J Educ Change

DOI 10.1007/s10833-016-9271-y

An international literature review of 1:1 computing

in schools

M. Sirajul Islam1 • Åke Grönlund1

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract This paper is based on a systematic literature review relevant to class-

room integration of computer technologies in schools. The purpose of this review is
to gain an accumulated view of uses, impacts and implementations of 1:1 computing
initiatives for school children. Unlike previous reviews this study is not limited to
certain countries or certain technologies. It includes any devices used in 1:1 com-
puting (not just the PC), and schools worldwide. The paper investigates the themes
being researched regarding 1:1 use in schools as well as exhibits some which are not
yet being researched but should be important to investigate. The study finds mixed
results including positive, negative and no-effects. The findings of this review are
expected to be useful both for academics as well as policy makers for gaining
insights for further research and successful educational policy reforms.

Keywords One-to-one computing
Cooperative/collaborative learning

Classroom technology integration
Teaching/learning strategies

Introduction

Although the inception of 1:1 implementation can be traced back to 1990, until now
there are only a few systematic literature reviews (Table 1). The discussions and
findings of most of these reviews lean towards the various implementation outcomes
for students and teachers and are mostly situated within the developed world
context. Given this research status, the present study aims both to provide an update

& M. Sirajul Islam

sirajul.islam@oru.se
Åke Grönlund
ake.gronlund@oru.se
1
Informatics Department, Centre for empirical research on information systems (CERIS), Örebro
University School of Business, Fakultetsgatan 1, 70182 Örebro, Sweden

123
 J Educ Change

Table 1 Major issues investigated in our and earlier reviews

Reviews Issues investigated

Our review Usages patterns

Nr. of papers: 145 (including
59 journals)
Years: 2000–2012/13
Fleischer (2011)
Nr. of papers: 18
Years: 2005–2010
Holcomb (2009)
Nr. of papers: 31
Years: 2003–2008
Penuel (2006)
Nr. of papers: 30
Years: 2001–2005
Impacts on students and learning, teachers and teachings, and
surrounding communities
Implementation challenges and factors
Students related (amount and types of usages, learning experiences,
problems, test scores)
Teachers related (professional culture, implementation concerns,
curriculum handling, professional development, and surrounding
society)
Students’ outcomes (absentees, discipline, learning engagement,
academic achievements in learning and writing, mathematics score)
Teachers’ outcomes (teaching and instructional practices, technological
skills)
Implementation methods
Standardized assessment
Goals and scale of one-to-one initiatives
Classroom uses of laptops in one-to-one initiatives
How teacher attitudes and beliefs shape implementation
Roles of professional development and technical support in fostering
implementation
Effects of laptop on students

on the implementation outcomes and to present a wider perspective in terms of

geographical coverage, implementation factors, and challenges in the field of 1:1
research and practice. We consider any devices used in 1:1 practices, including not
only the standard laptop but also low-cost PCs (e.g. OLPC’s XO and Intel’s
Classmate PC), tablet computers, and handheld tools (e.g. smartphones and iPod
Touch). We also consider all countries in the world, irrespective of level of
development. This comprehensive view provides valuable inputs to researchers as
well as policy makers. Within this wide empirical scope, the paper focuses on two
research questions: (1) what have we learnt so far from the implemented 1:1
computing projects in schools in regard to their use and impact? and (2) how can we
successfully implement such projects for school children?
The concept of one-to-one computing (1:1) refers to every student having access
at all times to a computing and communication device to use in school work as a
personal tool. The purpose of 1:1 is to enhance learning in general as well as more
specifically contribute to development of ‘twenty-first century skills’ such as
creativity, critical thinking and communication skills. Depending on the program
goals, availability of funds, and support from the key stakeholders, there are several
types of devices adopted in 1:1 programs which can broadly be categorized into four
types (Islam and Andersson 2015; Richardson et al. 2013) depending on their price,
processing speed, display size, weight, runtime battery life, and specialized
functionalities, such as standard laptop, low-end subnotebook or mini-laptop,

123
J Educ Change

tablets, and handhelds. Our definition of 1:1 computing is quite broad and extends
earlier definitions, which are often tied to specific technologies. For example,
Penuel (2006) specifies that the device used should be a ‘portable laptop computer’
having access to a wireless network. Fleischer (2011) adds that ‘‘one person must
have access to the same computer at all times, with the same settings, programs and
folder structure’’ (p. 2).
The genesis of 1:1 initiatives was much influenced by the ‘constructionist
learning’ thinking of Papert (1970). The constructionist perspective sees learning as
a process of ‘‘reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge’’ (Papert
1986, n.p.). Papert thought that ‘‘learning is most effective when part of an activity
the learner experiences as constructing a meaningful product’’ (n.p). He suggested
schools should address learning by ‘‘creating an environment in which the child will
become highly involved in experience of a kind to provide rich soil for the growth in
intuitions and concepts for dealing with thinking, learning, playing, and so on’’
(Papert 1970, p. 4). This approach, in combination with the fast evolution of
information and communication technologies (ICTs) and growing needs for
integrating those technologies within and outside of the classroom suggests a
‘student centered’ pedagogy which has recently provided challenges to traditional
‘lecture-and-test’ (or teacher centered) modes of learning. Student-centered thinking
has produced a variety of different active learning methods, such as collaborative
learning, experiential learning, and problem-based learning (Mascolo 2009). In this
regard, the potential roles of contemporary communication technologies are thought
to be enormous. However, as the nature of instructional intervention in one-to-one-
programs is yet tentative and under development (Sauers and McLeod 2012), we are
at an early stage when it comes to figuring out how to best integrate technologies in
the learning process given the certain socio-technical learning context.
1:1 programs in education are becoming popular worldwide for three main
reasons—easy availability and affordable information and communication tech-
nologies, increasing demands for adaptation to a networked and shared learning
environment that allows access to information from anywhere at any time, and
inclusion of ICT in the educational development policy agenda of countries and
states. Many countries, and indeed supranational organizations such as the European
Union, have widespread access to computers as an important policy item—schools
being one arena among others. While policy and priorities may differ across
countries, common motivations for increased computer use in schools include
national economy (all citizens must learn to handle new technology to become a
more productive workforce), equality, efficiency, and process change (Hylén 2010;
Peck and Sprenger 2008).
In the developed world there are a huge number of 1:1 implementations. While
the exact number is elusive, Peck and Sprenger (2008) estimated the number of
public 1:1 schools in the USA to over 14,000. Overall it seems the number is
increasing more rapidly in recent years, following the general increase of computer
use in the home. In Sweden, for example, over 200 out of 290 municipalities have
1:1 programs encompassing all schools (DiU 2012). A lot of literature on the 1:1
programs is of a practical nature, such as handbooks and descriptions of successful
cases, but overall there is not much research into causal relations between

123
 J Educ Change

interventions and effects. As Hattie (2009) points out, almost any intervention can
lead to positive results locally. In a similar vein, a US 2010 review of 997 1:1
schools found that the way projects were implemented mattered most. According to
the findings of the review ‘‘1:1 schools employing key implementation factors
outperform all schools and all other 1:1 schools’’ (Project Red 2007, p. 14).
However, not all implementations are sustained. Some schools have abandoned the
1:1 programs due to high costs, technical problems, and difficulties in finding
measurable positive effects (Fried 2008; Hu 2007; Warschauer 2006). Warschauer
(2006) suggests that technology does not itself lead to positive effects but is rather
an ‘intellectual and social amplifier’ which can help make good schools better but
increases problems at less successful schools. The finding that good work processes
are more important than ICT echoes earlier findings in other businesses;
Brynjolfsson (1993) showed that positive effects of ICT in businesses came from
reorganization, not from the amount of ICT used. Regarding the school sector, a
2009 US review of 1:1 research showed that there specific technologies yielded no
measurable effects but work methods including formative evaluation, student
reflection and ‘self-explanation’ did (Means et al. 2009). However, many authors
point out that because most studies are small, far-reaching conclusions cannot be
drawn (Dunleavy et al. 2007; Lemke and Martin 2003; Penuel 2005). In another
study, Rosso (2010) finds that the overall implication of existing research is that 1:1
requires fundamental change in the view of learning and education. This includes
the relation between teaching/work and tests, teachers’ work methods and role in the
learning process, and students’ view of schoolwork. Such change also leads to new
tensions, such as conflicts between new learning models and old policy models, and
between new outcomes and old assessments (Bielefeldt 2006).

Methods

This paper is based on a systematic review of literature relevant to the use of

computers in classrooms at the elementary and secondary school levels. In order to
ensure that the review process is rigorous and valid, the guidelines suggested by
Webster and Watson (2002) and Okoli and Schabram (2010) have been followed.
These include: (1) locating the relevant papers published in the leading journals,
which has been determined by exploring AIS’s ‘Senior Scholar Basket of Journals’,
top journals relating to education and technology, and the ICT4D Journal Ranking
table compiled by Heeks (2010), (2) going backward by reviewing citations of the
above journals, (3) going forward through Google search and digging out some
major journal databases (e.g. ABI/Inform, EBSCOHost) using some more specific
keywords, such as ‘OLPC’, ‘one laptop per child’, ‘one-to-one laptop program in
schools’, ‘one-to-one computing’, ‘computers in the classrooms’, ‘technology
integration in the classroom’, and ‘twenty-first century learning’, (4) going
backward by reviewing citations of the literature found through the above search
procedures; and (5) checking references as suggested by colleagues in this field of
research.

123
J Educ Change

Table 2 List of venues with number of publications

Venues Nr. of publications
(N = 145)

Academic journals 59
Reports (evaluation, research, and technical), 38
working papers and policy briefs
Conference proceedings 18
News, web articles and video presentations 14
Graduate dissertations 10
Books and handbooks 6

This search process initially yielded 297 publications which were summarized in
a metadata and concept matrix for further screening in view of a set of exclusion
criteria, including research objectives, relevance, time, and publication venues. This
screening and quality appraisal resulted in retaining 145 publications, most of which
were published during the last 10 years (Table 2). Our literature review is concept
centric (Webster and Watson 2002). We sorted out several themes and grouped
them together under several units of analysis (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, through 9).
During the analysis, we avoided repeating the work of previous literature reviews,
but the findings of these are of course taken into account.

