Windows Vs Apple in K-12 Education: Why Does It Matter?

 This is an adaptation of my AP Research Paper on the "Evaluation of Whether Windows Models or Apple/Google Models are Better for District X". I'll be publishing as much of it as I can.

Introduction:

    The modern world is almost completely run on technology, and that means that the need to know how to use it is more pressing than ever. In the past, this critical skill was reserved for computer labs, where students would learn general basics and eventually more detailed and complex ways of using technology. However, with the rising prevalence of online learning and the need for a 1:1 student-to-technology ratio, computer labs have become woefully inefficient. Thus, a question arises: is one technology platform better than the others? To answer this question, this study compared two common technology platforms (referred to as “models”), an Apple/Google model and a Microsoft Model. The study compared the cost and end-user experience and included interviews with people familiar with the models. The importance of the findings of this study was not to determine which is better overall, but what is best suited for K-12 education in the modern day. Further research should be conducted on the differences in technological needs per grade level and a more comprehensive evaluation of the models over a longer period of time.

Literature Review/Gap in Knowledge

The 1:1 Student to Technology Ratio

    After the COVID-19 Pandemic, the need to revise how students and technology interact became apparent. Before the pandemic, many schools used computer labs where technology was shared between students; however, the need for students to be able to conduct schoolwork and join classes remotely required a 1:1 student-to-technology ratio. This has led to schools adapting said 1:1 ratio, which in turn has significantly impacted student achievement and performance, as well as fiscal costs. A study conducted by Hall, Lundin, and Sibbmark published in the Labor Economics Journal in April 2021, researched how how a 1:1 student-to-technology ratio, where laptops were the technology, affected student capital formation in schools across 26 Swedish municipalities, finding that while there was no performance impact on math and language test scores or secondary school admittance; however they did find that it can exacerbate inequality among low-socioeconomic students by worsening their performance. This shift from computer labs/laptop carts was spurred on by the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced schools online, and as some students did not have the proper technology. When Bebell and O’Dwyer studied the outcomes of the 1:1 ratio through reviewing several previously conducted studies in 2010, they found that teachers were critical to the success of the program alongside informed and consistent school policy, both which helped the 1:1 ratio succeed despite the variation of outcomes. This conclusion aligns with the findings of Hall, Lundin, and Sibbmark; however Bebell and O’Dwyer found that there were more lurking variables, such as administration and teachers, that influenced the outcomes. 

Technology’s Impact on Student Achievement

    After the switch to a 1:1 ratio, it became evident that research on how technology in education influences and breeds innovation. Chatterji conducted a study published in the University of Chicago Press Journals on innovation in education and agreed that technology was essential to student success, but determined that while a potential dramatic yield in educational innovation from technological development was possible, there were no gains in outcomes nor a cost reduction. Researchers conducted a systematic review of prior studies that was published in the Education and Information Technologies Journal on the potential for improved student performance and concluded that digital technology has a high potential to improve education, but investments into ICT (Information and Communication Technology) infrastructure have yet to yield fruitful results. While all the studies were valuable and demonstrated that technology in education is integral to ensuring that students are prepared and able to succeed, however neither study recorded what platform was used (Microsoft, Apple, Google, Linux). My research focuses on the specific platform used, which allows me to determine how the platform used impacts the students and their performance.

Technology Costs and Effectiveness 

    A major influence in the chosen platform used by school districts is the budget, which is why companies like Apple will offer discounts if they exclusively use their technology. One of the reasons is that Apple has become a dominant company in providing education-based technology, with Lenovo or HP in partnership with Google offering Chromebooks being another. In Forrester’s Total Economic Impact™ Of Apple Devices For K-12 Education from January 2023, the total costs for training and devices after four years came to 4,366,627 (not adjusted for risk). Therefore, having an effective technology platform is critical. In a study conducted by Eden Laquindanum from 2022 on the effectiveness of Microsoft Teams in tertiary education in the Philippines, it was found that, in general, MS Teams was mediocre or average, required good internet, but is useful and simple to use in the academic environment. In a separate study by Benjamin Agbo et al, a systematic literature review of research from 2013 to 2023 surrounding how software applications are used to support curriculum in education, resulting in a conclusion that more research is needed to determine what is the best software for supporting curriculum. 

Gap in Knowledge

    While the Forrester Study reveals the five-year cost of using Apple, it only cover Apple and not an Apple/Google model or Apple/Platform XYZ hybrid model, and is paid for by Apple, making it susceptible to bias; meanwhile the study done by Agbo is a literature review and does not go into what actually is occurring by conducting a separate study, however it still provides vital synthesis of studies. Finally, Laquindanum’s study is focused on Microsoft Teams specifically, as well as in the Philippines and in tertiary education. My study will focus on Microsoft products as a whole, such as using Microsoft 365 for Education on a Microsoft Surface Go 3 for Education in K-12 education, compared to Apple products such as iPads and MacBooks, by analyzing each one’s strengths and effectiveness in education. This makes the gap in knowledge not necessarily on whether a 1:1 student to technology ratio is adequate or up-to-standard, nor the potential gains of said ratio, but that technology should be used, and the study that did look into the software was not based in the United States nor was it focused on K-12 education, while this study does both. As a result, the gap in knowledge led to my research question: “To what extent, if any, does switching to a Windows-compatible model from the current Apple-Google hybrid model impact fiscal costs in District X without negatively impacting the end-user experience?”