Laptops for Teachers: An evaluation of the TELA scheme in Auckland schools

6. The situation in 2008

This chapter reports the state of play towards the end of the project in late 2007 and then in 2008, the last year of the study. Responses to the final survey are presented as a snapshot, an indication of the current situation as regards reported laptop use and teacher competence. Material concerning the use of laptops from a more indepth consideration of the second group of three case-study schools is presented here to provide a richer picture of the situation in 2008.

The final survey contained the same questions as previous surveys, plus some additional ones. Comparisons are drawn with 2005 data where appropriate, but it must be remembered that these are snapshots formed from the responses of those who completed questionnaires at the time points in question. These are not data from exactly the same teachers.

Ownership and upkeep of laptops

As respondents to the final survey could have joined the participating schools at any point in the course of the project, we asked how long they had had their laptops. Figure 6.1 provides a graphical summary of their responses. As it shows, the period of time most frequently reported was four years. Overall, 91% (n=172) of the participants reported they had had a laptop for between one and five years.

Figure 6.1: Percentage of respondents reporting number of years with a laptop

The teachers were also asked whether their laptop had been updated since they had acquired it. Of the 196 respondents, 89% (n=175) reported that it had while the remaining 11% said it had not. The majority of those whose laptops had not been updated had only had them for a year or less.

The third question the teachers were asked was whether the software on their laptops had been expanded since they first got them. Of the 193 respondents who answered this question 67% (n=130) reported that the software had been expanded by at least two or three additional pieces of software (expanded reasonably). More than five additional pieces of software (expanded substantially) was reported by 21% (n=41) of the respondents. These findings suggest that schools were making an effort to ensure that the laptops were kept up to date and that teacher access to a range of software had increased. Of some concern is that 18% (n=34) were unsure whether there had been any changes to the software or not; it may be, however, that they could not remember.

Figure 6.2: Percentage of respondents reporting extent of software update

The teachers were asked to name the software that had been added. Over 100 different items were named. The majority of these appear to have been either updates of what was already on their laptops, including system updates, such as Windows, virus protection software, Excel or iPhoto; or operational tools such as Ultranet, Classroom Manager or Nero (CD burning). However, there was also a range of educational software, particularly that offering multimedia tools. Some examples of this are KidsPix, Frog Pond, Comic Life and Picasa.

Laptop use in the classroom

The 2008 survey respondents were asked to provide a description of the ways in which the laptops would be part of their classroom teaching programme in a typical week. All teachers reported multiple uses as part of classroom practice, reflecting the multi-functionality of laptops. These were largely the routine and expected: planning, searching for material on the Internet (or helping students to research), preparing resources, recording assessment and presenting information. There were also the less routine: downloading images from digital cameras and displaying photos taken; playing music; use in reading using interactive disks; reviewing results of assessment with the class using e-asTTle, and following the election results. Often teachers reported the laptop being used in connection with a smartboard or a data projector.

The 2008 survey also asked teachers to describe the extent to which the laptops were part of their classroom teaching on a scale of 1 – 5; where 1 indicates that laptops are peripheral and 5 that they are essential. Figure 6.3 graphically summarises their responses. These responses clearly highlight the importance of the laptops in terms of classroom use. Of the 190 respondents to this question only 2% (n=4) said the laptops were a peripheral part of the classroom and that they could do without them easily. Nearly half (46%, n=87) said the laptops played an important part in nearly everything they did while a further 29% (n=55) said they were essential in that they were fully integrated into their classroom teaching.

Figure 6.3: Extent to which the laptops were part of the respondents’ classroom teaching

Following this question about the extent to which the laptops were part of their classroom teaching, teachers were asked to consider how different this was to the situation three years ago. Their responses to this question are displayed in Figure 6.4. Of the 168 respondents to this question only 9% (n=15) said there had been no change. Over half (56%, n=93) reported that things were either a lot different or vastly different. This supports the idea that there have been changes in either the extent or nature of use of the laptops in relation to the classroom between 2005 and 2008.

Figure 6.4: Extent to which classroom usage differs from previous twelve months

Computer use: Types and purposes

As with the 2005 survey, teachers in 2008 were asked to estimate the number of hours they would use laptops, school desktops and/or home desktops across a range of possible uses. Their responses are summarised below in Table 6.1.

Across all areas of use, with the exception of personal use, the laptops were the most commonly used computer type. The most commonly reported area of use for laptops was the preparation and planning of classroom materials, followed by other professional tasks, such as analysing achievement data and providing feedback to students.

There was considerable variation in the reported hours of use for all computer types across all areas. This is indicated by the very high standard deviations. In all cases the standard deviation was higher than the mean.

There was some difference across schools, worthy of a brief comment. A one-way ANOVA showed there were significant differences in laptop use by school (F = 3.92, p < .001). Tukey post hoc tests showed that this was due to one school reporting a mean usage of over 39 hours of laptop use a week. In this school, laptops were an integral part of the professional and classroom life of teachers, although, again, there was large variation.

