This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]

On: 09 October 2014, At: 05:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Effects of Technology Immersion on Middle School

Students’ Learning Opportunities and Achievement
a b b b
Kelly Shapley , Daniel Sheehan , Catherine Maloney & Fanny Caranikas-Walker
a
Shapley Research Associates
b
Texas Center for Educational Research
Published online: 02 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Kelly Shapley , Daniel Sheehan , Catherine Maloney & Fanny Caranikas-Walker (2011) Effects of
Technology Immersion on Middle School Students’ Learning Opportunities and Achievement, The Journal of Educational
Research, 104:5, 299-315, DOI: 10.1080/00220671003767615

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671003767615

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Journal of Educational Research, 104:299–315, 2011
Copyright

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-0675 online
DOI:10.1080/00220671003767615
Effects of Technology Immersion on
Middle School Students’ Learning
Opportunities and Achievement
KELLY SHAPLEY
Shapley Research Associates
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
ABSTRACT. An experimental study of the Technology
Immersion model involved comparisons between 21 middle
schools that received laptops for each teacher and student, in-
structional and learning resources, professional development,
and technical and pedagogical support, and 21 control schools.
Using hierarchical linear modeling to analyze longitudinal
survey and achievement data, the authors found that Tech-
nology Immersion had a positive effect on students’ technol-
ogy proficiency and the frequency of their technology-based
class activities and small-group interactions. Disciplinary ac-
tions declined, but treatment students attended school some-
what less regularly than control students. There was no sta-
tistically significant immersion effect on students’ reading or
mathematics achievement, but the direction of predicted ef-
fects was consistently positive and was replicated across stu-
dent cohorts.
Keywords: academic achievement, educational technology,
evaluation, middle schools
T he present vision for educational technology imag-
ines technology’s infusion into all aspects of the
educational system. Many educators, policymak-
ers, and business leaders recognize technology’s pervasive
presence in individuals’ daily lives and its ties to future
opportunities for students who must compete in a global,
knowledge-based economy (Friedman, 2005). Providing
the technological, informational, and communication skills
needed by 21st century learners, however, challenges schools
to move beyond conventional modes of teaching and learn-
ing as well as the traditional boundaries of the school day
and school walls.
Some researchers believe widespread technology use in
society is moving schools inevitably toward more exten-
sive and innovative applications of technology in curricu-
lum and instruction (Dede, 2007; Smith & Broom, 2003).
This view acknowledges that students who attend schools
today are different from those of previous years because using
technology in nonschool settings is altering their “learning
styles, strengths, and preferences” (Dede, 2007, p. 11). New
DANIEL SHEEHAN
CATHERINE MALONEY
FANNY CARANIKAS-WALKER
Texas Center for Educational Research
technologies are reshaping how students access information,
communicate, and learn within and outside of classrooms
(Smolin & Lawless, 2007). Schools, accordingly, must cap-
italize on students’ natural inclinations as learners.
Emerging technologies are also supporting more innova-
tive forms of teaching and learning. For example, lessons
supported by technology can involve real-world problems,
current and authentic informational resources, virtual tours
of remote locations, simulations of concepts, or interactions
with practicing experts and global communities. These kinds
of experiences are important because research shows that stu-
dents learn more when they are engaged in meaningful, rele-
vant, and intellectually stimulating work (Bransford, Brown,
& Cocking, 2003; National Research Council & Institute
of Medicine, 2004; Newmann, Bryk, & Nagoaka, 2001).
Technology-enhanced learning experiences also can help
students develop 21st century competencies, such as think-
ing and problem solving, interpersonal and self-directional
skills, and digital literacy (Partnership for 21st Century
Skills, 2006).
Texas, similar to other states, recognizes that students’
long-term success is tied to their preparation as lifelong
learners, world-class communicators, competitive and cre-
ative knowledge workers, and contributing members of a
global society. Yet, despite high aspirations for technology,
the piecemeal way in which most schools have introduced
technology into the educational process has been an obstacle
to the effective use of technology for teaching and learning
(Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2006).
Recognizing this limitation, the Texas Legislature in
2003 set forth a different vision for technology in Texas
public schools. Senate Bill 396 called for the TEA to
establish a Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) that would
immerse schools in technology by providing individual
Address correspondence to Kelly Shapley, Shapley Research Asso-
ciates, P.O. Box 11858, College Station, TX 77842, USA. (E-mail:
kshapley@shapleyresearch.com)
 300
wireless mobile computing devices and technology-based
learning resources along with teacher training and support
for effective technology use. In response, the TEA has used
more than $20 million in federal Title II, Part D monies to
fund Technology Immersion projects for high-need middle
schools. Concurrently, a research study, partially funded by a
federal Evaluating State Educational Technology Programs
grant, has investigated whether exposure to Technology
Immersion improves student learning and achievement.
The Present Study
The present article reports third-year findings for students
involved in a comprehensive experimental study of the ef-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
fects of Technology Immersion on schools, teachers, and
students. Specifically, we contrast outcomes for two cohorts
of middle school students who attended Technology Immer-
sion schools with students in control schools on measures
of technology-related learning experiences and competen-
cies and measures of academic achievement (reading and
mathematics test scores). We present longitudinal outcomes
for Cohort 1 students who attended schools across three
project implementation years (Grades 6–8) and Cohort 2
students who attended schools during two implementation
years (Grades 6–7).
Technology Immersion Model
A state statute provided a general description of Technol-
ogy Immersion, but the TEA further defined the fundamen-
tal attributes of the model to ensure consistent interpretation
across schools. Technology Immersion involves six compo-
nents: (a) a wireless mobile computing device for each ed-
ucator and student; (b) productivity, communication, and
presentation software for use as learning tools; (c) online
instructional resources that support the state’s curriculum;
(d) online formative assessment tools; (e) professional de-
velopment for teachers supporting technology integration;
and (f) initial and ongoing technical support to maintain
an immersed campus. See more complete details of model
components in the Appendix.
Technology Immersion assumes that effective technol-
ogy use in schools and classrooms demands a comprehensive
approach. First, technology use requires robust access. Al-
though the ratio of students to instructional computers in
Texas has improved over time (Education Week, 2007),
survey data show that an average of 2.9 or fewer classroom
computers is insufficient to allow every student access (Shap-
ley, Benner, Heikes, & Pieper, 2002; Shapley et al., 2006).
In contrast to present circumstances, with computers typ-
ically located in school labs, libraries, and media centers,
Technology Immersion requires one-to-one student access
to laptop computers.
Second, Technology Immersion assumes that increased
access to and use of technology in schools requires adequate
technical and pedagogical support. Electronic networks in
The Journal of Educational Research
schools must support wireless laptops and digital content and
campus-based personnel must be available to assist teach-
ers in learning to use technology, troubleshooting techni-
cal problems, and integrating technology into lessons (e.g.,
Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002; Ronnkvist, Dexter, & Anderson,
2000; Shapley et al., 2002).
Third, the Technology Immersion model assumes that
teachers need effective professional development. High-
quality professional development, as research demonstrates,
should be of longer duration, and thus provide richer and
more comprehensive learning experiences and time for prac-
tice and experimentation. Professional development should
also focus on subject-specific content or specific teaching
methods, and teachers should receive follow-up support as
they implement new skills in classrooms (Bradburn & Os-
borne, 2007; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon,
2001; Neugent & Fox, 2007; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi,
& Gallagher, 2007; Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Leadership
development is also crucial because research points consis-
tently to the important role of school leaders in successful
implementation of technology (Bradburn & Osborne, 2007;
Pitler, 2005).
Fourth, Technology Immersion requires curricular and as-
sessment resources that support the foundation curriculum
in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social
studies (e.g., online, CD-ROMS, stored on local networks).
Thus, all laptops have software that allows students and edu-
cators to use wireless computers as a tool for teaching, learn-
ing, communication, and productivity. Digital resources and
interactive technologies allow students to acquire more and
newer information and build new knowledge by doing, re-
ceiving feedback, and refining their understanding (Brans-
ford, Brown, & Cocking, 2003). Online formative assess-
ments let teachers diagnose students’ needs and assess their
mastery of curricular standards. Taken as a whole, if Tech-
nology Immersion components are well implemented, vari-
ous obstacles that historically have posed barriers to the ef-
fective use of technology for teaching and learning in schools
should be alleviated.
Research Questions
The overarching purpose of the study was to investigate
the effects of Technology Immersion on students’ academic
achievement—however, we also examined the relationships
among Technology Immersion and intervening factors at the
school, teacher, and student levels. The research involved
42 middle schools assigned to either treatment or control
conditions (21 schools in each group). In the present study
we addressed two research questions:
Research Question 1: What is the effect of Technology Im-
mersion on students’ learning opportunities (i.e., class-
room activities, engagement)?
Research Question 2: Does Technology Immersion affect stu-
dent achievement?
 The Journal of Educational Research 301
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014

FIGURE 1. Theoretical model of Technology Immersion.

