One-to-one computing

What is 1:1 Computing in Education?

In the context of education, one-to-one computing (sometimes abbreviated as "1:1") refers to academic institutions, such as schools or colleges, that allow each enrolled student to use an electronic device in order to access the Internet, digital course materials, and digital textbooks. The concept has been actively explored and sporadically implemented since the late 1990s.[1] One-to-one computing used to be contrasted with a policy of "bring your own device" (BYOD), which encourages or requires students to use their own laptops, smartphones or other electronic devices in class. The distinction between BYOD and school-issued devices became blurred when many schools started recommending devices for parents to buy (examples for both iPads and Chromebooks being used 1:1 in schools, but being paid for by parents exist, there may be similar evidence for other devices). The term 1:1 computing in education is now redefined to a situation where students have access to a device per individual that is used in the teaching as a tool for learning. Historically, the programs have centered around the following devices:

  • Laptops (with some competing MACs) 1990s-2010.
  • iPads (with some competing Android and Windows devices) 2010-2014
  • Chromebooks (2015–present) (with ipad+keyboard and other laptop & tablet-computers competing).[2]

The level of education will influence the type of adoption, through factors such as: user-readiness, budget, expected merits, and cost-benefits.

  • For young students, iPads and competing devices remain very popular, but they are not always 1:1. Many more affluent schools provide each of their students with an iPad to use throughout the school year.
  • For students that need to type more, Chromebooks are the most common. Middle and High Schools and, to some extent, colleges have been customers for Chromebooks.
  • For mature/adult students in higher education, the BYOD approach is most employed. Institutions provide WiFi and web-based LMS access. However, chromebooks can be found in many libraries.

What are the Benefits

There seems to be consensus that 1:1 availability of devices improves their usefulness. Having to share devices reduces their educational efficacy because of the reduced intensity & length of the experience and the additional time spent on file-management, configuration management, device management and distribution.

Before cloud-computing the main benefits referred to access to devices. As cloud-computing progressed collaboration, cost reduction, going paperless, 21st century skills became more of a focus. Red research included 1:1 and collaboration in its key research findings.[3] One-to-one computing offers the benefits of equal access, standardization, easy upgrades, simple networking and the ability to monitor student progress and online behavior. For these reasons, one-to-one computing is a major part of education policy in many countries. These benefits also underlie the one-to-one model of One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a charity that aims to issue electronic devices to millions of children in the developing world. With the growth of the internet-connectivity the possibility to use cloud-computing to transfer the data and administration from the devices to cloud-computing has removed the necessity of much of the tech support from the teacher.

The ultimate academic benefits of one-to-one, if any, are unclear. They may not be the same for the different eras of 1:1.

In the Laptop Era the laptops were often used as add-ons to the established teaching. Their limited use reinforced the doubts about their educational value and whether the high maintenance costs were worth the investment. According to research published by Boston College, the educational value of 1:1 in the laptop era depended on the classroom teacher.[4] Some schools have even phased out their one-to-one programs because there was no evidence of academic gains according to the 2007 article.[5] (Though: Please note that the district noted in the article went for a 1:1 Chromebook initiative in April 2017 [6] )

Other studies have shown some progress in specific subjects, especially in writing scores, that are correlated with the use of school-issued laptops. The wide range of results for 1:1 programs means there is no consensus on their benefits or drawbacks.[7]

The iPad Era saw increased uptake of iPads (and comparable tablets) in schools and consequently increased 1:1 programs in schools. More and more education specific applications and tools became available as increasing research about educational value and implementation methodologies of 1:1 programs were published.

The popularity was based on their touchscreens, good battery life and the availability of applications as well as their general brand-related image and comparative ease of use compared to Laptops/Desktops.

The Chromebook era had several major success-factors (several of which were often also used in iPad 1:1 schools).

