This article evaluates the impact of laptop computing in K-12 classrooms across 11 school districts in Florida, revealing that such technology along with teacher professional development leads to significant changes in teaching practices and increases in student achievement. The study utilized observations, interviews, and document analysis to assess the conditions, processes, and consequences associated with laptop implementation. The findings suggest that the successful integration of laptops fosters a more student-centered learning environment, although results on overall academic performance are mixed.

1. J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 45(3) 359-378, 2011
AN EVALUATION OF THE CONDITIONS, PROCESSES,
AND CONSEQUENCES OF LAPTOP COMPUTING
IN K-12 CLASSROOMS
CATHY CAVANAUGH
KARA DAWSON
ALBERT RITZHAUPT
University of Florida, Gainesville
ABSTRACT
This article examines how laptop computing technology, teacher professional
development, and systematic support resulted in changed teaching practices
and increased student achievement in 47 K-12 schools in 11 Florida school
districts. The overview of a large-scale study documents the type and
magnitude of change in student-centered teaching, technology tool-based
teaching, and student learning that were observed in 440 classrooms over
the course of a school year. By employing multiple observations in all
schools, document analysis, interviews, and teacher inquiry, an account of the
conditions, processes, and consequences (Hall, 1995) of laptop computing
was generated. Based on the analysis of data, laptop computing had a positive
impact across districts, particularly in regard to changes in teaching practices.
Increases in student achievement were also demonstrated across districts.
This study calls attention to systemic issues associated with successful laptop
implementation and provides implications for statewide laptop programs.
Studies of laptop and 1:1 classroom computing have demonstrated that changing
the learning environment by making computers available with parallel changes in
the teachers’ expertise in teaching in the new environment can result in changes
in teaching practices (Fairman, 2004; Fisher & Stolarchuk, 1998; Henriquez
& Riconscente, 1999; Chessler, Rockman, & Walker, 1998; Stevenson, 1998;
Warschauer & Sahl, 2002). Indeed, an environment in which ubiquitous
359
Ó 2011, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.3.f
http://baywood.com

2. computing is available to students has been associated with changes in classroom
interactions, gains in conceptual understanding, and new uses of knowledge
(Swan, van ‘t Hooft, Kratcoski, & Schenker, 2007). The primary motivation for
laptop classroom technology and accompanying teacher professional develop-
ment is the belief that the new learning environment will support engaged
students and increases in academic achievement (Barrios, 2004). This moti-
vation has strengthened in recent years among the states, districts, and schools
in which blended education models have been adopted, adding urgency to efforts
at understanding the classroom dynamic when 1:1 computing is implemented
(Cavanaugh, 2010).
LEVERAGING LAPTOPS IN THE CLASSROOM
The Florida Department of Education funded the Leveraging Laptops: Effective
Models for Enhancing Student Achievement program. The goal of the program
was to develop effective models for enhancing student achievement through
integration of laptop technology and student-centered instruction in the classroom.
To meet this goal during the program’s first year, 11 school districts were selected.
Each district analyzed its unique needs and its experience with laptop computing
to develop its own model. The Leveraging Laptops program also supported
a multi-university research team to study the effects of these initiatives. This
research involved 440 teachers across all subject areas in 47 K-12 schools.
Each district’s model was required to include classroom and network technology
resources including laptop computers, a professional development program, and
systematic support for the classrooms, all of which were selected to address an
expressed need in the district. District models fell on a continuum of student access
to the laptops, including 1:1 and 24/7 access to laptops, 1:1 full school day access
to laptops, access to laptops while in specific classrooms (for part of the school
day and/or at a ratio greater than 1:1), and access to laptops in classrooms when
a shared cart is available for use (possibly at a ratio greater than 1:1). Each district
also had the autonomy to construct a professional development program to suit
the project model and the needs of teachers. Therefore, while all participating
teachers in the state attended a 4-day summer institute focused on student-
centered, tool-based technology integration, the professional development
opportunities afforded to teachers in their districts and during the school year
varied widely. Three districts provided additional targeted summer in-service
experiences. District-based professional development sessions focused on the
project’s hardware, software, teaching methods, and academic content. Seven
districts provided access to continual online professional development oppor-
tunities. Additional professional development processes used by small numbers
of districts included learning communities (three), 1:1 coaching and modeling
(three), use of external trainers (one), custom consulting for teachers (three),
and off-site experiences at community sites (one).
360 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT

3. The participating districts represented the diversity that is present in public
education in Florida. The districts ranged in size from the smallest with just
six K-12 schools to the largest with 317 K-12 schools (Kemker, 2007). Further,
a wide array of economies was represented in the participating communities,
from urban to agricultural.
The Leveraging Laptops program was based on the premise that changes in the
learning environment foster changes in teaching and learning. When learning
environments more closely approximate authentic performance environments,
the actions of teachers and students change in ways that approach the norms of
the new environment (Herrington & Oliver, 2000). Technology-rich learning
environments bridge the gap between knowing and doing, thereby moving knowl-
edge from an inert to an active state as it is applied to immediate problems
presented through the technology. When a classroom has anytime access to
problem-solving tools that closely simulate the tools used by expert problem-
solvers, then the participants in that classroom are likely to assume the roles of
problem-solvers, which typically involve teamwork and a flattened hierarchy.
These environments therefore support and encourage tool-based student-centered
teaching and learning. This premise has been documented in a 1:1 computing
classroom in which students and teachers demonstrated changes in interaction
associated with social constructions of knowledge (Swan et al., 2007). The
Leveraging Laptops study collected data on changes in teaching and learning
occurring at a wide scale across 11 different models of laptop computing.
Purpose
In this article, we provide an overview of the changes in teaching and learning
that resulted in the participating classrooms from the new learning environment.
For the purposes of this study, learning has been broadly defined to encompass all
academic knowledge and skill as well as the behaviors and dispositions that
support learning. The specific objectives of the study were to identify the changes
in tool-based, student-centered teaching that happened as a result of the infusion
of laptop technology, professional development, and systematic support. Our
research question was, What changes in tool-based, student-centered teaching
happened as a result of the infusion of laptop technology, professional develop-
ment and systematic support in classrooms? What follows is a summary of the
comprehensive study.
RELEVANT LITERATURE
Teaching Practices with Laptops
Recent research in laptop and 1:1 computing initiatives in K-12 classrooms
demonstrates that the learning environment has a powerful effect on the roles of
the students and teachers in those environments. Reports of changes in teaching
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 361

4. practices include shifts toward more student-centered practices (Fairman, 2004;
Henriquez & Riconscente, 1999; Rockman et al., 1998; Stevenson, 1998), an
increased emphasis on inquiry-based practices (Fisher & Stolarchuk, 1998), an
increase in cooperative learning and project-based instruction (Fairman, 2004;
Warschauer & Sahl, 2002), and more differentiated instruction (Fairman,
2004). Other positive effects of laptop use include better teacher/student relation-
ships (Fairman, 2004), improved home-school relationships (Russell, Bebell, &
Higgins, 2004), bridging the digital divide (Gravelle, 2003) and the perception
that laptops provide social and academic benefits for special education students
(Harris & Smith, 2004).
Student Achievement
Findings related to laptop use in schools and their impacts on student achieve-
ment are less conclusive. Some studies report increased levels of academic
performance as compared to students without laptops (Lowther, Ross &
Morrison, 2003; Stevenson, 1998; Warschauer, 2006), while other studies report
marginal effects (Gardner, Morrison, & Jarman, 1993; Silvernail & Lane, 2004;
Warschauer & Grimes, 2005). Recent studies focusing on literacy and laptop
use report advantages for laptop users on tests of writing and problem-solving
skills (Lowther et al., 2003), while others claim that standardized paper and
pencil tests of writing skill do not adequately reflect the writing skills developed
through extensive experience with the computer (Russell & Plati, 2001).
Professional Development
Teacher professional development in classroom technology is a widely recog-
nized antecedent to successful technology integration (Boardman & Woodruff,
2004; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; King, 2002; Schrum,
Burbank, Engle, Chambers, & Glassett, 2005). While educators are urged to
integrate technology across subject areas into the fabric of our educational enter-
prises, technology has the ability to confuse, intimidate, and frustrate teachers
and learners (King, 2002). Thus, professional development in all of its forms
is a necessary practice to prepare educators to be skillful technology users.
Systematic Support
Another vital and related factor is the level systematic support (also known
as technology support) available to teachers within schools and districts
(Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). The International Society for Technology in
Education provides the essential conditions necessary to create learning environ-
ments conducive to powerful uses of technology (ISTE, 2005). Technical support
for maintaining and using technology resources is one of these essential con-
ditions. While professional development targets preparation of teachers prior to
362 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT

5. instruction, technology support pertains to the immediate support available
to teachers during instruction. Technology support specialists or coordinators
must provide rapid responses to teacher and student technical problems (Cuban
et al., 2001) or risk a failed instructional experience.
In the laptop-infused environment, the necessity for quality professional devel-
opment and support is attenuated. It is therefore necessary for the laptop-infused
environment to intersect with the professional development of teachers and
systematic support. These three conditions result in more effective integration,
as illustrated in Figure 1, and are more likely to influence both teaching practices
and student achievement.
We documented the integration of laptop computing in schools across
their unique contexts and to identify numerous forms of outcomes. The guiding
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 363
Figure 1. A model for effective technology integration in
the laptop infused environment.

6. question driving the selection of methods and analysis of data was, What changes
in tool-based, student-centered teaching happened as a result of the infusion
of laptop technology, professional development and systematic support in
classrooms? This study used Hall’s (1995) conception of conditions, processes
and consequences to frame the study across the 11 participating district models.
Table 1 outlines the components of this study within Hall’s framework and the
data source used to address each condition, process and consequence.
As this research simultaneously examined multiple facets of laptop computing
integration, descriptive data analysis was implemented with each of the data
sources. The method section is organized by data source and includes a description
of the data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, and evidence of
reliability and validity.
School Observations
The School Observation Measure (SOM) (Ross, Smith, Lowther, & Alberg,
2006) and the Survey of Computer Use (SCU) (Lowther & Ross, 2000) are the
nationally normed, and valid and reliable instruments that were used to examine
the laptop computing classrooms. Specifically, SOM was used to determine the
extent to which common and alternative teaching practices were used (Ross,
Smith, & Alberg, 1999). In contrast, the SCU was used to capture the technology
configuration, technology use, and types of technology implemented within class-
rooms. Over 70 classroom observers were Florida teachers trained for a full day
in SOM and SCU techniques and observations. They practiced identifying and
364 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT
Table 1. Data Collection Strategies within Evaluation Framework
Conditions
(Hall, 1995)
Processes
(Hall, 1995)
Consequences
(Hall, 1995)
Technology used
(Documents/Interviews)
Setting
(Documents/Interviews)
Implementation plan
(Documents/Interviews)
Goals and objectives
(Documents/Interviews)
Processional development
(Documents/Interviews)
Teaching and instructional
practices
(School Observations)
Technology deployment
(Documents/Interviews)
Parental involvement
(Documents/Interviews)
Support
(Documents/Interviews)
Student achievement
(Teacher Inquiry)
Changes in Teacher
practices
(School Observations)
Impact on parents
(Documents/Interviews)
Sustainability
(All)

7. coding the specific practices in the measures and they each received a manual for
guidance. All schools involved in the Leveraging Laptops program were observed
multiple times during two different periods in the school year (Fall and Spring
terms). A total of 381 hours of direct classroom observations were conducted
in the classrooms of 428 teachers teaching approximately 8,500 students.
The multi-class, unannounced observation procedure involved trained observers
visiting 9-12 randomly selected classrooms, for 15-minutes each, during a 3-hour
visitation period to a school site. The observer documented classroom events
and activities descriptively. At the conclusion of the 3-hour visit, the observer
summarized the frequency with which each of the items on the SOM/SCU
was observed during the visit using a systematic procedure. The frequency
was recorded via a 5-point rubric that includes (0) not observed, (1) rarely,
(2) occasionally, (3) frequently, and (4) extensively. Lewis, Ross, and Alberg
(1999) reported that pairs of trained observers selected the identical overall
response on the five-category rubric on 67% of the items and were within one
category on 95% of the items. A more recent reliability study (Sterbinsky, Ross,
& Burke, 2004) found similar results in that observer ratings were within one
category for 96% of the observations. In accordance with the observation
protocols provided by the instrument developers, each classroom was observed
by at least one observer during the first half of the school year and by at least
one observer in the second half of the school year, with observations separated
by at least 3 months.
The observation results for both SOM and SCU are in an ordinal scale of
measurement. Thus, the Mantel-Haentzel procedure was used to infer statistical
differences between the pre- (Fall 2006) and post-classroom (Spring 2007) obser-
vations (Stokes, Davis, & Kosh, 2000). A conservative alpha level a = .01 was
used for all tests of significance. Effect sizes were computed by dividing the
mean difference by the pooled standard deviation.
Teacher Inquiry
Teachers from laptop computing classrooms conducted teacher inquiry using
an online tool designed to model Dana and Yendol-Silva’s (2003) teacher inquiry
process. The process of teacher inquiry involves teachers:
1. defining a question that emerges from their practice;
2. developing a research plan for data collection through such mechanisms as
journals, student work, interviews with students, and field notes;
3. analyzing their collective data in relationship to their question to develop
a picture of their learning;
4. taking action to implement what was learned through their investigation;
and
5. sharing the results of their work with other professionals (Dana & Yendol-
Silva, 2003).
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 365

