The Effects of the Use of Interactive Whiteboards on Student Achievement
Karen Swan, Jason Schenker & Annette Kratcoski
Research Center for Educational Technology
Kent State University, USA
[email protected] Abstract: The purpose of the research reported in this paper was to investigate
whether the use of interactive whiteboards in English language arts and/or
mathematics lessons improved student learning in those areas as measured by student
scores on state achievement tests. The study examined the reading and mathematics
achievement test scores of all students in the third through eighth grades in a small
urban school district in northern Ohio and compared scores between students whose
teachers used interactive whiteboards for instruction and those whose teachers did
not. Results show slightly higher performance among students in the interactive
whiteboard group, with students in the fourth and fifth grades exhibiting the greatest
advantage for interactive whiteboard instruction. Further research on the use of
interactive whiteboards for K-12 teaching and learning is thus clearly indicated.
Background
Current theories of learning emphasize the importance of actively engaging children in the learning process
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999), and recently there have been a variety of technologies designed to
support active engagement in learning. One such technology is the interactive white board. Interactive white
boards allow teachers and students to interact with content projected from a computer screen onto a white board
surface. Virtually anything that can be done on a computer can be done on an interactive white board, with the
advantage that interaction involves fingers and pens and so is more kinesthetic, drawing, marking and
highlighting of any computer-based output is supported, a whole class can follow interactions, and lessons can
be saved and replayed.
Initial research on the use of interactive whiteboards in both K-12 and higher education is promising. Studies
have documented that both teachers and students like the technology (Beeland, 2002; Hall & Higgins, 2005;
Kennewell & Morgan, 2003; Smith, Higgins, Wall & Miller, 2005) and that students are more engaged and
motivated to learn when whiteboards are employed (Beeland, 2002; Miller, Glover & Averis, 2004, 2005;
LeDuff, 2004; Painter, Whiting & Wolters, 2005; Smith, Hardman & Higgins, 2006). In addition, many
research studies have noted that use of whiteboards shifts instruction from presentation to interaction and
students focus away from teachers and onto content, making interactive whiteboard lessons more student-
centered than traditional ones (Cuthell, 2005; Miller, Glover & Averis, 2003, 2004; Painter, Whiting & Wolters,
2005).
Moreover, there is some evidence that the use of interactive whiteboards can increase student achievement.
Zittle (2004), for example, explored the effects of whiteboard lessons on the geometry learning of Native
American elementary students by comparing pre- to post-test gains between 53 students whose teachers used
interactive whiteboards with 39 students whose teachers did not. He found statistically significant differences
between the groups with the interactive white board group obtaining an average gain score of 20.76 and the
control group averaging a gain of 11.48. Similarly, Dhindsa & Emran (2006) compared pre- to post-test gains
between college classes taught six organic chemistry lessons either with or without interactive whiteboards.
The authors found statistically significant gains for students taught using interactive whiteboards, with the
interactive whiteboard group averaging a mean effect size of 2.68 and the control group averaging a mean effect
size of 2.16.
The promise of the use of interactive whiteboards for increasing student achievement has led schools and school
districts across the United States to purchase and install them in K-12 classrooms in the hope that their use will
improve student scores on standardized tests. In this paper, we report on research examining the effects of one
such implementation. Specifically, the research questions examined were:
Do students whose teachers use interactive whiteboards to assist in math or reading/language arts
instruction perform better academically (on standardized tests of mathematics and reading
achievement) than those who do not?
Among classes where interactive whiteboards were used, were there differences in usage between
classes whose average test scores were above grade level means and those who werent?
Subjects and Setting
The research took place in a small city school district in northern Ohio as part of a larger evaluation of
interactive white board use. The district is in Academic Watch, meaning that a large percentage of its students
are achieving below grade level. Because Ohio Achievement Tests (OAT) are given in grades three through
eight, the results given here come from a comparison of OAT scores between students whose teachers used
interactive whiteboards in mathematics or English language arts instruction in those grades, and students in
those grades whose teachers did not use them. The study involved students enrolled in 11 elementary schools, 3
junior high schools, and 1 alternative school. One-third of the school districts student population are
minorities, with the largest number (21%) being African-American. Eight percent of the districts students live
below the poverty line.
Overall, teachers in the district who had them reported using their interactive whiteboards quite frequently,
averaging roughly three times per week. Across schools, subject areas and grade levels they expressed
overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward using them. Generally speaking, interactive whiteboard use tended to
be more frequent in the elementary grade levels than in later grades for both math and reading. However, the
frequency of use of interactive whiteboards for classroom management purposes was more consistent across
grade levels. While many teachers simply used their interactive whiteboards as substitutes for chalkboards or
overhead projectors, many others reported using them for a variety of purposes, including: displaying charts
and graphs, connecting to online activities and sources of information, videoconferencing, preparing for the
Ohio Achievement Test, playing educational games, classroom assessment, and student presentations.
Data Sources and Analysis
Data sources for the research were the mathematics and reading scores of all third through eighth grade students
in the district on the Ohio Achievement Test (OAT) for the 2006-2007 school year obtained from district
administrators. District administrators also provided demographic information for these students, including
students school, teacher(s), grade level, sex, race/ethnicity, and IEP status. In order to determine the
relationship between interactive whiteboard use and student achievement in mathematics and reading, the scores
of students whose teachers used interactive whiteboards in mathematics and/or English language arts instruction
were compared with the scores of students whose teachers did not use them using analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Average OAT mathematics and language arts/reading scores for each teachers students were also
computed.
In addition, data concerning teachers use of interactive whiteboards was obtained through an online survey
completed weekly (for 10 weeks) by teachers using whiteboards in their classes from February, 2007 through
April, 2007. Data collected through these self reports included the frequency of interactive whiteboard use in
mathematics, in reading/language arts, and/or for classroom management. Respondents were also asked to note
effective or otherwise interesting uses made of interactive whiteboards during the previous week in mathematics
instruction, in reading/language arts instruction, and/or for classroom management. Out of a total of 142
teachers using interactive whiteboards in the district, weekly responses varied from between 30 and 67,
although because not all teachers replied each week, a majority of the teachers responded at least once a month.
To explore potentially more effective uses of whiteboards, whiteboard teachers whose students scored above
overall means on standardized tests of mathematics and/or reading were identified. These included 13 teachers
whose students scores were higher than the general mean in reading, 11 teachers whose students scores were
higher than the overall mean in mathematics, and 6 teachers whose students scores were higher than the mean
in both reading and mathematics. Self-report data for these teachers was descriptively compared with self-
report data from teachers who used interactive whiteboards but whose students scored at or below the general
mean in reading and/or mathematics. Firstly, weekly frequency of whiteboard use was averaged for each
teacher across the ten week reporting period and then average use compared between high achieving teachers
and all others in three categories frequency of use for mathematics instruction, frequency of use for reading
instruction, and frequency of use for classroom management. In addition, teachers comments concerning
whiteboard usage in each category were qualitatively examined for themes and trends and similarly compared
between high achieving and average and/or below average classes.
Results
In the sections which follow, findings from statistical comparisons of standardized test scores between students
whose teachers employed interactive whiteboards and those whose teachers did not are summarized -- first in
terms of reading performance, and then for mathematics performance. Descriptive comparisons between high
achieving whiteboard classes and other classes using the technology are then explored.
Reading Achievement
Figure 1:
Comparison of Standardized Reading Scores Across Grade Levels by Whiteboard Usage
A total of 1466 students in the data set were enrolled in the classes of the 35 teachers who used interactive
whiteboards for reading/English language arts instruction in grades three through eight, while 1686 students
were enrolled in the classes of the 55 teachers who did not use interactive whiteboards in those grades. When
comparing students whose teachers used interactive whiteboards for reading instruction to those whose teachers
did not, the interactive whiteboard group performed slightly better (m = 416.95) on the Ohio Achievement
Reading Tests than the group that did not use interactive whiteboards (m = 415.55) across all grades. This
difference was not statistically significant, F (1, 3128) = 1.477, p = 0.224. However, a statistically significant
interaction was found between interactive whiteboard use and grade in school, F (1, 3128) = 2.238, p = 0.048.
As shown above (Figure 1), students in reading/English language arts classes with interactive whiteboards
outperformed students in classes without them on Ohio Achievement Tests of reading in all grades except
grades 3 and 7. No interaction between gender and interactive whiteboard use or gender, grade level and
interactive whiteboard use were found.
Mathematics Achievement
A total of 1379 students in the data set were enrolled in the classes of the 31 teachers who used interactive
whiteboards for mathematics instruction in grades three through eight, while 1813 students were enrolled in the
classes of the 43 teachers who did not use interactive whiteboards in those grades. When comparing students
whose teachers used interactive whiteboards for mathematics instruction to those whose teachers did not, the
interactive whiteboard group performed slightly better (m = 415.81, n = 1379) on the Ohio Achievement
Mathematics Tests than the group that did not use interactive whiteboards (m = 414.63, n = 1813) across all
grades. This difference was statistically significant, F (1, 3168) = 5.591, p = 0.018. Additionally, there was a
significant interaction between interactive whiteboard use and grade, F (5, 3168) = 2.925, p = 0.012. As shown
below (Figure 2), students in mathematics classes with interactive whiteboards outperformed students in classes
without them in all grades except grade 6.
Figure 2:
Comparison of Standardized Mathematics Scores Across Grade Levels by Whiteboard Usage
No interaction between gender and interactive whiteboard use or gender, grade level and interactive whiteboard
use were found.
Whiteboard Use
As considerable variance in the effects of interactive whiteboard usage was found, we decided to look more
closely at the ways interactive whiteboards were used in classes to determine how they might be used most
effectively.
Whiteboards were used slightly more often in mathematics teaching than in the teaching of reading/language
arts, and they were generally used a little less for classroom management than for either mathematics or
language arts teaching. To explore possible differences in frequency of use of interactive whiteboards between
high achieving whiteboard classes and other classes using the technology, teachers whose average student
scores were higher than the mean for all whiteboard classes on standardized tests of mathematics and reading
were identified. Frequency of whiteboard use among these teachers for mathematics instruction, reading
instruction, and classroom management was compared with frequency of use among teachers whose students
scored at or below the mean on the same standardized tests.
There was no difference in frequency of use for classroom management between these two groups. Average
use of interactive whiteboards for classroom management was three times per week in both groups. However
there was a considerable difference in the frequency of whiteboard use for instruction between groups (Figure
3). The teachers of students who scored above the mean on standardized tests of mathematics performance
reported using interactive whiteboards an average of 4.7 times per week, while the teachers of students who
scored at or below the mean on the mathematics test reported using them only 3.1 times per week on average.
Similarly, teachers of students who scored above the mean on standardized reading/language arts tests reported
using interactive whiteboards an average of 4.6 times per week, while the teachers of students who scored at or
below the mean in reading reported using them an average of 2.9 times per week.
Weekly Smartboard Use for Reading & Mathematics
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
> avg reading <= avg reading > avg math <= avg math
Classes
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
i
e
s
Figure 3:
Comparison of Frequencies of Whiteboard Usage in Reading and Mathematics by Average Test Scores
Teachers descriptions of the uses they made of interactive whiteboards were qualitatively analyzed for
emerging themes. In the paragraphs that follow, themes that emerged in the general categories of whiteboard
functions employed and instructional uses made of them in first mathematics and then reading/language arts
will be compared between teachers whose students scored above the mean on standardized tests in each subject
area and teachers whose students scored at or below the mean.
In mathematics classes, teachers reported using whiteboards for simple display, for displaying interactive charts,
graphs, and manipulatives, and to connect to the Internet to access information and interactive activities. These
whiteboard functions were employed for motivation, to present subject matter, to support preparation for
standardized tests, to play games, and to facilitate whole group practice and/or assessment activities.
Teachers whose students scored above the mean on standardized mathematics test were more likely to use white
boards interactively and to focus whiteboard activities on visualization of concepts and processes, most
especially problem solving. For example, elementary teachers noted,
Students worked with pattern blocks on the board to build fractions using different values. ie triangle
= 1/4 build a polygon worth 3 3/4; hexagon = 1 what is the value of two rhombuses + 3 trapezoids?
etc.
Usage In ReadIng Usage In MathematIcs
I've been using it to show students how to get to web-sites for problem solving. We also use the
strategies of how to "think through" a problem by modeling it with the actual problems the kids are
doing on paper. We did several strategy puzzles too.
Similarly, a high school teacher reported,
I used it to teach solving and graphing an inequality on a coordinate graph. I also have my students
go to the SmartBoard and complete the x/y table and graph the results.
The teachers of high achieving mathematics classes also seemed more likely to encourage their students to
become active participants in the teaching and learning process. Two teachers in this group, for example, had
students create math games they shared with their classmates. One teacher commented,
This type of medium holds interest more than any other I've used in 28 years of teaching. Children
take to it so quickly and come up with ideas and alternatives in lessons that I have prepared that we
can change on the spot.
In contrast, although teachers whose students scored at or below the mean on mathematics assessments also
were most likely to use the interactive features of whiteboards, they tended to use these for more teacher-
centered activities. For example, mathematics teachers in this group reported,
We are in the fractions unit. I designed a Power Point presentation called "Fraction Action" to
encourage students to get more excited about fractions.
I used the ruler to demonstrate how to line up for measuring and explained l/2 inch.
Teachers in this group also seemed to use whiteboards to access Internet activities, such as math games, more
than teachers in the high achieving group. Moreover, many of them commented on the motivational aspects of
interactive whiteboard use, whereas none of the teachers with high achieving students did. One teacher in this
group wrote, for example,
The SmartBoard serves as an incredible incentive for positive behavior. My students are well aware
that coming to the SmartBoard is a privilege and only students who are quiet and follow instructions
are allowed to engage in this activity.
In reading/language arts classes, teachers reported using whiteboards for simple display, for displaying graphic
organizers, for connecting to the Internet to access information and online activities, and for videoconferencing.
These functions were employed for motivation, to present subject matter, to support preparation for
standardized tests, to play games, for student presentations, and to support special needs students.
Perhaps even more so than in mathematics, the contrast between teachers whose students scored above the
mean on state assessments and teachers whose students scored at or below the mean seemed to be between
student-centered and teacher-centered uses of the whiteboards. For example, teachers whose students scored
above the reading/language arts mean were more likely to use whiteboards to support student presentations:
Students gave Power Point presentations they created for a book share, using Inspiration webs and
propaganda techniques to persuade others to read the books.
while teachers whose students scored at or below the mean were more likely to use it in their own presentations.
Teachers of high achieving students also tended to use the whiteboards to support visualization of concepts with
activities such as concept mapping, brainstorming, and interactive editing. They also used their whiteboards in
incredibly creative ways including for videoconferencing with other classes to support group work over distance
and for developing and presenting poetry as music videos.
In contrast, teachers whose students scored at or below reading/language arts means often used the whiteboards
for simple display of assignments, vocabulary words, and worksheets. Many of these teachers used it to play a
variety of language games and many used its timer function for timed seatwork.
Discussion
The results of this study show a small achievement increase among students whose teachers used interactive
whiteboards for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction. The increases were quite small, and
statistically significant only in mathematics. While the achievement gains found were small, the number of
students involved in this study and the fact that the analysis looked across schools and grade levels suggest that
they are real. Indeed, positive results were especially pronounced at the fourth and fifth grade levels and
significant interactions between achievement gains and grade levels were found in both mathematics and
reading/language arts. In addition, when teachers were grouped by their students mathematics and
reading/language arts performance, teachers whose students scored above the mean on both assessments were
found to use the whiteboards more frequently (almost every day) than the teachers whose students scored at or
below the means on these tests. The findings thus clearly indicate the use of whiteboards should be further
investigated, with a particular emphasis on their most effective uses. Indeed, our very preliminary exploration
of most effective uses of the technology suggests that these may relate to taking advantage of the more unique
capabilities of whiteboards, in particular their ability to support visualization and interactivity, and using
whiteboards for more student-centered activities. These possibilities should definitely be explored.
References
Beeland, W. D. (2002) Student engagement, visual learning, and technology: Can interactive whiteboards
help? Retrieved October 8, 2007 from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999.) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cuthell, J. P. (2005). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching, learning, and attainment. Proceedings
of SITE 2005 (pp. 1353-1355). AACE: Phoenix, Arizona.
Dhindsa, H. S., & Emran, S. H. (2006, March). Use of the interactive whiteboard in constructivist teaching for
higher student achievement. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference for the Middle East Teachers of
Science, Mathematics, and Computing, (pp. 175-188). Abu Dhabi.
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.
Kennewell, S., & Morgan, A. (2003). Student teachers experiences and attitudes towards using interactive
whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children. In J. Wright, A. McDougall, J. Murnane, & J.
Lowe (Eds.), Young children and learning technologies (pp. 71-76). Sydney: Australian Computer Society.
LeDuff, R. (2004). Enhancing Biology Instruction via Multimedia Presentations. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004
(pp. 4693-4695). AACE: Chesapeake, VA. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from
http://www.edcompass.de/NR/rdonlyres/B65DEF10-F8F0-40A3-B91A-
A892BED75292/0/LeDuff_Jan04.pdf
Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2003, March). Exposure The introduction of interactive whiteboard
technology to secondary school mathematics teachers in training. Paper presented at CERME3: Third
Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Bellaria, Italy.
Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Motivation: The contribution of interactive whiteboards to teaching
and learning in mathematics. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from
http://cerme4.crm.es/Papers%20definitius/9/Miller-Glover-Averis.pdf
Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2005). Presentation and pedagogy: The effective use of interactive
whiteboards in mathematics lessons. In D. Hewitt & A. Noyes (Eds.). Proceedings of the Sixth British
Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 105-112). University of Warwick.
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.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical
review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil
interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3),
443-457.
Zittle, F. J. (2004). Enhancing Native American mathematics learning: The use of Smartboard-generated
virtual manipulatives for conceptual understanding. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from
http://edcompass.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/3E2A063B-6737-400F-BD07-1D239C428729/0/Zittle.pdf
