1 / 18

Interactive White Boards Do They Positively Impact Education?

Interactive White Boards Do They Positively Impact Education?. By: Sheri Cooper & Lauren Townsend. Advantages of IWBs. Advantages for Students. Increased Participation Increased Motivation Opportunity to delve into complex and abstract subjects. Advantages for Teachers. Flexibility

nydia
Télécharger la présentation

Interactive White Boards Do They Positively Impact Education?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interactive White BoardsDo They Positively Impact Education? By: Sheri Cooper& Lauren Townsend

  2. Advantages of IWBs

  3. Advantages for Students • Increased Participation • Increased Motivation • Opportunity to delve into complex and abstract subjects

  4. Advantages for Teachers • Flexibility • Multiple Resources • Reaches multiple and diverse students

  5. Disadvantages of IWBs

  6. Disadvantages for Students • Quickly lose appeal • Less time on content • One note lessons

  7. Disadvantages for Teachers • Technical Issues • Teacher Training • Shifts attention from student to technology

  8. Effectiveness of Smart Board Technology

  9. Effectiveness of Smart Board Technology • As a tool for non-linear learning • By accessing text and media • Ability to move back and forth among pages • Ability to present the same information in different ways

  10. Effectiveness of Smart Board Technology • Combines the benefits of interactive computer use with group learning • Internet access • Videos • Large screen

  11. Effectiveness of Smart Board Technology • As a tool for multi-modal teaching • Descriptive • Experimental • Mathematical • Figurative • Kinesthetic

  12. Effectiveness of Smart Board Technology • As a tool for teaching children with disabilities • Manipulatives • Auditory and Visual Cues • Interactive video • Various assessment strategies

  13. Effective Use of Smart Board Technology

  14. Effective Use of Smart Board Technology • Must have adequate training and time to find appropriate software • Provide incentives to increase IWB skills • Vendor training • In-service training • Tutorials • Cooperative learning among teachers

  15. Effective Use of Smart Board Technology • must be an integral part of the lesson, not something tacked on to be fun • Create lessons on the IWB • Use features in the software

  16. References

  17. Akbas, O., & Pektas, H. M. (2011). The effects of using an interactive whiteboard on the academic achievement of university students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(2) • Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469. doi:10.1080/00131910500279551 • Betteney, M. (2009). Interactive white boards. English 4--11, (35), 3-5. • Blau, I. (2011). Teachers for "Smart Classrooms": The Extent of Implementation of an Interactive Whiteboard-based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers' Instructional Practices. Interdisciplinary Journal Of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 7275-289. • Campbell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009). Small Group Computer-Assisted Instruction With SMART Board Technology : An Investigation of Observational and Incidental Learning of Nontarget Information. Remedial & Special Education, 30(1), 47-57. • Giles, R. M., & Shaw, E. L. (2011). SMART boards ROCK! Science and Children, 49(4), 36-37. • Harden-Thew, K. (2012). Transition to school, success and an interactive whiteboard. Practically Primary, 17(1), 34-36. • How to afford interactive whiteboards. (2011). Technology & Learning, 31(8), 44-46. • Jang, S., & Tsai, M. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327- 338. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.003 • Manny-Ikan, E., Tikochinski, T. B., Zorman, R., & Dagan, O. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning - an evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 7, 249-273.

  18. McNamara-Cabral, M. (2012). Idea bank: How a smart board changed my teaching. Music Educators Journal, 98(3), 26-27. doi: 10.1177/0027432112439669 • Murcia, K. (2010). Multi-modal representations in primary science: What's offered by interactive whiteboard technology. Teaching Science: The Journal Of The Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(1), 23-29. • Şad, S. N., nihat.sad@inonu.edu.tr. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability studies. Computers & Education, 58(3), 900-907. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.017 • Şad, S., & Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students' views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1184-1191. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010 • Türel, Y., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' Belief and Use of Interactive Whiteboards for Teaching and Learning. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394. • Whitby, P. S., Leininger, M. L., & Grillo, K. (2012). Tips for Using Interactive Whiteboards to Increase Participation of Students With Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(6), 50-57. • Xin, J. F., & Sutman, F. X. (2011). Using the smart board in teaching social stories to students with autism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 18-24.

More Related