Using Smart Boards and Manipulatives in the Elementary Science Classroom

90 TechTrends • May/June 2014 Volume 58, Number 3

AbstractThis study summarizes the results of a

survey administered to 48 elementary schools in the largest school district in a southeastern U.S. state, conducted by university faculty to evaluate the use of SMART Boards and hands-on experiences, the objectives of which were to identify preparedness of elementary classroom teachers in teaching elementary Science, in using SMART Boards and in using manipulatives for teaching in the elementary Science classroom, as well as to identify frequency with which elementary classroom teachers use SMART Boards and/or manipulatives and reasons for using or not using SMART Boards and/or manipulatives in the elementary Science classroom. Results of the survey will be used to address areas of needed improvement among pre-service teachers, to identify areas in which early career teachers need additional training or information and how best to improve the quality and training of the Elementary Science component of the education degree.

Keywords: Hands-on science, manipula-tives, SMART Boards or interactive white board technology

T ransforming American Education: Learn-ing Powered by Technology (Office of Educational Technology, 2010) is presi-

dent Obama’s plan urging educators to “embrace digital technologies and digital forms of learn-

ing to better prepare students for their future” (p. 93). It becomes our job as educators to blend the available technologies in this digital age so our students can be successful in their academic career and life. Technology is changing at a daily rate but what type of technology can best com-pliment the teaching of science? One form that is popular in school are interactive white boards (IWBs) and one brand of those is SMART Boards. Introduced in 1991, SMART Boards combine the functionality of a whiteboard, computer and pro-jector into a single system which uses touch con-trol to perform all mouse and keyboard func-tions. The large size and touch-sensitive display allow for easy navigation and make it suitable for group activity. In general, IWBs seem to invite collaboration through social interaction and communication. Specifically, Mercer, War-wick, Kershner and Staarman (2010) found that IWBs offer some useful facilities for supporting discussions during children’s group-based sci-ence learning in English primary classrooms. The researchers (Kershner, Mercer, Warwick & Staarman, 2010) concluded that IWBs can make some identifiable contributions to children’s productive communication and thinking, while also providing both a tool and environment that encourages co-constructed knowledge building (Warwick, Mercer, Kershner & Staarman, 2010).

Due to their collaborative natures, IWBs are highly effective for whole group instruction, active discussion and questioning (Preston & Mowbray, 2008), thus, holding “students’

Using Smart Boards and Manipulatives in the Elementary Science ClassroomBy Susan F. Martin, Edward L. Shaw, Jr., and Lynda Daughenbaugh, University of South Alabama

Volume 58, Number 3 TechTrends • May/June 2014 91

attention much better than a traditional lecture-and-blackboard lesson ever could” (Vallis and Williamson, 2009, p. 18) while at the same time allowing material generated to be saved and revisited at a later date. In addition, SMART Boards provide access to a wide range of digital resources to help explore and construct knowledge of key scientific concepts by incorporating short, focused interactive segments before, during and/or after first-hand exploration (Preston & Mowbray, 2008). Incorporating such resources allows teachers to increase the lesson’s pace to effectively engage and motivate students. Vallis and Williamson (2009) credit IWBs for solving the problem of only having one computer for a large number of students by making it easy and enjoyable for both teachers and groups of students to interact with educational software. As a result, SMART Boards are an effective means of augmenting typical teaching strategies to make science learning more motivational and meaningful for today’s technologically advanced students (Giles & Shaw, 2011). Swarat, Ortony and Revelle (2012) in a study about students’ interest in science learning stated that “activities that were ‘hands-on’ in nature and allowed for engagement with technology elicited higher interest” (p. 515).

SMART Boards are an effective tool for facilitating a “minds on” approach to science set forth by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) where teachers provide many, varied opportunities for children to explore and experiment so that learning science is “an active enterprise” as students make their own discoveries through first-hand, investigative experiences when they are used to enhance, rather than replace, hands-on investigations and other practical activities (Preston & Mowbray, 2008). They are ideal for introducing a lesson and determining children’s prior knowledge (Preston & Mowbray, 2008) as well as summarizing instruction and assessing understanding once a knowledge base has been investigated and mastered (Giles & Shaw, 2011).