  1. Very portable: small laptops, lightweight.
  2. auto-updating devices. Reducing the need for device management and the need to wait while updating.
  3. Quick start-up/ almost instantaneous wake-up from sleep.
  4. Battery life (lasted a good school-day)
  5. Truly device independent. Backed-up files & configuration available anytime, anyplace, anywhere. This allowed distribution of educational content. It also allowed keeping stock of spare-chromebooks available. If a student logged in with his/her account it worked flawlessly. iPads and PCs kept much configuration information on devices making quick swaps hard or impossible.
  6. Availability of general productivity software that was cloud-based. This allowed note-taking, going paperless.
  7. Low cost (compared to iPads and Laptops) both for purchase, and running costs/maintenance (i.e. Cost of Ownership).
  8. Increased attention to professional development and to embedding 1:1 use in the teaching of different subjects.
  9. Increased involvement of stakeholders like parents and school-boards because of the costs of WiFi, the increased tendency to use the devices at home and the increased awareness of processes for repairs, insurances, temporary replacement etc.
  10. Increased use in assessment and tests.
  11. Increased collaboration, self-directed learning, inquiry based learning

Because 1:1 computing programs may have many goals, from improving educational outcomes to increasing equality, and are associated with such a wide range of teaching methods, it is also difficult to judge their overall success or value.

What are the Disadvantages

Disadvantages of 1:1 are controversial, but there are general objections at increasing "screen-time" when the private lives of children also see significant screen-time. There may be psychological and / or physical disadvantages as there are with any technology, including the ones replaced (paper, paint, carrying more books).

Addiction may be a problem (possibly more with touch-devices). There can also be objection against possible effect of exposure to radiation from the screens and WiFi. As stated under advantages there is no general consensus on the scientific evidence on efficacy. In a field as new as 1:1 with the technology used having undergone major changes it may take time for clear patterns to emerge and be agreed on.

The cost itself may be a disadvantage. Schools and districts in areas with low incomes and high rates of homelessness have argued that Chromebook programs compare positively to paper for homework return-rates.

What are the Costs

One-to-one requires substantial institutional investment. In addition to the cost of purchasing devices, the Cost-of-Ownership is not insignificant and can include connectivity/WiFi, charging-facilities/caddys, implementation, training, software licensing, monitoring, security, upgrades and maintenance. Therefore, the overall cost–benefit ratio of a one-to-one model is not clear. Aside from the technical costs the changing of the teaching itself is labour-intensive and may require professional development, licensing, re-writing materials, re-designing lesson plans.

Several methodologies exist to make sure all stakeholders are involved and the adoption/implementation is done responsibly. One example can be found at The Natpicks Schools 1:1 Program which has the "Red" Logo indicating it is a Project Red Signature District [8] indicating they followed the Red methodology, as well as an Apple Distinguished District logo (competitors like Google and Microsoft have their own recognition programs). If one looks at the documents they increased their numbers of Chromebooks and have mature planning processes including cooperation with Boston College research.

As the cost of internet services and data charges fall WIFI speeds and accessibility has increased to the point that it is no longer a limiting factor for users of Chromebooks and other devices used for education.

What are the most recent developments

The USA based Chromebook programs may have shown changes in the economics of 1:1 programs. Although 1:1 programs require better WiFi [9] than previous programs, they use ChromeOS which automatically updates and patches in the background (lowering the maintenance costs). The purchasing prices of Chromebooks were substantially lower than competing devices. According to IDC research the maintenance costs were significantly lower.[10] Since the batteries of Chromebooks easily last a full day, schools experimented with having students charge them at home and only keeping a replacement stock ready in school (for defective, forgotten and out-of-charge Chromebooks) reducing the need for charging equipment/trolleys. GAM (Google Accounts Management) did charge for licensing, but it could remove the necessity of other MDM (Mobile Device Management) solutions and other security solutions at lower than Web-authentication level. Some schools also experimented with parents owning the devices (and paying for them). Having less costly equipment on site may also have saved in insurance and rooms may have become available for other purposes. 1:1 also enabled going paperless (i.e. publishers supplied cheaper digital versions of teaching materials) and reducing the cost on paper/printers used. No serious study is known of this, at this point. But individual schools have published costs and savings.[11] The use of Google-Classroom software and G suite in general was instrumental in going paperless. It allowed electronic hand-in, grading and returning of projects to groups of students. Microsoft is trying to copy the classroom functionality in their O365 for education.