Theoretical Framework enhanced learning and achievement. Specifically, increased

access to technology has been linked to students’ technol-
The theoretical framework of Technology Immersion ogy use, technology proficiency, and school engagement, and
presented in Figure 1 postulates a linear sequence of causal although less robustly, to academic achievement.
relationships that guided the research. In the framework,
students in treatment schools are immersed in technology
Technology use. One-to-one student access to comput-
through the introduction of the six components. Given
ers, not surprisingly, leads to increased technology use. Rus-
quality implementation, an improved school technology
sell, Bebell, and Higgins (2004) found that technology is
environment should lead teachers to use technology more
used more often for instructional and learning purposes in
effectively for teaching. In turn, improved school and
one-to-one laptop classrooms. Additionally, studies show
classroom conditions should improve students’ technology
that students involved in ubiquitous technology projects
proficiency, learning experiences, engagement in school
use technology more often outside of school as well. For
and learning, and in due course, improved standardized
example, students in one-to-one classrooms used comput-
test scores. Student, family, and school characteristics exert
ers at home more frequently for academic purposes (Russell
their own influence on outcomes.
et al., 2004), and students spent less time watching televi-
In theorizing student effects, we looked to studies of tech-
sion and more time on homework after receiving laptops
nology in general as well as to more recent research on one-
(Baldwin, 1999). Moreover, research shows that lessons in
to-one technology initiatives. Although research on one-
technology-rich classrooms involve fewer teacher-centered,
to-one laptop projects has grown in recent years, there are
lecture-oriented activities and more student-centered ones
still few large-scale experimental studies or studies with well
(Baker, Gearhart, & Herman, 1994). Classroom structures
matched comparison groups (Penuel, 2006). Even though
shift from large group to students working independently or
many studies fail to meet rigorous research standards, cumu-
to more student-directed activities (Rockman et al., 1998;
lative evidence points to important areas for investigation.
Russell, Bebell, Cowan, & Corbelli, 2002).

Factors Associated with Achievement Technology proficiency. Increases in students’ technology

proficiencies are also associated with ubiquitous technol-
Research suggests that changes in students’ experiences al- ogy. Rockman et al. (1998) reported that laptop students
lowed through Technology Immersion should contribute to considered themselves more proficient users of Word, Excel,
 302
PowerPoint, the Internet, e-mail, and CD-ROMs than did
nonlaptop students. Similarly, elementary students who re-
ceived laptops reported increased computer skills and better
Internet research capabilities (Lowther, Ross, & Morrison,
2001), and high school students with laptops made greater
gains than comparison students on measures such as knowl-
edge of hardware and operating systems, productivity tools,
and Internet use (Schaumburg, 2001).
Engagement. Numerous studies have associated one-
to-one technology with increased student engagement
(Maine Educational Policy Research Institute [MEPRI],
2003; Rockman et al., 1998; Russell et al., 2004; Woodul,
Vitale, & Scott, 2000). For example, students involved in
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
the Maine Learning Technology Initiative found school
and learning more interesting and preferred using laptops
for most school-related tasks (MEPRI, 2003). In Henrico
County, Virginia, researchers related increased student
motivation, engagement, and interest with one-to-one
computing (Zucker & McGhee, 2005). Similarly, students
in Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow voluntarily used time
outside of school to work on technology-based projects, and
they often initiated their own computer-related projects
(Baker, Gearhart, & Herman, 1994).
Other researchers have examined the relationship be-
tween technology access and use and student behavior. A
statewide study of middle schools in Florida showed that stu-
dent conduct violations and disciplinary actions decreased
as the number of computers per student increased (Barron,
Hogarty, Kromery, & Lenkway, 1999). Other studies, like-
wise, reported decreased discipline problems associated with
one-to-one computing (Baldwin, 1999; MEPRI, 2003). An
evaluation of the North Carolina Laptop Notebook Project
found that students in the laptop program had fewer absences
and late arrivals compared with nonparticipants (Stevenson,
1998).
Academic Achievement
The present study is important because no large-scale,
controlled studies have measured the impact of one-to-one
computing on student achievement. Still, findings on the
effects of laptops on student achievement from a few studies
with comparison groups have been generally positive. The
evaluation of the laptop project in Beaufort County, West
Virginia, found that students participating in the program for
2 years had higher language, reading, and mathematics scores
than did nonlaptop students, although there was no statis-
tical control for prior achievement (Stevenson, 1998). The
strongest evidence on the effects of laptops on achievement
is in the area of writing. Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2001,
2003) reported statistically significant effects favoring sixth-
and seventh-grade students with laptops over control stu-
dents for dimensions of writing, such as ideas and content,
organization, and style. Rockman et al. (1999), likewise,
The Journal of Educational Research
found that laptop students outscored nonlaptop students on
measures of writing objectives. More recently, a study con-
ducted in Maine reported that students’ writing improved
significantly with laptops (Silvernail & Gritter, 2007).
Additional research is needed to draw definitive conclu-
sions about the effects of ubiquitous technology on student
learning and achievement. Our experimental design, as de-
scribed subsequently, provided the means to test the study’s
hypotheses about Technology Immersion’s effects.
Method
Sample Selection
The study included Grades 6–8 middle schools from rural,
suburban, and urban locations in Texas. Twenty-one Tech-
nology Immersion schools selected through a competitive
grant process were matched by researcher with 21 control
schools on multiple pretreatment measures.
Treatment sample. In the spring of 2004, the TEA re-
leased a series of Requests for Applications inviting school
districts to apply for TIP grants for up to two middle schools
that met eligibility requirements for federal Title II, Part
D funds (high-need schools due to children from families
with incomes below the poverty line, schools identified
for improvement, or schools with substantial technology
needs). The agency held an external review of proposals,
with applications scored by five readers. Final selection of
TIP schools involved the consideration of several factors,
including proposal ratings, size, location, student diversity,
and academic achievement. Decisions were influenced by
the need for statewide geographic distribution and the avail-
ability of comparable schools for the control-group pool.
Control schools. The selection of control schools first in-
volved the generation of a pool of Grades 6–8 middle schools
eligible to receive federal funds for participation in the study.
As a next step, we used statistical parameters to identify
middle schools that matched treatment schools as nearly as
possible on (a) the district and campus size, (b) the regional
location, (c) the proportion of economically disadvantaged
and minority students, (d) the percentage of students passing
all Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) tests,
and (e) the gaps between the percentage of Caucasian stu-
dents and African American and Hispanic students passing
TAKS (all tests). This selection process yielded 21 con-
trol group schools including controls for six schools that
came from within the same districts as treatment schools
and controls for 15 schools from closely matched single mid-
dle school districts.
The study used a control group delayed intervention
model. Each control school received $25,000 annually
for study participation, with 25% of funds earmarked for
professional development as required by federal guidelines.
 The Journal of Educational Research 303

TABLE 1. Baseline Characteristics of Technology Immersion (n = 21) and Control Schools (n = 21)

95% Confidence interval for difference

Variable Condition M SD Lower Upper t(40)

Enrollment Immersion 374.9 348.4 −284.6 177.5 −0.47

Control 428.5 391.3
Economic disadvantage (%) Immersion 70.8 17.5 −3.4 19.4 1.42
Control 62.8 19.0
Minority (%) Immersion 68.1 28.4 −10.4 24.7 0.83
Control 60.9 27.8
ESL (%) Immersion 13.5 17.2 −1.6 16.0 1.66
Control 6.3 9.9
Special education (%) Immersion 14.7 5.5 −4.0 1.8 −0.76
Control 15.8 3.7
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014

Student mobility (%) Immersion 15.8 4.6 −3.8 2.8 −0.30

Control 16.3 5.9
TAKS 2004, passing all (%) Immersion 52.4 15.7 −9.2 8.5 −0.08
Control 52.8 12.5
TAKS 2003, passing all (%) Immersion 65.9 11.4 −9.1 5.5 −0.50
Control 67.6 12.0

Note. ESL = English as a second language; TAKS = Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Differences between groups were all statistically
nonsignificant. Texas Education Agency (2004) Academic Excellence Indicator System reports.

