IWB Research Proposal

Effects of Interactive Whiteboards on Student Achievement: An Experimental Research Proposal Involving Only One Teacher Jaime Peters ETEC 500: Research Methodology in Education Dr. Clifford Falk, Instructor April 5, 2011

IWB Research Proposal Introduction Statement of Topic Despite being a new technology, interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are becoming increasingly popular within the education system. British and Australian governments

have been supporting these devices by designating a significant amount of funds towards IWB installation into classrooms (Bennett & Lockyer 2008; Hall & Higgins 2005). An IWB is a touch sensitive board that can be freestanding or wall-mounted. The boards touch sensitivity allows users to view and manipulate various computer programs directly on the IWB. Much of the available research indicates improved student achievement in classrooms where IWBs are used. For example, Swan, Schenker and Kratcoski (2008) discovered that in classrooms where teachers use an IWB more than 4.7 times per week, students scored well above the mean score on a standardized achievement test. Using virtual manipulatives on an IWB increased student achievement in Grade 1 geometry and Grade 3 fractions (Reimer & Moyer 2005; Steen, Brooks & Lyon 2006). Hall and Higgins (2005) collected data from 12 focus groups comprised of grade 6 students in order to discover student reactions to IWB use. Overwhelmingly the focus groups indicated the IWB has many advantages in the classroom such as: versatility, visually appealing, increased student engagement, prolonged student attention span and increased enjoyment of classroom content. While most of the research reacts positively to IWBs, it does not consider the pedagogical approaches used by the teachers involved in each research project. Having an IWB in a classroom does not automatically mean that teachers will start teaching in a

IWB Research Proposal

particular way. Based on their research Bennett and Lockyer (2008) stated, there was no evidence that the teachers changed their overall pedagogical approaches in response to having an IWB. The IWBs were integrated into the ways that teachers taught already. (pg. 297) Much of the available research might then be considered invalid due to more than one teacher, and as such more than one pedagogical approach, being involved in the project. Any benefit to student achievement that is noted may be due to IWB use but also may reflect a specific teachers teaching style and aptitude.

Statement of Problem I am very fortunate to have an IWB in my classroom. From the start, I saw the device as something that would enhance my teaching, not necessarily revolutionize it. As I give leadership to my school by being on the Technology Committee, I am more convinced than ever that mere faith in technology and the Internet doesnt justify the adoption of and expenditure for computer and web-based resources. (Steen, et al., 2006, pg 374) Instead, we need to examine critically if it is the presence and use of an IWB that benefits student achievement or if this benefit is related more to teacher style, aptitude and pedagogy. My research questions stems from my firm belief that good teaching is good teaching, no matter what tools are utilized. As such, the problems my research will set out to answer are: 1. If the same teacher teaches the same Math concepts to randomly selected groups of grade 6 students, using IWBs for one group and not for the other, how will student achievement be affected?

IWB Research Proposal

2. Will achievement in certain grade 6 Math strands be affected more than others by IWB use?

Review of Related Literature There is much research that examines the effects and uses of IWBs. Swan at al. (2008) studied achievement scores of students who were taught with the use of an IWB versus those that were taught without. Results of all grade 3-8 students indicate no significant difference between the two groups. However, certain grades (3 and 4) did have significant improvements. Results of two studies that examined the use of IWBs and virtual manipulatives in Grade 1 and 3 Math demonstrate an increase in student achievement with IWB use (Reimer & Moyer 2005; Steen at al. 2006). Miller and Glovers (2002) findings indicate several advantages to IWB use in the classroom: improvements in pupil motivation, students learning needs are being met, and lesson structure is tighter. Bennett and Lockyers (2008) findings are similar in that they found the IWB offered efficiencies for teachers in terms of planning and lessons preparation and that it facilitated student engagement. Despite all this research that points to the benefits of IWBs, none of the studies conclusions are as valid as they could be because they do not keep one important variable constant: the teacher. Swan at al.s research involved 142 teachers. Steen et al. had two teachers involved, one to teach the control group and another to teach the treatment group. Without the teacher being a controlled variable, it is hard to determine what (or who) caused the improved achievement.

IWB Research Proposal Bennett and Lockyer (2008) offer compelling evidence for keeping the teacher variable constant in research with IWBs. They examined IWB use in four classrooms.

Prior to starting their research, they completed an initial interview with the four teachers. This interview indicated that years of teaching experience among the participants was from zero (new teacher) to seven. Teachers were also required to indicate a self-described technology level. Answers to this ranged from limited experience to a high level of computer skill. The authors findings show that the teacher who utilized the IWB most often was the one with the most teaching experience and high level of computer skill. The teacher with the fewest years of teaching experience and limited technology level used it the least. These findings prove that how an IWB is used in a classroom is dependent upon other factors, mainly the teacher. Preliminary analysis of research results by Ashfield and Wood (2003) also found that how teachers use IWB software is a key factor in determining IWB effectiveness.

Hypothesis Statement When the current research is examined in light of Bennett and Lockyers findings, I feel that keeping the teacher variable constant will result in small differences between the control and treatment group, but nothing significant.

Method Participants & Design This quantitative study using true experimental design will take place in two grade 6 classrooms within the population of Strathcona Christian Academy (SCA). SCA

IWB Research Proposal is a K-6 school with an approximate enrolment of 575 students. It is part of Elk Island Public School District. The main reason for selecting this school is that they have one teacher (Teacher A) who teaches two different classes of grade 6 Math. SCA also has very consistent student enrolment. This will result in each grade 6 class having 29 students in it. Lastly, all classrooms at SCA have been equipped with an IWB since the spring of 2008 thus minimizing effects of novelty.

Students coming into their grade 6 year will be randomly placed into one of three classes (another teacher, Teacher B, teaches a third class of grade 6 Math and will not be involved in the study) using simple random sampling. Once the three classes are created, they will randomly be assigned as 6A, 6B or 6C. The grouping of 6A will be considered the treatment group and Teacher A will utilize the IWB during Math classes. The grouping of 6B will be considered the control group and Teacher A will not utilize the IWB during Math classes. The grouping of 6C will be assigned to Teacher B and will not be involved in the study.

Instruments The research will employ a pretest-posttest control group design. Both the pre and posttest will be Grade 6 Math Alberta Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs). At the start of the school year, students in 6A and 6B will be given a pretest. The pretest will be the Grade 6 Math PAT from 2006. The test consists of 46 multiple-choice questions and covers objectives that will be taught in grade 6 Math. The posttest will be the same Grade 6 Math PAT from 2006.

IWB Research Proposal

Results will examine the increase in the mean score between 6A and 6B. The test will also be broken down in terms of how many questions there are dealing with each mathematical strand. Strands include: Number Concepts, Shape and Space, Data and Probability, and Patterns. The Alberta government designates each PAT question into one of these strands. Results will also be examined to see if IWB use increased student achievement in a particular strand more than the others.

Procedure In June of 2011 students from grade 5 will randomly be placed into one of three grade 6 classes. To do this, a simple random sampling will be used. All students will receive a number from a table of random numbers. Twenty-nine students will be selected using this process for group 1. The process will then restart with the remaining students being assigned a new number. Twenty-nine more students will be selected for group 2. There should still be 29 students remaining at this time and those students will make up group 3. Following this, lists of groups 1, 2, and 3 will be placed in a hat and drawn out at random to decide which class is 6A, 6B, and 6C. In September 2011 during the first week of school, students in 6A and 6B will take the 46-question pre-test. Throughout the entire school year, 6A, the treatment group, will receive Math instruction with Teacher A using an IWB. 6B, the control group, will receive Math instruction with Teacher A not using an IWB. Students in both classes will be taught the same objectives in the same order. Throughout the year, students will receive the same teacher-created assessments, although these assessments will not be used to produce data for this project. During the second week of June 2012, students in

IWB Research Proposal 6A and 6B will be given the 46-question posttest. Results will then be analyzed to determine what affect IWBs had on student achievement. One limitation of this study is the sample size. Ideally, more participants would yield results that would be more reflective of the population. However, in order to keep

the teaching style, pedagogy and aptitude the same, the project will only be able to utilize one teacher (Teacher A) and the two math classes that she teaches.

Data Analysis Results of the pre and posttest will be analyzed using a measure of central tendency: mean. For the pre and posttest, the scores for students in 6A will be added and then divided by the number of students (29) to get the mean score. The same will be done for 6B. Mean scores on the posttest will be compared not only between the classes but also how much each class mean score increased from the pre-test. Student scores will also be broken down by strand. A mean score will then be calculated for each strand for each class. These mean scores will then be analyzed to determine if achievement in a particular strand is affected more by IWB use than others.

Time Schedule The timeline for the research is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Dates June 2011 September 2011 September 2011-June 2012 June 2012 July 2012 Research Students randomly assigned to 6A 6B or 6C. Students complete pretest. Students receive instruction. 6A with IWB. 6B without. Students complete posttest. Results analyzed

IWB Research Proposal

Significance of Research Results of this research will impact future IWB research. If IWBs are not making as many positive impacts to student achievement as first thought, researchers will need to look specifically at how teachers utilize the IWB within the confines of their teaching style and aptitude. Further research could also examine what specific types of IWB teaching enhances learning most. Perhaps this would lead to more money being spent on teacher training instead of just placing IWBs in classrooms and assuming all teachers will use them to the benefit of their students. Technology is still at the mercy of the person utilizing it. IWBs are no different. Researching true IWB effectiveness by keeping the teacher variable constant will hopefully lead to a better understanding of how to educate children using not only the most current technology, but also the most effective means.

IWB Research Proposal Bibliography

10

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. Hall, I. & Higgins S. (2005). Primary school students perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 102-117. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x. Miller, D. & Glover, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 519. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/p/10762. 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.

IWB Research Proposal 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

11

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.