Implementation and Effects

Of One-to-One Computing Initiatives:

A Research Synthesis
William R. Penuel
SRI International

Abstract
There are now a large number of initiatives designed to make laptops with wireless connec-
tivity available to all students in schools. This paper synthesizes findings from research and
evaluation studies that analyzed implementation and effects of one-to-one initiatives from a
range of countries. Factors related to successful implementation reported in the research include
extensive teacher professional development, access to technical support, and positive teacher
attitudes toward student technology use. Outcome studies with rigorous designs are few, but
those studies that did measure outcomes consistently reported positive effects on technology use,
technology literacy, and writing skills. (Keywords: ubiquitous computing, research synthesis,
laptops, wireless connectivity.)

Introduction
One-to-one computing initiatives that seek to provide laptop computers and
Internet access to students for use at home and school are expanding rapidly
across the globe. The decreasing costs, combined with the lighter weight of
laptops and increasing availability of wireless connectivity, are all making such
initiatives more feasible to implement on a broad scale. States such as Maine
and Texas, for example, have invested in statewide initiatives to fund access to
laptops for secondary school students. Large districts such as Henrico County in
Virginia and Cobb County in Georgia are providing laptops and digital content
to all middle and high school students. Hundreds of independent, parochial, and
individual public schools are also implementing demonstration and large-scale
projects that provide one-to-one, 24/7 access to computers and the Internet.
The educational technology research community’s collective knowledge about
one-to-one initiatives has not to date kept up with the rapid expansion of these ini-
tiatives or with their breadth. An earlier 2001 review of laptop initiatives that SRI
International researchers conducted under contract with the U.S. Department of
Education found just 19 studies that had analyzed outcomes (Penuel et al., 2001).
Researchers concluded at that time that there was too little research-based evidence
to determine whether such programs were effective, because the overall method-
ological quality of the studies was weak. Since that review, a number of new one-to-
one computing initiatives have begun and have focused on providing wireless access
to the Internet. In addition, a number of new studies have been published on the
implementation and effects of these initiatives. In this paper, we describe results of a
synthesis of research evidence with respect to the following questions:
• What new studies of one-to-one computing initiatives have been con-
ducted, and what has been their focus?

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 329

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 • How are students and teachers using technology in initiatives?
• What new information is available from studies about the conditions
necessary for effective implementation?
• Have there been any rigorously-designed outcome studies published
on the effectiveness of initiatives? If so, what outcomes have been
measured?
• What research is still needed on one-to-one initiatives?
In this paper, we provide a definition of one-to-one computing initiatives and
a theoretical framework that elaborates on their potential for improving teach-
ing and learning, as well as likely conditions for successful implementation. We
then describe the methodology synthesizing findings from 30 separate studies
of one-to-one initiatives. In the results section, we discuss the goals and scale
of different initiatives included in the review, describe particular design fea-
tures and factors that may influence teachers and overall implementation most
strongly, and consider evidence of effects shown by the limited number of rigor-
ously designed studies in the field and follow with an analysis of the untapped
potential of most one-to-one studies to date. Finally, we consider in the conclu-
sion section what is not yet known but needs to be explored in future studies of
one-to-one initiatives.

One-to-One Initiatives: A Definition

There has been widespread interest and investment in initiatives designed to
provide each student with a computer to support academic learning for close to
ten years now in the United States. The earliest initiatives in the U.S. began ap-
pearing in the mid-1990s, and the most visible sponsored initiative at that time
was Microsoft’s Anytime, Anywhere Learning program (Rockman ET AL, 1998).
As part of this program, scores of schools and districts implemented programs in
which students could lease or buy laptop computers that they and their teachers
were expected to use in school. In the past five years, Apple Computer, Inc. has
become more actively involved in the area, and even though the estimated total
cost of ownership of laptop computers remains high (Consortium on School Net-
working, 2004), whole districts and even states continue to invest in initiatives
designed to give every student in particular grade levels a laptop computer.
In practice, the scope and detail of one-to-one initiatives are largely defined
by the initiating institutions. Common to most initiatives is the idea that all
students have individual access to computers, but program managers have dif-
ferent policies about, for instance, whether students can take computers home
and about whether students lease or pay to own their computers. In addition,
initiative leaders have adopted a variety of goals for initiatives that are often
similar to initiatives in other localities (e.g., improving access to technology
resources for all students), but policymakers and program leaders give different
emphases to these goals and to the multiplicity of goals they use to convince
school boards, foundations, state legislatures, and others to pay for laptop com-
puters (Lemke & Martin, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d).
A core set of characteristics shared by a wide number of initiatives, however,
coupled with the continued if not growing interest among policymakers and ed-

330 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 ucational leaders in one-to-one initiatives, makes it both possible and important
to conduct a review of what is known about their implementation and effective-
ness. For purposes of this review, we have chosen three core features common to
a wide variety of initiatives as defining characteristics of one-to-one computing
in the classroom: (1) providing students with use of portable laptop computers
loaded with contemporary productivity software (e.g., word processing tools,
spreadsheet tools, etc.), (2) enabling students to access the Internet through
schools’ wireless networks, and (3) a focus on using laptops to help complete
academic tasks such as homework assignments, tests, and presentations.
These characteristics distinguish one-to-one initiatives that are the focus of this
review from past efforts aimed at providing each student with his or her own
computer. Earlier one-to-one efforts provided students with desktop computers
for home use (Chang et al., 1998; Rockman et al., 1995) and with laptops with
limited or no capability to access the Internet (e.g., Haynes, 1996; Myers, 1996).
An earlier review of the literature (Penuel et al., 2001) included both these types
of programs as one-to-one initiatives, but as we argue below in the next section,
there is a clear need to analyze what we know about the implementation and
effectiveness of laptop initiatives in which students have wireless access to the In-
ternet from knowledge of other desktop and portable computers.

