https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4739-767X
Abstract
This exploratory study investigated the experiences of students using school-issued devices to access information for school and lifelong learning. 1:1 programs have evolved to enable learning anywhere, allowing students to complete coursework both inside and outside school while taking their school-issued devices with them. This qualitative study suggests that school-issued devices have many restrictions that impact access to information, free-agent or instructor-led learning, and information autonomy, identifying a need for public information and learning agencies, such as libraries and schools, to address these constraints.
Schools recognize that students without access to the internet or a computer to work with at home are at a disadvantage and are more likely to fall behind their connected peers. Referred to as the computer ownership gap (or the homework gap if related specifically to being able to complete schoolwork), school initiatives to provide devices to students during the school year have increased. Partly due to technology funding during COVID-19, 90% of school districts now provide all middle and high school students with a device, like a laptop or Chromebook, to use for learning.1 This is referred to as 1:1 computing, an initiative in public schools that assumes that every student always has access to connectivity and computing for coursework.2 In addition to creating more opportunities for access, research indicates that 1:1 programs improve students’ achievement and motivation to learn while also making teaching easier.3
Within this context, schools provide 1:1 devices to students as a solution to variations in technology access for an economically diverse student body. By providing a device to all students in a district or school, students have access to education, including research, communication, collaboration, and course content, anytime and wherever they are located.4 Teachers are also able to personalize learning and provide technology-enhanced instruction when students have 1:1 devices.5 However, because the devices are purchased with school funding and are used outside of school and while unsupervised, they include certain restrictions to ensure data privacy and security. Students say that a school’s 1:1 program can help to close the digital divide by providing all students with a Chromebook but also acknowledge how the limitations of school-issued Chromebooks (such as the heaviness of the device, being slow to log on or connect to Wi-Fi, and are loaded with safety and device management software like Securly) require students to need an additional personal computer to complete simple tasks.6 These safety and security measures are protective for younger children, but they can be restrictive for older students nearing adulthood and at the end of their public school education (also referred to as emerging new adults in this article to distinguish from younger children using 1:1 devices).
While recent work in this area suggests that providing devices to students for use in the classroom and between school and home has promise, there is a gap in research that examines the youth experience of using these devices.7 Further, from an access context, new work is needed to examine whether security measures on devices hinder productivity, usability, and access. Together, these shortcomings in the research limit professionals from fully comprehending the reality of what restricted access to information and learning may mean for youth (or their families), particularly as they leave the public school system and enter the adult world.
This exploratory study used a transcendental phenomenological approach to understand the lived experiences of fourteen emerging new adults who are still part of the public school system, preparing for lives beyond high school and using 1:1 devices provided by their schools. Lived experience can be defined as the research subject’s descriptions and first-hand accounts of their experiences with a phenomenon.8 This youth perspective on access to information on these devices provided insight into classroom learning, lifelong learning, and agency made allowable through 1:1 programs, while also sharing the reality of managing a school-issued device. Specifically, this study investigated the following question: What is the lived experience of emerging new adults when using school-issued devices to access information? The resulting article explores what is known about 1:1 programs, as well as their regulations, impact on digital literacy, and issues of access, followed by the research results and discussion of findings from this study.
Literature Review
This literature review begins by acknowledging the gap in research regarding the lived experience of young adults using school-issued computing devices. This literature review examines what is known about 1:1 programs and their impact on information access. Given that the purpose and need of 1:1 programs changed during COVID-19 from a tool enabling more technology in the classroom to a tool essential for learning anywhere, this literature review examines research before 2019 for an understanding of the purpose of 1:1 programs but restricted an examination of access issues to studies published between 2019 and 2023. A search for “one-to-one,” “1-to-1,” and “1:1,” but limited by date, was conducted using university databases (from a regional comprehensive university, which by nature has fewer databases than a research university) and Google Scholar to identify all research written on 1:1 programs. Then each article was read within the context of understanding the areas of information access identified within the article. This literature review begins with an overview of what is understood about the purpose and need for 1:1 programs in schools.
1:1 Programs in Schools
During COVID-19, 1:1 programs became more essential so that learning could continue in homes while schools were closed. In the United States of America, schools were partially closed for an average of 23 weeks and up to 71 weeks.9 During this time, 1:1 programs increased in many schools in the United States.10 A 1:1 initiative is a program that provides all students in the school with a device with which to conduct school-related activities.11 The purpose of these programs is grounded in the assumption that computers and connectivity are fundamental for teaching and learning in a digital world.12 A breadth of literature examining the effectiveness of 1:1 computing programs has found them to be fairly successful in improving student achievement, with other positive effects such as engagement, teacher satisfaction, and effectiveness, if utilized by teachers for learning and with adequate technology support and training.13 In addition, these programs are attractive to technology administrators as mobile devices are more portable and more affordable for schools than desktops, which also require space and are of limited supply in schools.14 Essentially, there were originally three goals of 1:1 programs: (1) allow teachers to customize learning to deliver more personalized experiences for students, (2) improve technology and digital skills for students, and (3) allow students to do more complex and creative work.15
While the research indicates that 1:1 programs improve student achievement in many areas, the teacher is essentially instrumental in the success of 1:1 implementation. In the classroom, the teacher controls when students use their devices, determining when and how students use them for classroom learning and providing instruction for the care and use of the equipment. Therefore, it has been concluded that 1:1 programs are more effective when the teacher integrates technology into classroom instruction.16 Instructional uses of laptops for coursework, as reported by students, included taking notes, searching for information online, using subject-specific software (like the Aleks math program), and participating in online discussions on the learning management system.17 In addition, a longitudinal study of a 1:1 program in a middle school found that a successful 1:1 program needs to devote more staff resources to training, administering, managing, and evaluating the program, more fiscal resources to providing higher-quality devices and software, and day-to-day support for managing the use of the 1:1 devices.18
Regulations for 1:1 Programs
Public schools with 1:1 programs are often funded through government programs that are accompanied by certain restrictions. In the United States, public schools and libraries that provide youth with access to computers must follow the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requirements to receive state funding, which is a policy that requires the institution to block and filter content that might be harmful to minors (children under 17), particularly obscene images and pornography.19 In addition, the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act also requires schools to provide education to youth about appropriate internet use, including interacting on social media and cyberbullying.20 Some schools develop full programing in this area, like the C3 program, which teaches students cybersecurity, cybersafety, and cyberethics.21 The combination of government funding, in addition to the affordances of ChromebookOS and improved school Wi-Fi systems, has been credited as critical to the growth of 1:1 programs in schools.22
Implementation of CIPA is considered a safety measure for protecting students.23 While filtering and security systems are an essential part of operating a 1:1 program, there is little research related to these practices. Filtering is often overimplemented in schools, with overfiltering impacting the development of digital literacy skills.24 When students were asked in small groups about using 1:1 devices, they described how less blocking helped them to feel trusted and how accessing inappropriate content on the devices was not a problem for students because most students understood that they were in school.25 In the same study, they described how administrators have access to everything students do on computers, including receiving reports about student views.26 A study examining how CIPA affected internet use for youth using 1:1 devices found that the knowledge of internet safety for high school students who experienced CIPA regulations was not statistically significant, and that they reduced exposure to pornography and harmful materials in public schools and libraries, but not in other locations within their community (home, community centers, neighborhoods, etc.), thus questioning the need for filtering at the high school level.27 When able to use the internet in a filter-free environment, high school students and undergraduate students show similar internet use frequency; however, with filters, high schoolers use it much less.28