8. Teacher inquiry was chosen because of the short time frame of the evaluation,
the inherent problems using standardized test data to document the effect of
technology use (Haertel & Means, 2004), and the importance of documenting
classroom-based student achievement (Dawson, 2006).
Figure 2 provides an annotated example screen shot of the teacher inquiry
submission system. Each step in the teacher inquiry submission system provided
teachers with simple navigation mirroring the teacher inquiry process, suggested
due dates, clear instructions about the information being requested, a location
to provide the necessary information, related chapters within the Dana and
Yendol-Silva book and an example to serve as a scaffold.
Fifty-five teachers from 10 of the 11 school districts were recruited to partici-
pate in this aspect of the study. Forty-six teachers completed the process—an
84% completion rate. Each teacher received a monetary stipend, a copy of Dana
and Yendol-Silva’s (2003) book about teacher inquiry and access to a mentor
366 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT
Figure 2. Annotated example step in teacher inquiry
submission system.

9. well-versed in the process of teacher inquiry and technology integration. The
mentors provided guidance on the process of completing the inquiry project. All
teacher inquiries related to the impacts of technology on student learning in their
classroom. The analysis involved transforming the separate inquiries into an
aggregate picture of how technology was being used within and across districts.
Qualitative analytic procedures (Rossman & Rallis, 1998) were used to categorize
the data. In some cases these categories were transformed into a numerical format
(i.e., types of technology used, ways technology was used, etc.). Descriptive
statistics were also calculated (e.g., response frequencies).
Document Analysis and Interviews
An analysis of the districts’ project proposals, school district websites, and
other artifacts helped to describe the conditions present in the schools and districts
and the lessons learned. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with project
coordinators in each district were conducted. The interviews included specific
themes relating to the technology used, the setting, implementation plans,
goals and objectives, professional development plans, parental involvement, and
level of systematic support. The data were analyzed qualitatively in an effort to
triangulate the document analysis and other sources of data.
RESULTS
School Observations
Of the 41 schools that were observed, 12 were elementary schools, 17 were
middle schools, and 12 were high schools. For the SOM, greatest significant
differences were detected in increased student attention, interest, and engagement
(c2 = 16.99, p < .001) and decreased independent seatwork (c2 = 13.1, p < .001).
Significant increases were also found in student engagement in project-based
learning (c2 = 10.64, p < .001), independent inquiry/research (c2 = 10.57,
p < .001), and student use of technology as a learning tool or resource (c2 = 10.42,
p < .001). The frequency of each observed area is illustrated in Figure 3.
The SCU results showed significant increases in the availability of laptop
computers for student use (c2 = 14.612, p < .001) and more frequent student use
of digital accessories (c2 = 9.131, p = .003). Results also showed significant
increases in the use of internet/research tools to support learning (c2 = 9.192,
p = .002). A key finding that emerged from the results was the significant increase
in the frequency with which teachers implemented meaningful (c2 = 10.57,
p < .001) and very meaningful (c2 = 10.57, p < .001) computer activities.
Meaningful use was defined as problem-based, required some critical thinking
skills, and some use of computer applications to locate and/or process information
or some manipulation of educational software variables to reach solutions (Ross
et al., 2006). The magnitude of meaningful use is summarized in Figure 4.
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 367

