UNIVERSITY OF BATH

Department of Education

AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE LAPTOP

PROGRAMME INITIATIVE IN THE SECONDARY SECTION
OF MARKHAM COLLEGE

This dissertation is submitted in accordance with

the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
in Education by completion of six taught units and
dissertation

MARIELA ELLEN CASTRO KOHLER

2008

COPYRIGHT

Attention is drawn to the fact that the copyright of this dissertation rests with its author. This
copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood
to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the dissertation and
no information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author.

Signed

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in this work are entirely those of the author and do not represent in any
way the views of Markham Colleges present administration.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge William J. Baker, Esq., the visionary
Headmaster without whom the Laptop Programme at Markham College would not have been
possible and to whom I dedicate this dissertation.
He was an inspiring leader and mentor from whom I learnt so much about education,
policy, innovation and school management. This research would not have been possible without
his full support and caring guidance. I am also very grateful for the opportunity and
responsibility he gave me throughout these years, trusting me to lead my colleagues in such
innovative programme which had a tremendous influence on my career as reflected in this
document.

This dissertation would not have been possible either without the support, cooperation
and patience of Markham Colleges teachers, parents, and students. They willingly responded to
the questionnaires throughout the years of study, contributed with suggestions, participated in
interviews and allowed me to become a regular visitor in the classroom.

Finally, I want to deeply thank my family and friends for their patience, support and
personal sacrifice, enduring my prolonged hours at work, including weekends, throughout the
implementation of this programme and the subsequent research study.

iii

ABSTRACT

The aim of the study in this dissertation was to conduct an analysis of the first year of
implementation of the laptop initiative for the Upper School at Markham College, in 2001. This
period was chosen for the study as the programme started as a pilot with laptop and non-laptop
groups and it brought about significant changes in several school aspects that affected staff,
students and parents. These changes had a considerable impact on the teaching and learning of
the various academic subjects as well as on the Schools administration and the family
organisation; changes which are still in practice at present.

For the purpose of this research, qualitative methods have been used for data collection
and analysis, on the levels of teacher enthusiasm and programme expectations, impact on teaching
styles, uses of IT in the classroom, students attitude and skills and parental perceptions of the
impact at home. The primary sources of data collection were structured questionnaires supported
by semi-structured, in-depth interviews and classroom observations. Quantitative methods were
used to measure impact on student achievement, analyzing end of year examination grades
across laptop sets using the non-laptop sets as a control group and final year averages as
boundaries. The analysis of the collected data was based on tabular and graphical analysis to
draw the conclusions.

The findings of the study revealed that although there were some perceived drawbacks, the
potential of laptops as an education tool and its benefits outweighed them. The findings also
provided the grounds for programme generalisation, removing the have and have-nots situation
providing equal access and opportunity to all students in the programme years.

iv

AUTHOR DECLARATION

The author has not been registered for any other academic award during the period of
registration for this study.

The material included in this dissertation has not been submitted wholly or in part for any
other academic award.

The programme of advanced study of which this dissertation is part has included
completion of the following units:

o Methods of Educational Enquiry

o Assessment
o Evaluation
o Introduction to Educational Management
o Management of Innovation
o Education in an International Context
4

Where any material has been previously submitted as part of an assignment within any of
these units, it is clearly identified.

Mariela Castro
January 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COPYRIGHT .................................................................................................................... ii
DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ iv
AUTHOR DECLARATION......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2
MARKHAMS LAPTOP PROGRAMME INITIATIVE ....................................3
CHAPTER 3
LAPTOP INITIATIVES IN OTHER SCHOOLS ............................................. 10
3.1 Methodists Ladies College (MLC)
3.2 Trinity Grammar
CHAPTER 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 21
5.1 Nature of the Research
5.2 Research question and issues
5.3 Measuring impact and data collections
5.4 Questionnaire design
5.5. Lesson observations
5.6 Interviews
5.7 Grade analysis
CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ....................................................................................... 40
6.1 Teachers perspective
6.2 Students perspective
6.3 Parents perspective
6.4. Lesson observations
6.5 Interviews
6.6 Grade analysis

vi

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 105

BIBLIOGRAPHY / REFERENCES ....................................................................... 113
APPENDIX 1 Letter from students ....................................................................... 116
APPENDIX 2 Training scheme .............................................................................. 117
APPENDIX 3 Questionnaires, interviews and observation forms .................. 119
3.1 Staff Questionnaires
3.2 Student Questionnaires
3.3 Parent Questionnaires
3.4 Laptop Lesson Observation Form
3.5 Interview Guides
APPENDIX 4 Tables of collected data for analysis ............................................ 139
4.1 Staff Questionnaires Results (Excel Extract)
3.2 Student Questionnaires Results (Excel Extract)
3.3 Parent Questionnaires Results (Excel Extract)
3.4 Laptop Lesson Observation Form Results (Excel Extract)
3.5 Interview Recordings (Schedule and Transcript)

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CIE

University of Cambridge International Examinations

IB

International Baccalaureate

IT

Information Technology

ICT

Information and Communications Technology

IGCSE

International General Certificate of Secondary Education

MIT

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MLC

Methodist Ladies College

NCREL

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

OLPC

One-Laptop-Per-Child initiative

PC

Personal Computer

SAT

Senior Administrative Team

UK

United Kingdom

WAN

Wide Area Network

WCCE

World Conference of Computers in Education

viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Markham College is a Peruvian private, co-educational, bilingual school which holds an

excellent reputation due to its external examination results from international examining boards
such as the IB and CIE, and due to the increasingly high number of students gaining university
entrance, either locally or abroad, immediately or shortly after graduating from school.

At the time of this research, Markham College had approximately nine-hundred students and
seventy teaching staff in the Upper School1. Though this section had been using and applying ICT
for the past eleven years or so, it had always been on a lab-based situation. Initially, the computer
labs were used to teach computer skills and a specialist IGCSE Computer Studies course, but
gradually the school moved towards the direction of applying the computer skills to other subject
areas and made the use of educational software widespread.
It was also the time, in which the School developed its infrastructure from a lab of thirty standalone personal computers to two networked labs with sixty workstations, providing students and
staff with a wealth of shared resources and enhanced IT skills. This resulted in a considerable
increase of computer lab use, not only by the IT Department staff but also by other teaching staff
and students in general. This expanding use and application of technology resulted in the
implementation of a third computer lab. The three network labs were fully booked every day of the
week by different departments and they were also made available before the start of lessons, during
break times, after school and even on Saturday mornings.
The standard use given to these computer were either applying generic software such as word
processors for writing essays or developing projects, spreadsheets for analysing data, Internet for

Upper School: the Secondary section of the school, involving Primary 6 , Secondary 1 to 4, Lower and Upper B

information searches, or specific department-based software such as Omnigraph2 for Maths,

SimCity for Geography, Science simulations and French, Spanish and English language software.

After a few years of working in networked lab environments, the Headmaster at the time,
William J. Baker, thought it was time to move ahead once again. Several questions were thrown at
the Academic Committee where does the school go from here? How can we facilitate staff and pupils equal
access to technology and apply it to its full potential in benefit of the learning process? Do we continue building up
fixed desktop labs? Do we convert each classroom into a lab? Do we place clusters of desktops with network access
around the school campus?
An interesting initiative however was on its way in other schools of countries like Australia,
New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States, some going as far back as ten years when
we were still working on stand alone computers the use of portable computers in education.

Omnigraph: a graph processor that plots equations, perform transformations on graphs and other shapes; graph derivatives and
integrals; show compass point solutions of differential equations, find areas under curves, or gradients, or show the solution
of differential equations.

CHAPTER 2
MARKHAMS LAPTOP PROGRAMME INITIATIVE
In 1995, after attending the World Conference of Computers in Education (WCCE 95,
Birmingham, UK), the Head of IT3 at the time, presented the laptop initiative idea to the
Headmaster who by then thought it was a risky and expensive option and that Markham wasnt
ready for such an educational revolution. However, he did recognize potential in the fact that
students could take a laptop home and continue working without being limited to a school
timetable or fixed school hours. He thought of the idea of a classroom without walls, of a school
without a timetable, of teachers becoming mentors or advisors. However neither staff, students
nor parents, were ready to face such ground-breaking innovation in Peru nor were there any
known cases documented for Latin America at this stage.
Despite this, in 1996, the first school laptop was bought so that the Head of IT could use it and
analyse its potential as a tool for teachers in the classroom and investigate ways in which it could be
applied to enhance teaching and learning. As a result of this experiment, by October of the same
year, the students of one of the teaching groups wrote a letter to the Headmaster requesting to use
laptops instead of notebooks with all subjects except for art, science and maths so that homework could be
handed in as printouts or in diskettes (see Appendix 1).
The Headmaster still thought the School was not ready for a whole-school programme but
allowed the senior IB students who had laptops at home to bring them to school and hence
provide a student perspective to the initial study. Despite being a private school of mostly well-off
students, only three students of the IB Computer Science class had laptops at home which they
brought to school and, with permission of their teachers, used them to take notes and to present

The Head of IT - Mariela Castro

homework as suggested. With the help of network cables they could also gain limited access to the
Internet and e-mail while in the computer labs, but not in ordinary classrooms.
A few teachers started to see some potential in this approach but were unsure of how it could
all fit. After a few discussions at the Academic Committee, it was agreed to ensure, first of all, that
all Markham staff should have the same or similar IT skills to help them apply IT more effectively
in the classroom, regardless of the type of computer used. And so, in 1997, the Markham IT
Diploma initiative was launched (see Appendix 2.1). Even though some teachers were already using
the labs with general-purpose software such as word-processors and spreadsheets, and others like
French, Maths, Science and Geography with specific educational software, there was still a long
way to go before thinking of taking all this from the labs into the classroom, from a fixed desktop
infrastructure to a portable environment.
With the Markham IT Diploma, everyone from Early Years to Upper School, teaching and
administrative staff, had the training opportunities to acquire or refresh their IT skills in areas such
as computer basics and file management, Internet and E-mail, Word-processing, Spreadsheets,
Databases and Presentations. On finalising each module they had to sit practical examinations for
which they could achieve the grades fail, pass, good pass and very good pass, depending on the
level of competency reached. Staff who thought themselves competent in a specific module could
sit the relevant examination without attending lessons but if they failed they had to attend the
module lessons and re-sit the exam.
Lessons for the IT Diploma were taught by the IT academic staff during the week, in the
afternoon, and the content was geared towards direct application of IT skills to a variety of
educational projects. The idea of bringing in third-party teaching staff from companies such as
Microsoft or computer-training institutions was abandoned as their curriculum was too businessoriented rather than educationally-oriented. The advantage of doing an in-house course was that all
practical examples and activities could be drawn directly from classroom experiences; even the
4

activities written for the administration staff were based on School administration cases. In this
way staff could find direct relevance and application of the skills taught. This was seen as a key
issue to be transmitted to teaching staff for a successful integration of IT in education to build
projects that incorporate IT skills which are not taught in isolation but that relate and can be
applied to other subject areas so that what is learnt is useful, meaningful and never forgotten.
By 1998 most teachers were halfway through their diploma and a few senior staff already
obtained theirs as they were keen users of computers in their day-to-day administration tasks and
had accumulated significant experience. The idea was that by the end of 1999 all staff would be
fully trained in preparation for the laptop programme. This was also tied to the appraisal system at
the time so that was an additional incentive for all staff to obtain their IT qualification.

Between 1997 and 1998, the Head of IT not only carried out extensive on-line research about
teaching with laptops but also tried to apply some of this to the day-to-day teaching of the Middle
School IT, the IGCSE Computer Studies and IB Computer Science courses. The result of this trial
period provided the basis for the internal ICT Development Preliminary Master Plan document
entitled The Way Ahead in the Next Millennium (Castro M, 1998), presented to the Headmaster in
November 1998. In this document, the guidelines for incorporating laptops as a tool to aid in the
effective integration of technology in the teaching and learning environment were laid out and the
initial mission statement and objectives were identified. It basically followed the Anytime Anywhere
Learning Implementation Plan Template (Microsoft 1998), with ideas extracted from Toshibas
Notebooks for Schools4 Program and from case studies of participating schools like the Methodist
Ladies College, Melbourne, Australia.
Also, by 1998, technology had evolved rapidly and there were now more favourable conditions
which lead to believe that a laptop initiative was more than feasible: laptop computer prices had

Toshiba Notebooks for Schools: http://www.csd.toshiba.com/ed_gov/index.html

dropped down to a reasonable level, the machines were as powerful as a desktop, the batteries
lasted longer (2+hrs), wireless communication developments were on their way and staff were not
only computer literate but had relevant experience in applying technology in their lessons. For the
Headmaster, this was the right time to think of an educational shift taking advantage of the
information and communications technology revolution - this was the time to think of the laptop
programme for Markham.

In the Preliminary Master Plan (1998 p 1), it was suggested that Markhams ICT facilities should
exist first and foremost, for the purpose of education with its main objective to enable students to move from
being passive learners to active learners, owners of their own learning path, through the skilful use of information and
communications technology tools.
To fulfil this mission, five general objectives of technology and computer use were identified:
As a learning tool: having the computer available in the learning environment on which to
learn skills and acquire knowledge and practical experience
As a creative tool: using the computer to write assignments and combine images, graphics,
animation, sounds, charts and text into multimedia presentations that enhance the
expression of ideas, cross-curricular concepts and differing points of view
As an analytical, problem-solving tool: using the computer to record, calculate and analyse
quantitative information to hypotheses, to ask what if questions and understand the
results of such analysis.
As a communications tool: using the computer to exchange ideas amongst different groups of
users via electronic mail, video conferencing and discussion groups or forums
As a research tool: using the computer to locate information from both inside and outside the
school, and to discriminate between information that is accurate, truthful, and useful, and
information that is inaccurate, false or insufficiently supported by facts and corroboration.
6

The Headmaster took on board this preliminary master plan and from there laid down the
guidelines of an overall technology plan in what he called the Third Development Plan 1999-2000
The Way Ahead. He felt that the College had reached an academic and technological plateau and
hence it was ready for a significant educational revolution.
An ICT Committee was formed, chaired by the Headmaster and having, as permanent
members, the School Director, the Bursar, the Senior Master, the Systems Manager, the Head of
IT and the Lower School IT teacher. This Committee was to be responsible for the policy
development and decision-making of all aspects referring to the Laptop Programme and the
School computer systems. The tasks were grouped as:
1.

Hardware and communications infrastructure to support the programme: the fibre optic backbone of
the Upper School campus; wireless access points in Upper School classrooms; the radiolink connection between Upper School and Lower School campuses creating a Wide Area
Network (WAN) to share information and Internet access; two new labs in the Lower
School to extend ICT use and application; the upgrade of the computers and the
implementation of a small lab in the Early Years Section; the purchase of laptops for
teaching staff in the Upper School and key senior staff in Lower School and Early Years
sections; laptop security, insurance, maintenance and warranty policies.

2.

Educational infrastructure: the design and development of the schools Intranet for
administration and educational purposes; the design and implementation of the Applied
Technology subject replacing the traditional IT subject in an effort to demonstrate how to
teach integrating ICT effectively; staff and student training; software licensing agreements.

In November 1999, the post of ICT Co-ordinator was created. The person appointed would be
responsible for managing the implementation of the laptop programme and the Educational

Intranet to support it. The ICT Co-ordinators5 first task was to visit laptop schools in the UK and
Australia during the school break from January to February 2000, to observe such programmes in
operation, and prepare the action plan to consolidate the use of laptops by staff from March 2000
onwards, with a view to start the programme rolling for students in March 2001.
Throughout the year 2000, staff worked using their laptops, designing instructional material to
be published on the Intranet, and using the classroom day-to-day administration modules
developed for them. This helped them gain practice and confidence with the tool.

In 2001 the programme was rolled-out as a pilot for students in Secondary years 1, 2 and 3,
setting as main objectives those perceived as being in line with 21st Century skills. Considering that
information and communications technology transformed our world into an information-based,
global society where, as affirmed by NCREL6 report, yesterdays education is not sufficient for
todays learner (2003, p.4), the school believed that students had to be prepared through the
acquisition of skills which would allow them to integrate themselves and work successfully in the
digital society they would face after school and beyond. The school then defined the laptop
programme main objectives to develop students:

more independent and responsible

capable of working in teams

owners of their own learning

capable of facing different situations and of solving problems

capable of living and working in the society of the future

Life-long learners

ICT Co-ordinator Mariela Castro

After the Headmasters presentation to parents and students of these years, nearly half of the
students of each year group were registered for the programme by their parents. This meant that
the school faced the situation of having laptop and non-laptop sets in each year group. There was
some parental resistance due to the fact that they were not convinced of the educational benefits,
they didnt want to pay an additional monthly fee of US$ 50.00 for the purchase of the laptop and
they were very concerned about security and safety issues. Peru had gone through very difficult
times due to terrorism and social unrest, so there was a rightful concern about security.
After the first year of the programme, with the appointment of a new Headmaster, Trevor S.
McKinlay, the haves haves not situation was reviewed and he launched the idea of generalising the
program for all students from years S2 to S4 to ensure equal access, lowering the monthly
technological fee to US$25.00.
Fortunately the programme results in 2001, as will be seen later in this study, helped gain the
staff, student and parental support for this generalisation and the continuation of the programme
up to present date.

NCREL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory report, 21st Century Skills for 21st Learners: Literacy

in the Digital Age (2003)

CHAPTER 3
LAPTOP PROGRAMME INITIATIVES IN OTHER SCHOOLS
Some schools in Australia and the UK had implemented successful laptop initiatives with the
support of Microsoft and its Anytime Anywhere Learning program, and Toshiba as a laptop supplier
partner. Their programmes promoted the philosophy of a laptop for every student and access to
Internet resources 24-7, its main objective being to prepare life-long learners for the twenty-first
century, a vision shared by Markham College.

3.1 Methodist Ladies College (MLC), (Victoria, Australia)

MLC is considered the first school around the world, to successfully implement a laptop
programme. In 1990, its former Principal, David Loader, needed to find a way to deal with a
particular educational problem eliminating streamed classes, integrating students of different
abilities. He thought of two possible ways to individualize teaching and give students more control
over their learning: teacher assistants or computer technology.
He ran a pilot in eight classes of Year 7, each with thirty children and each with access to a PC.
And the students liked it, they were on task, they were being responsible. But PCs occupied too
much space and it this would require larger classrooms. It was at a computer show where he
stumbled upon laptops and thought that they would solve the problem of space that traditional
desktop computers had. So he presented the idea to a group of hand-picked teachers they
rejected it.
The problem was not about what device to use but about how to address the education
problem at MLC. The main problem for teachers was fear. It was like telling them "you are not the
only resource and you are telling the student that they are actually quite powerful and have access to quite powerful
ideas and information, so they can take some responsibility about their learning allowing students to explore, to
draw conclusions, to develop ideas; education is not about teaching facts anymore; you are asking teachers to change
10

what they are doing and how they are doing it. No longer is the lesson contained in four walls, you should be able to
access the information anywhere, anytime." (Loader, 2002)
Another issue, very important for teachers, was time time to develop new courses adapted to
the new teaching-learning methodologies and strategies like starting all over again, from static
learning experiences to dynamic ones. And this could only be done by improving teachers
expertise with technology. Teachers had to be willing to take risks, even if it meant learning from
the students themselves.
The success of the programme resided in working hard with staff from the start, identifying a
group of teachers who were willing to venture in this innovative proposal, involving them in every
step and working it from there. By starting in years five and seven as pilot years, teachers in these
years had the chance to prepare and observe the successes of teachers who were performing well.
Even though MLC saw slow adoption of the programme, they didnt lose any staff. They provided
support for them until they understood how successful it was, not only because of their colleagues
experiences but also because of students' responses. It became a process of trying to find ways to
incorporate technology in the classroom in meaningful ways. It became a new model, one which
would cater for a range of learning styles, would provide a flexible learning environment and would
connecting teachers and learners. Loader defined the programme momentum as Pushing, always
pushing, with a goal in mind to try to get people behind you. Once you have that critical mass
you've arrived on the hill. Before that you were pushing up hill.

3.2 Trinity Grammar (Kew, Victoria, Australia)

Peter Crawley, Headmaster of Trinity Grammar School (1987, p.6), explained the use of laptops
in a traditional educational environment as a way to enhance substantially the traditional quality
curriculum, providing a powerful computing tool to assist every teacher and student. His vision
included the use of powerful and flexible business software so that teachers could develop their
11

own creative tasks. As application software becomes a natural tool of learning in the educational setting, we will
inevitably find that tasks will be solved in different ways. Eventually different questions will emerge because new
pathways of response will be possible, (Crawley, 1987).
Trinitys programme recognized the dynamic nature of education and the demands that would
be placed on their students as they moved into the workforce in the 21st century. They worked
hard on encouraging their teaching staff providing them also with a laptop, empowering them and
providing a driving force for significant professional development. The programme energy was
geared towards the standards and ambitions of the best teachers, harnessing their enthusiasm and
positivism to help overcome all challenges. However, Crawley also recognized as a serious
warning, that bad teachers will not be made good by the addition of a computer to every classroom (1998, p 7)
technology is the media to enhance good practice and promote opportunity for professional
growth but will not perform miracles.

For Markham College, taking these and other similar first-hand experiences into account was
crucial to the programme success. One thing is to read about laptop initiatives and another is to
experience them. Whichever the case, one condition all of these schools met was to support their
programmes on a specific pedagogical framework.

12

CHAPTER 4
LITERATURE REVIEW

The idea of using computer and information technology in education has its roots in the
constructivist model, in which students are actively engaged in knowledge-building activities,
exploring and discovering, in other words, they are effectively learning by doing and making.
This is a shift from traditional learning environments in which students were passive individuals,
mere recipients of information as transmitted by the teacher or other sources. Seymour Papert
(1993, p 139) explained this difference stating that traditional education codifies what it thinks
citizens need to know and sets out to feed children this fish. Constructionism is built on the
assumption that children will do best by finding (fishing) for themselves.
Paperts constructionism model is, as Hill et al (2000, p.7) describe, an especially powerful
theoretical underpinning for a school laptop initiative in that laptop computers can be viewed as
cognitive tools for building knowledge representations. By learning with the computer and
learning from the computer, Papert suggests that children would be able to explore at their own
pace: thinking, creating, trying, testing, reviewing, reflecting - focusing on the development of the
individual rather than on simple acquisition of facts and skills.
However, the computer and the software tools are not enough; the teacher is a crucial element
in this pedagogical formula. Their ability to bring this playfulness into the classroom and plan
activities to support different ways of thinking and learning is the teachers main challenge in order
to establish significant learning processes for children. The laptop computer then becomes a very
powerful tool for the teacher as well.

Therefore, integration of IT seeks to enable a more dynamic, differentiated teaching and

learning environment as multimedia applications not only contain material which are conducive to
13

the various learning styles (showing text, pictures, sounds, animations, simulations and/or videos)
but also by having exercises targeted at the various academic levels of students, diagnosis of
previous knowledge and monitoring of progress to see what areas need improvement. Still,
multimedia tools are not the only way to maintain children active and engaged. Open-ended
development tools facilitate design, construction, modelling, testing and review of materials.
Generic-use application software improves presentation, visualization and transmission of
knowledge. Communications technologies and the Internet enable access to dynamic, vast
amounts of information, facilitate team work, collaboration and knowledge sharing, and prompt
new social skills. All these capabilities are growing requirements of the increasingly evolving
Information Society we live in, and for which students need to be prepared. This is discussed in
more detail in various studies such as Hill et al (2000) and NETS for Students 7(2000).

The question arising here is, if this can all be achieved using traditional desktop computers, why
invest in a laptop programme? Why provide a portable computer to teachers and students?

The conceiver of laptops for childrens education was Alan Kay, a visionary computer scientist
who, in 1972, designed the idea of a book-sized computer that could be used in place of paper.
Influenced by Papert and Moore, Kay devised a personal portable information manipulator he
called the DynaBook. In his article A Personal Computer for children of All Ages (1972), Kay analyses
the need for a device which would enable children to become the active learners constructionists
like Piaget and Dewey promoted.

