The Effects of an Interactive Whiteboard on the Participation of Grade 6 Pupils in Mathematics at Fort Bonifacio Elementary School

1. 1
THE EFFECTS OF AN INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD
ON THE PARTICIPATION OF GRADE 6 PUPILS
IN MATHEMATICS AT FORT BONIFACIO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Lilibeth M. Biscayda
Teacher III, Fort Bonifacio Elementary School
lilibethbiscayda@yahoo.com/lilibeth.biscayda@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The purposeof thisaction research wasto study whethertheuse
of an interactive whiteboard during teaching had an effect on the
participation of pupils in mathematics. The study was conducted in a
Grade 6 class at the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School. The study took
place over the course of an eight-week period; four weeks were focused
on mathematicsinstruction using thechalkboard method whiletheother
fourweeksconcentrated on mathematicsinstruction using an interactive
whiteboard. The four-week lessons that used an interactive whiteboard
asan instructionaltoolwerecompared to thefour-weeklessonsthatused
the chalkboard method. The researcher also made use of the formal
interview to get firsthand information on the perception of the
respondents concerning the use of an interactive whiteboard. Positive
attitude of respondents in using an interactive whiteboard as an
instructional tool increased the level of motivation and engagement or
participation of the respondents in the lessons.
Keywords: interactive whiteboard,actionresearch, pupilsparticipation
in mathematics

2. 2
INTRODUCTION
With the focus on quality education, the attention of the
education sector was focused on raising the academic performance of
respondents inside the classroom through the use of modern
technologies. Education faces the greatest challenge in technology
advancement. In order to keep abreast with the advancement in
information and communications technology, Filipinos have to undergo
some form of changes. These changes were inevitable since one has to
adapt to the needs of the present times to be globally competitive.
At present, progress in the field of education were constantly
distinguished with the arrival of great advances in information and
communications technology.Computeruse inthe classroomhasbecome
a popularmethodof instructionformanyteachers. The use of computer
in education has finally come of age. Software engineers and computer
scientists designed multidimensional educational programs that include
stereo sounds, high-quality graphics and real time interaction. One area
of noticeable improvement was the interactive whiteboard.
Realizing the importance of using new technologies in the
teaching-learningprocess, the MicrodataPhilippines,inpartnershipwith
the Department of Education Adopt-a-School Program, introduced an
interactive whiteboard tothePhilippines.Oneof theirrecipientswasFort
BonifacioElementarySchool, one of the pilot schools in City of Makati.
Aninteractive whiteboard wasdesignedasanimportanttool for
teaching. There was no need for markers with this equipment, only an
instructional toolbar and a stylus. If there was no whiteboard available,
one can even use a wireless mimio on any flat surface that can be
converted into a whiteboard. According to Joie Perilla, e-Learning head
of Microdata Philippines, only a few schools in the country have this
interactive technology. Among them were Xavier University, Poveda,
VeritasParochial Schooland the FBES, the onlypublicelementary school.
The Mimio Interactive technologyhasatemplate of lessonplans
in various subjects such as math, science, biology and chemistry in all
levels.A teachermay incorporate herown lessonsandsave them inthe
portable instructional toolbar. A teacher can also show mini films from
the mimio to complement the lesson or go online using the mimio to
search for complementing videos on YouTube and other sites. Pupils,
meanwhile can draw and color and answer mathematical problems on
the whiteboard.The respondentsdon’tneedtotake downnotesbecause

3. 3
the teachercanjustprintthe lessonsshownonthe mimioandgive copies
to the respondents or they can just save it on a CD or USB flash drive.
(Manila Bulletin, October, 2010)
An interactive whiteboard was a large, touch-sensitive display that
connects to a computer and a projector. It was like a giant computer
screen that users touch to operate-similar to a floor stand, offering a
range of functionality. Teachers can take lessons created on their
computer(includinganyimage,text,audiofile,orvideofileavailableon
the Internet) and project them onto the large-format screen. Teachers
and pupils can then interact with the whiteboard using a digital “pen”.
Theycan pull downmenus;dragand drop text,imagesandsounds;hide
andreveal imagesandtext;moveandopenfiles;write,highlightandsave
annotations; and rotate, flip, and mirror graphics. When connected to a
computer, the whiteboard becomes a live computer desktop. Software
templates such as graphs, music staves, flowcharts,and frameworks for
brainstorming were usually provided with the whiteboard. (Boston, C.
2002)
Interactive whiteboards (interactive whiteboard) were reported
to be an effective wayfor teachersto interactwith and converge digital
content and multimedia learning resources in the classroom (Betcher &
Lee,2009). As Researchsuggests,itwas the interactivityinonline digital
learning activities that pupils most value (Ng, 2008). An interactive
whiteboard enables pupilsandteacherstointeractwithall the functions
of a desktop computer through the large touch sensitive surface of the
board. Interactive whiteboard essentially acts as a port through which
anycomputerthatrun ICTfunctioncanbe displayedandinteractedwith.
Teacherscan engage pupilswithcomputer-basedlearningwithoutbeing
hidden behind a desktop screen or isolating learners at a computer
(Betcher & Lee, 2009; Murcia, 2008b).
According to Beeland (2002) “Interactive whiteboards
allow teachers and pupils to interact with technology in a
manner that was not previously possible. The touch-sensitive
board allows users to interact directly with applications
without having to be physically at the computer which was
projecting the image onto the board.”
Lee and Boyle (2004) described the interactive whiteboard as a
‘digital convergencetool’.Digitalconvergencein aclassroomcontextwas

