A Modified Laptop Program: Putting the Carts in the Classrooms.

Four fifth grade classrooms embarked on a modified ubiquitous computing initiative in Fall 2003. Two 15-computer wireless laptop carts were shared among the four classrooms in an effort to integrate technology across the curriculum and affect change in student learning and teacher pedagogy. This initiative— in contrast to other 1:1 programs and stationary labs—offers public schools alternatives to budget constraints and instructional space overhead. Results indicate positive teacher technology competence and confidence, as well as instructional strategies that were student centered made meaningful uses of technology. Teacher pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge and a supportive culture seem to be strong indicators for impacting technology integration in this context. As access to computer technologies continues to increase (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2001), there has also been a movement to decrease the computer to student ratio, as well. Windschitl and Sahl (2002) report “more than a thousand schools nationwide have committed themselves to some form of laptop computer initiative” (p. 165). Goals of these types of initiatives vary, but include increased student achievement and learning, increased home and school interaction and increased technology access for low income families (Penuel et al., 2002). A number of evaluations and case studies have documented mixed results with ubiquitous computing approaches (e.g., Edwards, 2003; Hill, Reeves, Grant, Wang, & Hans, in press; Lowther, Ross, & Morrison, 2003; Mowen, 2003; Rockman et al., 1997, 2000). Successes have included improved student achievements, broader access and equity for students, increased communications among faculty, administrators, students and parents and reports of reductions in absenteeism and school dropout rates. However, teachers and students alike struggled with managing learning issues, such as time on task; pedagogical issues, such as transitioning to student-centered learning; and classroom management issues, such as monitoring student distractions with email, the Internet and gaming. Advocating a one-to-one student to computer ratio is appealing, and the goals are admirable. A similar statewide initiative (Bickford, Tharp, McFarling, & Beglau, 2002) has attempted to compromise on the student to computer ratio at two students to everyone one computer. However, this program has also been challenged with lack of change in teacher practice. And more recently, funding limits have placed the onus of support on the individual school districts. The funding for such innovative programs cannot be discounted. Supplying every student and teacher with an Internet-capable computer is a substantial capital commitment for school budgets. One principal admits his middle school has “invested well over $1 million in laptop technology.since 2000” (Mowen, 2003, Introduction section, para. 3). For this reason many early laptop initiatives were implemented in private and parochial schools (e.g., Hill et al., in press; Newhouse, 2001; Rockman et al., 1997). As an alternative to a one-to-one initiative for a select group of students, some schools have purchased mobile laptop carts. These carts of 5 to 25 mobile computers are typically wireless and can be wheeled from classroom to classroom as needed. Schools have used this model to promote collaboration among students and aid in transitioning among groups of students and in classroom settings (e.g., Gwaltney, 2003). In addition, these mobile carts have also offered an alternative to committing instructional space to computer laboratories. Little research has been reported about these mobile laboratories. This small evaluation study presents the findings of one school’s experience, identified with the pseudonym Green River Elementary, with using mobile laptop carts to affect change in teacher practice and student learning. The laptop program evaluation was structured around five primary research questions that focused on classroom practices, degree and type of technology use, academically focused time, student engagement, teacher technology skills, teacher attitudes toward technology, as well as student and teacher reactions to the program. The research questions were: