Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Technologys Usefulness in Improving Student Learning in Mathematics and Science Education is vital to the prosperity of the United States

of America. The countrys role as a global superpower stems at least partially from being a leader in education. The American educational system has helped to equip its citizens with the abilities that have allowed them to become innovators and leaders on a global scale. This role as a superpower is starting to weaken though as the United States educational system has declined in comparison to the international community. According to the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment, U.S. students scored below the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average in both mathematics and science literacy. U.S. students trailed behind 20 OECD countries in scientific literacy and behind 24 countries in mathematics literacy (Baldi, Jin, Skemer, Green, & Herget, 2007). Meanwhile university-level graduation rates have dropped the U.S. from being ranked second in 1995 down to fourteenth in 2007 (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009). The U.S. also has the highest college dropout rate among OECD countries suggesting that many students who start post-secondary education are not ready to succeed at that level (College Board, 2009). These statistics and others, combined with a public unsettled by an economy mired in a recession, have led policy leaders to seek change. Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education, has laid out a proposal for change in the National Education Technology Plan where he states that technology-based learning and assessment systems will be pivotal in improving student learning to continuously improve the education system at all levels (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In this paper, I examine two different forms of interactive technology to see how they affect student achievement and student engagement in mathematics and science. I am researching the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards and handheld learner response systems, or clickers. Each form of interactive technology has the ability to engage students during whole-

class instruction which dominates mathematics instruction and accounts for roughly a third of science instruction (Penuel, Boscardin, Masyn, & Crawford, 2007). While large amounts of research has been done on how these technologies effect students at the post-secondary level, I am limiting my research to studies done in the K-12 setting. Interactive Whiteboards An interactive whiteboard, or IWB, is a touch-sensitive display that is used in conjunction with a computer and projector. The projector projects the computer's desktop onto the board's surface, where users control the computer with a stylus, finger, or other device. Interactive whiteboards are used in many schools as replacements for traditional chalkboards, whiteboards, or video/media systems such as a DVD player and TV combination. The IWB allows teachers to use images, animations, video clips, websites, and many other applications (SMART Technologies, 2006). These devices are quickly becoming standard equipment in many classrooms throughout the world. According to a report by Futuresource Consulting (2010), nearly 750,000 interactive whiteboard units were sold worldwide in 2009. Projections estimate that one in six classrooms will have an interactive whiteboard by 2012. The use of interactive whiteboards differs in every classroom, but when used properly, research shows they can have a great impact on student learning, engagement, motivation, and attendance (Knowlton, 2008). IWBs become the focus of the whole class for whole class lessons, discussions and activities. They also provide a way for students to demonstrate solutions, show individual work, or show multiple solutions to problems. IWBs can be used to review concepts with the whole class, with small groups, or one on one. They work well in facilitating differentiation as one group can be working through a concept on the IWB while

others who already understand a concept can be working individually or in groups (SMART Technologies, 2007). The Marzano Research Laboratory has conducted two studies that provide promising data on how IWBs can positively impact student achievement. These studies looked at the effect of Promethean ActivClassroom (Promethean ActivBoards with ActivStudio software) technology use on student achievement during the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 school years. Combined, these studies involved 4,913 students, 123 teachers, 73 schools, and 36 districts throughout the United States. The treatment group was made up of 2,522 students in classrooms using Promethean technology and 2,391 students in the control group without these boards. The aggregate data from the combined studies shows a 15.9 percentile point gain in student achievement across all content areas in classrooms using an IWB compared to those that did not. While use of the technology was beneficial to all content areas, its impact was greatest in science with aggregate results showing a 22.6 percentile gain. This may be due to the amount of abstract concepts and complex ideas in science, which IWBs help students to see with visual representations. Student achievement in mathematics also improved with a 14.1 percentile gain (Haystead & Marzano, 2010). Marzano and Haystead (2009) reported findings that suggested that in order for large percentile gains in student achievement the following conditions needed to be met: a teacher has 10 years or more of teaching experience; has used the technology for two years or more; uses the technology between 75 and 80 % of the time in his or her classroom; and has high confidence in his or her ability to use the technology. Marzano and Haystead (2010) found the only condition that had an effect on percentile gain was percentage of time that Promethean ActivClassroom was used. The previous years study had suggested that usage of Promethean technology for

over 80 % of the available instructional time had the potential to be detrimental to student achievement. Marzano and Haystead (2010) reported no plateau effect at 80 % usage time and actually a continuing positive effect on student achievement beyond 80 % usage. In other words, the more that Promethean ActivClassroom was used the higher the percentile gain. A case study on the impact of IWBs on student motivation in Amman, Jordan also lends credence to incorporating this technology into mathematics and science classrooms. In the spring of 2007, Al-Shifaa Bint Ouf Secondary School for Girls installed their first IWB. They now have four IWBs on the premises thanks to support from the Jordan Education Initiative and a donation from SMART Technologies. The case study focused on the way technology use affected motivation and engagement in eighth and ninth grade science and mathematics students. 91 % of the students responded that they were more interested in learning when an IWB was used in class and 86 % stated that the use of an IWB motivated them to participate. Over 80 % of the students believed that IWBs encouraged their teacher to use a variety of media and visuals to teach concepts while 55 % of the students thought that their teachers used more interesting teaching methods and activities when provided with an IWB (Jordan Education Initiative, 2010). Researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University took at look at the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion project from September 2004 to December 2006 to determine the effects interactive whiteboards have on teaching and learning. Impressive results were noted with substantial benefits for previously average to above average performing 6th grade mathematics students who made about 2 to 5 months extra progress, above average monthly progress, when the IWBs were integrated completely into classroom instruction. Other benefits noted by the study were increased student motivation and engagement as well as increased pace to the lessons (British Educational Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA), 2007).

Overall, the support for the use of IWB in the classroom was overwhelmingly positive whether it addressed increased student motivation or real gains in student leaning and achievement. Throughout all of the studies observed, a few keys shown to help increase the positive results, were; teaching experience, time with the technology by the teachers, and the amount of time the IWBs were used in instruction. All three of these factors point to the fact that the teacher still plays a vital role in using this technology to benefit students. (Knowlton, 2008; Haystead & Marzano, 2009; Haystead & Marzano, 2010; Marzano, 2009; Manzo, 2010; British Educational Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA), 2007; Jordan Education Initiative, 2010) Student Response Systems Handheld student response systems, also known as audience, personal, and classroom response systems, are most commonly just called clickers. Most clicker systems include a radio frequency receiver (a few are also infrared), software that exists either as a stand-alone application or interacts with other programs, and the handheld clickers (Nelson & Hauck, 2008). Questions are displayed on a screen which prompts students to use their clickers to answer. The results are instantly aggregated and then displayed usually in a histogram for the entire class to view. Responses are typically anonymous but teachers can assign clicker devices to individuals for the purpose of evaluation (Kay & Knaack, 2009). Clickers have become much less expensive and easier to use since they were first introduced at Stanford University in 1966 (Kay & LeSage, 2009). Most modern clickers are smaller than a TV remote and have a 10-key alpha/numeric keypad with two buttons for changing the RF channel and turning the clicker on and off (Nelson & Hauck, 2008).

According to a report by Futuresource Consulting (2009), the United States is the global leader in integrating classroom clickers into instruction with a prediction that one in 12 classrooms would have a response system in use by the end of 2009. 40 % of the systems within the US are used in higher education institutions but increases in IWBs at primary and secondary education facilities should lead to an increase of the clicker systems at that level as well. Research on the use of clickers in the K-12 settings is sparse with the majority of research having been done at post-secondary institutions where clicker systems are more established. Three studies that I did analyze looked at the use of clicker systems within the K-12 setting: in secondary science classrooms (Kay & Knaack, 2009), in both elementary and secondary settings (Penuel, Boscardin, Masyn, & Crawford, 2007), and in high school physics classrooms (Mun, Hew, & Cheung, 2009). Kay and Knaack (2009) took a look at the benefits and challenges of using clicker systems in secondary science classrooms. 213 students were involved in the study that involved usage in the subject areas of biology, chemistry, physics, and general science. The major findings of the study dealt with improvement in student engagement. Students reported their belief of being more involved in class with 70 % saying they were more engaged, 63 % reporting more motivation, and 62 % in increased their participation. Almost 75 % of the students also responded that they enjoyed using the clickers to check their understanding of the concepts being covered in class. This falls in line with recommendations for other studies for using clickers for ungraded assessment that helps check for understanding and identify misconceptions (Kay & LeSage, 2009). Using the clickers in graded summative assessment situations such as tests caused students to feel more nervous and stressed due to all students having to complete their answer to a question before the class could move on (Kay & Knaack, 2009).

