Introduction
Teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms have
changed dramatically over the last twenty years. In 1987 there was not
a single computer in any classroom at my school because computers were
too expensive for my school system to purchase and too slow to be
considered effective teaching tools. In my school today there is not a
classroom with fewer than three fully networked computers with high
speed Internet access and two sophisticated computer labs with 28 fully
networked machines each. Recently my school purchased a new whiteboard
system, Promethean ACTIVBoard, as an important step toward a more
extensive application of information technology. In this context my
research question asks how will teachers at my school integrate the new
whiteboards and accompanying software into the curriculum and what
teaching methods will they use for integrating this new technology? In
this study, I explored the teaching methods used with the whiteboard
technology and software, looking for possible changes in teaching
methods, while teaching the same pre-whiteboard curricula.
The research on technology integration into the
K-12 school setting is becoming increasingly prevalent. The topic has
appeared repeatedly in current educational literature (e.g. Earle,
2002; Metheny, Harpold, Holzer, Swander, Hooker, Hunter, &
Bailey, 2003; Steelman, 2005). School systems constantly increased
their investment in hardware and software (Earle, 2002; Reynolds,
Treharne, & Tripp, 2003). Many educators believe that
technology has the potential to improve both teaching and learning
(Reynolds, Treharne, & Tripp, 2003; Weeden, 2002; Schank
& Cleary, 1995) and that the real importance is not found in
the technology itself, but in the way that it is integrated into the
learning environment.
Studies demonstrate how teachers have used
technology to support teaching pedagogies, such as constructionism,
project based learning, and problem based learning. They conclude that
the technology enhances the students' experience, when the teacher
adopts effective pedagogies. What these studies do not show is how the
teacher arrives at the pedagogy to use with the technology. If pedagogy
drives technology decisions, then how might the technology influence
the pedagogy decisions, if at all? Which comes first, deciding on the
pedagogy or the technology?
The purpose of this study is to investigate the
teaching pedagogies and styles employed by the 4 th grade math teachers
at an elementary school in the southeastern United States with a
particular hardware and software package. This school year the school
system has chosen to pilot the use of Promethean hardware and software
in two classrooms. This study spotlighted the choices made by the
teachers who have access to this technology and how they responded to
the technology. I examined their methods to see if they fit under a
definition of constructionism, project based learning, or problem based
learning or if their pedagogies are a mixture of several types, and if
so, what types. In this study, the adopted teaching pedagogies were
defined as teacher centered lecture, constructionist, problem-based,
and project-based. Teacher centered lecture represents an instruction
in which the teacher presents information dominantly. The
constructionist pedagogy represents an instructional format in which
students actively construct meaning in the classroom. In problem-based
learning classrooms the students learn through solving problems that
are relevant to them. In project-based learning classrooms students
learn through the process of completing projects. So, in this study I
am specifically interested in which pedagogy the teachers use with the
new whiteboard technology tools.
Literature Review
Introduction
Due to the fact that our students live in a
multimedia world, it is more difficult for teachers to capture their
students' attention with traditional tools such as chalkboards (Gatlin,
2004). More and more schools are turning to using interactive
whiteboards to keep students' attention during a teaching session.
According to Borja (2002) the whiteboard systems have been outselling
traditional chalkboards for the past five years.
The reason for this study is to explore
teachers' reactions to the whiteboards, their adaptations, if any, to
the way they teach when using the whiteboards, and their reflections on
the difference it might make with student learning. This literature
review was conducted to answer the following questions: 1) What are
interactive whiteboards? And 2) what teaching practices are enhanced by
whiteboard technology? The answers to these two questions might then
influence purchase decisions in regard to materials and supplies for
use in this elementary school's mathematics classrooms. The Board of
Education is committed to providing teachers with the tools they need
to increase student achievement. This study is designed to help them in
making those decisions.
