The College at Brockport: State Uiversit of New York Digital Commos @Brockport Educatio ad Huma Developmet Master's Theses Educatio ad Huma Developmet 5-2010 Iteractive SMART Board Techolog: Does it Promote Idividual Studet Academic Achievemet? Jaso D. Ellis The College at Brockport Follow this ad additioal works at: http://digitalcommos.brockport.edu/ehd_theses Part of the Educatio Commos To lear more about our programs visit: http://www.brockport.edu/ehd/ Repositor Citatio Ellis, Jaso D., "Iteractive SMART Board Techolog: Does it Promote Idividual Studet Academic Achievemet?" (2010). Educatio ad Huma Developmet Master's Theses. 10. http://digitalcommos.brockport.edu/ehd_theses/10 This Thesis is brought to ou for free ad ope access b the Educatio ad Huma Developmet at Digital Commos @Brockport. It has bee accepted for iclusio i Educatio ad Huma Developmet Master's Theses b a authorized admiistrator of Digital Commos @Brockport. For more iformatio, please cotact kmers@brockport.edu.
Iteractive SMART Board Techolog: Does it Promote Idividual Studet Academic Achievemet? b Jaso D. Ellis Ma 2010 A thesis (or project) submitted to the Departmet of Educatio ad Huma Developmet of the State Uiversit of New York College at Brockport I partial fulfillmet of the requiremets for the degree of Master of Sciece i Educatio
Iteractive SMART Board Techolog: Does it Promote Idividual Studet Academic Achievemet? b Jaso D. Ellis APPROVED BY: Date
Table of Cotets Itrodtlctio... Literature Review... Educatioal Reform... Differetiated Istructio... Effectivel usig Techolog... Techolog as a distractio... The beefit of techolog i the classroo1... Techolog i Mathematics- Iteractive SMART Board... Methods... Purpose... Ratioale... Sigificace.... Research Questios.... DATA COLLECTION... Demographics... Tow.... District... School... Audiece... Data Collectio Tpes... Phase 1... 6 8 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 Phase 2... Mixed... 22 Researcher's Role.................................................. 22 Bias... 23 Assumptios...................................................... 24 Limitatios.............................................. 24 3
PROCEDURE... 25 Mixed Methodolog.... 25 Phase 1... 25 Phase 2...................................................... 26 DATA ANALYSIS... 27 Phase 1....... 27 Phase 2... 30 Mixed Methodolog... 32 Limitatios... 33 Implicatios for further research... 35 CONCLUSION... 36 REFERENCES.... 39 APPENDIX... 41 APPENDIX A... 42 Coset Form APPENDIX B... 46 IRB Certificatio APPENDIXC... 47 Pre - Stud Surve APPENDIXD.... Post Stud Surve 48 APPENDIX E... 49 Cotiuous Scale APPENDIXF... 50 District Demographics APPENDIX G... 51 School Demographics APPENDIX H... 52 Class A test Scores - Data Table & Bar Graph APPENDIX I... Class B test Scores Data Table & Bar Graph 53 4
APPENDIX J........................................................................ 54 Class A vs. Class B Test A Scores Data Compariso, Bar Graph, t -test APPENDIX K......... 55 Class A vs. Class B Test B Scores -Data Compariso, Bar Graph, t -test APPENDIX L...... 56 Class A vs. Class B Test Score Differeces Data Compariso, Bar Graph, t -test APPENDIX M...... 57 Class A Phase 1 Observatioal Data APPENDIX N...... 58 Class B - Phase 1 Observatioal Data APPENDIX 0......... 59 Class A- Pre- Stud & Post- Stud Respose Data APPENDIXP... 60 Class B -Pre- Stud & Post Stud Respose Data APPENDIX Q....................................................................... 61 TestA APPENDIX R...... 64 Test B 5
INTRODUCTION Itegrated istructio ad differetiated teachig 1ethodologies are istrumetal i developig studet iteractio ad academic progressio. It is a professioal resposibilit to stimulate studet iterest i cuicula ad motivate studets to lear through differetiated istructio. There is a strog correlatio betwee academic achievemet ad studet stimulatio i educatio. The more egaged a studet is withi istructio, the greater the chaces of idividual academic success. Studets that demostrate full ivolvemet, activel participatig i classroom structure, have a tedec to grasp materials quicker ad develop deeper levels of master learig. The modalit of learig is, i essece, a social costruct that occurs whe the studet is iterested ad committed to the materials beig preseted. The questios follow, how ca studets become more committed to all subject areas? How ca each idividual subject area appeal to a larger majorit of the studet populatio? What ca be doe throughout the educatioal process to better capture the attetio of our studets of toda ad tomorrow? The traditioal approach of lecture ad ote takig has lost its effect as the moder da aroud educatio grows. I efforts to grow academicall it must be cosidered that differetiated modalities of teachig ad learig are ecessar to implemet deeper levels of growth ad coceptual developmet. Not ever studet is iterested i all subject matters. However, it is the resposibilit of the educatio sstem to emplo a variet of opportuit for studets to gai iterest, orchestratig academic growth ad progressio throughout childhood ad adolescece. 6
Ma advaces are beig made i a effort to icrease studet stimulatio, icludig the itegratio of techolog withi the classroom. Techolog is directl if1uecig both teachig ad learig. The implemetatio of assistive techolog withi educatio has a profoud if1uece o the developmet of overall studet achievemet. Deeper uderstadigs ad levels of master across each cotet strad are ke idicators of effective techological itegratio. Studies are showig that studets ad teachers are reachig ew heights regardig academic achievemet b itegratig techolog i the classroom. Icorporatig techolog through differetiated istructio promotes ad ecourages studet ivolvemet. Techolog itrisicall motivates studet learig. A icrease i studet motivatio to lear, resuits i a icrease i academic performace. Techolog chages the roles of the studet ad teacher, egagig learig ad teachig as oe collaborative itegrated approach. Techolog i the classroom provides a iteractive tool for studets to egage i the material ad through exploratio make their ow cojectures, coclusios, ad academic growths. Stimulatio has a powerful effect o academic achievemet. Whe ivolved, iterested, ad motivated to lear, a studet develops deeper master level discoveries. Differetiatig learig ad istructio methodologies, the implemetatio of techolog i a educatioal settig has uiversal impacts o studet achievemet. Techolog-based tasks ca be excellet vehicles for promptig sustaied iteractio amog studets. Ultimatel, techolog supports the implemetatio of a strog theoretical costructivist learig approach. The theor of costructivist learig that motivates differetiated teachig, has studets ivolved i complex et meaigful fos of itegrated istructio. Ever 7
aspect of pedagog is multifaceted icorporatig higher-order skills such as techological data aalsis ad comprehesio. Collaborative learig eables studet - to - studet iteractio ad discoveries. As the world aroud educatio adopts a techological foudatio of livig, schools must also make chages adaptig to more itegrated techologicall depedet support structure. B differetiatig istructio ad itegratig techolog ito the academic eviromet, the teacher is able to capitalize o the "teachable momet," actig as a coach to guide learig rather tha force it. The bled of techolog ito the classroom provides a assistive tool for studets to iteract with the material, icreasig stimulus ad academic achievemet. Educatioal Reform LITERATURE REVIEW Educatioal reform calls for a shift awa from orgaizig istructio aroud time devoted to lecture or practicig discrete skills i specific academic disciplies toward a emphasis o egagig studets i log-term, meaigful projects. Techolog ca ehace studet acquisitio through drill ad practice. From the begiig of the computer age, educatioal researchers ad practitioers have told us that for techolog use to be successful i our schools it eeded to be closel tied to school reform. Glea ad Melmed (1995) wrote: Techolog without reform is likel to have little value: widespread reform without techolog is probabl impossible. The uavoidable coclusio is that successful improvemet of techolog, sciece, ad mathematics educatio is of high importace to our future. (p. xix-xx.). 8
The impact of techolog o studet learig is growig rapidl. The itegratio of techolog withi educatio icreases studet stimulatio ad cotprehesive iteractio while eablig a differetiatio i teachig methodologies. Differetiated Istructio- Techological Itegratio The evolutio of educatio requires differetiatio ad itegrated istructio. The movemet from traditioal learig stles to a ewer progressio of iterrelated teachig methodologies is progressivel chagig the face of educatio. Toda, educatio is much more tha drill ad developmet of basic skills. Studet growth i acquisitio ad complex reasoig is a drivig force to eable academic ehacemet. As the world becomes more complex-virtuall ear-to-ear istead of the geeratio-to-geeratio pace of most of the last cetur-educatioal eeds cotiue to shift from teachig ad learig isolated skills ad iformatio withi each cotet area, to teachig skills that eable studets to solve complex problems across ma areas (NASBE, 2001). Techolog ca assist with some of these expectatios ad make teachers ad their studets more successful. Accordig to Lemke ad Coughli, While further research studies are eeded, emergig treds idicate that, uder the right coditios, techolog: accelerates, eriches, ad deepes basic skills; motivates ad egages studets i learig; helps relate academics to the practices of toda's workforce; icreases ecoomic viabilit of tomorrow's workers; stregthes teachig; cotributes to chage i schools; Coects schools to the world. (p. 122) Both academicall ad professioall, societ has become depedet o techolog. As techological developmet progresses, educatio must make adjustmets to remai curret. Istructio, assessmet, ad teachig abilities must adapt to techolog, ifluecig a positive chage i academic progressio. 9
Educators must prepare for a techolog-rich future ad keep up with chage b adoptig effective strategies that ifuse lessos with appropriate techologies. This makes authetic assessmet eeds eve more importat: Assessmets must keep pace with effective istructioal techolog use. All this while educators at ever level, but teachers especiall, activel pursue professioal developmet that eables a lifelog exploratio of was to ehace the teachig ad learig of sciece ad mathematics ad support sciece ad mathematics educatio reform (NASBE, 2001). Istrumetal to studet developmet, itegrated istructio is a primar resource i academic progressio. The ew wave of techolog supports the chages eeded i toda's academics, illustratig the eed for itegrated techolog. Effectivel usig Techolog as a educatioal Istrumet Oe of the most effective tools i stimulatig studet iterest is to address all differet learig stles. Ever studet has his/her ow wa of learig. However, some strategies are more effective tha others. Itertwiig learig stles ad differetiatig istructio eable learers of all modalities to gai isight ad beefit from a lesso. Diaz ad Cartal state, Educators have, for ma ears, oticed that some studets prefer certai methods of learig more tha others. These traits, referred to as learig stles, form a studet's uique learig preferece ad aid teachers i the plaig of smallgroup ad idividualized istructio. If optimal studet lea1ig is depedet o learig stles, ad these stles var betwee distace ad equivalet o-campus studets, the facult should be aware of these differeces ad alter their preparatio ad istructioal methods accordigl (p. 130-135). Throughout educatio, techolog has beco1e a great resource i differetiatig istructio. The uses of itegrated techologies i the classroom have provided ewer more diverse methods of teachig ad learig. However, itegratig techolog is ot as simple as brigig a techological tool ito the classroom ad automaticall egagig studets. Techolog is a tool. Techolog eeds to be chose appropriatel. 10
