action research by lilibeth m. biscayda

1

THE EFFECTS OF AN INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDON THE PARTICIPATION OF GRADE 6 PUPILS

IN MATHEMATICS AT FORT BONIFACIO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Lilibeth M. BiscaydaTeacher III, Fort Bonifacio Elementary School

[email protected]/[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this action research was to study whether the use of an interactive whiteboard during teaching had an effect on the participation of pupils in mathematics. The study was conducted in a Grade 6 class at the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School. The study took place over the course of an eight-week period; four weeks were focused on mathematics instruction using the chalkboard method while the other four weeks concentrated on mathematics instruction using an interactive whiteboard. The four-week lessons that used an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool were compared to the four-week lessons that used the chalkboard method. The researcher also made use of the formal interview to get firsthand information on the perception of the respondents concerning the use of an interactive whiteboard. Positive attitude of respondents in using an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool increased the level of motivation and engagement or participation of the respondents in the lessons.

Keywords: interactive whiteboard, action research, pupils participation in mathematics

mailto:[email protected]/[email protected]

2

INTRODUCTION

With the focus on quality education, the attention of the education sector was focused on raising the academic performance of respondents inside the classroom through the use of modern technologies. Education faces the greatest challenge in technology advancement. In order to keep abreast with the advancement in information and communications technology, Filipinos have to undergo some form of changes. These changes were inevitable since one has to adapt to the needs of the present times to be globally competitive.

At present, progress in the field of education were constantly distinguished with the arrival of great advances in information and communications technology. Computer use in the classroom has become a popular method of instruction for many teachers. The use of computer in education has finally come of age. Software engineers and computer scientists designed multidimensional educational programs that include stereo sounds, high-quality graphics and real time interaction. One area of noticeable improvement was the interactive whiteboard.

Realizing the importance of using new technologies in the teaching-learning process, the Microdata Philippines, in partnership with the Department of Education Adopt-a-School Program, introduced an interactive whiteboard to the Philippines. One of their recipients was Fort Bonifacio Elementary School, one of the pilot schools in City of Makati.

An interactive whiteboard was designed as an important tool for teaching. There was no need for markers with this equipment, only an instructional toolbar and a stylus. If there was no whiteboard available, one can even use a wireless mimio on any flat surface that can be converted into a whiteboard. According to Joie Perilla, e-Learning head of Microdata Philippines, only a few schools in the country have this interactive technology. Among them were Xavier University, Poveda, Veritas Parochial School and the FBES, the only public elementary school.

The Mimio Interactive technology has a template of lesson plans in various subjects such as math, science, biology and chemistry in all levels. A teacher may incorporate her own lessons and save them in the portable instructional toolbar. A teacher can also show mini films from the mimio to complement the lesson or go online using the mimio to search for complementing videos on YouTube and other sites. Pupils,

3

meanwhile can draw and color and answer mathematical problems on the whiteboard. The respondents don’t need to take down notes because the teacher can just print the lessons shown on the mimio and give copies to the respondents or they can just save it on a CD or USB flash drive. (Manila Bulletin, October, 2010)

An interactive whiteboard was a large, touch-sensitive display that connects to a computer and a projector. It was like a giant computer screen that users touch to operate-similar to a floor stand, offering a range of functionality. Teachers can take lessons created on their computer (including any image, text, audio file, or video file available on the Internet) and project them onto the large-format screen. Teachers and pupils can then interact with the whiteboard using a digital “pen”. They can pull down menus; drag and drop text, images and sounds; hide and reveal images and text; move and open files; write, highlight and save annotations; and rotate, flip, and mirror graphics. When connected to a computer, the whiteboard becomes a live computer desktop. Software templates such as graphs, music staves, flowcharts, and frameworks for brainstorming were usually provided with the whiteboard. (Boston, C. 2002)

Interactive whiteboards (interactive whiteboard) were reported to be an effective way for teachers to interact with and converge digital content and multimedia learning resources in the classroom (Betcher & Lee, 2009). As Research suggests, it was the interactivity in online digital learning activities that pupils most value (Ng, 2008). An interactive whiteboard enables pupils and teachers to interact with all the functions of a desktop computer through the large touch sensitive surface of the board. Interactive whiteboard essentially acts as a port through which any computer that run ICT function can be displayed and interacted with. Teachers can engage pupils with computer-based learning without being hidden behind a desktop screen or isolating learners at a computer (Betcher & Lee, 2009; Murcia, 2008b).

According to Beeland (2002) “Interactive whiteboards allow teachers and pupils to interact with technology in a manner that was not previously possible. The touch-sensitive board allows users to interact directly with applications without having to be physically at the computer which was projecting the image onto the board.”

4

Lee and Boyle (2004) described the interactive whiteboard as a ‘digital convergence tool’. Digital convergence in a classroom context was the ability to capture and present information in a usable form from a variety of ICT devices and digital information sources (Kent 2004).

The purpose of the study was to identify the effects or the benefits of this new equipment on respondents’ participation and attention in the classroom. If proven effective, the use of this latest technology will be of great help to our country’s educational system.

Background of the Study

Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2002) cited the challenge to the 21st century schools. “Schools in our country should constantly upgrade its curricula and adapt to an ever-changing technological landscape.” She further cited that teachers and administrators should continue their noble mission to constantly improve the educational system and be truly responsive to the demand time. Schools should continue to offer the most modern and relevant facilities as appropriate means to a deeper acquisition of knowledge.

Fort Bonifacio Elementary School (FBES) was driven by the mission to provide quality basic education focused on the progressive development of respondents’ academic excellence; create a learning environment that will ensure intellectual, moral, social, technological and physical growth of respondents which cater to individual differences; upgrade and enhance teachers’ competencies; and provide adequate curriculum and physical resource including modern technology and its maximized utilization. FBES was one of the schools in the Philippines, which pioneered the utilization of this newest technology, an interactive whiteboard.

Technology can be used to create a motivating classroom environment where respondents were engaged in learning. When pupils were actively engaged in the lesson, they were demonstrating their motivation to do well. The more pupils were motivated to learn, the greater the chances were that they will be successful in their studies. The researcher wants to figure out whether there will be an increase on pupil participation using an interactive whiteboard.

The results of this research will encourage teachers and educators to utilize modern technologies to enhance teaching and

5

learning process and it will serve as guide in creating an interactive virtual classroom.

Statement of the Problem

This action research sought to find out the effectiveness of using an interactive whiteboard in teaching Mathematics 6 to improve pupils’ participation. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What was the profile of the respondents in terms of:1.1 age1.2 gender1.3 scholastic rating

2. Is there a significant difference on pupil participation in Mathematics 6 using an interactive whiteboard as instructional tool as compared to the chalkboard method?

3. What were the respondents’ perceptions or attitude on the use of an interactive whiteboard on teaching and learning process?

Delimitation of the Study

The study was confined to grade 6 - Scorpio of the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School (FBES), the advisory class of the researcher. The study was delimited to the above population and condition in order not to interrupt regular classes. Pupils in other sections and other grade level were not included.

Furthermore, the scope did not go beyond the answer to the specific questions of this action research.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

6

The study was based on the statements and viewpoints of persons considered expert or authority on educational concerns about technology. It was fastened on the concept that provides a point of reference within which we can plan action.

The education faces the greatest challenge in technology advancement. Teachers need new techniques and new facilities in imparting knowledge to pupils. The use of new technologies was one good solution in order to be globally competitive.

Past researches indicate that pupils learn more content and faster with technology. One form of technology was an interactive whiteboard. The use of an interactive whiteboard within the classroom can potentially provide positive results in pupil participation as well as in academic achievement. The purpose of the study was to focus on the former. In the study, pupil participation and attention will be referred to as having the same meaning – active engagement and sustained focus in the lesson. In a research conducted by Avers, Glover, and Miller (2004) for two years from 2002 to 2004 focused on pupil perceptions, attitudes, and attention to the use and nonuse of an interactive whiteboard during instruction. Their findings indicated that in some of the lessons where the teacher shifted from the use of the board to not using it, “respondents’ interest waned and, at times, there were behavioral management issues that were not evident during the lesson” when an interactive whiteboard was being used. The same study also addressed the recognition that an interactive whiteboard in itself was a motivating factor solely because of the way in which teachers used it within the lesson. The incorporation of a different type of instructional method led to increased attention from the pupils. However, teachers also noted that the use of an interactive whiteboard still does not suggest that “we shall have a lesson where all the respondents were paying attention all the time” (Averis, Glover & Miller, 2004).

Beeland (2002) conducted a research study to examine “the effect of the use of an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool on pupil engagement. Specifically, the desire was to see if pupil engagement in the learning process was increased while using an interactive whiteboard to deliver instruction,” (p. 1). Beeland’s purpose for researching and methodology were the building blocks behind the research conducted in the classroom of the researcher. Pupil responses to surveys and questionnaires indicated the positive impact that an interactive whiteboard has on pupil participation and involvement in

7

the classroom during instruction. In Beeland’s research, when asked, “Does the use of a whiteboard in the classroom help you to be able to pay better attention? Why or why not?” all but one of the pupils said yes. One pupil even commented, “It makes me pay attention to the teacher more. When the teacher just stands up there and talks, I get easily distracted” (Beeland, 2002).

