27
Interacting with Interactive Whiteboards Chapter Two A Field Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education TOURO UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of MASTERS OF ARTS in EDUCATION With Emphasis in Technology By Brandy Shelton EDU 716 July 2010

Shelton chapter 2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Shelton chapter 2

Interacting with Interactive Whiteboards

Chapter Two

A Field Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education

TOURO UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

in

EDUCATION

With Emphasis in

Technology

By

Brandy Shelton

EDU 716

July 2010

Page 2: Shelton chapter 2

Chapter 2

Introduction

Classrooms have been evolving rapidly since the late 1980’s when computers became a

more tactile piece of equipment that educators realized could be a part of teaching. Since then

chalkboards have evolved into white erase boards, which are now evolving into interactive

whiteboards (IWB). An interactive whiteboard is a touch-sensitive display that connects to a

computer and a digital projector. Through this connection, a person can control computer

applications, write notes in digital ink, present lessons, and save all work to be shared later

(SMART Board Interactive Whiteboards). There is no doubt that the IWB can change the face

of any classroom and how teachers plan and present information. The question seems to be how

do teachers get to a point that they are proficient with the new technology and have integrated it

into their curriculum? The answer doesn’t seem to be too far off of what we already know

about good teaching: it takes a solid understanding of the content, integrates the technology

appropriately, and has a strong foundation in pedagogy.

TPCK

Lee Shulman stated in 1987 that there were at least seven categories teachers’

knowledge could be categorized into. Pedagogical Content Knowledge was one that held

special interest for Shulman because it identified the core bodies of teaching. “[Pedagogical

Content Knowledge] represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of

how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse

interests and abilities of learners, and present for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). Running

with Shulman’s framework on Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Punya Mishra and Matthew

Koehler added technology as a component creating TPCK (Technological Pedagogical Content

Page 3: Shelton chapter 2

Knowledge). TPCK is defined as “the relationship between the pedagogy within a subject area

(the practice in the setting), the subject domain, culture (the ecology of the setting) and the

technology (the tool within the setting)” (John &Sutherland, 2005, p. 405). In Mishra and

Koehler’s framework content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge

all overlap with one another in the style of a Venn diagram (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: TPCK framework as noted by Mishra and Koehler (2007)

Source: Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology.

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2007.

Within this diagram are not only the individual components, but also how they interact with one

another represented as Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Pedagogical

Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge (TPCK). The knowledge that teachers bring with them to the classroom is

Page 4: Shelton chapter 2

essential because it is how teachers decide how to present information or have students work

with it. When teachers receive a new piece of technology in their classroom their knowledge of

how to use that piece may not always extend to knowing how to incorporate it into the

curriculum. Using TPCK teachers must make a conscious decision how content or technology-

heavy their lesson or unit of study will be.

Figure 2: Adaptation of Kosiak and LeDocqu’s (2008) three-dimensional model of TPCK.

Source: Kosiak, J., & LeDocq, R. (2008). Connecting preservice teachers’ knowledge of

mathematics, pedagogy and technology through learning object design.

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2008, 5263-5270.

Using an adaptation of Kosiak and LeDocq’s (2008) three-dimensional model of TPCK

(Figure 2), the attention should be drawn to how the three components of TPCK are connected

to one another. Pedagogy is always the base that content and technology is built upon.

Depending on the teacher’s decision to make a lesson or unit more focused on the content of a

topic, technology becomes less of a focus and more of a supportive tool. For example, a unit’s

Page 5: Shelton chapter 2

goal might be to cover community history and the key figures that helped an area grow and

flourish, internet resources or multimedia video would become supplementary to the unit. On

the other hand, a lesson or unit could be more focused on technology by having students create

a project with the content to present what they have learned about the subject. For example,

students present the information they have learned about their community history via a

PowerPoint presentation or digital story. In the latter example students already have most of the

content they would need to go forward with a presentation, but may need more instruction on

how to put together a clear and interesting presentation, or how to use the equipment, which is

why it would be a more technology-based lesson. In this way the TPCK model really helps

teachers understand how technology and content work with one another to develop engaging

and interactive lessons.

Training Teachers in Technology

The prior knowledge a teacher brings with them into a classroom helps determine what

topics are taught, and even more importantly, how they are presented. So what knowledge do

teachers need to have regarding technology prior to planning and teaching with it? How do we

know if the training they are receiving is helping them use the technology effectively?

As explained earlier, TPCK is the framework that teachers use when developing a lesson or unit

that integrates technology. Some teachers come to the table with prior knowledge on how to

use a piece of technology, like Power Point, in their personal life and time. They may know

how to manipulate a program and work with it in one context, but have trouble transferring that

knowledge into the classroom setting. The cognitive constructivist learning theory

acknowledges that people must be aware of their own beliefs before questioning others or

considering changing their own beliefs (Hughes, 2005). Teachers must be able to recognize

Page 6: Shelton chapter 2

what they believe about their own pedagogical styles before being willing to change them to

incorporate something new, like technology. In this way teachers are often pushed into

professional development opportunities that are offered by their school districts and claim to

give more insight to the newest technology entering the classroom. Professional development

opportunities are meant to help teachers develop or refine a skill that they are planning to use, or

are currently using, in their classrooms. Many school districts decided to use professional

development as a way to help teachers integrate the new types of technology into their

classroom and planning times. Many of these workshops turned out to be short-term or one-

shot time periods that were meant to help teachers understand and work with the equipment or

software (Hughes, 2005). Most teachers walked away from these development days knowing

how to turn something on and off, or open and close a program, but that was it. They were still

unsure how to incorporate the curriculum or content. McKenzie (2001) stressed that teachers

need more content-based examples and more connections to the curriculum they would use with

the technology. With this newfound understanding school districts began providing more

content-based technology preparation. “Approaches that emphasize content would target

teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in contrast to when

technology is learned as a separate, unrelated skill,” (Hughes, 2005). These types of workshops

not only show teachers how the technology works, but it also gives teachers examples of how

they can integrate it into their curriculum and content. It’s important that these workshops are

geared towards teachers’ specific grade levels and content areas, so that they are of use to the

teachers that attend them. Because of their short nature, teachers should be able to walk out of a

content-based technology workshop with ideas and lessons that they can begin using as soon as

they begin planning for their next lesson.

Page 7: Shelton chapter 2

Training teachers with technology shouldn’t stop after the professional development

workshop. Groff and Mouza (2008) believed that an effective professional development model

should include training, experimentation, and follow-up support. Most of the workshops that

take place in school districts address the training aspect and some even give teachers time to

experiment and play with the new technology, but most lack the follow-up support aspect.

Zech, Gause-Vega, Bray, Secules, and Goldman (2000) presented the content-based

collaborative inquiry (CBCI) model that addresses the need for follow-up and support after a

teacher learns a new skill. These small, collaborative inquiry groups have shown to be

successful for teacher development because this approach focuses on supporting teachers in

sharing their knowledge and questions, connects learning to contexts of teaching (site and

subject-specific), and promotes active engagement over time. The CBCI model advocates for

teachers at the same school site, grade level, or subject to talk about what questions or struggles

they might be experiencing in their classrooms on a regular basis. In addition to talking about

problems that arise and providing a dialogue to come up with solutions, observing colleagues

teach a lesson or skill that a teacher might need more clarification on can be very helpful. For

example, if a teacher struggles with how to teach simplifying fractions to fifth grade students,

talking with colleagues at the same grade level and school site about the strategies they use can

be very helpful. A colleague might talk about something that was done at a recent workshop or

a program that they felt helped their class grasp the concept. Those suggestions become better

illuminated when the struggling teacher can observe her colleagues implement those strategies

by taking a class period to observe the actual lesson or see a review of it.

Learning new technology and how to implement it into the classroom is very similar to

the above example with simplifying fractions. Attending a workshop and learning how to use

Page 8: Shelton chapter 2

equipment or software is a good start, but should not be the end of the professional development

cycle. Training should also include experimentation and examples of implementation in content

and subject-specific curriculum. After the workshop there should be follow-up support built in

within the school or the district as a whole. Teachers should be able to open a dialogue with

one another that includes questions, concerns, and suggestions from one another. There should

also be opportunities for teachers to observe one another using the technology or software

within a lesson or unit successfully so that they can find ways to implement it effectively into

their own teaching.