Few studies have been conducted to identify the concerns of teachers in terms of preparedness for using technology in the elementary classroom, yet SMART Boards have been installed in many classrooms throughout the United States. In fact, they have either been installed in or are available in portable form in all the classrooms of the target population of teachers for this research study.

Through informal feedback from classroom teachers and pre-service teachers, it seemed that many educators felt as though they were being asked to use tools to teach students when they

had not themselves been fully trained on how to use such tools. Specifically, many educators were reporting that they felt inadequate in teaching content to their pupils through use of new technologies, yet they felt the pressure of school administration to use such technology in the classroom. In other cases pre-service teachers who visited the classrooms as part of their internship or field experiences, reported that many of their cooperating teachers did not make use of manipulatives or SMART Boards in the classroom. Other pre-service teachers indicated that they did not feel confident in using SMART Boards or manipulatives as part of their lessons.

Research QuestionsThe purpose of the survey was to gather in-

formation to improve the university’s elementa-ry teacher education program, specifically with regards to preparedness for teaching science and using technology and manipulatives in the elementary science classroom.

There were initially four objectives for this survey:1. Identify preparedness of elementary classroom

teachers in teaching elementary Science.2. Identify preparedness of elementary classroom

teachers in using SMART Boards.3. Identify preparedness of elementary classroom

teachers in using manipulatives for teaching in the elementary Science classroom.

4. Identify frequency with which elementary classroom teachers use IWBs and/or manipulatives to teach in the elementary Science classroom as well as reasons for using or not using SMART Boards and/or manipulatives in the elementary Science classroom.

The research questions were:Do elementary teachers feel prepared to teach

science?Do elementary teachers feel prepared to use

SMART Boards technologies to teach science?

Do elementary teachers feel prepared to teach science using manipulatives?

Do elementary teachers use manipulatives and/or SMART Boards in teaching science?

MethodIn the academic year 2011-2012, a team of

three elementary education faculty members at a public university in the Southeast United States designed a survey to determine the preparedness for teaching science and SMART Board technologies, using manipulatives, and using


manipulatives and SMART Board technologies in their classroom. The first draft of the survey was reviewed by faculty who suggested items that should be included in the survey. The survey was administered to elementary school teachers in the largest public school system in the state. The survey was anonymous in terms of identifying characteristics, including school name. Questions included basic demographic data, such as the grade level(s) taught and number of years in the teaching field, as well as questions about the four areas of focus. Fifteen of the 19 survey questions were multiple choice formatted. The final four questions invited teachers to share other information. The university places its elementary education students for pre-service field observations and internships within the schools in this system. The majority of graduates from the program are employed in this school system. This district has 53 elementary schools and employees approximately 2,500 teachers.

The researchers obtained permission to conduct the research from the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and from the Superintendent of the school system. The survey’s url address was emailed to each principal of the elementary schools. The email stated we had permission to conduct the research from the superintendent and asked each principal to please have each faculty member complete the survey at their earliest convenience. The subjects were all elementary teachers that were either: self contained, departmentalized, special education, writing and mathematics coaches and physical education. A teacher or teachers from each of the 53 schools responded to the survey. The total number of respondents was 238. The survey took approximately ten minutes to complete. Quantifiable survey data were analyzed and free-response answers were recorded.

ResultsTwo hundred thirty-eight educators work-

ing in grades K-5 participated in the survey. Of that number 22.5% were first grade teach-ers, 19.4% kindergarten teachers, 18.3% taught third grade, 14.1% second grade, 13.6% fifth grade and 12.0% 4th grade. The other 22.6% of respondents were made up of school counsel-ors, administrators, pre-K teachers, special ed-ucation teachers, reading coaches, technology specialists, media specialists and multi-grades teachers. Thirty-five percent of those who re-sponded had been teaching for more than 15 years, while 6.5% reported that they were in their first three years of teaching. The percent-

age of female teachers, 97.9%, to male teachers, 2.1%, likely speaks to the larger number of fe-male teachers employed in elementary grades rather than a lack of participation in the sur-vey on the part of male educators. Over half of those who responded to the survey, 53.4%, had achieved at least a master’s degree, while 5.1% had an educational specialist degree and 0.9% a PhD. The remaining participants indicated having at least a bachelor’s degree.

