Interactive White Boards
Interactive Whiteboards Should be Used by Motivated, Trained
Educators to Improve Practice in the Classroom
Nils McGee
Central Connecticut State University
An interactive whiteboard (IWB) can be an effective tool in the arsenal of tools a teacher uses to develop effective practice in the classroom. There is evidence that IWBs improve student performance when teachers are properly trained (López, 2010), that IWBs can lead to a greater degree of student interactions in a safe learning environment (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005), and that the safe learning environment along with the ability to express thoughts and ideas visually can aid in the connection of prior knowledge to new knowledge (Smith et al., 2005). There is also evidence that the greatest benefit of IWBs occurs when it is introduced as a disruptive technology that doesn’t replace a competing technology (López, 2010). Based on this evidence, interactive white boards should be used by motivated and trained teachers because they will support effective practice in the classroom.
DO INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD SUPPORT PRACTICE PRINICPLES?
The use of IWBs in the classroom can be used to conduct practice in a more realistic context. According to Clark and Mayer, interactions that require students to respond in a realistic context will promote learning that can be retrieved at a later time (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Practice on an interactive whiteboard can be developed to model reality better than more traditional forms of practice. During simulations, graphical representations of real objects and processes can be manipulated directly, and the effects of that manipulation can be seen instantly.
The ability to scatter practice throughout a lesson is not a unique feature of IWBs, but IWBs do allow you to add practice whenever it is appropriate. The greatest benefit of practice occurs during the first few practice sessions (Clark & Mayer, 2008). By using an IWB, effective practice can occur throughout a lesson, and because of the speed with which feedback can be generated, the amount of practice can be modified depending on the degree of progress the students make. Effective practice requires you to use written directions for responding to practice questions, for the written text to be in close proximity to any graphics, and to limit extraneous elements (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Interactive white boards give the educator the ability to control all of these aspects of the practice. According to Clark and Mayer, transitioning from worked examples to practice is important because it frees mental capacity for building a mental model (Clark & Mayer, 2008). The whiteboards can certainly be used to facilitate this process.
Feedback is an integral part of learning. Students have to know what they are doing right or wrong. Using IWBs, the students can all see the context of the practice, and the results of their decision at the same time. When feedback is given in this situation, the feedback can occur in varying degrees. The teacher can give feedback directly, explaining why the result is incorrect, or can direct students to analyze as a group whether the work was done correctly, and if not, how to modify the work in order to improve the result. During simulations, the feedback can come from the simulation itself, and then students in the class can discuss whether this was the expected outcome, and why or why not. This type of interaction can improve student engagement in the lesson, and students can work more collaboratively to learn from each other. Surveys of students and teachers show that there is anecdotal evidence that IWBs can provide positive feedback directly (Smith et al., 2005). IWBs can provide feedback more rapidly and more frequently to measure student progress through a lesson (López, 2010).
WHO SHOULD USE INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS?
Interactive whiteboards are an expensive tool for use in the classroom. Initial and recurring costs include the interactive whiteboard hardware, software, training, and maintenance. Many teachers are already using technologies that can have the same effect as an interactive whiteboard. The greatest benefit to learning has been observed when IWBs have been implemented in classrooms where no competing resource is currently used (López, 2010). Training in the proper use of interactive whiteboards is also essential. In the Round Rock Independent School District, improvements in the performance of English Language Learners were observed when interactive whiteboards were used. Their plan included significant training in the proper use of interactive whiteboards (López, 2010). Training and support is reported to be one of the most frequent issues in the use of IWBs (Smith et al., 2005). It is this author’s experience that teachers must be receptive to a new technology. If a teacher is already effective using their current methods, the interactive whiteboard will be a competing technology that will not significantly improve the practice in their classroom.
References
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
López, O. S. (2010). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education , 54, 901-915.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 21, 91-101.
iwb_opinion_paper.pdf | |
File Size: | 26 kb |
File Type: |
How to make a feedback form for your website
This WebQuest has a target audience of ninth and tenth grade biology students. My overall recommendation would be to modify this Webquest significantly to ensure that each role has clearly defined expectations, and that the presentation incorporate a synthesis of information from each role in order to ensure higher level thinking skills.
Item | Description | Points |
Overall Aesthetics | ||
Overall Visual Appeal | There are few graphic element and there is some variation in type size, color, and layout. There are many features that are inconsisten with the fine points checklist. | 2/4 |
Navigation & Flow | Navigation is seamless. Navigation buttons allow the students to easily navigate throughout the page. | 4/4 |
Mechanical Aspects | There are two dead links. There are no misspellings, and two minor grammatical errors. Tables are well sized with padding. | 1/2 |
Introduction | ||
Motivational Effectiveness of the Introduction | The introduction describes a compelling scenario that most people will think seriously about at some point in their lives. | 1/2 |
Cognitive Effectiveness of the Introduction | The introduction is very brief. Prior knowledge is referenced. The task is alluded to. | 1/2 |
Task | ||
Connection of Task to Standards | The task is clearly related to standards, but the standards are not communicated or referenced. | 0/4 |
Cognitive Level of the Task | The task is doable, and engaging. A position has to be taken and supported. | 6/6 |
Process | ||
Clarity of Process | Directions are not clear, and students will need significant support to complete the task. | 2/4 |
Scaffolding of Process | Strategies – specifically the journal – will not necessarily help organize the information. | 3/6 |
Richness of Process | Separate roles are assigned, but no specific task is related to each role. | 1/2 |
Resources | ||
Relevance & Quantity of Resources | Each resource is meaningfully linked to the task. | 4/4 |
Quality of Resources | These resources are varied enough to stimulate higher order thinking skills. | 4/4 |
Evaluation | ||
Clarity of Evaluation Criteria | Although a rubric is given for the group presentation, supposedly quantitative measures are vague. It is not clear what the expectations are. | 3/6 |
Total Score | 32/50 |
Should WebQuests be Included in Chapter 12 of e-Learning
and the Science of Instruction?
