Proposed project:
Large Urban School, as its motto states, is where the world comes to learn for a better tomorrow. This school, from kindergarten to ninth grade, houses seventy full-time equivalent teaching positions, forty homeroom classrooms, and 1120 learners. Representing over twenty-two languages and cultures, a significant number of learners are working towards improving English Language Proficiency and developing Cultural Competence. With student-learning as a primary focus, especially outcomes related to information literacy within an extended hypermedia and multiple literacy context, this project attempts to allow learning to better engage a variety of learner types and abilities in every classroom. Teaching and learning methods will focus on project-based, small-group, and inquiry-method research but also the necessary whole-class discussions to support these activities.
The aim of this project is to double the number of interactive whiteboards currently being installed, this summer, at Large Urban School in order to equip each homeroom. This project also involves the provision of accessories and tools that will allow teachers to use one-to-one teacher laptops to connect to whiteboard software. Research identifies a need for ongoing collaborative professional learning, lesson planning, lesson reflection, and project evaluation to be provided alongside this investment. Upon completion of this project, all homeroom teachers would have consistent interactive whiteboard access in their classroom as well as the necessary supports for implementation to be successful.
Research on proposed project:
Studies on the effects of interactive whiteboards directly on learner achievement exist, and a full spectrum of reaction to these studies also exists. Haystead and Marzano released a preliminary report titled “Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement” (2009). In this study, they make very bold claims that interactive whiteboards can have a significant positive effect on learner achievement, especially when teaching experience is greater than ten years. However, great debate exists on the report’s methodology and level of objectivity.
This research has two main goals. First, as interactive whiteboards have been introduced globally, this research aims to demonstrate areas where classrooms have become authentically more interactive—or dialogic by demonstrating collaborative, reciprocal, and cumulative engagement. This is seen to promote higher-level thinking where teachers are responsive to multiple learner types and learners are connected pervasively to real-world contexts (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006). Second, this research attempts to demonstrate the potential interactive whiteboards have, across programs of study, in promoting information literacy in a context that increasingly demands multiple literacies and extended hypermedia awareness. From this research, areas where interactive whiteboards have promoted, or perhaps inhibited, best practices can be identified; these areas can be used to determine the extent to which interactive whiteboards might best be utilized as well as areas where professional learning can and should focus.
An important consideration with interactive whiteboards is their role in whole-class instruction; also important, is the extent to which they enhance or inhibit higher-level questioning activities as they are used or not used in small-group inquiries. “The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher–pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies” (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006) is one of many studies conducted in the United Kingdom in relation to Key Stages national curriculum; researchers studied and compared 184 lessons, both with and without interactive whiteboard tools. A supported claim is made within the study that dialogic instruction can lead to different levels of participation and engagement, but do result in “higher levels of learner achievement” (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006, p.444).
In seeking to understand if interactive whiteboards had the capacity to change whole-class discourse, the study highlights some important aspects of dialogic instruction that were strengthened by interactive whiteboards. Lessons with interactive whiteboards were seen to have significantly more open questions, more answers from learners, and more evaluation. The increase in these three factors resulted, also, in significantly faster paced lessons. However, in both numeracy and literacy lessons, more whole class teaching and less group work were observed in lessons that made use of interactive whiteboards. A conscious monitoring of time spent with whole-class instruction and best uses of that time would be an important consideration for professional learning discussions. After one year of use, teachers in these three areas made even more significant gains; decreases were also, then, observed in pauses and interruptions to activities (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006).
Turning to Australia, “A Study of Teachers' Integration of Interactive Whiteboards into Four Australian Primary School Classrooms” (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008) discusses researcher observations, once a week for over two full terms, of how teachers implemented and sustained interactive whiteboards into actual classroom practice after being first introduced. This research is particularly useful in looking to others’ experiences in order to building effective professional learning opportunities. A key finding of the study was that pedagogic practices were consistent with those already consistent in the classrooms; interactive whiteboards were not seen to evolve or change pedagogic practices on their own. New opportunities with technologies were achieved, and more rapid transitions between lessons, but not a transformative effect on pedagogy; that transformation and the implementation of these new possibilities seems possible only through intentional professional learning rather than through technology usage alone. While some learner-use of interactive whiteboards was observed, often classes were teacher led (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008). In professional learning, investigating ways students could use interactive ways to construct learning would be a valuable teacher discussion activity.
“The main impacts on lessons were an increased use of the Internet, software and visual resources as part of lessons; modeling and discussion of IT skills; and modeling of Internet research skills” (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008, p. 298). Final interviews summarized teacher beliefs that interactive whiteboards also had particular benefits in their own preparation and planning. In the context of Large Urban School, it then makes sense to have the accessories and tools necessary for teachers to be able to connect the one-to-one laptops already distributed to interactive whiteboard software. Learning objectives determined appropriate use of this technology, versus teachers looking for opportunities to exploit interactive whiteboard potential (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008); professional learning would reiterate the importance of this remaining true.
In “Learning Environments Using Interactive Whiteboards: New Learning Spaces or Reproduction of Old Technologies?” Zevenbergen and Lerman (2008) draw from research found in both the United Kingdom and Australia. While more cautious of mass interactive whiteboard implementation, this study highlights the need for intentional professional learning to maximize key benefits of interactive whiteboards: increased learner engagement, increased lesson pacing, as well as an increased ability to reach visual learners with highly visual activities and demonstrations. Looking at nine schools over three years, this study concedes that when it comes to sustaining teaching practice with interactive whiteboards “there appears to be considerable potential for IWBs to foster new forms of learning” but also “the data… suggest that change is not always easy.” (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2008, p. 123). Large Urban School draws strength from teaching staff who are up to the challenge, continually demonstrate high quality teaching, and are enthusiastic about teaching with and learning about this technology.
Within the United States, Cromley and Azevedo take an extensive look at learners’ information literacy skills in their “Locating information within extended hypermedia” research article (2009), with research on fifty-one participants. Across age groups, this research suggests that building prior knowledge has a strong correlation to successfully retrieving information. “Pre-teaching the content, a concept map or other advance organizer, hands-on experiences, brief video clips, and so on” are suggested (Cromley & Azevedo, 2009, p. 307). Interactive whiteboard software has many capabilities within this domain. Their research also suggests that previous instruction techniques such as heading and formatting cues are less relevant with information today and that many successful strategies are subject, topic, and question specific (Cromley & Azevedo, 2009). This, too, lends itself to guided research practice with tools such as interactive whiteboards.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, this technology can help teachers meet the need to foster life-long, information literate, critically thinking learners for today’s reality. Teachers, with interactive whiteboards, are better able to provide learning that meets the demands of our information rich and ever-changing society by engaging learners in very visual and interactive, or dialogic, ways. However, interactive whiteboards alone do not evolve pedagogic practice. Research suggests interactive whiteboards can be can be effective tools within certain learning strategies. Continual professional learning is necessary to fully maximize the potential of both educational objectives and technologies. As these professional learning opportunities will need to be continual and substantial, it makes sense to have this technology in each classroom as these transformation efforts occur. In order to achieve equitable access to interactive whiteboard technologies and to lessen the gap in technological teacher abilities, collaborative professional learning, planning, reflection, and evaluation time is necessary. Potential can be achieved.
References
Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008, December 1). A Study of Teachers' Integration of Interactive Whiteboards into Four Australian Primary School Classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289-300. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ821728) Retrieved July 11, 2009, from ERIC database.
Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2009, June 1). Locating Information within Extended Hypermedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 287-313. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ840200) Retrieved July 11, 2009, from ERIC database.
Haystead, M. & Marzano, R. (2009, March). Preliminary Report: Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement. Marzano Research Laboratory. Retreived July 10, 2009 from http://www.activboardnz.com/
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006, June). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher–pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from ERIC database.
Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008, January 1). Learning Environments Using Interactive Whiteboards: New Learning Spaces or Reproduction of Old Technologies?. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 108-126. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ798610) Retrieved July 11, 2009, from ERIC database.
No comments:
Post a Comment