Theoretical Framework: Why Wireless One-to-One

Computing Matters for Learning and Conditions for
Successful Implementation
We drew on two kinds of research to guide our research review: theories of
what kinds of learning outcomes are possible with wireless laptop computers
and theories of implementation of technological innovations in the classroom.
The first area of research helps explain why studying one-to-one initiatives can
help us understand the potential of ubiquitous computing in schools and what
advantages wirelessly connected computers may have over stand-alone comput-
ers. Latter research provides us with insight into both the likely conditions and
supports necessary for implementing a technology innovation and the potential
barriers to success.

The Potential of Wireless Laptop Computing for Student Learning

When they could afford to buy a large number of computers, many schools
throughout the 1980s and early 1990s placed them in centrally located labo-
ratories (Means & Olson, 1995). Computer use in labs has been found to be
effective at least over the short term (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Kulik, 1994), but
researchers have long argued that for technology to make a powerful difference
in student learning, students must be able to use computers more than once or
twice a week in a lab at school (Kozma, 1991). Limited access has been cited
as a reason why teachers make limited use of technology with students (Adel-
man et al., 2002; Cuban, 2001; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). Teachers report
that when computers are in labs, they use technology less often for instruction
because of the difficulty of scheduling time in the lab and transporting students
there (Adelman et al., 2002).

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 331

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 More widespread access to computers makes it possible for students and
teachers in schools to transition from occasional, supplemental use of comput-
ers for instruction to more frequent, integral use of technology across a multi-
tude of settings (Roschelle & Pea, 2002). Ubiquitous, 24/7 access to computers
makes it possible for students to access a wider array of resources to support
their learning, to communicate with peers and their teachers, to become flu-
ent in their use of the technological tools of the 21st century workplace. When
students are also able to take computers home, the enhanced access further fa-
cilitates students keeping their work organized and makes the computer a more
“personal” device (Vahey & Crawford, 2002).
Beyond facilitating more frequent use of technology in class, many argue that
providing students with better access to computers can provide students with
more equitable access to resources and learning opportunities. Educational lead-
ers have argued that providing students with a computer with Internet access
gives everyone the ability to use up-to-date learning resources that before were
available only to those who lived close to a library or benefited from school bud-
gets that allowed for regular purchases of new textbooks (Penuel et al., 2001).
Early evaluation studies of laptop programs reflected this emphasis on equity;
in studies of the Beaufort (South Carolina) Learning with Laptops initiative, for
example, researchers examined the extent to which providing laptops narrowed
gaps between students of color and White students and between low-income and
more advantaged students (see, e.g., Stevenson, 1998, 1999). Further, analyses
conducted on some of the first tests of computer proficiency administered by
states suggested that home access to computers helped to explain differences
in student performance on those tests (North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, 1999). These studies together confirmed both the potential and sig-
nificance of providing more ubiquitous access to computers to all students.
A number of researchers have also argued that providing students with ubiqui-
tous access to wirelessly connected computers has the potential to transform learn-
ing environments and improve student learning outcomes (see Roschelle, Penuel,
& Abrahamson, 2004, for a review). When computers are connected in the class-
room, for example, the network can facilitate collaborative learning processes that
are difficult to coordinate when teachers must be present to ensure that individu-
als stay on task and group members help each other learn (Zurita & Nussbaum,
2004). Further, graphical displays showing from individual contributions to solv-
ing problems (e.g., students creating points on a line for a particular equation) can
help illuminate concepts that are otherwise difficult for students to understand and
also motivate them to participate more actively in class (Hegedus & Kaput, 2004;
Kaput & Hegedus, 2002; Stroup, 2002). Further, when all students have comput-
ers that are connected through a network, students can participate in simulations
that allow them to experience complex systems such as patterns of traffic and
population dynamics directly (Colella, 2000; Wilensky & Stroup, 2000).

Framework for Analyzing Conditions for Successful Implementation

Much of the excitement about the potential of providing students with wire-
lessly connected laptops is tempered by an appreciation for the complexities and

332 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 difficulties of implementation of educational technologies. All too often, new
technological innovations have proven unusable to a wide variety of teachers,
whether because schools lack the capacity to implement them well, policies are
not congruent with technology use, or the culture of the school is not supportive
of technology adoption (Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2000).
Critics of large investments in computers for schools often point out that technol-
ogies have been “oversold and underused,” and that they have had minimal effects
on learning environments (Cuban, 1986, 2001). Past research on implementation
of educational technology must serve as a guide to helping interpret the effects (or
lack of effects) of providing students with access to laptops, no matter how novel
the technology is for classrooms, because the novelty itself poses special challenges
for teachers and schools to fully realize the potential of these technologies.
One finding from past research that is likely to influence the implementation
of one-to-one initiatives is that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology’s
role in the curriculum can influence how and when teachers integrate comput-
ers into their instruction (Becker & Anderson, 2000; Becker, Ravitz, & Wong,
1999; Ertmer, 1999). When teachers do not perceive that expected uses of tech-
nology are closely aligned with the curriculum, they use it less often (Sarama,
Clements, & Henry, 1998). Other individual teacher characteristics that are
associated with technology integration levels include teachers’ pedagogical ap-
proach (Watson & Tinsley, 1995), their confidence or feelings of preparedness
to use technology (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000;
Yarnall, Shechtman, & Penuel, in press), and their subject-matter expertise
(Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, & Means, 2000).
Teachers’ beliefs are influenced by the nature and frequency of messages they
hear in their environment (Coburn, 2004), and teacher professional develop-
ment activities are a source of information about how and what to teach; these
activities also prepare teachers to use technology effectively. The amount of pro-
fessional development that teachers have received has been found to be related
to teachers’ feelings of preparedness to use technology with students (NCES,
2000). Teachers who reported spending nine hours or more in educational tech-
nology professional development activities were more likely than teachers who
spent less time in such activities to report feeling well- or very well-prepared to
use computers and the Internet for instruction.
In addition to amount of professional development, the form of professional
development and its coherence with teachers’ standards and curriculum shape
the outcomes of professional development experiences. Kanaya, Light, and
Culp (2005) found that when teachers perceive professional development ac-
tivities to be aligned with the content schools expect them to teach and perceive
the workshop to be relevant and useful to their teaching, they are more likely
to integrate technology into their teaching. In addition, when teachers take on
more active roles within professional development for their own learning and
for their colleagues’ learning, they are more likely to use technology with their
students (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004; Riel & Becker, 2000).
The technical infrastructure, including the availability of support for ad-
dressing problems as they arise, is also a significant factor in shaping teachers’

