PROJECT PROPOSAL

SMART Board Professional Development

Designed by: Jennifer Jones

Proposal Date: July 27, 2007

PROPOSAL ABSTRACT

As educators, it should be our goal to pursue the opportunity that technology

holds to enhance our curriculum and promote higher order thinking among
our students. A highly regarded technological resource, a SMART Board, has
already been purchased by Millennium Middle School. Since its purchase, this
interactive whiteboard has been minimally used. This proposal will highlight
the need to further train our teachers on this resource, describe the
necessary steps to ensure success in training, and describe how this proposal
is the most effective and efficient way to approach this need.

NEED

A SMART Board, an interactive whiteboard manufactured by SMART

Technologies, was purchased by our Media Center approximately four years
ago. Since then, use of this technology has been limited. Upon an informal
survey, many teachers use the board twice or less per school year. Often,
even when this technology is used, it is operated at its most basic level. The
initial staff training on the SMART Board occurred when it was first purchased.
Since then, new features and software have become available. By providing
further training for our teachers about this product, we would be taking a
step towards making the best use of the monetary investment that we
already made in this proven technological resource.

A case study in San Francisco echoes the situation that our school is in. In
this case, “Seventeen [multimedia] systems were installed in 1989 along with
social studies and history software developed by the National Geographic
Society. Most of the machines were idle at the end of that school year,
however. Only after teachers were given training in how to work the
multimedia content into their lesson plans did teachers start using the
technology available to them” (Means et al., 1993). This example highlights
both the initial need and the subsequent success that can come when
training is made available.

There have been other instances in which technology has been underused
due to a lack of training. In multiple studies cited by the North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory, “the primary reason teachers do not use
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 2

technology in their classrooms is a lack of experience with technology

(Wenglinsky, 1998; Rosen & Weil, 1995).” The NCREL further goes on to cite
a study conducted by Ringstaff and Kelly in which it was found that, “Ongoing
professional development is necessary to help teachers learn not only how to
use new technology but also how to provide meaningful instruction and
activities using technology in the classroom (2002).

Support for such staff training comes from other sources as well. For
example, “NEA believes that given the fast pace change in public schools,
meaningful staff development, especially in the area of technology, must be a
priority in all schools…” (Kopkowski, 2006). This reasoning, of course, centers
around a key descriptor of the staff development; that it must be meaningful.
Therefore, not only should the training design be meaningful, but the subject
of the training must be meaningful as well.

In the case of the SMART Board, research has shown its use to be highly
beneficial and therefore would be a meaningful topic for our school to
examine. This form of technology has considerable advantages over other
conventional boards and projections. “The power of the IWB [interactive
whiteboards] lies primarily in its annotation capability and the ability to move
freely and easily between flipchart pages revealing an infinite range of pre-
prepared resources incorporating text, graphics, video and sounds, as well as
direct use of the Internet…” (Beauchamp and Parkinson, 2005).

An additional advantage also occurs when an activity on the SMART Board is

concluded. “At the end of the activity, teachers can either save the results
for future lessons, reveal the correct solution on the next page of the
presentation, print the results or just scrap everything and be left with the
starting page for future use” (Beauchamp and Parkinson, 2005).

The ability to save presentations provides an opportunity for teachers to

easily access and revisit previous lessons. The ease of this feature may allow
teachers to review topics more frequently. This builds upon Jere Brophy’s
principle of practice and application activities as “it is important to follow up
thorough initial teaching with occasional review activities…” (1999).

Additionally, this technology enables teachers to perform what Brophy

describes as “strategy teaching”. The interactive functionality of the board
allows the teacher to easily manipulate data on the screen. This provides
opportunities for the teacher to model skills, activities, and strategies while
conducting “think alouds” describing their thought processes. This type of
overt modeling “…provides learners with first-person language (‘self talk’)
that they can adapt directly when using the strategy themselves” (Brophy,
1999). In this way, the SMART Board helps students construct meaning
during lessons.

The strength of this device lies not only in the functionality of the software
provided by SMART Technologies that accompanies the hardware, but in the
hardware’s versatility in incorporating the use of other programs and
applications. For example, teachers can readily access information from the
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 3

Web or even access programs already utilized in our district, such as

Inspiration, Timeliner, PowerPoint, GoogleEarth and United Streaming.

Because of the SMART Board’s compilation of features, it provides a platform

for both teachers and students to develop Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) Literacy. As referenced by the North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory, these are skills that will be “critical to students’
success in the workplace” and include such arenas as communicating
effectively, analyzing and interpreting data, and engaging in problem solving
(Kay and Honey, 2005).

Therefore, the goal is for this technology to be used as a tool that our
students will be learning with. The application of this technology will provide
new opportunities to our students in order to develop critical thinking and
higher order thinking.

PLAN OF OPERATION

The proposed plan is that the SMART Board should be revisited in a training
session in order to introduce new staff to its uses as well as build upon the
returning staff’s knowledge of its features. This proposed solution must
address the four common places of education: the teacher, the learner, the
subject matter and the setting.

