Effects of Interactive Whiteboards on Student Achievement

1
Effects of Interactive Whiteboards on Student
Achievement

• Karen Swan, University of Illinois Springfield
• Mark van t Hooft, Jason Schenker Annette
  Kratcoski
• Kent State University

2
Interactive whiteboards allow . . .

• presentation
• interaction
• writing/highlighting
• recording

. . . hence emphasize active engagement
(Bransford, Brown Cocking, 1999)
3
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)

4
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?

5
Subjects Setting

• all students in grades 3-8 in a small city school
  district in northern Ohio (n3,192)
• 1/3 minority (21 African-American)
• 8 below poverty line
• district on Academic Watch
• 11 elementary schools, 3 junior high schools, 1
  alternative school

6
Subjects Setting

• study compared performance of students whose
  teachers used whiteboards (n142) with students
  whose teachers didnt 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

7
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

8
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

9
Findings
10
Reading/Language Arts Achievement



overall means
no whiteboard 415.55 n 1466
whiteboard 416.95 n 1686
11
Mathematics Achievement



overall means
no whiteboard 414.63 n 1379
whiteboard 415.81 n 1813
12
Comparisons of High Performing to Average Below
Average Performing Classes
Frequency of Whiteboard Use
n19
n17
n16
n14
13
Whiteboard Use in Mathematics functions
purposes

• simple display
• interactive charts, graphs, manipulatives
• Internet information activities

• motivation
• present content
• OAT prep / drill practice
• games
• assessment

14
Comparisons of High Performing to Average Below
Average Performing Classes
visualization vs. motivation
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.
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.
15
Comparisons of High Performing to Average Below
Average Performing Classes
student-centered vs. teacher-centered
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.
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.
16
Whiteboard Use in Reading/Language Arts
functions purposes

• simple display
• graphic organizers
• Internet information activities
• video conferencing

• motivation
• present content
• OAT prep
• games
• student presentations
• Support special needs students

17
Comparisons of High Performing to Average Below
Average Performing Classes
student-centered vs. teacher-centered
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.
Students gave PowerPoint presentations they
created for a book share, using Inspiration webs
and propaganda techniques to persuade others to
read the books.
18
Comparisons of High Performing to Average Below
Average Performing Classes
visualization vs. presentation
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.
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.
19
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.

20
www.rcet.org kswan4_at_uis.edu