Ed.S. Project Defense Presentation

Implementation of Interactive
Whiteboard Technology in the
Classroom: Users
Tricia Swanson

Statement of Problem
• Because interactive whiteboards
(IWB) are a relatively new technology
in classrooms, teachers require
guidance and familiarity to implement
them effectively.

Rationale for Study
Since the potential usefulness of any
technology will not be realized without
education, guidance, and practice,
more research is required to
determine how the experience and
professional development of
classroom teachers, or lack thereof,
impact the uses of IWBs.

Research Questions
1. How will expectations differ concerning
the use of IWBs between a novice and a
more experienced user?
2. How do novice and experienced users
teach using IWBs?
3. Are there differences in how teachers
implement and expect to implement
IWBs?

Definition of Terms
Interactive whiteboard- An IWB is an
electronic, touch-sensitive whiteboard
that is used in conjunction with a
computer and projector. Computer
images are displayed on the board
where they can be used interactively
(Weiser, 1996).

Definition of Terms (contd.)
Interactive learning- The learner
actually participates in the learning
instead of just being a spectator
(Bork, 1978).

Significance of Study
If time is appropriated for practice and
professional development in the use
of IWBs, the technology could
possibly be used to improve teaching
and learning (Levy, 2002).

Literature Highlights
 Latham (2002) found that in order for the use
of IWBs to be effective teachers must have
the following:
 “confidence in using the resource and
familiarity with its practical potential”(p.3),
 knowledge of their curriculum,
 knowledge of how to teach interactively, and
 high expectations of student abilities.

 Students are more motivated and engaged in
learning (Smith, 2000), which could lead to
improvements in behavior (Thompson &
Flecknoe, 2003).
 Notes can be saved and downloaded by
students (Levy, 2002).

 Cuthell (2005) performed a study in UK
classrooms and concluded the following:
 All learning styles benefited (Cuthell, 2005;
Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003).
 Teachers with one year experience said that there
were greater benefits for teaching and learning
after three months of using an IWB.

Research results are ambiguous.
 IWB technology can enhance teaching and
learning, however teacher experience and
perceptions are influential factors to
successful implementation (Levy, 2002).
 There is insufficient evidence to prove that
IWBs improve teaching and learning (Smith,
Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005)

Methodology- Participants
 Participant selection was based on
experience and subject area
 Experienced user- at least two years experience
 Novice user- less than twelve months experience
 Subject area: Math
 Availability to the researcher

Methodology- Participants
 The four teachers who participated in the
study work in Southeast Georgia public
schools.
 Teacher A = female with 3.5 years experience
 Teacher B = female with 2 years experience
 Teacher C = male with 5 months experience
 Teacher D = female with 11 months experience

Methodology- Protocols
 Semi-structured interviews
 Expectations of IWB use
 Video recorded lessons with tape recorded
sound
 Actual IWB use analyzed
 See how experienced vs. novice teach with IWB
 Cross-check expectations of use with actual use

Methodology- Interview
1. How much experience do you have using SMART boards?
2. How comfortable do you feel in using new technology?
3. Are you one of those people who can just play around with
technology to figure it out or do you like someone to show
you how to do it before you begin?
4. What kind of professional development have you received
to help equip you with skills to successfully implement an
IWB in your classroom?

Methodology- Interview
(contd.)
5.How do you plan to use your IWB in lessons that
you will record for me? Can you give examples?
6.Will you be using IWBs in assessments? Why,
or why not? Please explain.
7.What kind of technology have you used in
teaching in the past?

