Running Head: SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 1 Final Assignment #2 Integrating SMART Board Technology into classroom practice with the Principles of Universal Design for Learning: A Research Proposal Word Count: 2000 Camille Maydonik 36428084 ETEC 500 Research Methodologies in Education Instructor: Dr. Clifford Falk University of British Columbia August 14, 2010
14
Embed
ETEC 500 - Final Assignment #2 - Research Proposal
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Running Head: SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 1
Final Assignment #2
Integrating SMART Board Technology into classroom practice with the
Principles of Universal Design for Learning:
A Research Proposal
Word Count: 2000
Camille Maydonik
36428084
ETEC 500 Research Methodologies in Education
Instructor: Dr. Clifford Falk
University of British Columbia
August 14, 2010
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 2
I am interested in researching if the use of SMART Board technology is more or
less beneficial than traditional literacy center activities to meet the principles of Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) in a grade one program. My interest in this area stems from
studying UDL for the past two years in the school where I teach. UDL is a topic at the
forefront of my school district, as we are focused on the personalization of student
learning. Furthermore, my school is currently in the process of installing SMART
Boards in every classroom in order to facilitate the implementation of the principles of
UDL in classroom practice. A SMART Board is also known as an interactive whiteboard
(IWB) and is a screen that has a touch-sensitive surface that works in conjunction with a
computer and a projector.
During the course of my graduate studies, I have delved into UDL more deeply
than other teachers at my school as I was presented with many projects and assignments
where I could research UDL. During the 2009-2010 school year, I was one of three
classroom teachers who had a SMART Board in the classroom. Through my trials using
the SMART Board with my grade one students during literacy centers, I developed an
interest in how I can best integrate the SMART Board into my literacy center design in
order to fulfill the principles of UDL and as a tool to deliver the curriculum.
Statement of the Problem and Research Question
The UDL framework proposes that educators strive for three kinds of flexibility:
(a) representation, to represent information in multiple formats and media, (b) expression,
to provide multiple pathways for students action and expression, and (c) engagement, to
provide multiple ways to engage students’ interest and motivation. Educators work
towards flexibility by identifying and removing barriers from their teaching methods and
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 3
curriculum materials. The three UDL principles, implemented with new media, can help
educators improve how they set goals, personalize instruction, and assess student
progress. (Rose & Meyer, 2002)
Although many teachers have a good understanding of the principles of UDL,
they do not have a satisfactory understanding of lesson design and activities that they
could implement in their classroom in order to meet the diverse needs of their students.
This research study is an action research and the teachers involved in this qualitative
study will explore the SMART Board using the principles of UDL and will develop
literacy centers, both traditional and with the SMART Board, as a team. The research
question that this action research will answer is: “Does using the SMART Board to
implement UDL principles in classroom practice support student learning?” More and
more schools are installing SMART Boards into classrooms, under the assumption that a
SMART Board is an excellent tool to support every student’s learning, sometimes
forgoing other strategies and tools that could be beneficial.
Literature Review
Most of the literature available on the topic of UDL is narrative and informative
with very few quantitative research articles. The main focus of these articles is inclusion
and building capacity. Glass, Palmer Wolf, Molloy, Rodriguez, Horowitz & Burnaford
(2008) present the following assumptions about inclusion and UDL. Grounding Glass et
al. (2008) is their statement that “a disability occurs at the interface between an individual
and a setting” (p. 4). In their explanation of UDL, Glass et al. (2008) explain that,
“digital learning environments have helped other populations as well, such as reluctant
readers and English-language learners” (p.6). Abell (2006) echoes this sentiment as he
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 4
describes that UDL is a channel through which “students and teachers can access the type
of information that meets their needs and the cognitive level of students while
challenging and guiding them through the learning process” (p. 11). Although
technology is used widely in UDL classrooms, Clark (as cited in Abell, 2006, p.15) is
careful to point out that “technology or media is not the driving force behind learning; it
is the content that is presented through the media itself.” In fact, technology does not
always need to be present in the classroom to successfully implement UDL.
As more and more educators implement the principles of UDL in their
classrooms, many are choosing digital media to differentiate for their students.
Therefore, “an educator will need to be computer literate, knowledgeable about current
technology, and aware of the learners’ specific assistive technology needs” (CAST, 2007;
Resta, Bryant, Lock, & Allan, 1998 as cited in Zascavage & Winterman, 2009). When
considering the use of digital media in the classroom, the educator must consider and “be
aware of environmental issues such as noise, distraction, or potential academic
compromises” (Zascavage & Winterman, 2009) that the media will bring to the
classroom as the decision to implement digital media into the classroom will affect all
students in the class, regardless of ability or disability.
The Upper Canada District School Board (2010) investigated the use of SMART
Boards integrated with assistive software within the framework of UDL. The purpose of
their action research was to discover “how teachers’ adoption of technology evolves
along with their beliefs about inclusion and their teaching practices with respect to
participation and inclusion for all students” (Upper Canada District School Board, 2010,
p.1).
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 5
The achievement and participation of 16 students who were indentified as having
special needs was tracked and questionnaires were completed by teachers and students
proceeding and after the research study. Notable findings from the study indicate that all
students in the classrooms were highly engaged with use of the SMART Board and
assistive software. Furthermore, the students with special needs were found to be more
engaged and participated more with their peers. Also, teachers felt that the students with
special needs were meeting their Individual Education Program (IEP) goals sooner than
expected.
Campbell and Mechling (2009) present an investigation of observational and
incidental learning of nontarget information in their research “Small Group Computer-
Assisted Instruction with SMART Board Technology”. This research focuses on the
effectiveness of teaching letter sounds to a small group of three students with learning
disabilities using computer-assisted instruction with SMART Board technology. This
experimental, quantitative research study was carried out flawlessly, accounting for all
threats to internal and external validity.
The researchers selected three kindergarten students (two males and one female)
with learning disabilities based on their IEP. Although this selection was not random, the
researchers accounted for this threat by having the participants serve as their own
controls. The researchers used the SMART Board in combination with an interactive
slide show that the students were able to access and control by pressing on the touch-
sensitive surface of the SMART Board.
The results of the study are supportive for teaching letter sounds to the students
identified as having learning disabilities. This study does not have any notable threats to
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 6
validity and is an important contribution to the field of education and technology as it can
be generalized to other student populations to assist teachers in personalizing learning. In
my grade one classroom, I have personally witnessed students acquiring target and
nontarget information and knowledge by working in small groups of two at the SMART
Board.
A central theme that emerges is that incorporating the principles of UDL benefits
all students, with or without exceptionalities. The studies (Campbell & Mechling, 2009;
Upper Canada District School Board, 2010) show that students in a UDL classroom
environment experience heightened engagement with the material. That being said, it is
also evident from this literature review that designing learning activities based on the
principles of UDL does not necessarily mean that technology or digital media is involved.
(Browder et al., 2009)
The research studies pertaining specifically to SMART Boards (Campbell &
Mechling, 2009; Upper Canada District School Board, 2010) share the theme of
providing students with a flexible environment for representation and expression of their
learning, which has shown to improve student learning.
Methodology
Participants
Participants will consist of the students in three, grade one French Immersion
classrooms located in the same school in Calgary, Alberta. Enrolment for the 2010-2011
school year is projected to be 20 students in each classroom. Two of the classrooms have
one homeroom teacher, while the third has two homeroom teachers who job share.
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 7
Materials
All three, grade one, French Immersion classrooms are equipped with a SMART
Board, a laptop computer with Notebook software and all necessary materials to prepare
traditional literacy centers. All four teachers are familiar with Notebook software, which
is the software used in conjunction with the SMART Board to create lessons. Although
the teaching experience of all four teachers varies, all four have experience in the
development and creation of traditional literacy centers.
Procedure
Beginning in September 2010, teachers will work together during team planning
time to design literacy centers based on the principles of UDL. Teachers will design
centers for the SMART Board as well as traditional learning centers. Planning will
continue until the holiday break in December 2010. Also during this time period,
teachers will be working on individual student profiles in order to understand the
qualities, including strengths, needs, and interests, that students bring to the curriculum.
Teachers will use the UDL Class Learning Profile Template to profile students (see
Appendix A).
In January 2011, the students will be introduced to the literacy centers. In order
for students to fully understand the learning goals of the centers and their responsibilities,
it is to the teachers’ advantage to introduce one or two centers maximum at a time. Once
students have a clear understanding of the procedures and processes during literacy center
time, students will participate in the literacy centers 30 minutes a day. Students will refer
to a pocket chart to know which centers they should be working in on a given day.
Students will use the SMART Board in groups of 2 when they are assigned to that center.
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 8
Each student will use the SMART Board every fifth school day, as this is what the
schedule will allow. All students will be required to fill out an accountability chart (see
Appendix B) in order to demonstrate what they accomplished in the literacy centers each
day. This action research will continue until the end of May 2011.
Data Collection and Analysis
Teachers will use the UDL Class Learning Profile Template to establish
individual student profiles. These profiles will serve as the control. On a weekly basis,
teachers will assess student learning through the correction of student work and by
analyzing the student accountability chart. As such, teachers will be able to qualitatively
analyze if using the SMART Board to implement UDL principles in classroom practice
supports students learning more, less or equal to traditional literacy centers.
Timeline. The proposed action research will follow the schedule in Table 1.
Ethical Considerations
The teacher researchers in this action research project will strictly adhere to the
Calgary Board of Education’s Administrative Regulation 1064 – Recording and
Publishing Student Images and Work. The purpose of this regulation is to permit
photographs and other recordings of Calgary Board of Education students and student
work as part of, or as supplement to, the educational program, while ensuring that the
personal privacy of students, teachers and other staff members is respected. The parent
or guardian of the participant will be required to sign the Consent to Post or Publish
Student Information and Work prior to the commencement of this action research project
that will be distributed by the teacher researchers.
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 9
Table 1
Timeline of Proposed Research
Date Data Collection Method
September 2010
⇓
December 2010
January 2011
⇓
May 2011
June 2011
• Teachers will work together during
team planning time to design
literacy centers based on the
principles of UDL.
• Teachers will work on individual
student profiles (see Appendix A).
• Students will be introduced to the
literacy centers (January) and will
be required to use an accountability
chart (see Appendix B).
• On a weekly basis, teachers will
assess student learning to
qualitatively analyze the research
question: “Does using the SMART
Board to implement UDL principles
in classroom practice support
• Teachers will present their findings
to the administration.
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 10
Significance of proposed research
Due to the nature of the proposed action research, teachers will be encouraged to
plan as a team and gain a better understanding of how to design learning opportunities in
a UDL classroom through this collaboration. Furthermore, teachers will understand how
to select appropriate tools, including the SMART Board to support student learning by
providing a more flexible learning environment. As shown in the research, students in a
UDL classroom experience heightened engagement with the material. Furthermore, the
results of this action research could be used to secure funding for tools such as the
SMART Board.
SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL 11
References
Abell, M. (2006). Individualizing learning using intelligent technology and universally
designed curriculum. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(3).
Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ843849)
Browder, D., Mims, P., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2008). Teaching
elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 33(1-2), 3-
12. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ838735)
Campbell, M.L., & Mechling, L.C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction
with SMART Board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental
learning of nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 47-57.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ823212)
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2007). What is universal design for
learning? Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html
Glass, D., Palmer Wolf, D., Molloy, T., Rodriguez, A., Horowitz, R., Burnaford, G., et al.
(2008). The contours of inclusion: Frameworks and tools for evaluating arts in
education. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED507539)
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: Universal
design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum