What Didn't Come From the Mouths of Babes is Just as Important

In “Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard"
(2012), the authors, Süleyman Nihat Sad and Ugur Özhan, describe a study they conducted with the purpose of investigating the experiences students across grade levels had over the previous two years in classrooms with interactive whiteboards.  Fifty students were placed in five focus groups for interviews. The authors asked students what they liked and disliked about the use of interactive whiteboards in lessons, and how the boards enhanced learning for them.  In doing so, they discovered a question they had not considered before - whether the interactive whiteboards are being used correctly.

Among what students liked most about the interactive whiteboards, the ease of use, lack of chalk dust, better visuals, and time-saving factors were at the top of the list.  The students overwhelmingly disliked technical problems that made using the interactive whiteboards difficult.  When asked how they believe interactive whiteboards enhanced their learning, the students reported that they were better able to visualize information and give it context.  One such response said “‘I was able to understand the human circulation system clearly distinguishing the arteries and veins, red and white blood cells thanks to clear and colored visuals on the IWB’ (Sixth grade).”  The students also felt the internet resources accessed through the board helped them learn abstract concepts better.  What these responses revealed to Sad and Özhan is the very real possibility that the interactive whiteboards were not being used correctly.

What the students reported as being the best liked features or the ways the interactive whiteboards enhanced their learning can all be done with just a computer with an internet connection and projection surface, something I have done for years in classrooms without interactive whiteboards.  If that is all that is beneficial to the students, then why purchase the interactive whiteboards in the first place?  The visuals the students stated being the most effective in enhancing their learning did not rely upon the interactive whiteboard to function and the board became a de facto projection screen.  Being able to easily access resources using the internet is also not a function of the board - it is a function of the internet-connected computer.  What students reported liking were actually teacher-centered activities whereas the interactive whiteboard facilitates student-centered activities.  With the many functions that enhance learning through interaction and active participation with the interactive whiteboard, the lack of responses involving these functions lends itself to the authors’ suggestion that the boards were not being used correctly.  

Sad and Özhan recommend an integration of technology and pedagogy where teachers are knowledgeable in strategies and methods that support the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom.  In order to integrate technology and pedagogy teachers need to be trained and supported in the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom, a point the authors do not make in their recommendations.  I have mentioned in this blog before the importance of training teachers in the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom (see Effective Use: The Key Word is Effective), and this study further supports this need for initial and ongoing training in incorporating this technology into a teacher’s pedagogy.  The use of some technology is far from intuitive and interactive whiteboard skills do not lend themselves to being picked up without guidance.  The first time I attempted to use an interactive whiteboard in another teacher’s room I could not figure out how to get the pen to write where I wanted it to.  The point must have been off about six inches to the right and at an odd angle.  Thankfully one of the students knew the board needed calibrating (and at that time I didn’t know this was something you do) and showed me how to do it.  Now, I’ll calibrate everyone’s board!  And how did I become excellent at this?  I was taught by someone else who knew.  There are many other functions involving the board that I or someone else would need to know and we will not get them, not easily anyway, without training and support.

Bonus Video: How to calibrate a Promethean Board. As easy as this seems once you know it, I never would have figured this out on my own. The more you know!

Effective Use - Key Word is Effective

"As is the case with all powerful tools, teachers must use interactive whiteboards thoughtfully, in accordance with what we know about good classroom practice." Robert J. Marzano

In Engaging Learners with Interactive Whiteboards (O'Bannon & Anderson, 2013), the research discussed on interactive whiteboards seems to have conflicting results on whether interactive whiteboards affect student achievement.  The 2009 study by Marzano and Haystead may inadvertently have shed light on why the studies are so divided.  This study attributed one finding that a portion of the teachers saw more successful outcomes without the boards as the result of incorrectly using the boards themselves.  With this observation comes a question that needs to be considered with each previous and later study: what did researchers use to determine what qualifies as using and not using the interactive whiteboard in the classroom?  

Using an interactive whiteboard can be defined loosely enough to include merely projecting static images as though it were only a screen, or tightly enough that it includes criteria based on the extent to which the students interact with the board.  The Marzano and Haystead study indicated student response systems, graphics and videos, and reinforcer properties, all features of the interactive whiteboards, were connected to increased student achievement.  This finding seems logical when also considering what current research says about student learning in general and the need for students to be active learners in the classroom.  These three features of interactive whiteboards require a degree of active participation from students as part of the use of the board and facilitation of learning.  Using interactive whiteboards as just a surface on which to project makes the student a passive learner that does little to no engaging with the content of the lesson.  Technology or no, passive learning does not result in high student achievement.  

One way to support the effective use of interactive whiteboards is to provide professional development opportunities for teachers that train in both how to use the board and software itself and how to incorporate its use into their teaching practices, as has been emphasized by Hall and Higgins in 2005.  It is not enough that teachers know how to use interactive whiteboards; they must also know how to include the use of the boards in their lesson planning and execution in effective ways. Interactive whiteboards offer the opportunity for students to be engaged in content and learning rather than just exposed to it, making for more meaningful classroom learning experiences.

Free Training Resources:

Promethean Boards

SMART Boards