At the end of the second project year, the TEA offered grants
to control schools to begin planning for Technology Immer-
sion. Of the 21 control schools, 16 (76%) applied for and
received TIP start-up funds. Grant guidelines in the third
year (2006–2007) allowed teachers in control schools to re-
ceive laptops and instructional resources and participate in
grant-supported professional development.
Characteristics of Comparison Groups
Treatment and control schools were drawn from compa-
rable regions in Texas and were well matched by campus and
district enrollments. For both groups, middle schools were
typically small (about 80% enrolling 600 students or less),
and they were located either in small or very small districts
(two thirds enrolling 2,999 students or less) or large districts
(one third enrolling 10,000 students or more). Because TIP
grants targeted high-need schools, two thirds of students
in the study (67%) came from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds. Students were ethnically diverse, roughly 58%
Hispanic, 7% African American, and 36% Caucasian.
Table 1 displays the baseline characteristics of schools.
Comparisons of student characteristics show that the per-
centages of economically disadvantaged, minority, English
as a second language, and special education students were
statistically equivalent across the treatment and control
schools. In addition, student enrollment, mobility, and
TAKS passing rates were statistically comparable across
groups. Consequently, the treatment and control schools
were well matched initially on key demographic and aca-
demic performance measures.
The sample selection process and matching procedures
produced an experimental design with good internal va-
lidity, in that there were no large, statistically significant
treatment–control group differences. Nevertheless, the pos-
sibility of selection bias needed to be addressed because treat-
ment schools selected through a competitive grant process
may have differed from control schools on other dimensions.
Thus, during site visits conducted at each of the 42 schools
in fall 2004, researchers collected extensive baseline data on
the characteristics of schools, teachers, and students; class-
room practices; existing access to technology resources; and
existing levels of technical and pedagogical support. Results
showed there were no statistically significant or practically
important preexisting differences between treatment and
control schools that would bias outcomes (Shapley et al.,
2006). However, as noted previously, a threat to internal
validity was introduced in the third project year when con-
trol schools began to plan for immersion. The anticipation
of Technology Immersion components in control schools
could underestimate the magnitude of treatment effects.
Another study limitation was external validity—the ex-
tent to which the results can be generalized from the specific
sample to the general population. Due to grant funding re-
strictions, the treatment group was not representative of the
average middle school in Texas. Compared to the state, the
sample included a greater proportion of economically dis-
advantaged students (67% vs. 51%) and Hispanic students
(58% vs. 37%), and less economically advantaged students
(33% vs. 49%), Caucasian students (36% vs. 46%), and
African American students (7% vs. 14%). Sample schools
were also smaller, on average, than middle schools statewide
 304
(about 400 students vs. 670). Nevertheless, our results gener-
alize to those schools that are smaller and more economically
disadvantaged and enroll similar ethnic-racial populations.
Student Cohorts
Two cohorts of students were followed in the study, with
Cohort 1 students enrolled continuously in schools over
3 project years (2004–2005 through 2006–2007), and Co-
hort 2 students for 2 years (2005–2006 through 2006–2007).
Cohort 1 included 5,449 students (2,586 in 21 treatment
schools and 2,863 in 21 control schools), and Cohort 2 in-
cluded 5,526 students (2,644 in 21 treatment schools and
2,882 in 21 control schools). Data for multiple student co-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
horts and measurement occasions allowed researchers to as-
sess the replicability of effects across cohorts and outcome
measures.
Measures
Technology Survey. The Technology Survey included
items that measured students’ technology proficiency (22
items), classroom activities (12 items), and small-group work
(6 items). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the
scale scores ranged from 0.83 to 0.94. As a measure of tech-
nology proficiency, students indicated how well they could
use various technology applications on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (I can do this not at all or barely) to 5 (I can
do this extremely well). For measures of classroom activities
and small-group work, students used a 5-point Likert-type
scale to rate the frequency of activities or interactions rang-
ing from 1 (never) to 5 (almost daily). Survey response rates
were in the 80%–90% range across the study’s 3 years. There
were only slight, nonsignificant differences in response rates
between cohorts and comparison groups. Survey items were
drawn from previously validated instruments (i.e., TAGLIT
Student Assessment; State Educational Technology Direc-
tors Association, Observation Tools for School Observers)
and adapted through reviews by content experts to align
with the Texas Technology Applications standards and TIP
project objectives.
Disciplinary actions and school attendance. Texas requires
that schools report each disciplinary action that results in
removal of a student from any part of the regular academic
program. Accordingly, we collected Disciplinary Action Re-
ports (Texas Public Education Information Management
System [PEIMS], 425 records) for each student from schools
at the end of the 2006–2007 school year. Additionally, we
collected each student’s annual school attendance data from
PEIMS.
Academic achievement. Our academic outcome measures
are TAKS reading and mathematics scores. The TAKS is
a criterion-referenced assessment that annually measures
The Journal of Educational Research
students’ mastery of the state’s content standards. Read-
ing is assessed at Grades 3–9 and mathematics at Grades
3–11. TAKS internal consistency reliabilities vary slightly
across subjects, grade levels, and testing years. For this study,
TAKS score reliabilities ranged from 0.87 to 0.90 for read-
ing and from 0.88 to 0.91 for mathematics. Evidence also
supports the content, construct, and criterion-related va-
lidity of TAKS assessments. The TAKS scale score has a
standard set at 2100 for each grade level. Because scores are
not equated across grades, we used TAKS scale scores to
calculate standardized scores that could be used to measure
student progress across years. The standard score is a T score
with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The mean
(50) represents the state average TAKS score for a grade
level.
Analyses
This study combined two analytic approaches. First, we
used three-level hierarchical growth models (HLM) to
estimate the effects of Technology Immersion on students’
growth trajectories for mediating variables and academic
achievement. Second, we used t tests of differences between
treatment and control group means to examine disciplinary
actions.
HLM Growth Analyses
HLM models provide statistical tools for studying rates of
change using measurements from multiple time points (Rau-
denbush & Bryk, 2002). For the present study, we collected
data for Cohort 1 students at four time points: at baseline
and at the end of three project implementation years; for
Cohort 2, we collected data at three time points: at baseline
and after each of 2 implementation years. We used separate
three-level HLM models to estimate student- and school-
specific effects (i.e., the extent to which outcome measures
varied across time, students, and schools).
In our models, we hypothesized that student and school
poverty are related to students’ initial status and yearly
growth rate. This supposition stems from evidence associ-
ating a higher concentration of economically disadvantaged
students in a school with a lower level of Technology Im-
mersion (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker,
2008). Similarly, other research reviews have confirmed neg-
ative effects of poverty on school reform efforts (Desimone,
2002) and student achievement (Sirin, 2005). Because TIP
grants targeted high-needs schools, the percentages of dis-
advantaged students were high across most of the study’s
schools. Even so, school poverty varied substantially (rang-
ing from 31% to 100%). For purposes of explanation, we
describe the HLM statistical model for our survey data.
Level 1: Repeated measures model. Level 1 is a repeated
measures model (i.e., survey time within students) that
 The Journal of Educational Research
captured key features of growth (i.e., initial status and rate of
change). In the model, Ytij is the survey scale score at year t
for student i in school j, and survey time is the point at which
students completed surveys (Cohort 1, fall 2004 and spring
2005, 2006, and 2007; Cohort 2, fall 2005 and spring 2006
and 2007). The key parameters in the model were π 0ij and
π 1ij . The coefficient π 0ij represents the initial status (i.e.,
the estimated initial scale score), for student i in school j in
fall, and π 1ij is the annual growth rate (rate of change) for
student i in school j. The etij is the error term (within-student
measurement error) assumed to be normally distributed with
a mean of 0 and a constant variance. Thus, at Level 1, the
model was
Yti j = π0i j + π1i j (Survey Time)ti j + e ti j .
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
Level 2: Student-level model. The Level 2 model (between-
students model) determined differences between students in
features of growth (i.e., initial status [π 0ij ] and rate of change
[π 1ij ]). In the student-level model, β 00j represents the mean
initial status of a more economically advantaged student
(advantaged = 0, disadvantaged = 1) within school j, and
β 10j represents the mean rate of change for an economically
advantaged student within school j. The coefficients β 01j and
β 11j represent the effects of student poverty on initial status
and school year rate of change, respectively. The r0ij and r0ij
are residuals (i.e., random effects). At Level 2, the model
was
π0i j = β00 j + β01 j (Disadvantaged)i j + r 0i j
π1i j = β10 j + β11 j (Disadvantaged)i j + r 1i j .
Level 3: School-level model. At the school level (Level 3),
we examined how students’ initial status (β 00j ) and growth
(β 10j ) varied across schools as a function of school-level ran-
dom effects (µ00j and µ10j ), as well as school conditions, in-
cluding treatment status (an indicator variable with a value
of 0 for a control school and 1 for an immersion school)
and school poverty (a continuous variable with a grand
mean of 69.8%). That is, we theorized that being in a treat-
ment school was positively related to students’ growth on
technology-related survey scores, after controlling for the
poverty level of the school. Thus, we posed the following
school-level model:
β00 j = γ000 + γ001 (Immersion status) j
+ γ002 (School Poverty) j + µ00 j
β10 j = γ100 + γ101 (Immersion status) j
+ γ102 (School Poverty) j + µ10 j .
In the model, γ 000 was the overall mean initial status of
an advantaged student at a control campus with an aver-
305
age level of school poverty, and γ 100 was the overall mean
student growth rate (of an advantaged student at a control
campus with an average level of school poverty). The coeffi-
cients γ 001 and γ 101 represented the direction and strength
of association of immersion status on school-level initial
status and growth rate, respectively. In addition, γ 002 and
γ 102 represented the effect of school poverty on school-level
initial status and growth rate, respectively.
The model’s simplicity aids in the interpretation of effects.
More complex models controlling for additional student de-
mographic characteristics (gender and ethnicity) estimated
nearly identical treatment growth coefficients.
Analysis of Disciplinary Data
We compared the frequency of disciplinary actions during
the 2006–2007 school year at treatment and control schools
for Cohorts 1 and 2. Preliminary statistical tests showed
generally nonnormal and negatively skewed distributions of
disciplinary data. However, given that t tests of differences
between means are robust to violations of the normality as-
sumption (Rasch & Guiliard, 2004), we used the parametric
procedure to test for differences between groups. Still, as a
verification of results, the more conservative nonparametric
Mann–Whitney U test yielded comparable conclusions.
Results
We first report the effects of Technology Immersion on
student mediating variables, including changes in students’
technology-related learning experiences and engagement
(measured by school attendance and disciplinary actions).
After that, we examine treatment effects on students’ read-
ing and mathematics achievement.
Effects of Technology Immersion on Students’ Learning
Experiences and Engagement
Analyses of treatment effects on student mediating vari-
ables involved Cohorts 1 and 2 students who were continu-
ously enrolled in schools since October 2004 and 2005, re-
spectively. Statistical details for the three-level HLM growth
models are reported in Table 2.
First, we estimated the effects of Technology Immersion
on growth rates for three self-reported measures of students’
learning activities and proficiency. HLM model-based esti-
mations of Technology Immersion effects reported in Table
2 and model estimates in Table 3 show that after controlling
for school poverty (percentage of economically disadvan-
taged students) and student economic disadvantage (qual-
ification for free or reduced price lunch), advantaged and
disadvantaged treatment group students compared to their
control group counterparts had statistically significant and
positive growth trends for classroom activities, small-group
 306 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 2. HLM Analysis of Technology Immersion Effects (Fixed) on Students’ Growth for Mediating Variables

