The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1-26

  Weston, Mark E ^a   Bain, Alan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950015762     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15402525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (133)

1. Aladjem, D., LeFloch, K.C., Zhang, Y., Kurki, A., Boyle, A., Taylor, J., et al. (2006). Models matter: The final report of the national longitudinal evaluation of comprehensive school reform. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
2. Allen, J., Consoletti, A., & Kerwi, K. (2009). The accountability report 2009: Charter schools. Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform. Bahrampour, T. (2006, December 9). For some, laptops don't compute: Virginia school pushes wireless learning. Washington Post, p. 1.
3. Bain, A. (2004). Secondary school reform and technology planning: Lessons learned from a ten year school reform initiative. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 149-170.
4. Bain, A. (2007). The self-organizing school: Next generation comprehensive school reforms. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
5. Bain, A., & Parkes, R. (2006). Curriculum authoring tools and inclusive classroom teaching practice: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 177-189.
6. Bain, A., & Weston, M. (2009). One to one computing: Which side of the border are you on? Independent School, 68(2), 50-56.
7. Baltzan, P., & Phillips, A. (2009). Essentials of business driven information systems. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
8. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
9. Bebell, D. (2005). Technology promoting student excellence: An investigation of the first year of 1:1 computing in New Hampshire middle schools, Annual meeting of the National Educational Computing Conference. Philadelphia.
10. Bebell, D. (2007). 1 to 1 computing: Year one results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative evaluation, Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.
11. Becker, H. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Seattle, WA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.
12. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
13. Bianchi, A. (2004). One-to-one computing: Wave of the future or expensive experiment? Forecast: Emerging Issues in Public Education, 2(1), 1-4.
14. Bloom, B. (1984a). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring Educational Researcher, 13(6), 14-16.
15. Bloom, B. (1984b). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4-17.
16. Bloom, B. (1988). Helping all children learn well in elementary school-and beyond. Principal, 67(4), 12-17.
17. Borja, R. (2006, May 10). Researchers weigh benefits of one computer per lap. Education Week, p. 10.
18. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.
19. Braun, H. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1), 1-43.
20. Bullen, M., & Janes, D. (2007). Making the transition to e-learning: Strategies and issues. Hershey, PA: Information Science.
21. Business Roundtable. (2008). Gaining momentum, losing ground: Progress report 2008. Washington, DC.
22. Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts. Jessup, MD: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
23. Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. New York: Harper Business.
25. Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (2007). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. San Francisco: John Wiley.
26. Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2006). SRQ center report on middle and high school comprehensive reform models. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
27. Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. New York: Longman.
28. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College.
29. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3-13.
30. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453-477.
31. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
32. Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York: Teachers College.
33. Cuban, L. (2006a, October 18). Commentary: The laptop revolution has no clothes. Education Week, p. 29.
34. Cuban, L. (2006b). 1:1 laptops transforming classrooms: Yeah, sure. Teachers College Record.
35. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
36. Cuban, L., & Usdan, M. (2003). Powerful reforms with shallow roots: Improving America's urban schools. New York: Teachers College.
37. Daniels, H., Zemelman, S., & Bizar, M. (2001). Rethinking high school: Best practice in teaching, learning, and leadership. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
38. Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
40. Dwyer, D. (2000). Changing the conversation about teaching learning and technology: A report about ten years of ACOT research. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer.
41. Edwards, M. (2003). The lap of learning. School Administrator, 60(4), 10-12.
42. Elmore, R., & Fuhrman, S. (2001). Holding schools accountable: Is it working? Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1) 67-70, 72.
43. Fitzgerald, S. (2003). Back to the future: Total cost of ownership and other edtech sustainability In N. Dickard (Ed.), The sustainability challenge: Taking edtech to the next level. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
44. Fraser, B., Walberg, H., Welch, W., & Hattie, J. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 147-252.
45. Fuhrman, S., Clune, W., & Elmore, R. (1991). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. In A. Odden (Ed.), Education Policy Implementation (pp. 197-218). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
46. Fuhrman, S., & Elmore, R. (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College.
47. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
48. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College.
49. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York: Freeman.
50. Goodlad, J. (2004). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
51. Gordon, D., & Graham, P. (2003). A nation reformed: American education 20 years after A Nation at Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
52. Greaves, T., & Hayes, J. (2006). America's digital Schools 2008: A five-year forecast. Shelton, CT: Market Data Retrieval.
53. Gulek, J., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 1-39.
54. Harris, D., & Herrington, C. (2006). Accountability standards and the growing achievement gap: Lessons from the last half century. American Journal of Education, 112(2), 209-238.
55. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
56. Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36(1), 5-13.
57. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Australian Council for Educational Research: Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality. Melbourne.
58. Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.
59. Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College.
60. Hu, W. (2007, May 4). Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops. New York Times.com. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html.
61. Hukkinen, J. (2008). Sustainability networks: Cognitive tools for expert collaboration in social-ecological systems. New York, NY: Routledge.
62. Jaillet, A. (2004). What is happening with portable computers in schools? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 115-128.
63. Johnson, D., & Pedowitz, R. (2007). Practical orthopaedic sports medicine and arthroscopy. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
64. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York: Scribner.
65. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
66. Jonassen, D. (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Jonassen, D. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
68. Jonassen, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
69. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
70. Kerr, K., Pane, J., & Barney, H. (2003). Quaker Valley Digital School District: Early effects and plans for future evaluation (No. Technical Report TR-107-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
71. Kirst, M., & Jung, R. (1991). The utility of a longitudinal approach in assessing implementation: A thirteen-year view of Title I, ESEA. In A. Odden (Ed.), Education Policy Implementation (pp. 39-64). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
72. Kirst, M., & Meister, G. (1985). Turbulences in American secondary schools: What reforms last? Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 169-186.
73. st century schools. Washington, DC: Information Technology and Innovation.
74. Kommers, P., Jonassen, D., & Mayes, J. (1992). Cognitive tools for learning. New York: Springer Verlag.
75. Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago.
76. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.
77. Lajoie, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Lambros, A. (2004). Problem-based learning in middle and high school classrooms: A teacher's guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
79. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2006). What does one-to-one computing bring to schools? In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1690-1694). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
80. Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(Spring), 79-88.
81. Lindblom, C. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
82. Lortie, D. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
83. Marshall, S. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge: University Press.
84. Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
85. Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
86. McCarthy, P., & Breen, Y. (2001). Teaching and learning for tomorrow: A learning technology plan for Maine's future. Augusta, ME: Maine State Legislature.
87. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago.
88. Means, B., & Haertel, G. (Eds.). (2004). Using technology evaluation to enhance student learning. New York: Teachers College.
89. Michigan Virtual University. (2005). Freedom to learn: A progress report. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.
90. Mortimore, P. (2006). Education reform: Which way forward? Education Review, 19(2), 4-11.
91. Mowen, G. (2003). Adventures in laptop land. School Administrator, 60(4), 14-16, 18-19.
92. Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2008). Why has high-stakes testing so easily slipped into contemporary American life? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(9), 672-676.
93. Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. New York: Teachers College.
94. Noguera, P., & Wing, J. (Eds.). (2006). Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
95. O'Donnell, C. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in k12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33-84.
96. O'Dwyer, L., Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Seeley, K. (2008). Examining the relationship between student's mathematics scores and computer use at home and school. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(5), 45.
97. Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 280, 45-62.
98. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books
99. Peters, T. (2009). In search of excellence. New York: MJF.
100. Pogrow, S. (1996). Reforming the wannabe reformers: Why education reforms almost always end up making things worse. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10), 656-663.
101. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. (2001). Using information technology to transform the way we learn report Washington, DC: National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development.
102. Ricadela, A. (2008, December 16). Rethinking computers in the classroom. Businessweek Online. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2008/tc20081215_371267.htm.
103. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
104. Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
105. Seel, R. (2000). Culture and complexity: New insights into organizational change. Organizations & People, 7(2), 2-9.
106. Senge, P. (Ed.). (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.
107. Senge, P., Scharmer, C., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. (2005). Presence: Exploring profound change in people, organizations, and society. New York: Doubleday.
108. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2006). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: First-year results. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
109. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2007). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Findings from the second year. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
110. 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 (2004-05 to 2007-08). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
111. Silvernail, D. (2007). The impact of the Maine Learning Technology Initiative on teachers, students, and learning. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from http://usm.maine.edu/cepare/mlti.htm.
112. Silvernail, D., & Buffington, P. (2009). Improving mathematics performance using laptop technology: The importance of professional development for success. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
113. Silvernail, D., & Gritter, A. (2005). Maine's middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
114. Silvernail, D., & Lane, D. (2004). The impact of Maine's one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students, report #1. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
115. Sizer, T. (2004). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
116. Slavin, R., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2001). One million children: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
117. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
118. Stallard, C., & Cocker, J. (2001). The promise of technology in schools: The next twenty years. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
119. th Texas legislature. Austin, TX: TEA.
120. Toch, T. (1996, 1 April). The case for tough standards. U.S. News and World Report, 52-56.
121. Tomlinson, C. (2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
122. Tomlinson, C., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
123. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
124. Vascellaro, J. (2006, August 31). Saying no to school laptops: Programs to give all students computers come under fire over costs, inappropriate use by kids. Wall Street Journal, p. D1.
125. Wartgow, J. (2008). Why school reform is failing and what we need to do about it: 10 lessons from the trenches. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
126. Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
127. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
128. Weston, M., & Brooks, D. (2008). Critical constructs as indicators of a shifting paradigm in education: A case study of four technology-rich schools. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education, 2(4), 281-291.
129. Weston, M., & Bain, A. (2009). Engaging with change: A model for adopting and evaluating school-based change. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 156-175.
130. Yeomans, D. (2009). How structures work: Design and behavior from bridges to buildings. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell.
131. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T., & Witte, J. (2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
132. Zucker, A., & Hug, S. (2007). A study of the 1:1 laptop program at the Denver School of Science and Technology. Denver, CO: Denver School of Science & Technology
133. Zucker, A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. Roslyn, VA: National Science Foundation.