Volume 33 Number 5 Summer 2001 Benefits of Laptop Computers for Elementary Teachers Part II Christy J. Falba Karen J. Grove Donald G. Anderson LeAnn G. Putney In the individual student use category, items such as student research with Web sites, individual student use of software, and student ability to see immediate results in the writing process constituted student use. Alternative learning opportunities included student use of review software in the comfort zone of their desk, engaging students in enrichment activities, and providing students with alternative learning strategies. Teacher Y wrote, “Students are excited about utilizing the laptop more than the desktop because of its portability and the ability to work at their desk that, in effect, becomes a comfort zone for them.” Both of these subsets supported a category indicating individual student use in the domain of beneficial uses of the laptop. Figure 1 also shows the group benefits noted when the laptop was used in conjunction with a projection device. This group use category was labeled collaborative learning with projection as it reflected situations in which a projection device was used with the laptop to engage more than one student at a time. Support for this taxonomic analysis of group benefits came from the respondents. Teacher F noted:
Items included in the visual organization of learning processes subset included helping students see steps in a process, modeling stages of writing projects, visual demonstration of concepts, brainstorming, and showing how to organize student thoughts. The visually enhanced instruction subset consisted of adding graphics, sound, and video to enhance teaching and creating slide shows to teach curricula. Support for this included statements such as this from Teacher B:
Student presentations included student work for classroom demonstrations and parent presentations. Attracting student interest and attention included items such as interactive presentations that involved students, use of the large-screen format to enable students to maintain their focus for longer periods, and use of visuals to stimulate learning. Teacher F noted, “It is fantastic to be able to project Inspiration [1988–2000] on the wall so that the whole class can view and contribute to the graphic organizer.” Student motivation was frequently mentioned in conjunction with the presentations. Many respondents noted that the presentations motivated students to actively participate in learning experiences and stimulated students to continue work on their own. Modeling software use included group introductions for steps in software use either in the classroom or before a trip to the computer lab. Researching online included showing students Web pages with information related to curriculum topics and how to search Web pages for needed information. One additional question that surfaced during the data analysis was whether laptops would be equally beneficial for all teachers regardless of their level of experience. To answer that question, data within the teacher case unit were aggregated into three levels of teaching experience: teachers with 2–3 years of experience, teachers with 4–9 years, and those with 10 or more years. Within these levels of teaching experience, data were further sorted according to the computer experience level at the time of laptop acquisition: beginner (b) or intermediate (i). Using the structure provided by the taxonomic analyses in Figure 1, data are shown in Table 3 with the complete listing of beneficial uses of the laptop as well as the number of responses indicating each use.
The data clearly illustrate that across all levels of teaching experience, teachers indicate beneficial uses of laptop computers in all four categories. Beginner as well as intermediate computer users showed beneficial uses in all four categories. One interesting note was that half of the teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience identified themselves as beginning users of computers. The other half considered themselves intermediate users. Even though this group had the highest proportion of beginning computer users, they still reported beneficial uses in all categories. Second Case Data for the second case came from ECSs who were assigned to the schools where teachers were using laptops. In addition to providing on-site support for integration of technology into the K–5 curriculum, the role of the ECSs in the Laptops for Teachers Project was expanded to include providing laptop training, troubleshooting technical problems, and assisting teachers as necessary. As such, they had access to the teachers’ classrooms and had opportunities for daily interaction and observations. The first step in the data analysis involved a content analysis to identify perceived beneficial uses of the laptops observed by the ECSs and noted in their surveys. Once all the beneficial uses were identified, data were analyzed for correlation to the cover terms and included terms previously identified in the first case. Instances of all cover terms were found along with data supporting two additional included terms: generating teacher enthusiasm and retaining teachers. They were organized under the additional category of teacher motivation. Table 4 shows the complete listing of beneficial uses of laptops as constructed from the teacher data noting areas confirmed from the perspective of the ECSs. Table 4 includes the two additional cover terms identified in the content analysis of the ECS data.
