Running Head: SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL

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 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

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 students 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

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

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 ComputerAssisted 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 touchsensitive 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

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 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 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 Educations 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 Table 1 Timeline of Proposed Research Date September 2010 December 2010 Data Collection Method

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).

January 2011 May 2011

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

June 2011

Teachers will present their findings to the administration.

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL Significance of proposed research

10

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 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), 312. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ838735) Campbell, M.L., & Mechling, L.C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction

11

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 Development (ASCD). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/ Upper Canada District School Board. (2010). Smart in the 21st century classroom: Integrating SMART Boards with assistive technology. Retrieved from

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL

12

http://center.uoregon.edu/conferences/ISTE/2010/handout_uploads/KEY_499574 16/Dunn_summary_paper_Smart_Inclusion1.doc.pdf Zascavage, V., & Winterman, K. (2009). What middle school educators should know about assistive technology and universal design for learning. Middle School Journal, 40(4), 46-52. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ833643)

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL Appendix A UDL Class Learning Profile Template

13

Student Learning Profile Grade: NETWORK Teacher: Strengths Weaknesses Preferences / Interests

Recognition (Learning what)

Strategy (Learning how)

Affect (Learning why)

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL Appendix B

Week Of _____________________ Literacy Center 1. Name: ________________________________ What I Did

14

Listening Station 2.

Writing Station 3.

Classroom Library 4.

Big Book Station 5. Making Words Station 6.

SMART Board Station 7. Read Around The Room 8.

Creation Station 9. Word Game Station 10.

Readers Theater 12 Spelling Station