Running head: USING AN INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD

Using an Interactive Whiteboard to Increase Student Motivation and Achievement

Vivian Wing Hang Lee

University of British Columbia
ETEC 500 65C
Dr. Sunah Cho
April 5, 2013

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

Introduction
According to statistics released by SMART (2012), a producer of interactive whiteboards
(IWB), more than 2.3 million SMART Board interactive whiteboards have been installed
globally in education, business and government settings, with over 2 million installed in K12
classrooms, reaching more than 40 million students and their teachers (para. 9). Clarus
Glassboards (2012), an IWB company, foresee that by the end of 2013, one out of every five
classrooms will have an IWB.
IWB acts like a touch screen, allowing teachers and students to interact with content
projected from a computer screen onto a whiteboard surface. Notebook software is used to create
documents that can be easily manipulated, allowing for drawing, marking, and highlighting that
is interactive so that the whole class can collaboratively participate in the interactions. Recently,
my school invested in an IWB, a SmartBoard. This is a huge financial investment, costing
upwards of $3000 to buy and install the whole package (PolyVision, 2013). It was installed in
my classroom, and as such, I am interested in finding out whether the investment will pay off.
More specifically, I am interested in researching student engagement and achievement when
using an IWB in the classroom. My hopes are that the financial investment pays off and that
there is increased engagement and achievement from all participating students.
Much of the data shows overall improvement in the classroom when IWBs are used. Hall
and Higgins (2005) indicated that the IWB has many advantages such as versatility, visual
appeal, increased student engagement, prolonged student attention span and increased enjoyment
of classroom content when they collected data from 12 focus groups of grade 6 students. Wall,
Higgins and Smith (2005) found that there is a positive relationship between IWBs and students
views of learning from primary school age and up, benefiting learners of all ages. While much of

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

the current IWB research is positive, it is lacking in a few findings. Starkman (2006) believes
that the IWB can be beneficial regardless of the type of lesson or subject matter. Most IWB
studies have focussed on Science, Mathematics and Language Arts. Little research has been
done in the field of Social Sciences, more often referred to as Social Studies. As part of my
research, I am interested in using Social Studies as my subject area when seeking out student
motivation and achievement.
While many studies involve of large population samples with many teachers, few have
been able to take into account the pedagogical approaches used by the teachers involved in each
study when showing motivation and achievement results. The installation of an IWB in the
classroom does not change the way a teacher teaches. Mohen (2008) has concluded that how
one teacher uses the IWB cannot be applied to every situation (p.310). Any benefit to student
achievement and motivation may be due to IWB use, but may also reflect a specific teachers
teaching style and aptitude. As such, I am interested in researching how students motivation and
achievement changes when comparing a class that uses an IWB with a class that learns the
traditional way without an IWB when taught by the same teacher.

Statement of Problem

1. On randomly selected groups of grade 5/6 students, how does student achievement differ
when comparing traditional learning methods (no IWB) to those with the integration of
an interactive whiteboard when the same Social Studies concepts are taught by the same
teacher?
2. How does student motivation regarding subject area (Social Studies) change as an
interactive whiteboard is used?

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

I hypothesize that both student achievement and motivation will increase significantly with
interactive whiteboard use when comparing two classes taught by the same teacher with one
class taught the traditional way and the other taught with the integration of the interactive
whiteboard.

Literature Review

Students today, our 21st century learners, are different from learners of the past. Lectures
and assigned readings in traditional textbooks are no longer holding our students interests.
Trilling and Fadel (2012) believes that there needs to be a shift to a learner-centered model as
opposed to the traditional, industrial age educational model that had worked in the past. Trilling
and Fadel (2012) also stress the fact that our students, these digital natives, have grown up with
the ability to multitask and expect the same stimulation from school; they need to have
entertainment and play integrated into their learning. Teachers are able to provide the
stimulation through the use of an IWB, where students and teachers are able to interact with the
content projected from a computer screen onto a whiteboard surface. It enables the user to easily
control and access various computer and internet tools, shifting the methods toward student
centered learning and thus helping to increase attitude towards learning and increased
understanding of material. Using the IWB will allow for a learner centered model as it provides
for manipulation, communication and customization, leading to increased motivation and
achievement.

