Interactive Whiteboard Technologies in High School: A Comparison of Their Impact on the Levels of Measure That Determine a Return on Investment

Abstract

This quantitative, quasi-experimental, nonequivalent group study examined the impact on levels of measure that determine a return on investment of differing forms of interactive whiteboard (IWB) technology used at a high school in a suburban school district in southeastern Virginia. Three forms of IWB were compared: a full-screen IWB, a mobile IWB, and a tablet-based whiteboard app. Student performance and survey data were analyzed via one-way analysis of variance to determine the impact on participants who were exposed to the forms of technology. The return on investment levels of measure for the three technologies were also compared with groups that did not use any form of IWB. Analyses revealed small but significant differences between forms of technology in three of the four levels of measure: satisfaction, student achievement, and perception of results. Limitations and suggestions for further research are also discussed.

Keywords

interactive whiteboard educational technology return on investment quantitative technology high school

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

50,000 Downloads of Doceri 2.0 iPad Whiteboard, Screencasting App. (2012, September 27). Marketwire. Retrieved from http://doceri.com/news/news8.php.

Akbas, O., & Pektas, H. (2011). The effects of using an interactive whiteboard on the academic achievement of university students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(2). Retrieved from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v12_issue2/akbas/index.htm.

Al-Raisi

Al-Khouri

(2011) Public value and ROI in the government sector. Advances in Management 3(2): 33–38.

Barak

Ziv

(2013) Wandering: A web-based platform for the creation of location-based interactive learning objects. Computers & Education 6(2): 159–170.

Baytiyeh

Naja

M. K.

(2010) Do multimedia features promote understanding and retention. International Journal of Instructional Media 37(1): 43–53.

Bebell

Kay

(2010) One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 9(2): 1–60.

Boser

(2011) Return on educational investment: A district-by-district evaluation of U.S. educational productivity, Lanham, MD: The Center for American ProgressRetrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/840762329?accountid=12085.

Boyce

C. J.

Mishra

Halverson

K. J.

Thomas

A. K.

(2014) Getting students outside: Using technology as a way to stimulate engagement. Journal of Science, Education, and Technology 23(6): 815–826.

Connors, M. (2015, January 15). Chesapeake schools chief fires salvo on funding. Pilotonline.com. Retrieved from http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/chesapeake-schools-chief-fires-salvo-funding.

10.

Davis

F. D.

(1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13: 318–340.

11.

Dhindsa

Emran

S. H.

(2011) Using interactive whiteboard technology-rich constructivist learning environment to minimize gender differences in chemistry achievement. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 6(4): 393–414.

12.

Digregorio

Sobel-Lojeski

(2010) The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on student performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 38(3): 255–312. doi:10.2190/ET.38.3.b.

13.

Dunham, G. (2011). The future at hand: Mobile devices and apps in clinical practice. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from http://leader.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2279035.

14.

Dunleavy

Dede

Mitchell

(2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18(1): 7–22.

15.

Ebenezer

Columbus

Kaya

O. N.

Zhang

Ebenezer

D. L.

(2012) One science teacher’s professional development experience: A case study exploring changes in students’ perceptions of their fluency with innovative technologies. Journal of Science Education and Technology 21(1): 22–27.

16.

Educreations Interactive Whiteboard App. (2012). Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(6), 43.

17.

Flanagan

Shoffner

(2013) Teaching with(out) technology: Secondary English teachers and classroom technology use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 13(3): 242–261.

18.

Gall

M. D.

Gall

J. P.

Borg

W. R.

(2007) Educational research: An introduction, 8th ed. New York, NY: Pearson.

19.

Gano

L. R.

(2011) Fitting technology to the mathematics pedagogy: Its effect on students’ academic achievement. Journal of College Teaching & Learning 8(11): 29–38.

20.

Giles

R. M.

Baggett

P. V.

(2009) Investigating technologies in teacher education: Does PowerPoint enhance retention or influence attitudes? SRATE Journal 18(1): 44–52.

21.

