Finding the Right Device for the Barrington 220 One to World Program

As a learning and teaching device, the iPad has been meeting or exceeding the educational needs of Barrington 220’s One to World program for many years. Each year we have conducted research about our program’s effectiveness measured by our One to World program's Mission and Vision. We have examined our program through the lenses of students and staff; we have focused on the use of creativity with our devices; and we have highlighted various projects and activities enhanced by technology in all buildings and grade levels across the district. 

Please note that the term “1:1 program” refers to the ratio of one technology device per student. In Barrington 220 we refer to our 1:1 program as the “One to World program.”

The One to World program began in the 2013–14 school year as a pilot at Barrington High School (BHS). Full high school implementation was completed in 2014–15, full middle school implementation was completed in 2015–16, and full PK–5 implementation was completed in 2016–17. At the beginning of the One to World program, students in Grades PK–8 used iPad, while high school students used a MacBook Air 11-inch laptop. BHS changed the student device to the iPad at the end of 2018–19 after a year-long study highlighting how creativity is used in the classroom.

Barrington 220’s District Technology Committee (DTC) is a district-level group of teachers, administrators, and support staff working collaboratively to represent views of stakeholders across the district and communicate back to buildings and/or departments about matters of learning technology. The DTC adopted and maintains the mission statement for the One to World program.

The Barrington 220 One to World program:

• Stimulates creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking.
• Creates opportunities for students to participate as global citizens.
• Provides real-world learning experiences.
• Facilitates personalized learning.
• Encourages timely and meaningful feedback.
• Guides responsible use of technology.

Throughout the course of our One to World program, we have remained informed about other devices used in other digital learning programs. Since the One to World program began, many school districts have adopted Chromebooks as their primary learning devices. More recently, Microsoft has begun creating devices running Windows aimed at education. Meanwhile, as mentioned above, the iPad has been meeting our needs in Barrington 220.

So why would we consider other devices? 

When we asked ourselves this question last year, the timing seemed right to conduct a formal device study for several reasons:

• Our original device decision was made nearly 10 years ago.
• New learning and teaching devices are available.
• Barrington 220 teachers are now very experienced teaching with devices.

We also noted that our iPad lease was ending in June 2022. Historically, each time we have renewed a One to World device lease, we have asked ourselves—and get asked by some community members—if we have considered other learning devices. With this timing as a consideration, 2021–22 seemed like an ideal time to conduct a formal device study.

Managing a 1:1 program requires far more than purchasing and distributing devices. Technology infrastructure, device management systems, technology support systems, and our dedicated and knowledgeable staff all work together to allow our devices to seamlessly integrate into learning and teaching. While some systems are platform-independent, others are selected specifically to support our current devices.

In June 2021, we presented several device study options to the Barrington 220 Board of Education. At that time, the Board asked us to begin the process of researching devices using a variety of data gathering methods. This article reports the highlights of what we learned during the next several months leading to our lease recommendation.

Barrington 220 considered four device types based upon researching current technology offerings and observing other school districts with 1:1 learning programs across the nation and world:

• Apple iPad
• Google Chrome device (laptop and touch-screen)
• Microsoft Surface device (laptop and touch-screen)
• Apple laptop (MacBook Air M1)

The following data sources were used in our device study:

• Barrington 220 teachers with previous 1:1 device experience
• Site visits to districts using other devices
• Device feature survey administered to educators with multiple device experiences
• Discussions with students about text input
• Device cost considerations

Barrington 220 Staff with Previous 1:1 Experience

During the course of this study, we found that a significant number of district staff hired within the past few years had experience teaching in other schools using a variety of 1:1 devices. Through a series of surveys, we were able to identify about 40 staff members with previous 1:1 program Chromebook experience and no staff with previous 1:1 program Windows experience. We were able to speak with many Barrington 220 staff members in focus groups and interviews with 1:1 Chromebook experience who now have one to three years of experience teaching in our 1:1 iPad program. 