Learning experiences Competency Engagement

Technology
Classroom activities Small-group work proficiency School attendance

Gamma Gamma Gamma Gamma

Dependent variable and predictor coefficient t coefficient t coefficient t coefficient t

Cohort 1 (Grade 8)
Initial status (fall 2004) 2.02 29.37∗∗∗ 2.80 48.73∗∗∗ 2.98 49.45∗∗∗ 97.71 567.25∗∗∗
Immersiona 0.26 3.26∗∗ 0.06 0.99 0.04 0.56 −0.05 −0.19
School poverty −0.30 −1.34 −0.15 −0.80 −0.13 −0.54 2.23 3.56∗∗
Student disadvantage 0.01 0.43 −0.05 −0.96 −0.34 −8.75∗∗∗ −0.65 −3.79∗∗∗
Growth rate 0.04 1.63 −0.06 −2.56∗ 0.27 18.19∗∗∗ −0.17 −2.72∗
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014

Immersion 0.21 6.34∗∗∗ 0.07 2.79∗∗ 0.04 1.53 −0.27 −3.04∗∗

School poverty 0.08 0.86 −0.05 −0.59 0.01 0.06 −0.26 −1.05
Student disadvantage 0.04 3.08∗∗ 0.06 2.79∗∗ 0.01 0.64 −0.12 −2.03∗
Disadvantage × Immersion — — — — 0.06 4.22∗∗∗
Cohort 2 (Grade 7)
Initial status (fall 2005) 2.08 32.57∗∗∗ 2.79 45.50∗∗∗ 2.99 49.17∗∗∗ 97.52 671.67∗∗∗
Immersion 0.15 1.57 −0.06 −0.76 0.01 0.11 −0.26 −1.41
School poverty 0.45 1.65 0.14 0.81 0.22 0.93 1.55 2.71∗
Student disadvantage −0.01 −0.34 −0.01 −0.25 −0.29 −6.75∗∗∗ −0.49 −3.59∗∗
Growth rate 0.06 1.40 −0.01 −0.35 0.27 8.23∗∗∗ −0.12 −1.38
Immersion 0.24 4.16∗∗∗ 0.15 3.62∗∗ 0.16 4.25∗∗∗ −0.25 −2.28∗
School poverty −0.17 −1.05 −0.02 −0.20 −0.15 −1.20 −0.44 −1.59
Student disadvantage 0.04 1.62 −0.01 −0.61 0.01 0.20 −0.31 −4.26∗∗∗

Note. HLM = hierachical growth models. Number of students: Cohort 1 (1,337 treatment and 1,467 control), Cohort 2 (1,595 treatment and 1,671
control). Number of schools: 21 treatment and 21 control.
aTechnology Immersion students had significantly higher initial classroom activities scores. A latent variable regression, controlling for the effect of
this initial difference on the growth rate, indicated that the difference between the original (0.138) and adjusted (0.212) immersion coefficients was
significant (the difference divided by the standard error of the difference equals −2.63). The growth rate coefficient adjusted for this difference is
reported in the table.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

work, and technology proficiency. Findings for specific scales
are explained subsequently.
Classroom activities. Students reported the frequency with
which their core-subject teachers (language arts, mathemat-
ics, science, social studies) had them use specific technology
applications (e.g., use a word processor for writing, use a
spreadsheet to calculate or graph, create a presentation) on
a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (al-
most daily). As anticipated given the increased accessibility of
hardware and digital resources, the yearly estimated rates of
change in class activities involving technology for econom-
ically advantaged and disadvantaged Cohorts 1 and 2 treat-
ment students were 0.25 and 0.30 scale-score points and 0.30
and 0.34 scale-score points, respectively. In contrast, their
control group counterparts had relatively flat rates of change
(0.04–0.10 scale-score points). Average estimated pretreat-
ment scores for students in Technology Immersion schools
(2.2–2.3) indicated that they rarely (i.e., a few times a year)
used various technology applications in their core-subject
classes prior to immersion. However, their classroom usage
across applications increased to nearly sometimes (i.e., once
or twice a month) by spring 2007 (mean estimated scores
from 2.8 to 3.2). In contrast, technology usage in control
classrooms increased just slightly over the same time period
(mean estimated baseline scores of 2.0–2.1 compared with
2.1–2.3 in spring 2007).
Small-group work. Recognizing established links between
one-to-one computing and collaborative classroom struc-
tures, we asked students to rate the frequency of their small-
group interactions with classmates on the 5-point Likert-
type scale, including statements such as “we tutor or coach
each other on difficult work,” “we brainstorm solutions to
problems,” and “we produce a report or project.” Growth
rate coefficients showed that students at treatment schools
reported increasing opportunities to work with classmates
in small groups. Across cohorts, economically advantaged
and disadvantaged treatment students had significantly pos-
itive yearly growth trends (0.02 and 0.07 scale-score points
and 0.14 and 0.13 scale-score points for Cohorts 1 and
2, respectively). Quite the opposite, students at control
 The Journal of Educational Research 307

TABLE 3. HLM Model-Based Estimations of Mean Scale Scores and Mean Growth Rates for Student Learning Variables by
Treatment and Control Groups

Statistics for students in schools with average school poverty

Technology immersion Control

Variable/Cohort/Student Estimated M: Yearly growth Estimated M: Estimated M: Yearly growth Estimated M:

economic status Initial status rate Spring 2007 Initial status rate Spring 2007

Classroom activities
Cohort 1: Grade 8a
Advantaged 2.28 0.25∗∗∗ 3.03 2.02 0.04 2.14
Disadvantaged 2.29 0.30∗∗∗ 3.18 2.03 0.08 2.29
Cohort 2: Grade 7b
Advantaged 2.23 0.30∗∗∗ 2.83 2.08 0.06 2.20
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014

