LiveBoard Studies

TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM AND ITS INTEGRATION WITH HANDS-ON SCIENCE AND MATH PROGRAMS

LIVEBOARD AND TEACHERS

• 1000+ teachers were asked (1994-1997)

We found that most of the teachers were not afraid of the LiveBoard. Many didn't even realize it was a computer. Teachers understood easily the paradigm of the "Electronic Chalkboard." The technology was seen as a welcomed addition to their teaching.

• LiveBoards in Schools working with teachers

About 10 teachers took a 20 hour class throughout the 1995-96 granting period. Two of the teachers were taught in detail on developing the multi-media presentation by themselves. The teachers taught over 800 students throughout the granting period.

The use of the LiveBoard was more effective than we had expected. In the one elementary school in which we placed a LiveBoard under the direction of Christina Souza, she reports that the children learned science concepts faster. It was also very effective in teaching other teachers on how to instruct hands-on science.

Big screen, shared surface technology computers are definitely a powerful teaching tool. It highly suggested that the LiveBoard was probably a more effective way of "computerizing" our nation's schools than a "computer on every desk."

Unfortunately, this grant also showed that there is a reluctance by school administrators and education technology coordinators to change their paradigm of technology in the classroom. This grant allowed us to talk with many educators who sometimes didn't understand the technology they were purchasing.

"The LiveBoard has a multitude of uses that meets the needs of educators. It also has the capabilities to do telecommunications. It is as easy to use as a chalkboard with a wireless pen. I have had teachers and students in other states talk with me and my students. When I explain that I can write or draw and create images that can be edited, colorized, erased, saved, retrieved, or printed they agree that we are very fortunate to have this advanced technology. No doubt that the biggest impact the LiveBoard has made is that I have become a better teacher and my students better learners." Christina Souza, Science Resource Teacher, Lincoln Elementary, Newark, California

LIVEBOARD AND STUDENTS

• PRE-SCHOOL - Short term study (10 students)

Retention of content by children using sound, graphics, and ability to move objects seemed to be greater. The ability to repeat and expand the lesson every day added to the children's memory. During this 5 day study, children seemed to remember sounds of different dinosaurs easily. The students all knew that this was a computer.

• Kindergarten - First - Long term study (300-400 students)

Children seem to remember the graphical image easily when it is repeated week after week. Students seem to associate the graphical image with the science or math activity. Video clips were very powerful. Students seemed to remember the key concept provided by each clip. They especially liked when the video was of a hands-on activity they participated in.

Retention seemed the highest when the MeetingBoard files had associated workbooks, as students wrote their observations.

• Second - Sixth - Long term study (2000-2500 students)

This age group was able to use all the functionality of the LiveBoard. They learned content easier, and able to do the labs more successfully than if the lecture is given without the appropriate MeetingBoard files. The same high memory retention as with the Kindergarten to First grade group was seen. The workbooks provided students with the ability o understand science concepts better than without workbooks.

Students at this age can author their own materials. We had a class that met 3 times, 2 hours each. Students were able to author their own mini presentation by the end of the third meeting. They included text, graphics, and sound.

• Junior High - no data

 

• High School - 6 month study

Students at a local high school designed lectures that was presented to other students. The students discovered that "neat" presentations do not always teach other students. They learned how they could extract pictures from the Internet and other clipart sources. Students learned a lot about technology, but more importantly they learned how the difference between education and entertainment.

The high school students that have worked at our facility have also remarked that they learned more working on the LiveBoard than in school.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

• TEACHERS/STUDENTS

We wanted to test if telecommunications can assist staff at the Math/Science Nucleus in teaching teachers remotely while interacting with students. The "Remote Master Teacher" model was very successful. We hooked up 2 school sites, Gardenhill Elementary in LaMirada, California and Edmondson in Norwalk, California.

Every week, Dr. Blueford transmits a geology lesson and talks to the class on a phone intercom. Students like 8 year old Sonny Kaesbauer love it. " I wish we had LiveBoards in every room. That'd be cool. They're so much better than little computers," he said." Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, October 19, 1994.

We were able to teach the students successfully, as long as the material was coordinated. In another school site in Brisbane, California we did not coordinate the materials, making the lessons not as successful. In the southern California example, we provided the hands-on material to both teachers. After we taught one class, one of the teachers had to teach the other teacher. This worked out wonderfully. Both teachers agree that this method forced them to really learn the individual lessons. It was just like a "master" teacher was helping them along. The graphical files then are saved on the LiveBoard, ready for another lesson. It was easy and efficient.

• OTHER OBSERVATIONS

LIVEBOARD AT DISCOVERY PLACE, NORTH CAROLINA

A LiveBoard was placed at Discovery Place, an interactive science museum in Charlotte, North Carolina for a 6 month period. We wanted to test the durability and the ease of use. The LiveBoard was placed on the "floor" and thousands of children per day would write their name on the board. The LiveBoard performed well, with no major failures. The students were able to understand that the infrared pen was a "mouse."

The LiveBoard was also used to experiment on telecommunication ease. As long as the correct phone wires and connections were available, the LiveBoard was flawless. We were able to train personnel easily when we were hooked up.