NETS: National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students (2000) http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_book.html

14

Figure 4. 1 - Alan Kays DynaBook design (Kay, 1972)

He pictured this device as a better book, one which is active (like the child) rather than
passive with the attention grabbing powers of TV but controllable by the child like a piano
which can be a tool, a toy, a medium of expression, a source of unending pleasure and
delightand in unenlightened hands, a terrible drudge! This device would allow children to play,
face challenges, solve problems, work with what-if scenarios, develop intellectual curiosity,
construct significant knowledge from previous experiences, connect to information services such
as a library; scan, search and download information; make purchases; write, edit, save and retrieve
written work, and so much more, anytime, anywhere. This personal computer would be owned by the
user, allowing room for reflexive communication with himself.
Moore, in Kay (1972, p4), suggests that children have difficulty remaining in the same role
with respect to an idea or activity and so a passive, listening role in the classroom leads to
distraction and boredom. Children need to play different roles allowing for different perspectives
while tackling an activity. In order for learning to be productive Moore also states that the things
that are learned can be used as part of (and for further learning of) new ideas. If the environment
is immediately responsive to the childs activities it will also allow him to gain a model of himself. If
15

the child is not involved, not interested or does not receive positive feedback, reinforcement, or
enjoy the activity, significant learning is really not taking place. Children must feel that they have
something worthwhile to do with the acquired knowledge.
Kay (1972, p.5) takes Piagets notions which states that knowledge is retained as a series of
operational models essentially, algorithms and strategies and the fact that development
proceeds in a sequence of stages, each one building on the past, showing differences in ability to
apprehend, generalize and predict casual relations, to conclude that computers are the ideal
medium to aid in the formation of skills concerning thinking, strategies and tactics, planning,
observation of casual chains, debugging and refinement. And, if a graphical interface is provided, it
becomes an even better tool for the expression of childrens epistemology as Piaget and others, in
Kay (1072 p.5), have provided evidence that much thinking is nonverbal and iconic.
But it wasnt until 1990, eighteen years later, when this idea was adopted an implemented by the
Methodists Ladies College (MLC), and by many more schools world-wide thereafter.

Recent studies of 1-to-1 or ubiquitous computing initiatives report that, in fact, these intensive
computer environments are different from what one traditionally finds in most school settings
because they offer all students and teachers continuous access to a wide range of software,
electronic documents, the Internet, and other digital resources for teaching and learning. (Bonifaz
and Zucker, p3).
Rockman et al (1997, p18) found that the laptops represented not so much a new computing
capability, but easier access, greater mobility, and ease of transition either between school and
home or school and dorm and

that among the benefits widely perceived are increased

collaboration, movement towards independent learning, greater enthusiasm for schooling, and
more engagement in problem solving.

16

Providing a laptop for every student they gain independence in their use, when they need to,
when they want to and at any place or moment, enhancing productivity and efficiency in their
learning process. Students would not longer have to wait or hold back their curiosity or desire for
knowledge. The fact that it is a personal device meant that students could define and individualize
their learning path, at their own pace and preference, encouraging them to accept responsibility for
their own education.

But most important to consider is the impact the implementation of these programs on
teachers, teaching strategies, methodologies and didactics. If these initiatives advocate active
learning, where children engage actively in knowledge construction and can pursue their own
learning paths, then traditional, one-size-fits-all teaching approaches must be abandoned.
According to the findings by Rockman et al (1997, p 30), the laptop project facilitated a change
of roles for teachers and for students. Teachers were becoming learners and facilitators, and
students were taking more of a teaching role. With students taking control over their learning
path, teachers are no longer the source of all knowledge and find their role change to that of a
guide, a mediator, a facilitator. This is clearly illustrated by a quote in Rockman et al (1997, p. 31):
In a traditional classroom, the teacher is the key to general knowledge; he or she knows the sources,
controls the access, controls everything. ...That changes with access to technology, because [the student]
is not restricted to library booksyou can have any book, any writing, any reference. Now teachers
need to steer people through, not toward, information. The teacher is more important now as a guide
to what is worthwhile.
Teachers have also learned to work together in collaborative, virtual environments. There is an
urge to share experience, best practice and examples to help colleagues move through this
pedagogical revolution and ease the transition from traditional to modern teaching. As a result of
this, several educator portals and learning grids have appeared on the World Wide Web. Some
well-known examples are Kathy Schrocks Guide for Educators8, Education World9, WebQuest10,

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/math.html

17

Microsoft Lesson Plans for Students and Educators11 and others. Teachers become collaborative
learners in a global society as do students. Teachers must therefore also be issued laptops to
empower them also with anytime, anywhere learning. A continuous training scheme to facilitate the
transformation of learning from teacher-centred to student-centred is essential as are
environmental and cultural readiness; advanced, careful planning, and continuous evaluation to
ensure a successful laptop programme.
Microsofts Anytime, Anywhere Learning program, seeks to transform schools by removing
borders and barriers, inspire with information and transform effort into achievement (2007, on
http://www.microsoft.com/education/aal.mspx). They recognize that anyone born within the
last eighteen years, technologies have never known a world without technology such as, video
games, email, and instant messaging (2005, p.2). They also remind us that todays youngsters are
very different from that of their parents and teachers. Theyve been called digital natives, who
automatically accept new technologies as their own, while adults are digital immigrants who have to
adapt to new tools and new ways of doing things (2005, p.2).
These statements are a key to understanding why the integration of ICT and portable
computing seems a natural path to follow education-wise.

The most recent laptop initiatives for education were launched by MITs Nicholas Negroponte
with its One-Laptop-Per-Child (OLPC) initiative, Intel with its ClassMate laptop for schools, and
others will probably follow. They are seeking to distribute laptops massively to students in
developing countries schools, to help bridge this digital divide that exists at present.
For MIT and Negroponte, it's an education project, not a laptop project. (in
http://laptop.org/vision/index.shtml), with the goal to provide children around the world with
9

http://www.education-world.com/a_tech/archives/curr.shtml

10

http://webquest.org/index.php

11

http://www.microsoft.com/education/lessonplans.mspx

18

new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves a children's machine designed
for learning learning., thus incorporating the constructionism model supported by Papert and Kay.
Negroponte (in http://laptop.org/en/vision/mission/index.shtml) considers Paperts view that
computers provide the unique opportunity to foster this learning learning by allowing children to
think about thinking, in ways that are otherwise impossible where children will be opened to both
illimitable knowledge and to their own creative and problem-solving potential.
For Intel, their programme is used to enhance lives by accelerating access to uncompromised
technology for everyone, anywhere in the world. Focused on people in the world's developing
communities to advance progress in four areas: accessibility, connectivity, education, and
content (on http://www.intel.com/intel/worldahead/classmatepc/). Their vision is not solely
based on educational theories but contemplates a more integral approach, in line with the
Information Society12 and the new economy we live in.
We all recognise that whoever owns information and knowledge has the power in this
Information Age13 we live in; in this world of networks and globalization. For Castells,
information is the key ingredient of our social organization and this is why flows of messages and
images between networks constitute the basic thread of our social structure (2000, p. 508). He
also refers to the ability to spread information through all possible media across networks, resulting
in personalized leadership where image-making is power-making (2000, p. 507).
Our students, the digital natives, move naturally through the networks and have adopted this
new culture in the most natural way. They acquire new roles and identities and gain much of their
knowledge through the networks, in what Castells defines as the culture of real virtuality (2000,
p.403).

12

Information Society: society in which the creation, distribution, diffusion, use and manipulation of information is a significant
economic, political, and cultural activity (Wikipedia, 2007, Wikimedia Foundation).

19

With this theoretical framework in mind is that the study of the first year of programme
implementation was carried out. It was necessary to see whether the school was actually facilitating
the natural learning environment and leadership opportunities for both, students and teachers, and
whether the programme objectives were being met successfully.

13

Information Age: a period characterized by widespread electronic access to information through the use of computer
technology (MSN Encarta, 2007, Microsoft )

20

CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY

5.1 Nature of the Research

Having introduced laptops for students with almost 50% of parental support, it became
necessary to establish a picture of how the members of the Markham community (parents,
students and teachers) felt about the programme prior to implementation in order to determine
whether their views and level of support changed or not by the end of the first year. It was also
necessary to analyse the impact on student achievement and identify indicators of success which
would allow the school to know if the programme objectives were being fulfilled and if it was
worthwhile for it to continue in its present format or not, and if adjustments were needed.
The evaluation of this first year of the programme was a crucial exercise for the Senior
Administration14 team and the Board of Governors as they had opted for a ground-breaking
pedagogical innovation and invested significant sums of money in equipment, infrastructure,
training and personnel to support the programme, item for which they were certainly accountable.

5.2 Research Question and Issues

This research study attempts to answer the question which most members of the Markham
community had in mind:
To what extent has the implementation of the laptop programme had a significant positive impact on the teaching
and learning processes in the Upper School section of Markham College, improving learning, achievement and student
attitudes?

14

Senior Administration Team (SAT): composed by the Headmaster, Peruvian Director, Bursar, Director of Studies, Head of
Upper School, Head of Lower School, Head of Early Years and Senior Master

21

To answer this question and provide a framework for data collection, the following issues were
identified as key elements for inclusion in the measuring instruments:

Impact on student motivation and enthusiasm to learn

Impact on the quality of students learning

Impact on the teaching role and strategies

Impact on academic achievement

Impact on the students IT skills

Assessing impact involves a way to measure the difference between the situation before the
programme implementation and the current situation after. The study results can yield either
positive, negative or no impact, therefore it is very important to collect trustworthy and reliable
evidence at each stage of the study to reach valid conclusions.
For example, E-learning Nordic (2006, p.21) illustrates impact as a result of an intervention
process on a target area and population. For them, the use of ICT in schools can be understood
as a deliberate intervention, or intended change, in the way in which teaching and learning take
place.

Figure 5.1 - E-learning Nordic model of the intervention between target, intervention and impact

22

The other important difference this model considers is that between output and impact. In
the mentioned report (2006, p.7) output refers to the direct product of the activities that are
carried out, such as number of new computers purchased, number of lessons using ICT, etc.
Impact refers to the changes brought about by these activities, in terms of, for example, improved
learning.

5.3 Measuring Impact and Data Collection

In education it is very difficult to isolate a single variable causing the impact in the teachinglearning process; it is usually a conjunction of many factors, both internal and external to the
school. There can be many unobserved aspects which may influence attitudes, learning and
achievement, so different methods and instruments need to be used.
As the present study is concerned with the level of impact, assessment of attitudes and the
status of the laptop programme progress, it would fall under what Gay (1996) determines as
descriptive research. Descriptive data for this research will be collected through questionnaires,
semi-structured interviews and lesson observations as well as through an analysis of student grades
in end of year examinations between laptop and non-laptop sets (control group).
Several research instruments are used as there is always a danger of qualitative data collected
being somehow inaccurate or imprecise. For example, a participant may not be that cooperative or
interested in the interview, or may respond untruthfully; a questionnaire item may not be clear
leading to an inaccurate response or an observation may be considered unreliable because the
observer could be biased.
The use of more than one measuring instrument is also known as triangulation, a strategy
commonly used to deal with these inconsistencies in qualitative studies. Gay (1996, p. 217) explains
triangulation as the use of multiple methods, data collection strategies, and/or data sources to
1) get a more complete picture of what is being studied, and 2) have a way to cross-check
23

information gathered between instruments. This method is also very important to ensure
concurrent validity, where the data gathered from using one instrument must correlate highly with
data gathered from using another instrument (Cohen and Manion, 2000) and to bridge the
notions of reliability and validity.
The application of triangulation will result in the collection of both qualitative and quantitative
data. According to Gay (1997, p.216) qualitative studies are generally non-standardized, narrative
and formative (ongoing through the process) while quantitative studies are usually standardized,
numerical and summative (at the end of the process or a given period of time). Hence, interviews
and lesson observations will primarily yield qualitative data while the questionnaires and grade
analysis will primarily yield quantitative data.

The chosen data-collection instruments will be looked into detail in the following section, in the
sequence in which they were applied, in order to discuss their effectiveness for this research.

5.4 Questionnaire Design

Questionnaires were chosen as the primary instrument for collecting quantitative data since they
allow the gathering of large sets of data, and are faster to distribute and to analyse.
The first set of diagnostic questionnaires for all was administered in March, before laptop
issuing, in order to obtain a snapshot of the feelings and attitudes of the Markham community
prior to implementation. The following two sets of summative questionnaires were published in
May, after the first bimester15, and the final one by the end of the academic year in December. The
applicability of this methodology is endorsed by Herman and Herman (1994, p.103), who state that
summative evaluations are used to determine whether the intervention program has worked to a
15

Bimester: name given to our academic term. Each school year is divided into four academic bimesters, each lasting nine
weeks approximately. At the end of every bimester there is school break. The first bimester ends in the first week of May, the
second in the second week of July, the third in the first week of October and the fourth bimester in the second week of
December.

24

satisfactory level after the intervention has been completed or after a predetermined time period
for measurement and evaluation. Sample questionnaires can be found in Appendix 3.1, 3.2 and
3.3.
In order to overcome a possible nonresponse situation which may arise when administering
questionnaires (Gay, 1996), it was decided to publish teacher and student questionnaires on-line,
on the schools Intranet portal, so that data collection and later analysis could be done faster and in
a more accurate manner, thus ensuring some form of internal validity as suggested by LeCompte
and Preissle in Cohen and Manion (2000).
Students answered the questionnaires during tutor time on the first day of class guaranteeing
100% response rate, and teachers had the whole week to respond via their laptops. If any student
was absent from school, they would also have the whole week to answer it. Because the
questionnaire required participants to log on to the Intranet, monitoring responses was easily done
through the Intranet logs so by the end of the week we could determine if any teacher or student
had not replied and request them to do so.
Parent diagnostic questionnaires were also published on-line but during matriculation time,
before the start of the school year. Parents of laptop-set students were guided to a room with
laptops were an assistant would help them log on so that they could answer the questionnaire as
part of the matriculation process. This helped ensure a very high response rate.

The questionnaire items were drafted with direct relevance to the issues of impact addressed by
this research and, to achieve this, different techniques were used.
To assess attitudes and feelings rating scales were used. The scales were constructed using a pair
of contrasting adjectives as scale limits with five intervals. Responders would give a quantitative
rating to the item being assessed by clicking on the corresponding number on the online
questionnaire. To analyse this data and identify the midpoint attitude or feeling for each concept,
25

the mean and median values of all ratings will be calculated. For example, using the values from
Table 5.1 which rate the level of enthusiasm before implementation, the median value indicates an
attitude of enthusiasm (4):

unenthusiastic
uncertain
Enthusiasm
before
implementation
1
2
3
March

13

very
enthusiastic
4

17

21

Total
Median Mean
Replies
55
4
3.95

Table 5.1 - sample questionnaire items to measure attitudes using a rating scale

If the mode were used, then the result would be 5 which is not an accurate measurement as
more than half of the target population replied below this value. According to Gay (1996, p.434),
the median is an appropriate measure of central tendency when the data represent an ordinal
scale. In this case, the median is an integer representation of the mean and hence has more value
and meaning for this study as we can relate it directly to one of the intervals.
Using a neutral point on the scale was risky as participants could have been easily inclined to sit
on the uncertain interval, especially in the first set of questionnaires before programme
implementation. However, this was not the case for the majority of responses as will be seen later.
Another benefit of using the rating scale is that it allows information to be collected from a large
number of participants quickly and makes it simpler to organize and analyse the data for later
confrontation with other evidence from other sources.

This rating scale is very similar to Osgoods semantic differential scale except that it does have a
neutral interval indicated and there is only one concept for each scale, hence the item scoring is not
applied (Osgood et al, 1957). These rating scales were also used rather than a Likert scale because
more than wanting to know whether the participants agreed or disagreed with a certain aspect of
the programme; we wanted to know how participants felt about it, what were their attitudes, rating
26

not only their perceptions, beliefs or feelings but also their attitudes towards self.
As a way to further ensure validity of this research instrument, clear instructions on the purpose
of the scale are given so that the responders can rate their feelings in a reliable and honest way.

Other items to assess issues in which we are looking for particular answers, frequencies and
rankings, a series of structured, multiple-choice questions were included. The responses were either
yes/no or a list of alternative responses, each being distinctly different from the rest. This method
also helps responders to answer quickly and accurately, and also helps researchers in the analysis.
However, there is a chance that responders are guided in one direction depending on alternatives
provided, that the list items are not very clear or unknown or that what the participant considers
the true response is not available in the list. To overcome this, (Gay, 1996) suggests adding an
other category for these types of items with space for a written response. For example, this can
be seen clearly in the question when asked to rank the most valuable aspects of the program:

What is the most valuable aspect of having your own laptop at school? Rank them
in order 1 (most valuable) to 8 (less valuable).
-

Using the wordprocessor instead of writing

Internet access in all classes

Intranet access in all classes

Using laptops for regular assignments, not just special projects

Email access

Learning more IT skills

Learning to use other software

Having all your files readily accessible

Others (please specify):

_______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 5.2 - Sample structured question to assess the value of an item

Only a couple of questions were unstructured as it was felt necessary to give participants the
option to respond freely and at length on items such as their fears, concerns and worries about the
programme or asking them to make further comments or suggestions for improvement. The

27

responses would also be contrasted with the responses from the structured items as a way to test
for reliability. These types of questions were optional and kept to a minimum because responders
usually dont like writing much although they appreciate the opportunity to do so, and because they
cannot be scored directly and analysed quickly so it would be more time consuming and errorprone in the interpretation.
Before publishing the questionnaires, these were subject to a pre-test, as suggested by Gay
(1996), in the form of a pilot study. In the case of the teacher questionnaires, two members of staff
were selected to test it; one Peruvian and another one foreign. This was an important exercise, not
only to test the individual items, but also to see if the questions and instructions were clear for all.
In the case of students one student from each laptop year was selected and in the case of
parents, two teachers who were also parents were selected. The idea was to receive as many
comments and suggestions for improvement as possible, to refine the instrument, and also to carry
out a pilot exercise on tabulating and analysing results to see if the data obtained was relevant and
useful for the study.
Once fully tested and validated, the questionnaires were published on the pre-determined dates.
Parents had been informed in the pre-matriculation letter, teachers were informed during the
preparation week prior to the beginning of the school year and students were informed during the
laptop box-opening day.
Following are specific details of each questionnaire administered:
Teacher Questionnaires: Teachers were mostly asked about their attitudes, expectations and feelings
for the programme, their confidence and competency with their ICT skills, training needs, the
frequency and type of laptop use in the classroom and for homework, the perceived benefits
and drawbacks and their teaching approaches. A total of 55 teachers, representing 100% of
laptop teaching population, completed the on-line questionnaires in all three questionnaire
sessions.
28

Student Questionnaires: Students were asked about their attitudes and feelings for the programme,
competence in their IT skills, their point of view about teachers competence in the teaching
with laptops, their enjoyment in schoolwork, how much they valued the laptop, how they saw
themselves compared to non-laptop groups, any perceived problems, average daily time of
laptop use, average use per subject, type of work in which they are engaged, and the use of
applications. A total of 252 students from Secondary 1, 2 and 3 laptop sets, representing 100%
of the laptop student population, completed the questionnaires.

No. Students
S1
S2
S3
TOTAL

2001
81
91
80
252

Table 5.2 - Number of Student Questionnaire Responses

Parent Questionnaires : Parents were asked about their beliefs, attitudes and feelings for the
programme, their major concerns and fears, their thoughts about the teaching at School, the
quality of home-school communication, the value of the programme, how much their children
enjoy school, the average time of computer use at home prior and use given.
A total of 226 parents replied to the on-line questionnaires. Some parents didnt reply because
they claimed they were all in favour, they trusted blindly whatever the school did; a few didnt
have access to a computer and the Intranet, and a few others were parents of more than one
child in the same year.
No. Parents 2001
S1
70
S2
80
S3
76
TOTAL
226
Table 5.3 - Number of Parent Questionnaire Responses

29

5.5 Lesson Observations

A structured, focused laptop lesson observation form was prepared to aid in the collection of
live data to be later used to contrast that collected from the questionnaires and interviews as part of
the triangulation process mentioned earlier. Cohen and Manion (2000, p.305) suggest that because
observed incidents are less predictable there is a certain freshness to this form of data collection
that is often denied in other forms, e.g. a questionnaire or a test.
However, it is also true to say that observations are prone to bias and observer interpretation of
events so in an attempt to minimize this effect and establish consistency and reliability, the
observation form was designed with clear observation categories and checklists for fast recording.
This would also help analyse data faster and facilitate the comparison of a variety of laptop lesson
situations with each other. Open-ended items were also included to allow some flexibility for the
observer to note down any aspect which was not considered in the form but which was found
meaningful.
The form requested the observation and recording of the lesson structure and type of activity,
the technology resources used and the time, the software tools, lesson management strategies and
the rating of the effectiveness of the use and application of ICT and laptops in the lesson,
following a given set of indicators (see Appendix 3.4). The observation form items were also drafted
in direct relation to questionnaire items so that they could later be used to cross-check them. To
ensure a degree of validity and reliability, the form was pre-tested on an S416 IGCSE Computer
Studies class and on an LB17 IB Computer Science class prior to deployment to other lessons, not
only to test that the required data was successfully collected but also to help me practice in using it
in a real-classroom situation.
Gay (1996, p.273) suggests that one way to detect observer bias is by having more than one
observer recording events independently but in this research I became the only person to conduct

16

S4: Secondary 4th year

30

all lesson observations for the reasons that, as IT Co-ordinator, I am a neutral member of staff to
other academic departments, I had the knowledge and understanding to know what to look for
and I had been assigned the responsibility by the SAT to conduct this research. So in order to
minimise bias and misinterpretations, I adopted the strategy of discussing the findings with the
teacher at the end of every lesson observation, who fortunately always agreed.
Gay (1996, p.73) also mentions an observer effect referring to invalid observations that
result from the fact that those being observed behave differently simply because they are being
observed, situation also described by Cohen and Manion (2000, p.156) as the Hawthorne effect.
They suggest one way to minimize reactivity effects is to stay with the participants for a
substantial period of time recording what is happening, whilst taking a role in that situation.
Bearing this in mind, lesson observations were designed to last the duration of one whole lesson,
averaging 40 minutes, from start to end. The fact that as IT Co-ordinator I had been working with
the teachers for a whole year prior to implementation and that they were well aware that this study
was going to be happening throughout the first year, also helped in minimising this effect as they
were keen to have me in class to help them improve in any way. The teachers were also eager to
know whether they were on the right track and felt somehow reassured and confident with my
presence, even though my role was passive and non-participant, simply walking around to observe
activity and sitting at the back to take notes. Students also felt somehow comfortable as they also
knew about the study from the moment they received their initial training and they had seen me
before coming into lessons to help in the use of ICT in the classroom prior to the laptop
programme implementation. There was no threat involved, no need to impress anyone and no
consequences, everyone understood it was part of a process necessary for improvement and future
development. Another aspect which helped reduce the Hawthorne effect was that the School had

17

LB: Lower B or the first year of the IB programme

31

already undergone two reviews18, and it had in place an internal appraisal system, so students and
staff were familiar with having observers in the classroom at any time.
Finally, the other situation which could lend itself to a certain degree of unreliability is related to
the use of rating scales in two of the items in the observation form the one which describes
student attitudes and another which rates the overall use and application of laptops and ICT in the
lesson. Cohen and Manion (2000, p.309) identify three possible bias or reactivity situations:
(a) The halo effect: whereby initial impressions (positive or negative) affect subsequent
observations
(b) The central tendency: whereby observers will avoid extreme categories;
(c) Recency: whereby observers are influenced by more recent events than less recent events.
Because lessons were observed across year groups and subjects, throughout the whole year, the
halo effect and recency situations were minimized, while at the same time making an effort to
avoid the central tendency, being as objective and neutral as possible. Cohen and Manion (2000,
p.314) also state that the greater the number of observations, the greater the reliability of the data
might be, enabling emergent categories to be verified so it was very important to try to establish
as many lessons to be observed as possible.