Usages pattern and impact studies

Most research in our study focuses on the post-implementation or ‘adaptation’

activities, while few really talk about children’s use behavior. A regional (Latin
America and the Caribbean countries) review on one-to-one programs conducted by
Severin and Capota (2011) found that students and teachers were in the ‘adaptation’
phase of technology adoption as they were still in the process of adapting new
technology to conventional teaching methods. According to Constant (2011), ‘‘with
an average of just over 2 h per week per content area, it appears the one-to-one
laptop initiative is in the early adopter stage and has not yet reached a
transformative culture changing status’’ (p. 77). In regard to the use of laptops in
the USA, the most common uses are writing papers, browsing the Internet, creating
presentations, maintaining a personal calendar, managing photos, working with
movies, and taking quizzes (Keengwe et al. 2012; Lei and Zhao 2008; Shapley et al.
2009; Suhr et al. 2010). Outside of the USA, the Derndorfer (2010) study on the
OLPC program in Uruguay showed that children on average used the XOs for 10 h
and 20 min per week outside of school with the median being approximately 7 h. A
broad variety of uses were observed. Most notable were playing games, taking
photos and videos, writing, painting, searching for school-related information,
downloading videos and music, composing music, e-mailing and writing blogs.
Regarding teachers’ use of laptops, the Larkin and Finger (2011) 4-year study of
seven classrooms in Australia found that the usage of the netbooks was not

123
 J Educ Change

Table 3 Evidence of positive impacts on the students

Category Themes Evidence

Students Engagement and Bebell (2005), Bebell and Kay (2010), Burgad (2008), Great Maine
motivation Schools Project (2004), Gulek and Demirtas (2005), Hourcade
et al. (2008), Ingram et al. (2008), Keengwe et al. (2012), Kong
(2011), Lowther et al. (2007), Martino (2010), Mouza (2008),
Oliver et al. (2009), Rockman (2004), Silvernail and Lane (2004),
Suhr et al. (2010), Swan et al. (2005a, b), Trimmel and Bachmann
(2004), Warschauer et al. (2004), Zucker (2005) and Zucker and
Hug (2007)
Quality of work and Bebell (2005), Bebell and Kay (2010), Burgad (2008), Dunleavy
achievements et al. (2007), eMINTS (2007), Ferrer et al. (2011), Grimes and
Warschauer (2008), Great Maine Schools Project (2004), Gulek
and Demirtas (2005), Kerr et al. (2003), Light et al. (2002),
Lowther et al. (2007), Shapley et al. (2009), Silvernail and
Buffington (2009), Silvernail and Lane (2004), Warschauer
(2009), Warschauer et al. (2004) and Zucker and Hug (2007)
Self-directed/ Ardito (2011), Dunleavy et al. (2007), Gulek and Demirtas (2005),
independent Great Maine Schools Project (2004), Harris (2010b), Keengwe
learning et al. (2012), Lowther et al. (2003), Rockman (2004), Silvernail
and Lane (2004), Warschauer et al. (2004), Zucker and Hug
(2007) and Zucker and McGhee (2005)
Research and writing Burgad (2008), Cervantes et al. (2011), Gulek and Demirtas (2005),
skills Kerr et al. (2003), Lowther et al. (2003), Lowther et al. (2007),
Rockman (2004), Silvernail and Gritte (2005), Suhr et al. (2010),
Warschauer (2009) and Warschauer et al. (2004)
Computing skills Great Maine Schools Project (2004), Gulek and Demirtas (2005),
Harris (2010b), Lei (2010), Lei and Zhao (2008), Lowther et al.
(2007), Saçkes et al. (2011) and Warschauer (2007)
Access to online Dunleavy et al. (2007), Great Maine Schools Project (2004), Ingram
contents et al. (2008), Lowther et al. (2003), Lowther et al. (2007) and
Zucker (2005)
Attendance and Great Maine Schools Project (2004), Kerr et al. (2003), Light et al.
enrollment (2002), Silvernail and Lane (2004) and Zucker and Hug (2007)
Homework Gulek and Demirtas (2005), Great Maine Schools Project (2004)
and Sclater et al. (2006)
Help special-need Corn et al. (2011), Gulek and Demirtas (2005), Harris and Smith
students (2004), Russell et al. (2004) and Warschauer (2009)
Cognitive skills Cristia et al. (2012), Gulek and Demirtas (2005), Hansen et al.
(2012) and Mabry and Snow (2006)

substantial in terms of the actual student usage as the average daily use of each
netbook was 22.5 % of the daily available time. According to other studies, the most
common uses are developing instructional materials, conducting research relating to
instruction, record keeping and communicating with colleagues, students and their
parents (Katz and Kratcoski 2005; Silvernail and Lane 2004).
There are several impact studies but not many conclusive and generalizable
results. There are many reasons for that. Most studies are from the developed world
and mainly the USA. The data material is often uncertain as there are project
factors, undefined measures (e.g. ‘student and staff morale’), and research is often

123
J Educ Change

Table 4 Evidence of positive impacts on the teachers and teaching

Category Themes Evidence

Teachers and Constructivist and Apiola et al. (2011), Beaudry (2004), Gulek and Demirtas
teaching flexible teaching (2005), Ingram et al. (2008), Katz and Kratcoski (2005),
Maninger and Holden (2009), Rockman et al. (2000) and
Zucker and McGhee (2005)
Collaboration Beaudry (2004), Chandrasekhar (2009), Oliver et al. (2009) and
Zucker and McGhee (2005)
Professional Chandrasekhar (2009), Klieger et al. (2010) and Rockman
development (2004)
Access to online Corn et al. (2011), Dunleavy et al. (2007) and Ingram et al.
contents (2008)
Gaining computing Chandrasekhar (2009) and Great Maine Schools Project (2004)
skills

Table 5 Evidence of positive impacts on the classroom

Category Themes Evidence

Classroom Teacher-students interaction/
improved
communication/collaborations
Use of technology in meeting
curriculum goals
Classroom dynamism
Discipline/behavior problems
Ardito (2011), Bebell (2005), Dunleavy et al. (2007),
Fairman (2004), Gulek and Demirtas (2005), Harris
(2010b), Ingram et al. (2008), Katz and Kratcoski
(2005), Larkin and Finger (2011), Lei and Zhao
(2008), Light et al. (2002), Mouza (2008),
Silvernail and Lane (2004) and Zucker and McGhee
(2005)
Bebell (2005), Fairman (2004), Ingram et al. (2008),
Keengwe et al. (2012), Oliver and Corn (2008),
Rockman et al. (2000), Russell et al. (2004) and
Silvernail and Lane (2004)
Fairman (2004), Garthwait and Weller (2005), Katz
and Kratcoski (2005), Kerr et al. (2003), Klieger
et al. (2010), Lowther et al. (2007), Martino (2010),
Silvernail and Buffington (2009) and Swan et al.
(2005a, b)
Great Maine Schools Project (2004) and Silvernail
and Lane (2004)

Table 6 Evidence of positive impacts on the community

Category Themes Evidence

Community Social: reduces socio-educational
inequalities
Parents: increases parental
involvement in school and
technology literacy
Industry: increases innovations and
sales, reduce prices
Ferrer et al. (2011), Harris (2010a, b), Martino
(2010) and Mouza (2008)
Bate et al. (2012), Lemke and Martin (2004),
Rockman (2003) and Zucker and McGhee
(2005)
Charbax (2009), Harris (2010a), Kraemer et al.
(2009), Patel et al. (2012) and Rawsthorn (2011)

123
 J Educ Change

Table 7 Evidence of negative as well as no impacts on adopting laptop program

Types of negative or no effects Evidence

Leads to additional distraction and hinders
learning environment
Insignificant to academic achievement
Causes psychological as well as physical
strains
Over-dependency on information
technology can hurt the ‘art of thinking’
Bate et al. (2012), Donovan et al. (2010), Great Maine
Schools Project (2004), Harris and Smith (2004), Hatakka
et al. (2013), Hu (2007) and Lei and Zhao (2008)
Bielefeldt (2005), Constant (2011), Garner (2008), Grimes
and Warschauer (2008), MacDonald (2004) and Ogden
(2009)
No-effect or negative on math score
Angrist and Lavy (2002), Barrera-Osorio and Linden
(2009), Bielefeldt (2005), Cristia et al. (2012), Constant
(2011), Dunleavy and Heinecke (2008) and Grimes and
Warschauer (2008)
Eder (1998), Harris and Smith (2004), Harris and Straker
(1999), Pekovics (2003) and Trimmel and Bachmann
(2004)
Great Maine Schools Project (2004), Lei and Zhao (2008)
and MacDonald (2004)

based on small test groups (one or two classes). In addition the projects as well as
the research on them are often sponsored by computer manufacturers and pursued
by teachers in their own classes. A large research review by the US Ministry of
Education showed that technology itself does not entail positive effects but work
methods that include student self-reflection, self-assessment, and self-explanation
do (Means et al. 2009). This finding is in accordance with research on effectiveness
of technology use in general; information technology only yields productivity gains
in combination with improved work processes (Brynjolfsson 1993). The most
important ingredient in ‘positive change’ is the interaction between teacher and
student. Many investigations confirm the difficulty in measuring objective changes.
For example, an evaluation of a project in Falkenberg, Sweden, exhibited positive
experiences as stated by staff and students but there was no way to measure whether
grades had been affected in any way (Hallerström and Tallvid 2008).
Our findings in terms of the impact resulting from using laptops can be
summarized by four categories—students, teachers and teaching, classroom
environment, and community. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 summarize the evidence found
in the study corresponding to these categories.

Positive impacts: Students

Out of a total of 145 papers relating to laptop programs at compulsory school

level (K-12 in US terminology), 73 specify several types of positive impacts
(Tables 3, 4, 5, 6). Notably, 60 of these are based on the studies carried out in
developed countries and only 13 in developing countries, such as Uruguay (Hourcade
et al. 2008; Martino 2010), and Peru (Cristia et al. 2012). Among the 60 studies from
developed countries 54 are from the USA, the rest are from Canada, Australia,
Austria, Spain, Hong Kong and Sweden. These numbers indicate that positive

123
J Educ Change
Table 8 List of implementation challenges
Categories Critical implementation factors
Contextual Understanding local
knowledge environment, cost, risk and
benefits
Shifting educational Shifting education paradigm
paradigm (effective teaching and learning
strategies, curriculum mapping)
Teachers’ Teacher training/professional
professional development
development
Stakeholders Maintenance/onsite technical
commitments and support
supports
Stakeholder supports (school
community, policymakers,
administration, parents,
positive teachers’ attitudes)
Sustainable commitment
Robust infrastructure Localized creative contents
Adaptive/localized technology
(hardware and software)
Sufficient Internet connectivity
and power supply
Evidence
Cervantes et al. (2011), Fleischer (2011),
Kraemer et al. (2009) and Tedre et al.
(2011)
Johnson and Maddux (2008), Larkin (2011),
McKeeman (2008), Rubagiza et al.
(2011), Sipitakiat (2010), Tedre et al.
(2011), Towndrow and Vaish (2009),
Warschauer et al. (2012) and Weston and
Bain (2010)
Bebell and O’Dwyer (2010), Bonifaz and
Zucker (2004), Constant (2011), Cramer
et al. (2009), Danielsen (2009), Donovan
and Green (2009), Dunleavy et al. (2007),
Holcomb (2009), Jeroski (2003),
Keengwe et al. (2012), Kerr et al. (2003),
Kraemer et al. (2009), Lowther et al.
(2007), Mangiatordi and Pischetola
(2010), Penuel (2005), Penuel (2006),
Shapley et al. (2009, 2010), Silvernail and
Lane (2004), Swan et al. (2005a, b), Tedre
et al. (2011), Warschauer (2010), Zucker
(2005) and Zucker and Hug (2007)
Anderson (2007), Chandrasekhar (2009),
Cramer et al. (2009), Kerr et al. (2003),
Kraemer et al. (2009), Penuel (2006),
Shapley et al. (2010), Silvernail and Lane
(2004), Swan et al. (2005a, Warschauer
(2010), Zucker (2005), b) and Zucker and
Hug (2007)
Anderson (2007), Bate et al. (2012),
Cervantes et al. (2011), Johnson and
Maddux (2008), Lemke and Martin
(2003), O’Donovan (2009), Shapley et al.
(2009) and Tedre et al. (2011)
Cervantes et al. (2011), Kraemer et al.
(2009), Shapley et al. (2010) and Zucker
(2005)
Cramer et al. (2009), Hourcade et al.
(2008), Kraemer et al. (2009) and Tedre
et al. (2011)
Bonifaz and Zucker (2004), Cervantes et al.
(2011), Cramer et al. (2009), Hourcade
et al. (2008), Johnson and Kraemer et al.
(2009), Maddux (2008), Project Red
(2007) and Shapley et al. (2009)
Bielefeldt (2006), Cramer et al. (2009),
Harris (2010b) and Johnson and Maddux
(2008)
123
 J Educ Change

