Interactive White Board Use and Its impact on Student Achievement in Middle School Mathematics - Dissertation Example

?Interactive Whiteboards Literature Review In today’s world of education children seem to learn better when they have some way to interact with theirlearning. Generally, there are computers in the classroom that enhance the students’ opportunity to be creative and understand the learning at a deeper level. Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) to some classrooms are crucial to creating the opportunity for children to interact with their subject matter and this allows the teacher to teach creatively instead of having to depend on lecturing the class. As an example, Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall and Swan (2010) suggest that there are several advantages to using IWBs in the classroom for both teachers and students. Some of the advantages of this learning are that it creates a way for students to have positive social learning, has an impact on children’s behavior, and they are able “to perform miracles” (Northcote et al., 2010, p. 496). IWBs have been accepted for use in a variety of settings and in particular the elementary school. This literature review will discuss the implications of its use around various areas including mathematics and other subjects. Overview of Interactive Whiteboards The interactive whiteboard is a piece of hardware that looks like the regular whiteboards. The difference is that they can be connected to a computer and to a projector so that the teacher can have a more powerful tool to use in the classroom. The whiteboard is unique because the teacher can point to objects on the whiteboard(or use a special pen) instead of using a mouse to control what she is teaching (Pearson Longman, 2011). Anything that is on the computer can also be accessed and displayed on the whiteboard. Software comes with the IWB that can be used to interact with images and text, which means it can be rearranged or the size and color can be changed. There is a volume of literature on the benefits of using these IWBs in the classroom. Koenraad (2008) reviewed the literature in this area and found that in many countries, the IWB is used to teach diversity, individual learning and tele-collaboration. This learning is increased when the student has their own laptop and smartphone. With the IWB the teacher is able to save the work that has been created and these materials can be saved for students who were absent. In addition, the IWB also provides a way for teachers to use a flexible process of teaching that can reach all learning styles, provides additional teaching time because using the computer is faster than other methods of teaching, they provide focus for the children and they encourage student participation in the classroom (Koenraad, 2008). According to Hall and Higgins (2005) IWBs represent “a conglomeration of all previous educational technologies, replacing traditional chalk or whiteboards, televisions, videos, overhead projectors, and personal computers” (p. ) Hall and Higgins also state that IWBs can be sued in the classroom to display video clips, create flip charts, provide handwriting practice and each process can be edited. Beeland (2002) states that “the touch sensitive board allows users to interact directly with applications without having to be physically at the computer which is projecting the image onto the board” (p. ). These researchers state the advantages of using IWBs and how important they are to the classroom. Levels and States of IWB Use: Pedagogical Issues Technology continues to be a challenge for some teachers because and there is no exception to this in the use if IWBs. Sherry and Gibson (2002) suggest that there are several stages to technology development in a school: Infusion, integration and transformation. In the infusion stage, everyone is excited about these tools and what they can bring to the classroom. The integration stage will gain momentum when teachers actually begin to use the IWB as a learning tool and realize that it is not an isolated piece of software, but that it can be used with the computer and a projector to make their work easier. The transformation stage is where IWB is typed used by both teachers and student to create various resources. This means that the teacher no longer has to rely on traditional methods of showing, using or observing the resources; instead, students are engaged in their learning (Sherry and Gibson, 2002). Sahin and Thompson (2007) add to this discussion by stating that in order for schools to sustain themselves as technology continues to develop, they will have to make sure that teachers are using new technologies in the classroom. Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthven and Winterbottom gave several ideas for pedagogical strategies when using whiteboards. They did a variety of focus groups and gathered information from teachers about how they used IWBs in their classrooms. Many found that they could use the whiteboards to encourage interaction between students so that the teacher did not have to lecture. Students and teachers felt that having the ability to touch what they were doing enhanced the learning process. Although many teachers in their study relied on IWBs to give students an opportunity to lead in their learning, many teachers still wanted to be in control of the whiteboard use. They found that teachers who used this method were more prone to feel out of control if they allowed students to do more of the work. Some teachers felt that allowing students to use the whiteboards was more time consuming and this could break down the timing within the classroom. Others felt that they were able to move more quickly through concepts because students were able to “get” what they wanted them to learn in a shorter amount of time. These examples can create an important aspect of the students’ learning process in that it really depends on how the teacher perceives the relevance of using IWBs in their classroom. As an example, from this particular research, when teachers believe in the technology and are able to use it well, they are more comfortable using them to integrate learning. When they are not comfortable with technology, they are more prone to complain about its use or to ignore how it could make their classrooms more successful. Classroom Uses of Interactive Whiteboards Advantages There are both advantages and disadvantages of using IWBs in the classroom. According to Smith, Harman and Higgins (2005) IWBs allow flexibility across the curriculum for all age groups. They also provide more teaching time as teachers can use web-based and other resources more efficiently. They are also more varied and dynamic because they allow for increased use of resources (Wall, Higgins and Smith, 2005; Haldane, 2007). There is no doubt that IWBs are very successful in teaching all aspects of the curriculum because of the interaction between mediums for its use. Schweder, Wissick, Mounce (2008) suggest that there are several reasons to use IWBs instead of traditional whiteboards. The fact that the documents can be saved on the IWBs that students and teachers can touch the digital board and the fact that multiple documents can be used at the same time is on the top of their list for advantages. There are also more opportunities for interaction and cooperative learning in the classroom. Many teachers state that these boards have created an opportunity for all children to participate, especially when they