The target lessons were chosen at random in order to obtain a representative sample of the use
of laptops by subjects and by year groups, basically by studying the timetables and fitting them into
my time frame and schedule, showing no preference towards any group.
The number of observation periods allocated per subject was established in direct relation to
the number of periods allocated in the school timetable, therefore Maths lessons, which take place
every day, were more frequently observed than Religion lessons which only take place once a week.

18

The first review or inspection was conducted by the HMC (Headmasters Conference) and the second one by the newly
formed LAHC (Latin American Headmasters Conference)

32

Year
2001
S1
S2
S3

Eng

Mat

Spa

Sci

Geo

His

Fre

IT

Rel

TOTAL

2
2
2
6

2
2
2
6

2
2
2
6

2
2
2
6

1
1
1
3

1
1
1
3

1
1
1
3

1
1
1
3

1
1
1
3

13
13
13
39

Table 5.4 - Distribution of Lesson Observations for Laptop lessons

5.6 Interviews
Interviews were designed as the closing element of the triangulation process on the data
gathered previously from questionnaires and lesson observations, with the idea not only to
encourage the exchange of points of view between the research conductor (myself) and
participants (students, teachers and parents) but also, as Cohen and Manion (2000, p. 267) propose,
to generate through this social interaction, further information not possible via the other
instruments, such as feelings or issues which may have been overlooked by the researcher. This
could also result in either corroborating or contradicting the evidence previously gathered with the
other instruments and hence its importance in this study.
There are also elements of bias in interviews as reported by Gay (1996, p.262), usually in the
form of possible interviewer reactions (positive or negative) which may lead the interviewee, or the
lack of cooperation of the interviewee which could result in meaningless, useless or inaccurate
information. To try to minimise this effect I pre-tested the interview guide and I tried to select a
sample of interviewees of students and teachers from whom I considered would get their full
cooperation.
The interview guide was pre-tested with a set of students from my IB Computer Science
classroom, not only to see how I would react to certain responses but also to receive feedback as to
the way I conducted the interview and the nature of the guiding questions used. I chose students
from this class because I had taught them for almost five years and we shared a close, trusting

33

relationship and consequently they were able (and willing) to express themselves freely. This class
would then not be considered as part of the lesson observation sample.
With parents I used a different approach as I didnt have regular contact with them, so
interviews were more spontaneous, through unstructured conversations either during parent
evenings, Open Days19, when parents came to collect children, when they had a specific complaint,
wanted to know more about the programme or in any other informal circumstance. Some also sent
e-mails with comments or suggestions throughout the year. These proved very useful to gather
relevant and useful information in a variety of contexts

To construct the interview guides, a semi-structured approach was used, involving the asking
of structured questions followed by clarifying unstructured or open-ended questions (Gay, 1996).
The guides aimed to collect information about feelings of the laptop and the programme itself,
student learning, and achievement, teaching with laptops, and general suggestions (see Appendix
3.5). However, during the pre-test I found that some questions were somehow leading and others
needed further clarification or questions to enable a more significant answer.
For example in both interview guides, Questions 2 and 5 somehow assumed that the
participants had fears and problems so it was necessary to clarify in some cases that they could
have none. In Questions 3, 4 and 6, the wording was probably too general and could have been
interpreted differently by each interviewee. For instance learning more o better what did this actually
mean? Better or worse grades with respect to? Teachers or students well-prepared what did wellprepared entail? In order to clear these items I had to be very careful in trying to clarify the items
with as little bias as possible, adding general examples. For instance in Question 2 I added you seem
to understand topics more easily or, you are interested in learning more about a topic. In Question 4 I had to
add comparing them to last years or to the previous bimester and in Question 6 I added comments such
19

Event in which the school is open to the entire Markham community, where student work is put on display and/or
demonstrated by students themselves.

34

as do they use the laptop and the Intranet confidently, do they set clear work guidelines for laptop use or do
they set meaningful, interesting learning activities.

Even though the interview guides have been drafted in English, they were conducted in the
interviewees native language so that they could feel comfortable in expressing their ideas and
feelings, which was possible due to my bilingual skills.
Recording of interview results for teachers and students was done manually, noting responses as
the interview progressed on a notepad. This was a preferred approach to recording as I considered
it less threatening and more natural in our school context. It also helped me conduct the interviews
anytime, anywhere, guaranteeing a more informal and relaxed atmosphere, especially with teachers,
even though Gay (1996, p. 263) suggests it might be more time consuming. Because of this,
interviews were also carried out on a smaller sample of participants as detailed next.

Student Interviews
For the evaluation period in May, thirty students, from the different laptop classes in different
year groups were selected at random, but ensuring equal spread between girls and boys. For the
evaluation period in December, thirty students were chosen randomly from a range of poor, good
and excellent average grades, again ensuring equal spread between girls and boys and avoiding
repeated interviewees.
The interviews were individually conducted, according to a fixed schedule during break times, in
the ICT Co-ordinators office, where both could sit comfortably in a relaxed environment, leading
to informal conversation about their feelings on the programme. Students were also allowed to eat
a snack or have a drink if they wished to which helped break the ice and the comprehensive initial
nervousness some had.

35

No. Students
July 2001
December 2001

S1
10
10

S2
10
10

S3
10
10

TOTAL
30
30

Table 5.5 - Distribution of Student Interviews

Teacher Interviews
These interviews happened informally, in the staff room or at any other venue, when I found a
colleague who wished to share his views, concerns, fears, suggestions or other issues about the
programme. Special attention was given to new staff and also to ensuring that both, local and
foreign staff were equally represented. Some staff were repeatedly interviewed from session to
session, because they did not seem too convinced at the start of the program or because they
expressed serious concerns on the questionnaires.

No. Teachers Foreign Local TOTAL

2001
6
6
12
Table 5.6 - Distribution of Teacher Interviews

Parent Interviews
Because these were informal and spontaneous, without any interview guide, I had to rely on
recording responses after the interview which meant, as Gay (1996, p.263) well points, that not all
facts were probably retained exactly as given, especially if responses were long or many. However,
the email feedback proved useful and accurate evidence of parental feelings.

36

5.7 Grade Analysis

Finally, the quantitative grade analysis was carried out at the end of the year on the End of Year
examination results for laptop sets and non-laptop sets (control group), and final year averages per
subject. Particular attention was given to the S320 results as they were the first year of the IGCSE
programme and there was a certain fear of a negative impact on their achievement which could
affect the schools results and international standing.

End of Year examinations at Markham College are summative standardized assessments carried
out at the end of each academic year and for every subject, aimed at determining the final levels of
achievement reached by students in each year group. Each academic department is responsible for
the examination elaboration, using techniques which best suit their subject. For example, French
would normally have two papers: a paper on listening and reading comprehension using multiple
choice items, and a paper on grammar and writing skills with open-ended items (writing a letter,
writing a short story or essay, short-answer items). Maths would have two papers requiring
problem-solving at different levels: one paper with mechanical, straight forward exercises and
another one with high-order thinking problem-solving questions.
Marking of exam papers is also the responsibility of each academic department under the Head
of Departments supervision, to ensure the quality of the marking so that the grades obtained are in
fact a real representation of the levels achieved.
According to Cohen and Manion (2000, p.318), end of year examinations fall under what are
know as non-parametric tests as they are designed for a given specific population, in this case, each
test for each subject is tailor-made for a particular secondary year group. The analysis of the results
is also straight-forward, using non-parametric statistics on these relatively small samples.

20

S3: Secondary 3rd year

37

End of year exam results are an important indicator but cannot be considered the only one for
this study as there can be many factors affecting student performance in a single exam session.
Therefore the annual overall performance is also taken into account.
As mentioned earlier, non-laptop sets will be used as a control group to analyse the grades and
compare levels of achievement. For both, laptop and non-laptop students in S1 and S221, sets
represented student ability. In S2 more students joined the programme so there was a low ability,
laptop and non-laptop set while in S1 there no low-ability sets, but two mixed ability set for both.
The following table illustrates this distribution:

Middle Ability
Sets
NonLaptop
Laptop
S1B1
S1L2
S1B2
S1L3
S2L2
--S2L3

Top Ability Sets

Year Group

NonLaptop

Laptop

Secondary 1

S1A

S1L1

Secondary 2

S2A

S2L1

Low Ability Sets

NonLaptop

Laptop

---

---

S2B

S2L4

Table 5.7 - Distribution of Laptop and Non-laptop sets

In S3 the picture was completely different as, due to the nature of the IGCSE curriculum, tutor
groups could not be arranged by ability ranges but by option blocks, so these sets were all mixedability groups. Therefore, the analysis of grades for S1 and S2 will be based on a comparison by
ability sets but for S3 by option blocks only.

The Peruvian educational system uses a grade scale of 0 to 20, with 11 being the official pass
mark. The School uses this system to calculate and award grades so the analysis will be based on
these figures. For better understanding and to help set these in an international context, the

21

S1 and S2 represent Secondary 1st and Secondary 2nd years respectively

38

following table illustrates the equivalence scales, as applied by Markham College, for the IGCSE
and IB systems:

Official Peruvian
Grade
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11

IGCSE Grade

IB Grade

A*
Borderline A/A*
A
Weak A
Strong B
B
Weak B
Strong C at
Extended level
C
Weak C

7
6
5

Official Peruvian
Grade
10
9
8
7
6
5
4

2
1

IGCSE Grade

IB
Grade

D
E

F
1
G
U

Table 5.8 Markham Colleges Grade Equivalences. Grades in italics represent failing grades.

The grade analysis will also provide the number of students at risk, with three or more subject
fails. According to Peruvian law, a student with up to three subject fails at the end of the year can
sit a Recuperacion22 exam in February of the following year. If the student fails the three subject
exams again then he/she fails the year. If the student fails four or more subjects at the end of the
year, then the student automatically fails the year. This may result in the student repeating the year
or withdrawing from school due to poor academic results. Hence, an analysis of year fails will also
be considered as an important indicator in this study.

22

Recuperacion exams are another version of the end of year exams sat at the end of the previous year.

39

CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

In this chapter, the data gathered through the instruments described above, is presented and
analysed in order to find the extent to which the objectives of this research have been met.
These were defined earlier as:

Establishing a snapshot of the feelings and level of support to the programme from
teachers, students and parents to decide on programme continuation.

Analysing the impact on student learning, achievement and attitudes.

Identifying indicators of success which would allow the school to know if the
programme objectives were being fulfilled

In order to achieve this, the necessary instruments were designed to measure impact on various
levels: student motivation and enthusiasm to learn, quality of students learning, teaching role and
strategies, academic achievement and finally, students IT skills.
Results are presented in five strands: the teacher, student and parent perspectives (which
include questionnaire and interview results), lesson observation results and the grade analysis. All
these are then cross-referenced for a more complete and significant analysis, leading to meaningful
conclusions and recommendations for subsequent lines of action.

6.1 Teachers Perspective

The results of teacher answers to the questionnaires are grouped into the following categories:
attitudes, major fears and concerns, teaching methodology, the IT component, the support
services, the programme and further suggestions or comments.

40

Attitudes
Teachers were questioned about their attitudes prior to the programme and after
implementation. The following table illustrates these results as percentages:

Your enthusiasm for the

programme
March
May
December
Your commitment to
the programme
March
May
December
Your confidence in the
impact of the
programme
March
May
December
Your belief in the value
of the programme
March
May
December

1
unenthusiastic
5%
0%
0%
not
committed
4%
0%
0%
not
confident
0%
0%
0%
no value
4%
0%
0%

2%
4%
2%

uncertain
24%
11%
7%

31%
49%
51%

2%
4%
2%

uncertain
24%
16%
11%

25%
45%
49%

5
very
enthusiastic
38%
36%
40%
highly
committed
45%
35%
38%

0%
4%
4%

uncertain
29%
40%
31%

40%
38%
44%

highly
confident
31%
18%
22%

100%
100%
100%

2%
4%
2%

uncertain
15%
11%
7%

27%
44%
51%

high value
53%
42%
40%

100%
100%
100%

Total
%
100%
100%
100%

100%
100%
100%

Table 6.1.1 - Teacher Attitude Results

From these results one can infer that teacher attitudes were predominantly positive, increasing
in each session, moving away from the negative feelings for the programme. For instance,
regarding the levels of enthusiasm, the positive attitudes increased from 69% to 91%. In the case
of commitment it increased from 70% to 87% and the levels of belief in the value of the
programme rose from 80% to 91%. However, the level of confidence diminished from 71% to
56% rising again to 66%.
The following charts in Figure 6.1.1 illustrate these results by showing the development of
teacher attitudes and the population distribution from session to session:

41

Teacher attitudes - Com m itm ent

70

70

60

60

50

No. Teachers

No. Teachers

Teacher attitudes - Enthusiasm

December

40

M ay

30

M arch

20
10

50
December

40

M ay

30

M arch

20
10

0
1

Levels of Enthusiasm

Levels of Com m itm ent

Teacher attitudes - Confidence

Teacher attitudes - Belief in the value

of the Program m e

80

80
70

60
50

No. Teachers

No. Teachers

70

December
M ay

40

M arch

30
20
10

60
50

December

40

M ay

30

M arch

20
10
0

0
1

Levels of Belief

Levels of Confidence

Figure 6.1.1 - Teacher Attitude Comparative Charts

We can therefore say that, in general, teachers had the right, positive attitude to see the
programme through. After actually teaching with laptops, their belief in the programme was
reinforced even though they were still not quite confident of how it would work.
Major fears
It was important to find out if teachers had any fears or concerns regarding the implementation
of the laptop programme and whether these persisted throughout the year. This item was treated
as an option list with the possibility of adding any other concept not included in the list of
alternatives.
42

The results in Table 6.1.2 demonstrated that while some perceived fears disappeared, others
appeared or rose.
What are your major fears / worries
/concerns regarding this programme?
Technical issues
Time to prepare materials / lessons
Battery life
Staff training
Loss of traditional educational skills (reading,
writing, etc.)
Divisive influence: laptop sets vs. non-laptop
sets
Marking / assessment methods
Health issues
Others:
Pupils occupied in class with other activities
Care and maintenance of laptops
Different approaches by staff
Plagiarism
Security
Lack of appropriate resources
Pupil organization
Speed of information delivery
Convenience of use of laptops in bottom sets
Getting work done to the usual acceptable level
Inability or reluctance to process information
Marks too low for bottom sets
Poor/incorrect positions and un-adjustable
tables/chairs
Sharing homework
None

March

May

December

37
37
25
24

25
36
10
22

30
40
12
20

22

16

12

21

13

10

18
9

21
6

16
6

2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1

6
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
1

0
0

1
2

3
4

Table 6.1.2 - Teacher perceived fears and concerns

Technical issues concerns dropped by May, probably due to the fact that the laptops were new
and had fewer problems than expected, but then the figure rose again towards December when
laptops completed the first year as teachers were more aware of the real technical problems. The
same pattern was observed with the battery life since some students did have problems by the end
of the year as their batteries lasted less than expected.
43

Regarding the pedagogical aspects, the concern regarding time to prepare materials and laptop
lessons rose towards the end of year as, on finding out the real potential of using the Intranet for
teaching and learning, it made teachers more aware of the sort of resources they would like to have
and how much time they needed to prepare them. Other issues which increased in frequency were
the concern about students distraction, teachers using different approaches which could lead to
more/less successful experiences, plagiarism and the convenience of use of laptops in bottom sets,
all these as a result of having worked with laptops for the whole year.
On the other hand, some issues decreased and even disappeared from the list of major fears or
concerns. These were: staff training, loss of traditional educational skills, divisive influence between
laptop and non-laptop sets, marking/assessment methods, security, lack of appropriate resources,
pupil organization and speed of information delivery. Mostly, this change towards a more positive
attitude was due to the additional training and support provided in class and the continuous use of
the laptops which helped teachers gain more and better experience.
During May and December, a few additional issues were mentioned but by only one member
of staff who was probably still a bit sceptical. However one of those issues is worth mentioning as
it is tied with the plagiarism issue: sharing homework. This item increased towards the end of the
year as did the plagiarism issue, which probably meant for some teachers a similar concern students presenting work which is not theirs.

Teaching Methodology
To analyse the impact on teacher methodology as perceived by the teachers themselves, the
March questionnaire included two items to help describe their teaching styles and methods prior to
programme implementation.

One of the problems discovered on analyzing these items is that

even though staff were asked to select the option which best described, some selected more than
one option and hence the total of responses differed from the total number of responders.
44

The results on the charts on Figure 6.1.2 however show an interesting tendency, prior to
programme implementation, of student-centred teaching and group work, whether in small or large
groups. I actually expected this to show more teacher-centred, lecturing styles but the answers
showed the opposite.
March - Teaching m ethods

March - Teaching styles

Teachercentered
18%

P ro jectbased
20%

Lectures
14%

Individual
learning
19%

Large
gro ups
27%

Interdisciplin
ary
20%

Small
gro ups
40%

Studentcentered
42%

Figure 6.1.2 Teaching styles and methods prior to implementation

In May and December the question focused on if the teachers felt prepared to teach with
laptops and if there were any changes in teaching styles and methods. Table 6.1.3 show how
teachers felt about these two issues:
Have you felt prepared to teach laptops?
Yes
No
More or less
Total
Have you felt your teaching methodology
change?
Yes
No
No response
Total

May
22
8
25
55

%
40%
15%
45%
100%

December
30
4
21
55

%
55%
7%
38%
100%

May

December

27
17
11
55

49%
31%
20%
100%

39
14
2
55

71%
25%
4%
100%

Table 6.1.3 Teaching changes after implementation

It is important to note that by the end of the year, more than half of the teachers felt prepared

45

to teach with laptops and even more felt their teaching methodologies change. Interesting enough
there were teachers who chose the no response option to this question in the three sessions, an
issue which needs to be cross-examined with the interviews. The no changes responses could
represent teachers who are already applying student-centred or project-based activities regardless of
the use of the laptop such as IT and Science, but again, this issue will be further clarified at
interview time.
Among the changes mentioned, some interesting concepts were mentioned and are presented in
Table 6.1.4, grouped according to similarity:
Changes in Methodology
Finding the balance between laptop and non-laptop activities
Spend more time in explanations
Less time in explanations
Spend time dealing with technical excuses
More time for experiments and in-depth explanations
Different class dynamics
Handling a class, it is more interactive
Have to be more flexible
Bottom sets need more control, time for organisation and laptop guidance
Develop strategies for capturing pupil's attention
Shift from teacher centred to student centred
As a facilitator of resources
Teaching from the back of the class
More personalised teaching
More individual work form pupils
New rhythm of work
Found access to different types of resources stimulating
Using specialised software
Use of interactive activities
More planning and adapting access to material
Ease pressure of distributing and producing material
Less use of whiteboard
Table 6.1.4 Teaching changes after implementation

It can clearly be seen how different teachers have varying perspectives on the way their teaching
methodology has changed. There are two apparently contradictory statements which need to be
cross-checked at interview time: the spending of more or less time in explanations and the time

46

spent in planning or producing material. Because different subjects work differently, these
statements, though useful indicators of what teachers perceive happening in their classrooms,
cannot be generalised.
Another important aspect to consider at this stage is the time allocation for the use of
computers before and after programme implementation. Before implementation considers the use
of labs and personal computers in the classroom while after implementation considers the use of
laptops. Teachers were also asked about their planned time allocation prior to implementation to
see if this objective is met or not.
From the results in Table 6.1.5, we can notice a significant increase of the time allocation after
programme implementation, which is very close, in some cases, to what was planned. Most of the
time allocations lie in the range of 26-50% of computer use in the classroom which is more or less
what was expected or planned.

What percentage of classroom time

did you allocate to computers
Before implementation (use of labs,
computers in classrooms)
Planned allocation
after implementation - May
after implementation - December

125%

26 50%

51 75%

76 100%

Total

91%

4%

2%

4%

100%

31%
33%
27%

51%
49%
53%

13%
15%
15%

5%
4%
5%

100%
100%
100%

Table 6.1.5 Classroom Time allocated to computer use

The other issue considered in this section of the research is the use of computers for
homework, projects and presentation of work. This indicates teacher expectations of students
being able to continue work at home because of the availability of the tool anytime, anywhere. What
can be clearly seen from the chart in Figure 6.1.3 is a significant shift from not demanding
computer use at home to a moderate to high demand of use, and this is an important indicator of
teacher expectations.
47

Use of computers for homework, projects and

presentation of work
30

Teachers

25
March

20

May
15

December

10
5
0
never
1

Frequency of use

alw ays

Figure 6.1.3 Teachers demands of use of computers

The IT Component
One of the crucial aspects of the introduction of laptops is the impact on the users IT skills,
the use of IT applications or software and its educational application.
For teachers, who had undergone a full year of training in IT, asking about how confident they
felt about their skills was a very important issue to assess. Not surprisingly, most felt confident or
highly confident but in March, there were still a few at the lower end of the scale who needed more
training or support. Figure 6.1.4 shows how this pattern gradually disappeared to give way to more
confident staff.
Teacher confidence in their IT skills

Frequency

35
30
25

March

20
15

May
December

10
5
0
1

Levels of confidence

Figure 6.1.4 Teacher level of confidence in IT skills

48

With regards to the levels of competency, a similar pattern was observed. By March, 51% of
the teachers felt competent or highly competent which was not a very positive indicator as the way
teachers felt. Around 35% felt more or less competent which indicated also a level of uncertainty
and lack of confidence. However, more important for all was the 14% who believed they were not
competent or competent enough. This spread is shown in Figure 6.1.5.

Levels of com ptency

1
7%

5
16%

2
7%

3
35%

4
35%

Figure 6.1.5 Teacher level of IT competency

On analysing the May and December results however, there was a clear indication of progress
in this area though there was still a few who felt that their IT skills were not enhanced or not
significantly. This is shown on Table 6.1.6.

Have your IT skills been improved

or enhanced?
Yes
No
More or less
Total

May
39
4
12
55

%
71%
7%
22%
100%

Table 6.1.6 Teaching improvement of IT skills

49

December
42
2
11
55

%
76%
4%
20%
100%

When questioned about the most common IT applications used in the classroom, several other
items were added to the list provided under the option Others. This was interesting to note as
teachers were beginning to use laptops in ways which were not considered initially in this study.
The data in Table 6.1.7 shows how, the use of certain applications, appeared after the laptops
were introduced while others were used prior to the programme implementation and continued to
be used; some, less frequently. The explanation as to why typical applications such as
Wordprocessing and Internet research declined are cross-examined in the interviews.
Applications
Word processing
Internet (research)
Internet (e-mail)
Spreadsheets
Presentations (PPT)
Databases
Tutorials
Drill & practice
Modeling
Games
Internet (chat)
Others
Music
Probes
Scanning
Intranet (Learning Grid)
Intranet (Marking Bin)
DTP
Web page design
Programming
Imaging
Subject-specific software
Shared files/public access

March

May

December

43
43
29
19
19
13
10
6
6
4
3

39
38
12
13
13
3
8
6
4
2
0

38
35
10
10
15
0
8
6
4
0
0

1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
35
9
1
1
1
1
2
1

2
2
1
55
15
4
2
2
4
3
5

Table 6.1.7 Most commonly used IT applications

50

Support services
The support services for the Programme are offered by the Central Service Facility (CSF).
Even though this item may look out of context for this research, it has its importance as it gives an
idea of the level of satisfaction regarding the support teachers receive, to be able to use technology
safely and confidently in their classrooms.
From the May and December questionnaires, and as Figure 6.1.6 show, teachers seem to be
pleased with the services offered by the CSF though there are some suggestions to take into
consideration, especially when it comes to publishing material on the Intranet and the handling of
centralised services such as printing and projectors.
Quality of Support Service
Unsatisfacto ry
, 0%

Satisfacto ry,
30%

Very Go o d,
37%

Go o d, 33%

Figure 6.1.6 Quality of service offered by the CSF

Following is the list of suggestions for the CSF:

Extend hours of service

CSF staff to meet material publishing deadlines

Set a form of quality control for published material

Have more multimedia projectors for booking by teachers

Have a list or guidelines of materials which can be or cannot be placed on the Intranet
(copyright issues, etc)

Find a way to control the waste of paper due to the printing banner

51

The Programme
In both May and December sessions, teachers were asked about the perceived problems faced
so far in the programme, the educational benefits and drawbacks and whether they think it should
be extended, rating the programme in a scale from 1 (worst)-10 (best).
The problems are shown in Table 6.1.8, categorised by area (technical, pedagogical, service).
Most of the problems experienced a decline but others increased as the programme advanced. For
example, connectivity issues which appeared at the beginning of the programme were gradually
resolved by the technical department, but the battery problems increased due to the reduced life
span after the first year of intensive use. Classroom management problems also increased with the
increased use of the laptops in the classroom, as well as the problems with material preparation or
publication due to the increased demands on the CSF to have more educational resources in the
Intranet. This same pattern was observed with the printing problems and the lack of projectors.

