1 / 39

Interactive Whiteboards for Teacher Training

Interactive Whiteboards for Teacher Training. Tuyet Hayes The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa tuyhayes@hawaii.edu. How familiar are you with interactive whiteboards?. I don’t know what it is. I have only heard of it. I have attended a training or lesson that used one.

vivanco
Télécharger la présentation

Interactive Whiteboards for Teacher Training

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 Whiteboards for Teacher Training Tuyet Hayes The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa tuyhayes@hawaii.edu

  2. How familiar are you with interactive whiteboards? • I don’t know what it is. • I have only heard of it. • I have attended a training or lesson that used one. • I have delivered a training or lesson that used one.

  3. Interactive Whiteboards • IWB are a “conglomeration of all previous educational technologies” (Hall & Higgins, 2005)

  4. Introduction • Within the next five years, one in every five classrooms worldwide will have an IWB (EFY News Network, 2009)

  5. Introduction • Within the next five years, one in every five classrooms worldwide will have an IWB (EFY News Network, 2009) • IWB market for education/training will total $880 million in 2009, and $2 billion by 2014 (Wainhouse Research, 2010)

  6. Introduction • Within the next five years, one in every five classrooms worldwide will have an IWB (EFY News Network, 2009) • IWB market for education/training will total $880 million in 2009, and $2 billion by 2014 (Wainhouse Research, 2010) • Personal motivations

  7. Research Question • What is the impact of integrated IWB use on participant engagement, learning, and interaction?

  8. Intervention • Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff

  9. Intervention • Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff • What: VoiceThread training using IWB

  10. Intervention • Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff • What: VoiceThread training using IWB • When: Feb 12 - teacher work day

  11. Intervention • Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff • What: VoiceThread training using IWB • When: Feb 12 - teacher work day • Where: St. Andrew’s Priory School

  12. Intervention • Who: 13 lower school (K-5) faculty and staff • What: VoiceThread training using IWB • When: Feb 12 - teacher work day • Where: St. Andrew’s Priory School • Why: Resources and access

  13. Instructional Strategies Modeling/Guided Practice

  14. Instructional Strategies Opportunities for interaction

  15. Data collection: Online surveys

  16. Data collection: Learner response system

  17. Results: Engagement

  18. Results: Engagement • Motivating factors included: • “Cool” interactive pen • “HUGE mousepad” • Polling feature • Ease of switching between applications • Surprise that peers were focused

  19. Results: Interaction

  20. Results: Interaction • Responses focused primarily on learner response system • “Huge hit” with students • Anonymity • “Game-like” atmosphere • Instant feedback

  21. Results: Interaction • Responses focused primarily on learner response system • “Huge hit” with students • Anonymity • “Game-like” atmosphere • Instant feedback • Also mentioned • Ability to write on the board • Trainer’s ability to troubleshoot

  22. Results: Learning

  23. Results: Learning • Average Pre-test score: 11% • Average Posttest score: 88%

  24. Results: Learning • Average Pre-test score: 11% • Average Posttest score: 88% • Features that supported learning: • Large display matched their screens • Teacher at board (easier to see/hear/interact) • Tools: Pen, annotation ability, LRS

  25. Results: Usefulness

  26. Results: Usefulness • Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.”

  27. Results: Usefulness • Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.” • Key points • Large display • Instant feedback • Student interaction

  28. Results: Usefulness • Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.” • Key points • Large display • Instant feedback • Student interaction • 84% rated 4 or 5 (on 1-5 scale)

  29. Results: Usefulness • Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.” • Key points • Large display • Instant feedback • Student interaction • 84% rated 4 or 5 (on 1-5 scale) • 84% indicated they would use it at least weekly

  30. Results: Usefulness • Teachers were inspired by “how simple and engaging the whiteboard really is.” • Key points • Large display • Instant feedback • Student interaction • 84% rated 4 or 5 (on 1-5 scale) • 84% indicated they would use it at least weekly • 46% anticipated daily use

  31. Discussion • Small sample

  32. Discussion • Small sample • Pre and post survey alignment

  33. Discussion • Small sample • Pre and post survey alignment • Research study topic confusion

  34. Discussion • Small sample • Pre and post survey alignment • Research study topic confusion • Barriers remain • Insufficient training • Lack of time to develop materials • Other technologies

  35. Conclusion • IWB can be effective for teacher training • Engagement • Interaction • Learning

  36. Conclusion • IWB can be effective for teacher training • Engagement • Interaction • Learning • Secondary benefits • Increase teacher comfort with IWB • Model effective instructional strategies using IWB

  37. Quote of the Day • “I’m not afraid to use it now. There are a whole host of possibilities running through my head.” • Participant

  38. Acknowledgements • Dr. Grace Lin • Leslie Arakaki • ETEC Faculty at UH Manoa • Peers in ETEC program • Family

  39. Any Questions? tuyhayes@hawaii.edu

More Related