Nils McGee
Central Connecticut State University
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) includes many different applications of technology to support learning. Clark and Mayer state that CSCL refers to “collaborative engagements among teams of two to five members using synchronous and/or asynchronous tool facilities in ways that support an instructional goal” (2008). The technology involved supports the communication and collaboration between members working toward a common objective. WebQuests are websites that present a task, communicate the expectations of the task, organize the resources necessary to complete the task, and explain how the product will be assessed. WebQuests are not inherently examples of CSCL, but WebQuest can be designed to incorporate many if not all of the principles of CSCL that Clark and Mayer discuss in Chapter 12: Learning Together Virtually of their book e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. I would support including a discussion of what WebQuests are, and how they could be used to organize a learning activity that uses CSCL in Chapter 12 of e-Learning and the Science of Instruction.
In the section titled “What is Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)?” Clark and Mayer discuss the difference between group goals and individual goals. They state that product assessment should focus on group goals, while learning should focus on individual goals (2008). Dodge states that a good WebQuest will incorporate both individual and group accountability and that “conversations about how to improve the group’s effectiveness” will be built into the process (2001). The WebQuest can be a useful tool to organize learning for both group and individual goals.
In the section titled “Collaborative Structures and CSCL Outcomes”, there could be a discussion of WebQuests. Clark and Mayer state that “a structured collaborative assignment is one critical condition to maximize benefits from group work” (2008). Both the structured controversy model and the problem-based model can be used in a WebQuest format. Dodge discusses the need to organize group members into roles that promote interaction and positive interdependence within the WebQuest format (2001). WebQuests that are capable of developing collaborative working skills employ group based strategies (Abbitt & Ophus, 2008).
In the section titled “Factors that Make a Difference: Overview”, Clark and Mayer discuss the need for skills training and the use of collaborative structures that ensure interdependence among members of a team (2008). WebQuests that are effective do this. Dodge points out that good WebQuests promote positive interdependence such that “learners perceive that they cannot succeed without each other” (2001). Dodge also states that “most children (and many adults) need to be taught how to work together” (2001). Students report that “they perceived the ultimate benefit of developing collaborative work skills” when they used WebQuests (Abbitt & Ophus, 2008). WebQuests are tools that develop collaborative group skills and the students using WebQuests perceive that they must collaborate in order to succeed.
WebQuests are an application of CSCL and should be discussed in Chapter 12 of e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. WebQuests (if designed properly) can use all of the components of CSCL to promote effective learning and the generation of quality products through collaboration both synchronously and asynchronously.
References
Abbitt, J., & Ophus, J. (2008). What We Know About the Impacts of WebQuests: A Review of Research. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 16(4), 441-456.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Dodge, B. (2001). FOCUS: Five Rules for Writing a Great WebQuest. Learning & Leading with Technology, 28(8), 6-9, 58.
should_webquests_be_included_in_chapter_12.pdf | |
File Size: | 364 kb |
File Type: |
Did Abbitt and Ophus represent information correctly from Using web design with pre-service teachers as a means of creating a collaborative learning environment in their paper What We Know About the Impacts of WebQuests: A Review of Research
Nils McGee
Central Connecticut State University
In the article title What We Know about the Impacts of WebQuests: A Review of Research, Abbitt and Ophus assert that the strongest evidence from the research in their review indicates that “WebQuests are an effective way to develop collaboration among students” (Abbitt & Ophus, 2008). In the paragraph supporting this statement, several studies were cited, including the Leahy and Twomey study titled Using web design with pre-service teachers as a means of creating a collaborative learning environment. The results of the Leahy and Twomey study was discussed for the greatest amount of time by Abbitt and Ophus. Abbitt and Ophus cite several results from the Leahy and Twomey study, but the results that they cite are not correctly used in their paper.
Abbitt and Ophus cite the following conclusions from Leahy’s and Twomey’s article; (1) “students were sometimes challenged and frustrated by collaboration”, (2) that students “perceived the ultimate benefit of developing collaborative work skills.” and (3) that “77% of the 300 students in this study reported that they worked together on all aspects of the activity and were largely satisfied with this collaborative work” (Abbitt & Ophus, 2008). Leahy and Twomey make these conclusions, however their article did not study collaboration during the use of WebQuests. Leahy and Twomey studied how “the construction of a WebQuest would engage the students in meaningful, active learning.” (Leahy & Twomey, 2005) The students in the study were top students in a pre-service teacher training program. (Leahy & Twomey, 2005)
Abbitt and Ophus did not properly use their citation. They misrepresented the results and conclusions when they claimed that they were the result of engaging in a WebQuest when the activity was truly the construction of a WebQuest.
References
Abbitt, J., & Ophus, J. (2008). What We Know About the Impacts of WebQuests: A Review of Research. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 16(4), 441-456.
Leahy, M., & Twomey, D. (2005, June). Using web design with pre-service teachers as a means of creating a collaborative learning environment. Educational Media International, 42(2), 143-151.
verifying_references.pdf | |
File Size: | 322 kb |
File Type: |