What are the problems you have faced so far in

this programme?
Slow communications/access to information
Technical breakdowns
Insufficient technical support
Battery problems
Classroom management
Pupil disorganisation
Assessment issues
Teaching strategies
Lack of pupil keyboarding skills
Lack of IT skills
Material preparation
Material publication
Print out collection
Paper wasting
Lack of multimedia projectors

May

December

55%
44%
11%
11%
18%
42%
38%
29%
2%
2%
45%
15%
25%
4%
2%

18%
36%
11%
18%
22%
36%
33%
29%
2%
2%
51%
18%
33%
24%
9%

Table 6.1.8 Problems faced by teachers throughout the first year of the Programme

52

With regards to the perceived benefits and drawbacks, it was very interesting to notice that, for
teachers, there were comparatively more benefits than drawbacks. Tables 6.1.9 and 6.1.10 illustrate
this:

What are the educational benefits you have seen

so far throughout the programme?

May-Dec

Improved IT skills
More enthusiasm to learn

55%
45%

Pupils are extending their knowledge beyond what is

given to them in class

38%

Improved presentation skills

Pupils are working faster
Improved problem-solving skills
Work at their own pace
Improved pride in work presentation

36%
13%
9%
2%
2%

Work simultaneously with different applications for

same topic

2%

Gain additional responsibility

2%

Table 6.1.9 Perceived Educational Benefits

What are the educational drawbacks you have

seen so far throughout the programme?

May-Dec

Laptops leading to distraction and little work can be

covered

40%

Laptop groups are not making the same progress

through the syllabus as non-laptop groups

15%

Laptops leading to pupils losing acquired skills

(reading, writing)

15%

Grades from laptop sets are lower than non-laptop

sets

5%

Loss of time in organisation

Copying work from others
Top sets make better use than bottom sets
Punctuality in handing in work
Pupils think that presentation makes up for content

4%
4%
4%
2%
2%

Table 6.1.10 Perceived Educational Drawbacks

53

Despite certain feelings of uncertainty, the list of benefits is encouraging. Topping this list are,
understandably, the improved IT skills followed by students showing more enthusiasm to learn,
extending their knowledge beyond what is given to them in class and improved presentation skills.
The extension of knowledge is probably one of the most important benefits shared by the teachers
as it implies that students are engaged in further research and learning activities because of the socalled 24-7 access.
The most significant drawback identified was the issue of distraction and probably due to this
factor is that teachers perceived that laptop students did not make the same progress as non-laptop
students. This is an issue which is later cross-checked with the grades evidence.

Finally, teachers were asked to rate the programme with a vision to extend the scope of the
pilot to the rest of the school. Surprisingly, only 49% of the teachers would like to see the
Programme extended while 31% dont know and 20% dont want it extended. This contrasts with
the previous findings in which teachers seemed more positive towards the programme outcomes
but apparently they are being more cautious regarding generalisation. The score obtained is also
positive. On average, the Programme was rated 6.67 out of 10, (median 7) as Table 6.1.11
illustrates, where 87% of the staff actually rated the Programme 6+.
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Average
Mode
Median

Frequency
0
0
0
3
6
17
14
11
3
1
55
(too low)

Total
0
0
0
12
30
102
98
88
27
10
367
6.67
6
7

Table 6.1.11 Programme overall score

54

Further suggestions or comments

The items listed below are a collection of all the suggestions made by teachers in the openended item at the end of every questionnaire categorised by area:
Pupil Training
Teach keyboarding skills to pupils
More intensive in-depth training for students getting laptops
Staff Training
Emphasis in INSET on teaching strategies
Bring in a person who teaches or has taught with laptops
Inter-departmental meetings to exchange ides on the way to produce resources for the
Intranet
Systems
/CSF
More examples placed for easy access to teachers
Get the e-mail working faster
Slowness at which pupils gain access to the system is worrying
Have student's ID on every printed page as a header, not the present cover sheet
Provide access to the Intranet from home to ALL children and parents
Markham becoming an ISP
Beef up Internet speed
Empower teachers to update their own material on the Intranet
Extend CSF service hours
Work on how to get back printouts from kids in a better way
Find a mechanism to know when a child has sent a piece of work to be printed to avoid
excuses such as "the CSF has it" or "it hasn't printed out"
More multimedia projectors for the classroom
Eliminate hold ups with getting material adequately on the grid
Programme Specifics
Lower sets shouldn't be in the programme
Laptop programme for S4, L6 and IB
Next year would be too soon to have more laptops sets or extended laptop programme to
only one more year group next year
Have a set of laptops to borrow for non-laptop classes
P6 should be kept out of the programme as they are not mature enough
Extend
programme
to all (some opposing points of view!)
Organisation
/ Management
Issues
Teachers still need to give their best shot yet.
Departmental heads have not been sufficiently demanding yet
Teachers need more time to consolidate and improve teaching and materials
Teachers need more time and skills to prepare interactive materials with animations etc
Students have problems organising themselves (part of the printout collection problem)
Pupils must arrive to classes with laptops fully charged
Others
Put fixed power outlets in classrooms rather than extension cords
Wait patiently, it is a matter of time and learning to adapt.
55

6.2 Students Perspective

The results of student answers to the questionnaires are grouped into the following categories:
attitudes, major fears and concerns, classroom issues, the IT component, the support services, the
programme and further suggestions or comments.

Attitudes
Students were questioned about their attitudes prior to the programme and after
implementation. Table 6.2.1 illustrates these results as percentages:
Your enthusiasm for
the programme
March
May
December
Your commitment to
the programme
March
May
December
Your confidence in
the impact of the
programme
March
May
December
Your belief in the
value of the
programme
March
May
December

1
unenthusiastic
3.7%
1.6%
0.8%
not
committed
5.3%
2.0%
0.4%
not
confident
3.3%
2.0%
0.4%
no value
4.5%
3.3%
0.8%

7.7%
1.6%
1.2%

uncertain
29.3%
15.4%
5.3%

30.9%
41.5%
47.6%

6.9%
2.4%
0.8%

uncertain
23.2%
17.5%
8.9%

37.0%
44.7%
48.0%

5
very
enthusiastic
28.5%
39.8%
45.1%
highly
committed
27.6%
33.3%
41.9%

10.6%
3.3%
4.9%

uncertain
26.4%
23.6%
9.3%

36.6%
43.1%
45.9%

highly
confident
23.2%
28.0%
39.4%

100%
100%
100%

10.6%
4.1%
1.2%

uncertain
16.7%
17.9%
16.3%

35.4%
40.2%
44.3%

high value
32.9%
34.6%
37.4%

100%
100%
100%

Total
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Table 6.2.1 Student Attitude Results

From these results one can infer that student attitudes were predominantly positive, increasing
in each session, moving away from the negative feelings for the programme. The vast majority of
students continued to lie in the top (5) and mid-top range (4): 92.7% feel enthusiastic, 89.9% feel
56

committed, 85.3% feel confident and 81.7% believe in the value of the programme; but there is still
a significant amount of uncertainty and a few students who dont seem happy at all with the
programme.
Major fears
The list of major fears or concerns from the students is quite long, not only in March but even
more in May and December. This could be partly the explanation for the levels of uncertainty
expressed above.
Table 6.2.2 shows the fears prior to implementation and after implementation, categorised and
indicating the frequency for each. While some initial fears have disappeared or reduced significantly
other have increased and new ones have appeared.

Prior to Implementation
Pupil organisation issues
Forget laptop (1)
Forget to backup (1)
Huge responsibility (1)
Losing information / work (13)

After Implementation
Pupil organisation issues
Forget laptop (2)
Huge responsibility (8)
Losing information / work (10)
Have to print to study (4)
Teachers dont accept technological
excuses (6)
Collect printouts any time, between
classes (5)
Lack of organisation (4)

0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
5.3%

6.5%
From the classroom
Being at a disadvantage (1)

0.4%

Intranet slowing down the class (1)

Working slower and falling behind (3)

0.4%
1.2%

Sending work to teachers and not

arriving (4)

1.6%

From the classroom

Sending work to teachers and not
arriving (4)
Difficult to study from the laptop (12)
Not being able to enter into programs
(4)
Slow access to programs/information
(6)
Getting lower marks (30)
Teachers having different standards (8)
Falling behind due to technical
problems (4)
Teachers not respecting the HW
timetable (2)

3.7%

0.8%
3.3%
4.1%
1.6%
2.4%
2.0%
1.6%
14.2%
1.6%
4.9%
1.6%
2.4%
12.2%
3.3%
1.6%
0.8%
28.5%

57

Attitudes, Behaviour & Discipline issues

Affecting others over the network (1)

0.4%

Attitudes, Behaviour & Discipline issues

Sanctions: suspensions, detentions,
impositions (16)

6.5%

Sanctions: suspensions, detentions,

impositions (1)

0.4%

Improper use (4)

1.6%

Divisive problems (2)

Improper use (3)
Treacherous damage (6)

0.8%
1.2%
2.4%

Treacherous damage (2)

Laptops are very distractive (38)
Becoming dependant on computers (4)
Not prepared for the change (2)

0.8%
15.4%
1.6%
0.8%
26.8%

5.3%
Systems / CSF
Laptops becoming obsolete (1)
Battery problems (3)
Laptop breaking down (6)
Viruses (11)
Technical problems (13)

0.4%
1.2%
2.4%
4.5%
5.3%

Little knowledge of computer settings (5)

2.0%

Systems / CSF
Battery problems (2)
Laptop breaking down (8)
Viruses (8)
Technical problems (8)
Permission to download/install
programs (2)
Cannot enter Intranet from home (10)
Cannot access Public on Chicama from
home (2)
Laptops are too fragile (6)
Printing problems (2)
Laptop too heavy, affects back (4)
Not everyone has Internet at home (2)
Having another major technical problem
and not having enough spares (2)

0.8%
2.8%
3.3%
3.3%
3.7%
4.1%
6.9%

24.8%

58

4.1%
0.8%
2.4%
0.8%
1.6%
0.8%
0.8%

Laptop too expensive if something

happens (22)

8.9%

CSF too small (2)

Wireless cards easy to lose (2)
Have a safer bag (2)

0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
34.1%

15.9%
Security
Being kidnapped (2)
Robbery outside school (7)
Accidental drop (8)
Losing the laptop (8)
Damage (9)
Security (10)
Stealing (17)

0.8%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
0.8%

Security
Robbery outside school (4)
Accidental drop (22)
Losing the laptop (12)
Damage (22)
Security (6)
Stealing (20)
Fear of anything happening to the laptop
(6)
Pupils rushing from class to class can hit
laptops and cause damage (2)
Fear of taking the wrong laptop by
mistake (2)

1.6%
8.9%
4.9%
8.9%
2.4%
8.1%
2.4%
0.8%
0.8%
39.0%

Program specifics
The new Warden stopping the
programme (1)
Pilot programme not working as
expected (6)

0.4%
2.4%

Program specifics
The new Warden stopping the
programme (2)
Cancelling the programme because some
pupils not making good use of it (2)
Insurance doesnt cover anything why
do we have to pay? (2)
Programme continuity (2)

2.8%

0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
3.3%

Table 6.2.2 Students perceived fears and concerns

Towards the end of the year, and in rank order, students greatest concerns were about security
(39%), technical and support services (34.1%), classroom issues (28.5%), attitude and discipline
(36.8%), organisation (14.2%) and program specifics (3.3%).
Many of these issues can be addressed with further teacher and student training, establishing
more comprehensive policies and improving the technical support and service, hence the
continued support to the programme.

From the Classroom

Several items on the actual teaching with laptops and the use of them in the classroom were
also evaluated in this study. Initially, students were asked to describe the teaching at Markham prior
to implementation. Figure 6.2.1 illustrate that more than 80% considered it modern or quite
modern, without the new technological innovation, while very few considered it traditional.
However, it was necessary to explain the meaning of modern vs. traditional so that the answers
became reliable. Following Morales (2005, p.44-45) definitions of Skinners conductist and Piagets
constructivist paradigms, traditional teaching was defined as teacher-centred, content-based and
supported by summative assessments to confirm learning, while modern teaching was defined as
student-centred, project-based, applying collaborative learning and knowledge-construction
approaches.
59

The results show that this view is consistent with the teachers perception of their teaching
styles and methodologies.
Student's view of teaching style
traditional
1
5%

2
2%
3
11%

modern
5
58%

4
24%

Figure 6.2.1 Students views of the schools teaching style prior to implementation

To complement the picture of student feelings and attitudes, students were asked how much
they enjoyed schoolwork, prior to and after implementation. The findings are very encouraging as a
significant majority seem to be enjoying schoolwork a lot more after the programme
implementation, moving from 37.4% to 72.7% (see Table 6.2.3).

How much do you

enjoy schoolwork at
present?
March
May
December

not a
lot
1
13.0%
7.3%
2.8%

12.2%
6.9%
3.7%

37.4%
29.7%
20.7%

4
27.6%
39.8%
51.6%

a great
deal
5
9.8%
16.3%
21.1%

100%
100%
100%

Table 6.2.3 How much students enjoy schoolwork

Another key question about student feelings towards the teachers and their teaching within the
laptop programme showed the need to provide further training or support to the staff. This is
somehow consistent with the teachers perspective on the same issue as illustrated in table 6.2.4.
60

Do you feel your teachers were

prepared to teach with laptops?
Yes
More or less
No
Total

May

December

50
173
23
246

20.3
70.3
9.3
100

79
148
19
246

32.1
60.2
7.7
100

Table 6.2.4 Students view of teacher preparation

The frequency of use of computers in subjects other than IT was also evaluated, prior to and
after implementation. Charts in Figure 6.2.2 reveal that in March, there was a relatively shy use of
computers in other subjects, but a good percentage of work on computers demanded by teachers
outside teaching time e.g. for projects and homework. A good explanation for this would be the
fact that teachers had to book the computer labs in order to get some IT time for their classes and
this was not always possible as the IT course used most timetabled periods. This is also why IT was
left out in this part of the research as it was obvious they would use computers 100% of the time
due to the practical nature of the subject.

Dem and of use of com puters by teachers

Use of Com puters in Classroom Tim e

51 - 75%
6%

alw ays
5
3%

76 - 100%
2%

never
1
13%

4
30%

2
14%

26 - 50%
22%

1-25%
70%

3
40%

Figure 6.2.2 Use of computers in class time and for work

For the May and December session, the students were asked about the number of periods they
used the laptops per week. The results are shown on Table 6.2.5.

61

During a typical day in school you

are required to use the laptop:
no classes
one class
two classes
three classes
four classes
five classes
five or more

May
0
3
14
70
100
38
21
246

%
0.0%
1.2%
5.7%
28.5%
40.7%
15.4%
8.5%
100%

December
0
2
11
71
103
38
21
246

%
0.0%
0.8%
4.5%
28.9%
41.9%
15.4%
8.5%
100%

Table 6.2.5 Use of laptop in a typical school day

To contrast this information, students were also asked to assess the use of laptops in each
individual department. However, student numbers change in different subjects as in S3, students
follow IGCSE options. The only compulsory subjects are English, Maths and Spanish. Anther
aspect to consider is that Social Studies is a multi-disciplinary department which includes the
subjects of Historia Del Peru, Religion, Philosophy and Economics, the last two which are also
optional. Table 6.2.6 shows how every department made an effort to move from less use to more
use, even if by only an additional period a week.
Use of laptop in English
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week
Use of laptop in Spanish
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week
Use of laptop in Maths
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week

May
10
32
92
72
32
8
246
May
28
31
39
41
61
46
246
May
111
102
27
6
0
0
246

62

%
4.1%
13.0%
37.4%
29.3%
13.0%
3.3%
100.0%
%
11.4%
12.6%
15.9%
16.7%
24.8%
18.7%
100.0%
%
45.1%
41.5%
11.0%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

December
5
36
93
72
32
8
246
December
17
31
47
44
61
46
246
December
108
100
30
8
0
0
246

%
2.0%
14.6%
37.8%
29.3%
13.0%
3.3%
100.0%
%
6.9%
12.6%
19.1%
17.9%
24.8%
18.7%
100.0%
%
43.9%
40.7%
12.2%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%

Use of laptop in Science

< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week
Use of laptop in Geography
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week
Use of laptop in History
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week
Use of laptop in French
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week
Use of laptop in Music
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week
Use of laptop in Social Studies
< once a week
once a week
twice a week
three times a week
four times a week
five times a week

May
26
18
52
72
56
22
246
May
11
54
83
30
22
6
206
May
1
29
96
48
21
43
238
May
54
44
62
39
15
6
220
May
32
107
16
6
6
6
173
May
20
120
54
17
10
19
240

%
10.6%
7.3%
21.1%
29.3%
22.8%
8.9%
100.0%
%
5.3%
26.2%
40.3%
14.6%
10.7%
2.9%
100.0%
%
0.4%
12.2%
40.3%
20.2%
8.8%
18.1%
100.0%
%
24.5%
20.0%
28.2%
17.7%
6.8%
2.7%
100.0%
%
18.5%
61.8%
9.2%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
100.0%
%
8.3%
50.0%
22.5%
7.1%
4.2%
7.9%
100.0%

December
20
21
55
72
56
22
246
December
6
56
86
30
22
6
206
December
0
30
96
48
21
43
238
December
36
62
62
39
15
6
220
December
16
90
34
17
8
8
173
December
18
117
57
19
10
19
240

Table 6.2.6 Use of by Academic Departments

63

%
8.1%
8.5%
22.4%
29.3%
22.8%
8.9%
100.0%
%
2.9%
27.2%
41.7%
14.6%
10.7%
2.9%
100.0%
%
0.0%
12.6%
40.3%
20.2%
8.8%
18.1%
100.0%
%
16.4%
28.2%
28.2%
17.7%
6.8%
2.7%
100.0%
%
9.2%
52.0%
19.7%
9.8%
4.6%
4.6%
100.0%
%
7.5%
48.8%
23.8%
7.9%
4.2%
7.9%
100.0%

From this analysis we can also gather that the department that least uses the laptops is Maths,
which is an issue looked at later in the interviews. Most of the departments are using the laptops
between 2 to 3 periods a week on average though there are indications of some using them more
frequently than others, issue which may be related to the teachers levels of competence,
confidence and enthusiasm for the programme. These results are also consistent with the teachers
perspective as to the time allocated for computer use in the classroom, thus ensuring their validity.

Another issue analysed in this research is the students working methodology prior to and
after implementation. From the data collected, we can see an increase in collaborative work but
also a more significant increase in individual work, the nature of which is discussed in the
interviews. Tables 6.2.7 and 6.2.8 illustrate these aspects:

How much work do you do

collaboratively with other
pupils?
March
May
December

not a lot
1

15.4%
9.8%
8.9%

16.3%
16.3%
14.6%

52.0%
34.6%
33.3%

13.4%
32.1%
35.0%

a great
deal
5
2.8%
7.3%
8.1%

100%
100%
100%

a great
deal
5
38.6%
46.3%
48.0%

100%
100%
100%

Table 6.2.7 Students engaged in collaborative work

How much work do you

do on your own?

not a lot
1

March
May
December

3.3%
2.0%
0.0%

4.9%
1.2%
1.2%

17.5%
6.9%
6.1%

35.8%
43.5%
44.7%

Table 6.2.8 Students engaged in individual work

Finally, but not least important, students were questioned on their feelings towards being at a
disadvantage with regards no the non-laptop groups, a concern shared by the teachers. The results
show that for the majority of students, 60% by December, this is not an issue but for those who
do feel disadvantaged, they shared valuable reasons that explain this.
64

The list on Table 6.2.9 is sorted by frequency and show some issues which were already
mentioned as part of their fears or concerns and others more related to their actual day-to-day
activities.
Reasons
Laptops distract
Non-laptop groups advance faster (as said by the teachers themselves)
Study / work at a slower pace
Technical problems affect us
Laptop grades are lower
It is easier to study from books
Printing out work / printing problems
They have less sanctions e.g. for leaving bags unsupervised
It is faster to handwrite than to type
Sometimes we need to write to learn things
Homework doesn't go correctly through the marking bin / doesnt arrive
Very heavy to carry laptops plus books and we don't use laptops much
More homework for laptop groups
It is harder to study from laptops
Lose time turning machines on
Additional responsibility looking after laptop
Not all information is on the Intranet and we don't have books where to study from e.g. French
We can lose information e.g. during technical repairs
People with no Internet access at home can't study
Non-laptop groups learn more
No copybooks to study from
Teachers are more strict and inflexible with us
Teachers dont know how to teach with laptops
We have too much pressure from teachers, they want us to be perfect
Some teachers see laptops as a problem
Transition from S2 to S3 has been made more difficult with laptops
Some pupils copy work from each other, they pass diskettes or via email

No.
20
10
9
8
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Table 6.2.9 Reasons for laptop students feeling disadvantaged

The IT Component
Students form Markham College already possessed a level of IT skills which was seen as
privileged, compared to the average Peruvian academic population. Their responses indicated that
more than half felt confident (66.7%) and competent (56.1%) about their skills prior to
implementation, but a significant number was also quite unsure. Figures 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 illustrate
this distribution:

65

Confidence in IT Skills
not
confident
1
6%

highly
confident
5
28%

2
2%

3
25%

4
39%

Figure 6.2.3 Levels of IT confidence prior to programme implementation

Com petency in IT Skills

highly
confident
5
22%

not
confident
1
8%

2
2%

33%
4
35%

Figure 6.2.4 Levels of IT competency prior to programme implementation

When asked about their levels of competence in May and December, the figures on Table
6.2.10 indicated that the programme had a significant impact on them, with >98% of students
increasing their IT competency. This was an expected result being that students had access to this
technology anytime, anywhere.
66

Do you feel more competent

with your IT Skills?
Yes
No
Total

May
224
20
244

%
December
91.80
242
8.20
4
100
246

%
98.37
1.63
100

Table 6.2.10 Levels of IT competency after programme implementation

To get a more comprehensive snapshot of student perceptions, they were asked to rank the
aspects which they considered more valuable about having their laptops, from 1 (most valuable) to
8 (least valuable). Table 6.2.11 shows the final preferences by December where the most valuable
aspect is to have access to the Internet, followed by using it for regular assignments. Surprisingly,
the least valuable aspect for the majority was the access to e-mail, probably because it is considered
a source of distraction and seldom used in regular school time. One student added two aspects
under the Others category which were not considered on the original list games and downloads.
Even though these are not significant at this point, it might indicate a future trend of laptop
activity.
Rank order of valuable aspects of
having their own laptop
1. Internet access
2. Using it for regular assignments
3. Using wordprocessor
4. Intranet access
5. Having all files readily accessible
6. Learning more IT skills
7. Learning to use other software
8. Email access

Frequency
136
114
96
78
72
64
44
28

%
55.3%
46.3%
39.0%
31.7%
29.3%
26.0%
17.9%
11.4%

Table 6.2.11 Ranking of valuable laptop aspects

The use of computers at home was also analysed to detect changes in pupils activities. This
does not mean that the time invested is exclusively on academic matters, but it shows any potential
disruption of family life which could be a negative indicator in the long run.

