stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/...evaluation_of_activboard_use_in_the_cla… · web viewcalhoun...

Evaluation of ActivBoard Use in the Classroom

Betty Teresa Ray

University of West Georgia

MEDT8480

Executive Summary

Background Information

Calhoun Elementary School (CES) is located in Calhoun, Georgia, and is comprised of 777 students, of which there are 34% Hispanic or Latino, 8% African American, 1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 55% White. The school system purchased ActivBoards for every classroom several years ago. The expectation was that the boards would allow the teachers to become more efficient in teaching, and cause the students to become more engaged with the lesson as they interact with the board.

Evaluation Purpose

The client for this evaluation (the elementary principal) is interested in whether the boards are being used effectively by teachers and interactively by students. The present evaluation seeks to find out if the classroom learning environment includes frequent use of the board by teachers and students. Also, the client would like know if teachers need any professional development or other assistance to improve ActivBoard skills.

Evaluation Questions

The client supplied the evaluator with questions he wanted answered:

How much of the time are teachers using the ActivBoard?

How often are students interacting with lessons on the ActivBoards?

Do teachers need professional development to use the ActivBoard effectively?

Are teachers using this technology efficiently, or are there obstacles to overcome?

Methods/Data Collection Plan

Eighteen teachers were observed as they were teaching to determine how and how much they use the ActivBoards. Twenty-two teachers answered a questionnaire with questions about their uses of the boards, how much time they spend using the board each day, what their opinions are about technical and administrative support when using the board, what their needs are, and their grade levels and subject matter taught. These answers were collected along with the observation results and were then charted and analyzed.

Key Findings

Fifth grade teachers use the ActivBoards more than 3rd grade teachers, who use it more than 4th grade teachers. Math, science, and social studies teachers use the boards more than reading/ELA teachers. Finally, the boards were observed to be predominantly teacher centered, while the teachers thought the time was evenly split between the students and teachers. The teachers reported a number of hindrances, including lack of time, lack of technical resources, technical difficulties, and limited flexibility or user friendliness.

Recommendations

More hardware is needed to support whole-class interactivity with the ActivBoard. Presently only one student or the teacher can interact with it at a time. Assistance is needed to reduce the number of hardware glitches such as blown or dim lamps, slow internet access etc. More professional development is needed to help teachers use the boards to save time through improved pedagogy. This professional development may consist of outside sources such as experts coming into the school to teach new methods on using the ActivBoard, or it could be teachers brainstorming together to share what works.

In retrospect, the 25 minute observation sessions might have been too short to present a complete picture of ActivBoard use in the classroom. Longer sessions lasting from several hours to all day could present a fuller picture. The questionnaire could be adapted to ask for ideas about teacher and student successes when using the ActivBoard.

Conclusions

At present, the teachers are using the ActivBoards as replacements for flipcharts, videos, and dry-erase boards. There is very little student interactivity with the boards. The usage of the ActivBoards was uneven between grades. Teachers seem think that ActivBoards take up time rather than save time because of the need to develop lesson plans that use the ActivBoard, and the hindrances that occur when they do use it.

ActivBoard Use in the Classroom

Calhoun, Georgia, is the county seat of Gordon County and is located one hour north of Atlanta and 45 minutes south of Chattanooga. It has a population of 14,470. Calhoun Elementary School (CES) is comprised of 777 students, of which 34% are Hispanic or Latino, 8% are African American, 1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 55% are white. The school attempts to implement materials that enhance the educational process for teachers and students.

ActivBoards are large interactive whiteboards (IWB) that are attached to a desktop computer. This enables the instructor to share digital flipcharts, PowerPoints, videos and other digital materials with students. Students can electronically interact with the Activboard using personal computers, Activotes, or pens. Before ActivBoards, the only presentation technologies available in the classrooms were overhead projectors and dry-erase boards. There were a few computers in the classrooms, but only small groups of students could use them at any time. A very small number of ActivBoards were first introduced to our school in 2005 and teachers had to share them. Quashie (2009) stated that the common perceptions of ActivBoards in the educational community are that they will improve student interactivity and motivation, will support learning in mathematics, and will aid in classroom management. CES teachers shared these hopes as they gathered around and showed great interest in the technology that could perform so many different functions. Three years ago, with the excitement and interest in the ActivBoards, the administration decided to purchase boards for every classroom in an attempt to provide quality education for its students. CES used funds provided by Title 1, the PTSLO (Parent Teacher Student Learning Organization), individual contributions, and Fall Festival proceeds to purchase these ActivBoards.

