October 2008
R E P O RT
Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School
Wireless Learning Initiative
Year 2 Results:
Student and Teacher Survey Results
Damian Bebell and Rachel Kay
Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative
Lynch School of Education
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
www.intasc.org
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
i
Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... 1
Widespread student use of technology throughout the school............................................ 1
Major increases in students’ use of technology reported in 2007/2008............................... 2
Excellent data collection and response rates........................................................................... 2
Widespread teacher use of technology throughout the school............................................ 2
Major increases in teachers’ use of technology reported in 2007/2008............................... 2
Student access and use of technology at home remains high............................................... 3
Year 2 finds widespread use of technology reported by students across
all BWLI schools......................................................................................................................... 3
Tech Goes Home makes positive impact on students’ home access and use...................... 3
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 4
Background.................................................................................................................................. 4
The Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School’s Wireless Learning Program.......................... 6
Wireless Learning Evaluation Plan........................................................................................... 7
Table 1: Summary of Year 1 and 2 survey data....................................................................... 8
Year 2 (2007–2008) Evaluation Overview............................................................................... 8
Sample and Response Rates........................................................................................................ 9
Student Survey: Background and Response Rates................................................................. 9
Table 2: Student survey response rates..................................................................................... 9
Teacher Survey: Background and Response Rates............................................................... 10
Table 3: Teacher survey response rates ................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Grade level and Academy affiliations across teacher survey responses.............. 11
Table 5: Principle subject affiliation for teacher survey respondents . .............................. 12
Student Survey Results.............................................................................................................. 13
Figure S1: Average frequency of technology use in the classroom
as reported across grade levels and pre and post laptop surveys........................................ 13
Figure S2: Average frequency of technology use in the library
as reported across grade levels and pre and post laptop surveys........................................ 14
Figure S3: Average frequency of students’ use of technology in primary subject areas
as reported across grade levels and pre and post laptop surveys........................................ 15
Figure S4: Average frequency of students’ use of technology in primary subject areas
as reported across Academies and pre and post laptop surveys......................................... 16
Figure S5: Average frequency of teachers’ use of technology in primary subject areas
(as reported by students) across grade level and pre and post laptop surveys................. 17
Figure S6: Average frequency of teachers’ use of technology in primary subject areas
(as reported by students) across Academies and pre and post laptop surveys................. 18
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
ii
Figure S7: Average frequency of students’ pre-laptop and post-laptop
in-school usage of technology................................................................................................. 19
Figure S8: Average frequency of students’ pre-laptop and post-laptop products............. 21
Figure S9: Average technology skill-levels reported by pre and post laptop students..... 22
Figure S10: Average of pre and post laptop students’ attitudes and beliefs....................... 23
Figure S11: Average number of working computers students report at home
across grade levels (Year 2)...................................................................................................... 24
Figure S12: Average number of working computers students report at home
(Year 1 and Year 2 comparison).............................................................................................. 25
Figure S13: Figure S13: Type of Internet connection students report at home
across grade levels (June 2008)............................................................................................... 26
Figure S14: Type of Internet connection students reported at home
(Year 1 and Year 2 comparison).............................................................................................. 27
Figure S15: Ease of home computer access reported by students across
grade levels (Year 2).................................................................................................................. 28
Figure S16: Ease of home computer access reported by students across
Year 1 and Year 2....................................................................................................................... 29
Figure S17: Average number of minutes students report using a computer at home...... 30
Table S1: Grade level and Academy affiliation for Tech Goes Home
Participants (Year 2)................................................................................................................. 31
Figure S18: Average number of minutes TGH and non-TGH students report
using a home computer............................................................................................................ 32
Figure S19: Average frequency of students year 1 and year 2 reported various
home computer uses................................................................................................................. 33
Figure S20: Average time TGH and non-TGH students report using their home
computer across tasks/applications........................................................................................ 34
Teacher Survey Results.............................................................................................................. 35
Table T1: Average frequency of teachers’ “preparedness” to use technology
for instruction across survey administrations...................................................................... 35
Figure T1: Average teachers’ preparedness to use technology for classroom
instruction across survey administrations............................................................................ 36
Figure T2: Average teachers’ frequency of “having entire class use technology”
across survey administrations................................................................................................. 37
Figure T3: Primary subject teachers’ average reported frequency of their
students’ use of technology across survey administrations................................................. 38
Figure T4: Primary subject teachers’ average reported frequency of students’
recent uses of technology (new student uses added to the June 2008 survey)................. 39
Figure T5: Average frequency of a variety of assigned student products as
reported by their primary subject teachers across survey administrations...................... 40
Figure T6: Average frequency of a variety of technology uses as reported by
their primary subject teachers across survey administrations............................................ 41
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
iii
Figure T7: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’ use of a computer
for communication across survey administrations.............................................................. 42
Figure T8: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’ technology
practices across survey administrations................................................................................ 43
Table T2: Summary of educational practices across primary subject teachers,
elective subject teachers, and special education teachers across three survey
administrations......................................................................................................................... 44
Figure T9: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’ communication and
collaboration activities across survey administrations........................................................ 45
Figure T10: Primary subject teachers’ educational practices and beliefs across
survey administrations (1)....................................................................................................... 46
Figure T11: Primary subject teachers’ educational practices and beliefs across
survey administrations (2)....................................................................................................... 47
Table T3: Average percent of students engaged during class as reported by primary,
elective, and special education teachers across survey administrations............................ 48
Table T4: Average percent of students on-task during class as reported by primary,
elective, and special education teachers across survey administrations............................ 48
Figure T12: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’ participation in a
variety of professional development activities across survey administrations................. 49
Figure T13: Primary subject teacher average satisfaction with professional
development activities across survey administrations......................................................... 50
Table T5: Summary of teachers’ home Internet access and type across
survey administrations............................................................................................................. 51
Figure T14: Average number of minutes teachers report using technology
at home on a typical school day across survey administrations......................................... 51
Figure T15: Average number of minutes teachers report using technology
at home on a typical non-school day across survey administrations................................ 52
Discussion................................................................................................................................. 53
References.................................................................................................................................. 58
Appendix A: Frederick Wireless Learning Student Survey...................................................... 60
Appendix B: Frederick Wireless Learning Teacher Survey...................................................... 70
inTASC REPORT
1
October 2008
Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School
Wireless Learning Initiative
Year 2 Evaluation Results:
Student and Teacher Survey Results
Damian Bebell and Rachel Kay
Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative
Lynch School of Education
Boston College
Executive Summary
The Wireless Learning Initiative is a nearly two-year old 1:1 student and teacher laptop program
at the Lilla G. Fredrick Pilot Middle School (LGFPMS) in Boston, Massachusetts. The current report
summarizes the results from teacher and student surveys that have been collected during the first
two years of the project implementation including measures of technology use and teaching practices both before and after the introduction of student laptops across all grade levels (six through
eighth) and the four school Academies. Although the student deployment was relatively short (less
than one full school year for most grades), the results contained several notable findings.
Widespread student use of technology throughout the school
After the first year of the school wide student deployment of computers, students and teachers
both reported robust student use of technology across a wide spectrum of educational uses in and
out of the classroom. Specifically, survey results clearly document Frederick students’ systematic
and frequent use the schools technology resources across all grade levels, Academies, and across the
entire curriculum. The Frederick community also reported using an impressive and increasingly diverse use of technology to support their learning during the 2007/2008 academic year. Specifically,
some of the most frequently occurring individual uses of technology reported by students during
the first year of full laptop implementation included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Emailing and communicate with their teachers,
Taking a test, quiz, or practice test using a computer,
Finding information on the Internet,
Writing and edit papers,
Creating a PowerPoint presentation,
Using Study Island,
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
2
• Work collaboratively with other students, and
• Looking up grades using a computer.
Major increases in students’ use of technology reported in 2007/2008
Prior to the deployment of any student laptops, Frederick students regularly (albeit sometimes
infrequently) reported using educational technology across their classes in all grade levels and
Academies. After one year of school wide laptop deployment, students and teachers nearly universally reported substantial increases in the students’ use of technology in the classroom during the
laptop deployment period with statistically significant increases reported across all surveyed subject
areas.
Excellent data collection and response rates
Year 2 data collection (May–June 2008) was the most successful to date with response rates
over 95% for both student and teacher surveys. Although the response rate was substantially less in
the control group schools, 1119 student surveys were collected from students in non-1:1 settings
providing valuable comparison data.
Widespread teacher use of technology throughout the school
Both student and teacher survey results clearly show that the majority of Frederick teachers
continue integrating technology in a wide variety of ways across the curriculum. After the first full
year of the student laptop deployment, teachers continue to devlop an incredibly diverse catalogue
of educational technology applications across all aspect of the curriculum and their professional responsibilities. Some of the most frequent teacher uses of technology reported during the 2007/2008
academic year included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
emailing and communication,
performing lesson planning and research,
delivering instruction,
creating tests, quizzes for students,
creating handouts and/or materials for students,
accommodating students with special needs, and
grading and administrative record keeping.
Major increases in teachers’ use of technology reported in 2007/2008
Prior to the deployment of student laptops, Frederick teachers had already adopted and integrated technology into their professional work to a large degree. Despite this high degree of initial
use, major increases in teachers’ use of technology were observed for “delivering instruction/presenting information to the class”, “helping students understand concepts”, and “creating/maintaining web sites”, and “creating multimedia” during the 2007/2008 school year. In addition, primary
subject teachers reported major increases in the percent of time their students used a computer in
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
3
class as well as increases in the how frequently their students create a wide variety of educational
products using technology.
Student access and use of technology at home remains high
On average, Frederick students reported using their home computer one hour each school day
and well over two hours per day on weekends and vacations during the 2007/2008 school year.
The most popular home computer uses included use of the computer to “search the Internet for
fun”, “chat”, “download music or videos from the web” and “e-mail”. In addition, students regularly
reported using their home computer for educational purposes such as “write papers for school” (approximately 30 minutes per day on average) and “search the Internet for school” (approximately 15
to 30 minutes per day on average).
Tech Goes Home makes positive impact on students’
home access and use
The current paper provides the first quantitative inquiry into the Tech Goes Home initiative,
which flourished under the direction of school leadership during the 2007/2008 academic year and
has provided home laptop computers to about half of all Frederick students since the program’s
inception. Although the program is relatively young, it is clear from the student survey results that
those students who participated in the program used technology at home much the same way that
students who already had technology access in their home. Particularly interesting are the results
which show the frequent use of home computers by Tech Goes Home participants to work on school
related assignments such as writing papers for school and conducting research for school projects
using the Internet.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
4
Introduction
Background
Few modern educational initiatives have been as widespread, dramatic, and costly as the integration of computer technologies into American classrooms. Believing that increased use of computers
will lead to improved teaching and learning, greater efficiency, and the development of important
skills in students, educational leaders have made multi-billion dollar investments in educational
technologies such that the national ratio of students to computers has dropped from 125:1 in 1983
to 4:1 in 2002 (where it has largely remained) (Russell, Bebell, & Higgins, 2004). While access to
computers has increased, teachers and students in traditional school environments generally report
using computers in schools for only a small amount of time each day, with the least amount of use
typically occurring in science and mathematics classes (Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004; Russell,
Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003; Ravitz, Wong, & Becker, 1999). Despite the many ways in
which computers can be distributed within schools (e.g., in labs, libraries, or on shared carts), many
observers theorize that the disjuncture between the dramatic increase in the presence of computers
in schools and the relatively stagnant amount of use results in part because student-to-computer
ratios have not yet reached a stage at which the technology is ubiquitous (Bull, Bull, Garofolo, &
Harris, 2002; Papert, 1996; Rockman, 1998).