67

We can see on Table 6.2.12 that from March to May/December there has been a significant
increase of the number of hours students spent in front of their computer, especially those in the
category of 2+ hours per day, and mostly in the afternoons. However, towards December (see
Table 6.2.13), the night and weekend use increased.
How much time per day on
average do you use your
laptop at home?
Less than 1 hour
1 hour
1 - 2 hours
> 2 hours

March
36
74
92
44
246

%
29.51
60.66
75.41
36.07
201.6393

May
5
36
86
119
246

%
2.03
14.63
34.96
48.37
100

December
3
39
81
123
246

%
1.22
15.85
32.93
50.00
100

December
106
102
36
2
246

%
43.1%
41.5%
14.6%
0.8%
100.0%

Table 6.2.12 Average time of computer use at home

When do you use the

computers most
Afternoons
Nights
Weekends
Holidays

March
126
74
31
15
246

%
51.2%
30.1%
12.6%
6.1%
100.0%

May
114
93
34
5
246

%
46.3%
37.8%
13.8%
2.0%
100.0%

Table 6.2.13 Preferred time of day for computer use at home

A possible explanation for the time spent and the preferred time of day for computer use at
home, lies in the type of application used. Table 6.2.14 clearly illustrates that while the bulk of
student activity at home is for homework, there are other non-academic activities which lend
themselves to nightly/weekend activity when there is less parental supervision.
What are the main uses you give
to the computer at home?
Homework
Internet (WWW)
Intranet
Games
Internet (Email)
Internet (Chat)
Drill and Practice
Tutorials
Others:
music
downloads
3D graphic design

March
87
84
0
73
71
21
6
3

%
71.31
68.85
0.00
59.84
58.20
17.21
4.92
2.46

May
243
120
115
101
98
30
26
10

%
98.78
48.78
46.75
41.06
39.84
12.20
10.57
4.07

December
246
202
184
156
120
56
13
8

%
100.00
82.11
74.80
63.41
48.78
22.76
5.28
3.25

6
2
1

4.92
1.64
0.82

10
0
0

4.07
0.00
0.00

65
30
5

26.42
12.20
2.03

Table 6.2.14 Main uses given to computers at home

68

Support services
Students also commented on the Central Service Facility, in general favourably, but there are
some very important suggestions to consider, especially looking into the future of the programme.
From the shift in values between May and December, as sown in Table 6.2.15, it can be said that
some improvement has been made in certain areas but there are still issues to consider.

How would you rate the

service at the CSF?
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory

May
63
115
56
12
246

%
December
%
25.6%
80
32.5%
46.7%
101
41.1%
22.8%
55
22.4%
4.9%
10
4.1%
100.0%
246
100.0%

Table 6.2.15 Quality of service offered by the CSF

Following is the list of suggestions for the CSF:

CSF too small, too crowded

CSF to be open at all times

More CSF assistants / technicians

More organization in printout collection /too slow

Allow print out collection in between lessons

Allow print out collection during class time with teacher's permission

Buy colour printers / colour printing service

More printers for faster service

Distributed printing services in other campus areas

Increase printout quota

More scanners

Banner page is a waste of paper

More spare laptops

Advice about hardware available to students

Repair laptops faster

Better technical service

69

The Programme
In both May and December sessions, students were asked about the perceived problems faced
so far in the programme. The problems shown in Table 6.2.16 are mostly technical though a few
mention academic or service issues. It can be clearly seen that printing issues are a serious concern
as well as some discipline and laptop care issues. Some problems also disappeared towards the end
of year which is a good sign of progress.
Home-school connection (Internet/Intranet
access)
Printout collection at the CSF
Hibernation problems
Personal / work organisation
Laptop freezes
Wireless problems (no connectivity)
Laptop confiscation
Software problems
Hard disk problems (defective)
Laptop breakage: wireless card
Losing components (adapters, cards, etc)
Laptop breakage: mainboard
Laptop breakage: screen
Others:
Computer is too slow
Marking Bin not working properly
Difficulty traveling from home to school and
vice versa
Problems with e-mail
Virus through e-mail
Intranet saying one thing and teachers saying
another
Losing work
Slow access to info in class

May

December

43.5%
37.8%
22.0%
21.1%
21.1%
19.5%
14.2%
11.8%
8.9%
8.1%
6.5%
5.3%
2.4%

36.2%
41.5%
12.2%
10.2%
13.0%
4.1%
22.8%
7.3%
2.0%
6.1%
10.2%
2.0%
1.6%

1.6%
0.8%

0.4%
0.0%

0.8%
0.8%
0.4%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.4%
0.4%
0.4%

0.0%
0.8%
0.0%

Table 6.2.16 Problems faced by students throughout the first year of the Programme

Finally, students were asked to value having the laptops and to rate the programme with a
vision to extend the scope of the pilot to the rest of the school. In the March session they were
asked how much they valued receiving a laptop and then in May and December they were asked
again how they felt about having had laptops throughout the year.

70

Compared to March (Figure 6.2.5), in which the figures showed primarily a positive attitude
towards receiving a laptop, in May and December the figures show a comparative increase of
students who are not happy with the laptops, and a relative decrease of those who are happy giving
way to uncertainty. This issue is looked at further in the student interviews.
Value of Getting the Laptop
not a lot
1
6%

2
2%
3
7%

4
16%
a great
deal
5
69%

Figure 6.2.5 Value given to the laptop by students prior to programme implementation

Are you glad you have laptops this year?

Yes
No
Don't know

May
179
18
49
246

%
72.8%
7.3%
19.9%
100%

December
185
16
45
246

%
75.2%
6.5%
18.3%
100%

Table 6.2.17 Value given to the laptop by students after to programme implementation

The programme rating was higher than the teachers, despite all the constructive criticisms,
concerns or fears, as Table 6.2.18 illustrates.
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Average
Mode
Median

Frequency
2
2
7
12
18
25
57
67
42
14
246
(too high)

Total
2
4
21
48
90
150
399
536
378
140
1768
7.19
8
7.5

Table 6.2.18 Programme overall score

71

Finally, pupils suggested several things which could lead to improvement of the Programme
for next year:

Pupil organisation issues

Homework not getting to teachers on time

Allow to leave laptops in classrooms when there is a break in between
Loss of information

From the classroom

Having more group projects

Use laptops more/ use of laptops in all classes
Too much homework, teachers do not respect HW timetable
Laptop grades are lower
Teachers are not friendly or helpful when stuck with technical problems
How to study for final exams
Have exams on laptops
Difficult to study from the laptop, need to print
Teachers to return work through the Marking Bin too
All homework should be on the Intranet
HW dates on the Intranet different to what is said in class
Textbooks should be on the Intranet
There should be more interactive applications
Complete topic revisions on the Intranet
Teachers should be more prepared
Change the teaching method for the program to work
Teachers contradict each other
Teachers to accept laptops and use them not just once a week or less

Attitudes, Behaviour & Discipline issues

Games and chat should be allowed

Cant concentrate, laptops lead to distraction
No sanctions on personal files
Some pupils are irresponsible with the laptops, they treat them like toys
Get rules and punishments clear
Allow to withdraw from the programme

Systems / CSF

Laptops will become obsolete

School to provide another battery
Freedom to install programs
72

Colour printing
Laptops are too heavy
Print out collection at any time
Use headers/footers instead of banner page
Better bags for the laptops
Disconnect Internet during class time, allow only the Intranet
School to provide Internet access
Improve the home-school connection
Be more careful when repairing to avoid loss information from hard disk
Faster CSF service, more organization
Give access to Public on Chicama from home
Machine is too slow with Win 2000, needs 128RAM, antivirus slows it down too
Collect laptops for maintenance and cleaning
More printers
CSF open all day
More printing zones, another CSF
Larger CSF, too small and crowded
Improve wireless signal
Finish the Intranet
Slow access to the Internet
More people at the CSF

Security

Improve security in and out of school strange people are observing outside the gates
Open both cages to leave laptops during activities

Program specifics

Laptops only for responsible pupils, S3 upwards

Everyone should be in the programme
Too much weight in backpack, too many books
Cancel the program if it continues like at present
Insurance doesnt cover anything

6.3 Parents Perspective

The results of parent answers to the questionnaires are grouped into the following categories:
reasons for opting to enter the laptop programme, attitudes, teaching methodology, home-school
communications the support services, the programme and further suggestions or comments

73

Reasons for opting to enter the laptop programme

In March 2001 parents were asked for the reasons why they had their children joining the laptop
programme. Even though the majority did not believe it financially a good deal, they did see the
educational benefits and the implications for the future as the major reasons for joining. There was
also an element of peer pressure in the fact that many parents did not want their children to be at
disadvantage to other students receiving laptops.

Reasons for opting to enter laptop

not at all
programme
1
Did not want to be at a disadvantage to other
students
57
Considered it financially a good deal
45
Were convinced the programme would
provide significant educational benefits
2
Believed that facility with technology would
be important in working life in the future
0

uncertain
3

definitely
5

Total

29
20

23
73

32
41

85
47

226
226

11

40

170

226

12

211

226

Table 6.3.1 Reasons for joining the Programme

Attitudes
Asked about their attitudes, Table 6.3.2 shows how the levels of enthusiasm, commitment,
confidence and belief in the value of the Programme drop from the higher intervals, indicating a
more conservative attitude, some even shifting into the uncertain and negative attitude intervals.

Your enthusiasm for

the programme
March
May
December
Your commitment to
the programme
March
May
December

1
unenthusiastic
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
not
committed
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%

0.9%
0.4%
0.4%

uncertain
6.6%
12.8%
13.3%

24.8%
41.2%
41.2%

0.4%
0.4%
0.9%

uncertain
6.6%
8.0%
8.4%

25.2%
27.9%
27.9%

74

5
very
enthusiastic
67.3%
45.1%
45.1%
highly
committed
67.3%
63.3%
62.4%

Total
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Your confidence in
the impact of the
programme
March
May
December
Your belief in the
value of the
programme
March
May
December

not
confident
0.0%
0.9%
0.9%

0.0%
1.3%
1.3%

uncertain
16.8%
18.1%
19.0%

no value
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%

0.0%
0.9%
0.9%

uncertain
5.8%
7.1%
8.0%

36.3%
37.2%
38.9%

highly
confident
46.9%
42.5%
39.8%

100%
100%
100%

31.0%
35.0%
35.0%

high value
63.3%
56.6%
55.8%

100%
100%
100%

Table 6.3.2 Attitudes prior to and after programme implementation

Teaching Methodologies
Parents were asked about their perceptions of teaching at Markham in March 2001, prior the
programme implementation. More than 70% already considered the teaching modern or very
modern.
Teaching at Markham
very
traditional
1
2%

2
2%
3
15%

very
modern
5
42%

4
39%

Figure 6.3.1 Parents view of teaching at Markham

This item was not followed up in the evaluation sessions of May and December as I realized
that they would not be able to provide first-hand, reliable information; they would only be
assumptions based on what they hear from their children or what they see at home.

75

Home-School Communications
This aspect is very important for parents. With the implementation of the laptop programme
there were more electronic communications, so it was important to see whether there was an
impact in this respect.
In March 2001 more than 50% of parents considered the home-school communications
satisfactory or highly satisfactory, as illustrated by the chart in Figure 6.3.2:

Home-School Communications

highly
satisfactory
5
21%

unsatisfactory
1
5%

2
9%

3
34%

4
31%

Figure 6.3.2 Parents view of the quality to home-school communications

By May, 31% of parents recognised that the home-school communications had improved,
figure which rose to a significant 73.9% in December. This huge jump is a response to the parents
getting used to using the Intranet and the new on-line services available to them.

Has there been an improvement in

home-school communications?
Yes
No
Don't know
Total

May
70
66
90
226

%
31.0%
29.2%
39.8%
100.0%

December
167
25
34
226

%
73.9%
11.1%
15.0%
100.0%

Table 6.3.3 Improvements in home-school communications after programme implementation

76

The Laptop Programme

Several issues concerning the laptop and its implications were evaluated. In terms of attitudes
towards the laptop and schoolwork we can see again the tendency to drop from the high value
interval (5) to more conservative intervals (3-4). When asked about how they thought their children
valued having a laptop, their feelings were consistent with the students. Table 6.3.4 illustrates this:

How much does your child

value getting the laptop
March
May
December

not a lot
2.2%
0.4%
0.0%

0.4%
0.9%
0.4%

4.9%
8.8%
9.7%

9.7%
23.9%
24.8%

5
a great
deal
82.7%
65.9%
65.0%

Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Table 6.3.4 Perceived value of laptop prior to programme implementation

On asked about how much they perceived their children enjoyed schoolwork, prior to and
after implementation, the responses on Table 6.3.5 indicated a shift from the lower intervals
towards the mid-higher level (4). This meant that parents thought their children were enjoying
schoolwork more and in a greater degree than the students themselves indicated.

1
How much does your child
enjoy schoolwork
not a lot
March
4.4%
May
3.5%
December
0.0%

4.9%
4.0%
0.9%

23.0%
15.0%
16.4%

34.5%
53.1%
54.0%

5
a great
deal
33.2%
24.3%
28.8%

Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Table 6.3.5 Parents view on how much students enjoy schoolwork

In terms of laptop use we can see a significant increase in the number of students using the
computer more than two hours as compared to March, showing similar results to those expressed
by students. This means that parents are aware of the use their children are giving to the laptop
during the afternoons, nights and weekends. This is shown on Tables 6.3.6 and 6.3.7:

77

How much time per day on average

does your child use the computer
< 1 hour
1 hour
1 - 2 hours
> 2 hours
Total

March
28
53
103
42
226

%
12.4%
23.5%
45.6%
18.6%
100.0%

May
5
25
94
102
226

%
December %
2.2%
2
0.9%
11.1%
20
8.8%
41.6%
101
44.7%
45.1%
103
45.6%
100.0%
226
100.0%

Table 6.3.5 Parents view on how much students use the laptop at home

When does your child use

the computer most
Afternoons
Nights
Weekends
Holidays
Total

March
115
52
38
21
226

%
51%
23%
17%
9%
100%

May
120
53
40
13
226

%
53%
23%
18%
6%
100%

May
120
60
35
11
226

%
53%
27%
15%
5%
100%

Table 6.3.7 Parents view on the times students use the laptop at home

In terms of uses and applications, homework continues to be the preferred use, followed by the
Intranet and the Internet. There has been a decrease in the use of games, chat and email most
probably to parents closer monitoring and control at home:

Main uses your child gives

to the computer
Homework
Internet WWW
Internet Email
Internet Chat
Drill & practice
Tutorials
Games
Intranet
Other applications
Music
Videos

March
198
157
109
35
16
5
142
0
4
3
0

%
88.8
70.4
48.9
15.7
7.2
2.2
63.7
0.0
1.8
1.3
0.0

May
218
94
54
18
27
8
81
97
0
11
2

%
96.5
41.6
23.9
8.0
11.9
3.5
35.8
42.9
0.0
4.9
0.9

December
218
94
54
18
27
8
81
97
0
11
2

Table 6.3.8 Parents view on the applications students use at home

78

%
96.5
41.6
23.9
8.0
11.9
3.5
35.8
42.9
0.0
4.9
0.9

Parents were also asked about the problems they have perceived so far with the programme.
Most of the problems shown in Table 6.3.9 are related to technical breakdowns and home-school
connection (access to the Intranet from home). For many, the home-school problem lessened by
December but the technical breakdowns increased, as did other technical issues (battery problems,
technical support). Some problems were not mentioned by December which showed that the
school took action to resolve them while others increased significantly, like printing, children
spending more time on the computer at home, more control of access to unwanted material
needed, difficulty to study from laptop and others. An explanation for this would be that, by
December, parents were more aware of programme details and were able to participate in this
questionnaire with more knowledge and certainty.

What problems have you perceived so far with the programme?

Home-school access problems
Technical breakdowns
Lack of clear policies and regulations
Pupil disorganization
Insufficient technical support
Battery problems
machine too slow
backpack too heavy
more control in access of unwanted material, games, porn, etc.
more control in class
take longer doing HW
HW on Intranet different to given in class/not all HW on intranet
teachers not checking email, not receiving work or acknowledging
receipt of work
teachers refusing to use laptops
have textbooks too
difficult to study from laptop
Printing
children not being to adapt well to programme
ergonomic issues/ bad posture / eye strain
children spending too much time on laptops, not having breaks, not
having lunch

May
%
40.7%
33.6%
14.2%
13.3%
9.7%
4.0%
3.5%
2.2%
1.8%
1.8%
0.9%
0.9%

December
%
23.5%
36.3%
4.4%
10.2%
11.1%
6.6%
2.2%
5.3%
3.5%
1.8%
2.2%
0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%

0.9%
0.0%
4.4%
10.2%
1.3%
0.0%

0.4%

15.5%

Table 6.3.9 Parents view on the laptop programme problems

79

Finally, parents were asked for the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the Programme. In terms
of the educational benefits, the largest percentages go to improved IT and presentation skills
showing more enthusiasm to learn. In terms of the educational drawbacks, the list is longer but
mostly focused on the pupil distraction, the comparison of progress between laptop and nonlaptop groups and the apparent loss of acquired skills. Tables 6.310 and 6.3.11 show this view:

What educational benefits have you perceived so far?

Improved IT skills
Improved presentation skills
More enthusiasm to learn
Pupils working faster
Pupils extending their knowledge
Improved problem-solving skills
None
Pupils forced to a higher level of responsibility
Pupils receiving lesson in a more accurate way
Better ways to send work to teachers (email)
No enough information to evaluate at this point

May-Dec
%
66.37%
60.18%
57.52%
37.61%
36.28%
23.01%
2.65%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%

Table 6.3.10 Perceived benefits

What educational drawbacks have you perceived so

far?
Laptops leading to distraction
None
Laptops leading to loosing acquired skills
Laptop grades are lower than non-laptop

May Dec
%
31.86%
27.88%
20.35%
19.91%

Laptop groups not making the same progress as non-laptop

pupils not engaging in social/sporting activities at break
access to information is slow and pupils waste time
games should NOT be allowed
academic performance lower than year's
no teacher's comments about pupil's progress
lack of consistency, not all teachers accept laptop work
pupils don't know how to research
lack of control in class
slower to work
more and longer homework
non-laptop groups being discriminated

15.04%
0.88%
0.88%
0.88%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%

Table 6.3.11 Perceived drawbacks

80

Other ideas/comments and suggestions

A very long list of comments, positive and negative, and some ideas to improve the
programme was provided by parents. Some of the concerns also indicate that parents need time to
adjust to this new teaching-learning methodology. It is also a new paradigm for them and it is
interesting to notice how some still want to have the physical evidence of childrens learning in the
form of written material. Interestingly enough, financial issues were not a major concern.

School Communications

Send frequent comments, like in the prep book

Communications need to be more fluid
Teachers should communicate more with parents, especially if child is failing
More information to parents on how this new educational methodology should work
Do not rely only on computer communication with parents

Systems

Laptop breakages
Control applications which cause distraction in class
Battery discharges after half a day
Insufficient technical support
Slow access to information in classes
Home-school connection to be improved / problems
Improve control over e-mail and messages sent
Allow Chat but use it appropriately, it is a powerful tool
More spare parts
Machine has worn off too soon, paint, manufacturing defects, etc.
Machine too slow, increase laptop memory
Periodic random revisions, laptop checks

CSF / Intranet

Add activity attendance record

Constant updated information on the Intranet
Marking Bin difficult to use
Add a Help or Tutorial on how to use the Intranet
Confirmation of work sent via email or Marking Bin
Re-structure course pages so that it is easier to work, now opening too many pages to do a
piece of work, ineffective
Ban games
CSF to small and crowded
Provide attention after 5pm, from home, via email, telephone, etc.
Use headers, not banner page
81

Printout collection too slow

Allow colour printing
Allow printout collection at any time
More printers , decentralise printing

Financial

Intranet access increases phone bill

Scope

Worried about differences between laptop and non-laptop groups.

More information on laptop vs. non-laptop groups
All pupils should be in the programme

Teaching

Lack of teacher flexibility who don't understand lack of technical skills from children
Not all teachers motivated to use the laptop in class
Information on the Intranet different to the one given in class
Too much importance given to presentation instead of content
Teachers should be more proactive
All should use the Marking Bin
All should write the Homework on the Intranet
Better and more frequent use of computers by teachers
More research
Note-taking impractical, better study from books.
Lack of training, some teachers work better than others

Training

Keyboarding skills are essential

Lack of method to adapt to new system
Improve Internet surfing skills
Different levels of IT skills amongst staff and pupils

Security

Risky to carry laptop around school at all times

High risk in transporting laptop from home to school and vice versa
Better internal security

From the Classroom

To study from laptops is more difficult

Use laptops more
Use laptop in an integrated form
Non-laptop pupils making more progress than laptop pupils
More control in the classroom, pupils play when lessons are boring
82

Lower grades
Loss of skills, e.g. handwriting
HW takes longer to do
Improved IT skills
Encourage group work

Encourage reading
Add Maths exercises, examples and homework schedule
Students learning too much too fast, difficult to cope
Daily progress grades to be published
Too much homework given
More useful and interesting information on the Intranet
Work more at school and less at home

Ergonomics, health issues and attitudes

Eye strain, headaches

Anxiety, stress, tension, pressure
Sense of loss of control, child isolation, doesn't want to share with his parents
lack of organisation for some
Children lose less papers, there is more control
Not enjoying breaks, social and sporting life as before
Not longer enjoy doing homework for some
More enthusiasm in doing homework and learning for some
Backpack too heavy (10kg)
Sleep less because they stay late doing work
Pupils get easily distracted
Little or no free time
Child becoming obsessed with games and Internet surfing
Less family life, too much time on computers
Control access to unwanted material e.g. porn site
Family organisation problems, picking up due to security risks
Son is not happy, wants to change to non-laptop set
Son not mature enough to get the most out of the programme
Pupils become more independent
Acquired sense of responsibility and security in his work and studies

Others

Very satisfied with the initiative and implication in the present and future of the children's
education
Congratulate the school's effort to implement this programme
Valuable programme as it develops skills needed for the 21st century
They have the opportunity to make the difference academically
Real advantages will show in the coming years, at university and at work
Happy with implementation. Son shows more enthusiasm and interest.
Our son is working well with the laptop
Both our daughters are happy with the programme, no problems
We are optimistic, so far it has been advantageous for our daughter
83

Programme must continue

I believe it is going to be a success, fabulous idea.
The programme is very good, very good initiative
Congratulations! Effective effort which benefits my son.
School's responsibility to maintain a sustained progress with the programme
Programme not yet consolidated
No real academic benefits noticed
Loss of control, cannot check marked copybooks or work

Finally, the parental overall rating of the programme, shown on Table 6.3.12, was also positive,
in line with the teachers perspective, with 78.8% rating the programme 6+:

Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Average
Mode
Median

Frequency
0
0
4
16
28
57
50
33
21
17
226
(too low)

Total
0
0
12
64
140
342
350
264
189
170
1531
6.77
6
7

Table 6.3.12 Programme overall score

6.4 Lesson Observations

Lesson observations were done throughout the year, as planned in the methodology, trying to
fit the observation lessons in my free periods, and trying to select them at random but ensuring a
spread of lessons from different ability levels as well. However, a problem arose in S2 due to the
fact that there were four laptop sets, not three, so only a few lessons, from each ability set in S2,
were observed. Ideally, I should have observed an ability set from each laptop group per subject
but time constraints made it difficult, if not impossible, to organise.
84

The results were significant as in every lesson I attended, there was one form or another of
laptop and technology use. The form was also useful to help record information quickly but was, in
most occasions, used to record data after the lesson ended as I ended spending some time walking
around watching the students at work, especially in lessons were group work was set or were
individuals had to carry out research or individual activities.
Table 6.4.1 show the use of resources in the observed classrooms. Despite the perception that
not all teachers use laptops, in all lessons I observed laptops being used. However, they were not
used 100% of the time. In some lessons, teachers spent some non-laptop time (discussions,
explanations, etc) prior to starting laptop activities. In others, teachers used the lesson guidelines
published on the Intranet to start their class so laptops were practically used from start to end. A
more thorough laptop use study would have probably used the Flanders tally system to record
frequency of interaction with the device, e.g., every 15 seconds (Gay, 1996). But this would have
prevented me from observing other features of the lesson which I considered important for this
research.

