You are here

One to One Technology and its Effect on Student Academic Achievement and Motivation

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
This research was a quantitative study using 4th grade participants from a Title 1 elementary school in Central Illinois. This study set out to determine whether one to one technology (1:1 will be used hereafter) truly impacts and effects the academic achievement of students. This study’s second goal was to determine whether 1:1 Technology also effects student motivation to learn. Data was gathered from students participating in this study through the Pearson enVision Math series with Topic Tests, Discovery Education Assessment results, and attendance records being used. The results show that 1:1 Technology could be a factor in student academic achievement and motivation to be at school. These findings are important due to the technological shift that schools are currently facing. With more technology exposure for students and more professional development for teachers to hone their newly acquired teaching methods, 1:1 Technology may be the catalyst needed for school districts to help their students achieve at higher levels.



Amelink, C., Scales, G., & Tront, J. (2012). Student use of the Tablet PC: Impact on student learning behaviors. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(1), 1-17.
Barrios, T. (2004). Laptops for learning: final report and recommendations of the laptops for learning task force. Retrieved on 18 October 2007 from
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. International Society for Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43.
Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes, and consequences of laptop computing in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 359-378.
Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263-286.
Duncan, A. (2009, July 24). Education reform’s moon shot. The Washington Post. Retrieved on 22 February 2016 from
Edwards, M. (2012). Our digital conversion. Education Digest, 78(1), 4-9.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, H.R. 1804. (1994). Retrieved on 22 February 2016 from
Illinois Interactive Report Card. (2013). Retrieved on 22 February 2016 from School.aspx?schoolid=170640870252011
Johnson, D. & Maddux, C. (2003). Technology in education: A twenty-year retrospective. Computers in the Schools, 20(1/2), 1-186.
Keller, J. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110. (2002). Retrieved on 22 February 2016 from
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Report to the president. Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Retrieved on 22 February 2016 from sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf
Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. (2009). Retrieved on 22 February 2016 from
Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J.L., Butner, J., & Heiner C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why, and how. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(2), 199-212.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion of middle school students’ learning opportunities and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315.
Spears, S. A. (2012). Technology-enhanced learning: The effects of 1:1 technology on student performance and motivation (Doctoral thesis). University of West Florida.
United States Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved on 22 February 2016 from

Thank you for copying data from