Filtering on school-issued devices extends beyond content filtering of websites and includes email, chat, unlawful behavior (like hacking), dissemination of personal information, as well as restriction of content that might be harmful to minors.29 In an article for The Atlantic, it was explained that schools will often filter Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms in case students uncover barred content there, as well as games and video-streaming sites.30 Students who have other devices at home will use their own personal devices for school-barred content, but low-income families may only have school-issued devices to connect to the internet.31 This lack of research related to the impact of internet filtering on digital literacy and information poverty can be particularly concerning for equity of access within marginalized communities who have indicated that school-issued devices may be the main computing device used by the family beyond mobile phones.32
Schools use monitoring practices to manage school-issued devices. While some schools only monitor activity during school hours, there is concern about schools that disproportionally monitor the use of school-issued devices with multiple layers of monitoring (for example, monitoring documents and browsing history, in addition to monitoring a student’s screen as they use it).33 The Center for Democracy and Technology conducted a study where they asked students, teachers, and parents about the use of monitoring software on their school-issued devices. They found that devices were monitored to measure student engagement, redirect student attention, conduct exams (online proctoring), take attendance, and identify violations in policy.34 This same report indicated that schools use student activity monitoring software to block obscene material, track student logins, view students’ screen in real-time, flag keyword searches, block noneducational materials, close browsers when students are not on task, and take control of student functionality.35 However, 56% of students with student-monitored devices indicated that they were comfortable with the restrictions, with the other half of student respondents indicating that the practice was creepy, a breach of privacy, concerning, and unfair.36 Some researchers have suggested that one solution to overfiltering is to provide transparency on student monitoring, minimize data collected, or allow parents to increase or decrease filters as needed.37
1:1 Programs and Digital Literacy
1:1 programs are often connected with digital literacy due to the skills needed that accompany increased access to technology. Digital literacy can be defined as the functional and critical skills needed to use the internet.38 This can include skills related to researching, communicating, collaborating, and critical thinking. Functional digital literacy (knowing how to complete digital tasks) is typically connected to 1:1 programs as they reduce digital inequalities by providing users with the technical ability to overcome barriers to democratic participation.39 Typically, a goal of 1:1 programs is that strategic use of technology will also lead to the development of improved digital literacy. However, research on 1:1 programs has indicated that digital literacy does not occur simply by providing access to technology; it must be accompanied by a plan to improve students’ and teachers’ digital literacy.40 In addition to a plan to integrate technology into education, infrastructure (such as providing better 1:1 devices, stronger Wi-Fi connections, and more robust training for both students and teachers) may be just as essential to digital literacy.41
Teachers in schools with 1:1 programs have described students’ digital literacy as increasing with access to devices in the classroom, such as having increased opportunities to teach research and share more instructional materials (videos, podcasts, enrichment activities, notes).42 Teachers’ digital literacy also increases with 1:1 program implementation, particularly programs that provide training and professional development on pedagogical strategies and encouraged to help students become digital citizens.43
Developing digital literacy in students has also been described as a solution for protecting students from the dangers of using the internet while continuing to provide access to information on school-issued devices. The Center for Democracy and Technology recommended that coaching students and parents on digital literacy and online citizenship would reduce the need for over-monitoring student activity on school-issued devices.44 Findings from this study also noted that 80% of students on school-issued devices with monitoring software were careful about their online searches when using these devices, indicating some degree of self-censorship.45
1:1 Programs and Information Access
Information access is not typically examined in the literature related to 1:1 programs; however, many studies do find increased information access is a benefit to 1:1 programs. In this section, research on 1:1 programs published in 2019 or after is examined to compare findings related to information access as described related to concerns for the district or for the user of the device (students, teachers, or parents) (see Table 1).
Table 1 Access Issues for 1:1 Users Identified in the Literature (since 2019)
| Issues of Access | District Perspective | User Perspective |
| Digital divide | Keane and Keane (2020) | Sosa Díaz (2021); Washington (2022) |
| Modes of access | Peled et al. (2022); Bergström and Wiklund-Engblom (2022); Hershkovitz and Arbelle (2020) | |
| Access to information | Milman (2020) | Doron and Spektor-Levy (2019) |
| Connectivity | Milman (2020) | Chandra et al. (2020); Peled et al. (2022) |
| Homework gap | Bisaillon et al. (2020) | |
| Digital literacy (student or teacher) | Gonzales and Jackson (2020) | Dissinger (2020); Chappelear (2019); Kim et al. (2019) |
| Issues of Access | District Perspective | User Perspective |
| Digital divide | Keane and Keane (2020) | Sosa Díaz (2021); Washington (2022) |
| Modes of access | Peled et al. (2022); Bergström and Wiklund-Engblom (2022); Hershkovitz and Arbelle (2020) | |
| Access to information | Milman (2020) | Doron and Spektor-Levy (2019) |
| Connectivity | Milman (2020) | Chandra et al. (2020); Peled et al. (2022) |
| Homework gap | Bisaillon et al. (2020) | |
| Digital literacy (student or teacher) | Gonzales and Jackson (2020) | Dissinger (2020); Chappelear (2019); Kim et al. (2019) |
District Perspective
Several studies examined 1:1 programs from the district perspective, which tends to look more at results and effectiveness. 1:1 programs are regarded by school leaders as having a positive impact on teaching and learning, partly due to their increased access to information.46 The incorporation of computers and increased connectivity is described as transforming teaching and learning by ensuring that all students had a device, particularly when students had a laptop rather than iPads or tablets.47 However, despite more access to resources, districts have described the challenges with school bandwidth and printing, which disrupt the ease of 1:1 initiatives.48 In addition, districts expressed concern over the lack of evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs, as well as ways to measure effective teaching with technology.49 From a district perspective, the lack of support for teaching with technology in 1:1 schools has resulted in a teachers’ digital literacy gap as school administrators must focus on preparing teachers to develop new pedagogical strategies that include effective instruction with technology.50
User Perspective
Several studies have examined the user’s perspective in 1:1 programs, which can include the teacher, student, or parent perspective. Students in 1:1 programs in a technology-supported classroom were more likely to seek help, particularly when they fully understood the use of the technology.51 In a study of parents and their perceptions of 1:1 programs, it was found that while parents appreciated access to devices and their educational use, there were problems with understanding how to use them and fixing the problems that came with them,52 with some parents even indicating that they may never be able to understand how to use the laptops enough to support their students.53 Dissertation research also indicated that parents were concerned about their child’s off-task behaviors on the school-issued device when it was used at home.54 This same study found that parents had physical, social, and digital literacy concerns about students’ technology use and that access to reliable high-speed internet was a barrier to using the devices at home.55
Teachers also indicated that they needed more time in class to understand the issues of mobility, multifunctionality, and interconnectivity, which are challenging for those managing tablets as part of instruction.56 They also described how 1:1 programs are essential for emergency remote education and made it possible for students to learn from home when the school was closed during COVID-19. However, models of 1:1 programs used for emergency remote education were responsible for socio-digital inequalities among students if there was an issue with access to the device or a working internet connection, yet students were expected to work from home.57 In addition, even if teachers were provided with the equipment, some teaching from home did not always have the connectivity needed to teach in a virtual environment.58
Teachers indicated that 1:1 programs were beneficial because they allowed for personalized and differentiated learning; however, outside the classroom, they described how families and students experienced challenges related to using the devices, which led to problems in completing work or accessing online content.59 Teachers also described how one advantage of 1:1 program was to be able to provide personalized learning, providing them with more classroom time to help those who need it, while those who understand the content can move ahead.60 However, this also posed a behavior issue as students were more easily distracted by access to other content on their devices, such as games, surfing the web, or working on assignments for other classes.61 Technical problems, such as depleted batteries, hardware and software issues, or broken laptops (that took time to be repaired without a replacement), were other access issues that impacted the ability to teach with 1:1 devices.62
Teachers also described 1:1 devices as a “tool to eliminate boundaries” or a “window to the world,” essentially increasing access to information for students in their classroom and making more teaching and learning possible.63 However, this increased access was also referred to by one teacher as Pandora’s Box, in that access to the devices often led to something unexpected and not always positive.64 Comparatively, when teachers allowed students to use the devices for higher-order or collaborative learning, students showed autonomy in the resources accessed during learning activities, including moving around the room to other spaces outside the classroom or working between their phone and laptop.65 More research related to the lived experiences of using these devices for information access is needed to understand how these practices increase or decrease access for users.