Resource
Laptops
Projector
Whiteboard
Experiment equipment
Scanner
Digital camera
Textbooks
Control devices

% use
100.0%
53.8%
17.9%
7.7%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
0.0%

Table 6.4.1 Use of resources in the classroom

Regarding the types of activities in which students are engaged while working with the
laptops, it is interesting to see that the majority of activities are class exercises, whether on-line or
from Word worksheets, and then note-taking and research. Writing of texts or essays didnt
happen much, contrary to what I expected.
85

At the same time, other activities which I didnt consider under the initial option list were
observed. These were: class presentations, oral/guided discussions, revision activities, listening
comprehension, student group debates, knowledge-building, programming, directed practicals, drill
& practice and videos. This is illustrated in Table 6.4.2:
Activities
Exercises
Note-taking
Research
Reading
Essay/Text writing
Oral/guided discussions
Knowledge-building
Drill & Practice
Directed practicals/experiments
Class presentations
Videos
Revision activities
Listening comprehension
Student/group debates
Programming

%
51.3%
33.3%
30.8%
23.1%
15.4%
15.4%
15.4%
12.8%
10.3%
5.1%
5.1%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%

Table 6.4.2 Classroom activities

The other aspect observed was related to the software tools or applications. As expected,
word-processing and the Internet are the more frequently used. Like in the above case, other tools
were employed which were not on the option list, so they have also been included in Table 6.4.3
on the following page:
Software applications
Word processing
Internet
Intranet
PowerPoint
Drill & practice
Graphics
MindMan Personal
Spreadsheets
Modelling/simulations
Desktop Publishing
Omnigraph
Visio
Logo
Visual Basic

% use
59.0%
48.7%
41.0%
23.1%
12.8%
7.7%
7.7%
5.1%
5.1%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%

Table 6.4.3 Use of software applications in class

86

On the issue of lesson management, which seeks to indicate the style and methodology used by
teachers, it was important to see that, agreeing with student, teacher and parental perception, most
lessons were student-centred. At the same time, a great deal of individual work was observed. This
spread is shown on Table 6.4.4:

Lesson style
Student-centred
Individual work
Teacher-centred
Group work
Project work
Lectures

%
74.4%
66.7%
23.1%
20.5%
17.9%
2.6%

Table 6.4.4 Lesson management

The final items on the lesson observation form were rating scales for student attitudes and
overall effectiveness of use of the laptops and ICT in the classroom. These are all subjective items
so the points of view were discussed later with the teacher, especially those graded 3 or less, prior
to including them as part of the study. The attitude scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The
rating of the use of laptops in lessons ranged from 1 (not used) to 5 (very effective). Table 6.4.5
shows the average results:

Student Attitudes
On task
Active
Confident
Overall use and application of laptops
Effectiveness

Average score
3.72
3.74
3.77
Average score
3.74

Table 6.4.5 Attitude and Laptop use ratings

Coming out of the lesson observations I arrived at some important suggestions to improve the
learning process:

the need for adequate timing of activities, with a provision for students who finish
before the allocated time;
87

instructions for laptop activities need to be very clear to avoid constant disruption in
the learning activity, and they should be interesting and significant to the students;

when navigating through the web, a good idea is to provide a list of relevant web site to
avoid unnecessary distraction from free web surfing;

control distraction through engaging in non-academic activities is for the teacher to

walk around the classroom and avoid sitting down or a passive role;

when doing listening comprehension, students should use headphones to avoid further
distraction;

lecturing and teacher dominated lessons are to be avoided as the laptop then becomes
a mechanical device, not a thought-provoking, knowledge-building tool.

6.5 Interviews
As explained in the previous section, interviews were needed to clarify some of the responses
from the questionnaires and triangulate these with what was observed in the classroom. Because of
timetable constraints, these had to be scheduled during break times for students and during break
times or free periods for teachers. The only informal interviews were the ones held with parents.
From the interviews I managed to obtain significant information that clarified some of the
findings from the questionnaires. Because interviews were held in the mother tongue of
responders, I have taken the liberty to translate all student interviews and those from Peruvian
staff.

During teacher interviews, the question about how they felt about having the laptop to teach
was used as an ice-breaker but I found that it opened up to lengthy replies, most of which covered
several other questions. For example,
I feel laptops are a plus in school. They allow for a more personalised approach to teaching, which helps me
respond to individual difficulties in a more efficient way (male, foreign teacher).

88

I like using laptops to teach because it gives me access to a wide variety of resources, not just one book
(female, Peruvian teacher).
I think laptops lead to distraction, especially in bottom sets. They shouldnt be used there (female, foreign
teacher).
I like the laptop for administration purposes, it is a very useful data collecting and analysis tool, but for
teaching we still have a long way to go (male, Peruvian teacher).

The answers were consistent to those expressed in the questionnaires. More than one
mentioned the distraction factor as the major concern, with particular emphasis in the bottom
ability sets. This issue brought about the need for better tools or strategies to monitor student
laptop use in the class.
It is very difficult to control what students are doing on the screen and ensure they are on-task in the
classroom (male, Peruvian teacher).
Students have a tendency to get lost while surfing the Internet, they waste valuable class time (female,
foreign teacher).
Can we have a system to block the laptops if students are doing something illegal in the classroom?
(female, Peruvian teacher).
We need more training and strategies to detect student illegal activity. I feel that the moment I turn my back to
them, they are doing all sorts of non-academic stuff (male, foreign teacher).

This view about distraction was shared by the students as well. You get distracted while searching on
the web and teachers dont know how to monitor or control this (male student). Others suggested that the
school should put in place more strict restrictions, blocking more pages or creating access to a white list of
authorised sites (male student) and establish more severe sanctions for first time offenders so that hopefully they
will learn to behave (female student).
89

This gave an insight toward student feelings as their highly positive attitude towards receiving a
laptop, decreased by the end of the year. Half of the interviewed mentioned that it is too much of a
responsibility, too expensive if something happens and too distracting. There was certainly an element of fear
which prevented them from fully enjoying the benefits of having the laptop.

When it came to comment on the grades, most teachers felt that laptop students were
underachieving because of the distraction factor and because it is more difficult to study from the
laptop. But when confronted with the grade evidence suggesting this was not quite so, they stuck
to the fact that they believed that if students werent that distracted they would have achieved even better
results (male Peruvian teacher), thus acknowledging the laptops potential as a learning tool. It was
also suggested that Students in the top ability sets benefit more from the use of laptops than bottom sets (male
foreign teacher) but this statement was not supported by the grade evidence as it shows that in
most subjects, laptop bottom set students do marginally better than non-laptop students.

Positive feelings were also shared with respect to the students learning. For instance,
Interactive activities on the Internet and Intranet allow for more responsible, self paced development of students
learning (male, foreign teacher).
Students are becoming more independent learners and workers (male, Peruvian teacher).
It provides greater advantages in peer assessment, group work and collaboration (female, foreign
teacher).
Students improve their research skills which helps them learn more and better (female, Peruvian
teacher).

Some also students shared this positive feedback, stating that laptops are better, your grades go
up you learn more (female student) or you have all the information you need at hand and you can work with
90

multiple windows at the same time (male student) or you move faster through the syllabus, learning more things
and you have more resources to do better work. One even said that I learn more and better now because I like
to work with the laptop, I like how my work looks. It is nicer and I make fewer mistakes (female student).
Both, teachers and students also recognise the significant improvement in IT skills and
presentation of work:
there is an overall improvement in the quality of presentation and organization of students work (male
Peruvian teacher).
there is an improvement in students self-esteem as they can see more professional results (female
Peruvian teacher).
I feel more confident about my IT skills, I now know what to do it and I can do it faster (male student)
I have learnt to do many new things using my laptop. Thank you! (male student)

The problems mentioned during the interviews were basically all mentioned in the
questionnaires, corroborating the findings. However, a communications issue appeared which was
not mentioned before. It was claimed that students do not use the school e-mail system but their own
personal ones e.g. hotmail, and they miss important school or teacher communications (female foreign teacher)
and that students are not good communicators, in writing or verbally, and the Internet only worsens this (female
Peruvian teacher). This could not be observed during lesson time as access to those services is
forbidden in school to help reduce distraction. When students were asked about these issues
during their interview, they did acknowledge reading their personal e-mails much more than the
school one because I have all my contacts there (male student), and because it is more user-friendly and nice
(female student). However, when talking about their communication styles they said that everybody
talks like that now (male student), there is nothing wrong with it; we all understand each other (male
student) or it depends what they ask us to talk or write about sometimes we are simply not inspired! (female
student).
91

In general, both teachers and students felt prepared to work with laptops, especially at the end
of this first year because they have acquired first-hand experience; it is no longer about people
telling them how it should be but now the have their own success-failure stories to share. We are
generally on the right track, thought it might be two more years before we see it fully implemented (male foreign
teacher).I think the Laptop Programme should stay, I cannot see myself coming to school without my laptop!
(female student).

However, taking one of the issues which arose from the questionnaires, two of the teachers
who answered that they had no response as to whether their teaching methodology had changed
throughout the year, explained that their teaching methodology basically changed form lesson to
lesson and that they couldnt pinpoint it to an impact of the laptop programme.
Two other teachers who replied to this same question as having no changes in their teaching
methodology explained that they always had a student-centred approach, basically working on
projects and practical activities and that the laptop actually lent itself to their teaching style. One of
these teachers was an IT teacher and the other a Science teacher, corroborating in a way my
previous hypothesis.

Another item which needed cross-examining was the contradiction between some teachers
claiming that they had to spend more time in explanations while other said that they spent less.
One of the interviewed teachers from Maths, actually felt frustrated to waste approximately 10
minutes or more repeating instructions before any significant work could be done. He went on
explaining that not only do I need to explain the mathematical concept but now I also need to explain the IT
part, I wished the students knew exactly what to do (male Peruvian teacher). On the other hand, a History
teacher said that because it is all now published on the Intranet, I can start my lesson straight away, with little
explanation (female Peruvian teacher)
92

Another contradiction from the questionnaires referred to the time spent in planning or producing
material. While some teachers claimed it was more time consuming, others claimed it was easier
and faster. On interviewing staff, it became clear that this depended on several aspects:

teachers IT skills the more skilled, the easier and faster it was to plan and develop
laptop-based lessons, with or without the help of the CSF designers

the nature of the course some subjects required simple, straight forward material like
worksheets, online fill-in the gaps multiple choice exercises, while other required complex
learning paths or advanced resources such as animations, videos and/or audio.

The number of lessons per week departments with one or two periods a week had better
chance to plan or prepare lessons for the Intranet than subjects with daily lessons.

The availability of CSF designers sometimes the designers would be burdened with work
and unable to assist teachers in the planning and developing of material.

On asking teachers about the apparent decline in the use of Word-processing and the Internet
for research, they stated that at the beginning they used what they felt most comfortable and
knowledgeable with the Word-processor. But as the year progressed they started using other
applications, web site resources, material on the Intranet and in some cases specialist software.
Regarding the Internet, they said that they tried to keep research to only when necessary to prevent
distraction as much as possible and in some cases they preferred to leave the research for
homework.
One aspect mentioned by the students was that laptops werent used much in Maths and this
was corroborated during the interview to the Head of Maths, even though on every lesson
observed there was evidence of laptop use of one sort or another. He explained that it was
Departmental policy to use the laptops only once a week and to use drill & practice or specialist
Maths software to complement the traditional teaching because they believed that this subject is
93

best learnt by performing mental and manual calculations, drawing diagrams, solving problems on
the copybook and having that hardcopy to refer to for further practice and studying. He also
mentioned that it was not compulsory for the Maths teachers to comply with that one-period a
week laptop use because he didnt want to enforce anything upon them for the sake of doing what
ever everybody else was doing. They would take one step at a time and move cautiously because
Maths has always been a difficult subject for many students and they didnt want to risk having
more fails.

On the issue on program generalisation, all teachers interviewed said that they were positive
and in favour of the programme but that they would rather go slowly and have another year for
consolidating to iron out as many problems as possible before moving onto extending it to the
other students or the other years.

Table 6.5.1 shows a list of suggestions which arose from all these interviews:
TECHNICAL / RESOURCES
Design better, less heavier laptop bags
Change classroom desk layout to facilitate
monitoring
Improve printout collection

ACADEMIC / POLICY
Laptops from S3 onwards, S1 and S2 too young
Further training as to how to study effectively
with the laptop
Appoint an IT competent teacher within each
department to develop/plan materials for the
Intranet, needs a lighter timetable though
Provide access to publish own material on the
Intranet without having to request CSF
assistance
Develop more activities which encourage lateral
thinking, problem solving and true collaboration
More strict punishments from the beginning

Solve the power extension problem, fix plugs

on floor
Redefine printing policy and improve facilities
Find a system to help teachers control what
students do with their laptops in class

Define a very strict anti-plagiarism policy

Offer courses for teachers on applying IT in the
curriculum
Continue with IT teacher training courses (web
editing, imaging, animations, spreadsheets,
presentations, etc)
Continue with IT student training or skills
reinforcement through the IT subject
Table 6.5.1 Suggestions arising from interviews

94

During parental informal interviews the matters arising were primarily focused on distraction,
achievement, communications and technical problems/breakages. Parents want us to ensure that
distraction is prevented or kept to a minimum to avoid underachievement and disciplinary
sanctions. They also suggested carrying out periodic audits on the laptop contents to detect any
problems or illegal use early in the year.

On the matter of achievement, their main concern is that because all work is kept in the laptop,
they dont have easy access to check on their childs progress and the information on the Intranet
is not enough for them. They want to see the work, like they did on copybooks.

Regarding communications, parents are very happy with the Intranet and the way it is
constantly updated though it is growing fast and there are modules that parents are not even aware
they exist. The suggested an on-line course on the use of the Intranet for parents, to support their
children in the programme. Another concern is the e-mail communication. They requested the
school not to make a direct changeover from paper communication to electronic means because
not all parents have access to a computer, to an e-mail address and not all parents check e-mails
regularly. They suggest running a parallel system until parents are trained and have the facilities.

Finally, the technical issues are what cause certain anxiety because of the repair cost involved if
the incidents are due to negligence, or the cost of replacing a laptop if lost or stolen due to
negligence. This issue is what made parents move towards the more conservative intervals in the
attitudes scales on the questionnaires from May to December.

95

6.6 Grade Analysis

In order to discuss student achievement, three sets of data were analysed: average end of year
exam results, average final year performance and student fails. To understand and interpret this
raw data, it is presented by year group, comparing non-laptop versus laptop sets. Two subjects,
Physical Education and Art, were not considered in this study as they do not have standardized
testing at the end of the year and made no use of the laptops for learning throughout the year.
The statistical method chosen to analyse the scores is the mean or arithmetic average as we are
dealing with different size sets per year group and there are no extreme scores which could affect
significantly the result (Gay, 1996).

End of Year Examination and Final Year Performance Results

Due to the similar pattern shown by the grade evidence resulting from analysing both sets
of data, I decided to present them together to demonstrate the relation and consistency
between them.

Secondary 1
Looking into the end of year examination results, it can be inferred that these are marginally
better in most subjects for the non-laptop sets, except in Spanish, Science and, predictably, in
IT. Even though this is not enough evidence to determine a significant impact of the laptops
on student performance either way, from the chart on Figure 6.6.1, it can be seen that the
grades reflect the level of performance expected for each ability set, where top sets achieved
higher grades than the middle, mixed-ability sets in both laptop and non-laptop groups. Sets
S1B1 and S1L2, follow a similar achievement trend, and so do sets S1B2 and S1L3.
Regarding the final average year grades, as shown on Figure 6.6.2, these illustrate a similar
pattern of achievement to the end of year exams, where again, the laptop sets achieve higher
96

than non-laptop sets in Spanish, IT and Science. The results of the middle ability bands are
also consistent with the end of year examination results though the gap between sets
diminished in most subjects.
EOY Exams Comparative Chart - Secondary 1
20
18

Grade

16
14

S1A

12

S1L1
S1B1

10

S1L2

S1B2

S1L3

SCI

REL

MUS

MAT

IT

HIS

GEO

ENG

SPA

FRE

Subject

Figure 6.6.1 S1 End of Year Exam Average Results.

20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

S1A
S1L1
S1B1
S1L2
S1B2

SCI

REL

MUS

MAT

IT

HIS

GEO

FRE

ENG

S1L3

SPA

Grade

Final Grade Comparative Chart - Secondary 1

Subject

Figure 6.6.2 S1 Average Final Year Grades

Another aspect looked at was the number of examination fails per subject per set. Since
non-laptop and laptop sets differed in size, it was important to calculate the percentage of the
97

student population actually failing in each category.

This information showed a different behaviour. It can be clearly seen that in this case, more
non-laptop students failed end of year examinations than laptop students except in English,
Geography and Maths. Figure 6.6.3 show this distribution:

Percentage Exam Fails

S1 Laptop sets

Percentage Exam Fails

S1 Non-laptop sets

SPA, 15%
SCI, 26%

SCI, 18%

SPA, 11%

ENG, 0%

ENG, 5%
REL, 0%

FRE, 6%

MUS, 0%

FRE, 5%

GEO, 3%

GEO, 4%

REL, 0%
HIS, 0%

MUS, 0%

HIS, 0%
MAT, 23%

IT, 8%

IT, 6%

MAT, 18%

Figure 6.6.3 Percentage Exam Fails for S1 Laptop and Non-laptop sets

Secondary 2
In this year group, the results were quite different as even though, on average, it looks like
non-laptop set achieved higher average grades, when contrasting the same ability sets
independently it can be seen that laptop sets performed significantly better. Again, not
surprisingly, the IT grades in all laptop sets are better than the non-laptop sets for the same
ability band.
The achievement trends also follow the expected pattern for the top (S2A and S2L1) and
bottom ability sets (S2B and S2L4). However, the middle-ability set S2L3 under-performed in
the exams. This raised a point of concern as the achievement trendline shown was more
compatible with the low-ability sets.
Some other interesting issues to consider are that the top non-laptop set performed below
98

the top laptop set in all subjects but the bottom non-laptop set performed better than S2L3
and S2L4 in Spanish, English and Maths. This is better illustrated by the chart in Figure 6.6.4.

Grade

EOY Exams Comparative Chart - Secondary 2

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

S2A
S2L1
S2L2
S2L3
S2B
S2L4

SPA ENG FRE GEO

HIS

IT

MAT MUS REL

SCI

Subject

Figure 6.6.4 S2 End of Year Exam Average Results.

The same consistency of results can be found in S2s final average year grades, as shown in
the chart on Figure 6.6.5, with the laptop sets performing better than non-laptop sets.
Final Grade Comparative Chart - Secondary 2
20.0
18.0
16.0

S2A

Grade

14.0

S2L1

12.0

S2L2

10.0

S2L3

8.0

S2B

6.0

S2L4

4.0
2.0
0.0
SPA ENG FRE GEO HIS

IT

MAT MUS REL SCI AVG

Subject

Figure 6.6.5 S2 Average Final Year Grades

99

On analysing the number of examination fails per subject per set, it can be seen that the
non-laptop sets had less fails than the laptop sets except in IT and Science. However, it does
surprise the comparative high number of fails in IT in both laptop and non-laptop sets, which
could mean that it was as a result of the type or the level of the examination as it affected both
groups. Figure 6.6.6 show this distribution.

Percentage Exam Fails

S2 Non-Laptop sets

Percentage Exam Fails

S2 Laptop sets

SPA, 11%
SCI, 26%

SCI, 25%

ENG, 4%
FRE, 4%

REL, 0%

SPA, 15%

REL, 0%
ENG, 15%

GEO, 9%
MUS, 3%

MUS, 0%
HIS, 0%
MAT, 13%

FRE, 7%
MAT, 15%
GEO, 12%

IT, 23%

IT, 46%

HIS, 3%

Figure 6.6.6 Percentage Exam Fails for S2 Laptop and Non-laptop sets

Secondary 3
In this year group, the results were not compared on ability bands because the sets were
based on the IGCSE option blocks. So here it is interesting to notice that how, in almost all
cases, laptop sets performed better than non-laptop sets, especially in IT and Music. There is
however a gap in sets S3A and S3L1 regarding Music as no students in those blocks had this
subject as an option. Also, for S3, a new compulsory subject was introduced for all students,
regardless of their IGCSE options: Historia del Peru. These results are illustrated in the charts
on Figure 6.6.7.
The same consistency of results can be found in the spread of S3s final average year grades
as illustrated on the chart in Figure 6.6.8, showing close correlation between them.

100

EOY Exams Comparative Chart - Secondary 3

18.00
16.00
14.00

S3A

Grade

12.00

S3E

10.00

S3L1

8.00

S3L2

6.00

S3L3

4.00
2.00
0.00
SPA ENG FRE GEO H del HIS
P

IT

MAT MUS REL SCI

Subject

Figure 6.6.7 S3 End of Year Exam Average Results.

Final Grade Comparative Chart - Secondary 3

18.0
16.0
14.0

S3A

Grade

12.0

S3E

10.0

S3L1

8.0

S3L2

6.0

S3L3

4.0

AVG

SCI

REL

MUS

MAT

IT

HIS

H del P

GEO

FRE

SPA

0.0

ENG

2.0

Subject

Figure 6.6.8 S2 Average Final Year Grades

On analysing the number of examination fails per subject per set, as shown in the charts on
Figure 6.6.9, it can be seen that the non-laptop sets had more fails than the laptop sets, except
in IT where they had the same proportion of fails. This could be explained by the fact that,
contrary to the S1 and S2 IT course, the IGCSE Computer Studies course has a theoretical
component weighing 75% of the subject grade, so the influence of the laptop on the practical
101

aspect is not that significant as with the other years in which the practical component is 100%
of the course.

Percentage Exam Fails

S3 Laptop sets

Percentage Exam Fails

S3 Non-laptop sets

SCI, 16%

SCI, 29%

SPA, 34%

SPA, 15%

REL, 0%

REL, 0%
MUS, 3%

MUS, 0%
MAT, 1%

MAT, 3%

ENG, 20%

IT, 11%

IT, 11%
ENG, 26%
HIS, 11%

H del P, 13%

FRE, 0%

HIS, 6%

FRE, 0%

GEO, 9%

H del P, 12%

GEO, 13%

Figure 6.6.9 Percentage Exam Fails for S3Laptop and Non-laptop sets

Number of Student Fails

As explained earlier, the Senior Administration was also interested to see whether the
programme had any significant impact on the number of student fails at the end of the year.
Table 6.6.1 shows the frequency of individual student fails and the level of risk of repeating the
year, starting at three fails.

NO. OF FAILS
Automatic Year Fail

Recuperacion Exams
23

S1 Non Laptop

S1 Laptop

S2 Non Laptop

S2 Laptop

14

S3 Non Laptop

S3 Laptop

10

Table 6.6.1 Frequency of Year Fails for Laptop and Non-laptop sets

23

3 fails places a student under risk of failing the year. He/she has to sit recuperacion exams. If they fail the three, then they
fail the year.

102

From these results we can see that in S1 non-laptop, there were no year fails but two
students at risk, while in the laptop sets there was one automatic fail with 5 subject fails and
one at risk.
For S2 there were two non-laptop students automatically failing the year with 6 subject fails
and one laptop student with 5 subject fails. At risk, with 3 fails, there were two non-laptop and
three laptop set students.
In S3, there were two laptop students failing the year with 5 and 7 subject fails respectively
while there was only one with 4 fails in the non-laptop sets. At risk, with 3 fails, there were two
non-laptop and three laptop set students.
At the lower end of the fails statistics we can see that the laptop sets have predominantly
more students with 1 or 2 fails.
The failing student distribution is illustrated in the following charts on Figures 6.6.10, 6.6.11
and 6.6.12:

No. of Students

Frequency of S1 Individual Student Fails

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1

Num ber of Fails

S1 Non Laptop

S1 Laptop

Figure 6.6.10 S1 Frequency of fails fro Laptop and Non-laptop sets

103

No. of Students

Frequency of S2 Individual Student Fails

15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1

3
4
5
Num ber of Fails
S2 Non Laptop

S2 Laptop

Figure 6.6.11 S2 Frequency of fails for Laptop and Non-laptop sets

No. of Students

Frequency of S3 Individual Student Fails

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1

Num ber of Fails

S3 Non Laptop

S3 Laptop

Figure 6.6.12 S3 Frequency of fails for Laptop and Non-laptop sets

104

CONCLUSIONS
In carrying out this research, I wished to establish the impact of the Pilot Laptop Programme
on the teaching and learning at Markham College, measured by student, teacher and parent
attitudes and by student achievement. It was essential to capture the snapshot of feelings and level
of support to determine programme continuation and further extension.
The study focused on the laptop student and teacher population of the Upper School, excluding
my own classes as I used them as control groups to test the measurement instruments and to avoid
any possible bias in this respect.