Methodology- Analysis
 Table 1 - Interview data – data is reduced for
manageability and placed into a table to
analyze for common themes
 Rubric – to determine what level the teachers
are using the IWB (beginner or proficient
level)
 Table 2 – Expected IWB use vs. Actual IWB
use

Evaluation of SMART Board Implementation in Lessons
Beginner Level Proficient Level
Student Use
ofSmart
Board
Teacher is the primary user of the
SMART Board.
Teacher uses the SMART Board to present
information and creates interactive
lessons for students during whole class
and small group instruction.
Teacher Use
ofSmart
Board
Teacher uses the SMART Board
primarily for providing directions,
United Streaming videos,
PowerPoint presentations, scanned
worksheets and bell work
exercises.
Teacher uses the SMART Board for providing
background information and directions
and also has students use interactive web
sites, flash tools, interactive PowerPoint
presentations and online manipulatives.
Teacher Use
ofSmart
Board
Teacher does not move effectively
between Notebook software and
other applications.
Teacher effectively moves between Notebook
software and all other applications.
Smart Tools
Teacher uses the basic SMART tools
including pens, erasers,
handwriting recognition, spell
check, Notebook galleries,
SMART Board keyboard and right
click button, and can orient the
board.
Teacher uses basic tools along with the
spotlight tool, magnifier, screen capture
tool, highlighter pens, stamps, full screen
view; can add lines, shapes, and text; can
group and lock objects; adds links to
websites, videos, documents and
attachments.
Recording
Feature
Teacher does not use the recording
feature.
Teacher records information and uses the files
in the classroom or for substitute
teachers.
SmartBoard
Lessons
Teacher uses websites on the SMART
Board.
Teacher downloads and modifies SMART
Notebook lessons from the Internet.
Adapted from http://www.amphi.com/departments/technology/whiteboard/lessonplans.html

Results
 What kind of professional development have
you received to help equip you with skills to
successfully implement an IWB in
your classroom?
 Teacher A = 3 days
 Teacher B = 3 days
 Teacher C = 2 hours
 Teacher D = 1 day

Results
 How comfortable do you feel in using new
technology?
 Teachers A, B, and C were comfortable
 Teacher D experiences fear and anxiety. After
hours of playing with it, she becomes more
comfortable.

Results – Teacher A
Expected
In lesson 1, the IWB will be used as a projector.
The picture gallery may be used. Lesson 2 will
be more activity based.
Actual
 Colored pens
 Scanned homework sheet
 Graph from the gallery
 Line feature

Results – Teacher B
Expected
 Graphic calculator software
 May pull up a website
 Use the camera feature
 Colored pens
Actual
 Line feature
 Keyboard
 Highlighter
 Graphic calculator software
 Notes with colored pens

Results – Teacher C
Expected
 Notes
 Students work examples
 Wireless slate
Actual
 Notes
 Flash tool spinner
 Zoom feature
 Rolling dice interactive tool (different colors)
 Colored pens

Results – Teacher D
Expected
IWB will be used as an outline for teaching with titles,
standards, announcements, notes, and warm-ups.
Actual
 Notes
 Shapes
 Line feature
 Gallery tools
 Interactive games
 Colored pens

Results
 Teacher A – 2 out of 4 parameters at the
proficient level
 Teacher B – 3 out of 5 proficient areas
 Teacher C – 3 out of 4 proficient areas
 Teacher D – 4 out of 4 proficient areas

Discussion
Findings suggest that more experience using
an IWB promotes higher expectations.

Discussion
Novice teacher D used the IWB the most
proficiently of all participants.
 Received 1 day of professional development
 Spent many hours becoming familiar with SMART
board and available features
 Could anxiety of new technology be a motivating
factor?

Discussion
 Teacher A had the most experience using an
IWB, but had the least number of proficient
areas compared to others.

Limitations of Study
 Expectant mother?
 Sample Size
 Interrater reliability

Future Research
Future research may examine what is more
important, spending much time in
professional development courses or time
allotted for the practice and exploration of the
IWB with software on one’s own.

Recommendations
For IWB integration in lessons:
 Interactive websites
 Interactive games to teach and reinforce
lesson
 Online manipulatives

Recommendations (contd.)
 Record lesson for absent students or
substitute teachers
 Take advantage of SMART notebook lessons
that are available from the SMART gallery or
Internet

Ed.S. Project Defense Presentation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Ed.S. Project Defense Presentation (20)

Ed.S. Project Defense Presentation