Running Head: SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL

Final Assignment #1

SMART Board Technology and Universal Design for Learning: A Review of the Literature

Word Count: 1805

Camille Maydonik 36428084 ETEC 500 Research Methodologies in Education Instructor: Dr. Clifford Falk University of British Columbia August 1, 2010

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL Abstract The aim of this literature review is to identify key themes in current literature on using SMART Boards to implement the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in classroom practice. This review consists of an introduction to the principles of UDL as well as a synthesis of research articles that investigate the use of the UDL framework with SMART Boards and with education in general. The conclusion of this literature review will identify areas for further research. Keywords: Universal Design for Learning, SMART Board, K-12 education

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL SMART Board Technology and Universal Design for Learning: A Review of the Literature A typical K-12 classroom is composed of a group of students with diverse learning needs. Educators are charged with the task of providing each student with the

appropriate instructional support and challenge. To respond to this need, many educators utilize assistive technologies, among other strategies, as an instructional tool to personalize learning for their students in an effective and efficient manner. As educators differentiate their teaching, Universal Design for Learning becomes an important construct and guide as it is a research-based model for curricular design that ensures participation in the general educational program of all students, including those with disabilities (Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), 2007). The UDL framework proposes that educators strive for three kinds of flexibility: (a) representation, to represent information in multiple formats and media, (b) expression, to provide multiple pathways for students action and expression, and (c) engagement, to provide multiple ways to engage students interest and motivation. Educators work towards flexibility by identifying and removing barriers from their teaching methods and curriculum materials. The three UDL principles, implemented with new media, can help educators improve how they set goals, personalize instruction, and assess student progress. (Rose & Meyer, 2002) UDL is a topic at the forefront in my school and district. At the school level, we have been studying UDL for the past two years. Furthermore, our school is currently in the process of installing SMART Boards in every classroom in order to facilitate the implementation of the principles of UDL in classroom practice. A SMART Board is also

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL known as an interactive whiteboard (IWB) and is a screen that has a touch-sensitive surface that works in conjunction with a computer and a projector. The purpose of this literature review is to develop an understanding of the use of SMART Boards in order to understand if this technology can assist educators in

designing lessons and activities in a UDL classroom. There is very little current research that addresses specifically both SMART Boards and UDL. Therefore, I have chosen to review research literature from both topics in order to identify common themes between the two. This literature review will summarize, analyze and critique pertinent research articles, beginning with UDL and then transition to SMART Boards. A synthesis of common themes across the chosen research articles will follow and the conclusion of this literature review will identify areas for further research. Literature Review Inclusion Most of the literature available on the topic of UDL is narrative and informative with very few quantitative research articles. The main focus of these articles is inclusion and building capacity. Glass, Palmer Wolf, Molloy, Rodriguez, Horowitz & Burnaford (2008) present the following assumptions about inclusion and UDL. Grounding Glass et al. (2008) is their statement that a disability occurs at the interface between an individual and a setting (p. 4). In their explanation of UDL, Glass et al. (2008) explain that, digital learning environments have helped other populations as well, such as reluctant readers and English-language learners (p.6). Abell (2006) echoes this sentiment as he describes that UDL is a channel through which students and teachers can access the type of information that meets their needs and the cognitive level of students while

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL challenging and guiding them through the learning process (p. 11). Although technology is used widely in UDL classrooms, Clark (as cited in Abell, 2006, p.15) is careful to point out that technology or media is not the driving force behind learning; it is the content that is presented through the media itself. In fact, technology does not always need to be present in the classroom to successfully implement UDL, as demonstrated in the following critique.

Browder, Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell & Lee (2008) present an investigation into methods of planning and implementing shared stories for three students (two males and one female) with multiple disabilities in their research Teaching Elementary Students with Multiple Disabilities to Participate in Shared Stories. The literacy participation in this study was planned using the principles of UDL in order to demonstrate the effectiveness that this type of planning can have to identify specific responses for this population that could be used to document literacy progress. Browders et al. (2008) experimental, quantitative research study was conducted according to educational research standards. A task analysis that was individualized to each participant was used to identify student responses in the story-based lessons. Therefore, the participants served as their own controls. The results of the study indicate that all three students increased their responses during story-based lessons and that once the interventionist applied principles of UDL to increase engagement and taught the task analysis using systematic prompting and feedback, all students increased their independent responses (p. 10). Limitations to this study include the fact that instruction was provided in a one-to-one format and cannot be generalized to a more common, group instruction format. Additionally, the study took

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL place in a self-contained setting where the participants were not in an inclusive gradeappropriate classroom, also impacting the generalizability of the study. Digital Learning Environment As more and more educators implement the principles of UDL in their classrooms, many are choosing digital media to differentiate for their students. Therefore, an educator will need to be computer literate, knowledgeable about current

technology, and aware of the learners specific assistive technology needs (CAST, 2007; Resta, Bryant, Lock, & Allan, 1998 as cited in Zascavage & Winterman, 2009). When considering the use of digital media in the classroom, the educator must consider and be aware of environmental issues such as noise, distraction, or potential academic compromises (Zascavage & Winterman, 2009) that the media will bring to the classroom as the decision to implement digital media into the classroom will affect all students in the class, regardless of ability or disability. The Upper Canada District School Board (2010) investigated the use of SMART Boards integrated with assistive software within the framework of UDL. The purpose of their action research was to discover how teachers adoption of technology evolves along with their beliefs about inclusion and their teaching practices with respect to participation and inclusion for all students (Upper Canada District School Board, 2010, p.1). The achievement and participation of 16 students who were indentified as having special needs was tracked and questionnaires were completed by teachers and students preceding and after the research study. Notable findings from the study indicate that all students in the classrooms were highly engaged with use of the SMART Board and

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL assistive software. Furthermore, the students with special needs were found to be more

engaged and participated more with their peers. Also, teachers felt that the students with special needs were meeting their Individual Education Program (IEP) goals sooner than expected. Campbell and Mechling (2009) present an investigation of observational and incidental learning of nontarget information in their research Small Group ComputerAssisted Instruction with SMART Board Technology. This research focuses on the effectiveness of teaching letter sounds to a small group of three students with learning disabilities using computer-assisted instruction with SMART Board technology. This experimental, quantitative research study was carried out flawlessly, accounting for all threats to internal and external validity. The researchers selected three kindergarten students (two males and one female) with learning disabilities based on their IEP. Although this selection was not random, the researchers accounted for this threat by having the participants serve as their own controls. The researchers used the SMART Board in combination with an interactive slide show that the students were able to access and control by pressing on the touchsensitive surface of the SMART Board. The results of the study are supportive for teaching letter sounds to the students identified as having learning disabilities. This study does not have any notable threats to validity and is an important contribution to the field of education and technology as it can be generalized to other student populations to assist teachers in personalizing learning. In my grade one classroom, I have personally witnessed students acquiring target and

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL nontarget information and knowledge by working in small groups of two at the SMART Board. Synthesis of Emergent Themes Based on the articles analyzed in this literature review, a central theme that

emerges is that incorporating the principles of UDL benefits all students, with or without exceptionalities. The studies (Browder et al., 2009; Campbell & Mechling, 2009; Upper Canada District School Board, 2010) show that students in a UDL classroom environment experience heightened engagement with the material. That being said, it is also evident from this literature review that designing learning activities based on the principles of UDL does not necessarily mean that technology or digital media is involved. (Browder et al., 2009) The research studies pertaining specifically to SMART Boards (Campbell & Mechling, 2009; Upper Canada District School Board, 2010) share the theme of providing students with a flexible environment for representation and expression of their learning, which has shown to improve student learning. Conclusion This literature review has attempted to develop an understanding of the use of SMART Boards in order to understand if this technology can assist educators in designing lessons and activities in a UDL classroom. From the literature reviewed, we can conclude that the use of a SMART Board can contribute positively to a digital learning environment focused on inclusion. However, the studies in this literature review are difficult to generalize as the sample sizes were relatively small, non-random and only

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL

included students with an IEP. Further research with a broader demographic is necessary to fully support the links between the usages of a SMART Board in a UDL environment. Although many educators have a good understanding of the principles of UDL, many do not have a strong understanding of instructional tools (digital and non-digital) that they could implement in their classroom to meet the diverse needs of all students. More and more schools are installing SMART Boards into classrooms, under the assumption that it is an excellent tool to support every students learning, sometimes forgoing other tools that could be beneficial for other students in the classroom. Oftentimes too much emphasis is put on one tool and the value of other tools is forgotten. Further educational research to investigate specifically which instructional tools are best suited to meet the principles of UDL is needed to justify their implementation.

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL References Abell, M. (2006). Individualizing learning using intelligent technology and universally designed curriculum. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(3). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ843849) Browder, D., Mims, P., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 33(1-2), 312. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ838735) Campbell, M.L., & Mechling, L.C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction

10

with SMART Board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 47-57. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ823212) Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2007). What is universal design for learning? Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html Glass, D., Palmer Wolf, D., Molloy, T., Rodriguez, A., Horowitz, R., Burnaford, G., et al. (2008). The contours of inclusion: Frameworks and tools for evaluating arts in education. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED507539) Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/ Upper Canada District School Board. (2010). Smart in the 21st century classroom: Integrating SMART Boards with assistive technology. Retrieved from

SMART BOARD TECHNOLOGY AND UDL

11

http://center.uoregon.edu/conferences/ISTE/2010/handout_uploads/KEY_499574 16/Dunn_summary_paper_Smart_Inclusion1.doc.pdf Zascavage, V., & Winterman, K. (2009). What middle school educators should know about assistive technology and universal design for learning. Middle School Journal, 40(4), 46-52. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ833643)