In this proposal, the Media Specialist and the Project Director would take on
the role of teacher by designing the training and materials. The training
would reach the entire teaching staff within the building, but would not occur
all at once. Instead, once the schedule of department meetings for the 2007-
2008 school year is released, each department (science, math, social studies,
language arts, music and art, and electives) would be assigned a training
session. On their assigned day, their department meeting would take place
in the Media Center with the Media Specialist as their guide for instruction.

The implementation of this project will occur in various phases. The first
phase is the approval stage. The administration must first recognize the
need for such a training to occur. They will be presented with this proposal as
well as copies of case studies highlighting the uses of interactive whiteboards
in the classroom as further evidence of its benefits.

The next step in this process is preparation/research phase. After project

approval, the Project Director will compose and distribute an online survey to
determine the staff’s knowledge base, comfort level, usage, and satisfaction
with the SMART Board.

After the survey’s completion the Project Director and the Media Specialist
will meet to determine the exact needs of the staff in terms of training on the
SMART Board. Once these needs are determined, the Project Director and the
Media Specialist can either work collaboratively to develop the training
materials and/or divide the work into manageable pieces to work on
individually.
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 4

In addition to this, the plan for execution of the training must occur. There
are many elements to be taken into consideration when developing the
training agenda and the environment in which the learners will learn. The
key to the success of this training therein lies in its structure.

A key principle that will be kept in mind when designing the training agenda
is that the information will be need to be arranged in such a way to create
“coherent content”. Small sequenced steps and time for questioning must be
built into the design “to stimulate active learning and ensure that each step is
mastered before moving to the next” (Brophy, 1999).

Therefore, in order to emphasize the use of practice and application

activities, the training will follow a format of: presenting information, asking
questions and guiding discussion, and engaging in activities. This type of
format will lend itself to “interactive discourse” as opposed to “extended
lecture presentations” (Brophy, 1999).

It is also vital for teachers to have the opportunity to explore the technology
themselves. Therefore, the plan for training will include time for the teachers
to use the SMART Board and interact with its features. The questions asked
during the training will be posed in order to create “thoughtful discourse”.
One such line of questioning during the training will ask teachers to
determine specific parts of their curriculum that could be enhanced by the
SMART Board. This discussion will help the teachers to reflect on the real
usage of such technology within their own practices and hopefully spark
further brainstorming on the topic.

After preparing the materials necessary for project success, pre-training

materials will be distributed to the staff. This advance preparation will help to
increase the staff’s comfort level. The distribution of an advance organizer,
as suggested by Brophy, can serve to establish a basic structure for the
training.

Before the training session, links to online SMART Board training will be
provided via email to give teachers an opportunity to look over the material
ahead of time. An outline of the training will also be sent in order for the
teachers to know exactly what will be covered and why it is important. The
goal of this is to “characterize the general nature of the activity and give
students [in this case the learners are teachers] a structure within which to
understand and connect the specifics that will be presented” (Brophy, 1999).

After all this has occurred, the actual training phase will begin. The Media
Specialist will meet with each department according to the assigned schedule
to facilitate the training. It is then that all of the above principles will be
applied to guide the learners in their exploration of the SMART Board.

This initiative towards full utilization of the SMART Board will not end as soon
as the training session is concluded. The NCREL cited a study in which
Kanaya and Light determined that, “Teachers need in-depth, sustained
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 5

assistance not only in the use of technology but in their efforts to integrate
technology into the curriculum” (2005).

Therefore, after the training session, follow-up materials will also be provided
in order to aid in retention. Based on feedback from departments and
available meeting time, this follow-up can either be provided in an electronic
format or in another face-to-face training session. Additionally, the Media
Specialist and the Project Director will continue to be available to assist
teachers in further training and spark dialogue on the topic. Resource
teachers will also be identified and be available to provide support to fellow
teachers.

QUALITY OF KEY PERSONNEL

Key personnel for this proposal include:

 Administrators – The building administration will be looked to for

project approval. This would be based on their recognition of the
value of technology integration into our classrooms. Their
responsibility would lie in allocating department time to the project
upon approval. After the project is complete, the administration
would be asked to meet with the Media Specialist and Project
Director to analyze data from the pre- and post-survey of the
training.

 Media Specialist – The Media Specialist will serve as the principle

resource and the lead instructor of the training. Her current
background knowledge in the many facets of the SMART Board will
enable her to work with the Project Director to develop the training
materials. After the project is complete, the Media Specialist would
be asked to meet with the Administration and Project Director to
analyze data from the pre- and post-survey of the training.

 Project Director – The project director’s responsibilities include

obtaining approval from the administration for the training, creating
a timeline for the project, creating and distributing pre- and post-
training surveys, communicating with department facilitators to
schedule training, and helping the Media Specialist develop the
training materials.

 Department Facilitators – The heads of each department will be

responsible for choosing a training day among the scheduled
department meetings. They will be invited to analyze the pre- and
post-survey of the training; however, this element will not be a
requirement.

