shelton masters final
TRANSCRIPT
Interacting with Interactive Whiteboards
A Project Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Education
By Brandy Shelton
Touro University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
Masters of Arts
In
EDUCATION
With Emphasis in Educational Technology
by
Brandy Shelton
December 2010
Interacting with Interactive Whiteboards
In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the
MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE
In
EDUCATION
BY
Brandy Shelton
TOURO UNIVERSITY – CALIFORNIA
December 2010
Under the guidance and approval of the committee and approval by all the members, this
field project has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.
Approved:
___________________________ ___________________
Pamela A. Redmond, Ed.D. Date
__________________________ ___________________
Jim O’Connor, Ph.D, Dean Date
TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA
College of Education
Author Release
Name: Brandy Shelton
The Touro University California College of Education has permission to use my MA
thesis or field project as an example of acceptable work. This permission includes the
right to duplicate the manuscript as well as permits the document to be checked out from
the College Library or School website.
In addition, I give Dr. Pamela Redmond permission to share my handbook with others via
the Internet.
Signature: __________________________________
Date: ______________________________________
i
Abstract
Interactive technology is becoming a mainstay in many classrooms all over the
world. Although some teachers are finding it easy to make the transition into the digital
world, others are struggling to stay caught up and work the technology into their lessons
and classrooms.
Interactive whiteboards are a perfect example of a technology that has been
implemented into classrooms without teachers really understanding its capabilities, or
how to use it as anything more than a projector. If the technology is available, why not
make sure our educators are educated in ways it can be used most effectively? This
project examined interactive whiteboards in the classroom and provided strategies that
are effective at improving students’ understanding of the content.
ii
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. IV
CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................................................. 4
Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................................................... 5
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................... 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7
TPCK ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Training Teachers in Technology ..............................................................................................................10
What is an Interactive Whiteboard?..........................................................................................................14
IWBs as a Classroom Management Tool ...................................................................................................15
The Challenges of the IWB .........................................................................................................................16
The Stages of Implementing an IWB .........................................................................................................17
Stage 1: Black/ Whiteboard Substitute .....................................................................................................19
Stage 2: Apprentice User ..........................................................................................................................20
Stage 3: Initiate User ................................................................................................................................22
Stage 4: Advanced User ............................................................................................................................23
Stage 5: Synergistic User ..........................................................................................................................25
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................... 30
Background of Project Development .........................................................................................................31
What Can Be Done to Help New IWB Users Now? ..................................................................................34
Components of the Project..........................................................................................................................36
Focusing on Language Arts ........................................................................................................................36
iii
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................40
CHAPTER 4: ...................................................................................................... 42
Project Outcomes.........................................................................................................................................42
Proposed Audience, Procedures, and Implementation Timeline: ...........................................................44
Evaluation of the Project: ...........................................................................................................................45
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................46
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX: FIELD PROJECT .......................................................................... 53
Interacting With Interactive Whiteboards ................................................................................................53
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: The stages of IWB implementation as adapted from Gary Beauchamp (2004). 26
List of Figures
Figure 1: TPCK framework as noted by Mishra and Koehler (2007) .................................8
Figure 2: Adaptation of Kosiak and LeDocqu’s (2008) three-dimensional model of
TPCK…………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
Figure 3: Components of an IWB as depicted by Faith Saltan and Kursat Arslan, 2009.14
Figure 4: Evolution of Teacher Thought and Practice as described by ACOT (Apple,
Inc., 2006)………………………………………………………………………………..18
Chapter 1
New technology entered our schools at a rapid speed at the beginning of the 21st
century. It took the form of laptop computers or document cameras, and. in 2010, as the
interactive tool called the interactive whiteboard (IWB). Unfortunately, just because
these tools are in the classroom, doesn’t always mean that there is adequate training for
the teachers who are supposed to use it.
It is common for teachers who receive an IWB to attend a one-day training
session in order to learn how to turn the board off and on, orient the screen, and perform
other basic tasks. Teachers often walk away feeling that the new tool awaiting them has
more uses and functions in their classroom and curriculum than they know what to do
with. Both novice IWB users and teachers with tech experience still have many of the
same concerns and questions regarding the new support tool. What are the best strategies
for using an IWB in order to engage students? How can an IWB engage students and
deepen their understanding of the content? Are there proven strategies that will help raise
standardized test scores when a teacher uses an IWB?