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

Effect on motivation
By using an IWB, teachers are able to provide students with entertainment and play
integrated into their learning and allow for learning that is full of choices and customized as
stated by Trilling and Fadel (2012). Studies have documented that both students and teachers like
the technology and are more engaged and motivated when it is deployed. Beeland (2002)
completed surveys on students and teachers regarding engagement when IWB are used and they
found that that both teachers and students state that more attention was paid and believed that
there was more learning with the use of an IWB. Miller, Glover and Averis (2004) mentions that
the focus shifted away from the teacher and encouraged student motivation through stimulation,
sustained focus and stepped learning. They were also careful to note that when teachers use
IWBs as a glorified dry erase board or as a projector screen, students lacked attentiveness and
motivation; however, when students were given the opportunity to physically move objects
around on the board, student attentiveness and motivation greatly increased (Miller et al., 2004).
Painter, Whiting and Wolters (2005) found that students were actively engaged, eager, excited
and that classes became student centered, and highly motivated. This is further supported by
Smith, Higgins, Wall, and Miller (2005) who noted increased motivation as well as increased
interaction. Enhanced motivation and attitude towards learning was described by Higgins,
Beauchamp, and Miller (2007) while DiGregorio and Sobel-Lojeski (2010) saw positive
improvements in learning, motivation, and engagement. Beeland (2002) sums it up when he
states, Student engagement is critical to student motivation during the learning process. The
more students are motivated to learn, the more likely it is that they will be successful in their
efforts (p.2) but when all is said and done, Schroeder (2007), points out that motivation still
largely depends on the overall quality of teaching.

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

Effect on Achievement
According to Kent (2006), IWBs promote higher order thinking, easily shifting the
students focus from merely remembering the content to gaining a deep understanding of the
concepts being taught and lead substantive conversations that allow the class to create or
negotiate understanding of the subject matter, thus leading to increase student achievement in
higher education as well as in K-12 (p.24). Dhindsa and Emran (2006) supported this statement
when they found that in a college science class, achievement statistically improved when IWB
was used as a tool to help students work collaboratively and to actively acquire, construct and
organize knowledge. Swan, Schenker and Kratcoski (2008) studied students in grades 3-8,
finding that a small but statistically significant achievement increase when using IWB in math
and reading but this only applied to students in grades 3 and 4. Zittle (2004), researching Grades
3-4 elementary students, found statistically significant differences in pre and post-tests favoring
IWB use in mathematics. This is also supported by Lewin, Somekh and Steadman (2008) when
they found that in children aged 7-11, there were positive gains in literacy, mathematics and
science when IWBs were used for extended periods of time in the classroom. Overall, the use of
the IWB has been shown to increase students achievement in the classroom environment in
certain subject areas.
While most studies have pointed to the benefits of IWBs on motivation and achievement,
there are more variables that need to be looked into. Studies have shown improvement in several
subject areas but the focus has been on LA, Math and Science. Little research has been done in
on achievement in the Humanities. Starkman (2006) termed IWBs as a conduit to the
curriculum pointing to the possibility that no matter the type of lesson or subject area, the IWB
can prove to be a valuable tool to help ensure all areas of the curriculum are presented in a

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

motivating way that promotes learning (p. 2). With this in mind, DiGregorio and Sobel-Lojeski
(2010) puts it nicely when they say that a key factor to keep in mind is that IWBs are a
mediating artifact (p. 265). As such, while the use of IWBs may affect motivation and
achievement, the teacher, not the technology, is still the most important element in student
learning (Miller et al., 2004). Teachers each have their own pedagogical way of teaching a class
and achievement results can be attributed to their teaching styles. Without the teacher being a
controlled variable and only having the independent variable of the IWB, it is hard to determine
who or what caused the improved achievement.

Methodology
Method
This study will utilize the quantitative experimental research method. A quantitative
method is suitable in this study as it will investigate relations between the use of an IWB and
changes in students achievement and motivation. Data will be collected through assessment
tests and surveys.
Participants
The study will take place at Queen Elizabeth Elementary (QE), a school that is part of the
Vancouver School District located in British Columbia, Canada. QE is a kindergarten to grade 7
school with an approximate enrolment of 540 students.
The participants for this study will come from two grade 5/6 combination classes.
Students going into either grade 5 or 6 will be randomly assigned a classroom at the end of the
previous school year and the students who end up in these two classes will become the
participants in this study. There will be roughly 30 students in each class with the number of
grade 5 and the number of grade 6 students kept similar. These numbers will not vary by much as

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

the administrators like to keep student-teacher ratios and grade level ratios that same across all
intermediate classes. The reason for selecting these two grade 5/6 classes is that these two
teachers platoon various subjects and only one of them has an IWB in their classroom.
Platooning is relevant in order to control for differences arising in teacher personality and style
variables. Students from both classes will get to know the teaching style of Teacher A during one
block of Social Studies (socials) every other day. Teacher A will teach socials to each class
separately, serving as both the teacher for the control group as well as the treatment group. Class
1 will serve as the control group, where Teacher A will teach the curriculum as she had
previously done without the use of the IWB in socials class. Class 2 will serve as the treatment
group where Teacher A will incorporate the use of the IWB in socials class. Informed consent
will be required from all participants and as this involves students who are not of legal age,
informed consent will be required from parents and guardians.

