Does The Exclusive Use Of Interactive Whiteboards In The Classroom Hinder The Ability To Teach Physics?

1.0 Abstract

The paper set out to determine if the exclusive use of an interactive whiteboard in a classroom acts as a hindrance to the teaching of physics. Through the use of questionnaires and interviews (both with teachers and students), attitudes were obtained towards the use of interactive whiteboards, their perceived benefits and limitations in the classroom both in terms of teaching and learning in general, and in terms of teaching and learning of physics. The results of the surveys were displayed graphically. The responses were compared and evaluated in an attempt to find clear attitudes that were shared by teachers and students alike, as well as contradictions that existed within each of these groups and contradictions that occurred between the two groups. Ultimately, several conclusions were drawn. Firstly, the exclusive use of interactive whiteboards was not limiting in their understanding of lessons in general, however it was limiting in their understanding of physics. Secondly, the advantages of the interactive whiteboard as perceived by teachers were not felt by all students. Thirdly, some advantages of the interactive whiteboard as perceived by some teachers appeared simultaneously to be disadvantages by others.

2.0 Introduction

Having taught physics at a comprehensive secondary school for 2 years with access only to an interactive whiteboard, followed by a further 2 years of teaching with access to an interactive and a non-interactive whiteboard (i.e. a dry wipe marker board), limitations of the interactive whiteboard were noticed. It can be argued, for example, that physics is a very process based subject. When teaching nuclear fusion, the pp chain is a process that students must break down in to sections and understand piece by piece. Whilst demonstrating this process can be facilitated with the use of an interactive whiteboard (for example through student interaction), it can be argued that this would provide no advantage over the teacher simply drawing the process in a traditional ‘chalk board way.’ Whether these limitations are real or not are a point of interest worthy of investigation.

With ever more schools adopting the interactive whiteboard as a means of pursuing more modern teaching methods, the question remains as to whether or not they provide a significant enough advantage in teaching to justify the removal of traditional marker boards. As a teacher of physics, the author has taken particular interest in whether or not the interactive whiteboard provides an advantage in teaching physics or indeed whether or not the installation of the interactive whiteboard hinders the teaching of physics where it is the only display option in a classroom. The critical data sets for the research were in the form of questionnaires to students and to practicing teachers, the questions of which sought to uncover evidence that either backed or contradicted the main points that have been identified in the literature as advantages and disadvantages of interactive whiteboards. Ultimately, this data was used to draw a conclusion to the question being posed.

The use of interactive whiteboards has become very commonplace in schools. In 2005, the UK Government spent £50 million for the purchase of interactive whiteboards in Primary and Secondary schools (V.Armstrong et al. 2005), with an aim to supporting interactive whole class teaching (BECTA, 2004 Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2004). However, despite this, there has been very little research on the use of this new digital technology from the perspective of teaching and learning (V.Armstrong et al. 2005).The advantages of using an interactive whiteboard seem clear it is a colourful tool. Research indicates that students respond to displays where colour is employed (Bell, 2002). Arguably, many options remain for a classroom teacher who is willing to use colour in the classroom but for whom an interactive whiteboard is not an option, not least through the use of non-interactive whiteboard programms such as Microsoft Powerpoint. Questions were included in the questionnaires to both students and teachers which offered the opportunity to indicate that this was the case. Interactive whiteboards accommodate different learners tactile learners can benefit from touching and marking at the board, audio learners can have the class discussion, visual learners can see what is taking place as it develops at the board (Bell, 2002). Again, opportunities were provided within the questionnaires to independently challenge these premices. What is unclear in the literature, is despite the fact that potentially a digital IWB is very different from a non-digital whiteboard, for example in ensuring kinaesthetic engagement, there is no guarantee that this potential will actually be realised in the classroom on a day to day basis (Armstrong et Al. 2005). With this point in mind, the research aimed to investigate the extent to which the advantage that interactive whiteboards provide in terms of kinaesthetic engagement are in fact utilised in practice in classrooms. Finally, according to the literature, the boards are clean and attractive tools. There is no messy chalk dust or other by-product, which can limit use. While the board can be used with regular dry erase markers, it is more likely to be used with the electronic marking feature, which employs either stylus or finger, and thus requires no cleanup (Bell, 2002). In order to respond to this claim, the research sought to identify advantages of the interactive whiteboards over non-interactive whiteboards, with the hope that this point would be identified by the responses given.