Methods
This explorative, qualitative study used a transcendental phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of emerging new adults (young adults participating in society by working, attending college, voting, etc., and interacting in society in both youth and adult spaces) who are using school-issued devices. When applied to research, transcendental phenomenology as a methodological framework can help the researcher make meaning of the human experiences involved with a phenomenon, particularly those outside of the researcher’s own perceptions.66 As one way to find meaningful answers to questions that matter, transcendental phenomenology was an appropriate choice for this study, given the goals of the study, which were to describe the essential experience of using school-issued devices.67 While phenomenology is rarely used in the school setting to understand youth educational experiences, it has been used in family studies and psychology to understand the lived experiences of young adults with depression or those experiencing teen pregnancy.68
Participants and Context
This inquiry took place within the United States and was guided by respondent-driven sampling, a chain referral recruitment technique that allowed for the identification of hard-to-reach teenage research participants who meet the criteria for this study with regard to privacy concerns.69 In addition, respondent-driven sampling aligns well with the phenomenological research method, which assumes that the researcher is a research tool and very much part of the research as participants invite friends or acquaintances to engage in the study.70 The criteria for inclusion in the study were that participants must be currently in high school, using a school-issued device, planning for a career after high school, or engaged in college-level classes while attending high school. Specifically, these criteria also aligned with the definition of an emerging new adult who is someone moving out of youth and becoming an independent adult by participating more fully in society (attending college, working in a job, voting, moving away from home, or becoming financially independent).71
The respondent-driven sampling technique started with one participant who met these criteria and referred another, who then referred another, until there were fourteen participants, and the researcher felt that saturation had occurred. This was a successful method in that participants reached out to the researcher after being referred by another participant or notified other potential participants about contact from the researcher. With this sampling strategy, no participants declined, and only one participant did not respond to the request to participate. In some cases, a parent chose to participate in the study instead of the student. Parent data was included in the pilot study but was removed from the full research study presented in this article. This referral method led to participants who were either eighteen or slightly younger than eighteen and using various school-issued devices and from multiple geographic locations in the United States (including three states). This study was approved by a human subject’s board at the researcher’s university. Participants who were under eighteen signed an assent form and asked their parents to submit a consent form. Participants who were eighteen or older submitted a consent form. Table 2 provides the demographics of participants who are relevant to this study, listed in order of their participation in the study.
Table 2 Overview of Participants
| Participant # | Age | Device | Criterion for Inclusion |
| 1 | >18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college |
| 2 | <18 | Chromebook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 3 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-credit college classes; college searching; financially independent |
| 4 | >18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college |
| 5 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in online high school and college; full-time employment |
| 6 | <18 | Chromebook | AP-classes; dual-credit college classes |
| 7 | <18 | Dell Laptop | High-schooler enrolled in University program; working part-time |
| 8 | >18 | Chromebook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 9 | <18 | Macbook | Part-time at community college; part-time at high school |
| 10 | >18 | Macbook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 11 | <18 | Macbook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 12 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college; part-time employment |
| 13 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college; part-time employment; seeking financial independence |
| 14 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-credit college classes; part-time employment |
| Participant # | Age | Device | Criterion for Inclusion |
| 1 | >18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college |
| 2 | <18 | Chromebook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 3 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-credit college classes; college searching; financially independent |
| 4 | >18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college |
| 5 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in online high school and college; full-time employment |
| 6 | <18 | Chromebook | AP-classes; dual-credit college classes |
| 7 | <18 | Dell Laptop | High-schooler enrolled in University program; working part-time |
| 8 | >18 | Chromebook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 9 | <18 | Macbook | Part-time at community college; part-time at high school |
| 10 | >18 | Macbook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 11 | <18 | Macbook | AP-classes; college searching |
| 12 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college; part-time employment |
| 13 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-enrolled in high school and college; part-time employment; seeking financial independence |
| 14 | <18 | Chromebook | Dual-credit college classes; part-time employment |
Data Collection Methodology
Phenomenology is considered a total method where the researcher is engaged throughout the entire process rather than beginning with the analysis stage.72 In-depth interviews were conducted with participants in the setting of their choice (phone, text, in-person, or on Zoom). Interviews are effective for gathering data about the lived experiences of a participant group in that they allow participants to openly share thoughts and feelings, as well as personal experiences.73 However, in phenomenology, questions must be designed that allow for description (participants describe their experiences), structure (participants describe the experience in context), and imaginative variation (participants reflect on the impact of the experience). The researcher must take a phenomenological attitude during the interview by maintaining the epoche (a Greek word meaning to refrain from judgment). In a research context, maintaining the epoche means to never criticize or judge the participants’ statements, and instead encourage reflection, thus increasing trust between researcher and participant.74 In practice, this involves acceptance of what the participant is saying, undergoing new ways of thinking and active listening.75
Phenomenologists ideally seek to understand the essence of experiences by asking broad questions of participants. Interviews were conducted in person or by phone (the location was of the participants’ choosing or restricted by geographic location). Interviews ranged between 20 and 45 minutes and were recorded using a password-protected recording application, stored on the researcher’s mobile device, and then transcribed. Participants were assigned a number to protect their identity in order of the interview to reflect the nature of the chain referral technique. Participants were asked to show examples of what they experienced either in person or by sending screenshots to the researcher after the interview, which ultimately included ten observations.
Data Analysis
Transcendental phenomenology, as opposed to hermeneutic phenomenology, includes a process for which to remove the researchers’ effect on the results of a study, or at least reduce them. As a whole method, analysis in phenomenology begins with the epoche (also known as the phenomenological reduction) as the researcher writes and rewrites interview questions that are suspended of judgment about the phenomena. Questions that started as “What challenges do you have when using internet filters on your school computer?” were revised to “Tell me what it is like to work on your classes with a school-issued device” or “Tell me how you find support for your devices.” Once the researcher describes their own experiences with the phenomenon and can set aside preconceived attitudes (referred to as bracketing in the phenomenological method), then significant statements from participants can be identified into meaning units and themes (referred to as horizontalization). A significant statement is one where the participant has highlighted within their narrative as significantly impacting actions or processes. Using ATLAS.ti qualitative analysis software, these statements were marked as significant if the participant indicated an event or attitude influenced other aspects of the narrative. These themes were then synthesized to create textual and structural descriptions of everyone’s experiences to make it more clear which statements may overlap or seem irrelevant, identifying clear themes and meaning units. Finally, the researcher can extract the essence of what is similar between everyone to understand the experience. In this article, the themes and meaning units are presented, followed by what may be summarized as the essence of the experience of using school-issued devices.
Findings
The participants in this study described their lived experiences using school-issued devices to engage with their high school and college courses, their jobs, and their futures. All participants used the interview to describe the challenges they face when using their school-issued devices. The details of the experiences can be understood by examining statements deemed significant, as well as themes that emerged from these statements.
