Technologies in Context: Examining the Pedagogical and Relational Dimensions of Laptop Use in Abu Dhabi

Technologies in Context: Examining the Pedagogical and Relational Dimensions of Laptop Use in Abu Dhabi | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Technologies in Context: Examining the Pedagogical and Relational Dimensions of Laptop Use in Abu Dhabi Hanan Alshehhi, Nurullah Eryilmaz This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7044573/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Despite growing global investments in one-to-one laptop programs, the successful integration of digital technology in schools remains highly uneven, particularly in under-researched regions like the Gulf. This qualitative case study investigates how middle school students and teachers in Abu Dhabi experience the introduction of laptops through the national Alef platform. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with six teachers and six students across two public schools, the study explores key sociotechnical and emotional dimensions of technology adoption. The findings reveal significant gaps in structured training, especially for students—technical malfunctions in digital infrastructure (e.g., LMS failures), and gendered disparities in access to support. While students reported greater self-confidence and motivation when using laptops at home, challenges such as over-competitiveness, digital fatigue, and parental skepticism tempered these benefits. Teachers, meanwhile, described shifting professional roles, uneven digital readiness, and evolving classroom relationships. By highlighting the contextual, emotional, and relational factors shaping ed-tech uptake, this study contributes to more nuanced, equity-oriented approaches to digital reform in education. Laptop integration educational technology digital learning teacher-student relationships digital equity UAE schools qualitative case study Introduction Over the past two decades, one-to-one (1:1) laptop initiatives have evolved from small-scale experimental programs to widespread components of national education policy agendas. Governments and school systems across the globe have invested in providing individual digital devices to students, viewing such access as a pathway to enhancing student engagement, supporting personalized learning, and preparing learners for the demands of the 21st-century knowledge economy (OECD, 2021 ; UNESCO, 2022 ). Particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which amplified the urgency of digital transformation in education, the role of laptops and other personal devices has gained renewed policy momentum and public attention (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020 ). These devices are often portrayed as tools of educational equity—capable of bridging opportunity gaps, fostering learner autonomy, and enabling access to rich digital content and collaborative learning environments (Bulman & Fairlie, 2016 ; Lim et al., 2013 ). Yet despite their widespread adoption, the actual impact of 1:1 laptop integration remains uneven, especially in terms of pedagogical change and meaningful student learning. Despite the global enthusiasm for one-to-one laptop programs, research consistently reveals a persistent gap between access to devices and their meaningful integration into everyday classroom practice. While many education systems have succeeded in distributing digital tools at scale, this infrastructural achievement does not automatically translate into improved learning outcomes (Selwyn, 2016 ; Cuban, 2020 ). The promise of personalized and engaging digital learning often falters due to challenges related to teacher preparedness, pedagogical adaptation, and contextual constraints, particularly in non-Western or under-researched educational settings (Lim et al., 2014 ; Voogt et al., 2015 ). In many cases, the focus on hardware provision has overshadowed the deeper work required to foster digital pedagogy—namely, rethinking classroom practices, assessment methods, and student-teacher relationships in technology-rich environments (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010 ). This “implementation gap” is particularly acute where professional development is limited, socio-cultural factors affect technology use, or students lack digital support at home (Fraillon et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, much of the existing evidence relies on survey or performance data, leaving a critical need for rich, qualitative accounts of how students and teachers experience and interpret technology integration in their daily school lives (Howard et al., 2021 ). The integration of educational technologies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region—particularly in Abu Dhabi—has unfolded against a backdrop of rapid economic development, policy-driven modernization, and ambitious national visions for educational transformation (Rizvi, 2017 ; Romanowski & Nasser, 2012 ). As part of the United Arab Emirates’ Vision 2030 and the Ministry of Education’s digital learning strategy, large-scale investments in one-to-one device programs and smart learning platforms, such as Alef, have been deployed to enhance personalization, digital skills, and student autonomy. Abu Dhabi’s education system is shaped by a unique mix of multilingual student populations, a predominantly expatriate teaching workforce, and centralized governance structures that facilitate swift policy rollout, but may challenge bottom-up responsiveness (Badri et al., 2016 ). Despite these developments, the Gulf remains underrepresented in global conversations on educational technology. Much of the existing literature on technology integration continues to be grounded in Western or East Asian contexts, overlooking the socio-cultural dynamics, policy environments, and pedagogical norms specific to the Arab world (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010 ; Selwyn, 2016 ). In particular, there is a dearth of qualitative studies capturing how students and teachers in the Gulf experience and interpret technology use in everyday classroom practice. This study addresses that gap by providing localized insights into the implementation of laptop programs in Abu Dhabi middle schools—offering both a theoretical and empirical contribution to global ed-tech literature. This study explores how students and teachers experience the integration of laptops into classroom practice in Abu Dhabi public middle schools. While many technology-focused educational reforms emphasize infrastructure and policy metrics, this research foregrounds the everyday realities of implementation as perceived by those most directly affected: learners and educators. Through in-depth interviews with students and teachers, the study investigates how laptop use intersects with self-confidence, self-efficacy, pedagogical routines, and classroom relationships. By adopting a qualitative, contextually grounded lens, this research addresses an important gap in the educational technology literature: the need to understand how digital tools are interpreted, appropriated, and negotiated in real-world settings—particularly within underrepresented regions such as the Gulf. The findings contribute to international debates on equitable and effective technology use in schools, offering actionable insights for policymakers, school leaders, and ed-tech designers seeking to make digital learning meaningful, inclusive, and sustainable across diverse educational contexts. To guide our analysis, we draw on two widely used theoretical frameworks in educational technology research: the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis et al., 1989 ) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). These models help explain how students' and teachers’ perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and institutional conditions influence their acceptance and integration of laptops in everyday classroom practice. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Theoretical Framework: Technology Acceptance in Education Understanding how teachers and students adopt and use new technologies in classroom settings is central to evaluating the impact of one-to-one laptop initiatives. This study draws on two influential frameworks in educational technology research—the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)—to explore how individual perceptions and contextual factors shape the uptake of laptops in Abu Dhabi middle schools. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), introduced by Davis (1989), posits that users’ behavioral intentions toward a technology are driven by two key beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. In educational contexts, these constructs help explain why some teachers and students embrace digital tools while others resist them—often regardless of access. For instance, teachers are more likely to integrate technology when they believe it enhances instructional effectiveness and can be used with minimal effort (Teo, 2011; Scherer et al., 2019). Expanding on TAM, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) integrates additional sociotechnical factors including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This model is particularly useful in studying systems like Abu Dhabi’s, where digital reforms are centrally mandated and implemented rapidly across a culturally diverse teaching force (Badri et al., 2016; Hamdan, 2014). The UTAUT framework allows us to examine how perceptions of institutional support, peer expectations, and infrastructure availability influence real classroom use of laptops. Together, TAM and UTAUT provide a theoretically robust lens to investigate the complex interplay between policy structures, teacher agency, and sociocultural realities. In Abu Dhabi, where top-down initiatives meet diverse classroom ecologies, these models illuminate how digital technologies are negotiated and adapted in practice. Laptop Integration in K–12 Classrooms Over the past two decades, one-to-one (1:1) laptop initiatives have become central to education reform agendas worldwide, particularly as policymakers seek to promote digital literacy, personalized learning, and 21st-century competencies. From large-scale programs in the United States and Australia to national efforts in countries like Uruguay (Plan Ceibal) and Thailand, laptop integration in K–12 classrooms has aimed to close digital divides and foster student autonomy (Bulman & Fairlie, 2016; Trucano, 2016). Empirical findings suggest that laptops, when meaningfully integrated, can support a range of pedagogical benefits. These include enhanced student engagement, greater opportunities for collaborative and inquiry-based learning, improved access to digital content, and increased student agency through self-paced learning (Penuel, 2006; Zheng et al., 2016). Laptops also facilitate multimedia and multimodal instruction, allowing teachers to differentiate content delivery and assessment (Tamim et al., 2015). However, the promise of 1:1 initiatives is frequently undermined by persistent implementation challenges. Chief among these are limited teacher preparedness, lack of ongoing professional development, and weak alignment between digital tools and existing curricular frameworks (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Cuban, 2020). Even where infrastructure is in place, digital inequities often re-emerge through disparities in students’ home access, parental support, and prior exposure to technology-rich environments (Selwyn, 2016; Fraillon et al., 2020). In many settings, laptops are used primarily for administrative or low-level tasks rather than for transformative pedagogical purposes (Håkansson Lindqvist, 2015). Moreover, much of the literature on 1:1 computing originates from Western, high-income countries, leaving a gap in understanding how such programs unfold in Global South or non-Western education systems. Studies that do explore these contexts often highlight unique sociocultural, infrastructural, and linguistic challenges that shape the uptake and impact of digital technologies in schools (Lim et al., 2014). Overall, while 1:1 laptop programs hold considerable potential, their success depends on more than device distribution. They require sustained attention to pedagogical transformation, equitable support systems, and local educational ecologies—issues this study addresses by focusing on the lived experiences of teachers and students in Abu Dhabi middle schools. Challenges of Digital Equity and Pedagogical Change While one-to-one laptop initiatives have expanded digital access, they have not automatically translated into equitable or transformative educational practices. This reflects what researchers term the “second-level digital divide” or digital divide 2.0—a shift from unequal access to unequal use of technology for meaningful learning (Fraillon et al., 2020; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019). In this sense, the digital equity challenge is not just about providing devices but ensuring that students—particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds—have access to high-quality, technology-enhanced pedagogy and appropriate support systems. Despite infrastructure gains, many education systems face a persistent implementation gap between the promise of digital innovation and its actual classroom impact. Studies across diverse contexts reveal that technology often reinforces traditional pedagogies unless accompanied by changes in instructional culture and teacher beliefs (Selwyn, 2016; Cuban, 2020). For example, Voogt et al. (2015) found that even when technology was available, its integration often remained superficial—limited to content delivery rather than active, student-centered learning. This is especially evident in settings where teachers lack autonomy or training to adapt curriculum and assessment strategies to digital contexts. Teacher agency plays a pivotal role in bridging this gap. As Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) argue, effective technology integration depends not only on access and policy support but also on teachers' pedagogical beliefs, confidence, and professional learning environments. Without adequate space for contextual adaptation and reflective practice, top-down reforms risk reproducing existing inequalities rather than addressing them. In multilingual, diverse, and policy-driven systems such as those in the Gulf, challenges of alignment between national ed-tech strategies and local classroom realities remain pronounced. Laptop Use in Gulf Education Contexts The integration of educational technologies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries has accelerated in recent years, driven by state-led modernization agendas and national visions that place digital transformation at the heart of economic and educational reform. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), initiatives such as Vision 2031 and the Smart Learning Program have promoted one-to-one laptop distribution, digital learning platforms like Alef, and an expanded role for educational technologies in classrooms (UAE Ministry of Education, 2023). These policy frameworks aim to enhance student engagement, foster independent learning, and prepare learners for participation in the global knowledge economy. Abu Dhabi, in particular, has emerged as a regional leader in digital education due to its centralized policy infrastructure, significant investment capacity, and diverse student population. Its schools are characterized by multilingual classrooms and a largely expatriate teaching workforce—features that create both opportunities and tensions in the implementation of top-down reforms (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; Abdallah, & Alriyami, 2022). While infrastructure and access have rapidly expanded, challenges related to digital pedagogy, equity, and contextual responsiveness persist. Despite these developments, the Gulf region remains underrepresented in global educational technology research. Most scholarly discussions on one-to-one laptop programs originate in North American, European, or East Asian contexts, where school governance structures, teacher training systems, and cultural values often differ significantly from those in the Gulf (Selwyn, 2016; Howard et al., 2021). Moreover, few studies have explored how technological reforms are experienced by teachers and students in the region. Qualitative investigations of classroom practices, particularly from the perspectives of educators and learners themselves, are notably rare. This study addresses the gap by documenting lived experiences of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi public middle schools—offering localized insights that contribute to international debates on equity, implementation, and digital pedagogical change. Existing Research and Study Contribution Globally, the integration of one-to-one (1:1) laptop initiatives has been associated with improvements in student engagement, digital literacy, and academic self-efficacy (OECD, 2021; Bulman & Fairlie, 2016). However, researchers emphasize that access alone does not guarantee meaningful learning outcomes. Rather, effective implementation hinges on factors such as teaching digital pedagogy, robust infrastructure, and socio-cultural responsiveness (Selwyn, 2016; Voogt et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2021). Teacher preparedness is particularly critical. Studies show that insufficient professional development undermines technology integration in both Western and non-Western contexts (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Lim et al., 2014; Howard et al., 2022). Even in resource-rich settings, technical issues—such as connectivity challenges and device failures—frequently obstruct classroom use (Fraillon et al., 2020; Alzarooni et al., 2024). Socioeconomic and gender disparities further complicate digital equity. Students from higher-income households often have greater home access to the internet, digital support, and quiet learning spaces (OECD, 2021; Hohlfeld et al., 2017). Gendered differences in digital confidence also persist, with male students frequently reporting more comfort using technology—though targeted support can close these gaps (Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008; Siddiq & Scherer, 2019). Despite this growing literature, few studies provide qualitative insight into how technology is actually experienced in everyday schooling, particularly in the Gulf region. This study addresses that gap by capturing how students and teachers in Abu Dhabi middle schools interpret and navigate the affordances and constraints of large-scale laptop integration. In doing so, it offers a critical, contextually grounded contribution to international debates on equitable and effective digital learning. Methodology Research Design This study employs a qualitative case study design to investigate how students and teachers experience the integration of laptops in public middle schools in Abu Dhabi. A qualitative approach is particularly well-suited for capturing the nuanced, context-specific dimensions of technology use, allowing for a deep exploration of participants’ perspectives, emotions, and day-to-day practices (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By focusing on lived experience, this design foregrounds the interpretive processes through which individuals navigate and make sense of technological change in educational settings. Semi-structured interviews served as the primary method of data collection. This approach balances the structure necessary for comparability across cases with the flexibility needed to probe emerging themes and follow participants’ unique narratives (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The interview protocol included open-ended questions targeting multiple facets of technology integration: instructional practices prior to laptop implementation, professional development and support structures, perceived shifts in student motivation and engagement, and the influence of socio-cultural dynamics on digital learning. These domains were informed by prior research on ed-tech adoption and adapted to the specific policy and cultural context of Abu Dhabi. This design enabled the study to move beyond surface-level metrics of access and usage, offering insight into how digital reforms are enacted, challenged, and reinterpreted by the individuals most directly affected. Participant Selection This study employed a