After collecting and analyzing data from our sessions spanning all grade levels, Barrington 220 staff with recent experience teaching on Chromebook and iPad noted the following:

• Each device has strengths and limitations. 
• Chromebook has a built-in keyboard, but students using the device could not draw, annotate, or mark up documents by hand.
• Both iPad and Chromebook allow effective collaboration.
• iPad excels in creativity.
• Most participants felt the iPad is a higher-quality device.
• Chromebook allows easier options for controlling student access and limiting student choices.
• Chromebook is great for using Google Workspace, but limited in creativity and versatility.

In general, participants communicated that the Chromebook was a fine device for word processing, collaboration, and Internet access, but it fell short in the areas of creativity and versatility as compared to the iPad.

Site Visits

Barrington 220 researchers spoke with several school districts in the Chicago area and a few in other states. We were able to visit three area schools for in-person site visits:

• A suburban high school with a 1:1 program using Chromebooks with and without touchscreens
• A high school in Chicago’s north shore with a 1:1 program using Chromebooks without touchscreens
• A Community Unity School District (CUSD) Middle School with a 1:1 program using Chromebooks without touchscreens

Each in-person site visit included classroom visits that allowed Barrington 220 researchers to observe students and teachers in classrooms using devices for teaching and learning. Each site visit also allowed us to speak with teachers and/or administrators from the school or district where we discussed various aspects of their 1:1 device program. 

Despite our best efforts, we were unable to identify a public school or district using Windows as the primary student device in a 1:1 program in the Chicago suburbs with learning and teaching goals similar to Barrington 220’s One to World program. Overall, we found only 5 public school districts with Windows 1:1 programs among the 313 suburban Chicago school districts.

After analyzing our observations and interview notes, our site visits led us to the following conclusions:

• Chromebooks were primarily used for content delivery, learning management, and Google Workspace activities. 
• When not in Google Workspaces, students completed work on paper.
• Creative student projects were observed in just two classrooms among all three site visits. (The projects in two different site visits both involved students using an online video editing website.)
• Staff liked Chromebooks for the physical keyboard and ability to control student access.
• Teachers recognized device limitations (especially in subjects that use math), but felt the Chromebook generally met their needs.
• No apps were observed in use on Chromebooks—only Chrome extensions and websites were used.

Device Feature Survey

This device study included a survey that allowed educators to compare several categories of day-to-day teaching and learning device features. The survey was administered only to Barrington 220 staff with experience using multiple 1:1 devices, who were part of our site visits, and/or who are District Technology Committee members who were involved with this device study. Our Device Evaluation Survey included 49 specific device features in 11 categories. Barrington 220 sincerely thanks Township High School District 211 for providing a version of this survey that was used as a starting point for our research. District 211 conducted a similar research project that was published in 2019.

Among the 49 device categories studied, the iPad scored higher than the Chromebook in 47 categories, the Chromebook scored higher than the iPad in one category, and the devices tied in one category:

iPad Scored Higher

• User Experience—Touch Screen; Smart Stylus; User Management Experience; Learning Focus; Offline Device Access; Offline Materials Access
• Learning Experience—Creativity; Innovation; Student Choice
• Accessibility—General Accessibility; Vision Accessibility; Physical/Motor Accessibility; Hearing Accessibility; Accessible Teaching; OCR (Optical Character Recognition
• Camera—Capture Photos; Capture Video; Facing Cameras; Scanning
• Collaboration—Student-to-Student; Teacher-to-Teacher; Teacher-to-Student
• Content Creation—Writing; Reading; Math; Drawing; Video; Music/Audio
• Input Methods—Draw; Annotate; Write; Handwriting to Text; Type on Physical Keyboard; Voice Dictation
• Learning Management—Personal Organization; Functionality; Access; Professional Learning
• Portability & Mobility—Portability; Learning Mobility; Teaching Mobility
• Presentation—Wireless Presentation; Wireless Presentation Ease; Wireless Presentation Switching; Wired Presentation
• Workflow—Workflow Features; Ease of Workflow; Apps/Services Integration

Chromebook Scored Higher

Input Methods—Type on Physical Keyboard

iPad and Chromebook Scored the Same (Tie)

User Experience—Learning Focus

These results are corroborated by Township High School District 211’s study published in 2019. Although the District 211 study used a different set of criteria, many of the features measured in both surveys are similar. Among 41 classroom-related device features measured in District 211, the iPad scored higher in 38 areas, the Chromebook scored higher in 2 areas, and one area was a tie.