4. 4
the ability to capture and present information in a usable form from a
variety of ICT devices and digital information sources (Kent 2004).
The purpose of the study was to identify the effects or the
benefits of this new equipment on respondents’ participation and
attention in the classroom. If proven effective, the use of this latest
technology will be of great help to our country’s educational system.
Background of the Study
Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2002) cited the
challenge to the 21st
century schools. “Schools in our country should
constantly upgrade its curricula and adapt to an ever-changing
technological landscape.” She further cited that teachers and
administratorsshouldcontinuetheirnoblemissionto constantlyimprove
the educational system and be truly responsive to the demand time.
Schoolsshouldcontinue toofferthe mostmodernandrelevantfacilities
as appropriate means to a deeper acquisition of knowledge.
Fort Bonifacio Elementary School (FBES) was driven by the
mission to provide quality basic education focused on the progressive
development of respondents’ academic excellence; create a learning
environmentthatwill ensureintellectual,moral,social,technologicaland
physical growth of respondents which cater to individual differences;
upgrade and enhance teachers’ competencies; and provide adequate
curriculum and physical resource including modern technology and its
maximized utilization. FBES was one of the schools in the Philippines,
whichpioneeredthe utilizationof thisnewesttechnology, aninteractive
whiteboard.
Technology can be used to create a motivating classroom
environmentwhere respondents wereengagedinlearning.Whenpupils
were actively engaged in the lesson, they were demonstrating their
motivation to do well. The more pupils were motivated to learn, the
greaterthe chanceswere thattheywillbe successfulintheirstudies.The
researcherwantstofigure outwhetherthere willbe anincrease onpupil
participation using an interactive whiteboard.
The results of this research will encourage teachers and
educators to utilize modern technologies to enhance teaching and
learningprocessandit willserveasguideincreating aninteractivevirtual
classroom.

5. 5
Statement of the Problem
Thisaction researchsoughttofindout the effectivenessof
usingan interactive whiteboard inteachingMathematics6to improve
pupils’participation. Specifically,itsoughtto answerthe following
questions:
1. What was the profile of the respondentsintermsof:
1.1 age
1.2 gender
1.3 scholasticrating
2. Is there a significantdifference onpupil participationin
Mathematics6 usinganinteractive whiteboard as
instructional tool ascomparedtothe chalkboardmethod?
3. What were the respondents’perceptionsorattitude onthe
use of an interactive whiteboard onteachingandlearning
process?
Delimitationofthe Study
The studywas confinedtograde 6 - Scorpioof the Fort Bonifacio
Elementary School (FBES), the advisory class of the researcher.
The studywas delimitedtothe above populationandconditioninorder
not to interruptregularclasses.Pupilsinothersectionsand othergrade
level were not included.
Furthermore, the scope did not go beyond the answer to the
specific questions of this action research.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

6. 6
The study was based on the statements and viewpoints of
persons considered expert or authority on educational concerns about
technology. It was fastened on the concept that provides a point of
reference within which we can plan action.
The education faces the greatest challenge in technology
advancement. Teachers need new techniques and new facilities in
imparting knowledge to pupils. The use of new technologies was one
good solution in order to be globally competitive.
Past researches indicate that pupils learn more content and
faster with technology. One form of technology was an interactive
whiteboard. The use of an interactive whiteboard within the classroom
can potentiallyprovide positive resultsinpupil participationaswell asin
academic achievement. The purpose of the study was to focus on the
former.Inthe study, pupil participationandattentionwillbe referredto
as havingthe same meaning – active engagementandsustainedfocusin
the lesson. In a research conducted by Avers, Glover, and Miller (2004)
fortwo yearsfrom2002 to 2004 focusedon pupil perceptions,attitudes,
and attentiontothe use andnonuse of an interactive whiteboardduring
instruction.Theirfindingsindicatedthatinsomeof the lessonswhere the
teacher shifted from the use of the board to not using it, “respondents’
interestwanedand,attimes,there were behavioral managementissues
thatwere notevidentduringthe lesson”when aninteractivewhiteboard
was being used. The same study also addressed the recognition that an
interactive whiteboardinitself wasamotivatingfactorsolelybecause of
the way inwhichteachersuseditwithinthe lesson.The incorporationof
a different type of instructional method led to increased attentionfrom
the pupils. However, teachers also noted that the use of an interactive
whiteboard still doesnot suggest that “we shall have a lesson where all
the respondents were paying attention all the time” (Averis, Glover &
Miller, 2004).
Beeland (2002) conducted a research study to examine “the
effectof the use of an interactive whiteboard asan instructional tool on
pupil engagement.Specifically,thedesirewastosee if pupilengagement
in the learning process was increased while using an interactive
whiteboard to deliver instruction,” (p. 1). Beeland’s purpose for
researching and methodology were the building blocks behind the
research conducted in the classroom of the researcher. Pupil responses
to surveys and questionnaires indicated the positive impact that an
interactive whiteboardhason pupil participationandinvolvementinthe
classroom during instruction. In Beeland’s research, when asked, “Does

7. 7
theuse of a whiteboard in theclassroomhelp you to beableto pay better
attention?Why or why not?”all but one of the pupilssaidyes.One pupil
evencommented,“Itmakesme payattentiontotheteachermore.When
the teacher just stands up there and talks, I get easily distracted”
(Beeland, 2002).
Considering all these views and concepts, the present research
wasfocusedonthe effectsof aninteractive whiteboard withthe hope of
providing programs, which would be the basis for expansion on the use
of interactive whiteboard in City of Makati. The outcome of the study
wouldbe aninputforthe enhancementprograminICTeducation,aswell
as improve respondents technological competence, promote
professional growth of teachers in ICT and acquire new facilities and
learning technology resources that could be accepted by the schools in
the Division of City Schools of Makati.
Hypothesis
This null hypothesis was formulated to test research question
number 2.
There wasnosignificantdifference on respondents’participation
in Mathematics 6 towards the use of interactive whiteboard in
teaching and the traditional chalkboard method of teaching.
Reviewof RelatedLiterature and Studies
These documented related resources claim to deepen and
broaden the understanding of the researcher about the study under
inquiry.
Interactive whiteboardswere comparativenewcomerstoschool
settings. In the ICT In Schools Survey (DfES 2003a), interactive
whiteboards were listed as ICT peripherals alongside digital cameras,
digital projectors, DVD players, video-conference facilities and digital
televisions, as opposed to desktops, laptops and palmtops, which were
treatedasaseparate andmore central groupof hardware,andcome first
in the survey. Bulletin boards hosted by BECTA show that there was an
on-goingdiscussionamongstpractitionersasto the respective meritsof
different kinds of whiteboards, and that there continues to be

8. 8
professional disagreement over whether they were a more useful ICT
resource than, for instance, a data projector and tablets.
A study of 10 to 12-year-olds by the School of Education of the
Newcastle University looked at the effective use of interactive
whiteboard technology, teachers’ perceptions of interactive
whiteboards, and the impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom
interactionandon respondents’attainment(Hall,2005).The study found
out that pupils valued interactive whiteboards for their versatility, their
multimediacapabilities,andthe “funandgames”aspectof learningwith
them(Hall,2005, p.106–107). Anotherstudyof 80Englishschoolchildren
lookedathow 10- to 13-year-oldpupilsthought interactivewhiteboards
impacted their learning (Hall, 2005). It found that:
The indications were that interactive whiteboards can be
effective tools for initiating and facilitating the learning process,
especially wherepupil participation and useof the board wasutilized.An
importantfinding wasthat there was a relationship between interactive
whiteboards and respondents’ views of learning, with visual and verbal-
social learning being particularly prominent. The way in which
information was presented, through color and movement in particular,
was seen by the respondents to be motivating and reinforces
concentration and attention (p. 866).
A third study of six classrooms from 2003 to 2004 showed that
interactive whiteboards had positive impacts on pupils’ motivation,
engagement and self esteem (Knight, 2004).
There have been three articles by British authors that critically
review the literature on interactive whiteboards. “Using interactive
whiteboards in Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: A Research
Bibliography” lists eight websites and seven articles and reports from
2000 to 2004 that were relevant to primary and secondary teaching of
mathematics with interactive whiteboards (Jones, 2004). Some of the
lessons Jones gleaned from these studies were that interactive
whiteboardsshouldbe usedasmore thanjust presentationdevices,and
that while with interactive whiteboards,teaching can change to include
more interaction because there wasa needtodesignteachingscenarios
that make full use of the interactivity available with an interactive
whiteboard.He alsocautioned that ultimately,where they were usedin
everylesson, the noveltyeffectcandiminishandthat much dependson
the overall quality of teaching” (Jones, 2004).
The BritishEducational CommunicationsandTechnologyAgency
(BECTA) publishedashortreportin2003 called“What the ResearchSays

9. 9
about interactive whiteboards.”Itcontainssummariesof the benefitsof
interactive whiteboardsforteachersandpupils,factorsfortheireffective
use, and a 14-item bibliography. The report foundsome keybenefits of
interactive whiteboards, concluding that their use “encourages more
varied, creative,and seamless use of teachingmaterials; engages pupils
to a greater extent than conventional whole-class teaching, increasing
enjoymentandmotivation; andfacilitatespupilparticipationthroughthe
ability to interact with materials on the board” (BECTA, 2003).
In “interactive whiteboards: Boon or Bandwagon? A critical
review of the literature,” Smithet al. “looked to identify any impact on
classroom interaction, on teachers’ perceptions and on respondents’
attainment,progress,andattitudes”.Theynotedthatwhilerespondents’
and teachers’ views of interactive whiteboards were overwhelmingly
positive, evidence of their impact on pupils’ achievement does not yet
exist. They also cautionedthat most of the reports showed only mixed,
limited,oranecdotal supportforthe benefitsnoted."Inbothprimaryand
secondaryschools,andinmostsubjects,surveyreturnsindicate arapidly
growing use of an interactive whiteboards, projectors, and associated
software packages. Teacher ratings indicate that the use of such
resources has a high impact on respondents’ learning." (Smith et al.,
2006).
DavidMillerandDerekGloverof the Keele Universitycarriedout
some research in an interactive whiteboard as a Force for Pedagogic
Change in2002. By focusingonfive primaryschools, theyconcludedthat
the potential benefits of an interactive whiteboards was dependent on
three conditions being met: there was a will to develop and use the
technology; the teachers had to be willing to become mutually
interdependent in the development of materials; and there had to be
some change of thinking about the way in which classroom activities
were resourced.
The researchers listed some advantages of interactive
whiteboardsforteachingandtalkabouttheireffectsonpupil motivation.
They also mentioned the problems teachers encountered when using
interactive whiteboards.
Julie Coghill, after some small-scale research involving three
teachers who have used an interactive whiteboard regularly, concluded
that whiteboardshave the potential to enablethe integrationof ICTinto
classroom practice, to provide greater interactivity in whole-class
teaching, to give access to a wide variety of ICT and internet teaching

