Robert Marzano has just published an article in Educational Leadership that is worth a look. It’s based on the research project he carried out for Promethean which was published earlier this year (which I covered on the Blog here)

His research found that in general the use of an interactive whiteboard did produce a rise in student attanment.

He found that there were three features of the IWB that had a statistically significant relationship with student achievement. These were:

• Student-response devices – Voting kits such as Smart Response or ActivExpression. He found this accounted for a 26 percentile point gain in attainment.
• Use of graphics and other visuals. Marzano found that using images, charts and videos was also associated with a 26 percentile point gain.
• Use of whiteboard reinforcers. Simple “checks of knowledge” that can be played on the board such as “rub to reveal” “drag and drop” etc to reinforce the learning in the lesson. This had a 31% gain. Which is pretty impressive.

Pitfalls

Marzano also found that in 23% of classes, using the IWB did not lead to better results. In fact in those classrooms students did better without the IWB

On examining the evidence, Marzano and his researchers discovered that there were potential pitfalls in using interactive whiteboards:

• Using the voting devices but doing little with the findings. In many classrooms, teachers simply noted how many students obtained the correct answer instead of probing into why one answer was more appropriate than another.
• Not organizing or pacing the content well. In these cases, the teachers incorporated video segments from the Internet or images intended to represent important information in their digital flipcharts. However, they ran through the flipcharts so quickly that students, although impressed with the graphics, did not have time to analyze and interact with one another about the content.
• Using too many visuals. Digital flipchart pages were awash with visual stimuli; it was hard to identify the important content.
• Paying too much attention to reinforcing features. For example, when teachers who had worse results with the technology used the virtual applause feature to signal a correct answer, the emphasis seemed to be on eliciting the applause rather than on clarifying the content.

His recommendations

It is probably true that for some learners, the use of an IWB is not going to make them learn any better. In other cases the simple fact that an IWB is being used is not going to magically make the learning experience better.

Marzano suggested a few ways to improve the use of the IWB in the classroom:

• Teachers should think about how to organise the lesson on their IWB. They should group information into small segments before creating digital resource.
• Digital flipcharts should contain visuals – but not too many as to confuse and distract. Make the focus clear. Also don’t contain too much written information. I’d also add to this to be aware of clashing colours or backgrounds that make the information hard to read.
• When using voting kits, don’t just say which answer is correct. Take time to discuss the correct answer (and wrong answers) and elicit opinions from students. Get them to explain why they thought X or Y was correct etc.
• When using reinforcing activities – again be sure to focus on the answers and explain why something is correct or incorrect. Don’t let it get lost in the flashy response to an answer (such as a sound effect or animation)

My thoughts on all this

I’m sure we’ve all been in training sessions where the speaker uses powerpoint and the session is deathly dull and no learning takes place. But a different speaker,  with the same tools at their disposal can create a fantastic learning experience.

There is a definite need for training to show teachers how to best make use of the IWB to support learning. Just dumping one on a classroom teacher will not make the lessons better and raise achievement.

I’m still amazed at the number of schools that will spend tens of thousands of pounds on interactive whiteboards. But then will not spend the £600 or so to get a trainer in (subtle plug) to actually show the staff how to use it. The expensive equipment then doesn’t get used, or doesn’t get used effectively. It’s a real shame.

You can also benefit from taking a look at some of the excellent IWB websites out there where teachers share their ideas. You can find a few in the sidebar of this blog.

I’ve just been reading an excellent blog post by Chris Betcher about IWB’s. His closing paragraph is this:

The REAL trick to all this is to ensure that this potential is being realised by teachers who understand the world of possibilities their IWB offers. If a teacher cannot see the potential, then of course we will struggle to see genuine “newness” in the way the IWBs are being used. As always, it is the creativity and insight of a talented teacher that brings this potential to the surface. Let’s stop being so hung up about whether IWBs can add value to a classroom. They can. The real question is whether the teachers who work with them can make the most of that potential and use them to bring that “revolution” into their classrooms.

Which puts into words exactly how I feel about the potential for IWB’s in the classroom.

Related posts:

1. Marzano IWB research published
2. 20 Interactive Whiteboard Resources for Teachers
3. Student Editions
4. IWBs and Interactivity
5. Senteo Rebranded as SMART Response

Filed under: Guidance, Interactive Whiteboards

Tagged with:, goodpractice, Interactive Whiteboards, Marzano, research