2007 Uruguay's Project Ceibal

Between 2007 and 2016 Project Ceibal was the most successful 1:1 program in the world. It included the right to internet connectivity in school as well as at home besides the right to have a computer "Since its implementation, every child who enters the public education system in any part of the country is given a computer for personal use with free Internet connection at school. In addition, Plan Ceibal provides programs, educational resources and teacher training courses that transform the ways of teaching and learning.".[12] The 2007 decree specified in it desired outcomes "1.2.3. EXPECTED RESULTS: Have covered 100% of children of school age within a period of 3 years with an Internet connection in their Schools as in their homes." [13] By 2009 all 300.000 students were equipped with hardware and all schools had WiFi. By 2013 use of Google-drive and apps were added to CREA and By 2015 95% of urban schools had fibre-optic connections. By 2016 Chromebooks were added to the available hardware.[14] Since the original hardware was Fedora based Uruguay has held the top-spot of Linux uptake for years, according to statcounter.[15]

2016-2017 Mass Uptake in Schools in the United States

1:1 Programs in US schools have gained serious momentum somewhere around 2016/2017. In February 2017 edtechmagazine reported more than 50% of teachers reported using 1:1 computing.[16] In March 2017 Futuresource reported Chromebooks had 58% market-share in US-Education.[17] The success of Chromebooks in education was reported on by The New York Times in May 2017.[18] Which explains the success "This became Google’s education marketing playbook: Woo school officials with easy-to-use, money-saving services. Then enlist schools to market to other schools, holding up early adopters as forward thinkers among their peers."

In June 2017 CMS-district was reported to be on a 150.000 Chromebooks 1:1 program.[19] It looks like 1:1 Chromebook programs have come become very popular on the basis of adoption and evangelizing by enthusiastic users in schools. The suburbs of Chicago are most often mentioned as influencers. Leyden in District 212 has on its main page [20] Dr. Nick Polyak saying "Over 2,000 educators from across the country have visited Leyden to learn about teaching and learning in the digital age." which clearly refers to its 1:1 program. The history of Leyden's 1:1 program is clearly told in the 2014 article "How many administrators does it take to get a district to go one to one".[21] So there is evidence that successful schools indeed show others the way.

The original legitimization for 1:1 education may have been derived from research by the Red group (mainly financed by Intel) [22] whose findings describe the potential of transforming education "Our findings demonstrate that schools employing a 1:1 student-computer ratio and key implementation factors outperform other schools, and reveal significant opportunities for improving education return on investment (ROI) by transforming teaching and learning.". The influence of the change in teaching is also stressed academically like in "Chromebooks and the G Suite group of products, like Google Search, Gmail, and Google Docs, have rapidly expanded in American schools during the past 5 years. The impact of one-to-one Chromebook devices and the pervasive use of Google's software products in American education cannot be overstated."[23][24] Apple is also promoting its own 1:1 iPad programs and there are some signs of uptake of its "classroom" software and iPads for example in San Bernardino.[25] Other countries where 1:1 programs are successful are Sweden, New Zealand (both mentioned in the NYTimes article mentioned above[18]).

USA School Districts going 1:1 examples (sometimes not for all pupils)

Newberg Oregon:[26] "Newberg Public Schools is a 1:1 Technology district, meaning every student is assigned their own device (iPad or Chromebook). "

Sioux Falls:[27] "The driving purpose of the 1:1 Student Technology Initiative is to increase student engagement, further involve students in active learning, and provide students with 21st Century skills such as communication, problem solving, and collaboration, along with content expertise."

Passaic:[28] Early adopter: " the Passaic City Public Schools rolled out a 1:1 pilot at the Lincoln Middle school and Passaic High school. The district purchased 5,500 Samsung Chromebooks for 4,700 students and began sweeping, district-wide technology upgrades "

Iowa City Schools:[29] "1:1 INITIATIVE COMING IN 2017, 2018 In Fall, 2017, the Iowa City Schools will be deploying a Chromebook 1:1 initiative in all high school grade levels (9th – 12th). The following year, the initiative will be extended to include grades 7 and 8 district-wide."