Interactive Whiteboards
Interactive whiteboards are electronic
chalkboard-size devices that are similar to flat screen televisions but
function like a touch screen computer (Laschert, 2004). They are
typically placed at the front of the classroom and are usually
connected to a computer and data projector. Teachers and students can
write directly on the board to annotate and highlight any image and
text (Media & Methods, 2006). “Teachers can write
notes, manipulate images on the screen, open new files and programs,
run a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, log on to the Internet, show a
short film, and even record a lecture without ever stepping away form
the board—or the front of the class” (Laschert,
2004)
The Promethean whiteboard system produces an all
inclusive whiteboard system that has both hardware and software to
support instruction. (See Appendix A) Its latest version is ACTIVBoard,
which enables devices to communicate wirelessly without using the many
cables that traditionally connect computers and whiteboards (Media
& Methods, 2004). Promethean's system also includes individual
student input devices called ACTIVotes, which can be used to gain
immediate feedback on all kinds of questions. The teacher can present
the questions orally, on the whiteboard, or on paper. The students
respond to the questions using their ACTIVote in such a way that the
responses are anonymous to the class but not to the teacher (Gatlin,
2004). Immediate feedback allows the teacher to know the learning needs
of each individual student throughout the lesson so that instruction
may be customized as it unfolds.
Effective Teaching
Practices
Constructionism is both a theory of learning and
a strategy for education. It builds on the
“constructivist” theories of Jean Piaget, asserting
that knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student, but
actively constructed in the mind of the learner. Learners don't receive
ideas; they create ideas (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001).
Computer programs that are designed with an
interactive and exploratory approach help students to construct their
own meaning (Kordaki & Potari, 2002). For example, the visual
feedback of a math concept helps students to build their own meaning of
the concept. Whiteboard software, such as that offered in the
Promethean system, allows the teacher to stamp multiple images such as
coins or place a ruler on the screen so that students can manipulate
the money to make change or measure distance in centimeters or inches
(Byrd, 2005).
Teachers can foster creativity and
responsibility for the students' work through using technology
effectively in a problem-based learning approach. This is of great
value for engaging students actively in the learning process, as they
interact with each other in relation to the mathematics they are
learning (Cawley et al, 2003). Math concepts
can then be interconnected to other subject areas (Garofalo &
Sharp, 2003). If true this will allow the teacher to connect concepts
to other concepts, rather than teach them in isolation, as is typically
done in an average mathematics class. Ultimately, this leads to a
deeper understanding, as well as the ability to transfer that knowledge
to other learning situations.
Allowing students to develop multimedia projects
is an excellent approach for teaching mathematics skills using
project-based learning. One of the most important benefits of
developing multimedia projects is that it provides an in-depth
understanding, rather than easy memorization (Steelman, 2005). Students
not only enjoy the learning process, but also find the use of the
technology beneficial in their mathematics (Metheny et al,
2003). In computer-based education, students are more willing to test
out their ideas using technology, rather than with pen and paper
(Reynolds et al, 2003). Students become more
engrossed in their work and develop a deeper understanding and a
greater view of the whole picture through developing a multimedia
project (Weeden, 2002).
The interactive white board could be used as an
excellent tool for giving students immediate feedback (Gatlin, 2004),
as well as presenting their projects and problem solutions. Through
whiteboard technology, a highly motivating, interactive atmosphere can
be established in classrooms (Clemens et al,
2001). “It simply allows teachers to do what they do
best…teach” (“Activating
Learning”, 2006 p.36).
According to Gatlin (2004), teachers easily
adapt to whiteboard technology because they do not have
to redesign their existing lesson plans. Instead, the technology
enhances their lesson plans with multimedia representation and
interactivity. This characteristic might imply
that there is no need for a teacher to change his or her existing
teaching strategy. However, in practice, another viewpoint exists. As a
teacher reported in Byrd (2005)'s study, “The whiteboard
solution has opened my eyes to different ways to
teach…” (p. 12). Loschert (2004) also concluded
from her study that “It forces better teaching” (p.
