The effect of a one-to-one laptop initiative on student academic performance based on the perceptions of participating students at a selected rural Midwestern high school is discussed in this paper. A modified version of a survey instrument created by the Mitchell Institute [1] was used to collect data. From the analysis of data gathered from 40 students, it was found that this initiative “increased student engagement and learning, motivation, [the] ability to work individually,” and overall grades. Ten out of 13 teachers stated that student engagement and interest levels improved.

The learning effectiveness and positive impact from the use of information and communication technologies in classrooms has been reported in several publications for many years [2,3,4]. When considering one-to-one laptop initiatives, one should definitely mention Portugal’s e.Escolinha program and the Magellan project, two of the world’s most successful nationwide programs targeting primary education. The difference between these and the various programs in public schools that implement one-to-one laptop computer programs (such as the one reported in this paper) is that in Portugal, age-appropriate technology and learning content were combined with the necessary teacher training and support [5]. To measure the impact on learning from such initiatives, one should not look merely at the change in student academic performance or scores, but at change in students’ skills and attitudes, including the development of positive feelings such as engagement and motivation.

Papers such as this one are very important because they can help convince educational policy makers and educational leaders that investing in information technology (IT) in schools, especially offering all students access to computers and the Internet, can have a positive impact on learning and help students acquire the skills needed for the 21st century [6]. They directly challenge the arguments of Thomas L. Russell’s well-known book [7] (and accompanying Web site [8]), which claims that there is no significant difference in student outcomes no matter which mode of education delivery is used.