Analysis of the data shows support from all ECSs for all cover terms. In the area of individual teacher growth, ECS BB observed:
This observation also supported the growth in communication that extended to increased parent communication with multimedia presentations, through Portfolio Night. Teacher growth was also noted by comments from ECS FF:
Although this was the only specific mention of stages, several ECSs hinted at the rapid progression of the participants through levels of computer use. Supporting professional productivity, ECS CC noted that laptops
ECS DD also added: “Several have used them to do grades, create parent newsletters, and student progress reports.” As teachers incorporated the laptops in doing their work, they discovered additional ways for sharing information with parents through newsletters and notes. For the area of student use, ECS EE reported: “Our primary resource room teacher used her laptop and laptop training knowledge to do projects with her students.” Some teachers have combined student use with instructional use by having students teach lessons using the laptops. ECS DD noted this phenomenon when he cited the following beneficial computer use: “A couple of the teachers have taught their students how to run a lesson for class using the laptop and the projector.” When examining data for instructional use of the laptops, ECSs also noted the increased use of the laptops when projection devices were used. ECS AA observed:
ECS CC made a similar observation:
These statements emphasized the collaborative learning capabilities teachers discovered when laptops were used with projection devices. In the category of teacher motivation, the cover term of generating teacher enthusiasm was mentioned by almost all of the ECSs. ECS GG noted:
ECS HH wrote:
These statements illustrate the enthusiasm that permeated the project. The cover term of retaining teachers was also supported by a majority of ECSs. ECS AA noted: “I did have some teachers who chose to stay because of the availability of the laptops.” A similar observation was made by ECS GG, who wrote, “Several teachers were looking to move to another school but chose not to, knowing that they wouldn’t have access to a laptop.” Both statements support the addition of the category of retaining teachers. After performing a content analysis of the teacher perceptions and ECS observations, the final step was to look at the degree of the relationship between the perceptions and observations as reflected by a correlation of the rank of the frequencies. For this analysis, the item of convenient access was excluded as ECSs were not able to make observations concerning the use of the laptops outside the school setting. Also, the items of generating teacher enthusiasm and retaining teachers were not included as there were no data from the participants in the first case for these areas. A Pearson product-moment correlation revealed a coefficient of r = .541, p = .037, which indicated a moderate positive correlation between the perceptions of participants in the first case and the observations of the participants in the second. Results and Interpretations Teachers in this project related a wide variety of beneficial uses for the laptop in elementary education. They consistently found that having access to portable technology allowed them more time to develop skills, build confidence, prepare lessons, and increase their professional productivity. Teacher F noted, “It is essential that I am able to do research on the web at home, since there is not enough time in the day to work on the Internet at school.” Teacher L added,
This is a key issue in that lack of time and lack of access are often cited as factors inhibiting teacher use of technology (Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; OTA, 1995). According to this study, providing teachers with laptops is a way to bridge those gaps of time and access. When teachers have convenient access to technology, they are able to find time to increase their skills and confidence. Teachers also reported the benefit of portability in the classroom, particularly when it came to using the laptop for class presentations. Teacher N wrote “The portability of the laptop enabled us to use the projector easily, without having to put a heavy computer in front of the class in order to use the projector.” When projection devices were used with the laptop, it transformed from a personal use tool into an instructional tool. It moved from the personal use context of the teacher’s desk into the mainstream context of the classroom instructional setting. According to Teacher I,
Teacher N also connected with the power of the projection device in conjunction with the laptop for demonstrating a visual organization of the learning process:
The preceding comments suggest that in order for laptops to extend beyond the personal use level to the instructional use level, they need to be accompanied by projection devices that allow for large-group participation and interaction. When combined, the benefits of portability for home and classroom use seemed to create a synergy for overcoming previously acknowledged barriers to using technology in the classroom. In particular, teachers were able to move more quickly to instructional use of technology. This is interesting when compared to research from Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT), which indicated that use of classroom technology tended to evolve through stages of entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). In our study, access to a laptop and projection device allowed for more rapid development of teachers’ use of classroom technology. Once provided with tools that bridged the barriers of time, access, and equipment location, teachers had greater opportunity to simultaneously experience and explore the stages of entry, adoption, and adaptation. Another benefit of the laptop was that it had a positive effect on all teachers regardless of their level of experience with teaching and computers. Teacher J, an intermediate computer user with four years of teaching experience, observed: “This project is a worthwhile experience for all involved. As a result of it, teachers at our school who weren’t very computer literate are using technology more for their students.” This study shows that introduction of the laptops energized teachers regardless of their years of teaching experience or their level of computer experience. Teacher Z, a beginning computer user with 27 years of teaching experience, wrote:
Teacher I, an intermediate level computer user with five years of teaching experience, shared:
Students, as well as teachers, were shown to have benefited when teachers were provided with the proper tools. Without question, laptops were a positive factor in teacher retention. The schools identified for participation in this study were located in at-risk areas and historically recorded a high rate of teacher turnover. Several respondents mentioned that having access to the laptops influenced their decision to remain at these schools. Teacher F, who had three years of teaching experience, wrote: “I had thoughts of moving to a school closer to home. The laptop was a definite incentive for me to stay.” Teacher L, with six years of teaching experience, noted:
Initially, the laptops were viewed as an opportunity to have access to extra equipment. However, the value of the laptops increased over time in this study as teachers realized their potential in the classroom. ECS BB made the following observation:
In the final analysis of the data, the degree of the relationship of perceptions between the two case groups showed a moderate positive correlation in perceptions between groups. That is, both groups agreed on which uses were considered beneficial. Conclusions This study identified an extensive variety of beneficial uses for laptop computing in education. These uses were grouped into five categories: individual teacher growth, professional productivity, individual student use, collaborative learning with projection, and teacher motivation. Though it is not surprising that teachers would soon discover personal uses for the laptop, the speed at which beginning and intermediate level teachers began using their laptops for group instruction was unexpectedly quick. Laptops gave teachers a convenient means of acquiring computer skills outside the classroom—so that their professional development did not have to come at the expense of students. With the laptops, they developed the skills to relate to different sources of information and, in turn, explored new avenues to communicate this information and knowledge. Our study supports the use of laptops as serviceable tools that can promote and enhance teacher growth in technology. When combined with projection devices, the evidence seems to suggest that laptops shorten the amount of time needed to acquire new computer skills. Furthermore, laptops are powerful instructional tools for student learning. The results of the Laptop for Teachers Project are best summarized in observations made by a teacher and an ECS. Teacher X wrote, “The program is a wonderful opportunity for both the teachers using the laptop and the students who are in their classes. Both of us are learning at the same time!” ECS HH noted,
The findings of this study indicate that laptop computers can increase technological competency among teachers. As indicated, the benefits of laptop portability over fixed computer systems make them an obvious choice for decision makers confronted with purchasing options. Regardless of previous experience, all teachers reported a general increase in their confidence and skill using technology due in large measure to the convenient access afforded them by laptop portability. Moreover, when teachers increased their use of technology in the classroom, especially when laptops were combined with projection devices, students were also engaged, and learning was exponentially enhanced. Contributors Christy J. Falba, EdD, is the coordinator of instructional technology services for the Clark County School District in Las Vegas, Nevada. Research interests include integration of educational technologies into preservice and inservice teacher education and program evaluation. Karen J. Grove, MS, is a doctoral student at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Research interests include integration of educational technologies in preservice and inservice teacher education and educational program evaluation. Donald G. Anderson, EdD, is president of Delphi Research of Nevada, Inc., and past director of research and development for the Clark County School District of Nevada. Research interests are impact assessment and program evaluation. LeAnn G. Putney, PhD, is an assistant professor of qualitative research in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her area of research is construction of literate practices in inquiry-based classroom communities. Contact Dr. Christy J. Falba References AppleWorks [Computer software]. (1991–2000). Cupertino, CA: Apple. Gold, R. (1999). Leadership, learning and laptops: How one district brought everyone on board. Multimedia Schools, 6(4), 32–35. Inspiration [Computer software]. (1988–2000). Portland, OR: Inspiration Software, Inc. Kid Pix [Computer software]. (1989–2001). Novato, CA: The Learning Company. Office [Computer software]. (1983–2000). Redmond, WA: Microsoft. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Phillips, R., Bailey, M., & Fisher, T. (1999). Questioning teachers about their use of portable computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 149–158. Rockman, S., Chessler, M., & Walker, L. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the laptop program [Online document]. Available: www.microsoft.com/education/aal/research2.asp. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Tabletop Jr./Sr. [Computer software]. (1995). Novato, CA: The Learning Company. TimeLiner [Computer software]. (2001). Watertown, MA: Tom Snyder Productions. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-HER-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weast, J. D., Parry, J., & Peterson, T. (1993). Empowering middle school teachers with portable computers. ERS Spectrum, 11(3), 22–26. WebWhacker [Computer software]. (2000). Chicago: Quick Mind. A PDF file of the full article is available. Contact: jrte@iste.org. Please specifiy Volume and Issue number and article name. Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
