EDU 690 Action Research Project

of 30

Running Head: UTILIZING SMARTBOARD TECHNOLOGY

Utilizing SmartBoard Technology:

Enhancing Effectiveness and Inclusion in Music Education

by

James Francis

University of New England

EDU 690

Statement of Academic Honesty: I have read and understand the plagiarism policy as outlined in the

“Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct” document relating to the Honesty/Cheating Policy. By

attaching this statement to the title page of my paper, I certify that the work submitted is my original

work developed specifically for this course and the MSED program. If it is found that cheating and/or

plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I acknowledge the possible consequences of the

acts which could include expulsion from the University of New England.

of 30

UTILIZING SMARTBOARD TECHNOLOGY

Abstract

This study was conducted on the hypothesis that the inclusion of a SMART Board in the music

classroom will enhance the effectiveness of teaching in inclusionary education. Over a period of

4 years, students in a 7th grade classroom were taught the same material (General Classical

Music History) in the same manner, and given the same test. Some were taught using traditional

pen and paper method, while others were taught utilizing a SMART Board and the internet.

Results supported the researcher’s hypothesis by showing that the use of a SMART Board

increased average testing scores and the number of students receiving a passing test score.

Key words: SMART Board, 7th grade, effectiveness, inclusionary education, pen and

paper, internet

of 30


Table of Contents

Introduction to the Study………………...………………………………………………………..5

Rationale……………………………………………………………………………….….5

Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………..….5

Primary Research Questions………………………………………………………...…….6

Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………...……6

Literature Review….………………………..…..………………………………………………...7

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….7

Music Technology…………………………………………………………………………7

Special and Inclusive Education…………………………………………………………..9

Inclusiveness in Music Education…………..…………………………………………...10

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………11

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………….12

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………...12

Interventions……………………………………………………………………………..12

Respondent Groups……………………………………………………………………...12

Data Collection Plan……………………………………………………………………..12

Potential Roadblocks…………………………………………………………………….13

Data Validity……………………………………………………………………………..14

Results…………………………………………………………………………………………...15

Findings………………………………………………………………………………….15

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………......19

Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….20

Future Research Study…………………………………………………………………...21

of 30


Action Plan………………………………………………………………………………………21

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………21

Proposed Action………………………………………………………………………….22

Dissemination of Research……………………………………………………………….24

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….24

References……………………………………………………………………………………….26

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………27

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………27

Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………29

Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………30

of 30


Introduction to the Study

Rationale

Technology in modern society is present in virtually every aspect of the modern day per-

son, from driving a car to life at home. Cellular phones no longer just make phone calls, but are

portable tablet personal computers. Driving in a car is often never complete without a GPS, let

alone the numerous computer chips hidden amongst the panels. Today’s generations of students

were born with technology at their fingertips, and yet with all of these advances in technology,

education may seem to be at a standstill. Teachers are expected not only to know our fields of

study, but we are also expected to include every student in the process of learning. This does not

mean generalizing education to the majority of the students, but this means giving access to a

Free Appropriate Public Education (or FAPE) to all students. This includes but is not limited to

students with disabilities, English Language Learners (or ELLs), and gifted students.

Problem Statement

With the overall achievement gap widening among our students, so-called traditional

“pen and paper” methodologies no longer reach every student. A student with a physical disabil-

ity will learn differently than a student who is an English Language Learner (ELL), who will

learn differently than a gifted student. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness

of utilizing SMART Board technology in a musical classroom in order to enhance the effective-

ness of inclusion education.

of 30


Primary Research Questions

The particular field that this research was examining is a new emerging field, and finding

data that specifically related to use of technology in a music classroom for inclusion education

was not possible. To avoid this, the primary research questions were examined from both

perspectives, from a musical classroom standpoint as well as inclusionary education. The four

research questions examined were:

1. How can utilization of a SMART Board over a whiteboard increase effectiveness of

teaching?

2. Does use of the internet for home activities combine well with in class paper activities

(use of a teacher made website)?

