Running Header: HAVE INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IMPROVED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN CLASSROOMS

Assignment #2: Have Interactive Whiteboards Improved Academic Achievement within Classrooms?

Lisa Nevoral - 56909005 ETEC 511 Foundations of Educational Technology Section 66C Course Instructor Matiul Alam August 3, 2012

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? Introduction

Interactive whiteboards (IWB) were initially developed to be used in a business setting, but have been a relatively recent addition into the educational world since the late 1990s (Lacina, 2009; Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). Since then, the number of IWBs found in classrooms around the world has significantly increased and many believe they are an ideal technological replacement for blackboards/whiteboards and overhead projectors. IWBs, also sometimes called electronic whiteboards, SMART Boards, ActivBoards, eBeam, Mimio, or Webster, are large, touch-sensitive boards which are connected to a computer and a digital or LCD projector (Callingham & Serow, 2011; DiGregorio & Sobel-Lojeski, 2009-2010; Smith et al., 2005). This platform permits teachers and students to have access to unbelievable amounts of online resources and its interactive functions and multitude of presentation styles makes it ideal for a variety of learning abilities.

Much debate around their effectiveness has been studied and it has been found that IWBs enhance student motivation and engagement in lessons. This could be due to the many features of the IWBs, such as their interactive functions and their ability to display course content in a multimedia manner (Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005; DiGregorio & SobelLojeski, 2009-2010). As well, due to their capabilities, IWBs provide a teacher the technological tool that can deliver a variety of rich learning opportunities for students that helps them to visualize and understand abstract concepts.

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? Although there is evidence to support the idea that student motivation and engagement have increased with the incorporation of IWBs, there is little empirical data that suggests that student academic achievement has seen significant improvements while using these boards. One of the dangers numerous teachers fall into when utilizing IWBs is treating it like a traditional blackboard and keeping their transmission, teacher-centered style of teaching (Beauchamp, Higgins, & Miller, 2007; Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005; DiGregorio & SobelLojeski, 2009-2010; Glover & Miller, 2010). There will be no or little improvement in academic achievement unless there is a fundamental shift in the pedagogical strategies employed while using interactive whiteboards.

I have always incorporated technology into my lessons and my students have gained the experience of technology as an educational foundation. I believe it can enhance learning, but in saying that, I have always tried to be conscious of the fact that technology is only a tool and that it should be used to aid best practices. I think that interactive whiteboards can help with this process, but there needs to be a change on how teachers incorporate the use of them in their classrooms. Teachers must embrace a more interactive, collaborative, and studentcentered approach while using these boards or else there will be no or limited academic improvement.

In this scholarly essay, I will state the reasons students motivation and engagement may have increased with the incorporation of IWBs, possible reasons why students academic achievements have not improved, the benefits and disadvantages of IWB use in the classroom,

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? and potential solutions to improving students academic achievement with the use of these boards.

Motivation and Engagement

The interactive whiteboard has many functions that may initially increase student motivation and engagement. The functions of the IWBs that may capture students attention include multimedia use, sleek presentation styles, and its interactive abilities. Miller, Glover, and Averis (2005) suggest that some of the manipulation tools (drag and drop; hide and reveal; colour; shading and highlighting; matching items; movement or animation) helped with student motivation and engagement because they allowed for high levels of student interaction with the board. As well, the opportunity for students to present and discuss work improved attention and engagement in the learning process (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2007). Similarly, some of the findings have reported that student liked the feedback they received when using the IWB and students were most likely to remain motivated in class because the lessons were more enjoyable and interesting (Glover & Miller, 2010).

Teachers need to be aware of the novelty-effect when using interactive whiteboards (Lacina, 2009). Glover and Miller (2010) caution teachers that student motivation may be high at first due to the introduction of new technology into the classroom, but this motivation will eventually wear off after the novelty of the new object has. To sustain students motivation and engagement, there needs to be a shift in teachers pedagogical practices that moves from teacher-centered lessons to student-centered.

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? Student Academic Achievement

There is little empirical evidence that suggests that students academic achievement have improved with the use of interactive whiteboards in classrooms (Lacina, 2009). Interactivity with the IWBs may sustain student motivation and increase participation, but this doesnt always relate to an increase in academic achievement. A trap that many teachers fall into is to use the IWB like a traditional blackboard or whiteboard. In doing this, they can keep their transmission, teacher-centered style of teaching (Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005; Beauchamp, Higgins, & Miller, 2007; DiGregorio & Sobel-Lojeski, 2009-2010; Glover & Miller, 2010). Improvement is impeded because teachers utilize the shiny new tool with traditional pedagogical techniques such as lecturing, busy work, rote learning and rushed teaching to cover the curriculum. There is a lack of collaboration or active learning, which can help students develop deeper understandings about the concepts being presented.

