1:1 Laptop Evaluations Compared to My Own Classroom Experiments
with 10 comments
Print This Post
1-to-1 Computing :: A Measure of Success : February 2007 : THE Journal Annotated
WHEN TEXAS’ TECHNOLOGY IMMERSION PROJECT (TIP) began in the spring of 2004, a grant from the US Department of Education allowed a parallel project to launch— eTxTIP—to evaluate and measure the success of the program, which equips middle school students in high-risk, high-need areas with laptops.
“High-risk students” shouldn’t throw us off to the wider application of this research. Seen in a non-economic (class) sense, “high-risk” can apply also to students of sub-standard literacy scores on external, norm-referenced tests like the SAT and so forth. So this applies, I would argue, to any students whose academic literacy scores fall below the norm–which makes this especially relevant to international schools and schools with high numbers of non-native English speakers.
According to Givens, “The first-year report showed an increase in technical proficiency, engagement between the students and the teachers, a spike in parental involvement, and greater communication between the school and the home.” She says the second-year report is close to completion.
This is definitely true in my case regarding the “increase in. . . engagemennt between the students and the teachers,” though less so with parent involvement. I just sent a parent letter home with students explaining our web-logging “Writing Across the Curriculum, Writing Across the Years” program, and hope this will increase parent involvement.
Data is beginning to come in on several of the first 1-to-1 initiatives that were launched three or more years ago, an adequate time frame for obtaining measurable results. Just as expected, formal analysis shows that students are learning more through this new, collaborative instruction that opens the doors of communication and takes education beyond the classroom and into the community at large. Anecdotal success— accounts of positive transformations in the classroom from students, teachers, administrators, and parents—only serves to bolster the formal evaluations of these programs, which for most, were mandated when the programs were implemented.
Again, personal experience in our classroom collaboration with students in Denver and Honolulu bears out the claim that “students are learning more through this new, collaborative instruction that opens the doors of communication and takes education beyond the classroom and into the community at large.” While there are still improvements to be made in our method of collaboration–only natural, since this is our first attempt, and we’re learning as we go–the learning that is taking place is clearly richer, more authentic, and more multi-faceted than traditional, “walled classoom” writiing workshops of the past. It will only improve as we teachers continue working out the bugs.
The Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI), which began five years ago and provides each seventh-grade student in the state with a laptop, has also been undergoing evaluation, with two groups working in tandem to measure its success, says Bette Manchester, director of special projects for the Maine Department of Education. The first group, the Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation at the University of Southern Maine, looks at how the technology is being used, viewed, and accepted at the state’s middle schools. Among the findings, which can be found here, the CEPARE report states:
“There is a growing body of evidence that Maine’s Learning Technology Initiative is impacting teachers, students, and learning in many positive ways:
- Teachers are more effectively helping children achieve Maine’s state learning standards.
- Students are more motivated to learn, are learning more, and learning it more deeply.
- Students are acquiring 21st-century skills.
- The 1-to-1 laptop program is bringing about positive change in the acquisition of knowledge.”
Machester says the state continues to work with CEPARE to measure results at particular schools, noting that the center evaluates schools individually rather than the program as a whole. “We chose not to just look at statewide student achievement,” she says, “because that doesn’t tell the whole story. Plus, doing those types of assessments is very, very expensive.”
The biggest limitations to our own initiative are these:
-
- students don’t have their own laptops, which limits intstruction to availability of laptop carts on any given day.
- the laptops the school provides do not contain the software required for optimal student production of digital work (frankly, the iLife audio, video, teleconferencing, and multimedia suite that comes with the MacBook)
- classroom time management is negatively affected by set-up and breakdown time to remove and return laptops to the carts every class.
- I include the rest of the article in case it has relevance for anyone else.
If you like this post, please spread it: 
(But don't tag it "education." That will bury it.)
- An Old Prophecy Confirmed? On the Uses and Abuses of Laptop Learning...
- Open Offer to Edtech Specialists...
- 1:1 School Flat Classroom Network: New Group on Classroom 2.0 Ning...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Clay cites concerns:
“students don’t have their own laptops, which limits intstruction to availability of laptop carts on any given day.“
I agree. We should work toward a broadband networked laptop in every child’s hands. Here is an argument for how we can support that reality.
“the laptops the school provides do not contain the software required for optimal student production of digital work (frankly, the iLife audio, video, teleconferencing, and multimedia suite that comes with the MacBook)“
I think this is a misplaced priority. Schools have a duty to use free software first and then look for the most powerful tool within that arena. So long as we teach children to use proprietary tools, we contribute to the perpetuation of a fragmented technological society. The “optimum” software is software that is socially graceful, not software that produces the most flashy documents.