What is an Interactive Whiteboard?

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are touch-sensitive new generation boards controlled by

a computer that is connected to a digital projector (Saltan & Arslan, 2009). They were

originally developed for offices and businesses, but soon found their way into the classroom.

IWBs usually consist of four components: a computer, a projector, the appropriate software, and

a large wall-mounted or free-standing screen. The computer can be controlled by touching the

board directly, or with a special pen (Saltan & Arslan, 2009).

Page 9: Shelton chapter 2

Figure 3: Components of an IWB as depicted by Faith Saltan and Kursat Arslan, 2009.

Source: Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2009). A new teacher tool, interactive white boards: A

meta analysis. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher

Education International Conference 2009, 2115-2120.

As described by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA),

some of the potential applications for the IWB are:

• Using web-based resources in whole-class teaching

• Showing video clips to help explain concepts

• Demonstrating a piece of software

• Presenting students’ work to the rest of the class

• Creating digital flipcharts

• Manipulating text and practicing handwriting

• Saving notes written on the board for future use

• Quick and seamless revision (BECTA, 2003, p.1)

Page 10: Shelton chapter 2

With these basic operations available for use with just about any IWB, the creative possibilities

are limitless. Teachers are able to create notes on any type of lesson in a digital flipchart, save

the chart for future revision or review, or even print or e-mail it to a student who missed the

lesson.

IWBs as a Classroom Management Tool

Teachers have reported that IWB’s help improve classroom management (Graham,

2004; Cuthell, 2004). Students are more likely to be engaged and participating in the lesson,

and less likely to be off-task. In a study done by Karen Graham in 2004, teachers found that the

pace of the work being completed actually increased due to students’ eagerness and motivation

to use the IWB. Students knew that they would have more opportunities to use the technology

if they stayed on task and completed their assignments. Furthermore, students reported that

they tried harder to pay attention to directions and instruction the first time it was given so that

they were more likely to move onto a game or other IWB activity. Graham and her teacher’s

assistant reported that students did not habituate to the new learning environment, and remained

engaged and excited to learn throughout the study. This was partially due to the fact that

Graham worked hard to involve her students in the lesson, making it more student-centered and

less teacher-centered. Graham described different websites that she found useful in teaching

and reviewing numerous math and language arts concepts. The use of student-centered

activities and new educational games and videos both played a large role in improving the

classroom environment and engagement level. Due to these changes classroom management

was a minimal part of the teacher’s worries and even students noticed the positive change as can

be seen in this quote from one of Graham’s students:

Page 11: Shelton chapter 2

“It has made the class work more. The class loves doing work and it has improved the speed of

work. Our behavior is always better and every morning I really want to come to school and do

some work!” (Graham, 2004, p. 21)

The Challenges of the IWB

With great technology, come great pitfalls for teachers to stumble into. Like every other

piece of equipment that enters the classroom, the IWB isn’t perfect and schools and teachers

must work to find solutions to these new problems. One of the first problems that many schools

come across is deciding how an IWB should be implemented into the school. Some schools

work to put one in every classroom, or department, while other schools decide to have one per

grade level that must be shared amongst multiple classes. Surveys done by John Cuthell in

2003 found that teachers who had IWBs in their own classrooms were most enthusiastic about

using them, and most likely to use them regularly (Cuthell, 2004). Teachers who had limited

access to an IWB saw little change in their teaching style and were not as motivated to plan

lessons that involved the new technology.

Another challenge that researchers have found is that most teachers are learning how to

use their IWB “on the job” (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). After an IWB is installed many schools

send their teachers to the installation company, or have a representative visit the school to teach

staff how to use the equipment. However, these tutorials don’t stray far from how to manipulate

the basic controls. From an interview Shenton and Pagett (2007) had with a teacher regarding

the training she had received she said, “we did have someone talk to us when it was installed,

but it was very simple – this is a mouse!” (Shenton and Pagett, 2007, p. 132). This often leaves

teachers to figure out how to incorporate the IWB into their lessons and daily classroom

routines on their own. Learning to use new equipment without guidance or templates can be

time consuming and frustrating. Due to the extra time many teachers would need to spend

Page 12: Shelton chapter 2

making PowerPoint presentations, downloading material, and preparing their own materials,

some teachers are simply put-off with the technology and revert to using an IWB like they

would any whiteboard. Shenton and Pagett (2007) found that teachers who were willing to put

in the extra time to learn how to use the IWB on their own often looked for outside guidance by

evaluating new software or attending professional development courses and workshops.

The Stages of Implementing an IWB

Much like any new skill, learning how to use and implement an IWB into a classroom’s

daily lessons and routines doesn’t happen overnight. Gary Beauchamp (2004) observed

classrooms and interviewed teachers from a technology-rich primary school in order to build a

framework of the continuum teachers work through when implementing IWBs. The stages that

Beauchamp (2004) describes transition from beginner to synergistic user as follows:

• Black / Whiteboard Substitute

• Apprentice User

• Initiate User

• Advanced User

• Synergistic User (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 330)

Beauchamp’s description of learning stages related to the IWB isn’t far off from the “Evolution

of Teacher Thought and Practice” (Apple, Inc., 2006) as described by Apple Classrooms of

Tomorrow (ACOT). Much like Beauchamp’s continuum, ACOT’s evolution begins at an

“entry” point and transitions to “innovation.”

Page 13: Shelton chapter 2

Figure 4: Evolution of Teacher Thought and Practice as described by ACOT (Apple, Inc.,

2006).

Source: Apple, Inc. (2006, February). Lessons from the journey: An overview of the Apple

classrooms of tomorrow (ACOT). PowerPoint Data file presented at Cupertino, CA.

As Figure 4 shows, as the stage of teacher development transitions, the types of training and

description of use becomes more involved and complex. This is very similar to Beauchamp’s

(2004) model because as teachers become more confident and knowledgeable regarding their

IWB, they also become more innovative and creative with the types of activities their classes

take part in.

Stage 1: Black/ Whiteboard Substitute

Page 14: Shelton chapter 2

When teachers first begin using an IWB they are learning to transition from a traditional

blackboard or whiteboard. The similar writing surface often leads teachers to use the IWB as a

black/whiteboard substitute. Teachers tend to write and draw on the board just as they would on

a traditional board, and gradually supplement with word processing files. At this level teachers

are still becoming more adept to using the pen as a writing tool, and their finger as a mouse or

cursor. Once teachers have mastered basic writing and drawing techniques, they begin to

supplement with word processing files that they have created for a lesson or saved from a lesson

done prior to the IWB.

Lessons at this stage are still predominantly teacher-centered and do not involve students

coming up to the board to interact or create on their own. “In effect, the whiteboard is used as a

large screen for a projected computer desktop with the teacher performing normal tasks on the

computer to a larger audience” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 332). In order for higher-level thinking

and enhanced learning to take place, teachers must transition to the next stage of the continuum

and include students with the interaction of the IWB. One danger teachers face in this stage is

allowing their IWB to become a presentation board rather than a resource for interactive

learning. This can be avoided by focusing more on questioning during a lesson and bringing

students up to the board to become familiar with the IWB.

At black / whiteboard substitute stage teachers are able to maintain eye contact with

their students for longer periods of time than compared to a traditional board because they were

able to stand to one side of the board to manipulate the text. This often led to more engagement

among the class, and less classroom management problems during the lesson.

Stage 2: Apprentice User

Page 15: Shelton chapter 2

The apprentice user “is characterized by the use of a wider range of existing computer

skills in a teaching context” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 334). This usually means that teachers need

to be more confident in their computer skills in order to make the jump from a black /

whiteboard substitute to an apprentice user. As a teacher’s confidence in their computer skills

and their relation to the IWB grows, their existing computer knowledge can be transferred to be

used with the IWB. For example, teachers at the apprentice stage are more likely to save and

reopen word processing and native IWB software files. Teachers are also likely to use them

later as evidence of a concept taught, or as a reference for future concepts. It is common for

teachers to begin using PowerPoint at this stage as well. The PowerPoint program provides

structure and was the first program teachers advised others to learn how to use once they

became accustomed to the native IWB software.

