The document summarizes a study conducted by the Grand Forks Public Schools on implementing a 1:1 personal student learning device program. A committee was formed to research the idea and make recommendations. The committee studied how personal devices could support 21st century skills and learning goals. The committee proposed a 3-year implementation plan that included professional development, technical support, a learning management system, supported device types, and budget considerations. The goal was to evaluate how providing every student a personal learning device could transform teaching and learning.

1. Grand Forks Public Schools
Personal Student Learning Device Study
2010 – 2011 School Year

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................3
Grand Forks Public Schools 2010-2013 Technology Plan .......................................................................................3
Technology Vision...............................................................................................................................................3
Technology Planning Principles ..........................................................................................................................3
Recommendations from 2010 District Technology Plan ........................................................................................4
Study Recommendation #1 ................................................................................................................................4
Study Recommendation #2 ................................................................................................................................4
Study Recommendation #3 ................................................................................................................................4
Study Recommendation #4 ................................................................................................................................4
Personal Student Device Committee......................................................................................................................5
Committee Members .........................................................................................................................................5
Committee Meetings ..........................................................................................................................................5
Guiding Research ........................................................................................................................................................6
21st Century Learners .............................................................................................................................................6
21st Century Skills....................................................................................................................................................7
1 to 1 Program Research ........................................................................................................................................8
United States Educational Technology Plan 2010 ..................................................................................................9
Final Study Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................9
PSLD Proposed Learning Goals ...............................................................................................................................9
PSLD Proposed Operational Objectives............................................................................................................... 10
PSLD Proposed Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................. 11
Professional Development .............................................................................................................................. 11
Technical Support ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Learning Management System ........................................................................................................................ 11
Personal Student Learning Device Types ........................................................................................................ 12
Budgetary Considerations ............................................................................................................................... 13
References ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Page 2

3. INTRODUCTION
GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2010-2013 TECHNOLOGY PLAN
The Grand Forks Public Schools Technology Committee developed and presented the 2010-2013
District Technology Plan to the School Board in March of 2010. The district vision and planning
principles are shown below.
TECHNOLOGY VISION
The Grand Forks Public Schools believe technology is an integral component of learning and is necessary
to learn effectively, live productively and participate globally in an increasingly digital world.
Technology resources transform learning by allowing learners to create, publish, collaborate and
communicate with others in a global environment. Technology helps learners gather and analyze
information, solve problems and develop higher-level thinking skills through authentic real-world
experiences.
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PRINCIPLES
The implementation of the technology vision will be accomplished by aligning all technology initiatives
to one or more of the following technology principles.
Principle #1 – Student Centered Technology
Principle #2 – Enhance Communication
Principle #3 – Effective Planning & Funding
Principle #4 – Administrative Systems
Principle #5 – Inclusive Support Services
Principle #6 – Data Driven Decision Making
Page 3

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2010 DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY PLAN
The Grand Forks Public Schools Technology Committee made a number of study recommendations to
the school board during the 2010 technology planning process.
STUDY RECOMMENDATION #1
The Grand Forks Public Schools should study and evaluate the potential of a
1:1 computer implementation for students during the 2010-2011 school year.
STUDY RECOMMENDATION #2
The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential of digital
curriculum resources that support 21st century teaching and learning during
the 2010-2011 school year.
STUDY RECOMMENDATION #3
The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential use of social media
systems to support administrative and instructional practices.
STUDY RECOMMENDATION #4
The Grand Forks Public Schools should study the potential of course
management software that would support instructional practice.
In response to these recommendations, the Personal Student Learning Device (PSLD) Committee was
formed in September of 2010 to address recommendations. This document represents the research,
findings and recommendations for action by the Grand Forks Public Schools School Board.
Page 4