Considering all these views and concepts, the present research was focused on the effects of an interactive whiteboard with the hope of providing programs, which would be the basis for expansion on the use of interactive whiteboard in City of Makati. The outcome of the study would be an input for the enhancement program in ICT education, as well as improve respondents technological competence, promote professional growth of teachers in ICT and acquire new facilities and learning technology resources that could be accepted by the schools in the Division of City Schools of Makati.

Hypothesis

This null hypothesis was formulated to test research question number 2.

There was no significant difference on respondents’ participation in Mathematics 6 towards the use of interactive whiteboard in teaching and the traditional chalkboard method of teaching.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

These documented related resources claim to deepen and broaden the understanding of the researcher about the study under inquiry.

Interactive whiteboards were comparative newcomers to school settings. In the ICT In Schools Survey (DfES 2003a), interactive whiteboards were listed as ICT peripherals alongside digital cameras, digital projectors, DVD players, video-conference facilities and digital televisions, as opposed to desktops, laptops and palmtops, which were treated as a separate and more central group of hardware, and come first in the survey. Bulletin boards hosted by BECTA show that there was

8

an on-going discussion amongst practitioners as to the respective merits of different kinds of whiteboards, and that there continues to be professional disagreement over whether they were a more useful ICT resource than, for instance, a data projector and tablets.

A study of 10 to 12-year-olds by the School of Education of the Newcastle University looked at the effective use of interactive whiteboard technology, teachers’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards, and the impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and on respondents’ attainment (Hall, 2005). The study found out that pupils valued interactive whiteboards for their versatility, their multimedia capabilities, and the “fun and games” aspect of learning with them (Hall, 2005, p.106–107). Another study of 80 English schoolchildren looked at how 10- to 13-year-old pupils thought interactive whiteboards impacted their learning (Hall, 2005). It found that:

The indications were that interactive whiteboards can be effective tools for initiating and facilitating the learning process, especially where pupil participation and use of the board was utilized. An important finding was that there was a relationship between interactive whiteboards and respondents’ views of learning, with visual and verbal-social learning being particularly prominent. The way in which information was presented, through color and movement in particular, was seen by the respondents to be motivating and reinforces concentration and attention (p. 866).

A third study of six classrooms from 2003 to 2004 showed that interactive whiteboards had positive impacts on pupils’ motivation, engagement and self esteem (Knight, 2004).

There have been three articles by British authors that critically review the literature on interactive whiteboards. “Using interactive whiteboards in Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: A Research Bibliography” lists eight websites and seven articles and reports from 2000 to 2004 that were relevant to primary and secondary teaching of mathematics with interactive whiteboards (Jones, 2004). Some of the lessons Jones gleaned from these studies were that interactive whiteboards should be used as more than just presentation devices, and that while with interactive whiteboards, teaching can change to include more interaction because there was a need to design teaching scenarios that make full use of the interactivity available with an interactive whiteboard. He also cautioned that ultimately, where they were used in

9

every lesson, the novelty effect can diminish and that much depends on the overall quality of teaching” (Jones, 2004).

The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) published a short report in 2003 called “What the Research Says about interactive whiteboards.” It contains summaries of the benefits of interactive whiteboards for teachers and pupils, factors for their effective use, and a 14-item bibliography. The report found some key benefits of interactive whiteboards, concluding that their use “encourages more varied, creative, and seamless use of teaching materials; engages pupils to a greater extent than conventional whole-class teaching, increasing enjoyment and motivation; and facilitates pupil participation through the ability to interact with materials on the board” (BECTA, 2003).

In “interactive whiteboards: Boon or Bandwagon? A critical review of the literature,” Smith et al. “looked to identify any impact on classroom interaction, on teachers’ perceptions and on respondents’ attainment, progress, and attitudes”. They noted that while respondents’ and teachers’ views of interactive whiteboards were overwhelmingly positive, evidence of their impact on pupils’ achievement does not yet exist. They also cautioned that most of the reports showed only mixed, limited, or anecdotal support for the benefits noted."In both primary and secondary schools, and in most subjects, survey returns indicate a rapidly growing use of an interactive whiteboards, projectors, and associated software packages. Teacher ratings indicate that the use of such resources has a high impact on respondents’ learning." (Smith et al., 2006).

David Miller and Derek Glover of the Keele University carried out some research in an interactive whiteboard as a Force for Pedagogic Change in 2002. By focusing on five primary schools, they concluded that the potential benefits of an interactive whiteboards was dependent on three conditions being met: there was a will to develop and use the technology; the teachers had to be willing to become mutually interdependent in the development of materials; and there had to be some change of thinking about the way in which classroom activities were resourced.

The researchers listed some advantages of interactive whiteboards for teaching and talk about their effects on pupil motivation. They also mentioned the problems teachers encountered when using interactive whiteboards.