I can say that the objectives of this study were fulfilled, identifying a complete picture of
student, teacher and parental attitudes towards the programme, which were generally positive, and
obtaining a series of indicators to measure the levels of success/failure in reference to the
pedagogical aspects of the programme; these being:

Teaching

methodology:

student-centred,

knowledge-building,

problem-solving,

empowering students

Student engagement, attitudes and achievement: collaborative work, active/enthusiastic

participation, learning beyond the classroom anytime, anywhere, improved academic
standards

ICT/On-line resources: quality and variety of teacher-designed resources on the

Intranet, use of the resources and appropriate software applications, use of projectors
or other ICT resources

Enhanced IT skills favouring teaching and learning

105

It is important to mention at this stage that the results gathered in this research cannot be
generalised to other schools as the data collected and methods used are particular to Markhams
context and its unique situation of being the first school in Peru, and Latin America, to pilot such a
programme for students in 2001.

The research has been a rather extensive and time-consuming exercise which will need to be
refined for future enquiries about the progress of the programme, now in its seventh year.
The greatest difficulty presented was conducting the lesson observations because of its timeconsuming nature, but at the same time it was the most rewarding experience because I could
actually see the programme operating in classrooms different to mine and I also learnt some
valuable tips from my colleagues. In addition, I spent some time designing and testing the lesson
observation form, but as I visited classrooms I found that even though I could check some items
for quick data entry, I ended up filling the form at the end of the period, especially if it was an
engaging lesson and I wanted to observe everything that was going on, especially student attitudes
and activities.

The interview guides also had to be refined because the questionnaires gave light to some
issues which had to be contrasted or validated. I also noticed that on asking the first question,
about their feelings of using a laptop to teach/learn, it provoked a series of answers which covered
some of the other questions on the guides, so in a couple of interviews, with that only question I
obtained more information than expected.
This demonstrates the level of cooperation and interest from teachers and students; whether
they were in favour or had concerns about the programme. They wanted to be listened to and they
were keen to be part of such pedagogical innovation.

106

The grade analysis results were probably the ones to consider more cautiously as one cannot
assure that the results of achievement were only as a result of the laptop programme. Comparing
grades with the previous years would not have helped either because the laptop/non-laptop
situation was particular to the year of the research. It would probably take a full four-year cycle to
measure results more accurately, incorporating external examination results as an international
standard.

Regarding the questionnaires, these proved very successful in the sense that we ensured 100%
return rate for students and teachers thanks to their publication on the Intranet. Parents were also
very helpful. After filling in the first questionnaire with help during matriculation, they were able to
fill the others via the Intranet, thus ensuring the high response rate. The data input on-line was
automatically recorded onto a database and from there extracted into an Excel sheet for the
present analysis. It was still time-consuming as we did three questionnaire sessions but it was
worthwhile because a great deal of meaningful information was collected.

Conclusions and Future Recommendations

The conclusions for this research and future recommendations for the Programme have been
organised around the following criteria, to help in future decision-making and action planning:

Implications for Teaching and Learning

Implications for Professional Development

Implications for Institutional Organisation and Administration

Implications for Teaching and Learning

From this research we can conclude that by the end of the first year of the Laptop Programme,
the majority of teachers had adopted the student-centred approach, moving away from the
107

traditional teacher-centred methodology. This meant that lessons were more dynamic, with
students taking an active part in the learning process. This also brought a different attitude to the
majority of the students who responded to a more motivating and enticing learning environment
by being more enthusiastic, enquiring and curious. For students who took this opportunity to
become better learners, these attitudes were a real advantage to improve their academic
achievement. However, for students who were too young or immature, or had difficulties with
their IT and/or organizational skills, these attitudes played against them as they were more prone
to distraction and low achievement.
The grade analysis shows results within expected boundaries according to the different ability
sets, with laptop sets performing slightly better than non-laptop sets in some subjects, and nonlaptop sets in others. Despite not showing a significant impact on grades either way (positive or
negative), there is a close relation between the distribution of grades of similar sets which indicates
a consistency in academic standards.
The other area that reflects an impact is on the teaching strategies and instructional activity
design. There is a significant shift towards interactive, project-based, collaborative, group work but
there is also an increase in the personal learning activities which favour the pursuing of individual
learning paths, where students can progress at their own pace. Because the material is available
through the Intranet 24-7, learning doesnt have to stop once the school day is over.
These are all positive signs of student empowerment which is one of the main objectives of the
programme.
However, what has not been observed is an element of inter-disciplinary integration. Teachers
are working hard but within their own subjects and collaborative efforts are also carried out within
the subject circle and this is an area to look at in the near future.

Analysing the impact on the use of ICT resources and learning material, we can conclude that
108

the school has made a tremendous effort to have these readily available for use in the classroom
and teachers and students are taking advantage of this. The published material is now more
interactive, multimedia in nature, to make it more attractive and dynamic, appealing to the different
learning styles and moving away from static worksheets and lectures. There is also a reasonable
provision of multimedia projectors and digital cameras which can be booked by teacher from the
CSF, for use in the classroom.
Heads of Department have also provided relevant specialist software to complement the
teaching-learning process. This ICT intensive environment contributes to enhance student and
teacher ICT skills as well, as they are applying a variety of ICT resources in a variety of situations.
These skills can be reinforced as needed because of the facility of having the laptop 24-7.

Recommendations:

Continue involving students in the knowledge-building process

Foster inter-disciplinary integration so that students do not learn in isolation but can
integrate knowledge to a variety of meaningful useful, activities

Develop activities which cater for different learning styles and abilities so that no child
feels left behind, frustrated or bored

Identify areas of the curriculum where laptops and ICT should be used to enhance
learning

Teachers must also take an active role, monitoring student activity in the classroom at
all times avoiding sitting behind a desk in a passive mode.

Design materials which are broken down into short, concise, interactive modules, for
easy reading and to avoid the temptation of bulk printing.

Work on extracting, summarising and organising information from a variety of

resources to avoid bulk printing

Reinforce student honesty and responsibility by establishing clear policies and sanction
scales. Define an Acceptable Use Agreement Form for the laptops and school systems

109

Implications for Professional Development

Despite having received training and a laptop for a whole year prior to programme
implementation, there is a feeling that teachers need further training. It is a shared view by teachers,
students and parents, that not all teachers know what to do or how to teach with laptops, there is a
lack of consistency. Some dont have a clear idea of how to design materials for the Intranet or
how to manage a laptop lessons, starting from the classroom layout and the screen monitoring.
In this pedagogical model, the teacher is a key element and acts as knowledge-facilitator or
knowledge-mediator, hence he/she must feel very secure of what his/her role is as the catalyst of
the learning process.

Recommendations

Establish a new teacher training scheme to incorporate elements of:

o sharing best-practice experiences, teaching strategies and classroom
management techniques
o designing on-line lessons and materials
o electronic assessment of student work
o assessment of digital resources: web sites, multimedia, software, etc.

Establish a system for teachers to set their own goals within departments

Implications for Institutional Organisation and Administration

One of the strongest reasons given by teachers which prevent them from being able to take full
advantage of the programme benefits is the lack of time. Between all the tasks teachers at
Markham have to do, apart from teaching, they need time to at least plan and design the materials
to be used, or search and evaluate existing resources to add them onto the Intranet. This can only
be done if the school administration makes some changes in the timetable to cater for that extra
time needed or sets aside specific time for departments to work on at least one on-line or elearning project.
110

The other problem the school administration faces is that of infrastructure as the current CSF
location is inadequate to serve the students and teachers in the pilot. This situation will become
worse if the programme is generalised as the CSF would have double the number of teachers and
students to attend, not only for technical service and support but also for collating and distributing
printouts, and managing the projector and digital camera bookings.
Finally, there is a need to establish/review the relevant policies and plan for regular programme
evaluations if the programme continues and is generalised.

Recommendations

Review the timetable allocation to cater for adequate time provision to dedicate it to online material planning, designing, producing, searching and evaluating.

Appoint one member of each department who can act as mentor for his/her colleagues
and who can be responsible for driving the use and application of ICT and laptops within
the department.

Review the location of the CSF, either expanding its service area or relocating the whole
office to a larger building.

Establish clear policies for the programme to include regular programme evaluation

Once all these issues are carefully addressed, we should see further improvement in student,
teacher and parent attitudes, guaranteeing extensive support to this programme. All of these
problems can be tackled with a clear action plan and not much investment, which is necessary to
ensure programme continuity, generalisation and success.

Taking into account that we are living in the 21st Century, in what Lewis (1948) in Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_village_(Internet)) calls the Global Village, or the
Information Society, where our children are all digital natives hand-in-hand with the latest
111

technological developments, and considering the latest educational trends, Markhams laptop
programme should be generalised to eliminate the laptop vs. non-laptop situation but starting a S2,
not S1 as they proved too young and immature. S2 would be the transition year prior to starting
IGCSE, so by S5 (LB or LN), the laptop would have completed its four-year cycle.

This study has demonstrated that the Laptop Programme has the potential to create new ways
of learning and teaching, in line with the new educational trends and the new skills the society
demands, and in line with Piagets, Moores and Kays pedagogical models which support these
initiatives.

112

REFERENCES

Bonifaz, A and Zucker, A (2004), Lessons Learned About Providing Laptops for All Students,
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), USA
Carnegie, J and Potts, C (1997), Getting Started: Implementing Notebook Computers in Education,
Victoria, Australia
Castells, M (2000), The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture.
Volume 1, 2nd Ed. Malden: Blackwell.
Castro, M (1998) ICT Development Preliminary Master Plan The Way Ahead in the Next Millennium,
Lima, Markham College
Cohen, L; Manion, L and Morrison, K (2000), Research Methods in Education, Routledge Falmer,
London
E-learning Nordic (2006), Impact of ICT on Education, Ramboll Management, Copenhagen,
Denmark
Gay, L.R (1996), Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application, 5th Ed., Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, USA
Herman, J.J and Herman, J.L (1994), Making Change Happen: Practical Planning for School Leaders,
Corwin Press, California, USA
Kay, A (1972), A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo
Alto, California, USA
Microsoft Corporation (2005), 1:1 Computing. A guidebook to help you make the right decisions,
http://www.microsoft.com/education/aal.mspx
Morales, M (2005), Soportes epistemolgicos educativos, Revista Limite, Ao V, No. 5, p. 43-48,
Universidad Nacional Jorge Basadre, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacin, Tacna, Per
NCREL (2003), 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners: Literacy in the Digital Age, North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group, USA
Papert, S (1993), The Childrens Machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer, New York, USA
Raymond, J & The New Curriculum (2002), Interview with David Loader, Former Principal Methodist
Ladies College, Victoria, Australia - Part I, www.newcurriculum.com/2002/int9-30.htm
Raymond, J & The New Curriculum (2002), Interview with David Loader, Former Principal Methodist
Ladies College, Victoria, Australia - Part II, www.newcurriculum.com/2002/int10-14.htm
113

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alba, J and Ardanuy, J. (2005), E-teaching vs. E-learning. Recursos educativos digitales para uso en el aula,
EDUINTER Grupo Planeta. Madrid, Espaa.
Barsaga, E. (2005), Developing and Using Indicators of ICT Use in Education,
http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ict/e-books/infoshare4/infotech_trends.pdf
Balanskat, A.; Blamire, R. and Kefala, S. (2006), The ICT Impact Report: A Review of Studies of
ICT Impact on Schools in Europe, European SchoolNet
British Educational Research Association (2000), Good Practice in Educational Research Writing,
BERA, UK
Boyd-Barret, O and Scanlon, E. (1990), Computers and Learning. Addison-Wesley. The Open
University Press.
Hill, J; Reeves, T and Heidemeier, H(2000),Ubiquitous Computing for Teaching, Learning and
Communicating: Trends, Issues & Recommendations, Department of Instructional Technology College of
Education, The University of Georgia, USA
Hitchcock, G; Hughes, D (1995), Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School-Based
Research. Routledge, New York.
Johnston, J; Barker, L (2002) Assessing the Impact of Technology in Teaching and Learning. A Sourcebook
for Evaluators, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
Kling A (1998), Information Haves and Have-Nots, Arguing in My Spare Time, No. 24
Markham College (1998), The Third Development Plan: the ICT Revolution, Lima, Markham College
Microsoft Corporation (1998), Anytime, Anywhere Learning: Planning for success,
www.microsoft.com/education/aalsupport.mspx
Municipalidad de Miraflores (2006), Educacin y Tecnologas de la Informacin. Miraflores,
Municipalidad de Miraflores.
Negroponte, N (1995), Being Digital, Alfred Knopf, New York, USA
Osgood, C. E. ; Tzeng, O.C. S. (1990), Language, Meaning, and Culture: The Selected Papers of C.E.
Osgood., Praeger Publishers. New York.
Papert S (1996), Computers in the classroom: Agents of change, The Washington Post Education Review
(27/10/96)
Passey, D., Steadman, S., Forsyth, K., Hutchison, D. and Scott, A. (1999). Anytime Anywhere
Learning Pilot Programme: A Microsoft UK Supported Programme in 28 Pilot Schools - Evaluation Synopsis.
Microsoft: Reading

114

Passey, D., Forsyth, K., Scott, A., Hutchison, D. and Steadman, S. (1999). Anytime Anywhere
Learning Pilot Programme: A Microsoft UK Supported Programme in 28 Pilot Schools - Evaluation Summary
Report. Microsoft: Reading
Rockman, S. et al (1997). Report of a Laptop Program Pilot - A Project for Anytime Anywhere Learning by
Microsoft Corporation: Notebook for Schools by Toshiba America Information Systems, Rockman et al: San
Francisco, CA
Rockman, S. et al (1998). Powerful Tools for Schooling: Second Year Study of the Laptop Program,
Rockman et al: San Francisco, CA
Snchez, J. (2000). Nuevas Tecnologas de la Infomacin y Comunicacin para la Construccin del Aprender,
Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
Tagg, B (1995), Developing a whole school IT Policy, London, Pitman Publishing.
Toshiba Co. (1998), Notebooks for Schools Program, www.csd.toshiba.com/ed_gov/index.html
Wallen, N; Fraenkel, J (2001), Educational Research: A Guide to the Process. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ

115

APPENDIX 1
Letter from Students

116

APPENDIX 2
2.1 Markham ICT Diploma Structure
The Markham ICT Diploma was been designed in order to provide all our teaching staff
with a level of competence in IT skills to:

research and test subject-specific software

research the Internet for educational resources
create their own learning and teaching resources using generic software applications
create multimedia presentations

Members of staff were required to attend the courses in the afternoon and sit the
examinations set for each Unit. After successful completion of the units, staff were awarded
an ICT Diploma with any of the following grades according to performance in the
examinations:

Pass
Good
Very Good

THE TRAINING FRAMEWORK

Unit 1: Basic Skills
Networking Basics (1 session), The Windows Environment (3 sessions)
Unit 2: Microsoft Office
Word for Windows (5 sessions), Excel for Windows (3 sessions), PowerPoint
Presentations (2 sessions)
Unit 3: Internet and Multimedia
The Internet (3 sessions), Multimedia (2 sessions)
Staff Attainment Levels
A. Basic Skills
Networking Basics: staff are expected to:
know what is a network, the sharing of resources and access to school provided
services
know how to gain access to the School's Network system: user name, password,
domain
how to map to network drives
understand elements of security and user rights
learn and apply the school's Acceptable Use Policy
The Windows Environment: staff are expected to
understand the concept of GUI (graphical user interface)
identify the elements of a GUI environment: desktop, window, mouse, icon, pointer
know the basic window operations: open, close, maximize, minimize, resize
work with several windows simulating multi-tasking
learn about the Control Panel and major window settings
117

learn to configure Printers

learn about file management: save, open, rename, delete, copy, preview, sort,
directories (folders), recycle bin, search
learn about accessories and system tools: disk cleanup, disk defragmentation
learn to transfer data from one storage device to another.

B. Windows Office
Word for Windows: staff are expected to:
create a new document, set page format, language and styles
edit a document, use short-cuts, icons and menu options
use the spell-checker and thesaurus, switch languages
scan and edit images
insert symbols, pictures and OLE objects
insert tables and columns, headers and footer, bullets and numbering
understand printing techniques
apply merging techniques to produce bulk letters
Excel for Windows: staff are expected to
handle data on a spreadsheet: text, numbers and formulas, referencing
format a spreadsheet: rows, columns, orders, shading, fonts, styles, hiding
use basic functions: IF, SUM, COUNT, AVG, MIN, MAX
create charts
sort and filter data
transfer data to a Word document

PowerPoint for Windows: staff are expected to

create a slide presentation: backgrounds, schemes, templates
edit text
insert images and objects
add transition and build effects
add hyperlinks and interactivity
C. Internet and Multimedia
The Internet: staff are expected to:
understand how the WWW works: web sites, servers, providers, filters
understand the Internet netiquette and jargon
use browsers and search engines
download academic material: text, images, sound, video, documents, software
use e-mail as a communication tool: sending, receiving, organising emails,
attachments, address book
use e-mail as an academic tool: collaborative project development
Multimedia: staff are expected to
recognise multimedia resources and evaluate academic potential
install multimedia programs on CD, make copies of CDs
create simple multimedia applications: PPT or Director

118

APPENDIX 3
Questionnaires, Interviews and Observation Forms
3.1 Staff Questionnaire
Implementation Stage 1 March 2001
Teacher Questionnaire

Laptop Pilot Programme March 2001 - Teacher Questionnaire

Department: __________________________________________________
Please rate your attitudes towards the programme prior to implementation by circling
around the best option:
Enthusiasm before implementation
Commitment to the programme
Impact of the programme

unenthusiastic

not committed

negative

Potential use of laptops

low potential

uncertain

uncertain

uncertain

uncertain

very enthusiastic

highly committed

highly positive

high potential

Which are your major fears / worries /concerns before implementation?

Divisive influence: laptop sets vs. non-laptop sets
Time to prepare materials / lessons
Technical issues
Battery life
Loss of traditional educational skills (reading, writing, etc.)
Marking / assessment methods
Staff training
Health issues
Others: ________________________________________________________________

How would you best describe your teaching style prior to the programme implementation?
Project-based
Interdisciplinary

Student-centred
Teacher-centred

How would you best describe your teaching methods prior to the programme
implementation?
Individual learning
Small groups

Large groups
Lectures
119

How confident are you about your IT skills?

1

not confident

very confident

___________________________________________________________________
How would you rate your present level of IT competency?
1

not competent

very competent

___________________________________________________________________
Which have been the most common use of IT Applications in the classroom before
implementation?
Word processing

Spreadsheets

Presentations (PPT)

Databases

Internet (research)

Internet (e-mail)

Internet (chat)

Drill & practice

Tutorials

Games

Modeling

Other uses: _____________________________________________________________

What percentage of classroom time did you allocate to computers before implementation
(use of labs, computers in classrooms) and how much time do you plan to allocate during
this pilot?

Prior
1 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%

Planned

1 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%

How often did you demand the use of computers for homework, presentation of work,
projects, etc.?
1
2
3
4
5
never

always

Additional Comments:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE !
120

Implementation Stage 2& 3 May/December 2001

Teacher Questionnaire

Laptop Pilot Programme Evaluation May / December 2001

Teacher Questionnaire
Name: __________________________________ Subject: ________________
Please rate your attitudes towards the laptop programme after implementation by circling
around the best option as it applies to you:
Enthusiasm after implementation

unenthusiastic

Commitment to the programme

not committed

Impact of the programme

negative

Potential use of laptops

uncertain

low potential

5
very enthusiastic

uncertain

uncertain

uncertain

highly committed

highly positive

high potential

Do you still have major fears / worries /concerns regarding this programme? _________
If YES, which?
Divisive influence: laptop sets vs. non-laptop sets
Time to prepare materials / lessons
Technical issues
Battery life
Loss of traditional educational skills (reading, writing, etc.)
Marking / assessment methods
Staff training
Health issues
Others: ________________________________________________________________
Have you felt prepared to teach with laptops?
Yes

No

More or less

___________________________________________________________________
Have you felt your teaching methodology change? _____ If YES, how?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
How confident are you about your IT skills now?
1

not confident

5
very confident

121

Have your IT skills been improved or enhanced?

Yes

No

More or less

_________________________________________________________________________
Which are the most common IT Applications used in the classroom now?
Word processing

Spreadsheets

Presentations (PPT)

Databases

Internet (research)

Internet (e-mail)

Internet (chat)

Drill & practice

Tutorials

Games

Modeling

Other uses: _____________________________________________________________

What percentage of classroom time have you allocated to the use of laptops within your
subject:

1 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%

____________________________________________________________________________
How often do you now demand the use of computers for homework, presentation of work,
projects, etc.?
1
2
3
4
5
never

always

____________________________________________________________________________
What are the problems you have faced so far in this programme?
Technical breakdowns
Insufficient technical support
Slow communications/access to information
Battery problems
Assessment issues
Material preparation
Material publication
Print out collection
Classroom management
Teaching strategies
Pupil disorganisation

Others (please specify): ___________________________________________________

122

What are the educational benefits you have seen so far throughout the programme?
None

More enthusiasm to learn

Pupils are working faster

Pupils are extending their knowledge beyond what is given to them in class

Improved IT skills

Improved presentation skills

Improved problem-solving skills

Others (please specify):

___________________________________________________________________________
What are the educational drawbacks you have seen so far throughout the programme?
None

Laptop groups are not making the same progress through

the syllabus as non-laptop groups

Laptops leading to distraction and little work can be covered

Laptops leading to pupils losing acquired skills (reading, writing)

Grades from laptop sets are lower than non-laptop sets

Others (please specify):

___________________________________________________________________________
Do you think the laptop programme should be extended to the rest of the school next year?
Yes
No
Dont know

Give an overall rating for the Laptop Programme, from 1(worst) to 10 (best):_______
Additional Comments/Suggestions:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE !

123

3.2 Student Questionnaires

Implementation Stage 1 March 2001
Pupil Questionnaire

Laptop Pilot Programme Evaluation March 2001

Pupil Questionnaire
Pupils Name: ______________________________________ Laptop Set: _________
Please rate your attitudes towards the programme prior to implementation by circling
around the best option:
Enthusiasm before implementation
Commitment to the programme

unenthusiastic

not committed

Impact of the programme

negative

Potential use of laptops

low potential

uncertain

uncertain

uncertain

uncertain

very enthusiastic

highly committed

highly positive

high potential

____________________________________________________________________________
What are your major fears / worries /concerns regarding this programme ?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

How confident are you about your IT skills?

1

not confident

very confident

____________________________________________________________________________
How would you rate your present level of IT competency?
1

not confident

very confident

____________________________________________________________________________
How would you describe the present teaching in the school?
1

traditional

modern

____________________________________________________________________________
How much do you value getting the laptop?
1

not a lot

3
124

a great deal

How much do you enjoy schoolwork at present?

1

not a lot

a great deal

____________________________________________________________________________
How confident are you about your IT skills?
1

not confident

very confident

____________________________________________________________________________
How would you rate your present level of IT competency?
1

not competent

very competent

____________________________________________________________________________
If you have a computer at home, how much time per day on average do you use it?