Similarly, one school reported a significantly higher use of school computers (F = 2.66, p < .01). This school was known to have very powerful, high-end school computers, which may explain the high level of reported use.

The finding that laptops are preferred compared with other types of computer is shown clearly in Figure 6.5, which is a graphical representation of the average number of hours each type of computer was used across all types of use for all respondents. As this figure shows, laptops were used more than either of the desktops, on average, just under 20 hours a week. Paired samples t-tests showed that laptop use is significantly higher than both school and home desktop use (t = 10.96, p < .001 and t = 11.5, p < .001, respectively). As reported earlier, focus group comments indicated that laptops were liked because of their portability and functionality.

The standard deviations associated with average reported laptop use were higher in 2008 than they were in 2005 suggesting something of a polarising effect whereby those using laptops a lot before, had increased this usage. It may also be that those at the other extreme, after an initial push, had reduced use. The data following regarding increase in skill and on impact provide some additional light on this.

Figure 6.5: Mean hours per week of use for each type of computer (2008)

Teachers used computers for some purposes more than for other purposes as Figure 6.6 suggests. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to establish whether the apparent differences in reported time use for different purposes are actually significant. No significant differences for hours of use were shown between the two major types, pedagogical and preparation/presentation purposes (t=.93, p >.05). However, pedagogical and preparation/presentation usage levels are significantly higher than administrative, professional development and personal use, but are not significantly higher than professional use levels (t >3, p <.01). Once again, usage for professional development was significantly lower than all other forms of use (t > 3, p < .01).

Figure 6.6: Mean hours of computer use by type of use (2008)

When laptop use for the different purposes is considered, the pattern does change somewhat with preparation/‌presentation dominating followed by professional use. That there is less use reported for pedagogical use is not surprising. The laptops are predominately a tool for teacher use although, as is described subsequently, they can be the hub of much of the teaching and learning that occurs in classrooms. Figure 6.7 illustrates the mean number of hours of laptop use across the various areas of use.

Figure 6.7 Mean hours of laptop use by type of use (2008)

Participant readiness

Teachers were asked about the extent to which their ICT skills had improved over the last year. The scale ran from not at all to extreme improvement. The mean level of improvement reported for their range of skills was 3.71 (SD = 1.078) while for their level of skill it was 3.69 (SD = 1.124) (where 4 is quite a lot). Although a one-way ANOVA indicated that across schools there were significant differences in average reported improvement in level of skill and in range of skills (F = 2.59, p < .01 and F = 3.33, p < 001, respectively), post-hoc tests showed no reliable differences.

In 2008, teachers rated their improvement in the range of skills similarly to their improvement in skill level. However, there was a higher level of improvement over the last year reported in 2008, in relation to level of skill, than there had been in 2005 for the preceding six months. Although it needs to be acknowledged there is a longer period of time under consideration we would argue that one could expect the greatest increases to occur in the initial months (when teachers first got their laptops) owing to the novelty of a high-powered new tool. That this was not the case suggests a ‘bootstrapping’ effect, whereby when you reach a certain level of skill, advancement is more rapid.

In addition, teachers were asked to report the extent to which their confidence in using laptops for certain purposes had increased over the preceding twelve months. Figure 6.8 shows this in graphic form. Most areas approached a rating of 4, representing quite a lot. There was not much difference between areas of use in this reported increase in confidence except that participating in professional learning online is lower and this may simply be that teachers did not engage in such. For a number of areas the increase in confidence, as with level of skill, over the previous year was at a higher level than it had been in 2005 for the preceding six months.

Figure 6.8 Mean levels of reported improvement in confidence by type of use

When differences across schools were examined, a pattern emerged of significant differences in average reported improvement for a number of areas; there were differences for all areas, except using multimedia tools. However, the post hoc tests did not reveal a reliable difference for two of the areas where there were significant differences. These were email communication and professional learning online.

For all other areas: administrative tasks, professional tasks, presenting classroom material, preparing classroom material, accessing classroom material and using computers to facilitate student use, it was generally the same two or three schools that were reporting significantly higher improvement than the same one or two lowest reported improvement schools. These two lower schools seemed to have reached a plateau, after an initial push.

Impact of the laptops

As part of the attempt to gauge the impact of the laptop on teachers’ professional lives, they were asked to estimate its impact over the preceding 12 months. Figure 6.9 below shows the levels of impact the laptops reportedly had had on particular areas. All areas approached or exceeded 4 (quite a lot); administrative tasks, preparation of resources and professional work were the highest rated at 4.5. Although the overall impact of the laptops was rated higher in 2008 than 2005, none of the increases by area was significant.

Figure 6.9: Mean level of reported impact across types of use 

Again, although a series of one-way ANOVAs showed a significant difference between schools in average reported impact of the laptops in all areas, the post hoc tests indicated that only some of these differences were reliable (resource preparation, professional work, administrative work, professional development and academic outcomes). As discussed above, the pattern showed that a small group of schools appeared mostly in the higher than category and a couple of schools featured more frequently in the lower than group.