Central Falls:[30]

Mauston:[31]

newcastle, PA [32]

Upper Scotia Valley [33]

Sudbury Public Schools [34]

Oostburg:[35]

Becton:[36]

Pequannock:[37]

East Bridgewater has to recall some Chromebooks from their 1:1 program because of fires:[38]

Danvers:[39]

Greater Clarck County:[40]

AMS Edmond:[41]

Anderson, SC:[42]

maine IL:[43]

Lumberton:[44]

Niche's top 20 Districts and their involvement. (per 27/12/2017 https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-school-districts/)
Niche Best School District Ranking URL Evidence of 1:1 in District?
1 Solon City School District http://www.solonschools.org/ https://www.solonschools.org/Page/2895 “The Solon City Schools One2One program will provide students with Chromebooks to use at school and home. At the beginning of the 2016-17 School Year Grades 7-10 will be provided with Chromebooks. By the 2017-18 School Year both Solon High School and Solon Middle School will become completely One2One.”
2 Tredyffrin-Easttown School District https://www.tesd.net https://www.tesd.net/cms/lib/PA01001259/Centricity/Domain/37/1to1FAQApril2017.pdf “Tredyffrin/Easttown School District 1:1 Technology Initiative FAQ (updated April 2017)

What device will students receive? The District-provided laptop, Dell 11” Education Edition, with the following specifications: • 11.6” display • 4GB RAM • 128 GB Solid State Drive • Intel Celeron Processor • Spill-proof design (fully sealed keyboard and touchpad) • Drop protection (rubberized LCD and base trim)

Who will receive District-provided laptops? Laptops will be available to all Conestoga High School students during the 2017-18 school year. ”