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 333

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 technology use in the classroom. Difficulties with ensuring adequate resources
for purchasing and maintaining hardware and software—including policies
that make it difficult to make particular kinds of purchases—can reduce the
likelihood that teachers will use technology with students (Blumenfeld et al.,
2000). For classrooms using wireless networks, the reliability of the network is
frequently an issue and a barrier to widespread use by teachers for instruction
(Hill & Reeves, 2004; Tatar, Roschelle, Vahey, & Penuel, 2003). Further, even
when access to computers and wireless connectivity is sufficient, perceptions
among teachers that there is limited access to timely technical support from
school-based or district staff can hinder their integration of technology into the
curriculum (Molina, Sussex, & Penuel, 2005).

Methodology Used for the Research Synthesis

In this research synthesis, we sought to identify all high-quality research stud-
ies that analyzed implementation or reported outcomes of one-to-one initiatives
from English-language journals and Web sites. We adopted a narrative, rather
than meta-analytic approach to synthesizing findings, both because there were
so few outcome studies and because the vast majority of studies reported on
implementation processes that could better be summarized and synthesized us-
ing a narrative approach. In this section, we describe in detail our approach to
identifying, selecting, and analyzing studies for the synthesis.

Scope of the Synthesis

The scope of this synthesis was limited to one-to-one initiatives that used
laptop computers with wireless connectivity in K–12 education. We included in
our synthesis articles that systematically investigated the implementation of lap-
top initiatives and/or studied outcomes of laptop initiatives using comparison
group designs.

Process for Finding and Selecting Articles

We searched English-language peer-reviewed journals, dissertation abstracts,
and the Web for studies that might be included in the synthesis using a com-
mon set of key words. Initially, our search included one-to-one initiatives that
used handheld computers or graphing calculators. Researchers downloaded
abstracts from all reports or articles found into EndNote, where they recorded
essential bibliographic information and a common core of information about
how the articles were found.
The initial search yielded 245 articles, of which there were 177 unique ar-
ticles. Initially, secondary reports of research (those found in magazines such as
Technology and Learning), meta-analyses, research syntheses, policy documents,
curriculum guides, and conference reports were all eliminated from the pool of
potential articles for inclusion in the study. After eliminating these, 123 articles
remained in the database. Next, we eliminated articles that were outside the in-
tended focus of the study as evidenced by the study abstracts. A total of 68 were
eliminated at this point, resulting in 55 articles remaining. Finally, we elimi-
nated articles about handhelds or graphing calculators, leaving 46 articles.

334 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 We obtained each of these articles, and researchers produced 2–3 page sum-
maries of key aspects of each study: the goals and design of the one-to-one
initiative, nature of the technology used, characteristics of schools in the study,
data on implementation, and data on outcomes. A more thorough reading of
articles and a subsequent decision to restrict the scope of the synthesis to one-
to-one initiatives using laptops with wireless connectivity led us to include a
total of 30 articles in the synthesis.

Criteria for Inclusion

We included articles in the synthesis that used systematic methods for investi-
gating implementation or outcomes. We applied different criteria for studies we
characterize as implementation studies and those we describe as outcome studies.
Outcome studies, to be included, must have employed experimental designs with
random assignment or quasi-experimental designs with pre- and posttest data
on both treatment and control groups. To be included, implementation studies
must have employed systematic methods of analysis of implementation data.
Examples include statistical analysis of survey data, grounded theory, compara-
tive case study analysis, or ethnographic analysis.

Process for Synthesizing Results

Two research team members worked independently to review the 2–3 page
summaries, identify a set of recurring themes to highlight in the synthesis,
and code individual articles using a spreadsheet to record results of our coding
by study. We began with open-coding, beginning by looking at summaries of
research reports for potential coding categories within the broad areas of pro-
fessional development, technical support, teacher beliefs, and student uses of
technology for implementation. Once we identified a set of common categories,
two coders worked independently to identify whether from study summaries
the category was evident within a particular study. We then reviewed and dis-
cussed discrepancies on coding to agree on a final code for each study.