Significant Statements
After the epoche that occurs before and during the interviews, the first step of the phenomenological analysis was to identify nonoverlapping significant statements from the interviews. Statements related to a specific experience of using a school-issued device were extracted in full sentences. These statements were considered significant if the participant indicated that the event led to changes in action or thinking. For example, one participant said, “If a video in Canvas is blocked on my laptop, I just access Canvas on my phone because I have it there too.” This statement was considered significant because it described an experience with the phenomena that led to a change in action. Reading these statements in full can help in providing more information about the experience of using a school-issued device. Over fifty significant statements were extrapolated, and a sample of these statements can be found in Appendix A.
Themes and Meaning Units
The significant statements were then treated with equal value and clustered into themes and meaning units. The statements clustered into three broad themes: restricted content, restricted learning, and restricted behavior. Within these themes, interviews were reexamined for further details relating to each theme to provide details of specific experiences.
Using 1:1 Devices for Access: Restricted Content
The theme of restricted content refers to the lived experience of being denied access to an information resource (like a video) or a desired action (like changing a setting). All participants described the experience of trying to access content that was blocked when using school-issued devices. Some participants described content that was blocked when they were completing school projects, such as trying to do a project on immigration and finding many articles on this topic blocked. Others described personal pursuits, such as experiencing blocked content when looking up travel blogs to plan for a senior summer trip. One participant said, “In my free-time, I will be on YouTube and click on something like, ‘What is the best food to eat in Asia’ and it will get blocked and I don’t understand why.” Each participant used different levels of detail to explain what content they did not access, with some having vivid memories of specific blocked content and the frustrations it led to. One participant explained, “For women’s literature, it was mostly videos [that I could not access],” while another said:
It is frustrating using [the device] sometimes. There is a social media platform called Reddit, which is a really good place to ask questions about certain things [for my programming class] . . . And I click on the link and there is a notice that tells me I can’t go on the website because it is social media. It is kind of a pain. I have to use it on my home computer.
Many participants were enrolled in both high school- and college-level courses and described how their college teachers would assign readings and videos, linked through the learning management system, that they were unable to access on their high school devices. One participant said, “In my [college classes], I started using a lot of different websites and it wouldn’t let me access videos. It would say ‘your school doesn’t allow you to view this.’ I would have to notify my college professors about it because there wasn’t a way to remove it.” Some participants also described the restrictions on their devices that limited their ability to operate the school-issued devices, including limited ability to install software. Three participants specifically described knowing how to use a VPN to access what they needed to for school. One participant described getting punished by the school after downloading a VPN. They said, “Once I downloaded a VPN so I could access the site I needed to take my test remotely. It took me past the blockers but I got a referral for doing it.” It was evident from the interviews that each school district had different restrictions on the devices, with some participants reporting that devices became inoperable after certain times in the evening and some not allowing students to change the background of the computers, install updates, or experience updates installing automatically (and unexpectedly).
Table 3 presents a list of the specific content that participants described as unable to access when recalling their experiences. Since participants described problems with both accessing information resources and computer restrictions, the content was organized into learning resources (like instructional games, videos, or websites) or device controls (like restrictions on installing software or customizing the computer). The table is reduced to codes found during the analysis process. Codes were assigned to keep the voice of the participant as intact as possible (such as “anything with flash” or “sex ed stuff for a speech”).
Table 3 A Summary of Blocked Content Experienced by Participants
| Learning Content | Device Controls |
games travel websites Khan academy videos genetics articles nude sculpture research articles for English marketing websites math games blogs math tutorials a New York Times article medical content sex ed stuff for a speech food on YouTube Perusall (discussion site) Netflix videos for women’s literature anything with Flash sex trafficking publisher’s test site some immigration issues computer science stuff religion IXL math assignments coding | time limits for use shutting down at school-determined times unable to customize (background, etc.) unable to comment on social media unable to install software (OS, coding apps, VPN etc.), including updates updates running without user permission |
| Learning Content | Device Controls |
games travel websites Khan academy videos genetics articles nude sculpture research articles for English marketing websites math games blogs math tutorials a New York Times article medical content sex ed stuff for a speech food on YouTube Perusall (discussion site) Netflix videos for women’s literature anything with Flash sex trafficking publisher’s test site some immigration issues computer science stuff religion IXL math assignments coding | time limits for use shutting down at school-determined times unable to customize (background, etc.) unable to comment on social media unable to install software (OS, coding apps, VPN etc.), including updates updates running without user permission |
Using 1:1 Devices for Access: Restricted Learning
The theme of restricted learning refers to the lived experience of being unable to proceed with learning because of an interruption in access (such as not being able to access learning materials). Participants described how the restrictions on the school-issued devices led to interruptions in learning. One participant described how they observed their teacher trying to open a research article in class that was blocked by internet filters while teaching from a school-issued device. They said, “My teacher is teaching with the same PowerPoint she has used in past years. But this year when she clicks a link to an article they are blocked because the filters change each year. She doesn’t even know what will be blocked. When it is blocked, she will summarize the study for us because she remembers it or she will just give up.”
Another participant who was taking college classes described how the college used a social annotation software called Perusall, but they were unable to use Perusall on their school-issued device and had to use it on their own mobile phone instead (making for a more challenging learning experience). They said, “There is a site called Perusall that we do discussions on in Intro to Logic. Every time, there is a video that I am not able to access. I can open it in another window or try and find the video on YouTube directly on my phone, then I can access it.”
When participants reported a challenge to learning, the researcher asked them to expand on the challenge and the solutions. This resulted in many participants sharing strategies they used to work around the restrictions to continue learning, either to complete their coursework or to pursue their own educational or personal interests. As illustrated in Table 4, codes were applied to the transcripts using the participants’ language. For example, the code “figure it out” was assigned to one quote that said, “I never heard anything about what to do if something was blocked, so I just tried to figure it out. I looked for similar websites that weren’t blocked mostly.” Many participants repeated that many times they give up when they can’t access what they need, sometimes even after trying to “find a loophole.” Several participants indicated that they were able to work around the restrictions by using library databases at either their school, college or the public library, “If I needed help accessing blocked content for class I would go to the [college] media center. I think they would help me find a loophole to get the content.”
Table 4 A Summary of Strategies Used by Participants to Continue Learning
| Participant-Reported Solutions to Access Issues |
|
| Participant-Reported Solutions to Access Issues |
|
All participants described the use of the school-issued devices as requiring more time to access content than would be needed on a personal device that did not include content or security restrictions. One student said the reason they were effective when encountering filters was because they put the time in when others may not (“If it didn’t put time into finding the videos I need for classes it would have affected me much more . . . I am sure it has affected others who don’t give the time”). One student described having to drive home from the high school to be able to use a desktop at home to join a live college class because it was not accessible on the student’s school-issued device. They said, “For labs I still go home [to access the software I need to program in C]. I have to RUSH home really quickly because it starts at 3 p.m. I get out of school at 2:30 so I have to drive really quickly, get ready and then when I am home the lab starts. So its stressful.” Another student described how they needed to take a test for a college class that they were taking and the school-issued device would not support the proctoring software (at the time they did not know that the school would install it in advance). The participants’ parents bought them another laptop that they could use to take the test so that they could install the proctoring software to take the test.