3 Radnor Township School District http://www.rtsd.org/ https://www.rtsd.org/domain/1384 Evaluating 1:1 Evaluate 1-to-1 Technology at Radnor High School and Technology K-12A. Full review of the high school 1-to-1 technology.B. Review of access and use of devices K-12.These reviews will assess both the educational and financial impact of the current use of devices.A. January 2018: High school 1-to-1 technology recommendation B. September 2018: K-12 technology recommendation
4 School District of Clayton http://www.claytonschools.net/ Clayton’s strategic plan rums from 2012-2018 so it will be updated soon. No clear evidence of 1:1 on main page. Clearly a GAFE School for staff and students. https://www.boarddocs.com/mo/sdclay/Board.nsf/files/AHSRUK6F4AD9/$file/Updated Technology Final Self Study 012517.pdf Plan to go 1:1 in phases ending in 2023. Acknowledge that they are behind in tech.
5 Dublin City School District http://www.dublinschools.net/ https://www.dublinschools.net/OnetoOne.aspx Clear 1:1 school on basis of Chromebooks implemented Sep 2017 School tech website behind.https://www.dublinschools.net/dcstech.aspx Clear GAFE school with BYOD policy but not explicitly 1:1
6 South Texas Independent School District http://www.stisd.net/ http://www.stisd.net/departments/technology_servicesConfusing: they use a login for MySTISD which links to https://www.google.com/a/mystisd.net/ServiceLogin?service=mail&passive=true&rm=false&continue=http://mail.google.com/a/mystisd.net/<mpl=default<mplcache=2&emr=1 but they then list all office365 offerings including a office365 webmail at istd..
7 Eanes Independent School District http://www.eanesisd.net/ No explicit 1:1 Goals. Direct links to gmail and google-classroom for employees. http://www.eanesisd.net/uploaded/District/Our_District/Reports/2015-16_Highlights.pdf “Technology • Thanks to the 2015 Bond, technology services purchased and deployed 9,400 iPad Air 2 devices with a new mobile device management system for staff and students. In addition, more than 500 new computer systems were deployed across the district as part of the computer refresh bond project. Subsequently, approximately 8,500 old iPad 2’s were sold.”
8 Wellesley Public Schools https://wellesleyps.org/ Technology plan 2016-2020 https://wellesleyps.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Wellesley-Tech-Plan-2016-20.pdf 1:1 iPads for lower years and laptop or MAC for higher years. Google-classroom as central tool.
9 Indian Hill Exempted Village School District http://indianhillschools.org/ http://indianhillschoolshs.ss10.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_374579/File/Indian Hill High School/StudentsParents/BYO Technology/BYOHandout.pdf BYO approach with schools providing for students that cannot afford or have under repair or forgotten.http://hs.indianhillschools.org/students_parents/b_y_o_technology/b_y_o_frequently_asked_questions/ MS-Officce downloadable as the basis for approach.
10 Lexington Public Schools http://lps.lexingtonma.org/ https://lps.lexingtonma.org/Page/1436 has only old information 2012 iPad program and 2012–2015 plan. The districts genera 2016l improvement plan addresses technology https://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/442/1617DistrictImprovPlanFINAL.pdf “ Develop a three year Technology Plan for the school district which includes a vision statement and appropriate action steps in the areas of curriculum, digital citizenship, technology infrastructure and hardware, personnel, data culture, and communications.” Technology training pages https://lps.lexingtonma.org/Page/6763make it clear that iPads and PCs and MACs are widely used, but also that GAFE is widely used.
11 Mason City School District http://www.masonohioschools.com/ Have mixed BYOD and personal learning device approach for > Graade 7.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WdnrSuAN-DB4ieWLJTZbAR7XXqQmQ2f9F7X2oeuvOlg/edit A 2015 video indicates they have a 1:1 Chromebook aspiration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYlK4M22P0w Use GAFE and other tools. Do have computer-usage and internet policies and a “Home Access Centre” that allows apps to be used with grades, schedules etc.
12 Jericho Union Free School District http://jerichoschools.org/ Have elaborate help on BYOD wifi http://www.jerichoschools.org/departments/Technology/WIFI/ OWA but also GAFE and BYOD with iPads, Macs, Windows. Use Google classroom.
13 Great Neck Public Schools https://www.greatneck.k12.ny.us “Instructional Technology in our Schools: Great Neck Implements New Apple Classroom App Elementary and secondary schools in Great Neck implemented the new Apple Classroom app to enhance the District's 1:1 iPad Initiative which now spans Grades 3-12 (Grades 4-12 in our south schools). This teacher-only app is linked to our student management system and mobile device management system to enable teachers to monitor student iPad screens while in class, see what apps are currently running, lock screens, group student iPads into learning teams, and launch apps and Web sites that lock in on individual or group iPads.” combined with GAFE.
14 Princeton Public Schools http://www.princetonk12.org/ Strategic goal of x:1 technology in 2016-2021 plan http://www.ppsvision.org/uploads/8/3/2/7/83278812/goal_4_objective_2_technology.rev.pdf Have been buying ipads, chromebooks and other devices.
15 North Allegheny School District http://www.northallegheny.org/ Have planned and are implementing full 1;1 (As a part of FOCUS 2020 students in grades 6, 7, and 9-12 have been assigned either an iPad (Grades 6 and 7) or a laptop (Grades 9-12) to us, this District device is designed to be the student’s personal learning device.). Use GAFE
16 Lower Merion School District https://www.lmsd.org/ Strategic documents do not explicitly go into 1:1, the tech department does http://www.lmsd.org/academics/instructional-tech/one-to-one 1:1 Laptops since 2007. Young children get iPads.
17 Highland Park Independent School District http://www.hpisd.org/ Individual schools do have chromebooks, PCs etc. but no central policy, cannot find a 1:1 policy.
18 West Lafayette Community School Corporation http://www.wl.k12.in.us/ Strategc plan on site is for 2011-2016. Site outdated with only 1 of the school links working. Many applications to Indiana State Board of education: Common School Loan Advancements for Construction and Technology Programs: for ipads, chromebooks, apple-tvs, deskops, smartboards etc. but no clear policy.
19 Newton Public Schools http://www.newton.k12.ma.us/ https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907692/Centricity/Domain/51/Systemwide%20Goals%202017-18_Final.pdf “● Plan for increased student access to Chromebook/Mac Air for use in school by September 2018, including 100-student pilot. (P, I)”
20 Beachwood City School District http://www.beachwoodschools.org/ No district policy evidence. Schools do have individual programs like: Beachwood Middle School Chromebook Program 1:1 https://issuu.com/beachwoodbison/docs/beachwood_middle_school_chromebook_

The top 5 have 1:1 programs or are in advanced stages of implementing. 7 of the top 10 are or are on their way to 1:1. The apple and mixed BYOD schools that went 1:1 usually use GAFE and often use Google-Classroom. 1 of the top 20 indicates moving to Apple Classroom. If the district does not lead 1:1 then there are sometimes individual schools going 1:1 or experimenting.