purposive sampling strategy to recruit participants who were directly engaged with the Alef smart learning program in public middle schools in Abu Dhabi. The final sample included six teachers and six students from two participating schools, selected to ensure a balanced representation across gender, subject specializations, teaching experience, and levels of digital familiarity. The teacher sample encompassed educators from Arabic, Mathematics, Science, and Islamic Studies, reflecting the interdisciplinary scope of the integration. Participants varied in their exposure to digital pedagogy—some had completed formal ICT training and held professional development certifications, while others had minimal experience with educational technologies prior to the initiative. The student sample was similarly diverse in terms of digital literacy and home access to technology. Participants ranged from digitally confident students with previous exposure to smart devices to those encountering laptops in a learning environment for the first time. Table 1 summarizes the distribution of participants by school and gender. Importantly, interviews were conducted only with students from the test group, as they had direct experience using laptops in their classrooms, whereas the control group followed traditional instruction without device integration. Table 1. Participant Composition by Group and Method Group School Gender Student Survey Sample Student Interview Sample Teacher Interview Sample Test Boys 59 3 3 Girls 50 3 3 Control Boys 46 n/a n/a Girls 43 n/a n/a Total 198 6 6 Note: Only students from the test group were interviewed, as they had direct exposure to the laptop integration program. By incorporating variation in gender, subject background, and digital readiness, the sample design allows for a rich, multidimensional exploration of how different actors experience technology integration within the same systemic context. Data Collection Semi-Structured Interviews To explore the multifaceted experiences of students and teachers involved in the laptop integration initiative, the study employed semi-structured interviews as its primary data collection method. This approach was selected for its capacity to combine consistency across participants with the flexibility to probe individual perspectives, enabling the capture of rich, nuanced data (Kallio et al., 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Each interview was guided by a structured protocol organized around the following thematic areas: Teachers’ experiences with ICT training and professional development; Students’ engagement with laptops at school and at home; Technical and pedagogical challenges encountered during implementation; Infrastructure constraints and institutional support mechanisms; Perceived impact of technology on classroom dynamics and student motivation; The influence of socio-cultural factors, including gender, digital access, and family environment. Interviews were conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams, in accordance with health and safety protocols related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This format ensured participant safety while preserving a conversational and interactive interview environment. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews, including consent for audio recording and transcription. Interviews ranged from 30 to 45 minutes in duration and were transcribed verbatim for subsequent thematic analysis. Participant Characteristics The teacher sample consisted of six educators from public middle schools in Abu Dhabi, selected to reflect diversity in subject areas, professional experience, and digital readiness. As shown in Table 2 , participants ranged in age from 31 to 47 and held degrees from universities in the UAE, Egypt, and Syria. Their subject specializations included Arabic, Islamic Education, Mathematics, and Science. Technology usage varied widely—from basic use of smartphones and laptops for classroom tasks to more advanced engagement with educational tools and certification programs such as the International Computer Driving License (ICDL), Intel Teach, and Microsoft Office. Table 2. Teacher Interview Characteristics Pseudonym Age Gender Year of Graduation University Major Technology Used / Training Certificates Ahmad 47 M 1995, 2000 Cairo University (Egypt) Education, Arabic ICDL, ITV, Professional Development in Education Hassan 46 M 1998, 1999 Damascus University (Syria) Arabic, Islamic Education Laptop, Mobile, iPad, TV Ali 32 M 2016 Cairo University Mathematics iPad, Phone, Laptop (for work) Nora 38 F 2005 UAE University Arabic ICDL, Intel, Mobile & Computer (work) Asma 34 F 2010 United Arab Emirates University Science iPhone, MacBook (work), MS Office Certificate Abeer 31 F 2014 Abu Dhabi University Mathematics Smartphone, Laptop (work & personal), AutoCAD To complement the teacher sample, six students (aged 11) were selected to represent different experiences with technology both at school and at home. All participants were drawn from the "test group"—students who had direct exposure to the laptop integration program. As summarized in Table 3 , the students reported using a range of devices (e.g., iPads, computers, smartphones), and their primary uses spanned education apps, homework, research, programming, and entertainment. This variation allowed the study to explore how different levels of digital access and literacy influenced learners’ engagement and confidence. Table 3. Student Interview Characteristics Pseudonym Gender Age Technology Used Primary Use Male A M 11 Apple phone, computer Digital programs, education apps Male B M 11 Computer, iPad Studying, programming Male C M 11 Smartphone, tablet Homework, entertainment Female A F 11 Computer, mobile, iPad Studying, social media Female B F 11 School computer, iPad Online classes, assignments Female C F 11 Mobile phone, computer Research, learning Data Analysis The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework. This method allowed for a systematic and interpretive approach to identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within the data. The analysis involved the following stages: Familiarization: Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and read multiple times to ensure immersion in the data. Initial Coding: Key phrases and segments were coded manually to identify salient patterns across the dataset. Theme Construction: Codes were clustered into broader thematic categories representing shared concepts or tensions. Review and Refinement: Themes were refined and cross-checked for coherence and distinctiveness. Definition and Naming: Each theme was clearly defined in relation to the research questions. Interpretation: Final themes were interpreted through the lens of existing theory and literature to inform discussion and implications. From this process, four central themes emerged: Teacher Training and Support: Highlighting uneven levels of digital competence and professional development access. Infrastructure and Digital Access: Addressing technical barriers, including unreliable connectivity and device limitations. Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes: Exploring how laptops influenced motivation, participation, and perceived academic benefits. Socio-Cultural Influences: Revealing how gender, home environment, and socioeconomic factors shaped experiences with digital learning. Ethical Statement This study received ethical approval from the Department of Education at Durham University prior to data collection (Approval Date: 30 January 2019). The research complied with the ethical guidelines established by the British Educational Research Association (BERA). Formal permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK), and all participating schools provided institutional consent. Informed consent was collected from all teacher participants and from the parents or legal guardians of all student participants under the age of 18. Assent was also obtained from student participants. Participants were informed about the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time, and the procedures in place to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. All data were stored securely and used solely for the purposes of academic research. Results Training as a Foundation for Digital Adaptation Training emerged as a pivotal factor influencing the effectiveness of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi middle schools. Both students and teachers highlighted disparities in preparedness, shaped by institutional decisions, access to support, and prior digital experience. Student Training Gaps and Inconsistencies Students reported mixed experiences with training, with some recalling structured sessions facilitated by specialists. A male student described: “The specialist asked us to watch him and do the same… then he asked us to repeat what we learned… he offered help to the ones who faced a problem.” However, others—particularly in female schools—received no formal training. One teacher noted: “For students, there were no training sessions; however, teachers trained them eventually in the classrooms. The responsibility was given to respective class teachers.” This inconsistency appeared influenced by school size and gender, with male students sometimes trained collectively in larger spaces like gyms. Teacher Training: Uneven Impact Despite Formal Provision Teachers were provided with both on-campus and off-campus training by the Ministry of Education, supported by certificates and credit hours. As one teacher explained: “There is training and application on this training, as well as tests… and you will be credited with credit hours from the Ministry.” Yet the quality and impact of training varied. Teachers with stronger prior ICT experience adapted quickly, while others—particularly older educators, struggled. One science teacher observed: “Teachers of an older age had issues adjusting… and took longer to adopt the new technology.” Role Reversals and the Limits of Training Students sometimes became the more digitally fluent users in the classroom. One male student shared: “Some teachers did not know how to do screen sharing… we told them, and we taught the teachers other things.” Likewise, a female teacher noted: “Sometimes students could tell us about things in Alef that we did not know, because they were skillful at technology and computers.” These accounts point to a mismatch between formal training content and the practical demands of classroom technology use—suggesting that many teachers were unprepared for the day-to-day realities of digital instruction. Toward Self-Directed Professional Learning While some teachers expressed frustration over limited support, others embraced a more self-directed model. As one teacher remarked: “Now it feels that many online learning sources have made the information readily available to everyone, and the importance of training sessions has declined.” This shift reflects broader changes in the culture of professional development but also risks excluding those without the digital capital to learn independently. As Carlson and Isaacs (2017) argue, technical capital is built not only through access, but through sustained opportunities to develop confidence, awareness, and practical capacity. Infrastructure Infrastructure plays a foundational role in the effective implementation of educational technology, shaping both teachers’ and students’ day-to-day engagement with digital tools. In the context of Abu Dhabi’s public middle schools, major investments in modern digital infrastructure—including laptops, digital platforms, and learning management systems—were guided by national initiatives such as Vision 2021 and Centennial Strategy 2071. These investments were designed to create future-ready learning environments through the integration of modern teaching aids, digital libraries, and high-speed internet access. However, as this study reveals, the success of these reforms is shaped as much by technological reliability and support structures as by hardware availability alone. Despite the provision of advanced infrastructure, both students and teachers reported recurring system issues, particularly with the Learning Management System (LMS). These issues affected classroom productivity and student confidence. As one eighth-grade male student noted: "There are difficulties in LMS; great difficulties. Now, when we enter any test and finish it, a message appears that our work has not been submitted, so we must do it again." Similarly, a female student recalled experiencing system glitches during assessments that undermined her performance: "At the time of the exam, for example, the computer would freeze and answer by itself. I mean, I was clicking on one thing, and it was pressing on another thing, and that affected my grades a little." Such technical malfunctions disrupted learning flow and caused unnecessary stress, highlighting a key implementation gap between policy-level infrastructure provision and reliable, classroom-level execution. Technical Support and Its Limitations Teachers acknowledged the presence of designated technical personnel intended to assist with such challenges. For instance, Teacher Ahmad explained: "We encountered problems such as technical problems and problems in the Alef platform about certain points... There are two people responsible for the Alef platform: one is an academic and the other is a technician, and these two exist in all schools." Yet, support systems were not always perceived as effective. Teachers reported delays and inconsistencies in response times, particularly in larger or under-resourced schools. As Ahmad further elaborated: "There is an academic person who supervises more than one school, such as five schools; he is the main reference for the Alef platform that receives feedback, questions, or errors in communication." These inconsistencies point to the importance of not only deploying infrastructure but also ensuring that adequate human support systems are in place to sustain digital transformation. Gender Disparities in Support Access A significant finding was the gendered disparity in access to technical support. Male students described more consistent access to on-site IT support and active engagement from their teachers. One male student explained: "Yes, there were training sessions given to students from respective subject teachers in the beginning. Also, any technical support was fulfilled by the IT supervisor in the school." Conversely, female students expressed frustration over delayed support and unresolved device issues. One student described an extended period during which her computer remained unfixed despite repeated complaints: "From the beginning of the semester, she was telling me that she would fix the computer or bring me a new one, but until the end of the semester, she did not. I used to remind them and tell them, but they did nothing." These inequities underscore the need for more responsive, inclusive support structures to ensure that all students—regardless of gender or school—benefit equally from digital learning environments. Internet Restrictions and Digital Access Another infrastructure-related challenge was internet filtering, designed to block access to non-educational content. While intended to safeguard focus, these restrictions also curtailed students’ ability to conduct research and access wider learning materials. As one student explained: "Yes, from the beginning until now, YouTube has been banned. The students were annoyed by this. Undesirable websites wouldn’t open because of the Ministry’s measures." This tension between control and exploration illustrates a key dilemma in digital policy: how to balance protective measures with the flexibility needed for student-driven inquiry. The findings emphasize that infrastructure alone is insufficient for ensuring meaningful technology integration. Consistent with the UTAUT model, which highlights the importance of facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003), this study shows that effective infrastructure must be accompanied by reliable technical support, equitable access, and responsiveness to users' needs. Without these elements, even the most well-funded digital initiatives risk falling short of their educational goals. Using Technology at Home The use of educational technology at home emerged as a critical dimension of the laptop integration experience, influencing students’ academic performance, emotional well-being, motivation, and capacity for self-directed learning. Teachers and students alike described home-based digital learning as both an enabler of academic progress and a source of new social and behavioral challenges. This section explores the dual nature of technology use outside the classroom, revealing its potential to enhance learning outcomes while simultaneously raising concerns about equity, academic integrity, and overuse. Academic Improvement Through Home Use Several teachers noted that home access to digital tools significantly improved student performance, particularly for previously low-achieving students. For example, Teacher Nora observed a marked transformation in her Arabic language class: “Some female students made a big leap from a student of acceptable or successful level to a superior girl… girls who got marks of 90, 80, and 85, and this was not their level before… But now, there are fantastic scores.” These improvements suggest that asynchronous access to multimedia resources, practice exercises, and lesson recordings offered students the flexibility to learn at their own pace and reinforce challenging content, fostering deeper understanding and academic confidence. Reducing Psychological Barriers Teachers also emphasized that digital learning helped some students overcome psychological and social barriers to participation. Technology created alternative modes of expression for students who were reluctant to speak in traditional classroom settings. Teacher Nora described one such transformation: “There is another girl who did not speak at all… But through distance education, she was participating and reading.” A male religious studies teacher echoed this sentiment, noting that digital assignments allowed students to bypass the fear of public speaking: “Shyness sometimes prevents him from speaking… I broke the barrier of fear and dread.” These findings highlight the emotional affordances of digital tools, which provide safer spaces for students to express themselves and engage in learning on their own terms. Freedom of Choice and Motivation Teachers widely reported that technology supported student autonomy by enabling choice in how and when to learn. A male Arabic teacher described this shift from passive to self-directed learning: “In the past, the student was forced to learn, but now it is by his choice… The student is now at home, neither bored nor lazy.” This freedom was amplified through platform features such as learning games and personalized task structures, which increased students’ intrinsic motivation and enjoyment of the learning process. Self-Learning and Independent Study Mathematics teachers in particular highlighted how digital platforms encouraged step-by-step mastery through adaptive learning paths and continuous self-assessment. One teacher described how students progressed through scaffolded levels of knowledge: “At the end of the lesson… there is a self-evaluation… There is a second knowledge summary, which goes gradually from an easy level to a higher one…” Such features nurtured students’ ability to monitor their own learning, build confidence, and develop metacognitive strategies essential for long-term academic success. Motivation and Misuse: Unintended Consequences While digital rewards and gamified learning elements (e.g., stars, badges, games) motivated many students, they also led to some unintended behaviors. A mathematics teacher explained: “There is also a thing called ‘add games’… This also gave motivation through educational games.” However, competition for rewards also sparked incidents of peer manipulation. One eighth-grade female student recounted: “Even my friends said to me, ‘Give me your account and I will solve your homework...’ But after that, they would write anything, and the result was zero.” This highlights the tension between motivational design and academic integrity, emphasizing the need for teacher monitoring and digital citizenship education. Parental Engagement and Oversight A major benefit of digital learning at home was the increased visibility it offered parents into their children’s academic progress. Teachers observed that technology enabled parents to become more proactive in supporting their children. A male Arabic teacher explained: “Parents began to follow their children… Exactly, they had programs, and it was easy for them to get information… while sitting at home without the trouble of going to school.” This shift reflects how technology not only reshaped student experience but also transformed family-school relationships by fostering greater transparency and accountability. Relationships Among Stakeholders The integration of laptops in Abu Dhabi’s public middle schools has significantly reshaped interactions between key educational stakeholders, particularly teachers and students. As communication and instruction shifted to digital platforms, so too did the social and pedagogical dynamics within classrooms and staffrooms. This section explores three key relational transformations: teacher–student communication, changes in teacher roles, and the evolving collegial environment. Teacher–Student Interaction: From Proximity to Platform Technology-mediated instruction has extended the boundaries of teacher–student interaction beyond the physical classroom. One female Arabic language teacher described this shift: “Before using technology, if I wanted to communicate with the student, the communication was at school only. I could not communicate with him outside the school, and if I wanted to communicate with him outside the school, it was by using the landline or the mobile.” While digital access enhanced flexibility, several teachers felt that it diluted student engagement. A mathematics teacher noted: “In the past days where technology usage was limited, students learned and communicated more verbally; the expression skills of the students were more admired. This made students involve themselves fully, physically and mentally, in the classroom.” Others described digital learning as more procedural and less dialogic. A religious studies teacher remarked: “The relationship was natural between the teacher and the student, and it was monotonic.” Still, some educators perceived gains. One female science teacher observed: “The relation of teachers and students was more significant, because students now had new gates open to learn easily, and teachers now had gates open to use new activities and share lessons with students on their laptops.” Evolving Role of the Teacher: From Instructor to Facilitator The implementation of digital learning tools reframed teachers’ roles from direct instructors to monitors and facilitators. As a female Arabic language teacher shared: “Some of the students completed the tasks and delivered them to the Alef platform to the fullest… my role as a teacher was to follow up the students’ progress… and make the students try to commit, especially with the issue of commitment to the two platforms.” Technology also accelerated instructional pacing. Teacher Ahmed emphasized: “The teaching-learning process has become easier and more communicative, and the information arrives quickly, and the speed of achievement begins to be applied in the designated places on the Teams.” Several teachers highlighted the shift toward reciprocal learning. As Ahmed elaborated: “The teacher can present in the virtual class some projects or some competitions, so the students implement them at home and display them in the next class… So, there became a relationship of exchanging experiences.” Teacher–Teacher Interaction: Diverging Gendered Perspectives The introduction of digital tools also influenced peer relationships among teachers, though perceptions varied by gender. All female teachers interviewed expressed concern about diminished collegial interaction. A female Arabic teacher recalled: “I worked in the first two schools in which we did not use the means of technology. The relationship between us and the administration was more than a family relationship. We were not busy with technology… everything was based on paperwork.” Another added: “Before introducing technology, the colleagues were talking to each other most of the time. Rather, now they are busy on their phones.” A female mathematics teacher similarly noted: “Technology has given good but also led to a decline in social relationships and interaction among colleagues.” In contrast, male teachers viewed digital systems as strengthening collaboration and saving time. A male Arabic teacher observed: “After the introduction of technology, it became easier to conserve time and effort. In the past, teachers needed to gather in a specific place for meetings. Now, through Teams, meetings can happen quickly.” A male religious studies teacher went further, suggesting: “Now, we find there is more intimate communication than before, because we work within one framework.” These contrasting views reveal how technology alters not just pedagogy but also the social structure of school communities, sometimes deepening collaboration, and at other times eroding informal support networks. Emotional Experience The introduction of laptops in UAE middle schools triggered a wide range of emotional responses among students and teachers. While some experienced empowerment and excitement, others encountered anxiety, confusion, or resistance. These emotional dynamics were shaped not only by technological design and infrastructure but also by cultural expectations, pedagogical routines, and institutional readiness. Mixed Student Emotions: Relief vs. Anxiety Students expressed both appreciation and frustration. One male student described the flexibility offered by recorded lessons: “With technology, we can repeat the lesson anytime we want because of the recorded explanation, so it is easy.” Yet, others found the pressure to work quickly detrimental to learning. As one female student put it: “In the computer lab, we do not understand much, but we solve very quickly… when our answer is correct, it is just by luck.” These perspectives highlight a tension between accessibility and depth of engagement—where ease of access does not always translate to meaningful comprehension. Teacher Anxiety and Resistance to Change Many teachers initially viewed the shift to digital learning with skepticism or discomfort. A religious studies teacher noted: “At the beginning of everything, new ideas may not meet others’ satisfaction… because it is something new that came against traditional methods.” A female teacher echoed this, recalling how teachers had to “get used to it bit by bit,” learning through trial and error. Meanwhile, students noticed this discomfort. One girl remarked: “Most of the teachers hated the Alef platform… there was not enough time to explain the lesson.” Fears of Over-Engagement and Skill Loss Concerns about excessive reliance on technology were common. A male Arabic teacher warned: “Some students would be preoccupied with technology… and would not master some skills in subjects that need writing and a pen.” This concern mirrors broader debates on digital distraction and erosion of foundational literacies. Parental Skepticism and Health Strain Negative attitudes toward the platform extended beyond the classroom. Students shared how their families disapproved of the system: “Even my family, and my friends’ families, when I visit them… they say they do not like the new system.” Moreover, screen fatigue has become a serious concern. As one male student stated: “We are all day long on the computer; our eyes hurt us now… there is no time without the computer.” Confusion Over Educational Resources A lack of clarity about whether to prioritize digital or textbook-based instruction frustrated both teachers and students. A male student explained: “The problem is that they set up more than one site for us… such as the Alef platform and the LMS site.” A science teacher voiced a similar dilemma: “Are we working on Alef permanently? Or do we divide work equally between Alef and the book? This dilemma persists until now.” Anxiety Over Online Testing Finally, online assessment proved especially anxiety-inducing due to technical glitches. One student recounted: “Now when we enter any test and finish it, a message appears that our work has not been submitted, so we must do it again.” Another added: “The computer would freeze and answer by itself… that affected my grades a little.” These findings point to the need for not just robust digital infrastructure but also empathetic implementation that acknowledges and supports the emotional labor of technological change. Discussion This study explored the lived experiences of teachers and students following the integration of laptops into middle school classrooms in Abu Dhabi. Through rich qualitative insights, five key themes emerged: training, infrastructure, home technology use, relationships among stakeholders, and emotional responses. Across these domains, several recurring patterns point to a persistent gap between the policy promise of one-to-one laptop initiatives and their classroom realities. First, disparities in training—particularly the near absence of structured student training—contributed to uneven readiness across classrooms. While teachers received some professional development, its quality and impact varied widely depending on prior digital experience, age, and subject area. Second, infrastructure-related challenges such as system malfunctions, LMS failures during assessments, and delayed technical support undermined confidence in digital platforms. These issues were especially pronounced in female schools, where support was perceived as slower or less accessible. Third, students’ home use of laptops shaped learning outcomes in complex ways. For some, the opportunity to review recorded lessons, complete tasks independently, and access interactive content enhanced motivation and autonomy. For others, lack of reliable internet, family resistance, and overexposure to screen time created barriers to meaningful engagement. Fourth, the shift toward digital learning reconfigured relationships between students and teachers. Teachers increasingly served as facilitators rather than sole knowledge providers, while students became more responsible for their own learning. However, this transition also strained traditional communication patterns and reduced face-to-face interaction, particularly among female staff. Finally, the emotional experiences of both students and teachers were deeply mixed. Students expressed both excitement and frustration—finding motivation in gamified tasks but also anxiety from technical failures and rapid pacing. Teachers, particularly older ones, described fear, stress, and initial resistance, compounded by uncertainty in balancing digital and traditional methods. Taken together, these findings affirm that access to devices alone does not guarantee pedagogical transformation. Instead, successful digital integration is shaped by a constellation of sociotechnical factors—including training quality, support infrastructure, home conditions, institutional expectations, and emotional readiness. The results highlight the importance of contextual sensitivity in educational technology reform, particularly in under-researched and rapidly modernizing regions like the Gulf. The findings of this study offer important insights into how technology adoption theories play out in real-world school settings. In particular, they speak directly to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1989) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003), both of which emphasize perceived usefulness, ease of use, and the role of institutional support in shaping technology uptake. Students’ and teachers’ experiences suggest that perceived usefulness alone is insufficient when technical malfunctions, ambiguous expectations, and lack of training erode confidence and motivation. For instance, while students found features like lesson replay and self-paced exercises helpful, their utility was compromised by LMS breakdowns and unclear platform instructions—demonstrating that effort expectancy (Venkatesh et al., 2003) remains a critical bottleneck. Likewise, the uneven training structure and support systems challenge assumptions in TAM that users will adopt technology if it is “easy to use”; in reality, ease is shaped by infrastructural reliability and pedagogical scaffolding. The findings also reinforce the importance of facilitating conditions—a core construct of UTAUT. Although schools were technically well-equipped, teachers in female schools reported slower support responses and larger class sizes, revealing that systemic structures mediate whether technology can be used effectively. Furthermore, the social influence of peers and families—another UTAUT dimension—was evident in both positive (peer-led troubleshooting) and negative (pressure to share accounts or cheat) interactions. Critically, the study challenges the instrumentalist view of technology as a neutral enhancer of learning. Consistent with scholars such as Selwyn (2016) and Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), our data suggest that educational technologies are socially situated and politically entangled, shaped by users’ histories, institutional norms, and cultural expectations. For example, older teachers' resistance and students’ emotional exhaustion reveal how digital transformation intersects with generational, gendered, and institutional factors. Finally, the results support calls for greater contextualization in ed-tech research, especially in rapidly modernizing systems like Abu Dhabi’s, where top-down reforms collide with diverse teaching workforces and multilingual student populations (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). These dynamics require moving beyond acceptance models to critically engage with implementation realities—highlighting the need for long-term, responsive, and equity-focused professional development and infrastructure investment. This study contributes to the expanding body of international research on educational technology integration by foregrounding the relational, emotional, and contextual dimensions that shape how students and teachers experience one-to-one laptop programs. While prior scholarship has largely focused on issues of infrastructure, access, and digital skills (OECD, 2018; Isaacs, 2015), our findings underscore that the success of technology integration is equally contingent upon social support structures, pedagogical adaptation, and emotional readiness. In line with Cuban’s (2020) critique of techno-solutionism, this study challenges assumptions that simply providing hardware or digital platforms will produce meaningful learning gains. The persistent gaps in student training, the emotional fatigue from overexposure to screens, and confusion over curricular materials reveal that device access is only the beginning—not the end—of the implementation challenge. Our findings also extend Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich’s (2010) emphasis on teacher beliefs and agency by showing how uneven professional development and gendered differences in support create differentiated experiences of technological change. Female teachers often felt isolated in navigating new systems, while male staff reported greater access to hands-on assistance. These gendered patterns of support access have been rarely addressed in prior ed-tech literature, especially in Middle Eastern contexts. Importantly, this study fills a critical gap in the literature by offering rich, qualitative insights from the Gulf region, where educational technology research remains sparse and often limited to survey-based evaluations (Badri et al., 2016). By centering the lived experiences of both students and teachers, our analysis illuminates how sociotechnical systems are perceived, negotiated, and resisted in the context of centralized reform and multilingual classrooms. Finally, the study contributes to emerging discussions about digital emotion work in schools. It highlights how digital learning environments not only affect academic outcomes but also provoke emotional responses—including anxiety, skepticism, motivation, and parental concern—that influence long-term engagement. This suggests that future ed-tech research and policy must account for the affective realities of digital transformation, not just its technical or instructional components. Implications for Practice and Policy The findings of this study suggest that effective technology integration requires far more than the provision of devices. To translate digital initiatives into meaningful educational gains, policymakers and school leaders must attend to the pedagogical, emotional, and infrastructural ecosystems in which these reforms unfold. First, the lack of structured and equitable training—particularly for students—points to a critical implementation gap. While teachers received formal training, its quality and accessibility varied widely, and students were often left to learn informally or rely on peers. This calls for the design of inclusive and tiered training programs tailored to the needs of diverse learners and educators, rather than assuming baseline digital fluency. Second, infrastructure investment must be accompanied by responsive and equitable technical support, especially in schools serving larger or more marginalized student populations. The gendered disparities in support observed in this study—where female students reported less consistent access to IT assistance—underscore the need for targeted resource allocation and school-based technical teams equipped to respond quickly and fairly. Third, educational technology reforms must explicitly address the emotional dimensions of digital learning. Both students and teachers reported anxiety, confusion, and fatigue due to system unreliability, platform overload, and unclear expectations. Implementation plans should therefore include mechanisms for emotional support, such as counseling, flexible timelines, and clarity in resource use. Additionally, strategies to enhance family engagement—through transparent communication, tech-orientation sessions for parents, and culturally responsive outreach—can help mitigate skepticism and foster more supportive home environments. Finally, digital learning reforms must be framed as pedagogical transformations, not merely technical upgrades. Teachers need support in rethinking their instructional strategies, assessment practices, and classroom relationships in light of new tools. Embedding technology within a broader strategy of instructional redesign and professional learning communities will ensure that reforms are adaptive, not just administrative. In sum, the success of laptop programs and broader digital reforms depends on systemic coherence—where access, support, pedagogy, and well-being are aligned to create equitable and effective learning environments. Limitations and Directions for Future Research While this study offers rich, context-sensitive insights into the implementation of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi middle schools, it is not without limitations. First, the study is based on a small, purposively selected sample from two public schools, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Although the depth of qualitative inquiry allows for nuanced understanding, future research would benefit from incorporating a broader and more diverse range of schools—including private institutions, rural settings, and schools serving different socioeconomic profiles—to capture a wider spectrum of experiences. Second, all data were collected through self-reported interviews, which may be subject to social desirability bias. While participants were encouraged to speak freely, their responses might still reflect what they believe is expected or acceptable. Future studies could triangulate these findings with classroom observations, digital usage logs, or survey data to build a more robust picture of technology use. Third, the research focused primarily on the perceptions of teachers and students. Other stakeholders, such as school leaders, IT support personnel, and parents, were not included, even though they play a pivotal role in shaping digital learning ecosystems. Subsequent research should aim to include these voices to better understand systemic enablers and barriers to technology integration. Finally, this study examined the short- to medium-term impacts of laptop integration. However, questions remain about the long-term pedagogical and equity effects of such