SMART Board Professional Development

1. SMART BoardProfessional Development Proposal Created By: Jennifer Jones

2. Overview Project Goal: Facilitate the training of Millennium Middle School’s teachers in the use of the SMART Board, as well as its software and applications What is a SMART Board? An interactive whiteboard with a touch sensitive screen that works in conjunction with a computer and a projector

3. Need To supplement our lessons with an available technology (SMART Board) that is not readily used in order to provide the students with an active and constructive approach to learning. This will help students create meaningful connections and increase retention of the skills and concepts.

4. Why focus on the SMART Board? Offers a variety of capabilities: • Manipulate text and images on the screen • Take notes in digital ink and save them for future use • Use web-based resources • Show and write notes over educational video clips • Demonstrate or use software at the front of the room • Showcase student presentations • Use software provided by SMART Technologies • Versatility in accessing Internet or commonly used programs (i.e. PowerPoint)

5. Why focus on the SMART Board? • Creates active learning environment • Utilizes the constructivist approach • Allows for use of Brophy’s “strategy teaching” method • Teacher can model skills or activities while conducting “think alouds”

6. Why use PD time for this? North Central Regional Educational Laboratory • “The primary reason teachers do not use technology in their classrooms is a lack of experience with technology.” • “Ongoing professional development is necessary to help teachers learn not only how to use technology but also how to provide meaningful instruction and activities using technology in the class”

7. Plan of Operation Teachers and Subject Matter: Media Specialist (Expert) and Project Director will design and develop the training and materials. Setting: Training sessions will occur during weekly department meeting times. Learners: Each department (science, math, language arts, social studies, music and art, and electives) would be assigned a training day.

8. Implementation

9. I will complete online training sessions in order to show my commitment to the project as well as developing my knowledge base in order to prepare the training materials.

10. I will present my written proposal as well as copies of research to my administration to obtain approval for the project.

11. I will distribute an online survey to determine the staff’s knowledge base, comfort level, current usage, and satisfaction with the SMART Board.

12. The Media Specialist, Administration, and I will meet to analyze survey data and determine exact needs of staff. Training agenda and materials will then be developed.

13. Materials will be released to staff before training occurs, including an advance organizer of training agenda (Brophy) and links to online SMART Board training.

14. Training sessions will following the format of: presenting information, asking questions and guiding discussions, and engaging in activities. It will also include content-specific ideas and resources.

15. Follow-up materials will be provided to aid in retention. Based on department feedback, it can either be in electronic format or in another face-to-face session.

16. Survey will be re-distributed to staff. Data will be compared to determine if meaningful use of and satisfaction with the SMART Board has increased following the training. (Evaluation)

17. Cost-Effectiveness Main cost is time. We would need time for: • Teachers to complete the survey • Survey is short so it can be completed during prep time • Media Specialist and Project Director to develop training materials • Release time would be ideal, but would cost extra money • One hour of each department’s meeting time • No monetary cost as meetings are required, but does take time away from other focuses, such as NCA

18. Alternatives • Training at an all staff meeting • Eliminates small group setting • SMART online training • Eliminates interpersonal and individualized focus • SMART on-site training • More release time and more funding would be needed • SMART off-site training • Increase cost but would reach less staff members

19. Conclusion When the alternatives are considered, the proposed training is the most effective use of time and resources. Overall, costs of this project would be kept to a minimum and seems a small price to pay for the utilization of a technology that can be used to increase student achievement.

20. Resources Beauchamp, G. and Parkinson, J. 2005. Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 97-103. Available online: http://www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/1168/beyond+the+wow+factor.pdf Brophy, J. 1999. Teaching. Educational Practice Series. Ser. 1. Lausanne: International Academy of Education. Available online: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/EducationalPracticesSeriesPdf/prac01e.pdf Kopkowski, C. 2006. Ready to upgrade? NEA Today. Available online: www.nea.org/neatoday/0603/coverstory.html Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C.C., Remz, A.R., and Zorfass, J. 1993. Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/ North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 1999. Critical issue: using technology to improve student achievement. Available online: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm SMART Technologies. 2005. Interactive whiteboards and learning: a review of classroom case studies and research literature. Available online: http://www.education.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/30258C60-24D0-43D5-A1D2-BDE1A93B6F93/0/InteractiveWhiteboardsAndLearning.pdf