Running head: INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND LITERACY LEARNING. Interactive Whiteboards: What Impact Do They Have on the

Transcription

1 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 1 Running head: INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND LITERACY LEARNING Interactive Whiteboards: What Impact Do They Have on the Literacy Learning of Kindergarten Children? Stephanie R. Nielsen St. John Fisher University

2 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 2 ABSTRACT This four month study focused on the impact that an interactive whiteboard (also referred to as the IWB or SMARTboard) would have on the literacy learning of kindergarten students. The research was done in a kindergarten classroom of twenty students and one teacher where an interactive whiteboard had just been purchased. This was an action research design in which the researcher was also a participant, and incorporated video-taped observations and written interviews with students. Socio-cultural theory was the theoretical framework for this research. Results of the study showed a definite increase in motivation of the students, increased interactivity of lessons, and the need for more professional development focused on the use of the interactive whiteboards. These findings are useful for educators who are contemplating using the interactive whiteboards in their classroom but are uncertain of the benefits of them. They are also useful for school districts and individual schools when planning professional development over the course of the school year.

3 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 3 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning The interactive whiteboard is a large interactive display which connects to both a computer and a projector and can be controlled using pens, fingers, etc Websites can be manipulated and documents can be changed, saved, and retrieved at a later time. Recently, this electronic tool has become more and more frequently seen in classrooms across the country in lieu of traditional whiteboards and/or flip charts. Many educators wonder what the interactive white board can do in their classroom. What impact will it have on the learning of their students? The purpose of my study was to answer this exact question and see the effects, specifically, on the literacy learning of students when an interactive whiteboard was used. Many studies have been done (e.g. Armstrong et al, 2005; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Kitson, Fletcher, & Kearney, 2007; Martin, 2007; Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006 & 2007; Wall, Hardman, & Higgins, 2005) which have shown an increase in motivation and an increase in interactivity and dialogue in students when an interactive whiteboard was present. These studies also showed a need for more professional development for educators using the interactive whiteboard. This paper will discuss my own findings when I used an interactive whiteboard to teach literacy lessons and will discuss my limitations and implications for future educators and researchers. Theoretical Framework for the Research The research on interactive whiteboards is situated within a socio-cultural theory of learning, which describes learning as being embedded within social events and occurring as a child interacts with people, objects, and events in their environment (Vygotsky, 1986). Vygotsky (1986) and Crotty (1998) state that knowledge is constructed through interactions between human beings and their world, and in order for us to understand a child s development

4 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 4 we must look at the social interactions in which they are a part of. An important aspect of sociocultural theory is the claim that human action is mediated by tools, with a tool being things such as pen and paper, computers, spoken language, etc (Wertsch, 1991). Socio-cultural theory provides a way of understanding the literacy opportunities offered to students and focuses on multiple literacies and the ways in which literacy practices are made available and are engaged in by an individual (Castanheira et al, 2001). The IWB is one such feature of the environment that can influence the learning of an individual. Armstrong et al (2005) states that the IWB allows for multiple discourses to occur in the classroom. Rather than students just listening to the teacher, they are able to interact with the board, build upon comments and questions from their peers, and get immediate response and feedback from their teacher. Children are able to take more control over the lessons with which they are a part of, and new conversations arise as children generate new understanding from each other. Synthesis of Literature Increased Motivation Research (Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006; Schweder & Wissick, 2008; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005) indicates that using an interactive white board (IWB) in the classroom can increase the motivation of the students. Shenton and Pagett (2007) conducted a small study which focused on seven teachers in six different primary schools. Through interviews of the teachers and the students in these schools, Shenton and Pagett (2007) found that both highlighted the motivational effect of the whiteboard on the children s learning. Teachers reported that their children were highly motivated, totally interested and focused and visual learners were able to remember more, and

