Interactive Whiteboard Use and Student Achievement Jason Vallimont EDPS667 Dr. Starko April 2012 Interactive Whiteboard Use and Student Achievement

Research Question Question: Does the use of a SMART board (SB), rather that traditional teaching methods, increase student achievement? Hypothesis: SB use will lead to higher achievement scores on the geologic processes common assessment. Research methods include: Review of Research Common Assessment data

Review of Research In order to prepare myself for my research it was important to familiarize myself with current research. In my research I examine three peer reviewed studies on student achievement and motivation using Interactive Whiteboards (IWB). Along with two other studies from the Marzano Research Institute

Review 1 In an experimental study by Lopez (2010), data is taken from 3rd and 5th grades in math and reading comparing English speaking students with ELL students. The results strongly indicate that interactive whiteboard (IWB) use shows data that closes achievement gap between ELL students and English speaking students. As a result IWB use increased student achievement.

Review 2 Summary: In this experimental study Tirotta and Torff (2010) examine upper elementary students and achievement and motivation with the use of an IWB. The results state that students in the treatment group (group with IWB use) reported higher levels of motivation than the control group (group without IWB use). It also stated that teachers that supported the use of IWB (said it was useful tool) had students with higher motivation levels.

Review 3 In a case study by Slay, Sieborger, and Hodgkinson-Williams (2008) the research investigates the benefits and drawbacks of IWB technology. The results indicate that up to date technology is a motivational factor for learners (Slay, Sieborger, and Hodgkinson-Williams 2008) . Teachers and learners were positively disposed toward what they termed the “Big Screen” (Slay, Sieborger, and Hodgkinson-Williams 2008)

More Background Information The greatest benefits were to student motivation and participation (Kenndy-Mazon 2012) Only one fourth of teachers in this study were more effective without the IWB, so 75% were more effective (Kenndy-Mazon 2012) Teachers were more effective when using multiple media, such as text, pictures, and graphics in delivering the information (Kenndy-Mazon 2012)

More Background Information In another Marzano study, using voting devices such as SMART clickers, were associated with a 26 percentile point gain in student achievement (Marzano 2009) A second feature is the use of graphics and other visuals to represent information. These include downloaded pictures and video clips from the Internet, sites such as Google Earth, and graphs and charts. Use of these aids was also associated with a 26 percentile point gain in student achievement (Marzano 2009).

Vallimont Study Rationale: To determine which is more a effective method of classroom learning- traditional teaching or SMART board use? Is there a one size fits all approach, or is one method fit better than the other.

Research Procedures Experimental research study Independent variable = method of teaching SMART board vs. Traditional Dependent variable = student achievement common assessment scores (Quiz taken on SMART clickers for data purposes) Intervention = SMART board teaching delivered to 1st and 2nd hours in April 2012 Control group = Non-SMART board teaching 3rd and 4th hours in April 2012

Research Procedures Quantitative Methods Data Selection: geologic processes common assessment Sample of students from this school year (2011-2012) Sample: 6th grade Science students

Results: Unit Assessment The use of a SMART board (SB) increases student achievement. Students in the first two hours received instruction from a SB. Students in third and fourth hours received direct instruction (without SB), such as direct instruction and computer lab activities. All students did the lab activities from the unit, the instruction that was changed was interactive use of the SB. Overall the two classes with the SB instruction scored slightly higher on the geologic processes common assessment than the control group.

Results of Geologic Processes Common Assessment

Data of Study SMART board Use Traditional Teaching Grade Number of Students (50) A 27 B 8 C 9 D 1 E 4 Grade Number of Students (55) A 19 B 21 C 8 D 4 E

Limitations The fourth hour class is generally the lowest scoring class from previous assessments. The fourth hour class has the highest population of special needs students. It may have been more accurate to take a random sample from each class or from all classes. This common assessment in the second year of used. There have been changes made to improve it this year. This test may need another year of changes to ensure validity.

Limitations This the first year in using the SMART board, further experience and training is needed to improve results. Due to district CA rules, there was not a pre- assessment administered. This would have given a better idea of the stating level of each class, which would have given a better idea of student growth.

Conclusions Average scores in the two classes with the SMART board instruction were slightly higher than the two classes with traditional teaching. A higher distribution of A’s were recorded in the first two hours (27) versus the last two hours (19) The class averages in the first two classes 86% and 83% were slightly higher that the final two 82% and 79% also.

Conclusions Based on the data from my study SB teaching proves to be more effective than traditional teaching. This data confirms my hypothesis that SMART board teaching is more effective than traditional teaching.

Implications for further research An introduction of qualitative methods to see student feelings on the SMART board. A student survey of how it has effected learning this year. I tried one on the SMART clickers, but had some issues. My plan is try again before the end of the school year. More qualitative data from teachers would also be important to understand the overall picture. This may include teacher interviews or surveys. A comparison of data over the long-term would give more accurate results. A random sample to get a better sample of the overall population would enhance validity. 1st hour and 4th hour have high levels of special needs students, 4th having the highest population. So a random sample would enhance validity. Does one particular method or approach work best with the SMART board. Example: SMART interactives, interactive pens, SMART clickers, videos…etc I recently received a grant for SMART mixed reality technology. Will the 3D technology and interactives improve student achievement also?

References Kennedy Manzo, K. (2012, March 24). Whiteboards' Teaching Seen as Uneven. Edweek: Digital Directions.retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2010/01/08/02whiteboards.h03.html Lopez, O. S. (2010, May). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners Academic Success in Mathematics and Reading Using Interactive Whiteboard Technology. Computers and Education, 54(4), 901-915. Marzano, R. J. (2009, November). Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82.retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational- leadership/nov09/vol67/num03/Teaching-with-Interactive- Whiteboards.aspx Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008, November). Interactive Whiteboards: Real Beauty or Just "Lipstick"? Computers and Education, 51(3), 1321-1341. Tirotta, R., & Torff, B. (2010, February). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers and Education, 54(2), 379-383.