10. 10
resources for whole class use, and to increase the professionalism of
teachers.
Bectacarriedoutanonline surveyinwhich103respondentsgave
theiropinionastowhattheysee as"enablingfactors"withregardtothe
development of ICT in the classroom. One of the highest responses was
the provision of, and access to, interactive whiteboards.
BECTA do an excellent literature review in their publication -
“What the research says about interactive whiteboards”. By looking at
the various sources they compiled this list of 'key benefits' when using
interactive whiteboards: encouragesmore varied,creativeandseamless
use of teaching materials; engages pupils to a greater extent than
conventional whole-class teaching; increasing enjoyment and
motivation; facilitates pupil participation through the ability to interact
with materials on the board.
BECTA also suggest that teachers can maximize the impact of
interactive whiteboardsby investingtimeintrainingtobecomeconfident
users, exploring the full range of capabilities of whiteboards, and
collaborating and sharing resources with other teachers
In "Online" magazine in the TES (10th March 2006) in an article
calledisthe curriculumoffline?BrianKerslakewhohasbeendeveloping
educational software for over twenty years, lamented a number of
worrying developments in the world of educational ICT.
“Let's start with the trend of the last few years - the rise of
interactive whiteboards.Are theyawayof sayingmixedabilityteaching,
individualized learning and personalized learning were all wrong? Are
theybeingusedasa tool to force the endof pupil-centeredlearningand
a returnto the whole-classteachingof the lastcentury?Mostoftenthey
were used as nothing more than expensive projector screens - with a
teacher standing in front of the classroom and telling the class what to
do. Is this progress?”
It was not only the effectiveness of an interactive whiteboard
that needs to be investigated but also the teachers’ ability to integrate
technology into the teaching and learning process (Kerslake, 2006).
Many similaritiesbetweenthe studiesmentionedabove andthe
presentone were distinguishedparticularlyontheirfocuson interactive
whiteboard. Their findings and conclusions helped and supported the
researcher to a great scale in pursuing this research.
The different studies and literature review had tested the
efficiency of interactive whiteboard application in teaching. The results
of the studies conducted provided an insight on the advantages, which

11. 11
the pupils can benefit when teachers utilized an interactive whiteboard
in theirteaching.The knowledge of computertechnologyandthe use of
interactive whiteboard account for the improved pupils’ participation
and performance in the class in different areas.
These studieswere necessarytothe presentstudybecause they
provided directions on how variables were used. These studies and
literature served as supplementary insights for the researcher to make
essential modification in the present study.
METHODOLOGY
Thischapter presentsthe researchdesign,sampleandsampling
technique,instrumentationordatagatheringprocedure,andthe
statistical treatmentof gathereddata.
Research Design
The aspiration of the researcher to identify the effects of an
interactive whiteboard on the participation and performance of her
respondents led her to use descriptive research.
Descriptive research involves collecting numerical data to test
hypothesesortoanswerquestionsconcerningcurrentstatus,conducted
through self-reports collected through questionnaires or interviews or
through observations (North Education, 2007).
Inthe study,survey,interviewtechniques,andobservationnotes
were used to collect data, which illustrate the effects of an interactive
whiteboard on the participation of respondents in the lessons. This
information will be used to recommend the use of this new technology
in other schools and to provide the needed information that might
interest administrators and policymakers.
Sample
The study took place at the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School in
Barangay West Rembo, City of Makati. The respondents involved in the
study belonged to the advisory class of the researcher. The class

12. 12
comprised of 45 pupils consisting of 23 boys and 22 girls. With an
enrolment of 3 195 from Grade 1 to Grade 6, the sample was equal to
1.25 percent of the population. Purposive sampling was used for the
convenience of the researcher in order not to interrupt other classes.
Data GatheringProcedure
Data and information were gathered using survey, interview,
questionnaire, observation notes, and digital photographs. During an
eight-weekperiod;fourweekswere focusedonmathematicsinstruction
using the chalkboard method; the other four weeks concentrated on
mathematics instruction using an interactive whiteboard.
Prior to any observationstakingplace,the researcherfoundout
that it was necessary to train the respondents on the use of the
interactive whiteboard.
Observations by the school principal, mathematics coordinator,
and other teachers were made over the course of the eight-week
research period. The researcher assigned respondents from each group
to recordthe numberof timesthat theywere participatinginthe lesson.
Pupil participation was definedas taking part in the discussion, paying
attention to the teacher or classmates who were reciting, looking at an
interactive whiteboard, looking at related materials used to present
content during the lessons, responding orally, and writing to the
materials presented when asked by the teacher to do so. When pupils
were engagedinthe lesson,astarmarkwasmade nexttotheirname but
if the pupils were notengagedinthe lesson,atallymark was made next
to their name.
The researcher observed the respondents every lesson in
mathematics all throughout the study. The respondents were asked to
attend and to participate in the lessons with or without an interactive
whiteboard.
The researcherused aninteractive whiteboard topresentandto
discussmathematicslessonseveryotherweekfromJanuarytoFebruary.
Observations were made once a week by the school principal for the
period of two months, for a total of eight observations.
The data collected by the researcher was gathered, and the
numberof timesthat the pupilswere notparticipatingwascomparedto
the numberof pupilsinthe class,therebygivingapercentage of off-task