Disadvantaged 2.22 0.34∗∗∗ 2.90 2.07 0.10 2.27

Small-group work
Cohort 1: Grade 8a
Advantaged 2.86 0.02∗∗ 2.91 2.80 −0.06 2.64
Disadvantaged 2.81 0.07∗∗ 3.03 2.75 0.00 2.75
Cohort 2: Grade 7b
Advantaged 2.72 0.14∗∗ 3.00 2.79 −0.01 2.76
Disadvantaged 2.71 0.13∗∗ 2.97 2.78 −0.02 2.73
Technology proficiency
Cohort 1: Grade 8a
Advantaged 3.02 0.31 3.95 2.98 0.27 3.78
Disadvantaged 2.68 0.38∗∗∗ 3.81 2.64 0.28 3.46
Cohort 2: Grade 7b
Advantaged 3.00 0.43∗∗∗ 3.86 2.99 0.27 3.53
Disadvantaged 2.71 0.43∗∗∗ 3.58 2.70 0.27 3.25

Note. HLM = hierachical growth models. Classroom activities and small-group work were measured on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale ranging
from 1 (never) to 5 (almost daily). Technology proficiency was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I can do this not at all or barely)
to 5 (I can do this extremely well).
aFall 2004 to spring 2007 (3 years’ growth) for Cohort 1.
bFall 2005 to spring 2007 (2 years’ growth) for Cohort 2.
∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

campuses reported less frequent small-group activities as they
advanced to higher grade levels. Thus, in spring 2007, treat-
ment students’ average estimated scores (2.9–3.0) indicated
that they sometimes (i.e., once or twice a month) interacted
with peers in small groups, whereas control students’ aver-
age scores (2.6–2.8) suggested that they worked together in
small groups less frequently.
Technology proficiency. As a measure of their proficiency
relative to Texas Technology Applications Standards,
students rated their skills in using applications on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I can do this not at all
or barely) to 5 (I can do this extremely well). Although
students at treatment schools reported consistently higher
technology proficiency than did their control-group peers,
economic status differences emerged for Cohort 1 eighth-
grade students in the third year. A statistically significant
interaction between the treatment and students’ economic
status showed that economically disadvantaged students
at treatment schools grew in proficiency at a significantly
faster rate (0.38 scale-score points per year) than their
more affluent immersion peers (0.31 scale-score points)
and control-group students (0.27 scale-score points). Thus,
based on estimated mean scores in spring 2007, econom-
ically disadvantaged treatment students had narrowed the
proficiency gap with advantaged treatment students (3.8
vs. 4.0), closed the proficiency gap with advantaged control
students (3.8 vs. 3.8), and surpassed the proficiency of
disadvantaged control students (3.8 vs. 3.5).
For Cohort 2, economically advantaged and disadvan-
taged treatment students grew in technology proficiency
at significantly faster rates than their counterparts in
control schools (0.43 scale-score points compared with
0.27 scale-score points). Consequently, economically dis-
advantaged Cohort 2 students in treatment schools sur-
passed advantaged control students in proficiency by the
end of Grade 7 (estimated mean scores of 3.6 and 3.5,
respectively).
The Technology Immersion model also posited that
greater technology access and use would enhance stu-
dent engagement as evidenced by increased school atten-
dance and improved conduct. We found positive effects of
 308
immersion on student behavior, but, surprisingly, negative
effects on school attendance.
School attendance. As reported in Table 2, we used three-
level HLM growth models to examine changes in attendance
rates over time. For both groups, middle school students’ at-
tendance rates decreased as they advanced to higher grade
levels; however, treatment students’ attendance rates de-
clined at a faster pace. For Cohort 1, the yearly estimated rate
of change in attendance for advantaged and disadvantaged
treatment students (−0.44 and −0.56 percentage points,
respectively) was nearly twice as large as the rates for con-
trol students (−0.17 and −0.28 percentage points). Thus,
at the end of Grade 8, economically advantaged and disad-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
vantaged students in treatment schools had estimated mean
attendance rates of 96.3% and 95.3%, respectively, com-
pared with 97.2% and 96.2% for control students. Similarly,
the yearly estimated rate of decline in attendance for Cohort
2 advantaged and disadvantaged treatment students (−0.37
and −0.68 percentage points, respectively) exceeded the
change for control students (−0.12 and −0.43 percentage
points).
Disciplinary actions. As another measure of engagement,
we used independent t tests to compare the frequency of stu-
dent disciplinary occurrences (removal of a student from the
regular academic program for a full school day) at treatment
and control schools. Results reported in Table 4 show statis-
tically significant differences indicating less frequent student
disciplinary incidents at treatment schools compared to con-
trol.
Specifically, Cohort 1 eighth-grade students at Technol-
ogy Immersion schools had an average of 0.65 disciplinary
actions compared with 0.90 disciplinary events per student
at control schools, t(5481) = 4.09, p < .001, Cohen’s d =
−.11. Similarly, Cohort 2 seventh-grade students at treat-
ment schools had significantly fewer disciplinary actions
than students at control schools, t(5513) = 5.83, p < .001,
Cohen’s d = −.16). Third-year findings on student discipline
mirrored results for the first and second project years. More
TABLE 4. Differences between Mean Number of Disciplinary Actions per Student at Treatment and Control Schools by
Cohort
Treatment
Cohort n M SD
Cohort 1 (Grade 8) 2,584 0.65 2.04
Cohort 2 (Grade 7) 2,624 0.53 1.64
Note. Independent samples t test for differences between average disciplinary actions per student at treatment and control schools. One outlier was
removed from the analysis (a Cohort 1 control student with 112 disciplinary actions). Removing the outlier did not affect the conclusion.
∗∗∗ p < .001.
The Journal of Educational Research
active and collaborative classroom learning experiences as-
sociated with individual laptops and digital resources seemed
to improve students’ engagement in class work.
Effects of Technology Immersion on Academic Achievement
Given that changes in students and their learning ex-
periences were expected to mediate academic performance,
we next estimated treatment effects on students’ TAKS T
scores. Our analyses concentrated on reading and math-
ematics scores because students completed TAKS tests for
those subjects annually, whereas they completed TAKS tests
for writing, science, and social studies at intermittent grade
levels. We used three-level HLM growth models to examine
how students’ TAKS reading and mathematics achievement
varied across time (the point at which students completed
TAKS assessments each spring), students, and schools. As
Table 5 shows, we estimated school mean rates of change as
well as the separate effects of student economic disadvan-
tage and the school poverty concentration on TAKS reading
and mathematics performance. Each HLM analysis included
approximately 3,000–3,330 students divided nearly equally
between the 21 treatment and 21 control schools. Compara-
ble proportions of students were retained in analyses across
years (58%–59% of treatment students, 58%–61% of control
students).
TAKS reading. After controlling for student and school
levels of poverty, we found no statistically significant effect
of Technology Immersion on students’ estimated growth
rate for TAKS reading for either of the cohorts. For Co-
hort 1, the reading achievement of advantaged students in
treatment and control schools (with average poverty) de-
creased across years, whereas economically disadvantaged
students at treatment and control schools grew in reading
achievement at significantly faster rates than their more ad-
vantaged peers (0.38 T-score points per year for treatment
students vs. 0.17 T-score points for control students). TAKS
reading outcomes for Cohort 2 seventh-grade students, like-
wise, showed no statistically significant treatment effect on
Control
n M SD t Cohen’s d
2,899 0.90 2.56 4.09∗∗∗ −0.11
2,891 0.86 2.45 5.83∗∗∗ −0.16
 The Journal of Educational Research 309

TABLE 5. HLM Statistics for Cohorts 1 and 2 Students: Effects of Technology Immersion on TAKS Reading and
Mathematics Growth Rates

TAKS reading TAKS mathematics

Dependent variable and predictor Gamma coefficient t Gamma coefficient t

Cohort 1: Grade 8
Initial mean status 2004 TAKS T score 54.002 76.89∗∗∗ 53.019 70.83∗∗∗
Immersiona −1.346 −1.89† −1.201 −1.36
School poverty −6.504 −4.49∗∗∗ −4.724 −2.50∗
Student disadvantage −6.170 −9.40∗∗∗ −4.487 −8.60∗∗∗
Growth rate −0.369 −2.86∗∗ −0.181 −1.15
Immersiona 0.212 1.45 0.582 1.95†
School poverty 0.860 1.75† 1.488 1.67
Student disadvantage 0.536 4.07∗∗∗ 0.025 0.29
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014

Disadvantage × Immersion −0.408 −1.90†

Cohort 2: Grade 7
Initial mean status 2005 TAKS T score 52.770 100.87∗∗∗ 52.306 95.59∗∗∗
Immersion −0.488 −0.81 −1.029 −1.54
School poverty −8.049 −5.77∗∗∗ −4.373 −2.39∗
Student disadvantage −5.591 −9.33∗∗∗ −4.492 −7.80∗∗∗
Growth rate −0.155 −0.85 −0.444 −1.65
Immersion 0.388 1.66 0.708 1.78†
School poverty 0.905 1.30 0.317 0.31
Student disadvantage 0.283 1.56 0.044 0.24

Note. HLM = hierachical growth models; TAKS = Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Number of students: Cohort 1 reading (1,380
treatment, 1,613 control), Cohort 1 mathematics (1,397 treatment, 1,616 control); Cohort 2 reading (1,546 treatment, 1,725 control), Cohort 2
mathematics (1,560 treatment, 1,750 control). Number of schools: 21 treatment and 21 control.
aCohort 1 Technology Immersion students had significantly lower initial TAKS reading scores. A latent variable regression, controlling for the effect
of this initial difference on the growth rate, indicated that the difference between the original and adjusted immersion coefficients was not significant
(the difference divided by the standard error of the difference = 1.30).
†p < .10. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

students’ achievement. Economically disadvantaged stu-
dents in both comparison groups grew in reading at a slightly
faster rate than their more advantaged classmates.
Table 6 shows a comparison of the average estimated ini-
tial TAKS reading and mathematics scores, yearly growth
rates, and spring 2007 TAKS scores for the treatment and
control schools. The table also includes the estimated magni-
tude of the Technology Immersion effects on TAKS reading
and mathematics scores in standard deviation units.
TAKS mathematics. The estimated treatment effects on
TAKS mathematics scores, as shown in Tables 5 and 6,
was not statistically significant. Adjusting for student and
school poverty, the estimated Technology Immersion effect
on Cohort 1 students’ growth rate for TAKS mathemat-
ics just missed conventional statistical significance (p < .06
rather than .05), and an interaction effect that approached
statistical significance (p < .06) was also detected between
the treatment and students’ socioeconomic status. That is,
economically advantaged students in treatment schools ap-
peared to grow in mathematics achievement at a faster rate
than disadvantaged treatment students (0.40 T-score points
per year compared to 0.02 T-score points per year). Thus, the
estimated mean TAKS mathematics T scores for econom-
ically advantaged Cohort 1 eighth-grade students in treat-
ment schools increased from 51.8 to 53.0 across 3 school
years, whereas the scores for their counterparts in control
schools decreased from 53.0 to 52.5. The mathematics T
scores for economically disadvantaged treatment students
remained stable across years (47.3–47.4), whereas the scores
of their control group peers declined slightly (48.5–48.1).
The estimated effect of Technology Immersion on the
TAKS mathematics achievement of Cohort 2 seventh-grade
students did not reach statistical significance for either ad-
vantaged or disadvantaged students (p < .08). However, the
estimated TAKS mathematics scores of economically advan-
taged and disadvantaged students at treatment schools (with
average poverty) increased (0.26 and 0.30 T-score points per
year, respectively), whereas the scores for their counterparts
in control schools decreased (−0.44 T-score points per year).
Overall, the effects of Technology Immersion on aca-
demic achievement, although somewhat more promising for
mathematics, was less robust than expected. Despite that, the
yearly estimated growth rates displayed in Table 6 revealed
generally positive TAKS score growth trajectories for stu-
dents in Technology Immersion schools, whereas students
 310 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 6. HLM Model-Based Estimations of Mean TAKS Reading and Mathematics T Scores and Mean Growth Rates by
Treatment and Control Groups

Statistics for students in schools with average poverty

Technology immersion Control

Immersion
Yearly effect in
Subject/Cohort/Student Estimated M: Yearly Estimated M: Estimated M: growth Estimated M: standard
economic status Initial status growth rate Spring 2007 Initial status rate Spring 2007 deviation units

TAKS reading
Cohort 1: Grade 8a
Advantaged 52.66 −0.16 52.19 54.00 −0.37 52.90 0.06
Disadvantaged 46.49 0.38 47.62 47.83 0.17 48.33 0.06
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014

Cohort 2: Grade 7b
Advantaged 52.28 0.39 52.75 52.77 −0.16 52.46 0.08
Disadvantaged 46.69 0.52 47.72 47.18 0.13 47.44 0.08
TAKS mathematics
Cohort 1: Grade 8a
Advantaged 51.82 0.40† 53.02 53.02 −0.18 52.48 0.17
Disadvantaged 47.33 0.02 47.39 48.53 −0.16 48.06 0.05
Cohort 2: Grade 7b
Advantaged 51.28 0.26† 51.81 52.31 −0.44 51.42 0.14
Disadvantaged 46.79 0.31† 47.40 47.81 −0.40 47.01 0.14

Note. HLM = hierachical growth models; TAKS = Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. T-score M = 50 (state average TAKS score), SD =
10. Immersion effect in standard deviation units = difference in T score cumulative growth between treatment and control groups / 10.
aFall 2004 to spring 2007 (3 years’ growth) for Cohort 1.
bFall 2005 to spring 2007 (2 years’ growth) for Cohort 2.
†p < .10.

in control schools usually had negative growth trends. The
predicted effects on TAKS scores measured in SDs, although
very small, consistently favored students in Technology Im-
mersion schools.
search questions and the implications for one-to-one laptop
programs at other schools.
Treatment Effects on Students’ Learning Opportunities