are interested in the subject matter (Kelley et al. 2007). Disadvantages Brown (n.d.) states that some of the disadvantages of using IWBs are that they are more expensive than traditional whiteboards, if the surfaces are damaged they can be costly to replace, the board height and the fact that it is a fixed board can determine that it is difficult to use. Higgins, Beauchamp and Miller (2007) also say that the physical limitations are difficult because the classroom must be equipped with IWBs to use them, and some schools cannot afford to purchase them. Some teachers lack the confidence to work with these boards which can add to their irritation of having to use these boards. One last disadvantage is that although many children can work with a higher lesson pace, some children with disabilities (learning challenges and/or physical disabilities) may have difficulty using the boards (Haldane, 2006). Student Opinions of Interactive Whiteboards Students often have different opinions of things than teachers do because they are looking at something from two different perspectives. Davis (2008) suggests that students suggest that because whiteboards are versatile, they can manipulate shapes and objects easier than if they were working on a traditional whiteboard. They provide a much clearer presentation and students are motivated to participate. Some students suggested they were able to be more creative with IWBs and their self-confidence increased when they had to do a presentation in front of their peers (Higgins, Beauchamp and Miller, 2007). Some of the disadvantages that students state were that there were often many technical difficulties, not enough time was spent using the board in class and some of the teachers were not as well trained as others to use the IWBs (Miller and Glover, 2007). Some of the negative aspects that students suggested are that many teachers start out well with the IWBs but once the “wow” factor wears off, students become bored with it. Many teachers are not well trained on the boards and this causes some challenges. Some of the software packages that come with the IWBs are never used (Kelley, 2007; Miller and Glover, 2007). Summary of IWBs The issue of IWBs is important to the study of education. Many teachers find that using IWBs in the classroom can be motivating and they can provide an easy access to digital materials. When the teacher understands how to use this technology, they are able to engage students in the learning and create lessons that can be learned by all students. Although there is some controversy that says that this does not work for some disabled students, there could be ways that a creative teacher can adapt the equipment to work with these disabled students. When using these types of learning materials students are able to recognize the relationships between a variety of multi-media resources. When looking at the prospects of using this type of equipment there is a younger generation of students who are prepared to use visually enhanced programs. These students are expecting to see a presentation that incorporates technology. In some situations, these children will become bored in the classroom without a presentation that stimulates their interest (Smith, Higgins, Wall and Miller, 2005). Also, “the impact of IWBs is harder to identify in terms of pupils’ learning. Initially it appears that there was a small but statistically significant gain in the IWB project schools attainment n mathematics and science after a few months of use by their teachers” (Smith, Higgins, Wall and Miller, 2005, p. ) An emphasis on school reform has shown that students must learn certain things in order for them to do well throughout their school experience. In today’s world, a majority of students are using the Internet via their home computer, a laptop and/or a smartphone. These devices encourage a student to look for a pleasing presentation in the classroom. Although some teachers are resistant to this change and some school districts have difficulty funding these types of technology, those who do understand that presentations like these are a part of the future of education. Students also learn to become motived intrinsically and extrinsically. The intrinsic motivation can come from students wanting to interact with this medium and to give presentations to their peers. The extrinsic motivation comes from students who like the “wow” factor of using the product (Smart Technologies, 2006). In many respects, it seems that those students who may otherwise sit in a classroom and be bored, are actually involved when they are able to interact with the learning. With the IWBs the student is more engaged on a regular basis as long as the teacher can continue to make the lessons interesting. References British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2004). Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: A guide for primary schools. Becta ICT Advice. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/15090.pdf Brown, Stephen. “Interactive Whiteboards in Education.” Techlearn. n.d. Web. Retrieved from www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Interactivewhiteboards.pdf Davis Haldane, M. (2007) Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: Weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology. 32(3) Pages 283-301. Web. 18 August 2011. Hall, I. and Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117. Retrieved from http://durham.academia.edu/SteveHiggins/Papers/431098/Primary_School_Students_Perceptions_of_Interactive_Whiteboards Hennessy, Sara, Deaney, Rosemary, Ruthven, Kenneth and Winterbottom, Mark. “Pedagogical Strategies for Using The Interactive Whiteboard to Foster Learner Participation inn School Science”. n.d. Web. 17 August 2011. www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/istl/LMT_IWB.doc Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. 2007. Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology 32(3): 213-225. Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. Retrieved from www.callinpractice.net/IWB/Research/overview-of-research-literature Miller and Glover Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L. and Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4) 494-510. Pearson Longman. (2011). What is an interactive whiteboard? Retrieved from http://www.pearsonlongman.com/IWBsolutions/what-is-an-IWBs.html Sahin, I. and Thompson, A. (2007). Analysis of predictive factors that influence faculty members' technology adoption level. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 15(2), 167-190. Retrieved from http://webpages.csus.edu/~sac43949/pdfs/predictive%20factors%20faculty%20adoption%20tech.pdf Serow, P. and Callingham, R. (2008). The introduction of interactive whiteboard technology in the primary mathematics classroom: Three Case Studies. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.). Retrieved from www.merga.net.au/documents/RP542008.pdf Schweder, W., Wissick, C. A., & Mounce, A. B. (2008). teaching content with interactive white boards. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(1), 54-58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Smart Technologies. (2006). Interactive whiteboards and learning: Improving student learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. Retrieved from http://int_whiteboard_resesearch_whitepaper_update.pdf Smith, F., Harman, F., and Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher- pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 43-447. Read More