One-to-One Technology in the Classroom

Empirical research is used as a tool to gain knowledge via observation or experiences. Empirical research is beneficial to the classrooms because it is dealing with trial and error. You get to see what areas of the research work well and which areas have some room for improvement. The article I chose to critique is entitled One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative by Damian Bebell & Rachel Kay.  In this particular study, students in the classrooms were able to explore new faucets of the world through education while also gaining many of the benefits thought to come from such research. Teachers and school systems alike can use such articles when trying analyze the benefits and shortcomings of 1:1 computing, a phenomenon that takes place when a small portable personal computer, or other mobile computing device is given to every student in a given grade level or school (Roblyer & Doering, 2012, p. 24).


The Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative (BWLI) was a three-year pilot program conducted between 2005-2008 across five western Massachusetts middle schools including three public and two parochial schools. Also included in the study were two public comparisons schools in the area that did not receive the technology.This study aimed to document how successfully 1:1 technology implementation within the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative program: enhanced student achievement, improved student engagement changed teaching strategies, curriculum delivery, and classroom management fundamentally and enhanced students’ capabilities to conduct independent research and collaborate with peers. Beginning in 2005, every BWLI teacher (n=167) and student (n=1700 +/-) was provided with an iBook G4 laptop computer and all classrooms were equipped with wireless Internet. The grades chosen for the pilot was 6th-8th graders. Measurements included student & teacher surveys, student drawings, analysis of schools records and test scores, a computer writing assessment, principal/teacher interviews, along with classroom observations. "It is important to note that each of the participating 1:1 schools varied the deployment and            management of the laptop program to best suit the needs of their own distinct education community. Each school subscribed to its nuanced resource allocation, training and professional development offerings, policies, and technical and curricular support. Even though the program raised the overall level of technology so that every student and teacher had a laptop computer in school, some differences remained in the deployment and management of the program across the five settings" (Bebell & Kay, 2010, p. 10).

Based on surveys as well as state tests, there was evidence that student achievement was positively enhanced by the 1:1 implementation. For most teachers, the BWLI had major impacts. By the end of the pilot, teachers were using technology to make handouts, create assessments, lesson plans, and web pages as well as communicate with parents and other faculty. As supported by the interviews, surveys and classroom observations, “there is strong evidence that student engagement increased dramatically” (p. 21) as well as enhanced student research skills, however, evidence of an increase in student collaborations was much less dramatic (p. 25).

I definitely believe that 1:1 technology implementation has great benefits and that it has the capabilities to increase student engagement as well as enhance teaching strategies. However, I am reluctant to believe that implementation itself it directly correlated to higher test scores. For example in the Project RED study even 69% of the non–one-to-one comparison schools in the study, reported that their students’ achievement scores on high-stakes tests were on the rise (Roblyer & Doering, 2012, p. 25). The same was shown in BWLI study. In fact, in the BWLI study the comparison schools scores were often much higher than those at the participating schools. Also, in the current study there was too much variation between the schools to have conclusive information.

It is interesting to me that in other studies being conducted, “schools that provided peripherals such as projection systems along with the devices, offered continuing technical support and in-depth professional development, and had teachers who were willing to try using teaching methods had more impact than schools that had few or none of these factors” (Roblyer & Doering, 2012, p. 24). This goes to show that the implementation of the laptops itself is not enough. The correct technology, whatever they may be, along with teacher willingness is crucial for the best successful outcome.

(News Article: One-to-one computing programs only as effective as their teachers )

Bebell & Kay did not suggest any further research, however they acknowledge that 1:1 implementation like technology itself in the classroom, is still in its infancy and much more work needs to be done. Teachers and Principals in the study agreed that the impacts of any 1:1 computing program may take many years to be fully understood (p. 31). I suggest researching the methods used in non-1:1 computing schools during their years of increased test scores and compare them to see what other strategies work, or what strategies were alike, despite 1:1 technology lacking in one setting.




Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to One Computing: A summary of the quantitative              results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of                               Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2).



Roblyer, M. D.; Doering, Aaron H. (2012-01-17). Integrating Educational                            Technology into Teaching (6th Edition). Pearson. Kindle Edition.