Title of Study:  An AlphaSmart for Each Student:  Does Teaching and Learning Change with Full Access to Word Processors?

Author(s): Michael Russell, Damian Bebell, Jennifer Cowan, Mary Corbelli

Summary:
This study documented the changes that occurred in three 4th grade classrooms when the ratio of AlphaSmart portable writing devices was increased from 3:1 during the fall observation period to 1:1 in the spring observation period.

Sponsoring entity(s): Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College

Date conducted: 2002

Location of the study: This study can be accessed through the Boston College website.

Setting(s) addressed:

• Classroom

Targeted population(s):

• Elementary (4th grade)

Primary sources of evidence used in the study or report:

• Classroom observation
• Interviews of selected students
• Teacher interviews
• Student drawings of themselves

Primary Technology Application(s) Addressed:

• Word processing
• Portable writing devices

Major education topic(s) addressed:

• Writing

Major findings/conclusions:

• The use of AlphaSmarts more than doubled from the fall observation when availability was 3:1 to the spring observation when the availability was 1:1.  The use of computers and paper and pencil use also increased, but by smaller margins.
• Teachers reported that the quality of student work, including spelling, grammar and editing improved with word processing.
• Most students reported that they wrote first drafts on paper, then transcribed to an AlphaSmart or computer when the technology was shared, but wrote the first draft directly on their AlphaSmart when the availability was 1:1.

Practical implications of the findings:

• Teachers reported that the 1:1 technology made classroom management and logistics easier and more flexible.
• With 1:1 technology, all students could work on the same activity at the same time, making it easier for teachers and aides to work individually with students in need of assistance.
• The way the new technology was incorporated into each classroom varied based on the teacher’s pedagogy and approach to technology before the 1:1 program was introduced.

Reviewer Comments:
The method of measuring technology use by random 30 to 60 minute blind observations introduces several possible sources of error.  Comparing classroom behaviors near the start of the school year with those near the end of the school year might also introduce sources of error, as different types of writing assignments are likely at different times of the year, and students’ familiarity with classroom routines and with the available technologies would have improved.