1. Challenges and Opportunities in the First Year of a 1:1 iPad Initiative in a High Poverty, Highly Diverse Urban High School Gayle Y. Thieman, Ed.D. Portland State University Tatiana Cevallos, George Fox University Motaki Hara, Ph.D. Portland State University Rurik Nackerud, Portland State University

2. 21 st Century Goals and Limitations “Teachers must leverage technology to provide engaging and powerful learning experiences and content, as well as resources and assessments that measure student achievement in more complete, authentic, and meaningful ways.” National Education Technology Plan (US Department of Education, 2010) The digital divide between technology-mediated instruction for students in low and high socio-economic schools is a serious equity issue with repercussions for student learning. (DeWitt, 2007)

3. Urban High School 1:1 iPad Initiative 2011-2014 Urban District received a grant to improve the quality of and access to technology tools and resources and result in improved student attendance, behavior, and academic achievement reduce the disparities in technology access and instruction among low-income students by providing an iPad to each ninth and tenth grade student at Urban High School.

4. Urban High School Two-year, mixed method study of impact of providing 1:1 iPad to each student 80% poverty rate 68% identified minority group 30% homeless 37% meeting graduation criteria

5. Literature Review Digital Divide and Impact on Student Learning Research on 1:1 laptop initiatives  When used as essential curriculum tools, student achievement increased  When technology is supplemental, no impact on student learning (Norris, Hossain, Solloway, 2012) Research on 1:1 iPad initiatives  Focus on reports of instructional applications of iPads and student engagement and satisfaction (Reid & Ostashewski, 2011; NAACE, 2012)  Few studies Identified Improving Learning Outcomes as a Project Rationale (Balanskat et al, 2013)

6. Research Gap Potential of 1:1 iPads to reduce the digital divide in access to high quality technology access and instruction for low income, racially and linguistically diverse students Impact of iPad technology on students’ attendance and academic achievement

7. Research Questions What is the impact of the 1:1 iPad project on students’ access, skills and experiences, and use of technology? Relation between demographic and academic variables and equitable iPad access Relation between iPad access and student responses on survey of their technology skills & experiences Relation between iPad access and student responses on technology use survey

8. Research Questions What is the impact of the 1:1 iPad project on students’ attendance and GPA? Relation between iPad access and attendance and GPA Relation between student responses on survey of their technology skills & experiences to attendance and GPA Relation between student responses on technology use survey and attendance and GPA

9. Data Sources Initial survey of all grade 9- 11students about their experience and attitudes toward technology Fall, spring 2012-2014 Weekly student technology use surveys District data on student demographics, special education and ELL status, attendance, GPA, test scores

10. Student Characteristics 2012-13 N=426 Ninth 58%Tenth 42% Black 23%Hispanic ??White 56%Other 21% Male 58%Female 42% Hispanic 34%Non Hisp 66% TAG 6%Not TAG 94% Spec Ed 20%Not SPED 80% Acad Prior 59%Not Acad P 41% ELL Ident 12%Not ELL 82% Take Home iPad 40% Class iPad 60%

11. Student Characteristics 2013-14 N=752 Ninth 39%Tenth 35%Eleventh 26% Black 21%Hispanic 17%White 44%Other 18% Male 56%Female 44% Hispanic 36%NonHisp 64% TAG 7%Not TAG 93% Spec Ed 21%Not SPED 79% Acad Prior 51%Not AP 49% ELL Ident 15%Not ELL 85% Take Home 59% iPad Class iPad 41%

12. 1. Among 2012-2013 students (9 th 10 th ) what influences access to a Take Home iPad? N=426 Chi Square analysis: No statistically significant difference in access across Gender Ethnicity First Language Special education Talented & Gifted Students were more likely to have THP if they were ninth graders white Identified as ELL NOT identified as Academic Priority GPA of 2.0 and above

13. 1. Among 2013-2014 students (9 th 10 th 11th) what influences access to a Take Home iPad? N= 752 Chi Square analysis: No statistically significant difference in access across Gender Ethnicity First Language Special education ELL status Students were more likely to have THP if they were Ninth graders Asian, Hispanic or white Talented and Gifted Not identified as Academic Priority

14. 2. What is the impact of access to a THP on students’ technology experiences and skills? Fall 2012 survey N= 243 and Spring 2013 N=106 ATTITUDE INDEX Students with THP Greater proficiency and satisfaction with iPad HELPFULNESS INDEX Doing homework Writing assignments Communicating, collaborating Organizing school work Staying motivated/engaged EASE OF USE Turn in homework Complete writing Create content Install apps Add music Take care of iPad Communicate (email, chat, blog) Connect wirelessly

15. What is the impact of access to a THP on students’ technology experiences and skills? Fall 2012 survey N= 243 and Spring 2013 N=106 Frequency of Use in School 1: no classes 2: 1-2 classes/week 3: 3-5 classes/week 4: in every class/week Significant difference between students with THP (mean2.50) and no THP (mean 1.96) t (104) = -4.42 p=<.001 Frequency of Use outside of School 1: never 2: once a week 3: 2-3 times/week 4. every day Homework, communicate, create videos, find information, watch videos, play games, listen to music, use social media

16. 3. To what degree does access to a Take Home iPad impact EL students’ attendance and GPA in 2013-14? N=112 ELL students T Test compared Mean attendance and GPA for 2 groups (THP; no THP) No sig difference GPA Sig difference attendance t(68.63) = -3.18, p=.002 EL students who had a THP had slightly higher attendance rate than EL without THP Regression analysis of GPA on access to THP not significant Regression of attendance on access to THP significant p=.001 R (.304) moderate positive relationship between students with THP/attendance R2 (.093) 9.3% of variation in attendance explained by access to THP

17. How did students use the iPads in 2013-14? N= 416 surveys completed by 215 students Fall Term Students reported using 28 different applications Top 4 APPS: Google Drive Web Browser Schoology learning management Youtube Students reported 16 different activities Top 5 activities Writing Reading Doing research Taking notes Listening to music Statistically significant difference between students with THP vs cart

18. LIMITATIONS School-wide 59% have THP Varying sample size for surveys Technology experience survey (participation varied Fall/Spring) Technology use survey (29%responded at least once) High turn-over rate of RHS population means smaller N of students who can be included in two-year study Classroom observations and teacher focus groups indicate sporadic and limited use of iPads for instruction across subjects and teachers Inadequate technology professional development for teachers

19. Scholarly Significance Research focuses on issue of digital equity not yet studied in depth for 1:1 iPads Most districts are private schools or public schools that serve upper middle class students Most studies focus on teacher and student reports of engagement and satisfaction Very few studies identified improving learning outcomes as a project rationale