Review of the Literature
A
review of the literature revealed inconclusive evidence as to the impact of
IWBs on student achievement. The literature underscores the need for further
research. Deubel (2010) points out that although some literature reviewed is
positive about the impact and the potential of IWBs, it is primarily based on
the views of teachers and pupils; there is insufficient evidence to identify
the actual impact of such technologies upon learning either in terms of
classroom interaction or upon attainment or achievement. Indeed,
some research showed positive results; however, others argue that IWB effectiveness
were the result of qualified teachers and not directly associated with IWBs. Most
of the literature pointed to professional development with emphasis on digital
efficacy as a necessary component to teaching with IWBs. This literature review
examines the evidence of IWBs on student achievement as well as factors that
influence IWBs’ effectiveness.
Student Learning
Much of the evidence surrounding IWBs and student achievement is inconclusive. Swan, Schenker, and Kratcoski (2008) explored
the effects of IWBs on reading and mathematics achievement of students in a
small school in northern Ohio. The study showed teachers whose students scored
above the mean on both reading mathematics assessments were found to use IWBs
more frequently than the teachers whose students score at or below the mean on
test. The results were most evident in fourth and fifth grade levels. The study
also noted that teachers with high achieving students used IWBs in more
creative ways. In another study, Marzano
(2009) discovered using IWBs was associated with a 16 percentile point gain in
student achievement. He notes specific IWB features associated with student
achievement: learner response devices, graphics to represent information, and
interactive reinforcers. As a result, he
discovered that IWBs were most effective when students interacted with its
features suggesting engagement to be an essential factor. However, Marzano (2009) states that 23 percent
of the cases, teachers had better results without the IWBs. Marzano (2009) and Swan, Schenker, and
Kratcoski (2008) looked to determine the effectiveness of IWBs; however, both point
to the teachers’ level of instruction as a key factor that influenced
achievement. According to Deubel (2010) it is not the medium, but instructional
methods and teacher effectiveness that cause learning. This conflict in results
leaves one to question if achievement gains were the result of IWBs or quality
teaching.
Deubel (2010) continues to argue
that much of the evidence is anecdotal, and improved student performance
appears to be in terms of increasing learning in the affective domain rather
than the cognitive domain. This argument
suggests that while IWBs motivate and engage students, this does not
necessarily constitute as learning. However, most teachers agree that
motivation and engagement leads to learning. One cannot examine the
effectiveness of IWBs and domains of concept knowledge without considering the views
of students. Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) reported on pupil views of IWBs
and found that students overwhelmingly believed IWBs helped them learn and
assisted their understanding of difficult concepts. Students in the study described IWBs as “fun”
and “motivational.” One ten year old
girl in the study remarked, “You learn better with a smartboard because you can
demonstrate things and not just tell about them” (Wall, Higgins, & Smith,
2005). Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005)
suggest that student metacognition and positive perceptions of IWBs can
influence motivation and therefore enhance achievement.
Teachers’ Beliefs
Researchers have relied on the perceptions of teachers as a main source
of information to determine the effectiveness of IWBs on learning (Turel &
Johnson, 2012). The research by Marzono (2009) and Swan, Schenker, and
Kratcoski (2008) point to instructional strategies, techniques, and teachers’
IWB use as factors that influence student learning. Marzono (2009), who was a
teacher before becoming a researcher, remarked that, “If I had been a teacher
in a classroom where I had access to those tools, I could have been a better
teacher” (as cited in Manzo, 2009, p. 34).
In order to gain perspective of
the overall research, it is important to consider the views of teachers.
Wood and Ashfield (2008) collected
data from observations of whole-class lessons and interviews involving IWB
usage and found that teachers liked IWBs because they could support teachers’
preferred style of whole-class interactive teaching. In this way, teachers can
use IWBs to enhance lessons without changing the way they teach. In terms of
creative teaching, Wood and Ashfield (2008) assert that teachers are
particularly positive about the ways IWBs allow them to select, modify, and
navigate resources.