13. 13
behavior or the respondents observed to be not participating for each
lesson as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. Number of pupilsnot participating in mathematics instruction
with or without interactive whiteboard
January 2012
Number of
PupilsNot
Participating
Percentage February 2012
Number of
PupilsNot
Participating
Percentage
Week 1 Week 1
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Monday Monday
Tuesday Tuesday
Wednesday Wednesday
Thursday Thursday
Friday Friday
Total Total
Week 2 Week 2
Mathematics
Instruction
With
interactive
whiteboard
Mathematics
Instruction
With
interactive
whiteboard
Monday Monday
Tuesday Tuesday
Wednesday Wednesday
Thursday Thursday
Friday Friday
Total Total
Week 3 Week 3
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Monday Monday
Tuesday Tuesday
Wednesday Wednesday
Thursday Thursday
Friday Friday
Total Total
Week 4 Week 4
Mathematics
Instruction
Mathematics
Instruction

14. 14
With
interactive
whiteboard
With
interactive
whiteboard
Monday Monday
Tuesday Tuesday
Wednesday Wednesday
Thursday Thursday
Friday Friday
Total Total
The results of the four-week lessons that used the interactive
whiteboard as the instructional tool were then compared to the results
of the four-weeklessonsthat used the chalkboard method. The on-task
and the off-task behaviors during each method of instruction were
compared using a z-test.
The engagementandthe motivationof the respondents tolearn
wasmeasuredusingasurveybasedonthe survey createdbyMoss,etal.
(2007). The survey provided the necessary information to determine
pupil attitude toward the use of an interactive whiteboard in the
classroom (See Table 2).
Table 2. Perception and attitude of pupils toward interactive
whiteboard
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
StronglyAgree
1 2 3 4
1
I learn morewhenmy teacher uses an interactive
whiteboard.
2
I dislikegoing out tothefrontto use an interactive
whiteboard.
3
It was easier to understand thelesson whenmy
teacher uses an interactive white board.
4
An interactive whiteboardmakes learning more
interesting and exciting.
5
I think my teacher go too fastwhen sheuses an
interactivewhiteboard.
6
I think respondents behavebetter in lessons with an
interactivewhiteboard.
7
I think an interactivewhiteboardmakes the drawings
and diagrams ofthe teacher, and numbers easier to
see.
8
My teacher teaches just the samewith or withoutan
interactivewhiteboard.
9
I prefer lessons thatwere taught withaninteractive
white board.

15. 15
10
An interactive white board makes it easyfor my
teacher to repeat or re-explainthelessons.
11
I would work harder ifmy teacher usedaninteractive
white board moreoften.
12
An interactive white board oftenbreaks down,and
this wastes time.
13
I think the lessons ofmy teacher weremore
organized whenshe uses an interactivewhiteboard.
14 I think an interactivewhiteboardwas difficultto use.
15
We got to join inlessons more whenmy teacher uses
an interactive white board.
16
I concentrate better in class when an interactive
whiteboardwas used.
To interpretthe obtainedmeanscore,the rangeof meanwasset
as illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3. Interpretation of mean scores
Range ofMean Values Scale Value Interpretation
3.50 -4.00 4 Strongly Agree
2.50 -3. 49 3 Agree
1.50 -2.49 2 Disagree
1.00 -1.49 1 Strongly Disagree
Table 3 shows that a response of 1 indicates that respondents
strongly disagree with the statement; 2, disagree; 3, agree; and 4,
strongly agree. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the
perception of the respondents toward the use of the interactive
whiteboard in the classroom. The information gathered from the
questionnaire was used as additional information for the teacher in
teaching mathematics lessons using the interactive whiteboard. The
average answertoeach questiononthe questionnaire wascalculatedto
determine the meanscores.Overall implicationscanthenbe made from
these results.
The researcher also made use of the formal interview to get
firsthand information on the perception of the respondents concerning
the use of interactive whiteboard. It was a purposeful face-to-face
relationship betweenthe researcher and the respondents of the study.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To test the hypothesis and to have accurate analysis and
interpretation of data, the researcher used Microsoft Excel 2007 to

16. 16
compute the mean, median,mode, percentage,standarddeviation,and
z-test.
Z-testwas usedto findout if there was no significantdifference
on the participationof respondents inMathematics6 toward the use of
interactive whiteboard and the traditional chalkboard method in
teaching.
Formula:
RESULTS
This chapter includes the presentation, analysis, and
interpretation of data to answer the research question.
Where:
n1 = sample 1 size
n2 = sample 2 size
1 = meanof Group 1
2 = meanof Group 2
σ1
2
= variance for Group1
σ2
2
= variance for Group2

17. 17
Figures1, 2, and table 3 showsthe profile of the respondentsas
regards to age, gender, and scholastic rating.
Figure 1. Profile of the respondents as regards to age
Figure 1 shows that most of the respondents were between
12.25 and 12.75 years old, and their average age was 12.45.
Figure 2. Profile of the respondents as regards to age
Figure 2 shows that the respondents composed of 23 boys and
22 girls.
Table 3 shows the profile of the respondentsas regards to age,
gender,andscholasticratinginGrade 6.

18. 18
Table 3. Profile ofrespondentsasregardsto age, gender,andscholastic
rating of Grade 6
Subjec
t ofthe
Study
Number ofPupils Average Age ofPupils Average Grade ofPupils
Grade
6
Scorpi
o
Mal
e
Femal
e
Tota
l
Male
Femal
e
Averag
e
Male
Femal
e
Averag
e
23 22 45
12.4
9 12.41 12.45
77.8
8 79.75 78.81
The table shows that the respondents were considered as
homogeneous because they possessed the same level of intellect as
shown in average grade of 78.81 percent.
Table 5 below shows the overall results of the number of
off-task behavior of respondents.
Table 5. Number of pupilsnot participating in mathematics instruction
with or without interactive whiteboard
January 2012
Number of
Pupils Not
Participating
Percentage February 2012
Number of
Pupils Not
Participating
Percentage
Week 1 Week 1
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Monday 7 16 Monday 6 13
Tuesday 6 13 Tuesday 7 16
Wednesday 8 18 Wednesday 7 16
Thursday 9 20 Thursday 8 18
Friday 8 18 Friday 6 13
Total 38 17 Total 34 15
Week 2 Week 2
Mathematics
Instruction
With
interactive
whiteboard
Mathematics
Instruction
With
interactive
whiteboard
Monday 0 0 Monday 0 0
Tuesday 0 0 Tuesday 1 2
Wednesday 0 0 Wednesday 1 2
Thursday 0 0 Thursday 0 0
Friday 1 2 Friday 1 2
Total 1 0 Total 3 1
Week 3 Week 3

