May 27, 2014
Murthy, P., Shannon, E., Short, T. K., Morote, E. & Inserra, A. (2013) One-to-one
computing, one-to-one learning: Predictors for the implementation of differentiated
instruction. Issues and trends in educational technology, 1 (2). Retrieved May 15, 2014,
One-to-One Computing, One-to-One Learning: Predictors for Implementation of
Differentiated Instruction, as written by Murthy, Shannon, Short, Morote, & Inserra, is a
research study about differentiating instruction and the use of technology integration in
the classroom. The purpose of their study was to determine whether four variables
(collaborative learning, project-based learning implementation, knowledge regarding the
use of technology, and years of experience) are predictors of whether teachers will
implement differentiated instruction in a one-to-one computing environment. In order to
delve into the study, these terms are first defined as:
• “Differentiated instruction: Differentiated instruction occurs when teachers
assign individual students a choice of multiple computer-based resources to
communicate their learning in a one-to-one computing environment.
• Collaborative learning: Collaborative learning means using technology that
promotes learning, including communicating information among groups of
students and teachers in the one-to-one computing environment.
• Project-based learning: Project-based learning occurs in the one-to-one
computing environment when students use computer programs, media creation
tools, and other computer-based tools that support students in the representation
of their ideas.
• Teacher knowledge of technology: Knowledge regarding the use of technology
is the capacity to apply technological skills in a one-to-one computing
• Years of experience: Years in a one-to-one computing environment were
organized by groups.” (Murthy, Shannon, Short, Morote, & Inserra, 2013, p. 3)
Each definition, as used in this research study, emphasizes the one-to-one computing
environment in which the study took place.
The study was conducted by creating a survey instrument that was sent from the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). It was distributed to 209
teachers, but 170 teachers were selected for the purposeful sample. The 170 teachers
chosen were high school teachers who taught a variety of subjects.
The results of the survey were strong correlations between collaborative learning and
project-based learning implementation, collaborative learning and knowledge regarding
the use of technology, and project-based learning implementation and knowledge
regarding the use of technology. Conversely, there was a weak correlation between the
years of experience with one-to-one technology and the rest of the variables.
As demonstrated in the path analysis below, all four variables (collaborative learning,
project-based learning, knowledge regarding the use of technology, and years in a one-
to-one computing environment) show a positive impact on differentiated learning
implementation, especially when multiple factors are combined into the implementation
of differentiated learning.
Murthy, et al. imply that the research is limited to the one-on-one computing
environment and does not have similar research in environments with higher ratios of
people to technology. They also admit that there are limitations since the research was
focused on the high school level. The researchers imply that more research needs to
be done in this field to see if there are similarities and differences among different grade
If I was going to conduct more research in the area of one-to-one technology with the
integration of differentiated instruction, I would begin by implementing a similar study
with elementary schools with one-to-one technology, as well as schools with higher
ratios of students to technology. I would also extend my research to delve into the
different subjects and how technology and differentiation impact student achievement,
especially when it comes to standardized testing and meaningful engagement and self-
The research topic in this research study is clearly stated and delimited in that the
authors clearly define the terms that are being explored. Although it is not stated as a
question, the purpose is to determine whether or not there is a relationship between
differentiated instruction in a one-to-one computing environment and four variables:
collaborative learning, project-based learning implementation, knowledge regarding the
use of technology, and years of experience.
The study reviews much literature before delving into the study and its findings. There
are many references to literature about technology, especially one-to-one technology.
The authors also cite much research about differentiation and customizing learning to
be individualized for students. There is also research cited about flipped classrooms,
but not much research about project-based learning or collaborative learning. The
study would benefit from more facts and findings about how project-based learning and
collaborative learning impact the classroom environment and student learning,
especially with the integration of technology in a differentiated classroom. The
information is well-organized and presented in a way that is easy to comprehend. The
facts and findings presented are also critical to supply the reader with background
knowledge and an understanding of the terminology used in the research study.
Although the researchers do explain the terms referenced throughout the study and try
to provide the reader with background knowledge about the topic, the research is still
geared toward a targeted audience of teachers and instructors. The study is well-
constructed and well-written.
The material presented by Murthy, et al., applies to my own research topic for this
course as I have selected to research differentiation with the integration-of technology.
This study emphasized the factors that allow for successful implementation of
technology-infused differentiation, such as collaborative learning and project-based
learning, but did not fully cover everything I wanted to research. For example, I still
want to learn more about how technology-integrated differentiated instruction impacts
student motivation, engagement, and standardized test scores.
By the end of the study, it is clear to the reader that there is a correlation between
predicting differentiated instruction and the four variables (mainly collaborative learning
and project-based instruction.
To a degree, this study utilizes implicit theory, as differentiation and technological-
integration can be interpreted in various ways. However, as Murthy, et al., clearly
define the terms differentiated instruction, one-to-one computing environment,
collaborative learning, project-based learning, teacher knowledge of technology, and
years of experience in a one-to-one computing environment, the study becomes a little
more explicit as exactly what is being tested has been defined. The authors clarify that
the study contains many theories in that information is presented as theories or
strategies from the very beginning—such as citing John Dewey and imaginative
learning and flipped learning. The authors also suggest how educational pedagogy, as
well as technology, is continuously changing.
One-to-One Computing, One-to-One Learning: Predictors for Implementation of
Differentiated Instruction was a valuable research study for me to read. This research
study supported the things I witness in my classroom with the use of technology-infused
differentiation, collaborative learning, and project-based learning. The findings are
limited in that they don’t supply strategies or suggestions on how to incorporate more
technology, differentiation, collaborative learning, or project-based learning into the
classroom setting. The findings in this study can be applied to my third grade
classroom, although things may look different in my third grade classroom in opposition
to one of the high school classrooms in the study.
The study did not provide me with any shocking information or much new information.
Instead, it emphasized things I already experience in my classroom, even though my
classroom is not a one-to-one computing environment. Questions that still need to be
examined include (1) how do the four variables relate to a classroom without one-to-one
technology, but multiple people using one piece of technology, (2) do flipped
classrooms relate to this study?, (3) does technology-infused differentiation promote
higher achievement in students?, (4) does technology-infused differentiation promote
deeper student engagement and self-regulation?, (5) are the findings the same cross-
curricular?, (6) how does this apply to different ages, genders, ethnicities, social-
economic statuses?, (7) what exactly is project-based learning and how can I implement
it into a technology-infused differentiated classroom?, and (8) what exactly is
collaborative learning and how can I implement it into a technology-infused