixth graders.
Figure 7 - Students’ median English Language Arts MCAS scores
from 3rd through 6th grade
Figure 6 - Teacher-reported levels of student engagement
In the three years before the pilot program, the cohort of students who became the comparison
group consistently earned higher average scores in both math and ELA. However, as shown in
143
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
Figure 7, in the 2010 administration of the ELA MCAS, after students were divided into pilot and
comparison classrooms for 6th grade, the pilot students’ averages rose to their highest recorded
scores, even slightly eclipsing the comparison student average ELA performance. Although lim-
ited, these results suggest that student performance in the pilot cohort actually did improve rela-
tive to the comparison cohort over the course of their 6th grade year.
While the analysis in Figure 7 shows the median ELA score for students in each setting, it does
not precisely measure the significance of the growth of students in each setting. From the above
analyses, we know that pilot setting scores increased on average and comparison setting scores
decreased on average from 2009 to 2010. In order to make inferential statements about the
amount of growth in student scores from 2009 to 2010, student growth percentiles (SGPs), as cal-
culated and reported in the state results, will be used. SGPs provide a measure of students’
unique performance relative to others in the state that performed similarly in previous years. In
other words, for each given assessment, students are provided an index of their relative perform-
ance compared to other students in the state who scored similarly on past MCAS subject tests.
SGPs are intended to indicate how much students have learned, rather than their particular per-
formance levels. Based on the familiar percentile rank, the average/mean of the SGP is always 50
with a range from 1 to 99. State guidelines for interpreting MCAS SGPs are as follows: “Growth
percentiles below 40 suggest that your child’s progress is low compared to most students. Growth
percentiles between 40 and 60 represent average progress. Growth percentiles above 60 represent
better progress than most students” (Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary
Education, 2010, p. 3). Figure 8 summarizes pilot and comparison students’ average sixth grade
SGPs for ELA.
Figure 8 - Students’ average 6th grade English language arts SGPs
Overall, the ELA growth percentiles indicate that pilot students were well above the average of
50, indicating that the students achieved much greater 2010 ELA MCAS growth than students
from across the state that scored similarly in past ELA examinations. Specifically, pilot students
had an average SGP of 69, substantially higher than average growth when compared to similar
students statewide. It is also noticeable that special education students performed better than
statewide averages.
144
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
For comparison students, these ELA gains were much closer to average, with an average SGP of
47. This SGP is interpreted as having made adequate and expected progress throughout the year
that is similar to what most comparable students in the state experienced. Similar to the pilot set-
ting, special education students in the comparison setting also experienced higher growth as com-
pared to other students statewide. In both settings, special education students received additional
educational supports that were not recorded in the current study; therefore, conclusions should not
be drawn about the differences in scores of special education students. However, the difference
in SGPs for pilot and comparison students provides evidence about the difference in academic
performance for each setting. Somer’s D statistic was employed to measure the degree of differ-
ence between the pilot and comparison SGPs for the 2010 ELA MCAS, which were found to be
statistically significant (Somer’s D= -206; n=83, Sig. =.012). Therefore, there is a significant dif-
ference between the growth percentiles of each group, with pilot setting students demonstrating
higher than average growth in ELA.
Discussion
The current study investigated the short term educational impacts of Newton Public Schools’ 21st
Century Classroom Pilot Program, which provided a cohort of 6th grade students with a suite of
digital learning tools, including interactive whiteboards, classroom performance systems (i.e.
“clickers”), and 1:1 student netbooks. A pre/post comparison study employed classroom observa-
tions, interviews, student drawings, student and teacher surveys as well as an analysis of student
achievement to document the impact of the program. This report aimed to share the experiences
and results from this implementation to help inform the greater educational community and pol-
icy makers on the roles that digital tools can play in middle school education and their most im-
mediate impacts from one well-documented setting. In summary, the study documented that, with
planning, teachers and students used 1:1 computing resources to engage in constructive learning
activities across the core curriculum. Teacher surveys and classroom observations found that stu-
dents in the 1:1 pilot setting increased the frequency and quality of their social interactions in
class. Pre/post surveys and classroom observation data all indicated that the technology-
enhanced pilot setting had higher levels of engagement than observed in the conventional class-
rooms. Pilot students also achieved larger average achievement gains on standardized ELA state
tests than their fellow 6th graders.
