Transcript Thinking With Data

Effects of Interactive Whiteboards
on Student Achievement
Karen Swan, University of Illinois Springfield
Mark van ‘t Hooft, Jason Schenker & Annette Kratcoski
Kent State University
Interactive whiteboards allow . . .
• presentation
• interaction
• writing/highlighting
• recording
. . . hence emphasize active engagement
(Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999)
Research has found that the use of
interactive whiteboards:
• is liked by teachers & students
(Beeland, 2002;
Hall & Higgins, 2005; Kennewell & Morgan, 2003; Smith,
Higgins, Wall & Miller, 2005)
• leads to greater student motivation &
engagement (Beeland, 2002; Miller, Glover & Averis,
2004, 2005; LeDuff, 2004; Painter, Whiting & Wolters,
2005; Smith, Hardman & Higgins, 2006)
• shifts instruction from presentation to
interaction (Cuthell, 2005; Painter, Whiting &
Wolters, 2005)
• shifts focus away from teachers & onto
content (Miller, Glover & Averis, 2003, 2004)
• enhances student achievement (Zittle, 2004;
Dhindsa & Emran, 2006)
Research Questions:
• Do students whose teachers use interactive
whiteboards to assist in math or
reading/language arts instruction perform
better academically than those who do not?
• Among classes where interactive whiteboards
are used, are there differences in usage
between classes whose average test scores are
above grade level means and those whose
students are at or below the mean?
Subjects & Setting:
• all students in grades 3-8 in a small city
school district in northern Ohio (n=3,192)
• 1/3 minority (21% African-American)
• 8% below poverty line
• district on Academic Watch
• 11 elementary schools, 3 junior high schools,
1 alternative school
Subjects & Setting:
• study compared performance of students
whose teachers used whiteboards (n=142)
with students whose teachers didn’t use
them
• overall, teachers who had whiteboards used
them frequently – 3 times /week or more
• whiteboards were used more frequently in
the elementary grades for content area
teaching and learning than in junior high
• but used consistently across grade levels for
classroom management
Data Sources & Analysis:
• 2007 Ohio Achievement Test (OAT) scores in
reading & mathematics for all students in
grades 3-8
• compared between classes using
whiteboards & those not using them via
ANOVA
• also by teachers, schools & grade levels &
demographics
Data Sources & Analysis:
• self-report data on use of whiteboards collected
through online survey, every week for 10 weeks
in spring of 2007
• quantitative data on frequency of use for
mathematics, reading, &/or classroom
management, averaged across reporting period
• qualitative data on effective or interesting uses
made of whiteboards during the week,
categorized thematically
• compared descriptively between teachers
whose students scored above the overall
mean on OATs (13 reading, 11 math, 6 both /
142) & those whose students score at or
below the mean
Findings
Reading/Language Arts Achievement:
*
overall means:
no whiteboard = 415.55
n = 1466
*
*
whiteboard = 416.95
n = 1686
Mathematics Achievement:
*
*
*overall means:
no whiteboard = 414.63
n = 1379
whiteboard = 415.81
n = 1813
Comparisons of High Performing to Average
& Below Average Performing Classes:
Frequency of Whiteboard Use
Frequencies
Weekly Smartboard Use for Reading & Mathematics
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
> avg reading
n=19
> avg math
<= avg reading
n=16
Classes
n=17
<= avg math
n=14
Whiteboard Use in Mathematics
functions:
• simple display
• interactive charts, graphs, manipulatives
• Internet information & activities
purposes:
•
•
•
•
•
motivation
present content
OAT prep / drill & practice
games
assessment
Comparisons of High Performing to Average &
Below Average Performing Classes:
visualization vs. motivation
“Students worked with
pattern blocks on the
board to build fractions
using different values.”
“I used it to teach solving
and graphing an
inequality on a coordinate
graph.”
“The SmartBoard serves
as an incredible incentive
for positive behavior. My
students are well aware
that coming to the
SmartBoard is a privilege
and only students who are
quiet and follow
instructions are allowed to
engage in this activity.”
Comparisons of High Performing to Average &
Below Average Performing Classes:
student-centered vs. teacher-centered
“This type of medium
holds interest more than
any other I've used in 28
years of teaching.
Children take to it so
quickly and come up with
so many ideas and
alternatives in lessons that
I have prepared that we
change on the spot.”
“We are in the fractions
unit. I designed a Power
Point presentation called
‘Fraction Action’ to
encourage students to get
more excited about
fractions.”
“I used the ruler to
demonstrate how to line
up for measuring and
explained l/2 inch.”
Whiteboard Use in Reading/Language Arts
functions:
•
•
•
•
simple display
graphic organizers
Internet information & activities
video conferencing
purposes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
motivation
present content
OAT prep
games
student presentations
Support special needs students
Comparisons of High Performing to Average &
Below Average Performing Classes:
student-centered vs. teacher-centered
“Students gave
PowerPoint presentations
they created for a book
share, using Inspiration
webs and propaganda
techniques to persuade
others to read the books.”
“I used it to practice
singular and plural
possessives. I wrote
sentences and children put
apostrophe where it
belonged. I could move
the apostrophe from
before the ’s’ and after the
‘s’ to demo the difference.”
Comparisons of High Performing to Average &
Below Average Performing Classes:
visualization vs. presentation
“During the week we
correct grammar
sentences, we rearrange
words too as part of peer
editing; we take notes,
watch movies, share
student PowerPoints and
graphic organizers.”
“Timer to keep students on
track; daily list of what
will be covered in class;
sharing vocabulary words
on the board.”
We complete workbook
pages at the SmartBoard
rather than individually at
seats.”
Conclusions:
• Interactive whiteboards have the
potential to enhance student
performance in mathematics and
reading/language arts …
• . . . especially when such uses are
student-centered and take full
advantage of their unique
capabilities, such as support for
interactivity and visualization.
• Further investigation of their use is
clearly indicated.
www.rcet.org
[email protected]