Student Typing Discussions

Since the topic of text input using a physical keyboard was frequently mentioned during the course of this study, Barrington 220 researchers wanted additional information on the importance of this topic directly from students. We turned to our own Barrington High School (BHS) students to help us better understand the many different methods of typing available by visiting two BHS AP (Advanced Placement) high school writing classes—AP Seminar and AP Research.

Our current BHS students represent a spectrum of transition between students who once exclusively used physical keyboards to enter text (BHS students in Grade 12)—to students who spent formative years in a transition between physical and on-screen keyboards (BHS students in Grades 9–11).

Our analysis revealed that our student conversations were evenly split among those who prefer a physical keyboard to those who prefer an onscreen keyboard. Students who participated in these discussions were well aware of the versatility offered by the precision touchscreen offered on an iPad. Most importantly, these conversations underscored the versatility of the iPad in general and demonstrated a desire among some students for the choice of a physical keyboard option.

Device Cost Considerations

While Barrington 220 has never made device cost the primary consideration in selecting a device for our One to World program, fiscal responsibility has always been included as a factor. Since the pilot year of the One to World program in 2012–13, the district has invested about ten years of time, training, professional learning, software purchases, and other systems costs into our current program. A device platform change would result in new start-up costs, new purchases, new training, and significant time to revise and/or re-create lessons and activities for new devices and systems. Thus, monetary, time, and other potential costs were considered.

One unintended consequence of our district selecting Apple devices has been that our devices have realized residual value at the end of our three- or four-year leases. After 3–4 years of use, Barrington 220 sells our used devices to an asset recovery company. Each device is graded on its condition, and we are typically offered 20–30% of our devices’ original values. These dollars are returned to our district’s Education Fund. We found during this study that Chromebooks have no residual value and some Windows devices have some residual value.

We are also well aware of the massive loss of time and the need for training on the part of staff, students, and families that would be required by a device platform change. Education researcher Michael Fullan refers to this loss of “performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation” as an “implementation dip.” Members of our District Technology Committee were the first to voice these significant concerns when the possibility of a device study was raised. While it may not be possible to assign a specific dollar value to an implementation dip, the quality of new devices and systems would need to be demonstrably higher than our current iPad-based program to justify a major change to the teachers, staff, and students of Barrington 220. 

For this aspect of the study, we compiled the following cost information using a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) methodology for six specific device types:

1. Apple iPad
2. Chromebook (without touchscreen)
3. Chromebook with Touchscreen
4. Windows Laptop (without touchscreen)
5. Windows Laptop with Touchscreen
6. Apple Laptop

This table presents a synopsis of device cost information for the devices we considered in this device study:

Please read the full study to learn about the details behind each cost estimate in this comparison.

Conclusion

Based upon all of our collected research from a wide variety of sources, Barrington 220 concludes that the iPad is the best device choice to continue the mission and vision of the One to World program. The iPad was shown to be the best device for creativity and was more versatile for classroom activities compared to the devices we observed. Feature comparisons that were completed for this study demonstrate that the iPad performs better in the vast majority of categories used in Barrington 220 for learning and teaching activities. Further, most other devices we studied cost more than the iPad.

You may read the full research study report or view the Board of Education presentation to learn more about the details of this study. 

Thank You!

Barrington 220 wishes to sincerely thank the many, many people who helped us engage in this device study, including the Barrington 220 District Technology Committee (DTC); Scott Weidig, Technology Coordinator at Township High School 211; Damian Simmons, Jennifer Walsh, and Mitch Beck, DTC Members; Tessa Mulvaney, BHS Teacher; all Barrington 220 teachers and staff who responded to surveys and participated in focus groups; the Barrington 220 Executive Council; the Chicago-based Microsoft Education Team; the staff and students of the three schools that allowed us to visit in person; and many other schools and districts who provided us with additional information during the course of this study.