Conclusion
This study provides evidence that both teaching and learning practices shifted markedly with the
incorporation of 1:1 student netbooks. Findings showed that students in the pilot setting substan-
tially increased their use of technology, particularly, in their English and social studies classes.
Further, students were documented using technology in new and dynamic ways beyond simple
word processing and accessing information. After the 1:1 adoption, students increased the differ-
ent ways they shared their work via technology through presentations as well as through web
pages and other web-based documents. With the incorporation of 1:1 student computing, teach-
ing practices shifted as well, with classes moving away from a more teacher-centered orientation,
where students primarily listened to teacher presentation, and towards a more student-centered
orientation, where students increasingly produced artifacts with non-written media. It was also
found that student interactions in class were positively impacted with students spending less time
working individually in the 1:1 setting and increasing their frequency of working in small groups
of peers.
This study provides another example in the growing literature on the potential short-term impacts
that may be possible in technology-rich classrooms, particularly when students have 1:1 access to
computers with wireless Internet connectivity. Zhao, Lei, and Frank (2006) have compared
145
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
schools to ecosystems, suggesting that the integration of new technology in the classroom is akin
to introducing a new species into the environment and that the subsequent use of computers de-
pends on how the new elements interact with existing people and practices. In the setting of this
study, the newly available learning tools were integrated in a time span of a few short months.
Although beyond the formal scope of this study, it seems evident that the advanced planning,
training, resources, and support provided by the school and district led to the efficient and suc-
cessful implementation reported here.
It is clear from our results that access to 1:1 computing served to evolve many of the ways that
teachers and students had traditionally used technology in class. For example, in the pre-1:1 set-
tings, students would go to the computer lab to use Google Earth as a GIS platform in Social
Studies. In the months following 1:1 access, students’ increased access to 1:1 devices meant
more individual time was available for them to use Google Earth without leaving their Social
Studies classroom. This increase in student access allowed teachers and students to evolve and
expand traditional work in more creative and individualized ways. For example, students in the
1:1 setting went beyond their traditional map usage to work in small groups to create and present
their own digital “tours” of specific regions.
Lastly, relatively few studies have empirically examined the impacts of 1:1 computing on state
achievement test scores. This is an area where more study is needed as many policy makers to-
day, for better or worse, consider student achievement as measured by state-sanctioned standard-
ized tests to be the most important success indicator of any educational investment. Although
there are many shortcomings to using MCAS here as our measure of student achievement in
ELA, the annual assessment provides a convenient and potentially meaningful measure that is
shared across all public schools in Massachusetts. One of the chief reasons for the lack of re-
search exploring student achievement in 1:1 student computing initiatives is the inherent com-
plexity and difficulty involved in effectively measuring emerging technology practices in 1:1 set-
tings and associating them with valid measures of student achievement. The current study seeks
to contribute to this expanding literature, showing notable first-year ELA achievement growth
from students in the 1:1 pilot setting, reflecting some of the prior ELA research results (Bebell &
Kay, 2009; Shapley, 2008; Silvernail, 2008).
Practical Implications
Taken collectively, these findings suggest a pretty compelling story, particularly given the short
implementation period. Clearly, introducing 1:1 student computing can have dramatic impacts on
a host of teaching and learning practices and outcomes. As much as these results suggest 1:1
computing benefits, it is critical to understand the major role that the 1:1 teachers and the support-
ing school and district community played through planning and support of the program. The pre-
pilot observations across study classrooms illustrate the degree that individual teachers shape how
their class is organized and conducted (see Table 3).