10

Julie Coghill, after some small-scale research involving three teachers who have used an interactive whiteboard regularly, concluded that whiteboards have the potential to enable the integration of ICT into classroom practice, to provide greater interactivity in whole-class teaching, to give access to a wide variety of ICT and internet teaching resources for whole class use, and to increase the professionalism of teachers.

Becta carried out an online survey in which 103 respondents gave their opinion as to what they see as "enabling factors" with regard to the development of ICT in the classroom. One of the highest responses was the provision of, and access to, interactive whiteboards.

BECTA do an excellent literature review in their publication -“What the research says about interactive whiteboards”. By looking at the various sources they compiled this list of 'key benefits' when using interactive whiteboards: encourages more varied, creative and seamless use of teaching materials; engages pupils to a greater extent than conventional whole-class teaching; increasing enjoyment and motivation; facilitates pupil participation through the ability to interact with materials on the board.

BECTA also suggest that teachers can maximize the impact of interactive whiteboards by investing time in training to become confident users, exploring the full range of capabilities of whiteboards, and collaborating and sharing resources with other teachers In "Online" magazine in the TES (10th March 2006) in an article called is the curriculum offline? Brian Kerslake who has been developing educational software for over twenty years, lamented a number of worrying developments in the world of educational ICT.

“Let's start with the trend of the last few years - the rise of interactive whiteboards. Are they a way of saying mixed ability teaching, individualized learning and personalized learning were all wrong? Are they being used as a tool to force the end of pupil-centered learning and a return to the whole-class teaching of the last century? Most often they were used as nothing more than expensive projector screens - with a teacher standing in front of the classroom and telling the class what to do. Is this progress?” It was not only the effectiveness of an interactive whiteboard that needs to be investigated but also the teachers’ ability to integrate technology into the teaching and learning process (Kerslake, 2006).

Many similarities between the studies mentioned above and the present one were distinguished particularly on their focus on interactive

11

whiteboard. Their findings and conclusions helped and supported the researcher to a great scale in pursuing this research.

The different studies and literature review had tested the efficiency of interactive whiteboard application in teaching. The results of the studies conducted provided an insight on the advantages, which the pupils can benefit when teachers utilized an interactive whiteboard in their teaching. The knowledge of computer technology and the use of interactive whiteboard account for the improved pupils’ participation and performance in the class in different areas.

These studies were necessary to the present study because they provided directions on how variables were used. These studies and literature served as supplementary insights for the researcher to make essential modification in the present study.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, sample and sampling technique, instrumentation or data gathering procedure, and the statistical treatment of gathered data.

Research Design

The aspiration of the researcher to identify the effects of an interactive whiteboard on the participation and performance of her respondents led her to use descriptive research.

Descriptive research involves collecting numerical data to test hypotheses or to answer questions concerning current status, conducted through self-reports collected through questionnaires or interviews or through observations (North Education, 2007).

In the study, survey, interview techniques, and observation notes were used to collect data, which illustrate the effects of an interactive whiteboard on the participation of respondents in the lessons. This information will be used to recommend the use of this new technology in other schools and to provide the needed information that might interest administrators and policymakers.

12

Sample

The study took place at the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School in Barangay West Rembo, City of Makati. The respondents involved in the study belonged to the advisory class of the researcher. The class comprised of 45 pupils consisting of 23 boys and 22 girls. With an enrolment of 3 195 from Grade 1 to Grade 6, the sample was equal to 1.25 percent of the population. Purposive sampling was used for the convenience of the researcher in order not to interrupt other classes.

Data Gathering Procedure

Data and information were gathered using survey, interview, questionnaire, observation notes, and digital photographs. During an eight-week period; four weeks were focused on mathematics instruction using the chalkboard method; the other four weeks concentrated on mathematics instruction using an interactive whiteboard.

Prior to any observations taking place, the researcher found out that it was necessary to train the respondents on the use of the interactive whiteboard.

Observations by the school principal, mathematics coordinator, and other teachers were made over the course of the eight-week research period. The researcher assigned respondents from each group to record the number of times that they were participating in the lesson. Pupil participation was defined as taking part in the discussion, paying attention to the teacher or classmates who were reciting, looking at an interactive whiteboard, looking at related materials used to present content during the lessons, responding orally, and writing to the materials presented when asked by the teacher to do so. When pupils were engaged in the lesson, a star mark was made next to their name but if the pupils were not engaged in the lesson, a tally mark was made next to their name.

The researcher observed the respondents every lesson in mathematics all throughout the study. The respondents were asked to attend and to participate in the lessons with or without an interactive whiteboard.

13

The researcher used an interactive whiteboard to present and to discuss mathematics lessons every other week from January to February. Observations were made once a week by the school principal for the period of two months, for a total of eight observations.

