SMART in Mathematics? Exploring the effects of in-class-level differentiation using SMARTboard on math proficiency

This paper explored the effects of in-class-level differentiation by making innovative use of an interactive whiteboard (SMARTboard) on math proficiency. Therefore, this paper evaluates the use of SMARTboard in class, in combination with teacher training, using a randomized field experiment among 199 pre-vocational students in seventh grade in the Netherlands. During 6 weeks, students in the intervention group participated in math classes in which the SMARTboard was used to apply level differentiation. The teachers of these classes received a specific training (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge [TPACK]) in using the SMARTboard in class. Control classes were taught by teachers without the training, who did not use the SMARTboard in class. The results showed that level differentiation in class, which was possible because of the efficient use of the SMARTboard, significantly increased math proficiency with 0.25 points.

[1]  Steve Higgins,et al.  Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[2]  Carla Haelermans,et al.  The effect of individualized digital practice at home on math skills-Evidence from a two-stage experiment on whether and why it works , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Ian Hall,et al.  Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[4]  J. Ghysels,et al.  The Effect of an Individualized Online Practice Tool on Math Performance-Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment , 2013 .

[5]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge , 2006, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[6]  S. Cabus,et al.  Does school time matter? On the impact of compulsory education age on school dropout , 2011 .

[7]  Anna Potocki,et al.  Effects of computer-assisted comprehension training in less skilled comprehenders in second grade: A one-year follow-up study , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge , 2005 .

[9]  Syh-Jong Jang,et al.  Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese Secondary School Science Teachers Using a New Contextualized TPACK Model. , 2013 .

[10]  David Miller,et al.  The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sector , 2007 .

[11]  Syh-Jong Jang,et al.  Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Rudolf van der Velden,et al.  The flexible professional in the knowledge society : new challenges for higher education , 2011 .

[13]  Syh-Jong Jang,et al.  Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[14]  Alexander van Deursen,et al.  Using the Internet: Skill related problems in users' online behavior , 2009, Interact. Comput..

[15]  Ruth Wood,et al.  The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[16]  Alberto Abadie.  Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators , 2005 .

[17]  Mikael Lindahl,et al.  The Effect of Extra Funding for Disadvantaged Pupils on Achievement , 2004, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[18]  D. Walburn,et al.  Europe 2020 , 2010 .

[19]  Omar S. López.  The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[20]  James F. Allen,et al.  The Flexible Professional in the Knowledge Society , 2011 .

[21]  Patricia Ann Riska.  The Impact of SMART Board Technology on Growth in Mathematics Achievement of Gifted Learners. , 2010 .

[22]  Geoffrey D. Borman,et al.  A Randomized Field Trial of the Fast ForWord Language Computer-Based Training Program , 2009 .

[23]  I. Leung.  Teaching and learning of inclusive and transitive properties among quadrilaterals by deductive reasoning with the aid of SmartBoard , 2008 .

[24]  S. Machin,et al.  New Technology in Schools: Is There a Payoff? , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[25]  Olga Pilli,et al.  The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the achievement, attitudes and retention of fourth grade mathematics students in North Cyprus , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[26]  M. Burns,et al.  Effect of a Computer-Delivered Math Fact Intervention as a Supplemental Intervention for Math in Third and Fourth Grades , 2012 .

[27]  L. Shulman.  Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 1986 .

[28]  Rose Tirotta,et al.  Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Twan Robben,et al.  Over de drempels met taal en rekenen , 2008 .

[30]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[31]  Guinevere F. Eden,et al.  A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers , 2008, Brain and Language.

[32]  H. James.  VARIETIES OF SELECTION BIAS , 1990 .

[33]  John P. Martin.  Skills for the 21st century , 2018 .

[34]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. , 1991 .

[35]  Gert Rijlaarsdam,et al.  Over de drempels met taal en rekenen: hoofdrapport van de expertgroep Doorlopende Leerlijnen Taal en Rekenen , 2008 .

[36]  Alan B. Krueger,et al.  Putting Computerized Instruction to the Test: A Randomized Evaluation of a "Scientifically-Based" Reading Program , 2004 .

[37]  De grenzen van gedifferentiëerd onderwijs , 2005 .

[38]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) , 2009 .

[39]  Gary Beauchamp,et al.  Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard , 2005 .

[40]  Prakash Chandra Jena,et al.  Effect of smart classroom learning environment on academic achievement of rural high achievers and low achievers in science / Prakash Chandra Jena. , 2013 .

[41]  Beverly Park Woolf,et al.  Improving Math Learning through Intelligent Tutoring and Basic Skills Training , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[42]  Jason T. Abbitt.  An Investigation of the Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Technology Integration and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) among Preservice Teachers , 2011 .

[43]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis , 2012 .

[44]  Jesse Rothstein,et al.  Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Effects of Inter-District Competition , 2004 .

[45]  Cathy Lewin,et al.  Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice , 2008, Education and Information Technologies.

[46]  D. Epple,et al.  American Economic Association Competition between Private and Public Schools , Vouchers , and Peer-Group Effects , 2007 .

[47]  Alan C. K. Cheung,et al.  The Effectiveness of Educational Technology Applications for Enhancing Mathematics Achievement in K-12 Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis. Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE). , 2011 .