Findings from the Synthesis

Goals and Scale of One-to-One Initiatives
Beyond providing laptop and Internet access to students, the goals for the one-
to-one initiatives included in the research synthesis tend to focus on one or more
of four outcomes (Lemke & Martin, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d; Zucker,
2004). For some initiatives, the primary focus is on improving academic achieve-
ment with the use of technology. For others, the goal is increasing equity of ac-
cess to digital resources and reducing the digital divide. For still other initiatives,
including the statewide initiative in Maine, the goal is increasing the economic
competitiveness of the region by preparing its students more effectively for
today’s technology-saturated workplaces. Finally, some initiatives seek, by intro-
ducing ubiquitous access to computers, to effect a transformation in the quality
of instruction. Many of the initiatives focused on transforming teaching seek
specifically to make instruction more “student-centered,” that is, more differenti-
ated, problem- or project-based, and demanding of higher-order thinking skills.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 335

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 The initiatives also vary widely in their scale. Some initiatives are providing
laptop computers with wireless Internet access to tens of thousands of students
across a district or an entire state. In still others, schools are experimenting class-
room by classroom with introducing laptop computers into instruction. The
challenges posed by scale are no doubt different from those posed by small pilot
projects. In addition to coordinating professional development and technical
support for larger numbers of teachers, large-scale initiatives must address the
challenge of ensuring that programs address local teachers’ needs and individual
schools’ goals for improving teaching and learning. Conversely, smaller-scale
initiatives often face challenges in finding enough funding to support teachers
and the technology; coordinating instruction with laptops when not all students
in a school have laptops is an additional challenge.

Classroom Uses of Laptops in One-to-One Initiatives

A number of implementation studies have examined how students are us-
ing laptops in their classrooms and at home. Across a wide range of studies,
students use laptops primarily for writing, taking notes, completing homework
assignments, keeping organized, communicating with peers and their teachers,
and researching topics on the Internet. (See Table 1.) For these tasks, they are
using word processing software, Web browsers, e-mail clients, and chat pro-
grams. Use of software programs designed to teach basic skills appears to be less
common, observed in only four of the programs studied by researchers whose
work is included in the synthesis (Daitzman, 2003; Davis, Garas, Hopstock,
Kellum, & Stephenson, 2005; Mitchell Institute, 2004; Warschauer, Grant,
Real, & Rousseau, 2004; Zucker & McGhee, 2005).
The most common uses appear to reflect the fact that the observed students’
teachers are in an “adaptation” stage of technology adoption (Sandholtz, Ring-
staff, & Dwyer, 1997). In other words, they are adapting traditional teaching
strategies to incorporate more adult productivity tools and having students
work independently and in small groups, but they have not yet begun to imple-
ment widely more student-centered strategies for instruction such as proj-
ect-based learning. Those students who do engage in more extended projects
typically use design and multimedia tools, including presentation software and
software for making and editing digital images and movies (Davies, 2004; Davis
et al., 2005; Light, McDermott, & Honey, 2002; Mitchell Institute, 2004; Ne-
whouse & Rennie, 2001; Stevenson, 2002; Warschauer et al., 2004; Windschitl
& Sahl, 2002). Researchers presented several interesting examples of students’
digital products, and some noted that these were particularly compelling to par-
ents and adults in the school community (Light et al., 2002).

How Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs Shape Implementation

Although overall few studies on one-to-one computing initiatives have pre-
sented research-based evidence that determines the true effectiveness of the
programs, there is evidence that particular program designs and factors affecting
teacher attitudes and beliefs influence a program’s implementation and success.
(See Table 2.)

336 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Table 1: Most Frequently Reported Student Uses of Computers
From Studies
Number of Studies
Student Use Reporting
Word processing software 11
Internet browsers (primarily for research) 10
Presentation software 6
Basic skills practice 4
Spreadsheets 3
Multimedia authoring and design 3

Table 2: Most Frequently Cited Ways Teacher Beliefs Influence

Implementation
Number of Studies
Teacher Belief Reporting
Perception of adequacy of access to appropriate subject
matter content 3
Concern about unauthorized uses of laptops 3
Beliefs about role of computers as a learning tool for student 2
Beliefs about student capabilities for using computers 1

Case studies of teachers in laptop programs have shown that teachers’ beliefs
about students, the potential role of technology in learning, and the availability of
high-quality digital content influence the degree to which they use laptops with
students (Lane, 2003; Trimmel & Bachmann, 2004; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
Teachers who believe that students are capable of completing complex assign-
ments on their own or in collaboration with peers may be more likely to assign
extended projects that require laptop use and allow students to choose the topics
for their own research projects. Teachers who view technology as a tool with a
wide variety of potential applications are more likely to use laptops often with stu-
dents (Jaillet, 2004; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Third, those teachers who believe
that there are adequate software and Internet-based resources available to help
teach their particular content area may use laptops with students more often than
teachers who believe that there are simply not enough high-quality materials avail-
able (Lane, 2003; Trimmel & Bachmann, 2004). Conversely, those teachers who
are concerned that students will use their laptops for unauthorized purposes, such
as playing games or searching the Internet for recreational purposes during class
time, are likely to report implementing laptops less often with students in class
(Jaillet, 2004; Trimmel & Bachmann, 2004; Zucker & McGhee, 2005).
Particular design features may influence teachers’ beliefs in such a way as to
make them likely to use laptops in conjunction with student-centered modes of
instruction. Project Hiller, a within-school laptop program for high school stu-
dents, required its teachers to engage in two extended projects with students and
to mentor two to three student-driven projects in the school. In their projects,
Project Hiller students took on significant and visible roles within the school, in-
cluding helping teachers with planning lessons that used technology, developing

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 337

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 multimedia materials for departmental projects, mentoring younger peers, and
producing a newsletter. Many of the teachers reported that their expectations
of what their students could do changed after seeing how skilled students were
when using multimedia tools. Teachers reported that they then began assigning
more complex and challenging work to students (Light et al., 2002).
The researchers who studied Project Hiller found that the number of teachers
who reported doing long-term projects lasting more than a week (at least once
a year or more) increased from 85% to 95% during the course of the project, as
did the number of teachers who use journaling with their students, which rose
from 58% to 68%. Analysis of observational data and interviews with Project
Hiller teachers, students, and coordinators revealed an increase in the occur-
rence and quality of informal, project-based, and small group interactions be-
tween teachers and students participating in the program (Light et al., 2002).