The data collected by the researcher was gathered, and the number of times that the pupils were not participating was compared to the number of pupils in the class, thereby giving a percentage of off-task behavior or the respondents observed to be not participating for each lesson as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Number of pupils not participating in mathematics instruction with or without interactive whiteboard

January 2012Number of Pupils Not

ParticipatingPercentage February 2012

Number of Pupils Not

ParticipatingPercentage

Week 1 Week 1Mathematics

Instruction Without

interactive whiteboard

Mathematics Instruction

Without interactive whiteboard

Monday MondayTuesday Tuesday

Wednesday WednesdayThursday Thursday

Friday FridayTotal Total


Instruction With interactive

whiteboard


With interactive whiteboard





Instruction Without




Monday Monday

14

Tuesday TuesdayWednesday Wednesday

Thursday ThursdayFriday FridayTotal Total



whiteboard






The results of the four-week lessons that used the interactive whiteboard as the instructional tool were then compared to the results of the four-week lessons that used the chalkboard method. The on-task and the off-task behaviors during each method of instruction were compared using a z-test.

The engagement and the motivation of the respondents to learn was measured using a survey based on the survey created by Moss, et al. (2007). The survey provided the necessary information to determine pupil attitude toward the use of an interactive whiteboard in the classroom (See Table 2).

Table 2. Perception and attitude of pupils toward interactive whiteboard

Stro

ngly

Di

sagr

ee

Disa

gree

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

1 2 3 4

1 I learn more when my teacher uses an interactive whiteboard.

2 I dislike going out to the front to use an interactive whiteboard.

3 It was easier to understand the lesson when my teacher uses an interactive white board.

4 An interactive whiteboard makes learning more interesting and exciting.

5 I think my teacher go too fast when she uses an interactive white board.

6 I think respondents behave better in lessons with an interactive white board.

15

7I think an interactive white board makes the drawings and diagrams of the teacher, and numbers easier to see.

8 My teacher teaches just the same with or without an interactive white board.

9 I prefer lessons that were taught with an interactive white board.

10 An interactive white board makes it easy for my teacher to repeat or re-explain the lessons.

11 I would work harder if my teacher used an interactive white board more often.

12 An interactive white board often breaks down, and this wastes time.

13 I think the lessons of my teacher were more organized when she uses an interactive white board.

14 I think an interactive white board was difficult to use.

15 We got to join in lessons more when my teacher uses an interactive white board.

16 I concentrate better in class when an interactive whiteboard was used.

To interpret the obtained mean score, the range of mean was set as illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3. Interpretation of mean scoresRange of Mean Values Scale Value Interpretation

3.50 - 4.00 4 Strongly Agree2.50 - 3. 49 3 Agree1.50 - 2.49 2 Disagree1.00 - 1.49 1 Strongly Disagree

Table 3 shows that a response of 1 indicates that respondents strongly disagree with the statement; 2, disagree; 3, agree; and 4, strongly agree. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the perception of the respondents toward the use of the interactive whiteboard in the classroom. The information gathered from the questionnaire was used as additional information for the teacher in teaching mathematics lessons using the interactive whiteboard. The average answer to each question on the questionnaire was calculated to determine the mean scores. Overall implications can then be made from these results.

The researcher also made use of the formal interview to get firsthand information on the perception of the respondents concerning the use of interactive whiteboard. It was a purposeful face-to-face relationship between the researcher and the respondents of the study.

16

Statistical Treatment of Data

To test the hypothesis and to have accurate analysis and interpretation of data, the researcher used Microsoft Excel 2007 to compute the mean, median, mode, percentage, standard deviation, and z-test.

Z-test was used to find out if there was no significant difference on the participation of respondents in Mathematics 6 toward the use of interactive whiteboard and the traditional chalkboard method in teaching.

Formula:

Where:

n1 = sample 1 size

n2 = sample 2 size

1 = mean of Group 1

2 = mean of Group 2

σ12 = variance for Group 1

σ22 = variance for Group 2

17

RESULTS

This chapter includes the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data to answer the research question.

Figures 1, 2, and table 3 shows the profile of the respondents as regards to age, gender, and scholastic rating.

Figure 1. Profile of the respondents as regards to age

Figure 1 shows that most of the respondents were between 12.25 and 12.75 years old, and their average age was 12.45.

Figure 2. Profile of the respondents as regards to age

Figure 2 shows that the respondents composed of 23 boys and 22 girls.

18

Table 3 shows the profile of the respondents as regards to age, gender, and scholastic rating in Grade 6.

Table 3. Profile of respondents as regards to age, gender, and scholastic rating of Grade 6

Subject of the Study

Number of Pupils Average Age of Pupils Average Grade of Pupils

Grade 6

Scorpio

Male Female Total Male Female Average Male Female Average

23 22 45 12.49 12.41 12.45 77.88 79.75 78.81

The table shows that the respondents were considered as homogeneous because they possessed the same level of intellect as shown in average grade of 78.81 percent.

Table 5 below shows the overall results of the number of off-task behavior of respondents.

Table 5. Number of pupils not participating in mathematics instruction with or without interactive whiteboard

January 2012Number of Pupils Not

ParticipatingPercentage February 2012

Number of Pupils Not

ParticipatingPercentage


Instruction Without




Monday 7 16 Monday 6 13Tuesday 6 13 Tuesday 7 16

Wednesday 8 18 Wednesday 7 16Thursday 9 20 Thursday 8 18

Friday 8 18 Friday 6 13Total 38 17 Total 34 15



whiteboard






Week 3 Week 3

19










whiteboard






The descriptive statistics of the data in Table were show in Table 6:

Table 6: Off-task behavior of pupils observe to be not participatingTotals with Interactive Whiteboard Totals without Interactive Whiteboard

Mean 0.55 Mean 6.7Median 0 Median 7Mode 0 Mode 7

Standard Deviation 0.67 Standard Deviation 1.19Percentage 1.22 Percentage 14.78

Figure 3 shows the overall results of off-task behavior during instruction with and without the use of the interactive whiteboard.

Figure 3. Overall results of off-task behavior during instruction with and without the use of interactive whiteboard.

20

Figure 3 shows that there were more respondents who were not participating during instruction using the chalkboard method compared to instruction using the interactive whiteboard.

A z-test was conducted to compare the total off-task behaviors of respondents during instruction with the use of the interactive whiteboard and instruction without the use of the interactive whiteboard. The z-test results provided a p-value of 0.009432 indicating that the interactive whiteboard provided significant improvements in pupil on-task behavior.

Therefore, reject the null hypothesis of no significant difference on participation of pupils on the use of an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool compared to the chalkboard method.

The overall results of survey regarding the perception and attitude of the respondents on the use of an interactive whiteboard were shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Perception and attitude of the respondents on the use of an interactive whiteboard

NO. PUPILS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 Alejandro 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 42 Alimodian 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 43 Alita 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 44 Allauigan 4 1 3 4 2 4 4 1 4 4 3 1 4 1 4 45 Almojera 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 46 Bacayo 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 47 Campos 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 48 Docdoc 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4

21

9 Entines 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 3 1 4 1 4 410 Flores 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 411 Galletes 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 412 Garcia 3 1 4 4 2 4 4 1 3 3 4 1 3 1 3 313 Jayson 4 1 4 3 1 4 4 1 3 4 3 2 4 1 4 414 Locate 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 415 Maluto 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 416 Paler 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 417 Palermo 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 418 Peralta 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 419 Quierrez 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 420 Quilab 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 3 1 4 1 4 421 Rosario 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 422 Vicente 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 423 Villareal 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 424 Benecio 4 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 2 4 425 Cadao 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 426 Cansino 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 427 Cayetano 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 428 Cesario 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 429 Dela Cruz 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 430 Deyong 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 431 Dimalig 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 432 Divina 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 433 Garce 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 434 Jarcia 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 435 Ledesma 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 436 Magnaye 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 437 Mahilom 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 438 Mendoza 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 439 Mina 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 440 Morada 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 441 Paguirigan 4 1 4 4 1 4 3 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 442 Pamintuan 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 443 Quilang 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 444 Reyes 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 445 Veldosola 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4

The results of the survey were shown in Table 8. The average answer to each question was calculated by adding the selected response from each pupil and dividing it by the total number of pupil responses.

Table 8. Summary of the perception and attitude of pupils toward interactive whiteboard

1 I learn more when my teacher uses an interactive whiteboard. 3.98

3 It was easier to understand the lesson when my teacher uses an interactive whiteboard. 3.98

4 An interactive whiteboard makes learning more interesting and exciting. 3.986 I think pupils behave better in lessons with an interactive whiteboard. 3.93

7 I think an interactive whiteboard makes the teacher's drawings and diagrams, and numbers easier to see. 3.98

9 I prefer lessons, which were taught with an interactive whiteboard. 3.96

10 An interactive whiteboard makes it easy for my teacher to repeat or re-explain the lessons. 3.98

11 I would work harder if my teacher used an interactive whiteboard more often 3.91

13 I think my teacher's lessons were more organized when she uses an interactive whiteboard. 3.98

22

15 We got to join in lessons more when my teacher uses an interactive whiteboard. 3.98

16 I concentrate better in class when an interactive whiteboard was used. 3.98

2 I dislike going out to the front to use the interactive whiteboard. 1.025 I think my teacher go too fast when she uses an interactive whiteboard. 1.048 My teacher teaches just the same with or without an interactive whiteboard. 1.02

12 An interactive whiteboard often breaks down, and this wastes time. 1.0214 I think an interactive whiteboard was difficult to use. 1.02

The results from the respondents’ questionnaire were divided into two groups. The top group, coded in green, were positive response questions, where a score of 4 was the highest response. The bottom group, coded in blue were negative response questions, whereas a score of 1 would be the highest response. The results indicate that the respondents enjoy the use of the interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool. The pupil responses also validate that they understood the questions being asked of them and realize the scoring tool.

