Running Head: INCREASING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT with INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS 1

Running Head: INCREASING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT WITH INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS 1

Increasing Student Achievement with Interactive Whiteboards

Anne B. Craven

University of Georgia

INCREASING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT WITH INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS 1

Introduction

Background

With the advent of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), schools are expected to increase student achievement for all students each year. Teachers need ways to increase student achievement while meeting the needs of a wide range of learners. In addition to striving to meet the expectation of increasing student achievement, teachers are faced with expectations to integrate technology into their classrooms. Today’s students are digital natives and often know far more about technology than their teachers. One technology that has become popular in education in the past few years is interactive technology. Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) define interactivity as the "ability to respond contingently to the learner's actions" (para. 1). Some researchers have defined three stages of teacher use of interactivity in the classroom. These stages are: Supported Didactic, which essentially consists of visual support for the learners; Interactive, in which a variety of stimuli are used to demonstrate concepts; and Enhanced Interactivity in which activities are integrated to fully use the interactive capabilities of the technology (DiGregorio & Sobel-Lojeski, 2010).

Purpose
The purpose of this project is to investigate current research on interactive technologies, focusing on interactive whiteboards, and to implement the findings to maximize the benefits of interactivity in the classroom.

Statement of Need

Interactive whiteboards are becoming prevalent in K-12 classrooms. It is important to determine what teaching strategies for interactive whiteboards show the greatest impact on student achievement.

Significance

Schools are spending millions of dollars on interactive technology even in these tight budget times. Research to discover the most effective strategies for using interactive whiteboards is important to ensure that this technology is used effectively to improve student achievement.

Review of the Literature

The literature review will include three areas: interactive whiteboards and student engagement and motivation, interactive whiteboard teaching strategies that increase student achievement, and how teacher expertise influences successful interactive whiteboard implementation.

Some research has indicated that interactive technology does lead to increased student engagement and motivation (Winzenrod, Dalgarno & Tinkler, 2010; Marzano, 2009). Murcia (2010) discusses student technology expectations and points out that, "Engaging students requires greater consistency between their experiences inside and outside the classroom" (para. 1). Other research, however, has found that there was only a weak link between interactive technologies and student motivation in math classes. (Torff & Tirotta, 2010).

In an intensive study of 1,423 Elementary school students from 21 sites, Marzano (2009) found that pacing, chucking, visuals, and immediate feedback were key pieces of interactive whiteboard lessons that increased student achievement. Other studies have shown that the use of interactive whiteboards resulted in teachers asking more open ended questions, increasing wait time, and requiring more participation from the students (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010) and that pacing, modeling, and "dialogic teaching" (Mohon, 2008) were particularly effective in increasing student achievement with interactive whiteboards. Murcia & Sheffield (2010) also identified seven interactive pedagogies that facilitate learning.

Teacher preparation has been found to be a key to success (Martin, 2007; Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Marzano’s study (2009) found that the largest gains in student achievement occurred when a teacher was experienced, had interactive technology for several months or more and was confident in its use, and included the technology extensively in daily lessons but not more that 80% of classroom time. While some studies stress the importance of pedagogical change, others indicate that an evolution of pedagogy relative to interactive technologies allows teachers to embrace the technology (Slay, Siebörger, & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008; Winzenried, Dalgarno, & Tinkler, 2010; Mohon, 2008). DiGregorio and Sobel-Lojeski's (2010) review of literature found that positive effects of interactive technology are related to teacher training and teacher confidence. They suggested a framework for professional development which included ongoing training and support for teachers.

Research has shown that interactive technologies, when used properly, can increase student engagement and achievement. In addition, a key element of using interactive technology effectively is teacher expertise and comfort level. Teacher training is an important factor in ensuring that this technology is used effectively to improve student achievement.

Design Specifications for Teacher Training

Teacher Training would include a minimum of three years of support.

Year 1:

  • On site expert available to troubleshoot, model, coach, and support
  • Whole staff introduction to Interactive Board basics, philosophy, research supported teaching strategies, and sample lessons
  • Daily opportunities to use the interactive technology with students
  • Weekly opportunities to observe experts teach lessons
  • Monthly planning time for sharing and reflection
  • Quarterly half day planning with model lessons and coaching

Years 2-3:

  • Two follow up years with buddy support, online or email support, and monthly on- site support.
  • Monthly buddy sessions
  • Bi-monthly question-answer expert sessions
  • Surveys to determine future support needs

Interactive Technology should not become another promising educational investment that fades through lack of teacher training and support.

References

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766.

DiGregorio, P., & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2010). The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on student performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255-312.

Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26-34.

Marzano, R. J. H., M. W. (2009). Evaluation study of the effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on student achievment (pp. 75): Marzano Research Laboratory.

Mohon, E. H. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teacher's pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. [Article]. Learning, Media & Technology, 33(4), 301-312. doi: 10.1080/17439880802497032

Murcia, K. (2010). Multi-modal representations in primary science: What's offered by interactive whiteboard technology. [Article]. Teaching Science - the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(1), 23-29.

Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 417-431.

Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? [Article]. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006

Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383.

Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 534-552.

Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. [Article]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00703.x

Top View