EXPLORING STUDENT “FLOW” WITH 1:1 TECHNOLOGY

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 337 - 354, 31.12.2020

Kathryn L. Lubnıewskı Kimberly A. Kıraly

Abstract

Students live in a technology-rich environment, which aids in shaping their learning and access to information. A teacher’s instructional challenge lies in creating a bridge between students’ capacity to learn and the resources at their fingertips. The focus of this study was to investigate the impact technology use has within the classroom in relation to its impact on student-monitored self-engagement and teacher-monitored engagement. The exploration of technology’s impact on student engagement seeks to provide a better understanding of the shared traits between lessons that effectively integrated 1:1 technology into the classroom. Survey data was collected from student self-reports and two forms of teacher observation. Lessons that result in states of flow reflect the highest levels of engagement and 21st century skills, which are promoted by the use of 1:1 technology.

Keywords

Technology, engagement, 21st century skills, 1:1, flow.

References

• Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (2006). 1 to 1 learning. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from http://windhamsd.org/whs/1_to_1_Research_Metiri_Group.pdf
• Back Channel (2014). In Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Retrieved September 9, 2019, from Oxford English Dictionary Online database.
• Barrios, T. (2004). Laptops for learning. Final Report and Recommendations of the Laptops for Learning Task Force, Florida Department of Education. Retrieved on October 14, 2016 from http://etc.usf.edu/l4l/report.pdf
• Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(1), 3-14.
• Bielefeldt, T. (2006). Teaching, learning, and one-to-one computing. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, San Diego, CA.
• Bridgeland, J., Dilulio, J. J., & Morrison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
• Bowen, E. (2005). Student engagement and its relation to quality work design: A review of the literature. Retrieved on October 10, 2019 from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/ebowenLitReview.pdf
• Carver, L. B. (2016, Jan). Teacher perception of barriers and benefits in K-12 technology usage. Turksih Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 110-116.
• Claxton, G. (2007). Expanding young people’s capacity to learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 1-20.
• Clesson, K. M. (2011). Backchannegling, communication apprehension, and student engagement in discussion-based high school classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, Bloomington-Normal, IL.
• Cohen, B., & Lea, R. (2004). Essentials of statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Costa, J. (2012). Digital learning for all now: A school leader’s guide for 1:1 on a budget. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Connell, J. P., & Broom, J. (2004). The toughest nut to crack: First Things First’s (FTF) Approach to improving teaching and learning. Retrieved on October 1, 2019, from: http://www.irre.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/The% 20Toughest%20Nut%20to%20Crack.pdf
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
• Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2006). Florida’s EETT Leveraging laptops initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143-159.
• Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. (2012). Educators engage digital natives and learn from their experiences with technology: Integrating technology engages students in their learning. Middle School Journal, 43(5), 6-15. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23119436 .
• Dunleavy, J. (2008, fall). Bringing student engagement through the classroom door. Education Canada, 48(4), 23.
• Dunleavy, J. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Exploring the concept of student engagement and its implications for teaching andlLearning in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Education Association (CEA), 1-22.
• Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 55-59.
• Hatcher, L. (2013). Advanced statistics in research: Reading, understanding, and writing up data analysis results. Shadow Finch Media, LLC.
• Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015, Dec). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53.
• Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
• Karlin, M., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Ozogul, G., & Liao, Y. C. (2018, Dec). K-12 technology leaders: Reported practices of technology professional development planning, implementation, and evaluation. CITE Journal, 18(4), 722-748.
• Krause, K., & Coates, H . (2008) Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment And Evaluation İn Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lowther, D. L., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. Α., & Bates, J. (2007). Freedom to learn program: Michigan 2005-2006 evaluation report. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.
• Nicholls, J. G., Cheung, P. C., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. (1989). Individual differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 63-84.
• Niederhauser, D. & Lindstrom, D. (2006). Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 91-128.
• Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2010). One-to-one computing has failed our expectations: The laptops are being used as add-ons to existing curriculum. Retrieved on November 1, 2019 from http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2405
• Oliver, K. (2010). Evaluating teacher readiness for the implementation of one-to-one computing-based on National Educational Technology Standards. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 11(3), 40-76.
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008, May 15-16). New millennium learners. Initial findings on the effects of digital technologies on school-age learners. OECD/CERI International Conference “Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy”. Paris: Center for Educational Research and Innovation. Retrieved on September 27, 2019 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/51/40554230.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), 329-348.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
• Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me. EDUCASE Review, 40(5), 61–64.
• Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
• Project Tomorrow (2010, May). Unleashing the future: Educators “speak up” about the use of emerging technologies for learning. Speak Up 2009 National Findings. Teachers, Aspiring Teachers & Administrators. Retrieved on December 20, 2019 from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/
• Prusha, J. (2012). Voices of high school seniors: Perceptions of national honor society students regarding their cognitive engagement in high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
• Puentedura, R. R. (2012). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved on October 22, 2019 from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExemplars.pdf
• Puentedura, R. R. (2012, June 19). Technology in education: The first 200,000 years. Retrieved on September 11, 2016 from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/06/18/TechnologyInEducationFirst200KYears.pdf
• Ramaley, J., & Zia, L. (2005). The real versus the possible: Closing the gaps in engagement and learning. Retrieved October 30, 2019, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
• Schmidt, J., Shumow, L., & Duirk, A. (2010, January 1). Incremental mindset and utility for science learning and engagement. Retrieved October 1, 2019, from http://www.niu.edu/imuscle/about/index.shtml
• Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 5-68.
• Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B. & Shernoff, E. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176.
• Silvernail, D., & Lane, D. L. L. (2004). The impact of Maine's one-to one laptop program on middle school teachers and students. Gorham, ME: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.
• Stout, K., & Christenson, S. (2009). Staying on track for high school graduation: Promoting student engagement. The Prevention Researcher, 16(3), 17-20.
• Strother, D. (2013). Understanding the lived experience of secondary teachers instructing in one-to-one computing classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drake University, Des Moines, IA.
• Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). Retrieved on September 22, 2019, from http://cie.asu.edu/
• Toledo, C,, & Peters, S. (2010, May). Educators' perceptions of uses, constraints, and successful practices of backchanneling. In Education: Technology & Social Media (Special Issue, Part II) 16(1). Retrieved July 9, 2019, from http://ineducation.ca/article/educators-perceptions-uses- constraints-and-successful-practices-backchanneling.
• Valentine, J. (2007). The instructional practices inventory: Using a student learning assessment to foster organizational learning. Columbia, MO: Middle Level Leadership Center.
• Valentine, J., & Collins, J. (2010). Testing the impact of student engagement on standardized achievement: An empirical study of the influence of classroom engagement on test scores across school types. New Orleans, LA: Middle Level Leadership Center.
• Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010, Jan). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, 9(6), 5-24.
• Windham, C. (2005). The student’s perspective. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the Net generation (pp. 5.1-5.16). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved December 2019, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
• Yair, G. (2000). Not just about time: Instructional practices and productive time in school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 191-210.
• Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of student engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved on October 22, 2019 from http://www.indiana.edu/~ceep/hssse/images/HSSSE%20Overview%20Report%20- %202006.pdf