Annotated+Bibliography

Article # 1
====Torff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. // Computers & Education, 54 (2), 379-383. // ====

This article focused on research done on interactive white board (IWB) technology used in a diverse, New York school. The study focuses on 4th, 5th, and 6th graders and their teachers, specifically in teaching mathematics. The researchers created a control group and treatment group based on teacher surveys. The control group was comprised of teachers who rated their use of IWB as "no use" or "little use." The treatment group was comprised of teachers who rated their use of IWB as "moderate use" or "extensive use." At the end of the research period, students were also given a survey to determine the differences between the the two groups. Overall students who had teachers in the treatment group reported slightly higher motivation levels in math, compared to the control group. Although weak, the study did find that teachers who support and use IWB technology produced larger motivational effects in their students.

This article contributes to my inquiry question by discussing one possible contribution of using interactive white boards in teaching math in K-5. The article mentions that IWB technology is becoming prevalent in almost every classroom so it is important to look at the effects that IWB technology has on students. This article was especially relevant to my question because it focused specifically on teaching math using IWB. One contribution that the study found was that students who had teachers who supported and used IWB in math were more motivated than students who did not have teachers that necessarily supported and rarely used IWB. Student motivation is an important factor is student learning, especially in the elementary grades. It is notable that using IWB technology can give students higher motivational levels in learning math because this could mean more engagement in learning and greater understanding of the material.

Article #2
====Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2008, December). Enabling enhanced mathematics teaching with interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from http://www.keele.ac.uk/media/keeleuniversity/fachumsocsci/sclpppp/education/interactivewhiteboard/ncetmreport-1.pdf ====

This document is a detailed report of research done on Interactive White Board technology being used in secondary schools. The team of researchers compiled and considered video evidence from secondary math classrooms of teachers (experience and unexperienced) using IWB technology. The teachers involved with the project reported making considerable professional development and the departments involved benefitted from the experience. The report includes detailed outcomes in 3 sections: a pedagogy for interactive whiteboard use, interactive whiteboard website, materials, and uses, and how interactive are your lessons (professional development)? These sections include evidence from the research and further suggestions for improving teaching in using IWB in math.

Although this specific research project was focused around secondary math instruction, I believe the outcomes and suggestions could apply to teachers using IWB technology in K-5 math instruction. One comment made in the outcomes section stated that "teachers are often reticent to develop their skills in the use of IWB to support mathematical learning." Many teachers do not go beyond presentation software when using their IWB. This article outlines ways teachers can enhance their IWB pedagogy by integrating interactive problem solving and higher order questions. The article also lists several online sources for use on the IWB. Finally, the article lists such suggestions as where to place the white board in the classroom and how this matters in teaching. Using the suggestions for making IWB technology more interactive and develop lesson plans with higher order thinking can help students develop their mathematical understanding.

**Article #3**
Swan, P. & Marshall, L. (2010). Revisiting Mathematics Manipulative Materials. //APMC, 15// (2), 13-19. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ891801.pdf

The authors discuss research done by Perry and Howard on the use of math manipulatives in the K-6 classroom. The authors use the research findings to discuss the relevance of the study to today's classroom, especially with the increase of digital technologies such as the interactive whiteboard. The authors came to the conclusion that while manipulatives can be useful for teaching mathematics, it is vitally important that teachers have the proper training and understanding to use them.

Although this article focuses primarily on math manipulatives in general, I found it interesting because teachers use interactive whiteboards as virtual math manipulatives and I believe this will become more and more common. Teachers must continue to use material that is relevant to their students, regardless of changes in technology. Although teachers can use computers and IWB as virtual manipulatives, this does not mean that they are more beneficial in teaching. The authors suggest using the "real thing" before introducing these virtual manipulatives. The authors noted that "younger children experience difficulty understanding two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional objects" (p. 14). Also the article mentions that with IWB student use is somewhat limited and the IWB is used mainly for demonstration of manipulatives.

**Article #4**
Kent, P. (2006). Using interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching. //APMC, 11//(2), 23-26. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ793925.pdf

This article discusses the pedagogy used in an Australian school which was developed to take advantage of the IWB technology and particularly focuses on the teaching of mathematics. The article supports IWB technology by discussing examples of how it is being used to enhance math instruction. The main arguments are: using an IWB can promote intellectual quality through substantive discussions, IWB technology allows teachers to modify the context of the lesson in order to engage students with real, practical or hypothetical problems that connect to their world, and teachers and students can use IWBs to easily create complex connections between previous learning across all KLA.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">This article almost directly answers my inquiry questions by giving reasons and examples of how IWB technology can contribute to math instruction. Although this article focuses on one particular school, I think the concepts discussed in the article can be applied to any classroom. The pros of using IWBs in teaching math listed above all contribute and enhance instruction. This article is in strong support of using the technology to facilitate higher order thinking in math.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Informal Sources:
<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Anderson, S. (2010, January 6). Interactive whiteboards - Sage on the stage? [Web log post] Retrieved from http://blog.web20classroom.org/2010/01/interactive-whiteboards-sage-on-stage.html

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">This blog post reflects on the usefulness of IWB technology in the classroom. The author mentions comments from teachers and other who have had experience with interactive white boards, as well as discussing his own experience. The main point of the blog is that while IWB technology can be useful, teachers and districts need to really question how "interactive" the board actually is. When students come to the board to manipulate a problem, the teacher is only interacting with one student - not the whole class.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">This blog brings up a great point when relating the content to math instruction. Most teachers would agree that IWBs are a great tool to have in the classroom, but are the boards really contributing to instruction? The article suggests expanding instruction to more interactive tools such as laptops and flip cams would allow for a more "interactive" classroom. What I take away from this blog is that the IWB shouldn't be the end-all in technology. An important thing to remember is that, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">"The teacher gives the board "life" not the technology."

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Garwood, B. (2009, May 21). Make the most of your interactive whiteboard. Retrieved from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2009/05/make-the-most-of-your-interactive-whiteboard

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">This post, from Ed Tech Magazine's website, discusses the best practices for using interactive whiteboards in the classroom. The author lists several practical uses for the whiteboard. Some practices include, using video recording to record lessons, using attention grabbing tools, and borrowing and modifying lessons. An important quote from the article states, "Good teaching comes down to this: being able to leverage the possibilities that an interactive whiteboard brings to the classroom while being mindful that it's the lesson you want your students to remember, not the manner in which it was taught."

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">This post provides a general overview of the best practices of using an interactive whiteboard. These practices can be applied specifically to math instruction. One example from the article is recording instruction of a multistep math problem. Recording how to do a problem allows students to review instruction and allows those students who may have been absent to go back and watch the lesson. I think the quote is important because it reminds teachers that it is more about the content. If the whiteboard contributes to the math concept, then great, but if it doesn't then the teacher doesn't need to use it.