5. PERSONAL STUDENT DEVICE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Community Members
Jenny Arel, GF Foundation for Education
Dr. Michael Brown, GF Mayor and Altru
Tom Erickson, UND EERC
District Committee Members Cindy Grabe, UND
Darin King, Technology Director, Chair Dr. Mark Grabe, UND
Darlene Johnson, Elem Technology Facilitator Nikki Jo Klefstad, Bank Forward
Monte Gaukler, Secondary Technology Facilitator Diane Manthei
Jeff Compton, Network Services Coordinator Gary Mitchell, Retired Principal
Dr. Terry Brenner, Director of CIAPD Thana Prochko
Virginia Tupa, Director of Inst. Services Janet Spaeth, UND
Eric Ripley, Director of CTE Linda St. Onge, Retired Teacher
Brad Srur, GFEA President Aaron Stefanich, GF Public Library
District Technology Partners Barry Wilfahrt, GF Chamber
District CIAPD Staff Austin Winger
Chris Wolf, Alerus Financial
Judy Anderson, Century
Jay Mindeman, Schroeder
Brenda Rosendahl, Red River
Nicole Trottier, Winship
Elementary Technology Committee Secondary Technology Committee
Scott Johnson, Elementary Principal and Chair Mary Koopman, Principal, Secondary Co-Chair
Paige Strom, Teacher, 1st Grade, Kelly Kris Arason, Principal, Secondary Co-Chair
Jennifer Benjamin, Teacher, 1st Grade, Winship Kim Slotsve, Principal, Red River HS
Besty Kuznia, Teacher, 2nd Grade, Lake Agassiz Terry Bohan, Principal, Community HS
Brad Srur, Intermediate Teacher, Phoenix Matt Solberg, Teacher, Grade 6, South MS
Amber Carlson, Teacher, 3rd Grade, Lewis & Clark Jon Sailer, Teacher, Grade 7, Schroeder MS
Liz Deere, Teacher, 4th Grade, Ben Franklin Nate Olson, Teacher, Grade 8, Valley MS
Linda Dalzell, Media Specialist, Century Judy Hagar, Media Specialist, Schroeder MS
Adam Eckert, Physical Education, Viking Kathy Hill, Media Specialist, Red River HS
Scott Conrad, Teacher, Central HS
Tim Tandeski, Teacher, Red River HS
Eileen Zygarlicke, Teacher, Community HS
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Personal Student Learning Device Committee met on the following dates.
• October 7, 2010
• November 9, 2010
• December 6th, 2010
• January 24, 2011
• February 21, 2011
Page 5

6. GUIDING RESEARCH
The following research and literature was used to guide the development of the Personal Student
Learning Device Study.
21 S T CENTURY LEARNERS
Like many generations before, the current generation of school age children is “different”. Palfrey and
Urs (2008) call the generation born after 1980 “Digital Natives” and those born before 1980 “Digital
Immigrants”. Digital Natives have always had new and emerging technology as a part of their world
and they are not afraid to adapt and change. Digital Natives are not inherently better or smarter users
of technology but they are more willing to embrace rapid and constant change. Digital Immigrants may
resist change and generally wait longer to adopt new technologies.
Jukes, McCain and Crockett (2010) compare and contrast the learning preferences of current students
with the traditional instructional methods. The table below highlights the differences based on their
research.
21st Century Learners Traditional Instruction
Receive information quickly from multiple sources Slow and controlled release of information from
limited sources
Process pictures, video, sounds and color before Provide text before pictures, video, sounds and
text color
Random access to hyperlinked multimedia Information provided linearly, logically and
information sequentially
Network simultaneously with many others Work independently before networking and
interaction
Learning is “just in time” Teaching is “just in case”
Instant gratification with immediate and deferred Deferred gratification and delayed rewards
rewards
Learning that is relevant, active, instantly useful Memorization in preparation for standardized tests
and fun
Project Tomorrow (2010), a nationwide survey of 299,677 K-12 students, found that students want
digitally-rich, social-based learning that is un-tethered from traditional educational paradigms.
Page 6

