Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
Laptop Computer Research
Final Project Paper
The goal of my final project for the Technology and Education class is to explore
what research has said about incorporating laptop computers into education. I also
examine the research in light of Rockman’s (2000) schizophrenic view of the demands
placed on teachers and how this is heightened by the use of laptop computers. Lastly I
look at the research in terms of the problems Rockman (1999) describes of measuring the
success and failure of technology, particularly that pertaining to laptops. On a personal
note, I decided to try using Endnotes to insert citations into this document as a trial run
for my dissertation and after some initial detective work, I managed to insert the citations
with no problems.
Introduction
At the time of writing this paper, I had accumulated over 350 journal articles as
well as more than 100 dissertations covering the past five years under the topic of
technology integration into education. The first problem I faced in preparing for this
paper was trying to bring some kind of focus to this mass of material as I had cast quite a
large net in my search, including integration, staff development, content issues, non-
teaching positions, pre-service teacher programs, belief systems, and theoretical
constructs (such as constructivism, self-efficacy, systems thinking). In the end I decided
to focus on the topic of laptops, partly because every person in my school will be using
laptop computers next year, and partly because there is a clearly delineated and smaller
quantity of literature to work through on this topic. I also decided not to use laptop
dissertations mostly because of time constraints. Initially I had nine articles concerning
1
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
laptops but then I decided to dig more deeply utilizing the references found in those
documents. The next problem I faced was that it was actually quite difficult to find some
of these references. However, as I attempted a number of approaches on the Internet, I
discovered two excellent papers by Saul Rockman concerning the current schizophrenic
quality of teaching and why trying to measure the impact of technology is difficult in
today’s context. I decided to use these two papers to frame my discussion of the research
carried out on laptops in education. These papers have a relevance to examining how
laptops affect education, both because such technology exacerbates the convoluted
situation teachers find themselves in, and because school systems have spent enormous
amounts of money on purchasing technology, especially on laptops, for which they will
want to see some substantial returns on their investment.
The Double Messages in Education
Rockman (2000) talks about how teachers receive dual messages about what they
are supposed to accomplish in their classrooms. He believes there is a basic disconnect
between policies (state and federal) and actual teacher classroom practice and because the
mixed messages come from very credible sources it makes them more difficult to ignore.
Rockman addresses six inconsistent messages:
● We will prepare you to use constructivist approaches and provide you
with instructional materials that call for this strategy, but expect you to
cover the entire curriculum for the grade level and subject area so that
students are prepared to take high-stakes tests…
●We will judge you and your school based on the success of your
students, regardless of your experience, the resources you have, the
physical condition of your building, site leadership, and the background of
your students…
2
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
● We know that students’ motivation will increase when they are doing
things that interest them and that engaged learners produce better test
scores. But project-based learning, while increasing interest, doesn’t give
rise to improved basic skills…
●…you might want to use alternative assessments, such as portfolios,
performances, and problem-solving tests. But the results of these
assessments won’t count for students’ passing a grade, graduating or
determining the quality of your success as a teacher.
● It is important to master technology and integrate it into your
instruction in the range of curriculum you teach, but remember this year
we are focusing on reading as the critical skill…
● Helping students learn to write using the computer to support the writing
process is great, just the right tool for the task…but we’ll make students
take the test with pencil and paper, because we know they’ll cheat by
using a computer. (pages 2-3)
In the context where teachers and students all have laptops and the teachers are
directed not only to personally master using the machines but also to integrate the laptops
meaningfully into their instruction, these kinds of schizophrenic messages make teachers’
jobs doubly difficult. How do teachers balance getting through the curriculum, for which
they are already pressed for time while preparing for standardized tests, with using the
laptop computers in ways that expand students’ learning, motivation and understanding?
Teachers are asked to change their concepts of teaching and learning, yet the educational
system doesn’t alter its own ways of looking at what needs to happen in a classroom.
The Big Bucks Better Bring Results!
