The document discusses research on using interactive whiteboards with preschool-aged children to teach literacy and math content. It summarizes a study that found preschoolers who used an interactive whiteboard system focused on literacy and math made significant gains on standardized tests of early literacy and math skills over 6 months. The study provides initial support that educational technology can be used successfully with young children to improve school readiness if implemented appropriately. Limitations are noted and future research is suggested.

1. Interactive Whiteboard + Content = Preschool
Literacy and Math Success
FETC Conference January 2012
Lilla Dale McManis, PhD Tryna King
dmcmanis@hatchearlychildhood.com tking@hatchearlychildhood.com
Copyright 2012 Hatch Inc.
All Rights Reserved

2. Overview
I. Research on content-infused interactive
whiteboards and preschoolers' literacy and
math success.
II. Let’s Play!
III. Ways programs can use and measure the
success of such educational technology as
interactive whiteboards to support school
readiness.

3. Academic Content
Why focus on literacy and mathematics?
• They are often considered to be the
cornerstone of school success.
• Cognitive development can be seen as an
extended set of skills and proficiencies which
are multidimensional and include:
– language/literacy
– math reasoning
– general knowledge
Kagan, S.L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. 1995. Reconsidering Children’s Early Development and
Learning: Toward Common Views and Vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Goals
Panel.

4. How Children Learn Best
• Combination of child directed and discovery
(Piaget and Neo-Piagetians)
• Teacher led/assisted instruction (Vygotsky)
• Experiences that are:
– Meaningful
– Engaging
– Allow children to be successful
– Can result in self-efficacy (Bandura)
B. Bowman et al. 2000. Eager to Learn.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309068363
S. Landry. 2005. Effective Early Childhood Programs.
http://www.childrenslearninginstitute.org/Library/Publications/documents/Effective-
Early_Childhood-Programs.pdf

5. Provided it’s
Developmentally Appropriate
• Based on theory
– Child development
– Learning
– Teaching
• Based on good design principles
– Child-friendly
– Promotes progress
– Supports teaching
• Based on meaningful and relevant outcomes
– Knowledge
– Skills
– Self-efficacy
NAEYC. Technology in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8.
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/Draft%20Technology%20in%20Early%20Chil
dhood%20Programs%204-29-2011.pdf

6. Positive Outcomes
• Preschool age children are developmentally ready
and capable of benefiting from instruction
enhanced by technology.
• Educational technology is known to have a major,
positive impact on children’s development in:
– Social-emotional -Cognitive -Language
– Literacy -Writing -Mathematics
Clements, D.H., & J. Sarama. 2003. Strip Mining for Gold: Research and Policy in Educational Technology:
A Response to ‘Fool’s Gold’. AACE Journal 11 (1): 7-69.
McCarrick, K., & L. Xiaoming. 2007. Buried Treasure: The Impact of Computer Use on Young Children’s
Social, Cognitive, Language Development and Motivation. AACE Journal 15 (1): 73-95.
Glaubke, C. 2007. The Effects of Interactive Media and Preschoolers’ Learning: A Review of the Research
and Recommendations for the Future. Oakland, CA: Children Now.
http://www.childrennow.org/uploads/documents/prek_interactive_learning_2007.pdf

7. Where are we going?

8. Interactive Whiteboards

9. Just What is an IWB?
• Virtually anything done on a computer can
be done on an interactive white board.
• One advantage is the interaction involves
fingers and pens so more kinesthetic.
• Drawing, marking and highlighting of any
computer-based output is supported.
• Whole class can follow interactions.
• Lessons and student work can be saved and
replayed/retrieved.

10. From a Pedagogical Perspective
Key features of interactive whiteboards which take
their role beyond being a mere display include their:
• Interactivity
• Size
• Accessibility for all learners
• Recordability
H. Smith et al. 2005. Interactive Whiteboards: Boon or Bandwagon? A Critical Review of the
Literature. http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/spechtp/551/IWB_Boon_Bandwagon.pdf

11. Usability-Based Research
• Teachers and students like the technology.
• Students are more engaged and motivated.
• Use of whiteboards shifts instruction from
presentation to interaction.
• More focus on content.
Hall, I. & Higgins, S. 2005. Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 21(2): 102-117.
D. Painter, E. Whiting, & B. Wolters. 2005. The Use of an Interactive Whiteboard in Promoting Interactive
Teaching and Learning. http://gse.gmu.edu/assets/docs/tr/interactive-board_tr.pdf

12. What Teachers Say
• Northcote and colleagues conducted a project
with teachers of primary school children (K-7):
– To investigate different ways that IWBs are used in
primary schools
– To document teachers’ current practice with IWBs
Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive Whiteboards: Interactive
or Just Whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/northcote.pdf

14. Outcomes-Based Research
• We define outcomes here as literacy and
mathematics achievement as measured by a
formal instrument.
• Studies with preschool age children cannot
generally be found.
• There are some with early elementary.

15. Early Elementary
• Navajo children in 3rd & 4th grades.
• Comparison group had lessons at desktop
computers, experimental group got identical
lesson with their teacher using a Smartboard.
• Greater gains from pre- to posttest for students
whose teachers used a Smartboard.
Zittle, F.J. 2004. Enhancing Native American Mathematics Learning: The Use of Smartboard Generated
Virtual Manipulatives for Conceptual Understanding. Proceedings of World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. 5512-5515.

17. Swan et al. (2008) found these relationships:

18. Let’s Turn to Preschool

19. Engagement & Collaboration
• Wood (2002) describes a study on almost 30
preschools in the UK that had IWBs.
• Found that children who wouldn’t normally choose to
work on the computer were doing so with the IWB.
• Their teachers observed these young children could do
the activities without needing the fine-motor skills
required to operate a mouse.
• Teachers observed greater collaboration and sharing of
the task than at a desktop computer.
Wood, C. 2002. Interactive Whiteboards - A luxury Too Far? Teaching ICT 1(2).

20. Today’s Study: Summary
• Interactive Whiteboard system.
• Focus on literacy and mathematics content.
• Preschool children made significant and practical
gains.
McManis, L.D., S. Gunnewig, & M. McManis. 2010. The Effectiveness of the Hatch TeachSmart Learning
System in Improving Literacy and Mathematics Outcomes for Preschoolers. Winston-Salem, NC:
Hatch Early Learning. http://www.hatchearlychildhood.com/Resources/TeachSmart-EfficacyStudy-
2011-Fire.pdf

21. Sample
• 8 classrooms.
• 3 schools.
• 3 separate school districts.
• English language of instruction.
• Low-income preschoolers.
• English home language.
• No additional intervention was happening.

22. Sample
• Both pre- and posttest data available for 86
of the 88 children tested.
• Girls 52% of the sample; boys 48%.
• Average age of children at pretest was 4.6;
at posttest 5.0.

23. Methods
• Repeated measures (pretest – posttest) design.
• 11 children per classroom.
• Randomly selected.
• Tested on literacy and mathematics.
• Individually by trained assessors.
• Battery about 30 to 45 minutes.
• Average of 6 months between pre-and posttest.

24. Exploratory
• To counter lack of control group:
–Random selection
–Low attrition
–Norming group for non-equivalent
control group

25. Implementation
• Same training for teachers.
• Used system prior to the study.
• Focus on literacy and math first.
• Study children one hour per week.
• Any group size.
• Optional scope and sequence.
• Informal tracking sheet.

26. Measures
• Three screening tests used to determine
children’s school readiness skills:
– Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL)
– Get Ready to Read! Early Literacy Screening Tool
(GRTR)
– C-PALLS+ Math Screener

27. System Design
• Features activities in the skill areas of
literacy/language, mathematics, social studies
and science.
• Aligned with national prekindergarten standards.
• Literacy and mathematics content is based on the
findings of the National Early Literacy Panel and
the National Research Council’s Committee on
Early Childhood Mathematics.
Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. 2008.
http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood Paths Toward Excellence and Equity. Committee on Early
Childhood Mathematics. 2009. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12519

