You are here:

Struggling to Move Beyond Projection: A Case Study of Instructional Use of an Interactive White Board in Elementary Social Studies
ARTICLE

, University of Louisville, United States

CITE Journal Volume 15, Number 4, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are increasingly prevalent in U.S. classrooms. Yet, little is known about how this tool is being used to teach social studies. This case study through classroom observations, interviews, and student focus groups examines how two fifth-grade teachers use t he IWB to teach U.S. history. The data indicate that when the teachers were observed utilizing an IWB in their social studies instruction, they shifted away from the student-centered instructional practices observed when they did not use the device. Their IWB-centered instruction was teacher centered, utilizing the device predominantly for projection. This trend is likely due to a lack of confidence in how to integrate the IWB technology with social studies pedagogy, as well as a perceived lack of ready-made social studies materials for the IWB. Hammond and Manfra’s (2009) giving-prompting-making model of technology-based social studies pedagogy was used to frame the teachers’ instructional practice.

Citation

Sheffield, C.C. (2015). Struggling to Move Beyond Projection: A Case Study of Instructional Use of an Interactive White Board in Elementary Social Studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 541-567. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour, 49, 227-267.
  2. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research& Development, 53(4), 25-39.
  3. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (2010). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
  4. Hammond, T.C., & Manfra, M.M. (2009). Giving, prompting, making: Aligning
  5. Hoose, P. (2001). We were there, too! Young people in US. History. New York, NY: Farrar Straus Giroux.
  6. Jacobsen, D.A., Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2009). Methods for teaching: Promoting student learning in K-12 classroom. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
  7. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2008). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards in Australian schools. Australian Educational Computing, 23(1), 8-13.
  8. Kitchen, S., Finch, S., & Sinclair, R. (2008) Harnessing technology schools survey 2007.Retrieved from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency website: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1554/1/becta_2007_htssfindings_report.pdf
  9. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge.
  10. Lee, J.K., Doolittle, P., & Hick, D. (2006). Social studies and history teachers’ uses of nondigital and digital historical resources. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1(3), 291311.
  11. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media& Technology overview 2015 (Research report). Retrieved from the Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
  12. Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Chapter four: How parents and schools regulate teens’ mobile phones (Research report). Retrieved from the Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/04/20/chapter-four-howparents-and-schools-regulate-teens-mobile-phones/
  13. Manfra, M.M., & Hammond, T.C. (2008). Teachers’ instructional choices with studentcreated digital documentaries: Case studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 223-245.
  14. Martorella, P.H. (1997). Technology and the social studies– or: Which way to the sleeping giant? Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(4), 511-514.
  15. Marzano, R.J.(2009). Teaching with Leadership, 67(3), 80-82.
  16. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 195-209.
  17. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  18. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  19. Mohon, E.H. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teacher’s pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 301312.
  20. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 375-387.
  21. Quillen, I. (2012, February 8). Battle for white-board market supremacy heats up. Education Week Digital Directions. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2012/02/08/02whiteboard.h05.html
  22. Shulman, L.S.(1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  23. SMART Technologies. (2006). Interactive whiteboards and learning: Improving student learning outcomes and streaming lesson planning. Retrieved from http://www.sharpsav.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Int_Whiteboard_Research_Whitepaper.pdf
  24. SMART Technologies. (2013). SMART quick facts and stats – SMART Technologies. Retrieved from http://smarttech.com/About+SMART/About+SMART/Newsroom/ Quick+facts+and+stats
  25. Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: what makes a board smart?Computers in Education, 53, 368-374.
  26. Swan, K.O., Hofer, M., & Levstik, L.S. (2007). And…action! Students collaborating in the Digital Directors Guild. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 19(4), 17-20.
  27. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  28. Teacher’s Curriculum Institute. (2010). Bringing learning alive: Methods to transform middleand high school social studies instruction. Palo Alto, CA: Teacher’s Curriculum Institute.
  29. Teddle, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research:
  30. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Search for public schools. Retrieved from the Institute of Education Sciences website: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch
  31. VanFossen, P.J. & Waterson, R. (2008). It’s just easier to do what you did before… An update on Internet use in secondary social studies classroom in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36(2), 124-152.
  32. Whitworth, S., & Berson, M.J. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.