One-to-One: Enriching the learning environment with mobile computing devices for every student Jamie Barnes, M.Psy. Nancy Hoover, Ph.D.

Adam Seldow, Ed.D. Executive Director of Technology Department of Technology and Research Chesterfield County Public Schools

Department of Research and Evaluation Chesterfield County Public Schools 4003 Cogbill Road – North Chesterfield, VA 23234

One-to-One: Enriching the learning environment with mobile computing devices for every student. Introduction Mobile computing devices are everywhere; cell phones, iPads, tablets, and laptops allow for mobile banking, instant messaging, and Google searches to simplify life. Seamless information acquisition allows questions to be answered anywhere, anytime, except in many of today’s classrooms. Access to information in the classroom has the potential to match what is commonplace outside the classroom. As technology gets smaller and more affordable, it is easy to imagine mobile computing devices issued to today’s students just as textbooks were in the last century. Despite their everyday use, will mobile computing devices make any difference in students’ learning? Studies have shown students use mobile computing devices in four ways: (a) exploration, (b) expression, (c) communication, and (d) organization. A review of current literature supports the notion that mobile computing devices can enhance the learning environment by increasing student engagement. Additionally, integrating mobile computing devices into instructional practice allows teachers to personalize instruction for students, resulting in increased student motivation. In general, there are positive indications that the use of mobile computing devices does indeed enrich the learning environment. Technology alone will never increase student achievement or replace teaching; however, in the hands of an adept teacher, mobile computing devices can transform students’ learning environments.

1

Brief History Due to increased access to mobile devices and services, the current generation of K–12 students is more technologically literate than children their age ten years ago (Swan, van ‘t Hooft, & Unger, 2005; Gillard & Bailey, 2007). As mobile computing devices become smaller, these devices become tools for lifelong learning for anyone, anywhere, and at any time (Wong & Looi, 2011). The U.S. Department of Education’s National Education Technology Plan 2010 stated that “technology-based learning and assessment system will be pivotal in improving student learning and generating data that can be used to continuously improve the education system at all levels” (ix). The Internet, computers, and mobile technologies are an integral part of today’s digital age youth, and the belief is that one-to-one programs, where students receive their own mobile computing devices, can bridge the gap between student needs and classroom environments (Donovan et al., 2010). Originally called ubiquitous computing, one-to-one computing had its origin in business and everyday life (Fleischer, 2011). In 1980, Seymour Papert claimed all students needed to have a computer before a fundamental

“…technologybased learning and assessment system will be pivotal in improving student learning and generating data that can be used to continuously improve the education system at all levels”

change in our schools could occur. In 2003–04, approximately 4% of schools in the nation were implementing a one-to-one mobile computing program, and by 2006, the number of schools participating rose to 25% (Bebell & Kay, 2010). In 2007, there were at least 33 states experimenting with one-to-one computing programs (Lei & Zhao, 2010), but the two most highly-profiled initiatives have been the Maine Learning and Technology Initiative (MLTI) and the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) (Lei & Zhao, 2008; Weston & Baine, 2010).

2

Despite the growth of one-to-one computer programs in American classrooms, there remains mixed reactions and controversy over the effectiveness of such programs because of the lack of empirical evidence (Penuel, 2006; Lei & Zhao, 2008) from high-quality research studies with a strict methodology (Fleischer, 2011). Penuel (2006) identified 46 implementation studies, which focused on the implementation and impact of one-to-one projects (Lei & Zhao, 2008). According to Penuel (2006), the majority of literature published on one-to-one initiatives did not follow the peer review process (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Fleischer, 2011). Due to a lack of independent research, the majority of information available on one-to-one programs is from project evaluations. Lei and Zhao (2008) attribute the lack of research in this field to the rapid development and expansion of one-to-one programs and the difficulty in keeping up with the research. The information available on one-to-one computing notes several positive outcomes, including increased student engagement and use of the computer for writing, analyzing, and researching; a movement toward student-centered classrooms; decreased disciplinary problems; and an increase in student time spent on homework at home (Bebell & Kay, 2010). Upon reviewing the literature, personalized and seamless learning opportunities for students are two emerging themes when reporting the positive outcomes of one-to-one initiatives. Personalized Learning Personalized learning is a current trend among K–12 educators because it shifts from a curriculum- or teacher-centered environment to a learner-focused education (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson, 2010; Hanover, 2012). Shifting to a learner-focused education can increase student motivation and encourage students to set personal learning goals (Maninger & Holden, 2009) and lead to greater academic success (Greaves et al., 2010) because it allows for

