16 SES 02 B, Current and Emergent Theoretical and Ethical Perspectives in Research on ICT in K-12 Education and Teacher Education
One-to-one laptop initiatives in education are increasing across the world. Governments and/or schools are initiating projects which provide students with personal laptop computers for use at home and school. According to Penuel (2006), the crucial features of one-to-one laptop environments are: (1) provide students with use of portable laptop computers (or digital devices) loaded with contemporary productivity software; (2) enable students to access the Internet through schools’ wireless networks, and (3) a focus on using laptops to complete academic tasks such as homework assignments, tests, and presentations.
Fleischer (2013), added an additional criterion to Penuel’s definition regarding that the computer must be used in a personal manner meaning that one person must have access to the same computer at all times, with the same settings, programs and folder structure.
There are several arguments to promote such one-to-one laptop implementations, e.g., to meet the digital divide (i.e., unequal access to technology), technology as a catalytist (i.e., ICT as a tool to accelerate educational innovations; Hawkridge, 1990), the social rationale (i.e., prepare the students to become responsible and well-informed citizens; Griffin et al., 2012), the economic rationale (i.e., prepare the students for future work life; OECD, 2010) and the educational rationale (i.e., open new opportunities that improve teaching and learning).
Given the large number of one-to-one laptop programs, researchers have been interested among others in the effects of one-to-one laptop environments on students’ learning and motivation (Fleischer, 2012; Zheng, Warschauer, Lin, & Chang, 2016), and teachers’ use of ICT, self-efficacy and development in teaching and learning practices (Fleischer, 2012; Penuel, 2006; Zheng et al., 2016). However, to our knowledge few studies have investigated teachers’ readiness for classroom management and teaching in one-to-one classrooms.
This study follows teachers and students in a large municipality which has initiated a one-to-one laptop initiative across all grades 1-12. The research group will follow the one-to-one project across three years. Based on existing knowledge regarding teachers’ ICT integration in classrooms, and the importance of the relations to teachers’ computer self-efficacy, perceived usefulness of ICT, and attitudes towards ICT, the researchers developed a survey to investigate a new construct which aims at measuring teachers’ readiness for one-to-one laptop environments.
Hence, the aim of this study is twofold: (1) To investigate the validity and reliability of the one-to-one readiness construct; (2) To examine the relations between the one-to-one readiness construct and computer self-efficacy, perceived usefulness and attitudes (external validity), along with the differences across teachers’ gender, the subject the teach, and grade at which they teach.
With regard to the first research objective, an approach comprising of four stages of scale development was taken to analyse the data consisting of 800 teachers (455 female - 345 male). During the first stage, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. To take the ordinal nature of the Likert-items (polytomous data) into account, polychoric factor analysis was used. Following the guidelines of Osborne and Fitzpatrick (2012) on the stability of EFA solutions, an internal replication EFA was conducted on the sample. For this purpose, the sample was proportionally divided into three subsamples, students evenly distributed over all the schools. The EFA replication analysis was conducted on subsample 1 and 2. Subsample 3 was used for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the second stage. The threshold of structural replicability – the same basic factor structure should be replicated for all subsamples - and the threshold of replicability of factor loadings across subsamples were used. During the second stage of analysis, a polytomous CFA was conducted to assess whether the proposed factor structure of the EFAs fits the data well. Several fit indices were calculated, such as the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the RMSEA (Bentler, 1990; Floyd and Widaman, 1995). In the third stage of analysis, ordinal alphas were calculated as these estimate the reliability more accurately than Cronbach’s alpha for ordinal response scales such as Likert-type scales (Gadermann, Guhn, & Zumbo, 2012). Finally, in the fourth stage of analysis, a differential item functioning (DIF) analysis (Van den Noortgate & De Boeck, 2005) was conducted to explore measurement equivalence among subgroups of the test takers. More specifically, the TAM-package in R was used to investigate whether female teachers have a different probability of answering the items correctly compared to their male counterparts, while controlling for their total score on the one-to-one scale. With regard to the second research objective, a regression analysis with a multilevel design was conducted to examine the relations between the one-to-one readiness construct and computer self-efficacy, perceived usefulness and attitudes.
This study will provide detailed information on teachers’ readiness to classroom management and teaching in one-to-one laptop environments, and how the 1:1 construct behaves in relation to variables such as self-efficacy, perceived usefulness and attitudes. Moreover, differences across teachers’ gender, subject and grades will be investigated to provide knowledge about the need for potential teacher development support. This can also provide researchers and educators with crucial knowledge in order to plan relevant interventions that promote the empowerment of teachers to use ICT for teaching and leading one-to-one laptop classrooms which may also bring challenges such as distractive behavior (Fleischer, 2012). Further implications for both research and practice will be discussed.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238-246. Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review 7 (2012) 107–122. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.004 Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor Analysis in the Development and Refinement of Clinical Assessment Instruments; Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 286-299. Gadermann, A.M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B.D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n3.pdf Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Melbourne, Australia: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5 OECD & Joint Research Centre- European Commission (2010). Assessing the effects of ICT in education: Indicators, criteria and benchmarks for international comparisons. Joint Research Centre- European Commission: Luxembourg. Osborne, J.W., & Fitzpatrick, D.C. (2012). Replication Analysis in Exploratory Factor Analysis: What it is and why it makes your analysis better? Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 17(15). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n15.pdf Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and Effects Of One-to-One Computing Initiatives: A Research Synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (3). Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Curricula and the use of ICT in education: Two worlds apart? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 962-975. Van den Noortgate, W., & De Boeck, P. (2005). Assessing and Explaining Differential Item Functioning Using Logistic Mixed Models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(4), 443-464. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), pp. 1052-1084. DOI: 10.3102/0034654316628645
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.