Of the 238 teachers surveyed, 77.4% reported that they were in self-contained classrooms, which for the purposes of this study means that they teach all content related subjects. Those reporting their classroom as content specific were 12.3%, while 11.3% described their classrooms as resource rooms. The remaining teachers classified their classrooms as fine arts rooms, physical education classes, technology based classrooms and media centers. Those responding reported being AMSTI (Alabama Math, Science and Technology Initiative) certified (33.5%) or not AMSTI certified (66.5%).

Teachers surveyed were asked to rate their comfort with using technology. Of those who responded, 37.4% categorized themselves as, Tech savvy, can use technology with ease, and sometimes assists others who need help with technology, while 56.6% said they, know enough about technology to feel fairly confident using it in the classroom. The remaining participants claimed that they were either not confident with their use of technology in the classroom or stayed away from technology all together.

SMART Board Use and TrainingOf the participants, 96.3% had a SMART

Board in their classrooms; only 3% reported the available SMART Board as being un-mounted or portable. Of the remaining participants, 2.5% did not have a SMART Board in their classrooms but did have access to one when they wanted to use it, while only 0.8% reported not having access to a SMART Board. This availability of technology would suggest that all students are being taught with use of SMART Boards and similar interactive technology. In fact, 83% of participants indicated that they use SMART Boards every day for delivery of instruction, and 30.1% reported using it as their primary mode of instruction. Some participants (33.6%) said they used their SMART Boards for allowing students to problem solve. Figure 1 shows the use of SMART Boards specific to the teaching of science. Note that during the course of a week, 24.4% claimed that they used the SMART Board at least three days per week for delivery of science instruction, while 22.2% used the


SMART Board daily for science instruction. A small number (6.2%) said they do not use the SMART Board in any way.

Figure 2 shows the various training initia-tives experienced by those surveyed. Only 7.2% reported having been trained as part of a uni-versity course. This suggests that either more courses should incorporate training into their curriculum, or more student seminars should specifically relate to the practical application and scope of using SMART Boards in the classroom.

Use of Manipulatives inDelivering Science Instruction

Manipulatives and hands on activities are some of the ways science teachers enforce concepts with their students. Of the participants, 87.2% reported using manipulatives and hands on activities during large group instruction, and 53.7% for small group instruction. Those using manipulatives and hands on activities with students in classroom centers were 26.1% while 46.3% reported using them to reinforce concepts through independent practice.

To get some understanding with regards to the use of SMART Boards versus manipulatives and hands on activities for teaching science, participants were asked to compare the two. Figure 3 shows the results of the comparison. Note that 40.9% used manipulatives and hands on activities less than they used the SMART Board, while 25.6% used them an equal amount of time.

Reasons for SMART Board Use To gain a better understanding of the

motivation behind the use of SMART Boards in the science classroom, teachers were given a variety of reasons to which to respond. Figure 4 illustrates the reasons behind SMART Board use. Note that only 11.1% reported that they used the SMART Board because they were required by school administration to do so. The survey yielded a wide array of experience with and usage of SMART Boards and manipulatives, as well as insights into the perceived confidence of teachers in the areas of SMART Board use, manipulative use, and comfort with science content. For example, when participants were asked to compare their use of SMART Boards to their use of manipulatives, the largest percentage indicated that they use the SMART Board more than they do manipulatives. There was still a percentage, however, who indicated that they seldom use the SMART Board (see table 1 on the following page).

Figure 1. SMART Board Use for Delivery of Science Instruction

Figure 2. Types of SMART Board Training.

Figure 3. SMART Board Use Versus Use of Manipulatives and Hands On Activities.


The open comments section allowed teach-ers to expand their answers. Participants were asked to complete the following statement: I seldom use manipulatives for teaching science be-cause -or- I often use manipulatives for teaching science because. . . . Two hundred five teachers responded. Responses for those indicating their frequent use of manipulatives included a shown interest by the students, the belief that hands-on activities are beneficial for students, acknowl-edgement of differing learning styles among stu-dents, formal training to use manipulatives and mandates as a part of the AMSTI or school wide curriculum. Of those who responded that they seldom use manipulatives, the majority report-ed that they either lack resources or lack storage space for manipulatives. One teacher related, “I seldom use manipulatives for teaching science because I don’t have all the cool manipulatives.

Also, in first grade our time for science is SEVERELY limited. We never get to all of it. I usually have two 40-minute periods per week.” Similarly, another teacher said, “I seldom use manipulatives for teaching science because I do not have many manipulatives for the topics covered.” On the other hand, some teachers com-mented more to the effect of, “I often use manipulatives mainly when I perform an experiment, which is basically every skill.” Others expressed sentiments such as, “I seldom use manipula-

tives for teaching science because much of the content is found through manipulative activities found online or through the SMART Board.” Several teachers conveyed the same sentiment as one teacher said, “I use the SMART Board more often than manipulatives because the les-sons are already put together ahead of time and it takes less time to watch an experiment on the SMART Board rather than pulling out and hav-ing to put away all of the manipulatives,” while another made summarized use of both manipu-latives and SMART Boards with, “I use hands-on manipulatives so every student can be fully engaged in the lesson. It is very motivational to know they will have an opportunity to ’play‘with the science. I use the SMART Board for watch-ing films and demonstrations and stories that support the science program. I also use it to ma-nipulate scientific equipment I do not have, or wouldn’t use with first graders. For example, fill-ing and pouring virtual beakers and test tubes.” The comments were wide ranging and offered a broad array of information to inform how best to advance the use of manipulatives and SMART Boards and narrow the areas in which teachers seem to need the most support. The comments also shed light on the idea that there are perhaps model teachers who would be willing to take on the role of teacher–leader in helping train fellow educators on the use of SMART Boards and ma-nipulatives in the elementary Science classroom.

The survey also collected information about teacher readiness. Teachers were invited to complete the statement: I feel comfortable with science classroom content because-or-I do not feel comfortable with science classroom content because. Of the participants 196 responded, and the response was overwhelmingly positive in with regards to content confidence. Respondents cited as reasons for confidence such things as availability of related technology and resources, strong training by university professors, AMSTI

Table 1. Use of SMART Boards compared to use of manipulatives

Figure 4: Reasons for Using the SMART Board in the Classroom.


training and a love for the content area. Said one participant, “I feel confident with science classroom content because I have previously researched the information for my lessons. Even though I may not have access or can always purchase manipulatives, my students and I are still able to use technology. We also learn concepts through a variety of creative activities.” While several lamented that science seems to take a backseat to reading and math, others commented that they integrate science into other content areas. While the vast majority of comments indicated that these particular teachers felt comfortable with science content, a few (seven participants) indicated that they did not feel confident, saying, “I am not confident because the content or textbooks do not follow the COS and I do not have the resources to teach effectively. I’m having to create everything I need and with no funding it is very difficult.” Another commented similarly regarding resources with, “I don’t feel confident because I think we should have the resources and manipulatives to help us better prepare our students.” Still another cited lack of time with the content as a reason for misgivings saying, “I do not feel confident with science classroom content because we are not given time to explore and conduct experiments which the students really enjoy.”

Participants were asked to, Briefly describe your use of SMART Boards as compared to your use of manipulatives and hands on activities in the teaching of science (i.e. for what purpose are they used, and what role do they play in the classroom?). While some reiterated that they do not use SMART Boards for teaching science, the answers from the majority of those who responded centered around student interest and summarization. Of the 183 who responded to this question, about half of them indicated that they use SMART Boards to introduce topics, while they are more inclined to use manipulatives for reinforcement. One participant explained, “I use both equally to aid in instruction. The students respond well to technology because it is a big part of their lives. Manipulatives are used frequently to guide understanding and gives them a hands on experience.” Another participant suggested that SMART Boards are manipulatives saying, “Not only do I use my SMART Board for teaching, but I also allow my students to use it for hands on learning.” This was a frequent response among those indicating that younger children enjoy the tactile nature of the SMART Board activities. Said one participant in praise of SMART Boards, “They are phenomenal and powerful instruction tools. They provide ways to show

my students anything which can be presented on a computer desktop-educational software-websites and others. It involves my students in learning with technology and accommodates different learning styles. They are interactive but more importantly a KID MAGNET!” Several indicated their gratitude for having access to a SMART Board since they felt their access to manipulatives and textbooks was inadequate to almost nonexistent.