10. The first-year school observation results show promising trends in that the
Leveraging Laptops program seems to be serving as a catalyst for positive
changes from traditional teaching environments to ones that are student-centered
and engage learners in meaningful use of computers to enhance learning. The
data also reveal room for growth due to the modest frequency with which most
of the changed practices occurred.
Teacher Inquiry
Of the 46 teacher inquiry projects, 9 were conducted in elementary classrooms
(grades 1-5), 22 took place in middle school classrooms (grades 6-8), and 15 were
carried out in high school classrooms (grades 9-12). Eighteen of the projects
focused on a science topic, 11 centered on an English/language arts topic, 6 were
oriented toward history or social studies, 4 happened in mathematics, 4 occurred
in speech or other exceptional education setting, and 3 studied general student
outcomes or behavior. The teacher inquiry projects ranged widely in scope and
purpose. The following three questions provide insight into the types of questions
explored by in the teacher inquiry projects:
• How do the use of Audacity for brainstorming and Kidspiration for outlining
influence the quality of writing produced and classroom behavior exhibited
by a 3rd grade student with emotional needs?
368 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT
Figure 3. SOM significant Fall vs. Spring differences

11. • Will a project based learning activity for 10th grade Biology students and
interactive website simulations improve student understanding of cellular
respiration when compared to the traditional reading and writing approach?
• Will small groups of sixth grade Science students using motion detectors
to map a model of the ocean floor improve their ability to write detailed
descriptions of how sonar is used to explore the ocean?
The technologies used in the projects varied and are listed by frequency in
Table 2. About one-third of the projects used online services and resources and
approximately one-fourth employed media and presentation tools. A smaller
number of inquiry projects used other available technology, including word
processing, concept mapping, and many more productivity-like tools. Ten of
the 46 projects focused on project-based approaches as a strategy.
The educational results reported by the teachers were positive. Seventy-eight
percent of the teachers documented changes in student achievement including
test scores, higher level thinking skills, retention, and transfer of learning. In
one elementary classroom and two middle school classrooms, negative effects
such as a decrease in writing scores and a high level of frustration were reported,
and in each case these effects were attributed to inexperience of the students
with the technology that they were learning to use simultaneously with learning
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 369
Figure 4. SCU: Mean scores of significant
Fall vs. Spring differences

12. the class lesson. In all other cases, teachers reported noticeable or substantial
improvements in student performance, in some cases exceeding the teachers’
expectations.
Over 60% of the teachers reported increases in conditions that support learn-
ing: enjoyment, motivation, engagement, on-task behavior, and positive school
experience. Thirteen teachers stated that students had demonstrated strong
21st-century skills such as collaboration, computer skills, workforce skills,
producer abilities, communication skills, leadership abilities, innovation, and
creativity. Smaller numbers of teachers documented positive changes in their
teaching, changes in the classroom culture or dynamic due to unique technology
affordances, and improved ability to reach students of varying abilities.
Each teacher reported the long-term impacts that the process of inquiry has
caused in his or her professional life. Nineteen teachers expressed commitments
to continue using, investigating, and learning to teach with technology. Fifteen
teachers had taken leadership actions including sharing their successes with
colleagues either informally or through presentations and other formal venues.
Other teachers explained ways that they had become advocates for technology
for students.
DISCUSSION
Results suggest that the laptop funding had positive impact across districts
particularly in terms of changes in teaching practices. Specifically, baseline and
end-of-year observations showed increases in meaningful uses of technology
for student-centered, project-based learning, increases in academically focused
class time, increases in student attention and motivation, increases in Internet
integration, and decreases in some forms of direct instruction. Increases in student
370 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT
Table 2. Types of Technologies Used
Technology
Number of projects
(N = 46)
Online resources
Media and presentation tools
Word processing, publishing, and other productivity tools
Concept mapping software
Probes and data tools
Virtual labs, simulations, and games
Other: audio production, clickers, e-portfolios
16
11
9
6
6
4
4