Both proponents and opponents of educational technology agree that the full effects of technology in schools cannot be fully realized until the technology is no longer a shared resource (Oppenheimer, 2003; Papert, 1992, 1996). Currently, a new educational reality has been emerging as
thousands of students and teachers have been provided with their own laptop computers. Currently,
Henrico County School District in Virginia has implemented the fifth year of a district-wide 1:1
laptop program for grades 6 through 12 and the state of Maine has recently renewed a second threeyear contract for a state-wide laptop program which provides a laptop to all students and teachers
in the states grade 7 and 8 classroom. In 2003–2004, it was estimated that 4% of the nations’ school
districts were implementing some form of 1:1 computing. In 2006, it was estimated that close to 25%
of school districts are implementing some form of a 1:1 laptop program (eSchool News, 2006). Specifically, 1:1 programs now exist across the country in a wide variety of settings including large-scale
1:1 initiatives underway in South Dakota, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, California, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Michigan. In addition, international attention
has been recently focused on the adoption of 1:1 computing through the “One Laptop Per Child”
Initiative, which provides bulk quantities of inexpensive laptop computers for educational purposes
in third world countries (www.laptop.org).
Early research and evaluation studies suggest several positive outcomes from 1:1 laptop initiatives including: increased student engagement (Cromwell, 1999; Rockman, 1998; MEPRI, 2003),
decreased disciplinary problems (Baldwin, 1999; MEPRI, 2003), increased use of computers for
writing, analysis and research (Cromwell, 1999; Baldwin, 1999; Guignon, 1998; Russell, Bebell, &
Higgins, 2004), and a movement towards student-centered classrooms (Rockman, 1998). Baldwin
(1999) also documented effects on student behaviors at home such that students reported spending
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
5
less time watching television and more time on homework. Similarly, Russell, Bebell and Higgins
(2004) report that students’ academic use of computers at home occurred more frequently when
students were provided with their own laptops. In addition, an evaluation of the Maine laptop program (Silvernail & Lane, 2004) and of a laptop program in Andover, Massachusetts (Russell, Bebell,
& Higgins, 2004) provide evidence that substantially more use of laptops is occurring in science and
mathematics classes in comparison to what has been found in studies that focus on non-1:1 laptop
settings (Ravitz, Wong, & Becker, 1999; Russell, O’Brien, Bebell, & O’Dwyer, 2003).
With these limited measures of success, 1:1 computing has recently captured the imagination of
many educational and political leaders looking to reform educational practices and underperforming schools. In addition, a number of political leaders have suggested that providing students access
to powerful and widespread technology will result in long term economic prosperity. In the last few
years, a number of legislators and politicians have promoted 1:1 computing in various public school
settings including a recent proposal from the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois to provide 170,000
seventh graders across the state with laptops. For example, in two months alone (June–July 2006),
major state-funded investments in 1:1 laptop environments have been reported in South Dakota ($4
million), Pennsylvania ($20 million) and Massachusetts ($1.25 million). Within school settings, the
promise of 1:1 computing has also taken root; nearly 50% of school district chief technology officers
reported in a recent national survey that they were likely to purchase a computing device for each
student in their district by 2011 (Hayes, 2006).
However, despite growing interest in and excitement about 1:1 computing, there is a lack of sufficient, sustained, large-scale research andevaluation that focuses on teaching and learning in these
intensive computing environments. Specifically, there is a lack of evidence that relates use of technology in these 1:1 settings with measures of student achievement. For example, despite the fact that
the state of Maine has recently re-authorized the nation’s largest laptop initiative, little high-quality
empirical evidence has been published about the impacts of the program on student achievement.
This is a particularly salient issue in light of the high cost of implementing and maintaining 1:1 laptop initiatives and the current climate of educational policy whereby student achievement is held as
the benchmark of successful school reforms and initiatives under state and federal mandates such
as NCLB.
A number of methodological and psychometric challenges are partially responsible for this
lack of research including (1) the way in which students’ and teachers’ technology use is measured,
(2) a lack of prior student achievement measures or comparison groups, (3) a reliance exclusively
on paper based tests in high-tech classroom environments, and (4) poor alignment of measurement tools. The recently launched Wireless Learning Program at the Lilla G Frederick Pilot Middle
School provides a unique opportunity to document the effects of 1:1 computing on teaching and
learning using a variety of methodological techniques that overcome many common methodological challenges and shortcomings.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
6
The Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School’s Wireless Learning Program
Since opening its doors in 2003 as a public pilot school in the Dorchester neighborhood of
Boston, the Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School has placed a strong emphasis on educational
technology. The school serves a large proportion of students from traditionally disadvantaged and
low-income families and has built a local reputation for a number of programs that have yielded
positive impacts within their community.
The Lilla G. Frederick School serves approximately 650 sixth through eighth grade students
equally divided across four Academies operating semi-independently within a newly-designed state
of the art facility. There are approximately 57 classroom teachers at the Frederick school in addition
to about 20 full and part time support staff that will receive laptops through the Initiative. The reported student to teacher ratio at the school is 12 to 1, slightly less than the respective city and state
averages of 12.4 and 13.1, respectively. Based upon the 532 students who completed the June 2007
survey approximately 47% of the student population is male and 53% female. When students were
asked to estimate the number of books in their homes (a common proxy for socio-economic status
and parental education level), nearly 60% of respondents reported having 25 or less books in their
home currently. Approximately 20% of students reported having over 50 books at home. Approximately 85% of all students reported having at least one computer at home, with 84% of students’
home computers connected to the Internet.
Based upon the 2005/2006 state enrollment statistics, a majority of Frederick students are reported to be of African American (60.2%) and Hispanic (35.8%) race/ethnicity. Eighty-five (85%)
percent of Frederick students are classified as “low income” according to state indicators. In addition, thirty percent of Frederick students (30.1%) did not speak English as their first language while
14.5% of students are currently classified as “Limited English Proficient”. Approximately 25% of the
student population receives Special Education services.
According to the state’s school profile before the deployment of the Wireless Learning Initiative, all of the school’s classrooms were “on the Internet” and there were 6.3 students per “modern”
computer in the building.
In this progressive educational climate, the Wireless Learning three-year pilot program was
launched in 2006 to investigate the potential of a 1:1 technology program to transform teaching
and learning. As a pilot program, the Frederick Wireless Learning Program is making research and
evaluation a focal point of its work, with the goal of providing meaningful data to local and national
educators and policy makers.
The three-year technology immersion program was officially launched during the 2006–2007
school year and has since provided all teachers and students within the school with an Apple laptop computer. In addition to the computer hardware, the school has universal high-speed wireless
Internet access as well as various professional development and training opportunities to help
teachers integrate their new technology into their teaching. At the beginning of the first year of
the program (Fall 2006) all teaching staff received laptop computers in addition to required training and professional development sessions. Student laptops were provided to nearly all seventh
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
7
grade students in early April 2007 and were used throughout the remaining two and a half months
(approximately 10 weeks) of the school year.
Students across all grade levels were provided individual laptops in the second year of the program (2007–2008 academic year). Because of concerns that students traveling to and from school
with laptops could be victimized by crime, students do not take their school laptops home, although
a citywide technology program, Tech Goes Home (TGH), has been notably successful at the Frederick school providing hundreds of students’ families access to a home computer after mandatory
parent training throughout the first two years of the projects implementation.
Wireless Learning Evaluation Plan
To be most effective, any educational program evaluation must be well aligned with the stated
program goals, aims and impacts it aims to study. In the development of the current evaluation design, the evaluation team relied heavily on the Frederick Middle School’s Wireless Learning Master
Plan (MTPC, 2006) to create a plan that reflects the specific attributes and conditions inherent in
the school’s implementation plan. Specifically, the evaluation team examined each of the program’s
stated goals and constructed a number of methodological approaches to systematically evaluate the
measurable results for each potential impact. As such, the current evaluation design was developed
in direct alignment with the Wireless Learning Program Master Plan.
As previously outlined in the Frederick Wireless Learning Evaluation Plan (Bebell, 2006), the
current research capitalizes on the staggered deployment schedule of the 1:1 student laptops. In
other words, the evaluation incorporates the naturally occurring pre and post conditions across
different grade levels to help investigate the effects of 1:1 computing. Given this staggered student
laptop deployment, each of the evaluation’s three years will take a specific approach to examining
the results of the program with a different grade level. Year 1 of the study focused on the pre/post
comparison of seventh grade teachers and students, while collecting baseline data for Grades 6 and
8. Year 2 follows a similar approach but focuses on a pre/post investigation across all grade levels.
In Year 3, all of Frederick students and teachers will be participating in the Wireless Learning Initiative for the full school year providing the best opportunity to investigate the impacts on student
achievement measures across all three grade levels. Thus, to maximize the capacity of the evaluation
to capture the impacts of the program, the evaluation plan has been designed to focus the majority
of resources on Year 3 of the study (2008-2009).
To summarize, each year of the Frederick Wireless Learning Program evaluation has a nuanced
aim and purpose:
• Year 1: Grade 7 pre/post effects
• Year 2: Grade 6, 7, and 8 pre/post effects
• Year 3: Grades 6, 7, 8 continued effects; Achievement Study
Using pre/post measures across each grade level, the Frederick Wireless evaluation will follow
the deployment of the student laptops and examine each grade level separately over the three years
of the study. In the current report, results from the student and teacher surveys are presented across
multiple administrations before and during the first two years of the projects implementation. Table
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
8
1, below, provides a summary of the available student and teacher survey data encompassing the
results that are presented in the current paper:
Table 1:
Summary of Year 1 and 2 survey data
Grade
Survey Administration Date
Student Laptop Status
Results
6
June 2007
pre-laptop
6
September 2007
pre-laptop (2)
6
June 2008
post-laptop
7
April 2007
pre-laptop
7
June 2007
post-laptop
Year 1
7
June 2008
post-laptop (2)
Year 2
8
June 2007
pre-laptop
8
June 2008
post-laptop
Year 2
Year 2
As shown above, the teacher and student survey schedule was applied to parallel the staggered
student deployment during the first two years of the student laptop implementation. In the first year
of the study, pre/post comparisons were examined over the ten weeks that seventh graders participated in 1:1 computing (April 2007 to June 2007). Non-laptop students from Grades 6 and 8 also
completed surveys at the end of the 2006–2007 school year which also provided additional comparison data in the Year 1 report. In the current examination of the Year 2 project results (2007/2008
academic year), seventh grade results from pre-laptop conditions (April 2007) and sixth and eighth
grade results from pre-laptop conditions (June 2007) are compared to post-student laptop results
collected across all grade levels on the last days of the 2007/2008 school year (June 2008).
