SMART Board Project ProposalJones 1

Project Proposal

SMART Board Professional Development

Designed by: Jennifer Jones

Proposal Date: July 27, 2007

Proposal Abstract

As educators, it should be our goal to pursue the opportunity that technology holds to enhance our curriculum and promote higher order thinking among our students. A highly regarded technological resource, a SMART Board, has already been purchased by MillenniumMiddle School. Since its purchase, this interactive whiteboard has been minimally used. This proposal will highlight the need to further train our teachers on this resource, describe the necessary steps to ensure success in training, and describe how this proposal is the most effective and efficient way to approach this need.

Need

A SMART Board, an interactive whiteboard manufactured by SMART Technologies, was purchased by ourMediaCenter approximately four years ago. Since then, use of this technology has been limited. Upon an informal survey, many teachers use the board twice or less per school year. Often, even when this technology is used, it is operated at its most basic level. The initial staff training on the SMART Board occurred when it was first purchased. Since then, new features and software have become available. By providing further training for our teachers about this product, we would be taking a step towards making the best use of the monetary investment that we already made in this proven technological resource.

A case study in San Francisco echoes the situation that our school is in. In this case, “Seventeen [multimedia] systems were installed in 1989 along with social studies and history software developed by the National Geographic Society. Most of the machines were idle at the end of that school year, however. Only after teachers were given training in how to work the multimedia content into their lesson plans did teachers start using the technology available to them” (Means et al., 1993). This example highlights both the initial need and the subsequent success that can come when training is made available.

There have been other instances in which technology has been underused due to a lack of training. In multiple studies cited by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, “the primary reason teachers do not use technology in their classrooms is a lack of experience with technology (Wenglinsky, 1998; Rosen & Weil, 1995).” The NCREL further goes on to cite a study conducted by Ringstaff and Kelly in which it was found that, “Ongoing professional development is necessary to help teachers learn not only how to use new technology but also how to provide meaningful instruction and activities using technology in the classroom (2002).

Support for such staff training comes from other sources as well. For example, “NEA believes that given the fast pace change in public schools, meaningful staff development, especially in the area of technology, must be a priority in all schools…” (Kopkowski, 2006). This reasoning, of course, centers around a key descriptor of the staff development; that it must be meaningful. Therefore, not only should the training design be meaningful, but the subject of the training must be meaningful as well.

In the case of the SMART Board, research has shown its use to be highly beneficial and therefore would be a meaningful topic for our school to examine. This form of technology has considerable advantages over other conventional boards and projections. “The power of the IWB [interactive whiteboards] lies primarily in its annotation capability and the ability to move freely and easily between flipchart pages revealing an infinite range of pre-prepared resources incorporating text, graphics, video and sounds, as well as direct use of the Internet…” (Beauchamp and Parkinson, 2005).

An additional advantage also occurs when an activityon the SMART Board is concluded. “At the end of the activity, teachers can either save the results for future lessons, reveal the correct solution on the next page of the presentation, print the results or just scrap everything and be left with the starting page for future use” (Beauchamp and Parkinson, 2005).

The ability to save presentations provides an opportunity for teachers to easily access and revisit previous lessons. The ease of this feature may allow teachers to review topics more frequently. This builds upon Jere Brophy’s principle of practice and application activities as “it is important to follow up thorough initial teaching with occasional review activities…” (1999).

Additionally, this technology enables teachers to perform what Brophy describes as “strategy teaching”. The interactive functionality of the board allows the teacher to easily manipulate data on the screen. This provides opportunities for the teacher to model skills, activities, and strategies while conducting “think alouds” describing their thought processes. This type of overt modeling “…provides learners with first-person language (‘self talk’) that they can adapt directly when using the strategy themselves” (Brophy, 1999). In this way, theSMART Boardhelps students construct meaning during lessons.

The strength of this device lies not only in the functionality of the software provided by SMART Technologies that accompanies the hardware, but in the hardware’s versatility in incorporating the use of other programs and applications. For example, teachers can readily access information from the Web or even access programs already utilized in our district, such as Inspiration, Timeliner, PowerPoint, GoogleEarth and United Streaming.

