Interactive whiteboards, teacher efficacy, student engagement

5,912 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,912
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
482
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Interactive whiteboards, teacher efficacy, student engagement

  1. 1. Interactive whiteboards, teacher efficacy, and student engagement.<br />Stephen Ash<br />Education 6590<br />Memorial University<br />
  2. 2. Rationale<br /><ul><li>Changes to teaching tools
  3. 3. Technological advancements </li></ul>in interactive technologies<br /><ul><li>Influence on teaching and </li></ul>learning<br /><ul><li>Ensure students learn to the </li></ul>best of their ability<br /><ul><li>Optimize teacher planning and performance
  4. 4. Incorporate current technologies</li></li></ul><li>Definitions<br />Interactive Whiteboards<br />- combination of several technologies (projector, screen, computer)<br />- interact with/manipulate the display<br />Teacher Efficacy<br />- normal teaching duties<br />- foster learning and enthusiasm<br />Student Engagement<br />- interest and involvement<br />- connected to the learning<br />
  5. 5. Search and Selection Criteria<br /><ul><li>Peer-reviewed educational technology journals and books
  6. 6. Current research ranging from 2001 – 2010
  7. 7. IGI Global Series
  8. 8. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
  9. 9. Google Scholar</li></li></ul><li>Effect on Teacher Efficacy<br />1) Whole class interaction through explicit instruction(5,8,14,15,24,26,30)<br />- large viewing area = enhanced visibility<br />- demonstration and showcase<br />- active and interactive frontal teaching<br />- better explications of material<br />- links to outside elements<br />
  10. 10. Effect on Teacher Efficacy<br />2) Authenticity and connectedness(2,5,7,14,23,26)<br />- “real-world”<br />- relevance and personal meaning<br />- rich multimedia<br />- use of students’ personal work<br />- up-to-date technologies<br />
  11. 11. Effect on Teacher Efficacy<br />3) Organization and lesson planning(3,5,13,14,16,18,23,24,34)<br />- prepare, organize, and store<br /> - variety of materials<br /> - increased sharing<br /> - lesson flow<br />- revitalization<br /> - lessening of preparation time<br />
  12. 12. Effect on Teacher Efficacy<br />4) Varied, creative, and engaging classrooms(2,3,5,10,12,13,16,17,18)<br /> - maintain interest, focus, and attention<br /> - multiple examples of course material<br /> - intrinsic and extrinsic motivation<br /> - “fun”<br />- students used teacher techniques<br />
  13. 13. Effect on Teacher Efficacy<br />5) Teacher motivation and enjoyment(3,13,24,33,34)<br /> - creativity = more energy<br /> - enthusiasm in planning transferred to the classroom<br /> - student enjoyment sparked further teacher enthusiasm<br /> - learning potential<br />- empowerment<br />
  14. 14. Effect on Student Engagement<br />Increased enjoyment and motivation(6,8,21,24,25,31)<br />- fun and interesting lessons<br /> - new dimension to learning<br /> - student control<br /> - facilitation of learning<br /> - student desire<br />
  15. 15. Effect on Student Engagement<br />2) Participation, collaboration, and concentration(2,3,10,13,16,17,18,24,25,31,32,33)<br /> - interact with lesson<br /> - visible and audible to all<br /> - create, critique, and evaluate<br /> - student-centred<br />
  16. 16. Effect on Student Engagement<br />3) Promoting different learning styles(2,3,6,8,13,24,26,33)<br /> - aural, visual, and kinesthetic<br /> - broader selection of materials<br /> - involvement of all learners<br /> - assist with special needs students<br />
  17. 17. Effect on Student Engagement<br />4) Understanding and reviewing classroom material(22,24,31)<br /> - revisit, clarify, and reinforce<br /> - saving of material<br /> - focus on learning moment<br /> - enthusiastic and innovative teachers = better explanations<br />
  18. 18. Discussion<br /><ul><li>Easy to incorporate with little disruption
  19. 19. Clear display that was easily viewed by all
  20. 20. Time required for planning lessened
  21. 21. More critical of lesson materials
  22. 22. Increased momentum and pace
  23. 23. Bring outside technologies inside the classroom</li></li></ul><li>Discussion<br /><ul><li>Little research on student achievement
  24. 24. Link between increased engagement and learning
  25. 25. Interest = participation = learning
  26. 26. All learning styles were accommodated
  27. 27. Constructivist teaching through social learning </li></li></ul><li>Limitations and Conclusion<br />Exploiting the full impact(9,11,23,28,29,35)<br /> - teacher and student engagement<br /> - recognized as a pedagogical tool<br /> - accommodate to and change the setting<br /> - process of development in usage<br />
  28. 28. Limitations and Conclusion<br />2) Professional development(2,5,6,8,16,20,23,25,26,34,35)<br /> - type and amount<br /> - ICT training and basic whiteboard skills<br />- ongoing<br /> - a “new wave” of professional development to include peer sharing, peer learning, and professional learning communities<br />
  29. 29. Limitations and Conclusion<br />3) Interpretation of interactivity(4,24)<br /> - less reliance on physical interactivity<br /> - true interactivity = whole class engagement and cognitive development<br />
  30. 30. Limitations and Conclusion<br />Interactive whiteboards “have demonstrated a capacity to engage and motivate students and there is a recognition by students that this form of new technologies enhances learning experiences” (Erikson & Grant, 2007, p. 15).<br />
  31. 31. References<br />1. Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher <br />Learning, 43(1), 38-43. doi: 10.1080//00091383.2011.533096<br />2. Beeland, W. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive<br /> whiteboards help? Proceedings from ITTE 2002: Annual Conference of the Association of I nformation Technology for Teacher Education. Dublin: Ireland. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.135.3542&rep=rep1&type=pdf<br /> <br />3. Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Interactive whiteboards: new tools, new pedagogies, new learning? Retrieved from http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Interactive- whiteboard-survey.pdf<br /> <br />4. Cuthell, J. P. (2005). Seeing the meaning. The impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching and learning. Proceedings from WCCE ’05: The Eighth IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education. Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from http://crescerinteractivo.portodigital.pt/downloads/ SeeingTheMeaning- ImpactInteractiveWhiteboards.pdf<br /> <br />5. Divaharan, S., & Koh, J. (2010). Learning as students to become better teachers: Pre-service teachers' IWB learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 553-570. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/divaharan.html<br /> <br />6. Erikson, D., & Grant, W. (2007). Student perceptions of IWBs as a teaching and learning medium. Australian Educational Computing, 22(2), 10-16. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/journal/22/2/student-perceptions-iwbs-teaching-and-learning-medium<br /> <br />7. Gillen, J., Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N. & Twiner, A. (2007). A 'learning revolution'? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256. <br /> doi:10.1080/17439880701511099<br />
  32. 32. 8. Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: The pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10(3), 257-278. doi:10.1080/14759390100200115<br />9. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170. doi:10.1080/14759390500200199 <br />10. Higgins, S. (2010). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. . In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 86-101). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch006<br /> <br />11. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225. doi:10.1080/17439880701511040<br /> <br />12. Interactive whiteboards and learning. SMART Technologies White Paper. (2006). Retrieved from http://www2.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/2C729F6E-0A8D-42B8-9B32-90BE0A746D8/0/<br /> Int_Whiteboard_Research_Whitepaper_Update.pdf<br />13. Judge, M. (2010). Documenting teachers and students experiences with interactive whiteboards in Ireland: Key findings from an Irish pilot project. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), I nteractivewhiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 250-263). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch017<br /> <br />14. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2008). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards in Australian schools. Australian Educational Computing, 23(1), 8-13. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/<br />journal/23/1/exploring-pedagogy-interactive-whiteboards-australian-schools<br /> <br />15. Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf<br />
  33. 33. 16. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227-241.doi:10.1080/17439880701511073<br />17. Kennewell, S., & Morgan, S. (2003). Student teachers’ experiences and attitudes towards using<br /> interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children. Proceedings from CRPIT ’03: The International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 3.5 Open Conference on Young Children and Learning Technologies. Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society. Retrieved from http://www.acs.org.au/documents/public/<br />crpit/CRPITV34Kennewell1.pdf<br /> <br />18. Lim-Fong, B., & Robins, R. (2010). Technology shaping a democratic classroom. In M. Thomas& E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 225-237). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch015<br /> <br />19. Mergler, A. G., & Tangen, D. (2010). Using microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in pre-service<br />teachers. Teaching Education, 21(2), 199-210. doi:10.1080/10476210902998466 <br />20. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010a). Interactive whiteboards: A literature survey. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 1- 19). doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch001<br /> <br />21. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010b). Interactive whiteboards in the Web 2.0 classroom. In A. Tatnall (Ed.), Web technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (4 Volume). (pp. 774-793). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-982-3.ch042<br /> <br />22. Mohon, E. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teacher’s pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 301-312. doi:10.1080/17439880802497032<br /> <br /> <br />
  34. 34. 23. Moss, G., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 20- 36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch002<br />24. Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/northcote.html<br />25. Schmid, E. C. (2009). The pedagogical potential of interactive whiteboards 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 491-505). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-190-2.ch026<br /> <br />26. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just lipstick. Computers & Education, 51, 1321-1341. doi:10.1016/j.compendu.2007.12.006<br /> <br />27. Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., & van-‘t Hooft, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and student achievement. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 131-143). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1- 61520-715-2.ch009<br /> <br />28. Sweeney, T. (2006). Are interactive whiteboards a novelty or can they be used as a catalyst for building professional learning communities and pedagogic change? Australian Educational Computing. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/sites/acce.edu.au/files/ archived_papers/<br />conf_P_560_trudy%20sweeney.doc<br /> <br />29. Sweeney, T. (2008). Transforming learning with interactive whiteboards: Towards a developmental framework. Australian Educational Computing, 23(2), 24-31. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/journal/23/2/transforming-learning-interactive-whiteboards-towards- developmental-framework<br /> <br />
  35. 35. 30. Twiner, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the discourses of transformation, affordance, orchestration and participation. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 37-52). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch003<br />31. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). 'The visual helps me understand the complicated things': Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x<br />32. Warwick, P., & Kershner, R. (2008). Primary teachers' understanding of the interactive whiteboard as a tool for children's collaborative learning and knowledge-building. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 269-287. doi:10.1080/17439880802496935<br /> <br />33. Winzenried, A. (2006). Interactive whiteboards: For better or worse? Australian Educational Computing. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/sites/acce.edu.au/files/archived_papers/<br /> conf_P_276_ACEC2006.doc<br /> <br />34. Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 534-552. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/<br />winzenried.html<br /> <br />35. Yelas, J., & Engles, P. (2010). Project ACTIVate: Innovations from New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 432-446. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/<br />ajet26/yelas.html<br />

×