Running Head: INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS 1

Interactive Whiteboard Use in the Classroom
Article Critique Narrative
Betty Teresa Ray
University of West Georgia
8480 Program Evaluation

Author / Lopez, O. (2010) / Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., Ozdemir,S. (2009) / Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010) / Quashie, V. (2009) / Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010) / Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010) / Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., & Marshall, L., and Swan, P. (2010)
Name of Article / The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language / Board’s IQ: What Makes a Board Smart? / Keeping in Touch with Learning: The Use of an Interactive Whiteboard in the Junior School / How Interactive is the Interactive Whiteboard? / The Interactive Whiteboard: A Transitional Technology Supporting Diverse Teaching Practices / Talking about Science in Interactive Whiteboard Classrooms / Interactive Whiteboards: Interactive or Just Whiteboards?
Program Evaluated / Digital Learning Classroom Project / Basic Education Program and Secondary Education Program / Derivative of Laptops for Teachers Evaluation / Interaction of the IWB / Effect of the IWB on Teaching Practice in Two Primary Classes andFour Secondary Classes. / IWB and Discourse Research Project / Collaborative Research Project by University Lecturers, Primary School Teachers and Principals, Pre-Service Teachers, and District Consultants on IWB
Evaluation
Purpose / Digital Learning Impact on ELL Students / Evaluation of SmartboardInvestments / Observing and Evaluating the Pedagogic Practice and Orchestration in the Use of Interactive Whiteboards in the Classroom / Observing the Interactivity in the Use of the Interactive Whiteboards in the Classroom / Impact of IWB Installation on Teaching Practices. / Explore Impact of IWB in thePrimary Science
Classroom Conversation. / Investigation of Ways that IWBs are used in Primary Classrooms
Sharing Ideas and Expertise on Using IWBs
Documenting
Teachers’ Practices with the IWB
Evaluation
Type / Summative / Formative / Formative
Summative / Formative / Formative / Formative
Summative / Formative
Summative
ID of
Stakeholders / District Leaders, Principal, Teachers, Students / World Bank, European Union, Turkish Educational System, Communities, Schools, Teachers, Students / Educational Community / Enfield County Schools, Mathematics Teachers, Students / Policymakers, Teachers, Students / Australian Government,
Australian Primary Schools, Teachers, Students / Universities,
Schools, Principal, Teachers
District Education Office
Evaluation
Questions / Were there equal results achieved between ELL and regular students in traditional classrooms?
Were there equal results achieved between ELL students in Digital Learning Classrooms and regular students in traditional classrooms?
Did students’ achievement increase when comparing Digital Learning Classrooms and ELL students in traditional classrooms? / What are the factors preventing the effective use of Interactive Whiteboards in the classroom? / How did the teacher organize the classroom teaching environment to facilitate the use of the interactive whiteboard to support the development of key competencies as set by the New Zealand Department of Education? / Do students have opportunities to discuss thoughts in the classroom?
Are students given the opportunity to manipulate the visuals on the IWB?
Did students give directions to the teacher on how to interact with the IWB?
Were students able to voice their opinions with the teacher? / How do teachers’ IWB pedagogical strategies change over time?
How much does the change occur?
How much are the pedagogical changes predictable or specific? / How can interactive pedagogies in the IWB classroom be used to support substantive discourse in the science classroom? / What are teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of learning with this technology in terms of learning, motivation, engagement, interaction, and collaborations?
How are the whiteboards used in early years and K-7 classrooms?
Are the interactive whiteboards used to enhance interactive and collaborative learning processes or for demonstration purposes?
Methods
Used / Quasi-experimental / Evaluative Case Study / Case Study / Case Study / Qualitative Study / Action Research Case Study / Grounded Theory
Data Collection
Types / Tests of prior year benchmarks and end-of-year tests / Online questionnaires, teacher and pupil interviews, document searches / Observation and Interview / Observation and interviews / Observation and interviews / Observation, Focus Groups, Interviews / Observation and Field Notes from meetings
Results
Reported / ELL and Regular students in classroom settings-Results were not equal
ELL in Digital Learning Classroom and Regular Students in traditional classrooms-ELL achieved near parity
ELL in Digital Learning classroom and ELL in regular classrooms-Mixed Results / Lack of usage due to technical competency, pedagogical competency, and lack of school plan
Lack of in-service training and pedagogical in-service training
Lack of digital educational material
Lack of support and maintenance
Limited access to equipment / Effective whiteboard usage depends upon effective pedagogy. It is not an end unto itself.
