The Great Parenting Debate: Should School Kids Rely on Computers?

This FoxNews.com article presents a variety of quotes from two sides of the one-to-one computing debate including comments by parents, educators, and corporate executives.

By John Brandon, Published December 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com:

As you consider whether to arm your child with a laptop computer or iPad this Christmas, consider also which battle line to stand behind, as the fighting grows over the increasing reliance on digital devices in the classroom.

Read more

Photo by Pia Waugh via Flickr

What does "good enough" mean for a one-to-one program?

Pat Woessner, a middle-school instructional technologist at MICDS, which seems like a school with which we at D-E have some similarities, echoed an interesting idea from an article in Wired Magazine. (By the way, MICDS also has a one-to-one tablet computer program.)  In Pat's latest blog post, which you can read here, he said that the "crapification of everything IS an improvement" and schools should embrace that.  Before you get crazy by reading this idea out of context, note that he was talking about hardware and software technology tools and the point is that while many of the cheap or free online tools currently available might not be the "best of breed" they can still be powerfull with regard to educating students. In fact, simplicity may make them more valuable. (The post is short so you can read it yourself and not take my word on it.)

This is definite food for thought for schools with one-to-one programs, especially tablet PC programs since tablets are generally more expensive that standard laptops.  While we definitely have some classes where not having ink would be a loss, those courses might be in the minority at the moment.  Netbooks are worth some thought as the draw of an almost disposable computer is strong. It would be  easier to keep computing ubiquitous and reliable for every student in every classroom if the majority of hardware repairs required only a hard drive swap into a new replacement and we could quickly send students back out the door without dealing with insurance, parts ordering, and loaner pool management.

Many people who have used Netbooks say they don't run high-powered applications well. For example, is video editing and production viable on a Netbook? I don't yet have the Netbook experience to answer this question but my gut feeling is no (as the technology stands today).  Of course, hardware performance will increase faster than cost as it always does with computer technology so maybe this problem will be elminated sooner than we think.

The flip side of trading tablets for netbooks is that even if you think our current use of tablet ink by students is expendable, should we radically change a program only based on current use.  As with any program, it evolves over time.

Does pen input by students provide potential for improving student learning that still needs to be further developed?
Should efforts that might go toward making this hardware platform change instead go toward professional development and possibly obtaining better tools to make ink use more powerful?
If we shut the door on ink by eliminating pen input or causing it not to be umbiqutious, will we miss valuable opportunites?

I honestly don't know at this point but am interested in hearing from others on the topic so if you are reading this, please post a comment.

Research report says one-to-one computing and use of online assessment is on the rise

A May 2008 article in eSchool News reports that researchers surveyed about 400 school administrators between April and September 2007. This resulted in the 2008 America's Digital Schools report by Thomas W. Greaves of The Greaves Group and Jeanne Hayes of The Hayes Connection.

Here are some of the findings and related quotes:

• The quantity and quality of one-to-one computing programs has increased since 2006.
  
  
  
  • "one-to-one computing is not a fad, but has lasting efficacy"
  
  
  • "one-to-one computing can only be successful through teacher ownership"
  
  
  
  


• Online formative assessment is a trend on the rise.
  
  
  
  • "The use of … online assessment … suggests a real improvement in using tests to help students learn what they don't know, rather than beat them over the head- after the fact--about what they don't know."
  
  
  • "The only major inhibitor to online assessment, according to survey respondents, is the lack of suitable student devices with which to take the exams."
  
  
  
  


• Interactive whiteboards (such as SmartBoards) are now viewed as "standard equipment".
  
  • "The report predicts that [interactive whiteboards] will be in nearly every school five years from now."
  
  
  
  


• While use of learning management software (such as Blackboard or Moodle) has increased, its full potential has not be realized.
  
  • "Schools frequently take less than full advantage of the available applications."
  
  
  
  


• Internet bandwidth "remains in a state of crisis".
  
  
  
  • "The average amount of bandwidth needed per student has climbed some 123 percent from year to year."
  
  
  • "Two-thirds of those polled say they have implemented a policy to restrict the use of certain applications in order to conserve bandwidth--including banning streaming video."
  
  
  
  

Review of some literature on 1:1 computing and teacher PD

In order for a one-to-one computer initiative or almost any use of technology in the classroom to be effective, teachers need more than the just the equipment. Any professional development related to technology has been shown to be better than none. While reporting on an Educational Testing Service (ETS) study that looked at the mathematics scores of fourth- and eighth-graders on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Archer (1998) writes that the students of teachers who had experienced any technology training scored better than those of teachers with no technology training. However, exclusively skills-based training for teachers provides a limited benefit that may not justify the expense of ubiquitous educational technology. In a two-year, ethnographic perspective study of three middle school teachers at a school with a one-to-one laptop program, Windschitl and Sahl (2002) conclude that:

Professional development opportunities should not focus exclusively on skills with computers. Rather, technology use should be more thoughtfully considered within the context of teachers' beliefs about what constitutes effective teaching and how technology and information access can alter the traditional roles of teachers and students in the classroom. (p. 202)

In addition, Knowlton and Weiss state "when faculty attempt to enhance their courses with technology but do not consider pedagogy, they are usually disappointed with the results" (Knowlton & Weiss, 2000 in Murphy et al., 2007, p. 71).
With regard to the classroom roles of teachers and students, Windschitl and Sahl (2002, p. 169) also report that current research indicates some teachers increase the use of student-centered classroom pedagogies over time in conjunction with the use of technology.¹ However, Moersch (2002) points out that while studies such as Becker and Ravitz (1999) found that teachers' pedagogical beliefs and actions were very much affected by substantial use of technology in the classroom, "the question remains, were those teachers most affected by technology use already inclined toward a constructivist approach in the classroom or were the technology and the teachers' abilities to use different applications the causal variables that changed their pedagogical style from a nonconstructivist approach to a learner-centered, experiential paradigm?" (p. 30).
The issue of technology access for all teachers and students can be addressed by a one-to-one computing program. However, Windschitl and Sahl found that the mere existence of a one-to-one program did not initiate an increase in the use of constructivist pedagogy among the teachers studied. In fact, "the availability of technology was neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to affect pedagogy" (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002, pp. 201-202). Yet, in both the Windschitl and Sahl study and in the Becker and Ravitz study, the researchers found that pervasive technology was a catalyst that enabled teachers already dissatisfied with teacher-centered methods or who were already constructivist-oriented to implement more practices consistent with their teaching philosophy than were possible before the existence of pervasive technology (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Becker & Ravitz, 1999). Data collected shows that teachers whose instructional practice has moved in a constructivist-oriented direction are the same teaches who have thoroughly employed computers in instruction among schools where other arguably necessary factors exist: frequent discussion about reform, a social network that informs and encourages the implementation of instructional change, and a relatively technologically rich environment (Becker & Ravitz, 1999, pp. 380-381).
Even though research shows a clear connection between instructional technology use and constructivist or student-centered teaching methods, why are student-centered pedagogies that require students to use higher-order thinking and practice solving problems in a practical context important? To make room for more student-centered teaching is this pedagogical change worth a reduction in the time allocated to knowledge-transmission oriented methods and teacher-centered methods? The skills required by future workers in the 21st century work force are "the need to analyze information, make decisions, and solve problems" according to The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) report conducted by the U. S. Department of Commerce in 1991 (Moersch, 2002, pp. 22-23). Moersch also writes that several commissioned reports during the 1990s recommend that curriculum focus on the skills typically associated with constructivist pedagogies to meet those requirements.
The value of constructivist pedagogy is not a new idea even though it has gained new attention in the context of 21st century skills and teaching with technology. A prominent constructivist, Ernst von Glasersfeld has traced the cognitive construction theory back to a Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico who discusses the idea in a 1710 treatise, where he states that one knows a thing only when one can explain it (Yager, 1991). That idea resonates with any teacher who remembers the level of understanding he or she attained after teaching a particular subject. This understanding often surpasses what that teacher learned while studying the subject as a pre-service student. More recently, Moersch reports that Ryan in 1990, Hopson in 1998, and Lin Hsiao in 1998 found significant improvement in student academic achievement "in classrooms where self-regulated learning was encouraged, higher-order thinking strategies were promoted, and guided discovery learning was nurtured" (Moersch, 2002, p. 53).
Even through the lens of test scores, there is evidence of the benefit of good instructional computer use such as when it promotes higher-order thinking. In reporting the findings of the ETS report by Harold Wenglinsky, which examined math scores from the 1996 NAEP, Archer (1998) states that eighth-graders whose teachers used computers in ways associated with higher-order thinking such as "simulations and applications" scored higher than students whose teachers did not use computers for instruction. Conversely, eighth-graders whose instructional computer use was primarily for "drill and practice" actually scored lower. "What we do know for certain," [Wenglinsky] says, "is that when teachers use the computer to teach higher-order thinking skills, students benefit" (Archer, 1998, Despite his findings section, para. 9).
Back in the context of one-to-one computing, Wambach (2006) quotes Gary Stager, a one-to-one computing advocate: "The success of a one-to-one computing program is in its application" (p. 59).