Penuel et al. (2007) examined how 498 elementary and secondary educators used clickers in their instruction. Mathematics and science were the subject areas for which clickers were most commonly used throughout all grade levels. The main finding was there is a link between the frequency of clicker usage and more positive classroom environments and higher levels of student engagement (Lemke, Coughlin, & Reifsneider, 2009). The effective use of clickers also is believed to structure learning as more constructivist or student-centered which has been proven to lead to greater scientific and mathematical understanding and real learning of concepts as opposed to memorization of facts (Penuel et al., 2007). Mun, Hew, & Cheung (2009) examined how using clickers influenced student achievement in a Singapore physics classroom. High school physics students completed a threeweek physics unit which included pre- and post-testing on the units content. While the two classrooms were equivalent in knowledge at the start of the study, the classroom using clickers performed appreciably higher on the post-test. The test was composed of an equal mix of factual and open-ended questions and students using clickers outperformed their non-clicker classmates on both types of questions. While the short timeframe and small sample size limit the generalizations that can be made, the evidence of effectiveness calls for further research (Mun, Hew, & Cheung, 2009). Overall, results of most studies investigated showed that at the very least, the use of clickers increased students positive impression of classes while improving participation and engagement (Caldwell, 2007; Kay & Knaack, 2009; Penuel et al. 2007). Often it was found that with improved engagement and active participation came improved learning. (Mun, Hew, & Cheung, 2009; Nelson & Hauck, 2008; Penuel et al., 2007) Conclusion

Both clickers and IWBs are shown to increase student achievement and engagement. The positive effects from the use of both technologies grow as classroom teachers become more familiar with the technology and increase usage of them. The familiarity also leads to more effective pedagogical practices for using the technology which helps foster its effect on learning and motivation. Future research should be conducted in several areas related to findings in the studies examined. With the conflicting findings in the Marzano studies, it needs to be determined if there is a definite correlation between teaching experience and the benefit to student achievement when using an IWB? If so, then can training minimize or overcome the lack of experience. Also, clarification is needed on what exactly is it about clickers that improve student engagement? Is it merely a novelty effect of using something different or do they actually change the way students learn? Studies should also look at how long term use of clickers affects students. Is there a drop in engagement as students become more familiar with clickers or is the impact on learning possibly increased? The answers to these questions and many more will help bring about the continual refinement and improvement of all levels of American education that will allow the nation to again become a global leader.

References Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P. J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. British Educational Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project. Manchester Metropolitan University, Department for Children, Schools, and Families. British Educational Communication and Technology Agency (BECTA). Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education , 6, 9-20. College Board. (2009). Facts for Education Advocates. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://connection-collegeboard.com/09jan/pdf/adv-fact-sheet-CM_09jan26.pdf Futuresource Consulting. (2010). 1 million Interactive Whiteboards will be sold in 2010 according to new Futuresource report. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://www.futuresource-consulting.com/press/2010-02_IWB_release.pdf Futuresource Consulting. (2009). Interactive Voting Systems market worth $400m by 2010. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://www.futuresourceconsulting.com/press/2009-07_Voting-Systems_release.pdf Haystead, M. W., & Marzano, R. J. (2009). Final report: An evaluation study of the effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on student achievement. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Haystead, M. W., & Marzano, R. J. (2010). Preliminary report: A second year evaluation study of Promethean ActivClassroom. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Jordan Education Initiative. (2010). SMART interactive whiteboard utilization in Al-Shifaa Bint Ouf School. Retrieved November 13 2010, from http://www.smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/International+Research Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Computers and Education , 53 (3), 819-827. Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 18 (5), 382392.

Knowlton, N. (2008). Interactive whiteboard research shows. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from http://www2.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/5EFEFB80-42AE-47C0-8414281BEDB85C12/0/2008IWBResearchShowsFinal.pdf Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., & Reifsneider, D. (2009). Technology in schools: What the research says: An update. Culver City, CA: Cisco. Manzo, K. (2010). Whiteboards' impact on teaching seen as uneven. Education Week's Digital Directions , 3 (2), 34. Marzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership , 67 (3), 80-82. Mun, W. K., Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). The impact of the use of response pad system on learning of secondary school physics concepts: A Singapore quasi-experimental study. British Journal of Educational Technology , 40 (5), 848-860. Nelson, M. L., & Hauck, R. V. (2008). Clicking to learn: A case study of embedding radiofrequency based clickers in an introductory management information systems course. Journal of Information Systems Education , 19 (1), 55-64. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Education at a glance 2009: OECD indicators. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/60/43634212.pdf Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development , 55 (4), 315-346. SMART Technologies. (2006). Interactive whiteboards and learning: Improving student learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and_data/White+papers SMART Technologies. (2007). The truth about wireless slates in differentiated classrooms: Using wireless slates with or without interactive whiteboards. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/whitepapers/truth_about_wireless_slat es.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Office of Educational Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen