Running Header: Building Framework for Technology Integration 1

Building a Framework for Technology Integration

Jared Callis
Western Oregon University
M.S. Ed. Information Technology Portfolio
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 2

Introduction

As the 21st Century quickly moves forward, there has been a push in many public

school districts to adopt a one to one or ubiquitous computer initiative. These initiatives

place some type of mobile computing device in a students hands (this could include a

laptop, tablet, or even a smartphone) that allows them to use it both at school and at home

for learning. It has been broadly accepted that this type of technology initiative will

transform education in revolutionary ways (Dunleavy & Heinecke, 2007). As one to one

computing has become more popular around the country, many districts have rushed to jump

on board this technology train, often too soon and without looking for evidence of its effects

on student achievement.

The fact that many districts rush into a one to one technology initiative leads to

many missteps and missed pieces along the way. Sometimes it may mean a district did not

get buy in from parents and/or teachers during the process. Other times, districts may fail to

provide teachers with effective and meaningful professional development to prepare them to

implement such technology. Perhaps the districts network was ill prepared to handle the

load of every student having a wireless device connected to it (Dunleavy, Dexter, &

Heinecke, 2007). All of these missteps in the implementation of a one to one technology

initiative will likely have a negative effect on student achievement.

As districts, state legislatures, or state education boards mandate or i3mplement these

technology initiatives there are many questions that should be asked. What is the effect on

student achievement? Is the cost associated with these technologies worth the reward? As
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 3

districts seek to keep up with other more technologically advanced districts, they sometimes

shortchange their investigation as to the actual benefits of student achievement.

The purpose of this paper is to:

1) Discover if one to one computing initiatives do in fact improve student

achievement.

2) Examine how to implement a one to one computing initiative successfully.

3) Examine best practices to use technology in the classroom in order to attain

improved student achievement.

4) Provide a discussion framework based on the research to help school districts

make technology integration decisions.

5) Determine areas where further research might be helpful to a district making

these decisions.

Research Overview

The majority of the literature reviewed for this study was focused in the late 1990s

and early 2000s during which time schools and districts had implemented one to one

laptop programs through partnerships with Dell, Apple, Compaq, or other companies. The

articles discussed how one to one technology programs were implemented, what training

was provided to the teachers and staff in order to be successful at implementation of the

program, what student achievement gains were made within these programs, and in what

specific ways teachers were using the technology to increase student engagement. Many of

the research articles also discussed how this research is still in its infancy and will continue

to be studied in much deeper contexts. It was also noted throughout these articles that

linking student achievement to the use of technology in the classroom can be very
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 4

challenging for researchers to do in order to see statistically significant results one way or

the other, yet not impossible.

Student Achievement Growth

Districts that prioritize student achievement growth as the center of their technology

initiatives will in fact raise test scores. These studies looked at the impacts that one to one

programs and initiatives had on student achievement, since that is the goal of implementing

technology. The researchers wanted to know if the students in these programs were making

greater academic gains than comparable students who were not in such programs. Dunleavy

& Heinecke (2007) conducted a study that looked specifically at middle school students in

the areas of mathematics and science. They used a pre-test/post-test control group design.

The students in the experimental group had full access to their own laptop both at home and

in the classroom, while the control group had limited access to the same technology. The

pretest for both groups was their fifth grade math and science state test results, while the

post-test was their eighth grade math and science test results. The students in the

experimental group participated in the one to one program during their seventh and eighth

grade years. The results from the study showed that the experimental group had

significantly higher science test scores than the control group. While the test scores were

also higher in mathematics, it was not statistically significant.

In 2003, the Texas State Legislature enacted the Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP),

which immersed high needs middle schools in a one to one laptop program. Shapley, et

al, (2009) produced a study after the fourth year of this pilot program to determine the

effects that it had on students and their academic achievement. Their results showed that in

Language Arts and Mathematics state tests, students in the pilot schools made significantly
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 5

greater growth than students in non-pilot schools. This study also kept track of how often

the students used the laptops for homework at home specifically. The researchers found a

significant positive correlation between laptop use at home for homework and how well they

performed on their Mathematics and Reading state tests. The quantitative studies done

within this research project found that technology helped produce the largest growth in the

areas of mathematics and reading (Shapely, et. al., 2009).