Some comments from respondents regarding the use of the interactive whiteboard were as follows:

1. Sa chalkboard po, nagkaka an-an kami sa paghawak ng chalk. Kaya maganda po itong interactive whiteboard kasi pino-point lang yung stylus pen para makapagsulat ka. (We get “an-an” from holding the chalk in the chalkboard. It was much better to use an interactive whiteboard, you just point the stylus pen on it to write.)

2. I am so thankful na mayroon tayong ganitong interactive whiteboard, yung ibang school wala. Nakakatuwa. Ang saya saya pag gumagamit nun. (I am so thankful that we have an interactive whiteboard in our school, other schools have none. It’s amazing. Happiness filled me when I use it.)

3. Ang ganda pag sinusulat yung stylus. Parang magic! Ang sarap hawakan. Hindi madumi sa kamay, di gaya ng chalk. (It’s so nice to write using the stylus pen. It’s like magic! It’s very nice to touch, very hygienic, unlike the chalk.)

23

4. Mas nareretain po sa utak namin yung lesson kapag ginagamit nyo po yung interactive whiteboard. (The lessons were retained more in our minds when you use an interactive whiteboard.)

5. Mas naiintindihan po namin ang lesson kapag may mga gumagalaw na things at naipapaliwanag nyo po ng maayos pag may mga visual effects po kayo na pinapakita. (We understand the lessons better when we see animations and the lessons were more clearly explained when you illustrate it with visual effects.)

6. Mas nakikita po namin ang mga numbers lalo na po kapag zinoom nyo po, di gaya po sa blackboard, di ko po makita gaano. (We see the numbers more visibly especially if you use the zoom function, unlike in the chalkboard, I can’t see the numbers clearly.)

7. Ang saya po lalo na kapag kumakanta kami ng mga math songs na itinuro nyo gamit ang interactive whiteboard. (We were very happy especially when we sing math songs which you have taught using an interactive whiteboard.)

8. Mas nakatutok at nakikinig po kami lahat kapag ginagamit nyo po yung interactive whiteboard. (We were more focused, and we listen attentively if you were using an interactive whiteboard.)

9. Gustong-gusto ko po ang interactive whiteboard kasi po marami pong functions at tools na magandang gamitin. (I really like an interactive whiteboard because it has many functions and tools that were really nice to use.)

10. Natatandaan ko po ang mga lesson natin kapag yung interactive whiteboard po ang ginagamit nyo sa pagtuturo. (I remember our lessons whenever an interactive whiteboard was used in teaching.)

11. Nakakapagreview po tayo ng mabilis kasi po may mga nakasave na po kayo sa interactive whiteboard ng mga

24

lessons natin nung mga nakaraang araw. (We can review our lessons easily and fast because the previous lessons were saved in an interactive whiteboard.)

12. Mas behave po kami lahat sa tuwing ginagamit nyo po yung interactive whiteboard. (We were more behave every time you use an interactive whiteboard.)

The respondents were broadly positive in their response

regarding an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool in teaching.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, the conclusions drawn from the findings, and the recommendations based on the conclusions.

SummaryThe study aimed to determine the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of age, gender, and scholastic rating to determine the effects of an interactive whiteboard to the participation of Grade 6 respondents in mathematics at the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School and to determine the perception and attitude of the respondents regarding the use of interactive whiteboard in teaching-learning. Likewise, an action plan and recommendation based on the findings and conclusions were included.

1. The use of an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool in Grade 6-Scorpio of the Fort Bonifacio Elementary School proved to be statistically significant in increasing pupil participation. The results of significance show a p-value of .009432 for the comparison of the weeks with and without the use of an interactive whiteboard.

2. While the results of the study indicate statistical significance in using an interactive whiteboard to increase pupil participation, the researcher felt that there were several factors that affect these results.

25

a. With hands-on computer activities and unique, creative, and attention grabbing lessons, respondents were very eager and enthusiastic to participate during discussion and class activities. b. From viewing pictures and using concrete and manipulative objects to using creative softwares and multimedia resources that drove lessons and activities, respondents demonstrated great desires to interact and to participate.

c. Games, puzzles, magic tricks, and other forms of recreational mathematics used by the researcher contributed to greater level of motivation and participation of respondents in the lessons.