5 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 5 maybe understand more (Shenton & Pagett, 2007, p. 133). In conjunction with the teacher s viewpoints, children also felt more motivated by the use of the white board and felt that it was more exciting and enjoyable and they were able to see and hear lessons better (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). Kennewell and Beauchamp (2007) found through his observations of six teachers in a primary school in South West Wales that students were highly engaged in the process of learning when they were able to come up and use the IWB themselves. While the pace of the lesson may have slowed, the level of engagement remained high throughout and the students were thinking about what was being taught. Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) interviewed students to get their viewpoints on the use of the interactive whiteboard in their classroom. He found that a majority of statements made by students regarding the IWB were positive, and common themes included motivation, fun, attention, and interest (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005). One area that Schweder and Wissick (2008) observed as being very motivational was the interactive games that could be played on the IWB. Teachers could prepare whole class games through PowerPoint or Excel to allow students to practice skills while also having fun and remaining engaged in learning. Through observations of IWB versus non-iwb lessons in primary schools in England, Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2006) found that while the IWB definitely created an increase in engagement, it seemed to be at the expense of the quality of children s answers. Children enjoyed answering questions more frequently, but their answers were briefer than in non-iwb lessons. Increased Interactivity Research (Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006, 2007; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005; Armstrong et al, 2005; Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2007) also suggests that using an interactive white board may increase the interactivity

6 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 6 of lessons and change the dialogue between teacher and students. Armstrong et al (2005) observed that because of the different ways in which the IWB can be manipulated and controlled by both teacher and students at different points around the classroom, its use leads to new understandings and questions. Armstrong et al (2005) also observed that teachers and students took on multiple discourses as opposed to just students listening to the teacher. Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2006) found that IWB lessons contained less group work and more whole class interactions. Lessons which used the IWB also had significantly more open-ended questions, repeat questions, probes, evaluation, answers from students, and general conversation (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006). Through student interviews, Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) found that students felt more motivated to answer questions and participate when their teacher used an IWB, thus leading to more interactive dialogue in the classroom. Kennewell and Beauchamp observed that the IWB has the potential to support new forms of interactivity in teaching and to support a more participatory pedagogy (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007, p. 240). Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2007) found, however, that rather than increasing the interactivity among all students, open-ended questions, evaluation, and dialogue were more directed at boys than girls during IWB lessons. Shenton and Pagett (2007) found that even though teachers believed that the use of an IWB would increase interactivity because of the student s ability to interact with the board, students were still made to watch and listen to most of the lessons and were only able to interact with the board occasionally. Need for Professional Development Research (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006; Armstrong et al, 2005; Shenton and Pagett, 2007) also suggests that in order for interactive white boards to be an effective classroom tool, there is a stronger need for more teacher training and time to learn and implement new practices.

7 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 7 Most of the teachers in Shenton and Pagett s (2007) study had had little training on the use of an IWB, mainly given by the company representative that installed the board. Many teachers were actually spending a great deal of time teaching themselves how to use the IWB. Armstrong et al (2005) and Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2006) agree that the teacher is a critical agent in the success of IWB implementation in the classroom. Training and support should be provided in order for teachers to appropriately use this new technology. Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2006) suggest that a lot of the training they observed was top-down training in which model lessons were presented to teachers. Rather than this top-down approach, Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2006) suggest that a more bottom-up approach should be taken. Monitoring and selfevaluation should be a regular part of training and teachers should have the opportunities to try out new practices and get feedback from others. Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2007) also suggest that further researchers should monitor the effectiveness of these training programs and modify them as needed. Researcher Stance Research Methods I begin my research with the belief that learning is socially constructed and embedded within social events and occurring as a child interacts with people, objects, and events in their environment (Vygotsky, 1986). I also believe that learning occurs through social interaction and dialogic teaching. Dialogic teaching is when the classroom is collective, reciprocal, and cumulative (Smith, Hardman, and Higgins, 2006). Teachers and students tackle a problem together, they learn from each other, and they build off of prior learning. The research done by Smith, Hardman, and Higgins (2006) found that in classrooms where an interactive whiteboard was used, there were more open-ended questions and whole-group interactions. Armstrong et al