Table 8 continued

Categories Critical implementation factors Evidence

Sustainability Sustainability—environmental, Danielsen (2009), Kraemer et al. (2011),

social, economic and self-
sustainability
Monitoring and Monitoring and evaluation of
evaluation outcomes and impacts
Leadership Leadership with clear vision,
systematic implementation
plan, and skills on managing
change
Lemke and Martin (2003) and Tedre et al.
(2011)
Bonifaz and Zucker (2004), Jeroski (2003),
Tedre et al. (2011), Warschauer et al.
(2012) and Zucker(2005)
Bonifaz and Zucker (2004), Danielsen
(2009), Jeroski (2003), Lemke and
Martin. (2003), O’Donovan (2009),
Project Red (2007), Shapley et al. (2009)
and Shapley et al. (2010)

Table 9 Suggestions for future investigations

More need for References

Rigorous (systematic, comprehensive,
independent) evaluation
Impact/effectiveness evaluation
Longitudinal studies
Empirical evidence
Experimental and quasi-experimental
studies
Focusing in the context of developing
countries
Barrera-Osorio and Linden (2009), Bielefeldt (2006), Holcomb
(2009), Ingram et al. (2008), Kraemer et al. (2009), Penuel
(2006), Schaumburg (2001), Suhr et al. (2010) and Tedre et al.
(2011)
Cristia et al. (2012), Harris (2010b), Kraemer et al. (2009),
Penuel (2006) and Severin and Capota (2011)
Hansen et al. (2012), Kong (2011), Swan et al. (2005a, b) and
Yu (2011)
Ferrer et al. (2011)
Penuel (2006)
Barrera-Osorio and Linden (2009)

evidence for laptop programs is so far highly dominated by studies conducted in the
context of developed world, mainly the USA. This means there is a potential bias in
the available knowledge within the field as a whole, including of course this review.
Increased ‘engagement and motivation’, ‘quality of work and achievement’, and
‘independent learning’ are the three most frequently cited findings on positive
impacts. The following discussion briefly presents each of the categories on impact
as shown in Table 3.

Increased engagement and motivation

There are several empirical findings indicating that the use of laptops both at
schools and at home stimulates the students to engage more in their learning and
increases their motivation to learn (Silvernail and Lane 2004). Keengwe et al.’s
(2012) study impact of the 1:1 laptop program on traditional student achievement
and learning at a rural Midwestern high school in the USA and found that 83 % of

123
J Educ Change

the teachers perceived that the program improved students’ engagement for and
interest of learning, while the rest did not see any impact. Likewise, an evaluation
report (Ingram et al. 2008) on the Stillwater Area Public Schools laptop initiative
describes that ‘‘student engagement was higher when students had access to
computers or laptops’’ and ‘‘students’ physical engagement in the lesson was high at
both 15 and 30 min into the class period’’ (p. v). Similarly, Martino’s (2010) study
on OLPC for Uruguay’s Plan Ceibal (Basic Computer Educational Connectivity for
Online Learning) found that enhanced motivation for learning was one of the most
significant outcomes.

Improved quality of work and achievements

Improved motivation to learn and engagement in learning activities due to laptop

use could in turn ‘‘lead to an increase in time spent on learning activities and higher
quality work’’ (Swan et al. 2005a, b, p. 110). This has been mostly marked by
evaluating students’ grade point averages (GPAs), performances in the science
classes, retaining content materials, and language development. Some studies report
improvement of grades for the group of students using laptops in their learning
process (Gulek and Demirtas 2005; Light et al. 2002; Zucker and Hug 2007),
although this finding has been found inconsistent with some other investigations
(Severin and Capota 2011). Zucker and Hug (2007), studying the 1:1 initiative at the
Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST), find consistent judgment
between students and teachers regarding the value of the laptops. A large percentage
of the surveyed students at DSST believed that immersion of laptops helped to make
school more interesting and hence helped improve their grades. Notably, a study by
Gulek and Demirtas (2005) found ‘‘laptop enrollment has a significant effect on
mathematics and language scores’’ (p. 28). Constant (2011) reports that the use of
science-related content is the highest in laptop programs while Silvernail and Lane
(2004) report positive impacts on learning achievement. Warschauer et al. (2004)
found that use of laptops provides scaffolding for language development. Another
important aspect of learning achievement is students’ increased tendency of
retaining course materials and frequently revising the completed tasks (Bebell 2005;
Warschauer 2009).

Foster self-directing and independent learning

Some evidence suggests that effective implementation of 1:1 laptop programs may
contribute towards improving students’ self-efficacy which helps them to work
independently (Iman 2011). The 1:1 program helps students achieve greater reliance
on active learning strategies, motivate independent reading, develop more
responsibilities and become better organized in learning activities (Gulek and
Demirtas 2005; Harris 2010b; Silvernail and Lane 2004; Warschauer et al. 2004;
Zucker and Hug 2007; Zucker and McGhee 2005). According to the Great Maine
Schools Project study (2004), 76 % of the surveyed teachers perceived that the
‘ability to work independently’ among low-achieving students improved, while
14 % did not find any such effect.

123
 J Educ Change

Improved research and writing skills

Burgad’s (2008) study on the effect of a 1:1 laptop program on students’ academic
performance in a small rural North Dakota school found that laptops improved
research analysis, writing and editing skills. Improving research skills seems
consistent with the improvement of writing skills. Warschauer (2009), investigating
writing and pedagogical aspects of laptop initiatives in 10 elementary, middle, and
high schools in California and Maine, found that the use of laptops led to not only
more writing but also higher quality writing and substantial positive changes at
several stages of writing. According to Rockman (2004), laptops bring more
positive attitudes towards writing as the students enjoy writing more on the laptops
than on paper.

Enhanced computing skills

All the empirical studies that report positive findings from laptop programs indicate
students’ enhanced abilities in handling computing technologies. However, there are
few that explicitly acknowledge the presence of such skills. Warschauer (2007)
found that students in all the laptop schools knew how to access and manage
information and incorporate it into their written and multimedia products. Over
time, the use of computing technology among the students is gradually maturing
(Lei 2010), positively contributing to their development of computer skills (Saçkes
et al. 2011). The Great Maine Schools Project (2004) reported that the children had
consistently exhibited more advanced and flexible uses of computing technology.

Enhanced access to online content

Student access to laptops with network connectivity facilitates enhanced access to

up-to-date educational resources and information. Internet connectivity provides
students with a greater ability to locate and utilize online resources (Lowther et al.
2007). In the Great Maine Schools Project (2004), a majority (74 %) of parents at
PCHS reported that laptops had positive impacts on their children’s access to
educational content. The students also had better access to career planning
resources, such as virtual college tours, scholastic aptitude/assessment test (SAT)
study guides, and online applications. The Ingram et al. (2008) investigation at two
public schools in Minnesota reports that 90 % of the teachers agreed that laptops
help the students to access more up-to-date information for their studies, explore
topics in greater depth, and create materials that better meet the district’s academic
goals.

Improved attendance and enrollment

Many report that laptops in the classroom motivate even reluctant students to learn,
and that there are lower detention and dropout rates. This also encourages high-
performing students to remain in the public school (Light et al. 2002) and improves
attendance among the at-risk or low-achieving students (Great Maine Schools

123
J Educ Change

Project 2004). The Zucker and Hug (2007) survey at the Denver School of Science
and Technology found that presence of laptops in the classrooms led to a very
positive impact on the student attendance as they found school more interesting than
before.

More time on doing homework

The Great Maine Schools Project (2004) reported that nearly 50 % of the surveyed
parents opined that laptops motivated their children for doing schoolwork at home.
Sclater et al. (2006) study of Canadian public schools found that more than 80 % of
the students that had used a computer found that helpful for their schoolwork. They
also found that ‘‘almost all students, elementary and secondary, reported having a
computer at home that they could use for schoolwork’’ (Sclater et al. 2006, n.p.).

Assistance to students with special needs

Laptops can provide many advantages for students with physical disabilities or
learning or behavior difficulties by way of facilitating better communication,
organization, and confidence in reading and assessment. According to the Corn et al.
(2011) exploration of the role of students with special needs among 18 North
Carolina 1:1 Learning Technology Initiative (NCLTI) pilot schools, ‘‘Teachers
reported many advantages that a laptop can provide for a student with disabilities.
One teacher suggested, ‘There are a lot of ways that computers can mask a
disability, or help you compensate for one.’ This sentiment was represented within
multiple facets of learning, such as communication, organization, confidence,
reading ability, and assessment’’ (p. 6). Some studies also report that laptops offer
students with special needs additional visual representation of learning material,
easier ways of writing, increased engagement in active learning, and retention of
educational materials (Goldberg et al. 2003; Gulek and Demirtas 2005; Harris and
Smith 2004).

Increased cognitive skills

Cognitive skills reflect one’s abilities derived through a group of mental processes
including level and quality of attention, focus and inhibition, memory (working,
auditory, contextual, long-term, short-term, non-verbal, visual etc.), producing and
understanding language, processing speed and solving problems, adaptability, and
making decisions. Evidence suggests that use of laptops in the learning environment
engages students’ cognitive efforts and may lead to reduced cognitive load (Cristia
et al. 2012; Mabry and Snow 2006; Warschauer 2009). The Hansen et al. (2012)
field experiment at some schools in Ethiopia found that children with laptops
achieved significantly higher scores on abstract reasoning in comparison to the
children in a control group. According to the study, this positive effect was
relatively strong compared to the findings from similar studies in developed
countries.