19. 19
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Mathematics
Instruction
Without
interactive
whiteboard
Monday 5 11 Monday 7 16
Tuesday 6 13 Tuesday 6 13
Wednesday 4 9 Wednesday 7 16
Thursday 7 16 Thursday 8 18
Friday 5 11 Friday 6 13
Total 27 12 Total 34 15
Week 4 Week 4
Mathematics
Instruction
With
interactive
whiteboard
Mathematics
Instruction
With
interactive
whiteboard
Monday 0 0 Monday 0 0
Tuesday 0 0 Tuesday 1 2
Wednesday 0 0 Wednesday 2 4
Thursday 0 0 Thursday 1 2
Friday 1 2 Friday 2 4
Total 1 0 Total 6 3
The descriptivestatisticsof the datain Table were show inTable
6:
Table 6: Off-task behavior of pupils observe to be not participating
Totals with Interactive Whiteboard Totals without Interactive Whiteboard
Mean 0.55 Mean 6.7
Median 0 Median 7
Mode 0 Mode 7
Standard Deviation 0.67 Standard Deviation 1.19
Percentage 1.22 Percentage 14.78
Figure 3 shows the overall results of off-task behavior during
instruction with and without the use of the interactive whiteboard.
Figure 3. Overall resultsofoff-taskbehaviorduringinstructionwithand
without the use of interactive whiteboard.

20. 20
Figure 3 showsthatthere were more respondents whowere not
participating during instruction using the chalkboard method compared
to instruction using the interactive whiteboard.
A z-test was conducted to compare the total off-task behaviors
of respondents during instruction with the use of the interactive
whiteboard and instruction without the use of the interactive
whiteboard.The z-testresultsprovideda p-value of 0.009432 indicating
that the interactive whiteboard provided significant improvements in
pupil on-task behavior.
Therefore, reject the null hypothesisof no significant difference
on participation of pupils on the use of an interactive whiteboard as an
instructional tool compared to the chalkboard method.
The overall resultsof survey regardingthe perceptionand
attitude of the respondents onthe use of an interactive whiteboard
were showninTable 7.
Table 7. Perceptionand attitude of the respondentson the use of an
interactive whiteboard
NO. PUPILS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 Alejandro 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
2 Alimodian 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
3 Alita 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
4 Allauigan 4 1 3 4 2 4 4 1 4 4 3 1 4 1 4 4
5 Almojera 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
6 Bacayo 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
7 Campos 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
8 Docdoc 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
9 Entines 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 3 1 4 1 4 4

21. 21
10 Flores 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
11 Galletes 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
12 Garcia 3 1 4 4 2 4 4 1 3 3 4 1 3 1 3 3
13 Jayson 4 1 4 3 1 4 4 1 3 4 3 2 4 1 4 4
14 Locate 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
15 Maluto 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
16 Paler 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
17 Palermo 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
18 Peralta 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
19 Quierrez 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
20 Quilab 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 3 1 4 1 4 4
21 Rosario 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
22 Vicente 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
23 Villareal 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
24 Benecio 4 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 2 4 4
25 Cadao 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
26 Cansino 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
27 Cayetano 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
28 Cesario 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
29 Dela Cruz 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
30 Deyong 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
31 Dimalig 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
32 Divina 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
33 Garce 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
34 Jarcia 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
35 Ledesma 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
36 Magnaye 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
37 Mahilom 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
38 Mendoza 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
39 Mina 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
40 Morada 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
41 Paguirigan 4 1 4 4 1 4 3 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
42 Pamintuan 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
43 Quilang 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
44 Reyes 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
45 Veldosola 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4
The results of the survey were shown in Table 8. The average
answerto eachquestionwascalculatedbyaddingthe selectedresponse
fromeach pupil anddividing it by the total number of pupil responses.
Table 8. Summary of the perception and attitude of pupils toward
interactive whiteboard
1 I learn morewhenmy teacher uses an interactivewhiteboard. 3.98
3
It was easier to understand thelesson whenmy teacher uses aninteractive
whiteboard.
3.98
4 An interactive whiteboardmakes learning moreinteresting and exciting. 3.98
6 I think pupils behave better in lessons withaninteractivewhiteboard. 3.93
7
I think an interactivewhiteboard makes theteacher's drawings and
diagrams,andnumbers easier tosee.
3.98
9 I prefer lessons, which weretaughtwith an interactive whiteboard. 3.96
10
An interactive whiteboardmakes iteasy for my teacherto repeat or re-
explainthelessons.
3.98
11
I would work harder ifmy teacher usedaninteractivewhiteboard more
often
3.91
13
I think my teacher's lessons weremoreorganized when sheuses an
interactivewhiteboard.
3.98
15
We got to join inlessons more whenmy teacher uses aninteractive
whiteboard.
3.98

22. 22
16 I concentrate better in class when an interactivewhiteboard was used. 3.98
2 I dislikegoing out tothefrontto use the interactivewhiteboard. 1.02
5 I think my teacher go too fastwhen she uses aninteractivewhiteboard. 1.04
8
My teacher teaches just the samewith or withoutaninteractive
whiteboard.
1.02
12 An interactive whiteboardoften breaks down, and this wastes time. 1.02
14 I think an interactivewhiteboard was difficult touse. 1.02
The results from the respondents’ questionnaire were divided
into two groups. The top group, coded in green, were positive response
questions, where a score of 4 was the highest response. The bottom
group,codedinblue were negativeresponsequestions,whereasascore
of 1 would be the highest response. The results indicate that the
respondents enjoy the use of the interactive whiteboard as an
instructional tool.The pupilresponsesalsovalidatethattheyunderstood
the questions being asked of them and realize the scoring tool.
Some comments from respondents regarding the use of the
interactive whiteboard were as follows:
1. Sa chalkboard po, nagkaka an-an kami sa paghawak ng
chalk. Kaya maganda po itong interactive whiteboard kasi
pino-point lang yung stylus pen para makapagsulat ka. (We
get “an-an”from holding the chalkinthe chalkboard.It was
much bettertouse an interactive whiteboard,youjustpoint
the stylus pen on it to write.)
2. I am so thankful na mayroon tayong ganitong interactive
whiteboard,yung ibangschool wala.Nakakatuwa.Ang saya
saya pag gumagamitnun. (Iam so thankful thatwe have an
interactive whiteboard in our school, other schools have
none. It’s amazing. Happiness filled me when I use it.)
3. Ang ganda pag sinusulat yung stylus. Parang magic! Ang
sarap hawakan. Hindi madumi sa kamay, di gaya ng chalk.
(It’s so nice to write using the styluspen. It’s like magic! It’s
very nice to touch, very hygienic, unlike the chalk.)
4. Mas nareretain po sa utak namin yung lesson kapag
ginagamitnyo po yung interactive whiteboard.(The lessons

23. 23
were retainedmore inourmindswhenyouuse aninteractive
whiteboard.)
5. Mas naiintindihan po namin ang lesson kapag may mga
gumagalaw na things at naipapaliwanag nyo po ng maayos
pag may mga visual effects po kayo na pinapakita. (We
understand the lessons better when we see animations and
the lessons were more clearlyexplainedwhenyouillustrate
it with visual effects.)
6. Mas nakikita po namin ang mga numbers lalo na po kapag
zinoom nyo po, di gaya po sa blackboard, di ko po makita
gaano. (We see the numbers more visibly especiallyif you
use the zoom function, unlike in the chalkboard, I can’t see
the numbers clearly.)
7. Ang saya po lalo na kapag kumakanta kami ng mga math
songs na itinuro nyo gamit ang interactive whiteboard.(We
were veryhappy especiallywhenwe singmath songs which
you have taught using an interactive whiteboard.)
8. Mas nakatutok at nakikinig po kami lahat kapag ginagamit
nyo po yung interactivewhiteboard.(Wewere morefocused,
and we listen attentively if you were using an interactive
whiteboard.)
9. Gustong-gusto ko po ang interactive whiteboard kasi po
marami pong functions at tools na magandang gamitin. (I
really like an interactive whiteboard because it has many
functions and tools that were really nice to use.)
10. Natatandaan ko po ang mga lesson natin kapag yung
interactive whiteboard po ang ginagamit nyo sa pagtuturo.
(Irememberourlessonswhenever aninteractive whiteboard
was used in teaching.)
11. Nakakapagreview po tayo ng mabilis kasi po may mga
nakasave na po kayo sa interactive whiteboard ng mga
lessons natin nung mga nakaraangaraw. (We canreview our

24. 24
lessons easily and fast because the previous lessons were
saved in an interactive whiteboard.)
12. Masbehave po kamilahat sa tuwing ginagamitnyo po yung
interactive whiteboard. (We were more behave every time
you use an interactive whiteboard.)
The respondents were broadly positive in their response
regardingan interactive whiteboardasaninstructional tool in teaching.
CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
Thischapter presents the summaryof findings,the conclusions
drawnfrom the findings, andthe recommendationsbasedonthe
conclusions.
Summary
The study aimed to determine the demographic profile of the
respondents in terms of age, gender,and scholastic rating to determine
the effects of an interactive whiteboard to the participation of Grade 6
respondents inmathematicsatthe FortBonifacioElementarySchool and
to determine the perception and attitude of the respondents regarding
the use of interactive whiteboard in teaching-learning. Likewise, an
action planand recommendationbasedonthe findingsandconclusions
were included.
1. The use of an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool
in Grade 6-Scorpio of the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School
proved to be statistically significant in increasing pupil
participation. The results of significance show a p-value of
.009432 forthe comparisonof theweekswithandwithoutthe
use of an interactive whiteboard.
2. While the results of the study indicate statistical significance
in using an interactive whiteboard to increase pupil
participation, the researcher felt that there were several
factors that affect these results.

