Interactive Whiteboard Strategy

What impact do interactive whiteboards have on student learning and the
development of 21...
•    Technical proficiency
   •    Willingness to commit to utilizing a collaborative tool with other teachers
   •    Wil...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Smartboard Report Small

1,732 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,732
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Smartboard Report Small

  1. 1. Interactive Whiteboard Strategy What impact do interactive whiteboards have on student learning and the development of 21st Century digital literacy? Positive • Improve variety of teacher instructional material • Positively impact student engagement • Increase pace of instruction • Cursory evidence of positive impact on learning in high functioning students Detractions Do not support 21st Century teaching methods • • Hinder student interaction • No long term effect on student achievement & test scores • Do not afford ubiquitous access to technology and student collaborative learning • Affects on student engagement and positive behavior wear off. • Increase pace of lessons negatively impact student conversation, collaboration and possibly have a negative impact on learning of lower functioning students • Does not support many NET-s standards What options have been considered in terms of distribution of interactive whiteboards in other districts? • Distribute to same team / grade level • Give to teachers with exceptional technical skill • Put in primary rooms as there is anecdotal evidence that this age group benefits more from the multimedia content • Distribute to classes with higher functioning students as there is anecdotal evidence that they benefit more after two years of use • Distribute to a Math and/or Science room Recommendations: Supporting material and descriptions from other school districts clearly support the installation of IWB's in classrooms where teachers are already comfortable with technology, already implement strong, student centered classrooms and are willing to commit to a collaborative professional development community. Applications for teachers can be done online, and consist of a commitment in terms of professional development, collaboration with staff as well as documentation of professional growth and usage. Suggested criteria for a selection should include:
  2. 2. • Technical proficiency • Willingness to commit to utilizing a collaborative tool with other teachers • Willingness to commit to documenting usage methods & sharing Willingness to commit to 21st Century instruction and NET-S standards • • A teacher one grade higher or lower that an already existing installation • A classroom of higher functioning students (if possible) The priority and acquisition of IWB's should be set within the context of the strategic plan and a district focus on 21st Century Skills. Considered within current fiscal constraints and listed in order of positive impact, an increase in building- based technology coaches, ubiquitous access to technology (1:1), staff development and construction of a reliable technology infrastructure should be considered before a dramatic increase in IWB deployment. With this in mind it is suggested that funding for Smartboards should come solely from the Grant Foundation. District funding could be allocated to supporting the types of project and development mentioned that better support the district's commitment to 21st Century digital literacy and standards. Sources: 1. Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards Steve Higgins, Gary Beauchamp and Dave Miller Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213–225 2. A “LEARNING REVOLUTION”? INVESTIGATING PEDAGOGIC PRACTICES AROUND INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN BRITISH PRIMARY CLASSROOMS JULIA GILLEN*, JUDITH KLEINE STAARMAN#, KAREN LITTLETON*, NEIL MERCER#, ALISON TWINER* Paper presented at the AERA Conference, 2006 in San Francisco, USA. 3. Smith, F., Hardman, F. & Higgins, S. (2006) The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies, British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443–457. 4. The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London ChallengeDr. Gemma Moss, Dr. Carey Jewitt, Professor Ros Levaãiç, Dr. Vicky Armstrong, Alejandra Cardini and Frances Castle 5. Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK Swansea School of Education. http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf 6. PANACEA OR PROP: THE ROLE OF THE INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD IN IMPROVING TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS.Derek Glover, Dave Miller, Doug Averis, Keele University, Staffordshire, U. K.http://www.icme- organisers.dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdf 7. Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project - summary report Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families July 2007 http://www.becta.org.uk 8. Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK Swansea School of Education. http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf 9. ITMF evaluation (Ramboll Management, 2005) 10. The ICT Impact Report: A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on Schools in Europe. http://insight.eun.org/shared/data/pdf/impact_study.pdfBalanskat, Anja; Blamier, Roger; Kefala, Stella(European Communities, European Schoolnet, Brussels, Belgium , Dec 2006) 11. Higgins, S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., et al. (2005) Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies: final report (Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle University).

×