7. Labeling these ideas as “essential conditions”, the report goes on to explain the unique opportunity
education is faced with today.
“While these three essential elements represent some dramatically new approaches to
teaching and learning in a classroom setting, for the student, the incorporation of the
tools and applications is merely a natural extension of the way they are currently living
and learning outside of that classroom. Thus, there exists a very special opportunity
today to both increase the relevancy of a student’s education experience and to start to
close the persistent digital disconnect between students and educators on learning with
technology. The key to unlock this opportunity is a long overdue realization that the
students’ ideas on how to effectively leverage technology within learning can provided
meaningful insights and even present a clear pathway for implementation.” (Project
Tomorrow, 2010)
21 S T CENTURY SKILLS
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004) is a national organization that is helping implement 21st
century skills initiatives in 15 different states. Working with state governments, they are developing
21st century student outcomes and support systems that are focused on ensuring 21st century
readiness for all students. They identify communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking as
the primary learning and innovation skills necessary for student readiness in the 21st century. They
also indicate the need for information, media and technical literacy as part of a robust 21st century
skills initiative.
The North Central Regional Education Laboratory and the Metiri Group (2003) identify digital age
literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication and high productivity as the key topics in their
enGauge 21st Century Skills research. Digital age literacy includes the development of technical,
scientific, economic, visual, information and multicultural literacy. Inventive thinking includes
developing creativity, adaptability, curiosity, higher order thinking and sound reasoning. Effective
communications includes developing collaboration and interpersonal skills, personal and civic
responsibility and interactive communication skills. High productivity includes the effective use of real
world tools, project management skills and producing high quality products.
Wagner (2008) proposes that there is a “global achievement gap” defined as the gap between what we
are teaching and assessing versus the reality of what is needed to be a successful citizen in the 21st
century. After extensive research, the author identified seven critical survival skills that are necessary
to be successful in the 21st century:
• Critical thinking and problem solving
• Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
Page 7

8. • Agility and Adaptability
• Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
• Effective Oral and Written Communication
• Accessing and Analyzing Information
• Curiosity and Imagination
Although each of the perspectives highlighted in this section are slightly different, they all indicate that
communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking are important skills for success in the 21st
century.
1 TO 1 PROGRAM RESEARCH
Apple’s Classrooms of Tomorrow research during the 1990’s was some of the earliest research to
document and support the increased learning created when students have ubiquitous access to
technology as a learning tool (Rockman et al., 1997). The research indicated the improved learning was
created as a result of the new instructional teaching strategies that encouraged communication,
collaboration and creativity which lead to increased student motivation.
Many researchers recognize that current standardized tests are not capable of capturing increases in
student learning generated from one to one laptop programs (Holcomb, 2009; Lei & Zhao, 2006;
Silvernail, 2005; Suhr et al., 2010). This apparent “disconnect” can be partially explained by the
emphasis on 21st century skills and project based learning in many of the one to one programs.
Beginning in 2002, the Maine Learning with Technology Initiative provided laptop computers to all
middle school students and teachers and is being expanded to include high school students and
teachers. Research from the Maine project indicates significant improvement on standardized
assessments in literacy and mathematics (Clariana, 2009; Holcomb, 2009; Silvernail & Gritter, 2007).
Project RED (2010) studied over 900 schools with diverse structures, demographics and technology
use. They found that schools with student to computer ratios of one to one out perform schools with
higher ratios on both academic and financial measures.
Nine key implementation factors most closely linked to education success were identified and ordered
by predictive strength.
1. Intervention classes: Technology integrated into every intervention class.
2. Change management leadership: Leaders provide time for professional learning and
collaboration at least monthly.
3. Online collaboration: Students use technology daily for online collaboration.
4. Core subjects: Technology is integrated into core curriculum once per week or more.
5. Online formative assessments: Assessments are done at least weekly.
Page 8