Year 2 (2007–2008) Evaluation Overview
As previously stated, the evaluation goal for second year of the Frederick 1:1 study was to compare the pre and post technology and learning conditions across all grade levels in the four Academies comprising the Frederick school. The comprehensive evaluation plan was presented to the
Frederick community in summer 2006 and served as a guide throughout all Year 2 data collection
(Bebell, 2006). All teacher and student surveys were developed collaboratively between the Frederick leadership and the evaluation team to provide instruments for longitudinal use throughout the
study by documenting and tracking teacher and student attitudes, beliefs, and educational practices
including a wide variety of technology uses. Copies of the student and teacher surveys employed in
this study can be found at: http://www.bc.edu/lgf.
In addition to teacher and student surveys, students also completed a pre/post drawing exercise
that explored students’ perception of themselves “writing in school”. More traditional educational research methodologies were also employed during the first two years of the project including
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
9
teacher and staff interviews as well as classroom observations. The current paper focuses on the
results from the pre and post-laptop surveys from both teachers and students (April and June 2007).
Results from the first year of the study can be found in the Year 1 evaluation report (Bebell, 2007).
Sample and Response Rates
Student Survey: Background and Response Rates
As more fully described in the LGFPMS Wireless Learning Initiative evaluation plan (Bebell,
2006), every participating seventh grade student in the laptop program was to be surveyed prior
to and approximately three months after receiving a laptop during the first year of the initiative. A
web-based survey focused on the frequency of many student technology uses both in and out of the
classroom and across the curriculum. Students were additionally asked to report on the frequency
of their teachers’ use of technology across major curricular areas (Math, Reading/English Language
Arts, Social Studies, and Science) in addition to demographic items and a brief attitudes and beliefs
inventory. In every case, survey items were created or adapted specifically for the current study and
were extensively examined by the evaluation team.
Table 2 shows the student survey response rates across all grade levels for the April 2007, June
2007, and June 2008 survey administration.
Table 2: Student survey response rates
Survey
Eligible Students
Survey Responses
Response Rate
April 2007
197
190
96.4%
June 2007
578
544
94.1%
June 2008
606
593
97.9%
As Table 2 shows, the April 2007 pre-laptop student survey was completed online by 190 of the
total 197 seventh grade students who were issued a laptop computer during Year 1 of the initiative,
resulting in an overall response rate of 96.4%. Both the June 2007 and June 2008 student surveys
were intended for students across all grade levels to complete. As shown above, the overall response
rate across all grade levels for the June 2007 student survey was 544 of the 578 eligible students or
94.1%. Incidentally, the response rate for the seventh grade was 100% of all eligible students (n=197)
who were able to complete the online survey using their new laptops. The overall response rate for
the June 2008 student survey was 593 out of the 606 eligible students of 97.9% (when students across
all grades had 1:1 laptops).
One of the many advantages in using online surveys in such a rich technology environment
is the instant documentation of who has completed the survey. For all survey collections to date,
logs of student and teacher survey status were emailed to school administration on a daily basis.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
10
This, combined with the persistence of motivated school faculty and administration, resulted in the
exemplary response rates achieved by the school across data collection periods.
It should be noted that a small percentage of students were exempted from the survey due to
severe special needs (i.e. autism) in addition to Somali speaking students who lacked adequate
English skills to meaningfully complete the survey. To provide for the large number on Spanish
speaking students, the student survey was translated and made available for students in Spanish.
Teacher Survey: Background and Response Rates
As detailed in the LGFPMS Wireless Learning Initiative evaluation plan (Bebell, 2006) and
Year 1 Teacher Results (Bebell, 2007), every participating teacher in the laptop program was to be
surveyed twice during the 2006–2007 school year. Specifically, teachers completed the survey in a
mandatory after-school meeting in late November 2006 and again near the end of the school year
in June 2007. Given that teachers were provided laptops by the school in late October 2006, no
baseline data was collected representing pre-laptop teacher conditions/practices. Thus, the earliest
teacher survey administration represents pre-student laptop conditions but not pre-teacher laptop
conditions. Teachers were surveyed again after the first full year of student laptop implementation
in June 2008.
The teacher survey focused on the frequency of many teacher and student technology uses both
in and out of the classroom and across the curriculum. Teachers were additionally asked to report
on the frequency of their pedagogical practices as well as their attitudes and beliefs towards educational technology and teaching and learning. In every case, survey items were created or adapted
specifically for the current study and were extensively examined by the evaluation team.
Table 3 shows the teacher survey response rates across all grade levels for the November 2006,
June 2007, and June 2008 survey administration.
Table 3: Teacher survey response rates
Survey
Eligible Teachers
Survey Responses
Response Rate
November 2006
57
55
96.5%
June 2007
57
47
82.5%
June 2008
57
56
98.2%
The November 2006 teacher survey was completed by 55 of the total 57 Frederick staff members
who were issued a laptop computer during Year 1 of the initiative, resulting in an overall response
rate of 96.5%. The June 2007 teacher survey was completed by 47 of the total 57 Frederick teachers,
resulting in a response rate of 82.5%. At the completion of Year 2 (June 2008), 56 out of the 57 eligible teaching staff completed the survey resulting in 98.2% response rate. Table 4 summarizes the
grade level and academy affiliation for the teacher survey respondents across administrations.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
Table 4: Teacher
Affiliation
11
Grade level and Academy affiliations across teacher
survey responses
Nov. 06
respondents
% of Nov. 06
responses
June 07
respondents
% of June 07
responses
June 08
responses
% of June 08
responses
Grade 6
35
63.6%
28
59.6%
44
78.6%
Grade 7
42
76.4%
37
78.7%
49
87.5%
Grade 8
42
76.4%
36
76.6%
49
87.5%
Academy 1
19
34.5%
16
34.0%
17
30.4%
Academy 2
18
32.7%
12
25.5%
19
33.9%
Academy 3
23
41.8%
18
38.3%
20
35.7%
Academy 4
21
38.2%
16
34.0%
19
33.9%
Total
respondents
55
100%
47
100%
56
100%
As Table 4 shows, the majority of Frederick teachers teach multiple grade levels and many teach
across Academies. Comparing the November 2006, June 2007, and June 2008 survey respondents,
we observe little change in the grade affiliations while we observe that elective teachers overlap
across Academies, although most primary subject teachers report working within a single school
Academy. Table 5, below, continues the exploration of the teacher survey samples with a summary
of teachers’ principle subject area(s).
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
Table 5: 12
Principle subject affiliation for teacher survey respondents
Teacher
Affiliation
Nov. 06
% of Nov. 06
June 07
% of June 07 June 08 % of June 08
respondents responses respondents responses responses responses
Math
19
34.5%
16
34.0%
22
39.3%
Science
15
27.3%
11
23.4%
15
26.8%
Humanities
11
20.0%
14
29.8%
14
25.0%
English/
Language Arts
10
18.2%
11
23.4%
11
19.6%
Electives (PE,
Music, Art, etc.)
9
16.4%
7
14.9%
7
12.5%
Social Studies /
History/
Geography
8
14.5%
9
19.1%
7
12.5%
Other
5
9.1%
2
4.3%
17
23.3%
Special Education
4
7.3%
3
6.4%
7
12.5%
Total
respondents
55
100%
47
100%
73*
100%
*Collected responses from those teachers who classified solely as “other” are not analyzed in the current paper, which
focuses primarily on the 56 classroom teachers (out of a total of 57) who completed the survey.
As Table 5 shows, teachers from a wide variety of academic subjects completed the November
2006, June 2007, and June 2008 surveys. Like teachers’ grade affiliation, many teachers reported
teaching more than one subject area. Nevertheless, math teachers were the largest single group of
respondents comprising approximately 34% of November 2006 and June 2007 completed surveys
and 39 percent of the of the June 2008 surveys. Taken collectively, Tables 4 and 5 show that the
majority of teacher respondents cannot be easily categorized into a single grade level, or even
subject area.
In addition to the primary subject areas, approximately 15% of survey respondents were elective
teachers (physical education, music, art, etc.). Four Special Education teachers (7.3%) completed
the November 2006 survey while 5 teachers (9.1%) reported teaching something “other” than the
list on the November survey. In the June 2007 survey, 3 Special Education teachers (6.4%) and 2
“other” teachers (4.3%) completed the survey. Due to school efforts to include nearly all working
staff in the June 2008 survey, 7 Special Education teachers (12.5%) and 17 “other” teachers (23.3%)
completed the survey. Typically, the “other” teachers reported that they worked across all Academies
either in the library or as support staff, or administration.
The remaining pages of this report are devoted to the Year 1 and 2 student and teacher survey
results. A prior report issued in early September 2007 examined data collected from the initial 7th
grade laptop deployment during the 2006/2007 school year and can be accessed from: http://www.
bc.edu/lgf.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
13
Student Survey Results
Before examining the findings of the Year 1 and Year 2 student survey results, it is particularly
important to note that the current data represents only the first year of the school wide student laptop implementation. As such, the results present a newly emerging 1:1 laptop program. The findings
presented herein therefore should not be an indication of the overall success or failure of initiative
goals but rather an exploration of the conditions present in the first months of the full programs
implementation. It has been postulated in the literature that the full impacts of any major educational technology initiative may take many years to be realized.
Because of the staggered student deployment schedule, survey results presented in the following
tables and figures are collapsed into pre-laptop (Year 1) and post-laptop (Year 2) survey conditions.
Thus, throughout the following student survey results:
• Year 1 = April 2007 (Grade 7)
June 2007 (Grades 6 and 8)
• Year 2 = June 2008 (All grades)
Figure S1: Average frequency of technology use in the classroom as
reported across grade levels and pre and post laptop surveys
Year 1
Year 2
3.5
Grade 6
5.3
3.2
Grade 7
5.4
2.7
Grade 8
5.6
1
2
3
4
5
Scale: 1 = Never; 2 = Every couple of months 3 = Once a month; 4 = Once a week; 5 = Couple times per week;
6= Every day
• Students’ average technology use in the classroom increased dramatically across
all grade levels.
–– Pre-laptop classroom use typically occurred about once a month.
–– Post-laptop classroom use was typically more than a “couple times per week”
• Grade 8 students reported the most dramatic average increase going from less than
once a month in June 2007 to nearly every day by June 2008
6
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
14
Figure S2: Average frequency of technology use in the library as reported
across grade levels and pre and post laptop surveys
Year 2
Year 1
2.6
Grade 6
2.1
2.9
Grade 7
3.0
2.0
Grade 8
2.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
Scale: 1 = Never; 2 = Every couple of months 3 = Once a month; 4 = Once a week; 5 = Couple times per week;
6= Every day
• Student Use of technology in the library was infrequent compared to classroom use.
–– Grade 7 students used technology in the library more frequently than other grades.
• There was little difference between students Year 1 and Year 2 use of technology in the
library.
–– A small decrease was observed for sixth grade use of technology in the library.
–– No appreciable difference was observed in seventh grade use of technology in
the library.
–– A small increase was observed in eighth grade use of technology in the library.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
15
Figure S3: Average frequency of students’ use of technology in primary
subject areas as reported across grade levels and pre and post
laptop surveys
Year 1
2.9
Science
Grade 6
Math
4.5
2.4
4.7
2.7
Grade 6
4.5
2.9
Grade 7
4.7
2.2
Grade 8
Social Studies
4.5
2.6
Grade 7
Grade 8
English/Language Arts
Year 2
5.0
2.3
Grade 6
4.6
2.9
Grade 7
4.5
3.1
Grade 8
5.0
2.3
Grade 6
5.0
3.0
Grade 7
5.2
2.5
Grade 8
1
2
5.3
3
4
5
6
Scale: 1 = Never; 2 = Every couple of months; 3 = Once a month; 4 = Once a week; 5 = Couple times per week;
6 = Every day
• Very robust increases in students’ technology use across all subject areas in all grade
levels after a single year of school wide student laptop deployment
• After the first year of school wide 1:1 computing:
–– Most frequent use across the grade levels was generally reported by eighth grade.
–– Least frequent use across the grade levels was generally reported by sixth grade.
–– Most frequent use across subject areas was generally reported in English Language
Arts (ELA) classes, although use was widespread across all surveyed subject areas.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
16
Figure S4: Average frequency of students’ use of technology in primary
subject areas as reported across Academies and pre and post
laptop surveys
Year 1
2.8
Science
Academy 4
Math
5.0
2.9
Academy 2
4.9
3.2
4.8
2.6
Academy 4
4.3
3.6
Academy 3
5.2
2.4
4.2
2.7
Academy 4
4.6
3.3
Academy 3
5.1
3.9
Academy 2
2.6
Academy 1
5.7
3.4
2.8
Academy 4
4.7
3.3
Academy 3
5.3
3.7
Academy 2
Academy 1
5.2
3.5
Academy 2
Academy 1
Social Studies
3.6
3.2
Academy 3
Academy 1
English/Language Arts
Year 2
2.4
5.6
4.8
1
2
3
4
5
Scale: 1 = Never; 2 = Every couple of months; 3 = Once a month; 4 = Once a week; 5 = Couple times per week;
6 = Every day
6
• Very robust increases in students’ technology use across all subject areas and across
all Academies after a single year of school wide student laptop deployment
• After first year of school wide 1:1 computing:
–– Student in most subjects and across all Academies reported using technology more
than “a couple time week” and in some cases almost “daily” in their primary classes.
–– Student technology use was widespread across all subject areas, rather than
concentrated within a single subject area.
–– Most frequent student use across the subject areas was generally reported in
Academy 2.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
17
Figure S5: Average frequency of teachers’ use of technology in primary
subject areas (as reported by students) across grade level and
pre and post laptop surveys
Year 1
Science
Grade 6
3.5
4.7
4.6
4.5
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 6
Math
Year 2
4.2
5.0
4.4
4.9
Grade 7
5.1
4.6
Social Studies
Grade 8
English/Language Arts
5.1
5.4
4.6
Grade 6
5.0
4.9
Grade 7
5.2
4.8
Grade 8
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
5.5
4.4
5.2
4.5
5.4
4.7
5.4
1
2
3
4
5
Scale: 1 = Never; 2 = Every couple of months; 3 = Once a month; 4 = Once a week; 5 = Couple times per week;
6 = Every day
6
• On average, students reported that their teachers used technology frequently (nearly
every day) across all subject areas and grade levels during the 2007/2008 school year.
• Differences between the Year 1 and Year 2 averages showed statistically significant
increases for nearly all measured categories of teachers technology use, however the
increase was less dramatic than reported for student use, likely since teachers were
already equipped with laptops at the time of the Year 1 student survey.
• The frequency of Year 2 teacher technology use was generally greatest in eighth grade
and weakest in sixth grade, although differences were often small
• The pattern for science classes was slightly different, with the least frequent teacher
use being reported for seventh grade, where use has actually decreased a slight amount
since Year 1.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
18
Figure S6: Average frequency of teachers’ use of technology in primary
subject areas (as reported by students) across Academies
and pre and post laptop surveys
Year 1
Year 2
4.3
Science
Academy 1
Academy 2
4.6
3.8
Academy 3
3.6
Academy 4
5.0
4.0
3.7
Academy 1
Math
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.4
Academy 2
4.6
Academy 3
4.5
Academy 4
Social Studies
5.4
4.7
4.6
Academy 1
4.8
5.1
Academy 2
4.6
Academy 3
5.2
4.7
Academy 1
5.6
5.2
4.4
Academy 4
English/Language Arts
4.8
5.4
5.2
Academy 2
4.6
Academy 3
5.4
3.8
Academy 4
1
2
3
4
5.7
5.0
5
6
Scale: 1 = Never; 2 = Every couple of months; 3 = Once a month; 4 = Once a week; 5 = Couple times per week;
6 = Every day
• On average, students reported that their teachers used technology quite frequently
(nearly every day) across all subject areas and across all Academies during the
2007/2008 school year.
• Generally all of the Academies witnessed similar growth in the frequency of studentreported teacher technology use, although Academy 1 and teachers had some of the
largest increases in reported use.
• The frequency of Year 2 teacher technology use (as reported by students) was generally
greatest for Academy 2, although not across all subject areas.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
19
Figure S7: Average frequency of students’ pre-laptop and post-laptop
in-school usage of technology
Year 1
Year 2
Found information using the
Internet in School
3.2
4.2
2.2
Access a teacher’s web site in school
3.9
Looked up your grades using
a computer in school
3.8
3.1
Worked in groups
3.7
Used Study Island in school
3.6
Taken a test or quiz using
a computer in school
3.5
Solved problems using
a computer in school
Played educational
computer games in school
Edited papers using
a computer in school
2.1
3.5
2.3
3.4
2.3
3.3
2.0
Sent or received email in school
Written a first draft using
a computer in school
3.3
2.3
Created a PowerPoint
presentation in school
3.3
2.4
3.3
1.9
Emailed a teacher
3.2
Presented information to the class
using a computer in school
2.4
Taken notes using
a computer in school
Analyzed data using
a computer in school
3.1
1.8
3.1
1.9
3.0
Posted/replied to a blog in school
3.0
Used a drop box in school
3.0
Helped a student fix a
a computer problem in school
1.9
2.7
Used FOSS in school
2.6
Kept track of dates using
a computer in school
1.6
Helped a teacher fix a
a computer problem in school
1.6
0
1
2.2
2.0
2
3
4
5
Scale: 0 = Never; 1= Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month; 4 = Several times a week;
5 = Every day
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
20
• Overall, Year 2 students reported their use of technology was incredibly diverse with
frequent use occurring for a variety of educational uses of technology during the first
full year of the school wide laptop deployment. A sampling of the most frequently
reported student uses included:
–– Email and communicate with their teachers
–– Take a test, quiz, or practice test using a computer
–– Find information on the Internet
–– Write and edit papers
–– Create a PowerPoint presentation
–– Use Study Island
–– Work collaboratively with other students
–– Look up grades using a computer
• Although most students reported using technology for a variety of tasks in the Year 1
survey, the frequency of nearly all surveyed uses increased substantially in the second
year of the program implementation.
• Across the grade levels, eighth grade students generally reported slightly greater
frequency of individual technology uses during Year 2.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
21
Figure S8: Average frequency of students’ pre-laptop and
post-laptop products
Year 2
Year 1
2.7
Web pages
4.1
2.9
Reports/Term papers
3.7
2.4
Multimedia
3.5
2.6
Stories/Books
3.3
2.7
Graphs/Charts
3.3
2.3
Pictures/Artwork
3.3
1.9
Videos/Movies
0
1
2
3.0
3
4
5
Scale: 0 = Never; 1= Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month; 4 = Several times a week;
5 = Every day
• During the first year of the school-wide student deployment (Year 2) there was a
substantial increase in the frequency of creation of all surveyed student products.
• The most frequently reported student products in Year 2 were “web pages”, “reports
and term papers”, and “multimedia”.
• The largest annual increases in student products for the 2007/2008 school year were
“web pages”, “multimedia”, and “videos/movies”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
22
Figure S9: Average technology skill-levels reported by pre and post
laptop students
Year 1
Year 2
3.7
Use the Internet to find information
Use Word
3.5
Write papers using a computer
3.5
3.2
Use PowerPoint
3.4
Use spell-check or grammar-check
Use My Gradebook
3.3
3.1
Communicate using email
3.2
Type accurately
3.2
Use a printer
Figure out how to use a
new computer program
Use a school printer
3.0
3.1
2.6
Use iMovie
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
2.7
Bookmark a web site
Change the name of a file and
re-save it
Take notes using a computer
3.8
3.7
3.4
Find files on a computer
3.8
Use digital cameras
3.1
Use digital video cameras
3.0
3.1
Use Read About
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.0
Use Achieve
3.0
Use drop boxes
3.0
2.6
Create multimedia presentations
3.0
2.8
Use iPhoto
IM/Chat
2.8
2.9
2.6
Manipulate digital pictures
2.7
Use Excel
Separate facts from opinions
when using…
Customize a graph or chart
in a speadsheet
Used FASTMATH
Record and analyze data
using a spreadsheet
Create Web pages
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.4
Use student web portfolio
1
2
2.4
3
Scale: 1= I never do this; 2 = I could do this, but often needed help; 3 = I could do this, sometimes needed help;
4 = I could do this easily on my own
• Students generally report a high degree of skill in using technology for a very wide
spectrum of educational objectives.
4
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
23
• Students improved their technology skills across all measured student technology uses
in Year 2.
• Biggest increases in student technology skills were reported for “use iMovie”, “create
multimedia presentations”, “bookmark a website”, and “use PowerPoint.
Figure S10: Average of pre and post laptop students’ attitudes and beliefs
Year 1
Year 2
1.3
1.4
I like to use a computer.
I can find better information on
the Internet than from schoolbooks.
1.7
1.7
I learn a lot of new things
every day at school.
1.7
2.7
1.8
1.8
I learn more things when I use the
computer than when using schoolbooks.
I can write better when using the computer
than with a paper and pencil.
1.9
1.9
It’s faster for me to write using a computer
than with a paper and pencil.
2.0
1.9
2.5
2.5
Computers are better for games
than they are for schoolwork.
It’s easier to learn from books
than from a computer.
2.7
2.6
There is too much information on
the Internet to be useful for school work.
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
Computers are always breaking.
1
2
3
4
Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Disagree; 4 = Strongly Disagree
• Overall, students were overwhelmingly positively on their beliefs and attitudes
towards computers and using computers in school across both the Year 1 and 2
survey responses.