A comparison between the 2007 situation and the 2017 status of the 5 schools/districts mentioned in the NY Times article about schools abandoning Laptop projects.
2007 Comment from the article "Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops" 2017 Status
1. "the Liverpool Central School District, just outside Syracuse, has decided to phase out laptops starting this fall, joining a handful of other schools around the country" Liverpool now have a 1:1 Chromebook program.http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/departments/technology/chromebook-11/ In the State of the District address the leaders accept responsibility for the 1:1 Program and link it to performance and educational goals.http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/assets/Communications-Folder/State-of-the-District-Address.9.11.2017.pdf
2. "Matoaca High School just outside Richmond, Va., began eliminating its five-year-old laptop program last fall." https://sites.google.com/a/ccpsnet.net/anytime-anywhere-learning/ Outlines their 1:1 Chromebook program.
3 "Everett A. Rea Elementary School in Costa Mesa, Calif. {ed cut.}gave away 30 new laptops to another school in 2005 after a class that was trying them out switched to new teachers who simply did not do as much with the technology." Website of the district inaccessible on 29/12/2017. Indications: http://newportmesa.agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=355452&IsArchive=0 outlines that they make available to let: 2 ESL Rooms with carts with 32 Chromebooks. http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-schools-breakfast-20170927-story.html indicates they will continue their Chromebooks programs. Another Elementary in Newport-Mesa proudly displays its Chromebook program http://adams.nmusd.us/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1256797247497
4. "Northfield Mount Hermon School, a private boarding school in western Massachusetts, eliminated its five-year-old laptop program in 2002 after it found that more effort was being expended on repairing the laptops than on training teachers to teach with them." No direct policy on 1:1 Chromebook, but clear statement about GAFE .https://www.nmhschool.org/student-life/information-technology/it-faqs If you follow the link from the FAQ about what should be bought for the child: you get this link:https://www.govconnection.com/IPA/Campaigns/PCCGOV/6693817/16de394d_ca49_4e16_a1a4_d72939ddef6f/8036ca7f_30c7_4987_b0b8_cd124d84fbf1/landing?sid=7ce46078-b536-49c2-9288-2980462317a1 where you can select from 3 chromebooks. They also allow BYOD https://www.nmhschool.org/student-life/information-technology/computer-compatibility
5. "Two years ago, school officials in Broward County, Fla., the sixth-largest district in the country, shelved a $275 million proposal to issue laptops" In this 2014 Article the 1:1 BYOD Rollout is discussed.https://www.districtadministration.com/article/preparing-large-scale-tech-rollouts At least the literacy and maths programs meet the requirements of being able to run on a chromebook.

Maths: http://new.schoolnotes.com/files/ejoseph/My.hrw.com_tips_Broward_County(1).pdf

Literacy https://www.browardschools1.com/cms/lib/FL01803656/Centricity/Domain/11926/Myon%20Letter.pdf

iReady https://www.browardschools1.com/cms/lib/FL01803656/Centricity/Domain/60/i-ReadySystemRequirements.pdf

New Zealand

Bombay school 1:1:[45] Tiki School:[46]

Sweden

Uddevalla Municipality 1:1 Chromebooks:[47]

ipad 1:1 Schools examples

Oak Lawn [48]

kimbolton UK [49]

Please note that Ranchodistrict are having an auction selling their 570 iPads [50] which greatly reduces the credibility of a report they are swapping their chromebooks for iPads.[51]