Less than 1 hour

1 hour
1 2 hours
more than 2 hours

____________________________________________________________________________
When do you use the computer most?

Afternoons
Nights
Weekends
Holidays

____________________________________________________________________________
What are the main uses you give to the computer at home?
Homework

Drill & practice

Internet (WWW)

Tutorials

Internet (e-mail)

Games

Internet (chat)

Other uses: ___________________________________________________________________

What percentage of classroom time do you use computers in subject areas other than IT
(use of labs, computers in classrooms)?

1 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%

____________________________________________________________________________
How often do your teachers demand the use of computers for homework, presentation of
work, projects, etc.?
1
2
3
4
5
never

always

125

How much work do you do collaboratively with other pupils?

1

not a lot

a great deal

____________________________________________________________________________
How much work do you do on your own?
1

not a lot

a great deal

Additional Comments:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE !

126

Implementation Stage 2&3 May/December 2001

Pupil Questionnaire

Laptop Pilot Programme Evaluation May /December 2001

Pupil Questionnaire
Pupils Name: ______________________________________ Laptop Set: _________
Please rate your attitudes towards the programme after implementation by circling around
the best option:
Enthusiasm after implementation
Commitment to the programme

unenthusiastic

not committed

Impact of the programme

negative

Potential use of laptops

low potential

uncertain

uncertain

uncertain

uncertain

very enthusiastic

highly committed

highly positive

high potential

____________________________________________________________________________
Do you still have any major fears / worries /concerns regarding this programme? If YES,
which?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Do you feel more competent with your IT skills?

Yes

No

____________________________________________________________________________
Do you feel your teachers were prepared to teach with laptops?
Yes

More or less

No

____________________________________________________________________________
How much are you enjoying schoolwork at present?
1

not a lot

a great deal

____________________________________________________________________________

127

What is the most valuable aspect of having your own laptop at school? Rank them in order
1 (most valuable) to 8 (less valuable).
- Using the wordprocessor instead of writing
- Internet access in all classes
- Intranet access in all classes
- Using laptops for regular assignments, not just special projects
- Email access
- Learning more IT skills
- Learning to use other software
- Having all your files readily accessible

- Others (please specify)

____________________________________________________________________________
Do you feel you are at disadvantage in any respect with the Non-Laptop groups? If YES,
mention how.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

What are the problems you have faced so far in this programme?
Personal / work organisation

Print out collection at CSF

Hard disk problems (defective)

Wireless card problems (no connectivity)

Software problems

Hibernation problems

Laptop freezes

Laptop breakage:
o Mainboard

o Wireless card

o Screen

- Laptop confiscation

- Losing components (adapters, cards, etc)

- Home-school connection (Internet/Intranet access)

- Others (please specify):
____________________________________________________________________________
-

How much time per day on average do you use your laptop at home now?
Less than 1 hour

1 hour

1 2 hours

more than 2 hours

____________________________________________________________________________

128

When do you use the computer most?

Afternoons

Nights

Weekends

Holidays

____________________________________________________________________________
What are the main uses you give to the computer at home?
Homework

Drill & practice

Internet (WWW)

Tutorials

Internet (e-mail)

Games

Internet (chat)

Intranet

Other uses: ___________________________________________________________________

During a typical school day, you are required to use the laptop:
In no classes

In four classes

In one class

In five classes

In two classes

In five or more classes

In three classes

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in English
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in Spanish
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in Maths
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in Science
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in Geography
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

129

I use my laptop in History

Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in French
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in Music
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
I use my laptop in Social Studies (His. Del Peru, Religion, Philosophy, Economics, etc.)
Less than once a week

Three times a week

Once a week

Four times a week

Twice a week

Five times a week

____________________________________________________________________________
How much work do you do collaboratively with other pupils now?
1

not a lot

a great deal

_________________________________________________________________________

How much work do you do on your own now?

1

not a lot

a great deal

_________________________________________________________________________

Are you glad you have laptops this year?

Yes
No
Dont know

Give an overall rating for the Laptop Programme, from 1 (worst) to 10 (best):_______
Additional Comments/Suggestions:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE !

130

3.3 Parents Questionnaire

Implementation Stage 1 March 2001

Parent Questionnaire

Laptop Pilot Programme Evaluation March 2001

Parent Questionnaire
Family Name: _____________________________________________________
Childrens Names
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Laptop Set

What were your reasons for opting to enter the laptop programme? Please circle the best
option for each question.
Cuales fueron sus razones para escoger ingresar al programa de porttiles? Por favor ponga un crculo alrededor de
la mejor opcin segn le sea aplicable:
Did not want to be at a disadvantage to other
students?/ No quera estar en desventaja con respecto a
otros estudiantes?
Considered it a financially good deal? / Lo consider
una oferta financieramente buena?
Were convinced the programme would provide
significant educational advantages? / Estaba
convencido de que el programa iba a proveer ventajas
educativas significativas?

not at all
de ninguna manera

not at all
de ninguna manera

not at all
de ninguna manera

uncertain
inseguro

uncertain
inseguro

uncertain
inseguro

definitely
definitivamente

5
definitely
definitivamente

definitely
definitivamente

Believed that facility with technology would be

1
2
3
4
5
at all
uncertain
definitely
important in working life in the future?/ Crey que denot
ninguna manera
inseguro
definitivamente
la facilidad con tecnologa sera importante en la vida
laboral en el futuro?
____________________________________________________________________________
Please rate your attitudes towards the laptop programme prior to implementation by
circling around the best option as it applies to you:
Por favor evale sus actitudes hacia el programa de computadoras porttiles antes de su implementacin poniendo un
crculo alrededor de la mejor opcin segn le sea aplicable:
Your enthusiasm for the programme / Su
entusiasmo por el programa
Your commitment to the programme / Su
compromiso al programa

131

unenthusiastic
sin entusiasmo

not committed
no comprometido

uncertain
inseguro

uncertain
inseguro

very enthusiastic
muy entusiasta

highly committed
muy comprometido

Your confidence in the impact of the programme

/ Su confianza en el impacto del programa

not confident
sin confianza

3
uncertain
inseguro

5
highly confident
mucha confianza

Your belief in the value of the programme/ Su

1
2
3
4
5
no
value
uncertain
very
high
value
creencia en el valor del programa
sin valor
inseguro
muy alto valor
___________________________________________________________________________
What are your major fears / worries /concerns regarding this programme? Cules son sus
principales temores /dudas/ preocupaciones con respecto al programa?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

How would you describe the present teaching in the school? Cmo describira la actual
metodologa de enseanza en el colegio?
1

very traditional
muy tradicional

very modern
muy moderna

___________________________________________________________________________
How would you describe the present home-school communication? Cmo describira la
comunicacin casa-colegio actualmente?
1

unsatisfactory
no satisfactoria

5
highly satisfactory
muy satisfactoria

___________________________________________________________________________
How much does your child value getting the laptop? Cunto valora su hija/o el recibir una
computadora porttil?
1
2
3
4
5
not a lot
no mucho

a great deal
bastante

___________________________________________________________________________
How much does your child enjoy schoolwork at present? Cunto disfruta su hija/o del trabajo en
el colegio actualmente?
1
2
3
4
5
not a lot
no mucho

a great deal
bastante

___________________________________________________________________________
If you have a computer at home, how much time per day on average does your child use
it? Si tiene una computadora en casa, cunto tiempo en promedio al da la utiliza su hija/o?
Less than 1 hour/ menos de 1 hora
1 hour/ 1 hora

1 2 hours/ 1 2 horas
more than 2 hours/ ms de 2 horas

___________________________________________________________________________
When does your child use the computer most? Cundo utiliza la computadora su hija/o con

mayor frecuencia?

Afternoons/ Tardes
Nights/ Noches

Weekends/ Fin de semana

Holidays/ Vacaciones

___________________________________________________________________________
132

What are the main uses your child gives to the computer at home? Cules son los principales usos
que le da su hija/o a la computadora en casa?
Homework/ tareas
Drill & practice/ didacticales
Internet (WWW)
Tutorials/ tutores
Internet (e-mail)
Games/ juegos
Internet (chat)

Other uses/ otros:________________________________________________________________

Additional Comments: Comentarios Adicionales:

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE !

GRACIAS POR COMPLETAR EL CUESTIONARIO!

133

Implementation Stage 2& May/December 2001

Parent Questionnaire

Laptop Pilot Programme Evaluation May /December 2001

Parent Questionnaire
Family Name: _____________________________________________________
Childrens Names
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Laptop Set

Please rate your attitudes towards the laptop programme after implementation by circling
around the best option as it applies to you:
Por favor evale sus actitudes hacia el programa de computadoras porttiles despus de su implementacin poniendo
un crculo alrededor de la mejor opcin segn le sea aplicable:
___________________________________________________________________________
Your enthusiasm for the programme / Su
entusiasmo por el programa
Your commitment to the programme / Su
compromiso al programa
Your confidence in the impact of the programme
/ Su confianza en el impacto del programa
Your belief in the value of the programme/ Su
creencia en el valor del programa

unenthusiastic
de ninguna manera
not committed
no comprometido
not confident
sin confianza

uncertain
inseguro
uncertain
inseguro

no value
sin valor

uncertain
inseguro

uncertain
inseguro

very enthusaistic
definitivamente

highly committed
muy comprometido

5
highly confident
mucha confianza

very high value

muy alto valor

Has there been an improvement in home-school communications after the

implementation of the programme? Ha habido una mejora en cuanto a la comunicacin casa-colegio
despus de la implementacin del programa?
Yes/ Si

No/ No

Dont know yet/ No s an

___________________________________________________________________________
How much does your child now value having the laptop? Cunto valora su hija/o ahora el tener
una computadora porttil?
1

not a lot

a great deal

___________________________________________________________________________
How much does your child enjoy schoolwork now? Cunto disfruta su hija/o del trabajo en el
colegio ahora?
1
2
3
4
5
not a lot

a great deal

___________________________________________________________________________

134

How much time per day on average does your child use the laptop at home? Cunto tiempo en

promedio al da utiliza la laptop su hija/o en casa?

Less than 1 hour/ menos de 1 hora

1 hour/ 1 hora

1 2 hours/ 1 2 horas
more than 2 hours/ ms de 2 horas

___________________________________________________________________________
When does your child use the laptop at home most? Cundo utiliza la laptop su hija/o en

casa con mayor frecuencia?

Afternoons/ Tardes
Nights/ Noches

Weekends/ Fin de semana

Holidays/ Vacaciones

___________________________________________________________________________
What are the main uses your child gives to the laptop at home? Cules son los principales usos
que le da su hija/o a la porttil en casa?
Homework/ tareas
Drill & practice/ didacticales
Internet (WWW)
Tutorials/ tutores
Internet (e-mail)
Games/ juegos
Internet (chat)

Other uses/ otros:________________________________________________________________

What are the problems you have perceived so far in this programme? Cules son los problemas
que han podido percibir hasta el momento con el programa?
Technical breakdowns/ Problemas tcnicos
Insufficent technical support/Soporte tcnico insuficiente
Home-school access problems/Problemas de acceso casa-colegio
Battery problems/ Problemas de batera
Pupil disorganisation/ Desorganizacin del alumno
Lack of clear policies and regulations/ Falta de una poltica y reglamentos claros

Others (please specify)/Otros(especificar):

___________________________________________________________________________
What are the educational benefits you have perceived so far in this programme? Cules son
los beneficios educativos que han podido percibir hasta el momento con el programa?
None/ Ninguno
More enthusiasm to learn/ mayor entusiasmo para aprender
Pupils are working faster/ los alumnos trabajan ms rpido
Pupils are extending their knowledge beyond what is given to them in class/
Los alumnos estn expandiendo sus conocimientos, ms all de lo visto en clase

Improved IT skills /Mejora en las destrezas de informticas

Improved presentation skills / mejora en las destrezas de presentacin

Improved problem-solving skills /Mejora en las destrezas de solucin de problemas

Others (please specify)/Otros(especificar):

___________________________________________________________________________

135

What are the educational drawbacks you have perceived far throughout the programme?
Cules son los inconvenientes educativos que han podido percibir hasta el momento con el programa?
None/ Ninguno
Laptop groups not making the same progress through the syllabus as non-laptop groups
Los grupos laptop no estn avanzando a travs del syllabus como los grupos sin laptop
Laptops leading to distraction and little work can be covered
Las laptops distraen a los alumnos y cubren poco trabajo en clase
Laptops leading to pupils losing acquired skills (reading, writing)
Las laptops estn haciendo que pierdan habilidades ya adquiridas (lectura, escritura)
Grades from laptop sets are lower than non-laptop sets
Las notas de grupos laptop son ms bajas que las de grupos sin laptop
Others (please specify)/Otros(especificar):________________________________________

What other information would you like to have available on the Intranet? Qu otra informacin
quisiera encontrar disponible en la Intranet?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Give an overall rating for the Laptop Programme, from 1(worst) to 10 (best):_______
Calificacin general del Programa Laptop, de 1 (peor) a 10 (mejor): __________
Additional Comments: Comentarios Adicionales:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

GRACIAS POR COMPLETAR EL CUESTIONARIO

136

3.4 Laptop Lesson Observation Form

Date:

Laptop Lesson Observation Form

Subject:

Teacher:

No. Students

Class:

Time observed:

Title of Lesson:
Resources in use: (check all which apply)

Type of Activity (check all which apply):

Multimedia projector

Essay/text writing

Laptops

Note-taking

Whiteboard

Research

Control devices

Exercise solving/practice

Reading

Other: __________________________

Other: _________________________________
Software tools: (check all which apply)
Word processor

Databases

Spreadsheets

Graphics

Presentations

Desktop Publishing

Drill & Practice

Tutorials

Modeling/Simulation

Educational Games

Intranet (lesson)

Internet (search)

Internet (email)

Other: ____________________________________

Lesson Management (tick where appropriate):

Teacher-centred

Student-centred

Individual work

Lecture

Group work

Project-based

Student attitudes: (1 not observed, 5 always). In general, students in the class were:
On-task

Participating Actively

Working confidently

Rate the overall use and application of laptops and ICT in this lesson (circle best option):
1
Not Used

2
Ineffective

3
Used

4
Effective

5
Very effective

FURTHER COMMENTS:

Indicator explanation for overall use and application:

1 - Not used
2 - Ineffective: used, but ineffectively, for teaching & learning. No real purpose or need for use
3 - Used: its use provides no enhancement compared to non-laptop/non-ICT methods
4 - Effective: its use enhances teaching and learning
5 - Very effective: model lesson, its use enhances teaching and learning greatly

137

3.5 Interview Guides

The following questions are only intended as guidelines in case the responder is not very
communicative or cooperative. Students and staff will be encouraged to express all their
points of view on the programme.
Student interview guide
1. How do you feel about having a laptop?
2. What are your major fears, if any?
3. Do you think you are learning more and/or better with laptops?
4. How are your grades? Better, worse, the same?
5. What is your major problem when using laptops in class if any?
6. Do you think your teachers are well-prepared to teach with laptops ?
7. What are the things you dislike about laptops?
8. What are the things you like most about laptops?
9. Do you have any suggestions for the laptop programme for next year?

Teacher interview guide

1. How do you feel about having a laptop to teach?
2. What are your major fears or doubts about the programme, if any?
3. Do you think your students are learning more or better with laptops?
4. Have you noticed any significant change in your student grades? Better, worse, the same?
In comparison with non-laptop sets?
5. What is the major problem when using laptops in class, if any?
6. Do you think the students are well-prepared to use laptops as a learning tool?
7. What are the things you dislike about laptops?
8. What are the things you like most about laptops?
9. Do you have any suggestions for the laptop programme for next year?
138

APPENDIX 4
TABLES OF COLLECTED DATA

4.1 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS (EXCEL EXTRACT)

login

q1a

q1b

q1c

q1d

q1e

q1f

q1g

q1h

q1i

q1j

q1k

q2a

q2b

q2c

q2d

q2e

zambrano

young

yika

wilkinso

westphal

wartnaby

ventura

varillas

thompson

tafur

stell

4.2 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS (EXCEL EXTRACT)

TUTGROU
P

FULLNAME

login

q
1
a

q1
b

q1
c

q1
d

q1
e

q1
f

q1
g

q1
h

S3A

ABDALA CARRILLO, Ismael Eugenio

abdalai

S3A

ACCAME LOAYZA, Arturo Andrs

accamea

S2A3

ACCAME LOAYZA, Diego Antonio

accamed

S2A3

AGUILAR LYNCH, Maria Gracia

aguilamg

S3A

AGUIRRE MARTENS, Andrea Marisol

aguirra

S3A

ALARCN VILLARN, Rossana Mara

alarcor

S3A

ALVA BERNARDINI, Diego Aurelio

alvad

S2B2

ALVA VERDUGO, Francesco

alvaf

S2B3

ALVAREZ CARRANZA, Rodrigo

alvarer

S2A3

ALVITES VILLA, Alessandra

alvitea

S2A1

AMAYO GUIMET, Mariel Mirtha

amayom

S2A1

ARAMBUR SAMANEZ, Nicols

arambun

S3A

ARAUJO GAVIRIA, Daniela

araujod

S2A3

ARELLANO ZUBIATE, Alejandra

arellaa

S3A

arevalr

S2B1

ARVALO TESTINO, Rodrigo

ARREDONDO CASTRO MENDIVIL,
Alfredo

arredoa

S2B2

ASCENZO MC CALLUM, Ursula Pamela

ascenzu

S2A1

ATUESTA PRADILLA, Diego Francisco

atuestd

S2B1

AVILA PEREDA, Armando

avilaa

S3A

BALLN-LANDA AMPUERO, Camila

ballonc

139

4.3 PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS (EXCEL EXTRACT)

login

q1a

q1b

q1c

q1d

q1e

q1f

q1g

q1h

q1i

q2a

q2b

q2c

acc1484

q1

ada2486

agu0083

agu0087

alb2370

alm1361

alv3845

ama4254

ara0273

ara1181

bar0897

beb0876

bor0798

bus2275

cac1157

visito
frecuentemente
la intranet

sugiero poner
la pagina web
en dos
idiomas...ingles
y espaol,

4.4 LESSON OBSERVATION RESULTS (EXCEL EXTRACT)

English
English
English
English
English
French
French
French
Geogra
phy
Geogra
phy
Geogra
phy

CRN
RVS
CRN
MSN
WLK
PAZ
LAF
WES

History
History

ANW
AND

History

AND

HUS
HUS
HPK

S1enL3

2-May-01

S1geL1

2-Apr-01

S3geL1

21-Mar01

S3geL3

17-Apr-01

S1hiL3

26-Apr-01
14-Mar01

S2hiL2

S1enL2
S2enL1
S2enL4
S3enL1
S3enL2
S1frL2
S2frL3
S3frL3

S3hiL3

45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

45

45

45

45
45
45

1
1
1

140

1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

presentation
oral discussions

Other

Reading

Exercises

Essay_Text

Other

Control

Whiteboard

Laptops

Projector

TIME

CLASS

DATE
5-Jun-01
23-Mar01
14-Jun-01
5-Jun-01
12-Jun-01
3-May-01
19-Apr-01
3-Oct-01
4-May-01

Research

SHA

ACTIVITY

Notes

English

TEA

SUBJECT

RESOURCE

1
1
1

revision
feedback of findings
oral comprehension

oral discussion
worksheets, guided
discussion
worksheets, student
group debates
documents in public
folders
construct maps
discussion, concept
map

4.5 INTERVIEWS RECORDING

Meetings with pupils after Laptop Survey
Date
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
24/05/01
25/05/01
25/05/01
25/05/01

Name
Alejandra Llosa
Camila Balln-Landa
Ismael Abdala
Stefano De Filippi
Gonzalo Garca Arbocc
Mauricio Glover
Pierre Montauban
Mathias Hernandez
Vicente Tulliano
Johann Vargas
Julio Poppe
Lucia Seminario
Pamela Talledo
Juan Pedro de Osma
Jonathan Goldin
Ian Bayly

Class
S1L1
S1L1
S1L1
S1L2
S1L2
S1L2
S1L3
S2L1
S2L2
S2L3
S2L3
S2L2
S2L2
S2L4
S2L4
S3L1

Hour
10:10
10:15
10:20
12:45
12:50
12:55
1:00
1:05
1:10
1:15
1:20
Any break with laptop
Any break with laptop
10:10
10:15
10:20

ORIGINAL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS IN SPANISH

Cosas que ya sabian, no era algo que recontra ayuda confusion en opciones
Hay profes que tienen mayor control que otros
Restricciones OK
Maletin mala calidad pero buen diseo bolsillo afuera
No te gusta laptops sientes que te distraes a la hora de research, OK, pero para
trabajar mas dificil, los profesores no monitorean
Geografia Ciencias DT
Hubiera sido peor sin las restricciones bolsillo adelante
Curso util, poco complicada poco confusas las preguntas
INSET ahora despus los exmenes
Interesante, mas responsabilidad, mas aprendizaje, por el research, y ano solo es el
professor...ampliar conocimientos auditorias deben continuar restricciones OK
pero en tu casa debes poder tener mas libertad necesitan aprender aunque sea a
castigos dejar jugar como es su laptop piensan que pueden hacer lo que
quieren
Curso util, OK examen no tan necesario.
Mala calidad, estuche que sea parte integral del maletin o con un gancho.
Muy bueno, igual. Mas oportunidades el ao mas dificil que el primero
Algunos no saben realmente como dirigir la actividad, muy libre, busqueda
Faltan tecnicas para monitorear.
Dificil la responasabilidad de estar llevandola pero mas facil estudiar, por acceso a
Internet notas han mejorado, aprendes mas por tu cuenta pero los profesores
enseen menos y dejan ms tareas menos proyectos.
Mas restricciones, muchas distraccin si la clase es Buena, uno trabaja, sino se
distrae la mayoria de profes si saben pero otros no saben como usarla en clase
Curso de induccin fue util, vale la pena, preguntas menos capciosas memory key
es una oportunidad para romper reglas y pasar de todo.

141

S1A

SPA
13.63

ENG
16.13

FRE
16.92

GEO
18.17

HIS
18.25

IT
15.58

MAT
17.00

MUS
18.17

REL
16.74

SCI
13.33

AVG
16.29

S1B1

12.83

13.53

13.26

13.44

15.58

11.68

11.22

15.00

13.79

10.72

13.19

S1B2

10.63

13.47

12.37

16.11

15.95

14.47

11.95

15.63

15.63

12.00

13.82

12.36

14.38

14.18

15.91

16.59

13.91

13.39

16.27

15.39

12.02

14.43

15.27
12.45
11.48
13.06

15.17
13.10
12.43
13.57

16.40
13.79
12.19
14.13

16.73
13.55
15.52
15.27

18.30
16.03
15.14
16.49

17.20
12.55
13.95
14.57

15.03
11.90
11.57
12.83

17.40
14.90
15.48
15.92

16.72
14.55
14.33
15.20

14.30
12.76
11.05
12.70

16.28
13.64
13.35
14.43

Laptop sets

Non-laptop
sets

4.4 END OF YEAR AVERAGE EXAMINATION RESULTS

S1L1
S1L2
S1L3

Laptop sets

Non-laptop
sets

4.5 FINAL YEAR AVERAGE RESULTS

S1A

SPA
14.5

ENG
16.4

FRE
16.6

GEO
17.5

HIS
17.7

IT
14.7

MAT
16.4

MUS
17.7

REL
16.7

SCI
14.0

AVG
16.1

S1B1

12.6

14.3

13.4

14.2

14.8

12.7

12.1

15.0

13.8

11.8

13.5

S1B2

11.8

14.2

12.5

15.2

15.1

13.1

12.5

15.3

15.6

12.4

13.8

13.0

15.0

14.2

15.6

15.9

13.5

13.7

16.0

15.4

12.7

14.5

15.5
12.4
11.9
13.3

15.7
13.8
13.1
14.2

16.2
13.6
12.9
14.2

16.5
13.8
15.4
15.3

17.1
15.8
14.4
15.7

16.0
12.6
13.1
13.9

15.3
12.7
12.1
13.4

17.6
15.0
14.9
15.8

16.7
14.6
14.3
15.2

15.2
13.5
12.0
13.6

16.2
13.8
13.4
14.5

S1L1
S1L2
S1L3

142