13. achievement were also demonstrated via teacher inquiry across districts, grade
levels, content areas, and student types. The magnitude of these outcomes (or
consequences) varied by district. Much of this variability can be attributed to
the conditions within individual schools and districts such as the quality of
technology leadership, teachers’ attitudes toward technology-infused teaching,
the clarity of grant goals, and objectives and equipment availability. Likewise,
the processes employed to support technology-infused teaching and learning
such as professional development opportunities for teachers, technical and cur-
ricular support, and involvement of community stakeholders together served to
influence outcomes in individual districts.
Conditions
The conditions present across the 11 districts in the initial stages of the
Leveraging Laptops program include the technology used in the classroom-level
laptop implementation, the specific settings within the districts where laptops
were deployed, elements of the districts’ implementation plans, and the educa-
tional goals and objectives for the districts’ plans.
Technology Used
In addition to the laptops, districts selected a range of supporting hardware,
software, and web services for teacher and student use. The selection of resources
depended on the existing resources in the district and the districts’ perceptions of
technical and pedagogical readiness for various resources.
Settings
The number of participating schools in each district ranged from one to eight,
with most districts focusing on between two and five schools for this project.
Fifteen of the schools were elementary schools, 13 were middle schools, and
11 were high schools. Three of the districts were large urban districts, four were
mid-sized suburban districts, and four were small rural districts. In each district,
the number of classrooms involved ranged from 11 to 128. All grades from K-12
were involved, and most classroom subjects were represented. The districts’
prior experience with laptop classroom computing varied from no prior laptop
program to a school with nearly a 1:1 student-computer ratio. Two districts had at
least one school with 1:1 computing, and the remaining five districts had schools
in which computer lab carts were used.
Implementation Plan
District planners considered several factors in developing their project designs.
The most frequently stated factors were low academic performance of students
(four districts), the need to fill a technology gap primarily in areas of poverty in
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 371

14. which students lacked access to technology (six districts), and a commitment
to fostering student-centered and project-based teaching that require increased
access to technology (four districts). Other factors that influenced project designs
were a desire to build on a history of strong professional development in tech-
nology (one district), and the need to provide technology in a growing district (one
district). In determining the types of technology to provide with the funding,
the district planners most often considered the fit between the technology and the
project goals (seven districts), but also considered the fit between the technology
and broader district goals (six districts), and the fit between the technology and
the desired teaching and learning outcomes (one district).
Goals and Objectives
Most of the projects were designed to achieve multiple goals. The most
common goal among the districts was to promote student-centered, project-
based, inquiry-oriented, or active learning (seven districts). Other goals included
improving academic performance in language arts and science (eight districts
total), providing the tools students and teachers need to succeed (three districts),
improving student motivation and behavior (two districts), and supporting
community-centered learning (one district).
Summary of State Conditions
Each district determined its own needs and goals, and then planned accordingly.
The result was a wide range of conditions within which the laptop projects
took place. It is noteworthy that student needs drove each design and that each
district took into account multiple factors during the decision-making stages
in order to succeed.
Processes
Each district chose its own approach to the delivery of professional devel-
opment for participating teachers, deployment of classroom technology and
resources, and support for both classroom technology integration and the role
of technology within the standards-based curriculum. Districts also varied in
their involvement of parents in the laptop programs. Variations in the processes
adopted by districts and in the initial conditions present in each district con-
tributed to differences in the levels of student-centered technology-based teaching
practices observed in the early part of the project period.
Professional Development
Districts used several strategies for supporting teacher learning during the project.
Most of the participating teachers took part in the Florida Digital Educator
summer institutes offered around the state. Three districts provided additional
372 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT

15. targeted summer in-service experiences. During the school year, districts provided
professional development sessions focused on the project’s hardware, software,
teaching methods, and academic content. Seven districts provided access to con-
tinual online professional development opportunities. Additional professional develop-
ment processes used by small numbers of districts included learning communities
(three), laptop coaching and modeling (three), use of external trainers (one),
custom consulting for teachers (three), and off-site experiences at community sites
(one). Two districts offered professional development for the school and districts
administrators who were involved in the laptop project.
Teaching and Instructional Practices
In the first half of the year when the classrooms had just received the tech-
nology, over 90% of the teachers were observed using direct instructional methods
occasionally to frequently, and fewer than 30% were using cooperative/ col-
laborative teaching. Only 20% were occasionally using project-based teaching,
about 40% were teaching as coach/facilitator, and 85% were using independent
seatwork. Nearly 80% were using technology for instruction, but only about
40% were using it as a learning tool or resource.
Technology Deployment
All districts provided network/Internet access for classroom computers,
either wired or wireless. Most districts placed the hardware and software in
classrooms and in shared school spaces on carts for students to regularly access.
Three districts allowed home check out of laptop computers.
Systematic Support
All districts provided either full-time school-based or district-based technical
support to the participating teachers. Two districts prepared student technicians
to support the technology. Two districts identified teachers or coaches on assign-
ment to provide curricular support to the teachers.
Parent Involvement
Eight districts scheduled open houses, parent nights, or workshops for parents
at the schools. Schools in three districts used print newsletters to inform parents
of the project. All districts employed some or all of the following approaches:
project and classroom websites for parent communication, parent volunteers,
and school technology clubs open to parents.
Summary of State Processes
Each district carefully selected and provided appropriate technology, support,
and communication with stakeholders. Innovative methods were used to meet
specific local needs in these areas.
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 373