9. 6. Student/computer ratio: Lower ratios improve outcomes
7. Virtual field trips: Virtual trips are more powerful when used at least monthly.
8. Online research using search engines: Daily student use.
9. Principal training: Principals are trained on best practices and technology transformed learning.
When the nine key implementation factors are properly applied in a one to one computer school, data
indicate an improvement in high stakes test scores, a reduction in disciplinary issues, better attendance
rates, reduced dropout rates and improved graduation rates. In addition, one to one schools save
money by reducing printing costs and reducing the number of students that need to retake classes
after failing.
UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN 2010
The U.S. Department of Education (2010) is supporting 1:1 student implementation in the draft of the
National Educational Technology Plan in the goals listed below.
“Ensure that every student and educator has at least one Internet access device and
software and resources for research, communication, multimedia content creation, and
collaboration for use in and out of school.” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
“Develop and adopt learning resources that exploit the flexibility and power of
technology to reach all learners anytime and anywhere.” (U.S. Department of Education,
2010).
FINAL STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Forks Public Schools Personal Student Learning Device Study Committee recommends the
district implement personal student learning devices as a means to support academic achievement and
address the following learning goals.
PSLD PROPOSED LEARNING GOALS
ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL LEARN TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE AND
COLLABORATE USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.
The widespread use of cellular telephones, SMS text messaging, electronic mail, instant messaging,
Google Apps, Skype, Twitter, Facebook and millions of blogs have dramatically changed the way people
communicate and collaborate. Teaching and modeling the safe, appropriate and effective use of these
new and emerging communication tools for both personal and professional use is critical for our
students’ future success.
Page 9

10. ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL CREATE ARTIFACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THEIR
LEARNING USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.
There are many new and different ways to demonstrate student learning in the 21st Century. Allowing
students to create projects using online tools like Blogger, Google Apps, Glogster, VoiceThread,
Animoto and YouTube provide new ways for students to demonstrate what they have learned. Using
these online tools also allows a wider and more authentic audience to view, comment and provide
feedback to the student.
ALL GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS WILL DEVELOP CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM
SOLVING SKILLS USING 21ST CENTURY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES.
The need for critical thinking and problem solving skills has never been more important than they are
in the 21st Century. The amount of information available on the Internet continues to grow
exponentially and students must be able to effectively analyze information, make judgments and solve
problems in innovative ways.
PSLD PROPOSED OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The following operational objectives are necessary for the successful implementation of personal
student learning devices.
• The Grand Forks Public Schools will issue a personal student learning device to three grade
levels of students by the 2013-2014 school year.
• The Grand Forks Public Schools will provide extensive instructional and technical support to the
teachers and students with personal student learning devices.
• Personal student learning devices will be used to support real time, embedded formative
assessment practices by teachers.
• The Grand Forks Public Schools will make a commitment to selecting digital curriculum during
the curriculum review process for the implementation grade levels.
• The Grand Forks Public Schools will implement a comprehensive learning management system
to support traditional and blended instructional practices.
• The Grand Forks Public Schools will implement a mobile filtering system to support the
appropriate use of the personal student learning devices.
• The Grand Forks Public Schools will reduce printing costs at the implementation schools by
assisting students and teachers to use the available digital tools and resources.
Page 10