initiatives—particularly how sustained exposure to digital tools affects academic achievement, motivation, and social development over time. Longitudinal research is needed to explore these dynamics across students’ educational trajectories. In light of these limitations, future research should pursue mixed-methods and longitudinal designs, engage multiple stakeholder perspectives, and attend more explicitly to the intersection of digital reforms with gender, socioeconomic status, and linguistic diversity. Such work will be essential for advancing an equitable and effective ed-tech policy in the Gulf region and beyond. Conclusion This study has illuminated the complex and often uneven terrain of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi’s middle schools, offering rare qualitative insights into how students and teachers experience educational technology on the ground. While national investments in infrastructure and digital platforms such as Alef are commendable, our findings demonstrate that the success of such reforms depends not just on device provision, but on sociotechnical alignment—adequate training, equitable support, emotional readiness, and pedagogical adaptation. Importantly, this research moves beyond dominant narratives of access to highlight how gendered disparities, infrastructural inconsistencies, and emotional fatigue can undermine well-intended reforms. It also challenges techno-solutionist assumptions by showing that digital transformation in education must attend to human relationships, institutional constraints, and contextual realities that shape daily school life. As education systems continue to digitize, especially in the Global South, policymakers and practitioners must rethink digital equity not as a technical problem, but as a pedagogical, emotional, and relational challenge. Bridging this implementation gap is not only necessary for improving learning outcomes, it is vital for ensuring inclusive, just, and sustainable educational futures. Declarations Funding Declaration: There was no funding for this study. Clinical Trial Number: Not Applicable. Ethical Approval This study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Education, University of Bath (Approval Date: 30 January 2019). The research was carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and with the principles of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, as well as relevant national regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Consent to Participate Written informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all teacher participants. For student participants under the age of 18, written informed consent was obtained from their parents or legal guardians, and assent was obtained from the students themselves. Consent to Publish Written informed consent for the publication of anonymized responses was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians in the case of students under 18. Data Availability Statement Due to the qualitative nature of the study and to protect participant confidentiality, the datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available. Anonymized excerpts from the interview transcripts may be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Abdallah, A. K., & Alriyami, R. (2022). Changes in the education landscape caused by COVID-19: Opportunities and challenges from UAE perspective. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues , 14 (3), 544-559. Almekhlafi, A. G., & Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of technology integration in the United Arab Emirates school classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 13 (1), 165-175. Alzarooni, A. I., Alhashmi, S. M., Lataifeh, M., & Rice, J. (2024). Navigating Digital Transformation in the UAE: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions in the Public Sector. Computers , 13 (11), 281. Badri, M., Alnuaimi, A., Mohaidat, J., Yang, G., & Al Rashedi, A. (2016). Perception of teachers’ professional development needs, impacts, and barriers: The Abu Dhabi case. Sage Open , 6 (3), 2158244016662901. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101 Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2016). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the internet . In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 5, pp. 239–280). Elsevier. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Cuban, L. (2020). Teaching history then and now: A story of stability and change in schools . Harvard Education Press. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models . Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 42(3), 255–284. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report . Springer. Håkansson Lindqvist, M. (2015). Conditions for technology enhanced learning and educational change: A case study of a 1: 1 initiative (Doctoral dissertation, Umeå universitet). Hamdan, A. (2014). The reciprocal and correlative relationship between learning culture and online education: A case from Saudi Arabia. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 13 (1), 84–89. Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2021). What to teach? Strategies for developing digital competency in pre-service teacher education. Computers & Education , 165, 104149. Isaacs, S. (2015). Survey of ICT and education in Africa. infoDev World Bank ICT in Education Series . Lim, C. P., Chai, C. S., & Churchill, D. (2011). A framework for developing pre‐service teachers’ competencies in using technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Media International , 48 (2), 69-83. Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 16 (2), 59-68. Lim, C. P., Chai, C. S., & Churchill, D. (2014). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring, developing and assessing TPCK . Springer. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. OECD. (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Results (Vol. 2): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals . OECD Publishing. OECD. (2021). 21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of research on technology in education , 38 (3), 329-348. Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020 . OECD. Rizvi, F. (2017). Privatization in education: Trends and consequences. Prospects , 47(1), 3–9. Romanowski, M. H., & Nasser, R. (2012). How critical thinking is taught in Qatari independent schools’ social studies classrooms: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Education , 4(1), 68–84. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & education , 128 , 13-35. Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2019). Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students' ICT literacy. Educational research review , 27 , 205-217. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational research , 81 (1), 4-28. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education , 57 (4), 2432-2440. Trucano, M. (2016). Evaluating the impact of ICTs in education . World Bank Blogs. UAE Ministry of Education. (2023). Education Sector Strategic Plan 2023–2026 . Abu Dhabi: UAE Government. [Available from: https://www.moe.gov.ae] UNESCO. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education . UNESCO Publishing. Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New media & society , 21 (2), 354-375. Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & education , 51 (3), 1392-1404. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view . MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2015). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 31(5), 465–471. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education , 34 (1), 179-225. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of educational research , 86 (4), 1052-1084. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 24 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 17 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 23 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 19 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 05 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 05 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7044573","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":524925118,"identity":"d1800c88-6338-4e02-8ecc-e678d6e75bd6","order_by":0,"name":"Hanan Alshehhi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"ADEK","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hanan","middleName":"","lastName":"Alshehhi","suffix":""},{"id":524925119,"identity":"90b75044-0ee1-4236-ae9e-bf11aa25eb92","order_by":1,"name":"Nurullah Eryilmaz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bath","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nurullah","middleName":"","lastName":"Eryilmaz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-04 08:23:39","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7044573/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7044573/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92858069,"identity":"51e6d1c9-0ac1-463f-aab7-fffef43623e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:50:21","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":63879,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TechnologiesinContextExaminingthePedagogicalandRelationalDimensionsofLaptopUseinAbuDhabidiscover.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7044573/v1/d7c86ad6d8e1819c9e4d24c3.docx"},{"id":92858070,"identity":"cad63e26-a367-491c-81f1-2f003b9261c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:50:21","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4438,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8ea213e508934222973a2330c9ce3eb7.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7044573/v1/058502a2a5b83621152e8e42.json"},{"id":92858072,"identity":"0581d619-fa97-43c1-9bee-d58e6d4d25e3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:50:21","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":142141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8ea213e508934222973a2330c9ce3eb71enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7044573/v1/1d16895f6f715a6099814cf9.xml"},{"id":92858883,"identity":"29d0d8f1-964d-4be8-b178-75f65962b4c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:58:21","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":138449,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8ea213e508934222973a2330c9ce3eb71structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7044573/v1/f256d99ce26d9ddb71e26ef7.xml"},{"id":92858073,"identity":"4ef517b7-4062-40aa-b994-e2410968c336","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:50:21","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":150399,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7044573/v1/9af4d0fdc041f5de85cd14f3.html"},{"id":92859656,"identity":"9baba2c7-2ad5-438f-9c61-1551fab8f63b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 12:06:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":858813,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7044573/v1/0c76003a-b5a1-44ed-ade4-99b89c223ad5.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Technologies in Context: Examining the Pedagogical and Relational Dimensions of Laptop Use in Abu Dhabi","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOver the past two decades, one-to-one (1:1) laptop initiatives have evolved from small-scale experimental programs to widespread components of national education policy agendas. Governments and school systems across the globe have invested in providing individual digital devices to students, viewing such access as a pathway to enhancing student engagement, supporting personalized learning, and preparing learners for the demands of the 21st-century knowledge economy (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which amplified the urgency of digital transformation in education, the role of laptops and other personal devices has gained renewed policy momentum and public attention (Reimers \u0026amp; Schleicher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These devices are often portrayed as tools of educational equity\u0026mdash;capable of bridging opportunity gaps, fostering learner autonomy, and enabling access to rich digital content and collaborative learning environments (Bulman \u0026amp; Fairlie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Yet despite their widespread adoption, the actual impact of 1:1 laptop integration remains uneven, especially in terms of pedagogical change and meaningful student learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the global enthusiasm for one-to-one laptop programs, research consistently reveals a persistent gap between access to devices and their meaningful integration into everyday classroom practice. While many education systems have succeeded in distributing digital tools at scale, this infrastructural achievement does not automatically translate into improved learning outcomes (Selwyn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Cuban, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The promise of personalized and engaging digital learning often falters due to challenges related to teacher preparedness, pedagogical adaptation, and contextual constraints, particularly in non-Western or under-researched educational settings (Lim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Voogt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn many cases, the focus on hardware provision has overshadowed the deeper work required to foster digital pedagogy\u0026mdash;namely, rethinking classroom practices, assessment methods, and student-teacher relationships in technology-rich environments (Ertmer \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This \u0026ldquo;implementation gap\u0026rdquo; is particularly acute where professional development is limited, socio-cultural factors affect technology use, or students lack digital support at home (Fraillon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, much of the existing evidence relies on survey or performance data, leaving a critical need for rich, qualitative accounts of how students and teachers experience and interpret technology integration in their daily school lives (Howard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe integration of educational technologies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region\u0026mdash;particularly in Abu Dhabi\u0026mdash;has unfolded against a backdrop of rapid economic development, policy-driven modernization, and ambitious national visions for educational transformation (Rizvi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Romanowski \u0026amp; Nasser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). As part of the United Arab Emirates\u0026rsquo; Vision 2030 and the Ministry of Education\u0026rsquo;s digital learning strategy, large-scale investments in one-to-one device programs and smart learning platforms, such as Alef, have been deployed to enhance personalization, digital skills, and student autonomy. Abu Dhabi\u0026rsquo;s education system is shaped by a unique mix of multilingual student populations, a predominantly expatriate teaching workforce, and centralized governance structures that facilitate swift policy rollout, but may challenge bottom-up responsiveness (Badri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these developments, the Gulf remains underrepresented in global conversations on educational technology. Much of the existing literature on technology integration continues to be grounded in Western or East Asian contexts, overlooking the socio-cultural dynamics, policy environments, and pedagogical norms specific to the Arab world (Warschauer \u0026amp; Matuchniak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Selwyn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, there is a dearth of qualitative studies capturing how students and teachers in the Gulf experience and interpret technology use in everyday classroom practice. This study addresses that gap by providing localized insights into the implementation of laptop programs in Abu Dhabi middle schools\u0026mdash;offering both a theoretical and empirical contribution to global ed-tech literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study explores how students and teachers experience the integration of laptops into classroom practice in Abu Dhabi public middle schools. While many technology-focused educational reforms emphasize infrastructure and policy metrics, this research foregrounds the everyday realities of implementation as perceived by those most directly affected: learners and educators. Through in-depth interviews with students and teachers, the study investigates how laptop use intersects with self-confidence, self-efficacy, pedagogical routines, and classroom relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy adopting a qualitative, contextually grounded lens, this research addresses an important gap in the educational technology literature: the need to understand how digital tools are interpreted, appropriated, and negotiated in real-world settings\u0026mdash;particularly within underrepresented regions such as the Gulf. The findings contribute to international debates on equitable and effective technology use in schools, offering actionable insights for policymakers, school leaders, and ed-tech designers seeking to make digital learning meaningful, inclusive, and sustainable across diverse educational contexts. To guide our analysis, we draw on two widely used theoretical frameworks in educational technology research: the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). These models help explain how students' and teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and institutional conditions influence their acceptance and integration of laptops in everyday classroom practice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical Framework and Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheoretical Framework: Technology Acceptance in Education\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding how teachers and students adopt and use new technologies in classroom settings is central to evaluating the impact of one-to-one laptop initiatives. This study draws on two influential frameworks in educational technology research\u0026mdash;the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)\u0026mdash;to explore how individual perceptions and contextual factors shape the uptake of laptops in Abu Dhabi middle schools.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), introduced by Davis (1989), posits that users\u0026rsquo; behavioral intentions toward a technology are driven by two key beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. In educational contexts, these constructs help explain why some teachers and students embrace digital tools while others resist them\u0026mdash;often regardless of access. For instance, teachers are more likely to integrate technology when they believe it enhances instructional effectiveness and can be used with minimal effort (Teo, 2011; Scherer et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExpanding on TAM, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) integrates additional sociotechnical factors including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This model is particularly useful in studying systems like Abu Dhabi\u0026rsquo;s, where digital reforms are centrally mandated and implemented rapidly across a culturally diverse teaching force (Badri et al., 2016; Hamdan, 2014). The UTAUT framework allows us to examine how perceptions of institutional support, peer expectations, and infrastructure availability influence real classroom use of laptops.