8 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 8 (2005) found that there were multiple discourses used in classrooms with an interactive whiteboard, as well as new understandings formed and new questions asked as a result of the manipulation of the board. It is during these interactions where questions are being asked and problems are being worked through together that I believe children learn best. If, in fact, classrooms with interactive whiteboards do have more whole-group interactions occurring, is there actually more learning going on with these students? This brings me to my research question what impact does an interactive whiteboard have on the literacy learning of kindergarten students? This is the question that I begin my research with. I have read the research written by others, but now I am interested in conducting my own research. The school in which I am conducting my research does not perform academically as high as other schools in the school district. Recently, interactive whiteboards were introduced into the school for teachers to take advantage of. This is the first year that interactive whiteboards have been used in this school, and I am curious to see the impact that they are going to have. Context of the Study School. Beach Elementary School is located in Upstate New York on the border of an urban and suburban neighborhood. The area surrounding the school consists of homes and apartments in which the students reside. In 2008, Beach Elementary had an enrollment of approximately 831 students and employed 71 teachers. There were two sections of Pre-K, seven sections of full-day Kindergarten, seven sections of first grade, five sections of second grade, six sections of third grade, six sections of fourth grade, six sections of fifth grade, and one 8:1:1 classroom. There are three administrators, six support staff members (counselors, psychologists, social workers, etc ), nine teaching assistants, and three mentor teachers. 78.3% of students are Caucasian,

9 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning % are African American, 7.34% are Hispanic, and about 3% are Asian or American Indian. 51.9% of students receive free and reduced lunch and are economically disadvantaged. Beach Elementary also offers breakfast for its students. 3.2% of students are limited English proficient students and 5.3% are students with disabilities. Teacher. I am a fourth year Kindergarten teacher, and all of my years have been spent teaching at Beach Elementary. I also completed my field work and my student teaching at Beach. I have my bachelor s degree in Sociology and my teaching certificate in Early Childhood Education (birth through second grade). I am currently working towards my master s degree in Literacy Education and will be completing my graduate work in the summer. SMART boards have just recently been purchased for my school, so I have no experience with them to date. I have enrolled myself in a professional development being given at Beach Elementary that is an introductory course to SMART boards. I plan to incorporate the interactive white board into my future lessons; however, I feel that I will need much more practice with the board before I can do an effective lesson for my students. I will have to teach myself how to use the board because there is only one professional development being offered. Students. I am doing my research in my Kindergarten class of twenty students. There are eleven boys and nine girls, ranging in age from five to six. Two of the students are African American, one is Native American, the rest are Caucasian. Three of the children are receiving speech/language services, four are receiving math intervention, two are receiving occupational therapy, and two are receiving physical therapy. The children have been exposed to several different kinds of technology, including computers, overhead projectors, a flexcam, and an ELMO. They have never seen an interactive whiteboard. Design

10 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 10 I conducted action research in my own classroom and with my own students because there is an established trust level already in place between myself and my students. I have received permission to use a SMART board as needed, and I will do lessons with and without the interactive whiteboard and then compare the two. Because I am interested in seeing the impact that the interactive whiteboard has on student achievement, I conducted extensive observations and interviews, as well as collect artifacts. Increase in motivation Findings and Analysis For the past three years, I have used an easel with chart paper or a regular white board while teaching word study, writing, and reading. While that method has always been effective, and will remain so, I have found that the introduction of the interactive white board increased motivation to participate in my students. During a typical lesson, I would have the same few children raising their hands to respond to my questions or come to the board to read or write. The day I introduced them to the interactive white board, all of that changed. I suddenly had 20 students who wanted to participate and come up to interact with the board. By explaining to them that they only way they could participate was to make sure they were paying attention to what I was saying and what other children were doing, I suddenly had twenty pairs of eyes on me, rather than out the window or around the room. Children wanted to answer my questions, and were actually disappointed when they didn t get a turn at the board. I gave them a writing prompt and asked them to tell me how they felt about the interactive white board. Joey told me the SMARTboard was fun because it looked like it was magic! Of the twenty students in the class, they all answered yes when asked if they thought the SMARTboard is better than the chart paper for doing word study. When asked why, Jacob said it was because you can actually

11 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 11 put your finger on the SMARTboard and drag the words together. Mia liked it because you can play word games with the class on the SMARTboard. Professional Development Our school, Beach Elementary, was lucky enough to receive money to order several new SMARTboards this year. There is now one per grade level, as well as one in the library and other areas. Unfortunately, while this wonderful tool was being introduced into the classrooms, there was no professional development that went along with it. I have never used a SMARTboard before, and was very unfamiliar with even performing the basics (for example, turning it on!). I signed up to go to a district held professional development scheduled for November 17 th. Unfortunately, due to lack of interest, the professional development was cancelled. I contacted the women conducting it and explained to her that I really was interested in learning how to use the SMARTboard. We agreed on a time to meet so she could go through the basics with me. However, when the day came, she had to reschedule our appointment for another day. When the second meeting came, she met with me in between other meetings. As a result, she only had about fifteen minutes. She gave me a quick run through of the workings of the SMARTboard. She tried to do the best she could, but without actually giving me the opportunity to interact with it myself, I was lost! After a few days, I asked the librarian at our school to meet with me. She blocked off an hour of her time and walked me through the whole process of turning on the board, orienting it, adding the SMART Notebook software onto my computer, etc Finally I knew how to use the board, but I wasn t sure what kinds of lessons I d be able to do on it. I spent hours upon hours over the course of the next few weeks looking for lesson ideas on the internet and websites that would allow for interaction on the SMARTboard. I also spent a lot of time working with the SMART Notebook software, as well as other teachers in

12 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 12 my building, to try and figure out how it worked and how to set up lessons. I had to do a lot of experimenting with the features of the software and manipulating words. There were many times that I would think I had something figured out, only to have it work differently when I was with my students. They all learned the phrase learning process very well! I told them I was learning the SMARTboard along with them. Anytime something didn t go according to plan, they would say It s okay. It s a learning process! After some trial and error, I was able to learn how to manipulate the features of the SMARTboard, as did the students. I created a document on the board with the letters of the alphabet across the top. I learned that if I wrote each letter individually I could highlight one at a time and drag them around the board. Each week when we learned a new word family, I would write the ending of the word family and the children could highlight and drag different letters to build words. I also used several word sorting websites that I found (see appendix A). Once I brought up a website, children could manipulate objects on the screen with their fingers just as if they were using a mouse on the computer. Interactivity The SMARTboard definitely made my lessons more interactive. For an average word study lesson, the children would sit on the carpet and watch me model the skill that was being taught. They would answer questions and, many times, come to the chart paper to help me sort pictures using Words Their Way letter sorts. Still, the lessons were mainly facilitated by me. The only chance that the children had for interaction was getting up to come to the easel. However, when I used the SMARTboard, they were actually able to facilitate the lessons while I sat back and monitored. The research done by Shenton and Pagett (2007) found that even though teachers believed that the use of an IWB would increase interactivity because of the

13 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 13 student s ability to interact with the board, students were still made to watch and listen to most of the lessons and were only able to interact with the board occasionally. As a result of already reading this research, I kept this information in the back of my mind while I was conducting my own research. Every time I felt that I was taking over too much of the lesson, I would step back and hand control back over to my students. I used websites such as and When I used these websites the children were able to be the teachers for each other. The websites allowed the children to come up and do word or picture sorts by touching pictures on the screen and dragging them to appropriate places, or build words by dragging letters into boxes. While these lessons were going on, I tried to not touch the board at all and let it serve its interactive purpose. The children felt empowered that they were in charge of the lessons. They had more opportunities to take control over their learning, and the other students enjoyed being taught by their peers. For example, there is a story on the website starfall.com called Mox s Shop. I was able to do a shared reading lesson from the back of the classroom. The children generated discussion about the pictures and then a student would come up and touch the words. When a word was touched, the computer stretched it out and the children repeated it. They kept the flow of the lesson going by reading the sentences and turning the pages of the story. Limitations to Research This study aimed to find out the effects that the interactive whiteboard can have on kindergarten literacy learning. It was shown through observations and comparisons of lessons with and without the IWB, and through student interviews, that the IWB increased the motivation and enthusiasm of the students. It also increased the interactivity of the lessons by

14 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 14 allowing students to come up and interact with the board and lead lessons on their own. The study also showed that there was much more of a need for professional development for staff using the IWB. This study did have several limitations to it. The first was the technical difficulties that occurred with using this new technology. The children had difficulty with using the pen correctly and seeing what they were writing at the same time. With little children, they have a difficult enough time holding a regular pencil correctly. The IWB pen has to be held in a special way in order for it to write, and it was difficult for the children to hold the pen correctly. Also, the board is very touch sensitive, so the students sometimes had difficulty when they tried to drag something. The second limitation was the time in which the study was conducted. Four months is a relatively short time span when conducting research. The technology was very new to not only me, but also the students. Some of their enthusiasm may have had to do with the newness of the IWB in the classroom. It would have been helpful to have more time to determine if the motivation and enthusiasm would have lasted through the semester. Implications This study gives educators a look at the positive impacts that using an interactive whiteboard can have on the students in their classroom. Since the interactive whiteboard is a relatively new tool being introduced in classrooms across the country, limited research is out there explaining the effects of them. This study shows that using an interactive whiteboard will increase the motivation of the students to learn and participate in lessons. It also increases student enthusiasm for learning, as shown by the written interviews with students that responded over and over that the SMARTboard was fun. Schools and school districts could use the research when planning professional development for future school years. Many educators that I have spoken with have expressed their apprehension about using an interactive whiteboard

15 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 15 because they do not know how it works. In the district where Beach Elementary is located, there was only one professional development offered the whole school year on interactive whiteboards. Because of a lack of participation, the course was cancelled. When the district purchased interactive whiteboards for the individual schools, they were given out one per grade level. Because not everyone was receiving a SMARTboard, or wanted one for that matter, there was no school-based professional development either. The teachers that received the boards had to turn to each other for help and ideas, or try and make appointments with people in the technology department. Many hours needed to be spent outside of the school day figuring out how the SMARTboard works and what kinds of lessons could be done with it. Having some sort of professional development would give educators at least a starting point for moving forward, rather than giving them this wonderful tool and no idea how to use it. This study has had an impact on me as an educator as well. For one thing, it has given me a new way to motivate my students, which in turn motivates me. After seeing the excitement that my students had whenever the board was used, it makes me want to learn more ways to use it. I plan to take as many professional developments as I can (and as are offered) so that I may learn more tricks to utilizing the SMARTboard. I have been in contact with other teachers in my district about starting a collegial circle that can meet once a month to help problem solve and share ideas. The interactive whiteboard also taught me how to give over some of the control in my classroom to my students. I realized that when I sat back and let them do more of the teaching they were much more interested in learning. They enjoy being taught by their peers and working through problems together. I realized that I didn t always have to control everything, and in turn I empowered my students. They took ownership over their own learning and were really very proud of themselves when they figured something out.

16 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 16 Conclusion In summary, I aimed to find out what impact, if any, using an interactive whiteboard would have on the literacy learning of kindergarten students. Through action research, observations, and interviews I discovered that the interactive whiteboard definitely increased student motivation and interactivity, and that there was a need for much more professional development. As educators, we should always be looking for ways to motivate our students and keep them engaged. We need to create creative and interesting lessons that reach the learning styles and needs of all students. An interactive whiteboard may just be the tool to reaching those students that don t seem interested in learning the traditional way and need some extra motivation.

17 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 17 Appendix A Helpful SMARTboard websites SMARTboard tips (general use) cks.pdf SMARTboard lessons and interactive websites

18 Interactive Whiteboards and Literacy Learning 18 Reference List Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., Thompson, I., (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G., (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(3), Kitson, L., Fletcher, M., Kearney, J. (2007). Continuity and change in literacy practices: a move towards multiliteracies. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41(2), 42(1), Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), Schweder, W., Wissick, C., (2008). Content area applications. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(1), Shenton, A., & Pagett, L., (2007). From bored to screen: the use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41(3), Smith, F., Hardman, F. & Higgins, S. (2007). Gender inequality in the primary classroom: will interactive whiteboards help? Gender and Education, 19(4), Smith, F., Hardman, F. & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), Wall, K., Higgins, S., Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated things : pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5),