The completion of the research project deviated somewhat from the methods proposed in the original research proposal. The first deviation concerns the format that was used in order to gather data. In particular, the research proposal suggested that there would be two principal categories of respondents teachers and students. Within the teacher category, there would be further sub-divisions of respondents. For example, “any teacher who only has access to an interactive whiteboard or who may have access to an interactive and non-interactive whiteboard,” or “teachers who currently only have access to an interactive whiteboard in lessons or who have at some point only had access to an interactive whiteboard.” It was originally believed that by contrasting the responses from these groups of respondents further information could be obtained. For example, it was believed that responses from a teacher who does not currently have access to interactive whiteboards but has had access in the past may indicate a clear attitude towards them that is not held by current users of interactive whiteboards. As a result, a conclusion could be drawn about their effectiveness that is only evident once the teacher no longer has access to it and is able to appreciate its merits.

It was, however, decided that any such conclusions could not be reliably made based on the data gathered, particularly as a limited number of questionnaires were completed by staff. As such, the data was divided simply in to two categories, ‘teacher responses’ and ‘student responses.’ Whilst this led to fewer avenues to explore in terms of categories of teacher (e.g. current user of interactive whiteboard versus previous user of interactive whiteboard), a larger data set was available leading to potentially greater statistical significance.

The decision was also made not to complete staff and student interviews. Instead, open ended questions were used in the questionnaire in order to gather the information that would have been sought in the interviews. This allowed for concise, written data to be gathered rather than relying on more long-winded and possibly convoluted data from interviews.

The paper will be broken down in to the following sections:

Critical data sets

Method

Results

Conclusion

Evaluation of Method

Evaluation of Conclusion

Bibliography

The critical data sets section will contain the questionnaires that were filled in by both teachers and students. The method section will describe what was done in order to gather the data. The results section will contain graphical representations of the data that was obtained. The conclusion section will aim to answer the underlying question that has been the focus of the research by analysing the data obtained and evaluating it in order to extract meaning from it.

5.3 Discussion

Figures 1.1 and 1.2, when combined, show that whilst all teachers appear to have access to interactive whiteboards, not all teachers use them. The response to these questions does not suggest that teachers avoid using interactive whiteboards due to their shortcomings, but it does suggest that teachers do not always feel that the interactive whiteboards are necessary or useful in all teaching situations. The response does indicate that most teachers use the interactive whiteboards. This suggests that most teachers either find the interactive whiteboards necessary or useful in most teaching situations, or that most teachers have no choice but to use them. From the responses to the teacher surveys, it is clear that most teachers do have access to non-interactive whiteboards as well but choose never to use them or to only rarely use them. Indeed, as figure 1.19 shows, the overwhelming majority of teachers feel that if they could only have access to one or the other (i.e. interactive or non-interactive), they would choose the interactive whiteboard. When asked to feed back on the specific advantages of the interactive whiteboard (fig 1.21), the apparent advantages of the interactive whiteboard are quite clear. Teachers fell, amongst other things, that interactive whiteboards are “more engaging,” that “students can interact with them” (a comment that was made three times), that “presentation is clear” and that “animations and videos” are possible with them.

Fig 1.5 suggests that students believe that in different teaching and learning situations, either the use of an interactive whiteboard or the use of a non-interactive whiteboard is preferable. Whilst the responses to this question do not indicate what the potential advantages of either one of these are, nor does it give an indication of the situations in which one is preferable over the other, it does suggest that the exclusive use of an interactive whiteboard in some situations will hinder teaching and learning. Equally, whilst it can be assumed that one of the inherent advantages to an interactive whiteboard is its ‘interactive’ nature, the responses in fig 1.6 (how often do your teachers allow you to use the interactive pen) indicate overwhelmingly that this benefit is not being used to its full advantage. This would seem to contradict the statements made by teachers (fig 1.21) that “students can interact [with interactive whiteboards]”. Interestingly, 21% of responses to fig 1.5 suggest that both interactive and non-interactive whiteboards should be used in all lessons, indicating not only that different teaching and learning situations lend themselves better to the use of one rather than the other, but in fact that all teaching and learning situations benefit from both.