30). While yet another warns that “It's made teaching harder.
It involves more thought and more preparation” (Borja, 2002
p.8). These reactions seem to imply that while changes in teaching are
not required, the technology does inspire teachers to change their
teaching styles and strategies.
Summary
Interactive whiteboards are a highly interactive teaching tool that
allows both the teachers and students to interact with each other and
the technology. The whiteboard system also provides a wide variety of
multimedia options, and instant student feedback as well. Practicing
teachers have reported a variety of reactions to the application of the
whiteboard system ranging from very positive to negative. The primarily
positive reactions are based on increased student motivation, while the
primarily negative responses involved increased planning time. The
literature shows that whiteboard technology can support highly
successful teaching practices, such as constructionism, problem based,
or project based learning. The question that remains to be answered is
will teachers choose to incorporate these highly successful teaching
methods, when provided with the interactive whiteboards. The teachers
involved in the study have been trained in these pedagogies through
their college training yet evidence of the use of these pedagogies is
not currently found in their practice.
Methods
This qualitative study took place at an
elementary school in the southeastern United States . It followed the
teaching practices of two fourth grade math teachers over the course of
two units of instruction. The students in the fourth grade were divided
into eight classrooms this year and those classes have been divided
into two teams of four classes each. Each team has one math teacher who
is responsible for the mathematics education of all four classes on the
team.
The teachers have both Promethean hardware and
software installed in their classrooms for the first time this fall
semester. (An interface and introduction about the system has been
included in Appendix A.) Both teachers received ten hours of training
from a trainer employed by Promethean prior to the beginning of the
school year with additional training to follow at their request. The
training was on the use of the hardware and software only. The training
did not focus on how to teach but on how to use the system itself.
Follow-up training by Promethean has been included in the purchase
price of the system. This follow-up training is open ended and planned
to answer the specific questions that the teachers generate following
use of the system. The questions could be purely tool functions or they
could involve specific teaching strategies and would be left for the
participating teachers to decide.
This study included a pre-training interview, a
post-training interview, and observations of the participants teaching
of two units of instruction. The pre-training interview focused on
participants initial reactions with the Promethean system. The
post-training interview evaluated participants' mental model changes
and understandings with the system. Two, one period lessons were
observed during the course of each unit for a minimum of four
observations for each teacher. Four observations were conducted using
video taping. Following their training on the use of the system the
teachers were given one month to become familiar with the tools. They
then planned and delivered instruction on the first unit to be
observed. The observations focused on the teaching style and teaching
methods that these teachers chose with the Promethean system available
to them. Observations were also focused on the way the hardware and
software were integrated into their teaching and how it ranked on the
LoTi scale.
The results were presented by comparing
different elements. First, I examined for differences in the plans and
expectations that the teachers had based on their pre-training and
post-training interviews. In addition, any change in teaching methods
used between the first unit and second unit was examined to explore how
use of the system effected the planning and implementation of
instruction. As a method of assessing technology integration, the
Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi) scale provided a measure of
authentic classroom technology use in classroom instruction, lesson
plans and other integration efforts. “The LoTi Framework
focuses on the use of technology
as a tool within the context of student based instruction with a
constant emphasis on higher order thinking.” (About LoTi,
2006) So as a last step of data analysis, the LoTi scale was used to
examine participants' current technology use levels (Learning Quest,
2001). I compiled the observation data and analyzed it to determine how
the technology was integrated into the math curriculum using LoTi.
Internal validity was maintained by withholding
the purpose of the study from the participants. They were not told what
the purpose of the study is. They did not know that the change in their
teaching methods was what was actually being studied. They were told
that the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the whiteboard
system. These strategies were designed to help to maintain the validity
of their responses. External validity was maintained by reporting the
results as a case study. No claims of generalization were made. It is
perfectly clear that this study was done in isolation with a minimal
study group of only two teachers. As I conducted this study, I also
guarded against my own bias. As the technology integration specialist
in the school I was hopeful that the teachers would adapt to and use
the system effectively right away.
The Board of Education has chosen these two
classrooms to pilot the use of the Promethean systems. The results of
the study are expected to be presented to the Board of Education as one
indication how the system is being used and how to improve the future
practices of the Promethean systems in the school. This study is not
designed to evaluate the performance of the students but to detect
teachers' reactions and their teaching behaviors.
Results and Discussion
This case study examined two fourth grade math
teachers and their teaching practices during their first nine weeks of
instruction using the Promethean ACTIVBoard system. The results of this
case study are divided into three main categories: participating
teachers' initial reactions following their initial training on the
Promethean whiteboard system, the changes in methodology for technology
integration during their instruction with the whiteboard system, and
examination of the teachers' LoTi level. The study sought to find the
changes in teaching style and methodology employed as a result of the
new tool the teachers have.
Reactions to Promethean
ACTIVBoard
Prior to the first training session on the
whiteboard system, the teachers were interviewed to discover what they
already knew, or thought they knew about the whiteboard system and to
determine their overall attitude toward the use of technology and
specifically whiteboard technology for their teaching. See Appendix B.
Mrs. Jenkins is a first year teacher in her
20's. She attended Georgia College and State University where she
earned her bachelor's degree in middle grades education with a
concentration in mathematics. She logged over 1000 hours of student
teaching experience at this school. Mrs. Jenkins described her teaching
style as very hands-on and visual. As a result she was concerned that
the system would take time away from the use of manipulatives. She
said, “I just don't see how I can fit it all in.”
She was looking forward to learning more about the ACTIVBoard and how
to incorporate it in her teaching. She said “I'm just not
sure what I'm supposed to do with it.” Her primary concerns
were how and how often to incorporate the system into her mathematics
classroom. She wondered if it should be a daily part of instruction or
used to supplement instruction occasionally. She said “I'm
just not sure how often I should use the system.” She was
also concerned that if the whiteboard system was used daily that the
students would become tired of it and as a result it would no longer
hold their attention any better than other teaching tools. She stated
“Kids become bored with things quickly if they are
overused.”
Ms. Roper is new to this school. She, like Mrs.
Jenkins is in her 20's and attended Georgia College and State
University where she earned her bachelor's degree in middle grades
education with a concentration in mathematics. Ms. Roper described her
teaching style as more lecture based with differentiated instruction in
small groups or with individuals. She said “I think it is
important to work with students in small groups with the methods and
tools that will best meet their individual needs. They won't all get it
in whole group.” In the past she has used an overhead
projector as her primary tool for delivering instruction and enjoyed
using it. She said “I like to use an overhead so that I am
always facing the kids.” She expressed concerns about how the
system could be utilized in small group situations since her perception
is that it would only be appropriate in whole group instruction. As she
stated, “I don't see how to use the ACTIVBoard in anything
but whole group activities.” When asked what her biggest
concerns with integrating the Promethean whiteboard system were she
said “I am not incompetent in the use of technology but I'm
not a geek either. I wonder how hard the software will be to use. Will
it be user friendly? I wonder if the training will answer my questions
or if it will all go by in a blur.”
Following the whiteboard training the teachers
were interviewed again to determine the changes in their perceptions as
they have learned more about the tools and functions available in the
ACTIVBoard system. The interview protocol has been included in Appendix
C. Mrs. Jenkins reported that she actually became more confused with
potential technology integration in her classroom following the
training although the training did give her a better understanding of
the system itself. She felt good about her understanding of the
hardware and software involved and she was confident that she could
create flip charts and use the tools with ease. She said “The
tools seem pretty easy to use but I don't know what I'm supposed to do
with the flip charts when I make them.” However she felt that
she still didn't have a clear picture of how the tools could and should
be incorporated into instruction. As she described, “I went
into the training wanting to know how much time to spend using this and
he didn't answer that question at all.” She did report that
she could see that the new system would be a motivating tool so far as
students were concerned. She could see that it would capture their
attention easily. She said “I had better be doing this right
because I am sure the kids will be watching everything. They are going
to love this” and has realized that the system would capture
their attention easily.
Ms. Roper did not seem to be bothered by any
confusion. She felt that the training was very good and that the tools
were going to be easy to use. She said “I can't wait to get
back to my room and play with the program. There is so much there I
can't wait to see what all I can find.” She was already able
to envision specific tools she could utilize to teach specific
concepts. She expressed her excitement about the new technology when
she asked me “Did you know about the protractor and the
graphs? This is going to be cool!”
The teachers' reactions to training fit in
appropriately with the teaching styles that each teacher prefers. Mrs.
Jenkins, who prefers a hands-on approach, remains concerned about the
role that the system should play in her teaching. She was dissatisfied
with her training because it didn't really explain when or in what
manner to use it but rather the mechanics of how to use it. Ms. Roper,
who prefers a teacher led teaching style, was very satisfied with her
training because it just fit into her teaching style. She felt
confidence in her ability to use the tools effectively.
Changes in Methodology
After the training the teachers were then given
one month to become more acclimated to, and familiar with the tools
they were using. Following this four week period they planned a unit of
instruction and were each observed for two, one period lessons of this
unit.
In Mrs. Jenkins first unit, a review of two
digit times two digit multiplication, she used the system primarily as
a chalkboard with students coming to the board to solve problems. A
flip chart was utilized to present new information and then sample
problems were presented for students to come to the board and solve.
This approach was somewhat successful. The students were mostly engaged
as they all wanted a turn at the board. Mrs. Jenkins would only call
those students who were quiet and attentive to use the board. She would
reinforce this by saying things such as “Cara is sitting
quietly and listening. Cara, you may come to the board.”
Learning to use the board and stand in such a way that they didn't
block the projection on the screen was a little difficult for the
students. They seemed to watch their peers more to determine how to use
the board correctly than to determine how to solve the math problems
correctly. One student even asked, “How did you do
that?” When Mrs. Jenkins started explaining the problem the
student said, “No, how did you cross that out?” By
this they were asking for direction on the use of the board itself.
They were not asking about the math concept being taught. Overall the
lessons were successful as students were able to manipulate the board
and complete the problems.
Mrs. Roper used the board more as a
demonstration tool. She presented information about two digit times two
digit multiplication using flip charts that she had prepared ahead of
time. She had clearly put thought and effort into the flip charts. They
were filled with eye catching features such as hidden answers, exciting
colors, logical graphics, and imbedded quiz questions. The students
were very engaged and she had little need to redirect the attention of
the students. When redirection was required it was achieved quickly and
easily. At one point the students were so excited that they were
calling out the answers and not waiting to be called on. All Ms. Roper
did was click the minimize button and sit there quietly. The kids
immediately settled down. It was clear that they understood that if
they wanted her to use the system they had to do their part and pay
attention.
The way that the teachers chose to use the
system fit their teaching styles. Mrs. Jenkins had students
manipulating the board themselves while Ms. Roper stayed in the
driver's seat and used it as a demonstration tool. Both teachers'
lessons appeared to be successful as the students were on task and
engaged in learning. Mrs. Jenkins approach gave students more of an
opportunity to physically engage in the lessons although having
students come to the board was time consuming. Ms. Roper's lessons were
able to incorporate more than twice as many sample problems and
therefore present more information in the given time.
After their initial practice with the new
whiteboard, Mrs. Jenkins and Ms. Roper chose to collaborate and share
their experiences from the first unit and plan the next unit together.
They were each observed teaching two lessons from this second unit.