• The positive student attitudes showed that the majority of students very much “like
using a computer” and feel that they “can find better information on the Internet than
from schoolbooks”, “can learn more things when using computer than when using
schoolbooks”, and “can write better when using a computer than with paper and pencil”.
• Students reported the least amount of agreement to statements concerning the
limitations of the computers including “computers are always breaking” and “there
is too much information on the Internet to be useful”.
• In general, students’ attitudes and beliefs towards technology shifted relatively little
between Year 1 and Year 2.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
24
Figure S11: Average number of working computers students report at
home across grade levels (Year 2)
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
19%
3 or more
computers
16%
21%
33%
32%
2 computers
29%
34%
1 computer
43%
40%
No computer
at home
15%
8%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
• Overall, about one of every ten LGF students does not have access to a working
computer at home.
• About half of LGF students report having more than one computer at home.
–– Home computer access was greatest for seventh and eighth grade students and
lowest for sixth grade.
50%
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
25
Figure S12: Average number of working computers students report at
home (Year 1 and Year 2 comparison)
Year 1
Year 2
12.7%
3 or more
computers
18.8%
24.9%
2 computers
31.5%
45.7%
1 computer
39.1%
No computer
at home
0%
16.7%
10.7%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
• Notable decrease in the number of students who report no access to computers at home
from Year 1 (June 2007) to Year 2 (June 2008).
• Home technology access increased for students during the 2007/2008 school year.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
26
Figure S13: Type of Internet connection students report at home across
grade levels (June 2008)
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
4%
Other
3%
2%
39%
DSL/Cable/
Highspeed
45%
52%
4%
9%
Modem
8%
31%
Not sure
what kind
No home
Internet
0%
24%
19%
7%
10%
9%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
• Of the 528 Frederick students who reported computer access at home in June 2008
(see Figure S12), the overwhelming majority of students additionally report having
some form of Internet access available at their home (91%).
• Most students access the Internet through high speed Internet connection.
• Younger students (Grades 6 and 7) are less sure what type of Internet access they have
at home, but report having some way to connect to the Internet.
• Modem use is rare.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
27
Figure S14: Type of Internet connection students reported at home
(Year 1 and Year 2 comparison)
Year 1
Other
Year 2
3.5%
21.6%
45.5%
DSL/Cable/
Highspeed
31.9%
6.1%
Modem
7.6%
26.9%
Not sure
what kind
No home
Internet
0%
27.6%
18.0%
9.3%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
• There was a substantial decrease in the number of students who reported “no home
Internet” in the June 2008 survey (Year 2).
–– Again, slightly better than 90% of students with access to a home computer report
having some form of Internet access in Year 2.
• There was an increase in the percent of students who responded “Other” to how they
get Internet service at home in Year 2. When further prompted, many students added
they connected to the Internet via “wireless”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
28
Figure S15: Ease of home computer access reported by students across
grade levels (Year 2)
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
51%
Never difficult
63%
64%
43%
Sometimes difficult
27%
31%
7%
Often difficult
10%
5%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
• The majority of those Frederick students who reported some form of home
computer access in June 2008 reported that they never experienced difficulty
accessing a computer at home.
–– Less than 10% of all students reported in June 2008 it was often difficult to
access a computer at home.
70
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
29
Figure S16: Ease of home computer access reported by students across
Year 1 and Year 2
Year 1
Year 2
59.4%
Never difficult
59.4%
33.0%
Sometimes difficult
33.0%
7.6%
Often difficult
7.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
• Comparing the Year 1 and Year 2 student results, there is very little difference in
students reported ease of accessing a home computer.
70%
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
30
Figure S17: Average number of minutes students report using a
computer at home
Year 2
Typical Non-school Day
Year 1
144
Grade 6
165
178
Grade 7
172
192
Grade 8
150
63
Typical School Day
Grade 6
98
113
Grade 7
123
102
Grade 8
90
0
50
100
Minutes
150
200
• Overall, the average LGF student uses a computer highly frequently at their home.
–– On a typical school day, students, on average, report using a home computer for
about an hour and half each day.
–– On a typical non-school day, students, on average, report using a home computer for
about two and half hours each day.
• Taken collectively, we can deduce that the average LGF students who had at least one
computer at home typically used it between 10-15 hours per week, on average during
the 2007/2008 school year.
• There was a substantial number of students who reported using their home computer
far more frequently than the school average.
• Looking across Year 1 and Year 2 differences, Grade 6 student reported the greatest
increase, while Grade 8 decreased and Grade 7 was virtually the same.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
Table S1: 31
Grade level and Academy affiliation for Tech Goes Home
Participants (Year 2)
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Total
Percent
Academy 1
20
10
9
39
20.2%
Academy 2
17
25
8
50
25.9%
Academy 3
29
25
17
71
36.8%
Academy 4
11
12
10
33
17.1%
Total
77
72
44
193
100%
39.9%
37.3%
22.8%
100%
Percent
• 193 students (32.8% of all survey respondents) reported in the June 2008 that
their family participated in the Tech Goes Home program during the 2007/2008
academic year.
• Across grade levels, Grades 6 and 7 students had the greatest proportion of
Tech Goes Home participants.
• Across Academies, Academy 3 had the greatest proportion of Tech Goes Home
participants.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
32
Figure S18: Average number of minutes TGH and non-TGH students
report using a home computer
TGH Participant
Non-participant
153
Typical
Non-school
Day
171
Typical
School
Day
104
105
0
50
100
Minutes
150
200
• There was remarkably little difference in the frequency of home comuter use during
the 2007/2008 school year (Year 2) between the Tech Goes Home participants and
non-Tech Goes Home students (who reported technology access at home).
–– On a typcial school day, the TGH students reported using computers at
home nearly exactly the same ammount of time each day (104-105 minutes)
as non-Tech Goes Home students.
–– On a typcial non-school day (weekend, vacation, etc.), the TGH students reproted
using computers at home for about 20 minutes less per day.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
33
Figure S19: Average frequency of students year 1 and year 2 reported
various home computer uses
Year 1
1.8
Shop online
Year 2
2.0
2.1
Create or maintain a web site
2.3
Post or edit your own web site
2.4
2.5
Search the Internet for school
2.7
Write papers
3.0
3.0
Play games
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.4
Download music or videos
3.2
E-mail
3.5
3.4
Search the Internet for fun
3.6
3.4
Chat/Instant message
1
2
3
4.2
4
5
• At the end of Year 2, LGF students reported using their home computer for a wide variety of educational and personal uses.
• Students report using their home computers most frequently for “chatting”, “searching
the Internet for fun”, “playing games”, “downloading music or videos from the web”, and
“using e-mail”.
• In addition, students regularly report using their home computer for educational
purposes such as “writing papers for school” (approximately 30 minutes per day on
average) and “searching the Internet for school” (approximately 15 to 30 minutes per
day on average).
• Of the three grade levels, Grade 8 students reported most frequent use of home computers for “writing papers in school” and “searching the Internet for school”.
• Playing games decreased as grade level increased while chatting and email increased
with grade level.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
34
Figure S20: Average time TGH and non-TGH students report using their
home computer across tasks/applications
TGH Participant
Non-participant
1.9
2.0
Shop online
2.2
Create or maintain a web site
2.4
2.3
2.4
Post or edit your own web site
2.7
2.7
Search the Internet for school
3.1
Write papers
2.9
3.0
3.0
Play games
3.1
Download music or videos
3.5
3.4
E-mail
3.6
3.6
3.6
Search the Internet for fun
3.9
Chat/Instant message
4.3
1
2
3
4
5
Scale: 1 = Never; 2 = 15 min.; 3 = 1/2 hour; 4 = 1 hour; 5 = 1 1/2 hours; 6 = 2 hours or more
• Again, there was remarkably little difference reported between the Tech Goes Home
students and non-Tech Goes Home students in terms of how frequently they used computers at home during the 2007/2008 school year (Year 2).
–– TGH students reported using computers at home slightly more frequently then nonTGH students for “writing papers for school”.
–– Non-TGH students reported using computers at home slightly more frequently then
TGH students for “chatting/Instant Messaging”, “emailing”, “downloading music/videos”, and “creating or maintaining a web site”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
35
Teacher Survey Results
Table T1: Average frequency of teachers’ “preparedness” to use
technology for instruction across survey administrations
Nov. 2006
June 2007
June 2008
Not at all prepared
9%
2%
5%
Somewhat prepared
36%
28%
18%
Moderately well prepared
36%
38%
43%
Very well prepared
18%
32%
34%
55
45
56
Total analyzed respondents
• Since the first survey administration (Nov. 2006), LGF teachers have gradually
and steadily increased their assessment of their preparedness to use technology
for instruction.
• As of the June 2008 survey, nearly 80% of all teachers reported they feel either
“moderately well prepared” or “very well prepared” to use technology for instruction.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
36
Figure T1: Average teachers’ preparedness to use technology for
classroom instruction across survey administrations
June 07
Nov. 06
June 08
1.3
2.3
Special Ed.
2.1
1.4
Elective
1.9
1.5
1.6
Primary
1.9
2.1
0
1
2
3
Scale: 0 = Not at all prepared; 1 = Somewhat prepared; 2 = Moderately well prepared; 3 = Very well prepared
• Looking across the different classifications of LGF teachers (Special Education,
Elective Subjects, and Primary Subjects) different patterns show changes in teachers’
self assessed preparedness to use technology for classroom instruction since the
November 2006 data collection.
• Primary teachers reported linear growth across each subsequent survey administration
in their preparedness to use technology for classroom instruction, while Special
Education and Elective teachers reported being somewhat better prepared, on average,
in the June 2007 survey administration than in the June 2008 survey administration.
• Looking at the June 2008 survey results, Primary and Special Education teachers
reported a greater degree of preparedness than Elective subject teachers.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
37
Figure T2: Average teachers’ frequency of “having entire class use
technology” across survey administrations
Nov. 06
June 07
June 08
3.8
4.0
Special Ed.
5.3
0.4
Elective
1.6
2.8
2.0
Primary
3.6
5.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Scale: 0 = Never; 1 = Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month; 4 = Weekly;
5 = Several times a week; 6 = Everyday
• Across all classifications of LGF teachers (Special Education, Elective Subjects, and
Primary Subjects) there was a high degree of linear growth observed in the frequency
with which teachers have their entire class use computers since the November 2006
survey.
–– For example, in the November 2006 survey, primary subject teachers reported having
their entire class use computers about “several times per year”, on average. By June
2008, primary teachers reported having their entire use computers more than several
time per week, on average.
• Looking at the June 2008 survey results, Primary and Special Education teachers
reported having their entire class use computers more frequently on average (more
than several time per week) than the Elective subject teachers reported (nearly
several times per month).
–– However, Elective subject teachers very rarely, if ever, had their entire class use
computers before the June 2007 survey showing a substantial increase in overall use.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
38
Figure T3: Primary subject teachers’ average reported frequency of their
students’ use of technology across survey administrations
June 07
Nov. 06
0.4
0.5
Analyze digital content for
bias/validity
0.2
Use electronic plan book/
organizer/calendar
Keep track of dates and
schedule/calendar
Use peripherals
(digital camers, probes, etc.)