123
 J Educ Change

Positive impacts: Teachers and teaching

Within a one-to-one laptop environment, technology becomes a core part of

teaching practices and impacts on changing instructional strategies over time.
Teachers within this environment report a stronger sense of empowerment as they
become acquainted with the use of computers as well as with using a more
constructivist approach in their teaching (Chandrasekhar 2009; Dunleavy et al.
2007; Gulek and Demirtas 2005; Maninger and Holden 2009; Rockman et al. 2000).
According to a survey among kindergarten teachers in Kent, Ohio, ‘‘oftentimes, the
teacher saw her role as more of a facilitator, trying to provide opportunities and
resources for students to discover or construct knowledge’’ (Katz and Kratcoski
2005, p. 52). Several studies on 1:1 indicate that computer technology improves
teachers’ computing skills, enhances quality and flexibility in teaching, and
increases the ability to formatively assess learning that leads to qualitative feedback
for both students and teachers (Dunleavy et al. 2007; Great Maine Schools Project
2004; Ingram et al. 2008; Zucker and McGhee 2005). This in particular encourages
teachers to individualize their instruction to meet the needs of individual students,
encourage explorative learning, and prepare assignments (Apiola et al. 2011;
Beaudry 2004; Oliver et al. 2009; Silvernail and Lane 2004).
It has also been reported that 1:1 laptop environments promote collaboration
opportunities among teachers. This helps to increase professional productivity as the
teachers can better communicate with their peers either at their grade level or in
their content areas (Zucker and McGhee 2005). Beaudry (2004) found that 60 % of
the surveyed teachers indicated a positive impact on teacher-teacher collaboration.
Integrating computing technology in teaching practices enhances teachers’ profes-
sional development by access to various sources of training and by networking
(Klieger et al. 2010). Internet connectivity facilitates teachers to access more
educational materials to support classroom learning and support the use of
interdisciplinary instructional approaches (Corn et al. 2011; Fairman 2004).

Positive impacts: Classrooms

Classroom communication comes in two kinds; teacher-student communication and

student–student communication. A good number of studies indicate that 1:1 laptop
programs increase both kinds of interactions about learning issues, and more
communication is generally considered better. An increase of interactions also leads
to improved relationships that in turn help learning productivity. According to
Fairman (2004), ‘‘Teachers reported an improved climate for learning in the
classroom, where there is more interaction and cooperative work across all groups
of students and between students and the teacher. Increased communication and
respect among students and between students and the teacher help to create a
‘community of learners’’ (p. iii).
In regard to the frequency of interactions, it has been observed that student–
student interaction is five times more frequent than teacher–student helping
interactions during the laptop sessions (Ardito 2011). Rockman (2004) argued that
such collaborative work helped transform learning environments as teachers provide

123
J Educ Change

individualized instructions and promote collaborative learning. The Light et al.

(2002) study indicates improved quality of informal, project-based small group
interactions between teachers and students during the program. Ingram et al. (2008)
found that the frequency of communication with teachers was more likely to
increase when students were at their homes.
Improved relationships among peers and keeping focus on the learning tools may
help to reduce students’ behavior problems and thereby may contribute towards the
development of overall classroom discipline. In this regard, an interview with a
principal who participated in Maine’s one-to-one laptop program is worth
mentioning: ‘‘I do see that behavior is excellent. [The students have] shown a lot
of respect for the laptops and when they’re working with the laptops, they’re on task
as compared to some of the curriculum that is not using the laptops. I mean, you
walk by the room when they are all on the laptops doing something and it’s pretty
impressive… I think that the laptops keep them more focused and therefore better
behaved’’ (Silvernail and Lane 2004, p. 27).
Use of computer technology to differentiate the depth of learning and
strengthening classroom communication altogether contribute towards a change in
classroom dynamism that appears to be supportive for gaining twenty-first century
skills. Such dynamism which is based on integrating computers in the classrooms, is
described in several ways, such as ‘changed classroom practice’ (Silvernail and
Buffington 2009), ‘innovative structural changes’ (Lowther et al. 2007), ‘unique
teaching and learning opportunities’ (Swan et al. 2005a, b), ‘more student-centered’
(Fairman 2004; Klieger et al. 2010), ‘inquiry-based approach’ (Fairman 2004),
‘interactive triad context comprised of teacher-student-technology rather than the
traditional teacher-student dyad’ (Katz and Kratcoski 2005) and ‘teachers as
facilitators’ (Fairman 2004). The laptops have engendered some changes in the
classroom as Kerr et al. (2003) describe that laptops serve as a ‘tool of performing
functions’ that change some classroom activities which were previously done by
hand, such as taking notes and conducting research. Computer use also helps
transform the interaction context in the classroom.

Positive impacts: Community

There are reports that 1:1 programs have had concrete effects on factors relating to
social inequality for students with low socio-economic status in the areas of
developing technological skills, career advancement, and broadening their world-
views through use of computers provided by their schools (Harris 2010b). In regard
to families with less technological and cultural resources, the Ferrer et al. (2011)
study in Aragón (Spain) found that use of computers in primary school was ‘‘a
strategy that evidently contributes to the reduction of socioeducational inequalities
amongst pupils, in terms of gender as well as birthplace and the mother’s level of
education’’ (p. 287).
Some studies (e.g. Rockman 2003) indicate that integration of laptop programs in
education may impact parents as concerns both their involvement in school and
their gaining technology literacy. Furthermore, Zucker and McGhee (2005)
suggested that laptop programs may eliminate the digital divide for entire

123
 J Educ Change

households who had no computers before. The study found that parents affiliated
with Henrico County Public Schools in the USA could get Internet access at a
discounted rate and receive training, perhaps for the first time, sponsored by the
schools to use computers and the internet. This helped parents to increasingly
become involved in communicating with teachers and take an active role in their
children’s learning processes, and stay up-to-date about their grades and attendance
(Rockman 2003; Zucker and McGhee 2005).
One effect that does not directly have to do with education but may have a great
effect on it is the fact that in developing countries 1:1 laptop programs apparently
influence competition in the computer industry—both for software and devices. For
example, the price of Windows XP decreased from $60 to $3 per device for third
world countries, according to Charbax (2009) ‘‘thanks to the pressure from Linux
OS in netbooks which was kick-started by the OLPC project’’ (n.p.). Rawsthorn
(2011) also suggests that the worldwide praise for the design of OLPC’s laptop
influenced the computer industry to develop a new profitable global market for
small computers. It has been noticed that the netbook market exploded in 2008 with
sales of 10 million units worldwide, most of them running Intel’s low-cost Atom
processor and Windows operating systems (Kraemer et al. 2009). Although below
the expectation, OLPC had until 2009 deployed 2.5 million XO laptops. Such a
huge deployment especially in developing regions stimulates innovation in low-cost
computing technology (Kraemer et al. 2009). It also influences by way of
introducing new ways of providing education for the children in the developing
world and by decreasing differences in technology distribution (Harris 2010a; Patel
et al. 2012).

Negative or no effects

One-to-one computing has also met resistance. Many districts in the USA have
dropped laptop programs due to resistance from teachers, logistic and technical
problems, and growing maintenance costs (Hu 2007). In developing countries such
as Colombia, Barrera-Osorio and Linden (2009) found that students’ use of
computers for their intended purpose was limited as the computers are predom-
inantly used to teach the students skills in computer use. In lack of solid research
findings there are on-going debates on the rationale as well as the effectiveness of
the 1:1 model in conventional educational settings, especially in the context of the
developing world. There are both cynical and romantic/passionate debaters, and
discussions have been particularly intense around the OLPC program. Although
most of the debates take place on social networking sites (e.g. blogs), newspaper
articles, and open discussion forums and quite few (e.g. Cristia et al. 2012 on Peru,
Barrera-Osorio and Linden 2009 on Colombia) are based on thorough scientific
research (e.g. rigorous and large-scale randomized evaluations) focusing on the
developing world. They indicate that (1) there is indeed a problem of clashes
between different pedagogical views, as endorsed also by some of the research
presented above, (2) there is a tendency to hide such problems behind the 1:1 field
as this is mainly about making computers available; (3) because of this, the debates
on necessary pedagogy and policy reforms can be kept out of the forums where they

123
J Educ Change

sooner or later must end up, namely in the debates on national curriculums and
school organization, and (4) for such debates to become effective there is a need to
base them on research. While much research still needs to be done there is also
existing research concerning education in general that is applicable also to 1:1
programs, including, for example, Hattie’s (2009) influential meta-study of how
various factors affect successful education.
Based on our literature search, the list of negative and no impacts regarding
adopting laptop programs in K-12 education can broadly be categorized into the
following ways: distraction, insignificance to academic achievement, psychological
as well as physical strains, and over-dependency on computers. Table 7 lists the
categories along with the respective studies.
Distraction is a major concern that can hinder the development of a conducive
learning environment, which in turn can decrease students’ academic engagement
and increase disciplinary problems. For example, Hu (2007) found that ‘‘the
students at Liverpool High [in NY, USA] have used their school-issued laptops to
exchange answers on tests, download pornography and hack into local businesses’’
(n.p.). The Great Maine Schools Project (2004) also found that laptops provided
additional distraction for some students in the classrooms as they used online
resources unrelated to class work. The Bate et al. (2012) longitudinal study
(2010–2012) of 196 students, their families and associated teachers in a school in
Western Australia found that 1:1 laptop programs could be a double-edged sword;
providing an enhanced opportunity for student-centered learning on one edge and
created obstacles to the learning process and environment on the other. Students can
spend too much time on wasteful and even anti-social activities. Some types of
students, who are highly distractible, anxious with low tolerance for frustration, and
even blind or partially sighted are of course particularly vulnerable to such
distraction (Harris and Smith 2004). Hollow’s (2009) work on the laptop program in
Ethiopia found that teachers sometimes with frustrations even forbade the students
from bringing laptops into the classroom as they did not listen to the lectures of their
teachers and kept themselves more focused on using laptops for non-academic
purposes during the class hours. Lei and Zhao (2008), however, observed such
distraction in the laptop project from an angle of ‘‘innovation in its experimental
stage’’ (p. 116). According to their year-long study in a Midwestern middle school
in the USA, while around 40 % of the teachers opined that the laptop program had
made it harder for their students to concentrate in class as they were distracted by
several digital resources, interestingly, around 84 % of the students disagreed. Lei
and Zhao (2008) in this regard asserted that ‘‘students were able to recognize the
potential distractions that laptops could pose, and they were learning to deal with
these problems’’ (p. 116).
Bielefeldt (2005) reports a study conducted by Fuchs and Woessmann (2004)
investigating the relationship between technology and student achievement based on
the data of year 2000 from 15-year old students living in 31 OECD countries. The
study concludes that (1) the use of technology is not by itself related to student
achievement; and (2) depending on the nature of the use, technology may help or
hinder students’ academic learning. Since distraction decreases academic engage-
ment due to a range of off-task behaviors (Donovan et al. 2010), this altogether

123
 J Educ Change

leads to an undesirable impact on academic achievement. Garner (2008) in this

regard cautions that laptops on every student’s desk does not produce solid
academic achievement as students apparently lose their valuable time by engaging
in entertaining activities with their computers or with their friends through the
computer. In particular, mathematics is the most cited subject where in many cases
there are no or even negative effects. There are several examples. In an evaluation
of the ‘Tomorrow-98’ program in schools across Israel, Angrist and Lavy (2002)
found no effect on math scores. A 2-year randomized evaluation by Barrera-Osorio
and Linden (2009) using a sample of 97 schools in Colombia found that OLPC
program had little effect on students’ test scores and other outcomes. In particular,
the effect on math scores is neither positive nor negative. The Grimes and
Warschauer (2008) study in three diverse schools in California found that negative
effects on the test scores of English and mathematics were temporal and passing
over time. According to this study; ‘‘laptop students failed to keep up with non-
laptop students in the first year of implementation but made strong gains in the
second year of implementation’’ (p. 305).
Ergonomics is one of the least focused research areas. Trimmel and Bachmann
(2004) in this regard argued that this should become an important issue in future
research studies, but it seems that today, 10 years later, this call has not been much
heeded. Some studies suggest that a long-lasting poor posture with laptops may
cause psychological as well as physical discomforts (Eder 1998; Harris and Straker
1999; Pekovics 2003). Trimmel and Bachmann (2004) investigated the effects on
cognitive performance and aspects of strain in laptop classrooms at a school in
Austria through a quasi-experimental research design. They found that ‘‘laptop
students rated stronger physical discomfort at the locations of the head, neck, back,
arms, eyes and hands, though, only concerning the arm location a significant
difference occurred’’ (p. 157).
Some authors worry that losing the traditional ways of learning through books,
paper, and pencil (Lei and Zhao 2008) due to too much exposure to computers
might hurt the ‘art of thinking’ and development of the mind (MacDonald 2004).
Similarly, the Great Maine Schools Project (2004) reported that dependency on
laptops may repress students’ problem solving abilities. For example, Hu (2007)
refers a comment of a teacher at Liverpool High School in the USA that ‘‘The art of
thinking is being lost […] Because people can type in a word and find a source and
think that’s the be all end all’’ (n.p.).