Using 1:1 Devices for Access: Restricted Behavior
The theme of restricted behavior describes the lived experience of encountering controls that were believed to be set to encourage good behavior from students and to protect students from others’ bad behavior. While the participants in the study indicated that they experienced restrictions that limited them from fully accessing information needed for school or lifelong learning, they also all indicated that they understood, and even accepted, the restrictions put on the school-issued devices. All participants made statements indicating that they understood that restrictions needed to be on the computers to prevent problems from happening (see Table 5). Table 5 includes codes (using the participants’ language) that described why participants believed they had restrictions on the devices. For example, one said, “I always thought that they didn’t want kids to get on Instagram, or Cool Math Games and I thought the filters were essentially to keep the focus on classes.” Another participant who was highly skilled in computer science thought it was to prevent hacking. They said, “I think it is to prevent the more computer literate students from doing malicious things on their computers or go on the network and gather people’s data. But that’s a small, small minority.”
Table 5 Problematic Behaviors Prevented by Controlling Content on Devices
| Participant Belief |
|
| Participant Belief |
|
Despite indicating that others may use the devices inappropriately if content and security restrictions were not present, these participants all described their use of the devices as legitimate, including legitimately using the devices to access coursework, study, or learn what they needed to for school. For example, one participant said, “I personally don’t see the point [of having restrictions on the devices]. Why would a kid want to do malicious stuff?” One explained that students like them were more mature than those in middle school, and they understood that high schoolers needed filters since middle schoolers had them, stating that “Highschoolers should be allowed to observe on their computer whatever is necessary. It is up to the child to be in control of their grades. For middle schoolers it is understandable because they should be monitored and kept on track.”
The Essence of the Experience
The last phase of phenomenology is to synthesize the textural and structural descriptions into the essence, which captures the meaning of the experience. For the participants in this study, the essence of using school-issued devices was that they were issued for coursework and learning, and that the participants understood this but needed to use them outside of high school coursework. They accepted the content filtering and security restrictions on the devices; however, they did notice them and experienced frustrations, particularly when it was a search that was important to them personally. They had strategies to access content that was restricted, though mostly described surrendering (or giving up) instead of putting in additional effort to access it, accepting other forms of information instead of the one needed. While participants found solutions to restrictions and problems with school-issued devices, the solutions almost always required additional access to a second device and were time-consuming, making it impossible to fully complete educational or personal tasks on school-issued devices.
Discussion
The lived experience of young adults and their experiences when learning needs to be revisited as new technology, regulations, and societal interferences become intertwined in the educational system. Research on 1:1 programs has waned since the programs were first introduced and established the teaching and learning benefits that accompany the programs, with most assuming the use of school-issued devices for classroom learning only. It does not take into account that students may use these devices for other pursuits, or outside of the school. With the benefits of 1:1 programs established, the findings from this study suggest that there are other areas of 1:1 programs to explore, such as the impact of restrictions on the devices, or the impact of learning anywhere (which the devices enable). The findings in this study indicate that participants did use the devices to learn anywhere, but when doing so, faced similar restrictions as a student might experience when learning within the wall of their high school classroom. For new adults (the term used in this study to describe someone in their late teens who is entering society as an employee, college student, voter, etc.), these restrictions were somewhat prohibitive and designed more for younger children, or for use within a school environment rather than life outside of the high school. These participants needed to use the devices outside of school to take college classes, plan for post-high school projects, or apply for jobs. For students who had access to other devices, like mobile phones or home computers, they were able to access the content that was unavailable on the school-issued devices there, but did so at the expense of time, thus creating a frustrating learning experience (sometimes even giving up). Participant responses reveal that they had techno-capital, in that they can financially support access to additional devices. Families without an additional computing device are limited to the content available on the school-issued device, creating concerns related to information poverty (one has access to more information if they have more personal assets).76
This study also demonstrated that students use digital literacy to solve the problems of access on their school-issued devices. It has been noted that internet filtering has implications for digital literacy, particularly regarding information discernment (where users are unable to access the full range of resources available to them) and information evaluation (where users are unable to access risky sites to practice evaluation).77 Participants in this study indicated that they may be using a different type of information discernment and evaluation by modifying search terms and finding alternative, related resources that they can access. The participants in this study were at various stages of understanding: (1) the policies related to using their devices (such as when the school would enable more access), (2) information and digital literacy skills related to accessing content, such as modifying searches, or understanding when to use library databases for information resources, and (3) professional sources of support to help with their problems, such as understanding who to contact for help, or feeling comfortable talking to professionals (teachers or librarians) to get support (librarians were noted as helpful for participants in this study). Despite the variations in digital literacy skills, all participants did indicate abilities in the mode of access, understanding that what was not available on one device would be available on another device, and demonstrated novel solutions to seeking that information (using capital to purchase a new device, physically moving to a new device, or working simultaneously between two devices).
The themes in this study were all related to the restrictions that participants faced when using school-issued computers. Of particular concern to intellectual freedom and agency is the summary of blocked content described in Table 3, which noted that participants were blocked from legitimate and safe information, including medical content, math tutorials, videos about women’s literature, news on immigration, and more. This list of content is similar to what others have written about in news articles.78 The findings from this study suggested that students regularly experience censorship when using school-issued devices, with some even self-censoring to work around the filters (such as changing search terms to use terms they know will be accessible on the device). At the same time, the participants shared reasons why they thought the restrictions were there, demonstrating an understanding of safety concerns (predators, hacking, phishing, harassment, etc.), distractions (gaming, social media, etc.), and viewing inappropriate content (pornography, adult content, bad language, etc.). Participants in this study did not articulate that search results could be blocked because the site included advertisements.
At the conclusion of the interviews, participants were asked to use imaginative variation to consider how others might use school-issued devices if there weren’t any restrictions on them. In the phenomenological vision, this is done by thinking creatively about a problem to generate a fresh perspective.79 From this, the theme restricted behavior emerged as participants each described how the computers were managed due to problems that might occur on them. The participants in this study all indicated that they intended to use the devices appropriately (and did, even when the school punished them and accused them of using them inappropriately, as one participant reported), but that others (particularly younger students) might not use them appropriately, or be taken advantage of by others, thus accepting restrictions for all.
Participants in this study described a lack of autonomy to search, inquire, be creative, or seek leisure when using school-issued devices. The participants described creative approaches to work around the problems they encountered related to information access; however, it is unclear if this is a positive or a negative for digital literacy. While students must use increased critical skills to access the information they need, most reported that they just give up and do not always put in the time to work around restrictions. It also was not clear if the workarounds provided effective information, with some suggesting that the sources they found were subpar to what they were trying to access that was blocked. In addition, this indicates that school-issued computers limit student agency, often intentionally to keep student attention, but this is increasingly problematic for emerging new adults who are using their school-issued devices outside of the school building and beyond school hours.