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTogether, TAM and UTAUT provide a theoretically robust lens to investigate the complex interplay between policy structures, teacher agency, and sociocultural realities. In Abu Dhabi, where top-down initiatives meet diverse classroom ecologies, these models illuminate how digital technologies are negotiated and adapted in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLaptop Integration in K\u0026ndash;12 Classrooms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver the past two decades, one-to-one (1:1) laptop initiatives have become central to education reform agendas worldwide, particularly as policymakers seek to promote digital literacy, personalized learning, and 21st-century competencies. From large-scale programs in the United States and Australia to national efforts in countries like Uruguay (Plan Ceibal) and Thailand, laptop integration in K\u0026ndash;12 classrooms has aimed to close digital divides and foster student autonomy (Bulman \u0026amp; Fairlie, 2016; Trucano, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical findings suggest that laptops, when meaningfully integrated, can support a range of pedagogical benefits. These include enhanced student engagement, greater opportunities for collaborative and inquiry-based learning, improved access to digital content, and increased student agency through self-paced learning (Penuel, 2006; Zheng et al., 2016). Laptops also facilitate multimedia and multimodal instruction, allowing teachers to differentiate content delivery and assessment (Tamim et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the promise of 1:1 initiatives is frequently undermined by persistent implementation challenges. Chief among these are limited teacher preparedness, lack of ongoing professional development, and weak alignment between digital tools and existing curricular frameworks (Ertmer \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Cuban, 2020). Even where infrastructure is in place, digital inequities often re-emerge through disparities in students\u0026rsquo; home access, parental support, and prior exposure to technology-rich environments (Selwyn, 2016; Fraillon et al., 2020). In many settings, laptops are used primarily for administrative or low-level tasks rather than for transformative pedagogical purposes (H\u0026aring;kansson Lindqvist, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, much of the literature on 1:1 computing originates from Western, high-income countries, leaving a gap in understanding how such programs unfold in Global South or non-Western education systems. Studies that do explore these contexts often highlight unique sociocultural, infrastructural, and linguistic challenges that shape the uptake and impact of digital technologies in schools (Lim et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, while 1:1 laptop programs hold considerable potential, their success depends on more than device distribution. They require sustained attention to pedagogical transformation, equitable support systems, and local educational ecologies\u0026mdash;issues this study addresses by focusing on the lived experiences of teachers and students in Abu Dhabi middle schools.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChallenges of Digital Equity and Pedagogical Change\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile one-to-one laptop initiatives have expanded digital access, they have not automatically translated into equitable or transformative educational practices. This reflects what researchers term the \u0026ldquo;second-level digital divide\u0026rdquo; or digital divide 2.0\u0026mdash;a shift from unequal access to unequal use of technology for meaningful learning (Fraillon et al., 2020; van Deursen \u0026amp; van Dijk, 2019). In this sense, the digital equity challenge is not just about providing devices but ensuring that students\u0026mdash;particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds\u0026mdash;have access to high-quality, technology-enhanced pedagogy and appropriate support systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite infrastructure gains, many education systems face a persistent implementation gap between the promise of digital innovation and its actual classroom impact. Studies across diverse contexts reveal that technology often reinforces traditional pedagogies unless accompanied by changes in instructional culture and teacher beliefs (Selwyn, 2016; Cuban, 2020). For example, Voogt et al. (2015) found that even when technology was available, its integration often remained superficial\u0026mdash;limited to content delivery rather than active, student-centered learning. This is especially evident in settings where teachers lack autonomy or training to adapt curriculum and assessment strategies to digital contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeacher agency plays a pivotal role in bridging this gap. As Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) argue, effective technology integration depends not only on access and policy support but also on teachers\u0026apos; pedagogical beliefs, confidence, and professional learning environments. Without adequate space for contextual adaptation and reflective practice, top-down reforms risk reproducing existing inequalities rather than addressing them. In multilingual, diverse, and policy-driven systems such as those in the Gulf, challenges of alignment between national ed-tech strategies and local classroom realities remain pronounced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLaptop Use in Gulf Education Contexts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe integration of educational technologies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries has accelerated in recent years, driven by state-led modernization agendas and national visions that place digital transformation at the heart of economic and educational reform. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), initiatives such as Vision 2031 and the Smart Learning Program have promoted one-to-one laptop distribution, digital learning platforms like Alef, and an expanded role for educational technologies in classrooms (UAE Ministry of Education, 2023). These policy frameworks aim to enhance student engagement, foster independent learning, and prepare learners for participation in the global knowledge economy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbu Dhabi, in particular, has emerged as a regional leader in digital education due to its centralized policy infrastructure, significant investment capacity, and diverse student population. Its schools are characterized by multilingual classrooms and a largely expatriate teaching workforce\u0026mdash;features that create both opportunities and tensions in the implementation of top-down reforms (Almekhlafi \u0026amp; Almeqdadi, 2010; Abdallah, \u0026amp; Alriyami, 2022). While infrastructure and access have rapidly expanded, challenges related to digital pedagogy, equity, and contextual responsiveness persist.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these developments, the Gulf region remains underrepresented in global educational technology research. Most scholarly discussions on one-to-one laptop programs originate in North American, European, or East Asian contexts, where school governance structures, teacher training systems, and cultural values often differ significantly from those in the Gulf (Selwyn, 2016; Howard et al., 2021). Moreover, few studies have explored how technological reforms are experienced by teachers and students in the region. Qualitative investigations of classroom practices, particularly from the perspectives of educators and learners themselves, are notably rare. This study addresses the gap by documenting lived experiences of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi public middle schools\u0026mdash;offering localized insights that contribute to international debates on equity, implementation, and digital pedagogical change.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eExisting Research and Study Contribution\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlobally, the integration of one-to-one (1:1) laptop initiatives has been associated with improvements in student engagement, digital literacy, and academic self-efficacy (OECD, 2021; Bulman \u0026amp; Fairlie, 2016). However, researchers emphasize that access alone does not guarantee meaningful learning outcomes. Rather, effective implementation hinges on factors such as teaching digital pedagogy, robust infrastructure, and socio-cultural responsiveness (Selwyn, 2016; Voogt et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeacher preparedness is particularly critical. Studies show that insufficient professional development undermines technology integration in both Western and non-Western contexts (Ertmer \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Lim et al., 2014; Howard et al., 2022). Even in resource-rich settings, technical issues\u0026mdash;such as connectivity challenges and device failures\u0026mdash;frequently obstruct classroom use (Fraillon et al., 2020; Alzarooni et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocioeconomic and gender disparities further complicate digital equity. Students from higher-income households often have greater home access to the internet, digital support, and quiet learning spaces (OECD, 2021; Hohlfeld et al., 2017). Gendered differences in digital confidence also persist, with male students frequently reporting more comfort using technology\u0026mdash;though targeted support can close these gaps (Vekiri \u0026amp; Chronaki, 2008; Siddiq \u0026amp; Scherer, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite this growing literature, few studies provide qualitative insight into how technology is actually experienced in everyday schooling, particularly in the Gulf region. This study addresses that gap by capturing how students and teachers in Abu Dhabi middle schools interpret and navigate the affordances and constraints of large-scale laptop integration. In doing so, it offers a critical, contextually grounded contribution to international debates on equitable and effective digital learning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative case study design to investigate how students and teachers experience the integration of laptops in public middle schools in Abu Dhabi. A qualitative approach is particularly well-suited for capturing the nuanced, context-specific dimensions of technology use, allowing for a deep exploration of participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives, emotions, and day-to-day practices (Creswell \u0026amp; Poth, 2018; Merriam \u0026amp; Tisdell, 2016). By focusing on lived experience, this design foregrounds the interpretive processes through which individuals navigate and make sense of technological change in educational settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews served as the primary method of data collection. This approach balances the structure necessary for comparability across cases with the flexibility needed to probe emerging themes and follow participants\u0026rsquo; unique narratives (Rubin \u0026amp; Rubin, 2012). The interview protocol included open-ended questions targeting multiple facets of technology integration: instructional practices prior to laptop implementation, professional development and support structures, perceived shifts in student motivation and engagement, and the influence of socio-cultural dynamics on digital learning. These domains were informed by prior research on ed-tech adoption and adapted to the specific policy and cultural context of Abu Dhabi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis design enabled the study to move beyond surface-level metrics of access and usage, offering insight into how digital reforms are enacted, challenged, and reinterpreted by the individuals most directly affected.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant Selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a purposive sampling strategy to recruit participants who were directly engaged with the Alef smart learning program in public middle schools in Abu Dhabi. The final sample included six teachers and six students from two participating schools, selected to ensure a balanced representation across gender, subject specializations, teaching experience, and levels of digital familiarity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe teacher sample encompassed educators from Arabic, Mathematics, Science, and Islamic Studies, reflecting the interdisciplinary scope of the integration. Participants varied in their exposure to digital pedagogy\u0026mdash;some had completed formal ICT training and held professional development certifications, while others had minimal experience with educational technologies prior to the initiative.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe student sample was similarly diverse in terms of digital literacy and home access to technology. Participants ranged from digitally confident students with previous exposure to smart devices to those encountering laptops in a learning environment for the first time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 summarizes the distribution of participants by school and gender. Importantly, interviews were conducted only with students from the test group, as they had direct experience using laptops in their classrooms, whereas the control group followed traditional instruction without device integration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Participant Composition by Group and Method\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"647\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool Gender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent Survey Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent Interview Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher Interview Sample\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoys\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGirls\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoys\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en/a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en/a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGirls\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en/a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en/a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e198\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: Only students from the test group were interviewed, as they had direct exposure to the laptop integration program.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy incorporating variation in gender, subject background, and digital readiness, the sample design allows for a rich, multidimensional exploration of how different actors experience technology integration within the same systemic context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSemi-Structured Interviews\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explore the multifaceted experiences of students and teachers involved in the laptop integration initiative, the study employed semi-structured interviews as its primary data collection method. This approach was selected for its capacity to combine consistency across participants with the flexibility to probe individual perspectives, enabling the capture of rich, nuanced data (Kallio et al., 2016; Rubin \u0026amp; Rubin, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach interview was guided by a structured protocol organized around the following thematic areas:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; experiences with ICT training and professional development;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; engagement with laptops at school and at home;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTechnical and pedagogical challenges encountered during implementation;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInfrastructure constraints and institutional support mechanisms;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePerceived impact of technology on classroom dynamics and student motivation;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe influence of socio-cultural factors, including gender, digital access, and family environment.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviews were conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams, in accordance with health and safety protocols related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This format ensured participant safety while preserving a conversational and interactive interview environment. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews, including consent for audio recording and transcription. Interviews ranged from 30 to 45 minutes in duration and were transcribed verbatim for subsequent thematic analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipant Characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe teacher sample consisted of six educators from public middle schools in Abu Dhabi, selected to reflect diversity in subject areas, professional experience, and digital readiness. As shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e, participants ranged in age from 31 to 47 and held degrees from universities in the UAE, Egypt, and Syria. Their subject specializations included Arabic, Islamic Education, Mathematics, and Science. Technology usage varied widely\u0026mdash;from basic use of smartphones and laptops for classroom tasks to more advanced engagement with educational tools and certification programs such as the International Computer Driving License (ICDL), Intel Teach, and Microsoft Office.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eTeacher Interview Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"715\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePseudonym\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear of Graduation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMajor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTechnology Used / Training Certificates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAhmad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1995, 2000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCairo University (Egypt)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation, Arabic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eICDL, ITV, Professional Development in Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHassan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1998, 1999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDamascus University (Syria)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArabic, Islamic Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLaptop, Mobile, iPad, TV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAli\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCairo University\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMathematics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eiPad, Phone, Laptop (for work)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNora\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUAE University\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArabic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eICDL, Intel, Mobile \u0026amp; Computer (work)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnited Arab Emirates University\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eiPhone, MacBook (work), MS Office Certificate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbeer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbu Dhabi University\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMathematics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 207px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmartphone, Laptop (work \u0026amp; personal), AutoCAD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo complement the teacher sample, six students (aged 11) were selected to represent different experiences with technology both at school and at home. All participants were drawn from the \u0026quot;test group\u0026quot;\u0026mdash;students who had direct exposure to the laptop integration program. As summarized in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e, the students reported using a range of devices (e.g., iPads, computers, smartphones), and their primary uses spanned education apps, homework, research, programming, and entertainment. This variation allowed the study to explore how different levels of digital access and literacy influenced learners\u0026rsquo; engagement and confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3.