There are three aspects of the 1:1 implementation that seem related to these short-term changes in
the frequency and quality of student to student interactions in class. First, as previously docu-
mented, students with 1:1 Netbook access used Internet and cloud-based resources more fre-
quently. As observed by participating teachers and in the classroom observations, students hav-
ing shared documents, but unshared terminals for accessing and editing the documents provided
for a very efficient level of student/student and teacher/student collaboration. Second, the class-
room activities leveraging the 1:1 technology resources were only effective at increasing collabo-
ration because of the teacher’s deliberate planning, support and design. The technology resources
on their own could have been used in ways that would isolate students from each other. How-
ever, in these 1:1 pilot classrooms, teachers leveraged the technology to foster a high level of en-
gagement and interaction. Third, as students exercised more confidence through their access and
146
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
successful use of digital technology tools in class, both teacher perceptions and classroom obser-
vations found instances of students increasing their overall self-esteem. Although impossible to
fully prove here, students’ increased engagement levels seemed related to their increased interac-
tions in class and the increase in the productivity and quality of those student interactions in the
pilot 1:1 settings.
From the perspective of the participating 1:1 teachers, their instructional decisions coupled with
the new information sharing capacity provided by the netbooks, altered the nature of students’
social interactions in class. Classroom activities grew more social as students moved away from
working in isolation or responding as a whole group to teacher-centered instruction, and towards
increased collaboration in pairs and small groups. This finding may seem contrary to intuitive
predictions that students using 1:1 computers might become so involved with their machines that
they fail to interact with each other. Instead, the 1:1 technology resources became a tool and ref-
erence point for increasing more social ways of learning. There is some evidence that this im-
proved collegiality and increase in students’ mutual support and encouragement may have led to
higher standards of rigor in the 1:1 classes. Another aspect of the 1:1 pilot classes that may have
improved engagement and students overall experience was the teachers’ use of web-based re-
sources to provide increased opportunities for students to make choices about their learning ac-
tivities (Kohn, 1993). If student engagement is influenced by sustainable mechanisms such as
these, rather than novelty, or some other ephemeral process, 1:1 student computing may be a
critical characteristic for increasing student learning.
Limitations and Future Direction/Research
Like any research conducted in a real-world educational environment, the current study’s findings
should be considered in light of its limitations. First, the study involved only four classes in a
single suburban, fairly affluent public school. Impacts associated with the technology implemen-
tation in this pre/post comparative study are at most referring to the differences between the two
pairs of participating teachers. Although the four teachers were rated similarly across study ob-
servations for lesson quality, they were essentially unmatched on other potentially influential
traits such as teaching experience and inclination to use technology in class. Furthermore, the
results presented here are collected from teachers who actively applied to participate in a 1:1
computing pilot program and may not generalize to classroom teachers with differing personal
and professional ambitions. In other words, the enthusiasm and preparedness of the teachers in
this pilot may prove difficult to replicate when implementing such a program across an entire
school population. It is hoped that the study’s use of multiple data sources adds to the reliability
and validity of the results, but we recognize this alone cannot be sufficient for generalizing results
in other settings.
A second general limitation of the study deals with its short duration, particularly the short im-
plementation period of the 1:1 computing resources (six months). In the case of the student lap-
tops, they were placed in the classrooms about midway through the sixth grade year (January
2010) and so had only been used over a limited number of days before classroom observations
and follow-up data collection procedures. For example, pilot students had access to their laptops
for about 35 instructional days before taking the ELA MCAS. It is reasonable to suspect that
such a short period of time is insufficient for many of the technology’s impacts to manifest. One
of the teachers explained that they would need more time to explore the potential uses of each
technological device before determining what the most essential components of their technology
resources are. This opinion is consistent with that expressed by teachers in other settings, who
after two years or more of 1:1 computing in their classes reported they were still learning how to
make best use of the equipment (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs, &
Hammerman, 2010).
147
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
It is clear that more advanced and nuanced research is needed in this field. Future research efforts
must overcome a number of challenges in isolating and measuring the specific teaching and learn-
ing practices afforded by 1:1 computing access. Indeed, a research design whereby students us-
age of specific technology uses are measured and quantified would allow a much richer conversa-
tion about the evolution of teaching and learning practices and the resulting impacts of these prac-
tices. Methodological examples of such approaches are somewhat rare, but prior studies have
applied such methods and approaches to study 1:1 laptop programs in larger settings (Bebell &
O’Dwyer, 2010).