3

personalized learning. Three studies, cited by Project RED, provide evidence for the benefits of student-centered learning. Lonka and Ahola (2005) conducted a six-year study in Helsinki, Finland, and compared direct instruction to student-centered instruction. Results from the study showed students had a better understanding of content if they were in the student-centered learning environment. Hall and Saunders (1997) reported increased participation, motivation, and higher grades from students in a student-centered program. Finally, O’Neill, and McMahon (2005) stated 94% of students said they would recommend student centered learning over the traditional direct approach (Greaves et al., 2010). Results from the Project RED study found personalized instruction was greater in schools that had a lower computer-to-student ratio and students took responsibility for their learning (Greaves et al., 2010). Respondents reported in a one-to-one classroom, 88% of teachers spent more time on individual and small group instruction and 75% of students took control of their own learning. Technology assisted personalized learning because it allowed for immediate feedback and resources for remediation, access to the Internet for anywhere/anytime learning, and the ability for students to learn at their own pace. Increased test scores and student collaboration, as well as reduced discipline referrals resulted from one-to-one programs in a student-centered learning environment (Greaves et al., 2010). Students who were in laptop programs reported they spent more time on homework revising documents and presentations and worked with a “higher degree of concentration” (Maninger & Holden, 2009). Integrating technology into instruction practices supports the personal learning theory by: (a) allowing students to use software and other applications, which allow them to learn at their own pace; (b) facilitating assessments and monitoring student progress in real time; (c) increasing student engagement (Hanover, 2012; Chan, Roschelle, His,

4

Kinshuk, Sharples, Brown, et al., 2006) and (d) allowing for seamless learning (Wong & Looi, 2011). Incorporating learning technologies into instructional practices provides the flexibility for students “to direct their own learning, which improves their interest and engagement with the subject matter” (Hanover, 2012, p. 8). Grimes and Warschauer (2008) reported students in laptop programs were more motivated because they had the freedom to choose how they would learn and present the material, thus giving them a heightened sense of autonomy. While technology can support student learning, there must be a shift in lesson design before seeing positive results. The use of assessment portfolios, consisting of electronic documents and videos, is oneway teachers and students are able to collaborate and develop personalized goals and track student learning. Through continuous feedback, students can adjust their learning behavior, which allows them to reflect on their own learning. This “metacognitive experience helps students develop 21st century skills related to critical thinking and problem solving” (Hanover, 2012, p. 10). Cognitive research indicates individuals are motivated to learn when they demonstrate success and competence; by developing a personalized learning environment, students direct their learning experience and create a sense of ownership for what they are learning, and thus are more motivated (Hanover, 2012). The U.S. Federal government identified a need to reform education and created the Race to the Top, a competitive education grant program focusing on methods to improve student achievement (U.S. Department of Education 2009a). Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), $4.35 billion is allocated for the Race to the Top fund. In 2012, the Department of Education provided $400 million in funding to support local educational

5

reforms focusing on personalized learning, closing the achievement gaps, and integrating 21st century tools “that prepare each student for college and their careers” (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). The U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, stated, “We want to help schools become engines of innovation through personalized learning so every child in America can receive the world-class public education they deserve” (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Current research indicates a one-to-one mobile computing program can help attain the goals stated in the Race to the Top initiative of personalize learning, closing achievement gaps, and infusing today’s learning environment with the 21st century skills

The U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, stated, “We want to help schools become engines of innovation through personalized learning so every child in America can receive the world-class public education they deserve”

needed for college and career readiness. Seamless Learning Chan et al. (2006) defined seamless learning as the ability for students to learn “whenever they are curious in a variety of scenarios” with Wong and Looi (2011) stated seamless learning is about “learning anytime, anywhere” and not “learning every time, everywhere;” the goal is to “empower students to learn wherever and whenever they are stimulated to learn” (p. 2364)

technology acting as the mediator (p. 6). This means students can learn at school, home, or the outdoors, by themselves or with other students, teachers, or members of the community. One-to-one technology allows seamless learning space to extend formal learning time at school to informal learning time where students can be self-directed and learn about their personal interests (Chan et al., 2006). Wong and Looi (2011) stated seamless learning is about “learning anytime,