 Teachers – The technological skills of each teacher will vary and

therefore, all that is asked of the teachers is that they come into the
training with an open mind and a willingness to participate.
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 6

 Resource Teachers – Any and all teachers interested and willing to

learn more about this technology will be asked to serve as resource
teachers after the initial training. They will be provided with
alternative sources of training (i.e. SMART Technology training
website and possibly further training from Media Specialist) and will
be identified among the staff as those who can be asked for
technological support with the SMART Board.

EVALUATION

Research has already shown that the inclusion of technology leads to positive
learning outcomes. However, these outcomes can only occur if the
technology is being utilized. Therefore, evaluation of this project will be
based on a post-survey of the teachers to determine if meaningful use of and
satisfaction with the SMART Board has increased following the training.
Based on the results of this survey, an additional survey will be given to
students to determine their reactions to the inclusion of SMART Boards within
their classrooms.

APPLICANT’S COMMITMENT AND CAPACITY

Although this is my first undertaking of such a project, I am convinced that

the combination of my background in technology and organizational skills
along with the knowledge and experience of the Media Specialist that this
project can successfully come to fruition.

In order to further increase my knowledge on the uses of the SMART Board, I

will complete the Live Online Training offered by SMART Technology on the
following topics:
 SMART Board Interactive Whiteboard
 SMART Board 600 Series: Maintenance and Troubleshooting
 SMART Ideas Software
 Using PowerPoint Software with SMART Products
 Notebook Software
 Creating Lesson Activities (K–6)
 Creating Lesson Activities (7–12)
The knowledge gleaned from these will better prepare me to help design the
training materials and agenda for maximum benefit to the staff.

BUDGET AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Simply put, the chief cost for this project is time. The Media Specialist and
supporting teacher will be dedicating time to the preparation of materials for
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 7

this training. If possible, at least one day of release time would be ideal for
creation of materials.

This proposal also asks for each department to devote at least one
department meeting’s time to the SMART Board training during the 2007-
2008 school year. This does take time away from other departmental focuses
such as collaboration or NCA work. However, as already evidenced in this
proposal, the use of the SMART Board can have a significant influence on
student achievement and would therefore be time well spent. Since the
Media Specialist rotates between department meetings, there are no
additional constraints put upon her time. The only other foreseen costs of
this project entail the costs of copying the training materials to distribute to
the teachers.

There are other alternatives to this proposed plan. One such alternative
would consist of conducting the training at an all-staff meeting. This,
however, would eliminate the small group setting that is being proposed. If
the training is conducted at an all-staff meeting, it would still only require an
hour of each staff member’s time, but would shift the training from large
group to small group. This elimination of the small group setting may have
negative effects on the outcome because the time constraints and the
number of participants would limit the number of individuals who would have
an opportunity to personally interact with the technology.

As another alternative, teachers could complete training on the SMART Board

at the SMART Technologies website. However, this takes away the interactive
and interpersonal stage of the proposed training. In addition, it also
eliminates the individualized instruction that could be provided by our Media
Specialist.

SMART Technologies also offers on-site training in which a SMART trainer

would visit the school. These sessions, however, are limited to 15 people.
Therefore, it would require more release time for participating teachers in
addition to funding for the trainer’s fees.

Yet another alternative entails sending staff to off-site training events held by
SMART Technologies. Again, with this alternative, the monetary expenditure
would be far greater, and fewer staff members would be exposed to the
subject. Perhaps this would be a better alternative for those who later would
want to extend their knowledge, if the budget permits.

When the alternatives are considered, the proposed training is the most
effective use of time and resources. Overall, costs for this project would be
kept to a minimum and seems a small price to pay for the utilization of a
technology that can be used to increase student achievement.

IMPLEMENTATION

Full realization of this proposal cannot take place until administration has
approved the training and time has been scheduled for the Project Director
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 8

and Media Specialist to convene planning. However, some basic preparation

can occur before explicit approval is granted. In the next week, the following
items can be prepared:
 final copy of proposal and copies of research to be presented to
administration
 a tentative timeline of the phases of the project
 draft of pre- and post-training surveys
 compilation of resources to be used to provide content-specific
ideas to each department during the training
The completion of these tasks will expedite the completion of the project
once the school year has begun and approval given.
SMART Board Project Proposal Jones 9

REFERENCES

Beauchamp, G. and Parkinson, J. 2005. Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing

interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 97-103.
Available online:
http://www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/1168/beyond+the+wow+factor.pdf

Brophy, J. 1999. Teaching. Educational Practice Series. Ser. 1. Lausanne:

International Academy of Education. Available online:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/EducationalPracticesSeriesPdf/prac01
e.pdf

Kopkowski, C. 2006. Ready to upgrade? NEA Today. Available online:

www.nea.org/neatoday/0603/coverstory.html

Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C.C., Remz, A.R., and
Zorfass, J. 1993. Using technology to support education reform. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. Available online:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 1999. Critical issue: using

technology to improve student achievement. Available online:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm