1. Exploration of the Implications of Interactivity on Technology Integration Debra Franklin Whitney Powell EDIT 6900 Research Methods in Instructional Technology Dr. TJ Kopcha July 30, 2011

2. Problem Technology alone will not create an environment that supports highly interactive teaching practices Researchers determined that most technology placed in classrooms is not used to improve the quality of instruction. (Inan & Lowther, 2010)

3. Purpose of this Study Currently, most of the instruction in classrooms is teacher-directed Students need to play a more active role in their learning This would involve a shift to using technology for facilitating interactivity

4. What Does Prior Research Say About This Problem? “Teachers primarily use technology for tasks that fall outside the delivery of instruction.” (Kopcha, 2010) “Disappointing outcomes from test scores are frequently associated with teachers lacking the necessary skills to integrate technology into the classroom.” (Inan & Lowther, 2010) “Such technology by itself will not bring about fundamental change in the traditional patterns of teaching.” (F. Smith, et al., 2006)

5. Research Question What effect does interactivity among students, combined with interactive white boards, have on student learning?

6. Importance of Interactive Methods More interactive teaching methods play a vital role in raising literacy and numeracy by promoting high quality dialogue and discussion (Smith, Hardman, Higgins, 2006) Interactive classroom tools use action, create personal motivation, accommodate multiple learning styles, reinforce mastery skills, and provide decision-making contexts for learners. (Kebritchi, 2010)

7. Statement of Need Researchers examined national student achievement data and determined that most technologies placed in classrooms are not used to improve the quality of instruction. (Inan & Lowther, 2010) Simply supplying teachers with the technology does not guarantee that their methods of instruction will change. More extensive research in this field will provide a means of determining the actual effect of interactivity and interactive white boards on student learning.

8. Research Design This qualitative study will examine how student-centered, interactive teaching practices integrated with interactive white boards affect student learning within the classroom.

9. Participants Students from two neighboring counties 5th grade male and female students 5th grade classroom teachers Similar demographics Similar technological resources

10. Methods

11. Researchers’ Goal Evidence supports that interactivity in the classroom provides a means for students to develop as learners. Therefore, the goal of these researchers is to promote interactive learning with the integration of technology to help students to succeed in the classroom.

12. References Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2009). Interactivity in the classroom and its impacton learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131509002760 Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Science Direct, 49(4), Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008 Inan, F, & Lowther, D. (April 2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154. Kebritchi, M. (2010, March). Factors affecting teachers' adoption of educational computer games: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256-270. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x/abstract

13. Kopcha, T. (2010, April). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 175-190. Palak, D, & Walls, R. (2009). Teacher's beliefs and technology practices: a mixed- methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,41(4), 417- 441. Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards, British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920600635452 Verenikina, I., Wrona, K., Jones, P. T. & Kervin, L. K. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: interactivity, activity and literacy teaching. In J. Herrington & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2605-2614). VA, USA: AACE. Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00703.x