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.6
1.4
1.9
1.9
1.8
Complete a homework assignment
0.7
Take notes in class
0.8
Take quizzes or tests
0.4
Submit assignments electronically
2.0
2.0
1.1
2.2
1.6
2.3
1.5
Play educational games
1.5
Communicate using email
2.0
2.5
1.9
2.6
1.7
Research a topic using the Internet
2.4
1.5
Work collaboratively with
other students
0
June 08
1
2.8
2.2
2
3.0
3
4
5
Scale: 0 = Never; 1 = Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month;
4 = Several times a week; 5 = Everyday
• Primary subject teachers increasingly had their students use technology in school for
a wide variety of tasks since November 2006.
• Some of the most frequent student uses (as reported by primary subject teachers)
during the 2007/2008 academic year included using technology to:
–– Work collaboratively with other students
–– Research a topic using the Internet
–– Communicate using email
–– Play educational games
–– Submit assignment electronically
–– Take quizzes or tests
–– Take notes in class
• Greatest increases in use after the student laptop deployment began included using
technology to:
–– Work collaboratively with other students
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
39
–– Take quizzes or tests
–– Submit assignment electronically
–– Take notes in class
Figure T4: Primary subject teachers’ average reported frequency of
students’ recent uses of technology (new student uses added
to the June 2008 survey)
June 08
Use netTREKKER
search engine
0.24
Use FOSS
1.00
Create or reply
to a blog
1.48
Use a dropbox
to transfer files
or information
1.51
Use achieve.org
1.60
Download or watch
streaming video
1.79
Use Study Island
2.05
0
1
2
3
4
Scale: 0 = Never; 1 = Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month;
4 = Several times a week; 5 = Everyday
• Across the survey of potential student technology uses included in the June 2008
survey, primary subject teachers continued to report a wide variety of uses by their
students in the classroom.
5
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
40
Figure T5: Average frequency of a variety of assigned student products
as reported by their primary subject teachers across survey
administrations
June 07
Nov. 06
June 08
0.3
Web pages
0.4
0.8
0.9
Stories or books
1.3
0.8
1.1
Graphs or charts
1.5
1.2
0.5
Vidoes or movies
0.7
1.4
1.1
1.4
Pictures or artwork
1.5
0.7
1.6
Multimedia projects
1.9
1.4
1.8
Reports and term papers
1.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
Scale: 0 = Never; 1 = Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month;
4 = Several times a week; 5 = Everyday
• Since the November 2006 survey, LGF teachers generally continue to report
increases in the frequency with which they assign their students to create products
using technology in school.
• Looking at the first full year of the school wide laptop deployment (Year 2), the most
frequently occurring student products assigned by teachers remain “reports and term
papers” and “multimedia projects”.
• The biggest increases in student products since the first teacher survey administration
were reported for teachers assigning “multimedia projects” and “videos or movies”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
41
Figure T6: Average frequency of a variety of technology uses as
reported by their primary subject teachers across survey
administrations
Nov. 06
June 07
June 08
1.1
1.2
Use the CPS/clicker system
in your class
Maintain or access the
intervention systems
0.9
2.6
3.3
1.0
Create or post a comment on a blog
1.4
Prepare or maintain IEPs
using a computer
1.3
1.4
1.7
Use drop boxes to transfer files
1.8
Create WebQuests or build the
Internet into a lesson
1.5
Use Apple Remote Desktop (ARD)
Use a computer to model
relationships or functions
Create media presentations
for your class
Adapt an activity to students’
individual needs using computers
Diversify classroom practices incl. instruction
assessment and classroom mgmt.
1.3
1.7
Create and/or maintain web pages
2.4
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.8
2.8
3.2
3.1
3.2
2.9
1.7
Use a computer to present
multimedia information
2.4
Assess students using a computer
3.9
3.2
3.2
2.7
2.2
Create and manage lessons, assessments
and/or anchor sets of student work
Use a computer to help students
better understand a concept
Perform research and lesson
planning using the ‘Net
Create a test, quiz or assigment
using a computer
Use a computer to deliver
instruction to your class
Use a computer to present
information to your class
2.7
3.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.5
2.9
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.0
3.9
3.1
3.9
Use Goole applications/tools
3.9
Maintain or access administrative
records (grades, attendance, etc)
Make handouts for students
using a computer
0
1
2
3
Scale: 0 = Never; 1 = Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month;
4 = Several times a week; 5 = Everyday
4
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.1
5
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
42
• Teachers continue to report an incredibly diverse catalogue of educational technology
applications across all aspect of the curriculum and their professional responsibilities.
• Largest Year 2 increases were observed for “delivering instruction/presenting information to the class”, “helping students understand concepts”, and “creating/maintaining
web sites”, and “creating multimedia”.
Figure T7: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’ use of a
computer for communication across survey administrations
Nov. 06
June 07
June 08
2.2
My students’ parents/
guardians
1.6
2.8
2.9
The school principal
2.4
2.7
2.2
1.4
My students
2.8
3.4
Other teachers
beyond my school
3.5
2.9
4.2
My Academy leader/
administration
4.0
4.0
4.7
Other teachers
in my school
4.4
4.7
0
1
2
3
4
Scale: 0 = Never; 1 = Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month;
4 = Several times a week; 5 = Everyday
• Overall, LGF teachers continue to report widespread use of computers for
communication (i.e. email) with a wide variety of recipients throughout all
survey administrations.
• The largest average increase in using technology for communication in Year 2
(June 2008) was reported for communicating with students.
5
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
43
Figure T8: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’
technology practices across survey administrations
Nov. 06
Students use a computer
in class
June 07
June 08
30%
21%
61%
34%
You use a computer to present
information to your class
29%
47%
53%
50%
Students present information
or a topic to the rest of the class
25%
44%
Students can pursue their
own interests related to
a broad topic area
36%
22%
23%
Students work individually
32%
45%
Students work collaboratively
in pairs or in groups
0%
43%
10%
20%
30%
40%
53%
50%
50%
60%
70%
Question: Think about your average class and provide an estimate for the percent of time in your typical classes
where…
• Overall, teachers reported various changes in how class time was spent, on average,
across the three administrations of the teacher survey (November 2006, June 2007,
June 2008).
• The largest changes reported by teachers from the November 2006 survey to the June
2008 administration was for the percentage of time that their students “used computers
in class” which more than doubled.
• Teachers also reported increasing the percent of time that they used a computer to
present information to their class as well as the percent of time that students work
individually.
• Since the November 2006 survey, teachers also reported decreases in the percent of
time that students “can pursue their own interests related to a broad topic area” and
“present information or a topic to the rest of the class”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
44
Table T2: Summary of educational practices across primary subject
teachers, elective subject teachers, and special education
teachers across three survey administrations
Nov.
2006
June
2007
June
2008
Primary Subjects
Nov.
2006
June
2007
June
2008
Elective Subjects
Nov.
2006
June
2007
June
2008
Special Education
Students work
collaboratively in pairs
or groups.
53%
59%
43%
37%
34%
63%
50%
47%
43%
Students work
individually.
44%
36%
46%
44%
48%
52%
34%
53%
49%
Students can pursue
their own interests
related to a broad topic
area.
30%
21%
22%
21%
27%
33%
18%
13%
38%
Student present
information or a topic to
the rest of the class.
34%
29%
25%
14%
20%
16%
10%
20%
39%
You use a computer to
present information to
your class.
23%
32%
47%
11%
11%
27%
28%
65%
58%
Students use a computer
in class.
18%
44%
61%
24%
13%
52%
13%
53%
69%
Question: Think about your average class and provide an estimate for the percent of time in your typical classes
where…
• The above table further examines how different groups of teachers (Primary subject,
Elective teachers, Special Education teachers) spent class time across the three
administrations of the teacher survey (November 2006, June 2007, and June 2008).
• At the end of Year 2 (June 2008) LGF teachers were, on average fairly evenly divided
in the percent of class time where students worked collaboratively in pairs or groups
versus the percent of time where students worked individually.
–– Elective subject teachers, on average, reported the greatest percent of class time
devoted to group work.
• Overall, Special education teachers reported some of the greatest increases in “using a
computer to present information to their class”, “students use of technology in class”,
and “students presenting information or a topic to the rest of the class”.
–– At the end of the first year of the school wide student laptop deployment (June 2008),
Special Education teachers reported, on average, some of the most widespread and
frequent uses of technology including “using a computer to present information to
their class”, “students use of technology in class”, and “students presenting information or a topic to the rest of the class”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
45
Figure T9: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’
communication and collaboration activities across
survey administrations
Nov. 06
June 07
June 08
0.9
1.0
Engage in online/distance
learning opportunities focused
on instructional practices
0.5
0.9
Engage in online/distance
learning opportunities focused
on content knowledge
1.0
0.5
1.9
Collaborate with other teachers
beyond your school on lesson design,
planning and development
1.6
1.6
3.0
3.1
Conference with colleagues about
lessons and lesson planning
2.6
2.7
Collaborate with other teachers
in your school on lesson design,
planning and development
2.9
2.6
2.3
Conference with colleagues
about student achievement
and goals using data
2.7
2.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
Scale: 0 = Never; 1 = Once or twice a year; 2 = Several times a year; 3 = Several times a month;
4 = Several times a week; 5 = Everyday
• Primary subject teachers’ results across the three survey administrations (November
2006, June 2007, and June 2008) generally show relatively small variations across a
wide variety of potential collaborative and reflective activities.
• In general, teachers most frequent topic of collaboration and conferencing with
colleagues was reported for “student achievement and goals using data” which has
steadily increased from just over “several times a year” in November 2006 to nearly
“several time a month” in June 2008
• On average, primary subject teachers reported decreases in their frequency of
collaborating and conferencing on “lessons and lesson planning” as well as engaging in
“online/distance learning opportunities focused on content knowledge” and “online/
distance learning opportunities focused on instructional practices” over time; although
all examples were relatively infrequent across the different survey administrations.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
46
Figure T10: Primary subject teachers’ educational practices and beliefs
across survey administrations (1)
Nov. 06
June 07
June 08
2.4
2.4
2.5
Students interact with each other more
while working with computers.
Students can not assess the validity
of Internet resources.
2.2
Technology allows students to
take too many shortcuts.
2.4
2.4
2.4
Students develop a deeper
understanding of the subject
materialwhen using a computer.
2.8
2.9
2.3
2.2
2.3
1.9
1.9
Students are more likely to remain
on-task if they are using computers.
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
Students are unable to distinguish
authenticity/trustworthiness of the Internet.
Students are more likely to
plagiarize or cheat with computers.
2.1
1.9
1.8
Students work harder at their assignments
when they use computers.
2.4
2.3
2.1
Technology makes the management of my
classes’ assignments and projects easier.
2.0
1.9
2.0
Technology helps students grasp
difficult curricular concepts.
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.9
Students are more engaged
when they used computers in class.
1.7
1.7
Students are more willing to write
second drafts when using a computer.
1.4
Technology makes the
mgmt. of my students’ grades easier.
Students create better-looking
products with computers than with
other traditional media.
1.5
1
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
2
3
4
Scale: 1 =Strongly agree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Disagree; 4 = Strongly disagree
• Primary subject teachers’ results across the three survey administrations (November
2006, June 2007, and June 2008) generally show relatively small variations across a
wide variety of teacher attitudes and beliefs.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
47
Figure T11: Primary subject teachers’ educational practices and beliefs
across survey administrations (2)
June 07
Nov. 06
June 08
2.7
The curriculum and activities
are driven by a textbook.
2.9
3.0
2.4
Th energy in the classroom
can be difficult to manage.
2.7
2.6
2.5
I often assign long term projects
(more than one week to complete).
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.2
I assign simple problems with
clear answers to make sure they
are accessible to my students.
2.4
2.5
Students are able to manage
their own learning.
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.1
Often too many students need
my help at the same time.
2.2
1
2
3
4
Scale: 1 = Strongly agree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Disagree; 4 = Strongly disagree
• Primary subject teachers’ results across the three survey administrations (November
2006, June 2007, and June 2008) show relatively small variations across a wide variety
of teacher attitudes, beliefs and practices.
• Teachers reported that since the November 2006 survey, their students are slightly less
likely “to need my help at the same time” and more “able to manage their own learning”.
• Since the beginning of the school wide-student laptop deployment, teachers report that
they agree less with statements such as “I assign simple problems with clear answers to
make sure they are accessible to my students” and “the curriculum and activities are
driven by a textbook”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
Table T3: 48
Average percent of students engaged during class as reported
by primary, elective, and special education teachers across
survey administrations
Nov. 2006
June 2007
June 2008
Primary
82%
78%
82%
Elective
68%
76%
74%
Special Education
87%
83%
85%
• On average, all teachers reported across all surveys that the majority of their students
were generally engaged in class (between 74% and 85% of students).
• Looking across the June 2008 responses, primary subject teachers and special education
teachers reported somewhat greater percentages of their students were engaged than
elective subject teachers.
• The percent of students engaged during class as reported across all groups of teachers
was relatively stable across all survey administrations.
Table T4: Average percent of students on-task during class as reported
by primary, elective, and special education teachers across
survey administrations
Nov. 2006
June 2007
June 2008
Primary
84%
79%
82%
Elective
70%
83%
70%
Special Education
87%
86%
84%
• On average, teachers reported across all survey administrations that the majority of
their students were generally on-task during class (between 70% and 84% of students).
• Looking across the June 2008 responses, primary subject teachers and special education
teachers reported somewhat greater percentages of their students were engaged than
elective subject teachers.
• The percent of students engaged during class as reported across all groups of teachers
was relatively stable across all survey administrations.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
49
Figure T12: Average frequency of primary subject teachers’ participation
in a variety of professional development activities across
survey administrations
June 07
June 08
1.1
“Out of the box” training session
0.4
Conferences related to
education technology
0.5
0.8
Coaching sessions with
integration specialist
0.9
2.0
0.2
Release time for individual preofessional
developement related to technology
1.1
2.8
2.6
Professional development focusing on
curriculum integration (Model Lessons, etc.)
0.2
Release time for department, LGFPMS, or
grade level planning related to technology
2.8
LGF Net Tools training sessions
4.0
4.0
Workshops and seminars run
by school presonnel
3.9
Online or web-based technology related
professional development
6.2
0.5
6.4
Workshops and seminars run
by LGFPMS staff
4.9
8.6
9.6
10.1
Academy-based professional development
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Times per Year
9
10
11
12
• Primary subject teachers generally reported participating in a wide variety of internal
and external professional development activities in both the June 2007 and June 208
surveys.
• The most frequent professional development activities across the primary teachers was
“academy-based professional development”, “workshops and seminars run by LGFPMS
staff ” and “online or web-based technology related professional development” all of
which occurred six or more times during Year 2.
• Looking across all reported professional development opportunities, teachers
participated in more offerings during Year 2 (2007/2008 school year) than in Year 1
(2006/2007 school year).
• In Year 2, the greatest increases in teachers’ professional development participation
were observed for “online or web-based technology related professional development”,
“workshops and seminars run by LGFPMS staff ”, and “workshops and seminars run
by school personnel”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
50
Figure T13: Primary subject teacher average satisfaction with professional
development activities across survey administrations
Nov. 06
June 07
Release time for individual preofessional
developement related to technology
June 08
2.3
1.9
Conferences related to
eductaion technology
2.2
2.0
Coaching sessions with
integration specialist
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.1
2.1
“Out of the box” training session
1.9
1.7
Professional development focusing on
curriculum integration (Model Lessons, etc.)
1.9
2.1
1.8
1.8
Release time for department, LGFPMS, or
grade level planning related to technology
1.8
1.6
Academy-based professional development
Online or web-based technology related
professional development
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
LGF Net Tools training sessions
1.4
1
1.9
2.2
1.7
1.5
Workshops and seminars run
by LGFPMS staff
1.6
2.4
2.0
1.7
Workshops and seminars run
by school presonnel
2.3
1.9
1.9
2
3
Scale: 1 = Very Satisfied; 2= Somewhat Satisfied; 3= Not Satisfied
• Overall, primary subject teachers were largely satisfied with the educational technology
professional development offerings available to them throughout the program.
• Teachers reported the greatest satisfaction for “internal” professional development
offerings such as “workshops and seminars run by LGFPMS staff ”, “LGF net Tools
training sessions”, and “workshops and seminars run by school personnel”.
• Overall, teachers reported their level of satisfaction with professional development
offerings in Year 2 increased almost universally (June 2008).
• Some of the greatest increases in teachers professional development satisfaction
were observed for “online or web-based technology related professional development”,
“LGF Net Tools training sessions”, “coaching sessions with integration specialists”
and “workshops and seminars run by LGFPMS staff ”.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
Table T5: 51
Summary of teachers’ home Internet access and type across
survey administrations
Nov. 2006
June 2007
June 2008
I don’t have an Internet
connection at home
7%
6%
6%
Dial-up/Modem
4%
6%
2%
DSL or high speed cable
82%
87%
86%
Not sure
7%
0%
7%
Number of Respondents
55
47
55
• The vast majority of Frederick teachers continue to report having DSL or high-speed
cable Internet connectivity in their home. This has not changed much over the three
survey administrations.
Figure T14: Average number of minutes teachers report using technology
at home on a typical school day across survey administrations
Nov. 06
June 07
June 08
90
90
Special Ed.
105
57
Elective
44
51
98
Primary
70
0
20
40
60
Minutes
81
80
100
120
• On average, Frederick teachers reported widespread use of their home computer on a
“typical school day”.
• Looking at the June 2008 results across the different teacher classifications, Elective
teachers reported the least frequent home computer use (51 minutes per day)
compared to Primary teachers (81 minutes) and Special Education teachers
(105 minutes), on average.
• Special education teachers increased their home use of computers compared to past
surveyed levels, while elective and primary subject teachers increased their home use
from the June 2007 levels, but average use remained under the initial November 2006
survey averages.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
52
Figure T15: Average number of minutes teachers report using
technology at home on a typical non-school day across
survey administrations
Nov. 06
June 07
June 08
134
185
Special Ed.
200
121
Elective
88
61
124
Primary
105
0
50
100
129
Minutes
150
200
250
• On average, Frederick teachers reported widespread use of their home computer
on a “typical non-school day”.
• Looking at the June 2008 results across the different teacher classifications, Elective
teachers reported the least frequent home computer use (61 minutes per day)
compared to Primary teachers (129 minutes) and Special Education teachers
(200 minutes), on average.
• Special education teachers increased their home use of computers compared to past
surveyed levels to a record average of 200 minutes per non-school day.
• Primary subject teachers increased their non-school day use of home computers
from their June 2007 levels, but average use remained slightly less than the initial
November 2006 survey averages.
• Elective teachers decreased their home use of computers compared to past surveyed
levels.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
53
Discussion
The current paper summarizes the data collection and results of student and teacher surveys
collected during the first two years of the Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative. These results provide an in depth look at the frequency and characteristics of middle school teachers’ and students’
technology use at an urban pilot school where technology integration is emphasized and a 1:1 laptop program had recently been initiated.
As previously reported, the response rates from the student and teacher surveys were extremely
good which allow us to place more confidence in the assertion that the data presented herein both
adequately and properly represents the beliefs of the Frederick students and teachers. Combining
the unusually good survey response rates and the detailed nature of the survey instruments the current results represent a rich summary of potential impacts from a burgeoning 1:1 laptop program.
Overall, results from the first year of teacher and student surveys (through June 2007) suggest
that the baseline use of technology was fairly widespread across all Academies and grade levels.
What is more, students across all grade levels and Academies reported use of technology across different subject areas and for a wide variety of specific educational uses. It seems clear that the school’s
emphasis and importance given to the integration of educational technology is echoed by the general student results presented herein. Thus, in even the baseline/pre-1:1 measures of technology use
there was regular and frequent use of technology occurring across the school. However, during the
2007/2008 school year, when students across all grade levels were provided with laptop computers,
a number of important changes were recorded in how teachers teach and students learn in school
and to a lesser extent, at home.
Although teachers across all grade levels had previous access to technology and seventh grade
students were provided laptops for the ending months of the 2006/2007 academic year, the current
report summarizes results from the first year of the school wide student laptop initiative. As such,
caution should be exercised when focusing on pre/post differences and outcome measures as the
duration of full student deployment was relatively short, particularly when considering the nature of
the long-standing educational practices and behavior. However, the survey results show a substantial increase in both teachers’ and students’ use of technology during the first years of the Wireless
Learning program. These statistically significant increases were observed for general technology
use in the classroom as well as across all surveyed subject areas (ELA, Math, Science, and Social
Studies).
As was previously reported, at the beginning of the 2006–2007 school year all teaching faculty
were provided with new laptops. In addition to receiving the Apple MacBooks, teachers participated
in technology training and professional development on the integration of technology into the curriculum. The student survey data provides evidence that teachers had actively and frequently used
their laptops to instruct students, even when student access to technology was unchanged. From
this, it would seem that teachers and staff worked especially fast to integrate technology into their
teaching once students were provided laptops beginning in April 2007 when the first seventh grade
class was provided laptops.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
54
The more recent teacher survey results show that the majority of teachers continued to engage
in a wide variety of technology professional development opportunities throughout the program
implementation and that teachers were largely quite satisfied with the professional development
offerings, particularly those offered internally through the school. As seen in past data, those teachers who participated more reported increased satisfaction with the professional development than
those teachers who participated less frequently in the professional development offerings. Similarly,
the vast majority of staff reported confidence in their ability to use technology in a variety of educationally relevant ways. Survey results going back to November 2006 show that teachers have largely
increased not only many of their uses of technology, but their confidence and perceived ability to
meaningfully use technology for a wide variety of educational goals.