With the arrival of ActivBoards came expectations from the administration that teachers would use the new technology to create interactive lessons that would engage students and thereby enable students to become more successful. The administration hoped to make the instructional preparation for teachers easier and more effective by being able to present digital-based teaching material with the entire class at one time. Also, teachers would be able to share digital-content material with other teachers through the software and features of the ActivBoard. Flipcharts that were made using it could be shared with all teachers to make lesson planning and teaching more productive. The risk of the purchase was that teachers would not use the ActivBoards effectively or perhaps use them very little, so there would be little or no return on the investments. Classes were provided initially to help teachers get started with using the features of the boards. The concern about the purchase and use of IWBs has been studied by others. Somyurek, Atasoy, and Ozdemir (2009) discussed IWB trends in Turkish primary and secondary schools. These schools were already incorporating computers, projectors, printers, and other technological equipment. Internet access was also available in the classrooms. The purchase of IWBs was a continuation of that trend to incorporate technology into the classroom. The focus of their evaluation was directed toward hindrances that inhibited teachers from successfully using the boards. Some of the hindrances found were the lack of adequate educational software, insufficient training, lack of technology support and maintenance, and lack of planning for technology use in the classroom. Winzenried, Dalgarno, and Tinkler (2010) discussed the learning benefits of the IWB. The authors believe that IWBs can be initially incorporated into the classrooms without a major shift in pedagogy, and as time goes on, improvements in pedagogy can be incorporated incrementally. They also stated that although the teachers are initially the main users of the IWBs, over time students increasingly use them to become more active participants in learning. Also, over time lessons become less scripted and more exploratory. Freire, Linhalis, Bianchini, Fortes, and Pimental (2010) stated that as teachers, students, and others gain experience with IWBs, students, teachers, and other they will collaborate to create content. A case study conducted by Harlow, Cowie, and Heazlewood (2010) discovered that the teachers’ orchestration of the learning environment and incorporation of the IWB in elementary schools were key factors in an improvement of student creativity in learning. Murcia and Sheffield (2010) researched the effectiveness of the IWB pedagogy on student talk in science in elementary schools and found that “interactive whiteboard technology is only as effective as the pedagogy that surrounds it” (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010, p. 17).

Purpose

The client wanted an evaluation to be conducted on the use of the ActivBoards at CES. Through observations and questionnaires, the client would then know if the purchase of the ActivBoards had increased student involvement in the learning process. The questions the client wanted to be answered through this evaluation included questions concerning the amount of usage of the boards by teachers, and whether they were using them effectively. Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, and Swan (2010) reported research they had conducted about the use of IWB use in a primary school and what current practices were in the classroom. Their study suggested that IWBs had potential for increasing student interactivity by motivating and involving students in the learning process. In the same way, the client at CES wanted to know if the students are engaged in the learning process as a result of the ActivBoard purchases. Murcia and Sheffield (2010) stated that the IWB technology by itself is not effective unless the classroom environment and teacher practices incorporate its possibilities. Bennett and Lockyer (2008) found that as students used IWBs, they gained skills in researching information on the internet when using computer hardware, and teachers had a reduction in preparation time by creating lessons which they could use initially and later improve. Winzenried, Dalgarno, and Tinkler (2010) suggested that whiteboards could be incorporated on a basic level without a drastic change in teacher pedagogy, and that shifts in pedagogy can take place over time to enhance the use of the IWBs. This present evaluation is both formative and summative as it seeks to find whether similar benefits are being obtained through the use of ActivBoards at CES.

Evaluation Questions

Questions were answered as to the frequency, pedagogy, and interactivity of the boards. Specific questions were:


How often are students interacting with lessons as a result of the ActivBoards?

Do teachers need professional development to use the ActiveBoard effectively?

Are teachers using this technology efficiently?

To answer the client’s questions, the evaluator used announced and unannounced observations in the classroom, and gave teachers questionnaires to provide responses on their use of the ActivBoard.

Data Collection Plan/MethodsParticipantsParticipants in the evaluation were teachers from the 3rd through 5th grades and the students in their classes. There were 18 teachers from CES that were observed, of which six were in 3rd grade, six in 4th grade, and six in 5th grade. They were observed to assess how the boards were being used. These observations provided the client with information that could be used to create programs for professional development to improve ActivBoard use. Questionnaires were then given to all teachers at CES to inform the evaluator about the uses and perceptions that teachers had concerning the use of the ActviBoards. Twenty-two teachers responded to the questionnaire. There were six 3rd grade teachers, seven 4th grade teachers, and nine 5th grade teachers. Of the 3rd grade teachers, three were Reading/ELA teachers, and three were Math/Science/Social Studies teachers. Of the 4th grade teachers, three were Reading/ELA, three were Math/Science/Social Studies, and one was self-contained. In the 5th grade, four were Reading/ELA, and five were Math/Science/Social Studies. In the 3rd grade, two of the teachers had 0-5 years of teaching experience and two had 6-10 years, one had 11-15 years, and one had more than 20 years of experience. In the 4th grade, one teacher had 0-5 years of teaching experience, three had 6-10 years, two had 16-20 years, and one had more than 20 years experience. In the 5th grade, four teachers had 0-5 years of experience, one had 6-10 years, one had 11-15 years, one had 16-20 years, and two had more than 20 years experience.Design and ProceduresThe evaluation plan consisted of announced and unannounced observations of teachers in their classrooms, and a questionnaire for all teachers.

Observations

Observations were conducted over a two-week period. Although actual class times range from 50 to 100 minutes, only 25 minute observations were conducted during instructional time in the classrooms. No teacher or student being observed knew that the evaluator was looking for the use of the ActivBoard. Since our school requires teachers to observe each other throughout the year using a standardized checklist, the ActivBoard observations were incorporated within the standard peer review observations to mask the intention to focus on ActivBoard use. Therefore, the observed teachers had no incentive to use the ActivBoard differently than if they were not being observed. This was done to make the evaluation as unbiased as possible. There were nine unannounced and nine announced observations.

During the observations, the evaluator sat quietly and watched the teachers and students in the classroom to determine the quality and quantity of the use of the ActivBoard. Notes were taken on student engagement and motivation. The subjects being taught and the pedagogy being used were documented during the visit. By conducting the observations, the evaluator saw the teachers in the actual teaching environment, whereas the questionnaire was answered by the teachers in their spare time, giving them the opportunity to think through their responses. The evaluator considered grade level, subject, and years of experience when analyzing data. The observation checklist (Appendix A) included:

Type of Observation (announced and unannounced)

ActivBoard is being used and not used

Whether the teacher or student is interacting with ActivBoard

Method of use (document or forms, video, flip chart/PowerPoint, website, writing)

Note section for details of observation

Results were compiled into tables and analyzed for patterns and gaps that would provide insight into ActivBoard use.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was created on GoogleDocs and linked to an email for all 33 homeroom teachers (excluding myself) at CES. Twenty-two teachers responded. The teachers’ answers to questions were analyzed to determine if teachers at CES use the ActivBoard to facilitate teaching and to encourage engagement, motivation, and learning among the students. The evaluator determined the average of responses for the questions provided. In the analysis, the evaluator determined how the teachers use the ActivBoard and how much time they use the board. Also, the analysis provided information about any hindrances teachers may have that inhibit the appropriate use of ActivBoards. The evaluator analyzed the information, which included grade level and subjects taught, as well as years of teaching experience. From this information, conclusions were drawn as to teachers’ needs for more professional development or for more digital-based materials in particular subject matters. Questions on the questionnaire (Appendix B) were:

How much time do you use the ActivBoard as part of your instruction each day?