6

anywhere” and not “learning every time, everywhere”; the goal is to “empower students to learn wherever and whenever they are stimulated to learn” (p. 2364). Current Research In the United States, research on the effects of one-to-one mobile computing devices has yielded positive results. Project RED studied over 100 schools around the nation that had one-toone programs. With proper integration, they reported one-to-one programs can enhance student academic achievement, such as increased graduation rates and student test scores, while decreasing drop-out rates and disciplinary actions (Greaves et al., 2010). Maine’s one-to-one laptop program has seen positive results, including an increase in students’ writing scores, improved problem solving skills, and more engaged students in a science class (Silvernail & Gritter, 2007; Berry & Wintle, 2009; Silvernail, 2005). Results from the four-year Texas Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) found achievement gains on math assessments and students becoming more technologically proficient using laptops; this was especially true with lowincome students. They also reported having fewer disciplinary problems through the pilot (Shapley, Sheehan, Sturges, Caranikas-Walker, Huntsberger, & Maloney, 2009). The Mooresville Graded School District in North Carolina has reported that since adopting the oneto-one laptop program they have seen an increase from 73% to 89% of students scoring proficient or higher in grades 4–12 (Hardy, 2011). Walberg (2011) stated academic achievement increased for students with computer-based instruction because students gain more knowledge and enjoy the classes more than their peers who are not involved in computer-based instruction.

7

Other research has identified laptop programs having a positive effect on students’ learning experiences. Zucker and Hug (2008) reported 90% of students said laptops had a positive effect on how much they learned in school and made class more interesting. Dunleavy, Dexter, and Heinecke (2007) concluded one-to-one laptops “appeared to contribute generally to the effectiveness of the learning environments per design criteria of being more learner-, assessment-, community-, and knowledge-centered” (p. 444). Mabry and Snow (2006) indicated computers affect the classroom environment by “encouraging collaboration and empowering students to feel like members of a learning community” (p. 297).

Dunleavy, Dexter, and Heinecke (2007) concluded that one-to-one laptops “appeared to contribute generally to the effectiveness of the learning environments per design criteria of being more learner, assessment-, community-, and knowledgecentered” (p. 444).

Fleischer’s (2011) work cited four additional studies reporting an increase in test scores of students who participated in a one-to-one program. The first study by Gulek and Demirtas (2005) reported an increase in students’ writing scores; however, they did not have a pre-test group to compare. A second study by Lei and Zhao (2008) compared student GPAs in a one-to-one program against another group outside the program, and found test scores of students in the one-to-one project had slightly higher scores. Another study by Dunleavy and Heinecke (2008) looked at math and science achievement test scores of at-risk students enrolled in a one-to-one program compared to those not in the program. They found there was no difference in scores on the math achievement test; however, students in a one-toone program had higher science scores than students in the control group. They also found there was a significantly greater increase in scores for boys than for girls on the science test. Finally, Sclater, Sicoly, Abrami, and Wade (2006) compared students in a one-to-one with a control

8

group and found students in the experimental group had higher scores on the CAT-3 reading test and higher math scores; however, the authors caution the reader on the findings due to selection biases. Fleischer’s (2011) research aim was to review cross-disciplinary empirical research studies on one-to-one mobile devices between the years of 2005 and 2010 in order to determine what effects, if any, technology had on teacher and student performances. Reviewing the studies, Fleischer (2011) found substantial evidence of students and teachers using computers when given one. Maninger and Holden (2009) stated pupils used the computer on average 4.2 days out of the week. Lei and Zhao (2008) reported 92.6% of students used the computer more than one hour a day while 36.9% of students used it more than three hours a day. Zucher and Hug (2008) stated that ninth grade students used their laptops in class almost every day. Teachers who were involved in a one-to-one program reported using computers 70% of the time compared to teachers not in the program who only used the computer 23% of the time (Grimes & Warscharuer, 2008). This same report stated 85% of the students used the computer to write papers at home. Student Use of Computers Articles on one-to-one computing frequently reported students used their computers in four different ways: (a) exploration, (b) expression, (c) communication, and (d) organization of work (Fleischer, 2011). This is very similar to Bruce and Levin’s (1997, 2001) proposed taxonomy of technology for learning, which consists of (a) media for inquiry, (b) media for communication, (c) media for construction, and (d) media for expression (Lei and Zhao, 2008). Lei and Zhao (2008) surveyed students to determine how they used their laptops and found 81.4% of students used their laptop to complete homework, 71.4% searched for information

9

related to school work, 65.8% sent or received emails, 58% surfed the web for fun, 51.1% chatted online, 50.2% worked with specific software, 48.1% played computer games, and 11.3% created websites. Based on Fleischer's literature reviews, he concluded the articles directly or indirectly showed students had an increase in their technology-related skills and their proficiency with software to complete specific tasks. Exploration Students used the Internet to find additional information, work on course projects, or locate information on specific course content (Lei & Zhao, 2008). Warschaurer (2007) reported users accessed information in an online search using Google, Yahoo, or Bing, whereas Grimes and Warshauer’s (2008) research found schools using EBSCO were focused on obtaining more breadth and

Lei and Zhao’s (2008) surveyed students to determine how they used their laptops. They found 81.4% of students used their laptop to complete homework, 71.4% searched for information related to school work, 65.8% sent or received emails, 58% surfed the web for fun, 51.1% chatted online, 50.2% worked with specific software, 48.1% played computer games, and 11.3% created websites.

depth in their search for information. Online searches were used either to “capture the framework of the topic” or to delve deeper in the subject matter (Fleischer, 2011, p. 115). According to Grimes and Warshaurer’s (2008) report, 82% of teachers surveyed stated students with laptops were more involved in in-depth research and Oliver and Corn (2008) said students developed their search skills because of the access to a laptop (Fleischer, 2011). Other uses for laptops in school included web-based computer simulations in physics classes (Zucker

10

and Hug, 2008) and simulations or drills to reinforce concepts in math courses (Dunleavy et al., 2007). Expression Students used laptops to express their ideas and opinions by creating websites, writing, or creating publications (Lei & Zhao, 2008). Tools such as Microsoft Office Suite were programs students often used for expression (Dunleavy et al, 2007) when writing papers, essays, stories, or diaries. Students stated it was easier to write on a computer because it was easier to rewrite or edit work, they could make it more interactive by adding hyperlinks, pictures and images could be incorporated, and they could “improve on the design of their final products" (Lei & Zhao, 2008, p. 111). Brochures and informational letters were two additional examples of products encouraging students and teachers to “write across genres” (Fleischer, 2011, p. 115). Oliver and Corn (2008) identified iMovie and Garage Band as software used for video and music editing. Dunleavy et al. (2007) included blogs, while Oliver and Corn (2008) identified Wikis as a means of creative expression among students. Using multimedia programs was one-way students developed products. iMovie was used to advertise a mouse-cart, created in a technology class, or to create movie trailers for books read in a Language Arts course. Adobe Photoshop manipulated pictures, and Garage Band allowed students to create, arrange, and record their own songs (Lei & Zhao, 2008). Communication Dunleavy et al. (2007) identified email, discussion forums, and Instant Messenger as the major forms of e-communication used by students with laptops. Students reported it was easier and more convenient to email a teacher a question or request an appointment to meet (Lei & 11

Zhao, 2008). In addition to email, students claimed they used instant messenger, chat rooms, discussion boards, and blogs to share information with classmates, whether it was classwork or the URL of a cool website (Lei & Zhao, 2008). Organization Students used laptops to organize their work, which was especially beneficial to students who had organizational problems (Lei & Zhao, 2008). Students reported using their laptop for taking notes because it helped them organize their thoughts, utilize software functions like spell and grammar check, and share their notes with other classmates or students who were absent. They also reported it was a faster and neater way of taking notes because it eliminated writing it by hand, which could be tedious and sloppy (Lei & Zhao, 2008). Students also used note-taking software like OneNote, which allowed students to take and share notes, organize their thoughts, write out math equations by hand, and complete homework; students stated tablets helped them keep track of their notes and conduct Internet research faster (Oliver & Corn, 2008). Technical Problems Literature reviews reported very little about the problems occurring in a one-to-one school, but Weston and Bain (2010) report few studies give empirical attention to that issue. Technical issues identified as problems within a one-to-one program were typically said to be small and solvable (Fleischer, 2011). However, Kukulska-Hulme (2007) cited Luckin et al’s (2005) work describing a need for overhead of staff time to assist with technical support, account administration, and finding ways to work around features not working as required. The Manolo Project (2005) also emphasized the need for technical support in their final report (KukulskaHulme, 2007).

