The project study was a summative program evaluation of the implementation of a 1:1 laptop initiative to determine if the objectives created at the introduction of the initiative were met. Collecting quantitative data from the students currently involved in the initiative provided information on the progress of the initiative. Recommendations for continuing the 1:1 laptop initiative was based on a review of the literature and addressed best-practice actions that school leaders can pursue to create a successful and sustainable initiative. The data showed a 13-point increase in NJASK scores by the students involved in the 1:1 initiative.
In this section, I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the project, consider how the problem may have been addressed differently, and discuss what I learned about the process of creating a program evaluation. The section will conclude with a discussion of what I discovered about myself during the project study and the importance of the project and what was learned. I also consider the implications of the project study, its applications, and the direction for future research in this area.
Project Strengths and Limitations
In this project study, I addressed the needs for a school district to evaluate a program implemented to foster laptop use among students. While conducting a literature review on technology use in schools, researchers and other school districts and states have recognized the importance of implementing technology into the curriculum, though some studies have shown mixed results in the overall success of 1:1 laptop initiatives (Blau et al., 2016). The culminating project designed for this study provided the school
district and administrators with findings on data and recommendations, suggestions, and improvements to the 1:1 laptop initiative. Strengths of the project included the ability to create a program evaluation report that specifies findings of the study in relation to the initiative. It is also possible that different results may have been obtained in schools representing a different population. Gathering information from both students currently involved in the initiative through the use of analysis of state assessments allowed me to gather input for the study.
Recommendations for Alternative Approaches
The purpose of this project study was to determine if the 1:1 laptop initiative increased student learning. Therefore, the implemention of laptops in all instructional areas in the hopes that an increase in student and teacher use of technology in the
classroom would translate into higher achievement on the state assessments. However, to date, no one had evaluated the level of efficacy of this initiative to see if it has met the goals of improving student learning. The problem could be defined as the current availability of technology within the school not being adequate to meet the needs of students in the 21st century. As the world continues to rapidly change, particularly in the area of technology advancement, the educational landscape of schools in the United States has not changed fast enough and remains traditional in many aspects of education (Martin & Carr, 2014). Alternative solutions to this problem could have required the investigation of the impact of changing many features and structures of the current system to determine if any of these could have allowed for an increase in student achievement on state assessments. For example, I could have investigated the impact of
the introduction of laptops to students and faculty through the entire K-12 school district rather than just in the middle school setting. I also could have investigated the impact of other curricular changes that may have had an impact on the results of the state
assessments. Finally, I could have investigated the use of technology and the training the teachers received in order to implement the 1:1 laptop initiative. Appropriate and
beneficial teacher training on new initiatives could increase student achievement in the future.
Scholarship, Project Development and Evaluation, and Leadership and Change
At the start of this doctoral process, I decided that I would complete coursework and a final project on a topic of interest that would benefit the school district. All the coursework assisted with learning aspects of conducting research and incorporating the information learned into a final study. As an experienced educator and current
instructional leader in an elementary school, I was knowledgeable about the various programs within a school but had little experience on the evaluation of these programs. I understood the process of writing research papers and the importance of collecting and analyzing data. This doctoral process gave me the opportunity to sharpen my research and evaluation skills and expand them to apply to more areas within a school. I currently have the knowledge now to evaluate programs and make adjustments to the daily
workings of an elementary school. I plan to continue the work started through this doctoral process and contribute to future research, presentations, grant writing, or
discussions about the 1:1 laptop initiative asit continues to move forward and adapt to the continuous changes in educational technology.
This program evaluation marks the conclusion of my doctoral work, but not necessarily the conclusion of evaluating programs within my school. Completing the evaluation of the 1:1 laptop initiative has enabled me to use the knowledge and lessons learned during the process to evaluate many other types of programs currently available to the school. Leaders of other programs used by schools may benefit from similar research and analysis to make informed decisions on the success of individual programs.
The time dedicated to this program evaluation was more than expected due to many challenges that presented themselves during the process. Not only was this process completed while maintaining a full-time administrative job, but also while trying to combine life with a spouse and family. The number of interruptions created periods where not much work on the project was possible. In addition, the number of times revisions were needed to meet requirements led to rewriting many aspects of the study several times. The study was of particular interest to me as I am currently working in the building where this initiative is taking place. Even though there were times when it did not feel like progress was being accomplished, I have learned that perseverance is key to ensuring a quality product is finalized.
The final report of this study, a position paper, would allow me to present the results in an understandable manner to the local board of education. The local board of education can use the study results to determine if the 1:1 laptop initiative met its objectives and to make a determination whether the program should be continued, modified, or discontinued altogether. The use of the position paper will allow me to complete the program evaluation and present it in understandable terms and make it
relevant to the local situation. This particular evaluation focuses on one small sample of students which is unlike most other studies that are published in educational journals and are geared toward a broader population (Hartling et al, 2017).
