Running Head: EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOOM

Effects of One-to-One Computing in the Classroom

Jason Machalak
ETD 624
Dr. Gilbreath
Saginaw State University

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Table of Contents
Abstract..3
Introduction.4
Effect on Student Participation..4
Effect on Student Achievement.6
Effect on Classroom Management..7
Conclusion.9
References.11

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Abstract
This paper explored the effects of one-to-one computing in the modern classroom. Recently,
one-to-one computing had become a hot topic in the educational world with many people curious
as to whether the ends justify the means. This paper explored research on one-to-one computing
and discussed its effects in the classroom. Effects on student participation and achievement, as
well as effects on classroom management were the focus of this research.
Keywords: one-to-one, student achievement, participation, engagement, differentiation

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Introduction
As our educational system put increased emphasis on standardized test scores in K-12
schools, many began searching vigorously for the best methods available. Many teachers and
administrators alike wondered what they could do to improve student achievement, particularly
in the low-performing schools in low socio-economic communities. Students were not able to
focus in the traditional classroom for a multitude of reasons but researchers searched for
something to get their attention. One of the most proven methods was the implementation and
use of technology in the classroom. Although classrooms around the world operated with varying
levels of technology in the classroom, some had gone all in with the one-to-one computing
model. This model provided each student with a laptop or tablet and used digital classroom
content. Numerous studies showed that classrooms that used one-to-one computing had gains in
academic achievement and class participation while reducing behavioral and attendance
problems. However, the one-to-one model was extremely costly to districts and many studies
had been done measuring its effectiveness. Positive effects of one-to-one computing must be
clear for districts to validate such monumental costs. The one-to-one model worked best when
classroom teachers were willing to change their methods of instruction. Classroom participation,
student achievement, classroom management were the main categories evaluated for
effectiveness in this review.
Effect on Student Participation
Of the things necessary for academic success, student participation was one of the most
important. Unfortunately for many schools, traditional teaching methods were not capturing their
students attention. When students were bored with school, many times they would miss precious
instructional time in the classroom. Technology was added to traditional classroom in an attempt

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

to regain student attention and ultimately have students participate more. In a Dallas, Texas pilot
program, 476 4th and 5th grade students participated in a one-to-one computing program.
Participating students absences decreased by over 29%. Meanwhile, the control groups
attendance increased by 52% (Rosen and Beck-Hill, 2015). Bored students found excuses to not
come to school and excited ones made more of an effort. It may not seem like much of an effect
on student participation but it was hard to participate or be engaged when they were not present.
The same study showed an increase in one-to-one interaction between students and
teachers as a result of the one-to-one program. According to Rosen and Beck-Hill (2015), the
results indicated that participation in the program contributed significantly to higher frequency of
one-to-one teacher-student interactions (p. 234). The finding of increased one-to-one student
teacher contact can be linked to a decrease in student absences. The one-to-one computing model
allowed teachers to build better relationships with students and the data showed that attendance
increased as a result, making class participation possible.
After studying the effects of one-to-one computing in seven different programs, the
Abnell Foundation found that teachers and student in each program reported students being more
engaged in learning (2008). Students enjoyed using technology, so it was no surprise that they
became more active participants in class after joining a one-to-one program. Surveys showed that
90% of teachers thought students were more motivated to learn as a result of one-to-one
computing (The Abnell Foundation, 2008).
In a Massachusetts pilot program known as the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative
(BWLI), researchers reported that student engagement increased dramatically in response to the
enhanced educational access and opportunities afforded by 1:1 computing (Bebell and Kay, p.

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

21, 2010). These conclusions were directly observed through classroom observations and
verified by interviews with students, teachers, and administrators.
In addition to increased student engagement with class materials, Bebell and Kay also
reported increased student collaboration in their findings (2010). The BWLI program showed
that many participants collaborated and interacted more with other students as a result of the oneto-one exposure (Bebell and Kay, 2010). They also reported, however, that the change was not
as dramatic as other areas, but could be considered a positive impact. Again, the goal of one-toone computing programs was to increase academic achievement, and participation was the first
stepping stone in that process. The reports studied in this review overwhelmingly agreed that
student engagement and participation increased as a result of one-to-one programs. Being present
was a crucial part of success.
Effect on Student Achievement
The term digital divide was often used to portray the technology gap that exists
between students of different socioeconomic classes. Because of this digital divide, some
students came into one-to-one initiatives with a strong background using technology and some
students were novices. Something needed to be done to catch up the students who come from
low socioeconomic communities and were on the wrong end of the divide. In a study done by
the Hanover Research Council (2010), widespread use of technology in the classroom may
close the gap between students of varying economic backgrounds (p. 25). The council also
found that economically challenged students participating in one-to-one programs reached
proficiency levels that were equal to their advantaged control-group peers (p. 27). Students who
were previously behind quickly caught up to their more advanced peers by using the devices

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

regularly. Without the one-to-one exposure, students remained on the wrong side of the digital
divide.
In the BWLI, researchers concluded that student achievement had been positively
enhanced through the types of educational access and opportunities provided by the 1:1 pilot
program (Bebell and Kay 2010). Seventy-one percent of teachers who participated in the three
year BWLI program reported that their students had benefitted greatly from their participation
in a one-to-one program. As students became more technology proficient, they had higher levels
of achievement in the classroom. The achievement resulted from an elevated level of interest
from the students that was caused by the technology.
Several studies showed a direct increase in student achievement on standardized tests, a
focus of many districts across the country. Schools were punished in the past for not performing
at state standards and were eager to find a solution. Students in 1:1 classrooms consistently
achieved proficient or advanced scores on their state standardized test (Hanover Institute, 2010).
After comparing scores from 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students, those with one-to-one initiatives
outperformed their counterparts by 12, 19 and 25 percent, respectively (p. 21). All three grades
achieved higher levels of success as a result of one-to-one computing.
In 2010-2011, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) was given to all
4th, 5th, and 6th graders in the state of Texas. Using 2010 scores as a pre-test and 2011 scores as
a post-test, TAKS scores improved significantly in one-to-one classrooms when compared to the
control groups who did not have one-to-one exposure (Rosen and Beck-Hill, 2012). The impact
of this year-long program is clear; students achieve higher scores on standardized tests when they
are exposed to one-to-one programs.

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Effect on Classroom Management

Research on the effect of one-to-one computing as it pertains to classroom management,
varied. Teacher interviews showed a majority of teachers found one-to-one technology to aid in
classroom management but some did say it caused more problems for them. In a study done by
Gary Laver and Charles Slem (2008), laptops were a possible distraction if allowed. Students
who were able to use laptops at their will did not perform as well who were given time
constraints on their access. Students who were distracted by social media had a reduced
academic performance (Laver and Slem, 2011). Acceptable use policies at many schools often
restricted access to social media sites. Teachers should be restricting student freedom on their
device if they want them to maximize their learning experience.
Although some reported distraction problems in their one-to-one classrooms, most of the
data showed that disciplinary issues were decreased immensely. In a Texas study involving the
TAKS test, the Grand Prairie Independent School District (GPISD) reported a significant
decrease in disciplinary issues among one-to-one participants when compared to a control group
(Rosen and Beck-Hill, 2012). The GDISD found that both groups showed improvement but the
participants discipline incidents were reduced by 62.5 percent, whereas control participants
issues were reduced by 15.4%. The drastic positive effect on classroom management and student
behavior was exactly what most schools have been looking for. Students who were not
suspended were able to spend more time learning curriculum in the classroom.
One-to-one computing had also shown a positive effect on communications. Introducing
one-to-one computers to a school has the potential to change the overall school climate
(Hoffman and Storz, 2013). Researchers discovered that increase in communication occurred
between students, students and teachers, and teachers and parents. Communications mostly

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

occurred in the form of emails, discussion boards, chats, and shared documents (Hoffman and
Storz, 2013). Open communication between parents, administrators, teachers, and students
created a more positive environment at school and students achieved higher levels of learning as
a result.
Conclusion
The American educational system was one that continued to place the utmost importance
on standardized test scores. Low academic performance was a major problem for districts across
the country, particularly in low socioeconomic districts. Low achievement in test scores, low
levels of student engagement and participation, and distractions caused by classroom
management were the main culprits. The purpose of this review was to find solutions to those
problems. Many researchers agreed that one-to-one computing offered the very solutions people
were searching for. The data overwhelmingly showed an increase in student participation and
engagement. When students were consistently engaged, and many achieved higher levels of
academic success, when compared to control students in a traditional classroom. Students who
participated in one-to-one programs also were able to attend school more often. Studies showed
that absences decreased significantly. Data on improvement of classroom management was
mixed, but many agree that attendance and disciplinary issues were down. The most important
factor that influenced classroom management was teaching pedagogy. Teachers who were
willing to restrict access to devices had to deal with less disciplinary issues than those who were
not. Even those who argued that one-to-one computing caused more problems in the classroom
agreed that it depended on the teacher. Many teachers were open and willing to change their
instructional techniques but some were reluctant. Implementation of appropriate teacher
pedagogies were the way to most effectively utilize technology to improve learner outcomes

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

(Weaver, 2010). The model for success in the one-to-one classroom was to create a studentcentered learning environment that was closely monitored by teachers who taught using more
progressing methods.

10

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

References
Bouterse, B., Corn, J., & Halstead, E. (2009). Choosing the Perfect Tools for One-to-One.
Learning & Leading with Technology, August 2009. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ856116.pdf
Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2011). One-to-One Computing in Teacher Education: Faculty
Concerns and Implications for Teacher Educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 140-148. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893872.pdf
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. (2005). A Year in the Life. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 37(4), 361-377. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ690978.pdf
Hall, D. (2006). From 1:1 to 1 to Won. Learning and Leading With Technology, February 2006.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ728940.pdf
Hanover Research Council. (2010). The Effectiveness of One-to-One Laptop Initiatives In
Increasing Student Achievement. District Administration Practice. March 2010.
https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/files/techsvc/The%20Effectiveness%20of%20One-toOne%20Laptop%20Initiatives%20in%20Increasing%20Student%20Achievement.pdf
Kay, R., & Bebell, D. (2010). One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results
from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning,
and Assessment, 9(2). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ873676.pdf
Kiker, R. (2011). How to Pay for Your One-to-One Program. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 44(N. 1), 22-25. doi:2015
Larkin, K. (2011). You use! I use! We use! Questioning the Orthodoxy of One-to-One
Computing in Primary Schools. JRTE, 101-120. Doi:
2011http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967827.pdf

11

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Light, D., & Pierson, E. (2012). Highlighting Changes in the Classroom of a Successful One-toOne Program in Rural Argentina. Center for Children and Technology. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543158.pdf
McAnear, A. (2005). Ubiquitous Versus One-to-One. Learning & Leading with Technology,
December/January 2005-06. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ728923.pdf
McLeod, S., & Lehmann, C. (2012). What school leaders need to know about digital
technologies and social media (pp. 75-82). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mendicino, M., Razzaq, L., & Heffernan, N. (2015). 15. A Comparison of Traditional
Homework to Computer-Supported Homework. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 41(3), 331-359. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ835243.pdf
Mortenson, C. (n.d.). Mission Possible: Keys to One-to-One Success. Learning and Leading with
Technology, August 2011, 16-21. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ941905.pdf
Muir, M., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2004). The Power of One-to-One. Learning & Leading
With Technology, 32(3). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ695898.pdf
Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and Effects of One-to-One Computing Initiatives. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ728908.pdf
Pitler, H., Flynn, K., & Gaddy, B. (2004). Is a Laptop Initiative in Your Future?. MidContinental Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518627.pdf
Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining Digital Content and a One-To-One Laptop
Environment in Teaching and Learning. Journal of Research on Technology in

12

EFFECTS OF ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Education, 225-241. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ976467.pdf
Spires, H., Oliver, K., & Corn, J. (n.d.). The New Learning Ecology of One-to-One Computing
Environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 63-72. Retrieved
November 5, 2015, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ960152.pdf
Stakeholder Technology Branch. (2009). Emerge One-to-One Laptop Learning Initiative: Year
One Report. Edmonton, AB: Crown in Right of the Province of Alberta. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506127.pdf
Storz, M., & Hoffman, A. (n.d.). Examining Response to a One-to-One Computer Initiative:
Student and Teacher Voices. RMLE Online, 1-18. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ995733.pdf
The Abnell Foundation,. (2008). One-to-One Computing in Public Schools: Lessons from
"Laptops for All" Programs. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505074.pdf
Wash, P., Bradley, G., & Beck, J. (2014). Remote Classroom Observations with Preservice
Teachers. SRATE Journal, 58-65. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057198.pdf
Weaver, A. (2010). Personal, portable, multifunction-devices and school libraries. Brisbane,
Australia: International Association of School Librarianship. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518558.pdf
Weiss, Suzanne. (2006). States, Districts Beginning to Tap the Potential of TechnologyEnhanced Learning. The Progress of Education Reform, 6(6), 1-4. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490992.pdf

13