etc660actionresearchpaper

Running Head: IWB EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

The Effects of Using an Interactive Whiteboard

on the Social Studies Achievement of Fourth Graders

Paula L. Naugle

Southeastern Louisiana University

1

IWB EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Abstract

This study will investigate the effect of using interactive whiteboards (IWB) on the social studies

achievement of fourth graders. Two intact fourth grade classes from a mid-size suburban school

will be the participants in this study. The treatment group will be taught by a teacher using a

traditional method of instruction, but integrating the use the IWB interactively as it was designed

to be used. They will also use student response clickers as part of the interactive daily lessons.

The control group will receive the traditional methods of instruction and their IWB will only be

used by the teacher. They will not use the student response clickers. A randomized

pretest/posttest control group design will be used for this study. To determine whether a

statistically significant difference exists between the two groups, teacher made pretests and

posttests will be used. The teachers will work together to design the test in the format of the

standardize test they use. Both groups will take the same tests.

2


The Effects of an Interactive Whiteboard

on the Social Studies Achievement of Fourth Graders

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study to determine the effect of using an interactive whiteboard on

the social studies achievement of fourth graders.

Review of Literature

According to a white paper published by SMART Technologies Inc. in 2004, “Learning with

interactive whiteboards in the classroom enables effective student retention and review in the

following ways:

Lessons are more memorable because students are more engaged and motivated. Students are able to focus more on the learning moment rather than worry about capturing everything through note taking

Several different learning styles are accommodated when learning is delivered with an interactive whiteboard, improving chances of student retention during class

Notes generated on an interactive whiteboard can be printed or e-mailed for distribution after class, ensuring the student has good review material to support information retention.”

As I continued to search through the research conducted on the use of interactive whiteboards

in the classroom, I decided to group the key points I discovered into four general areas: general

benefits, benefits for teachers, benefits for students, and factors for effective use.

General benefits versatility, with applications for all ages across the curriculum (Smith A 1999) increases teaching time by allowing teachers to present web-based and other resources

more efficiently (Walker 2003) more opportunities for interaction and discussion in the classroom, especially compared

to other ICT (Gerard et al 1999). increases enjoyment of lessons for both students and teachers through more varied and

dynamic use of resources, with associated gains in motivation (Levy 2002).

Benefits for teachers enables teachers to integrate ICT into their lessons while teaching from the front of the

class (Smith H 2001)

3


encourages spontaneity and flexibility, allowing teachers to draw on and annotate a wide range of web-based resources (Kennewell 2001)

enables teachers to save and print what is on the board, including any notes made during the lesson, reducing duplication of effort and facilitating revision (Walker 2002)

allows teachers to share and re-use materials, reducing workloads (Glover & Miller 2001) widely reported to be easy to use, particularly compared with using a computer in whole-

class teaching (Smith H 2001) inspires teachers to change their pedagogy and use more ICT, encouraging professional

development (Smith A 1999).

Benefits for the students greater opportunities for participation and collaboration, developing students’ personal

and social skills (Levy 2002) students are able to cope with more complex concepts as a result of clearer, more

efficient and more dynamic presentation (Smith H 2001) different learning styles can be accommodated as teachers can call on a variety of

resources to suit particular needs (Bell 2002) enables students to be more creative in presentations to their classmates, increasing self-

confidence (Levy 2002) students do not have to use a keyboard to engage with the technology, increasing access

for younger children and students with disabilities (Goodison 2002).

Factors for effective use sufficient access to whiteboards so teachers are able to gain confidence and embed their

use in their teaching (Levy 2002) use of whiteboards by students as well as teachers (Kennewell 2001) provision of training appropriate to the individual needs of teachers (Levy 2002) investment of time by teachers to become confident users and build up a range of

resources to use in their teaching (Glover & Miller 2001) sharing of ideas and resources among teachers (Levy 2002) positioning the whiteboards in the classroom to avoid sunlight and obstructions between

the projector and the board (Smith H 2001) a high level of reliability and technical support to minimize problems when they occur

(Levy 2002).

While the efficiency of whiteboards is an important advantage – in one school, teachers

found they could significantly increase teaching time (Walker 2003) – it is their use to extend

and transform learning that results in the greatest gains. The literature gives numerous examples

of such use in areas as diverse as literacy and numeracy (Smith H 2001), modern foreign

languages (Gerard et al 1999) and special education needs (Carter 2002).

Glover & Miller (2001) identify three levels of whiteboard use:

4


to increase efficiency, enabling teachers to draw upon a variety of ICT-based resources without disruption or loss of pace

to extend learning, using more engaging materials to explain concepts to transform learning, creating new learning styles stimulated by interaction with the

whiteboard.

Increased motivation is seen as a key benefit of whiteboards. Reasons for this include: their presentational capabilities – incorporating websites and video seamlessly in teaching the high level of interaction – students enjoy interacting physically with the board,

manipulating text and images the capacity to present and discuss students’ work – focusing on student-originated

material helps keep the class on task and raise self-esteem.

