A place for conversations that promote effective teaching with IWBs
Robert Marzano and Interactive Whiteboards
This is a post from my www.tweenteacher.com website. I had just seen Robert Marzano speak at the CUE conference (Computer Using Educators). I've posted before about my long journey down the Interactive Whiteboard road, but this keynote renewed my excitement even while I struggle alone as the only ELA teacher in my district with an IWB. Enjoy.
CUE scored Marzano.
As he began his keynote presentation on Friday at the 2009 Computer Using Educators conference, Robert Marzano confessed that he had been slow on the tech bandwagon, only recently researching enough to see what all the fuss was about. But by the end of test study, after test study, after test study, he soon realized that using certain ed tech strategies resulted undeniable successes in student achievement.
There are four strategies, he says, that are irrefutably changing the future of education, that, without proper adoption, would doom us to be "dinosaurs" in our practice.
But he warned us that while there are "no silver bullets," there are "silver bbs," and a teacher must decide "which combination of silver bbs is best for [their] classroom."
And of the four points he talked about, the leading teaching strategy that Robert Marzano felt was a true breakthrough in education (aside from the use of the internet which he is currently studying), was the use of the Interactive Whiteboard and its Voter-Response Technology.
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND VOTING TECHNOLOGY
On this, Robert Marzano was very clear. This technology is the future of education. His data was undeniable.
1. Of those classrooms employing these boards and using the voting technology, there was an immediate 17-percentile gain in scores.
2. He also found that if a teacher were using the board for 20-30 months, there was, on average, a 20 percentile gain. Thus, proving that with time and practice, a teacher can hone his/her skills to encourage even more student success.
3. The "Sweet Spot" he says, the perfect storm of student achievement according to his findings, was when the technology was used by an experienced teacher, having had it for 2 years, using it 75% of the time in class, who has had training. That teacher shows a whopping 29% gain in scores.
But there is such a thing as too much. Marzano went on to remind us that beyond this sweet spot thar be dragons, doing less for student scores, thus proving that you clearly "can't take the human mean out of teaching."
To get the most out of the interactive whiteboard technology, a district can't just give it to a teacher, and not to just any teacher. The district has to train that teacher. And, Marzano was quick to point out, that "weaker teachers require professional development in [both] effective teaching and the use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology."
Success comes in finding that sweet spot and using it properly. He stresses that, statistically, this successful strategy only works if:
* There is clear focus on content, not just using bells and whistles. The technology proves merely distracting otherwise.
* The voting component is in place, keeping track of students who are getting it and those who aren't, and using this feedback formatively.
Marzano believes that voting technology is a breakthrough technology, but it must be combined with teachers who know how to “milk” that data.
It was exciting to have Robert Marzano up there, standing behind the ed tech standard, evolving in his own theories. But it was also comforting to have such a Godfather of educational practice reminding those before him in the trenches that, despite the negative press about education, statistics continue to prove that, “If you give magic bbs to teachers who want to hone their craft, great things can happen.”
CUE scored Marzano.
As he began his keynote presentation on Friday at the 2009 Computer Using Educators conference, Robert Marzano confessed that he had been slow on the tech bandwagon, only recently researching enough to see what all the fuss was about. But by the end of test study, after test study, after test study, he soon realized that using certain ed tech strategies resulted undeniable successes in student achievement.
There are four strategies, he says, that are irrefutably changing the future of education, that, without proper adoption, would doom us to be "dinosaurs" in our practice.
But he warned us that while there are "no silver bullets," there are "silver bbs," and a teacher must decide "which combination of silver bbs is best for [their] classroom."
And of the four points he talked about, the leading teaching strategy that Robert Marzano felt was a true breakthrough in education (aside from the use of the internet which he is currently studying), was the use of the Interactive Whiteboard and its Voter-Response Technology.
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND VOTING TECHNOLOGY
On this, Robert Marzano was very clear. This technology is the future of education. His data was undeniable.
1. Of those classrooms employing these boards and using the voting technology, there was an immediate 17-percentile gain in scores.
2. He also found that if a teacher were using the board for 20-30 months, there was, on average, a 20 percentile gain. Thus, proving that with time and practice, a teacher can hone his/her skills to encourage even more student success.
3. The "Sweet Spot" he says, the perfect storm of student achievement according to his findings, was when the technology was used by an experienced teacher, having had it for 2 years, using it 75% of the time in class, who has had training. That teacher shows a whopping 29% gain in scores.
But there is such a thing as too much. Marzano went on to remind us that beyond this sweet spot thar be dragons, doing less for student scores, thus proving that you clearly "can't take the human mean out of teaching."
To get the most out of the interactive whiteboard technology, a district can't just give it to a teacher, and not to just any teacher. The district has to train that teacher. And, Marzano was quick to point out, that "weaker teachers require professional development in [both] effective teaching and the use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology."
Success comes in finding that sweet spot and using it properly. He stresses that, statistically, this successful strategy only works if:
* There is clear focus on content, not just using bells and whistles. The technology proves merely distracting otherwise.
* The voting component is in place, keeping track of students who are getting it and those who aren't, and using this feedback formatively.
Marzano believes that voting technology is a breakthrough technology, but it must be combined with teachers who know how to “milk” that data.
It was exciting to have Robert Marzano up there, standing behind the ed tech standard, evolving in his own theories. But it was also comforting to have such a Godfather of educational practice reminding those before him in the trenches that, despite the negative press about education, statistics continue to prove that, “If you give magic bbs to teachers who want to hone their craft, great things can happen.”
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Betcher on -
Thank you so much for reposting this.
His quote "To get the most out of the interactive whiteboard technology, a district can't just give it to a teacher, and not to just any teacher. The district has to train that teacher. And, Marzano was quick to point out, that "weaker teachers require professional development in [both] effective teaching and the use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology" completely supports what Mal and I found as we wrote the book... that IWB technology is fairly benign in and of itself. Although people like to quibble over whether IWBs are any good and whether they are in fact transformative or not, like all technology, they are totally dependent on how well (or poorly) they are used.
We found that good teachers manage to use them in effective ways, and in almost all cases where the IWB was not contributing to effective learning, the accompanying teaching was lacking in pedagogical understanding. In other words, an IWB is not a replacement for bad teaching. And it is an amplifier for good teaching. Reading between the lines, this seems to be in agreeance with what Marzano is saying.
Thanks again for sharing. What do others think about this article? Anyone out there making good use of student voting systems that might have an opinion on this?
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Sedro on -
Thank you for this! I've shared it with my administrators. Our school is trying to view everything through its impact on student learning. Great to have statistics from Marzano!
-
Permalink Reply by Paige Coker on
-
I agree wholeheartedly, Susan! I immediately thought about sending this to my admin upon reading it. Marzano is a well-respected name around here.
-
Permalink Reply by Judith Epcke on -
Does anyone know if Marzano's keynote from CUE was recorded and archived? Possibly on Ustream? I would love to know what his other leading points were, too.
I've known that IWBs are 'magic' in the hands of a good teacher. Really, a good teacher can make magic without an IWB, too. Great info, thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Wolpert-Gawron on -
The other three points were: Formative Assessments, Internet Use, and Teacher Feedback and Teacher Interaction. All three were tech supported. I saw someone recording it, but don't know where it's available. Contact cue.org for advice.
-Heather
aka Tweenteacher
-
Permalink Reply by larry Burk on
-
The "Sweet Spot" he says, the perfect storm of student achievement according to his findings, was when the technology was used by an experienced teacher, having had it for 2 years, using it 75% of the time in class, who has had training. That teacher shows a whopping 29% gain in scores.
Does this suggest that 75% of a classroom should be devoted to direct instruction? Leaving 25% for student interaction with each other and the teacher? Is this ahcievement in "scores" related to standardized tests? Is that why and what we teach? Is the IWB the new delivery method for all knowledge? Does the IWB teach kids to think or simply notice and be entertained?
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Sedro on
-
Hi Larry,
I can't say for certain, but having watching the keynote, he does not appear to only be talking standardized tests. And using the IWB should encourage collaboration and discussion. If it is only being used as a big mouse for the teacher to easily click through a Powerpoint, then I don't think you'd see those gains. The biggest gains came with the voting systems in classes were the teacher really leveraged the voting for formative evaluation. It helped them identify what the kids had and had not learned so they could differentiate as needed.
Marzano also said that for weak teachers, they not only need excellent PD with the board, they also need to be taught how to teach.
Is it a tool for all knowledge, clearly not. He discusses that in the keynote as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Betcher on
-
Are you implying that "use of the IWB" = "direct instruction"?
That's not how I use them... don't know about others, but just because I'm "using the IWB" doesn't mean it's just direct instruction.
BTW... why do we diss on "direct instruction" so much, as though it's somehow "dirty" to actually teach? The act of teaching is a valuable thing, and sometimes a good "teacher" knows when is the right time to be giving direct instruction and when is the right time for a more student centered approach. I'm all for a student centric classroom, but a good teacher finds the right balance between these things.
-
Permalink Reply by larry Burk on
-
Chris, first of all, I did not "diss" direct instruction. Nor did I imply that IWB equals direct instruction. Those are judgements you placed on what I wrote. I simply asked questions because I want to know the best uses of IWB. Is it more effective at cerrtain grade levesl or certain subjects? I am not saying what is right or wrong. Nor would I make the judgement on who is a "good" teacher. There are great teachers who both use and do not use IWB. Oh, one can "actually teach" by letting kids have some control. Again, I am asking to become a better teacher not to preach.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Kent on -
Hi Ian,
Firtstly, when you wrote - Does this suggest that 75% of a classroom should be devoted to direct instruction? Leaving 25% for student interaction with each other and the teacher? .... I can see how Chris would have implied that you think IWB = Direct Instruction. I thought the same.
Is the IWB the new delivery method for all knowledge? Does the IWB teach kids to think or simply notice and be entertained?
While I think I understand why you have asked these questions (and many others ask similiar questions), my opinion is that they are the wrong questions.
The future of education is not about the 'delivery of knowledge', and if anyone is trying to deliver knowledge (whether with or without an IWB) then they are not preparing students for the future. The rate of change in what is 'knowledge' is so fast and only increasing that trying to 'deliver it' is a fool's erand. Education is evolving, becoming more about teaching students how to manage and create meaning with knowledge so that they can apply these skills to to become productive individuals in a very undefined future.
Also while it is a bit cliched to repeat it here - 'An IWB does not teach students anything, teachers teach students.' But a lot of this has been covered in this ning, and if you haven't got to it yet I would recommend the 'How do you know when an IWB is being used well' discussion.
Cheers
Peter
-
Permalink Reply by larry Burk on
-
Peter, thanks for answering my questions. I appreciate it.
Cheers,
-
Permalink Reply by Charlene Chausis on
-
If you haven't found it by now...
Part one is at:
http://blip.tv/file/1915026
and
Part 2 at: http://cuecast.blip.tv/file/1915215/
this may be helpful as well: http://www.marzanoresearch.com/site/default.aspx
About
© 2009 Created by Chris Betcher on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
