Before going any further, even this summary data provides some opportunity for reflection. First, it is
apparent that a wide range of 1-to- 1 experience exists across the IRC schools with ASB in their eleventh
year of implementation and other schools across a range of years. Second, most schools typically focused
their 1-to- 1 programs on their upper grades, with ASB as the only Cohort 1 school with a school-wide 1-
to- 1 initiative. Third, looking at the relative maturity of the 1-to- 1 programs across grade levels, two
implementation patterns are apparent. ASB, SAS, and ZIS launched their 1-to- 1 program across multiple
grade levels simultaneously while CAC, FIS, and Graded, launched their programs with just one (or two)
grade levels and expanded annually. As the IRC tech study grows to include a wider range of school
programs, device types, and implementation approaches, the resulting data may yield new insights about
the particular challenges or benefits associated with different approaches.
What We Are Learning
In the remaining pages we highlight a tiny fraction of the range of first-year results that have been
generated for formal IRC reports, presented at professional conferences, and explored formally and
informally with each partner school. Space limitations prevent much more than a cursory summary of
such myriad results. Although we hope the examples shared here are interesting and illuminative to a
general audience, our purpose in sharing them is as much to demonstrate their potential and capacity for
In short, the results presented here were culled from the 802 K- 12 classroom teachers and the 5,127 grade
4-12 students who completed the Spring 2013 surveys across the six Cohort 1 schools. The overall teacher
survey response rate was 80% while the student response rate was 77%. Given these response rates, we
can be reasonably sure that the practices and sentiments reported represents the majority population of
our partner schools.
In the following figures and tables, we report the frequency of different technology practices using a 0 to
180 point scale. This scale estimates the number of instructional school days in a typical school year, so
that teachers’ and students’ survey responses were coded as Never = 0; A couple times a year = 2; Once
every couple weeks = 18; At least every week = 36; A couple times a week = 72; Every day = 180. When
examining individual survey respondents, such a scale conversion should be interpreted cautiously, but
for quantifying use across large numbers of survey respondents, such an approach provides a more
realistic representation of frequency.
In Figure 2 we introduce the Year 1 results by summarizing how frequently students from upper
elementary (grade 4-5), middle school (grade 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12) reported using
computer-based technology (i.e. tablets, laptops) in their different classes. Also presented in Figure 2 is
students’ estimate of their teachers’ use of technology in these same classes.