|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Ann Bell
Chapter
One While it is true that many new applications and tools exist and will continue to evolve which offer instructional applications using technology, it is also true that many teachers still need to be convinced of the value of these innovations and trained in their use. In some cases, instruction presently offered is of the rote variety, which fails to use equipment to its capacity and may fail to inspire teachers. Technology can and should be incorporated into the teaching styles of many teachers who have previously been hesitant to test the waters using computers for instruction. For these reasons, the interactive whiteboard is a device which is gaining popularity as a visual presenter and interactive teaching aid for use in multimedia instruction. Statement of the Problem Purpose of Study
The interactive quality of the board can lend itself to a degree of student participation not offered by other presentation methods such as the chalkboard or overhead projector and screen. Because it is a relatively new product which has only recently been viewed as an affordable option for use in public schools, there is a lack of research regarding its impact on instruction. The interactive electronic whiteboard shows promise in demonstrations but needs assessment in practice to determine its instructional value. Gathering the opinions of teachers and trainers who have experience using the board was one way to begin to evaluate it objectively. Significance of Study Definition of Terms
Interactive Electronic
Whiteboard Video Presentation Device Video Projector Document Camera Electronic Mailing List Organization
of the Study Chapter Two As technology has continued to evolve, its tools have become increasingly complex and capable. Michael Dertouzos referred to the importance of computer interfaces with other devices and to the development of "smart" tools which would be components in intelligent rooms, where computers will be embedded in all aspects of one’s environment (1997). Dertouzos’ associate at MIT’s Learning Lab, Nicholas Negroponte, described "intelligent environments" where computerized components of one’s surroundings have the capability to sense human presence and automatically react appropriately (1995). Seymour Papert, also from MIT, joined in the description of how computers play a part in education. He coined the term "mathetics" in the 1980’s to refer to the manner in which students learn, as opposed to "pedagogy," which describes the manner in which educators teach. He stressed the importance of giving students control of their learning as previously heralded by Piaget, Vygotsky, and others (1993). By allowing students control of the learning process, affording them opportunities to collaborate with one another, and encouraging them to interact with computers and other smart devices, educators can use technology in the classroom in the context of new ideas and views of the learning process. The interactive electronic whiteboard has gained recognition and popularity as a teaching tool when used with computer and video projector. The board can be used to involve groups in lessons displayed on the board. Because students actively participate in these lessons, the board can serve as a valuable tool in an interactive learning environment. The board itself is touch-sensitive, so that students can manipulate applications at the board as if it were a giant touch pad. They can also add notes to any display, make annotations, or compose original documents which can be saved, printed and distributed, or sent electronically to recipients in other locations. The user can control any application by touching the board with a finger, and can mark with tools such as a stylus, dry-erase marker, or finger ("Devices that spark," 1996). The interactive whiteboard has the "smart" qualities described by Dertouzos in that it interacts by interface with a computer and in the manner in which it allows interactivity between the computer, the board, and users at both locations (1997). The whiteboard itself without interactive ability can trace its history back only a few years, and originally differed little from other marking surfaces such as chalkboards or flip charts. Early reviews praised its ability to introduce color into marking presentations and to eliminate the problem of chalk dust (Lee, 1992). Whiteboards began to offer unique capabilities in the early 1990’s with the ability to save written documents to a computer’s hard drive and provide instant print-outs of board displays. As such, it was touted as a useful tool in conferencing and was reviewed in a number of business and technical publications and in educational journals. Product reviews as early as 1993 praised the whiteboard as an interactive learning tool (Filipczak, 1993). Early descriptions stirred interest in the whiteboard as an attractive medium for providing group participants with shared notes at the end of a class or session ("Devices that spark," 1996). The evolution of the whiteboard as a smart tool had begun. The next step in the whiteboard’s development was its growing popularity in distance communication. The whiteboard came to be so frequently used in distance communication and business situations that it now appears ubiquitous. While boards gained favor in the business world, cost was a factor which kept interactive whiteboards out of classrooms for several years. This began to change as recent price reductions and special offers to educators by manufacturers have caused considerable interest in the educational community (Project, 1998). As the cost became more reasonable, universities and public schools began acquiring and using boards in growing numbers. Numerous schools and universities have incorporated use of the interactive electronic whiteboard, and it has found favor in educational journals. While product reviews have been favorable, little scholarly research has been done regarding the use of the board (Sugar, 1995.) The purpose of this study was to observe students interacting with one another as they used the board as a shared learning environment. The emphasis was on the students and the characteristics of their interactions rather than on the nature and value of the board itself. It was noted in the conclusions, however, that the board offered unique qualities which would merit additional study. Because of the importance of the interactive and collaborative aspects of the electronic whiteboard, the qualities of collaboration and interactivity were explored in preparing this study. Two