Framing Issues - Effective IWB Integration

8/14/2019 Framing Issues - Effective IWB Integration

1/15

Framing Issues Effective IWB Integration

Submitted by: Susan WilsonUniversity of British Columbia

ETEC 533


2/15

Effective IWB Integration 2

Susan Wilson

Abstract

The intent of this paper is to review literature on the effective implementation of

Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) technologies in educational settings. Schools around the

world are installing expensive systems without planning an effective process of

implementation. This review summarises research based on identifying best pedagogical

practises and effective professional development strategies. It also looks to current

research in an attempt to conclude whether IWB integration has a positive effect on

student achievement.


3/15


Susan Wilson

I have always been interested in technology and I have always felt that my

exposure to computers, calculators and even video games has helped prepare me to

problem-solve, to think logically, and to persevere. In the past few years, I have become

very interested in teaching through technology. As my colleague (the subject of my

ethnographic interview) stated, it is much more powerful to teach using technology than

it is to teach about technology.

Small schools in rural Saskatchewan have limited human resources. Each year, as

our populations decrease, so does our staffing making it more and more difficult to

maintain quality programs and complete academic offerings. As schools decrease,

questions of school viability arise. I have taken steps to maintain viability by becoming

an online teacher and by focussing on improving the technological skill and application

of all members of our staff.

Our school, Wawota Parkland School, has entered into a partnership with a local

oil company for the purpose of maintaining or improving viability through technology

integration. The oil company has committed between three and five thousand dollars per

year for five years to help us follow our vision. It has been our choice to accept the

funds and to purchase one interactive whiteboard (IWB) and data projector combination

in each of the last two years. Currently, we have one IWB set up in our computer lab to

aid in delivery of online courses, and the two purchased by the oil company are located in

our grade 3/4 split classroom and our grade 7/8 split classroom. To ensure that we are

making good use of the monies donated to us, I intend to provide a review of professional

literature concerning effective IWB integration. This information will be shared with the


4/15


Susan Wilson

school, the community, and our benefactors and it will be used to improve current use of

the IWBs.

Introduction

Interactive whiteboards (IWB) like those offered under the Promethean or

SMART brand names are becoming more prevalent in our education facilities. In the

United Kingdom, IWB technologies have been implemented in the schools at a

phenomenal rate; an estimated average of six per elementary and sixteen per secondary

school (Kennewell & Higgins, 2007). These boards are showing up in classrooms all

across Canada amidst uncertainty about their pedagogical value.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature on the effective

implementation of IWB integration in educational institutions. Specifically, I will

explore the following problems:

1. What pedagogical practices make the most effective use of IWB technology?

2. What professional development practices best support teachers in the integration

of IWB technology?

3. Does the integration of IWB in education have a positive effect on student

achievement?

For the purposes of this review, interactive whiteboards are those that are touch

sensitive and connect the projected image of a computer screen to the computer through a

user's interactions. These IWBs are able to project the image of any application that is

available through a computer such as software or internet-based, or it can interact with

the designer or user through accompanying software. This review will include

implementation of the software that accompanies IWB purchases.


5/15


Susan Wilson

Resources used for this review were selected through library search applications

such as ERIC. In particular, I have decided to focus on several peer-reviewed

articles published in the September, 2007 issue of the Learning, Media and Technology

journal that was dedicated to the study of IWB in education. The first article provides a

general review of literature on IWB, the second focuses on pedagogical strategies that

foster student participation in science and the third is concerned with professional

development experiences of secondary math teachers in IWB integration. Branching out

to other sources, I will use a science resource published by the Australian Science

Teacher's Association journal that examines the use of IWB for teaching for scientific

literacy. To satisfy my interest in Physics education through technology, I also decided to

include a publication of The Physics Teacher journal that describes the process of using

IWBs to create physics tutorials. A more local resource, this article was written by a

professor at the University of Saskatchewan.

IWB Affordances and Pedagogical Uses

The software that accompanies IWB hardware allows users to generate interactive

learning experiences that can include drag and drop, highlighting or spotlighting

important information, hide and reveal, animation, sorting games, interactive devices

such as dice rolling and spinners, integration of audio and visual learning objects and

motivational games (Kennewell & Higgins, 2007). Apart from the capabilities of the

software, the IWB can be used with any digital learning experience created by the

teacher, shared from an IWB resource repository, or authentic internet-based resources

such as Google Earth.


6/15


Susan Wilson

Responding to touch, IWB makes content tangible. Students can use a plastic

stylus, their finger, or even a tennis ball (for those with limited coordination) to interact

with content. The board focuses the entire class on the activities, providing opportunities

for whole-class presentation, individual attention, or team or class collaboration.

Initially designed for business applications, IWB technology came into education

when teachers began to realize the potential of such technology. Since the IWB

technology was not designed with education in mind, it is not surprising that its

effectiveness as an educational technology is in question. Kennewell & Higgins, point

out that it is not the IWB itself, as a piece of technology, that ameliorates learning, it is

the way teachers use the technology that makes a difference (2007).

Good teaching remains good teaching with or without the technology; the

technology might enhance the pedagogy only if the teachers and pupils

engaged with it and understood its potential in such a way that thetechnology is not seen as an end in itself but as another pedagogical means

to achieve teaching and learning goals"

(Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller, 2007).

The pedagogical applications of IWB technology transcend teaching and enter

into student learning. The software that accompanies IWB hardware purchases can be

loaded onto student computer terminals allowing them to create multi-media, interactive

presentations that showcase their knowledge. The IWB allows for collaboration in

reasoning, testing hypotheses, and interpreting where students can articulate scientific

knowledge publicly using graphs and simulations (Hennessy, Deany, Ruthven, &

Winterbottom, 2007).

Considerations in integrating IWB technology in schools involve cost, proper

placement (lab vs classroom, height for students), teacher preparation, lesson preparation


7/15


Susan Wilson

time. Access to an IWB and the affordances it holds does not ensure effective use or

even interactivity. In their analysis of various research reports, Higgins, Beauchamp and

Miller conclude that without on-going IWB training and support, the boards may actually

promote a teacher-centred mode of lesson delivery instead of a more desirable

cooperative learning situation.

Best Practices

In their investigation into pedagogical strategies for IWB integration, Hennessy et

al. (2007) point out that some teaching practices may actually be detrimental to student

achievement. Citing numerous information sources, they explain that the use of the IWB

as a presentation medium may encourage faster-paced lessons that do not include

meaningful participation, collaboration, and knowledge-building. Focussing student

attention on the IWB can increase thesage on the stage mentality where the teacher is in

control of the content and of the students' learning (Hennessy, Deany, Ruthven, &

Winterbottom, 2007)

Taking part in a larger research project, Hennessy et al. examined pedagogical

approaches of three science teachers, in separate schools, who were identified to be

successful, quality teachers who integrate IWB lessons into their practice. Interviews

were also held with six students to identify what they perceive to be effective pedagogy.

Data collected from interviews, lesson plans, observations and teacher reflections

indicated positive effects of IWB use. Researchers cautioned that emphasizing teacher-

presentation of material was not an effective use of IWB technology. Results also

showed that hands-on and student-centred use of the IWB was beneficial in motivating


8/15


Susan Wilson

students and in promoting student learning (Hennessy, Deany, Ruthven, & Winterbottom,

2007).

Through reflection, the participants of the study identified two possible reasons

for overuse of teacher-led lessons involving the IWB; lack of time (caused by content-

laden curricula) to allow students to experiment and interact, and the priority placed on

maintaining student-engagement. Unless student participation is meaningful and

productive, calling students up to take their turns becomes a mundane chore instead of an

engaging activity (Hennessy, Deany, Ruthven, & Winterbottom, 2007). Teachers must

also be responsible to create a risk-free environment where students will feel comfortable

in coming up to the board. Some students interviewed expressed dissatisfaction at being

asked to perform on the board in front of their peers. However, student perspectives

identified a feeling of inclusion and participation in the lesson. One of the teachers in the

study described the increased support that students gave each other; especially when one

was put in the position of running the whiteboard. One example included in the research

findings was of a student interacting with the board in a hide and reveal activity. The

teacher noted the level of engagement as the others gave directions to the student at the

front of the room; arguing about whether answers were right or wrong and supporting

their choices with rationale (Hennessy, Deany, Ruthven, & Winterbottom, 2007).

Karen Murcia (2008) identifies positive pedagogical practices in incorporating

IWB technology into science classes as they were presented to pre-service science

teachers. Murcia showed teachers how to perform basic tasks using an IWB and the

accompanying software. She also provided rationale for each practice. In summary,

Murcia promoted the use of visual information, current and authentic information,


9/15


Susan Wilson

interactive activities, virtual models and simulations, and student creation of interactive

resources. Murcia continues to provide questions that can be used to analyse IWB

integrated activities maintaining that they should be student-centred, interactive, and that

they should compliment other activities, not replace them completely.

Andrew Robinson describes a very different, but useful, application of IWB in his

first-year physics classes. Because of student numbers (80 to 100 students per class),

Robinson has been motivated to find a way to provide problem-solving tutorials for his

students. Using IWB technology and screen recording software, Robinson creates audio

and visual representations of worked examples; then uploads them to the internet for easy

access by his students. Admitting that this method has been used in the teaching of

secondary math, Robinson states that it has rarely been used in post-secondary courses

that require math applications (Robinson, 2008).

Professional Development

Glover and Miller (2007) provide information based on research that took place in seven

English secondary schools over the course of two terms following IWB installation. A

minimum of 5 IWB/data projector combinations were installed in each school and

participants were studied for the purpose of charting pedagogic change and participant

perception to see what impact IWB inclusion had on classroom practice. Participating

schools agreed to equip mathematics classrooms with the necessary hardware and

software, identify staff leaders to be trained in using the whiteboard, keep records of

decisions, uses of technology, impact of technology, and their experiences. They also had

to agree to cooperate with national and local support staff and with the evaluation of the

project.


10/15


Susan Wilson

One nominated math teacher from each school spent two days of professional

development with the responsibility of sharing knowledge attained with other math

teachers in the school. After each day, as an additional catalyst for professional

development, individual schools were sent interim reports detailing the project results as

well as school-based results. Additional professional development was arranged by the

individual schools and they had access to a consultant for support (Glover & Miller,

2008).

Initial reports from participating teachers were of the considerable anxiety they

felt. There were concerns about the use of the hardware and the learning associated with

the software. Glover and Miller point to the lack of recognition (on the part of the

teachers) of the need to change their teaching style. One teacher reported an appreciation

for a "text-book like" resource that could be projected on the whiteboard. Many

comments focussed on the need to involve the students in the implementation and the

grace with which they helped their teachers work through the technical issues (Glover &

Miller, 2007).

Significant changes were noted in most participants in the second term.

Comments suggested that departments were working together to produce appropriate

materials and that comfort levels had increased. Schools showing the highest level of

change were those that identified that they had someone on staff who provided leadership

and support. Glover and Miller posit that an effective school expert may promote more

effective professional development (2007). They also suggest that traditional

professional development is of limited benefit; whether because of the lack of trained and


11/15


Susan Wilson

experienced teachers or because of the disconnect between off-site learning and authentic

practice.

In conclusion, Glover and Miller state that appropriate training is required to

make full use of educational technologies like the IWB. They suggest that the

implementation of technology and pedagogic change needs an induction phase followed

by a period of expert support tailored to the needs of individual staff members. Once

there is technological fluency, then there needs to be support for sharing of resources.

Professional development plans need to be created before IWB technologies are

installed. A mentor system should be set-up connecting experienced users with novices.

Teachers will need time to explore, learn, and develop materials and, of course, to reflect

and to share (Glover & Miller, 2007).