11. PSLD PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Grand Forks Public School district is uniquely positioned to provide personal student learning
devices to a focused part of our student population. The ongoing support for the Curriculum
Technology Partner Program, notebook computers for professional staff, robust infrastructure and
appropriate levels of technical support are all requirements for a successful implementation that are
currently addressed by the existing Technology Plan for the Grand Forks Public Schools.
The Technology Department would implement a single grade level each year for three years, which
would be approximately 500 student devices each year. This will allow for efficient use of existing
support structures, including instructional coaching from the Curriculum Technology Partner staff and
deployment services from the technical support staff.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The Curriculum Technology Partners would provide instructional coaching and professional
development opportunities to the teachers implementing in each of the first three years. The
opportunities would include individual, small group and large group professional development focused
on 21st Century skills, instructional strategies and digital citizenship.
The Technology Department would facilitate professional development opportunities for district and
building administrators on instructional leadership and change management in a one to one learning
environment.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Student support help desks will be created in the secondary schools to provide just in time, peer
support for students having issues with a device. At the elementary level, students with an interest will
be recruited and trained to provide classroom based, peer support for the student learning devices.
This structure will serve as the first stop for students experiencing problems and unresolved issues will
be escalated to school and district technical support staff.
District technical staff will make extensive use of deployment and management systems already in
place to handle the increased density of computers in the district.
LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A learning management system will be implemented to allow teachers to quickly develop and manage
online portals to their classroom for both student and parents. The system will be available only to
staff, students and parents and will support social networking and blended instruction.
Page 11

12. Blended instruction classes refer to the ability of students to learn in both online and traditional
environments. The goal of blended instruction is to provide “anytime, anywhere” access to learning
through an online learning management system that provides necessary course curriculum and creates
powerful social connections that foster collaborative learning.
PERSONAL STUDENT LEARNING DEVICE TYPES
The committee reviewed the strengths and weakness of devices at three different price points. The
table below summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of devices when grouped by device cost.
Device Cost Strengths Weakness Example Devices
Communication, Collaboration,
Creation Station, Critical Thinking,
Netbooks
Day long battery, Size and Weight, Multimedia Power,
$300 Mobile Phones
Connectivity, Management Options
Small tablets
$100-$150 annual cost per student
Communication, Collaboration,
Creation Station, Critical Thinking, Day long
Less than Day Battery Life, Low end Notebooks
battery,
$600 Multimedia power, High end Netbooks
Size and Weight, Connectivity
Management Options Emerging Tablets
$150-$200 annual cost per student
Communication, Collaboration,
Creation Station, Critical Thinking, Full power Notebooks
Size and Weight,
$900 Multimedia, Connectivity, Emerging Tablets
Battery Life
$200-$250 annual cost per student Convertible Tablets
After considerable discussion, the majority of the committee agreed that the most viable option was a
device in the $300 category due primarily to the day long battery, communication and collaboration
features and low annual cost per student.
Page 12

13. BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
By implementing the proposal over three years, the budget would increase gradually to a level of full
sustainability of personal student learning devices at nine grade levels. The devices could be leased at
an approximate cost of $150.00 per student, per year.
Personal Student Learning Devices
Implement 1 Grade per Year
3 Year Lease Cost at $150.00 per student
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Student Devices Year 1 $ 82,500 $82,500 $82,500
Student Devices Year 2 $82,500 $82,500
Student Devices Year 3 $82,500
Totals $82,500 $ 165,000 $ 247,500
Personal Student Learning Devices
3 Year Technology Budget Projection
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
$ 672,000.00 $682,500 $729,000 $811,500
Page 13

14. REFERENCES
Clariana, R. (2009). Ubiquitous wireless laptops in upper elementary mathematics. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(1), 5-21.
Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & Lessons Learned from1:1 Laptop Initiatives: A Collective Review.
TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 49-55.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-18.
Muir, M., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2004). The power of one to one. Early findings from the Maine
learning technology initiative. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(3), 6-8.
Palfrey, J., Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic
Books, New York.
Project RED (2010). Project RED key findings. http://www.projectred.org/
Project Tomorrow. (2010). Creating our future: Students speak up about their vision for 21st Century
Learning. http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SUNationalFindings2010.pdf.
Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework
for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87.
Silvermail, D.L., Gritter, A.K. (2007). Maine’s Middle School Laptop Program: Creating Better
Writers. Maine Education Policy Research, University of Southern Maine. http://www.usm.
maine.edu/cepare/Impact_on_Student_Writing_Brief.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by
Technology - National Educational Technology Plan 2010 Draft. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-
2010.
Page 14