1:1 Computing: The Gateway to 21st Century Learning
“TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,” the famous poem by Robert Frost begins. Education in America stands at the divergence of two roads. One road will lead into the unknown possibilities of 21st Century education, while the other leads down the more familiar lanes and comfortable dusty roads that have often been traversed over the past 100 years of public education. At the very edge of “the road less traveled” stands a gate, a gate which must be opened before the endless possibilities of the 21st Century education may be explored. That gateway is 1:1 Computing. Looking at all the other emerging trends in education, providing a 1:1 ratio of student to computer is necessary to fully explore the many other emerging trends that have become available in the last few years. However, in an era where we have leaned towards cramming technology into classrooms (Creighton, 2003), we must learn to thinking clearly about what it will take to successfully lead the implementation of these gateway 1:1 computing initiatives. This paper will guide you through some of the basic steps of planning, so that you may echo Robert Frost’s final lines:
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Implementation
As school districts across the nation try to keep pace with their technology laden students some school districts are choosing to start 1:1 computing programs. The implementation process of 1:1 programs vary from district to district, but several key factors come in to play when deciding on an implementation plan.
One of the key ideas that must always be looked at when starting a 1:1 program is that a computer is only a tool, not a new curriculum (Tenbusch, 2010). If a district is considering a 1:1 program just as a means to keep up with the technology of today that district is not going about this process wisely. A school district must have a proper plan in place, the right vision backing the plan, and properly trained and motivated staff to implement the program. Several studies suggest that teacher training is one of the most important aspects to consider when starting a 1:1 program. Schools that go into a 1:1 program with under or unprepared teachers will many times not see improvements in student performance.
When looking to start a 1:1 program there are several factors that must be considered. What is the school looking to improve? What is going to be needed to implement the program (hardware, software)? How are all stakeholders going to be convinced to buy in to this large undertaking? Possibly the most important factor, what level of training and support are teachers going to receive? One study stated, “Respondents at higher implementing schools reported committed leaders, thorough planning, teacher buy in, preliminary professional development for teachers, and a commitment to the transformation of student learning were keys to a successful implementation program”(Shapley et al., 2010).
The implementation of a 1:1 program is not just the purchasing of laptops and distributing them out to all staff and students. A successful 1:1 program requires extensive planning, preparation, understanding, and buy in from all stakeholders along with a determination to use technology to improve students learning. Filling classrooms with computers without having a well thought out plan will not be successful. The potential of a 1:1 program lies with the people planning, preparing, and teaching in the 1:1 classroom.
Professional Development
Professional development is one of the most important, although frequently overlooked aspects of implementing a technology initiative. Effective professional development goes far beyond one-time training sessions designed to introduce new technologies. It is ongoing, frequently reinforced, well-supported and embedded into the daily life of schools.
Schools who want to be successful know that professional development is an essential part of implementing 1 to 1 computing. According to an article by Bridget McCrea (2010), inadequate professional development is one reason that some 1:1 initiatives have failed. The same article also explained how one school effectively implemented one to one computing by focusing on professional development for teachers. When the Texas school district first implemented 1:1 computing, the district also became the first in the nation to use an interactive curriculum and digital teaching platform, called Time to Know, which was developed to specifically help schools maximize 1:1 computing (McCrea, 2010). According to teachers and students, making professional development a priority has made the transition to 1:1 computing easier and with few challenges (McCrea, 2010).
Several other studies of 1 to 1 computing have also verified that there are several important factors that affect these programs. Some of these factors include adequate planning, buy-in and strong district and school leadership (Stansbury, 2010). However, the studies indicate that the most important factor for 1 to 1 computing to be successful is the teachers of these programs (Stansbury, 2010). According to the article, Stansbury (2010) explains that some researchers and educators assume that by adding computers to the classroom, student achievement and success will automatically increase. However, Stansbury (2010) explains that evidence in research reveals that teachers must invest their time and effort to adapt their teaching materials and practices to make 1 to 1 effective and successful.
Because the 1 to 1 initiative is still a new concept to most schools, research is currently lacking as to what professional development is necessary in order for these programs to be successful. However, the existing research is consistent in that continuing professional development for teachers is essential for schools using 1 to 1 programs. In the research reviewed, researchers and educators agree that teachers are the most important factor for successful implementation of 1 to 1 computing. While research is currently lacking as to how professional development is to be used and what professional development is needed, it is evident that schools must focus on professional development for teachers in order for 1 to 1 programs to be effective.
Financing
While Education itself stands at the divergence of two roads, those seeking Funding for the next generation of Educational technology stand at the convergence of many different roads. In the world of funding, there are a plethora of options for the schools seeking to traverse into the unknown world of 21st Century Education. For those beginning this process, a great place to start is the 1:1 Computing: A Guidebook to Help You Make the Right Decisions. (Solomon, 2005) This article clearly articulates the ways in which school might overcome the obstacle of funding.
Federal funding is one of the first places school districts should look to find funds for initiating a 1:1 computer program. It is possible for most school districts to transfer up to 50 percent of the federal formula grant funds they receive under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs to any one of these programs(technology programs) or to their Title I program, without separate approval.(Solomon, 2005) Another place to look for funding from the Federal government is through Title II, Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology Program. "Its primary goal is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in schools...Under EETT, the U.S. Department of Education provides grants to State Education Agencies (SEAs) proportionally based on their share of funding under Title I, Part A.” (Solomon, 2005) Other programs such as IDEA also provide funds for the educational success of children with disabilities (Solomon, 2005).
State funding doesn’t look too different from your Federal funding. To help schools fund technology programs, most states have either re-directed Title II Part D funds to specific statewide or regional projects or have simply transferred the competitive part of the Title II Part D funds to eligible school districts on a competitive basis. (Solomon, 2005)
If you cannot find funding through the Federal or State government another place to look is through Local Bond Levies. Issuing a bond means that a locality is going to sell shares in a particular project to raise money for the project...Issuing bonds allows school districts to: borrow large amounts of money, specify the time frame for borrowing, and determine within limits the amount of annual payments...Issuing bonds is a complex procedure...The state also needs to approve the bond sale. Ultimately, the school board is responsible for incurring either bank or bonded debt. The voters must be convinced that this is a wise investment (Solomon, 2005).
A popular new way for schools to fund 1:1 initiatives is through Technology Financing. Technology Financing, or leasing, gives schools two choices for achieving the 1:1 initiatives. Through a straight lease a district pays for equipment for a specified time and then returns it. The second choice is a lease/purchase. In this option the district either owns the technology or purchases it for a very small residual amount at the end of the contract. (Solomon, 2005) ‘The advantage of financing is being able to acquire the technology without paying the full purchase price at one time. For districts not issuing long-term debt, financing allows them to make payments from the general operating budget over periods generally extending from 36 to 60 months.” (Solomon, 2005)
Today, many foundations, corporations, and non-profit organizations may also be a good source of financial assistance for technology in schools and districts, especially in the form of grant programs. While each organization has unique priorities, districts should write proposals that address those priorities specifically. In general, philanthropic entities are interested in providing start up funds for initiatives that are clearly focused, internally supported, and financially sustainable (Solomon, 2005).
While not an option for all schools, some schools are looking at the possibility of Parental purchases of technology. While this does lower the cost for schools when trying to initiate a new program, it is not very helpful for most schools seeking to initiate these programs, especially when considering the digital divide (Solomon, 2005).
There are many more creative ways that are possible for schools to pursue. Much could be said on the following topics but I am just going to list some of the different creative options out there. Schools could set aside monies from the current budget, or they could combine funds to help support the transition to 1:1.(Solomon, 2005) Some more creative schools have formed partnerships with business, developed consortia, and used local foundations to fund the 1:1 initiatives.(Solomon, 2005)
No matter which way you choose to fund your 1:1 initiative, it is vital to see that funding should not be the ultimate limitation. If you are creative and willing to pursue to possible options that are available there will be plenty of funding to take you down the “road less traveled.”
Elementary
Despite what appears to be a strong correlation between student achievement, future ready skills, and the use of technology, the majority of the studies found tend to point to these gains in the middle school and high school levels only (Kulik, 2003). Because drill and practice activities and taking comprehension quizzes on the computer are not fundamentally different from simply taking a paper/pencil test, taking an oral exam, or preparing a book report, there is not much of a change instructionally. These are often the methods that are being used in the elementary classrooms, rather than more interactive, research-type activities. Similar activities have been taking place in classrooms for ages, just not with the aid of technology. I would guess that this lack of “change in delivery” of instruction is one more reason that elementary implementation of technology has not shown the results seen at older age levels.
Another notable exception to studies supporting technology immersion and its positive effects involved elementary students (Jaillet, 2004). For the most part, this study involved teachers and students who wound up not utilizing the technology that was available to them because there was little change in the instructional delivery method. Although a conflicting study in some regard, it also drove home the point that technology is still a teaching tool, and that in and of itself it will not create better learners. Technology that sits on a shelf is not a worthwhile investment.
Many would interpret this lack of overall supporting evidence at the elementary level as a condemnation of technology, at least as it relates to student achievement. Certainly, for the money involved, that argument needs to be given its due. I would argue, however, that this lack of evidence is just one more example in education where we need to look at the bigger picture of K-12 education and look at an individual child’s education as a process. Just as we shouldn’t always “teach to the test,” but instead “teach to the child,” we shouldn’t base our elementary grade curriculum (including technology implementation) only on what shows up significantly in standardized testing or even a formative assessment of future-ready skills. In doing this, we are downplaying the overall future effect that creating a more engaged and more technologically-savvy elementary student body can have on middle school and high school success. Perhaps the way to increase middle school and high school achievement lies less with what is taught in middle school and high school, and more with how things were taught in elementary school. Finding a way to teach students so that they have not “checked out” by the time they reach middle school, regardless of their scores or skills is vital to this task. Finding a way to prepare elementary students for future success at the middle and high school levels seems a more important goal than increasing test skills at this young age, only to see these same levels drop upon reaching middle school. To make this shift, however, decision makers must change their mindset as to how they hold elementary schools accountable. 1 to 1 computing at the elementary level may provide an opportunity for educators to promote learning without increasing the "burnout" that is happening at middle and high schools everywhere.
Middle School
Many school districts find that implementing a district wide 1:1 program is best suited to begin in the middle school. Research suggests that as students enter middle school they are also entering the beginning of their online discovery phase. Approximately 60% of sixth graders report to be using the internet. This number jumps substantially to 82% in the following year for seventh graders (Solomon, 2005). This is a strong indicator that introducing a 1:1 initiative at the beginning of the sixth grade would serve as wonderful educational resource for each student’s online experience and journey.
It is also important to understand the value that technology plays in some of the key elements of the educational process. As digital natives – individuals born after 1980 – today’s middle school students do not only desire the use of technology, but expect and require it for ultimate success. Technology integration is not innovative to the learning experiences of middle school children; rather it is an extension of their daily lives. Schools that fail to meet the technology standards set forth by our societal expectations are severely at risk of isolating the youth and decreasing the opportunity for educational success. Research suggests that implementing a 1:1 initiative can improve student achievement, attendance, academic rigor, individualized instruction, cost savings and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals (Solomon, 2005). One of the key elements to the prevention of a student dropping out of high school is the identification of risk factors in collaboration with an aggressive intervention plan. According to Project Red findings, 1:1 computing in schools has significantly assisted in decreasing the dropout rates in studied schools when compared to non-1:1 computing schools (Graves, Wilson & Gielniak, 2010). For many students, waiting until high school to implement such a powerful technological program would be detrimental to their individual opportunity for immediate and sustained academic success.
When implemented correctly, the 1:1 computing initiative can greatly improve the learning environment for any middle school. Not only will the increase of instructional technology improve connectedness between the students’ daily usage and educational technology skills, but it will better prepare our students for life in the 21st century. Middle school students use technology in every facet of their life, with the exception in many cases of school. To fully meet the educational and developmental needs of today’s middle school children, technology not only needs to be incorporated as an educational tool, but as a major component of the educational and learning process.
High School
This impact of technology is seen at all levels, not just in the high school. “Computers offer young students fun ways to sharpen a variety of skills such as reading, writing, and keyboarding. As the world becomes more connected through the internet, developing these skills will allow children to be more connected to the world they live in.” (May, 2007) Students benefit from the school system picking up where the students left off when they get off the bus. The issues of funding and the long term impact are worth noting. In the five schools I have worked in over the past several years there has been a slow approach at preparing technology based classrooms. At each school, over the course of two years, each room was equipped with a projector and the slower installation of Smart Boards systems throughout the schools. These are the right steps for large public schools, but it seems they are far behind smaller school education. I know one private school in our city has had a mobile 1:1 computing ratio for over eight years. Is the public school that far behind? Is it strictly an issue of funding and fiscal responsibility?
I remember in elementary school going to the computer lab which was the only one in the school. In middle school I took an engineering class at one of four computer labs in the school. By the time I got to high school, the building was functioning with many computers. The use of the computers was limited to word processing for the majority of the time. If we fast forward twelve years later, is there really much else going on in a computer lab in a “normally” technology equipped public school? Are students using the computer mostly for word processing and other basic Microsoft programming (i.e. Power Point and Word)? From my experience I would say no. This has to do with availability of the technology. Teachers are not forced to come up with technological friendly lessons, but can use methods and teaching practices of old. When they do make it to the lab, probably once a month because of scheduling over load, they are there to have students research something and type it and format it correctly. Students do not use Microsoft Word at home except to write papers for school, technology is adapting and the practices we used even five years ago are becoming much more uninteresting to students. New web based processors like Google Docs and free programming for anyone has made Microsoft Word look like the typewriter and therefore the computer lab assignment to type a paper as old as the typewriter also.
One solution in the high school could be the development of inexpensive computing systems like net books. Some technology is expensive because of all the bells and whistles, i.e. Apple’s I-pad and its touch screen technology. All of the information on our high school page is very helpful and our hope is that our audience would see the benefits of 1:1 computing and mobile technology in the high school.
Conclusion
In a generation of high stakes testing, and the demand for students to be more proficient in 21st Century skills, 1:1 computer initiatives stand as the gateway to the next generation of students. If schools are to daringly step out on to the “road less traveled”, they must begin by providing all students access to computers. While it is clear that computers are not “the” solution to the problems faced in education, research shows that computers are a tool that will help in our journey into a new era of education. (Tenbusch, 2010) Through the greater access and use of these tools schools will be opening a whole new world of possibilities for both teachers and students, better preparing them for the real world. Schools must see that the absolute necessity of 1:1 computer initiatives knowing that in the end they will “make all the difference”.
Written in collaboration of the 1:1 Team.