3. By and large, respondents were very positive about the use of interactive whiteboard. In both survey and interview responses, respondents highlighted those aspects of an interactive whiteboard, which enhance the role of the teacher in front of the class, help clarify key teaching points for a greater understanding of the lessons. All of the respondents interviewed and observed felt that an interactive whiteboard enhanced the teaching-learning process. Indeed, the features of an interactive software and associated software do support teachers in teaching lessons. Other aspects of direct teaching, such as explaining, modeling, directing, and instructing were facilitated through the use of an interactive whiteboard, or more specifically, through the use of creative and manipulative softwares, which were presented via the large screen presentation device. There was a little doubt that an interactive whiteboard gives excitement and enjoyment to the respondents. It was interesting to note that respondents were very attentive throughout the lessons.

26

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. There was a significant difference on the participation of respondents toward the use of the interactive white board and the traditional chalkboard method of teaching.

2. There was a significant relationship of the participation of respondents and the attitude or perception of respondents toward the use of interactive whiteboard as instructional.

3. An interactive whiteboard was a useful tool in the teaching-learning process. The findings of the study show that interactive white board increases the level of motivation, enjoyment, and participation of the respondents. This was also supported by researches mentioned in the review of related literature.

4. Different techniques, such as the use of modeling, peer teaching, discovery method, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning; and the use of creative softwares, multimedia resources, and interactive whiteboard help improve pupil participation especially in mathematics.

5. Hands-on computer, such as games, puzzles, contests, magic tricks, Internet research, and other creative activities, contributed to pupil engagement in the lessons.

6. The way of opening the door of the respondents to the beauty and excitement of learning mathematics was to integrate information and communication technology in teaching, such as the use of an interactive whiteboard together with the creative softwares and multimedia resources, and games, puzzles, magic tricks, and other forms of recreational mathematics

7. The positive attitude of respondents in using an interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool increases the level of

27

their motivation and engagement or participation in the lessons.

Recommendations

Based from the results and the conclusions of the study, the following were the recommendations.

1. Having been the first public elementary school in the country to have an interactive whiteboard, the Fort Bonifacio High School should work hard enough not only to serve its respondents, but also to encourage other schools to procure this new technology that will help teachers and pupils in the teaching-learning process.

2. More intensive seminars and trainings should be given to teachers for them to use effectively and efficiently an interactive whiteboard and other multimedia resources in their teaching.

3. Teachers should continually learn the latest applications and strategies in information and communication technology to improve their technological competencies.

4. Teachers should be encouraged to develop lesson plans integrating information and communication technology to improve the participation and performance of respondents in their classes.

5. A review and the study of the level of ICT skills of teachers and pupils should be done to identify the strengths and weaknesses of schools to guide their administrators and stakeholders in the preparation of ICT an action plan.

6. Further research on the use of interactive whiteboard and other ICT resources should be done every year to study the development of schools in the field of information and communications technology.

28

REFERENCES

Beeland, W. D., Jr. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning, and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Retrieved July 12, 2007 from http://www.teachade.com/resources/support/5031af3a4521c.pdf

BECTA (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. www.becta.org.uk/research.

Betcher, C. & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution. Victoria: ACER Press.

Boston C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8 (9). ERIC Digest, ERIC Identifier: ED470206.

Coghill, J. (2003). The use of interactive whiteboards in the primary school: Effects on pedagogy. Research Bursary Reports Coventry. Becta.

DfES. (2003). ICT and attainment: A review of the literature. London, DfES.

Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education. Vol. 2002 Issue 1: AACE Digital Library.

Glover, D., Miller, D. J. & Averis D. (2004). Panacea or prop: The role of the interactive whiteboard in improving teaching effectiveness. The Tenth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen http://www.icme- organisers.dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdf

Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.

http://www.teachade.com/resources/support/5031af3a4521c.pdf

29

Jones, S., & Tanner, H. (2004). Teachers interpretations of effective whole-class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms.

Kent, P. (2004). e-Teaching: The elusive promise. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Atlanta USA, March 2004.

Knight, P., Pennant J., & Piggott J. (2004). What does it mean to "Use the interactive whiteboard" in the daily mathematics lesson?. MicroMath, 20(2), 14-16.

Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy, and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge. Institute of Education, University of London/ DfES: London.

Murcia, K. (2008b). Teaching science creatively: Engaging primary teacher education students with interactive whiteboard technology. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(3), 45-52.

Ng, W. (2008). Self-directed learning with web-based sites: How well do students’ perceptions and thinking match with their teachers?.

Teaching Science, 54(2) 24-30.

Smith, F., Hardman, F., and Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 443-457.