3. How often do students actually log in or use the internet and the teacher website?

4. Does the use of a SMART Board increase grades versus the traditional pen and paper

method?

Hypothesis

It is predicted that students are more likely to enjoy lessons on a SMART Board due to its

newness of technology. Posting of additional notes and in class notes will work very well with

paper activities. Students will also use the internet as a secondary measure with the in class notes

as a primary note source. Finally, it is predicted that more than 75% of all students use the

internet daily. However, use of the internet to access the teacher webpage will decrease and be

accessed less often. Due to all of this, it is predicted that student achievement will go up, and the

of 30


average grade and percentage of students passing will rise.

Literature Review

Introduction

Since the invention of the computer, the methodology of classroom education has been

under a constant state of flux. As the size of the microchip minimized, the price of the computer

plummeted, allowing for the common consumer to purchase them. This began a technology

revolution in day-to-day life. With the creation of the internet, the constant access to information

seemingly became a human right.

As educators, we must also realize the importance of understanding how our students

think. In his first full publication of his theory, Howard Gardner stated that there were seven

types of intelligences: Linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial,

interpersonal, and intrapersonal (Smith, 2008). While this accounts for the majority of regular

learners, it does not necessarily take into account students with special needs.

Music Technology

The idea of new technology in music has been a widely accepted practice in the classical

genre for many years. Adaptation of new ideas and new sounds has been the cornerstone in the

development in musical theory for many hundreds of years. Holmes & Pender (2012) states that

the foundation of electronic music has established itself on three cultural perspectives (p. 369):

of 30


-Technology naturally leads to experimentation and eventual acceptance of new sounds,

styles, and techniques for making music

-The acceptance of electronic music will succeed by comparing it to other forms of

music, even if that comparison is unnecessary to accept electronic music as a

musical form of its own.

-Composing and listening to electronic music require new skills.

Mato (2011) investigated the need for making the modern day music classroom more

accessible to students. In this study, they examined an elementary school that has a music teacher

who uses modern technology in the classroom and observed the students engagement. It was also

noted that the students who were a part of the study grew up with technology all around them,

and have no inhibitions on actually using this technology. Mato (2011) also wanted to determine

if the use of technology would have an overall positive effect on the lessons. It was concluded

that “Not every child learns the same way, and adding computer technology in the music lesson

provides different learning opportunities so that students can develop creative thinking, problem-

solving, communication, and team work skills that are necessary both inside and outside of

school, “(p. 17).

In the end, if one does not have the proper technology in the classroom, many new styles

of teaching become obsolete. Rudolph (2007) provides many suggestions as to what students and

teachers can use to increase effectiveness of education, including the use of a SmartBoard.

Rudolph (2007) advocates the use of this “electronic whiteboard”, as it gives you the ability to

interact with your computer while standing in the front of a computer.

of 30


Special and Inclusive Education

As teachers, it is our duty to provide education to all students from all walks of life.

Diversity is a way of life in the modern classroom. This includes but is not limited to students

from a variety of cultural backgrounds, students with limited English proficiency (or LEP),

students with learning disabilities, gifted students, and students with physical or psychological

disabilities. It may not necessarily be possible to reach 100% of these students 100% of the time,

it is our duty to provide an education suitable for their own learning (and in some instances,

required by state or federal law).

In his book What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education: Using Evidence-

Based Teaching Strategies, Mitchell (2008) examines several events that happened in modern

day education. The third event he mentions was a colloquium of representatives from 92

governments and 25 international organizations met in Spain. The end resulting statement called

on all governments to “…adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education,

enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so

otherwise,” (p. 28).

After a study of students with moderate grade learning disabilities (or MGLD), Day &

Travers (2012) concluded that inclusive education can only be effective if all parties involved

actually participate in the process. This does not just refer to the school (who must differentiate

instruction), but also includes the students (who must actually engage properly and behave

appropriately at school), and the support of a parent or guardian at home (who must facilitate the

interaction and continue the education at home). If this is accomplished, then inclusion education

can occur and effective learning can take place.

of 30


Inclusiveness in Music Education

For many years, music was seen as the privilege and the right of the elite, inaccessible to

all but the talented few. In recent years, this idea has seen a turnaround, and in fact just the

opposite has been found. Burnard et al. (2008) propose a list of common guiding ideals for the

present day music classroom:

-Music as a powerful channel of communication for everyone

-Music as a social process

-Music as a way of developing a range of skills e.g. cognitive, physical, and emotional

-Music for promoting well-being and self-esteem

Music can be accessed by everyone and can be a method to communicate with those who

would otherwise not be able to. While discussing the place of the modern day music teacher in

education, Finney & Burnard (2007) had a discussion with a music teacher they had been

studying named Anne. After being asked to provide her insight into her hour-long music lessons,

she stated that, “…The curriculum has got to be right and it does have to be successful for both

genders and all abilities,” (p. 13).

According to the National Association for Music Educators, there are a total of nine

national standards upon which music educators should base their practice. Among which is a

standard that states, “Reading and Notating Music,” (NAfME, 2013). For many students, this

acquired skill is no different than learning a language. However, there are many learning

disabilities which can be difficult for students to learn how to read music, such as dyslexia.

of 30


Heikkila & Knight (2012) provide some effective strategies for overcoming this

difficulty, such as providing students with notes on pastel colored paper instead of white for ease

of reading. It is also suggested to add in the use of an interactive whiteboard, or SmartBoard, as

is appropriate. This would not only allow for a more interesting way to augment the lesson, but

would also allow teachers and students to read from the same visual source which helps all

students focus their attention.

Summary

The music classroom as we see it today is undergoing a change. Music is no longer seen

as a cultural elite topic, but rather a topic that can be accessed by everyone. Many of the students

who would not necessarily have a means of communication or excelling could have the ability

with music. Among the many means of providing this education is the idea of technology

implementation. Students learn best with what they are used to, and today’s population is

growing up surrounded by technology and information at their fingertips.

SMART Board technology (otherwise known as an interactive whiteboard) is gaining

popularity in the modern classroom. This piece of technology effectively turns a classroom

computer into an interactive touchscreen, thereby allowing the teacher to stay in the front of the

classroom. A teacher can now project images, play musical samples, and write notes on the

board. These notes can then be saved and uploaded to a teacher website for further use by the

students, and can be printed and handed out to students either not present in class, or who require

them due to an accommodation plan.

of 30


All students deserve the right to an education, and teachers must facilitate that right.

Advances in technology and how we understand learning have allowed educators to better teach

students from all walks of life. Technology in the music classroom is only the first step.

Methodology

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a SMART Board and other

technology in inclusion education in a music classroom.

Interventions

In order to determine the effectiveness of the SMART Board, current students were given

access to a teacher created website built strictly for enhancing the effectiveness of the music

classroom (which can be viewed at http://classicalmusichistory.weebly.com/). Prior year students

did not have access to this website. Students were also taught directly from a SMART Board as

opposed to a traditional pen-and-paper method.

Respondent Groups

The respondent groups in this study were all 7th grade students in the music classroom at

the Pioneer Charter School of Science.

Data Collection Plan

A variety of data collection methods were used in order to complete research. See Table 1 below

for methodology.

of 30


Table 1

Research Questions Data Source

1 2 3

1. How can utilization of a SmartBoard over a whiteboard increase effectiveness of teaching?

Student Survey

-aimed to generate data based on inclusion students (ELL students, accommodation students, etc)

Interview Co-workers from each department (same grade):

-Math

-Science

-Social Studies

-English

Observation of in-class activities.

2. Does use of the internet for home activities combine well with in class paper activities (use of a teacher made website)?

Student Survey Observations of in class activities.

3. How often do students actually log in or use the internet and the teacher website?

Student Survey

4. Does the use of a Smartboard increase grades versus the traditional pen and paper method?

Focus Group Data Review of Database final grades from prior years of same grade, same test (it has not changed the last few years).

Observation of in-class activities.

