If you read the previous posts, you received a quick overview of the findings from my dissertation. As a recap, some of those major findings were:
- Schools that were 1:1 looked different than non-1:1 schools in Iowa on multiple characteristics.
- Teachers at 1:1 schools reported that their students used technology more frequently than their non-1:1 peers.
- Teachers at 1:1 schools reported that they integrated technology at higher levels than their non-1:1 peers.
- Teachers at 1:1 schools reported higher competency scores with technology than their non-1:1 peers.
So with the findings that I do have, it generates questions about their value. So what? Why does this matter? My response to these questions is from a leadership and policy perspective. School leaders should care about findings two through four. IF those findings are things they would like to see in their schools, 1:1 may be a great initiative for them. However, if they don’t value those characteristics, a 1:1 program may not be worthwhile to them. My belief, as you have probably guessed, is that those things are important.
I WANT students using technology more frequently at schools!
I WANT teachers integrating more technology into their teaching!
I WANT teachers who are more competent with technology!
As is often the case, this research may generate more questions than answers. Now that some of these findings have been identified, it would be extremely helpful to get at the “why” of these results. Are 1:1 teachers reporting higher technology competency because of additional training or is it simply access to technology? A combination of the two is probably likely. This question is just one of many that I’ve generated in my head.