Glover

Miller

Averis

Door

(2007) The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology 32(1): 5–20. doi:10.1080/17439880601141146.

22.

Gregory

(2010) Enhancing student learning with interactive whiteboards: Perspective of teachers and students. Australian Educational Computing 25(2): 31–34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost: http://acce.edu.au/journal/25/2/enhancing-student-learning-interactive-whiteboards-perspective-teachers-and-students.

23.

Hargis

Cavanaugh

Kamali

Soto

(2014) A federal higher education iPad mobile learning initiative: Triangulation of data to determine early effectiveness. Innovative Higher Education 39(1): 45–57.

24.

Higgins

(2010) The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. In: Thomas

Schmid

E. C.

(eds) Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice, New York, NY: Information Science Reference, pp. 86–101.

25.

Horzum

M. B.

Öztürk

Bektas

Güngören

Ö. C.

Çakir

Ö.

(2014) Secondary school students tablet computer acceptance and readiness: A structural equation modelling. Egitim Ve Bilim 39(176): 81–94.

26.

How to afford interactive whiteboards. (2011). Technology & Learning, 31(8), 44–46.

27.

Howell

D. C.

(2011) Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

28.

Hu, W. (2011). Math that moves: Schools embrace the iPad. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.htm.

29.

IESD White Paper: What the research says: Using eInstruction’s® Mobi™ system to support effective instruction (2010). Retrieved from http://www.banxia.com/pdf/mobi/Mobi_White_Paper.pdf.

30.

Ishtaiwa

(2014) Mobile technology as a learning tool: Use and effects. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education 10(4): 1–15.

31.

Jackson

Gaudet

McDaniel

Brammer

(2009) Curriculum integration: The use of technology to support learning. Journal of College Teaching & Learning 6(7): 71–78.

32.

Kaufman

(2009) How does the use of interactive whiteboards affect teaching and learning? Distance Learning 6(2): 23–33. doi:1903519791.

33.

Keengwe

Schnellert

(2012) Digital technology integration in American public schools. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education 8(3): 36–44.

34.

Kirkpatrick

(2006) Evaluating training programs: The four levels, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

35.

Kirkpatrick

D. L.

(1976) Evaluation of training. In: Craig

R. L.

(eds) Training and development handbook: A guide to human resource development, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 301–319.

36.

Koh

J. H. L.

Chai

C. S.

Tsai

(2013) Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science 41(4): 793–809.

37.

Lacina

(2009) Technology in the classroom interactive whiteboards: Creating higher-level, technological thinkers? Childhood Education 85(4): 270–272.

38.

Liu

W. C.

Stengel

D. N.

(2011) Improving student retention and performance in quantitative courses using clickers. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education 18(1): 51–58.

39.

Lund Research Ltd. (2012). Convenience sampling explained (Lærd dissertation). Retrieved from http://dissertation.laerd.com/convenience-sampling.php.

40.

Lund Research Ltd. (2013). One-way ANOVA in SPSS statistics. Laerd Statistics Premium. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/owa/one-way-anova-in-spss.php.

41.

Machun, P. A., Trau, C., Zaid, N., Wang, M., & Ng, J. (2012). MOOCs: Is there an app for that? Expanding mobilegogy through an analysis of MOOCS and iTunes university. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, 3, 321–325. doi:10.1109/WI-IAT.2012.179.

42.

McCaslin, J. B. (2009). Student perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304918048).

43.

McCoog

(2007) Integrated instruction: Multiple intelligences and technology. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 81(1): 25–28. Retrieved from EBSCOhost: http://cedu521-o-f07.pbworks.com/f/McCoog%20article.pdf.

44.

Mishra

Koehler

(2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record 108(6): 1017–1054.

45.

Moss

Jewitt

(2010) Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: What lessons can be learnt from early adoption in England? In: Thomas

Schmid

(eds) Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice, Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, pp. 20–36. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch002.

46.

Northcote

Mildenhall

Marshall

Swan

(2010) Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(4): 494–510.

47.