There were significant changes in the ways that they chose to use the
system. They found a way to blend their teaching styles into an
approach that combined, what they believed to be, the best practices
from each teacher. They chose to abandon the practice of having
students come to the board themselves and replaced it with the use of
ACTIVotes. They chose to continue with Ms. Roper's approach of creating
highly engaging flip charts to present new information. The teachers
both used the same flip charts for each lesson. At the end of each
lesson they incorporated more of Mrs. Jenkins' style by including an
interactive quiz. The students used the ACTIVote system to individually
answer questions provided on the flip chart electronically. The
responses were anonymous but it gave the teacher an opportunity to
provide immediate feedback on each question. In addition the teachers
were then able to use the data from the student responses to create
small groups and immediately provide additional instruction for the
students who were still struggling. Some students were given additional
practice using paper and pencil; some were directed to computers in the
room and given specific practice programs to work in, and some students
worked with the teacher using manipulatives.
Mrs. Jenkins and Ms. Roper both indicated that
their confidence was growing in terms of use of the system after the
collaborative planning on the unit. Mrs. Jenkins said, “It is
feeling more natural. (to use the system)” Ms. Roper said
“I am ready to start planning the next unit. The more I use
it the more ways I can see to use it.”
LoTi Level
Using the LoTi scale to evaluate teachers'
technology integration level did not demonstrate any significant
changes. Prior to use of the ACTIVBoard both of the teachers were at a
LoTi level of 2 which is defined as “The electronic
technology is employed either as extension to activities or as
enrichment exercises to the instructional program. Technology-based
tools serve as a supplement to existing instructional program (e.g.,
tutorials, educational games, simulations).” Following the
second unit of instruction the same LoTi level is observed. The tools
were used as presentation tools and to supplement instruction. The
teachers didn't use technology in a new way that would lead to the
development of higher order thinking skills such as analyzing or
synthesizing information. They simply used it to replace older
technologies. For instance, the presentation was done on the white
board rather than on an overhead projector and the quiz was done with
ACTIVotes rather than on paper with pencil. To move to higher LoTi
level the technology would have to be used by the students to increase
their higher order thinking skills. For example, the students would
need to use technology to find new information, create presentations,
or complete projects. None of these things occurred in the observations
of Mrs. Jenkins' or Ms. Roper's lessons.
Summary
Both Mrs. Jenkins, and Ms. Roper, demonstrated
an immediate comfort level with using the tools available in the
Promethean ACTIVBoard system. Mrs. Jenkins was not as comfortable with
her understanding of how best to implement those tools and Ms. Roper
was. After a first attempt and reflection they chose to collaborate on
their second unit. As a result of this collaboration they both made
changes to their methodology of implementing the Promethean system. The
successful collaboration, and resulting unit, left them both wanting an
opportunity to learn even better ways to implement their whiteboard
system. The level of technology integration has been unchanged
throughout the study, however, the desire of the teachers to do more
seem to imply that the possibility of achieving a more desirable LoTi
level still exists.
Conclusions
The reactions the teachers had to their training
seem to fit the teaching styles that they reported that they preferred.
Mrs. Jenkins, who prefers a hands-on approach, was still very unsure as
to how she could utilize this new tool since the Promethean ACTIVBoard
system is not necessarily a hands-on tool. However, Ms. Roper, who
relied primarily on an overhead projector to deliver instruction, could
immediately see ways to incorporate it. Overhead projectors and
ACTIVBoards both utilize teacher driven demonstration and instruction
on a screen of some sort. It was a more natural fit for the way she is
accustomed to teaching. Therefore, teachers' reactions to their
training were in line with their preferred teaching styles.
It was interesting that after planning and
implementing one unit of instruction individually, the teachers chose
to come together and collaborate on the second one. They both felt that
what they did in the first unit was successful but also felt that there
was more that they could do. With the experience of training,
experimenting, and collaborating on the use of the Promethean
ACTIVBoard system the teachers did make changes to their delivery of
instruction. They chose to incorporate the use of instant feedback
through the use of ACTIVotes and to plan further instruction for the
needs of every student including those who understood the lesson as
well as those who did not.
The practice on the new system made them realize
that on their own they didn't have all the answers but that together
they had more of them. Teaching can be a very lonely profession in
which each teacher does their own thing behind their own closed door.