key components of constructivist instructional design and methodology related to technology and learning are learner control and collaborative learning (Duffy, 1996). When learners manipulate applications from the board and enter their own written contributions at the board, they enjoy a level of control not afforded by other presentation devices. Furthermore, since by necessity there must be at least one participant at the computer and one or more at the board in order to use as intended, collaboration is inherent in the use of the interactive whiteboard. This collaboration was lauded by Hanke (1997), who pointed out that while computers will continue to grow as valuable teaching tools, there will still be a need for human interaction. No single approach should be the sole structure by which instruction should be presented in today’s classroom, but certainly valuable components of a successful blended curriculum should include the combination of collaborative, individualized, and competitive approaches. Indeed, Hertz-Lazarowitz and Miller viewed collaboration in schools important enough to be deemed an end in itself as well as a means to other ends or learning objectives (1992). When collaborative exchange occurs in the classroom, teacher and learner continue to be involved in a vital process even as technology continues to evolve (Hanke, 1997). A recent study of interactive computer use in a collaborative learning environment by Singhanayok and Hooper showed increased learning by both high and low achievers when compared to lessons delivered by more traditional means. The researchers concluded that future studies should focus on learner control and collaboration in computer-aided instruction (1998). Inkpen’s recent dissertation further demonstrated the value of collaboration in student computer work. Her study showed that students demonstrated increased learning when working collaboratively at computers as opposed to doing the same work on their own at individual computers. The fact that the interactive electronic whiteboard offers opportunities for teachers and students to participate in collaborative endeavors with increased learner control was a compelling reason why the use of the board should be evaluated through research. Using the interactive whiteboard with computer applications which engage students and enhance sharing elevates it to a medium exhibiting several of the properties cited by David Jonassen when describing a "mindtool." Jonassen defines mindtools as computer applications which encourage critical thinking, assessment of information, and organization of personal knowledge. The board can display any software application and allow for its shared use, thus providing the collaborative quality of a mindtool, which allows each student to have personal and individual responsibility for creating his own understanding (1996). Instead of a classroom setting where students passively receive information, the shared use of the whiteboard offers an environment where students and teacher can interact and communicate as a topic is explored. Immediate feedback can be displayed on the board as students mark and the teacher responds, with all contributions immediately visible to all participants. At the end of a discussion, mutually shared and developed work can be printed out for future reference or revision. Jonassen also stressed the importance of collaboration as a tool for developing critical thinking skills among students (1996), and the whiteboard can be a promising vehicle for such interchange. Moreover, the board can provide an excellent medium by which students can use the applications Jonassen favored as mindtools, such as mind mapping applications and databases. Thus, the interactive whiteboard can provide an ideal interface with which to employ mindtools. One way to begin the process of evaluating the interactive electronic whiteboard as an instructional tool was to go to teachers and trainers currently using boards and gather information. Questions about board use and about its value as an instructional tool could yield responses offering insights regarding best practices for its use. The survey conducted for this study was intended to be one component of such an evaluation. Research Design Sampling Procedures Data Collection
Survey participants were directed to an Internet website where the survey was posted. The survey was available for responses for nine days. The software used to compose the survey was FilemakerPro, a computer program for generating surveys for Internet use. Responses were stored in the FilemakerPro database and downloaded for analysis at the end of the posting period. Data-Gathering
Instrument The first section was comprised of 15 close-ended questions soliciting demographic data and basic facts about the board’s setup and use. Efforts were made in the composition of survey questions to allow for differences between the various brands and models of boards which respondents might be using. The second section contained eight close-ended questions asking the respondents to indicate, on a 5-point scale ranging from "always" to "never," how frequently they used the board in specific situations. The third section offered twelve close-ended questions asking the participants to respond, on a 5-point scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," with statements about the ease of use of the board. In the fourth section questions asked for estimations on a 5-point scale ranging from "extremely important" to "not important" as to the value of various features of the board. The fifth section offered close-ended questions on a 5-point scale ranging from "always" to "never" regarding the frequency of use of various features of the board. Section six, the last part of the survey, was comprised of six open-ended questions regarding uses of the board and satisfaction with the board. Responses were stored electronically and downloaded all at once for analysis. Demographic Information Table 1: Teaching Levels