Using a familiar pedagogy, teachers may use the IWB to show PowerPoints or other multimedia sources, but they have not moved forwards to use the board to its fullest potential. Miller et al. (2005) state that the IWB has substantial presentational advantages and motivational capabilities, but were not an effective tool unless the teacher using the board understood the nature of interactivity and changing pedagogy related to IWB use (p. 105). Students may have limited interaction with the IWB and this does not help them create cognitive connections or construct new knowledge. As well, although some teachers may use the board to allow students to answer questions, they follow the sequence of IRF (initiation, response, and follow-up) questions that have predictable answers (Smith et al., 2007). To

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? enrich the lesson, teachers have to provide questions that are more open-ended and promote critical thinking, not just regurgitation of facts.

Benefits and Disadvantages of the Interactive Whiteboard Benefits There are a number of reasons why teachers may want to use IWBs in their classrooms. It has the capacity for teachers to deliver information in a variety of ways and with it assortment of multimedia capabilities such as video, pictures, diagrams, and showing websites, it can capture the attention of students. As well, it increases students motivation because teachers can display high quality images and videos into their presentations and this is thought to satisfy the expectations of students immersed in a world of media images (Glover & Miller, 2001). In addition, its multimodal ability allows teachers to meet the needs of visual, auditory, and tactile learners (Lacina, 2009; Morgan, 2010). Visual learners benefit from pictures or videos, while poems, songs, music, and speeches help auditory learners (Morgan, 2010). IWBs can better engage and motivate tactile students to participate in an activity because they can physically manipulate the board.

IWBs can facilitate differentiated instruction and cater to a variety of learning styles. It allows for greater teacher flexibility, an assortment of representations, variability to lessons, and is best suited for whole class discussions. As well, complex concepts can be made clearer with more effective and dynamic presentations. IWB options such as the split screens and flip back allow teachers to reach a range of student cognitive ability levels. With split screens, a teacher can place various concepts on the board at a variety of levels.

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? Additionally, the flip back option allows students and teachers to revisit previous material and solutions placed on the board, allowing for a further understanding of new knowledge to occur (Morgan, 2010). Teachers can also model, develop, and improve appropriate Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills for students (Holmes, 2009; Morgan, 2010). Once a lesson is developed, IWBs have the ability to save, share, and re-use lesson materials which helps with lessons later on and actually reduces preparation time in the future (Smith et al., 2005, p. 94).

Disadvantages It has been noted that there are several issues with the use of IWBs. First are the practical problems of the board, such as where it will be placed in the room, visual problems, permanent vs. portable, the height of the IWB that are permanently placed in classrooms, and setting up the equipment (Smith et al., 2005). As well, it is very costly to incorporate IWBs and projectors into classrooms. IWBs can range from $800-$2500 and projectors from $450$1500 (Lacina, 2009). To add to this, a teacher also needs a computer, IWB compatible software, and technology support.

Another problem that may arise is a decline in student motivation. Beauchamp and Parkinson (2005) noted that students enthusiasm for using the interactive boards decreased after its second year of being incorporated into a classroom. The wow factor was gone and so was students interest (Beauchamp and Parkinson, 2005). In addition, students participation levels varied. Smith et al. (2005) noted that younger students were more eager to use the boards than teenagers. Some students never came up to use the board, while other

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? students were reluctant and self-conscious when they were giving answers at the IWB. As well, many students did not like others watching them while they were at the board (Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthven, & Winterbottom, 2007). To add to this, with only one IWB per classroom, active involvement decreased and lessons could become mundane because students were only watching one student at a time at the board (Hennessy et al., 2007; Smith et al, 2005). Due to these reasons, teachers need to be conscious of potential behavioural issues that may arise and realize that IWBs require different management techniques (Bjorklund, 2000).

Smith et al. (2005) suggest that there is the need for both teachers and students to have adequate training using the IWB to reach its fullest potential. At first, teachers may struggle with the technological aspects of the IWBs. They need to become technically savvy with the board before they are able to change their pedagogical practices. If a teacher does not change the familiar ways in which they teach, they may still use a transmission style of teaching and the IWB will not be used in a collaborative manner that can deepen knowledge acquisition. Less time will be allocated to quality group work and discussions (Akbas & Pektas, 2011). Additionally, some teachers may be trying to complete the curriculum and the pace of lessons might be too fast for the students.

Potential Solutions for Improved Academic Achievement while using IWBs

Better educational practices are much more likely to stimulate learning than technology. Callingham and Serow (2011) suggest that professional development opportunities are needed to help teachers establish sufficient technical skills using the IWB as

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? well as support the teachers growing understanding and differing pedagogical approaches when using this technology. At first, teachers new to IWBs require a period of adaptation to learn the technical side of the whiteboard. At this time, teachers should also be encouraged to receive mentoring with more experienced users to discuss pedagogical strategies and means to integrate best practices when using the board at this time. It has also been suggested that there be continued professional development for teachers to become proficient in the use of the board and to help students achieve significant academic improvements.

IWB professional development is essential because teachers must change the way they teach using the boards. They cannot expect to see improved academic results if they continue to use the IWB in the same traditional, teacher-centered manner. Teachers should develop lessons using the IWBs that are student-centered, promotes interactive forms of whole class teaching, and allows for collaboration (Smith et al., 2007). In doing this, collective learning can occur where students and teachers can build on their own and each others ideas to obtain a deeper understanding of the material by negotiated meanings and mutual understandings. IWBs can provide collaborative opportunities for predicting, reasoning, critical thinking and interpretation. Teachers can now be facilitators and provide guidance and feedback to encourage students in becoming active participants in their learning.

Whole class discussions can help foster social aspects of learning because students can play an active role in their learning by articulating their knowledge, sharing what they know publicly not only verbally, but visually on the IWB, and participating in quality dialogues and discussions. Students should be expected to provide feedback to fellow class members and

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? help correct any wrong answer thereby deepening their understanding of the material through negotiated meanings (Smith et al., 2007; Hennessey et al., 2007). To facilitate this, teachers must provide higher order questions, problems, or projects and promote student responsibility for their learning. This fits in nicely with constructivist strategies and the need for collaboration and participation to co-construct, assess, and extend knowledge to develop a deep understanding of material. This comes from genuine dialogue and reflective and strategic approaches to thinking (Hennessey et al., 2007).

Best practices when using the IWB incorporate the use of constructivist strategies. This may include whole class teaching with small group discussions. The teacher can then circulate around the room and support and scaffold knowledge building within the students. When going back to the board, students may build upon their other peers answers and help with the co-construction of ideas. This then provides a bridge between private and public learning (Hennessey et al., 2007). As well, students may see more success when manipulations on the board are followed by discussions and feedback between teacher and pupil, pupil and pupil, or pupil and corrective software. In addition, such constructivist practices such as POE (predict-observe-explain) fit in nicely with the use of IWBs. Teachers can show certain things on the board and have students predict what will happen next allowing them to gage students prior knowledge. As well, activities such as paired items can help identify any knowledge gaps. This allows teachers to see how a student is thinking and check their misconceptions. To promote active learning, all students can do pair statements" on paper and see if they are correct when the answers are shown on the board. Annotations such as drag and drop help gradually build up a concept and allow students to

10

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? make connections. These strategies provide opportunities for students to present and discuss their work which may lead to improved attention and engagement in the learning process (Smith et al., 2007).

Pedagogical Change

Lewin, Somekh, and Steadman (2008) suggest a three stage model for pedagogical change with an IWB (p. 301): Stage 1 teachers fit new technologies into their established pedagogy. Stage 2 teacher engage in collaborative exploration of the new opportunities offered by these technologies. Stage 3 teachers use the IWB skillfully and intuitively in ways that extended or transformed established pedagogic practices. This model is similar to Beauchamps framework of IWB transition (black/whiteboard substitute, apprentice, initiate, advanced, synergistic), Haldanes model (foundation, formative, facility, fluency, and flying) and Glovers three stage model of supported didactic, interactivity stage, and enhanced interactivity (Lewin, Somekh, and Steadman, 2008). All of these models propose that teachers need time to become technically knowledgeable and then they need to move on and change their pedagogical practices.

Conclusion

There is not enough evidence that interactive whiteboards improve academic achievement. Bjorklund (2000) states that technology is just another tool in the teacher toolbox and cannot drive curriculum. There needs to be a balance in using technology with 11

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? best practices. Teachers need to restructure their pedagogical practices and emphasize student-centered learning, collaborative groups, and project and problem based activities. Interactive whiteboards can provide the platform in which students can collaborate and participate to co-construct, assess and extend knowledge, to develop a deep interactivity and a genuine dialogue and a reflective strategic approach to thinking. In this capacity, teachers become facilitators within the class and help lead their students to better understanding of new knowledge.

12

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? References Akbas, O., Pektas, H.M., (2011). The effects of using an interactive whiteboard on the academic achievement of university students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. 12(2), Article 13. Retrieved on July 22, 2012 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=107&sid=8c544fb8de6e-4113-a12a-8aa273d31d44%40sessionmgr114 Beauchamp, G., Higgins, S., Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive Whiteboards. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(3), 213-225. Beauchamp, G., Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the wow factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97-103. Bjorklund, A.L. (2000). One more for the toolbox: Technology and the English class. The English Journal, 90 (2), 42-46, Retrieved on July 20, 2012 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/i233826 Callingham, R., Serow, P. (2011). Levels of use of Interactive Whiteboard technology in the primary mathematics classroom. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 20(2), 161-173. DiGregorio, P., Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2009-2010). The Effects of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning: A Literature Review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255-312. Glover, D., Miller, D. (2010). Presentation or mediation: is there a need for interactive whiteboard technology-proficient teachers in secondary mathematics? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 253-259.

13

Have IWBs Improved Academic Achievement? Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 283-301. Retrieved on July 20, 2012 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439880701511131 Lacina, J. (2009). Interactive Whiteboards Creating Higher-level, Technological Thinkers? Childhood Education, 85(4), 270-273. Lewin, C., Somekh, B., Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education Information Technology, 13, 291-303 Miller, D., Glover, D., Averis, D. (2005). Presentation and Pedagogy: The Effective Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Mathematics Lessons. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 25(1), 105-112.

Smith, F., Hardman, F. & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacherpupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal. 32(3), 443457.

Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or Bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.

14