References

  1. ↑ Bebel, Damian; Rachel Kay (2010). "One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative". Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment. 9 (2). Retrieved 19 March 2014.
  2. ↑ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/27/as-chromebook-sales-soar-in-schools-apple-and-microsoft-fight-back/
  3. ↑ "Findings". one-to-oneinstitute.org. Retrieved 2018-02-18.
  4. ↑ Norris, Cathleen; Elliot Soloway (May 2010). "One-to-one computing has failed our expectations". District Administration. Retrieved 19 March 2014. Boston College researchers found that the impact of a one-to-one computing implementation is largely a function of the classroom teacher... if extracting value from an innovation is dependent on the teacher, then the value added by the innovation per se is limited.
  5. ↑ Hu, Winnie (4 May 2007). "Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
  6. ↑ "Chromebook 1:1 » Liverpool Central School District". www.liverpool.k12.ny.us. Retrieved 2017-12-26.
  7. ↑ Sauers, Nicholas J.; Scott McLeod (1 May 2012). "What does the research say about school one-to-one computing initiatives?" (PDF). Castle Brief. UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education, University of Kentucky. Retrieved 19 March 2014. When examining the research related to one-to-one computing programs, it is clear that they have produced a wide range of results.
  8. ↑ http://www.natickps.org/programs/student1to1_program
  9. ↑ https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2017/access-point-unit-sales-are-on-the-rise-in-the-us-b2b-indirect-channel--driven-by-ever-increasing-network-demands-according-to-npd/
  10. ↑ https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/intl/en/chrome/assets/education/pdf/IDC-WP-Quantifying.the.Economic.Value.of.Chromebooks.for.K-12.Education-082012.pdf
  11. ↑ "Chromebook costs - Maine Township High School District 207". maine207.org. Retrieved 2018-01-10.
  12. ↑ "Sobre Nosotros". www.ceibal.edu.uy. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  13. ↑ "Wayback Machine version of "Pliegos de la licitación" 2007" (PDF). 29 September 2007. Archived from the original on 29 September 2007. Retrieved 19 December 2017.
  14. ↑ "Dispositivos". www.ceibal.edu.uy. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  15. ↑ "Desktop Operating System Market Share Uruguay | StatCounter Global Stats". StatCounter Global Stats. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  16. ↑ Staff, Edtech (2017-02-01). "More Than 50 Percent of Teachers Report 1:1 Computing". EdTech. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  17. ↑ "Sales of Mobile PCs into the US K-12 Education Market Continue to Grow - Press Article". www.futuresource-consulting.com. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  18. 1 2 Singer, Natasha (2017-05-13). "How Google Took Over the Classroom". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  19. ↑ "Chromebooks and G Suite: A Partnership Worth Exploring". EdTech. 2017-06-07. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  20. ↑ "Leyden High School District 212 / Homepage". www.leyden212.org. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  21. ↑ "How Many Administrators Does It Take to Get a District to Go One-to-One? - EdSurge News". EdSurge. 2014-08-20. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  22. ↑ "Research Overview". www.one-to-oneinstitute.org. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  23. ↑ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10572317.2017.1383756
  24. ↑ Ahlfeld, Kelly (Dec 2017). "Device-Driven Research: The Impact of Chromebooks in American Schools". International Information & Library Review. 49 2017: Pages 285–289 – via http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10572317.2017.1383756.
  25. ↑ "Why San Bernardino's Aquinas High was named an Apple Distinguished School". San Bernardino Sun. 2017-11-07. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
  26. ↑ "Technology | Newberg Oregon School District". www.newberg.k12.or.us. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  27. ↑ "Student Technology Initiative - Sioux Falls School District". www.sf.k12.sd.us. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  28. ↑ "Passaic Schools Go 1:1, Share How They Prepared for Chromebooks In the Classroom - My TechDecisions". My TechDecisions. 2013-10-28. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  29. ↑ "1:1 Initiative Coming in 2017, 2018 - ICCSD Technology & Innovation Blog". ICCSD Technology & Innovation Blog. 2016-10-17. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  30. ↑ "Chromebook-1-to-1". Central Falls School District. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  31. ↑ "Mauston School District - 1:1 Chromebook Information". www.maustonschools.org. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  32. ↑ http://ntsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1-1-Chromebook-Initiative-Manual-2017-2018.pdf
  33. ↑ http://www.usv.k12.oh.us/Downloads/Chromebook%20AUP2.pdf
  34. ↑ http://www.sudbury.k12.ma.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=333&Itemid=383
  35. ↑ http://oostburg.k12.wi.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/OHS-CHROMEBOOK-POLICY-HANDBOOK-1.pdf
  36. ↑ Moore, Noelia. "Becton administration successfully implements 1:1 Chromebook Roll-Out". Cat's Eye View. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  37. ↑ "Pequannock Township School District 1:1 Chromebook Program". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  38. ↑ "A 1:1 Chromebook Deployment Goes Awry". Nibletz. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  39. ↑ "DHS 1:1 Chromebook Initiative - Danvers Public Schools". Danvers Public Schools. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  40. ↑ "CHROMEBOOK COLLECTION – IMPORTANT INFORMATION – Greater Clark County Schools". gcs.k12.in.us. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  41. ↑ https://ams.edmonds.wednet.edu/UserFiles/Servers/Server_313355/File/News/Chromebook%20Loan%20Procedures%202017-18.pdf
  42. ↑ "Anderson School District Five: One to One". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  43. ↑ "Chromebook 1:1 - Maine Township High School District 207". www.maine207.org. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  44. ↑ "2017-18 Chromebook 1:1 Initiative | Lumberton Township Schools". www.lumberton.k12.nj.us. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  45. ↑ "2017 Chromebooks". www.bombay.school.nz. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  46. ↑ "Funding / Learning with 1:1 digital devices / Technologies / enabling e-Learning - enabling eLearning". elearning.tki.org.nz. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  47. ↑ "Uddevalla utvald till digitaliseringsprojekt - Uddevalla kommun". www.uddevalla.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  48. ↑ "1:1 Tech Initiative iPads Project Examples - 1:1 Tech Initiative iPad | OLCHS.org". www.olchs.org. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  49. ↑ "200 invalid-request". www.kimbolton.cambs.sch.uk. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  50. ↑ http://rsfschool.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/iPad-Auction-Rancho-Santa-Fe-School-District.docx
  51. ↑ BILLING, KAREN. "RSF School to purchase new iPads to replace Chromebooks". ranchosantafereview.com. Retrieved 2017-12-18.

Further reading

  • Bebell, D.; O'Dwyer, L. M. (January 2010). "Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings". Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment. 9 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 2010.
  • Cuban, L. (2006). "Cuban Op-Ed: The Laptop Revolution Has No Clothes". Education Week. 26 (8). Archived from the original on 17 October 2006.
  • Grimes, D.; Warschauer, M. (2008). "Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study" (PDF). Journal of Educational Computing Research. 38 (3): 305–332. doi:10.2190/ec.38.3.d.
  • Jaillet, A. (2004). "What Is Happening with Portable Computers in Schools?". Journal of Science Education and Technology. 13 (1): 115–128. doi:10.1023/b:jost.0000019644.31745.9e.
  • Lengel, James (May 2016). Education 1.2.1: How Best to Provide a Device for Every Student (1.0 ed.). iBooks. p. 225. Retrieved 14 June 2016.
  • McKnight,K; O'Malley, K.; Ruzic, R.; Kelly Horsley, M.;Franey, J.J.; Bassett, K.n (2016) "Teaching in a Digital Age: How Educators Use Technology to Improve Student Learning" Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Volume 48, 2016 - Issue 3, Pages 194-211 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856?scroll=top&needAccess=true
  • Harper B.; Milman N.B. (2016) "One-to-One Technology in K–12 Classrooms: A Review of the Literature From 2004 Through 2014" Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Volume 48, 2016 - Issue 2
  • Penuel, W. R. (2006). "Implementation and Effects of One-to-One Computing Initiatives: A Research Synthesis". Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 38 (3): 329–348. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463.
  • Silvernail, D. L.; Pinkham, C.; Wintl, S.; Walker, L.; Bartlett, C. (August 2011). "A Middle School One-to-One Laptop Program: The Maine Experience" (PDF). University of Southern Maine.
  • Zucker, A.; Light, D. (2009). "Laptop Programs for Students". Science. 323 (5910): 82–85. doi:10.1126/science.1167705.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.