Interactive Whiteboards in Mathematics Spaces: An Examination of Technology Integration in an Urban Middle School

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4, 303 - 318, 18.10.2017

Jamaal Young Christina Hamilton Marti Cason

Öz

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of integrating Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) technology on middle school mathematics achievement in an urban school. Propensity score matching was used to create a comparable control group in order to isolate the effects of IWB technology on mathematics achievement. An initial experimental group (n = 716) of ethnically diverse urban students receiving IWB instruction was matched to a control population (n = 856) based on propensity scores generated from demographic and ability data. Student achievement data were analyzed with 2 × 4 ANOVA to access treatment main effects and the effects of demographic variables such as gender, ethnicity, and ability. Ethnicity was a significant moderator of the effects. Specifically, a positive effect size was observed for White students, and the achievement gap was also reduced for Hispanic students. Implications for mathematics pedagogy with an IWB are provided based on these conclusions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Technology integration, Interactive whiteboard

Kaynakça

• Al-Onizat, S. H. (2016). Measurement of multiple intelligences among sample of students with autism, and intellectual disability using teacher estimation and its relationship with the variables: The type and severity of disability, gender, age, type of center. International Journal of Education, 8(1), 107-129.
• Al-Zaidiyeen, N., Lai, M., & Fong-Soon, F. (2010). Teachers’ attitudes and levels of technology use in classrooms: The case of Jordan Schools. International Education Studies, 3, 211- 218.
• Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of the interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
• Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
• Beauchamp, G. & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.03
• Beauchamp, G. & Kennewell, S. (2013). Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 179-191.
• Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Retrieved on 3 September 2017 from www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/special3/
• Beeland, W. D. (2002, April). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education. Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
• Bell, M. A. (2002). Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker’s dozen reasons! Retrieved on 3 September 2017 from http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02
• Brandt, R. (1995). Future shock is here. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 5-13.
• Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 1438-1443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100409p
• Chen, H.R., Chiang, C.H & Lin, W.S. (2013). Learning effects of interactive whiteboard pedagogy for students in Taiwan from the perspective of multiple intelligences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(2), 173-187.
• Cheung, A. C. & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 198-215.
• Cheung, A. C. & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113
• Dattalo, P. (2010). Strategies to approximate random sampling and assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Demonte, T. (2013).Interactive whiteboards in the elementary classroom. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved on 3 September 2017 from http://www.iste.org/ docs/excerpts/IBOARD-excerpt.pdf
• Desimone, L. M. (2009). Impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
• Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development change teachers’ instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
• Digregorio, P. & Sobel-lojeski, K. (2010). The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWB) on student performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38, 255-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ET.38.3.b
• Drijvers, P. (2013). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). PNA, 8(1), 1-20.
• Erdogan, M., Kursun, E., Susman, G., Saltan, F., Gok, A., & Yildiz, I. (2010). A qualitative study on classroom management and classroom discipline problems, reasons, and solutions: A case of information technologies class. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 10, 881-891.
• Gardner, H. (2001). Creators: multiple intelligences. In K. H. Pfenninger and V. R. Shubik (Eds.), The origins of creativity (pp. 117–144). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 5-20.
• Goodnow J. & Collins W. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature, sources and consequences of parents’ ideas. London: Erlbaum.
• Grady, M., Watkins, S., & Montalvo, G. (2012). The effect of constructivist mathematics on achievement in rural Schools. Rural Educator, 33(3), 37-46.
• Greiffenhagen, C. (2000, July). Interactive whiteboards in mathematics education: Possibilities and dangers. Paper presented at the 9th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Tokyo, Japan.
• Hallett, D., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2010). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural knowledge when learning fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 395-406. doi: 10.1037/a0017486
• Han W. J. (2007). The correlation between elementary school students’ multiple intelligences and English reading proficiency”, master thesis abstract, Retrieved on 3 September 2017 from: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=q5.YaQ/record?r1=1&h1=4.
• Hawkes, M. & Cambre, M. (2001). Educational technology: Identifying the effects. Principal Leadership, 1, 48-51.
• Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboards to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 283-301.
• Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and technology, 32(3), 213-225.
• Hodge, S. & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: A teacher’s journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282.
• Hsin, C.T., Li, M.C. & Tsai, C.C. (2014). The influence of young children's use of technology on their learning: A review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 85-99.
• Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
• Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration: Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(3) 363-388.
• Jones, M. H., Irvin, M. J., & Kibe, G. W. (2012). Does geographic setting alter the roles of academically supportive factors? African American adolescents' friendships, math self-concept, and math performance. Journal of Negro Education, 81(4), 319-337
• Keengwe, J. & Akyeampong, A. (2010). Technology integration barriers in K-12 urban classrooms. In G. Siemens & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2267-2271). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analyzing the interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 61-73.
• Kidd, T. & Jared, K. (2010). Technology integration and urban schools: Implications for instructional practices. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6, 51. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2010070105
• Laffey, J. M., Espinosa, L., Moore, J., & Lodree, A. (2003). Supporting learning and behaviour of at-risk young children: Computers in urban education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 423-440.
• Lee, M. Y. (2006). A study of college students’ multiple intelligences, self-efficacy and learning intention, master thesis abstract, Retrieved on 3 September 2017 from: http://ndltd. ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=q5.YaQ/record?r1=1&h1=5.
• Littleton K., Twiner A., & Gillen J. (2010). Instruction as orchestration: Multimodal connection building with the interactive whiteboard, pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(2), 130-141.
• Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y., & Lim, M. (2014). A look at research on mobile learning in K–12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 325-372.
• Manny-Ikan, E., Tikochinski, T., Zorman, R., & Dagan, O. (2011). Using the interactive whiteboard in teaching and learning - An evaluation of the SMART classroom pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 7, 249-273.
• Martinez, M. (2010). Teacher education can’t ignore technology. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 74-75.
• Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., Kershner, S., & Kleine, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help provide ‘dialogic space’ for children’s collaborative activity? Language and Education, 24(5), 367-384. Miller, D. & Glover, 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 Annual, 2002(1), 5-19.
• Morris, D. (2010). Are teachers technophobes? Investigating professional competency in the use of ICT to support teaching and learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4010-4015. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.632
• National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.). Statistical standards: Defining race and ethnicity data. Retrieved on 3 September from http://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2002/ std1_5.asp
• Razmjoo S. A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and Language success, The Reading Matrix, 8(2), 155-174.
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (1998). Propensity score. Retrieved on 3 September 2017 from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2056/doi/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05196.pub2/full
• Rosenbaum, P. R. & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-44.
• Sarsa, J. & Soler, R. (2011). Special features of interactive whiteboard software for motivating students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 1(3), 235-240.
• Schneiter, K. (2010). Preparing teachers to use technology: Considerations from a capstone mathematics and technology course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 457-469.
• Shadish W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• Thomas, J.A. (2013). A mixed methods case study of the levels of interactive whiteboard use by K-12 teachers (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3580526)
• Torff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54, 379-383. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
• Turel, Y. K. & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394.
• Walker, D. (2002). Meet Whiteboard Wendy. Times Educational Supplement, 13, 13-22.
• Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated things: Pupils’ views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.
• Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 534-552.
• Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Alexander, J. (2014). Researching interactive whiteboard (IWB) use from primary school to university settings across Europe: an analytical framework for foreign language teaching. Cylchgrawn Addysg Prifysgol Cymru/University of Wales Journal of Education, 17(1), 30-52.
• Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn (2nd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
• Wood, R. & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84–96.
• Young, J.R. & Young, J.L. (2012). “But that’s not fair”: Teacher technology readiness and African American Students’. The Journal of the Texas Alliance of Black School Educators, 4(1), 19-32.