How generalizable the positive results from this study would be to different school settings will
vary in how much planning and support accompanies the 1:1 student computing program. The
study setting described here may be exceptional. Take for example that the district where this
study occurred had the far-sightedness to support an external evaluation study of unusual breadth
and depth. The timing of technology deployment may have had other confounding impacts. For
example, measures of student engagement and changes in instructional styles indicate that enthu-
siasm diminished more in the comparison setting than in the pilot setting. It may be that the ap-
pearance of the computers half-way through the year was a source of novelty, generating in-
creased levels of interest for both teachers and students in the pilot group. If the technology were
implemented at the beginning of the year, such results may have been different.
In conclusion, this year-long study informs a growing body of research on the short term impacts
of technology on teaching and learning practices. Broadly stated, the netbooks and other technol-
ogy resources were used extensively across the pilot classes and had positive impacts on student
interaction, engagement, and productivity. Further, the incorporation of technology also broad-
ened the scope of products traditionally made in classrooms, such as web pages and other web-
based documents. Students were able to use technology to enhance communication and analytic
skills through such activities as giving presentations and engaging in Internet research. Finally,
student achievement improved during the course of the first year of the implementation. While
this finding cannot be wholly attributed to the incorporation of technology, it is important to note
that there were no negative effects on achievement associated with the 1:1 teaching and learning.
Overall, this study provides encouraging findings for the proponent of 1:1 and other digital tech-
nology resources in the classroom. However, these positive results are likely only generalizable
to school settings that are adequately prepared and have thoroughly dedicated themselves to im-
proving and evolving teaching and learning practices.
References
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2009). Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative: Final evaluation report. Chestnut
Hill, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative.
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010, Jan). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the
Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2).
Retrieved January 20, 2010, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/2/
Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings.
The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 1-15.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-
measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63.
Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student
use. The University of California, Irvine & The University of Minnesota, Center for Research on
Information Technology and Organizations.
148
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2013). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Despite lean times, continued
interest and opportunity in K-12, buisiness, and higher education. Educational Media and Technology
Yearbook, 37, 55-71.
Burns-Sardone, N. (2014). Making the case for BYOD instruction in teacher education. Issues in Informing
Science and Information Technology, 11, 191-201. Retrieved from
http://iisit.org/Vol11/IISITv11p191-201Sardone0505.pdf
Cromwell, S. (1999, Nov. 8). Laptops change curriculum - and students. Education World. Retrieved Apr.
6, 2011, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr178.shtml
Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle
school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 42(4), 423-441.
Drayton, B., Falk, J. K., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, J. (2010, January). After installation:
Ubiquitous computing and high school science in three experienced, high-technology schools. The
Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(3). Retrieved January 2010 from
http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol9/3/
Erenben, C. (2009, March 4). Cloud computing: The economic imperative. eSchool News, 12(3), 13-19.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305-332.
Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student
achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 1-39.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). ISTE Standards - Students. Retrieved June 12,
2014, from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-S_PDF.pdf
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12 edition. Austin, TX:
The New Media Consortium.
Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: How and when to let students decide. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(1), 8-
20.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D. (2012). Do one-to-one initiative bridge the way to
21st Century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 1-30.
Maine Education Policy Research Institute. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Teacher,
student, and school perspectives mid-year evaluation report. Retrieved November 6, 2003, from
http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/pdf/ts/mlti.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. (2010). MCAS Tests of Spring 2010
Parent/Guardian Report.
Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged
school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447-472.
O’Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom:
Age matters! Computers and Education, 74, 15-25.
O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Tucker-Seeley, K. R. (2005). Examining the relationship
between home and school computer use and students’ English/language arts test scores. Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(3), 1-46.
O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Tucker-Seeley, K. R. (2008). Examining the relationship
between students' mathematics test scores and computer use at home and at school. Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(5), 1-46.
Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, GA: Long Street
Press.
149
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009, Dec.). Framework for 21st Century learning. Retrieved Apr. 6,
2011, from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120
Project Tomorrow. (2014). The new digital learning playbook: Understanding the spectrum of students’
activities and aspirations. Retrieved June 13, 2014, from
http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU13StudentsReport.pdf
Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: An EdTech Quintet perspective. Retrieved June 12, 2014, from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/07/29/SAMRAnETQPerspective.pdf
Richtel, M. (2011, Sept. 3). In classroom of the future, stagnant scores. The New York Times. Retrieved
May 30, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-
questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M. (2003). An Alphasmart for each student: Does teaching
and learning change with full access to word processors? Computers and Composition, 20, 51-76.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Higgins, J. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and learning in
upper elementary equipped with shared carts of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of
Educational Computing Research., 30(3), 313-330.