25. 25
a. With hands-on computer activities and unique, creative,
and attentiongrabbinglessons, respondents were very eager
and enthusiastic to participate during discussion and class
activities.
b. From viewing pictures and using concrete and
manipulative objects to using creative softwares and
multimedia resources that drove lessons and activities,
respondents demonstrated great desires to interact and to
participate.
c. Games, puzzles, magic tricks, and other forms of
recreational mathematicsusedbythe researchercontributed
to greater level of motivation and participation of
respondents in the lessons.
3. By andlarge, respondentswere verypositiveaboutthe use of
interactive whiteboard. In both survey and interview
responses, respondents highlighted those aspects of an
interactive whiteboard,whichenhancethe roleof the teacher
in front of the class, help clarify key teaching points for a
greater understanding of the lessons. All of the respondents
interviewedandobservedfeltthat an interactive whiteboard
enhanced the teaching-learningprocess.Indeed,the features
of an interactivesoftwareandassociatedsoftwaredosupport
teachersinteachinglessons.Otheraspectsof directteaching,
such as explaining, modeling, directing,and instructing were
facilitated through the use of an interactive whiteboard, or
more specifically, through the use of creative and
manipulative softwares, which were presented via the large
screen presentation device. There was a little doubt that an
interactive whiteboard gives excitement and enjoyment to
the respondents.It was interesting to note that respondents
were very attentive throughout the lessons.
Conclusions

26. 26
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions
were drawn:
1. There was a significant difference on the participation of
respondents toward the use of the interactive white board
and the traditional chalkboard method of teaching.
2. There was a significant relationship of the participation of
respondents and the attitude or perception of respondents
toward the use of interactive whiteboard as instructional.
3. An interactive whiteboard was a useful tool in the teaching-
learning process. The findings of the study show that
interactive white board increases the level of motivation,
enjoyment, and participation of the respondents. This was
also supported by researches mentioned in the review of
related literature.
4. Different techniques, such as the use of modeling, peer
teaching, discovery method, cooperative learning, and
collaborative learning; and the use of creative softwares,
multimedia resources, and interactive whiteboard help
improve pupil participation especially in mathematics.
5. Hands-on computer, such as games, puzzles, contests, magic
tricks, Internet research, and other creative activities,
contributed to pupil engagement in the lessons.
6. The way of openingthe doorof the respondents tothe beauty
and excitement of learning mathematics was to integrate
informationandcommunicationtechnologyinteaching,such
as the use of an interactive whiteboard together with the
creative softwares and multimedia resources, and games,
puzzles, magic tricks, and other forms of recreational
mathematics
7. The positive attitude of respondents in using an interactive
whiteboard asaninstructionaltool increasesthe level of their
motivation and engagement or participation in the lessons.

27. 27
Recommendations
Based from the results and the conclusions of the study, the
following were the recommendations.
1. Havingbeenthe firstpublicelementary school inthe country
to have an interactive whiteboard, the Fort Bonifacio High
School should work hard enough not only to serve its
respondents, but also to encourage other schools to procure
this new technology that will helpteachers and pupils in the
teaching-learning process.
2. More intensive seminars and trainings should be given to
teachers for them to use effectively and efficiently an
interactive whiteboard and other multimedia resources in
their teaching.
3. Teachers should continually learn the latest applications and
strategies in information and communication technology to
improve their technological competencies.
4. Teachers should be encouraged to develop lesson plans
integrating information and communication technology to
improve the participationandperformance of respondents in
their classes.
5. A reviewand the studyof the levelof ICTskillsof teachersand
pupils should be done to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of schools to guide their administrators and
stakeholders in the preparation of ICT an action plan.
6. Further research on the use of interactive whiteboard and
other ICT resources should be done every year to study the
development of schools in the field of information and
communications technology.
REFERENCES

28. 28
Beeland,W.D.,Jr. (2002). Studentengagement,visual learning,and
technology:Caninteractive whiteboardshelp?RetrievedJuly
12, 2007 fromhttp://www.teachade.com/resources/support/5031af3a4521c.pdf
BECTA (2003). What the research saysabout interactive whiteboards.
www.becta.org.uk/research.
Betcher, C. & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution.
Victoria: ACER Press.
Boston C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment. Practical
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8 (9). ERIC Digest, ERIC
Identifier: ED470206.
Coghill, J. (2003). The use of interactive whiteboards in the primary
school:Effectsonpedagogy.Research Bursary ReportsCoventry.
Becta.
DfES.(2003). ICTand attainment:A review oftheliterature.London,DfES.
Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for
pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in
an English education authority. Information Technology in
Childhood Education. Vol. 2002 Issue 1: AACE Digital Library.
Glover,D.,Miller,D.J. & AverisD.(2004). Panaceaor prop: The role of
the interactive whiteboard inimprovingteachingeffectiveness.
The TenthInternationalCongressof MathematicsEducation,
Copenhagen http://www.icme-organisers.dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdf
Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions
of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 21, 102-117.
Jones, S., & Tanner, H. (2004). Teachers interpretations of effective
whole-class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics
classrooms.

29. 29
Kent,P.(2004). e-Teaching:The elusivepromise.Paperpresentedatthe
15th International Conference of the Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education, Atlanta USA, March 2004.
Knight,P.,PennantJ.,&PiggottJ. (2004). What does it meanto "Use the
interactive whiteboard" in the daily mathematics lesson?.
MicroMath, 20(2), 14-16.
Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., Castle, F.
(2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy, and pupil
performance evaluation: An evaluation of the
Schools WhiteboardExpansion(SWE) Project:LondonChallenge.
Institute of Education, University of London/ DfES: London.
Murcia,K.(2008b). Teachingsciencecreatively:Engagingprimaryteacher
educationstudentswithinteractive whiteboardtechnology. The
InternationalJournalof InterdisciplinarySocial Sciences,3(3), 45-
52.
Ng,W. (2008). Self-directedlearningwithweb-basedsites:How well do
students’perceptionsandthinkingmatchwiththeirteachers?. Teaching
Science, 54(2) 24-30.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., and Higgins, S. (2006). The impact
of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the
National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British
Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 443-457.