Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores
Ronald M. Masera, St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services, United States
St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services . Awarded
This researcher examined the effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive Whiteboard instruction on short- and long-term word-recall and attitude-test scores of primary students. The sample included 87 children, 45 kindergarten and 42 first-grade students. Participants were 41 males and 46 females from a suburban elementary school in eastern Long Island, NY.
Elementary Learning Style Assessment (ELSA) (Dunn, Rundle & Burke, 2007) was administered to determine students' learning-style preferences. Using a repeated-measures-counter-balanced design, three subdivided groups were taught sight words in three different instructional methods. Students were taught 45 words, 15 per treatment, and received: pre-tests before each instructional unit, short-term posttests immediately following instruction, and long-term posttests six weeks later. The Comparative Value Scale (CVS) (O'Connell, 1999) was administered to determine attitudinal differences.
Student achievement was determined by gain-scores derived by subtracting the pre-test scores from both the short- and long-term posttests. The data showed significantly higher short- and long-term word-recall scores when students were instructed through Tactual/Kinesthetic instructional methods over the Traditional (p < .05) or Interactive Whiteboard ( p < .001) approaches In addition, students enjoyed learning with Tactual/Kinesthetic resources more than the other methods (p < .001).
A correlation analysis indicated that students who were less tactile and those who were analytic processors achieved statistically better with Traditional methods in both the short- and long-term. Amongst lower-achieving students, those with kinesthetic preferences scored significantly better (p < .05) on short-term posttests in the Tactual/Kinesthetic treatment. In addition, less tactile, low-achieving students performed statistically better with Traditional methods (p = .01).
These findings support that one reading approach may not be appropriate for all students. In this study the Interactive Whiteboard approach was least effective. The researcher acknowledges that shared access and turn taking using Interactive Whiteboards may have undermined student learning gains, as compared to the other treatments. It appears clear, however, that especially for low-achieving students, when instructional presentation is congruent with students' preferred learning modality the greatest achievement gains occur. Overall, students achieved their highest test scores and expressed the most positive attitudes with the Tactual/Kinesthetic resources that engaged the children actively, through Tactual/Kinesthetic activities.
Masera, R.M. Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores. Ph.D. thesis, St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services.
Citation reproduced with permission of ProQuest LLC.
For copies of dissertations and theses: (800) 521-0600/(734) 761-4700 or https://dissexpress.umi.com
Cited ByView References & Citations Map
Systematic Review of the Studies Examining the Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on Teaching and Learning: what we do learn and what we do not
Artemis Kyriakou & Steve Higgins
Preschool and Primary Education Vol. 4, No. 2 (Nov 17, 2016) pp. 254–275
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.