However, the realization that they could learn from each other and the
desire to collaborate is an indication of their determination to do a
better job of teaching.
Let's look at Mrs. Jenkins first. Mrs. Jenkins
chose to abandon her student centered approach from the first unit and
went to a lecture driven plan in the second unit. In the first unit she
attempted to use the system for the entire class period. In the second
unit she chose to use it for the first half of the class and then to
incorporate individualized instruction for the remainder of the class.
This change was facilitated by the use of ACTIVote quizzes which let
her know which students needed further instruction. Her teaching style
of using a hands-on approach was improved by being able to select the
students who would benefit most from this approach. Using manipulatives
with a whole class can be very chaotic when not all students need
manipulatives to understand the concepts. In this case, moving from a
student centered approach to a lecture driven approach streamlined the
instruction. Time was used more effectively by being able to identify
those students who needed the student centered activities to be
successful and not slowing down the students who were ready to move on.
Ms. Roper was able to adapt her preferred style of individualized
instruction to the whiteboard system. In her first unit she used it
almost exclusively as a lecture tool. In her second unit she was able
to incorporate the ACTIVote system to gain feedback and allow her to
individualize instruction. She did not use the system to provide the
individualized instruction but rather as a tool to determine assignment
of students to small groups. As with Mrs. Jenkins, this allowed her to
identify the needs of the students and provide them with the
instruction they needed. Mrs. Jenkins and Ms. Roper arrived at the
decisions to alter their methods together. They did not adopt one
approach already used by either of them. Instead they blended their
methods into a new approach.
Although the LoTi level of instruction did not
change during the study period, significant changes in teaching did
occur. The teachers were able to discover on their own ways to use
their new Promethean ACTIVBoards to engage their students and give them
valuable feedback so that instruction could be differentiated. They
found that having the students manipulate the boards was effective but
too time consuming to use often in classrooms. In addition they
discovered that the ActivVote system was an excellent way to gain
immediate feedback on student understanding as well as keeping the
students engaged and active. The teachers also reached the conclusion
that the ACTIVBoards were just one tool at their disposal. There is
still a need for manipulatives, paper and pencil, and other technology
applications. ACTIVBoards are not the whole answer for effective
instruction but they are a highly efficient part of the answer and
their teaching did change as a result of their availability. One of the
most significant changes the new technology system brought about was
the decision on the teachers' part to collaborate. Mrs. Jenkins said,
“I know I could be a better teacher if I knew more ways to
use this effectively.” They both realized that there was more
that they could be doing and that they would need to reach out to other
sources to discover those things. Their first attempt to reach out was
to go to each other. Ms. Roper said, “I don't want any more
training by some expert on the software. I want to spend time with
other teachers who have been using the system for a while.”
She demonstrated the understanding that it isn't the tool that is
important but the integration that matters.
It has been claimed that the Promethean system
is highly motivating for students. In this study, it was equally
motivating to the teachers involved as well. They both expressed their
desire to continue to improve their instruction as a result of the
tools that are available to them. While neither teacher demonstrated a
pedagogy change, they sought to improve their instruction and pledge
that they will continue to do so. Ms. Roper said, “The
possibilities are limitless but I have to be the one to discover
them.” Ms. Jenkins added, “I feel like my kids and
I have been given a gift but now we have to unwrap it.” This
implies that the next phase of training should be on more practical and
pedagogical application of the system rather than on the tools
themselves. The teachers are motivated to integrate the technology more
effectively but simply don't know how in their classrooms.
One limitation of the study was the short period
of time that it covered. In order to determine the effect the
Promethean ACTIVBoard system has on teaching strategies and styles a
longer period of investigation is needed. A nine week study did not
give the teachers sufficient time to be fully comfortable with the
system. In addition, if the desired effect were a change in pedagogy or
LoTi level the teacher training on the whiteboard should also include
these topics on pedagogical applications. Having the tools has inspired
these two teachers to seek more effective strategies for using them. It
would be a natural next step to provide them with training on effective
teaching strategies and technology integration to see how their
teaching would change further.
The Board of Education needs to determine if the
effectiveness of the Promethean system is worthy of a further
investment of funds. This study has demonstrated that the system did
inspire teachers to search for more effective ways to teach their
students. Both teachers made individual attempts initially but
ultimately sought more ideas by collaborating with each other. They
also expressed a desire for more training so that they could use the
system to its fullest potential. The Board will need additional data
regarding learning outcomes from a future study in order to determine
if this improved teaching has led to improved learning. This study did
not involve the learning behaviors of the students in any way. The
learning outcomes must also be studied before the board can make a
fully informed decision in regard to additional systems for the school.
The most logical next step would be to invest in further training for
the teachers and to study learning outcomes. Only then will the Board
know the full potential of the system.
References
Activating Learning in Every Classroom. (2006,
January/February). Media & Methods ,
p.36
Borja, Rhea R. (2002). Digital Whiteboards
Outsell Traditional Chalkboards. Education Week, 22(13),
8.
Byrd, Denise (2005). Sixteen Whiteboards Capture
Students' Attention. Media & Methods, 41(4),
11-12.
Cawley, J. F., Foley, T. E., & Doan, T.
(2003). Giving Students with Disabilities a Voice in the Selection of
Arithmetical Content. Teaching Exceptional Children,
36(1), 8-16.
Garofalo, J., & Sharp, B. D. (2003).
Teaching Fractions Using a Simulated Sharing Activity. Learning
and Leading with Technology , 30(7), 36.
Gatlin, Mike (2004). Interactive Whiteboard
System Creates ‘Active Classrooms' for Rural Georgia School
System. T.H.E. Journal, 31(6), 50-52.
Han, S., Bhattacharya, K. (2001).
Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. E-Book
Learning, Teaching, & Technology
Interactive Whiteboards & Devices.
(2006, January/February). Media & Methods ,
p.8-10.
Kordaki, M., & Potari, D. (2002). The
Effect of Area Measurement Tools on Student Strategies: The Role of a
Computer Microworld. International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, 7(1), 65-100.
Loschert, Kristen (2004). Bye Bye Blackboard. NEA
Today, 23(1), 30-31
Metheny, D., Harpold, M., Holzer, C., Swander,
R., Hooker, D., Hunter, M., et al. (2003). Integration not Segregation:
We Shall Overcome. Tech Trends , 47(4), 48-50.
National Business Education Alliance , (2006). About
LoTi. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from
http://www.loticonnection.com/whatisloti.html
Reynolds, D., Treharne, D., & Tripp, H.
(2003). ICT-The Hopes and the Reality. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 34(2), 151-167
Steelman, J. D. (2005). Multimedia Makes its
Mark. Learning and Leading with Technology ,
33(1), 16-18.
Weeden, M. (2002). Proof, Proof and More Proof. Micromath
, 18(3), 29-32.
Appendix A
The Promethean ACTIVBoard is a 78”
electromagnetic whiteboard with interactive capability. Objects can be
manipulated on the board itself or from the computer that is connected
to it. The accompanying software provides graphics and graphic tools
that allow teachers to prepare demonstrations called flip charts in
advance.
Appendix B
Pre-Training Questions
- What is your preferred style of teaching?
- What has led you to adopt this style?
- What are the drawbacks or disadvantages of
this style?
- How do you compensate for these weaknesses?
- Have you ever used whiteboard technology of
any kind in the past?
- What do you think will be most useful about
the Promethean system?
- What do you hope to be able to do with it?
- What concerns do you have in regards to the
system?
Appendix C
Post-Training Questions
- Now that you know a little more about the
system, how do you feel about incorporating it into your teaching?
- What do you think will work the best?
- What concerns do you have?
- Are you satisfied with your training
experience?
- How could your training be improved?