Downes and Bishop (2015) suggested that technology integration into teaching and learning be unique with a specific context of learning and intended learning outcomes which are not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon. As the principal of the school where this laptop initiative is taking place, my ability to relate to the professional staff and give them the tools necessary to implement the initiative is paramount. As the educational leader in a 1:1 laptop initiative, I strove to support and encourage the teaching staff to broaden their views on the use of classroom technology.
My willingness to pursue this doctoral degree shows my ability to continue to learn and adjust my perspectives in many areas of education. This program evaluation highlighted my desire to use current programs and to research, evaluate, and make suggestions to broaden the program. Evidence collected during the process enabled the school to make informed decisions about the initiative and determine what works and what the students and faculty need to improve their learning and teaching.
Reflection on Importance of the Work
During the course of this project, I tried to determine to what extent the initiative has impacted student learning of a K- 8 school. Being in a position to see the use of laptops by both students and teachers on a daily basis made this project study very relevant. The collection of data was instrumental in gathering the information on the students’ previous learning experiences and the use of laptops, as well as how these
laptops might have changed their learning experiences since its implementation. This program evaluation of a 1:1 laptop initiative focused on the process and product portions of the CIPP program evaluation model. A strength of the CIPP model is that it is a useful, yet simple tool for assisting evaluators to produce questions of vital importance during the evaluation process (Jeon & Lee, 2014).
The overall lesson learned from this program evaluation is that the use of laptops in Grades 6 shows promise for enhancing the daily work habits of students. This group of students have grown accustomed to having a laptop and using the laptop to generate the majority of their classwork. The general consensus is that the 1:1 laptop initiative played an integral part to the success of the students in all areas of curricular. The initiative has also eased students’ anxiety to the newly incorporated state assessments that are taken online. This assessment scenario has not been a challenge to this group of students thanks to the daily use of a laptop.
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
I have addressed the need to evaluate a 1:1 laptop initiative. It is believed by both district and school leaders that student laptops had benefits above and beyond simply raising state assessment-test scores (Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013). The results of this study will stimulate school leaders, not only at my school, but also at the local high school and other schools across the state, to affirm that implementing laptop initiatives can improve learning in schools. Improvements in the use of laptops or other devices for instructional purposes will include assistance for faculty members in addressing issues of student behavior, teacher workload, the improvement of communications with students, and
increased guidance and incentives for faculty on how best to infuse these devices into instruction (Annan-Coultas, 2012).
This project study was designed to meet the challenges of implementing an initiative to increase student learning. Although created with the intent to meet the needs of students in this one particular school the initiative can be used for students in various grade levels and schools. Future research could be conducted by evaluating similar initiatives being implemented in other schools in the district, county, state or nation. Also, due to time constraints, a delimitation for this study was the comparison of the control and treatment groups based on only one NJASK dependent measure (math composite scores). This study could be replicated to compare the groups on other dependent measures as well.
Other areas of research to support the evaluation of any educational program could use the entire CIPP model or one of the other many established program
evaluations. Because the program evaluation is serving to make a decision, it is important to know what decisions are to be served. The CIPP is a comprehensive framework (which can be used as a checklist) for program evaluations for institutions and systems (Jeon & Lee, 2014). This program evaluation of the implementation of a 1:1 laptop initiative focused on the process and product evaluation.
Conclusion
The allure of laptop programs to educational administrators is they are looking to promote the kinds of creativity and thinking required in 21st-century learning. Though devices, such as laptop computers, may show only a limited effect on increasing overall
student achievement, there are particular benefits in the areas of language arts literacy, particularly writing strategies (Richardson et al., 2013). Although technology changes constantly, educational practices, can remain stagnant and resistant to change. The current educational system, although making strides towards 21st Century Learning, it is still reliant on many traditional instructional techniques. Teachers indicated technology has helped them teach more, with greater depth, taking less time, while their students learned more and with greater understanding. Today’s technology, whether it is the Web, social networking sites, or the newest device, provides students an opportunity to nurture an understanding of the strength of the information through the use of technology
education (Philip & Garcia, 2013). The technology available to students today in any school setting is the same technology they will use in higher educational settings, careers, and their general life activities during their lifetime.
Though some studies have shown that these initiatives are not productive and that schools are abandoning programs, the majority of the literature shows many more are successful and continuing with their 1:1 initiative. A program evaluation of the 1:1 laptop initiative enabled this researcher to propose that the program is beneficial in its current form in order to meet its objectives. The results of this study will be presented to the district board of education to evaluate the current program and make a determination if the program should be revamped in any manner. The final document, added to the
information used by the board of education, can be used to make an informed decision on the current 1:1 laptop initiative.
of continuing change in the use of laptops they will use on a daily basis. Being involved in a 1:1 laptop initiative at such an early age in school will evolve into these students being literate in the use of technology. The laptop initiative can be an impetus to their global success and assist them in becoming the leaders of tomorrow.
References
AbdiShahshahani, M., Ehsanpourb, S., Yamanic, Y., Kohand, S., & Hamidfare, B. (2015). The evaluation of reproductive health PhD program in Iran: A CIPP model approach. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 88-97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.059
Annan-Coultas, D. L. (2012). Laptops as instructional tools: Student perceptions.
TechTrends, 56(5), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0596-y
Antunez, M. Y., Toevs, S. E., & Gains, M. A. (2014). Rejuvenating aging studies in academic libraries. Collection Building, 33(1), 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1108/cb- 09-2013-0034
Aragon, A., Aldoubi, S., Kaminski, K., Anderson, S. K., & Isaacs, N. (2014). Social networking: Boundaries and limits Part 1: Ethics. TechTrends, 58(2), 25-31. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0734-9
Baran, E. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Journal
of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17-32.
Blau, I., Peled, Y., & Nusan, A. (2016). Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in one-to-one classroom: Teachers developing “digital wisdom.”
Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1215-1230.
doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.978792
Bornstein, M. H., Jager, J., & Putnick, D. L. (2013). Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review, 33(4), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003
Carman, J. G. (2013). Evaluation in an era of accountability unexpected opportunities—a reply to Jill Chouinard. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 261– 265
Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, C., Booth, A., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2017). A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: A methodological review. Systematic Reviews,
6:234. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0625-1
Cottone, M. (2013). Linking laptops to learning: Analysis of a 1:1 environment with
intermediate learners (Capstone research project). Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED553462)
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed method
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cummings, K. D., Stoolmiller, M. L., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2015) Using school-level student achievement to engage in formative evaluation: Comparative school-level rates of oral reading fluency growth conditioned by initial skill for second grade students. Reading and Writing, 28(1), 105-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9512-5
Cyr, B., Berman, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2015). The role of communication technology in adolescent relationships and identity development. Child & Youth Care Forum,
44(1), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-9271-0
from the field. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 28, 107-118. Dawson, K., & Kumar, S. (2014). An analysis of professional practice Ed.D. dissertations
in educational technology. TechTrends, 58(4), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0759-0
Dennen, V. P. (2015). Technology transience and learner data: Shifting notions of
privacy in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 45-59, 148-149.
Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. A. (2015). The intersection between 1:1 laptop
implementation and the characteristics of effective middle level schools. RMLE
Online, 38(7), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2015.11462120
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics,
5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Frye, A., & Hemmer, P. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67. Medical Teacher, 34(1), 288-299.
https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2012.668637
Gage, N. A., Cook, B. G., & Reichow, B. (2017). Publication bias in special education meta-analyses. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 428-445.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media.TheInternet and Higher Education, 19(10), 18-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
Grant, M. M., Tamim, S., Brown, D. B., Sweeney, J. P., Ferguson, F. K., & Jones, L. B. (2015). Teaching and learning with mobile computing devices: Case study in K- 12 classrooms. TechTrends, 59(4), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015- 0869-3
Gundy, M. S., & Berger, M. J. (2013). Laptop computers: reflecting on innovation in science. Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 139.
https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2013.v3.251
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS
One, 10(9), e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237
Hartling, L., Featherstone, R., Nuspl, M., Shave, K., Dryden, D. M., & Vandermeer, B. (2017). Grey literature in systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 17http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1186/s12874-017-
0347-z
Hatakka, M., Andersson, A., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Students' use of one to one laptops: A capability approach analysis. Information Technology & People, 26(1), 94-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841311307169
Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2015). An opportunity to learn US history: What NAEP data suggest regarding the opportunity gap. The High School Journal, 98(3), 226-
249. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2015.0006
Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313001300339897
Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 191-222.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9271-y
Jeon, J., & Lee, J. (2014). A study of satisfaction of employee training program CIPP evaluation model focusing on a corporation. International Conference on
Interactive Collaborative Learning, 12, 3-6.
Katz, R. L., Felix, M., & Gubernick, M. (2014). Technology and adolescents:
Perspectives on the things to come. Education and Information Technologies,
19(4), 863-886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9258-8
Kay, R., & Lauricella, S. (2016). Assessing laptop use in higher education: The laptop use scale. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 18-44.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9106-5
Ke, F. (2016). Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: A systematic review. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 64(2), 219-244. Keppler, M., Weiler, S. C., & Maas, D. (2014). Focused ubiquity: A purposeful approach
to providing students with laptops. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
17(4), 278-288.
embedding BYOD for reflective engagement in higher education. Computers and
Education, 88(10), 227-240.
Koopmans, M. (2014). Change, self-organization and the search for causality in educational research and practice. Complicity, 11(1), 20-39.
Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation.
Educational Technology, Research and Development, 63(2), 229-255.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14188-6_8
Martin, F., & Carr, M. L. (2015). An exploratory study on K-12 teachers' use of
technology and multimedia in the classroom. I-Manager's Journal of Educational
Technology, 12(1), 7-14.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results (1st Ed). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education