"Does it work?" ad "Is it effective?" are legitimate questios about educatioal techolog. Whe educators ask these questios, the are reall askig if techolog helps studets lear. But techolog is ol a tool, ad the questio caot just be "Does the presece of techolog improve learig?" It is clear that whe researchers tr to evaluate the educatioal uses of techolog, what the are reall evaluatig are the broader pedagogical practices beig used. The questio, the, becomes: What kids of techolog are beig used, uder what cotext, ad i what was that help promote studet learig (Fulto, 1998; Software ad Iformatio Idustr Associatio, 2000; Weglisk, 1998)? Ma questios circulate the ideas ad advaces of techolog withi educatio. It is a tool with great potetial. With the right metalit, techolog ca be itegrated ito ever classroom. The expectatios are high ad the rage of educatio is edless. Techolog as a distractio- a eed for uderstadig Techolog ca accelerate teachig to great heights. However, whe used icorrectl or isufficietl, techolog ca be othig more tha a distractio. Not all the uses of techolog i schools are effective. Ma claim, there is o academic improvemet; o reward for expesive ivestmets (Mathews, 2000). Other authors believe techolog takes fudig awa from other resources ad programs that ma be more beeficial to studets (Heal, 1999; Oppeheimer, 1997); that techolog sits idle ad is uderused (Cuba, 2001 ); ad that a over-reliace o techolog ca rob from childre opportuities to express creativit, build huma relatioships, ad experiece hads-o learig (Alliace for Childhood, 2000). Negative results idicate that the iitiatives themselves focused o hardware ad software, or teachers taught about the techolog istead of usig the techolog to ehace learig experieces (Schacter 1995). Techolog ca improve teachig ad learig. However, depedig o the teachers' purposes i usig the techolog or the wa the techolog is preseted, a egative impact ca couteract the effort. 11
The impact ad implemetatio of the techolog is ol as strog as the teacher's uderstadigs of the materials beig used. Differetiatio ad teachig approach is istrumetal to the developmet of success withi the classroom. Differig teachig 1odalities ad learig approaches eables studets to grasp material ad grow as idividual learers, itrisicall relatig to cocepts that are self-discovered. Techolog ca ot be itroduced as a assistive tool to simpl stregthe teacher-cetered istructio. The techolog is best utilized as a assistive piece to itegratig deeper coceptualized levels of learig with studet-cetered hads o learig approach. Successful itegratio of learig techologies leadig to ehaced learig outcomes is ulikel uless teachers perceive ad use techolog as a itegral part of a studet cetered I coceptual chage teachig approach. Ol through studets perceivig learig techologies as part of learig cotext which ecourages idepedece i learig ad deep learig approaches are ehaced learig outcomes likel (Cope 2002). Techolog, whe implemeted correctl ito the classroom settig, udoubtedl has a tremedous impact o educatio. However, the stregths of the techolog are ol as strog as the operator. Is a expectatio that a teacher who chooses to emphasize growth through techolog will ultimatel lear, develop, ad stregthe their idividual uderstadigs before attemptig to use it as a core istrumet i the istructioal settig. I additio to istructio i the use of learig techologies, experieced teachers eed professioal developmet i modem research kowledge about the ature of learig ad how learig techologies ca be used to ecourage ehaced learig outcomes i studets (Carr-Chellma & Der, 2000). The curret support for ad promotio of the use of learig techologies i classrooms, whilst admirable, eeds a additioal focus - icreased time release for experieced teachers to udertake this professioal developmet. Techolog eeds to be used costructivel. Regardless of the techolog itegrated ito the classroom, it ca ot be assumed that it will have a immediate impact o the 12
learig process. The operator eeds to full uderstad, work with, ad ivestigate the techolog i efforts to ultimatel beefit the istructio that occurs. Oce the techological equipmet is developed ad uderstood, we as educators eed to see the techolog as a assistive tool that supports the educatioal value. Depedec is aother factor that cotributes to the idea of techolog as a distractio. Techolog is ver ifluetial i becomig a cetral focus rather tha a assistive tool. Mathematics used to be calculated b had. Tables ad charts were used to assist huma calculatios -metal math. These charts ad tables have bee replaced i toda's culture with calculators. Cotiuall, the calculator techolog is drasticall evolvig. Calculators toda produce graphs, formulas, ad programs desiged to assist i mathematical computatio. It is debated that studets are becomig depedet o this techolog. Studets ca o loger compute metal mathematics ad are losig basic skills eeded for survival i the adult world outside of educatio. Usig calculators to exemplif the issue of depedec, we ca see how ofte techolog is overused. Techolog ca easil become the cetral focus or cocer rather tha a assistive tool. reliace of techolog ofte creates feeligs ad argumets such as the issue cocerig calculators. But calculators are oe of ma assistive techological tools offered. What else costitutes a learig techolog? The differet perceptios of the "what" compoet of learig techologies are geerall foud to be related i a hierarch based o logical iclusiveess. Tpicall a learig techolog is athig that ca be phsicall maipulated b the learer. However, it ca also be argued that learig techologies are strictl electroic. The issue is ot i the assistive aspect of the tool, rather the mechaical operatioal abilit. 13
Regardless of electroic capabilit, depedec is a issue. Whe the techolog becomes the cetral focus of the lesso, the value of the techological tool is lost. It is still importat to deliver istructio through a variet of istructioal modalities. The assistive piece used, is exactl meat for that purpose- assistig educatio. However, as techological tools become more available, the opportuit to deliver visuals ad other outside resources is edless. Ultimatel, whe used coectl, the potetial to relate iformatio to real-world cotextual settigs is priceless. The beefit of techolog i the classroom Techological itegratio withi educatio is becomig a atioal pheomeo. More ad more educators are makig efforts to differetiate istructio utilizig techolog as a ke resource. Computer based techolog has bee called a essetial igrediet i restructurig because it ca provide the diversit i istructioal methods ecessar to reach all school childre," Poli (1991). Techolog ca pla a importat role i learig. Whe used effectivel, the value of a lesso is priceless. The lesso becotes iteractive, differetiatig the learig withi the classroom. Specific mathematical exa1ples of learig techologies that take studet developmet to ew heights are Graphig Calculators, SMART Boards, wireless setiel adaptors, ad computer related programs such as TI -iteractive software, Geometer Sketch Pad, Wi plot, ad much more. Techolog is a resource; used i the appropriate maer studet learig is ejoable. Studets become more cofidet i their abilities ad quickl choose to further their ow academic developmet. 14
The wa of educatio is drasticall chagig. Techolog is becomig more ad more vital i the world toda. Followig the tred, techolog withi educatio is goig to drasticall icrease, ad teachers eed to be read. As far as toda's societ is cocered, it is easil claimed that we are a societ that eeds to be etertaied. Throughout our homes, busiesses, schools, ad all other evirometal settigs, techolog is rapidl defiig who we are as a culture ad as a societ. As the world chages aroud us, it is importat that the educatioal sstem makes relevat chages to pro1ote academic developmet ad success. People toda crave techological itegratio throughout their dail routies. Capturig the eed for etertaimet, itegratig techolog that stimulates, promotes, ad ehaces academic growth is istrumetal to the later successes of idividuals ad the educatioal sstem. Techolog i Mathematics -Iteractive SMART Board As the world cotiues to develop techologicall, the foudatios of mathematics are becomig more ad more vital to the successes of our future developmets. Recetl the developmet of iteractive white boards has become a drivig force behid the ext step of evolutio i educatio. SMART Board iteractive white boards brig a whole ew level of iteractivit to a classroom or boardroom. Combied with our computer ad a projector, SMART Board brad products have the power to trasform our space ito a damic learig, traiig or workig eviromet. (smarttech.com) Ultimatel, the SMART Board techolog is a white board that acts as a touch scree to a computer. This eables the opportuit to structure a lesso as if it were a basic 15
projector or board, with opportuit for visuals, assistive programs, iteret access, ad more. As we trasitio ito the 21st cetur, multiple operatig sstems ad programs have bee developed to implemet a better framework i assistig the teachig process of tathematics. Programs such as Wiplot ad Geometer Sketchpad have istituted computer resources makig learig mathematics more iteractive ad iterestig. With the ew SMART Board techolog, these programs ca be brought to life durig istructio ad learig ca be take to a level that has ol bee imagied. METHODS Purpose The purpose of this two-phase, sequetial mixed methods stud will be to explore academic stimulatio with the itet of usig this iformatio to develop ad test a itrisic relatioship betwee SMART Board techolog ad academic achievemet. The first phase will be a qualitative exploratio of studet stimulatio b collectig observatioal data withi a high school mathematics classroom. Themes from this qualitative data will the be developed ito a istrumet so that the itegratio of SMART Board techolog i Math Educatio ca be compared to studet stimulatio ad academic achievemet. Ratioale The mixed methodolog approaches professioal research that combies the collectio ad aalsis of qualitative ad quatitative data. The effect of SMART Board techolog o studet stimulatio is measured i phase 1 of the stud. Studet behaviors 16
INTERACTIVE SMARTBOARDS AND ACI-IIEVMENT ad iteractios are recorded ad measured o a qualitative scale to make comparisos to both social ad academic achievemet. Quatitativel, data is recorded o a umeric scale. The data recorded i phase 1 becomes a istrumet comparig a chage i stimulatio to academic progressio. The itegratio of both the qualitative ad quatitative approach icreases the validit of the stud, esurig stregth i reliabilit. Sigificace The itegratio of techolog i educatio is ver cotroversial Is techolog essetial to promote studet developmet? The itegratio of techolog is widel see as a differetiated approach toward teachig pedagog. However, there is a lack of cosistec i the evaluatio of techolog. This stud is importat to both the worlds of geeral educatio ad mathematics educatio. There is a gap i iformatio ad fidigs regardig techological cotributios to the academic sti1ulatio ad successes of studets. Ma claims have bee made supportig the advatages ad disadvatages of techolog i the classroom. This stud will measure techolog as a tool impactig studet stimulatio ad academic achievemet. This stud is iteded to develop aswers to questios teachers ma have about the lik betwee techolog ad academic successes i the classroom. The goal of this stud is to provide a better uderstadig of the impact of techolog, SMART Board specific, o educatioal ehacemet ad developmet. 17
Research Questios I am workig o the topic of how iteractive SMART Boards are used to stimulate iteractio i learig Mathematics. I wat to bled themes of academic stimulatio to academic success; fidig a better uderstadig regardig the i1pact of SMART Board techolog o studet iterest ad iteractio i the classroom, ca help others uderstad how to use SMART Board techolog i the classroom ma ad ultimatel will promote a itrisic motivatio to lear ad succeed academicall. 1. I what was does the use of the iteractive SMART Board stimulate studet iteractio/ ivolvemet i learig? 2. I what was does the use of motivatio to lear? iteractive SMART Board promote a itrisic 3. I what was does the use of the iteractive SMART Board cotribute to studet academic success? These themes reoccur throughout the stud. The three guidig questios create a ceter of focus ad directio i which the stud develops toward provig or disprovig the hpothesis that SMART Board techolog does icrease studet stimulatio, ultimatel icreasig academic performace. Ma questios have rise sice the implemetatio of SMART Board techolog i the classroom. This research will attempt to aswer three of the ma questios et to be prove true or false. IRB Desigated to approve, moitor, ad review biomedical ad behavioral research ivolvig humas, the alleged aim of the IRB is to protect the rights ad welfare of the research subjects. This stud is exempt from IRB approval uder the coditios that: 18