From a conceptual perspective, most of the research related to 1:1 programs is from the educational lens and examines teaching and learning outcomes of using 1:1 devices. This is expected since the work is created to understand the educational effectiveness of these programs as part of evaluating their continued use and documenting evidence of success. However, the findings from this study indicate that 1:1 programs are of interest to the information science community in that they pose issues of information access (solutions and problems) for youth in the public school system. Public libraries should also become aware of issues faced by patrons using school-issued devices, as some participants described visiting the public library to get increased access to resources for schoolwork. In addition, the 1:1 device was found to be an asset not only for the new adult in the study but also for the parents or families who are responsible for helping youth access information needed for learning.80
Implications for Practice
There are several implications for practice that emerged from the lived experiences of new adults that are critical for district leaders, educators, and librarians to consider when creating policy. The findings provide insight into what it is like to use a school-issued computer as an older high school student, suggesting that the devices are indeed usable for many educational processes, like writing papers or using school-supported software, but limit broad access to ideas and self-directed learning. For the age group in this study, this was particularly problematic as participants worked out of the school more than they were physically in the school. Allowing parental control of device management is one solution for upper-class (junior and senior) high school students who fall into the category of “new adult” and request increased access for legitimate purposes like advanced coursework, coursework related to increased functionality (like computer science) or operate between two or more educational institutions. In addition, access controls for middle school students may not need to be the same as access controls for high school students. Collaboration between teachers and technology departments should occur so that students are able to access learning resources needed for class on school-issued devices. Internet safety plans, like C3, which include cybersecurity, cybersafety, and cyberethics, can help to prepare students (and parents) to be responsible internet users, as well as to understand the use of the software on their devices. District efforts to prepare students in these areas did play a role in the understanding of these issues for the participants in this study, as evidenced by participant descriptions of online safety.81 All participants in this study were high school students taking college classes or planning to take college classes while using school-issued devices. Many college professors may not be aware that students are taking their courses using restricted devices, and emerging new adults, such as the high school students in this study, indicated that they were often too shy or scared to tell their college professors about their access issues. While college professors may not be able to help high school students with access, compassion for students in this situation may support these students by allowing extra time as needed to access the resources or teaching students how to access materials in other ways (like using the library databases). Ideally, device management will someday be advanced enough to allow passage to information resources posted within a learning management system, which is where teacher-provided resources are often linked. Academic and public librarians should also be aware of how their libraries can support students in these situations, such as providing access to public computers, hotspots, databases, and professional librarian support to access blocked readings or videos (including printing out blocked articles for students as needed).
Finally, policymakers should be aware that there is an increase in 1:1 programs within many school districts. This is a critical development in closing the computer ownership gap. However, these programs come with limitations. Not all families will have a student in a school district that has a 1:1 program, and many 1:1 programs prefer that only the student use the device (rather than family members). In addition, as found in this study, access to the device does not guarantee access to the internet or access to the information needed on the internet for pursuits outside of the classroom (and sometimes even for classroom content).
Limitations
There are several limitations when studying the lived experiences of young adults. While this study provided in-depth and detailed information about the experiences of the participants in the study, a qualitative study of this size is not generalizable to all students in all schools. Also, the nature of transcendental phenomenology requires the researcher to objectively describe the lived experience by bracketing personal bias and assumptions, a process that is possible in theory but is often very challenging for the researcher. This study also uses a chain referral sampling method, which can lead to a lack of diversity in participants as friends recommend friends for participation. In addition, this study did not examine the specific software, policies, or practices of the school districts that issued the devices and instead focused solely on how the students themselves describe their experiences. Despite these limitations, the voice of the participants adds novel insight to the field and should be considered as exploratory. Finally, this study was conducted prior to the release of artificial intelligence tools which are now frequently restricted on school-issued devices.82
Future Research
There is potential for more research related to the topics explored in this article. Empirical research with students, parents, teachers, and administrators related to device management is needed to fully understand the impact of these practices on digital learning, digital literacy, and quality of life. Usability studies should be conducted related to how various software on school-issued devices impacts learning, particularly as algorithms and artificial intelligence are increasingly making decisions as to which content is available for access. In addition, most research around 1:1 programs does not focus on information access as an affordance in these programs. While this study begins to address the gap in research related to the experience of using 1:1 devices, larger research studies examining the access benefits (as opposed to learning outcomes), as well as the institutional benefits, should be undertaken to inform policy choices for improving this practice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study offers insight into the experience a student might have when using a school-issued device. The findings indicate that they do use them for learning and that the restrictions on the devices are somewhat frustrating. The participants described the devices as just one of many modes of accessing learning and information and fluently worked between multiple devices to do what they needed to do. This study only examined the lived experiences of emerging new adults; thus, recommendations are related to that age group who may need more access than others. From an information access perspective, the devices certainly provided increased information access for participants, even if they described frustrations with accessing when using them.
Appendix A: Selected Significant Statements
“In my marketing class, 1/3 of the websites were blocked [on my device]. I just gave up and look for another [article]. If everything on my topic is blocked, I just look something else up.”
“Sometimes I can’t access what the teacher assigned so I pull out a personal device or search with different wording or scroll down to find a different website.”
“I have no problems at [my high school] or any classes except classes that require research. [My college] has an online library which is the solution. I don’t know if [my high school] has an online library but they should get one. [My high school] should provide an online library that doesn’t have any filters.”
“Sometimes I try and watch a video [on my device] and I can’t so I would just try and find the videos on my phone. Or like the website on my phone.”
“If a video in Canvas is blocked on my laptop, I just access Canvas on my phone because I have it there too.”
“I’d probably go to [the high school librarian] if I needed help.”
“For women’s literature, it was mostly videos [that I could not access], but she will have a link in one of the modules to get background information and I am not able to access it on my laptop, so I use my phone because I have Canvas on my phone already. I use Schoology on my phone too. It works the same way to access content.”
“I bought a new laptop [because I can’t use the school-issued one].”
“I drive home to a computer where the software can be installed to do the labs there.”
“I thought I was blocked from a site where I needed to get an article, but then I texted my friend who told me how to login.”
“I really want to be able to edit my background [on my school-issued device], or even just organize my filters. I make digital art so I have some really great personal art that I would use for my background plus it drives me crazy that I can’t create folders the way I like them.”
“I didn’t really ask my college teacher how to get around it or for help. I would just try and figure it out on my own, but if I really couldn’t, I kind of just tried to see what I could do without the video or link. If I really needed help, I would go to [the school librarian].”
“One time I had a psychology exam [at the college] but the teacher said I couldn’t take the exam on a Chromebook. So my mom had to go buy me a laptop so I could take the exam. She didn’t want to but we had no other choice because the campus and all the libraries were closed for COVID.”
“It would really help me to see videos of other people solving math problems especially during the hard units. But all the videos that show teachers solving problems are blocked and it’s really frustrating. They think we want to cheat but we really just want to figure out how to do it.”
“There are these things called Subreddits and they are little communities and a lot of them are centered around computer science. I go on the web and I type of up a problem and I find a Reddit link and someone is having the exact same problem as me and there is a bunch of comments talking about the solution. And I click on the link and there is a notice that tells me I can’t go on the website because it is social media. It is kind of a pain.”
“My genetics teacher is teaching with the same PowerPoint she has used in past years. But this year when she clicks a link to an article they are blocked because the filters change each year. She doesn’t even know what will be blocked. When it is blocked, she will summarize the study for us because she remembers it or she will just give up.”
“I took AP art history and there were a lot of paintings that I couldn’t see on my laptop because they were blocked. Probably had nudity in them. I had to figure out how to see it on my phone.”
“I have an example from a friend who is on speech and debate. He was doing a speech on sex ed in school but he could not research anything at all because of the word ‘sex’. Everything was blocked. He had to find loopholes and it took him forever. [Filters] are inconvenient, they make research harder and they make it harder for me to get good evidence for my papers. They are not positive. There is nothing positive about them.”
“Sometimes I have to use my phone to access class things that the school Wi-Fi blocks but I don’t have the data so I can’t. Or if my phone is broken or not charged, I can’t. So I just never see that stuff.”
“Kids in these classes are mature enough to be in control of their own education. They barely have any time to relax. [Filters] are understandable for middle schoolers because they are less mature. They use filters to make sure that students are focused on academic experiences and not playing games or using social media.”
“I put a VPN on my computer so I could access things at [the community college] but they assumed I was using the VPN for playing games when I only wanted to find the sites that are blocked for my education.”
“In middle school, they used to shut the MacBooks off at 10 p.m. I still feel stress about that.”
“I have to find new sources, and sometimes I have to change my research question. I have to change my search to make it less specific to get content that isn’t filtered.”
Notes
Phyllis Jordan, “What Congressional Covid funding means for K-12 schools,” Future Ed, May 11, 2023, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.future-ed.org/what-congressional-covid-funding-means-for-k-12-schools/; Kevin Bushweller, “What the Massive Shift to 1-to-1 Computing Means for Schools, in Charts,” Education Week, May 17, 2022, Accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.edweek.org/technology/what-the-massive-shift-to-1-to-1-computing-means-for-schools-in-charts/2022/05.
M. Sirajul Islam Åke Grönlund, “An International Literature Review of 1:1 Computing in Schools,” Journal of Educational Change 17, no. 2 (2016): 192.
David Silvernail, and Dawn M.M. Lane, “The Impact of Maine’s One-to-One Laptop Program on Middle School Teachers and Students,” Education Technology, 13 (2004): 17, accessed June 1, 2023, https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/cepare_technology/13; Tian Luo, and Alexander Murray, “Connected Education: Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Student Learning in a 1: 1 Technology Middle School Environment,” Journal of Online Learning Research 4, no. 1 (2018): 87–116.
Elizabeth Heubeck, “What We’ve Learned from a Quarter Century of 1-to-1 Computing,” EdWeek, May 17, 2022, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.edweek.org/technology/what-weve-learned-from-a-quarter-century-of-1-to-1-computing/2022/05.
Damian Bebell, and Rachel Kay, “One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative,” Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 9, no. 2 (2010): 8.
Marcus Johnson, “Requiring School-Issued Computers Creates a Level Academic Playing Field,” The Southerner, February 2022, accessed June 1, 2023, https://thesoutherneronline.com/87225/uncategorized/requiring-school-issued-computers-creates-level-academic-playing-field/; Anna Rachwalski, “Personal Computers Allow Students to Bypass Chromebook Frustrations”, The Southerner, February 2022, accessed June 1, 2023, https://thesoutherneronline.com/87220/uncategorized/personal-computers-allow-students-to-bypass-frustrations-of-school-chromebooks/.
Arnon Hershkovitzand, and Orly Karni, “Borders of Change: A Holistic Exploration of Teaching in One-to-One Computing Programs,” Computers and Education 125 (2018): 439.
Taniya Mapp, “Understanding Phenomenology: The Lived Experience,” The British Journal of Midwifery 16, no. 5 (2008): 308.
“UNESCO Map on School Closures and UIS,” UNESCO Institute of Statistics, March 2022, accessed May 28, 2023, https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/.
Kevin Bushweller, “What the Massive Shift to 1-to-1 Computing Means for Schools, in Charts,” Education Week, May 17, 2022, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.edweek.org/technology/what-the-massive-shift-to-1-to-1-computing-means-for-schools-in-charts/2022/05.
Ben Harper, and Natalie Milman, “One-to-One Technology in K–12 Classrooms: A Review of the Literature from 2004 through 2014”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48, no. 2 (2016): 129–42.
Therese Keane, and William Keane, “A Vision of the Digital Future—Government Funding as a Catalyst for 1 to 1 Computing in Schools,” Education and Information Technologies 25, no. 2 (2020): 846; Jillian R. Power, Ann T. Musgrove, and Bryan H. Nichols, “Teachers Bridging the Digital Divide in Rural Schools with 1: 1 Computing,” Rural Educator 41, no. 1 (2020): 61.
Bebell and Kay, “One to One Computing,” 47; Loretta Donovan, and Tim Green, “One-to-One Computing in Teacher Education: Faculty Concerns and Implications for Teacher Educators,” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 26, no. 4 (2010): 146; Arnon Hershkovitz and Orly Karni, “Borders of Change: A Holistic Exploration of Teaching in One-to-One Computing Programs,” Computers and Education 125 (2018): 439; Arnon Hershkovitz and Orly Karni, “Borders of Change: A Holistic Exploration of Teaching in One-to-One Computing Programs,” Computers and Education 125 (2018): 439; Jing Lei, and Yong Zhao, “One-to-One Computing: What Does It Bring to Schools?” Journal of Educational Computing Research 39, no. 2 (2008): 117; Curry, John H., Sean R. Jackson, and Maria L. Benchic, “Four More Years? A Longitudinal Study of One High School’s 1:1 iPad Implementation,” TechTrends 63, no. 1 (2019): 53–61.
Loretta Donovan, Kendall Hartley, and Neal Strudler, “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, no. 3 (2007): 266.
Yehuda Peled, Ina Blau, and Ronen Grinberg, “Crosschecking Teachers’ Perspectives on Learning in a One-to-One Environment with Their Actual Classroom Behavior – a Longitudinal Study,” Education and Information Technologies 27, no. 4 (2022): 4842.
Bebell and Rachel, “One to One Computing,” 48; Sinton Soalablai, Andrea M. Wilson, and Beate Baltes, “Elementary Teachers’ Use of 1: 1 Tablets in Lesson Planning and Presentation on a Western Pacific Island,” Journal of Educational Research and Practice 12, no. 1 (2022): 102.
Lei and Zhao, “One-to-One Computing,” 108–9
John H. Curry, Sean R. Jackson, and Maria L. Benchic, “Four More Years? A Longitudinal Study of One High School’s 1: 1 iPad Implementation,” TechTrends 63, no. 1 (2019): 60.
Paul Jaeger, John Carlo Bertot, and Charles R. McClure, “The Effects of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in Public Libraries and its Implications for Research: A Statistical, Policy, and Legal Analysis,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55, no. 13 (2004): 1131–39.
Federal Communications Commission, “Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA),” 2019, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act.
Annette Melgosa and Rudy Scott, “School Internet Safety More than ‘Block it to Stop it’,” The Education Digest, 11 (2013): 48.
Bob O’Donnell and Randy Perry, “Quantifying the Economic Value of Chromebooks for K–12 Education,” IDC Information and Data (2012): 15; Keane and William, “A Vision of the Digital Future,” 845–6.
Beth Miller, “Can I use this App or Website for My Class?” Knowledge Quest 44, no. 4 (2016): 24.
Kristen Batch, “Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Later. OIF/OITP Policy Brief,” Policy Brief No. 5, June 2014, accessed December 18, 2023, https://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/FINALCIPA_Report.pdf.
Jodi Bergland Holen, Woei Hung, and Bonni Gourneau, “Does One-to-One Technology Really Work: An Evaluation through the Lens of Activity Theory,” Computers in the Schools 34, no. 1/2 (January 2017): 34.
Ibid., 34
Zheng Yan, “Differences in High School and College Students’ Basic Knowledge and Perceived Education of Internet Safety: Do High School Students Really Benefit from the Children’s Internet Protection Act?” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30, no. 3 (2009): 215.
Ibid., 216
Miller, “Can I use this App or Website for My Class?”
Melinda Anderson, “How Internet Filtering Hurts Kids,” The Atlantic, April, 2016, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/internet-filtering-hurts-kids/479907/.
Victoria Rideout and Vikki Katz, “Opportunity for All? Technology and Learning in Lower-Income Families,” The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, 2016, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/jgcc_opportunityforall.pdf.
Shannon Oltmann, Emily Knox, Chris Peterson, and Deborah Caldwell-Stone, “Internet Filtering, Information Poverty, and Digital Literacy: Intersections and Challenges,” Winter 2020, accessed June 1, 2023, http://etc.mappinginfoaccess.org/papers/InternetFilteringSymposiumWhitePaper.pdf.
Bridget McCrea, “Are Schools Disproportionately Surveilling Students Who Rely on School-Owned Devices?,” EdSurge, June 15, 2002, accessed September 2, 2023, https://www.edsurge.com/news/2022-06-15-are-schools-disproportionately-surveilling-students-who-rely-on-school-owned-devices.
