!

"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& -&

Interactive Whiteboards: A Review of Their Effectiveness in the Classroom and How Other Factors Affect Their Use Jaime Peters ETEC 500: Research Methodology in Education Dr. Clifford Falk, Instructor April 5, 2011

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

& Introduction

& .&

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are touch sensitive devices utilized in a growing number of classrooms. A computer that is connected to a digital projector controls the IWB. By using a special pen or simply the touch of a finger, a computer can be controlled from the screen and computer programs can be launched, viewed and manipulated as if you were using the computer keyboard or mouse. In the spring of 2009, all classrooms in the school where I work had an IWB installed. Since then, my colleagues and I have used the IWBs to varying degrees and with varying effectiveness. For the past two years, I feel I have become quite proficient at using the IWB to enhance my lessons. As a grade 6 Math and Science teacher, there have been moments where the IWB has made positive contributions to student learning. However, I must admit to having some feelings of negativity regarding the true ability of this device to enhance student achievement.

Methodology There is an immense amount of literature on IWBs and their use in classrooms. A general query of Interactive Whiteboard using the Education & Information Technology Digital Library (EdITLib) yielded 894 articles. By narrowing the search to Interactive Whiteboard Elementary Math, 61 articles came up. The EBSCO database was also searched using the Interactive Whiteboard query. The results were then narrowed to full text scholarly articles from 2003-2011. One hundred nineteen results were returned. Titles and abstracts assisted in locating articles relevant to how IWBs are used in elementary Math classrooms and how teaching and learning is being affected.

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& /&

For this review, each article will be briefly summarized and critiqued. Following this, the review will examine what each article indicates about how IWBs are being used in the elementary Math classroom and how current findings are often heavily affected by factors other than IWB use.

Article Summaries and Critiques IWBs and Student Achievement Study #1 Swan, Schenker and Kratcoskis (2008) article presents research findings on the impact that IWBs had on math and reading achievement in a small city school district in Ohio. Swan et al. compared Ohio Achievement Test (OAT) scores between classes with IWBs and those without in the 2006-2007 school year. They also requested online survey data from teachers who utilized an IWB in the classroom for a 10-week period. The results of the OAT indicate no significant differences between classes with IWBs and those without. What Swan et al. did discover, however, was a correlation between how often the teacher uses the IWB and the students scores. The teacher of the classrooms that scored above the mean on the Math OAT indicated using IWBs 4.7 times per week. Classrooms that scored below the mean had teachers that used the IWB 3.1 times per week. Swan et al. also argued that students in classrooms where the IWB was used for student-centered activities scored better than those in classrooms with more teacher-directed use. While the overall results of the OAT indicated no significant differences between classrooms with and without an IWB, there are differences if the results are examined grade by grade. For example, in the area of Math, grade 3 and 4 classrooms with an IWB

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& 0&

scored much higher whereas grade 6 classrooms actually scored lower. If you consider these results alongside the frequency of IWB use data, it would seem that the presence or absence of an IWB does not alter achievement in students but rather how the teacher uses the IWB.

IWBs and Student Achievement Study #2 Ashfield and Woods (2003) study focused on how IWBs can be used to enhance teaching and learning in whole class mathematics lessons. Phase 1 of the study involved completing case study observations of math lessons in two London primary schools (K6). Data was collected using semi-structured interviews and observations of each lesson that utilized an IWB. Although final results are still being analyzed, the authors identified key factors to determining the effectiveness of the IWB in any given classroom. These factors are: physical (room, location, environment), quality of resource, and teachers use of software (when, where and how the software is used). Ashfield and Woods identification of these three key factors again indicates that the effectiveness of an IWB is not related to its presence. They argue that outside factors greatly influence the effects of IWBs.

IWBs and Student Achievement Studies #3 & 4 Using virtual manipulatives on the IWB emerged as a theme in 16 of the 61 articles located using EdITLib. Virtual manipulatives are defined as replicas of physical manipulatives placed on the World Wide Web in the form of computer applets with

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& 1&

additional advantageous features (Reimer & Moyer, 2005, pg. 6). Teachers are utilizing these manipulatives on their IWBs during Math class to help teach concepts. Steen, Brooks and Lyon (2006) examined the impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade students achievement in a geometry unit. By using experimental research, the authors randomly assigned 31 first grade students to either a control or treatment group with each group having a different teacher. Both groups studied identical objectives but the treatment group received instruction and practice utilizing an IWB. Pre and posttest scores indicate that the treatment groups mean score rose from 22.2 out of 31 to 30.0. The control groups mean score rose from 27.7 to 29.9. Steen et al. conclude that both groups ended up with excellent mean scores. However, the significant improvement that the treatment group made during the study indicates that the use of virtual manipulatives is extremely beneficial for student achievement. Reimer and Moyer (2005) completed a similar study. They chose to examine how using virtual manipulatives on an IWB with third graders learning about fractions affected achievement. For this action research, 19 grade 3 students were initially instructed using physical manipulatives. They were given an initial test on their conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions. Following this, the grade 3 students were taught the same objectives but this time the teacher used an IWB to assist in the teaching. Students were then re-tested using the same conceptual and procedural knowledge tests. Results of the study show that 10 of the 19 students increased their conceptual knowledge, 5 decreased and 4 remained the same. Seven of the 19 increased their procedural knowledge, 5 decreased and 7 stayed the same. The authors indicate that high

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& 2&

scores on the initial conceptual and procedural knowledge test led to only about half the students improving while the other half remained the same or dropped. There are questions regarding the validity of these two studies. Reimer and Moyers research design gave results that were difficult to interpret. When the initial test yielded such high scores it is questionable as to how much the virtual manipulatives really helped the students. The re-test scores would have been affected by the students proficient understanding of the fraction material from the physical manipulative instruction. With Steen et al.s research, the control and treatment groups had different teachers so it is difficult to ascertain how much teacher style and aptitude affected the results.