\u003c/strong\u003e Student Interview Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"535\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePseudonym\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 164px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTechnology Used\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimary Use\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 164px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApple phone, computer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital programs, education apps\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 164px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComputer, iPad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudying, programming\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 164px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmartphone, tablet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHomework, entertainment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 164px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComputer, mobile, iPad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudying, social media\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 164px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchool computer, iPad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOnline classes, assignments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 164px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMobile phone, computer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch, learning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data were analyzed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s (2006) six-phase framework. This method allowed for a systematic and interpretive approach to identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis involved the following stages:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFamiliarization: Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and read multiple times to ensure immersion in the data.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInitial Coding: Key phrases and segments were coded manually to identify salient patterns across the dataset.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTheme Construction: Codes were clustered into broader thematic categories representing shared concepts or tensions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReview and Refinement: Themes were refined and cross-checked for coherence and distinctiveness.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDefinition and Naming: Each theme was clearly defined in relation to the research questions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInterpretation: Final themes were interpreted through the lens of existing theory and literature to inform discussion and implications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom this process, four central themes emerged:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeacher Training and Support: Highlighting uneven levels of digital competence and professional development access.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInfrastructure and Digital Access: Addressing technical barriers, including unreliable connectivity and device limitations.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStudent Engagement and Learning Outcomes: Exploring how laptops influenced motivation, participation, and perceived academic benefits.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSocio-Cultural Influences: Revealing how gender, home environment, and socioeconomic factors shaped experiences with digital learning.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received ethical approval from the Department of Education at Durham University prior to data collection (Approval Date: 30 January 2019). The research complied with the ethical guidelines established by the British Educational Research Association (BERA). Formal permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK), and all participating schools provided institutional consent. Informed consent was collected from all teacher participants and from the parents or legal guardians of all student participants under the age of 18. Assent was also obtained from student participants. Participants were informed about the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time, and the procedures in place to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. All data were stored securely and used solely for the purposes of academic research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTraining as a Foundation for Digital Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraining emerged as a pivotal factor influencing the effectiveness of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi middle schools. Both students and teachers highlighted disparities in preparedness, shaped by institutional decisions, access to support, and prior digital experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudent Training Gaps and Inconsistencies\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Students reported mixed experiences with training, with some recalling structured sessions facilitated by specialists. A male student described:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The specialist asked us to watch him and do the same\u0026hellip; then he asked us to repeat what we learned\u0026hellip; he offered help to the ones who faced a problem.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, others\u0026mdash;particularly in female schools\u0026mdash;received no formal training. One teacher noted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;For students, there were no training sessions; however, teachers trained them eventually in the classrooms. The responsibility was given to respective class teachers.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This inconsistency appeared influenced by school size and gender, with male students sometimes trained collectively in larger spaces like gyms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher Training: Uneven Impact Despite Formal Provision\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/em\u003eTeachers were provided with both on-campus and off-campus training by the Ministry of Education, supported by certificates and credit hours. As one teacher explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There is training and application on this training, as well as tests\u0026hellip; and you will be credited with credit hours from the Ministry.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYet the quality and impact of training varied. Teachers with stronger prior ICT experience adapted quickly, while others\u0026mdash;particularly older educators, struggled. One science teacher observed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Teachers of an older age had issues adjusting\u0026hellip; and took longer to adopt the new technology.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRole Reversals and the Limits of Training\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Students sometimes became the more digitally fluent users in the classroom. One male student shared:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some teachers did not know how to do screen sharing\u0026hellip; we told them, and we taught the teachers other things.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Likewise, a female teacher noted:\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;Sometimes students could tell us about things in Alef that we did not know, because they were skillful at technology and computers.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese accounts point to a mismatch between formal training content and the practical demands of classroom technology use\u0026mdash;suggesting that many teachers were unprepared for the day-to-day realities of digital instruction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eToward Self-Directed Professional Learning\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;While some teachers expressed frustration over limited support, others embraced a more self-directed model. As one teacher remarked:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Now it feels that many online learning sources have made the information readily available to everyone, and the importance of training sessions has declined.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis shift reflects broader changes in the culture of professional development but also risks excluding those without the digital capital to learn independently. As Carlson and Isaacs (2017) argue, technical capital is built not only through access, but through sustained opportunities to develop confidence, awareness, and practical capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInfrastructure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInfrastructure plays a foundational role in the effective implementation of educational technology, shaping both teachers\u0026rsquo; and students\u0026rsquo; day-to-day engagement with digital tools. In the context of Abu Dhabi\u0026rsquo;s public middle schools, major investments in modern digital infrastructure\u0026mdash;including laptops, digital platforms, and learning management systems\u0026mdash;were guided by national initiatives such as Vision 2021 and Centennial Strategy 2071. These investments were designed to create future-ready learning environments through the integration of modern teaching aids, digital libraries, and high-speed internet access. However, as this study reveals, the success of these reforms is shaped as much by technological reliability and support structures as by hardware availability alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the provision of advanced infrastructure, both students and teachers reported recurring system issues, particularly with the Learning Management System (LMS). These issues affected classroom productivity and student confidence. As one eighth-grade male student noted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;There are difficulties in LMS; great difficulties. Now, when we enter any test and finish it, a message appears that our work has not been submitted, so we must do it again.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, a female student recalled experiencing system glitches during assessments that undermined her performance:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;At the time of the exam, for example, the computer would freeze and answer by itself. I mean, I was clicking on one thing, and it was pressing on another thing, and that affected my grades a little.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch technical malfunctions disrupted learning flow and caused unnecessary stress, highlighting a key implementation gap between policy-level infrastructure provision and reliable, classroom-level execution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTechnical Support and Its Limitations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers acknowledged the presence of designated technical personnel intended to assist with such challenges. For instance, Teacher Ahmad explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;We encountered problems such as technical problems and problems in the Alef platform about certain points... There are two people responsible for the Alef platform: one is an academic and the other is a technician, and these two exist in all schools.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYet, support systems were not always perceived as effective. Teachers reported delays and inconsistencies in response times, particularly in larger or under-resourced schools. As Ahmad further elaborated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;There is an academic person who supervises more than one school, such as five schools; he is the main reference for the Alef platform that receives feedback, questions, or errors in communication.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese inconsistencies point to the importance of not only deploying infrastructure but also ensuring that adequate human support systems are in place to sustain digital transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGender Disparities in Support Access\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA significant finding was the gendered disparity in access to technical support. Male students described more consistent access to on-site IT support and active engagement from their teachers. One male student explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Yes, there were training sessions given to students from respective subject teachers in the beginning. Also, any technical support was fulfilled by the IT supervisor in the school.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, female students expressed frustration over delayed support and unresolved device issues. One student described an extended period during which her computer remained unfixed despite repeated complaints:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;From the beginning of the semester, she was telling me that she would fix the computer or bring me a new one, but until the end of the semester, she did not. I used to remind them and tell them, but they did nothing.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese inequities underscore the need for more responsive, inclusive support structures to ensure that all students\u0026mdash;regardless of gender or school\u0026mdash;benefit equally from digital learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternet Restrictions and Digital Access\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother infrastructure-related challenge was internet filtering, designed to block access to non-educational content. While intended to safeguard focus, these restrictions also curtailed students\u0026rsquo; ability to conduct research and access wider learning materials. As one student explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Yes, from the beginning until now, YouTube has been banned. The students were annoyed by this. Undesirable websites wouldn\u0026rsquo;t open because of the Ministry\u0026rsquo;s measures.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis tension between control and exploration illustrates a key dilemma in digital policy: how to balance protective measures with the flexibility needed for student-driven inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings emphasize that infrastructure alone is insufficient for ensuring meaningful technology integration. Consistent with the UTAUT model, which highlights the importance of facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003), this study shows that effective infrastructure must be accompanied by reliable technical support, equitable access, and responsiveness to users\u0026apos; needs. Without these elements, even the most well-funded digital initiatives risk falling short of their educational goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUsing Technology at Home\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of educational technology at home emerged as a critical dimension of the laptop integration experience, influencing students\u0026rsquo; academic performance, emotional well-being, motivation, and capacity for self-directed learning. Teachers and students alike described home-based digital learning as both an enabler of academic progress and a source of new social and behavioral challenges. This section explores the dual nature of technology use outside the classroom, revealing its potential to enhance learning outcomes while simultaneously raising concerns about equity, academic integrity, and overuse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcademic Improvement Through Home Use\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral teachers noted that home access to digital tools significantly improved student performance, particularly for previously low-achieving students. For example, Teacher Nora observed a marked transformation in her Arabic language class:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some female students made a big leap from a student of acceptable or successful level to a superior girl\u0026hellip; girls who got marks of 90, 80, and 85, and this was not their level before\u0026hellip; But now, there are fantastic scores.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese improvements suggest that asynchronous access to multimedia resources, practice exercises, and lesson recordings offered students the flexibility to learn at their own pace and reinforce challenging content, fostering deeper understanding and academic confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReducing Psychological Barriers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers also emphasized that digital learning helped some students overcome psychological and social barriers to participation. Technology created alternative modes of expression for students who were reluctant to speak in traditional classroom settings. Teacher Nora described one such transformation:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There is another girl who did not speak at all\u0026hellip; But through distance education, she was participating and reading.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA male religious studies teacher echoed this sentiment, noting that digital assignments allowed students to bypass the fear of public speaking:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Shyness sometimes prevents him from speaking\u0026hellip; I broke the barrier of fear and dread.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the emotional affordances of digital tools, which provide safer spaces for students to express themselves and engage in learning on their own terms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreedom of Choice and Motivation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers widely reported that technology supported student autonomy by enabling choice in how and when to learn. A male Arabic teacher described this shift from passive to self-directed learning:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;In the past, the student was forced to learn, but now it is by his choice\u0026hellip; The student is now at home, neither bored nor lazy.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis freedom was amplified through platform features such as learning games and personalized task structures, which increased students\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation and enjoyment of the learning process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelf-Learning and Independent Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMathematics teachers in particular highlighted how digital platforms encouraged step-by-step mastery through adaptive learning paths and continuous self-assessment. One teacher described how students progressed through scaffolded levels of knowledge:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;At the end of the lesson\u0026hellip; there is a self-evaluation\u0026hellip; There is a second knowledge summary, which goes gradually from an easy level to a higher one\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch features nurtured students\u0026rsquo; ability to monitor their own learning, build confidence, and develop metacognitive strategies essential for long-term academic success.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotivation and Misuse: Unintended Consequences\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile digital rewards and gamified learning elements (e.g., stars, badges, games) motivated many students, they also led to some unintended behaviors. A mathematics teacher explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There is also a thing called \u0026lsquo;add games\u0026rsquo;\u0026hellip; This also gave motivation through educational games.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, competition for rewards also sparked incidents of peer manipulation. One eighth-grade female student recounted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Even my friends said to me, \u0026lsquo;Give me your account and I will solve your homework...\u0026rsquo; But after that, they would write anything, and the result was zero.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis highlights the tension between motivational design and academic integrity, emphasizing the need for teacher monitoring and digital citizenship education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParental Engagement and Oversight\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA major benefit of digital learning at home was the increased visibility it offered parents into their children\u0026rsquo;s academic progress. Teachers observed that technology enabled parents to become more proactive in supporting their children. A male Arabic teacher explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Parents began to follow their children\u0026hellip; Exactly, they had programs, and it was easy for them to get information\u0026hellip; while sitting at home without the trouble of going to school.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis shift reflects how technology not only reshaped student experience but also transformed family-school relationships by fostering greater transparency and accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelationships Among Stakeholders\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe integration of laptops in Abu Dhabi\u0026rsquo;s public middle schools has significantly reshaped interactions between key educational stakeholders, particularly teachers and students. As communication and instruction shifted to digital platforms, so too did the social and pedagogical dynamics within classrooms and staffrooms. This section explores three key relational transformations: teacher\u0026ndash;student communication, changes in teacher roles, and the evolving collegial environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher\u0026ndash;Student Interaction: From Proximity to Platform\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnology-mediated instruction has extended the boundaries of teacher\u0026ndash;student interaction beyond the physical classroom. One female Arabic language teacher described this shift:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Before using technology, if I wanted to communicate with the student, the communication was at school only. I could not communicate with him outside the school, and if I wanted to communicate with him outside the school, it was by using the landline or the mobile.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile digital access enhanced flexibility, several teachers felt that it diluted student engagement. A mathematics teacher noted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;In the past days where technology usage was limited, students learned and communicated more verbally; the expression skills of the students were more admired. This made students involve themselves fully, physically and mentally, in the classroom.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOthers described digital learning as more procedural and less dialogic. A religious studies teacher remarked:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The relationship was natural between the teacher and the student, and it was monotonic.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStill, some educators perceived gains. One female science teacher observed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The relation of teachers and students was more significant, because students now had new gates open to learn easily, and teachers now had gates open to use new activities and share lessons with students on their laptops.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolving Role of the Teacher: From Instructor to Facilitator\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of digital learning tools reframed teachers\u0026rsquo; roles from direct instructors to monitors and facilitators. As a female Arabic language teacher shared:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some of the students completed the tasks and delivered them to the Alef platform to the fullest\u0026hellip; my role as a teacher was to follow up the students\u0026rsquo; progress\u0026hellip; and make the students try to commit, especially with the issue of commitment to the two platforms.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnology also accelerated instructional pacing. Teacher Ahmed emphasized:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The teaching-learning process has become easier and more communicative, and the information arrives quickly, and the speed of achievement begins to be applied in the designated places on the Teams.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral teachers highlighted the shift toward reciprocal learning. As Ahmed elaborated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The teacher can present in the virtual class some projects or some competitions, so the students implement them at home and display them in the next class\u0026hellip; So, there became a relationship of exchanging experiences.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher\u0026ndash;Teacher Interaction: Diverging Gendered Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe introduction of digital tools also influenced peer relationships among teachers, though perceptions varied by gender. All female teachers interviewed expressed concern about diminished collegial interaction. A female Arabic teacher recalled:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I worked in the first two schools in which we did not use the means of technology. The relationship between us and the administration was more than a family relationship. We were not busy with technology\u0026hellip; everything was based on paperwork.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother added:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Before introducing technology, the colleagues were talking to each other most of the time. Rather, now they are busy on their phones.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA female mathematics teacher similarly noted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Technology has given good but also led to a decline in social relationships and interaction among colleagues.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, male teachers viewed digital systems as strengthening collaboration and saving time. A male Arabic teacher observed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;After the introduction of technology, it became easier to conserve time and effort. In the past, teachers needed to gather in a specific place for meetings. Now, through Teams, meetings can happen quickly.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA male religious studies teacher went further, suggesting:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Now, we find there is more intimate communication than before, because we work within one framework.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese contrasting views reveal how technology alters not just pedagogy but also the social structure of school communities, sometimes deepening collaboration, and at other times eroding informal support networks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmotional Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe introduction of laptops in UAE middle schools triggered a wide range of emotional responses among students and teachers. While some experienced empowerment and excitement, others encountered anxiety, confusion, or resistance. These emotional dynamics were shaped not only by technological design and infrastructure but also by cultural expectations, pedagogical routines, and institutional readiness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMixed Student Emotions: Relief vs. Anxiety\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents expressed both appreciation and frustration. One male student described the flexibility offered by recorded lessons:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;With technology, we can repeat the lesson anytime we want because of the recorded explanation, so it is easy.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYet, others found the pressure to work quickly detrimental to learning. As one female student put it:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In the computer lab, we do not understand much, but we solve very quickly\u0026hellip; when our answer is correct, it is just by luck.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese perspectives highlight a tension between accessibility and depth of engagement\u0026mdash;where ease of access does not always translate to meaningful comprehension.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher Anxiety and Resistance to Change\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMany teachers initially viewed the shift to digital learning with skepticism or discomfort. A religious studies teacher noted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;At the beginning of everything, new ideas may not meet others\u0026rsquo; satisfaction\u0026hellip; because it is something new that came against traditional methods.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA female teacher echoed this, recalling how teachers had to \u0026ldquo;get used to it bit by bit,\u0026rdquo; learning through trial and error. Meanwhile, students noticed this discomfort. One girl remarked:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Most of the teachers hated the Alef platform\u0026hellip; there was not enough time to explain the lesson.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFears of Over-Engagement and Skill Loss\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConcerns about excessive reliance on technology were common. A male Arabic teacher warned:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some students would be preoccupied with technology\u0026hellip; and would not master some skills in subjects that need writing and a pen.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis concern mirrors broader debates on digital distraction and erosion of foundational literacies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParental Skepticism and Health Strain\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNegative attitudes toward the platform extended beyond the classroom. Students shared how their families disapproved of the system:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Even my family, and my friends\u0026rsquo; families, when I visit them\u0026hellip; they say they do not like the new system.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, screen fatigue has become a serious concern. As one male student stated:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We are all day long on the computer; our eyes hurt us now\u0026hellip; there is no time without the computer.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfusion Over Educational Resources\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA lack of clarity about whether to prioritize digital or textbook-based instruction frustrated both teachers and students. A male student explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The problem is that they set up more than one site for us\u0026hellip; such as the Alef platform and the LMS site.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA science teacher voiced a similar dilemma:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Are we working on Alef permanently? Or do we divide work equally between Alef and the book? This dilemma persists until now.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnxiety Over Online Testing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, online assessment proved especially anxiety-inducing due to technical glitches. One student recounted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Now when we enter any test and finish it, a message appears that our work has not been submitted, so we must do it again.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother added:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The computer would freeze and answer by itself\u0026hellip; that affected my grades a little.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings point to the need for not just robust digital infrastructure but also empathetic implementation that acknowledges and supports the emotional labor of technological change.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the lived experiences of teachers and students following the integration of laptops into middle school classrooms in Abu Dhabi. Through rich qualitative insights, five key themes emerged: training, infrastructure, home technology use, relationships among stakeholders, and emotional responses. Across these domains, several recurring patterns point to a persistent gap between the policy promise of one-to-one laptop initiatives and their classroom realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, disparities in training\u0026mdash;particularly the near absence of structured student training\u0026mdash;contributed to uneven readiness across classrooms. While teachers received some professional development, its quality and impact varied widely depending on prior digital experience, age, and subject area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, infrastructure-related challenges such as system malfunctions, LMS failures during assessments, and delayed technical support undermined confidence in digital platforms. These issues were especially pronounced in female schools, where support was perceived as slower or less accessible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, students\u0026rsquo; home use of laptops shaped learning outcomes in complex ways. For some, the opportunity to review recorded lessons, complete tasks independently, and access interactive content enhanced motivation and autonomy. For others, lack of reliable internet, family resistance, and overexposure to screen time created barriers to meaningful engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourth, the shift toward digital learning reconfigured relationships between students and teachers. Teachers increasingly served as facilitators rather than sole knowledge providers, while students became more responsible for their own learning. However, this transition also strained traditional communication patterns and reduced face-to-face interaction, particularly among female staff.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the emotional experiences of both students and teachers were deeply mixed. Students expressed both excitement and frustration\u0026mdash;finding motivation in gamified tasks but also anxiety from technical failures and rapid pacing. Teachers, particularly older ones, described fear, stress, and initial resistance, compounded by uncertainty in balancing digital and traditional methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings affirm that access to devices alone does not guarantee pedagogical transformation. Instead, successful digital integration is shaped by a constellation of sociotechnical factors\u0026mdash;including training quality, support infrastructure, home conditions, institutional expectations, and emotional readiness. The results highlight the importance of contextual sensitivity in educational technology reform, particularly in under-researched and rapidly modernizing regions like the Gulf.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study offer important insights into how technology adoption theories play out in real-world school settings. In particular, they speak directly to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1989) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003), both of which emphasize perceived usefulness, ease of use, and the role of institutional support in shaping technology uptake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; and teachers\u0026rsquo; experiences suggest that perceived usefulness alone is insufficient when technical malfunctions, ambiguous expectations, and lack of training erode confidence and motivation. For instance, while students found features like lesson replay and self-paced exercises helpful, their utility was compromised by LMS breakdowns and unclear platform instructions\u0026mdash;demonstrating that effort expectancy (Venkatesh et al., 2003) remains a critical bottleneck. Likewise, the uneven training structure and support systems challenge assumptions in TAM that users will adopt technology if it is \u0026ldquo;easy to use\u0026rdquo;; in reality, \u003cem\u003eease\u003c/em\u003e is shaped by infrastructural reliability and pedagogical scaffolding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings also reinforce the importance of facilitating conditions\u0026mdash;a core construct of UTAUT. Although schools were technically well-equipped, teachers in female schools reported slower support responses and larger class sizes, revealing that systemic structures mediate whether technology can be used effectively. Furthermore, the social influence of peers and families\u0026mdash;another UTAUT dimension\u0026mdash;was evident in both positive (peer-led troubleshooting) and negative (pressure to share accounts or cheat) interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCritically, the study challenges the \u003cem\u003einstrumentalist\u003c/em\u003e view of technology as a neutral enhancer of learning. Consistent with scholars such as Selwyn (2016) and Ertmer \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), our data suggest that educational technologies are socially situated and politically entangled, shaped by users\u0026rsquo; histories, institutional norms, and cultural expectations. For example, older teachers\u0026apos; resistance and students\u0026rsquo; emotional exhaustion reveal how digital transformation intersects with generational, gendered, and institutional factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the results support calls for greater contextualization in ed-tech research, especially in rapidly modernizing systems like Abu Dhabi\u0026rsquo;s, where top-down reforms collide with diverse teaching workforces and multilingual student populations (Warschauer \u0026amp; Matuchniak, 2010). These dynamics require moving beyond acceptance models to critically engage with implementation realities\u0026mdash;highlighting the need for long-term, responsive, and equity-focused professional development and infrastructure investment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the expanding body of international research on educational technology integration by foregrounding the relational, emotional, and contextual dimensions that shape how students and teachers experience one-to-one laptop programs. While prior scholarship has largely focused on issues of infrastructure, access, and digital skills (OECD, 2018; Isaacs, 2015), our findings underscore that the success of technology integration is equally contingent upon social support structures, pedagogical adaptation, and emotional readiness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn line with Cuban\u0026rsquo;s (2020) critique of techno-solutionism, this study challenges assumptions that simply providing hardware or digital platforms will produce meaningful learning gains. The persistent gaps in student training, the emotional fatigue from overexposure to screens, and confusion over curricular materials reveal that device access is only the beginning\u0026mdash;not the end\u0026mdash;of the implementation challenge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings also extend Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich\u0026rsquo;s (2010) emphasis on teacher beliefs and agency by showing how uneven professional development and gendered differences in support create differentiated experiences of technological change. Female teachers often felt isolated in navigating new systems, while male staff reported greater access to hands-on assistance. These gendered patterns of support access have been rarely addressed in prior ed-tech literature, especially in Middle Eastern contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, this study fills a critical gap in the literature by offering rich, qualitative insights from the Gulf region, where educational technology research remains sparse and often limited to survey-based evaluations (Badri et al., 2016). By centering the lived experiences of both students and teachers, our analysis illuminates how sociotechnical systems are perceived, negotiated, and resisted in the context of centralized reform and multilingual classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the study contributes to emerging discussions about digital emotion work in schools. It highlights how digital learning environments not only affect academic outcomes but also provoke emotional responses\u0026mdash;including anxiety, skepticism, motivation, and parental concern\u0026mdash;that influence long-term engagement. This suggests that future ed-tech research and policy must account for the affective realities of digital transformation, not just its technical or instructional components.