How is your ActivBoard predominantly used?

Is ActivBoard usage more teacher-centered or student-centered (“Who is holding the pen?”)

How confident are you in using your ActivBoard? (5 being highest)

Professional development needed to improve skills:

Do you feel that there is appropriate support from administrators in using the ActivBoard? (5 being highest)

In your opinion, what are the main limitations of using the ActivBoard?

What would enable you to use the ActivBoard in your classroom more effectively?

What grade do you teach?

What subjects do you teach?

How many years of teaching experience do you have?

Summary of Findings


The observation results do not help to answer the question, but the teacher questionnaire in Appendix B revealed that across all classes 45% of the teachers use the ActivBoard less than 60 minutes each day. The same percentage of teachers use it more than 90 minutes each day. The rest of the teachers use it 60-90 minutes each day. In terms of grade levels, 50% of 3rd grade teachers use it more than 90 minutes each day, but a third of the 3rd grade teachers use it less than 30 minutes each day. In the 4th grade, 57% of the teachers use it 30-60 minutes each day, and 14% use it 0-30, 30-60, and more than 90 minutes each day. In the 5th grade, 67% of the teachers use it more than 90 minutes each day, 22% use it 30-60 minutes each day, and 11% use it 60-90 minutes each day. When looking at the breakdown of usage by subjects taught, 8 of 11 math, science, and social studies teachers use the boards more than 90 minutes each day. On the other hand, 6 of 11 of the reading/ELA teachers used it less than 60 minutes each day. In terms of teaching experience, 59% of the teachers had less than 10 years of experience, and 32% had 16 or more years of experience.

How often are students interacting with lessons as a result of the ActivBoards?

Both the observations and teacher questionnaire help to answer the question of interaction with the lesson. Quashie (2009) discussed the use of observations in schools to evaluate the use of the IWB in the classrooms and to determine to what extent the students were interacting with the board. She found that while the IWB can be used without the student interacting with it, in reality students learn best when they interact with the lessons, with or without whiteboards. Mechling, Gast, and Thompson (2008) stated that similar results can be obtained by other methods such as flashcards, but the whiteboard is a more efficient means of increasing the amount of what a student learns in a given amount of time. Using this idea, one of the goals of the observations for the present evaluation was to determine how much student interaction there is with the ActivBoard at CES. That is, whether it being used in a student-centered way (student holding the pen) or is it teacher centered (teacher holding the pen). Results of the observations shown in Appendix C, that out of six 3rd grade classes, one was student-centered, one was teacher centered, and four did not use the board. Out of six 4th grade classes, there were none with student-centered interactions, five with teacher-centered interactions, while one classroom did not use the ActivBoard. In the 5th grade two of six classes were student centered, three were teacher centered, and one did not use the ActivBoard.

On the questionnaires, 83% of 3rd grade teachers reported they were 50% student centered. Fourth grade teachers reported they were 71% primarily student centered. Seventy percent of 5th grade teachers reported they were 50% student centered.

Do teachers need more professional development to use the ActivBoard effectively?

Observations do not reveal an answer for the question. Teacher questionnaires in Appendix E reveal that teachers do not feel their use of the ActivBoard is limited due to the lack of training, but 9 of 22 teachers do believe more training would enable them to use it more effectively. Somyurek et al. (2009) discussed findings of a study of the IWB and found that it was underutilized because of a lack of technical knowledge, the lack of a methodology that integrates the board’s advanced features into the lesson plan, and a lack of a school-wide plan for large scale improvements. Lewin, Scrimshaw, Somekh, and Haldane (2009) suggested that from the point of time of the introduction of the IWB, the expertise on how to use the board shifts from the manufacturer (providing technical know-how) to outside experts (supplied by the school system or the state), then to the teachers who are communicating with each other about which pedagogical method works or does not work when using the whiteboard.

Are teachers using the ActivBoard effectively?

