Project ACTIVate brought together problem-based learning (PBL) and interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in a teaching and learning environment at St Mary's Catholic School. An action research methodology was used involving planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting on lessons that integrated PBL, IWBs, and the school's thinking curriculum. Data from student surveys, teacher observations, and rubrics indicated that the use of IWBs supported PBL and led to positive learning outcomes such as flexible knowledge, effective problem solving, self-directed learning, collaboration skills, and intrinsic motivation among the students. Challenges included coordinating student groups and finding time for reflection, but overall the project demonstrated that combining PBL and I

1. Project ACTIVate
Problem-Based Learning and Interactive Whiteboards = Effective Teaching and
Learning Practices
Introduction
This research project took place at St Mary’s Catholic School, an integrated decile
7 school with 450 students. There are three Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) in the
school placed in three different learning areas. The school caters for a great diversity
of learning needs and cultures. St Mary’s School has been part of an Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) Cluster, 2003 – 2005. The focus of the cluster has
been to promote an approach to learning that integrates Problem-Based Learning
(PBL) with ICT. This focus of PBL and ICT has continued into 2005 and combined a
further ICT innovation, the Interactive whiteboard (IWB) thus giving rise to the
school’s participation in Project ACTIVate. Project ACTIVate comes under the
Ministry of Education’s (MoE) Digiops (2005) umbrella.
Project ACTIVate brings together PBL and the IWB in a teaching and learning
environment. PBL is a perspective of social constructivism that places students at the
centre of learning. Thus, a constructivist teaching and learning pedagogy has been
synthesised with the use of ICT, namely an IWB as a way to bring about effective
teaching and learning practices. This pedagogical approach is significant for St
Mary’s school as PBL has been guided and informed by the underlying concepts of St
Mary’s own Thinking Curriculum (Yelas and Engles, 2004) (Table 2). The thinking
curriculum is developed from ideas of Harpaz, 2003; Lefstein, 2003: 2005; Sharon,
2005 and is endorsed by the Educational Review Office (ERO) (2005). The thinking
curriculum design promotes thinking as a multifaceted cognitive activity involving
social, conceptual, linguistic, emotional, motivational, physical and other pedagogical
practices (Harpaz, 2003). The overall approach also allows for the instructional
alignment of the New Zealand Curriculum Achievement Objectives (Alton-Lee,
2003).
Action research
Action research is the methodology chosen to guide this research project and is
described by Lovat and Smith (1995) as a spiral that consists of continuous
overlapping cycles in which the completion of one cycle gives rise to the
commencement of the next cycle. The cyclical spiral (See Table 1) involves four
steps: (a) planning, (b) doing, (c) observing and (d) reflecting. Winter (1989) states
that the integrated cycle of activities “seeks to unite its two central concerns –
improvement in practice and increased knowledge and understanding” (p.11). The
cyclical spiral process is repeated and is intended to provide a necessary link between
theory and practice.
Table1: Action Research Cycle
1. Plan
4. Reflect 2. Do
3. Observe
Action Research
Cycle