Allowing students to use the whiteboards so they engage with learning materials is therefore

vital in increasing motivation and learning gains (Kennewell 2001). Studies report that

motivational gains diminish as the whiteboards become more familiar, although students tend to

view their educational impact more positively the more they are used (STCC 2002).

Teachers have found interactive whiteboards relatively easy to use but becoming confident in

their use takes commitment in terms of both training and independent exploration. Developing

multimedia teaching materials is a significant addition to workload in the early stages, though

preparation time decreases once a range of materials exists. The expectations the whiteboards

engender in students, however, put pressure on teachers to constantly improve the presentation

and content of lessons. The capacity to share resources via the school network and internet could

reduce workloads, but evidence suggests this is currently under-used (Glover & Miller 2001).

Teachers are hesitant about changing their pedagogy to incorporate interactive whiteboards if

practical considerations hinder their use. Key factors include:

ease of access – the whiteboards need to be a regular part of classroom practice if they are to be fully exploited (Greiffenhagen 2000)

reliability – studies report varying, though generally high, levels of reliability; the role of whiteboards in lesson delivery means it is essential that teachers have confidence in the board, its network connection and the provision of technical support

visibility – problems can occur where sunlight shines directly onto the board (Levy 2002)

5


positioning – the board should be mounted at a suitable height and the computer and projector positioned to minimize the risk posed by trailing wires (Smith H 2001).

Research suggests that consulting teachers at an early stage can reduce practical difficulties

and ensure the technology meets the school’s pedagogical needs. The cost of interactive

whiteboards makes value for money an important consideration. It is only when used to extend

and transform learning that they justify their cost relative to cheaper solutions such as plasma

screens or data projectors and conventional boards. Research indicates that while some teachers

are making full use of interactive whiteboards, this is not yet generally the case. In one study

(Glover & Miller 2001) teachers were equally enthusiastic about lower-cost options.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that fourth graders whose teacher uses an interactive whiteboard as it

was designed - for students to interact with - will score statistically significantly higher than

fourth graders whose teacher uses the board as a “stand and deliver” projection tool, with respect

to social studies achievement.

Operational Definitions

The operational definitions used in this study are interactive whiteboard (IWB), GLEs,

TDI, and 504.

IWB refers to a board that is connected to a computer and a projection system and

includes software that allows objects to be moved by way of a pen or a wand.

The GLEs are the grade level expectations that stated what every fourth grader should

master in social studies during the year. They are broken up into the strands of geography, civics,

economics, and history. The GLEs are what the classroom teacher should be using to drive her

curriculum, not the textbook.

6


TDI is the acronym for teacher-directed instruction and refers to the teaching methods

that are led and directed by the teacher.

504 is the term educators use to refer to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It

is a civil rights statute that requires the needs of students with disabilities, such as asthma,

dyslexia, and ADHD, to be met as adequately as the needs of the non-disabled are met. Students

under Section 504 have accommodation plans to help meet their needs in the regular classroom.

Methodology

Research Design

A randomized pretest/posttest control group design will be used for this study. The

independent variable will be the type of instruction. The subjects will be students in two intact

fourth grade social studies classes. The levels will be Teacher Directed Instruction (TDI) plus the

use of screen-captured math lessons and the control group who will receive just TDI. The

dependent variable will be social studies achievement as measured by the teacher made pre- and

posttests.

Sample

This is be clearly defined when school begins for the 2010-2011 school year. Basically

this study will utilize convenience sampling using two intact fourth grade classes from a mid-size

suburban, public school. There will be approximately 60 students ranging in age from 9 to 11

years of age.

The treatment group will consist of approximately 30 students. There will be a few

students who receive 504 accommodations in the group. There will be a racial mix and the

majority of students receiving free/reduced lunch. I can not comment on the percentages until

after school begins.

7


The control group with be very similar in composition to the treatment group. Once

classes for the school year have been determined I will be able to provide percentages.

Instrumentation

For this study, teacher made pre and posttest for the social studies units being studied will

be used. There have been three teachers in fourth grade for the past two years who worked

together to create posttests for the social studies units of study. They were so successful that at

the end of the 2008-2009 school year they received an honor from the district and the social

studies chairman for being among the top three schools in the district based on LEAP scores for

social studies. The fourth graders at Bissonet received a scaled score of 331 for the 2008-2009

year. They earned 63% in Geography, 70% in Civics, 79 % in Economics, and 71% in History.

During the 2009-2010 school year the students earned a scaled score of 340. They earned 79% in

Geography, 67% in Civics, 71% in Economics, and 68% in History.

After analyzing the test results for the past two years, the teachers feel that they are very

capable of making pre and posttests that will be reliable and valid. They have seen that the

construction of posttests that closely follow the LEAP format and cover all fourth grade GLEs

have had positive effects on student achievement in social studies. They will use that bank of

tests to construct the pre and posttests for this study.