Implementation challenges and factors

The effect of computer assisted learning programs critically depends on the

implementation method which is generally sensitive to the existing teaching
methods, resources and heterogeneities of students with different needs and abilities
(Linden 2008). A 4-year evaluation study by Shapley et al. (2009) for the Texas
Technology Immersion Pilot found several implementation challenges in the
technology immersion model, such as administrative turnover, noncommittal
teachers, insufficient professional development, inadequate school infrastructures,

123
J Educ Change

and laptop management problems. Based on our literature review, we have

categorized eight (Table 8) broad implementation issues. These are contextual
knowledge, shifting educational paradigm, teachers’ professional development,
stakeholders’ commitment and support, availability of robust infrastructure,
sustainability, monitoring and evaluation, and leadership. There are several studies
that indicate that those crucial capabilities are lacking, mostly, but certainly not
exclusively, so in developing countries.
Prior to implementing a new project it is imperative to have a thorough
understanding about its context, costs, risks, barriers, and challenges that may affect
expected benefits. An implementation plan must be contextually embedded and
must take the socioeconomic and cultural realties into consideration. Our review, in
line with other research, shows that non-technical issues are as important as
technical issues (Holcomb 2009; Tedre et al. 2011). Cervantes et al.’s (2011) field
studies in Mexican elementary schools revealed that the implementation of a laptop
initiative heavily depended on teachers’ preferences, organizational values, and
existing norms. Given that every context of computer use is unique and local
conditions vary, Tedre et al. (2011) defines such conditions by three categories:
environmental (e.g. cold vs. dusty desert areas), socioeconomic (e.g. developed vs.
developing countries, bureaucracy, literacy level, political stability) and techno-
logical (e.g. stable network infrastructure).
Shifting the existing educational paradigm by mapping as well as setting
appropriate curricula priorities in a certain context is one of the crucial
implementation factors of a laptop program (Sipitakiat 2010; Towndrow and Vaish
2009; Weston and Bain 2010). Without such a shift in practices of teaching and
learning it appears to be difficult to exploit the capabilities offered by technologies
(Rubagiza et al. 2011).
A research review by Rosso (2010) concludes that extensive computer use
requires a thorough change in the view of teaching and learning, including the
relation between teaching/work and tests, teachers work methods and role, and the
students’ view of school work. There are also indications that the relationship
between the school and the homes can be affected. However, this change seems to
come not from the computer use in schools but from technology use at work and in
the home. It is also noted that the development is not free from conflict, as Bielefeldt
(2006) states, ‘‘There are also new tensions that arise, such as conflicts between new
learning models and old policy models, and between new outcomes and old
assessments’’ (p. 1).
Computing in education programs for children are primarily based on Papert’s
constructivist ideas in contrast to the traditional instructionism philosophy, however
in most cases it fails to take into account the constructivist pedagogy (Tedre et al.
2011). Although there are some constructivist pedagogical efforts, ‘‘what is worse
than latent instructionism is launching an educational project without concrete
pedagogical ideas at all’’ (Tedre et al. 2011, p. 4). It was reported that only 7 % of
the teachers receive pedagogical support during the laptop program (Warschauer
et al. 2012). Following the investigation of the Birmingham OLPC program,
Warschauer et al. (2012) therefore suggest that ‘‘the technocentric approach is
counterproductive and that any educational reform effort with digital media needs to

123
 J Educ Change

be grounded in solid curricular and pedagogical foundations, include requisite social

and technical support, and be carried out with detailed planning, monitoring, and
evaluation’’ (p. 73).
Success in changing educational paradigm for integrating ICTs in the learning
process is strongly contingent on the teachers’ professional development training
programs. Slay et al. (2008) in this regard find that incorporating technology into
teaching without the required confidence, training and competence can weaken
learning experiences. Teachers’ professional development is a much quoted issue in
the studies relevant to the laptop programs which focus on what skills teachers
should gain, and how, in order to be able to effectively integrate ICTs in their
educational programs. Teachers should have skills in appropriate instruction and
assessment practices, accessing and managing curricular resources, and classroom
management (Dunleavy et al. 2007). The Mangiatordi and Pischetola (2010) studies
in Ethiopian and Uruguayan primary schools found that the teachers needed to know
how to use technology for increasing the quality of work and creating a truly
inclusive classroom environment. Hollow’s (2010) study in Malawi and Ethiopia
similarly found that lack of training was the dominant complaint of the teachers of
those countries. According to him, ‘‘several teachers showed little interest, were
fearful of using the technology and reluctant to let the children use it
independently’’ (p. 124). Hollow (2010) presents the opinion of a school principal
as follows: ‘‘we need to train the teachers more about how to actually make use of
[technology] in the classroom. We haven’t had this and need additional training for
them’’ (p. 273).
Continued commitment and substantial support from the relevant stakeholders
(O’Donovan 2009) are extremely required during several phases of the project
implementation process. Here the primary stakeholders with those strong attributes
are teachers and students of the respective schools. A sustained commitment from
the supply side, such as teachers, policy makers (Johnson and Maddux 2008),
vendors and technicians, school administrations, and even parents (Tedre et al.
2011), is crucial for the quality of output and continuation of ongoing programs.
More specifically, lack of onsite technical supports may hinder the integration of
technology into the curriculum (Kerr et al. 2003). A case study by Chandrasekhar
(2009), carried out in a school district in the USA, found that ‘‘regular technical
support provided by the district, at the site, or by students, was critical in ensuring
that the technologies were available most of the time for teaching and learning’’
(ibid, n.p). Anderson (2007) therefore suggests a reliable computer vendor that will
provide complete technical support. In addition, notably, parental agreement and an
effective partnership between education and leaner are required for the development
of an effective learning environment (Bate et al. 2012; Tedre et al. 2011).
Altogether, there is a need for a complete ‘support model’ (Tedre et al. 2011) that
includes support from various levels and actors, such as regional, national,
international, university or secondary schools, grassroots organizations, peer-to-
peer, free and open software, and not least the support of the school organization.
However, support is not enough. Lack of adequate infrastructure is one of the
crucial barriers to the implementation of 1:1 laptop programs in schools (Anderson
2007; Bebell and O’Dwyer 2010). Therefore, support from the respective sources

123
J Educ Change

must be supplemented with a robust infrastructure which includes adaptive (or

localized) hardware, software capable of facilitating localized creative contents,
uninterrupted power supply, and network connectivity with sufficient bandwidth.
Harris (2010b) observed that lack of power generation threatens laptop programs
especially in poor rural regions. As laptops for education is a part of ‘large
sociotechnical infrastructure’ (Cervantes et al. 2011), some studies put emphasis on
the design aspects of the hardware and software and the localization of content.
Hourcade et al. (2008) note that some design challenges relating to human–
computer interaction need to be addressed, such as problems with input devices,
basic interactions, and localization of user interfaces. Cervantes et al. (2011) in this
regard argue that ‘‘designs should take a holistic approach, thinking about the
ecology of tools, policies, and programs that each community will mix and match to
create their own laptop infrastructure’’ (p. 954).
Although the term ‘sustainability’ is somewhat suffering from inflation due to its
alleged vagueness and delusions of unachievable goals (Jancovici 2002; Robinson
2004; Tedre et al. 2011) point out four types of sustainability aspects in the laptop
program—environmental, social, economic, and self-sustainability, which refers to
the ability of running a project independently after a certain period of time. Shapley
et al. (2009) find some preconditions for sustainability, including commitment of
leaders, adequacy of funds, and positive views and commitment of educators.
Above all the financing aspect of self-sustainability is the most vital implementation
challenge that needs a mechanism for the continuation of ongoing financing. In
regard to financing, Kraemer et al. (2009) refer to several cost components,
including the foregone investment or ‘opportunity cost’ in teachers, facilities, or
other educational resources. According to them, ‘‘the total cost of ownership for a
laptop program could include infrastructure investment, training, tech support,
hardware maintenance, software licenses and upgrades, and replacement expendi-
tures’’ (p. 73).
Without a continuous monitoring and evaluation, including finding the learning
impact based on a systematic framework, any project implementation will lead to
uncertainty, difficulty to find and define the scope of improvement, and
consequently a considerable risk for failure. Therefore program monitoring and
evaluation are considered to be one of the key areas for project leaders and policy
makers that need careful attention (Bonifaz and Zucker 2004; Jeroski 2003;
Warschauer et al. 2012; Zucker 2005). O’Donovan (2009) asserts that for
continuation of a laptop program there should be an effective monitoring program
since the principal of the school always needs to justify the program with data.
However, despite its due importance, Tedre et al. (2011) found that ‘‘most one-to-
one computing initiatives around the world seem to lack a systematic monitoring
and evaluation framework’’ (p. 8).
Finally, a dynamic visionary leadership is the cornerstone of a laptop program.
According to the Lemke and Martin (2003) study on the Maine’s laptop initiative,
‘‘across the [Maine] state, school and district interviewees cited three leadership
factors that were absolutely critical for the effective implementation of one-to-one
programs: Strong, visionary leadership that encourages and supports risk-taking’’ (p.
13). Other factors found were professional development and quality infrastructure.

123
 J Educ Change

Leadership includes establishing a clear vision and expectation, setting the vision in
the policy process and procedures, encouraging integration, and involving staff in
making decisions about instructional technology (Danielsen 2009; Shapley et al.
2009). Leadership should function as a team that ‘‘looks at things through three
different lenses: the lens of curriculum and content; the lens of the culture of the
building; and the lens of technical needs’’ (Bonifaz and Zucker 2004, p. 3).
The above discussions indicate that the stated problems of implementation of
one-to-one computing programs are quite common in most cases, but ‘solvable’
(Bielefeldt 2006). Technological interventions should be seen in a ‘soft’ perspective
that considers not just the technology itself but also, and in particular, how
technology can be integrated in work processes. This requires acknowledging the
importance of contextual (social, economic, cultural) heterogeneity and finding
ways to meet this. Therefore, one-to-one programs need a ‘comprehensive and
systemic approach’ (Bonifaz and Zucker 2004) with contextually embedded
adequate resources and should be managed through strong leadership with sincere
commitments and actions from the key stakeholders.
Previous research shows that teachers’ roles change and they need to cooperate,
but there are limits to how much can be done without the intervention of school
management. For example, how can the local, increasingly complex, technical
environment be economically and technically procured and managed without
intervention of school management? How can local electronic library resources be
developed, maintained and quality controlled in a uniform way without intervention
of school management? How can ‘‘twenty-first century’’ skills be defined and
measured in a uniform, workable, and credible way across schools and the school
systems without the involvement of school management?

Summary of the results

The study finds that 1:1 programs in schools are generally motivated on the ground
of constructivist learning theory (in contrast to traditional instructionism) that
advocates the use of computing technology in education and strives for enhancing
learning processes by doing and playing and helping to prepare students for life and
work in the highly connected digital environment of the twenty-first century. There
are several impacts reported in this paper which are broadly categorized as
‘positive’, ‘negative’ or ‘no-effect’. The positive effects, which are considerably
more frequent in the literature than the negative or no-effects ones, are described
here in terms of four categories—students, teachers and teaching, classrooms, and
community. Much evidence suggests that 1:1 initiatives enhance students’ academic
engagement and motivation, quality of academic work, independent learning,
computing skills and collaboration. Teachers are reported to benefit from engaging
with flexible teaching, collaboration, and professional development. Classroom
environments improve due to ICT facilitating improved teacher–student interactions
and reducing disciplinary problems. The community as a whole benefits as
technology contributes to reducing socio-educational inequalities, increasing
parental involvement in school and technology literacy, and, as a tertiary effect,
increasing innovations in low-cost computing technology and sales.

123
J Educ Change

On the negative side, examples show that 1:1 programs may suffer from logistic,
technical, and financial problems, but also resistance from teachers. There are some
contrasting results that bring into debate the issue of to what extent 1:1 programs
help improve students’ academic achievements (generally measured in terms of
GPA). Some evidence suggests that computer use by children in their learning
process may provoke distraction, psychological as well as physical strains, and
over-dependency on technology which can disrupt the ‘art of thinking’.
The most important implementation challenges found in this study are, (1)
efficient management by a strong leadership, (2) having adequate contextual
knowledge or understanding about local environment for effective implementation
of ICT-supported work processes, (3) shifting educational paradigm, (4) teachers’
professional development, (5) stakeholders’ commitment and uninterrupted support,
to ensure program sustainability, (6) monitoring and evaluation, and (7) a robust
infrastructure that includes localized creative contents, adaptive technology;
sufficient Internet connectivity, and power supply.
Local implementation emerges as the most difficult factor as similar interven-
tions yield different results in different schools. This means that local leadership, in
particular the skill in change management, is a factor that should be further studied.
In this change, the 1:1 concept cannot be the leading star for school development,
for two reasons. First, there is a need for a vision related to the core task of
schools—students’ learning—rather than the number of computers. Second, the
multitude of devices coming into use and the increased role of networked resources
make the sole focus on the laptop obsolete.

Conclusions

This paper investigated the existing literature focusing on the many aspects of 1:1
computing initiatives in schools worldwide. The findings are presented in terms of
four broad areas of understanding; a historical background, implementation of goals
and uses in reality, impacts, and implementation challenges and factors. The study
has presented a large number of papers evidencing that research is indeed going on
regarding a number of factors. However, there are also obvious gaps. Table 9
summarizes the most cited and important issues that are still not adequately
addressed in contemporary research. One frequently quoted gap is the lack of
research rigor. Much research is self-reported and lacks in rigor as concerns focus
and methods for collecting data, and indeed in the size of the tests. There is a
potential risk that self-reported investigations could end up with praising the
concerned initiatives and overlook potentially unpleasant realities on the ground. In
addition, impact or effectiveness evaluation is still scarce. Barrera-Osorio and
Linden (2009) in this regard assert that ‘‘unfortunately, while ICT programs are one
of the most studied interventions in the education literature, robust evaluations of
ICT programs are still too scarce to provide general conclusions regarding their
effectiveness’’ (p. 2). Similar to our review, Barrera-Osorio and Linden also find
that the overwhelming share of the evaluation literature is from developed countries,
and mostly from the USA. As concerns developing countries, they are

123
 J Educ Change

predominantly engaged in national policy-supported and financed ‘one-laptop-per-

child’ programs, but robust evaluations of such programs are still lacking. One
notable exception in this context is the study conducted by Severin and Capota
(2011), which comprehensively evaluated laptop programs in Latin America and the
Caribbean regions. The study finds that, ‘‘there is an overall lack of impact studies
that compare one-to-one initiatives with other interventions with regards to their
cost effectiveness’’ (p. 54). Ferrer et al. (2011) call for more empirical evidence that
could provide a strong association between the 1:1 experiences in schools and the
academic performance of pupils in given socio-educational realities. Even though
there are some such studies, a lack of a suitable control group is a major limitation
of empirical investigations (Hansen et al. 2012; Wagner et al. 2005).
Beyond these general issues of rigor and scale, the above-mentioned earlier
reviews point to many issues that while researched to some extent certainly have not
yet resulted in more than anecdotal data and require much further research. Such
issues include, but are not necessarily limited to (1) investigating medium and long-
term effects at a certain academic stage, such as primary, secondary or tertiary, (2)
finding impacts on learning in a certain pedagogy or educational system, (3)
management of necessary changes; e.g. infrastructural, pedagogical, (4) character-
istics of students in the twenty-first century, (5) role of the teachers, (6) privacy in
data handling, (7) conditions that facilitate or hinder successful integration, (8)
customization of hardware and software for a better migration path for education,
and (9) generalization of findings to some other socio-economic and cultural
settings.
While much research notices the change in teachers’ role and the need for
increased focus on ‘‘twenty-first century skills’’, there is little research exhibiting
proven methods for achieving such change. We know that twenty-first century skills
are in competition for time with traditional curriculum items such as basic reading
and math. This means twenty-first century skills must be developed not in
competition with but alongside and integrated with the ‘traditional’ skills. One
example of such integration is the literacy development method developed in
Sollentuna, Sweden (Grönlund and Genlott 2013). This method led to considerably
improved student results—about 20 percentage points better than control groups—
in literacy as well as numeracy. The key to success was that it drew on twenty-first
century skills—communication and social interaction using online tools to improve
the traditional skills, which were measured by means of the traditional standardized
national tests in Sweden. The same study also showed that using ICT without a clear
method does not bring improvement but may rather lead to worse results. The result
for the control group that used ICT in a ‘spontaneous’ manner performed 8
percentage points worse than the ‘traditional’ education group (i.e. no ICT used).
However, not all areas of education have standardized national tests by which to
measure. This is true for most social sciences, music, art, and more. We also know
that knowledge and skills that cannot be measured are likely to lose out in the
competition for attention in school. In particular, increasingly attention is paid to
international measurements such as PISA (OECD Programme for International
Student Assessment) among politicians across the world. We have seen a slow
development of measures for such new skills that are not easily measurable. One

123
J Educ Change

example, which was not sustained, was the ‘‘digital reading’’ measure used in the
latest PISA study. We can indeed see that more of this is in the making—the next
PISA measurement will for example include a measure of the ability to take part in
collaborative work. But such changes will require considerable time to be tested,
evaluated, and accepted. We also know that changes in school take time, for many
reasons including long lead times in updating national curricula, teachers’ ingrown
habits, cultural issues, and more. This means that 1:1 implementation is not a quick
fix. It is a multi-year challenge of change management in every school, in every city,
and in every country as so many established work patterns and thought models need
to be gradually changed in a bottom-up manner as there is no top-down model ready
for use.
Erstad (2009) points out that this is a systemic change process. The educational
system in any country is complex and involves actors at different levels in a usually
complex hierarchy, ranging from the political level (often both local and national
politics) over several administrative levels and audit and control agencies to the
individual schools and teachers. No major change, such as 1:1, can be achieved
without actors at all these levels taking concerted actions. So far, under the 1:1 field,
focus has been on the technology. Technology is a factor that comparatively easily
can be delegated to one of the levels. When it comes to improving education not just
in some schools but across the country, as we have seen above, there needs to be
national arrangements¸ local arrangements, institutional arrangements (at the
individual school), and work methods improvements. Each of these areas of change
is complex, and the complexity is increased by the fact that many of the necessary
changes require actions at several levels in concert. For example, teachers
increasingly require changes in national tests to reflect new work methods.
We can by now see that the early focus of the 1:1 discussion—the computer—is
no longer the only or even the major focus. Today, advanced schools are
increasingly using the network; cloud services are increasingly interesting as they
provide solutions to many problems that 1:1 has created such as computers breaking
down or being forgotten at home. There has been an increased use of other types of
devices in recent time. Students often use their (own) mobile phones in school, e.g.
when they Google for a term. Schools buy tablets instead of PCs as they are much
cheaper, break down less, and are easier to use for many tasks and by younger
students. All these developments in practice, and other ones such as the bring your
own device (BYOD) movement, point to the need for a shifting research focus. One
might hope that this shift would be towards something that is not tied up to specific
technical tools, like one computer per student, and is more about learning. Therefore
the overall implication from this literature review at the policy level can be
described as follows:

• ‘‘1:1’’ cannot be the leading concept for school development; there is a need for
a change to something related to the core task of school—students’ learning.
• The multitude of devices coming into use and the increased role of networked
resources make ubiquitous computer use in schools increasingly an issue of
leadership. This includes two huge tasks, such as (1) managing an increasingly
complex set of resources, physical as well as educational and/or informational,

123
 J Educ Change

and (2) managing human resources—students and teachers—in increasingly

diverse work situations stretching time and space from office hours and school
buildings to include the home and public places like libraries and cafes as well
as evening hours and weekends.

Using technology in the classroom can go either way; student results can improve or
deteriorate. Only good pedagogy guarantees improvements. In order to make sure
technology use improves schools on a large scale there is a need for leadership;
good examples must be promoted and disseminated, bad examples must be detected
and stopped. Collegial learning must be organized so as to organize local
implementations of research-inspired methods and evaluate trials. School leaders
must contribute by making arrangements to sustain and disseminate methods found
to produce improved results so as to make all classes and schools benefit. Finally the
overly heavy focus on specific technologies found both in research and political talk
must change into a focus on methods. There is clear evidence that ICT use does not
by itself lead to progress. Future research should therefore focus not only on
pedagogical methods but also school organization and leadership and their
contribution to improving and disseminating good pedagogy and dismantling bad
habits. The large-scale success of ICT use in schools does not emerge from small-
scale experimentation. While this is of course necessary, there is urgent need for the
next step, change management. In this case, leadership in improvement of the
quality of methods can make a difference.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge that although we aimed to include as
many papers as possible there is of course the chance of missing some interesting
literature in the review process due to our specific search criteria or research focus.
Nevertheless, in order to contribute to the broader understanding in the research area
of 1:1 computing in school we have not only investigated available academic papers
but also scholarly non-academic articles and reports. It is therefore our expectation
that future researchers will keep their efforts on investigating more thoroughly the
many aspects of this research field and thereby help to strengthen the implemen-
tation of technology in school education in the agenda of education policy reforms.