Also included in the demographics section were basic questions about the equipment and setup. Inquiry about computer platforms used showed a preference for PC-compatible computers, with 21 PC users and 9 Macintosh users. All but two participants indicated they used video projectors with the boards, with one LCD panel being used and one indication of another device. Most boards were mounted on moveable stands, with wall mounting the second display preference. A wide variety of marking devices were utilized. Most campuses had only one board, with frequent sharing reported. As previously stated, the electronic interactive whiteboard is a relatively new device, and most users indicated their boards had been in use for one year or less. Many respondents indicated in the open-ended responses that they hoped to acquire additional boards in the future. Likert Scale Questions Ease of Use A particularly significant area in which some respondents indicated lesser degrees of satisfaction was in the training they received in the use of the board. The need for more thorough and extensive training was also expressed in the open-ended discussions and caused some individuals to find other aspects of board use difficult. It should be noted that there were only three responses to questions regarding the ease of use of the board which indicated a strong degree of concern, and two of these related to training. Overall, responses indicated that the facility of use of the boards was an attribute contributing to their success. Table 2: Ease of Use of the Board
Effectiveness of Board
as a Teaching Tool Table 3: Applications Used with the Board
Another series of questions, illustrated in Table 4, dealt with various aspects of board use and their perceived value in teaching. The most enthusiastic responses were those regarding the use of the board in viewing and editing diagrams and visuals, a feature of the board which was highly praised in product reviews. The appeal of the board to kinesthetic learners was also shown to be a characteristic which respondents considered important. The use of color, a quality long valued in whiteboards, was also valued highly by respondents. Less importance was placed on the board as a time-saver, which may be related to the fact that some users found problems with setup and portability. The fact that students could be freed from the pressure of trying to take detailed and exact notes was also valued by fewer participants, but this may be related to the fact that many were elementary teachers less interested in giving notes to their students. Table 4: Aspects of Board Use
Finally, four questions were asked to measure teacher enthusiasm regarding the use of the board – results are presented in Table 5. The answers showed that most users felt good about the board from its very first use. Individuals who gave class notes indicated that they liked using the board for that purpose, a preference which was reiterated in the open-ended responses. The interactive quality of board use was valued highly by a large majority of participants. Responses to the questions related to the use of the board in teaching indicate that users did consider it a valuable tool. The numerical responses relevant to this issue were further borne out in the responses to open-ended questions. Table 5: Teacher Enthusiasm for Board Use
Students’ Responses to
the Board Table 6: Students’ Responses to Board
Whiteboard Preferred over
Other Presentation Methods Table 7: Preference of Whiteboard to Alternative Presentation Methods
Value of Interactive Quality
of Board Table 8: Activities Utilizing the Board
A final question regarding interactivity was included which simply asked respondents to rate the importance they attached to this quality. Responses to this question once again demonstrated that users considered the interactive use of the board extremely valuable and effective. All but two individuals replied that they considered interactivity to be important, as shown in Table 9. Table 9: Importance of Interactive Quality of Board
Responses to Open-ended
Questions Another of the open-ended questions asked users to tell what they liked best about the board. Responses were somewhat similar to the first question, with a few additional ideas expressed. One user praised the immediacy of lessons presented with the board, saying it "records what actually happens in class!" The ability to save work produced on the board was valued by another respondent. Specific references to the interactive use of the board included comments such as "students can see and do" and "using my finger," references to the ability to manipulate programs from the board. Several people felt that the board gave them more freedom to move around the room during presentations. Teachers felt that student motivation and interest were enhanced by use of the board. Marking on the board either with pens or with fingers was described as a popular attribute. The number, length, and enthusiasm of responses to the first two open-ended questions indicated a high degree of user satisfaction with the board. One more question was included which asked about favorable views of the board in the hopes of eliciting specific lessons which proved effective. The question asked users to describe a situation where the board had particular value to them in teaching. Several respondents did provide accounts of specific events. One teacher told of using a document camera to magnify small objects, audio connectors, which were projected on the board for a lesson about their use. Students were able to see the connectors clearly and the instructor then added annotations to point out additional information. Another individual told of using the board in a writers’ workshop for students to share ideas about composition and revision of creative writing projects. Several respondents liked using the board to teach Internet use and to let students collaboratively conduct searches. Other activities mentioned favorably were note-taking, brainstorming, web page authoring, and teaching research skills in the library. The variety of described uses was indicative of the teachers’ creativity and the versatility of the board. An open-ended question about teaching with the board asked respondents if the actual use of the board differed from the intended use for which it was acquired. If so, they were asked to explain. Only three individuals felt that their original expectations had not been met, and several others stated they were pleased to find the board did do exactly what they hoped it would before acquisition. One of the respondents who felt that actual use had changed stated that he had originally planned to use the board more for distance education than was the case at the time of the survey. Another individual was unaware of the option of videoconferencing with the board and, upon finding out about this capability, was involved in plans to try it. The only other change reported was by a participant who said original plans called for the board to be moved around the building quite a bit when in fact it was mostly used in the library with classes scheduling time to use it at that location. The responses offered to this