Pedagogical Use of Laptops in a One-to-One Environment in a Swedish Primary School

Abstract

This article focuses on computing in teaching. It focuses on the differences between a traditional view of teaching and a view where the teacher no longer is the knowledge broker but more of a coordinator or a coach. The empirical examples stem from a research project called “One computer one pupil”, a study of two classes in year three with children aged 9 and two classes in year five with children aged 11 in a Swedish primary school. When the project started the pupils had been using the computers for about 2,5 years. In contrast to the teacher in grade five, the classes in year three had teachers with a great interest in developing ICT. The children became very skilled in using ICT and working with the laptop was very popular. According to the theoretical model of Voogt (2008), features of a “traditional pedagogy”, like prescriptions of the activities, were mixed with elements of an “emerging pedagogy”, where the pupils in collaboration performed their tasks in a creative way. However, some of the classroom work was quite unfocused relative to the goals of the subject. Instead of using the technology to reach the goals of the subject, the technology more or less became a goal in itself. To follow up ten Brummelhuis’ and Kuiper’s (2008) terms technology push and educational pull, we have added the term “technology pull.”

Keywords

• Teaching design, Computer use, Technology push, Technology pull, Primary school, One–to-one learning environment.

Kaynakça

1. Ainley, J., Enger, L., & Searle, D. (2008). Students in a digital age: Implications of ICT for teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
2. Andersson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9 (1). Retrieved on 15 September 2011 from http://www.jtla.org.
4. Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspective influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
5. Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Upper saddle, NJ: Pearson Education.
6. Dornyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
7. Dornyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation. A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
8. Formosinho, J. & Araşjo, S.B. (2006). Listening to children as a way to reconstruct knowledge about children: Some methodological implications. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14(1), 21-31.

9. Gronlund, H., Englund, T., Andersson, A., Wiklund, M., Norén, I., & Hatakka, M. (2011). Årsrapport Unosuno 2011 vuxenutbildning [Annual report Unosuno 2011]. Örebro University. Retrieved on 19 May 2012 from http://www.hyperfinder.se/wpcontent/ uploads/2012/05/arsrapport_unosuno_2011.pdf.
10. Hallerstrom, H. & Tallvid, M. (2008). En egen dator som redskap för lärande. Utvärdering av projektet “En-till-En” i två grundskolor i Falkenbergs kommun – Delrapport 1. [You own computer as a tool for learning. Evaluation of the project “One-to-one” in two comprehensive schools in Falkenberg municipality- Partial report 1]. Research Report in Sociology of Law. 2008-9. Lund university.
11. Hinostroza, E. J. (2008). Traditional and emerging IT applications for learning. In J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
12. Holden, I. M. (2001). Matematik blir rolig. [Mathematics becomes fun]. In B. Grevholm (Ed.), Matematikdidaktik, ett nordiskt perspektiv. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
13. Hylen, J. (2010). Digitalisering av skolan. [The digitalization of schools]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
14. Ilomaki, L. (2008). The effects of ICT on school: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. University of Turku. Retrieved on 28 May 2012 from http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/ 42311/B314.pdf.
15. Ivarsson, J., Linderoth, J., & Saljo, R. (2009). Representations in practices: A sociocultural approach to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 201- 212). London: Routledge.
16. Kengwee, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional technology integration and student learning. Education and Information Technologies, 17, 137-146. Retrieved on 25 May 2012 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/ x5r7725442520417/fulltext.pdf.
17. Machin, S., McNally, S., & Solva, O. (2006). New technology in schools: Is there a payoff? Internationell forskningsöversikt kring IT I skolan. Stockholm Myndigheten för skolutveckling. Retrieved on 29 May 2012 from http://www.itochutbildning.se/wp- content/uploads/2009/11/Internationell- forsknings%C3%B6versikt-av-IT-i-skolan- slutlig-version.pdf.
18. Penuel, W. R., Kim, D. Y., Michalchik, V., Lewis, S., Means, B., & Murphy, B. (2001). Using technology to enhance connections between home and school: A research synthesis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
19. Prensky, M. (2001) Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20. Riel, M. & Becker, H. J. (2008). Characteristics of teacher leaders for information and communication technology. In J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
21. Schulz-Zander, R., Pfeifer, M., & Voss, A. (2008). Observation measures for determining attitudes and competencies toward technology. . In J. Voogt and G. Knezek(Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
22. Silvernail, L. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop programme on middle school teachers and students. Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern Maine Office.
23. Skinner B.F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193-216.
24. Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt, J. and J. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
25. Tallvid, M., & Hallerstrom, H. (2009). En egen dator i skolarbetet - redskap för lärande? Utvärdering av projektet en-till-en i två grundskolor i Falkenberg kommun. Delrapport 2. [Your own computer for school work, a tool for learning? Evaluation of the project “One- to-one” in two comprehensive schools in Falkenberg municipality. Partial report 2.] Falkenberg: Falkenberg Municipality.
26. ten Brummelhuis, A. & Kuiper, E. (2008). Driving forces for ICT in learning. In J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.
27. The Swedish National Agency for Education (2009). Redovisning av uppdrag om uppföljning av IT-användning och IT-kompetens i förskola, grundskola och vuxenutbildning [Account of commission to monitor IT use and IT competency in pre-school, comprehensive school and adult education]. Reg.no. 75-2007:3775. Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Research.
28. Voogt, J. (2008). IT and Curriculum Processes: Dilemmas and Challenges. In J. Voogt and G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. New York : Springer.
29. Warschauer, M. (2008). Laptops and literacy: A multi-site case study. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3, 52-67.
30. Weston, M. & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6). Retrieved on 5 September 2011 from http://www.jtla.org.
31. Correspondence: Ann-Louise Petersen, Ph.D., Department of Educational Science and
32. Languages, University West, Trollhattan, Sweden