Despite these studies showing significant student growth in these areas, other studies

have been less conclusive. Bebell & Kay (2010) took an in depth look at the Berkshire

Wireless Learning Initiative in Massachusetts to determine if the program successfully

increased student achievement. Their findings showed that while students in the one to

one program were performing slightly higher on Math and ELA state tests than those who

were not in the program, it was not statistically significant. Essentially the scores on those

state tests were very similar, with the experiment group just barely edging out the control

group. A similar study done by Downes & Bishop (2015) also studied a one to one

program in a rural middle school. Their study was done over four years and wanted to

examine the relationship between the implementation of a one to one program and what is

already accepted as effective middle school teaching strategies. Their conclusion showed

that when they compared two schools who were both using effective middle school teaching

techniques, one with one to one technology and one without, that each school produced

similar results on state test scores. Their study still leaves the question: Does a one to

one technology program really have a direct effect on student engagement?

Holcomb (2009) sums up the reason why these studies seem to contradict each other:

skills that are critical and inherent to a 1:1 initiative do not necessarily align with todays
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 6

standardized assessments. This in turn impedes the ability to assess the educational impact a

1:1 initiative has had on student achievement (Holcomb, 2009, p. 54). Researchers thus far

have found it quite challenging to be able to directly link student achievement gains to one

to one programs. There are many other factors that come into play when looking at student

achievement.: How often did the teacher use the technology within the lessons? Was the

teacher an expert on the technology being used? Was training provided to the teacher? Was

the teacher an effective teacher before the implementation of the program? Was the

technology working as it should? These are important questions when considering student

achievement. This makes it challenging for a researcher to wade through observation data to

determine if student achievement growth is directly related to a students ability to have

access to their own laptop or device.

Infrastructure

In order to implement a one to one initiative effectively a district needs to have

network infrastructure that can handle a high number of connected devices. Districts must

take into consideration not just the bandwidth load that each building can carry but also the

placement and availability of the access points. Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke (2007) noted

that not only should districts make sure their network hardware was able to withstand the

mass use of wireless devices, but districts should also prioritize empowering teachers to

become experts at using the technology themselves. Getting new technology and devices

into the hands of teachers as early as possible should be a high priority according to this

study. Professional development and technology trainings for teachers will help the teacher

become an expert user, giving them an advantage in leading their students on a learning
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 7

adventure. First and foremost should be to train teachers and technology directors how to

use the chosen software to create technologically effective lessons.

Teacher Buy-In

Teachers need to be included in the decision making process within a district

considering going one to one. Districts need to take great care to provide teachers with

the specific technology training that is required to master a new device. William Penuel

(2006) in his study, which looked at effective one to one: implementation strategies, found

that one large factor in effective implementation of a one to one program involved teacher

beliefs about technology. According to his study, what the teacher believed technology was

capable of doing determined how they chose to use it within their class structure. When a

district or school empowers teachers early on in a one to one technology initiative, success

will be greatly improved. If a school or district rushes to get buy-in, then their success at

implementation could be hindered. Penuels study also made a point to state that specific

professional development focused on creating student centered learning activities was very

important for having an effective one to one program. The technology allows a student-

centered learning approach to change the culture of a classroom, but a teacher must be

taught how to do this and become comfortable using this skill in order for it to work well

and efficiently.

Bebell & Kay (2010) also discussed the effects that a one to one program has on

teachers. They suggest that out of all members of the educational organization,

technological changes are the most arduous for teachers to implement. It takes a great deal

of extra time and effort for a teacher to take a new technology and incorporate it into their

lessons seamlessly and frequently. Like Penuel, Bebell and Kays research showed that
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 8

teachers linked their personal beliefs about technology with the current culture of the school

and the timeliness of district provided technology professional development (Bebell & Kay,

2010). Teachers with a positive outlook on new technology would typically work harder to

learn about it and to implement it with their lessons. Teachers with a negative outlook

toward new technology tend not to find value in taking the extra time to incorporate it into

their lessons. Districts need to be supplying teachers with timely professional development

that is going to provide that positive outlook on the new technology.

