Integration of SMART Board Technology and Effective Teaching

Kathryn Min*, Christine Siegel**
* Graduate of Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut.
** Associate Dean & an Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education and Allied Professions, Fairfield University, Fairfield, Connecticut
Periodicity:June - August'2011
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.1.1518

Abstract

The proposed paper reports on the results of a study conducted to explore the influence of SMART Board technology on student engagement in and perception of classroom activities. Using momentary time-sampling procedures, this study examined differences in second grade students’ on-task and off-task behaviors during 30-minute math and science lessons that did and did not include the use of a SMART Board. Student perceptions were measured via questionnaire. Observation results revealed that (a) effective teaching, without technology, can promote above-average levels of student engagement, (b) the integration of SMART Board technology can further increase on-task behavior, and (c) the combination of effective teaching and SMART Board technology can maintain high levels of student engagement throughout a multi-component lesson. Questionnaire results provided modest support for the use of the SMART Board to engage students. While none of the participants favored lessons without the SMART Board, only half rated their attention and participation higher in classes that included the SMART Board compared to those that did not. Further research is needed to determine if the integration of SMART Board technology and effective teaching enhances the engagement of students at other grade levels, of other demographic backgrounds, and in other subject areas.

Keywords

Student Engagement, Effective Teaching, SMART Board Technology, NET Generation, Early Elementary Learning.

How to Cite this Article?

Min ,K. and Siegel,C.(2011). Integration Of Smart Board Technology And Effective Teaching.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(1),38-47. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.1.1518

References

[1]. Becta (2006). Interactive whiteboards and primary literacy. Retrieved , August 3 , 2010 , from http://schools.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=re&catco de=fitsprimary_form&rid=11899.
[2]. Beeland, W. D., Jr. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help ? Retrieved , March 10 , 2010 , from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beela nd_am.pdf.
[3]. Bowen, J. A. (2007). Teaching Naked: Why removing technology from your classroom will improve student learning . Retrieved , August 7 , 2010 , f r o m http://www.ntlf.com/html/ti/naked.htm.
[4]. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
[5]. Gardner, H. (1995). How Are Kids SMART?: Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[6]. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple intelligences For the 21st Century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
[7]. Glanville, J.L. & Wildhagen, T. (2007). The measurement of school engagement: Assessing dimensionality and measurement invariance across race and ethnicity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 1019-1041.
[8]. Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.
[9]. Harris, L.R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student e n g a g e m e n t i n learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35 (1), 57- 79.
[10]. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive white boards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 213-235.
[11]. Jukes, I. (2008). Understanding digital kids: Teaching and learning in the new digital landscape. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from ttp://www.hmleague.org/Digital%20Kids.pdf.
[12]. Langer, E. J. (1997). The Power of Mindful Learning. Reading, MA: Lifelong Books.
[13]. Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindful learning. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 9 (6), 220-223.
[14]. Langer, E.J, & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (1), 1-9.
[15]. Marks, H.M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1), 153-184.
[16]. Marzano, R. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective I n s t r u c t i o n . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
[17]. Marzano, R. (2009). Evaluation study of the effects of Promethian Activclassroom on student achievement. Retrieved May 5 , 2010 from http://www.prometheanworld.com/upload/pdf/Final_Rep ort_on_ActivClassroom_%282 %29.pdf
[18]. Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285–307.
[19]. Painter, D. D., Whiting, E., & Wolters, B. (2005). The use of an interactive whiteboard in promoting i n t e r a c t i v e teaching and learning. VSTE Journal, 19(2), 31-40.
[20]. Piaget, J. (1972). To Understand Is To Invent. New York, NY: The Viking Press, Inc.
[21]. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. R e t r i e v e d M a r c h 1 , 2 0 1 0 , f r o m http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20- %20Part1.pdf.
[22]. Sheets, B. H. (1991). Book review of growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. Information Te c h n o l o g y, Learning and Performance Journal, (17) 2, 53-56.
[23]. Sigel, I. and Cocking, R. (1977). Cognitive Development from Childhood to Adolescence: A Constructivist Perspective. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[24]. Singer, D.G., & Revenson, T.A. (1996). A Piaget Primer:How a Child Thinks; Revised Edition. New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc.
[25]. Small, G. & Vorgan, G. (2008). iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
[26]. Smith, F., Hardman, F., Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 437-451.
[27]. Stokes-Jones, T. (2010). Integrating SMART board technology in the elementary classroom. Essentials (7) 1. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://extended.emich.edu/uploadedFiles/Template_Ele ments/Publications/Essentials%20 W%2010.pdf.
[28]. Tapscott, D. (1998). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill Companies Inc.
[29]. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved March 30, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
[30]. Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology, Active Learning Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.