Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 62–67 | Cite as

One-To-One Initiative Implementation from Insiders’ Perspectives

  • Phu VuEmail author
  • Scott Fredrickson
  • Martonia Gaskill
Original Paper

Abstract

This study examined how one-to-one initiatives were conducted in rural public K-12 educational settings in a mid-western US state. Research data were gathered from interview responses from 15 school personnel who were either educational technology directors or school principals at 15 rural public K-12 schools. The study found that when schools decided to embrace one-to-one initiatives, decisions were often made by committees with limited membership and cost was frequently and/or primarily the committees’ major consideration. In addition to cost, device management, durability, and ease of use were factors that school committees were interested in, when selecting devices. Two notable discrepancies cited that should be addressed by committees considering implementing one-to-one initiative are: 1. Not preparing teachers and administrators to effectively use those devices prior to the implementation of the initiative. 2. Not evaluating the instructional effectiveness and learning gains after the implementation of the initiative.

Keywords

1:1 Educational technology One-to-one Technology implementation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Both of the authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: a summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2).Google Scholar
  2. Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: the interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831.Google Scholar
  3. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K–12 classrooms: a review of the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Herold, B. (2016). One to one laptop initiatives boost student scores. Education Week. Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2016/05/one-to-one_laptop_test_scores.html?r=100337178.
  6. Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1: 1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jeffries, P. R. (2005). A framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating: simulations used as teaching strategies in nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 26(2), 96–103.Google Scholar
  8. Jhurree, V. (2005). Technology integration in education in developing countries: guidelines to policy makers. International Education Journal, 6(4), 467–483.Google Scholar
  9. Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (2000). Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2).Google Scholar
  10. Vannatta, R. A. (2000). Evaluation to planning: technology integration in a school of education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 231–246.Google Scholar
  11. Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: the naked truth about 1: 1 laptop initiatives and educational change. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(6).Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nebraska at KearneyKearneyUSA

Personalised recommendations