---

¹On page 166 of Tracing Teachers' Use of Technology in a Laptop Computer School: The Interplay of Teacher Beliefs, Social Dynamics, and Institutional Culture (2002), Windschitl and Sahl cite the following research reports as suggesting a correlation between technology use and the move of teachers toward constructivist pedagogy: Becker and Ravitz (1999), Means (1994), and Mehlinger (1996).

---

References

Archer, J. (1998, October 1). The link to higher scores (Technology counts '98: Putting school technology to the test). Technology in Schools Supplement to Education Week, 18(5), 10. Retrieved 12 January 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.

Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (1999, Summer). The influence of computer and Internet use on teacher's pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356-384.

Moersch, C. (2002). Beyond hardware: Using existing technology to promote higher-level thinking. Eugene, OR: International Society of Technology in Education.

Murphy, D. M., King, F. B., & Brown, S. W. (2007). Laptop Initiative Impact: Assessed Using Student, Parent, and Teacher Data. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 57-73.

Wambach, C. (2006, September). From Revolutionary to Evolutionary: 10 years of 1-to-1 Computing. T.H.E. Journal, 33(14), 58-59.

Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002, Spring). Tracing Teachers' Use of Technology in a Laptop Computer School: The Interplay of Teacher Beliefs, Social Dynamics, and Institutional Culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.

Yager, R. E. (1991, September). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.

---

I wrote this in January as part of a research proposal focusing on teacher profesional development in a one-to-one program.

Writing scores increase for one-to-one laptop students

A recent article in eSchool News directed my attention to an October 2007 research report on the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI). The MLTI is a one-to-one laptop program started in 2002 by the state of Maine. The program provides laptop computers to all seventh and eighth grade students attending public schools and their teachers. In addition to the computers being available to students in school, each student has access to the laptop at home on nights, weekends, and breaks during the academic year.

The report titled Maine's Middle School Laptop Program: Creating Better Writers (available here) describes quantitative results indicating that the MLTI program has improved middle school students' writing.

The study compares the results of the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) writing scores from 2000, which is the year before MLTI began, and 2005 for all eighth graders statewide. Results show a statistically significant improvement in the 2005 scores -- an average student in 2005 scored better than about two-thirds of all students who took the test in 2000. With regards to scores indicating student proficiency in writing, 41.4% of eighth graders reached that standard on the MEA in 2005, which is up from 29.1% of eighth graders who took the test in 2000.

Also, the researchers examined the 2005 writing scores against an independent variable measuring the level of use of the laptop in the writing process as reported by students. This analysis found significantly higher scores from students using a laptop more fully in the writing process such as for writing drafts and the final copy as opposed students who used the laptop for only part of the process or not at all. With regard to comparing the extremes, the average "Best Use Group" student scored higher than 75% of the "No Use Group" students. Writing proficiency as measured by the MEA scores was achieved by 43.7% of the students in the Best Use group and 21% of the students in the No Use group.

Here are a few other items from the report that I found interesting:

• Many people debate the merit of using standardized tests, which are often more about recalling knowledge than demonstrating skill or high-order thinking, to measure the learning that is important for students growing up in the 21st century. However, the researchers make a good point that the MEA writing test used for this study actually uses writing samples from students and is scored in a double-blind fashion.
  
• It is difficult to attribute the increase in writing proficiency to one-to-one laptop use because may other contributing variables could be present in any particular school. However, the report points out that the results are likely to be due to the laptop program, at least in part, because the increase in proficiency scores occurred across the total population of eighth graders in all Maine middle schools where other contributing variables are less likely to be a constant in all schools.
  
• Writing for students who had used laptops improved regardless of whether they were tested by producing a writing sample on computer or with paper and pencil. Therefore, it seems the students became better writers in general as opposed to just when they have to produce on word processor.
  
• It is noted that teacher professional development related to integrating technology into curriculum and practices, and teachers helping students learn how to use a laptop as a writing tool were a necessary condition for success.
  