References
Anderson, C. J. (2007). A Delphi study of the strategies that will help superintendents overcome the
barriers to the implementation of one-to-one laptop programs in K–12 schools. Dissertation,
University of La Verne, USA.
Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New evidence on classroom computers and pupil learning. Economic
Journal, 112, 735–765.
Apiola, M., Pakarinen, S., & Tedre, M. (2011). Pedagogical outlines for OLPC initiatives: A case of
Ukombozi School in Tanzania. In IEEE Africon 2011—The Falls Resort and Conference Centre,
Livingstone, Zambia, September 13–15, 2011.
Ardito, G. (2011). The shape of disruption: Student independence in the 5th grade classroom. In T.
Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
ypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2129–2133). Chesapeake, VA: AACE Austin, TX:
Texas Center for Educational Research. http://www.tcer.org/research/etxtip/documents/y4_etxtip_
final.pdf.

123
J Educ Change

Barrera-Osorio, F., & Linden, L. L. (2009). The use and misuse of computers in education: Evidence from
a randomized experiment in Colombia. Policy Research Working Paper Series 4836, The World
Bank, USA.
Bate, F., MacNish, J., & Males, S. (2012). Parent and student perceptions of the initial implementation of
a 1:1 laptop program in Western Australia. In Paper presented at the 2012 International Conference
on Education and Management Innovation. Singapore, February 26–28, 2012.
Beaudry, J. S. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on Middle school teachers and
students’ use of laptop computers and classroom assessment: Are teachers making the connection?
Research Report #4, Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern Maine
Office, USA. http://www2.umaine.edu/mepri/sites/default/files/mltireport4.pdf.
Bebell, D. (2005). Technology promoting student excellence: An investigation of the first year of 1:1
computing in New Hampshire middle schools. In Annual meeting of the National Educational
Computing Conference. Philadelphia.
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (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).
Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings.
Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 5–10.
Bielefeldt, T. (2005). Computers and student learning: Interpreting the multivariate analysis of PISA
2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 17(4), 339–348.
Bielefeldt, T. (2006). Teaching, learning, and one-to-one computing. In International Society for
Technology in Education National Educational Computing Conference. San Diego, July 6, 2006.
http://sfs1to1laptopcommittee.pbworks.com/f/NCIS%2Blaptop%2Bresearch%2B2006.pdf.
Bonifaz, A., & Zucker, A. (2004). Lessons learned about providing laptops for all students. Northeast and
the Islands Regional Technology in Education Consortium (NEIRTEC), Education Development
Center, Inc. (EDC). www.neirtec.org/laptop/LaptopLessonsRprt.pdf.
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the
ACM, 36(12), 66–77.
Burgad, A. A. (2008). The effects that a one-to-one laptop initiative has on student academic performance
and achievement. Doctoral thesis, University of North Dakota, 1–150.
Cervantes, R., Warschauer, M., Nardi, B., & Sambasivan, N. (2011). Infrastructures for low-cost laptop
use in Mexican schools. CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Chandrasekhar, V. S. (2009). Promoting 21st century learning: A case study of the changing role of
teachers in one-to-one laptop classrooms. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine and
California State Polytechnic University, USA.
Charbax. (2009). OLPC’s netbook impact on laptop PC industry. OLPC News. http://www.olpcnews.
com/commentary/impact/olpc_netbook_impact_on_laptop.html.
Constant, M. D. (2011). One-to-One laptop project: Perceptions of teachers, parents, and students.
Dissertation, Western Kentucky University, USA, 5.
Corn, J. O., Tingen, J., & Patel, R. (2011). Examining issues critical to a 1:1 learning environment:
special needs. Evaluation Report on the Progress of the North Carolina 1:1 Learning Technology
Initiative (Year 3), The William and Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation College of
Education NC State University.
Cramer, M., Beauregard, R., & Sharma, M. (2009). An investigation of purpose built netbooks for primary
school education. IDC 2009, June Como 3–5, 2009.
Cristia, J. P., Ibarrarán, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severı́n, E. (2012). Technology and child
development: evidence from the one laptop per child program. Inter-American Development Bank.
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=36706954.
Danielsen, J. E. (2009). A case study of one-to-one laptop initiatives in Midwest public high schools.
Dissertation, University of South Dakota.
Derndorfer, C. (2010). OLPC in Uruguay: Impressions of Plan Ceibal’s primary school XO laptop
saturation. Educational Technology Debate (ETD). https://edutechdebate.org/olpc-in-south-america/
olpc-in-uruguay-impressions-of-plan-ceibal/.
DiU. (2012). Framtidens Lärande (Learning in the future). http://www2.diu.se/framlar/egen-dator/.
Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2009). Two-way mirror: Technology-rich K–8 and teacher education
programs. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), 45–55.
Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle
school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 42(4), 423–441.

123
 J Educ Change

Dunleavy, M., & Heinecke, W. F. (2008). The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and
science standardized test scores. Computers in the Schools, 24(3–4), 7–22.
Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio
bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
23(5), 440–452.
Eder, F. (1998). Linzer Fragebogen zum Schul- und Klassenklima fü r die 8.-13. Klasse (LFSK 8-13).
Hogrefe, Göttingen.
Erstad, O. (2009). Addressing the complexity of impact—A multi-level approach towards ICT in
education. In F. Scheuermann & F. Pedró (Eds.), Assessing the effects of ICT in education.
Indicators, criteria and benchmarks for international comparisons (pp. 21–40). European
Commission: JRC.
eMINTS National Center. (2007). Analysis of 2005 MPA results for eMINTS students. http://www.emints.
org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/map2005.pdf.
Fairman, J. (2004). Trading roles: Teachers and students learn with technology. Orono, ME: Maine
Education Policy Research Institute, University of Maine Office. http://usm.maine.edu/sites/default/
files/Center%20for%20Education%20Policy,%20Applied%20Research,%20and%20Evaluation/ML
TI_Report3.pdf.
Ferrer, F., Belvı́s, E., & Pàmies, J. (2011). Tablet PCs, academic results and educational inequalities.
Computers and Education, 56(2011), 280–288.
Fleischer, H. (2011). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic
narrative research review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 107–122.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its impact on student learning. Computers and Education, 50,
906–914.
Fuchs, T., & Woessmann, L. (2004). Computers & student learning: Bivariate and multivariate evidence
on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. CESifo Working Paper 1321.
Munich: CESifo. http://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_1321.html.
Garner, D. (2008). Texas technology immersion Pilot (TIP). Educationnews.org. http://www.
educationnews.org/articles/texas-technology-immersion-pilot-%28tip%29.html.
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-
one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 361–377.
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student learning: A meta-
analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1),
1–30.
Great Maine Schools Project. (2004). One-to-one laptops in a high school environment: Piscataquis
community high School study. Final Report, Senator George J. Mitchell Scholarship Research
Institute, USA.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.
Grönlund, Å., & Genlott, A. A. (2013). Improving literacy skills through learning reading by writing: The
iWTR method presented and tested. Computers and Education, 67, 98–104.
Gulek, J., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student
achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 3–38.
Hallerström, H., & Tallvid, M. (2008). En egen dator i skolarbetet: Redskap för lärande? Utvärdering av
projektet En-till-en i två grundskolor i Falkenbergs kommun. Delrapport 2. Göteborgs universitet
och Falkenbergs kommun.
Hansen, N., Koudenburg, N., Hiersemann, R., Tellegen, P. J., Kocsev, M., & Postmes, T. (2012). Laptop
usage affects abstract reasoning of children in the developing world. Computers and Education,
59(3), 989–1000.
Harris, D. (2010a). The $100 laptop: A cyberspace playground. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 40(1),
23–27.
Harris, M. J. (2010b). Impactful student learning outcomes of one-to-one student laptop programs in low
socioeconomic schools. Doctoral dissertation, San Francisco State University, USA.
Harris, W., & Smith, L. (2004). Laptop use by seventh grade students with disabilities: Perceptions of
special education teachers. University of Maine, Maine Education Policy Institute (Report No. 2).
Harris, C., & Straker, L. (1999). Survey of the physical ergonomics issues associated with school
children’s use of laptop computers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26, 337–347.
Hatakka, M., Andersson, A., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Students’ use of one to one laptops: a capability
approach analysis. Information Technology and People, 26(1), 94–112.

123
J Educ Change

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.

Heeks, R. (2010). ICT4D journal ranking table. http://ict4dblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/ict4d-
journal-ranking-table/.
Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results & lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: A collective review.
TechTrends, 53(6), 49–55.
Hollow, D. (2009). The XO Laptop in Ethiopia: Reflection on assessing impact. Presentation at the Africa
gathering, April 25, 2009. http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/ethiopia/xo_laptop_banned_from_
class.html.
Hollow, D. (2010).Evaluating ICT for education in Africa. Doctoral dissertation, Department of
Geography Royal Holloway, University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/files/1773319/
DavidHollowThesisFinalCopy.pdf.
Hourcade, J. P., Beitler, D., Cormenzana, F., & Flores, P. (2008). Early OLPC experiences in a rural
Uruguayan school. In Proceedings of CHI 2008, Florence, Italy.
Hu, W. (2007). Seeing no progress, Some schools drop laptops. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.
com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html.
Hylén, J. (2010) Digitaliseringen av skolan. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Iman, M. L. (2011). An online dual enrollment laptop pilot project: One-to-one computing and its effect
on student participation, performance, and self-efficacy in online college coursework. Dissertation,
Tennessee State University, USA.
Ingram, D., Willcutt, J., & Jordan, K. (2008). Laptop initiative: Evaluation report. Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota, USA. http://oakland2.stillwater.
k12.mn.us/sites/f1c1a073-106e-4552-82a3-3b75eff284c3/uploads/CAREI_Report.pdf.
Islam, M. S., & Andersson, A. (2015). Investigating choices of appropriate devices for one-to-one
computing initiatives in schools worldwide. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 6(10), 817–825.
Jancovici, J. M. (2002). À Quoi sert le développement durable? Manicore.
Jeroski, S. (2003). Wireless writing project: School district no. 60 (Peace River North). Horizon research
and Evaluation Inc., Canada Research report: Phase II.
Johnson, L., & Maddux, C. D. (2008). Introduction: Effectiveness of information technology in
education. Computers in the Schools, 24(3–4), 1–6.
Katz, K. B., & Kratcoski, A. (2005). Teacher–student interactions in a ubiquitous computing
environment: Learning within dyads & triads of interaction. Journal of the Research Center for
Educational Technology, 1, 48–64.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional technology
integration and student learning. Education Information Technology, 17, 137–146.
Kerr, K. A., Pane, J. F., & Barney, H. (2003). Quaker valley digital school district: Early effects and
plans for future evaluation. Technical Report, RAND Education, USA. http://www.rand.org/pubs/
technical_reports/2004/RAND_TR107.sum.pdf.
Klieger, A., Ben-Hur, Y., & Bar-Yossef, N. (2010). Integrating laptop computers into classroom:
Attitudes, needs, and professional development of science teachers—A case study. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 187–198. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9191-1.
Kong, S. C. (2011). An evaluation study of the use of a cognitive tool in a one-to-one classroom for
promoting classroom-based dialogic interaction. Computers and Education, 57, 1851–1864.
Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communication of
the ACM, 52(6), 66–73.
Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2011). One laptop per child (OLPC): A novel computerization
movement? In Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-2011,
USA.
Larkin, K. (2011). You use! I use! We use! Questioning the orthodoxy of 1:1 computing in primary
schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(2), 101–120.
Larkin, K., & Finger, G. (2011). Informing one-to-one computing in primary schools: Student use of
netbooks. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 514–530.
Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a longitudinal study.
Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35–53.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-One computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.