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplications for Practice and Policy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study suggest that effective technology integration requires far more than the provision of devices. To translate digital initiatives into meaningful educational gains, policymakers and school leaders must attend to the pedagogical, emotional, and infrastructural ecosystems in which these reforms unfold.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, the lack of structured and equitable training\u0026mdash;particularly for students\u0026mdash;points to a critical implementation gap. While teachers received formal training, its quality and accessibility varied widely, and students were often left to learn informally or rely on peers. This calls for the design of inclusive and tiered training programs tailored to the needs of diverse learners and educators, rather than assuming baseline digital fluency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, infrastructure investment must be accompanied by responsive and equitable technical support, especially in schools serving larger or more marginalized student populations. The gendered disparities in support observed in this study\u0026mdash;where female students reported less consistent access to IT assistance\u0026mdash;underscore the need for targeted resource allocation and school-based technical teams equipped to respond quickly and fairly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, educational technology reforms must explicitly address the emotional dimensions of digital learning. Both students and teachers reported anxiety, confusion, and fatigue due to system unreliability, platform overload, and unclear expectations. Implementation plans should therefore include mechanisms for emotional support, such as counseling, flexible timelines, and clarity in resource use. Additionally, strategies to enhance family engagement\u0026mdash;through transparent communication, tech-orientation sessions for parents, and culturally responsive outreach\u0026mdash;can help mitigate skepticism and foster more supportive home environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, digital learning reforms must be framed as pedagogical transformations, not merely technical upgrades. Teachers need support in rethinking their instructional strategies, assessment practices, and classroom relationships in light of new tools. Embedding technology within a broader strategy of instructional redesign and professional learning communities will ensure that reforms are adaptive, not just administrative. In sum, the success of laptop programs and broader digital reforms depends on systemic coherence\u0026mdash;where access, support, pedagogy, and well-being are aligned to create equitable and effective learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations and Directions for Future Research\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this study offers rich, context-sensitive insights into the implementation of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi middle schools, it is not without limitations. First, the study is based on a small, purposively selected sample from two public schools, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Although the depth of qualitative inquiry allows for nuanced understanding, future research would benefit from incorporating a broader and more diverse range of schools\u0026mdash;including private institutions, rural settings, and schools serving different socioeconomic profiles\u0026mdash;to capture a wider spectrum of experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, all data were collected through self-reported interviews, which may be subject to social desirability bias. While participants were encouraged to speak freely, their responses might still reflect what they believe is expected or acceptable. Future studies could triangulate these findings with classroom observations, digital usage logs, or survey data to build a more robust picture of technology use. Third, the research focused primarily on the perceptions of teachers and students. Other stakeholders, such as school leaders, IT support personnel, and parents, were not included, even though they play a pivotal role in shaping digital learning ecosystems. Subsequent research should aim to include these voices to better understand systemic enablers and barriers to technology integration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, this study examined the short- to medium-term impacts of laptop integration. However, questions remain about the long-term pedagogical and equity effects of such initiatives\u0026mdash;particularly how sustained exposure to digital tools affects academic achievement, motivation, and social development over time. Longitudinal research is needed to explore these dynamics across students\u0026rsquo; educational trajectories. In light of these limitations, future research should pursue mixed-methods and longitudinal designs, engage multiple stakeholder perspectives, and attend more explicitly to the intersection of digital reforms with gender, socioeconomic status, and linguistic diversity. Such work will be essential for advancing an equitable and effective ed-tech policy in the Gulf region and beyond.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has illuminated the complex and often uneven terrain of laptop integration in Abu Dhabi\u0026rsquo;s middle schools, offering rare qualitative insights into how students and teachers experience educational technology on the ground. While national investments in infrastructure and digital platforms such as Alef are commendable, our findings demonstrate that the success of such reforms depends not just on device provision, but on sociotechnical alignment\u0026mdash;adequate training, equitable support, emotional readiness, and pedagogical adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, this research moves beyond dominant narratives of access to highlight how gendered disparities, infrastructural inconsistencies, and emotional fatigue can undermine well-intended reforms. It also challenges techno-solutionist assumptions by showing that digital transformation in education must attend to human relationships, institutional constraints, and contextual realities that shape daily school life.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs education systems continue to digitize, especially in the Global South, policymakers and practitioners must rethink digital equity not as a technical problem, but as a pedagogical, emotional, and relational challenge. Bridging this implementation gap is not only necessary for improving learning outcomes, it is vital for ensuring inclusive, just, and sustainable educational futures.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e There was no funding for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number:\u003c/strong\u003e Not Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study received ethical approval from the \u003cem\u003eResearch Ethics Committee of the Department of Education, University of Bath\u003c/em\u003e (Approval Date: 30 January 2019). The research was carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and with the principles of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, as well as relevant national regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all teacher participants. For student participants under the age of 18, written informed consent was obtained from their parents or legal guardians, and assent was obtained from the students themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent for the publication of anonymized responses was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians in the case of students under 18.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to the qualitative nature of the study and to protect participant confidentiality, the datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available. Anonymized excerpts from the interview transcripts may be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbdallah, A. K., \u0026amp; Alriyami, R. (2022). Changes in the education landscape caused by COVID-19: Opportunities and challenges from UAE perspective. \u003cem\u003eWorld Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 544-559.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlmekhlafi, A. G., \u0026amp; Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teachers\u0026apos; perceptions of technology integration in the United Arab Emirates school classrooms. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Technology \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 165-175.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlzarooni, A. I., Alhashmi, S. M., Lataifeh, M., \u0026amp; Rice, J. (2024). Navigating Digital Transformation in the UAE: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions in the Public Sector. \u003cem\u003eComputers\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(11), 281.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBadri, M., Alnuaimi, A., Mohaidat, J., Yang, G., \u0026amp; Al Rashedi, A. (2016). Perception of teachers\u0026rsquo; professional development needs, impacts, and barriers: The Abu Dhabi case. \u003cem\u003eSage Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2158244016662901.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;101\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBulman, G., \u0026amp; Fairlie, R. W. (2016). \u003cem\u003eTechnology and education: Computers, software, and the internet\u003c/em\u003e. In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, \u0026amp; L. Woessmann (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of the Economics of Education\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 5, pp. 239\u0026ndash;280). Elsevier.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Poth, C. N. (2018). \u003cem\u003eQualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCuban, L. (2020). \u003cem\u003eTeaching history then and now: A story of stability and change in schools\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard Education Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., \u0026amp; Warshaw, P. R. (1989). \u003cem\u003eUser acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models\u003c/em\u003e. Management Science, 35(8), 982\u0026ndash;1003.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErtmer, P. A., \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research on Technology in Education\u003c/em\u003e, 42(3), 255\u0026ndash;284.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., \u0026amp; Duckworth, D. (2020). \u003cem\u003ePreparing for life in a digital world: IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report\u003c/em\u003e. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH\u0026aring;kansson Lindqvist, M. (2015). \u003cem\u003eConditions for technology enhanced learning and educational change: A case study of a 1: 1 initiative\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Ume\u0026aring; universitet).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHamdan, A. (2014). The reciprocal and correlative relationship between learning culture and online education: A case from Saudi Arabia. \u003cem\u003eThe Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 84\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHoward, S. K., Tondeur, J., Ma, J., \u0026amp; Yang, J. (2021). What to teach? Strategies for developing digital competency in pre-service teacher education. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e, 165, 104149.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIsaacs, S. (2015). Survey of ICT and education in Africa. \u003cem\u003einfoDev World Bank ICT in Education Series\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLim, C. P., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Churchill, D. (2011). A framework for developing pre‐service teachers\u0026rsquo; competencies in using technologies to enhance teaching and learning. \u003cem\u003eEducational Media International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 69-83.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Tsai, C. C. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use of technology in schools. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Technology \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 59-68.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLim, C. P., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Churchill, D. (2014). \u003cem\u003eTechnological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring, developing and assessing TPCK\u003c/em\u003e. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMerriam, S. B., \u0026amp; Tisdell, E. J. (2016). \u003cem\u003eQualitative research: A guide to design and implementation\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOECD. (2018). \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Results (Vol. 2): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals\u003c/em\u003e. OECD Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOECD. (2021). \u003cem\u003e21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world\u003c/em\u003e. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePenuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of research on technology in education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 329-348.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReimers, F. M., \u0026amp; Schleicher, A. (2020). \u003cem\u003eA framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020\u003c/em\u003e. OECD.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRizvi, F. (2017). Privatization in education: Trends and consequences. \u003cem\u003eProspects\u003c/em\u003e, 47(1), 3\u0026ndash;9.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRomanowski, M. H., \u0026amp; Nasser, R. (2012). How critical thinking is taught in Qatari independent schools\u0026rsquo; social studies classrooms: Teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Education\u003c/em\u003e, 4(1), 68\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRubin, H. J., \u0026amp; Rubin, I. S. (2012). \u003cem\u003eQualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScherer, R., Siddiq, F., \u0026amp; Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers\u0026rsquo; adoption of digital technology in education. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e, 13-35.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelwyn, N. (2016). \u003cem\u003eEducation and technology: Key issues and debates\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSiddiq, F., \u0026amp; Scherer, R. (2019). Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students\u0026apos; ICT literacy. \u003cem\u003eEducational research review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 205-217.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., \u0026amp; Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. \u003cem\u003eReview of Educational research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4-28.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers\u0026rsquo; intention to use technology: Model development and test. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(4), 2432-2440.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTrucano, M. (2016). \u003cem\u003eEvaluating the impact of ICTs in education\u003c/em\u003e. World Bank Blogs.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUAE Ministry of Education. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEducation Sector Strategic Plan 2023\u0026ndash;2026\u003c/em\u003e. Abu Dhabi: UAE Government. [Available from: https://www.moe.gov.ae]\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUNESCO. (2022). \u003cem\u003eReimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education\u003c/em\u003e. UNESCO Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVan Deursen, A. J., \u0026amp; Van Dijk, J. A. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. \u003cem\u003eNew media \u0026amp; society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 354-375.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVekiri, I., \u0026amp; Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1392-1404.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVenkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., \u0026amp; Davis, F. D. (2003). \u003cem\u003eUser acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view\u003c/em\u003e. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425\u0026ndash;478.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVoogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., \u0026amp; ten Brummelhuis, A. (2015). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Computer Assisted Learning\u003c/em\u003e, 31(5), 465\u0026ndash;471.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWarschauer, M., \u0026amp; Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. \u003cem\u003eReview of research in education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 179-225.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., \u0026amp; Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. \u003cem\u003eReview of educational research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1052-1084.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Laptop integration, educational technology, digital learning, teacher-student relationships, digital equity, UAE schools, qualitative case study","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7044573/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7044573/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDespite growing global investments in one-to-one laptop programs, the successful integration of digital technology in schools remains highly uneven, particularly in under-researched regions like the Gulf. This qualitative case study investigates how middle school students and teachers in Abu Dhabi experience the introduction of laptops through the national Alef platform. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with six teachers and six students across two public schools, the study explores key sociotechnical and emotional dimensions of technology adoption. The findings reveal significant gaps in structured training, especially for students\u0026mdash;technical malfunctions in digital infrastructure (e.g., LMS failures), and gendered disparities in access to support. While students reported greater self-confidence and motivation when using laptops at home, challenges such as over-competitiveness, digital fatigue, and parental skepticism tempered these benefits. Teachers, meanwhile, described shifting professional roles, uneven digital readiness, and evolving classroom relationships. By highlighting the contextual, emotional, and relational factors shaping ed-tech uptake, this study contributes to more nuanced, equity-oriented approaches to digital reform in education.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Technologies in Context: Examining the Pedagogical and Relational Dimensions of Laptop Use in Abu Dhabi","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-06 11:50:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7044573/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-24T16:23:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-17T15:00:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-15T19:36:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"132274184971629904199937164009952426802","date":"2025-10-12T14:50:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"101121155096552938087208952820045188391","date":"2025-10-12T09:25:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"29779399579784342020689314906404791154","date":"2025-10-08T05:19:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-23T07:58:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-19T20:44:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-05T18:35:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-09-05T18:32:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c1cc9b84-0feb-4baf-8367-8d3e60997197","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-01T09:53:51+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-06 11:50:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7044573","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7044573","identity":"rs-7044573","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}