The goal is not to use the whiteboard but to engage the students into the educational process of which the whiteboard is one tool. / Effectiveness of the whiteboard depends upon the quality of materials used on the whiteboards.
The whiteboard can motivate and provide enjoyment and participation, but it would difficult to measure.
Technology problems disrupted classes but the teachers were able to deal with the difficulties.
Student perception that a topic is easier may have an impact on motivation and retention of information learned. / Diversity in the use of the IWB.
Frequency of use varied among teachers.
Classroom management varied among teachers.
All teachers were enthusiastic in the use of the IWB.
Access to wider range of resources.
Professional development should reflect of the diversity of usage. / When using IWB in the science classroom, communication type improved.
When using IWB in the science classroom, the quantity of students’ participation increased.
When using IWB in the science classroom, the quality of student talk improved.
When using IWBs in the science classroom, the quality of teachers’ questions improved. / There were concerns with reliability, visibility, and positioning of the boards.
Participants were enthusiastic.
The findings were unlike former studies in that teachers did not use the boards only as presentation tools.
Recommendations
Reported / Future study is needed to examine whether ELL students in the Digital Learning Classroom learn more curriculum in the same amount of time as ELL students in traditional classrooms, and if so, to what extent.
There is a need for future study to determine whether positive results are sustainable.
Obtain funding to experiment with regular students in Digital Learning Classrooms and traditional classrooms
Expand use of Digital Learning Classrooms to more Ell students / Other educational institutions should improve training, provision of materials, technical support, maintenance of equipment, and cooperation of administration / Teachers need to use the whiteboard in the classroom to engage the students in participatory education. / Teachers are responsible to make a lesson engaging and motivating. This can be done with or without the IWB. / Professional development should include diversity in the use of the IWB. / Teachers need professional learning to integrate technology effectively.
Research must be reviewed and used to develop appropriate resources.
Evidence based frameworks and strategies fir technology integration will increase depth and quality of discourse. / There needs to be a focus on students’ and teachers’ needs.
Replace interactions with the whiteboard with interactions with teachers and students and other resources.
Allow student contributions.

Running head: INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS 1

Are interactive whiteboards being used as “glorified dry-erase boards”? Funds are wasted in the purchasing of costly technology if it is of minimal benefit. The use of interactive whiteboards to engage and motivate students is being introduced into many schools. There are some very positive results stemming from the incorporation of interactive whiteboards into the classroom, but there are questions that need to be answered to use them to their fullest potential. In the following paper, evaluations of the interactive whiteboards will be reviewed and critiqued.
Since I am evaluating the use of interactive whiteboards in the classrooms at Calhoun Elementary School in Calhoun, Georgia, I collected peer-reviewed articles which are evaluations of the costs and uses of the interactive whiteboards. Each article in my collection concerns interactive whiteboard use in the classroom, but the articles vary in the questions to be answered. Some of the programs involve a school district question on the feasibility of purchasing interactive whiteboards while others are case studies inquiring about the best uses and practices of the whiteboards. The collection of articles chosen concerns the issues upon which I will be focused in my school’s evaluation. The articles discussed ways information was gathered and analyzed which will be a great benefit when I begin my process. School districts would be benefit from viewing evaluations such as these before purchasing the equipment.