The Roles of Professional Development and Technical Support in Fostering

Implementation
Several of the implementation studies examined what teachers, students, and
administrators believed were critical factors in supporting implementation of
laptop programs. In addition, some researchers conducted observations in pro-
grams that led them to draw conclusions about what features of programs sup-
port or hinder implementation. These studies can provide valuable information
to understanding implementation, even though research-based evidence that
such factors lead to better student outcomes does not yet exist.
Formal professional development has been a critical component of many large-
scale and smaller one-to-one programs, and the features of these activities reported
to be important for implementation varied from program to program. (See Table
3.) Teacher workshops often focus on providing teachers with skills they need to
use the technology themselves, but many reported that what was most critical was
a focus on helping teachers integrate technology into their instruction (Davies,
2004; Dinnocenti, 2002; Fairman, 2004; Harris & Smith, 2004; Lane, 2003;
Lowther, Ross, & Morrison, 2001). In Maine, content specialists have also been
assigned to help teachers with finding digital resources and integrating technology
into specific content areas (Silvernail & Harris, 2003). In addition, some programs
have assigned staff (either internal to the school or external) to help teachers on
an as-needed basis with technology integration (Davies, 2004; Dinnocenti, 2002;
Fairman, 2004; Light et al., 2002). A third form of professional development,
informal help from colleagues within the school, may be especially important to
ensuring implementation success. A number of researchers reported that they ob-
served teachers helping each other with technology problems or engaging in joint
curriculum planning, and some have even reported that teachers prefer this form of
professional development above others (Davis et al., 2005; Gaynor & Fraser, 2003;
Lane, 2003; Silvernail & Harris, 2003; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
Some of the professional development that is targeted to help teachers be-
come more “student-centered” in their teaching has been especially effective
in transforming instruction in laptop classrooms. A good example of such a
program is the iNtegrating Technology for inQuiry (NTeQ) model (Morrison,

338 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Table 3: Supportive Features of Professional Development Reported
In Studies
Number of Studies
Student Use Reporting
Focus on integrating technology into instruction 5
Informal help from colleagues 5
Ongoing access to coaches to help with integration 4
Focus on finding content-rich resources 1

Lowther, & DeMuelle, 1999), which helps teachers develop extended problems
and projects that use real-world resources, student collaboration, and computer
tools to reach solutions or create final products. The model calls for a full 10
days of professional development for teachers, plus follow-up during the year.
Comparison group studies of teachers provided the NTeQ program and then
either assigned to a laptop classroom or non-laptop classroom suggest that lap-
tops can facilitate more use of project-based learning and cooperative grouping
strategies (Lowther et al., 2001).
In addition to professional development, readily available technical support
also appears to be important for laptop programs to succeed. Programs in which
teachers report a high degree of reliability for laptops often have both within-
building technical support staff devoted to helping with the program and ready
access to outside vendors for major problems (Hill & Reeves, 2004). Ensuring
that all students’ laptops are working makes it less likely that teachers will have
to develop two sets of assignments—one for students with laptops and another
for students without laptops (Davis et al., 2005; Gaynor & Fraser, 2003; Zucker
& McGhee, 2005). Being able to count on the reliability of the school’s wireless
network is also critical, as students are often using their laptops to access resourc-
es available on the Web (Hill & Reeves, 2004; Lane, 2003; Light et al., 2002).
Students have played an important role in providing the first line of technical
support in several laptop programs. In Maine, for example, student “iTeams” ex-
ist in many schools to help troubleshoot routine problems with machines (Silver-
nail & Harris, 2003; Silvernail & Lane, 2004). In addition, teachers in Maine re-
port that they often turn to students for help with technical problems when they
arise in class (Fairman, 2004). In other, smaller-scale laptop programs, students
play a similar role in providing technical support, both informally and formally
as part of the program design (Dinnocenti, 2002; Light et al., 2002).

Findings from Outcome Studies

Of the studies we identified and reviewed, just four groups of researchers ana-
lyzed results from quasi-experimental studies with pretest-posttest designs and
comparison groups, and only seven others used comparison groups at all. We
summarize findings from each study separately below in narrative form, as each
study examined somewhat different outcomes and studied one-to-one programs
that cannot be compared easily. The results are most promising in two areas that
were identified in an earlier review (Penuel et al., 2001) as showing positive ef-
fects for laptops: computer literacy and writing.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 339

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Russell, Bebell, and Higgins (2004) compared the advantages for different
student: computer ratios in classrooms. In a single public school, the school
assigned different numbers of laptops to upper elementary grades classrooms
to achieve either four-to-one, two-to-one, or one-to-one student-computer ra-
tios. The researchers then observed classrooms and studied how students used
computers in the classes and how teachers organized their instruction. The one-
to-one classrooms provided several advantages over the two-to-one and four-to-
one classrooms. In those classrooms, students used computers more across the
curriculum and used them at home for academic purposes. In addition, their
images of what is required for writing tasks nearly always included computers.
In one-to-one classrooms, instruction was different as well; there was less large-
group instruction than in two-to-one and four-to-one classrooms. Research-
based evidence from six other comparison group studies that used posttest-only
designs also report that students in laptop programs use computers more often
and for a wider array of purposes than do students with less ubiquitous access to
computers (Jaillet, 2004; Light et al., 2002; Lowther & Ross, 2003; Stevenson,
2002; Trimmel & Bachmann, 2004).
Schaumburg (2001) conducted a quasi-experimental study examining the
effects of providing students with laptops on their technology literacy. She
studied effects of a program that provided laptops to students in a high school
in Germany. She found that the laptop students made greater gains than did
comparison group students on a researcher-developed test of their knowledge
of hardware and the laptop’s operating system, common productivity tools,
skill in using the Internet, and knowledge of basic computer security. Other
comparison group studies with posttest-only designs reported greater levels of
technology literacy among students in laptop programs, using judgments made
by researchers on the basis of structured observations of their skill in using com-
puters and the Internet (Lowther & Ross, 2003; Lowther et al., 2001).
We identified four separate studies that reported positive effects of laptop pro-
grams on students’ writing skills (Gulek & Demirtas, 2005; Light et al., 2002;
Lowther & Ross, 2003; Lowther et al., 2001). However, none of these stud-
ies used a pretest to determine whether students had actually improved their
writing skills over the course of the study. Therefore, although several studies
reported positive effects, the research-based evidence that laptop programs can
improve writing is somewhat less strong than research-based evidence of effects
on technology use and technology literacy.