question did not indicate any dissatisfaction as a result of changed plans for the board’s use. Along with being asked to tell what they liked best about the board, respondents were also asked to tell what they liked least. Their responses clarified some of the instances in the Likert questions when satisfaction ratings were somewhat lower than was the case for most items. One individual was dissatisfied with the video projector used with the board because its image was not bright enough to allow the lights to be left on during board use. Several users whose boards were connected by cords to the computer were frustrated by the logistical problems of situating the board so that the cords were not in the way and students would not trip over them. Related to this issue was the fact that several individuals found setting up the board to be somewhat difficult and time consuming. The cost of the equipment was also mentioned as a drawback. Several comments were made that the expense was a barrier to obtaining additional boards to alleviate problems related to moving and sharing. One person wished for a rear projection board to do away with the cords and to increase mobility, but stated that the additional cost precluded getting one. Both in the Likert questions and in the discussions, the problem of inadequate training was cited. Interestingly, some of the negative comments came from participants who also contributed very favorable comments in other sections. Conclusion While the board was not deemed difficult to use by all participants, some indicated problems which they felt were the result of inadequate training. The beginning board user should be confident and well prepared before using it with students. Training, and the lack thereof, is often cited as a reason technology is not embraced by more educators, and evidently was an issue for some contributors to this survey. In one instance, a respondent directly stated that his technology center offered training which was too brief and incomplete. Other users relied upon colleagues to help them learn to use the equipment. Whether training is provided by vendors, district or institutional staff, or other entities, it should not be neglected or abbreviated. Perhaps respondents who felt the need for training in the use of the board actually needed more general computer training than did other users, and their needs should be addressed. As with other equipment and applications, acquisition without training is a mistake which should be avoided. Additional study of the implications of interactive and collaborative uses of the board and their effects on learning could prove valuable. Positive results from such research could offer justification for acquisition of the equipment. Since the board has very high appeal for students, it might be interesting to investigate the possibility that students who are apprehensive or uncomfortable using computers might find using the interactive whiteboard less threatening. Often these reluctant students are girls, and studying the board as a means for overcoming their reluctance to use technology might indicate additional value for the board. The interactive electronic whiteboard is one of a growing number of devices which offer students shared workspace, thus encouraging interactive and collaborative learning. Web boards offer interaction but in many cases are used only with smaller computer screens. Large screen televisions can offer the size display needed for group presentations but lack the interactive features of the board. Because of the combination of size and interactive qualities, the board has earned high marks from users as a valuable learning tool. The interactive electronic whiteboard will surely grow in popularity and continue to evolve as a popular and useful mindtool for teachers, trainers, and students. References California high school enters the digital age by fully integrating A/V equipment. (1997). Technical Horizons in Education Journal, 25:2, 46. Dertouzos, M. (1997). What Will Be. New York: HarperCollins. Devices that spark teaching. (1996, November). Media and Methods, 16, 50. Duffy, T. M. and Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism, implications for the design and delivery of instruction. Ed. David H. Jonassen. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon and Schuster, 170-198. Filipczak, B. (1993, April). The latest gizmos at INFORM.Training. Hanke, J. (1997, July). Electronic whiteboards: Trusty sidekicks for digital-age presenters. Presentations, 45-51. Hertz-Lazarowitz, V., and Miller, N. (1992). Implications of current research on cooperative interaction for classroom application. In V. Hertz-Lazarowitz and N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: the theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Inkpen, K. (1997). Adapting the human-computer interface to support collaborative learning environments for children. Dissertation Abstracts International. (xx) [online from www.umi.com]. Jonassen, D. (1996). Mindtools: Computers in the classroom. (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. Kouzes, Richard T. (1995, March). Creating the Cyberspace Laboratory. The World & I, 190. Lee, Y. (1992, November 16). Whiteboard helps users collaborate. InfoWorld, 3. Mageau, L. (1995, November). Counting towards 2000. Electronic Learning, 12-13. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Random House. New and existing technology coexist at Georgia Tech while offering a richer classroom experience. (1998). Technology Horizons in Education Journal,25, 42. Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine. New York: HarperCollins. Project Get SMARTer. (1998). [Online at http://www.smarterkids.org/programs.htm]. Scalet, S. (1997, December). The electronic chalkboard. Smart Computing, 58-59. Singhanayok, C., and Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students’ achievement, option selections, and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46, 117-33. Sugar, W. A., and Boling, E. (1995). User-centered innovation: A model for "Early usability testing." Report in proceedings of the 1995 Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Anaheim, CA: American Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 340). Weiser, C., and Jay, B. (1996, May). Noteworthy projection equipment for schools and libraries. Media and Methods, 16. Willis, W. (1997). New presentation tools
improve instruction and collaboration options. Technical Horizons in
Education Journal, 25, 37. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2009 SMARTer Kids Foundation
|
