Read_PD_IWB

533 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
533
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
182
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Read_PD_IWB

  1. 1. Matching Professional development Efforts to meet the needs of Interactive Whiteboard users EDC 385G: ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH IN INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY DR. MIN LIU SPRING 2010 MICHELLE READ THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
  2. 2. Why? IWBs are rapidly becoming commonplace in today’s schools. Expected 1 million sales this year. Originally built for business, now predominantly in education. UK, US, and Mexico hold 70% of these units globally. Research coming from UK, US, Australia, Canada, Germany
  3. 3. What is a IWB? “Interactive Whiteboards, or IWBs, are systems, which include a touch-screen surface, a projector and a computer. This triangulation creates interactivity between the projected image and computer, so that the computer can becontrolled from the board rather than the lectern or desk.”
  4. 4. Types of IWB Pre-wired board connected to projector and computer. Bar-like device which produces an invisible infrared grid on any ordinary whiteboard. Newest types leave out the board and/or device, producing an invisible infrared directly from the projector onto ANY flat surface.
  5. 5. Who makes them? Promethean Smartboard Mimio Vizio Hitachi Epson Boxlight
  6. 6. Interactivity Drag/drop objects & text Control all applications Capture and print handwritten notes Annotate over/highlight other documents/Internet Video and audio record movements Essentially anything one can do at the computer, can be done at the board away from behind the lectern.
  7. 7. Benefits & drawbacks Increase student motivation and engagement Learning through kinesthetic movement Learn by doing------------------------ Lack of student interaction Propensity towards teacher-centered instruction
  8. 8. Controlling pedagogyTechnology tools are chosen by teachers which accommodate an already preferred teaching method.
  9. 9. Professional Development How can we guide teachers towards using the IWB in a more student-centered, constructivist or socio- constructivist manner? PD tends to be:  Static  Finite  short and sweet with no follow-up (time & support)  Focuses on functional how-to of new technologies A new way of professional development delivery is needed.
  10. 10. Glover & Miller (2007) ICT PD Describes three types of PD models:  Individualist  Incrementalist  innovatory interactive culture * Innovatory methods with extra time and support over extended innovatory periods of time and a transitory culture incrementalist focus on both technical Individualist features and pedagogical theory produced more traditional culture student-centered activities around ICT in general. 0 5 10 15 # of classrooms exhibiting student-centered activities
  11. 11. Research Questions What are best practices associated with the use of Interactive Whiteboards in the classroom? What is needed for practitioners to develop their integrative uses of the IWB that move beyond simple blackboard/whiteboard replacement? How can IWB professional development be designed to meet the needs of today’s classroom teacher in regards to both technical and pedagogical needs, while providing structured time and support for practice and development? Does professional development which specifically includes both extended time and support in addition to targeted discussion around pedagogy and technical training, make an overall difference in how teachers use the IWB in their classrooms?
  12. 12. Theoretical Framework Constructivism--knowledge constructed through experience Socio-constructivism—doing and discussing Andragogy—adult learning theory
  13. 13. Method Design-based research  Attempts to bridge theory and practice  Uses both quantitative and qualitative data for measuring both local impact & generalizability  Quantitative: surveys  Pre  Post (immediately following, 3 months later, 6 months later)  Qualitative: interviews, focus groups, video-taped observations (pre & post)  General analysis for guiding change in PD as needed. Participants are voluntary K12 teachers with regular access to IWBs.
  14. 14. Implications Happy stakeholders! Potential for other IT related PD Potentially more student-centered teaching methods seen in classrooms

×