Laptop program effects

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

New York: Erlbaum.