Impact of IWB

In their literature review, Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller (2007) reference a large-

scale study of the effectiveness of IWB integration in the UK. The 'Embedding ICT'

project (researchers Higgins, Falzon, Hall, Mosely, Smith, Smith and Wall) involved the

placement of IWBs in grade 5 and 6 classes in more than 70 elementary schools in the

UK. The evaluation investigated classroom interaction through structured observation,

teacher reflection and student perception through interviews, records of teachers' IWB

use, and achievement results attained through student performance in national Key Stage

2 tests (assessment examples can be found athttp://www.emaths.co.uk/KS2SAT.htm).

Descriptive data was recorded over the course of two separate six-week periods, one year

apart.
http://www.emaths.co.uk/KS2SAT.htmhttp://www.emaths.co.uk/KS2SAT.htmhttp://www.emaths.co.uk/KS2SAT.htm


12/15


Susan Wilson

Results showed an increase in use of IWB technology from 66% of lessons to

74% of lessons (Higgins et al., 2005). Within those lessons, teachers reported more

involvement in developing or adapting resources used indicating increased ability and

confidence. The research found higher occurrences of whole-class teaching (as opposed

to group work), more open questions, more answers (although briefer) and more

evaluation. A decrease in lessons involving student presentations was also found

(Higgins et al., 2005).

Interestingly, the final report shows that no significant increase in student

achievement can be attributed to IWB integration. However, student and teacher

perceptions are very clearly affected; believing that IWB use promotes positive results,

particularly in the area of student enjoyment and engagement. In addition to reporting

increased comfort and confidence in integrating information and communication

technologies (ICT) in their teaching, educators also reported more positive classroom

interaction (Higgins et al., 2005).

Conclusion

Interactive whiteboard use needs to be just that; interactive. Conscious efforts

must be made to ensure that IWB integration does not reinforce the teacher as sage on the

stage. Teachers need to reflect on their teaching practice and need to spend time

developing engaging, interactive learning activities that make meaningful use of the

affordances of IWB technology. It is important that all involved recognise that the

technology is nothing without effective learning experiences created by competent,

professional educators. It is also important to be aware of the many affordances of the

technology in question and of the innovative applications educators are developing.


13/15


14/15


Susan Wilson

References

Hennessy, Deany, Ruthven, & Winterbottom. (September, 2007). Pedagogical strategies

for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school

science. Published in Learning, Media and Technology Volume 32, Issue 3. Pages

283 - 301. Retrieved from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a781204804&fulltext=7132

40928

Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller. (September, 2007). Reviewing the Literature on

Interactive Whiteboards. Published in Learning, Media and Technology. Volume

32, Issue 3. Pages 213-225. Retrieved from


40928

Higgins, Falzon, Hall, Mosely, Smith, Smith & Wall. (April, 2005). Embedding ICT in

the literacy and numeracy strategies; Final report. University of Newcastle.

Retrieved February 14, 2009 from

http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/univ_newcastle_evaluation

_whiteboards.pdf

Kennewell & Higgins. (September, 2007). Introduction. Published in Learning, Media

and Technology Volume 32, Issue 3. Pages 207 - 212. Retrieved from


40928

Miller, Dave & Glover, Derek. (2007). Into the unknown: the professional development

induction experience of secondary mathematics teachers using interactive


15/15


Susan Wilson

whiteboard technology. Published in Learning, Media and Technology. Vol. 32,

No. 3. pp. 319-331. Retrieved from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a781206019~fulltext=7

13240928

Murcia, Karen. (December, 2008). Teaching for scientific literacy with an interactive

whiteboard. Published in Teaching Science - the Journal of the Australian

Science Teachers Association, Vol. 54, No. 4. (December 2008), pp. 17-21.

Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6957/is_4_54/ai_n31161066

Robinson, Andrew. (2008). Easy Implementation of Internet-Based Whiteboard Physics

Tutorials. Published in The Physics Teacher, Vol. 46, No. 8. pp. 456-459.

Retrieved from http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTEAH-

ft/vol_46/iss_8/456_1.html

Documents

Framing Issues - Effective IWB Integration