One-to-One Learning: Device Study

Article Analysis Two for EDUA 6376

In implementing 1:1 learning, the type of device to be used by students is thought to play a major role in the effectiveness of the implementation. Because funding is limited for most schools, cost effective devices are generally considered first. As 1:1 learning initiatives are becoming more and more common in K-12 classrooms, much research is being done on the best devices to answer the call. When determining the most appropriate devices to purchase, it is important to consider the primary purpose of the device, the ages of students to be using the device, as well as collect input from teachers who will be initiating the use of said devices in their classrooms.

In the article titled Potential of One-to-One Technologies in the Classroom: Teachers and Students Weigh In the authors examined six devices utilized in elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms in an effort to determine a superior device. The devices used for the study included Dell Laptops, iPad Minis, Windows Tablets, Nexus7s, Google Chromebooks, and Kindle Fires. Devices were evenly distributed across the grade levels tested so that each level of students had access to all of the devices. It was determined early on in the study that the Nexus7 and Kindle Fire were inadequate for the terms of use and were eliminated as a device choice. However, the input from the teachers who used them was still included in the reported data.

The findings from the study were demonstrated using three main categories and eleven themes that guided the central idea of the data. The three categories were: (1) technology integration and factors influencing implementation, (2) impact of devices on instruction and opportunities to promote 21st century skills, and (3) impact on student engagement and motivation. This qualitative study focused heavily on the feedback provided by teachers and students when it came to device preference. As data was collected and analyzed, it became clear that the preferred device depended heavily on the ages of students. For the most part, younger students preferred touch screen tablets, while older students preferred to use laptops with expandable keyboards.

No matter the choice of device, the feedback from educators was mostly positive and supported 1:1 learning. Many teachers described that the students’ ability to access devices frequently helped to establish and foster learner-centered environments. The immersion of technology within the classroom generated many possibilities to develop collaborative learning scenarios more regularly.

While one device did not prove to be superior to another, I think the research conducted through this study could be very beneficial to district officials who are beginning to buy into 1:1 implementation. The authors recommended that districts create strategic goals that aim to renovate learning environments to move towards the adoption of a more purposefully 1:1 implementation. While funding is very crucial in making these decisions, it is also important to pay careful attention to the needs of students and the input given by teachers when looking into the best devices to use.

In finishing up my analysis of this article, I found it really interesting that there was a connecting theme between this article and the first one I analyzed pertaining to 1:1 effects on student motivation and achievement. Both articles ended by reiterating the idea that technology and devices are just tools to be used by innovative teachers. It is so important that we continue to research all of the best practices for educational technology, but not overlook the fact that our teachers need to feel confident in using the technology by receiving adequate professional development over technology integration.

Article Analysis 2-Kasey Brown.pdf

Download PDF • 174KB

Reference

Varier, D., Dumke, E. K., Abrams, L. M., Conklin, S. B., Barnes, J. S., & Hoover, N. R. (2017). Potential of One-to-One Technologies in the Classroom: Teachers and Students Weigh In. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 967–992.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9509-2