If any of this interests you whether you agree or not, I suggest reading the report. The main content is about 9 pages long (including figures and tables).

Constructivist classroom procedures

Well, I did not meet my goal with regard to participating in and possibly drawing others at D-E into the K12 Online Conference as I proposed in my previous post. However, I still think the conference is a resource with potential so I'm going to keep it in mind.

Anyway, what I have been doing is a lot of reading of research articles related to using computers in the classroom, one-to-one computing, and constructivist pedagogy. When I started my review of literature for a research proposal related to one-to-one computing and faculty professional development, I didn't expect to find a lot. I was pleasantly surprised (and occasionally overwhelmed) by what I did find. While every useful article and research study I've read does not specifically deal with one-to-one computing, I've learned that articles on constructivism and, of course, use of computer technology in classrooms with more students than computers also have a lot to offer on this subject

Since teachers who practice constructivist pedagogy or tend toward establishing a student-centered classroom seem to be the most successful with using computers in a a one-to-one environment, I've become interested in trying to finding ways to help faculty move in that direction. I don't have any magical answers, but here are some techniques consistent with the constructivist learning model that are worth keeping in mind:

• Seeking out and using student questions and ideas to guide lessons and whole instructional units;
  
• Accepting and encouraging student initiation of ideas;
  
• Promoting student leadership, collaboration, location of information, and taking actions as a result of the learning process;
  
• Encouraging the use of alternative sources for information both from written materials and experts;
  
• Using open-ended questions and encouraging students to elaborate on their questions and their responses;
  
• Encouraging students to suggest causes for events and situations, and encouraging them to predict consequences;
  
• Seeking out student ideas before presenting teacher ideas or before studying ideas from textbooks or other sources;
  
• Encouraging students to challenge each other's conceptualizations and ideas;
  
• Using cooperative learning strategies that emphasize collaboration, respect individuality, and use division of labor tactics; and
  
• Encouraging self-analysis, collection of real evidence to support ideas, and reformulations of ideas in light of new experiences and evidence.

These are all quoted from Robert Yager (a professor of science education at the University of Iowa in 1991) originally published in a 1991 article specifically talking about science education. The article may seem a little old to some and was not written about using computers in classrooms, but the statements are relevant now and to more than just a science classroom. The article contains more techniques than I listed. I included the ones I believe are most relevant to my local colleagues in all academic disciplines.

While going through the history of those who have written about cognitive construction, Yager raises one point I particularly like. He says of Giambattista Vico, a philosopher who wrote a treatise on the theory in 1710: "[Vico] substantiates this notion by arguing that one knows a thing only when one can explain it."

All good teachers know that to be true even if they struggle with how to provide students that opportunity in the classroom while still working within the perceived and real constraints of time, meeting standards, and covering subject specific curriculum.

Reminding ourselves how much we have learned about our subject from teaching it, should encourage all of us to find ways to bring at least some constructivist techniques into the classroom.

References:

Yager, R. E. (1991, September). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57. (Get from ProQuest)

Yager, R. E. (2000, January). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 67(1), 44-45. (Get from ProQuest)

(Excerpts from the 1991 article were republished as the 2000 article.)

The "Get from ProQuest" link should work if you are on-campus at D-E or first access the D-E library databases web page from home. If you are not a member of the D-E community, the links might still work if you have access to a ProQuest research database.

Comment on Warlick's post on teachers teaching themselves

I still have not caught up with reading all of the interesting reactions and comments resulting from the Times story on one-to-one computing. Even those who have criticized the author should acknowledge that she incited some interesting conversations.

In David Warlick's weblog post Of Course I think it Matters, which is a reply to comments on the story, he raises an occasional frustration with teachers who are not prepared teach themselves and mentions it may be that they are from a generation that learned how to be taught more than how to learn independently. Some comments on that post and the original about the Times story say teachers should be teaching themselves new technology skills.

As a provider of professional development to teachers, I had never thought about PD in that way. However, now that I have, I am thinking that argument provides another reason to developing training resources that can be made available to teachers as they want them. I've been thinking that at D-E we need more resources such as written tutorials and short recorded demonstrations available to teachers asynchronously. While I am not ready to put the entire responsibility of learning new technology skills onto teachers by themselves, I believe we should make the resources available for independent learning and review of new skills.