In one recent study by Turel and
Johnson (2012), 174 teachers, who actively use IWBs for instruction, responded
to several questions about their use of IWBs. Of the 174 participants, 70.1% believe
using an IWB helps their lessons be more interactive, 75.2% of participants
believe using an IWB increases students’ interest in class, and 91.4% believe
IWB provides advantages to make the course content more visual (Turel &
Johnson, 2012). Most importantly, 77% of
teachers believe using IWB improves students’ learning (Turel & Johnson,
2012). This final piece of data shows
that most teachers believe IWBs improve student achievement. Many teachers feel
that by interacting with their students daily, they develop an inside
understanding of their knowledge and abilities; as a result, the certainty that
IWBs improve student learning can be seen as valid. This assertion is certainly
the basis for more research.
Technical Efficacy
Much of the literature surrounding IWBs and student achievement led to
teachers’ technical efficacy as an essential component. Some features of IWBs were seen as more
effective than others, and it was up to a knowledgeable teacher to know how to
use the correct features. Student achievement was directly impacted by certain
tools on IWBs (Marzano, 2009). Often IWBs are seen as ineffective simply
because teachers lack the technical skills and instructional techniques to use
them effectively (Desantis, 2012). As a result, technical efficacy can impact
IWBs’ effectiveness on student learning, and therefore, should be studied.
According
to Marzano (2009) there was a direct correlation between student achievement
and features on the IWB. These features
include learner response devices, visuals, and interactive reinforcers. Using
these devices and features was associated with a 26 to 31 percentile point gain
(Marzano, 2009). Likewise, Swan,
Schenker, and Kratcoski (2008) noticed a difference between students who scored
above and below the mean. It was discovered that students who scored above the
mean used IWBs to support student presentations while students scoring below
the mean were more likely to have teachers who used IWBs for their own
presentations (Swan, Schenker, and Kratcoski, 2008). Furthermore, teachers who
only present course content on an IWB may not give students an opportunity to
sufficiently use it during instruction. Such kinds of teacher-centered
practices may lead to a decrease in student attention and motivation (Turel and
Johnson, 2012). These findings suggest
that the more students interact with IWB features, the greater the impact on
learning. As a result, teachers must interact with IWBs thoughtfully, in
accordance with what they know about good classroom practice; simply assuming
that using technical tools can automatically enhance student achievement would
be a mistake (Manzano, 2009). Technical
efficacy is the key to IWB effectiveness.
Teachers
are overwhelmingly positive about the effects of IWBs on student achievement. However,
few teachers receive training; in fact, many of them learned IWB skills on
their own (Turel & Johnson, 2012).
One cannot help but wonder if the majority of teachers are underutilizing their IWBs. Through teacher questionnaires, Turel and
Johnson (2012) found that one third of 174 teachers still reported that they
need IWB training. However, according to
Slay, Sieborger, and Hodgkinson-Williams (2008) even after comprehensive IWB
training sessions, teachers who do not sufficiently use an IWB and do not
practice what they have learned may have lost their initial IWB skills and
knowledge as well as their confidence over time ( as cited in Turel &
Johnson, 2012). Districts are investing
large sums of money to install IWBs without training teachers to effectively
use them. These findings indicate the need for teacher training that is
ongoing. According to Brooks-Young (2007) schools that adopt IWBs frequently
fall short in establishing the shared vision, professional development,
technical support, and targeted assessment required for teachers to maximize
their IWBs by using them to provide student centered instruction (as cited in
Desantis, 2010). Successful integration
of technology requires professional development that is focused on building
technical efficacy. Introductory
technology professional development should include time to learn technology,
application to teaching, collaboration, and reflection on teaching (Desantis,
2010). Teachers’ technical efficacy poses a challenge to measuring the impact
of IWBs on student learning. Until teachers are using IWBs in a way that is
student centered and effective, it is difficult to determine the impact of IWBs
on student achievement.