After selecting my articles to review for information on evaluation of programs, I found that there were similarities among the authors’ programs. Some of the authors worked with younger students. Lopez (2010) used third through fifth graders in his research, and Harlow, Cowie, and Heazlewood (2010) used were five to six year old children.Murcia and Sheffield (2010) and Somyurek, Atasoy, and Ozdemir’s (2009) participants were primary school students and high school students. Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, and Swan (2010) researched the use of interactive whiteboards of teachers and students of kindergarten through twelfth grade classes, and Winzenried, Dalgarno, and Tinkler’s (2010) participants were five to eighteen year old students. There were similarities in the research questions of Harlow, Cowie, and Heazlewood (2010) and Winzenried, Dalgarno, and Tinkler (2010). Each of these authors’ research questions sought information on the pedagogical strategies of the teachers. Examining interaction of students with interactive whiteboards were Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, and Swan (2010); Murcia and Sheffield (2010); and Quashie (2009). Many of the authors, (Somyurek, Atasoy, & Ozdemir, 2009); ( Harlow, Cowie, & Heazlewood, 2010); (Quashie, 2009); (Winzenreid, Dalgarno, & Tinkler, 2010); and (Murcia and Sheffield, 2010), used a case study method. Another similarity among some of the authors, (Harlow, Cowie, & Heazlewood, 2010); (Quashie, 2009); (Winzenreid, Dalgarno, & Tinkler, 2010); (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010); and (Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, & Swan, 2010) included observations for data collection. Somyurek, Atasoy, Ozdemir (2009); Harlow, Cowie, and Heazlewood (2010); Quashie (2009) and Winzenreid, Dalgarno, & Tinkler (2010); and (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010) used interviews.
There were differences in the research questions among the authors. Lopez (2010) was interested in ELL students’ achievement compared to the regular education students. Somyurek, Atasoy, and Ozdemir (2009) focused their questions on factors that hinder the effective use of the interactive whiteboard. There were authors that used different methods of research. Lopez (2010) used a quasi-experimental approach, and Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, and Swan (2010) used a grounded theory approach. Only one author, (Lopez, 2010), used tests such as benchmarks and end-of-the-year tests.
Somyurek, Atasoy, and Ozdemir (2009) were concerned with investments in Turkish primary and secondary schools. They wanted to see what practices were being used with smartboards. The authors were thorough in the description of their findings. In the first finding, by way of questionnaires and interviews, they found that the interactive whiteboards purchased were not being used, and the reason given by teachers was that they needed training. The teachers also said there was not enough quality material to use with the boards. Other problems the evaluators found were the lack of technical support and maintenance, and a lack of administrative clarity of purpose for the whiteboards. As I evaluate the program at my own school, I want to find any hindrances that may prevent appropriate use of the interactive whiteboards. In finding the hindrances, our school may benefit by offering assistance or professional development to overcome the difficulties teachers face when using interactive boards.
In a second article, Lopez (2010) evaluated the uses of interactive whiteboards to bridge the gaps between ELL students and regular students. When comparing the performance of the students in various situations such as ELL and regular students in traditional settings, the findings suggested that ELL students fall behind the traditional students on academic performance. When using the technology with the ELL and then comparing performance to regular students in traditional classrooms, the gap closed somewhat. The article then compared ELL with technology and ELL in regular classrooms and received mixed results. My question is, “Where is the comparison of ELL students when using technology and regular students using technology?” I would like to know the results of that comparison. The author discussed the information in his findings with tables that were very clearly understood with description and details. The author gave recommendations for further study, realizing that her evaluation was a first-year study which would present novelty effects. The author’s evaluation interested me because it focuses on reading and mathematics which are the focal point of the Criterion Referenced Competency Test (a set of tests that test knowledge gained of first through eighth graders) that my class takes at the end of the year. The reading and mathematics sections must be passed in order to successfully pass to the next grade. With my own classroom comprised of EIP students, ELL, and regular students, I can see the need to evaluate progress of all students when using technology. Reading the evaluation by Lopez (2010), I can look ahead and see that the technology could improve all students’ performance. When used efficiently in the traditional classroom, the teacher can use the interactive whiteboards to enable students to observe and inquire which would lead to understanding material presented.
Winzenried, Dalgarno, and Tinkler (2010) evaluated the diversity of teachers’ pedagogical practices when using the interactive whiteboards. He found that the boards were used effectively by the teachers, and that they offered teachers many opportunities that other technologies may not. He found that student engagement was evident in all classrooms observed. Hestated that professional development is needed to address diverse teaching. I understand that professional development is necessary to ensure that equipment is an optimal investment for classroom instruction. Obtaining an expensive product does not guarantee positive results by itself. Instructions must be given to ensure the product is used productively. As I evaluate the program at my school, I will refer to these studies to see how the evaluator analyzed the information gathered to lead to the concluding recommendations.