Slay, Dieborger, and Hodgkinson-Williams (2008) reported that other studies have found that teachers report that IWBs have made them more efficient because they are able to access many resources in a short period of time and handle multiple tasks in one lesson. Bennett and Lockyer (2008) reported in a study that teachers were enthusiastic about how whiteboards allowed them to save time by enabling them to reuse materials instead of spending time photocopying materials, and writing or erasing information on a dry-erase board. CES teachers, on the other hand, reported in the questionnaires that they experienced limitations when using the ActivBoard. These are reported in the questionnaire summary table in Appendix B. These limitations include the following:

Lack of time to learn how to use the ActivBoard (to explore features, to integrate lesson plans, to develop skills)

Hardware issues (lack of technology support, slow-acting software, poor visability, dim or burned-out lamps)

Internet issues (losing access)

Limited flexibility/user friendliness

Lack of hardware resources (ActiVotes, pens, and personal computers) to provide student access

In terms of how the teachers are using the ActivBoards, teacher questionnaires in Appendix D show that 54% of teachers report the usage of the ActivBoard as flipcharts or PowerPoints, another 14% for showing videos, and 23% as a substitute for a dry-erase board. Twenty-three percent of the teachers use the board for interactive websites.

Recommendations and Conclusion Expensive technology purchases do not ensure that teachers will use the equipment or use it effectively without proper instruction included in professional development. As the administration of CES in Calhoun, Georgia, focused on improving education at their school, they purchased ActivBoards for each classroom with the idea that teachers would use the equipment appropriately and improve lessons by creating lessons that promoted student engagement and success.

Observations were conducted for short amounts of time, but a better picture of ActivBoard use would require longer than 25 minute sessions. The evaluator recommends several hours per observation so that at least two subjects would be taught during the time. Observing for a full day would allow a more thorough assessment as teachers teach multiple subjects or multiple classes.

The questionnaire sent to teachers was created with questions about hindrances that limit the use of ActivBoards, but the evaluator suggests that a questionnaire be used to ask for ideas about teacher and student successes when using the ActivBoard.

Some general conclusions can be drawn from the data:

Teachers estimated their usage at a higher level than was observed.

ActivBoard usage was uneven between grades. It was used more by 5th grade teachers than 3rd grade teachers who used it more than 4th grade teachers.

Student interaction with the ActivBoard appears to be low based on the observations (Appendix C). Lopez (2009) argued that interactivity is necessary to foster student motivation to learn by making lessons more enjoyable and interesting in a group setting.

ActivBoards are being used as high-tech replacements for low-tech aids such as flipcharts, videos, and dry-erase boards. Lewin et al. (2009) found in their study that initially whiteboards were used to reproduce existing practices rather than developing new practices that used the advanced features of the boards to support students’ involvement with the lesson.

More hardware such as ActiVotes and personal computers are needed to support whole-class interactivity with the ActivBoard.

Assistance is needed to reduce the number hardware glitches such as blown or dim lamps, slow internet access etc. Kershner, Mercer, Warwick, and Staarman (2010) reported in their study that when technical difficulties became issues, students’ collaboration in learning was quickly abandoned.

More professional development is needed to help teachers use ActivBoards to save time through improved pedagogy rather than taking more time to find resources and create lessons. This does not have to be outside expert help. Winzenried et al. (2010) made a recommendation that peer discussions or brainstorming by groups of teachers on how to use the ActivBoard to improve learning through classroom engagement is more valuable than formal outside expertise.

The conclusions of the evaluation will be presented to the client and there will be discussion about procedures and outcomes. The information supplied by the evaluation will be used for professional development and technology support as needed by the teachers at CES.

References

Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards

into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology,

33(4), 289-300.

Davis, N. E., & Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Preparing teachers for the schools that technology built: Evaluation of a program to train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 399-407.

Freire, A. P., Linhalis, F., Bianchini, S. L., Fortes, R., Pimental, M. (2010). Revealing the whiteboard to blind students: An inclusive approach to provide mediation in synchronous e-learning activities. Computers & Education, 54, 866-867.

Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010). Keeping in touch with learning: The use of an interactive whiteboard in the junior school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 237-243.

Kaufman, R., Guerra, I., & Platt, W.A. (2006). Practical evaluation for educators. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5, 359-383.

Lewin, C., Scrimshaw, P., Somekh, B., & Hadane, M. (2009). The impact of formal and informal professional development opportunities on primary teachers’ adoption of interactive whiteboards. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 18(2), 173-185.

Lopez, O. (2009). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Technology 54, 901-915.

Mechling, L., Gast, D., & Thompson, K. (2008). Comparison of the effects of smart board technology and flash card instruction on sight word recognition and observational learning. Journal of Special Education Technology 23(1), 34-46.

Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 417-431.

Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510.

Quashie, V. (2009). How interactive is the interactive whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 214, 33-38.

Slay, H., Sieborger, I., Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real

or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education 51, 1321-1341.

Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B, & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smarter? Computers & Education, 53, 368-374.

Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional

technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 26(4), 534.

Appendix A

Checklist for Classroom Observations

Date______________________GradeLevel____________Subject_________________

--------------------------------Type of Observation---------------------------------

______Unplanned Observation

______Planned Observation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_____ActivBoard is being used during the observation.

_____ActivBoard is not being used during the observation.

---------------------------------- ActivBoard Use-------------------------------------

_____Teacher is interacting with the ActivBoard

_____Students are interacting with the ActivBoard

-------------------------------------Methods-------------------------------------------

_____ Document or Forms

_____Video

_____Flip Chart/PowerPoint

_____Website

_____Writing

---------------------------------------Notes--------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B

Appendix B

(Continued)

Appendix B

(Continued)

Appendix C

Observation Data Table

Teacher

Subject

Unannounced Observation

Announced Observation

ActivBoard

Use

Student/

Centered

Teacher/

Centered

Document/

Forms

Video

FlipChart/

PPt

Website/ StudyIsland

Writing

3A

Reading

X

No

N/A

N/A

3B

Reading

X

No

N/A

N/A

3C

Math

X

Yes

X

X

4A

Reading

X

Yes

X

X

4B

Social Studies

X

Yes

X

X

4C

Reading

X

Yes

X

X

5A

Science

X

Yes

X

X

5B

Science

X

No

N/A

N/A

X

5C

Science

X

Yes

X

3D

Reading

X

No

N/A

N/A

3E

Social Studies

X

Yes

X

X

3F

Math

X

No

N/A

N/A

4D

Reading

X

Yes

X

X

4E

Writing

X

Yes

X

X

4F

Social Studies

X

No

N/A

N/A

5D

Language Arts

X

Yes

X

X

5E

Language Arts

X

Yes

X

X

5F

Language Arts

X

Yes

X

X

Running head: ACTIVBOARD USE IN THE CLASSROOM

Appendix D

Questionnaire Data Table

Categories

Choices

3rd

Reading/ ELA

Math/ Science/ Social Studies

Self-Contained

SubTotal #

Subtotal %

Time

0-30 minutes

1

1

2

33.3%

30-60 minutes

1

1

16.7%

60-90 minutes

0

0.0%

90 minutes

1

2

3

50.0%

How is the ActivBoard used?

Writing

1

1

16.7%

Flipcharts/PowerPoints

2

2

33.3%

Interactive Websites

1

1

16.7%

Showing Videos

2

2

33.3%

Other

0

0.0%

Is ActivBoard used more by the teacher or the student?

Primarily teacher-centered

0.0%

Primarily student-centered

1

1

16.7%

About half and half

3

2

5

83.3%

How confident are you in using your ActivBoard?

1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum)

3.33

3.33

3.3

I would like professional development to improve skills in:

Finding, using interactive web resources

1

1

16.7%

Basic ActivBoard usage

1

1

16.7%

Creating and using flipcharts

3

1

4

66.7%

Using ActiVotes

1

1

16.7%

I do not think that I need professional development for using the ActivBoard

0

0.0%

Other

0.0%

Is there appropriate support from administrators?


