The once-promising initiative of 1:1 programs, funded by local taxpayers, state and federal grants, and bolstered by social media appeal, has become a mere checkbox for public schools. The original goal of adopting a 1:1 environment to enhance student academic effectiveness has faded, leaving a program that schools strive to attain and maintain without a clear purpose.
History and Evolution of the 1:1 Laptop Initiative in Public Schools
Heubeck (2022) provides a historical perspective on the rise of 1:1 computing programs in public schools, noting their introduction in the late 1990s, which elicited reactions ranging from “intrigue by some and absolute horror by others.” Her words, not mine. Despite mixed success reported in research, the trend of adopting 1:1 programs has continued to grow. By March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic closed schools nationwide, districts with pre-existing 1:1 programs appeared to have an advantage over those scrambling to distribute devices to students. However, the prolonged pandemic revealed that merely providing devices does not translate into academic benefits; while useful for remote learning tools like Zoom, the assigned 1:1 devices did not significantly impact academic or social-emotional success.
Despite the shaky ground, schools across the United States spend increasing amounts of money on 1:1 devices for students, even though research indicates these programs have little effect on student achievement (Cuban, 2006; Gallagher-Landis, 2017; Penuel, 2006).
Current Challenges and Questions Surrounding 1:1 Programs
A colleague recently highlighted a common issue: understanding the purpose of a district-wide “take home” 1:1 program. The conversation was eye-opening, especially from a district that appears to have it all together. For instance, why should a first-grade student take a device home daily if it is not necessary for homework, is limited to a few educational applications, and restricts broader internet use for the family? The underlying reason often appears to be the superficial appeal of the program rather than its educational value. Look at us, shiny devices go home! The program’s assertion of innovation remains dubious without a clearly defined, evidence-supported objective(s). Despite significant investments in funding, staff resources, and ongoing efforts, the fundamental question persists: Why send them home? What profound educational benefits does all this effort and investment in 1:1 devices offer?
The Need for a Purpose-Driven Approach to Technology in Education
Educators must recognize that there is much more than providing access to technology for academic success. Research by Johnson (2017) indicates that 1:1 learning environments can perpetuate socioeconomic distinctions, while Reich (2020) suggests that educational technology may support inequitable uses. Think consuming, not creating. Reich (2020) observes that the gap in educational equity is growing, as wealthier students use technological tools to collaborate with their teachers and parents on high-quality learning experiences. We should continue to resolve that simple technology access, such as a take home 1:1 device, is no longer sufficient.
Moreover, studies have shown inconsistent conclusions regarding the impact of 1:1 computing on academic outcomes (Ames, 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Johnson, 2017; Zielezinski, 2016). Therefore, the optimal path to academic success involves creating personalized learning environments with engaging, individualized instruction supported by appropriate technology tools primarily used within the school setting. According to Hattie (2018), teacher efficacy, with an effect size of 1.57, has the most significant impact on student academic outcomes. The effect size of 1:1 laptop programs is just 0.16. A teacher’s belief in their ability to teach a student is vital to student achievement, having a 1:1 device, not so much. We already knew that though.
Research on the Impact of 1:1 Computing Programs
Research on 1:1 computing programs has shown some positive effects on teaching and learning (Kleon, 2014; Zheng et al., 2016). However, as mentioned above, it has also highlighted significant issues, such as the perpetuation of socioeconomic disparities (Johnson, 2017) and inconsistent conclusions about the impact on academic outcomes (Ames, 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Johnson, 2017; Zielezinski, 2016). Jason Saltmarsh, a fellow University of New England alumnus, focused his dissertation on perceptions of integrating Chromebooks in a 1:1 environment, contributing to the ongoing discussion about the effectiveness and challenges of these programs. Saltmarsh’s (2021) research underscores that despite the ambitious goals associated with 1:1 access, school districts persist in allocating substantial funds for student devices, often failing to achieve the intended educational outcomes.
Balancing Technology and Personalized Learning through the UDL Framework
Now for some positives. Zheng et al. (2016) found that 1:1 programs positively impacted the frequency and breadth of student technology use, promoted student-centered learning (such as personalized learning), increased the quantity and variety of writing, and enhanced teacher-student and home-school relationships. Novak (2014) emphasizes that while technology is crucial for representing student information, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework is rooted in our innate love of learning and benefits from technology access. Achieving a balance between technology and personalized education, along with UDL implementation, relies on student-centered lessons, developing solid relationships, and fostering a continual love of learning. All of the reliances mentioned above on relationship building far outweigh sending a device home. Chardin and Novak (2020) note that the UDL framework and personalized learning are applicable and beneficial in all environments, even without technology, and are advantageous for all learners in both traditional and modern settings.
In Conclusion…
Effective educational outcomes necessitate a balanced approach that includes personalized learning, student-centered lessons, and the implementation of the UDL framework. Addressing concerns about technology perpetuating socioeconomic distinctions is crucial, emphasizing the importance of engaging, individualized instruction for achieving academic success. On the surface, sending a 1:1 device home without a goal or objective and continual assessment of the program is merely a feel-good program that looks great from afar. Just don’t come close and ask questions.
Furthermore, educators must address the inadequacy of mere technology access by prioritizing personalized learning environments tailored to individual students. Such environments, characterized by engaging, personalized instruction and high academic expectations, supported by appropriate school-based technology tools, offer an optimal pathway to academic success.
References
Ames, M. (2019). The charisma machine: The life, death, and legacy of one laptop per child. Harvard University Press.
Chardin, M., & Novak, K. (2020). Equity by design: Delivering on the power and promise of UDL. Corwin Press.
Cuban, L. (2006). The laptop revolution has no clothes. Education Week, 26(8), 29. https://www.edweek.org/technology/opinion-the-laptop-revolutionhas-no-clothes/2006/10
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Alliance for Education: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE). https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
Gallagher-Landis, J. (2017). One-to-one Chromebook: Impact on student achievement across content areas. 10621416. Doctoral Dissertation Gwynedd Mercy University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Hattie, J. (2018). Hattie ranking: 252 influences and effect sizes related to student achievement. VisableLearning. https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influenceseffect-sizes-learning-achievement
Heubeck, E. (2022). What We’ve Learned From a Quarter Century of 1-to-1 Computing. https://www.edweek.org/technology/what-weve-learned-from-a-quarter-century-of-1-to-1-computing/2022/05
Johnson, A. M. D. S. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technology uses and pedagogical practices: Student agency and participation in an economically disadvantaged eighth-grade (Order No. 10619370). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (1952049138). https://bit.ly/3mk04MV
Novak, K. (2014). UDL Now!: A teacher’s Monday-morning guide to implementing Common
Core standards using universal design for learning. CAST Professional Publishing.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463
Reich, J. (2020). A failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can’t transform education. Harvard University Press.
Saltmarsh, J. (2021). 1:1 Chromebooks In High School Classrooms: Teacher Perceptions Of Integration Efforts. All Theses And Dissertations. https://dune.une.edu/theses/349
Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645
Zielezinski, M. B. (2016, May 19). What a decade of education research tells us about technology in the hands of underserved students. Edsurge. https://bit.ly/3lx80t7