Procedures

Two intact fourth grade social studies classes at my school will be used for this study.

Both the treatment and the control group will contain approximately 30 students. Each group will

have a 50 minute social studies class daily. Each class will be conducted in a traditional manner

by checking homework, introducing the daily lesson to the whole group, small group practice

sessions, individualized work, a wrap-up with the whole group, and a homework assignment.

8


The control group’s teacher will use her IWB as a teaching tool. The students will be

seated and will receive her instruction in a very traditional “sage on the stage” manner.. The TDI

will be done in a nontraditional way using an interactive whiteboard (IWB) projection system

and a software program from Promethean that allows the teacher to create interactive flipcharts

she will be conducting the class and demonstrating the interactivity of the IWB.

The treatment group’s teacher will also use her IWB. The students will actively

participant will the Promethean flipcharts and will use the student response clickers to do short

assessments during each lesson. This teacher will assume more of a “guide of the side” in the

class letting the students “drive” the IWB.

Before each unit of instruction is begun, a pretest with be administered to each class. The

results with be recorded on a sheet similar to the one found in the appendix. The teachers will

work together to design the pre and posttest and the flipcharts for the IWB. Only the teacher of

the control group with add in assessment questions that will be answered during each lesson

using the clickers.

Data Anaylsis

In order to determine whether a statistically significant difference exits between students

who used the interactive functionality of the IWB and those students who do not, the results of

both classes pre and posttests for each unit will be analyzed. The results of each pre test will be

recorded on a sheet similar to the one found in the appendix. The lessons will be conducted and

then the posttest results with be recorded on the same sheet.

Key areas for further research

9


As interactive whiteboards are still relatively new, more research, both quantitative and

qualitative, is needed on all aspects of their use. Most of the research has so far been conducted

in schools where whiteboards are still quite new to both the teachers and the students: further

studies will be needed to re-assess their impact once they are embedded in classroom practice

and no longer felt to be a novelty. To ensure schools make the right choices and get value for

money, it would also be useful to assess the advantages and disadvantages of interactive

whiteboards in relation to lower-cost solutions and other emerging technologies such as tablet

PCs.

Appendix

10

IWB EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 11

IWB EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 12


Research

Bell, M. A. 2002. Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker’s dozen reasons! Teachers.Net

Gazette, 3 (1), January 2002. http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/mabell.html (Accessed

July 15, 010).

Carter, A. 2002. Using interactive whiteboards with deaf children.

http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/activities/intranet/teacher/ict/whiteboards/index.htm (Accessed

July 15, 2010).

Gerard, F. et al. 1999. Using SMART Board in foreign language classrooms. Paper presented at

SITE 99: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International

Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 28 February–4 March 1999.

Goodison, T.A.M 2002. Learning with ICT at primary level: pupils’ perceptions. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning 18, pp.282-295.

Glover, D. and Miller, D. 2001. Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-

scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of

Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10 (3), pp.257-276.

Greiffenhagen, C. 2000. From traditional blackboards to interactive whiteboards: A pilot study to

inform system design. Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the

Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (24th, Hiroshima, Japan, 23-27 July,

2000), Vol. 2.

Johnson, C. 2002.The writing’s on the board. Educational Computing & Technology, September

2002, pp. 58-59.

Kennewell, S. 2001. Interactive whiteboards – yet another solution looking for a problem to

solve? Information Technology in Teacher Education, 39, Autumn 2001, pp.3-6.

13

http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/activities/intranet/teacher/ict/whiteboards/index.htm

http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/mabell.html


Levy, P. 2002. Interactive Whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a

developmental study. Sheffield: Department of Information Studies, University of

Sheffield.

Marzano Research Laboratory (2009). Meta-analysis database. Retrieved August 24, 2009 from

http://www.marzanoresearch.com/research/meta_analysis_database.aspx.

Smith, A.1999. Interactive whiteboard evaluation. MirandaNet.

http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/pubs /smartboards.htm (Accessed July 15, 2010).

Smith, H. 2001. SmartBoard evaluation: final report. Kent NGfL.

http://www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/whiteboards/report.html (Accessed July 15, 2010).

South Texas Community College (STCC) 2002. Student perceptions of the use and educational

value of technology at the STCC Starr County Campus.

http://www.stcc.cc.tx.us/~research/reports/pdfs/Student_Perceptions_Technology.pd

(Accessed July 15, 2010).

Walker, D. 2002. White enlightening. Times Educational Supplement, 13 September 2002. p.19.

Walker, D. 2003. Quality at the dockside. TES Online. 3 January 2003. pp.66-67.

14

http://www.stcc.cc.tx.us/~research/reports/pdfs/Student_Perceptions_Technology.pd

http://www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/whiteboards/report.html

http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/pubs%20/smartboards.htm