Articles Critique
Bethany Stiefel
January 30, 2011
Critique of Interactive Whiteboard Use in Special Education
In recent years, education has been increasingly scrutinized by the media and the general public. Although schools continue to make gains that will help lead students successfully into the 21st century, it never seems to be enough. As expectations soar and accountability is at its peak, schools today are more obligated now than ever to make good educational decisions for students. As part of 21st century initiatives across the nation, interactive whiteboards have taken an increasingly prominent role in classrooms across America. Although many schools have taken the steps to get this technology in place, the installation of the tool is not where the process ends. Teachers and school officials must constantly analyze, test, and revise how to most effectively use this technology to meet the needs of all students.
In preparation for my own program evaluation of interactive whiteboards in self-contained special education classrooms, I have gathered information from several articles concerning similar evaluations of the effects of interactive whiteboards in the classroom. In comparing these studies, I discovered that most of the results rendered interactive whiteboards useful tools in the classroom. The reasons behind the success in each of these studies, while somewhat varied from study to study, seemed to be very basic and based on common sense. Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) conclude that,
“interactive whiteboards can be effective tools for initiating and facilitating the learning process, especially where pupil participation and use of the board is utilized. The way in which information is presented, through color and movement in particular, is seen by the pupils to be motivating and reinforces concentration and attention.”
In Engagement with Electronic Screen Media among Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders, the results stated that all types of electronic screen media (ESM) proved to help hold students’ attention, but viewing oneself on the screen rendered greater gaze time and potentially greater chance of information retention (2009). Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, and associates discovered that teachers implementing IWB technology into their instruction will require ongoing training and support for their selection of appropriate instructional software (2005). They also stated that support would need to be in place for teachers to deepen and enhance their lesson reflections to provide students with the most beneficial learning experiences. In the study concerning the use of interactive whiteboards for literacy in primary schools in England, Shenton and Pagett concluded that interactive whiteboards were used in various ways, according to teachers’ technical expertise and experience (2007). Two studies were conducted to determine the effective uses of IWB technology among students with disabilities in a small group arrangement. The first study determined using IWBs was effective in teaching letter sounds, and students acquired some letter sounds targeted for other students and incidental information (letter names) presented in the instructive feedback statements for their own and other group members’ target stimuli (Campbell & Mechling, 2009). The second study established that “the large screen [was effective] for delivering target information and learning of other students’ information by making images more visible and increasing attention to the task,” (Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007). In The Features of Interactive Whiteboards and Their Influence on Learning, the authors decided that IWBs have an “important influence on teaching and learning” and “can provide potential and structure for action in the classroom,” (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007).
Based on the results found in each study, I have solid ground on which to conduct my own study. Not only did each study find IWBs to be effective for instruction in some way or another, but the collection also proved IWBs to be effective in general education classrooms as well as special education settings. Since the findings in these articles support the use of IWBs in multiple educational settings, I should be able to easily pinpoint the effective uses of interactive whiteboards for students with moderate intellectual disabilities in my school system. Being able to determine if the teachers in my school system have had adequate training, how often IWBs are used, the purposes for the use, examples of how IWBs make instruction more effective, how often students use IWBs, and how teachers collaborate with others for resources and effective instructional uses will enable me to show data to support effectiveness of using IWBs. With this information, I will also be able to make specific recommendations of how the system can improve the IWB use for students with disabilities.
Although all of the articles I collected had positive results of some fashion concerning interactive whiteboards, there were several different approaches used to gather the data. In “The Visual Helps Me Understand the Complicated Things”: Pupil Views of Teaching and Learning with Interactive Whiteboards, the students were heavily involved in the data collection process (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005). In this study, the students were interviewed about their thoughts on learning using IWBs. They were also provided template diagrams to complete in order to gain students’ impressions on IWB technology in the classroom (2005). This seemed to be the only study that relied so heavily on student feedback. In the study, Collaborative Research Methodology for Investigating Teaching and Learning: the Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology, lessons were video recorded (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005). There were two video cameras rolling during the lesson, one focused on the interactive whiteboard and the other focused on the students in the classroom. The video footage was reviewed by the teachers who were able to choose a segment of particular interest to them to discuss at a seminar (2005). The other five studies used observations in some way or another to observe how IWBs were being used in the classroom. Several of these articles focused on students with disabilities. One article focused on students with autism and how electronic screen media affected student engagement (Mineo, Ziegler, Gill, & Salkin, 2009). Another article focused on how IWB technology affected how students with mild learning disabilities learn literacy skills (Campbell & Mechling, 2009). The third article discusses the effective uses of IWBs with literacy skills, specifically grocery related sight words and images (Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007). All three of these articles supported the use of IWBs in small groups or one-on-one for students with disabilities. Two of the articles results found that IWBs helped students focus on the task due to the large screen size and other students were able to acquire nontarget literacy skills by being present while other students participate in their target literacy instruction (Campbell & Mechling, 2009) (Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007). The article focused on electronic screen media for students with autism found that the IWB increased gaze time for students with autism, which in turn, would increase the likelihood of information retention.
Each study I came across offered me some piece of information that would help to make my own program evaluation stronger. Although this is true, I never came across any literature that specifically discussed the use of IWB technology in self-contained special education classes and the resources used for IWB-based instruction in these classrooms. This truth sheds light that on the fact that the program evaluation I will be conducting is much needed for my school system. It also makes me think that since there is no other study similar to it, that other schools can benefit from my evaluation as well. No doubt, using the information gleaned from the collection of articles I compiled, I will be able to identify specific traits that produce effective interactive whiteboard instruction in the self-contained classroom in my school system.
References
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57, 457-469.
Campbell, M. L., Mechling, L. C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with SMART board technology: an investigation of observational and incidental learning of nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30 (1), 47-57.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning.Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 227-241.
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of smart board technology: an investigation of sight word reading and observational learning.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869-1882.
Mineo, B. A., Ziegler, W., Gill, S., Salkin, D. (2009). Engagement with electronic screen media among students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 172-187.
Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From "bored" to screen: The use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in england.Literacy, 41, 129-136.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). "The visual helps me understand the complicated things": pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards.British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 851-867.
5