The responses to fig 1.7 perhaps begin to explain the responses to fig 1.5. The students were asked ‘do you understand ideas best when you read them off the board or when your teacher explains them to you?’ Teacher explanations were indicated in the majority of cases as being preferable. When this response is combined with the responses to fig 1.8 ‘Do you understand ideas better when your teacher writes ideas out as you learn them or when your teacher shows pre-prepared images and texts?’ it would seem from the responses that most students prefer an old fashioned ‘chalk and talk’ style of teaching. Arguably, where students are more engaged, their learning improves. Yet again there appears to be a contradiction between student and teacher responses. As stated, teachers believe that the interactive whiteboard is “more engaging,” however the fact that students have suggested that they do not believe they learn more if pre-prepared images and texts are used in turn suggests that they are not necessarily more engaged by pre-prepared texts and images. Furthermore, the question of what constitutes “engaging” must be explored. For example, if students are using the interactive whiteboard pens themselves in lessons, it could be argued that they are being engaged in a way that is not possible with a non-interactive pen. However the responses from the question “how often does your teacher let you use the interactive whiteboard pen on the board” shows that students are not being engaged in ways that are only possible using an interactive whiteboard. As a consequence, the perceived advantage that the interactive whiteboard is more engaging is rendered irrelevant as it is not being utilised effectively.

Arguably, explanations of processes (for example beta decay in physics) are better given when drawn out by hand on the board, rather than with pre-prepared images. These are perhaps the situations in which a non-interactive whiteboard are of greater advantage. It can, however, be very reasonably pointed out that interactive whiteboards allow teachers to draw and write out ideas using the interactive whiteboard pen. When the responses shown in figures 1.23 and 1.25 are considered, however, there is perhaps an indication that interactive whiteboards are limited when it comes to writing out ideas and drawing ideas. Examples of these limitations are, for example, “not enough space,” “writing is illegible,” “interactive whiteboard pen does not always work.” On the other hand, non-interactive whiteboards are “more flexible” and offer “ease of drawing.” Again there appear to be contradictions when responses in fig 1.21 are evaluated. These responses indicate that there is “clear presentation” when using an interactive whiteboard. It is unclear, however, whether or not this response is referring to the presentation of writing that is done using the interactive whiteboard pen, or whether it is clear presentation of pre-prepared images and texts. As physics is a very process based subject, often requiring drawings and calculations that do not take up much space, this limitation is amplified. This is perhaps not the case for other subjects and so is perhaps not as much of a hindrance to teaching and learning.

The quality of the responses provided thus far may be questioned further when comparing the responses shown in figures 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10. The responses from these questions suggest that students prefer teachers to draw and write out ideas in the lesson in the traditional sense and, whilst this only happens in some lessons, the students feel that it only helps them to understand ideas some of the time. There are various interpretations that can be made from this data. Firstly, since this style of teaching only occurs some of the time, a reasonable amount of confidence can be placed in the attitudes of the students as they can compare between lessons where teachers do and do not do this. However, it would seem to be counter-intuitive that whilst students prefer this type of teaching, they feel that it only helps them some of the time. This poses the question of why students would prefer this type of teaching.

The questions asked in figures 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13 were asked to the students as a means of comparing their overall attitudes towards the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards in lessons to their attitudes to interactive whiteboards specifically in physics lessons. A possible conclusion that could be taken from figures 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 is that whilst students prefer teaching methods that are not dependent on the whiteboard being an interactive one, they could not identify any particular reason for why a normal whiteboard was an advantage. When asked to think specifically about their physics lessons, whilst many students did not have an opinion on the matter, many students (as with figure 1.8) felt that physics was easier to understand when the teacher wrote ideas out. Interestingly, the majority felt that this approach to teaching was beneficial in their understanding of physics. This differed from their responses when asked if the use of a normal whiteboard helped them to understand their lessons in general. It would be reasonable to conclude from this that students felt that the use of non-interactive whiteboards helped them to understand physics but would not necessarily help them to understand other subjects. Therefore the exclusive use of an interactive whiteboard could be limiting in the teaching of physics.

The feedback provided by the interviews did not provide any new information that could be ascertained from the questionnaires. The opinions conveyed in the questionnaires seemed to support the ideas conveyed in the questionnaires.

6.0 Conclusions

Ultimately, several conclusions were drawn. Firstly, the exclusive use of interactive whiteboards was not limiting in the understanding of lessons in general, however it was limiting in the understanding of physics. The questionnaires highlighted clearly that whilst students did not feel that teachers writing out ideas in general helped them to understand ideas that they did not understand beforehand, they did feel that in physics lessons, having ideas written out then and there did help them to understand. Therefore, from this point of view, the exclusive use of an interactive whiteboard in physics lessons does hinder teaching and learning. It should be noted that this conclusion can only be upheld if the limitations of the writing tool (interactive whiteboard and pen) as indicated by teachers is valid. Unfortunately this paper has not set out to validate those claims and they can only be upheld based on anecdotal evidence.