Research coducted i established or commol accepted educatioal settigs, ivolvig ormal educatioal practices, such as: 1. Research o regular ad special educatio istructioal strategies Research o the effectiveess of or the compariso amog istructioal techiques, curricula, or classroom maagemet methods. Research ivolvig the use of educatioal tests (cogitive, diagostic, aptitude, achievemet), surve procedures, iterview procedures or observatio of public behavior, uless: 1. Iformatio obtaied is recorded i such a maer that huma subjects ca be idetified, directl or through idetifiers liked to the subjects 2. A disclosure of the huma subjects' resposes outside the research could reasoabl place the subjects at risk of crimial or civil liabilit or be damagig to the subjects' fiacial stadig, emploabilit, or reputatio. (Office of Huma Research Protectios) The idetities of the participats (subjects) selected ad observed i this stud are coded i a maer i which ol the researcher is able to idetif. The research ad data recorded throughout the process of the stud was filed i a secure locatio util results, fidigs, ad coclusios were made. Upo completio of the stud, docutets sharig persoal iformatio were shredded ad discarded. Remaiig documetatio was coded so that ol fidigs ad results could be draw. Paret ad participat coset forms were ecessar to begi this stud while parets ad participats were assured that the stud would remai aomous (See Appedix A). The admiistrator of the selected aware of the itet ad itegrit of the stud. The admiistrator siged a coset form gratig permissio for the stud to take place. 19
DATA COLLECTION Demographics: Tow, District, ad School The Tow i which the stud will be coducted is i a suburba settig i Wester New York. The tow populatio as of2006, accordig to public tow files, is 34,645 people. Of that populatio 92.5 percet of the people are white. The additioal 7.5 percet of people are of o-white descet. The media house hold icome is $64,400, the domiat laguage is Eglish, ad 46 percet of the residets age 25 ad older have a bachelor's or advaced college degrees. There are six schools throughout the district i which 4,842 studets are erolled. There are 408 teachers emploed withi the district ad the studet to teacher ratio is 12 to 1. District wide, there are 54 Eglish Laguage Leamer (ELL) studets ad 411 studets with Istructioal Educatio Plas (IEP) (See Appedix F). I the School egaged i the stud, there are 1595 Total Studets. Of that total populatio, 89.3 percet are white ad 10.7% o-white. Fourtee percet receive free of reduced luch ad the domiat laguage of the studets is Eglish. Oe hudred ad twet teachers are emploed i the particular school, ad the studet to teacher ratio is 13 to 1 (See Appedix G). Audiece of Iteded Stud This stud was coducted i a school district with techological erichmet ad resource. This stud was desiged to establish a lik betwee techological impacts o studet stimulatio ad academic achievemet. It must be oted that this research is 20
based o studets with techological resources ad is ot tested i a eviromet with a lack of resource. The stud coducted ivolved Iteractive SMART Board techolog, Texas Istrumet calculator techolog, ad computer software programs such as Geometer Sketch Pad, Wi Plot, Capri, Math CAD, ad excel. The audiece of this stud is iteded for those with a techologicall eriched eviromet. Data Collectio tpes: 2 phase mixed methods stud Phase 1 The first portio of the stud qualitativel triagulates emergig data betwee iteractive SMART Board based istructio ad studet stimulatio. The observatios ad recordigs of the data fidigs are progressive throughout the uit. The idea was to observe ad explore the impact of SMART Board techolog i the classroom with studet stimulatio. Collected through observatioal data, studet behaviors ad social iteractios were the primar focus of this phase of the stud. The goal of the observatio was to evaluate academic ad social egage1et of the studets as the the1es of emotioal ad cogitive resposes emerge together. Phase 2 The Secod Phase of the stud measures studet data quatitativel. Numeric achievemet ad assessmet focuses the stud aroud results ad progressio. The qualitative data foud i phase 1 is used as a istrumet to determie the impact of stimulatio o achievemet. Based o the scales ad recordigs used i phase 1, quatitative tools were the formatted to gage the studet stimulatio to assess the 21
INTERACTIVE SMARTBOARDS AND ACI-IIEVMENT relatioship. Quatitative tools used i measurig these relatioships are quiz ad test scores. These scores are recorded with itetios to compare results i efforts to demostrate distict similarities ad differeces betwee the two groups. All other forms of iformal assessmet such as etrace or exit tickets, homework ad I or class work are used as idicators to see progressio throughout the stud but are ot cosidered for data aalsis at the ed. Mixed Methodolog: A Bled of 2 phases The stud will occur over the course of 1 acadetic Uit. The two methods, qualitative ad quatitative, will bled throughout the observatio as differet pieces are aalzed. The first phase, the qualitative phase, will begi each stud as the researcher observes, records, ad triagulates the data foud through studet iteractio ad resposes: emotioal, phsical, cogitive, etc. As these data fidigs are occurrig, the researcher will the itegrate quatitative tools such as exams, throughout the observatio. The two methods will be studied closel together, lookig for a emergece of themes ad coclusios. Researcher's Role The role of the researcher is a complete participat. The participats (Subjects) were full aware of both the research beig doe ad the ivolvemet of the researcher withi the data collectio. The researcher was able to make ifereces ad coclusios based o direct observatio ad collectio of studet work. The researcher however, did ot iteract with participats i a demeaor that ta hider the stud. If a patiicipat 22
INTERACTIVE SMARTBOARDS AND ACI-IIEVMENT i the stud or the stud itself was co1promised, the researcher disregarded the iformatio ad elimiated that participat or factor from the stud. Some of the advatages of a complete participat are: Firsthad experiece with participats, ca record iformatio as its revealed, ad uusual aspects ca be oticed durig observatio. However, major set backs or limitatios of this tpe of research were that: The researcher ma be see as Itrusive, "Private" Iformatio ma ot have bee able to be reported, or there is alwas potetial for a failure to gai report with the studets. The researcher directl observed behaviors ad iteractios i phase 1, ad recorded them a cotiuous scale (See Appedix E). Throughout phase 2 of the stud, the researcher evaluated the data ad used the aalsis from the assessmet results to measure academic achievemet. Researcher's Bias Throughout m academic experieces, both as a studet ad as a teacher, I have developed a strog passio for techological itegratio i mathematics. I have egaged i usig assistive techolog such as smart boards, computer applicatios, ad calculators iteractivel. As a udergraduate studet, iteractive techolog supported m developmet as a studet ad as a upcomig professioal. Throughout m academic career, techolog has eabled deeper uderstadigs ad more i-depth aalses of mathematical claims ad proofs. Techolog is a tool I egage i m classroom dail. I feel that the use of the techolog ot ol provides academic support but stimulates academic iterest ad comprehesio. At all levels of m educatio, I was i a eviromet rich i resource. Techolog was a part of m life growig up ad has become ad eve larger part of m life as a professioal. 23
Researcher's Assumptios The followig were m assumptios created from m persoal les ad bias. It was assumed that the itegratio of SMART Board techolog i the classroom eviromet would stimulate studet iteractio ad promote academic success. It was also assumed that because of the techological advaces made i societ, techological advaces should also itegrate withi educatio. Lastl, it was assumed that further research will be eeded based o the fidigs of this stud. These assumptios have bee made prior to m stud ad are based o persoal experiece with o research ad are direct idicators for the sigificace of this stud. Limitatios The limitatios of this stud are ot detrimetal to the stud as a whole, but do place a stigma. The stud will be coducted i a middle class suburba school district with ulimited resources. The fidigs of this stud will be able to be geeralized i compariso to other schools of middle-icome or higher socio-ecoomic status; however, the stud will ot be applicable to districts with lesser fudig ad a lack of techological resource. Also, the scale i which the researcher will evaluate participat's stimulatio emotioall, phsicall, ad cogitivel (See Appedix E) is based o the observers perceptios of each subtopic. The same scale ad stadard ma be utilized; however, persoal iterpretatio is alwas slightl differet from oe to aother. 24
Mixed Methodolog: A Bled of 2 phases PROCEDURE The stud occurred over course of 1 academic uit. Withi this stud, two classes of the same cotet ad grade level were observed, ivolvig 32 participats (subjects). Each of the participats from each class was observed over the spa of the uit ad idividuall evaluated 5 differet times. The itet was to desig commo practice of curricula across the two differet classes; studig the effect techolog plaed o specific learig outcomes ad the role it plaed o icreasig or decreasig academic successes. Studig 2 differet classes, at the same grade level, was iteded to eable specific observatios without havig to var grade ad age levels. The fidigs ad results for each of the two classes were the compared, usig 2 sample t-tests, at the ed of the stud i efforts to compute the effect of SMART Board techolog o educatio to a specific sigificace level. Oe class, Class A, was a cotrolled group usig the SMART Board ol as a overhead. The other class, Class B, was a experimet group where each lesso was created usig the iteractive features of the SMART Board. This class was subjected to a variet of tools ad special iteractive, creative features that the SMART Board offers. Over the spa of the stud studet behaviors, iteractios, ad all other qualitative threads of the experimet were studied as Phase 1. Phase 2 was the used to compare data ad compute results to make umerical ad statistical coclusios. Phase 1 The Qualitative portio of the stud was istrumetal i determiig the sigificace that SMART Board techolog plaed i stimulatig studet learig. The participats (subjects) egaged i academics as if the stud was o-existet. Throughout 25
INTERACTIVE SMARTBOARDS AND ACI-IIEVMENT the stud, the participats egaged i both SMART Board ad o-smart Board drive activities. Class A was completel o-smart Board drive. Studets from Class A were subjected to learig o the white board or whe usig the SMART Board, it was used strictl as a white board. Studets from Class B were completel ivolved with the SMART Board usig it for lecture, ad iteractio. As the participats from both classes egaged i the activities ad lessos, the researcher observed ad record data related to the phsical, emotioal, ad cogitive reactios of the studets. The observer recorded the data fidigs based o a cotiuous scale (See Appedix E). Additioal commets were made o the scale if exceptioal or out of the ordiar behaviors were observed. These scales were developed to place a umerical evaluatio o each studet's level of stimulatio. The itet was to later use this data demostratig the differece i iteractio, stimulatio, ad ivolvemet betwee the two classes durig istructioal periods. Phase 2 quatitative portio of the stud is istrumetal to the umeric fidigs ad measuremets. The participats were quatitativel assessed thoroughl throughout the observatio. Begiig with a Uit Exam (Uit A Exam), the participats were assessed ad evaluated o their developmet as studets ad coceptual capabilities prior to the cotrolled techological experimet. The stud bega with a uit exam to determie the differece i academic performace levels betwee the two classes. Are the two classes of equal academic stregth? Are there more mathematicall strog studets i oe class 26
vs. the other? Questios, as such, are importat to aswer prior to the stud so that results ma ot be skewed at the ed of the experilet. Throughout the stud several iformal assessmets such as etrace ad exit tickets were used i efforts to evaluate academic progressio. A small, te to fiftee tiute, quiz ad homework assigmets were also assessed to evaluate academic progressio. However, the focus of the stud ad the assessmets used to prove or disprove the cosesus of the thesis were the two Uit exams, Uit A ad Uit B. The results of both the examiatios ad quizzes were cotrasted ad compared. The cotrol group data was directl compared to the experimetal group data. Each of the exam scores were directl liked to the other group so that ifereces ad coclusios could be draw form the data. The data from phase oe was the compiled ad itegrated with the data i phase two i efforts to compare SMART Board iduced stimulatio to academic achievemet. Phase 1 DATA RESULTS The first portio of the stud qualitativel triagulates emergig data betwee SMART Board based istructio, o-smart Board based istructio, ad studet stimulatio. The goal of the observatio was to aalze academic ad social egagemet of the studets as the themes of emotioal, phsical, ad cogitive resposes emerge together. Each of the participats was observed five times over the spa of the stud. Each participat was evaluated usig the same cotiuous scale (See Appedix E). The scale evaluated three levels of stimulatio: Cogitive, emotioal, ad phsical. The cogitive 27
sectio evaluated thought ad productio of studet questios, evaluatios, ad cotet specific thikig. The emotioal portio of the scale evaluated the tpes of commets, appropriateess of comtets, ad relevac of commets beig made throughout class. Did it seem as if the studet was showig excitemet ad egagemet i the learig process? Lastl, the observatioal scale 1easure phsical expressio. This was the portio allowig for the measuremet ad evaluatio of bod laguage, facial expressio, a phsical evidece of ivestmet i the lesso. For each portio of the scale, the studet was rated 1-4; the low ed of the spectrum beig a 1 represetig little to o egagemet, the high ed beig a 4, represetig egagemet, excitemet, ad itrisic ivestmet i the lesso. Each of the scores were the recorded i a data table (See Appedix M & Appedix N). Upo completio of all the observatios of each studet, the results were the averaged b sectio over the 5 da observatioal spa. The results from Class A ad Class B were the compared usig a 2 sample t-test to aalze the sigificace of the results. The goal of these tests was to demostrate a distict differece i stimulatio from participats i Class A to those i Class B. The participats i class were ot subjected to a iteractio with the SMART Board. The SMART Board was used as a white board ad oe of its iteractive features were used. The participats from Class B were regularl egaged with the SMART Board i everda istructio. Studets were asked to use the SMART Boards features, lessos were differetiated ofte cotaiig small video clips, automated images, ad other features the whiteboard does ot offer. Evaluatig the phsical, emotioal, ad cogitive reactios of the participats, the observer was able to triagulate the fidigs aalzig both itrisic ad extrisic 28
INTERACTIVE S~fARTBOARDS AND ACHIEVMENT stitulatio. Comparig the data from class A to Class B required a 2 sample t-test because the two classes are idepedet ad ultimatel have o effect o each other. I order to get the most accurate data compariso three 2 sample t-tests were coducted comparig Class A to Class B. The first t-test cmpared data for the cogitive portio of observed class stimulatio. The test showed a p value of.05463916. This showed that the chage i stimulatio betwee Class A, o SMART Board iteractio ad Class B, complete SMART Board iteractio did ot var o a sigificace level of less tha 5 percet. Thus, there was o sigificat chage i stimulatio betwee the two classes regardig Cogitive stimulatio. However, comparig Class A to Class B o both the emotioal ad phsical stimulat levels, both t-tests showed a sigificat chage o a level of less tha 5 percet. The p-value comparig Class A to Class B for the emotioal stimulatio test was p=.0208005 ad the p-value comparig Class A to Class B for the phsical stimulatio test wasp.0325809. Both of these p-values suggest that the chage from Class A to Class B was ver sigificat regardig emotioal ad phsical stimulatio. Based o these tests it was cocluded that the use of the SMART Board techolog i a classroom eviromet ultimatel does icrease studet stimulatio both phsicall ad emotioall. The lack of sigificat chage i cogitive stimulatio however, is ot discouragig. The two classes observed, are of all the same age ad developmet. The were selected i efforts to keep cosistec of age, experiece, maturit, ad academic progressio. Studets are tpicall thought to be of equal cogitive developmet whe 29
cosiderig these factors. Thus, regardless of techolog, it is the learig stles ad delivet stles that will ultimatel impact cogitive stilulatio ad developmet. Phase 2 Prior to the observatio of studet stimulatio i phase 1, the studets took Test A. This assessmet was the fial assessmet for Uit A. Uit A was taught without utilizig all the iteractive features of the SMART Board. Both Class A ad Class B were taught with the same lesso plas, sa1e assessmets, ad same lesso differetiatio as i the Stud. However, there was o use of the iteractive stimulats ad tools that the SMART Board has to offer. Both classes were taught usig the SMART Board as othig more tha a overhead or a whiteboard. The ratioale was to first compare academic performace betwee the two classes. Test A, was used to provide feedback to the researcher demostratig abilit levels of both classes idividuall, ad as a whole. These scores represet the skill settig of the participats of both Class A ad Class B whe learig uder the same set of criteria. To measure the differece betwee the two classes, a 2 sample t-test was used to determie if oe class was sigificatl stroger tha the other. For the same reasoig as i phase 1, a 2 sample t-test was used because Class A ad Class be are idepedet of oe aother ad have o effect o each others scores. The p-value foud was p=.0447131 whe assumig that Class was stroger tha Class B. This shows that Class A is sigificatl stroger tha Class B o a sigificace level of less tha 5 percet. It also shows that Class is ot stroger tha Class B o a sigificace level of less tha 1 percet. 30