Discussion Individual laptops and digital resources allowed middle school

The study of Technology Immersion is distinguished from
previous research on one-to-one computing environments
by its experimental design and use of a theoretical framework
to investigate causal mechanisms. The theory of change as-
sumes that treatment students experience technology-rich
school and classroom environments that foster more ac-
tive and meaningful schoolwork, which in turn, enhance
students’ personal competencies and engagement and ul-
timately increase academic achievement. Before discussing
results, it is important to note that teachers and students in
control schools typically had access to computers and digital
resources in computer labs or media centers, as classroom sta-
tions (usually 1–3 computers), or on checkout laptop carts.
Thus, control schools continued the traditional approach
with technology integration resting largely on the motiva-
tion of individual teachers, whereas Technology Immersion
schools committed to whole-school integration. In sections
to follow, we discuss key findings relative to the study’s re-
students to develop greater technical proficiency and reduced their
disciplinary problems in classes—however, they attended school
somewhat less regularly. Our research confirmed other stud-
ies linking one-to-one computing with students’ increased
technical proficiency (e.g., Lowther et al., 2001; Rockman
et al., 1998). Students in treatment schools made signif-
icantly greater progress than control students in meeting
state standards (e.g., manage documents, use search engines
and online references). Especially noteworthy was the posi-
tive immersion effect on students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds. Economically disadvantaged students in treat-
ment schools reached proficiency levels that matched the
skills of advantaged students in control schools (about 3.8
on the 5-point proficiency scale). Although students’ in-
creased technical skills may not raise their standardized test
scores, new competencies could have long-ranging effects
on students’ future academic and career options.
Consistent with other research (Baldwin, 1999; Barron
et al., 1999; MEPRI, 2003), students attending treatment
 The Journal of Educational Research
schools exhibited stronger engagement in academic work
through more positive classroom behavior. Having fewer
disciplinary actions suggests that individual laptops allowed
teachers to create more active classroom learning experi-
ences that more closely matched some students’ preferred
learning styles. Although effect sizes reflecting fewer dis-
ciplinary actions for treatment students were small (−.11
and −.16), they were replicated across all student cohorts
and evaluation years. Reducing disciplinary actions could
also have had practically important benefits such as reduc-
ing behavioral management demands on administrators and
teachers and reducing out-of-class time for students.
On the other hand, our study suggests that giving students
laptops and raising their expectations for technology use may
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
have unintended consequences. Unexpectedly, students at
treatment schools attended school less regularly than con-
trol students. Although attendance rate differences between
groups were small (about 1 percentage point, on average),
the school attendance deficits were replicated across cohorts
and years. The reason why students in immersion schools
attended school at lower rates is unclear. Conceivably, stu-
dents who preferred learning with laptops but experienced
irregular laptop use in classrooms may have stayed home
occasionally to use their laptops. Contrary to what may be
expected, however, treatment students’ lower average school
attendance rates were not associated with lower average aca-
demic achievement. Future research studies may shed light
on the relationship between individual student laptops and
school attendance.
The infusion of technology resources changed the nature of
classroom activities. As posited, teachers in Technology Im-
mersion schools, who had more abundant and more conve-
nient access to computers and resources, had their students
use technology more often for learning (e.g., use a word pro-
cessor to produce written work, create a presentation and
share the information with classmates, conduct Internet re-
search, and communicate via e-mail about topics studied).
Teachers in technology-rich classrooms also organized their
classes differently. Treatment students, for example, inter-
acted more often with their peers in small groups to discuss
assignments, to help each other with difficult work, and to
collaboratively produce reports or projects. It is these kinds
of activities that treatment students apparently found more
engaging and that reduced behavioral problems in classes.
Treatment Effects on Academic Achievement
The effect of technology immersion on students’ reading or
mathematics achievement was not statistically significant, but
the direction of predicted effects was consistently positive and was
replicated across student cohorts. Data for multiple student co-
horts and measurement occasions allowed researchers to ex-
amine longitudinal reading and mathematics achievement
trends. These kinds of analyses are important when evalu-
311
ating the effectiveness of educational innovations because
small treatment effects are noteworthy when evidence in-
dicates that effects are replicable (Cohen, 1994; Schmidt,
1996) or cumulate into larger effects over time as programs
mature (Abelson, 1985).
Evidence for Cohorts 1 and 2 showed that the estimated
Technology Immersion effect on students’ TAKS reading
achievement was positive (0.06 and 0.08 SDs, respectively)
but not by statistically significant margins. Similarly, there
was no statistically significant effect of Technology Immer-
sion on students’ TAKS mathematics achievement. For Co-
hort 1 (eighth-grade students), the predicted immersion
effect was positive, but it was stronger for economically
advantaged students than for disadvantaged students (es-
timated effects of .17 and .05 SDs, respectively). For Cohort
2, the predicted effect of immersion on TAKS mathematics
achievement was the same for economically advantaged and
disadvantaged students (estimated effects of 0.14 SDs).
Several issues help to explain why positive and statis-
tically significant changes in students and their learning
experiences (i.e., behavior, technology proficiency, class-
room activities, and interactions with peers) did not mediate
larger effects on academic achievement. For one thing, our
achievement analysis was limited by the available measures.
We focused on reading and mathematics because TAKS
tests were administered annually in those subjects, whereas
yearly TAKS scores were not available for other subject
areas potentially affected by Technology Immersion (writ-
ing, science, and social studies). Additionally, we had to
use standardized scores (i.e., T scores based on state aver-
ages) because TAKS test scores were not equated across
grade levels. As a result, our reported growth rates measure
changes in students’ standing on TAKS reading and mathe-
matics tests relative to state averages rather than true growth
in student reading and mathematics achievement. Growth
analysis with equated test scores might have yielded different
results.
Also, previous studies of school reform have associated
a greater number of implementation years with increased
effects on achievement outcomes (Borman, 2005; Borman,
Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003). Some researchers have
reported that school change typically takes 3–5 or even more
years to fully implement and produce stable student out-
comes (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; Hall & Hord, 2006).
Similarly, we found that the effects of Technology Immer-
sion on TAKS scores became stronger over time as teachers
and students became more accomplished technology users.
In the first, start-up year, the estimated immersion effects
on TAKS reading and mathematics scores were negative. In
the second year, immersion effects were typically positive but
not by statistically significant margins, and in the third year,
estimated immersion effects on TAKS reading and math-
ematics scores remained positive and neared conventional
levels of statistical significance for mathematics.
Finally, despite gradual progress, uneven implementation
of the Technology Immersion model across schools and
 312
classrooms undermined prospects for substantial improve-
ments in student academic achievement. Site visits at
schools revealed variations in students’ laptop experiences,
with students in some schools using laptops frequently dur-
ing the school day, whereas laptop use in other schools was
sporadic. Middle schools struggled in the first project year to
accommodate the complex demands of Technology Immer-
sion. Teachers initially were at different stages of readiness
for classroom immersion, and mathematics teachers at all
schools found it difficult to integrate laptops into lessons.
However, as teachers grew more comfortable with technol-
ogy in the second and third project years, many drew selec-
tively from a wide range of technology resources to enhance
their teaching and students’ learning.
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
English language arts and reading teachers increasingly
had students use laptops to write compositions and cre-
ate presentations, learn and practice skills, read and com-
prehend texts, and play educational games. Mathematics
teachers, who initially had students use laptops for online
activities and mathematics games only after they completed
paper-and-pencil assignments, gradually expanded their uses
of laptops for diagnostic assessment, enrichment of concepts
presented in traditional lessons, online mathematics pro-
grams that allowed students to work at their own pace, and
for individualized test preparation activities. In general, stu-
dents in Cohort 2 had teachers who facilitated more ap-
propriate learning experiences with laptops than students
in Cohort 1, who were in Grade 6 during the start-up year.
Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, and Caranikas-Walker (2009)
provided an in-depth examination of the implementation
fidelity of Technology Immersion at middle schools and its
relationship with student academic achievement.
Implications for Technology in Schools
The relationship between technology and student
achievement continues to be an important topic and the
focus of considerable research. Some recent and influential
studies have raised concerns about the viability of financial
investments in educational technology (e.g., Cuban, 2001;
Dynarski et al., 2007). Likewise, if improved standardized
test scores is the primary justification for investments in one-
to-one laptop programs, then results probably will be disap-
pointing. Evidence from this study suggests that large-scale
one-to-one laptop programs are difficult to implement, and,
as a result, programs may produce either very small or no im-
provements in test scores. Nonetheless, as the costs of laptops
decline and the uses of wireless computers expand (e.g., dig-
ital textbooks and resources, online testing, school-to-home
communication), interest in laptop programs is increasing
(Zucker & Light, 2009). This pilot study of the Technology
Immersion model offers lessons for school leaders as well as
policymakers who are considering laptop programs for their
schools.
Foremost, effective technology use clearly involves more
than just buying computers and software. This study and
The Journal of Educational Research
others suggest that laptop programs may be more effective
when technology is part of comprehensive school reform
initiatives (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002; Zhao & Frank, 2003).
Successful Technology Immersion schools had highly com-
mitted administrative leaders who secured teacher buy-in
for student laptops and provided the support components
specified by the model. Particularly important were invest-
ments in technical support for school networks and timely
laptop repairs, and the provision of ongoing professional
development for teachers (Shapley, Maloney, Caranikas-
Walker, & Sheehan, 2008). Consistent with other research,
schools that served mainly economically disadvantaged stu-
dent populations encountered numerous obstacles in trying
to implement a complex school reform model (Desimone,
2002; Vernaz, Karam, Mariano, & DeMartini, 2006). Thus,
those schools needed additional planning time to build ca-
pacity and secure adequate supports prior to implementing
an immersion project.
Additionally, one-to-one laptop programs were more
likely to be well implemented and sustained if laptops ad-
vanced overall goals for student learning and achievement.
District and school leaders who embraced Technology Im-
mersion believed that individual student laptops had bene-
fits above and beyond simply raising standardized test scores.
Financial investments in laptops were part of an overall mi-
gration toward digital school environments, including elec-
tronic textbooks, online assessments, and virtual course-
work. These leaders believed laptops helped prepare their
students for the 21st century, exposed them to worldwide
cultures, expanded learning outside of school, and moved
students toward product creation and away from drill and
practice for tests. Technology Immersion supported their vi-
sion for learning opportunities that intellectually challenged
and motivationally engaged students, inspired students to
learn on their own, and prepared students for life, further
education, and careers.
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a
lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133.
Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L. (1994). Evaluating the Apple
classrooms of tomorrow. In E. Baker and H. O’Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology
assessment in education and training (pp. 173–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baldwin, F. D. (1999). Taking the classroom home. Appalachia, 32(1),
10–15.
Barron, A., Hogarty, K., Kromery, J., & Lenkway, P. (1999). An exami-
nation of the relationships between student conduct and the number of
computers per student in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 32(1), 98–107.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting
educational change: Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa,
Monica, CA: RAND.
Borman, G. D. (2005). National efforts to bring reform to scale in high-
poverty schools: Outcomes and implications. In L. Parker (Ed.), Review
of research in education, 29 (pp. 1–28). Washington, DC: American Edu-
cational Research Association.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003).
Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
 The Journal of Educational Research
Bradburn, F. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2007, March). Shared leadership
makes an IMPACT in North Carolina. eSchool News. Retrieved from
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=45744
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2003). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49,
997–1003.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dede, C. (2007). Reinventing the role of information and communications
technologies in education. In L. Smolin, K. Lawless, & N. C. Burbules
(Eds.), Information and communication technologies: Considerations of cur-
rent practice for teachers and teacher educators (pp. 11–38). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models
be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433–
479.
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano,
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products:
Findings from the first student cohort (NCEE 2007–4005). Washington,
DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Education Week. (2007, March 29). Technology counts 2007: A digital
decade [A special state-focused supplement]. Education Week, 26(30).
Retrieved from www.edweek.org/rc
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first
century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K.
S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Lowther, D., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (2001, July). Evaluation of a laptop
program: Success and recommendations. Paper presented at the National
Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, IL.
Lowther, D., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (2003). When each one has one:
The influence on teaching strategies and student achievement of using
laptops in the classroom. ETR&D, 51(3), 23–44.
Maine Educational Policy Research Institute. (2003). The Maine learning
technology initiative: Teacher, student, and school perspectives, mid-year eval-
uation report. Gorham, ME: University of Southern Maine.
National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging
schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Neugent, L., & Fox, C. (2007, January). Peer coaches’
spark technology integration. eSchool News. Retrieved from
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=42086
Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagoaka, J. (2001). Authentic and intellectual work
and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago, IL: Consortium on
Chicago School Research.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Results that mat-
ter: 21st century skills and high school reform. Retrieved from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com content&task=
view&id=204&Itemid=114
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing
initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 38, 329–348.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007).
What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster
curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44,
921–958.
Pitler, H. (2005). McREL technology initiative: The development of a
technology intervention program: Final report (Report No. 2005–09).
Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
(ED486685)
Rasch, D., & Guiliard, V. (2004). The robustness of parametric statistical
methods. Psychology Science, 46, 175–208.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Appli-
cations and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our edu-
cational technology investment. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/
cs/wes/view/rs/619
Rockman et al. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the
laptop program. San Francisco, CA: Author.
313
Rockman et al. (1999). A more complex picture: Laptop use and impact
in the context of changing home and school access. San Francisco, CA:
Author.
Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. (2000). Technology sup-
port: Its depth, breadth and impact in America’s schools. Retrieved from
http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings.html
Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M. (2002). An AlphaSmart
for each student: Does teaching and learning change with full access to word
processors? Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
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, 313–330.
Schaumburg, H. (2001, June). Fostering girls’ computer literacy through laptop
learning: Can mobile computers help to level out the gender difference? Paper
presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago,
IL.
Schmidt, F. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowl-
edge in psychology: Implications for the training of researchers. Psycho-
logical Methods, 1, 115–129.
Shapley, K. S., Benner, A. D., Heikes, E. J., & Pieper, A. M. (2002).
Technology integration in education (TIE) initiative: Statewide survey report,
Executive Summary. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
Shapley, K. S., Maloney, C., Caranikas-Walker, F., & Sheehan, D. (2008)
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Third-year (2006–07)
traits of higher Technology Immersion schools and teachers. Austin, TX: Texas
Center for Educational Research.
Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2008).
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Outcomes for the third
year (2006–07). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2009).
Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its
relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning,
and Assessment, 9(4), 5–68. Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org
Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Hunts-
berger, B., & Maloney, C. (2006). Evaluation of the Texas Technology
Immersion Pilot: First-year results. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educa-
tional Research.
Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine’s middle school laptop
program: Creating better writers. Gorham, ME: University of Southern
Maine, Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A
meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75,
417–453.
Smith, M. S., & Broom, M. (2003). The landscape and future of the use
of technology in K–12 education. In H. F. O’Neal & R. S. Perez (Eds.),
Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp. 3–30). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Smolin, L., & Lawless, K. (2007). Technologies in schools: Stimulating a
dialogue. In L. Smolin, K. Lawless, & N. C. Burbules (Eds.), Informa-
tion and communication technologies: Considerations of current practice for
teachers and teacher educators (pp. 11–38). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Stevenson, K. R. (1998, November). Evaluation report-year 2: Schoolbook
laptop project. Beaufort, SC: Beaufort County School District.
Texas Education Agency. (2004). 2003–04 academic excellence indicator sys-
tem. Austin, TX: Author.
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long-range plan for technology,
2006–2020: A report to the 80th Texas Legislature from the Texas Edu-
cation Agency. Austin, TX: Author.
Vernaz, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L. T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating
comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Woodul, C., Vitale, M., & Scott, B. (2000). Using a cooperative multimedia
learning environment to enhance learning and affective self-perceptions
of at-risk students in grade 8. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
28, 239–252.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in
schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 40, 807–840.
Zucker, A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science,
323(82), 82–85.
Zucker, 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. San Francisco, CA: SRI International.
 314
AUTHORS NOTE
Kelly Shapley, PhD, is the Director of Shapley Research
Associates, a private research enterprise that specializes in
education research, program evaluations, and policy stud-
ies. Her recent work has focused on studies of technology
integration in schools and classrooms, whole-school reform,
the efficacy of charter schools, and the value of programs
and policies aimed at students at risk of academic failure.
Daniel Sheehan, EdD, is a senior research analyst at
the Texas Center for Educational Research, a nonprofit
research entity. He is a statistician and psychometrician
with specializations in hierarchical linear models, measure-
ment, test development, and program evaluation. He has
authored or coauthored articles appearing in a wide range of
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014
journals.
The Journal of Educational Research
Catherine Maloney, PhD, is the Director of the Texas
Center for Educational Research. Her work at the research
center focuses on the use of technology to improve the edu-
cational outcomes of underserved student groups, the role of
school choice in efforts to reform public education, and the
effectiveness of initiatives designed to improve the college
readiness of low-income students.
Fanny Caranikas-Walker, PhD, is the training coordina-
tor for the Small Business Development Center at Texas
State University–San Marcos. She previously was an Assis-
tant Professor at Washington State University and a research
analyst at the Texas Center for Educational Research. Her
research interests focus on the behavioral aspects of employ-
ment and employer–employee relationships in educational
and other organizations, and the factors contributing to the
retention and success of students.
 The Journal of Educational Research 315