28. System Design
• Activities for large groups, small groups, or individuals.
• Scaffolding in emerging, still developing, developed
and for some activities, extension levels.
• Other features:
– Lesson plan
– Standards
– Research
– Activities for integration
– Tutorial
– Look and listen
– Progress monitoring
– Digital portfolios

29. Lots of Choices for Touch

30. Typical Placement

31. Navigation

32. Literacy Navigation

33. Literacy Activity

34. Literacy Activity:
Phonological Awareness

35. Literacy Activity: Story Telling

36. Math Navigation

37. Math Activity: Counting

38. Math Activity: Verbal Problems

39. Teacher Support Features

40. Findings

41. Test of Early Preschool Literacy
• A comparison of the mean pretest ELI to
the posttest ELI shows a significant
increase in early literacy skills (p < .001).
TOPEL Early Literacy Index
101
100
99
98
97
96 Median Early
95 Literacy Index
94
93
92
91
Pretest Posttest

42. Test of Early Preschool Literacy
• Median ELI at pretest was 94 (35th percentile
of the normative sample).
Percentile Change
• At posttest was 100 (50 th
60
percentile of the
50
normative sample).
40
• Children began well 30
below average and 20
ended as average. 10
0

43. Get Ready to Read!
• Comparison between pretest and posttest
mean scores showed a statistically significant
increase (p < .001). Get Ready to Read!
16
14
12 GRTR Mean
Scores
10
8
Pretest Posttest

44. Get Ready to Read! Pretest
Step 1
Step 5 Step 1
Step 2 Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 4
Step 5
Step 3
Step 1 - 3 = Needs Additional Instruction; Step 4 or 5 = Ready to Read
Get Ready to Read! Posttest
Step 2
Step 1
Step 3 Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 5
Step 4
Step 4
Step 5
Step 1 - 3 = Needs Additional Instruction; Step 4 or 5 = Ready to Read

45. CPALLS+ Math
• Significant increase in the mean score on the
C-PALLS+ Math Screener from pre- to posttest
(p <. 001).
C-PALLS+ Math
20
C-PALLS+ Math
Mean Scores
15
10
Pretest Posttest

46. C-PALLS+ Math Pretest
School Ready for Math
Not School Ready for
Math
C-PALLS+ Math Posttest
School Ready for Math
Not School Ready for
Math

47. Comparing to
“Business as Usual” Classrooms
• For example, in a large reliability & validity
study the GRTR! baseline (right before children
began their preschool year) mean score was
10.12 and 3 to 7 mo’s later was 9.85
• No intervention in this sample from Head Start
41%, public pre-k 33% & private preschool 25%.
• At pretest, our mean score for the randomly
selected children (n=86) was 11.20 and six
months later at posttest was 15.18.

48. Authenticity and Generalizability
• In real classrooms with real teachers and real
children.
• Not perfectly structured.
• Feasible amount of time with the educational
technology.
• Training and useful tools for keeping track of
activities and progress.

49. Conclusions
The importance of this finding is twofold:
• The literacy and math skills on which these
at-risk preschool children increased are
known to be predictors of success in school;
both in the short-term, in kindergarten and
first grade, and have an impact on their
entire schooling experience.

50. Conclusions
• The study supports the hypothesis that
educational technology, as both a vehicle for
presenting information and as a vehicle for
bringing strong content, can be used
successfully with young children in early
childhood education settings.

51. Limitations and Future Directions
• In this exploratory study, the children were
randomly selected but no true control group.
• Findings are worthy but need to be replicated
under a more stringent design.
• We have plans to conduct confirmatory
research in a variety of geographic locations
and early childhood settings.

52. Questions?

54. Using an IWB in Your Program
• Being very clear about your goals is probably the
single most important factor in your success.
• Using the standards that are integral to your
program will provide an excellent foundation.
• Writing IWB activities into your daily lesson plan
will help you both think about them
systematically and increase the chances that you
will make sure the board and activities are
actually used by the children.

55. Scaffolding
• Thinking about supporting children’s learning using
scaffolding is another way to help ensure children’s success.
• Scaffolding can happen both around the use of the
technology and within the content on the technology
(Yelland & Masters, 2007).
• Be sure too to allow time for the children, and for
yourself, to get to know how to use the board so that when
the activities are presented the learning content is first and
foremost.
Yelland, N. & J. Masters. 2007. Rethinking Scaffolding in the Information Age. Computers &
Education, 48, 362-382.
http://www.cblt.soton.ac.uk/multimedia/PDFsMM09/Rethinking%20scaffolding%20in%20the%20i
nfo%20age.pdf

56. Customization
• You can also adapt, update, and customize
activities very easily by using the footprint of
an already existing activity.
• Extending activities is also very possible, for
example, children can work on a group project
over time by retrieving the activity and
continuing its progress such as developing a
story.

57. Teacher’s Role
• Recognizing how important the teacher is in the
process and success really cannot be overstated
(Nir-Gal & Klein, 2004).
• Probably the main pitfall to avoid is not giving
yourself enough time to select or design
activities.
• While this is time consuming, one of the benefits
of the IWB is that once done you can pull these
out very quickly.
Nir-Gal, O. and Klein, P.S. 2004. Computers for cognitive development in early childhood- the teachers'
role in the computer learning environment. Information Technology in Childhood Education
Annual, p. 97-119.

58. Professional Development
• Getting together with others at your site or in
your organization to share the work of
developing and/or selecting activities makes
for a powerful learning community
opportunity.
• Look too for online groups to share ideas and
experiences.

59. Measuring the Effectiveness of Using
an IWB in Your Program
• You will want to think about what your IWB
system is and what you want included with
regard to activities and learning experiences.
• Matching back to goals, learning outcomes or
standards, etc. is essential.
• Collecting ‘data’ should be done systematically
and regularly.

60. Measuring Success
• There are a variety of ways to do this and they
are basically the same as when you use any
kind of instructional approach and content
with children.
• Observation, checklists, and screeners can also
be used before, during, and while children use
activities on the board.

61. ‘Showing’ Success
• The IWB has one strength that is unique. If you
have a board that can record children’s actions
and language in real time, you can capture
their performance at various times on the
same or similar activities.
• This kind of record along with the more
traditional can give you the benefit of “a
picture is worth a thousand words”.

62. Considerations
• Some of these include if children do not get
enough exposure to the technology. If teachers
aren’t using the technology with the
children, they don’t get adequate exposure. This
can lead to a situation where positive results are
less likely.
• If you change the technology mid-stream by
adding or deleting lots of new software or apps
this will throw off your results.
• If you do either of these, you would need to
carefully attend to and measure this.

63. Considerations, Con’t
• If you have a lot of movement of children in and
out of the classroom they won’t be getting an
even and consistent experience and this can have
a similar effect.
• Where the technology is housed must also be
considered. If it is a computer lab children go to
once a week with no teacher interaction or follow
up, the gains will likely be less than if in the
classroom and an integrated part of the
curriculum.

64. Who the Learners Are
• If you have a mix of children who are non ELL
and ELL, non special needs and special needs
you can have a situation where the
scores/outcomes are lowered on average.
• You may want to look at the progress of these
kinds of learners separately.

65. Training for the Teachers
• Other issues are that if the teacher who was
originally trained has left, you cannot assume
the new teacher knows how to effectively use
the technology.
• You may be that new teacher and if so asking
for a training is very appropriate.

66. Evaluating Educational Technology
http://www.hatchearlychildhood.com//pages/evaluating-technology-for-early-learners

67. Toolkit
http://www.hatchearlychildhood.com//pages/evaluating-technology-for-early-learners

68. Closing Thoughts and Q & A
• Research on newer technologies
for learning is in its infancy.
• We need ‘all hands on deck’.

69. Future Talks/Presentations
• EETC: Early Education Technology Conference
March 14-16 in Salt Lake City
– Evaluating Educational Technology in Early Childhood
– Progress Monitoring in Educational Technology
– Interactive/Customizable Educational Technology
– Usability of a Literacy and Math Content-Infused
Interactive Whiteboard with Preschoolers
• McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership
Connections Conference May 10-12 in Chicago
– Evaluating Educational Technology in Early Childhood
• International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE) Conference June 25 in San Diego
– School Readiness: Outcomes and Approaches