Participants were invited to share any other information that they deemed relevant to the topic. Of the 49 participants who responded, many simply indicated that they were grateful for a forum in which to express their opinions. Other participants reiterated their appreciation of SMART Board accessibility with statements such as, “I use the SMART Board as much as possible and it is a very good resource that allows me to deliver more information in a quicker fashion and in a more meaningful and fun way.” Several expressed concern that teachers are still undertrained on the use of the SMART Boards with such comments as, “Many of us receive training on using them, but then we don’t get them in our rooms until later, so the training is pretty much wasted.” Similarly one participant commented, “I feel student teachers need more instruction in how to use these various technologies during their college courses. On several occasions, it has been very evident that student teachers do not have knowledge of how to use SMART Board technologies and a lot of their time is used learning how to create documents or the many uses of this technology.” Such comments suggest what we suspected at the start of this research--that despite the training that currently exists, much more still needs to be done to prepare teachers and future teachers to use the technology effectively. Still others were cautionary in their praise with such statements as, “The SMART Board is a valuable resource but it does not take the place of true hands-on authentic learning,” and “SMART Board activities are not the same as hands-on in science. Students need to be able to touch and hold something, not just touch it on a screen.” A few others spoke to the discernment used with SMART Board activities with, “Teachers need to know what is available and what makes a good vs. poor use of the Smart Board (movies are not all bad, but generally less appropriate than Flash animations that allow kids to ’play‘ with the topics.) When it comes down to it, you have to do what pacing says and what the principal wants.” Still others suggested that a balanced approach is preferable with sentiments such as, “I believe that use of a variety of teaching tools is


essential in science. No matter what you choose to use if you do the same thing day in and day out children will become bored with it after a while. If you can find activities and experiments using various teaching tools I think students respond more enthusiastically and in return get a better grasp of the objectives being taught.”

ConclusionThe use of technology has become an

essential part of the teaching process (Edutopia, 2008; Hamill, 2012). No longer is the use of technology merely encouraged, but it has become essential in order to prepare children to be globally competitive (Cohn, 2005). The limitations of this study are that it was conducted in only one county and with elementary classroom teachers at one particular period of time. Descriptive or inferential conclusions cannot be drawn outside of these groups; however the findings do contribute to current, limited research on teacher preparedness in using technology and manipulatives. Based on the results of this survey the faculty of this university are better informed about teacher attitudes toward technology use and preparedness. The faculty has begun to address these concerns through program modifications in university classrooms and field experiences, as well as increased training and use of manipulatives and SMART Boards prior to field experiences. Further, the faculty is working on initiatives to improve the quality and confidence of classroom teachers who previously graduated from the elementary education program and are now teaching in the local school system. Hopefully, a follow-up survey will yield different results indicating the proposed changes have proven effective to both pre-service teachers and classroom teachers. By establishing a more effective system of technology and manipulative science experiences, classroom teachers should have a stronger foundation from which to start and therefore make more effective use of the educational tools provided to them and their elementary students.

Correspondence in regard to this paper should be addressed to: Susan F. Martin, University of South Alabama, College of Education, UCOM 3100, Mobile, AL 36688, (Email) [email protected]

ReferencesCohn, D. (2005, June 9). Boards get brains, chalk vanishes.

Wired. Retrieved from Wired http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/06/67710

Edutopia (2008, March 16). Why integrate technology into the curriculum?: The reasons are many There’s a place for tech in every classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-introduction

Giles, R. M., & Shaw, E. L., Jr. (2011). SMART Boards Rock! Using technology to investigate geology with young children. Science & Children, 49(4), 36-37.

Hamill, K. (2012, February). Changing the landscape of education. Edcompass. Retrieved from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/smart_publications/edcompass/feature_articles/current_article/edcompass-featurearticle-feb2012.pdf

Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? International journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 359-383.

Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ‘dialogic space’ for children’s collaborative activity? Language and Education, 24(5), 367-384.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Preston, C., & Mowbray, L. (2008). Use of SMART Boards for teaching, learning and assessment in kindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50-53.

Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515.

Vallis, K., & Williamson, P. (2009). Build your own board. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(9), 18-20.

Warwick, P. Mercer, N., Kershner, R, & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Computers & Education, 55(1), 350-362.

Documents

Using Smart Boards and Manipulatives in the Elementary Science Classroom