An apprentice user begins to use more graphics throughout their lessons, however they

tend to be clip art that ‘decorates’ the page rather than being used a visual model or for a

specific effect. Although this is a positive step in the continuum of IWB development, the use

of ‘decorative’ images can also be misleading for students if the images are inaccurate or detract

from the lesson content. As teachers become more knowledgeable regarding what is available

on the internet and within their school network, they often become more selective in their use of

graphics.

At this stage teachers are rapidly developing their information and communications

technology (ICT) skills. They must learn to begin transferring their skills and knowledge to

their students via the adaptation to “coach, observer, and facilitator” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 335).

In this way teachers must be willing to give up some of the control of the IWB and plan more

activities and lessons that involve student interaction. At this stage teachers can ask students to

Page 16: Shelton chapter 2

highlight with the pen or drag an item from part of the board to another, although the teacher is

normally choosing the appropriate tools for the lesson.

The teacher works to build verbal ICT skills along with manual skills at this level as

well. Much like a teacher would teach academic vocabulary related to a core subject such as

English, social sciences, or science, IWB/ICT vocabulary is needed when working with the

IWB. Teachers often do this be asking questions like, “where should I click?” or “where should

I drag this item to?” Students are able to pick up on the IWB/ICT vocabulary very quickly in

this manner and often instruct their teacher on what they are doing wrong if a problem arises.

For example, if a teacher was unable to use the mouse or cursor, students may instruct them

click off of the pen option. The development of the IWB/ICT vocabulary at this stage of the

continuum is critical if lessons are going to become less linear and more creative.

As students use the IWB more and interact with the technical vocabulary and

components on a more frequent basis, there is a possibility that they will know more than the

teacher does about manipulating the technology. This can intimidate teachers and hurt their

self-confidence if they are corrected by a student on how to perform a task or fix a technical

problem. Although some teachers may perceive the free in-service training from students as a

negative aspect, it could also be seen as a positive one in that it brings both students and teacher

closer to the next level on the IWB continuum.

Stage 3: Initiate User

An initiate user has reached a stage where they are aware of the potential that the IWB

has to change or strengthen their practice and pedagogy. “Teachers begin to combine their own

skills as pedagogues with those of their pupils, and the IWB, to initiate a classroom practice

which produces a new pedagogy” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 338). Initiate users begin to use more

Page 17: Shelton chapter 2

programs and software that are selected for their ease of use and appropriateness for the lesson.

Teachers in this stage also learn to master opening more than one page or program at one time,

allowing them to maximize and minimize each window as needed. With this new skill teachers

often use one program as an introduction to a lesson, and then switch to another to continue the

lesson with a more appropriate format. Teachers found that this approach allowed them to

present the content in a variety of formats, thus leading to higher levels of engagement amongst

students.

With this approach teachers quickly learned that it was important to have prepared

pages or slides to access and revise. The same was true for pre-selected internet sites. Initiate

user teachers realize that the internet has an abundant number of resources available, and have

begun to save them in their Favorites menu within the browser. They often use labeled folders

to organize the different sites as well.

Another part of this stage of development is the further involvement of students in the

use of the IWB. The physical interaction that students have with the IWB actually gives them

more self-confidence and builds their self-esteem because they thoroughly enjoy using the

technology. Teachers are “designing their lessons so that children are now required to extend

their existing skills” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 339). For example, where before a teacher would

have students come up to the IWB and hand them the correct color pen to use to make a

correction, students are now responsible for choosing the correct color to make a correction or

choosing the correct tool to use from the tool menu. These small steps help students and teacher

move towards the next step in the IWB continuum, and ultimately become closer to being a

synergy user.

Stage 4: Advanced User

Page 18: Shelton chapter 2

An advanced user sees the possibilities an IWB has to offer and wants to explore them.

“This moves beyond a fascination with technical capabilities, towards the excitement of

discovering their impact on teaching and learning” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 340). Teachers at this

stage are likely to use hypertext and hyperlinks within their prepared lessons to encourage

higher level thinking. As teachers revise their earlier lessons, opportunities to include hypertext

and hyperlinks often come up due to the greater knowledge that they have at this stage. Many

teachers in Beauchamp’s (2004) study felt that when they looked at lessons they created as an

apprentice use there was room for improvement, even though they felt they were great lessons

at the time they created them. Advanced users now have enough knowledge that they see what

can be improved upon, especially when it comes to past lessons.