Another comment on the Times article on one-to-one computing

If you'd like to read another reaction to the May 4 Times article from an advocate of classroom computing, see David Warlick's entry about this on 2 Cents Worth. He raises a point common to media reporting that good news is no news. In addition, read the comments to the article, they add a lot to the conversation including a disagreement about the need for teacher professional development.

In the spirit of trying to understand both sides of an argument, I would be very interested in reading reactions from someone who believes one-to-one computing is inappropriate, which is contrary to my opinion and my post on May 6. If anyone reads this and knows of a link to a differing opinion, please include them in a comment here. Thanks.

May 2007 NY Times article on one-to-one computing

I created this previously empty blog two years ago when I was fielding questions mostly via email from teachers new to our tablet pc program. The teachers were following up on training I had delivered via a workshop, and the answers seemed to have relevance to more than just the person asking so I thought I might include them in a blog. Well, that never quite happened. However, I found an article in the New York Times published last week on one-to-one computing interesting enough to motivate me to write about it. Also, reading and listening to presentations, blogs, and podcasts from educational bloggers such as Will Richardson (Weblogg-ed), David Warlick (2 Cents Worth), and Alex Ragone/Arvind Grover (21st Century Learning) in the past year has remotivated me to give this a try so here's my first weblog entry.

The Times article is titled "Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops" and was written by Winnie Hu on May 4, 2007. I've included quotes from the article with my comments.

On the surface, the article looks like a gloomy take on one-to-one computing, but I think a closer examination shows the avoidable (with significant work) pitfalls anyone with or planning for a one-to-one computing program needs to carefully consider.

"When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they did)."

There's a student capable of independent work so the challenge seems to be to find the right motivation.

Teachers and other educators supporting teachers need to encourage and motivate students to use technology appropriately by it being a useful tool in the classroom (as opposed to a toy or an addendum). Teaching and expecting appropriate behavior needs to be part of the program. Students acting inappropriately using technology need to be dealt with like students acting inappropriately not using technology. While IT departments can help, they shouldn't have to take the lead and be the disciplinarians or guidance personnel just because a student is using a computer.

Student accountability is a must and constant use of "traditional" lecture-only based instruction will no longer be a great choice for teachers. (Of course, there are other reasons for that, but one-to-one computing seems to bring those to the surface in a very obvious fashion.)

"Districts have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers, logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs."

Computers break. When you have more, more break. I'm hoping the schools that have had bad experiences did more than just buy computers with manufacture's warranties, but this really emphasizes that school IT departments need to really be ready and retool, at least somewhat, for one-to-one computing. Readily available spares, quick repair turn around times, secure storage, reliable and easy data backup, holding students accountable, and training, training, training need to be part of the program. Personally, I think the more that student training and holding students accountable is led by the teacher inside the classroom (as opposed to only in special computer classes) the greater the chance of success.

IT staffs need to have the resources to respond quickly to problems in the classroom that directly affect instruction. A proactive approach to keeping things from breaking as well as sufficient staff will help here.

Student training leads us to training, training, training for teachers. They need time and support. While differentiated and constructivist learning are not solely related to technology, one-to-one computing is a great tool to encourage and support these. I suspect the teachers who embrace these learning methods in the classroom would have more success in this realm. However, even teachers who are really interested in this need on-going professional development to learn and practice this. One-day workshops on professional days probably aren't going to meet the need here.

"Such disappointments are the latest example of how technology is often embraced by philanthropists and political leaders as a quick fix, only to leave teachers flummoxed about how best to integrate the new gadgets into curriculums."

Anyone who supports or uses computers in an educational environment knows they are not a quick fix (nor do they always get fixed quickly). That just backs up my suggestion that one-to-one computing needs to be carefully planned including, again, adequate professional development of teachers. Teachers shouldn't just have a device dropped into their hands and told "here, use this effectively." That might work for a couple of teachers who are often looked at as role models, but expecting the majority of teachers to succeed under these conditions is unrealistic. I am very grateful for the self-motivated, really-charged-up-about-technology teachers, but maybe they shouldn't be the role models. Getting ideas from them is great, but we need to support the willing but less obviously tech-savvy teachers so they can shine and be role models for a larger group of peers.

"Matoaca High School just outside Richmond, Va., began eliminating its five-year-old laptop program last fall after concluding that students had failed to show any academic gains compared with those in schools without laptops."

That is a tough one. For better or for worse, public schools are required to use standardized test scores to assesses performance. That brings up a whole argument about how well test scores actually measure academic gains, which I'm not going to embark on here. While standardized test scores are part of independent schools also, so we can't ignore them, I don't think most focus on them as heavily. Instead, if we properly educate our students to adequately prepare them for college and to be life-long learners as adults, the test scores will turn out ok. So how do we measure academic gains? Again, that's another big topic not unique to technology. Do the arts increase test scores? Does athletics increase test scores? Does community service increase test scores? I don't know if anyone has studies for those, but even if there are none that say they make test scores go up, I don't think most educators are ready to drop these programs because they cannot show a correlation with an increase in scores. I certainly am not.

“ 'You have to put your money where you think it’s going to give you the best achievement results,' said Tim Bullis, a district spokesman."

This certainly needs to be kept in mind even in independent schools where we don't have the issue of how even tax-payers who don't have children in the school are looking for justification on how tax dollars are spent. However, for all schools this relates back to how achievement is measured. While teaching children how to be information literate so they can evaluate all of the unfiltered data that will be available to them as adults might not raise test scores, how much money is worth spending on that skill?

" 'Where laptops and Internet use make a difference are in innovation, creativity, autonomy and independent research,' [Mark Warschauer] said. 'If the goal is to get kids up to basic standard levels, then maybe laptops are not the tool. But if the goal is to create the George Lucas and Steve Jobs of the future, then laptops are extremely useful.' "

Another person who shares my (obvious by now) bias that there is value to one-to-one computing. Maybe it isn't right for every institution, but does that mean it isn't right for any? Of course, who should decide what schools have the potential Lucas or Jobs and what schools have the "basic standards" kids. I certainly don't have the omniscience to make that decision.

"Soon, a room that used to be for the yearbook club became an on-site repair shop for the 80 to 100 machines that broke each month, with a 'Laptop Help Desk' sign taped to the door. The school also repeatedly upgraded its online security to block access to sites for pornography, games and instant messaging — which some students said they had used to cheat on tests."

Yes, I agree that these are certainly challenges to be addressed (as I look over at a pile of tablet PCs that have recently been repaired where I work). However, It doesn't mean the challenges can't be addressed, but it takes a lot of work by teachers, administrators, and IT staff.

"But in many other classrooms, there was nary a laptop in sight as teachers read from textbooks"

The journalist just saw one instructional method used in that classroom. Hopefully, for many reasons not even related to technology, other instructional methods were in use at other times. Otherwise, I agree that one-to-one computing is not worth the cost for that classroom.

" 'Let’s face it, math is for the most part still a paper-and-pencil activity when you’re learning it,' [Alice McCormick] said."

I am not a math teacher, but I think I could find a few with students using tablet PCs in my school who might argue with that. Even without pen based computing, I've seen slope taught and practiced by students using software such as Geometer's Sketchpad in such a way that students grasped the concept more quickly than using the comparatively slow process of doing similar work with a pencil and graph paper. I speculate that doing a couple of examples, which is all the time you might have with a pencil, works for students who grasp a concept quickly. However, others who need to visually see many example to get it might benefit from a computer.

“ 'The art of thinking is being lost,' [Tom McCarthy] said. 'Because people can type in a word and find a source and think that’s the be all end all.' ”

That is an excellent example of a case where professional teachers and librarians are needed to assist students in developing research skills (even though that is not the context of the quote). Information literacy, including the critical evaluation of sources, is a skill many students might not even realize they need if left to "google" answers to questions at home, which students will do regardless of what is taught. K12 educators can't easily help adults avoid the pitfall of taking information on the Internet at face value, but we do have the ability, if given the right resources, to educate future adults to not make the same mistake.

Obviously, I am positively biased toward one-to-one computing. However, I would like to think I have an open mind and do not jump to conclusions without thought. My current bias comes from experience in K12 educational technology without one-to-one computing for over 10 years and being involved with a one-to-one tablet computing program for two. When looking at the expense of such a program, it is certainly not easy to measure the benefit in terms of investment and return. The field of technology and education in general could probably use some researchers doing more work beyond today's standardized tests on return on investment, and I would be very interested to see the results regardless of what they indicate. However, until then, what I have seen so far makes me think that the students we serve can benefit from one-to-one computing when implemented with a lot of attention paid to overcoming the pitfalls mentioned in the article.