Instruments
The research will utilize a pretest-postest control group design in order to control for
threats to internal validity. The pretest will consist of a survey asking students to rate their
current thoughts and feelings regarding socials class (Appendix A). The survey questions will
consist of 9 statements that are answered using a three point rating scale. There will also be a
pretest quiz that will provide a sense of what concepts and knowledge the students already know
and what the teacher needs to focus on throughout the unit. The pretest survey and quiz will be
used to see if the two groups are essentially the same on the dependent variable at the start of the
study.

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

A postest survey (Appendix B) will be conducted for the treatment group to record their
current thoughts and feelings about socials class, with the control group having gone through no
change in socials class while the treatment group experienced the integration of the IWB in
socials class. The survey will also use a three point rating scale with a different format, allowing
for comparisons between the two surveys. The postest will also consist of an assessment test
with eight questions similar to those that were presented in the pretest. The postest will be given
to both the control group and the treatment group as standard unit assessment but will also be
used to find correlation.
Procedure
In June of 2013, students registered for the 2013-2014 school year at QE will be
randomly placed into divisions. Teachers are then randomly assigned a class fitting their
preferred grade levels. The limiting factor in terms of random sampling is that students will have
to be entering grade 5 or 6 in order to end up in this study.
In September to October of the 2013-2014 school year, students from both classes will
get to know Teacher A and her teaching style. Near the end of October, students will be given the
pretest survey regarding their attitudes towards socials class. In November, when this socials unit
is typically taught, students will be given the pretest quiz to assess their current knowledge
regarding this socials unit.
After the completion of the pretests, Teacher A will continue to teach Class 1 as she has
done for other socials units, following the textbook; however, Class 2 will be taught with the
integration of an IWB that allows teacher and students to replicate, manipulate and interact with
information for the socials unit.

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

10

The unit will take one month to complete. At the end of the unit, in December, students
will take the assessment test (posttest). They will also complete the posttest survey at this point
in time. Results will then be analyzed to determine what effect IWBs had on student motivation
and achievement.
Data Analysis
The pre and post scores for the quiz will be analyzed through an examination of the mean
as a measure of central tendency and a t test for independent samples to show whether there were
differences between the control group and the treatment group. A t test for independent samples
will be used because the groups were randomly formed and the data were interval and looking at
the standard deviation will allow for deeper statistical analysis. The survey questions can also be
analyzed in the same way or through univariate analysis where we can calculate the number
and/or percent of respondents within each category.

Limitations and ethical issues

A limitation of this study is the sample size. Ideally, more participants would yield more
reflective results but is this study, the teacher variable needs to be kept constant in order to
account for teaching style and pedagogy. As a result, only the two classes of 30 that this teacher
teaches are available to participate.
Several ethical issues come into play in this study. Deception will occur as there will not
be full disclosure of the purpose of the research. The students will not be told what the researcher
will be looking for in the completed survey but this cannot be controlled without possibly
influencing and changing the students responses, affecting the results. Withholding the use of
the IWB from students when the researcher believes in its benefits is another issue. This will be

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

11

addressed by completing the research early on in the year and then incorporating the IWB for all
students once the data has been collected.

Schedule of Activities

Dates
June 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
November 2013 December 2013
December 2013
January 2014

Events
Students randomly assigned to classes
Students get to know Teacher A
Students complete pretest survey
Students complete pretest quiz
Students receive instruction. Class 1 without the IWB, Class 2 with
the IWB
Students complete posttest survey and assessment test
Results analyzed

Discussions
IWBs have been installed in many schools and the school boards continue to push
technology in our 21st century school environment. Results from this research can provide those
at the board level with insight into how to proceed with IWB technology. While motivation and
achievement have been studied in past research, this study will better inform educators and those
interested in student learning about the effects of IWB use.
Starkman (2006) believes that the IWB can be beneficial regardless of the type of lesson
or subject matter. This study will provide educators with an additional resource to determine
whether the subject area of Social Studies is an effective area for IWB use. The results from this
study will also provide additional information regarding student motivation and achievement
when teaching style and pedagogy is held as a constant. While the findings may provide
additional insight, further research should be done using larger sample sizes but keeping the

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

teacher constant. Mohen (2008) reminds us that how one teacher uses the IWB cannot be
applied to every situation (p.310).

12

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

13
References

Beeland, W.D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning, and technology: Can interactive
whiteboards help? Retrieved from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf
Clarus Glassboards. (2012). Interactive Whiteboard Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.clarusglassboards.com/2012/05/interactive-whiteboard-statistics/
Dhindsa, H.S., & Emran, S.H. (2006) Use of the interactive whiteboard in constructivist teaching
for higher student achievement. In S.M. Stewart, J.E. Olearski & D. Thompson (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2nd annual conference for middle east teachers of science,
mathematics and computing (pp 175188). Abu Dhabi, METsMac.
DiGregorio, P., Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2010) The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on
student performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology
Ststems. 38 (3). Retrieved from http://karsenti.ca/archives/tbirecherches/The%20Effects%20of%20Interactive%20Whiteboards%20(IWBs)%20on%20
Student%20Performance%20and%20Learning%20A%20Literature%20Review.PDF
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102-117. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2005.00118.x
Kent, P. (2006). Using interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching. Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(2), 23-26. Retrieved from
http://www.richardsonps.act.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/83122/using_IWBs_to
_enhance_Maths_teaching.pdf

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

14

Lewin, C., Somekh, B. Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and
learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information
Technologies, 13(4). doi :10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z
Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Presentation and pedagogy: The effective use of
interactive whiteboards in mathematics lessons. In D. Hewill & A. Noyes (Eds.),
Proceedings of the sixth british congress of mathematics education (pp. 105112). University of Warwick.
Mohen, E. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teachers pedagogical change through
use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4). doi:
10.1080/17439880802497032
Painter, D.D., Whiting, E., & Wolters, B. (2005). The use of an interactive whiteboard in
promoting interactive teaching and learning. VSTE Journal, 19(2), 31-40. Retrieved from
http://karsenti.ca/archives/tbi-recherches/promoting.pdf
SMART. (2012). Quick Fact and Stats. Retrieved from
http://smarttech.com/About+SMART/About+SMART/Newsroom/Quick+facts+and+stats
Starkman, N. (2006). The wonders of interactive whiteboards. T.H.E. Journal, 33(10). Retrieved
from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2006/05/01/The-Wonders-of-InteractiveWhiteboards.aspx
Swan, K., Schenker, J. & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards
on student achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference
on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 3290-3297).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

Schroeder, R. (2007). Active learning with interactive whiteboards: A literature review

and a case study for college freshmen. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(2),
64-73.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2012). 21st century skills. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated
things: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867. doi: 10.1111/j.14678535.2005.00508.x

15

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

16

Appendix A

Survey #1
Following are a number of statements describing your thoughts in relation to Social
Studies. Rate the following statements using the given scale below. Write your number
choice on the line before each statement.
1=True
2=False
3=Sometimes
_____ Socials class is interesting to me.
_____ I understand what I am learning in socials class.
_____ Socials class is hard for me.
_____ I try my best in socials class.
_____ I like to tell my family what I am learning in socials.
_____ I look forward to going to socials class.
_____ Socials class is boring to me.
_____ I cant understand what I am learning in socials class.
_____ I have had teachers use an interactive whiteboard when they taught lessons.

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

Appendix B

Survey #2
Please circle the answer that best fits you.
1. Socials class is interesting to me when the teacher uses an interactive
whiteboard.
True

Sometimes

False

2. I understand what I am learning is socials class when an IWB is used

True

Sometimes

False

3. Socials class is hard for me when an IWB is used

True

Sometimes

False

4. I try my best in socials class when an IWB is used.

True

Sometimes

False

5. I like to tell my family what I am learning is socials when an IWB is used.

True

Sometimes

False

6. I look forward to going to socials class when an IWB is used

True

Sometimes

False

7. Socials class is boring to me when an IWB is used

True

Sometimes

False

8. I cant understand what I am learning in socials class when an IWB is used.

True

Sometimes

False

9. I would ask the teacher to use an interactive whiteboard in my other classes.

True

Sometimes

False

10. When the teacher uses an IWB in my socials class:

It helps me stay focused and learn more.
It does not help me stay focused and learn more.
It does not affect my learning.

17