For reasoig si1ilar to that of phase 1, the two classes observed, are of all the same age ad developmet. The were selected i efforts to keep cosistec of age, experiece, 1aturit, ad academic progressio. Studets are tpicall thought to be of equal skill level whe i the same course. Showig that Class A has a stroger skill set tha that of Class B o a sigificace level of less tha 5 percet shows that Class A has a better foudatio for the materials beig lea1ed. I order to prove that the use of SMART Board techolog does improve studet academic success, it must be show that the test Scores betwee Class A ad those of Class B are ot sigificatl differet. This will the provide that from oe uit of academia to aother, Class B grew sigificatl more tha Class A. At the ed of the stud two other 2 sample t-tests were coducted. The first was a 2 sample t-test comparig the results of Test B. Assumig that Class A scores were greater tha those of Class B, a p-value ofp =.611785791 was foud. This suggests that there was ot a sigificat differece i scores betwee Class A ad Class B. This data is exactl what was iteded. The two classes bega, o equal learig levels, with a sigificatl differet level of academic performace. However, with the itegratio of the SMART Board, betwee the two class's academic performaces there was o sigificat differece. Based o this test aloe, there is ot eough proof to verif if the SMART Board does icrease academic success, however it is a step the right directio. The secod 2 sample t-test that was coducted compared the test differeces from Uit A to Uit B. The differeces from Test A to Test B show the umerical improvemet from oe to the other. This is the data essetial i assistig the previous t test. If the sigificace levels betwee the differeces did chage o a level of less tha 5 31
percet tha we do have eough proof to determie that SMART Board techolog does icrease studet academic success. It was assumed that the differece i scores for Class B was higher tha those of Class A. The t-test showed a p-value of p.00033350822. This suggests that the chage i scores was sigificatl higher for Class B tha those of Class A o both a 5 percet ad 1 percet sigificace level. The class egagig i the use of the SMART Board showed a sigificatl higher positive chage i Test scores tha that of the class that did ot use the SMART Board. Thus, beig cocluded that the use of SMART Board techolog does pla a role i the improvemet of studet learig ad icreases academic success. Mixed Methodolog: A Bled of 2 phases Itegratig the two phases together ad triagulatig the data it ca be cocluded that SMART Board techolog does icrease studet stimulatio; with a icrease i studet stimulatio, there is a icrease i academic performace. Whe the scores of both Test A ad Test B were compared to oe aother for Class A, the scores did show a average icrease of 0.25 poits (See Appedix H). Whe the scores of both Test A ad Test B were compared to oe aother for Class B, the scores showed a average icrease of 6.375 poits (See Appedix I). The differece i average improvemet was 6.125. Studets from Class B showed a higher level of academic stimulatio tha those of Class A ad their test improvemets showed a drastic improve1et. Prior to the stud, studets from both classes were asked to complete a pre-stud surve regardig questios about learig with the SMART Board (See Appedix C). At 32
the ed of the stud all participats were asked to complete a post-surve stud. Ultimatel, the questios were the same. However, the aswers chaged drasticall. Prior to the stud, 78 percet of the participats aswered es, whe asked the questio "Do ou thik the Smart Board makes learig easier?" (See Appedix D) However, at the ed of the stud, whe asked the same questio, 91 percet aswered es (See Appedix 0 & Appedix P). Based o the data of the assessmets, the t-score tests of the stimulatio evaluatios, ad the surves i which the participats completed it is obvious that as studet cofidece grows, their ivolvemet ad academic progress grows. The SMART Board techolog is a tool that ca be used i the classroom to help differetiate teachig ad impact learig. Whe used correctl, studets are appropriatel egaged ad learig occurs for all itrisic purpose. The most ifluetial wa to teach a studet is to egage a studet i the material. As the educatioal sstem itegrates more toward the techological advaces beig made, we as educators will be able to better our abilities to help studets lear. The SMART Boards are the first step toward developig a ew wave of itegratig techolog ito the classroom. The differetiate teachig stles, impact studet learig, ad help make learig more meaigful. Limitatios Studets exposed to SMART Board techolog, i this stud, have show a higher level of achievemet ad growth tha those without the SMART Board techolog exposure. The SMART Board is a iteractive tool that promotes differetiatio 33
ifluecig a itrisic motivatio to lear. However, as beeficial to learig the SMART Board ma be, as with athig else, there are limitatios to its successes. This stud is solel limited to districts that ca afford to implemet SMART Board techolog withi the classroom settig. The techolog i this stud is SMART Board specific. Other techologies such as calculators ad computers are other viable resources that ma or ma ot impact studet achievemet. However, this stud ca ot be geeralized to all districts. Districts without fudig or opportuit to market the SMART Board throughout their classrooms must look elsewhere to fid better was to icrease studet achievemet. Yet, the fact remais that icreased studet iteractio ad stimulatio withi the classroom will ultimatel impact academic achievemet. This portio of the stud ca be geeralizeable to all districts of all socio-ecoomic settigs. The more ivested ad iterested a studet is i a class, the more successful that studet will become. Other limitatios of this stud iclude: ol oe grade level of studet was studied; ol oe uit of stud was observed; ol oe experimetal group; observatioal evaluatios were researcher based - m ideas of stimulatio ma be slightl differet tha aother's. The same scales i which were used for this stud could be used i all other studies measurig similar data. However, the are opiio based ad could be iflueced b bias. Aother limitatio to this stud is that the researcher must be familiar with the techolog. Techolog is ofte difficult to operate. If the teacher or perso usig the techolog is ot familiar with or have a uderstadig of the techolog beig used, it 34