Statement of the Problem
Many researchers investigated the above questions and the result and effect of
technology on the teaching and learning community as a whole. A study done by Ertmer
and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) delves into the idea that teachers of the 21st century were
still using the same tools as those who came before them. Unlike the doctors and
mechanics whose diagnostic equipment has evolved and changed with the technology
available, classroom teachers are expected to teach to higher standards with the same
2
equipment and knowledge that was available ten to twenty years ago. “It is time to shift
our mindsets away from the notion that technology provides a supplemental teaching tool
and assume, as with other professions that technology is essential to successful
performance outcomes” (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, p. 256). With this
understanding comes the fact that teachers need to be taught “how to use technology to
facilitate meaningful learning, defined as that which enables students to construct deep
and connected knowledge” (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, p. 257). Simply
understanding how to use a digital camera or presentation software is not enough.
Teachers need to learn how to use these tools to make their lessons and content more
interactive and vibrant, and how to teach students to use the same tools to express their
own understanding of the content.
Teachers have been using Shulman’s (1986, 1987) framework to conceptualize a
teacher’s knowledge for over twenty years. According to Shulman (1986), teacher
knowledge includes knowledge of the subject (content knowledge), knowledge of
teaching methods and classroom management strategies (pedagogical knowledge), and
knowledge of how to teach specific content to specific learners in specific contexts
(pedagogical content knowledge). “To use technology to facilitate student learning,
teachers need additional knowledge and skills that build on, and intersect with, those that
Shulman (1986) described” (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, p. 259). Well where
does this additional knowledge come from? Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010)
argue that teachers need to redefine their understanding of what good teaching looks like
in this new day and age, and once their definition has evolved they then “need to see
examples of what this kind of teaching looks like in practice” (p. 277). They also believe
3
that one of the best ways to support the change that teachers need to make in their
teaching is by “providing opportunities for them to witness how the change benefits their
students” (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, p. 277). Borko and Putnam (1995) also
believe that more is needed than professional development opportunities for teachers in
the area of technology when they said, “The workshops alone did not change these
teachers. It was listening to their own students solve the problems that made the greatest
difference in their instructional practices” (p.55). Teachers need professional
development to help them understand the technology and tools that they are able to work
with, and then they need the opportunities to see examples of it being used in a
classroom, or even better, in their own classroom.
The technology pieces that teachers are learning to work with come in many
packages and can support the classroom, teacher, and student learning in many different
ways, but what about IWBs specifically? Are IWBs able to really make a difference in a
students’ understanding of the content? According to research done by Swan, Schenker,
and Kratcoski (2008) the use of IWBs in a K-12 setting can positively affect standardized
test scores in both language arts and mathematics when used with strong teaching
strategies. It was how the teachers in the study used their IWBs to convey the content
that ultimately made the difference in whether or not students’ test scores fell below or
above the mean on average. Using the IWB in a way that presents information to
students similar to how a teacher might give a lecture isn’t the most effective method;
rather making the lessons and topics more student-centered and less teacher-centered is
how students become a key part of the teaching and learning process. Showing teachers
4
how to get from presentation-mode to interactive-mode is the challenge, and those strong
teaching strategies are the building blocks to unlocking the potential of the IWB.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to research the best strategies and methods for
using IWBs in a K-12 classroom. With this information the author put together a
handbook that will help teacher’s current lessons move away from being teacher-centered
to more student-centered by utilizing the interactive piece of the whiteboard to its fullest
potential.
The study used articles, journals, and observations to collect data on this quickly
growing problem within the author’s school district. Questions the author sought to
answer research were:
• How do most teachers combine their IWB knowledge with their pre-established
content knowledge?
• What problems do most teachers come across when learning how to use their
IWB?
• What ways do most teachers use their IWB once they feel comfortable with the
technology and the tool?
• What strategies can make the IWB more interactive and student-centered?
Project Objectives
The objectives for this project included the following goals. To provide guidance
and support for teachers to:
5
• combine their content knowledge and teaching pedagogy with the new technology
and opportunities offered by the IWB
• identify common methods that teachers use to teach language arts and methods to
adapt those activities to include the IWB as a transitional step towards a more
effective and engaging teaching style
• examine research-based instructional methods regarding effective conditions and
strategies that increase student achievement while teaching with the IWB
Definition of Terms
Interactive Whiteboard - An interactive whiteboard or IWB, is a large interactive
display that connects to a computer and projector. A projector projects the computer's
desktop onto the board's surface, where users control the computer using a pen, finger or
other device. The board is typically mounted to a wall or on a floor stand.
Summary
School systems must begin to educate teachers in the most productive uses of
technology in today’s classroom, otherwise all of the technology tools in the world won’t
help our students reach their greatest potential. It’s important for teachers to understand
that even though the skills and strategies that were around in the twentieth century still
work, they aren’t as effective more student-centered and interactive strategies. Research
has found that IWBs can make a positive impact on students’ understanding of content,
but it is the most effective strategies that will help teachers use the IWB to its highest
potential. The author has put together those strategies and methods to make the transition
6
for teachers who are new to IWBs easier and more efficient in the form of a handbook.
The goal of the handbook is to give teachers a reference point to improve language arts
lessons, effective strategies that increase student achievement, and the tools to make
novice IWB users more comfortable with the technology.
7
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”
8
(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 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. San Antonio, TX: AACE.
9
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 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. Las Vegas, NV: AACE.
10
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 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
11
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 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
12
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 the workshop’s time constraints, 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.
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
13
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, they could talk 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 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.
14
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).
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. Charleston, SC: AACE.
As described by the British Educational Communications and Technology
Agency (BECTA), some of the potential applications for the IWB are:
15
• 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)
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
16
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:
“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.
17
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 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
18
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.”
19
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
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
20
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 the 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
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.
21
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 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
22
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 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.
23
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
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)
24
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 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.
25
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 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.
26
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’).
27
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 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
28
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 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
29
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.
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.
30
Chapter 3
In the early 21st century new technology enters the classroom in the form of
computers, projectors, and software. Some of the technology is familiar to many
educators like PowerPoint, online computer games, or laptop computers, while others are
brand new like interactive whiteboards. When the new technology is introduced to a
teacher, many times their school district offers a one-day training or workshop that
teaches them how to use the new equipment or software, but not how to incorporate it
into their curriculum due to the short period of the workshops. Teachers need more
support when it comes to incorporating new technology and fully engaging their students
in order for the technology to be used to its greatest potential. Most teachers begin
working with technology with a strong understanding of the curriculum or content, but
are not sure how to use the technology to support their previous lessons. Other teachers
may know how to use the technology outside of the classroom, but need more support in
working it into their curriculum. TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2009) helps teachers find a
balance between pedagogy, content, and technology knowledge. The author was
motivated to develop a way to support teachers in learning how to incorporate interactive
whiteboards into their curriculum and classrooms after struggling with her own questions.
The development of a handbook is the product of her research into the best practices for
presenting material and engaging students with ready to use lessons and examples for a
specific content area.
31
Background of Project Development
In the first decade of the 21st century both tech-savvy and novice computer users
found themselves with access to more resources for themselves and their students than
they ever had before and were often unsure of how best to use it. In 2010 interactive
whiteboards (IWBs) have been installed in classrooms all over the U.S.. School districts
often send their teachers to a one-day training on how to use equipment and tools within
the programs, and although it is helpful, most teachers need more than one day of support
to master the technology. The problem many teachers face when using the technology
usually are those related to curriculum adaptation and management strategies. Questions
such as: How should a teacher start using the resources the technology has to offer in
their classroom tomorrow? How can an educator maximize the engagement levels of
their students with an IWB and does the content change the way the material should be
presented? Along with feeling unsure, many educators feel frustrated and overwhelmed
with a high-tech tool they aren’t sure how to use. For these reasons the study focused on
what other countries and school districts did to help narrow the information gap between
new IWB users and the capabilities of the technology.
One theory that reinforced the importance of balancing pedagogy, content, and
technology was TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). TPACK stands for Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge and refers to the knowledge a teacher acquires in
regards to balancing good teaching strategies in specific content areas, with supportive
technology. The two researchers at the forefront of this framework were Mishra and
Koehler who displayed their perception of TPACK as a three-way Venn diagram (see
Figure 1). TPACK proposed that the manner in which pedagogical, content, and
32
technological knowledge intertwine, stems from a teacher’s solid understanding of
teaching strategies and that of the content the teacher is working with. Technology
becomes a supportive tool that helps students master the concepts and content a teacher is
working toward. With this model, the IWB fits perfectly as a tool that supports teachers
in their ability to convey and present material in a variety of ways to their students.
When most teachers first begin working with their IWB they have a strong background
and understanding of the curriculum they are teaching, but feel that the interactive aspect
of the board would appeal to more students and engage them at a different level than a
traditional whiteboard.
After working with the IWB for a couple of months many teachers realize that
they want more out of it than a glorified projector. The goal is to see students genuinely
engaged with the material, not just enjoying seeing presentations projected on the board.
With this in mind the author was guided towards Schmidt, Harris, and Hofer (2009),
education researchers and collaborators of activity types. The activity types Schmidt, et
al. researched are activity-based and content-keyed instructional strategies that engage
students with technology. Schmidt, et al. developed different activity types for each
content area, including language arts, math, science, and social studies. In many cases
teachers find a program, website, or other type of technology they think will support
students in the classroom, and then create a lesson to go with it. The idea behind
Schmidt, et al.’s activity types was that teachers will be able to have a content-based goal
they can then look up an appropriate technology-based activity that will support it. In
this method students will be engaged using the technology that is available to them, but
the curricular goal the teacher was working toward is what led to the technology, not the
33
other way around. Schmidt, et al.’s activity types table and lists make it possible for
teachers to find websites and technology that support their already existing curricular-
based lessons and units, allowing them to really use the technology as a supportive tool
rather than something else to conquer.
So how do we get teachers comfortable with using their tech equipment and
resources that are available? The answer lies in training teachers and empowering them
with the knowledge they need to call those resources their own. Professional
development opportunities offered by school districts should be more than just one-day
trainings that introduce many new ideas, but not support for ways to incorporate it into
the existing curriculum. Hughes (2005) focused on how most professional development
days for educators fall short of what teachers need most – support in implementing new
technology and ideas. McKenzie (2001) is another believer in giving teachers more
content-based examples and more connections to the curriculum they would use with the
technology being introduced at a training day. What do teachers need in terms of
professional development support? Both Hughes and McKenzie agreed that workshops
should blend technology with the content teachers are most likely to use it with. This
gives teachers the ability to walk away from a workshop or training with something they
can use when they get back into their classroom, and the means for recreating those
resources with the content in the future. Groff and Mouza (2008) agreed with Hughes
and McKenzie’s approach to improving professional development for educators, but they
also added the experimentation and follow-up support components to the training model.
Their argument was that once teachers are trained, they should then have the opportunity
34
to experiment with their new-found knowledge or tools, and then have the option for
follow-up support on any pieces they may need to see again or in another light.
This links directly to Schmidt, et al.’s (2009) reasoning behind creating activity
types for content areas. Schmidt, et al. believed that teachers need more tools to support
their lesson planning in order to feel like they can incorporate technology into the
classroom and curriculum. Much like Hughes and McKenzie’s theories, Schmidt, et al.
believed that professional development opportunities need to offer more and support
what teachers are already doing - lesson planning. If teachers were better supported in
incorporating the new technologies into their lesson plans and curriculum, professional
development workshops would be more successful and useful to the teachers they are
meant to serve. All of these suggestions can greatly help the introduction of technology
into any classroom and improve on the current model most school districts use for
training their teachers.
What Can Be Done to Help New IWB Users Now?
The complex questions that are brought up when a new piece of technology is
introduced to a classroom can be endless, and finding a simple solution to all of them is
usually nothing short of a miracle. While trying to figure out how to incorporate an IWB
into the classroom and curriculum, it seemed helpful to the author to review other
teacher’s plans for presenting lessons or units using the IWB. With this in mind, it
seemed appropriate to create a handbook that would assist teachers who found
themselves lost in the IWB sea without a life preserver.
The process of creating the handbook was like most experiments teachers do each
year; try an idea and see what happens to engagement levels and comprehension of
35
materials. When first using the IWB in her own classroom, the author projected
information as one might do with a PowerPoint, which allowed for better visual images
and an increase in engagement compared to what she had used before. Certainly, this was
fancier than a traditional whiteboard. The author knew that the IWB could do more for
her and her students, but she wasn’t sure how. A teacher from a nearby school district
gave a short, informal presentation at the author’s school for anyone interested in seeing
how they used the IWB to teach language arts. The author gained some simple tricks and
ideas from the presentation, and also found quick ideas and references on the internet.
Various sites offered ready-to-use lessons, content-related games, and tips for making the
transition to using the IWB easier, but she still felt that the amount of information was
overwhelming. She realized the resources she was finding were great, but also difficult
to digest and organize coming from so many different content areas. The author wanted
to create activities to support her current lessons so that she was extending her original
units and curriculum, not reinventing new ones. She realized that something was needed
as a go-to for quick ideas on how to set-up a lesson that was focusing on summarizing or
main ideas and details, while incorporating the current literature and content the class was
studying. While talking with a colleague one day the author joked that it would have
been great if their first training for the IWB would have included a how-to manual,
something that could be referenced to for ideas and possible resources to look into.
That’s when she realized that wishful thinking may not have helped with her current
struggles, but may help someone else who is going through a similar experience.
36
Components of the Project
The IWB handbook was an interpretation of what would have been helpful to
have as a new IWB-user. The problems that arose in the action research phase led to the
questions, “What tools have been the most helpful? What activities help build
comprehension, but the students really enjoy doing as well? What websites and resources
are most likely to offer ideas and activities teachers can use right away? How should a
teacher use their IWB as a teacher tool, not just a projection screen?” The author knew
that the project should include more than just tips and resources that could be helpful. It
should also provide examples of lessons and ways to fold pictures, maps, sound clips, and
videos into the curriculum a teacher was already using. For example, if a teacher is
working on a unit or lesson about Dr. Seuss and his style of rhyme or storytelling, they
could build a Notebook (a program used with the SMART Board brand of IWB’s) that
includes a biography of the author, examples of his stories, matching activities using
vocabulary about poetry or characters from different stories, and anything else the teacher
would usually cover when teaching the lesson or unit. The added technology would also
allow a teacher to link certain pictures or text to websites that might have Dr. Seuss
games, and videos or sound clips of people reading Dr. Seuss’s stories, or his impact on
how children read today. The author’s goal was to help teachers learn how they could
set-up a lesson with their current curriculum, and then add new pieces that enhance their
current curriculum.
Focusing on Language Arts
Knowing that a change needed to be made in how IWB users were integrating the
new technology into their classrooms, the author first decided that a place should be
37
created for new users to access or go for more support. Her first thought was to make
this a shared driver or folder for teachers who worked in the same school district to add to
and access for ideas or examples of lessons. The author’s hope was that it would become
a space organized by subject area, grade level, and topic allowing teachers within the
district to find Power Points, Notebook lessons, videos, interactive games, and other
resources with just a few clicks. Likewise, teachers would be able to add material to the
proper content area to share with others. The theory behind the idea was that teachers
would have a place to go for lessons and examples when they first started using their
IWB, making it possible for them to start using their IWB right away. Although the
theory of the shared drive was a great idea, the researcher soon began to realize that it
would be difficult to implement such a drive within the district and compiling resources
for all grades would be a very broad and difficult project.
The idea that unfolded from the shared drive project was to create a handbook that
would be grade and content-area specific for new IWB users. A handbook seemed to be
a more reasonable and achievable project that could still be handed out to new IWB users
within the school district. The author realized that one downside of putting together a
handbook versus a shared drive was that it may not reach as many teachers and it
wouldn’t be something that could be added to by others. On the upside, creating a
handbook would allow the novice technology-user to have a tangible support tool they
could study or refer to while creating lessons or enhancing units. For teachers that aren’t
as comfortable with the new technology they have been immersed in, a handbook would
give them instructions in a non-digital format which may seem less daunting.
38
After committing to creating a handbook, it was decided to focus on a specific
content-area and grade range in order to give better examples and lesson ideas for
teachers to use. This idea allowed the handbook to follow more of Schmidt, et al.’s
(2009) activity types because the lesson could be content-based rather than generic. With
the wide range of uses in language arts the researched decided to gear the handbook
towards reading and writing comprehension so that it could be used across multiple
grades.
One concern was with regard to providing research and data that showed specific
examples of teaching strategies that increase student achievement when using an IWB.
Marzano and Haystead (2010) completed a research project on the effectiveness of IWBs,
specifically Promethean ActivClassroom, that evaluated which strategies and variables
may affect a student’s achievement levels when a teacher is using an IWB to aid
instruction. The study was done in two phases. The first phase focused on what
conditions can effect a student’s achievement levels when a teacher uses the IWB during
instruction. In the first phase Marzano and his team found that there are specific
conditions that affect students’ achievement levels when using the IWB:
• A teacher is experienced.
• A teacher has used the IWB for an extended period of time.
• A teacher uses the IWB extensively in their classroom, but no more
than 80% of the time.
• A teacher has high confidence in their ability to use the IWB
(Marzano & Haystead, 2010, p. viii).
39
The second phase of Marzano and Haystead’s (2010) evaluation focused on what
strategies teachers employ that prove effective for student achievement. The strategies
that Marzano and his team found in the second phase that aided in positive student
achievement were:
• The teacher organizes content into small, digestible bites that are
designed with the students’ background knowledge in mind (i.e., the
teacher chunks new content).
• The chunks of new content logically lead one to the other (i.e.,
understanding the first chunk helps students understand the second
chunk and so on).
• While addressing chunks, the teacher continually determines whether
the pace must be slowed or increased to maintain high engagement and
understanding (pacing).
• The teacher monitors the extent to which students understand the new
content (monitoring).
• When it is evident students do not understand portions of the content,
the teacher reviews the content with the class or re-teaches it.
• During each chunk, the teacher asks questions and addresses them in
such a way that all students have an opportunity to respond and
answers are continually examined as to their correctness and depth of
understanding (Marzano & Haystead, 2010, p. x).
According to Marzano and Haystead’s (2010) findings, specific conditions and
strategies markedly affect student achievement. These conditions and strategies can be
40
directly applied to the handbook and the various lesson plans included within. It was
decided that it would also be a helpful to include a way for teachers to evaluate their own
effectiveness in the classroom when teaching with the IWB. It was this motivation that
aided in the development of an observation form that would rate students engagement
levels and teacher effectiveness based on a visitor’s observation of a lesson that included
the IWB.
Due to the influence Schmidt, et al.’s (2009) activity types table had on the
researcher’s decision to incorporate specific activities for different content-area goals, it
seemed imperative to include a copy of the activity-type table in the handbook where
readers could use it as another resource for lesson ideas. Marzano and Haystead’s (2010)
study on the effects of IWBs and students’ engagement level also inspired the author to
include a way for IWB users to gauge their own effectiveness in the classroom. The
author decided to create and include an observation form that can be filled out by a visitor
in order for teachers to rate their own level of IWB effectiveness, and find ways to
improve upon it. Altogether, the researcher decided the handbook would include the
pedagogy behind content-specific activities for the IWB, examples of lessons for reading
comprehension, grammar, and writing, an observation form, and other suggested
resources for IWB help. This would give readers an understanding of the background
behind the IWB lesson plans, along with ways to use the IWB immediately or within
current curriculum, and suggestions on ways to improve their effectiveness.
Summary
The creation of a handbook allowed the author to put together different resources,
strategies, and lesson plans in order to better assist a new IWB user. Previous research
41
showed that in order to be successful teachers must utilize their content, pedagogical, and
technology knowledge, which is also known as TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2009).
Schmidt, et al.’s (2009) activity types aided teachers who wish to use more technology to
support their current curriculum and lessons. Her tables allowed teachers to decide their
content area before choosing a piece of technology to help engage students, rather than
first finding content that would work well with a particular piece of technology as is done
by many teachers. Marzano and Haystead (2010) provided research that shows a positive
correlation between specific conditions and strategies that support positive student
achievement when teaching with an IWB. Research showed that teacher experience with
the IWB, the amount of time spent using the IWB during class times, and teacher
confidence were all conditions that had a positive correlation with using an IWB to aid
teaching and student achievement. Marzano and his team’s research also showed that
strategies such as chunking, scaffolding, pacing, and monitoring also had a positive
correlation with using an IWB and student achievement.
By giving new IWB users a guide to what will help them engage their students
and use their IWB to its fullest potential, the author believes that new users will feel more
comfortable and confident integrating the technology into their curriculum and lessons.
The author’s decision to focus the handbook on language arts instruction will make it
more accessible to a wider range of teachers and grade levels due to the fact that language
arts instruction ranges from early elementary to high school. Empowering teachers with
information regarding technology that is accessible in turn will empower our students
engage them at new levels and opening the door to new resources and possibilities.
42
Chapter 4:
Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) have been infused into classrooms all over the
U.S.. The technology that comes with using a more engaging and interactive tool also
needs proper training and support in order for teachers to implement it correctly.
Teachers needed a way to take their traditional planning and teaching styles and update
them with the support of technological tools. Specific strategies that increase student
achievement and the effectiveness of the IWB must also be taught and supported in order
for teachers to use the technology to its fullest potential. The goal of this project was to
support novice IWB users with strategies that would increase their effectiveness while
teaching with an IWB.
Project Outcomes
The objectives for this project included the following goals. To provide guidance
and support for teachers to:
• combine their content knowledge and teaching pedagogy with the new
technology and opportunities that the IWB offers
• identify common methods that teachers use to teach language arts and how to
adapt those activities to include the IWB as a transitional step towards a more
effective and engaging teaching style
• examine research-based instructional methods regarding effective conditions
and strategies that increase student achievement while teaching with the IWB
The goal for this project was to develop a handbook that new IWB users could
refer to in order to develop a language arts lesson or unit while incorporating technology.
43
This meant helping teachers combine their content knowledge and teaching pedagogy
with the new technology that the IWB offers. All teachers have a knowledge base in
pedagogy (their theories and beliefs in what good teaching is and what strategies are most
effective) and content (the material they are teaching). As teachers plan a lesson or unit
they instinctively combine their pedagogical and content knowledge in order to develop a
successful and engaging lesson. The handbook development looked to help teachers add
another component to their knowledge base: technology in the form of the IWB. The
handbook offers suggestions and strategies that support a teacher’s current lessons and
curriculum using the IWB. Sometimes this took the form of an online game or
presentation using the SMART Board Notebook application with linked audio or video
clips. The goal was to show teachers how the SMART Board can be used to supplement
and support their current content material and lessons, not replace it.
It was important to research what methods teachers usually use to teach language
arts and what strategies were most useful when building in technology such as the IWB.
Many of the strategies teachers use were found using Schmidt, Harris, and Hofer’s (2010)
activity type tables. These tables offered a wide range of strategies in pre-reading, during
reading, post-reading, grammar, and writing that most teachers use without realizing it.
Some of these strategies were adapted for the handbook. Schmidt, et al.’s activity type
tables were included as a reference for more ideas and support. The handbook used
information and strategies from the tables and other resources to show teachers how to
use their current teaching methods and incorporate the technology of the IWB.
Teachers develop strategies and methods of teaching that increase student
understanding and engagement levels whenever possible. These strategies, such as
44
scaffolding and monitoring, are embraced by teachers and researchers alike due to their
positive results. Many of these same methods and good teaching practices can be applied
to lessons involving the IWB as well. A goal of the handbook was to present these
strategies and methods to teachers as a way to effectively incorporate their IWB into their
current lessons and curriculum. Specific strategies were included such as chunking,
scaffolding, pacing, and monitoring as methods of successful presentation and teaching
while using the IWB. These methods are not new or foreign to most teachers, which
makes them more likely to be embraced by a new tech user who can build them into their
IWB lessons.
Proposed Audience, Procedures, and Implementation Timeline:
The IWB handbook’s audience is primarily kindergarten through fifth grade
teachers, but can include middle and high school teachers as well. It was developed for
use by elementary level teachers due to the broad range of language arts skills that are
introduced and taught at those levels; however the theories of engagement and strategies
introduced can be used to work with many different grade levels.
The handbook will be introduced to colleagues and administration in order to give
the new IWB users at the target site a chance to work with the lessons and strategies
while the author’s still available for extra support if necessary. The handbook will be
copied and handed out to teachers who are receiving, or have recently received, an IWB.
It is anticipated that adjustments to the handbook will be made as it is field-tested and an
additional website with greater resources to the handbook will be constructed after
colleagues have had a chance to work with the lessons and test the engagement strategies.