16. Consequences
Given the relatively wide variation among the districts’ initial conditions and
processes related to laptop implementation, the academic outcomes observed
during the year of the study were surprisingly consistent across schools and
districts. The consequences of the Leveraging Laptops program included changes
in student achievement and changes in teaching practices.
Student Achievement
Seventy-six percent of teachers engaged in teacher inquiry documented changes
in student achievement. In three classrooms, negative effects were reported, and
in each case these effects were attributed to inexperience in the students with the
technology that they were learning to use simultaneously with learning the class
lesson. In all other cases, teachers reported noticeable or significant improvements
in student performance, in some cases exceeding the teachers’ expectations.
Changes in Teacher Practices
Direct instructional methods decreased significantly from over 90% of teachers
occasionally to frequently observed to 78%. Cooperative/collaborative teaching
increased from fewer than 30% occasionally or frequently observed to 52%.
Project-based teaching increased significantly from 20% occasionally observed to
50% occasionally or frequently observed and exceeded national norms. Teaching
as coach/facilitator increased from about 40% occasionally or frequently observed
to 70%. Independent seatwork decreased significantly from about 85% occa-
sionally or frequently observed to 54%. Student independent inquiry and research
increased significantly, and exceeded national norms. The use of technology
as a learning resource or tool increased significantly from 41% occasionally or
frequently observed to 72%, and exceeded national norms. The levels of student
attention, interest, and engagement significantly increased from fall to spring.
Use of all types of production and Internet tool technology increased from fall
to spring, and exceeded national norms in all categories. Overall, meaningful and
very meaningful use of technology increased significantly.
Summary of Consequences
Every district saw positive academic outcomes as a result of the project and
is committed to finding ways to continue this and similar initiatives.
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Florida’s Leveraging Laptops initiative is particularly interesting because of
the autonomy given to individual districts, because of each districts’ unique plan
to implement laptop computing and because of the combination of quantitative
374 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT

17. and qualitative measures used to study change across districts. Providing districts
flexibility in implementing laptop computing initiatives that reach mutual
state and district goals may be a more effective model than dictating imple-
mentations at a state or federal level.
For teachers, administrators, and school district staff, we make the following
recommendations. Based on the significant changes in teaching practices and
student performance that occurred in the spring of the project year, it is reason-
able for educators to have high expectations for teaching and learning with
the infusion of professional development, support, and technology. Each of those
three elements is necessary and must be integrated together in ways that work
toward achieving school, district, and state goals. The first year of a major
change in teaching is a year for learning by teachers, administrators, and students,
and it is likely that, given sustained professional development and support, the
changes observed in classrooms will continue and probably magnify as teachers
refine their practices and students acquire and apply technology and information
skills to their academic work. The types of 21st-century skills developed in
this project have limited presence on current standardized tests.
Teachers, administrators, and school district staff who value the benefits of
integrating technology should recognize that increases in student motivation,
engagement, and other affective traits that have been seen in association with
project-based, community-based, and other important forms of learning may not
lead to improvements in all skills as they are assessed on current standardized
tests. Students who are new to using technology for educational purposes and
students who struggle academically may need specific instruction on how to
learn with technology. Students who use school computers outside of school
need guidelines and information about policies for caring for their computers.
In order to progress from descriptions of effective laptop implementation
models to the development of predictive models, further research is needed.
Specifically, analyses are needed of exemplary teaching practices in the full range
of laptop environments, the types of digital creativity made possible for students
with laptops, and learning outcomes reported by teachers as a result of class-
room inquiry. Analysis of this rich data across educational contexts and student
types would enable understanding of the classroom-, school-, and district-level
decisions that lead to effective technology-infused teaching and learning.
REFERENCES
Dawson, K. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers’ experience
and reflection during curriculum-based technology-enhanced field experiences.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 265-292.
Dawson, K. (2007). The role of teacher inquiry in helping prospective teachers untangle
the complexities of technology use in classrooms. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 24(1), 5-14.
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 375

18. Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Blended education for primary and secondar pupils. Better:
Evidence-Based Education, 5(Autumn), 16-17.
Barrios, T. (2004). Laptops for learning: Final report and recommendations of the Laptops
for Learning Task Force. Retrieved October 18, 2007 from http://etc.usf.edu/L4L/
Boardman, A. G., & Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Teacher changes and “high-stakes” assess-
ment: What happens to professional development? Teaching and Teacher Education,
20, 545-557.
Chesler, P., Rockman, S., & Walker, L. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second
year study of the laptop program. Retrieved February 20, 2007 from http://www.
microsoft.com/Education/ aalresearch2.mspx
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies
in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom
research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fairman, J. (2004). Trading roles: Teachers and students learn with technology. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the New England Educational Research
Organization, Portsmouth, NH.
Fisher, D., & Stolarchuk, E. (1998). The effect of using laptop computers on achievement,
attitude to science and classroom environment in science. Proceedings from the
Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum. Retrieved February
20, 2007 from http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1998/fisher.html
Gardner, J., Morrison, H., & Jarman, R. (1993). The impact of high access to computers
on learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9(1), 2-16.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teacher.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gravelle, P. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Impact on the digital
divide. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/
mlti.htm
Hall, P. M. (1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory:
Beyond the microlevel. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(2), 397-423.
Haertel, G., & Means, B. (2004). Evaluating educational technology: Effective research
designs for improving learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harris, W. J., & Smith, L. (2004). Laptop use by seventh grade students with dis-
abilities: Perceptions of special education Teachers. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from
http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/mlti.htm
Henriquez, A., & Riconscente, M. (1999). Rhode Island Teachers and Technology
Initiative: Program evaluation final report. New York: Education Development Center,
Center for Children and Technology.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic
learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3),
23-48.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2005). Essential conditions to
make it happen. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://osx.latch.edu/students/s_
esscond.html
376 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT

19. Kemker, K. (2007). Curriculum reform: Florida. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved October 15,
2006 from http://thejournal.com/articles/20937
King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative
learning opportunities. Computers and Education, 39, 283-297.
Lewis, E. M., Ross, S. M., & Alberg, M. (1999, July). School observation measure:
Reliability analysis. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy,
The University of Memphis.
Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. (2000). Survey of computer use: Basic observation guide-
lines. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis: Center for Research in Educational
Policy.
Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2003). When each one has one: The
influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the
classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(03), 23-44.
Patton, M. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 311-319.
Patton, M. (2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality
lesson learned. American Journal of Evaluation 22(3), 329-336.
Ross, S., Smith, L., Lowther, D. L., & Alberg, M. J. (2006). The school observation
model. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis: Center for Research in Educational
Policy.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Alberg, M. (1999). The School Observation Measure
(SOM). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of
Memphis.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA; London/New Delhi: Sage.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Higgins, J. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of
teaching and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts
of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
30(4), 313-330.
Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2001). Mode of administration effects on MCAS composition
performance for grades eight and ten. Teachers College Record. [Online]. Retrieved
from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10709
Schrum, L., Burbank, M. D., Engle, J., Chambers, J. A., & Glassett, K. F. (2005).
Post-secondary educators’ professional development: Investigation of an online
approach to enhancing teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 8,
279-289.
Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. M. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop
program on middle school teachers and students. Portland, ME: University of Southern
Maine.
Sterbinsky, A., Ross, S. M., & Burke, D., (2004). Tennessee EdTech Accountability
Model (TEAM) Reliability Study. The CNA Corporation, Alexandria, VA.
Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., & Koch, G. (2000). Categorical data analysis using the
SAS System. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory pro-
cedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swan, K., van ‘t Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Schenker, J. (2007). Ubiquitous computing
and changing pedagogical possibilities: Representations, conceptualizations, and uses
of knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 481-515.
CONDITIONS OF LAPTOP COMPUTING / 377

20. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2005). First year evaluation report: Fullerton School
District laptop program. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from http://www.fsd.k12.ca.us/
menus/1to1/evaluation/FSD-laptop-year1-eval.pdf
Zucker, A. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371-386.
Direct reprint requests to:
Dr. Cathy Cavanaugh
School of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
University of Florida
G518-B Norman Hall
P.O. Box 117048
Gainesville, FL 32611
e-mail: cathycavanaugh@coe.ufl.edu
378 / CAVANAUGH, DAWSON AND RITZHAUPT