Because of the SMART Board’s compilation of features, it provides a platform for both teachers and students to develop Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy. As referenced by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, these are skills that will be “critical to students’ success in the workplace” and include such arenas as communicating effectively, analyzing and interpreting data, and engaging in problem solving (Kay and Honey, 2005).

Therefore, the goal is for this technology to be used as a tool that our students will be learning with. The application of this technology will provide new opportunities to our students in order to develop critical thinking and higher order thinking.

Plan of Operation

The proposed plan is that the SMART Board should be revisited in a training session in order to introduce new staff to its uses as well as build upon the returning staff’s knowledge of its features.This proposed solution must address the four common places of education: the teacher, the learner, the subject matter and the setting.

In this proposal, the Media Specialist and the Project Director would take on the role of teacher by designing the training and materials. The training would reach the entire teaching staff within the building, but would not occur all at once. Instead, once the schedule of department meetings for the 2007-2008 school year is released, each department (science, math, social studies, language arts, music and art, and electives) would be assigned a training session. On their assigned day, their department meeting would take place in the MediaCenter with the Media Specialist as their guide for instruction.

The implementation of this project will occur in various phases. The first phase is the approval stage. The administration must first recognize the need for such a training to occur. They will be presented with this proposal as well as copies of case studies highlighting the uses of interactive whiteboards in the classroom as further evidence of its benefits.

The next step in this process is preparation/research phase. After project approval, the Project Director will compose and distribute an online survey to determine the staff’s knowledge base, comfort level, usage, and satisfaction with the SMART Board.

After the survey’s completion the Project Director and the Media Specialist will meet to determine the exact needs of the staff in terms of training on the SMART Board. Once these needs are determined, the Project Director and the Media Specialist can either work collaboratively to develop the training materials and/or divide the work into manageable pieces to work on individually.

In addition to this, the plan for execution of the training must occur. There are many elements to be taken into consideration when developing the training agenda and the environment in which the learners will learn. The key to the success of this training therein lies in its structure.

A key principle that will be kept in mind when designing the training agenda is that the information will be need to be arranged in such a way to create “coherent content”. Small sequenced steps and time for questioning must be built into the design “to stimulate active learning and ensure that each step is mastered before moving to the next” (Brophy, 1999).

Therefore, in order to emphasize the use of practice and application activities, the training will follow a format of: presenting information, asking questions and guiding discussion, and engaging in activities. This type of format will lend itself to “interactive discourse” as opposed to “extended lecture presentations” (Brophy, 1999).

It is also vital for teachers to have the opportunity to explore the technology themselves. Therefore, the plan for training will include time for the teachers to use the SMART Board and interact with its features. The questions asked during the training will be posed in order to create “thoughtful discourse”. One such line of questioning during the training will ask teachers to determine specific parts of their curriculum that could be enhanced by the SMART Board. This discussion will help the teachers to reflect on the real usage of such technology within their own practices and hopefully spark further brainstorming on the topic.

After preparing the materials necessary for project success, pre-training materials will be distributed to the staff. This advance preparation will help to increase the staff’s comfort level. The distribution of an advance organizer, as suggested by Brophy, can serve to establish a basic structure for the training.

Before the training session, links to online SMART Board training will be provided via email to give teachers an opportunity to look over the material ahead of time. An outline of the training will also be sent in order for the teachers to know exactly what will be covered and why it is important. The goal of this is to “characterize the general nature of the activity and give students [in this case the learners are teachers] a structure within which to understand and connect the specifics that will be presented” (Brophy, 1999).

After all this has occurred, the actual training phase will begin. The Media Specialist will meet with each department according to the assigned schedule to facilitate the training. It is then that all of the above principles will be applied to guide the learners in their exploration of the SMART Board.

This initiative towards full utilization of the SMART Board will not end as soon as the training session is concluded. The NCREL cited a study in which Kanaya and Light determined that, “Teachers need in-depth, sustained assistance not only in the use of technology but in their efforts to integrate technology into the curriculum” (2005).

Therefore, after the training session, follow-up materials will also be provided in order to aid in retention. Based on feedback from departments and available meeting time, this follow-up can either be provided in an electronic format or in another face-to-face training session. Additionally, the Media Specialist and the Project Director will continue to be available to assist teachers in further training and spark dialogue on the topic. Resource teachers will also be identified and be available to provide support to fellow teachers.

Quality of Key Personnel

Key personnel for this proposal include:

  • Administrators – The building administration will be looked to for project approval. This would be based on their recognition of the value of technology integration into our classrooms. Their responsibility would lie in allocating department time to the project upon approval. After the project is complete, the administration would be asked to meet with the Media Specialist and Project Director to analyze data from the pre- and post-survey of the training.
  • Media Specialist – The Media Specialist will serve as the principle resource and the lead instructor of the training. Her current background knowledge in the many facets of the SMART Board will enable her to work with the Project Director to develop the training materials. After the project is complete, the Media Specialist would be asked to meet with the Administration and Project Director to analyze data from the pre- and post-survey of the training.
  • Project Director – The project director’s responsibilities include obtaining approval from the administration for the training, creating a timeline for the project, creating and distributing pre- and post-training surveys, communicating with department facilitators to schedule training, and helping the Media Specialist develop the training materials.
  • Department Facilitators – The heads of each department will be responsible for choosing a training day among the scheduled department meetings. They will be invited to analyze the pre- and post-survey of the training; however, this element will not be a requirement.
  • Teachers – The technological skills of each teacher will vary and therefore, all that is asked of the teachers is that they come into the training with an open mind and a willingness to participate.
  • Resource Teachers – Any and all teachers interested and willing to learn more about this technology will be asked to serve as resource teachers after the initial training. They will be provided with alternative sources of training (i.e. SMART Technology training website and possibly further training from Media Specialist) and will be identified among the staff as those who can be asked for technological support with the SMART Board.

Evaluation

Research has already shown that the inclusion of technology leads to positive learning outcomes. However, these outcomes can only occur if the technology is being utilized. Therefore, evaluation of this project will be based on a post-survey of the teachers to determine if meaningful use of and satisfaction with the SMART Board has increased following the training. Based on the results of this survey, an additional survey will be given to students to determine their reactions to the inclusion of SMART Boards within their classrooms.

Applicant’s Commitment and Capacity

Although this is my first undertaking of such a project, I am convinced that the combination of my background in technology and organizational skills along with the knowledge and experience of the Media Specialist that this project can successfully come to fruition.

In order to further increase my knowledge on the uses of the SMART Board, I will complete the Live Online Training offered by SMART Technology on the following topics:

  • SMART Board Interactive Whiteboard
  • SMART Board 600 Series: Maintenance and Troubleshooting
  • SMART Ideas Software
  • Using PowerPoint Software with SMART Products
  • Notebook Software
  • Creating Lesson Activities (K–6)
  • Creating Lesson Activities (7–12)

The knowledge gleaned from these will better prepare me to help design the training materials and agenda for maximum benefit to the staff.

Budget and Cost-Effectiveness

Simply put, the chief cost for this project is time. The Media Specialist and supporting teacher will be dedicating time to the preparation of materials for this training. If possible, at least one day of release time would be ideal for creation of materials.

This proposal also asks for each department to devote at least one department meeting’s time to the SMART Board training during the 2007-2008 school year. This does take time away from other departmental focuses such as collaboration or NCA work. However, as already evidenced in this proposal, the use of the SMART Board can have a significant influence on student achievement and would therefore be time well spent. Since the Media Specialist rotates between department meetings, there are no additional constraints put upon her time. The only other foreseen costs of this project entail the costs of copying the training materials to distribute to the teachers.

There are other alternatives to this proposed plan. One such alternative would consist of conducting the training at an all-staff meeting. This, however, would eliminate the small group setting that is being proposed. If the training is conducted at an all-staff meeting, it would still only require an hour of each staff member’s time, but would shift the training from large group to small group. This elimination of the small group setting may have negative effects on the outcome because the time constraints and the number of participants would limit the number of individuals who would have an opportunity to personally interact with the technology.