O’Dwyer

L. M.

Russell

Bebell

Seeley

(2008) Examining the relationship between students’ mathematics test scores and computer use at home and at school. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 6(5): 1–46.

48.

Overbay

Patterson

Vasu

Grable

(2010) Constructivism and technology use: Findings from the Impacting Leadership Project. Educational Media International 47(2): 103–120.

49.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/overview.

50.

Perrotta

(2013) Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology 44(2): 1467–8535.

51.

Phillips

J. J.

(1996) ROI: The search for best practices. Training & Development 50(2): 42.

52.

Phillips

J. J.

(1997) Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods, 3rd ed. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

53.

Phillips, J. J., & Stone, R. D. (2000). How to measure training results. [Kindle Version]. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. doi:10.1036/0071406263.

54.

Potter

S. L.

Rockinson-Szapkiw

A. J.

(2012) Technology integration for instructional improvement: The impact of professional development. Performance Improvement 51(2): 22–27.

55.

Praslova

(2010) Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22(3): 215–225.

56.

Rajeev

Madan

M. S.

Jayarajan

(2009) Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s model – An evaluation of an academic training course. Current Science (Bangalore) 96(2): 272–276.

57.

Rehmat

A. P.

Bailey

J. M.

(2014) Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology 23(6): 744–755.

58.

Resnick

R. M.

(2011) School market size, growth and the shift to digital resources in K-12 classrooms. Publishing Research Quarterly 27(2): 169doi:10.1007/s12109-011-9209-4.

59.

Rouse

(2011) Employing Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework to determine the effectiveness of health information management courses and programs. Perspectives in Health Information Management 8(Spring): 1c.

60.

Schachter

(2010) Learning from Great Britain: Classrooms in the U.K. have had interactive whiteboards (IWBs) for years. Here’s how teachers make the most of them. Instructor (1990) 119(6): 57–60.

61.

Schrand

(2008) Tapping into active learning and multiple intelligences with interactive multimedia: A low-threshold classroom approach. College Teaching 56(2): 78–84. Retrieved from EBSCOhost: http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/274714798?accountid=12085.

62.

Shelton

(2014) “Virtually mandatory”: A survey of how discipline and institutional commitment shape university lecturers’ perceptions of technology. British Journal of Educational Technology 45(4): 748–759.

63.

Shenton

Pagett

(2007) From “bored” to screen: The use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy 41(3): 129–136.

64.

Slay

Siebörger

Hodgkinson-Williams

(2008) Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education 51(3): 1321–1341.

65.

Splashtop Inc. (2011). Splashtop whiteboard app turns iPads into an interactive whiteboard. Technology & Business Journal, 2356. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/875351075?accountid=12085.

66.

Tamim

Bernard

Borokhovski

Abrami

Schmid

(2011) What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research 81: 4–28. doi:10.3102/0034654310393361.

67.

Thistlethwaite

(2014) Evaluation, outcomes and education. The Clinical Teacher 11(6): 409–410.

68.

Thomas

M. K.

Greene

B. A.

(2011) Fostering 21st century skill development by engaging students in authentic game design projects in a high school computer programming class. Journal of Educational Computing Research 44(4): 391–408.

69.

Türel

Y. K.

(2011) An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education 57(4): 2441–2450.

70.

Virginia Department of Education. (2012). Adequate yearly progress (AYP) reports. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/statistics_reports/accreditation_federal_reports/ayp/.

71.

Weng

Savage

M. N.

Bouck

E. C.

(2014) iDIY: Video-based instruction using iPads. Teaching Exceptional Children 47(1): 11–19.

72.

Williams

D. D.

South

J. B.

Yanchar

S. C.

Wilson

B. G.

Allen

(2011) How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development 59(6): 885–907.

73.

Winslow

Dickerson

Lee

Geer

(2012) Mobile technologies: Tools for organizational learning and management in schools: iPrincipals: Analyzing the use of iPads by school administrators. International Education Studies 5(4): 188–195.

74.

Yardley

Dornan

(2012) Kirkpatrick’s levels and education ‘evidence’. Medical Education 46(1): 97–106.