1 Running Head: Laptop program effects on student behaviour
and achievement Literature Review: A literature review on one to one laptop program effects on student behaviour and achievement. Dale Addis ETEC 500 Research methodology in education section 66 A Professor: Clifford Falk University of British Columbia July 29, 2010 (1994 words) Laptop program effects 2 Introduction Many schools have (or are implementing) one-to-one (1:1) laptop programs wherein each student uses a laptop during class, allowing mobile internet access to benefit learning from computers (Lei, Conway, & Zhao, 2008). For the past three years I have been concurrently teaching 1:1 laptop-based and nonlaptopbased science 8 and 9 classes. I have noticed students distracted by the multimedia functions available, and question whether they are helped or hindered by the devices. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the effects of a 1:1 laptop program on student behaviour (including engagement, motivation, being off-task) and academic achievement. Five literature articles have been selected to review Lei (2010); Donavan, Green, and Hartley (2010); Bebell and Kay (2010); Dunleavy and Heinecke (2008); Gulek and Demirtas (2005). The initial article search was through Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC) computerized data base for the key words: One-to-one; laptop program; Ubiquitous computing. Subsequent articles were discovered through reading the initial ERIC findings. Laptop program effects 3 Each article will be summarized and critiqued, then synthesised for common themes and issues. A conclusion will be drawn from the synthesis and implications for further studies identified. Summary/Critique One-to-one laptop programs effect student behaviour, engagement, and motivation (Lei, 2010; Donavan et al, 2010, Bebell & Kay, 2010). Jing Leis (2010) qualitative survey/interviewbased study examined the four year
evolution of a 1:1 middle school laptop program. Teacher, grade 7
and 8 student survey/interview results were collected every June between 2004 and 2007. Data was collected for: demographics; attitudes and beliefs on technology; investigation on current technology use; evaluation on current information technology proficiency. Statistical analyses of surveys and analysis of interviews were conducted. Student behaviours, attitudes and technology proficiencies changed over the years. During the first year of the program students played games, communicated with each other and surfed the web. Then the novelty wore off. Eventually students stayed more on-task and used the computers for academic purposes, simultaneously becoming more computerproficient. The paper fails to report class sizes and student participant numbers. Generalization of results cannot be made as the number of students within the study is unknown. Laptop program effects 4 Donavan et al (2010) performed a qualitative study of student behaviours in a 1:1 laptop program in seventh grade classes at a middle school. The one school-year study included student behaviour analyses within the different class/laptop environments. An Innovation Configuration (IC) map was created from interviewing twelve grade 7 teachers and from 40 hours of class observations. The map was used to cluster components, conduct further focused observations/interviews (20 more observable hours), and finally write implication/configuration narratives identifying how students worked together and their off-task behaviours. Three 1:1 environment configurations were derived from the narratives. Configuration A: students came prepared to learn and laptops were used at all times; Configuration B: some students did not have their laptops (laptops not used all of the time); Configuration C: students and teachers did not use laptops as many students did not bring them to every class. The authors concluded laptops do not increase student academic engagement; they do increase motivation to use technology, but for non-academic purposes. Off-task behaviour was evident in
each of the configurations. Configuration B students were most
off-task. Configuration A students appeared more engaged in their work, but further observations revealed they were off-task as much as C students. Configuration As teacher allowed them to be off-task as they always handed in their work (unlike B and C). In fact, A student projects were allowed notably longer time periods to complete. Laptop program effects 5 The reliability of off-task recorded observations by the authors is questionable. For example, Donovan et al (2010) identified that a 50 % indicator of off-task behaviour was when the behaviour was observed half the number of times they observed the class. However, percent offtask behaviours were not directly recorded. Rather, they compared off-task behaviours on a frequency scale while not explaining how the scale was derived. Furthermore, observation totals for each laptop environment were not provided. Bebell and Kay (2010) disagreed with these findings. Damian Bebell and Rachel Kay (2010) conducted a quantitative/qualitative three year longitudinal study on the Berckshire wireless learning initiative (BWLI) pilot 1:1 laptop program to determine if the programs targeted outcomes enhancing student achievement; improving student engagement; improving classroom management; enhancing students independent research and collaborative abilities; change teaching strategies were being met. Five 1:1 laptop and two non-laptop middle schools were studied. A pre/post- comparison group design was used to determine the effects of the program on grades 6 through 8 students Laptops were rolled out by grade levels during 2005 2007. In September 2007 1700 students had laptops. Data was collected with the use of teacher surveys; selected teacher interviews; student surveys; Laptop program effects 6 student drawings (reflection of writing abilities pre/post-laptop); analysis of existing school records and tests; observations; principal interviews; grade 7 state test writing samples. Surveys, observations, interviews, and statistical analyses of students present and past state exams were studied. Linear regression methods analyzed student achievement changes, based on pre-
test achievement values. Student level regression models
determined whether treatment had statistical effects on achievement, relative to control groups. Teacher/principal surveys and interviews indicated student engagement, motivation, research/collaboration abilities, and achievement increased when in the 1:1 program. However, Bebell and Kay (2010) reported that after conducting statistical analysis of student state level scores, no conclusive statements about laptop effects on achievement could be made - it did statistically increase in the language component of the state test, it did not for science or math. The concluded effects of laptop students engagement, motivation, and achievement are questionable. Student survey results were not discussed and survey validity and reliability values were not included. Mixed conclusive results were stated. Laptop use was concluded to be the reason why the grade 8 math percent passing gap between laptop and non laptop students shrunk; yet it was later stated that statistical analysis of the math results indicated the program had no significant effect on their math abilities. Dunleavy and Heineckes (2008) 1:1 laptop program study of effects on student science and math achievements both supports and contradicts Bebell and Kay (2010) findings. Laptop program effects 7 Matt Dunleavy and Walter Heineckes 2008 quantitative study (data collected in 2005) analyzed the longitudinal effect of a 1:1 laptop program on at-risk (low achieving) middle school students math and science achievements. Participants were randomly selected. A pretest/posttest control group design was used to compare grade 8 laptop students to non-laptop students standardized state achievement measures. The experimental/laptop and control groups consisted of 54 and 113 students respectively. Laptop students had been in the program for two years. A one-way between-group analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) statistical instrument was used to determine pre-program achievement differences between the two groups. Between-subject analyses of covariance were conducted for math and science, after adjusting for pre-existing differences. Statistical analysis allowed the authors to conclude that: laptop treatment had significant
positive effects on student science achievement; boys
significantly outperformed the girls in science achievement within the laptop group; laptop treatment had no significant effects for math achievement. The methodology section indicated 100 participating program students, the demographics table 54, and the statistical analysis table 52. No explanation for the numerical inconsistencies was given. Moreover, although students were randomly selected, external validity is questionable as this was a single subject experimental design. Generalization of results cannot be made. Laptop program effects 8 Bebell and Kay (2010) achievement results were both supported and refuted by Dunleavy and Heinecke (2008) results. Gulek and Demirtas (2005) study indicated a positive correlation between student achievement and program participation. James Gulek and Halcan Demirtas 2005 quantitative study determined the influence of a 1:1 laptop program on middle school student achievement, specifically for grade point averages; end of year grades; essay writing skills; standardized test scores. The program initiated in 2001 with volunteering grade 6 students, expanding to grades 7 and 8. At time of study 259 of 1085 students were enrolled in the program. No statistical demographic differences between laptop and non-laptop students were found. Laptop students achievements were compared to non-laptop students within the same school for overall grade point averages (GPAs); end of course grades; district writing assessment for 6th and 8th grades; standardized testing and reporting (STAR) NormReferenced Test (NRT) and California standards (CAT) tests in English and mathematics. The above achievement measures were compared between the two groups. Groups were subcategorized, based on grade level, into one of three cohorts. Each cohort consisted of laptop and non-laptop students. Statistical analysis of specific grade level groups were conducted to Laptop program effects 9 compare current marks, baseline (grade 5 achievement) marks, and overall change in marks from when the cohort entered the program. Linear mixed-modeling software analysis was used to analyze repeated measures between all laptop and non laptop students. Gulek and Demirtas (2005) concluded that students
who participated in the laptop program obtained significantly
higher achievement values for writing, language, mathematics, and GPA. For all three cohorts, laptop students grades indicated higher achievement. Baseline achievement comparisons showed no statistical difference between experimental and non-laptop counterparts. Longitudinal statistical analysis indicated laptop achievement was higher, with STAR NRTs for math being 16 points higher and language values being 13 points higher, relative to their non-laptop counterparts. External validity issues are threatened by failure to randomly select student participants, likely affecting generalization of the results. Moreover, teacher pedagogical beliefs have a large impact on student learning (as indicated by the authors) and may have influenced student achievement more than technology did. Further studies comparing groups of students with the same teacher are required to eliminate this variable. Synthesis Contradicting behavioural findings were noted between studies. Lei (2010), and Bebell and Kay (2010) concluded that 1:1 laptop student behaviours improved over time; students spent less time using the computer for entertainment (Lei, 2010), becoming more engaged and motivated to learn (Bebell & Kay, 2010). However, Donavan et al (2010) concluded that laptops do not increase learning engagement. Laptop students often appearing to be always Laptop program effects 10 engaged, were just as off-task as students in other classes. Contradicting behavioural findings may be the reason for contradicting academic achievement findings. Analysis of literature-reported achievement conclusions for laptop students were contradicting. Bebell and Kay (2010) found laptops helped students achieve higher marks in the language arts, but not in math or science. Dunleavy and Heinecke (2008) found that laptops helped increase students achievement in science, but not math. Gulek and Demirtas (2005) found all students academic areas achievement increased by laptop program participation. The common factor largely influencing student behaviour and academic achievement (mentioned in all papers) was the teacher.
Teachers opinions or how they used technology within the
classroom were analysed by some (Lei, 2010; Bebell & Kay, 2010, Donavan et al, 2010) but neither controlled nor analyzed by others (Dunleavy & Heinecke, 2008; Gulek & Demirtas, 2005). Teachers pedagogical views on how laptops are used in class have dramatic effects on students abilities to learn with laptops. Gulek and Demirtas (2005) noted that teacher pedagogical beliefs greatly impact student learning. Bebell and Kay (2010) found laptops were used more in language arts and social studies than in science and math classes (students statistically did better in laptop language art classes). However, Gulek and Demirtas (2005) noted students used their laptops daily in all academic areas, with a corresponding academic achievement increase in all areas. Laptop program effects 11 Conclusion The purpose of the above literature review was to examine students behaviours and achievement within 1:1 laptop programs. Mixed results on student behaviours and achievement from participating within a 1:1 laptop program were found. Motivation and engagement in learning was noted in some studies, but not in others. Laptops generally correlated to students achieving higher marks in the language arts, but not always in math and sciences. Further studies are required wherein the teacher variable is controlled. References: Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitiative results from the Berkshire wirles learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment . 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. Dunleavy, M., & Heinecke, W. (2008). The Impact of 1:1 Laptop Use on Middle School Math and Science Standardized Test Scores. Computers in the Schools, 24(3-4), 7-22. Gulek, J., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with Technology: The Impact of Laptop Use on Student Achievement. ERS Spectrum, 23(4), 4-20. Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for Ubiquitous Computing: What Can Be Learned from a Longitudinal Study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35-53. Laptop program effects 12 Lei, J., Conway, P., & Zhao, Y. (2008).
The digital pencil: One-to-one computing for children. London and