[Reply]
Gnuosphere
17 Mar 07 at 7:37 am
Clay you have really been on the mark lately..just the kind of prophet’s voice and questions I need.
When I think 1:1 I think laptop for every child all the time not computer carts…The carts get us started but it is not enough…especially if they do not have access at home.
We operate in a PC environment and have had great success with open source applications. We uae both Office and the Open office suite at school and the students have no trouble moving between them. We also help the students get the open office suite on their home computers.
[Reply]
Barbara
17 Mar 07 at 9:11 am
Gnuosphere, I’m not sure I agree with your claim that “Schools have a duty to use free software first and then look for the most powerful tool within that arena.” To me it’s the efficiency of time and simplicity of use that are priorities, not cobbling together whatever is free (especially since iLife is dead cheap).
My local context is relevant here: money is not an issue at my private school. In other contexts, I can see this being a priority, as you say.
So here, the issues are:
1. What software is least aversive for classroom learning;
2. allows optimum speed for projects (when you have tons of homework, this is a major priority for a student)
3. has the simplest interface and learning curve.
All three of these point to iLife, in my book. And believe me, I’ve done the Audacity and MovieMaker and other freeware route, and compared to iLife that road is bumpy indeed.
Finally, gunosphere, you’re characterization of the type of work I want my students to produce as “flashy documents” is very off the mark. I’m not talking documents; I’m talking multimedia: digital storytelling, digital essays, podcasts, films, etc. 21st century literacy, as I see it already emerging all around us, is not the “document”-based version we grew up with.
Barbara, your focus on Office and Open Office, to the exclusion of more dynamic multimedia forms of communication, suggests that I haven’t done an adequate job of communicating the skills I see a 1:1 school developing in students. I’ve written about it pretty extensively over the last month, and almost always with the emphasis on this basic principle: Office documents, print-only text, and PowerPoint slideshows are more and more eclipsed by newer forms of communication represented by such works as Karl Fisch’s “Did You Know?,” Prof. Wesch’s “The Machine is Us/ing Us,” and Four-Eyed Monster’s “Humanity Lobotomy.”
These multimedia works are attracting tens of thousands of viewers in ways that pure text is not, even in the edublogosphere. To me, that speaks volumes about the superior power of student work “beyond Office, beyond ‘flashy documents.” Multimedia is a new “language art,” and like that other new thing (500 years ago) called “the book,” it’s generating new possibilities and forms of writing.
Thanks for your input, as usual.
[Reply]
Clay Burell
17 Mar 07 at 12:31 pm
Gnuosphere, Barbara, you still have me thinking, and asking new questions.
I haven’t explored Open Office. If it’s freeware that eliminates the need to purchase MS Office for each laptop, then that’s some valuable advice indeed. You’ve given me a bit of homework to do before tomorrow
More along those lines: Gnuosphere, I read the posts you referred me to, and while I still hold that the first priority is not cost of software, but rather it ease, simplicity, and end-product quality for student work, you have reminded me of a bigger-picture issue, which is this:
The are a lot of freeware alternatives to proprietary software that can reduce the administrative budgetary outlays for technology, but….to me, the place to seek those alternatives is not in the student’s computers–especially if this is, again, going to degrade the quality and efficiency of student work. The place to look for alternatives is, instead, in the proprietary software schools purchase for other, administrative uses.
Examples: Moodle (free) instead of Blackboard (USD 50,000, I’m told); instead of commercially expensive software for scheduling and record-keeping, free alternatives like Google Documents (Calendar, Spreadsheets, etc); instead of expensive software like Atlas for curriculum mapping, free alternatives like web-based wikis.
The money saved by budget-cutting in these areas, which seems like it could approach the hundreds of thousands of dollar range, could be re-distributed toward outlays for higher quality student work.
And we haven’t even touched on budgetary savings to be had by moving from traditional textbook purchases to online “textbooks”–this would definitely stretch into more hundreds of thousands of dollars in book orders or more.
And finally, the savings in paper, copier wear, and toner that shifting to paperless work–no more paper worksheets, no more paper turn-in for student work–would mean further reduced costs in the overall student budget.
So the main idea here: looking at the “tech budget” in isolation is misguided. A more effective approach for administrators would be to ask:
“What are we currently spending money on now that we could be getting for free through freeware and web-based web2.0 alternatives?”
That could free up huge amounts of money to apply, instead, to student learning, professional development for teachers, and other areas that focus on the first priority of schools: optimal student learning.
So thanks again for the input.
[Reply]
Clay Burell
17 Mar 07 at 9:57 pm
Hi Clay,
Just to clarify - when we speak of free software, we are not referring to price. We are referring to the freedom to share, modify, run for any purpose, and study software. As the saying goes - think “free speech”, not “free beer”. In fact, I encourage schools and individuals to pay for and invest in free software. Freeware is actually a form of proprietary software and would not be appropriate for a school setting.
You mentioned Audacity - which is free software. A program like Audacity should be used in schools before any freeware/proprietary program because it is ethically/pedagogically sound. It is released under the GNU GPL. Students are free to examine, learn from, and share the software. Yes, there are software programs that may be more powerful than Audacity but if they are proprietary, they disrespect the right of computer users to form cooperating communities. The right to form a cooperating community is more important than the end product of any school assignment.
As our movement grows, proprietary vendors will be forced to offer their software for “free” (i.e. gratis). It is important for users to be conscious of what the status of each software package is because gratis software is not necessarily liberated software. For instance, schools should choose Moodle over Blackboard not because it is cheaper, but because it is unfettered by restrictions that keep computer users from cooperating.
For a detailed definition of free software and more information of what we are referring to, see here.
As well, I apologize for the use of the term “flashy”. I was not meaning to criticize anyone’s work in particular. I meant to point out the fact that as of now, some proprietary applications create more complex end products than do free software alternatives. It is important not to place the value of complexity over the value of freedom no matter how tempting that may be.
Good luck with your 1:1 research. As a school teacher myself I am interested to hear your findings and how your school chooses to move forward.
[Reply]
Gnuosphere
18 Mar 07 at 2:12 am
Hi Gnuosphere,
Your claim that “as of now, some proprietary applications create more complex end products than do free software alternatives. It is important not to place the value of complexity over the value of freedom no matter how tempting that may be”
–is interesting, and I’m sympathetic on ideological grounds.
At the same time, on pragmatic grounds, the best tool–not the “most complex,” but simply the most efficient and productive–is going to win, it seems to me, in most real-world settings.
Until the alternatives you advocate can compete on the grounds of quality, I don’t see how they can win buy-in from the less ideological, more pragmatic world.
This has already happened with Moodle, for example. Until the multimedia offerings similarly rival those of proprietary rivals, the Quality factor trumps all, in my book.
So until the free software movement evolves into equal a/v software quality–and if it already has, I’m all ears for your recommendations–I can’t see it being the best choice for students.
Thanks for the input. Always open to more.
[Reply]
Clay Burell
18 Mar 07 at 1:11 pm
Clay-
Yes Open Office avoids all the licensing fees and allows for equity of access for our students.
I fully get the idea of moving beyond print and we are doing so a few small steps at a time But the basic utility software will always form part of school applications even if it is only for drafting ideas, storyboards and writing blogs and wikis. I am working at the K-8 level and so I have a responsibility to assure that the students have mastered basic productivity applications…but that is only the beginning as we move the junior high on to more creative and engaging manners of expression.
My comment was more to say the open office software works for us. I am writing this on the fly and may not have quite gotten it right but I appreciate the conversation.
[Reply]
Barbara
18 Mar 07 at 9:16 pm
Clay says:
“So until the free software movement evolves [...]“
The movement will only evolve with participation. We have come a long way in 25 years but we still have much to do. We hope that if you agree with our views then rather than wait and see what we do, you join us.
[Reply]
Gnuosphere
19 Mar 07 at 2:23 am
Gnuo,
My school uses Moodle because I “sold” them on its quality.
To that extent I joined already.
I’m an English teacher, not a code-writing developer. What, exactly, are you saying that my allegiance to your “movement” would accomplish?
I guess I’m no longer the radical I was in my college days. I can’t see the value of sacrificing aesthetic (and pragmatic) quality for political idealism.
And I think Apple is commendable for pricing iLife at USD 70, compared to Adobe’s USD 500 alternatives.
I admire your idealism, but am not sure what you want me to do with it.
Anyway, on to grading papers now. Much catch-up to do.
[Reply]
Clay Burell
19 Mar 07 at 7:36 am
Clay says:
“I’m an English teacher, not a code-writing developer. What, exactly, are you saying that my allegiance to your “movement” would accomplish?“
As a user you influence the network effect. Therefore, just your use is a valuable contribution. And of course, you are a teacher which implies much influence itself.
“I can’t see the value of sacrificing aesthetic (and pragmatic) quality for political idealism.“
That’s too bad.
[Reply]
Gnuosphere
19 Mar 07 at 9:14 am