APPENDIX
Technology Immersion Components

The Texas Education Agency selected three lead vendors as providers of Technology Immersion packages (Dell Computer,
Inc., Apple Computer Inc., and Region 1 Education Service Center [ESC]). Sections to follow provide descriptions of
package components.

Wireless Laptops and Productivity Software

All vendors offered a wireless laptop as the mobile computing device. Campuses could select either Apple laptops (iBook
and MAC OSX) or Dell laptops (Inspiron or Latitude with Windows OS). For Apple laptops, AppleWorks provided a
suite of productivity tools, including Keynote presentation software, Internet Explorer, Apple Mail, iCal calendars, iChat
instant messaging, and iLife Digital Media Suite (iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, GarageBand, and iDVD). For Dell laptops,
Microsoft Office included Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, and Access. In addition, eChalk served as a “portal” to
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 05:43 09 October 2014

other web-based applications and resources included in the immersion package and a student-safe e-mail solution. Region
1 ESC provided Dell products.

Online Instructional and Assessment Resources

Immersion packages included a variety of digital resources. Apple included the following online resources: netTrekker
(an academic Internet search engine), Beyond Books from Apex Learning (reading, science, and social studies online),
ClassTools Math from Apex Learning (complete mathematics instruction), ExploreLearning Math and Science (supple-
mental mathematics/science curriculum), TeenBiz3000 from Achieve 3000 (differentiated reading instruction), and My
Access Writing from Vantage Learning (support for writing proficiency). Dell, Inc. selected netTrekker (an academic
Internet search engine) and Connected Tech from Classroom Connect (technology-based lessons and projects). Region
1 ESC selected Connected Tech but also added a variety of teaching and learning resources including Unitedstreaming
(digital videos), Encyclopedia Britannica, EBSCO (databases), NewsBank, and K12 Teaching and Learning Center. For the
Apple package, AssessmentMaster (Renaissance Learning) provided a formative assessment in all four core subject areas.
Both the Dell and Region 1 ESC packages provided i-Know (CTB McGraw Hill) for core-subject assessment. In addition,
all campuses had access to the online Texas Mathematics Diagnostic System (TMDS) and Texas Science Diagnostic
System (TSDS) that were provided free of charge by the state.
In addition to these resources, individual schools had access to software products that had been purchased prior to the
Technology Immersion project, digital resources that accompanied adopted textbooks, and educational resources available
free of charge on the Internet.

Professional Development

Each immersion package included a different professional development provider. Apple used its own professional devel-
opment model, whereas the Dell package relied on Pearson Learning Group, a commercial provider (formerly Co-nect),
to support professional development. Region 1 ESC used a combination of service center support plus other services
offered through Connected Coaching and Connected University. Although the professional development models and
providers differed, they all were expected to include some common required elements, including support for immersion
package components, the design of technology-enhanced learning environments and experiences, lesson development
in the core-subject areas, sustained learning opportunities, and ongoing coaching and support. Individual districts and
campuses collaborated with vendors to develop specific professional development plans for their teachers and other staff.

Technical and Pedagogical Support

Each Technology Immersion package provider also was required to provide campus-based technical support that advanced
the effective use of technology for teaching and learning. Apple designed a Master Service and Support Program. Dell
established a Call Center dedicated to technical support for TIP grantees as well as an 800 telephone number for hardware
and software support. Region 1 ESC had an online and telephone HelpDesk to answer questions and provide assistance.
Individual districts and schools also provided support.