Billions of dollars are being spent on getting computers into every classroom in
America, along with creating staff development, wiring schools for the internet and
providing technical support. My school district alone will spend almost two million
dollars this year buying laptops, creating staff development (including hiring an outside
3
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
contractor), and expanding technical support and software options. The message is
coming through quite clearly that the teachers must use these machines to enhance
instruction and learning. The saving grace is that the superintendent doesn’t expect any
substantial improvements in student outcomes for several years as it takes time to
integrate the laptops into the school. But accountability will eventually arrive at the
classroom door. Moreover, this brings us to a different question – how can such laptop
programs be effectively evaluated? Rockman (1999) also looks at this problem, noting
that “the lack of a widely acceptable definition of technology exacerbates the difficulties
of capturing and assessing related outcomes.” (page 3). In addition, technology isn’t
usually used to improve the type of knowledge covered on standardized tests. Rockman
believes that assessing the value of technology is also made more difficult because
legislators and policy makers want simple and easy answers, preferably with a number
attached, noting that “states usually focus on the easily counted and not unreasonably stay
away from more challenging accountability issues.” (page 2). Rockman also points out
that students are only in school approximately 20% of the time and computers are
generally used around five percent of classroom time. So how do we measure the impact
of this tool upon student learning? We must also keep in mind that much more than
computers are at work in the learning environment – including the skills, experience, and
abilities of the teachers and students; the subject matter; and the resources and culture of
the school (and classroom),
What the Literature Says
All of the nine journal articles were focused on how laptops are managed in an
educational setting. The topics ranged from:
4
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
○ Report on a laptop program pilot (Rockman, 1997)
○ Integration of laptops into a private school in Maryland (Barrett, 2002)
○ Students using laptops in a New York middle school (Gutterman, 2001)
○ A Connecticut public middle school’s use of laptops (Elliot, 2000)
○ A school district in California wiring their schools for laptops (2003)
○ Sharing 200 laptops among teachers in a California school district (Piercy, 2001)
○ A grant to expand use of technology over 14 states (Schwab & Foa, 2001)
○ Spreading the use of laptops in agricultural education (Harlin, Murphy, & Dooley, 2002)
○ Reaction to a specific article by a math teacher using laptops (Levine, 2002)
Rockman (1997) conducted a major laptop pilot study for Microsoft Corporation
and Toshiba America Information Systems at 53 elementary, middle and high private and
public schools. The public schools formed most of the Group A and private schools
Group B.
Relationship Between Attributes of Laptops and Characteristics of Schools
Laptop Attribute (in Impact on Impact on
concentrated model) Group A Schools* Group B Schools**
allows a 1-to-1 ratio in allows work at desk, rather than
compact size classrooms with large class size work at stations
allows access in each class the allows more even access from
portability students attend classroom to classroom
enables computer access at allows easier (more compatible)
portability home, often for the first time access at home
individual ownership or changes from little or no access changes from relatively easy
control to at-will access access to individual and at-will
access
*Group A Schools: schools with very little or relatively small pre-existing technology
programs; often class size is large and students do not have family computers at home
**Group B Schools: schools with often well-developed technology programs; often class size
is small and students have access to family computers at home (page iii)
5
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
There were also five laptop models that have also been reflected in the subsequent
research articles below.
• a concentrated model, in which all students in a classroom have their
own laptop, which they are free to take home;
• a dispersed model, in which students with laptops are dispersed
throughout a grade or school, so that in any particular class there are
both laptop and non-laptop students;
• a class set model, in which schools purchase a set of laptops that
teachers can then check out as a set for specific time periods;
• a desktop model, in which district-purchased laptops are distributed a
few to each classroom, with little opportunity to carry them home;
• and a mixed model, in which schools or districts combine two of the
four approaches either within or between schools. (page iii-iv)
Rockman likewise noted a number of applications of the laptops by teachers:
Uses of Laptops Reported Percentages
74% reports/
Word processing 60% note taking
Presentations 58%
Internet 52%
Spreadsheets 33%
Keyboarding 16%
Skill remediation (drill) 12%
Learning software applications 43%
Databases 12%
Electronic portfolios /record keeping 18%
Games 20%
Doing homework 64%
Running models 6%
Other use 20%
(page v)
However, Rockman never talks about the schizophrenic nature of teaching or how
laptops can be evaluated given state and federal standards that he discusses in his later
papers. I wonder if he might have changed some of his report to include those aspects,
especially in his Looking to the Future section. In that section, he examined some of the
concerns of the participants in terms of building public support; loss of the sense of
identity with being connected to a pilot project; providing sufficient time for teachers’
6
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
growth curve; expanding existing programs; building on teacher technology experience;
solving major hardware problems; increasing sharing of ideas and curriculum; being
given time to experiment; ongoing school and district leadership support; and continuing
assessment of the programs. Perhaps what needs to happen now is for Rockman to re-
evaluate how these programs are progressing from a seven year perspective in terms of
his concerns about schizophrenic messages and how such programs should and perhaps
are being evaluated.
Barrett (2002) wrote about the integration of laptops into a girl’s private school in
Maryland from a four year perspective. When the program was initiated, there was
considerable concern from parents about safety and cost. Since the parents primarily bore
the cost of the laptop investment, parents “wanted the assurance that the laptops would be
used ‘all the time!” (page 46). Since the program has lasted over four years as of the date
of the article, it can be reasonably assumed that the parents felt the investment was worth
it. In terms of the students, the author noted that the ultimate indicator of success was
when students “were asked if they would be willing to give up their laptops at school, the
answer to this question is an unequivocal ‘No!’” (page 49). The advantage of introducing
laptops into a private educational institution was that teachers did not have to cope with
Rockman’s schizophrenic messages, particularly since the school made sure there was a
uniting vision for incorporating the laptops, “A strong technology foundation will be
necessary for [the students] to enter many professions, including those that rely heavily
on a background in math and or science.” (page 46).
Gutterman (2001) focused his article on the consequences of providing laptops to
students in a New York middle school in 1996. This was the first public laptop program
7
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
in the United States and the technology was provided to an inner-city district in Harlem.
The goal of the program “is to seamlessly integrate technology into every aspect of
school life.” (page 10). The author noted a number of ways students used the laptops
including research, distance learning, parental involvement, student mentoring,
presentations, strengthening the connection between school and home, and collaborative
learning. However, Gutterman does not write about how New York evaluated the
investment of laptops nor does he talk about the difficulties of teachers to manage
presumably mixed messages from the school district in their efforts to integrate the
technology into their classrooms. The author does note that from a student perspective,
A recent study by Microsoft found that 80-percent of teachers report that
since introducing laptops in their classrooms, students more often explore
topics on their own and work on long projects. Laptop students outperform
their non-laptop peers in all areas of writing assessment. Ninety percent of
laptop teachers use more activities that empower students to teach each
other, and find that more students work collaborative on projects. (page
11)
Does this mean then that the investment was worth the price? Perhaps it does for the
teachers and students, but is this true for the local and state departments of education?
Elliot (2000) takes a different approach by examining what happens when laptops
are given to 900 middle school students in Connecticut. Their school was in trouble
because of the impression that students were in charge of what happened in the school so
parents were increasingly reluctant to send their students to the school. With the addition
of laptop computers, the perspective of the school has radically changed and now there
isn’t enough room for the students wishing to enroll. The principal believed that the
laptops made the difference, “Just think on this: You have an all-Black school and
realistically speaking, Black schools are not on the cutting edge of anything educational.”
8
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
(page 40). The school bore the cost of an entire wireless laptop program from NetSchools
Corporation but the author doesn’t discuss how the program was evaluated in terms of
student outcomes. Eliot, as did the principal, believed that the program itself, placed in an
all-Black school, was value enough for the investment. Nor is there any description of
how the teachers coped with these laptops where unlike the previously mentioned private
school, they must manage the mixed messages from the state and local departments of
education.
An article that appeared in the T.H.E. Journal, The Reality of Anytime, Anywhere
Learning,” focused on a school district in California in its challenge to provide wireless
access to 63,000 students and 6,000 staff. The solution was wireless computing in the
form of laptop carts (similar to what my school has used prior to getting laptops). The
carts were also used for staff development both internal and external to individual
schools. The article noted that
Access to wireless computing can enhance any technology-integrated
learning experience, whether the learner is a student in the classroom or a
staff member participating in professional developing, because it provides
the learner with a personalized resource that is both non-threatening and
extremely flexible. (page 47).
However, the article did not address how the school district evaluated the effectiveness of
the laptop carts except to note that the carts filled needs that a traditional computer lab
could not meet. Nor does the article speak to the double messages that teachers might
have been receiving in their school district as noted by Rockman. Again, the article
focused more on describing the program than discussing how the investment was
evaluated or what problems teachers had in incorporating the laptops.
9
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
Piercy (2001) looked at how a small school district in California incorporated 200
laptop computers for use in classrooms. The district bought the laptops along with a
visual projection system so that there was at least one computer for every five students in
all the classrooms. The teachers also shared the laptops among every four classrooms so
that complete class sets could be available on a need basis. The author noted the various
impacts the laptops had on teachers (more active approach, feel more empowered, greater
sense of control, more confidence) and students (work more in groups, explore on their
own, review work more often, teach each other). However, Piercy doesn’t describe how
the laptops measured up in terms of improving student outcomes – the state and federal
dimension of success. Nor does he discuss the schizophrenic messages teachers must
manage in public schools.
Schwab & Foa (2001) write about integrating technology into their school district
in partnership with US West Foundation and the National Education Association (NEA)
through a five-year, $12 million Teacher Network Initiative. Schwab and Foa noted that,
“the problem for educators nationwide is how to scale up effective training to reach tens
of thousands of teachers quickly.” (page 620). Over the five year period of the grant, at
least 50,000 teachers were trained in technology with more than 4,200 laptops. Certainly
in a quantitative sense, the program substantially met the requirements of the grant but it
didn’t address Rockman’s concern regarding how such technology outreach is measured
within a specific school. The authors only talked about the evaluation of the program
itself, stating that the program worked best when everyone involved regularly analyzed “-
openly and cooperatively – what was working, what was not, and how it could be
improved.” (Page 621). There was no discussion about how the teachers managed to
10
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
incorporate the laptops into the conflicting messages present within their own schools.
The authors stayed on the macro-level believing that as a result of the grant, “a great deal
has been learned about what works and what does not in large-scale systemic efforts to
integrate technology into the schools.” (Page 620).
On a different note, Harlin, Murphy & Dooley (2002) discuss how technology
was diffused through agricultural education by providing laptops. The authors were
primarily concerned with how the student-teacher became an effective change agent for
how secondary agricultural education is conducted in Texas. They also talked about how
laptops improve the student-teacher’s training at the university level. But Harlin et al do
not examine what happens when the student-teacher becomes a new agriscience teacher
and how that teacher might juggle the conflicting message coming from her laptop
experience at the university and what the local school district will requirement this
teacher to accomplish in the classroom. The question of how to evaluate a large
technology investment does not come into play in this circumstance because the students
lose their laptops upon graduating. The authors did note that the students either purchase
their own laptops or work with their employers to acquire them.
When we started the laptop program, we knew that statewide agriscience
programs change at the pace that can best be compared to the weathering
of bedrock…[But now] we believe that these technologies will take root,
and that the agriscience classroom will become an environment for
student-directed investigation and discovery. (page 1).
The author, Levine (2002), takes a different approach when he reacts to an article
by Bhave (2002), Classrooms with Wi-Fi, in which the Bhave notes that laptops “create
new challenges for instructors.” (page 10). However, Levine disagrees with this
11
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
perspective based on his own experience as a laptop teacher with math students. For
Levine, he approaches the challenge by believing “you actually have two classrooms in
one.” (Ibid). When the laptops are open, you have a computer lab, and when they are
closed, you are a traditional classroom. Levine also notes that technological solutions,
such as “SynchronEyes” allow the teacher to control what students do with their laptops.
The program enables the teacher to monitor from his/her own laptop all the student
laptops simultaneously as well as freeze any laptop where the student is no longer on
task. My own school is planning to use such a program with the laptops next year and the
teachers including myself are expressing considerable relief as a consequence. For
Levine at least, there don’t appear to be conflicting messages within his classroom. In
addition, he gives the impression that the laptop investment is well worth the investment
in terms of what he can accomplish in the classroom. Levine notes that “the effort
expended to deal with these challenges is more than compensated by the opportunities
that such classrooms present to utilize technology as a teaching and learning tool.” (Ibid).
Conclusions
Virtually none of these articles address Rockman’s two concerns – the
schizophrenic quality of directives to teachers or how the investment in technology is to
be evaluated. Each author (including Rockman in his 1997 study) extols the positive
benefits of laptop benefits for teachers, students and sometimes parents. Yet the authors
never indicate success through the measure of student outcomes required at the state and
federal levels. It is like a left and right brain disconnect. The researchers and participants
all find the laptops to be a pretty much unmixed blessing; however, there is no indication
that laptops improve student outcomes by the only measure that really counts in present
12
Nancy Foote
Technology and Education
Final Project Paper
time. And I wonder as I work through the articles if the authors by leaving out such
concerns may give a false, misleading, or incomplete impression regarding the success of
each program. The tension between the past and the future is growing as education
remains with one foot in standardized outcomes and the other in the value of laptops in
schools.
References
Anonymous. (2003). The reality of anytime, anywhere learning. THE Journal
Technological Horizons in Education, 31(3), 44-47.
Barrett, J. (2002). Four years of portability: perspectives on a laptop program. Multimedia
Schools, 9(4), 46-49.
Elliot, I. (2000). A laptop in every backpack. Teaching PreK-8, 30(7), 40-43.
Gutterman, L. (2001). Laptops galore in schools. Media & Methods, 37(3), 10-12.
Harlin, J., Murphy, T., & Dooley, K. E. (2002). Lessons from a student teacher laptop
program. The Agricultureal Education Magazine, 75(1).
Levine, L. E. (2002). Laptop classrooms present new teaching challenges. THE Journal
Technological Horizons in Education, 30(5), 10.
Piercy, D. (2001). School life with a laptop. Media & Methods, 37(7), 18.
Rockman, S. (1999). Communicating our successes: issues and tactics. Paper presented
at the State Educational Technology Leadership Conference, Washington, DC.
Rockman, S. (2000). Technology, urban school reform, and the schizophrenic nature of
teaching. Paper presented at the The Wingspread Conference on Technology's
Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality.
Rockman, S. e. a. (1997). Report of a laptop program pilot. San Francisco: Anytime
Anywhere Learning by Microsoft Coporation and Notebooks for Schools by
Toshiba American Information system.
Schwab, R. L., & Foa, L. (2001). Integrating technologies throughout our schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(8), 620-624.
13