1. Interactive Whiteboards for Teacher Training Tuyet Hayes The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa tuyhayes@hawaii.edu

2. How familiar are you with interactive whiteboards? A. I don’t know what it is. B. I have only heard of it. C. I have attended a training or lesson that used one. D. I have delivered a training or lesson that used one.

3. Interactive Whiteboards  IWB are a “conglomeration of all previous educational technologies” (Hall & Higgins, 2005)

4. Introduction  Within the next five years, one in every five classrooms worldwide will have an IWB (EFY News Network, 2009)

5. Introduction  Within the next five years, one in every five classrooms worldwide will have an IWB (EFY News Network, 2009)  IWB market for education/training will total $880 million in 2009, and $2 billion by 2014 (Wainhouse Research, 2010)

6. Introduction  Within the next five years, one in every five classrooms worldwide will have an IWB (EFY News Network, 2009)  IWB market for education/training will total $880 million in 2009, and $2 billion by 2014 (Wainhouse Research, 2010)  Personal motivations

7. Research Question  What is the impact of integrated IWB use on participant engagement, learning, and interaction?

8. Intervention  Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff

9. Intervention  Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff  What: VoiceThread training using IWB

10. Intervention  Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff  What: VoiceThread training using IWB  When: Feb 12 - teacher work day

11. Intervention  Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff  What: VoiceThread training using IWB  When: Feb 12 - teacher work day  Where: St. Andrew’s Priory School

12. Intervention  Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff  What: VoiceThread training using IWB  When: Feb 12 - teacher work day  Where: St. Andrew’s Priory School  Why: Resources and access

13. Instructional Strategies Modeling/Guided Practice

14. Instructional Strategies Opportunities for interaction

15. Data collection: Online surveys

16. Data collection: Learner response system

17. Results: Engagement

18.  Motivating factors included: – “Cool” interactive pen – “HUGE mousepad” – Polling feature – Ease of switching between applications  Surprise that peers were focused

19. Results: Interaction

20.  Responses focused primarily on learner response system – “Huge hit” with students – Anonymity – “Game-like” atmosphere – Instant feedback

21. Results: Interaction  Responses focused primarily on learner response system – “Huge hit” with students – Anonymity – “Game-like” atmosphere – Instant feedback  Also mentioned – Ability to write on the board – Trainer’s ability to troubleshoot

22. Results: Learning

23.  Average Pre-test score: 11%  Average Posttest score: 88%

24. Results: Learning  Average Pre-test score: 11%  Average Posttest score: 88%  Features that supported learning: – Large display matched their screens – Teacher at board (easier to see/hear/interact) – Tools: Pen, annotation ability, LRS

25. Results: Usefulness

26.  Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.”

27. Results: Usefulness  Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.”  Key points – Large display – Instant feedback – Student interaction

28. Results: Usefulness  Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.”  Key points – Large display – Instant feedback – Student interaction  84% rated 4 or 5 (on 1-5 scale)

29. Results: Usefulness  Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.”  Key points – Large display – Instant feedback – Student interaction  84% rated 4 or 5 (on 1-5 scale)  84% indicated they would use it at least weekly

30. Results: Usefulness  Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.”  Key points – Large display – Instant feedback – Student interaction  84% rated 4 or 5 (on 1-5 scale)  84% indicated they would use it at least weekly  46% anticipated daily use

31. Discussion  Small sample

32. Discussion  Small sample  Pre and post survey alignment

33. Discussion  Small sample  Pre and post survey alignment  Research study topic confusion

34. Discussion  Small sample  Pre and post survey alignment  Research study topic confusion  Barriers remain – Insufficient training – Lack of time to develop materials – Other technologies

35. Conclusion  IWB can be effective for teacher training – Engagement – Interaction – Learning

36. Conclusion  IWB can be effective for teacher training – Engagement – Interaction – Learning  Secondary benefits – Increase teacher comfort with IWB – Model effective instructional strategies using IWB

37. Quote of the Day  “I’m not afraid to use it now. There are a whole host of possibilities running through my head.” – Participant

38. Acknowledgements  Dr. Grace Lin  Leslie Arakaki  ETEC Faculty at UH Manoa  Peers in ETEC program  Family  Dr. Grace Lin  Leslie Arakaki  ETEC Faculty at UH Manoa  Peers in ETEC program  Family

39. Any Questions? tuyhayes@hawaii.edu