Teachers are also more likely to use sound and video files to demonstrate concepts that

are difficult to replicate in a classroom. These types of files can be embedded into a file or

page, appear as a clickable graphic, or as a hyperlinked item of a text. Teachers do not use

sound and video files to ‘decorate’ their pages or lessons at this stage, but instead to illustrate a

teaching point.

Scanners are also an integral part of the advanced user’s toolbox. Imported scanned

images from previous lessons, children’s work, textbook pages, and worksheets decreases the

‘heads-down’ effect that textbooks often bring about. Teachers have even found that when

students have the textbook or worksheet in front them along with on the IWB, students choose

to look at the board instead. The focus switches from the desk material, to the IWB by choice.

Another tool that Beauchamp (2004) found some teachers using was the ‘Slate’, “a small

handheld board allowing remote control of the IWB by teacher or children” (Beauchamp, 2004,

p. 341). The Slate can be passed from student to student to add content to a digital flip chart, or

Page 19: Shelton chapter 2

from group to group to do the same, or the teacher can edit or revise student work seamlessly.

Another perk of the Slate is that it includes the involvement that students would experience if

they were to work on the IWB, without the undue movement that can sometimes slow a lesson

down. Tools like the Slate, sound and video files, and scanned images bring teachers to the last

stage of the IWB continuum.

Stage 5: Synergistic User

A synergistic IWB user combines all of the knowledge from the previous stages and

applies it to a bigger understanding regarding a teacher’s pedagogical practices. “It is the

realization that the IWB can create a new freedom in pedagogy, and is not an end in itself, or a

means to deliver existing practice in another format, which perhaps encapsulates this final stage

in the transition framework” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 343). Teachers and students have reached a

state of equality in their understanding of how to use and manipulate the IWB. This creates a

synergistic state which pushes teachers and students to create new learning scenarios and

lessons to achieve learning objectives. Teachers who have reached this stage in the continuum

design lessons that demonstrate an intuitive interaction with the IWB and incorporate their

students in the process as well. Their lessons are student-centered and use different tools such

as internet sites, sound and video files, hyperlinks and hypertext, and scanned images to better

convey a concept or subject. The teacher still has control of the lesson and direction it should

take, but students play an active role in questioning and problem-solving by physically

interacting with the IWB.

All five stages of Beauchamp’s (2004) learning stages relate to how most teachers move

along the IWB continuum. Many teachers reach a certain stage and stop moving forward, while

Page 20: Shelton chapter 2

few ever reach the final stage of synergistic user. Table 1 outlines each stage and the different

skills both teachers and students tend to master at that level.

Operating System

and File Management

(OS)

Mechanical Skills

(MS)

Program Variables

(PV)

Classroom Management

and Pedagogy

(CMP)

Black/Whiteboard

Substitute

-Predominant use of text

and drawing.

-Limited use of stored

files.

-Changes made to files

and annotations rarely

saved.

-Teacher learning to

write and draw.

-Use of IWB pen in

place of mouse.

-Predominant use of

native IWB software

with perhaps one

additional word

processing program.

-IWB used by teacher

only.

-Quicker pace to

lessons.

-More eye contact with

class.

-Presentation of

information over

questioning.

Apprentice User -Predominant use of

stored teacher resources.

-Files used in lessons are

often saved for reference

or evidence.

-A limited use of

‘external’ material.

-Children use to write,

highlight, and drag

content on the board.

-Introduction of

PowerPoint.

-Use of PowerPoint to

structure lessons or part

of a lesson.

-Use of imported

existing graphics in

PowerPoint or to

‘decorate’ other work.

-Child use of board

planned by teacher.

-Used most commonly

in teaching core

subjects.

-Use of ICT

‘vocabulary’ by teacher

and children when using

the IWB.

Initiate User -Ability to maximize and

minimize files to allow

multiple programs to be

open and switched

between.

-Use of stored sequence

of pages (i.e. flip charts

from the native IWB

program).

-Beginning to organize

work into “Favorite”

folders in the internet

browser.

-Children select tools

and input to the IWB.

-Use of a wider range of

programs.

-A wider range of

effects, like sound, in

PowerPoint.

-Use of a wider range of

graphics including those

from other sources, such

as the internet,

specifically chosen for

purpose and not just

‘decoration.’

-Teacher initiated and

planned opportunities

for children to select

tools and input to the

IWB

-Used in a growing

range of subject areas.

-Growing use of external

resources (i.e. links to

Internet sites).

Advanced User -Imported use of

scanned images (by

teacher) from range of

sources including

previous lessons,

children’s work,

textbook pages, and

worksheets.

-Children frequently

and confidently use

the IWB as part of the

lesson, often

spontaneously and

unplanned.

-Incorporation of

other input devices

(i.e. the IWB ‘slate’).

-Use of video clips and

sound files – including

material developed by

staff.

-Use of hyperlinks and

hypertext within and

between programs and

external resources.

-Children frequently and

confidently use the IWB

as part of the lesson,

often spontaneously and

unplanned.

-Use of revised and

‘improved’ versions of

previous lessons, with

emphasis on pupil

learning rather than

technical facility.

-Incorporation of other

input devices (i.e. the

IWB ‘slate’).

Synergistic User -High level of

confidence by pupils and

teacher.

-High level of

confidence by pupils

and teacher.

-High level of

confidence by pupils and

teacher.

-Teachers demonstrate

an intuitive interaction

with technology which

facilitates a fluid lesson

structure.

-Both teacher and pupils

Page 21: Shelton chapter 2

are able to construct

meaning and dictate the

direction, momentum,

and scale of the next

step in the lesson.

Table 1: The stages of IWB implementation as adapted from Gary Beauchamp (2004).

Source: Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary

schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Pedagogy and Education,

13(3), 327-348.

Summary

IWBs have changed the face of classrooms all over the world. They have pushed

teachers to reevaluate their pedagogical practices, and made schools and districts rethink their

professional development choices.

Using Lee Shulman’s definition of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1987),

Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler added technology to the model, creating Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2007). This model stood on the

idea that teachers use a strong base in pedagogy to guide their lessons in content and

technology, with a balance needed in each area in order for a lesson to be adequate for student

understanding.

With the new technology that enters our classrooms, such as IWBs, so do the

opportunities for professional development either within our schools or school districts. These

workshops have been geared toward aiding teachers in basic operation of software and

equipment, but lack the real guidance most teachers need in order to incorporate the new

technology into their planning and curriculum (Hughes, 2005; McKenzie, 2001). Many districts

are now looking at workshops that offer explanation, time for experimentation, and instruction

that is grade or subject-specific so that teachers are able to walk away with ideas they can

implement right away. These types of professional development opportunities are much more

helpful than those geared towards basic operation, but still lack a follow-up component that

Page 22: Shelton chapter 2

supports teachers once they head back into the classroom. Follow-up support and peer

observation are both essential pieces of the professional development cycle.

As IWBs entered classrooms, many teachers loved them and hated them at the same

time. The technology behind them was astounding and the IWB engaged students the moment

it was turned on, but many teachers were struggling with how to use them effectively rather than

a fancy presentation platform. Researchers have found that teachers who have an IWB in their

classroom are more likely to use them on a regular basis and more openly incorporate them into

their lessons and daily routines (Cuthell, 2004). Teachers also found themselves learning how

to use the boards “on the job” and spending much of their own time and energy creating

material and learning how to use the software outside of school hours. Some professionals

found themselves attending extra workshops or professional development days to learn how to

use the software and equipment more effectively, while others simply used the IWB as they

would a traditional blackboard or whiteboard.

The stages that most teachers go through when implementing an IWB into their

classroom and curriculum is outlined by Gary Beauchamp (2004). The continuum Beauchamp

described began at a new IWB user, or black / whiteboard substitute, and continued to an

experienced user, or synergistic user. With each stage in Beauchamp’s framework teachers and

students become more knowledgeable of the IWB’s uses, and more equal in their ability to think

creatively and problem-solve in the context of a lesson. Although all teachers do not reach the

highest level of IWB implementation, those that do become synergistic users, incorporate

student-centered lessons intuitively, and use various tools and formats to engage their students

and present concepts appropriately.

Page 23: Shelton chapter 2

There are still many more questions that teachers are still asking themselves when it

comes to the limits of an IWB, but our focus now should be on how to most effectively reach

students with different subject matters via the IWB. What strategies work best at teaching

language arts, or math concepts? How can we apply what we know about more traditional

teaching to the technology-based IWB? An even better question is, how should schools and

school districts go about preparing their teachers for IWB implementation as a classroom

management tool and within their curriculum? Although more research is becoming available

in these areas, there is still more that needs to be done, particularly in the United States. IWB’s

are not a fad that will dissipate in a year or two. They have proven themselves to be an integral

part of any 21st century classroom, therefore learning to interact with them effectively will not

only help our students, but also our teachers.

Page 24: Shelton chapter 2

References

Apple, Inc. (2006, February). Lessons from the journey: An overview of the Apple classrooms of

tomorrow (ACOT). PowerPoint Data file presented at Cupertino, CA.

Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards

an effective transition framework. Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348.

BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from

http://web.archive.org/web/20040212080428/http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/

research/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf

Cuthell, J. (2004). Can technology transform teaching and learning? The impact of interactive

whiteboards. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference, 1133-1138.

Feng, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2005). K-12 teachers’ pedagogical reasoning in planning instruction

with technology integration. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &

Teacher Education International Conference 2005, 3173-3180.

Graham, K. (2004). Switching on switched off children. Retrieved July, 2010, from Virtual

Learning website: http://www.virtuallearing.org.uk/2003research/

Switching_Switched_Off.doc

Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology

use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content

knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration

reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Page 25: Shelton chapter 2

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experience in forming

technology-integrated pedagogy. J.I. of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-

302.

Hughes, J. (2008). The development of teacher TPCK by instructional approach: Tools,

videocase, and problems of practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,

13(2), 277-302.

Jennifer, K., & LeDocq, R. (2008). Connecting preservice teachers’ knowledge of mathematics,

pedagogy, and technology through learning object design. Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008, 5263-

5270.

John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2005, November). Affordance, opportunity and the pedagogical

implications of ICT. Educational Review, 57(4), 405-413.

Kosiak, J., & LeDocq, R. (2008). Connecting preservice teachers’ knowledge of mathematics,

pedagogy and technology through learning object design. Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008, 5263-

5270.

Leftwich, A., Brush, T., Abaci, S., Powell, N., Roman, T., VanLeusen, P., & Strycker, J. (2009).

How teachers use technology differently in varied subject areas and grade level: A

national study. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2009, 4107-4112.

McKenzie, J. (2001, January). Head of the class. Retrieved July, 2010, from

http://www.electronic-school.com database.

Page 26: Shelton chapter 2

McNeese, M. N., Ph. D., Hartsell, T., Ph.D., McGarity, T., M.A., & Harper, L., Ph.D. (2003).

Integrating SMARTBoard technology into higher education online training: A

perspective between genders. Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in

Corporate Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003, 1108-1114.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK):

Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. Proceedings of Society

for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007.

Murcia, K. (2010, March). Multi-modal representations in primary science: What’s offered by

interactive whiteboard technology. Teaching Science, 56(1), 23-29.

Sahin, I., Akturk, A. O., & Schmidt, D. (2009). Relationship of preservice teachers’

technological pedagogical content knowledge with their vocational self-efficacy beliefs.

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International

Conference 2009 , 4137-4144.

Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2009). A new teacher tool, interactive white boards: A meta analysis.

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International

Conference 2009 , 2115-2120.

Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007, November). From ‘bored’ to screen: the use of the interactive

whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England . Literacy, 41(1), 129-136.

Shulman, L. S. (1987, Spring). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.

Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Page 27: Shelton chapter 2

SMART Board Interactive Whiteboards. (n.d.). SMART Technologies. Retrieved July, 2010,

from SMART website: http://smarttech.com/us/Solutions/Education+Solutions/

Products+for+education/Interactive+whiteboards+and+displays/

SMART+Board+interactive+whiteboards

Zech, L. K., Gause-Vega, C. L., Bray, M. H., Secules, T., & Goldman, S. R. (2000). Content-

based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining

educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 207-217.