4

4

3.8

Is there prompt and adequate assistance available when experiencing difficulties using the ActivBoard?


3.0

2.7

2.8

Grade Level Taught

3rd

How many years of teaching experience?

0-5 years

1

1

2

33.3%

6-10 years

2

2

33.3%

11-15 years

1

1

16.7%

16-20 years

0

0.0%

more than 20 years

1

1

16.7%

Appendix D

(Continued)


Categories

Choices

4th

Reading/ ELA


Self-Contained

SubTotal #

Subtotal %

Time

0-30 minutes

1

1

14.3%

30-60 minutes

2

1

1

4

57.1%

60-90 minutes

1

1

14.3%

90 minutes

1

1

14.3%


Writing

1

1

14.3%


3

1

1

5

71.4%


1

1

14.3%

Showing Videos

0

0.0%

Other

0

0.0%



1

1

14.3%


2

2

1

5

71.4%

About half and half

1

1

14.3%

How confident are you in using your ActivBoard


3.66

4.66

4

4.1



2

1

3

42.9%


1

1

14.3%


2

1

3

42.9%

Using ActiVotes

1

1

2

28.6%


0

0.0%

Other

0.0%



4.66

4.66

4

4.6



3.0

3.7

5.0

3.6

Grade Level Taught

4th


0-5 years

1

1

14.3%

6-10 years

2

1

3

42.9%

11-15 years

0

0.0%

16-20 years

1

1

2

28.6%

more than 20 years

1

1

14.3%

Appendix D

(continued)


Categories

Choices

5th

Reading/ ELA


Self-Contained

SubTotal #

Subtotal %

Time

0-30 minutes

0

0.0%

30-60 minutes

2

2

22.2%

60-90 minutes

1

1

11.1%

90 minutes

1

5

6

66.7%


Writing

3

3

33.3%


2

3

5

55.6%


1

2

3

33.3%

Showing Videos

1

1

11.1%

Other

1

1

11.1%



1

1

11.1%


1

1

11.1%

About half and half

4

3

7

77.8%



4.5

3.6

4



1

1

11.1%


0

0.0%


1

1

2

22.2%

Using ActiVotes

1

1

2

22.2%

I do not think that I need professional development for using the Actiboard

2

2

22.2%

Other

0

0.0%



4.5

5

4.3



3.3

3.3

2.9

Grade Level Taught

5th


0-5 years

2

2

4

44.4%

6-10 years

1

1

11.1%

11-15 years

1

1

11.1%

16-20 years

1

1

11.1%

more than 20 years

2

2

22.2%

Appendix D

(concluded)


Categories

Choices

3rd-5th

Subject Matter

Total #

Total %

Reading/ELA


Self-Contained

Time

0-30 minutes

3

13.6%

1

2

0

30-60 minutes

7

31.8%

5

1

1

60-90 minutes

2

9.1%

2

0

0

90 minutes

10

45.5%

2

8

0


Writing

5

22.7%

0

5

0


12

54.5%

7

4

1


5

22.7%

2

3

0

Showing Videos

3

13.6%

1

2

0

Other

1

4.5%

1

0

0



2

9.1%

1

1

0


7

31.8%

3

3

1

About half and half

13

59.1%

7

6

0



3.9

3.5

3.5

4



5

22.7%

3

2

0


2

9.1%

1

1

0


9

40.9%

6

3

0

Using ActiVotes

5

22.7%

2

3

0


2

9.1%

0

2

0

Other

0

0.0%



4.3

4.2

4.3

4



3.5

3.1

2.9

5.0

Grade Level Taught

3rd -5th


0-5 years

7

31.8%

3

4

0

6-10 years

6

27.3%

3

3

0

11-15 years

2

9.1%

1

1

0

16-20 years

3

13.6%

0

2

1

more than 20 years

4

18.2%

4

0

0

Appendix E

stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/...evaluation_of_activboard_use_in_the_cla… · web viewcalhoun...

Documents