EFFECTS OF A SMART BOARD

RESOURCE WEBPAGE

Angela NannettiCBSE 7202 T

Fall 2013

Table of Contents

Hypothesis/Research Design.………….3Threats to Internal Validity………………4Threats to External Validity……………...5Example Survey Questions...……..……..6Proposed Data Analysis…………………7-9References…………………………………10

Research Design• Hypothesis–When used regularly over a six-week

period, my Smart Board resource webpage will increase the comfort and frequency with which classroom teacher’s use their Smart Boards for instruction.

• Experimental Design– One group pre-test-posttest design– OXO

Threats to Internal Validity• History- A teacher’s prior experiences with technology in general may affect

their attitudes about Smart Boards.• Maturation- Teachers may be so busy with the pressures of the job that they

lose enthusiasm to participate in the research• Instrumentation- With web surveys, we are not able to verify a participant's

identity and so it is possible someone other than the participant is completing survey.

• Mortality- Participation is completely voluntary and it may be difficult to keep teachers engaged in the research.

• Testing/Pretest Sensitization- after completing the pre-test, participants will know what I am looking for and this may affect their answers on the post-test

• Statistical Regression- Teachers often have very strong feelings about technology and if some are very resistant to change and adaptation, no web resource website is going to change their mind. I suspect there may be extremely low scores in some cases that may skew my results.

• Differential Selection of Subjects- teachers will begin participating in this action research with very different attitudes about technology there will be some impact upon the dependent variable

• Selection-Maturation Interaction- Different teachers, from different technological on-maturation backgrounds will have different maturation rates.

Threats to External Validity• Ecological Validity- Even amongst other urban environments, Brooklyn is

a place unto itself. A treatment that works for teachers in Brooklyn may not necessarily work for teachers in other urban areas, let alone suburban areas.

• Generalizability of Conditions- Due to variations in teaching styles, levels of experience, attitudes about technology, and varied student bodies, it is unlikely the research could be repeated an yield the same results.

• Pre-Test Treatment- Participant's experience with the pre-test could very well affect their answers during the post-test.

• Selection-Treatment Interaction- Non-random volunteerism of participants means that my results will not be randomized and my data many not be as reliable as I would ideally like for it to be.

• Experimenter Effects- Passive elements like my age and my attitudes towards Smart Boards and technology in general may come into play. Active elements, such as my previous knowledge of the subjects may also be an issue.

• Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects– Hawthorne Effect, in which subjects improve their behavior because they know their progress is being

monitored.– Novelty effect, which suggests subject’s behavior improves when a new technology is introduced

because they are curious about it not because of any actual learning or improvement.

Example Survey Questions

PRE-TEST

I like technology.(1) Strongly disagree(2) Disagree(3) Agree(4) Strongly agree

How would you rate your willingness to use a Smart Board?(1) Not at all willing(2) Somewhat willing(3) Willing(4) Very willing

WEB RESOURCE SATISFACTION SURVEY

How often did you visit the website over the experimental six week period?

(1) A few times

(2) Sporadically

(3) Several times per week

(4) Every day

POST-TEST

How often did you visit the website over the experimental six week period?

(1) A few times

(2) Sporadically

(3) Several times per week

(4) Every day

Descriptive StatisticsHow frequently do you use a Smart Board

for instruction? BEFORE AFTER

MODE= SOMETIMES (13) MODE= ALWAYS (18) At the onset of the experiment, most teachers said they used

their Smart Boards “sometimes”. At the conclusion of the 6- week experimental period, most teachers said they used their Smart

Boards “always”. The experiment seems successful.

1

9

13

7 NeverFrequentlySometimesAlways

2

1018

NeverRarelySometimesAlways

Correlations

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

Series1Linear (Series1)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Series1Linear (Series1)

The more teachers like technology, the more willing they are to use Smart Boards.There is a positive correlation with a strength of .675, which is very high.

The more frequently teachers use their Smart Boards, the more successful they believe their instruction is.

There is a positive correlation with a strength of .699, which is very high.

References• O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2013). Descriptive

Statistic Threats to Validity [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from https://bbhos.cuny.edu/webapps/portal/frameset