12

Concerns Related to Technology Use Lei and Zhao’s (2008) work revealed concerns students, teachers, and parents had related to technology. Over one third of parents felt their middle school child spent too much time on the computer. Teachers felt it was harder for students to concentrate in class because of distractions, but 84% of students did not see computers as a distraction. Another concern by teachers was how they could teach students to be more evaluative of online resources and ensure students did not copy and paste content or think it was valid information. Ting (2012) reported on the usability of mobile devices and identified limitations, such as “tiny screen size, low computational power, small battery capacity, limited input interface and narrow bandwidth” (p.121). Other concerns listed in the literature included the different levels of student information literacy (Lei and Zhao, 2008) and the ease of plagiarism among students (Warschaurer, 2007) because of the cut and paste features. Summary Larry Cuban, a leading authority on educational reform, claimed that achievement gains are due to innovative teaching, like individualized and problem-based instruction, not from the introduction of laptop computers (Weston & Bain, 2010). Despite these criticisms, students, teachers, and parents involved in one-to-one programs have expressed positive feedback on laptop projects. Students reported laptops were important to them, assisted them with homework, and helped them increase their computer knowledge and skills. Parents stated they were happy their children participated in the program; that laptops were important to their child’s education; and it helped their child with computer skills. Teachers were the most optimistic group and stated laptops helped them to communicate with parents (Lei & Zhao, 2008).

13

Fleischer (2011) reported research on one-to-one is scattered, with some articles reporting laptop programs had positive effects on student learning while others claim more research is needed. In looking at the positive effects, Maninger & Holden (2009) stated one-to-one programs tended to be very learner-centered and created a sense of motivation and engagement. Students also reported spending more time at home revising their presentations and documents and having a great sense of autonomy because they could choose how they learned the material (Fleischer, 2011). Various reports have provided feedback on how schools can implement a one-to-one program. Based on the Texas Immersion Pilot (TIP), Mortensen identified three practices schools must adopt if they want to improve teaching and learning with technology: (a) providing

Maninger & Holden (2009) stated oneto-one programs tended to be very learner centered and created a sense of motivation and engagement. Students also reported to spending more time at home revising their presentations and documents and had a great sense of autonomy because they could choose how they learned the material (Fleischer, 2011).

leadership training and support, (b) adapting traditional tools and practices to support technology immersion, and (c) using technology to create 24/7 learning opportunities (2011). Sprankle (2012) proposed schools use a Beta test group, consisting of teachers who already use technology in their courses. This group would identify pros and cons of adopting a particular technology and assist with designing professional development for other staff members. Sprankle (2012) also suggests continuous formal assessment using surveys, data of student improvements, on-task observations, as well as anecdotal feedback, as this feedback will help in determining if technology is meeting the goals or objectives of the program. Finally, Overbay, Mollette, and Vasu (2011) outlined five lessons when implementing technology: (a) fostering enthusiasm among staff for a technology program, (b) making sure the plan fits at the

14

school level, (c) building in professional development, (d) encouraging collaboration among teachers, and (e) becoming turnover-proof by having a few teachers act as technology experts and “developing teachers’ expertise and sharing leadership for the initiative” (p. 59). Conclusion The number of schools in the United States offering mobile one-to-one computing programs has increased dramatically since 2003. Three of the most highly profiled one-to-one programs, the Maine Learning and Technology Initiative, the Texas Technology Immersion Plan, and Project RED, have reported gains in student achievement. Literature reviews on one-to-one computing found that students used computers in four ways: (a) exploration, (b) expression, (c) communication, and (d) organization of work. Two emerging themes from the research were personalized and seamless learning opportunities, which encourage a learner-focused education. The literature did not report technical problems that occur in a one-to-one program, but did state the need for technical support and leadership training in order to maintain a successful one-toone program.

Please use the following style for citations: Barnes, J., Hoover, N. & Seldow, A. (2012). One-toone: Enriching the learning environment with mobile computing devices for every student. Chesterfield County Public Schools, Chesterfield VA.

15

References American School Board Journal, (2008). Choices and challenges. Open source, Webbased, and free tools are available to schools, but at what cost? (September). National School Boards Association. 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) [Online journal]. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=jtla Berry, A.M., & Wintel, S.E. (2009). Using Laptops to Facilitate Middle School Science Learning: the Results of Hard Fun. University of Southern Maine. Retrieved October 8, 2012. Retrieved from http://www2.umaine.edu/mepri/sites/default/files/Bristol_Final_Copy_cover.pdf Chan, T.W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., et al. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3–29. 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., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (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. Dunleavy, M., & Heinecke, W.F. (2008). The impact of one-to-one laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Computers in Schools, 24, 7-22.

16

Fleischer, H. (2011). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review,7(2012), 107 -122. Gillard, S., & Bailey, D. (2007, May). Technology in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles, reaping rewards. International Journal of Learning, 14(1), 87-93. Greaves, T.; Hayes, J.; Wilson, L.; Gielniak, M.; & Peterson, R., The Technology Factor: Nine Keys to Student Achievement and Cost-Effectiveness, MDR 2010. Retreived on October 5, 2012. Retrieved from http://pearsonfoundation.org/downloads/ProjectRED_TheTechnolgyFactor.pdf Hardy, Lawrence. “Connected to the Future.” American School Board Journal, April 2011. Retrieved on October 12, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.mgsd.k12.nc.us/mgsd/Our_District_files/New%20Data%203.pdf Hanover Research (2012). Personalized learning initiatives (September).Washington, DC: Author Kukulska-Hume, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts. What have we learnt? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 8(2), 1-16. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97-122. Mabry, L., & Snow, J. Z. (2006). Laptops for high-risk students: Empowerment and personalization in a standards-based learning environment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 289-316. Maninger, R. M., & Holden, M. E. (2009). Put the textbooks away: Preparation and support for a middle school one-to-one laptop initiative. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 5–33.

17

Mortensen, C. (2011). Mission Possible: Keys to One. International Society for Technology in Education, 16-21. Oliver, K.M., & Corn, J.O. (2008). Student-reported differences in technology use and skills after the implementation of one-to-one computing. Educational Media International,45(3), 215-229. Overbay, A., Mollette, M. & Vasu, E. (2011). A technology plan that works. Educational Leadership, 68 (5), 56-59 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), 329348. 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 fouryear study (2004–05 to 2007–08).Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research. Silvernail, D. (2005). Does Maine’s Middle School Laptop Program Improve Learning? A review of Evidence to Date. University of Sourhtern Maine. Retrieved on October 8, 2012. Retrieved from https://www.usm.maine.edu/sites/default/files/Center%20for%20Education%20Policy,% 20Applied%20Research,%20and%20Evaluation/MLTI705.pdf Silvernail, D.L, & Gritter, A.K. (2007). Maine’s Middle School Laptop Program: Crating Better Writers. University of southern Maine. Retrieved from http://apple.spsd.org/mlti/mltiwritinglaptops.pdf Sprankle, B. (2012). A plan for technology integration (May). NewBay Media, LLC. Retrieved

18

on October 8, 2012. Retrieved from www.TeachingLearning.com or http://www.techlearning.com/Default.aspx?tabid=67&EntryId=3524 Swan, K., van ‘t Hooft, M., &Kratcoski, A. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in k-8 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 99112. Ting, Y.L. (2012). The pitfalls of mobile devices in learning: A different view and implications for pedagogical design. Journal of Educational Computing Research 46(2), 119-134. U.S. Department of Education (2009a). Race to the top program preamble and major changes. Washington D.C. Retrieved on October 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/major-changes.pdf U.S. Department of Education (2009b). Race to the top program executive summary. Washington D.C. Retrieved on October 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf U.S. Department of Education, (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Technology Plan 2010. Technology Plan (2010). Retrieved on October 12, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 U.S. Department of Education (2012). Education department invites districts to apply for $400 million race to the top competition to support classroom-level reform efforts. Retrieved on October 24, 2012. Retrieved at http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/educationdepartment-invites-districts-apply-400-million-race-top-competition-su. Walberg, H. (2011). Achieving More, Spending Less. Center on Innovation & Improvement.

19

Retrieved at http://www.centerii.org/productivity/docs/achieving_more_spending_less2.pdf Weston, M.E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about one-to-one laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 6 (2010). Wong, L.H., & Looi, C.K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers and Education, 57, 2364-2381. Zucker, A. A., & Hug, S. T. (2008). Teaching and learning physics in a 1:1 laptop school. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 586–594.

20