123
 J Educ Change

Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003). One-to-one computing in Maine: A state profile. Preliminary Report,
National Science Foundation Policy Study, Metiri Group and SRI. http://setda.org/c/document_
library/get_file?folderId=215&name=ME-Profile.pdf.
Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2004). One-to-one computing in Virginia: A state profile. National Science
Foundation Policy Study, Metiri Group and SRI.
Light, D., McDermott, M., & Honey, M. (2002). Project Hiller: The impact of ubiquitous
portable technology on an urban school. New York, NY: Center for Children and Technology,
Education Development Center. http://cct.edc.org/admin/publications/report/Hiller.pdf.
Linden, L. (2008). Complement or substitute? The effect of technology on student achievement in India.
Working paper. Boston: MIT Jameel Poverty Action Lab. http://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/
default/files/publications/Complement%20of%20Substitute-%20The%20Effect%20of%20Technology
%20on%20Student%20Achievement%20in%20India.pdf.
Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on
teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–44.
Lowther, D. L., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. A., & Bates, J. (2007). Freedom to learn program. Michigan
2005–2006 Evaluation Report. Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of
Memphis, USA. http://www.memphis.edu/crep/pdfs/Michighan_Freedom_to_Learn_Laptop_
Program.pdf.
Mabry, L., & Snow, J. Z. (2006). Laptops for high-risk students: Empowerment and personalization in a
standards-based learning environment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 289–316.
MacDonald, G. J. (2004). Too much computer exposure may hinder learning. Tech, USA Today. http://
www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-12-06-complicating-things_x.htm.
Mangiatordi, A., & Pischetola, M. (2010). Sustainable innovation strategies in education: OLPC case
studies in Ethiopia and Uruguay. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 112,
94–104.
Maninger, R. M., & Holden, M. E. (2009). Put the textbooks away: Preparation and support for a Middle
school one-to-one laptop initiative. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 5–33.
Martino, J. (2010). One laptop per child and Uruguay’s Plan Ceibal: Impact on special education.
Dissertation, University of Guelph, Canada.
Mascolo, M. F. (2009). Beyoind student-centred and teacher-centred pedagogy: Teaching and learning as
guided participation. Pedagogy and Human Sciences, 1(1), 3–27.
McKeeman, L. A. (2008). The role of a high school one-to-one laptop initiative in supporting content area
literacy, new literacies, and critical literacy. Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University,
pp. 1–283.
Means, B., Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009) Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Center for
Technology in Learning. US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-
based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, underprivileged
school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472.
O’Donovan, E. (2009). Are one-to-one laptop programs worth the investment? District Administration.
February 2009. http://www.districtadministration.com/article/are-one-one-laptop-programs-worth-
investment.
Ogden, T. (2009). Computer error? Miller McCune. http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/
computer-error-3520/.
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information
systems research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26). http://sprouts.aisnet.
org/10-26.
Oliver, K. M., & Corn, J. O. (2008). Students’ reported differences in technology use and skills after the
implementation of one-to-one computing. Educational Media International, 45(3), 215–229.
Oliver, K., Corn, J., & Osborne, J. (2009). Using educational technology standards to gauge teacher
knowledge and application of one-to-one computing at implementation. In I. Gibson, et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference
2009 (pp. 2032–2039). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

123
J Educ Change

Papert, S. (1970). Teaching children thinking. In Proceedings of IFIPS World Congress on Computers
and Education. Amsterdam, Netherland. http://dspace.mit.edu/disseminate-package/1721.1/5835/
5835.zip.
Papert, S. (1986). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group, USA. http://nsf.gov/
awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=8751190.
Patel, H., Bautista, J., & Jonash, R. (2012). OLPC: Revolutionizing the way to make education affordable
for everyone. USA: Hult International Business School.
Peck, K. L., & Sprenger, K. (2008). One-to-One educational computing: Ten lessons for successful
implementation. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology
in primary and secondary education (pp. 935–942). New York: Springer.
Pekovics, A. (2003). Ergonomie in notebook-Klassen Medienpa dagogik als Ort des therapeutischen
Diskurses. TELL & CALL: Zeitschrift fü r Technologie-unterstü tzten Unterricht 2, 22–35.
Penuel, W. R. (2005). Research: What it says about 1–1 learning. Apple Computer, Cupertino, CA. http://
ubiqcomputing.org/Apple_1-to-1_Research.pdf.
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.
Project Red, (2007). Revolutionizing education. What we’re learning from technology-transformed
schools. http://www.projectred.org/.
Rawsthorn, A. (2011). A few stumbles on the road to connectivity. New York Times, USA. http://www.
nytimes.com/2011/12/19/arts/design/a-few-stumbles-on-the-road-to-connectivity.html?_r=1.
Richardson, J. W., McLeod, S., Flora, K., Sauers, N. J., Kannan, S., & Sincar, M. (2013). Large-scale 1:1
computing initiatives: An open access database. International Journal of Education and
Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 418.
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development.
Ecological Economics, 48(2004), 369–384.
Rockman, S. (2003). Learning from laptops. Threshold, 1, 24–28.
Rockman, S. (2004). Getting results with laptops. Technology and Learning, 25(3), 1–12. http://www.
techlearning.com/article/42137.
Rockman, S., Walker, L., & Chessler, M. (2000). A more complex picture: Laptop use and impact in the
context of changing home and school access. The third in a series of research studies on Microsoft’s
Anytime Anywhere Learning Program. San Francisco, CA: Rockman, et al. http://www.rockman.
com/projects/126.micro.aal/yr3_report.pdf.
Rosso, J. (2010). Disruption in the educational paradigm: notes on 1:1 research. Research watch, K-12
Blueprint. http://www.k12blueprint.com/content/disruption-educational-paradigm-notes-11-research.
Rubagiza, J., Were, E., & Sutherland, R. (2011). Introducing ICT into schools in Rwanda: Educational
challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(2011), 37–43.
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, 30(3), 313–330.
Saçkes, M., Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Young children’s computer skills development from
kindergarten to third grade. Computers and Education, 57(2011), 1698–1704.
Sauers, N. J., & McLeod, S. (2012). What does the research say about school one-to-one computing
initiatives? CASTLE briefs. University Council for Educational Administration Center for the
Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education, Lexington, KY. http://school
techleadership.org/briefs.
Schaumburg, H. (2001). Fostering girls’ computer literacy through laptop learning. In Paper presented at
the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, IL.
Sclater, J., Sicoly, F., Abrami, P. C., & Wade, A. C. (2006). Ubiquitous technology integration in
Canadian public schools: Year one study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(1).
Severin, E., Capota, C. (2011). One-to-one laptop programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-
American Development Bank, Education Division, (SCL/EDU), IDB-TN-261.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2009).
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year study
(2004–05 to 2007–08). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research. http://www.tcer.org/
research/etxtip/documents/y4_etxtip_final.pdf.

123
 J Educ Change

Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation
fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4).
Silvernail, D., & Buffington, P. (2009). Improving mathematics performance using laptop technology:
The importance of professional development for success. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy
Research Institute. http://www2.umaine.edu/mepri/sites/default/files/Mathematics_Final_cover.pdf.
Silvernail, D., & Lane, D. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school
teachers and students. Research Report 1. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
Silvernail, D., & Gritter, A. (2005). Maine’s middle school laptop program: Creating better writers.
Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
Sipitakiat, A. (2010). Moving towards learning with one-to-one laptop: A longitudinal case study on
tools, people, and institutions. In 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS),
Chicago, USA, Vol. 2, (pp. 328–329)
Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: real beauty or just
lipstick? Computers and Education, 51, 1321–1341.
Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and fourth-grade literacy:
Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,
9(5), 4–43.
Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Mazzer, P., & Schenker, J. (2005a). Bringing Mohamed to the mountain:
Situated professional development in a ubiquitous computing classroom. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 32(4), 353–365.
Swan, K., van ‘t Hooft, M., & Kratcoski, A. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K–8
classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 99–112. http://hercules.gcsu.
edu/*bmumma/Sample%201.pdf.
Tedre, M., Hansson, H., Mozelius, P., & Lind, S. (2011). Crucial considerations in one-to-one computing
in developing countries. In IST-Africa 2011 Conference Proceedings, Paul Cunningham and Miriam
Cunningham (Eds), IIMC International Information Management Corporation, 2011.
Towndrow, P. A., & Vaish, V. (2009). Wireless laptops in English classrooms: A SWOT analysis from
Singapore. Educational Media International, 46(3), 207–221.
Trimmel, M., & Bachmann, J. (2004). Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students in
laptop classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 151–158.
Wagner, D. A., Day, B., James, T., Kozma, B. R., Miller, J., & Unwin, T. (2005). Monitoring and
evaluation of ICT in education projects: A handbook for developing countries. Washington, DC:
infoDev/World Bank. http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.9.html.
Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Warschauer, M. (2007). Information literacy in the laptop classroom. Teachers College Record, 109(11),
2511–2540. http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/infolit.pdf.
Warschauer, M. (2009). Learning to write in the laptop classroom. Writing and Pedagogy, 1(1), 101–112.
Warschauer, M. (2010). Netbooks and open source software in one-to-one programs. In Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, Colorado, May 2010.
Warschauer, M., Cotten, S. R., & Ames, M. G. (2012). One laptop per child Birmingham: Case study of a
radical experiment. International Journal of Learning and Media (IJLM), 3(2), 61–76.
Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Real, G. D., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with
technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(2004), 535–537.
Webster, J. & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–
xxiii.
Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives
and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6), 280–288.
Yu, T. (2011). One laptop per child: A need to help teachers help students. In Boothe prize essays 2011
(fall 2010) (pp. 54–66). School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford University.
Zucker, A. (2005). Starting school laptop programs: Lessons learned. One-to-one computing evaluation
consortium Policy brief, 1(November), 1–6.
Zucker, A. A., & Hug, S. T. (2007). A study of the 1:1 laptop program at the Denver School of Science &
Technology. USA: Denver School of Science and Technology.
Zucker, A. A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science
instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. Arlington, VA: SRI
International.

123