Parent and Community Buy-In

A successful technology initiative must garner support from both parents and the

community. Holcomb (2009) suggests that districts and schools hold parent and community

nights in order to teach them about the new program. Districts find the most success when

they start the communication and teaching process well before distribution of any devices to

students. Communities and parents need to be informed about what happens within their

schools. Districts need to provide a detailed plan that lays out how the devices are being

used within their district and what impact it will have on student engagement and

achievement. Overall, parents need to know and have at least a general knowledge of how

to use the technology, and understand how it relates to learning for their child.

Teaching Best Practices

Districts that implement one to one devices must remember that teaching

pedagogy still needs to be at the center of what they do. Penuel (2006) found that the

majority of teachers in the laptop programs he studied had students use their computers for

many different activities. These activities ranged from basic word processing for writing to

working on a collaborative project with classmates. Learning outcomes included

Building a Framework for Technology Integration 9

PowerPoint presentations, website creation, and even digital movie and picture editing

projects. Penuel (2006) concluded that students were much more engaged in these types of

projects than simple lecture and note taking learning.

Downes and Bishop (2015) concluded that technology rich projects engaged students

in new and meaningful ways, and those projects were seen by students as relevant to real

life. Students interviewed as part of Downes and Bishops research expressed their feelings

that student centered learning activities allowed for more relevant and engaging lessons

(Downes and Bishop, 2015). When students were involved in choosing the specific ways in

which they would demonstrate learning it created a greater feeling of buy-in. One of the

difficulties with this type of learning is that it takes a lot of training and time to develop

technology rich student centered learning activities. As Penuel (2006) reinforced, teachers

with positive attitudes toward the technology tend to put forth the time and energy needed to

create such a culture of learning. Educators who have the desire to incorporate more

technology into their teaching, they will continue to grow and expand their technological

repertoire as they continue reading and learning about all that new devices can do in the

classroom.

Furthermore, Downes & Bishop (2015) noted that the traditional school and

classroom cultures still need to be fostered even while using this new technology. The effort

to start a one to one program lacked an adequate emphasis on the culture of teamwork that

is also necessary. Student centered learning is much more effective when a classroom

culture of teamwork and collaboration is set forth at the beginning of the year and

expectations for projects are always clearly defined. Technology rich projects are more

effective when a culture of teamwork and collaboration has been nurtured and maintained.
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 10

Discussion Framework

A discussion framework will act as guide for districts as they prepare to propose and

launch a one to one technology initiative. The intention of this discussion framework is to

aid a technology integration committee as they work to set up a one to one program within

their school district. The Discussion Framework is broken down into eight categories.

These categories are centered on three main themes of the research presented 1) School

districts should be focused on implementing technology for student achievement and not just

for the sake of technology. 2) Infrastructure must be adequately prepared. 3) Teachers need

to learn best practices for teaching with technology. The questions included within each

category do not all necessarily relate to the research, but research shows that districts need to

be intentional in addressing the needs within these eight categories, in order to have the

largest opportunity to impact student growth.

Vision and purpose helps to create the value for including technology within their

district. It provides direction that will guide how a technology initiative is shaped.

Providing a vision and purpose allows all of the stakeholders to know and understand the

direction a district is heading in terms of technology and students. This allows everyone to

work towards the same goal, instead of various directions. Taking on a technology initiative

as a united front is paramount.

Funding is important because student growth will not be effective if a district is

unable to fund their project adequately beyond just the initial, startup costs. A district who

takes on a major technology program like this is going to need to budget wisely for device

purchase, repairs, software, and training for staff. In addition, a district must be able to

sustain the coverage of these expenses for years to come in order to make sure the program
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 11

lives beyond the initial few years. A district budget committee must be aware of the yearly

impact a one to one technology initiative will have on the year-to-year scope of their

budget.

District infrastructure must be considered both qualitatively and quantitatively,

especially in regards to their networking and wireless networking systems. A slow or

overloaded network causes frustration for those trying to use it. Teachers, especially, will

lose motivation to prepare technology rich lessons, when bogged down repeatedly with

network connectivity issues. A district must understand the time and expense needed to

update and/or upgrade their networking systems to cover each district building completely.

Community involvement, an often-overlooked component in this process, needs to

be a focus. It is advantageous for a district to consider the community as a partner both

financially and as stakeholders in helping create a culture of 21st century learning. Many

communities want to be engaged with the work the schools are doing but do not often

receive invites to do so. Districts can look outward in order to take advantage of community

assets around them. They need to spend dedicated time seeking out these partnerships.

Pedagogy and Teacher Professional Development go together as districts need to

understand and share the pedagogic approaches that they desire teachers to be incorporating

in order to integrate technology into their lessons. Teachers need to receive both the

pedagogic training and the device training to be able to fully adapt to and seamlessly

integrate the technology in ways that bolster student academic success. Districts that have

implemented technology and yet demonstrate little student achievement growth often have

lacked adequate focus on professional development in the technology area (Bebell & Kay,
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 12

2010). Districts need to provide relevant, rich professional development to teachers in order

to prepare them to implement such technology within their lessons.

Parent communication and student training often directly correlates to the level

of student achievement growth within the new technology initiative. Parents need to be

treated as a major stakeholder, as they are going to have concerns as a district shifts the

availability of tech devices to their child. Parents want and need to know the impacts that

district technology devices will have on their child. Students need to be shown how to not

just use their technology devices for social and gaming uses, but rather as a tool for learning.

Districts must explicitly prepare students to treat their tech devices as learning tools.

Educating both parents and students should be a priority of a district as they move into the

implementation phase of a one to one technology initiative.

When districts address the questions within these key areas they set themselves up to

be well on the way to successfully implementing a one to one initiative. The answers to

these questions will become the guiding principles and framework for their own one to

one technology initiative rollout. The following questions provide more in-depth

evaluation for districts as they consider implementing one to one technology initiatives.

Framework

What is the vision/purpose for technology integration in your district?

How many devices are needed for this project?
Which buildings and/or grade levels will be using these devices?
Vision and Will this be a true one to one or will it utilize classroom device carts
Purpose located in each room?
Will devices be assigned to a particular student or will it change daily?
Is there a way to roll this project out in phases and does it make sense to do
it that way?
What funding do you have available for this project?
Is there more funding that is required in order to complete this project well?
Funding
Are there any grants that you could apply for to help with some of the initial
start-up costs?
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 13

Will the community agree with/support our use of funding for this purpose?
Are there any community partners to bring on board in getting creative to
fund this?
How will devices be insured?
Who pays the insurance cost? (students pay a fee? Or district fully covers
it?)
What happens when the devices are damaged?
Who covers the cost (family or district) when damaged?
What is the expected life span of the device and how often will they need to
be replaced?
What budget can be provided/adopted to incorporate the cost of
software/applications for the new devices?
Have you done an infrastructure evaluation?
Do you have a large enough overhead of bandwidth in order to handle a
massive influx of computing devices on your wireless networks?
Do you have wireless access points throughout your school buildings so
computing devices can get wifi coverage regardless of the room they are in?
If you are not prepared with these things, what is required of your district to
prepare for this and what would the extra cost be?
How will students be assigned a device?
District
How will the district be monitoring/filtering their device content?
Infrastructure What type of device management software will be needed?
What will the process be for purchasing software/apps for the devices?
How will the district manage the bulk purchases of software/apps?
What options are there for charging devices at both home and school?

(remember the devices are very limited if they are struggling to connect to the wifi)
To what level will the community be involved in making this type of
technology decision?
Community
What are ways you can help foster buy-in from the community?
Involvement What community resources exist that could benefit this project and how can
we seek their input and support?
What teaching pedagogy and best practices will be at the center of this new
technology implementation?
Will pedagogy and best practices change from what already exists within
your district?
How will the classroom culture still maintain a focus of teamwork and
collaboration with these devices?
Pedagogy Will the district push for more project-based learning because of this
technology?
Will the district focus on blended learning environments within their
classes?
Will the district focus on more student centered teaching models?
How does student choice change with the implementation of these new
devices?
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 14

Teachers are a major stake-holder in this technology initiative, how are they
involved in the decision making process to get this project going?
What type of training will teachers need to successfully implement this
technology into their teaching?
How much training do they need?
Teacher Does everyone get it? Or only a select few?
How are you going to get teacher buy-in into this project?
Professional
If there is a shift in pedagogical thinking, what type of PD is needed for
Development teachers to not just understand how to use the technology, but shift their
instructional practices?
How can teachers be trained to use these devices for building collaboration,
creativity, and critical thinking within their classrooms?
How will teachers be able to manage student devices within the classroom?

How will you help students make the shift to use their devices for learning
and not just social interactions?
In what ways will students be taught how their devices are to be used for
Student
collaboration, creativity and critical thinking?
Training How will teachers manage device use in the classroom? (Aka. Students
using them for things other than learning.)

How will this new technology initiative be communicated to parents?

What will the parents roles be?
Parent Do the parents need any training about the devices?
Communication How do you address the screen time concern from parents?
How do you address the device distractibility concerns from parents?
Any other areas of concern that parents might raise in our community?

Conclusion

The creation of this discussion framework was centered on helping a school district

successfully set in motion the details needed to roll out a one to one technology initiative.

The driving force behind the framework was research literature that reviewed the effects that

one to one computing has on student achievement, what steps previously successful

technology initiatives had taken, and the best practices that teachers are using in the

classroom to effectively implement technology with a focus on improving student

achievement.
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 15

Other factors affected the success of these one to one initiatives. Professional

development focused on technology training and how to use specific software in the

classroom settings contributes to both teacher and student success. Ability of districts to

account for the influx of wireless devices on their networks also affects success of one to

one initiatives. Many districts failed to improve their bandwidth to the necessary level to

handle every student being connected to the network at once. Implementation needs to be

well thought out and planned, and districts can learn from other districts who have already

traveled the journey.

Teachers using one to one programs should be continually seeking out new ways

to incorporate their technology into their classrooms. There are endless resources available

on the web and teachers can use them to enhance their own teaching. A teachers attitude

towards the technology makes a significant difference. Technology can be a tool within

their classroom that is valued and implemented in new creative ways all the time.

The research literature studied implies that there are one to one computing

initiatives that have increased student achievement successfully, yet other initiatives have

not. This inconclusive research should not deter districts or schools from pursuing a one to

one computing program of some kind. There is enough evidence to show that students can

be much more engaged in their learning when they have access to technologically rich

lessons (Bebell & Kay, 2010), (Shapley, et. al., 2009). Districts can accomplish this by

planning the one to one initiative and using this framework.

To date, there is still much more to learn and understand behind the successes and

failures of one to one computing initiatives. It can be very challenging to conclude

whether one to one computing initiatives are effective or not based on statistical data.
Building a Framework for Technology Integration 16

This fact was reiterated throughout the majority of the articles referenced. Therefore, it is

imperative to continue this research, focusing specifically on how laptops, and now iPads,

are directly affecting student academic achievement. Is there a specific practice or practices

that a teacher should implement in order to have their students demonstrate achievement

growth? Is there a specific practice or practices that hinder student achievement growth?

These types of questions need to be asked in detailed, in-depth research studies as

researchers continue to explore the intricacies of the educational technology field.

The framework suggested will guide any district hoping to implement a new

technology program on this journey as they seek answers to these unknown research

questions. These districts forge ahead into the world of preparing students for 21st century

jobs that still are yet to be invented. Implementing a one to one computing initiative using

this discussion framework will provide districts with the decisions to prepare a technology

rollout plan geared for success.

Building a Framework for Technology Integration 17

References

Bebell, D. & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results
from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning,
and Assessment, 9(2). Retrieved July 13, 2015, from http://www.jtla.org.

Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. A. (2015). The intersection between 1: 1 laptop

implementation and the characteristics of effective middle level schools. RMLE
Online, 38(7), 1.

Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to
laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440-452. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.x

Dunleavy, M., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). 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.
doi:10.1300/j025v24n03_02

Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: A collective
review. TechTrends, 53(6), 49-55. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0343-1

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and Effects Of One-to-One Computing Initiatives.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney,
C. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Final outcomes for
a four-year study (200405 to 200708). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational
Research.