2. Planning
Action research “invites democratic participation and egalitarian collaboration
among all members of a particular social setting” (Schumck, 1998, p.19). There were
two preliminary cycles in which the principal and four teachers, known as the
researcher participants discussed the Time Period, Setting and Ethical
Considerations and made further decisions about the following characteristics of the
study:
 Sample, known as student participants: The Principal chose a purposive group
of thirteen students from three different learning areas. “In purposive
sampling, researchers handpick the cases to be included in the sample on the
basis of their judgement of their typicality” (Cohen and Manion, 1994, p.89).
 Lesson planning: The thinking curriculum is the underlying pedagogy and
supplied the fertile question: “Why is motion so important to society?” PBL
and Information Literacy Processes were part of this instructional model. The
model also supported an alignment to the Science: Physical World,
Achievement Objectives Levels 2-5.
 Data gathering procedures: The data collection steps set the boundaries for
the study, collecting information through semi structured observations, rubrics
and surveys, visual or audio materials, as well as establishing the protocols for
recording information (Creswell, 1994).
1. Observation: Digital photos and video would be part of the observational
record. Simple rubrics were prepared in the cognitive, metacognitive, socio-
affective and communicative domains. (See an example in Table 3.)
2. Survey: A survey of six questions was prepared for the student participants.
(See the cumulated results in Table 4.)
3. Summary Record: A summary record of all meetings and cycles was kept
in order to show openness and transparency in the research.
Implementation
As PBL engages the students in interdisciplinary exploration, collaborative
activity and field-based opportunities for experiential learning, reflection and self-
examination (Kroll & LaBoskey, 1996), the researcher participants believed that the
use of the IWB would further support this type of learning context. It was hoped that
the student participants would develop (a) flexible knowledge, (b) effective problem
solving skills, (c) self-directed learning skills, (d) effective collaboration skills and (e)
intrinsic motivation (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). They were divided into three small groups
and participated in a variety of activities including activities on the IWB. Table 2
demonstrates the process of the thinking curriculum integrated with PBL, information
retrieval processes, the science curriculum and facilitatory environments.
Table 2 here

3. Analysis and Evaluation
The research participants needed to “focus their attention on what is going on and
why, instead of having to focus on what to do and how to do it … [and only then]
make valid explanations about teaching and learning” (Labaree, 2003, p.18).
Therefore, multiple data collection methods known as triangulation were part of the
research design. A student survey, videos and photos, teachers’ observations and
rubrics the methods used to gather data. “The method of triangulation attempts to
confirm validity by comparing results obtained from different perspectives, using
different data gathering methods” (McKavanagh, 1996, p.169).
 Digital photo and video records: These presented visual evidence against
which the rubrics in the cognitive, metacognitive, socio-affective and
communicative domains could be measured and analysed.
Table 3 here
 Student Survey: Students comments about IWBs are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4 here (Perhaps just comments)
 Teachers’ Observations: The Summary Record provided a detailed record of
observations in each cycle, along with anecdotal material about the challenges
and successes.

4. Results
There were seven cycles in which all participants worked towards becoming “a
self-critical community of action researchers” (Carr and Kemmis, 1986, p.184). The
action research cycles demonstrated that “thought and action … [arise] from practices
in particular situations, and that situations themselves can be transformed by
transforming the practices that constitute them and the understandings that make them
meaningful” (p.184). The IWB has been the catalyst behind the development of
thought and actions and the action research process has demanded growth in the
community by “systematic development of knowledge” (p.188).
Indicators and Evidence of Learning
Cognition: Older students were able to articulate about their intentional learning.
Metacognition: The students commented on their understandings of the technology
and how it was helpful to their learning.
Interdependence: A number of students were aware of the needs of others. They said,
“It is – turn on the IWB now.”
On task behaviour: The IWB flipcharts allowed the students to refocus and revisit
previous learning.
Scaffolding: The teacher and students could take the role of scaffolder. This notion
corresponds with Vygotsky’s (1978) idea that learners are participants of a social
group and that more expert peers or adults can scaffold learners.
Leadership roles: The older students demonstrated that they could work at their level
or take the role in leading the younger students.
Integrated Curriculum: The integration of PBL and technology under the umbrella of
the thinking curriculum demonstrated the following features: cumulative learning,
integrated learning, progression in learning and consistency in learning. (This was
evident in the results of the rubrics.)
IWB: The IWB afforded the student participants a rich diversity of perspectives and
resources that they could synthesise with more traditional sources of information.
Community of Practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991): Students and teachers became
important members of a community where co-learning took place. Driscoll, (2002)
sees learning as increasing participation in and contribution to the practices of a social
community.
Collaborative Groups: The student participants worked well in the groups. One
student said that the younger students made them look at things in a new way.
Self-directed Learning: The student participants were able to apply problem solving
to new situations and information and they used the IWB as a cognitive tool to
support their learning (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999).
Photo of students here