Discussion and Conclusion

The research studies included in this synthesis provide a basic understand-
ing of how students use laptops and wireless connectivity as part of one-to-one
initiatives, and there is some preliminary evidence that providing students with
more ubiquitous access to computers gives them more practice in using technol-
ogy. In contrast to how students use technology in other initiatives that empha-
size basic skills development or assessment, in one-to-one initiatives students
most often use productivity and design tools in ways that are integrated into
other classroom activities and assignments. Students gain practice with using

340 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 these tools, and as outcome studies document, often improve their technology
literacy and skill in using word processing tools to improve their writing skills.
What is less clear from these studies is what the potential is for one-to-one ini-
tiatives to improve student achievement in core subjects. Few projects reported
using tutorial or practice software in mathematics and reading, subjects that are
the central focus of most state accountability tests and systems. One study did
examine effects on state achievement test scores (Gulek & Demirtas, 2005), but
only results for writing suggest clear positive effects. The expectation that one-
to-one initiatives will improve achievement scores bears further investigation,
and it is likely that to expect achievement gains, one-to-one initiatives would
need to be part of a larger, more comprehensive effort to improve instruction
(Light et al., 2002). A number of researchers whose work is included as part of
this study have argued that one-to-one initiatives that also provide professional
development in how to improve instruction and provide curricular resources tied
to content teachers must teach have the best chances of making significant im-
provements to teaching and learning (see, e.g., Morrison et al., 1999).
The research on implementation synthesized here is largely consistent with
past research on educational technology reforms, though it does suggest that
peers may pay a particularly important role in supporting implementation for
teachers. As other studies have found, when teachers believe that technology
can support student learning and offers resources that add value to the cur-
riculum, they are more likely to use it. Similarly, professional development
support and technical support are critical for one-to-one initiatives, just as they
are for other technology initiatives. The finding that other teachers are particu-
larly important in helping teachers learn how to integrate technology into the
classroom, however, has only recently become the focus of systematic research
in educational technology (Frank et al., 2004). It is consistent with emerging
research on professional development, however, which has found that partici-
pating in professional development activities with peers can contribute to its
overall effectiveness (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
What few studies to date have done is to test specifically the links between
hypothesized outcomes for one-to-one initiatives and different implementation
measures. In fact, a number of studies in the synthesis did not clearly specify the
overall goals of the initiative they were studying. Some did not report on overall
usage levels of the computers, and none specifically examined the relationship
between usage and outcome measures. Finally, some researchers did not indicate
when in the development of the program they conducted their study, making it
difficult to know whether some of the implementation findings are primarily an
artifact of a program’s novelty in a school or district.
Including information about core aspects of the design and implementation
of particular one-to-one initiatives in all studies would make research consider-
ably more useful for policymakers and program developers. Policymakers need
such information to establish priorities for external funding opportunities and
give guidance to programs on the ways they ought to structure professional
development opportunities for teachers and provide for technical support. Pro-
gram developers need such information so that they can begin to identify “best

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 341

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 practices” to replicate in their own program designs. Most educational technol-
ogy innovations combine social, pedagogical, and technological elements, and
program designers must constantly adapt and reconfigure these elements as pro-
grams evolve (Means & Penuel, 2005).
Different approaches to measuring outcomes are also needed in future evalu-
ation research on one-to-one initiatives to advance research in this area. Several
studies that focused more on implementation cited outcomes based on self-re-
port survey data that researchers rarely measured in outcome studies. Half of the
studies in this synthesis reported positive effects of laptop programs on student
motivation or engagement, but just three attempted to measure it in some way
other than by a single self-report item (Lowther & Ross, 2003; Russell et al.,
2004; Trimmel & Bachmann, 2004). These researchers measured motivation ei-
ther by observation or by using previously validated survey scales of achievement
motivation. Many laptop programs in this study had as their aim broad goals
such as the preparation of students for jobs in the 21st century or improving the
economic competitiveness of the region (Jaillet, 2004; Silvernail & Lane, 2004),
but these kinds of outcomes are difficult to measure in a one- or two-year evalu-
ation. Similarly, researchers reported that students increased their organizational
skills with laptop computers (Lowther et al., 2001; Zucker & McGhee, 2005),
and that students gained access to a wider array of up-to-date educational re-
sources as a result of their participation in laptop programs (Dinnocenti, 2002;
Gaynor & Fraser, 2003; Lowther et al., 2001; Mitchell Institute, 2004). Both
results seem plausible, but there are not many widely accepted measures of or-
ganizational skills or of the breadth and quality of materials students can access
in school (whether through laptops or textbooks). Unfortunately, the researchers
did not attempt to develop scales or measures as part of their evaluation research.
Researchers conducting future evaluation studies investigating these potential ef-
fects of laptops will have to develop and establish the reliability and validity of a
wide variety of outcome measures as part of their research.
The increasing popularity of laptop initiatives with a wide variety of stake-
holders in education—policymakers, administrators, teachers, parents, and
students—makes the need for sound research-based evidence of effectiveness es-
pecially critical at this time. States and district school boards must often choose
between funding different compelling kinds of programs for students; data on
effectiveness can help inform their decision-making progress. Although they are
difficult to conduct, a significant number of experimental and quasi-experimen-
tal studies are needed if laptop programs are to provide stronger research-based
evidence warranting investments in one-to-one initiatives.
In addition, there will always remain a significant role for research syntheses
that periodically review extant research on one-to-one initiatives. Research syn-
theses can provide policymakers, educators, and researchers with a good idea
about what the best evidence is from a range of studies. As scholars who are part
of the National Research Council note,

Rarely does one study produce an unequivocal and durable result;

multiple methods, applied over time and tied to evidentiary standards,

342 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 are essential to establishing a base of scientific knowledge. Formal syn-
theses of research findings across studies are often necessary to discover,
test, and explain the diversity of findings that characterize many fields.
(National Research Council, 2002, p. 3)

Acknowledgements
Apple Computer, Inc. funded this research synthesis under contract with SRI
International. All findings and opinions expressed herein are the sole responsi-
bility of the author. The author wishes to acknowledge the support of Natalie
Nielsen, Jennifer Scott, Benita Kim, Deborah Kim, and Reina Fujii of SRI
International for assisting with identifying and reviewing individual studies. In
addition, Jeremy Roschelle, Linda Shear, and Sarah Zaner of SRI International,
as well as Karen Cator and Linda Roberts of Apple, each provided valuable
comments to an earlier version of this paper produced for Apple.

Contributor
William R. Penuel is Director of Evaluation Research at the Center for Tech-
nology in Learning at SRI International. His research focuses on the ways that
technology can support the improvement of teaching and learning in science
and mathematics reform initiatives in schools and community settings. He is
the author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, and, with Barbara Means
and Chris Padilla, is the author of The Connected School: Technology and Learn-
ing in High School (Jossey-Bass). He holds a PhD in developmental psychology
from Clark University and an EdM from Harvard University in human devel-
opment and psychology. (Address: Dr. William R. Penuel, Director of Evalua-
tion Research, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Avenue, Mailstop BN390,
Menlo Park, CA 94025; [Link]@[Link].)

References
Adelman, N., Donnelly, M. B., Dove, T., Tiffany-Morales, J., Wayne, A., &
Zucker, A. A. (2002). The integrated studies of educational technology: Professional
development and teachers’ use of technology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2000). Subject and teacher objectives for
computer-using classes by school socio-economic status. Irvine, CA and Minneapo-
lis, MN: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations,
University of California, Irvine, and University of Minnesota.
Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed stu-
dent use of computers and product (No. 3: Teaching, Learning, and Computation,
1998 National Survey.). Irvine, CA: University of California at Irvine.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000).
Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded
project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.
Chang, H.-h., Henriquez, A., Honey, M., Light, D., Moeller, B., & Ross, N.
(1998). The Union City story: Education reform and technology—students’ perfor-
mance on standardized tests. New York, NY: Center for Children and Technology.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 343

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship be-
tween the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education,
77(3), 211–244.
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative under-
standing through immersive dynamic modeling. The Journal of the Learning Sci-
ences, 9(4), 471–500.
Consortium on School Networking. (2004). A guide to handheld computing in
K–12 education. Washington, DC: Author.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since
1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Daitzman, P. (2003). Evaluation of the national model laptop program—tech-
nology literacy, a dimension of information literacy: A journey into the global learn-
ing community, November 2002–June 2003. New Haven, CT: East Rock Global
Magnet School.
Davies, A. (2004). Finding proof of learning in a one-to-one computing class-
room. Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.
Davis, D., Garas, N., Hopstock, P., Kellum, A., & Stephenson, T. (2005).
Henrico County Public Schools iBook survey report. Arlington, VA: Development
Associates, Inc.
Dinnocenti, S. T. (2002). Laptop computers in an elementary school: Perspec-
tives on learning environments from students, teachers, administrators, and parents.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. UMI
Publication Number 3034011.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change:
Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 47(4), 47–61.
Fairman, J. (2004). Trading roles: Teachers and students learn with technology. Oro-
no, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Maine Office.
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffu-
sion of innovations within organizations: Application to the implementation of
computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S.
(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a nation-
al sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Gaynor, I. W., & Fraser, B. J. (2003). Online collaborative projects: A journey
for two Year 5 technology rich classrooms. Paper presented at the Western Aus-
tralian Institute for Educational Research Forum. Retreived May 5, 2005 from
[Link]
Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact
of laptop use on student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 3(2). Available: [Link]
Harris, W. J., & Smith, L. (2004). Laptop use by seventh grade students with
disabilities: Perceptions of special education teachers. Orono, ME: Maine Educa-
tion Policy Research Institute, University of Maine Office.

344 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Haynes, C. (1996). The effectiveness of using laptop computers with middle
school students identified as being inhibited writers. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH. UMI Publication Number 9630228.
Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2004, September). An introduction to the profound
potential of connected algebra activities: Issues of representation, engagement and
pedagogy. Paper presented at the 28th Conference of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Bergen, Norway. Retrieved De-
cember 1, 2005 from [Link]
[Link].
Hill, J., & Reeves, T. (2004). Change takes time: The promise of ubiquitous
computing in schools. A report of a four year evaluation of the laptop initiative at
Athens Academy. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Jaillet, A. (2004). What is happening with portable computers in schools?
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 115–128.
Kanaya, T., Light, D., & Culp, K. M. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes
from a technology-focused professional development program. Journal of Re-
search on Technology in Education, 37(3), 313–329.
Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregat-
ing student constructions to create new learning opportunities. Paper presented at
the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Math-
ematics Education, Norwich, UK. Retrieved December 1, 2005 from http://
[Link]/downloads/[Link].
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research,
61, 179–212.
Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based in-
struction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based
instruction. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O’Neill, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in
education and training (pp. 9–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lane, D. M. M. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative impact on
students and learning. Portland, ME: Center for Education Policy, Applied Re-
search, and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003a). One-to-one computing in Indiana: A state
profile. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003b). One-to-one computing in Maine: A state
profile. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003c). One-to-one computing in Michigan: A state
profile. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003d). One-to-one computing in Virginia: A state
profile. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Light, D., McDermott, M., & Honey, M. (2002). Project Hiller: The impact
of ubiquitous portable technology on an urban school. New York: Center for Chil-
dren and Technology, Education Development Center.
Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (2003, April). When each one has one: The
influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the
classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 345

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved April 8, 2005 from [Link]
[Link]/web/research/pub/Laptop_AERA_2003.pdf.
Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2001, July). Evaluation of a
laptop program: Successes and recommendations. Paper presented at the National
Education Computing Conference, Chicago, IL. Retrieved April 20, 2005 from
[Link]
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s Role in Education Reform: Findings
from a National Study of Innovating Schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Means, B., & Penuel, W. R. (2005). Research to support scaling up technol-
ogy-based educational innovations. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & L. C. Peters
(Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based educational improvement
(pp. 176–197). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell Institute. (2004). One-to-one laptops in a high school environment:
Piscataquis Community High School study final report. Portland, ME: Great
Maine Schools Project, George J. Mitchell Scholarship Research Institute.
Molina, A., Sussex, W., & Penuel, W. R. (2005). Training Wheels evaluation
report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Morrison, G. R., Lowther, D., & DeMuelle, L. (1999). Integrating computer
technology into the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Myers, J. L. (1996). The influence of a take-home computer program on math-
ematics achievement and attitudes of Title I elementary school children. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. UMI Publica-
tion Number 9636476.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st
century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Newhouse, C. P., & Rennie, L. (2001). A longitudinal study of the use of stu-
dent-owned portable computers in a secondary school. Computers & Education,
36(3), 223–243.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999). 1997-98 report of
student performance: North Carolina Tests of Computer Skills. Raleigh, NC: North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction.
Penuel, W. R., Kim, D. Y., Michalchik, V., Lewis, S., Means, B., Murphy, B.,
et al. (2001). Using technology to enhance connections between home and school: A
research synthesis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Riel, M., & Becker, H. J. (2000, April). The beliefs, practices, and computer use
of teacher leaders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Edu-
cational Research Association, New Orleans.
Rockman ET AL. (1995). Assessing the growth: The Buddy Project evaluation,
1994–5. San Francisco: Author.
Rockman et al. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the lap-
top program. San Francisco: Author.

346 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. D. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless
handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International
Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145–168.
Roschelle, J., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. G., & Means, B.
(2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based
technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76–101.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, A. L. (2004). The networked
classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50–54.
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 one-to-one laptops. Boston: Technology and Assessment
Study Collaborative, Boston College.
Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Henry, J. J. (1998). Network of influences in
an implementation of a mathematics curriculum innovation. International Jour-
nal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 113–148.
Schaumburg, H. (2001, June). Fostering girls’ computer literacy through laptop
learning. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference,
Chicago, IL.
Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating com-
puters into classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in Education,
Bank Street College of Education.
Silvernail, D. L., & Harris, W. J. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Ini-
tiative teacher, student, and school perspectives: Mid-year evaluation report. Port-
land, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern
Maine.
Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. M. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one
laptop program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evi-
dence. Portland, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of
Southern Maine.
Stevenson, K. R. (1998). Evaluation report—Year 2: Middle School Laptop Program,
Beaufort County School District. Beaufort, SC: Beaufort County School District.
Stevenson, K. R. (1999). Evaluation report—Year 3: Middle School Laptop Program,
Beaufort County School District. Beaufort, SC: Beaufort County School District.
Stevenson, K. R. (2002). Evaluation report—Year 2: High school laptop com-
puter program (Final Report, for school year 2001/2002). Liverpool: Liverpool
Central School District, New York.
Stroup, W. M. (2002, September). Instantiating Seeing Mathematics Struc-
turing the Social Sphere (MS3): Updating generative teaching and learning for
networked mathematics and science classrooms. Paper presented at the First Inter-
national Conference on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Vaxjo,
Sweden.
Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Handhelds go to
school. IEEE Computer, 36(9), 30–37.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 347

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.
 Trimmel, M., & Bachmann, J. (2004). Cognitive, social, motivational and
health aspects of students in laptop classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 20(2), 151–158.
Vahey, P., & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm Education Pioneers program: Final
evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Real, G. D., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting
academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K–12 schools.
System, 32(I4), 525–538.
Watson, D. M., & Tinsley, D. M. (Eds.). (1995). Integrating information tech-
nology into education. London: Chapman and Hall.
Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. M. (2000). Networked gridlock: Students enact-
ing complex dynamic phenomena with the HubNet architecture. In B. Fishman
& S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning
sciences (pp. 282–289). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a
laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and
institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Yarnall, L., Shechtman, N., & Penuel, W. R. (in press). Using handheld com-
puters to support improved classroom assessment in science: Results from a
field trial. Journal of Science Education and Technology.
Zucker, A. A. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous comput-
ing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386.
Zucker, A. A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in
mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Pub-
lic Schools. Arlington, VA: SRI International.
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative
learning using wirelessly connected handheld computers. Computers and Educa-
tion, 42, 289–314.

348 Spring 2006: Volume 38 Number 3

Copyright © 2006, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or
1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), iste@[Link], [Link]. All rights reserved.