Secondly, the advantages of the interactive whiteboard as perceived by teachers were not felt by all students. Responses to the teacher questionnaires showed that in many cases, teachers felt that the interactive whiteboard was more engaging and interactive than a non-interactive whiteboard. When these responses were cross-referenced with student responses, it appeared that whilst this may be the case in theory, in practice few teachers seemed to be using interactive whiteboards in a particularly interactive way. This conclusion is also supported by the literature (see Armstrong et Al. 2005). Although the interactive whiteboard can arguably be shown to improve the teaching and learning process by engaging students through interactive activities, the failure of teachers to use the interactive whiteboard in this way renders the point moot. Yet, whilst the absence of such interactive practices fails to enhance teaching and learning, it can not be demonstrated that it hinders teaching and learning either.

Thirdly, some advantages of the interactive whiteboard as perceived by some teachers appeared simultaneously to be disadvantages by others. Whereas some teachers felt that the use of the interactive whiteboard offered clear presentation, others felt that (particularly with the use of the interactive pen), that presentation was problematic. Consequently, no conclusion can be reliably drawn as to whether or not the presentation of items through the use of an interactive whiteboard hinders teaching and learning in physics or in any other subject.

7.0 Evaluation of method

The method employed was considered to be sound in order to ascertain attitudes of both teachers and students. The questions were designed in order to determine whether or not the exclusive use of an interactive whiteboard is a hindrance to the teaching of physics and the conclusions drawn have been done so with confidence. The questionnaires used were relatively short, however this was done deliberately in order to ensure as large a return as possible. Particularly where the students were answering, had there been too many questions, interest in the completion of the questionnaires would have dropped and resulted either in non-completion of questions/questionnaires or students would have given random answers in order to complete the questionnaire as quickly as possible. Had the length of the questionnaire not been a limiting factor, an improvement to the questionnaire would have been the inclusion of a greater number of questions, including questions which would have allowed better ‘cross examination’ of answers. For example, where students were asked if they prefer when a teacher uses an interactive or non-interactive whiteboard, a second, similar question that was worded differently may have produced a different response. This would have allowed better analysis of the validity of the responses. Having anonymous questionnaires ensured that bias in the evaluation of responses was impossible. Whilst this was an advantage, the limited number of completed questionnaires returned meant that it was impossible to know how representative of whole-school opinions the responses actually were (see evaluation of conclusion). However, had the respondents been asked to include their year group, gender and set, then further analysis of the data would have been possible. For example, attitudes towards the use of interactive whiteboards amongst various sub-cultures of the school would be possible and would allow a more precise conclusion to be made to the question of this study. Equally, information on year group, gender, ability group etc would ensure that conclusions that have now been drawn were not simply representative of one particular sub-culture.

8.0 Evaluation of conclusion

The conclusions drawn were done so with a good degree of confidence given the data sets to hand. The conclusion drawn that the exclusive use of an interactive whiteboard is a hindrance to the teaching of physics (but not necessarily to the teaching of all subjects) was done so due to a clear attitude shown by student responses compared with teacher responses. A limitation of this conclusion, however, was that only relatively few questionnaires were completed, thereby decreasing confidence due to increased statistical insignificance. As a consequence, confidence in the conclusions drawn is less so than if the full number of questionnaire handed out had been returned. Whilst only conclusions were drawn if clear trends were identified, clear trends based on few surveys (as is the case) should be questioned. The questionnaires were distributed randomly. However since only a relatively few number were returned, the possibility should be considered that, although unlikely, the returned questionnaires all originated from the same micro-population within the school. For example, perhaps all the questionnaires returned were completed by top set year 10 students. If this is the case, then the attitudes that have been evaluated would not be representative of a large enough cross section of attitudes on the whole in order to be of value in the study.

9.0 Bibliography

Victoria Armstrong , Sally Barnes , Rosamund Sutherland , Sarah Curran , Simon

Mills & Ian Thompson (2005): Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology, Educational Review, 57:4, 457-469

Bell (2002): Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker’s dozen reasons, [contact detail removed] Gray , Lesley Hagger-Vaughan , Rachel Pilkington & Sally-Ann Tomkins (2005): The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework, The Language Learning Journal, 32:1, 38-44

Armstrong, V. & Curran, S. (2005) Developing a collaborative model of research using digital

video, paper presented at the Computers and Learning (CAL) 905 Virtual Learning Conference, Bristol, 4–6 April.

BECTA (2004) Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: a guide for secondary schools (Coventry, BECTA).

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004) Interactive whiteboards: frequently asked

questions. Available online at: [contact detail removed]