It is hoped that a workshop introducing the hand book, its purpose, and the resources can
45
be offered to give new IWB users a place to begin their lesson development and the
support they may need to get incorporate the new technology into their classroom. The
goal is to make the handbook available to teachers within her school district so that
teachers have more support and students are more engaged and successful with the
implementation of IWB’s in the classroom.
Evaluation of the Project:
The goal of this project was to develop a handbook that would support teachers in
their understanding and development of technology skills regarding the IWB. The
project was an overall success in that a handbook was created that offered background
information, resources, lesson plans and ideas, and an observation form to evaluate a
teacher’s effectiveness. The activity type tables were an appropriate supplement to the
SMART Board lessons and tips due to their wide range and proven effectiveness across
grade levels. The project was challenging to develop in that it required various
references and sources in order to create the proper lesson plan and observation format.
The author felt that incorporating information regarding TPACK (Mishra & Koehler,
2009) and Marzano and Haystead’s (2010) research would be helpful for teachers to
evaluate their use and integration of IWB technology. The decision to gear the handbook
solely in the direction of language arts made it easier to focus on specific strategies and
teaching methods that work for that content area. It would have been challenging to give
enough information and breadth in the handbook if the author hadn’t focused in on one
content area. The handbook will be a nice addition to the implementation of SMART
Boards in the author’s school district; acting as a support reference tool for novice IWB
users.
46
Conclusion
Creating this master’s project was a long and often tedious task. The most
difficult part derived from the ever-changing goal that evolved with the addition of more
information and knowledge regarding the topic. The need for more support regarding the
implementation of the IWB was an obvious one for the author, but understanding what
needed to be done in order to remedy the problem faired to be more complex. Research
focused on studies that were dedicated to TPACK, teacher training and technology, and
mixing technology with current content. These studies proved to be enlightening and
motivating in the creation of the IWB handbook, giving the author a good look at what
many have found to be helpful and effective methods for IWB use. In the end it was a
mixture of these studies and findings that helped develop the handbook and the
information included in it. The outcome of the project was very close to what the author
had first envisioned in the way it helps novice IWB users find a foothold to begin their
technology knowledge base.
Suggestions for future IWB support should start at the teacher training level.
Research has shown that teachers are most likely to be successful implementing and
including new technology into their lessons when given consistent support and follow-up
training opportunities. It would be wise for school districts to plan these workshops in
conjunction with offering a handbook for immediate reference and support, rather than
one or the other. Teachers also need more opportunities to see how colleagues are using
the technology to support the curriculum and as a management tool. If teachers were
given time to observe more experienced IWB users and shown ways to incorporate their
current methods and strategies into lessons that involved the IWB, their lessons would be
47
more engaging and effective. This project stemmed from the need for more support
regarding IWB use in the classroom. A handbook will not help with all aspects of this
problem, but it is a start in the right direction. Teachers need supportive tools and
references in order to feel comfortable with the growing infusion of technology into the
classroom. Technology will forever be a mainstay in the average classroom. It’s what
the teacher does with it that makes the difference.
48
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
Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive
psychological perspective on professional development. In T.R. Guskey & M.
Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms &
practices (pp. 35-66). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuthell, J. (2004). Can technology transform teaching and learning? The impact of
interactive whiteboards. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 1133-1138. Chesapeake, VA:
AACE.
Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
49
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., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for
curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research
highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake,
VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).
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.
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.
Kosiak, J., & 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. Las Vegas, NV: AACE.
50
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. Las Vegas, NV: AACE.
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. Charleston, SC:
AACE.
Marzano, R. J., & Haystead, M. (2009). Final report on the evaluation of the Promethean
technology. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory.
McKenzie, J. (2001, January). Head of the class. Retrieved July, 2010, from
http://www.electronic-school.com database.
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. San Antonio, TX: AACE.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK
framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning and
Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.
51
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. Charleston, SC: AACE.
Schmidt, D., Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009, February). K-6 literacy learning activity
types. Retrieved from College of William and Mary, School of Education,
Learning Activity Types Wiki: http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/K-
6LiteracyLearningATs-Feb09.pdf
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 (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
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, 3290-3297. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
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
52
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.
53
Appendix: Field Project
Interacting With Interactive Whiteboards