Harlow, Cowie and Heazlewood (2010) observed the pedagogical practice of teachers and the environment the teacher created in using the interactive whiteboard in classrooms, and his evaluation concluded that the whiteboard was very useful in student participation. He found that the teachers’ learning environment was crucial in the student participation and contribution in the classroom using the interactive whiteboard. The teacher also had structure for the activities in the class. The recommendation set forth by the author focuses on the development of student competencies that would cross over into other parts of the curriculum. When I read the article by Harlow, Cowie, and Heazlewood (2010), I agreed that the learning environment is very important in the classroom. An organized, motivating, and creative teacher can create a learning environment that is enjoyed by the teacher and students.
Quashie (2009) was concerned with the interactivity between teacher, students, and the interactive whiteboard. The author included opinions of students about the technology, which were positive. One area that was discussed was the quality of materials that can be used with the whiteboards. The author described the differences between conditions of three teachers’ classroom instruction. The conclusion of the evaluation suggested that teachers are responsible when preparing lessons to ensure engagement and motivation of students. The suggestion is that the lesson that engages and motivates students can be done with or without the use of an interactive whiteboard. As I reviewed the material, I thought back about the many years I taught without an interactive whiteboard and remembered the lessons as being very engaging and motivating. I have seen excitement both when I present games on paper and on the interactive whiteboard. The interactive whiteboard provides many ways to include games of interaction that teachers do not have time to create on their own time.
Murcia and Sheffield (2010) explored the impact of the interactive whiteboard in a primary school science setting. These authors focused on the impact of whiteboard use in encouraging participatory conversation in the subject of science. The author introduced seven principles of interactive pedagogy and how they positively impact science communication in the classroom. They presented clear, understandable tables and statistics. The article can be extended to all subjects to assist teachers with developing participatory communication. The analyses will be very helpful for me as I will be looking at third through fifth grades and evaluating the teacher and student interactivity with the interactive whiteboards.
Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, and Swan (2010) focused on the whiteboard use in the primary classes also. They were very thorough in their listing of purposes, benefits, limitations, challenges, and cautions of using the interactive whiteboards in primary class instruction. In reading their concerns about cost, and challenges for professional development of teachers, I have found common issues that other schools may face. I will be looking at our school for available opportunities for development when evaluating our whiteboard use. One issue of importance that Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, and Swan (2010) shared was that of the interactive whiteboard promoting teacher-centered education. They thought that interactive teaching may be overlooked. The article confirms what I think about the interactive whiteboard. I do think the cost of the boards requires that teachers and students interactively use it. I am curious about the amount of interactivity there is in the classrooms when using the interactive boards. I also wonder sometimes if the boards are just larger television screens for some of the teachers. As I read the articles, I realize the differences in teachers’ approach to instruction in using the interactive whiteboards. I am also wondering, from reading the selected articles, if the lack of knowledge of using an interactive board causes teachers to struggle to the point that instruction is lacking.
The articles selected for the critique collection enable me to formulate the questions and studies needed to satisfy the questions of the administration of Calhoun Elementary School in the purchase and use of the interactive whiteboards in the classrooms. The variety of programs reviewed gives direction in that my program has similarities with some of them. I will be using some of the same types of ideas on data collection and analysis. In reading the studies of the researchers, I find that I am developing an awareness of an organizational pattern that will be followed in my evaluation.
The collection of articles is making me feel more confident in my search for best data collection. To see the studied that have been completed, and the results other evaluators have found, makes it possible for me to see how the data collection worked in particular situations and will be applicable to my own evaluation.
As I am pursuing an evaluation of interactive whiteboard use, I have referred back to the articles many times to see how a particular evaluator chose population, questions, and analyses to obtain the results needed for the evaluation. I have seen the enormity of a few evaluations and the simplicity of others which makes my evaluation direction clearer. The information gathered for the assignment has been very helpful in my evaluation, and the compilation of questions, collection, and analysis has become clearer as I have reviewed the evaluations of the authors in my collection. I will be referring to the information in these articles as I carry through the entire evaluation process.