IWBs and Student Achievement Study #5 Differences in how teachers integrate IWBs was the focus of a qualitative study completed by Bennett and Lockyer (2008). This study took place one day per week for two consecutive terms. Four teachers, one with a K/1 class and three with 5/6 classes, had IWBs installed in their classrooms and were then required to indicate the types of activities used and their perspective on the use of the device. Initial interviews revealed that the four teachers had a range of teaching experience (new teacher to 7 years) and varying self-described technology skills (limited to high level). These differences heavily influenced the results of the data. The teacher with the most teaching experience and a self-described high level of computer skills used the IWB the most (47% of total teaching time). The teacher with a self-described limited level of computer skills used it the least (13% of total teaching time). Bennett and

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& 3&

Lockyer also examined what teaching strategies were employed during IWB use. For 11 of the 28 observed lessons, the teacher was in sole control the IWB, in 1 lesson the students were in control and in 16 of the lessons it was shared use. A study more longitudinal in nature would perhaps give further insight as to whether each teachers use of an IWB would equalize over time. Also, each teacher indicated that the IWB facilitated student engagement. It would beneficial to discover more about the long-term ability of an IWB to facilitate this engagement.

Analysis and Synthesis IWB Use IWBs appear to be primarily used for literacy and numeracy purposes (Bennett & Lockyer 2008; Swan et al. 2008). Specific to numeracy is the use of IWBs for virtual manipulatives, geometry, fractions and isometric drawings (Bennett & Lockyer 2008; Reimer & Moyer 2005; Steen et al. 2006). Teachers with access to an IWB see the benefit of using it for teaching math concepts, particularly ones involving visual representations. There appears to be a lack of research done on how IWBs might be used to enhance math content that is not as visual such as basic operations. Whole-class instruction also seems to be common for teachers using IWBs (Ashfield & Wood 2003; Bennett & Lockyer 2008). However, there is evidence that student-centered use of IWBs promotes increased achievement (Reimer & Moyer 2005; Steen et al. 2006). Further studies should look at how a whole-class approach compares to a more student-centered approach when using IWBs.

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& 4&

Other Factors While each study mentioned in this review indicates IWBs improve student achievement, validity is compromised by outside factors, mainly the variety of teachers taking part in each study. Swan et al.s (2008) study involved 142 teachers. Overall, their results show no improvement in student achievement with IWB use. However, if you break down the results by grade level, third and fourth graders improved significantly while sixth graders actually did worse. The difference in improvement must be attributed to outside factors such as classroom demographics or teaching style. Ashfield and Woods (2003) initial phase of their study summarized key factors that determine the effectiveness of an IWB: physical location, quality of the resource and teacher style and use. Steen et al.s (2006) experimental research on virtual manipulatives examined how the quality of a resource would impact students. However, they also had two teachers involved in the study. Their results could then be due to resource quality or teacher style and use. Reimer and Moyer (2005) also wanted to study the quality of the resource. Only one teacher took part in the research. However, the teacher initially taught the concepts using physical manipulatives and then moved on to using the IWB. Testing results show that most students had a very good understanding of the concepts prior to the IWB instruction thus making it difficult to show what improvements the IWB caused. Bennett and Lockyer (2008) identified years of teaching experience and selfdescribed technology level as being influential with regard to IWB use. The authors also made this interesting observation, there was no evidence that the teachers changed

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

&

& 5&

their overall pedagogical approaches in response to having an IWB. The IWBs were integrated into the ways that teachers taught already (pg. 297). This indicates that use of an IWB in no way equalizes the type of instruction that takes place in any given classroom.

Conclusion Recent research seems to indicate that varied uses of IWBs benefit achievement. It comes as no surprise then that school districts are providing funding for classroom IWB installation. By examining the research more closely, it becomes apparent that more than just a technological gadget is influencing achievement, there are also teachers with very distinct teaching styles and aptitudes. Future studies should attempt to equalize, as much as possible, the teaching that is occurring alongside the IWB in order to gain further insights as to how the IWB alone is impacting students.

!"#$%&'&()*+),& &

& Bibliography

& -6&

Ashfield, J. & Wood, R. (2003). The use of the electronic whiteboard to enhance teaching and learning within whole class mathematics lessons in the primary classroom. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 2263-2266). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/p/18411. Bennett, S. & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology 33(4), 289-300. doi:10.1080/17439880802497008. Reimer, K. & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/p/18889. Steen, K., Brooks, D. & Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 373-391. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/p/19812. Swan, K., Schenker, J. & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3290-3297). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/p/28842. &