Shapley, K. (2008). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot (eTxTIP): Year 2 results. Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation
fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. The Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 1-69.
Silvernail, D. (2008). Maine’s Impact Study of Technology in Mathematics (MISTM). Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics, 2011. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Stager, G. (1998). Laptops and learning: Can laptop computers put the “C” (for construction) in learning?
Curriculum Administrator, 34(3).
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluations, 7(17).
Stevenson, K. (1999). Learning by laptop. School Administrator, 56(4), 18-21.
Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010, January). Laptops and fourth grade
literacy: Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 9(5). Retrieved January 2010, from
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/issue/view/149
Thompson, B. (2001, September 16). Learning to be wired. Washington Post Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/front.htm
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American
education: learning powered by technology. Washington, D.C.
Weston, M., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and
educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6), 5–25.
Zhang, Q., Cheng, L., & Boutaba, R. (2010). Cloud computing: State-of-the-art and research challenges.
Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 1(1), 7-18.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., & Frank, K. A. (2006). The social life of technology: An ecological analysis of
technology diffusion in schools. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1(2), 135-149.
Zucker, A. A., & Hug, S. T. (2008). Teaching and learning physics in a 1:1 laptop school. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 586-594.
150
Bebell, Clarkson, & Burraston
Appendix:
Example of the fixed interval observation form
Biographies
Dr. Damian Bebell is an Assistant Research Professor at Boston Col-
lege’s Lynch School of Education and a Senior Research Associate at
the Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Pol-
icy. Over the past decade, Damian has led numerous research and
evaluation studies investigating the effects of 1-to-1 technology pro-
grams and other computer-based technology tools on teaching and
learning across wide range of educational settings. In 2010, Damian
served as guest editor for a Special Issue of the Journal of Technology,
Learning, and Assessment producing the first collection of peer-
reviewed research studies emerging from 1:1 computing environments. Damian is the founding
Research Director of the Technology Use and Beliefs Study at the International Research Col-
laborative where he conducts longitudinal research and evaluation studies with international
school partners. Damian is an advocate for the use of research, measurement, and evaluation in
documenting and evolving teacher and learning practices, and is a frequent speaker and writer on
uch matters.
s
Apryl Clarkson works in the Office of Data and Accountability for
the Boston Public Schools district. Apryl is a former high school m
teacher in the BPS who is currently in the final stages of completing
her PhD in Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation at
Boston College. While in her graduate program, Apryl worked on a
variety of projects that included classroom observations, program
evaluation, survey development, test development, test statistics, item
analysis, and quantitative methods, which include a host of statistical
methods including but not limited to logistic regression models, multi-
ath
151
Cloud Computing: 6th grade
152
level modeling, IRT, and value-added modeling. Apryl started working for the Boston Public
Schools district in the fall of 2012. While in this role, Apryl is responsible for analyzing high
school data with the intention of enacting programmatic change. Her areas of work focus on end
of secondary assessment and transition including PSAT, SAT, FAFSA application trends, Post-
secondary Enrollment, and MCAS/PARCC assessments. In addition to focusing on secondary
education, Apryl is completing her dissertation on the transition of teacher education graduates
from their preparation program to schools and their varying levels of retention.
James Burraston. After completing his BSc in teaching anthropology
at the University of Utah, James worked for five years as the math and
biology teacher at the Penikese Island School in Boston Harbor. While
there he developed hands-on and differentiated curriculum to meet the
needs of high school students with a range of emotional and behavioral
difficulties. Afterwards, James completed a MEd in educational re-
search, measurement and evaluation at Boston College and began
working with Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative (in-
TASC) and the Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educa-
tional Policy (CSTEEP) on the evaluation of educational technology programs, particularly in 1:1
computing settings. Currently, James is working as a private consultant and is studying for an
MA in theology and ministry at Boston College.