5. Challenges and Successes
As the student participants came from three different learning areas the logistics of
being able to get these students together in a classroom with an IWB was a challenge.
Also, the lessons needed to be videoed to give the all participants an opportunity to
observe and reflect on the learning. The challenge here was to ensure that the
students videoed appropriately. The needs of these students created a distraction and
the teacher facilitator found that she needed collegial support for this activity to be
effective. Two of the student participants were students with special needs. One of
these students had a need to be involved with tactile experiences. The IWB offered an
environment to cater to this need. The other student was physically disabled but was
able to modify her movements so that she could reach the IWB.
One of the biggest challenges was for all participants to find the time to co-reflect on
their actions and yet this may be the most significant and powerful experience of the
entire project. When it was possible, teachers and students sat together and reflected
on the role of the facilitator and what the student participants were doing in the
cognitive, metacognitive, socio-affective and communicative domains. The IWB
environment created a context where interactivity, collaboration, creativity,
knowledge construction and reflection could take place (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson
1999).
Conclusion
St Mary’s will continue to develop a student-centred pedagogy that keeps abreast
with current pedagogical thought. In order to engage learners with a quality learning
resource, the school will consider extending the number of IWBs throughout the
school. This project has demonstrated that IWBs are designed to motivate and
challenge the learner by visual engagement. At the same time they enhance and
support a teaching and learning environment where quality teaching can effectively
integrate a range of ICT rich resources into pedagogical practices (Alton-Lee, 2003).
In the future, the school will look towards using the IWBs nationally and eventually
internationally in collaborative projects as a way of synthesising best teaching
practices. For learners of the future, Brooks and Brooks (1993) make a bold claim
that “a new set of images, reflective of new practices, is needed – images that portray
the student as a thinker; a creator; and a constructor” (p.126). As problem based
learning and the IWB come together, we must ask ourselves if this synthesis is
reflective of new practices and images and the way of the future?
Photo of students here

6. References
Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best
evidence synthesis. Ministry of Education: Wellington.
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carr,W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, Knowledge and Action
Research. UK: The Falmer Press.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. (4th
Ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Driscoll, M. (2002). How people learn (and what technology might have to do with
it). Retrieved 9 September, 2004, from
http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed470032.html.
Educational Review Office. (2005). Analysis and Policy Unit: Good Practice Report.
Unpublished work in writing. ERO: Wellington.
Harpaz, Y. (2003). Teaching and learning in a thinking curriculum. Paper presented
at the Navcon2k3 Conference. Adelaide: Australia.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). "Problem-Based learning: What and how do students
learn?" Educational Psychology Review 16(3): 235-262.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L. & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A
constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Retrieved online 13/10/2004.
Kroll, L. R. & LaBoskey, V. K. (1996). Practising what we preach: Constructivism in
a teacher education program. Summarised in Action in Teacher Education 18 (20),
63-72. In http://www.ericfacilty.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed426986.html.
Retrieved online 27/06/2004.
Larabee, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers.
Educational Researcher, 32 (4), pp 13 – 22.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimated peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lefstein, A. (2003). Thinking and pedagogy apart: Coping with discipline in
progressive school reform. A paper presented at the Navcon2k3. Adelaide:
Australia.
Lefstein, A. (2005). Three papers on thinking. Papers presented at Birkdale Cluster
Conference. Auckland: New Zealand.
Lovat, T. J. & Smith, D. L. (1995). Curriculum: Action of reflection revisited (3rd
Ed.). Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.
Mckavanagh, C. (1996). Validity, reliability and triangulated strategies. In R.
Funnell (Ed.), A handbook for vocational education research. National Centre
for Vocational Education Research. Adelaide: Australia:
Ministry of Education. ( 2005). Digital Opportunities (Digiops). Wellington.
Schmuck, R. A. (1998). Practical action research for change. Australia: Hawker
Brownlow Education.
Sharon, D. (2005). Thinking curriculum - A case study. A paper presented at the 12th
International Conference on Thinking, Melbourne: Australia.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience, Principles and practice in action
research. London: The Falmer Press.
Yelas, J. M. & Engles, P. (2004). St Mary’s thinking curriculum. Unpuplished
work: Auckland.