Center for Democracy and Technology, “Views on Student Activity Monitoring Software,” 2021, 7, accessed September 2, 2023, https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Student-Activity-Monitoring-Software-Polling-Research-Slides.pdf.
Ibid., 6.
Ibid., 11.
Lewis Chappelear, “Parent Perceptions of a One-to-One Laptop Program,” (PhD diss., Walden University, 2019), 181.
Gianfranco Polizzi, “Internet Users’ Utopian/Dystopian Imaginaries of Society in the Digital Age: Theorizing Critical Digital Literacy and Civic Engagement,” New Media and Society 25, no. 6 (2023): 1206.
Ibid., 1208.
Łukasz Tomczyk, “Skills in the Area of Digital Safety as a Key Component of Digital Literacy Among Teachers,” Education and Information Technologies 25 (2020): 483.
Sherry Watts, “Improving Digital Literacy through A 1: 1 Digital Device Implementation: An Applied Study,” (EdD Diss., Liberty University, 2023), 119.
Power et al., “Teachers Bridging the Digital Divide in Rural Schools With 1: 1 Computing,” 70.
Veena Prachagool, Prasart Nuangchalerm, and Parinda Yawongsa, “Digital Literacy of Pre-Service Teachers in the Period Time of COVID-19 Pandemic,” Journal of Educational Issues 8, no. 2 (2022): 353.
Center for Democracy and Technology, “Student Activity Monitoring Software: Research Insights and Recommendations,” 7, accessed September 2, 2023, https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Student-Activity-Monitoring-Software-Research-Insights-and-Recommendations.pdf.
Ibid., 12.
Natalie Milman, “School Leadership of a One-to-One Laptop Initiative,” Journal of School Leadership 30, no. 4 (2020): 370.
Keane and Keane, “A Vision of the Digital Future,” 855.
Milman, “School Leadership of a One-to-One Laptop Initiative,” 371.
Miguel Gonzales and Iesha Jackson, “Going the Distance: What School Administrators Can Learn from One-to-One Laptop Schools”, Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 5 no. S1 (2020): 55–6.
Ibid., 59.
Jérémie Bisaillon, Stéphane Villeneuve, and Alain Stockless, “The Effects of One-to-One Laptop Program on Help-Seeking and Homework Completion,” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 46, no. 2 (2020): 11–12.
Lewis Chappelear, “Parent Perceptions of a One-to-One Laptop Program,” (PhD diss., Walden University, 2019), 181.
Ibid., 160.
Joy Washington, “Exploring Digital Equity through Parent Perceptions of Students’ Use of 1: 1 Devices: a Mixed Methods Approach,” (PhD diss., Virginia Commonwealth University, 2022), 120.
Ibid., 126
Hye Jeong Kim, Jiyoung Choi, and Suyoun Lee, “Teacher Experience of Integrating Tablets in One-to-One Environments: Implications for Orchestrating Learning,” Education Sciences 9, no. 2 (2019): 8.
María José Sosa Díaz, “Emergency Remote Education, Family Support and the Digital Divide in the Context of the COVID-19 Lockdown,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 15 (2021): 7956.
Sumit Chandra, Amy Chang, Lauren Day, Amina Fazlullah, Jack Liu, Lane McBride, Thisal Mudalige, and Danny Weiss, “Closing the K-12 Digital Divide in the Age of Distance Learning,” Common Sense Media (2020): 6, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_media_report_final_7_1_3pm_web.pdf.
Steve Dissinger, “Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions and Lived Experiences in the One-to-One Laptop Computer Environment: A Phenomenological Study,” (PhD Diss., Drexel University, 2020), 116.
Peled et al., “Crosschecking Teachers’ Perspectives on Learning in a One-to-One Environment with Their Actual Classroom Behavior,” 4853.
Ibid., 4853
Ibid., 4854
Power et al., “Teachers Bridging the Digital Divide in Rural Schools With 1: 1 Computing,” 70; Etsy Doron, and Ornit Spektor-Levy, “Transformations in Teachers’ Views in One-to-One Classes—Longitudinal Case Studies,” Technology, Knowledge and Learning 24 (2019): 452.
Ibid., 451
Peter Bergström and Annika Wiklund-Engblom, “Who’s Got the Power? Unpacking Three Typologies of Teacher Practice in One-to-One Computing Classrooms in Finland,” Computers & Education 178 (2022): 8; Arnon Hershkovitz and Yoav Arbelle, “The Impact of Teaching in a One-to-One Computing Classroom on Teachers’ Work Outside the Classroom,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 29, no. 4 (2020): 507.
Clark Moustakas, Phenomenological Research Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994), 13.
John Budd, Heather Hill, and Brooke Shannon, “Inquiring into the Real: A Realist Phenomenological Approach,” Library Quarterly 80, no. 3 (July 2010): 269.
Siaw Leng Chan, Poh Li Lau, and Y. Joel Wong, “‘I am Still Able to Contribute to Someone Less Fortunate’: A Phenomenological Analysis of Young Adults’ Process of Personal Healing from Major Depression,” International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 42 (2020): 97; Kristin Smyth, Alison Salloum, and Jaclyn Herring, “Interpersonal Functioning, Support, and Change in Early-Onset Bipolar Disorder: A Transcendental Phenomenological Study of Emerging Adults,” Journal of Mental Health 30, no. 1 (2021): 121; Margaret Ofe Fleck, Diane Brage Hudson, Douglas A. Abbott, and Allison M. Reisbig, “You Can’t Put a Dollar Amount on Presence: Young, Non-resident, Low-income, African American fathers,” Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 36, no. 3 (2013): 225; Angela Rogers, “Silence No More: A Transformative Transcendental Phenomenological Study Investigating the Experiences of Teen Mothers Who Go to College in the Rural Southeast,” (PhD diss., Clemson University, 2010).
Douglas Heckathorn, “Respondent-Driven Sampling: A New Approach to the Study of Hidden Populations,” Social Problems 44, no. 2 (1997): 174.
Gabriel Henriques, “In Search of Collective Experience and Meaning: A Transcendental Phenomenological Methodology for Organizational Research,” Human Studies 37 (2014): 451–68.
Kyla Hunt, Library Programs and Services for New Adults (California: ABC-CLIO, 2017), 1.
Mark Bevan, “A Method of Phenomenological Interviewing,” Advancing Qualitative Methods 24, no.1 (2014), 138.
Ibid., 138.
Henriques, “In Search of Collective Experience and Meaning,” 461.
Bevan, “A Method of Phenomenological Interviewing,” 139.
McCrea, “Are Schools Disproportionately Surveilling Students Who Rely on School-Owned Devices?”
Oltmann et al., “Internet Filtering, Information Poverty, and Digital Literacy”.
Todd Feathers, “Schools Use Software that Blocks LGBTQ+ Content, but Not White Supremacists,” Vice April 28, 2021, accessed December 18, 2023; Rachwalski, “Personal Computers Allow Students to Bypass Chromebook Frustrations”; Anderson, “How Internet Filtering Hurts Kids.” https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7em39/schools-use-software-that-blocks-lgbtq-content-but-not-white-supremacists
Bernardo Ferro, “The Return from Otherness: Hegel’s Paradox of Self-Consciousness in the Phenomenology of Spirit,” Otherness: Essays and Studies 4, no. 1 (2013): 2.
Sosa Díaz, “Emergency Remote Education, Family Support and the Digital Divide in the Context of the COVID-19 Lockdown,” 7956.
Melgosa and Scott, “School Internet Safety More than ‘Block it to Stop it’,” 48.
Matt O’Brien, “Explainer: What is ChatGPT and Why are Schools Blocking It,” AP News January 7, 2023.