Throughout the teacher and student results sections there are numerous examples of how Frederick teachers use technology in their professional lives in an increasing variety of ways. As shown
in past 1:1 educational research, the current results show that teachers performed many of the most
frequent technology uses outside of traditional instruction time. These uses included teachers’ use
of computers to: “maintain and/or access administrative records”, “make handouts for students”,
“perform research and lesson planning using the ‘Net”, and “create a test, quiz, or assignment”. In
addition, teachers reported frequent use of email to communicate with school leadership and other
staff members as well as ever increasing their email use with students and parents.
In the classroom, the teacher survey results clearly show that the majority of Frederick teachers continue integrating technology in a wide variety of ways across the curriculum. In fact, with
each subsequent survey administration the evaluation team must add additional survey items to
better capture just how teachers are applying their 1:1 resources in their classes. For example, the
November 2006 and June 2007 teacher results showed some of the largest increases for teachers use
of technology to “create and/or maintain web sites”, “use WebQuests or build the Internet into a lesson”, “use a computer to model relationships or functions”, and “use a computer to help students better understand a concept”. In the June 2008 results, teachers continue to report an incredibly diverse
catalogue of educational technology applications across all aspect of the curriculum and their professional responsibilities. The largest Year 2 increases in teachers use of technology were observed
for “delivering instruction/presenting information to the class”, “helping students understand concepts”, and “creating/maintaining web sites”, and “creating multimedia”. In addition, primary subject
teachers reported major increases in the percent of time their students used a computer in class as
well as increases in the how frequently students create a wide variety of educational products.
From these results it is clear that the Frederick teachers, by and large, had quickly learned and
applied a multitude of educational applications for their newly acquired laptops. This finding is
especially impressive considering that the first teacher survey (November 2006) was given only
weeks after teachers first received their computers. Similarly, the Frederick teachers appeared also
to quickly embrace the limited student deployment period in Year 1 and manifested even greater
use during Year 2, when all students had laptop access. Both the student and teacher survey results
provide many examples of increases in students technology use throughout the curriculum as well
as an increase in the number of projects and products created by students that use technology.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
55
The data also suggests that the Frederick school’s emphasis and importance on the integration
of educational technology into the curriculum is both practiced and believed by the majority of
teachers. As described above, teachers reported a wide variety of professional laptop uses. In addition, the majority of Frederick teachers consistently reported positive feelings towards technology
and its role in teaching and learning. Across all surveyed groups, Frederick teachers shared quite
positive feelings about technology and the role of computers in education. In addition, Frederick
teachers overwhelmingly reported that the majority of their students were engaged and on task
during their classes.
Detailed examination of teacher and student use of technology across grade levels, subject
areas and school Academies shows that teacher and student uses of technology were fairly consistent suggesting that the program has been successful school wide during its first two years. In
other words, the data suggests that the impressive changes in teaching and learning reported by
students and teachers during the first two years of the Wireless Learning Initiative has not been
isolated to a single grade level, Academy, or subject area. Thus, the success of the initial launch and
deployment of student computing has been nearly universally successful indicating that school level
factors (administration, support, professional development, etc.) have served all grade levels, subject areas, and Academies consistently well. Despite the universal nature of technology integration
across Frederick classrooms, differences in the patterns of use across the Academies, grade levels,
and subject areas will be explored throughout Year 3 of the study.
In the student survey, students echoed teacher sentiments in their assessment of the frequency
and variety of technology use that was underway during the 2007/2008 school year, the first full
year of student laptop implementation at Frederick. Based on the pre-student laptop measures collected in April and June 2007, students reported a vast increase in their use of technology when
surveyed in June 2008. For example, the average eighth grade student reported using technology in
the classroom less than once per month in June 2007. By June 2008, the average eighth grade student
reported using technology in their classroom more than a couple times per week. The increases
were only slightly less robust for seventh and sixth grade students, as overall use of technology in the
classroom rocketed during the 2007/2008 academic year. As previously discussed with the teacher
survey results, further analyses of the student survey showed that student use had dramatically increased across all subject areas and across all Academies. Although there are variations in the teachers’ frequency of various technology uses across grade levels, subject specialties, and Academies,
the average increase in teachers and students use of technology was dramatic and nearly universal.
In terms of actual daily classroom practices, students across the Frederick school went from using
technology during their regular academic classes only occasionally in 2006/2007 to nearly always
just one academic year later.
Students also reported on the frequency with which they observed their teachers using technology in school. Although, less robust then the student use of technology, teachers use of technology
also saw statistically significant increases in the first year of universal student 1:1 computing across
nearly all grade levels, subject areas, and Academies. Such a finding makes sense given that the baseline student survey was completed after teachers received their project laptops and had access to a
number of educational technology resources throughout the school before the Wireless Learning
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
56
Program officially began. However, the current results suggest that universal student access positively impacted ways teachers used technology independent of direct student use.
Frederick students also reported using an impressive and increasingly diverse use of technology to support their learning during the 2007/2008 academic year. Specifically, some of the most
frequently occurring individual uses of technology reported by students during the first year of full
laptop implementation included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Emailing and communicate with their teachers,
Taking a test, quiz, or practice test using a computer,
Finding information on the Internet,
Writing and edit papers,
Creating a PowerPoint presentation,
Using Study Island,
Work collaboratively with other students, and
Looking up grades using a computer.
Students also reported actively using a wide variety of other technology applications with less
frequency that included taking notes in class using a computer, keeping a web portfolio, creating
and editing blogs and web pages, emailing teachers, using professional software applications, using
technology peripherals, and submitting and accessing their work digitally through the use of drop
boxes.
In addition to the use of technology, students also reported on their perceived abilities and
skills in using a variety of technology tools and applications. Across all categories, Frederick students reported confidence in their technology skills with most surveyed applications and scenarios
requiring only occasional assistance, if any, for the majority of students. Echoing prior results,
eighth grade students generally reported greater skills and abilities across most of the measured
technology applications than the sixth grade students suggesting that confidence may increase with
age and experience. Increases in students’ self-reported ability and skill to use technology were
observed across nearly all types of surveyed technology use between the pre-laptop and post-laptop
survey administrations. These increases, however modest, provide emerging evidence that students’
experience with technology in school has the potential to change their attitudes and beliefs toward
technology. Even looking only at the first 10 weeks of the seventh grade data, students reported
increased ability to use technology while also reporting an increased level of criticism of the
Internet as an educational tool.
In general, the student survey results also suggest that the majority of Frederick students have
positive feelings towards technology and its role in teaching and learning. Across all surveyed
groups, Frederick students shared quite positive feelings about technology and the role of computers in their education. However, students’ attitudes and beliefs towards technology shifted relatively
little between Year 1 and Year 2, on average.
Lastly, the student survey queried students’ access and use of technology in their home.
Although there were variations across the surveyed groups and grade levels, the frequency of use for
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
57
students with home computer access more then one hour each school day and well over two hours
per day on weekends and vacations. In addition, a surprisingly large number of students reported
that they use their home computer for nearly all of their waking hours while at home. The most
popular home computer uses included use of the computer to “search the Internet for fun”, “chat”,
“download music or videos from the web” and “e-mail”. In addition, students regularly reported using their home computer for educational purposes such as “write papers for school” (approximately
30 minutes per day on average) and “search the Internet for school” (approximately 15 to 30 minutes
per day on average). It appears from the data that students are using the computer for a variety of
tasks simultaneously such as chatting with friends while downloading music and looking things up
for school or personal interest on the Internet.
The current results also provide the first quantitative inquiry into the Tech Goes Home initiative, which flourished under the direction of school leadership during the 2007/2008 academic year
and provided home laptop computers to about one in three Frederick students. Although the program is relatively young, it is clear from the student survey results that those students who participated in the program used technology at home much the same way that students who already had
technology access in their home. Particularly interesting are the results which show the frequent use
of home computers by Tech Goes Home participants to work on school related assignments such as
writing papers for school and conducting research for school projects using the Internet.
These results from students’ home highlight the increasing role that computers and technology play in middle school students’ social and personal lives. Moreover, these findings suggest the
importance of educators capitalizing on these emerging student skills and uses for increasingly
educational and academic areas, as currently evidenced by Frederick’s Wireless Learning Program.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
58
References
Baldwin, F. (1999). Taking the classroom home. Appalachia, 32(1), 10–15.
Bebell, D. (2007). Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative Year 1 Teacher Survey Results.
Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College
Bebell, D. (2006). Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative Evaluation Plan.
Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dywer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: why multiple
measures are revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Fall 2004.
Bull, G., Bull, G., Garofolo, J., & Harris, J. (2002). Grand Challenges: Preparing for the
Technological Tipping Point. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Retrieved May 7, 2004, from http://www.iste.org/L&L/29/8/featured-article/bull/index.htm.
Cromwell, S. (1999). Laptops change curriculum—and students. Education World. Retrieved
November 6, 2003 from http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr178.shtml.
eSchool News. (2006, May 1). 1-to-1 computing on the rise in schools. eSchool News
Online. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showstory.
cfm?ArticleID=6278.
Guignon, A. (1998). Laptop computers for every student. Education World. Retrieved November
6, 2003, from http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr048.shtml.
Hayes, J. (2006). America’s digital schools; 2006: A five-year forecast. Retrieved April 9, 2006 from
http://www.ads2006.org/ads2006/pdf/ADS2006KF.pdf.
Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). (2003). The Maine Learning Technology
Initiative: Teacher, Student, and School Perspectives Mid-Year Evaluation Report. Retrieved
November 6, 2003 from http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/pdf/ts/mlti.pdf.
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC). (2006). Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School
Wireless Technology Master Plan. Retrieved October 27, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/
research/intasc/PDF/LGF_masterplan-1.pdf.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and
how learning can be saved. New York, NY: Random House.
Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Building the digital general gap. Atlanta, GA: Long Street
Press.
Papert, S (1992). The children’s machine. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Ravitz, J., Wong, Y., & Becker, H. (1999). Teacher and teacher directed student use of computers and
software. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
Rockman, S. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the laptop program. San
Francisco, CA: Author.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
59
Russell, M., Bebell. D., & Higgins, J. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and
learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of laptops and
permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Vol. 30 No. 3.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L.M., & O’Connor, K.M. (2003) Examining teacher technology
use: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher
Education 54(4), pp. 297–310.
Russell, M., O’Brien, E., Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2003). Students’ beliefs, access, and use of
computers in school and at home. Boston, MA: Boston College, Technology and Assessment
Study Collaborative.
Silvernail, D.L. & Lane, D.M. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on
middle school teachers and students. Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI),
University of Southern Maine.
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
Appendix A
Frederick Wireless Learning
Student Survey
60
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
61
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
62
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
63
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
64
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
65
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
66
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
67
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
68
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
69
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
Appendix B
Frederick Wireless Learning
Teacher Survey
70
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
71
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
72
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
73
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
74
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
75
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
76
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
77
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
78
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
79
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
80
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
81
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
82
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
83
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
84
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
85
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
86
inTASC REPORT: Frederick Wireless Learning Initiative, Year 2 Results
87