Potential Roadblocks

Due to the high presence of low income households in the PCSS sending district, students

may not have access to the internet, or even own a computer to use. Students may see the teacher

of 30


website as unnecessary and redundant, making them less likely to use it, and parents may not let

their students use the internet at the times prescribed.

Data Validity

Feedback for the research performed was given from two teachers at the Pioneer Charter School

of Science (or PCSS): Ryan Neary is the lead 8th grade math teacher at PCSS, and Darren

Cerullo is the AP History and Assistant Dean of Students at PCSS.

Both teachers agreed that the methods used are a valid way to collect data, albeit with a

few concerns. Neary brought up that it is possible that the students who will take part in this

study may find the situation intimidating, and therefore may answer the questions on the student

survey in a manner to better serve the teacher, rather than accurately answering. Neary also

brings up the idea that any time the word “computer” is referenced; it may be a gray area (e.g. it

could also mean smart phones, tablets, and not just PCs). Cerullo brought up the necessity to

have student data and student survey information approved by the Dean of Academics.

Both teachers also agreed for the most part on the methodology. Through the use of

student surveys, test scores, and database analysis, it is possible to get an accurate representation

of student achievement as it relates to the topic. However, several ideas were brought up that

were taken into consideration. Neary brought up the idea of using a third party to hand out the

student surveys in an anonymous setting. This will help take the pressure off of the students and

allow the students to answer more naturally. The student survey will also specify on the student

survey the meaning of the word computer (in my case, as a PC or tablet, not a smart phone or

gaming device).

of 30


Cerullo also mentioned the future benefits of the action research project as it relates to

PCSS. The data gathered from this study can be used in the future practices of PCSS to help

develop its technology integration into the classroom. As Cerullo states, “The matrices could be

presented to staff as a way to show real time benefits of SMART Board and/or white board

teaching. What I see, is that a mixture of SMART Board and white board use as the most

beneficial, though SmartBoard and E-Learning will be more accessible than just pen and paper

methodologies,”.

In the end, both colleagues confirmed that the data collection sources and methods are a

valid way to collect data after some minor changes, and can be of future use to the Pioneer

Charter School of Science.

Results

Findings

Data for the research was taken from three locations: a teacher questionnaire, a student

questionnaire, and grade data from the Pioneer Charter School of Science (or PCSS) database.

All data was collected with prior consent and was entirely anonymous (see Appendix A for

consent form).

In the teacher survey, 5 questions were asked (For full questionnaire, see Appendix B):

1. Do you own a home computer (such as a desktop or notebook)?

2. If you answered yes to question 1, approximately how many hours per week do you use

your computer for school related activities?

3. On average, how much do you use your SMART Board per week in hours?

of 30


4. If you had the choice, would you prefer more technology or less technology in the class-

room?

5. Do you think using a SMART Board helps make teaching easier for you?

Total sample size for this questionnaire was 6, taken from teachers who teach 7th grade level

(ages 12 – 13) on a regular basis. As seen in Figure 1, for question 1, 100% of participants

answered ‘yes’. For question 2, 33% of teachers answered that they use their home computers

between 5 – 10 hours per week, 17% answered between 10 – 15 hours per week, and 50%

answered more than 15 hours per week. For question 3, 2 teachers answered that they use their

SMART Board fewer than 5 hours per week, 1 teacher answered that they use it between 10 – 15

hours per week, 2 teachers answered 15 – 20 hours per week, and 1 teacher uses their board more

than 20 hours per week. For question 4, 100% of participants answered they prefer more

technology in the classroom. For question 5, 100% of the participants answered that they think

utilizing SMART Board technology makes teaching easier (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1 Teacher Questionnaire Results

Question 1

Yes No

6 0

Question 2

0--5 5--10 10--15 15+

0 2 1 3

Question 3

0--5 5--10 10--15 15--20 20+

2 0 1 2 1

Question 4

More Tech Less Tech

6 0

Question 5

Yes No

6 0

of 30


Total Sample Size: 6

Grade: 7

In the student survey, a similar 5 questions were asked (For full questionnaire, see Appendix

C):

1. Do you own a home computer (such as a desktop or notebook)?

2. If you answered yes to question 1, approximately how many hours per week do you use

your computer for school related activities?

3. On average, how many of your teachers use a SMART Board?

4. If you had the choice, would you prefer more technology or less technology in the class-

room?

5. Do you think using a SMART Board helps make learning easier for you?

Total sample size for this questionnaire was 28, taken from 7th grade (ages 12 – 13) students

who submitted consent forms. This comprises approximately half of the entire grade level at

PCSS. As seen in Figure 2, for question 1, 100% of participants answered ‘yes’. For question 2,

61% of the students sampled answered that they use their home computers between 0 – 5 hours

per week, 25% answered between 10 – 15 hours per week, 11% answered between 10 – 15 hours

per week, and 3% answered more than 15 hours per week. For question 3, 7% said that 4

teachers on average use their SMART Board, and 93% said more than 5 of their teachers utilize

their SMART Boards. For question 4, 93% of participants answered they prefer more technology

in the classroom, and 7% stated they prefer less technology. For question 5, 96% of the

of 30


participants answered that they think utilizing SMART Board technology makes teaching easier,

and 4% stated that use of SMART Board technology does not make teaching easier (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2 Student Questionnaire

Question 1

Yes No

28 0

Question 2

0--5 5--10 10--15 15+

17 7 3 1

Question 3

1 2 3 4 5+

2 26

Question 4

More Tech Less Tech

26 2

Question 5

Yes No

27 1

Total Sample Size: 28

Grade: 7

Grade data was collected from a database utilized by PCSS provided by Apple Educational

Services. Data collected was from the same test (a classical music history test) administered over

a period of 4 years, comprising 235 individual test scores. 160 of the total exams were

administered during units when a SMART Board was not in the classroom, and 75 of the exams

were administered during units when a SMART Board was being used.

of 30


Figure 3

Average With Smartboard: 92.76316 Percent Passing (With Smartboard): 95%

Average Without Smartboard: 80.97516 Percent Passing (Without Smartboard): 91%

Two major results were calculated from all the data at hand: the average test score with or

without SMART Board use, and the percent passing the test with or without SMART Board use.

As seen in Figure 3, the average test score of students taking a test with SMART Board use was

92.76% of students, as compared to just 80.98% average of students without SMART Board use.

95% of students were found to have passed their exam during times when the SMART Board

was in use, and 91% of students were found passing during times without SMART Board use

(see Fig. 3).

Discussion

On the whole, a trend began appearing. Students and teachers alike not only like

technology, but feel that technology makes life easier for them (questions 4 and 5 in Fig. 1 and

Fig. 2). All teachers and all students have access to a computer at home, but on a whole scale,

teachers are far more likely to use their home computer for school related activities than students

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 8

15

22

29

36

43

50

57

64

71

78

85

92

99

10

6

11

3

12

0

12

7

13

4

14

1

14

8

15

5

Classical Music Test With Smartboard

Classical Music Test Without

Smartboard

of 30


are (question 1 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Most students perceived that most of their teachers utilize

the SMART Board on a consistent basis, however among the teachers sampled at the same grade

level (7th grade), 1/3 of the teachers use the SMART Board fewer than 5 hours (question 3 in Fig.

1 and Fig. 2).

One significant trend stood out: the teachers and students overwhelmingly agreed not

only on having more technology in the classroom, but they also agreed that technology benefits

learning (questions 4 and 5 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). In the modern age, the use of technology is

becoming a part of day to day life, and integration of this into the classroom is perceived to have

benefits from all angles. This is supported by the student’s grades. In Figure 3, we see that

students who took their Classical Music History exam while benefiting from SMART Board

technology earn higher test scores and higher passing percentages.

Limitations

One limitation was just in getting consent to begin research within the school. After being

approved to begin research, the consent form had to be created and approved. Once approved

students then had to have it signed by parents and return it to the school. After several weeks of

fighting for approval and getting students to bring in the form signed, the research itself had to be

completed. This long step unfortunately prevented many of the students from being able to

participate in the research, either due to illness, not understanding the form, or not being able to

accomplish it in time.

However, the biggest data limitation was due to the fact that Pioneer Charter School of

Science is small and relatively brand new, making the sample population for the surveys and test

of 30


score analysis more difficult to accomplish. To help make this research better, this data would

either have to continue to be collected over the next several times the Classical Music History

Test is given, or expand research to include other schools who are teaching similar information in

a similar manner.

Future Research Study

Due to the limitations with size at the PCSS, more research would have to be conducted

in order to apply these findings on a larger scale. PCSS has a staff of fewer than 50 and 360

enrolled students. Of these students, less than half of the student body takes a music class. As

PCSS is also a charter school and not part of a district, further research would have to be

accomplished in the sending district area. In addition, as seen in Figure 1 for question 3 and 5,

there are at least two teachers surveyed who do not use their SMART Board on a consistent

basis, yet all teachers answered that they agree with the use of technology in the classroom. In

further research, it may be helpful to include research from teachers who utilize SMART Board

technology every day to better compare data.

Action Plan

Summary

The initial goal of this project was to better understand the continued use of technology in

a music classroom, and the student’s perceptions of said technology. After conducting research in

the classroom, the data shows an overwhelming response to the positive effects of technology in

of 30


the classroom. Students learn better when surrounded by the technology they grew up with, and

have fewer restraints on using said technology (Mato 2011).

After examining the data from a 4 year period, the overwhelming response was that

technology aided student learning and raised test scores. The students who participated in the

research were all in 7th grade at the time of testing, and all teachers surveyed were 7th grade

teachers. As seen in Figure 3, on average, students scored almost a full 12 points higher on test

scores with the use of a SMART Board. In addition, use of technology allowed 4% more of

students to obtain a passing score over that of students who did not have access to the SMART

Board technology. Due to the size of the student population and the school in which this study

was conducted means that the results found may not necessarily be applicable in a larger format,

such as a district or state level curriculum.

Proposed Action

In order to continue the positive effects of what was observed in the research, the

following steps are proposed to be implemented during the 2012 – 2013 school year:

1. Continued use of the SMART Board in the music classroom. This includes but is not

limited to student and teacher manipulation during class times, online live classroom sessions,

the ability to download lecture notes done in class on any given day, and access to a teacher

website which contains all information in class (seen here: www.francismusic.weebly.com).

of 30


2. Dissemination of research to the Pioneer Charter School of Science faculty through the

use of professional development times via PDF and practical demonstrations, and to musical

scholarly journal publications.

3. Further research will be done in this topic area by examining not just 7th grade students,

but rather the entire student body. This can also be augmented by expanding the target subjects to

include all subjects rather than only music.

4. To make this topic easily applicable to other schools, further research can be done by

comparing state standardized tests versus technology use in the classroom.

By implementing these steps, it is hypothesized based on the data that student scores will

continue to rise. It naturally follows that by doing this, the number of students who understand

the subject will also rise.

At the Pioneer Charter School of Science, technology has always had a favored response.

However, as seen in Figure 1, not all teachers utilize (nor have) a SMART Board in their

classroom. For future school years beyond the 2012 – 2013 school year in which this research

was completed, this particular limitation can be addressed by either obtaining a SMART Board

for those classrooms through the use of grants or school funding. In the short term, teachers who

do not have a SMART Board can be given access to one by scheduling them in classrooms that

are free which contain one.

of 30


Dissemination of Research

Research contained herein will be disseminated in two ways. The Pioneer Charter School

of Science has a professional development schedule where all teachers meet at least twice a

month to share best practices and confer as a whole. It is highly encouraged among all the

teachers to share relevant research and data to improve teaching practices and help students

attain their full potential. This research will be submitted to the PCSS administration for

consideration into improving best practices.

In addition, this research will be submitted to several musical journals for potential publication.

Music technology is an emerging field, and many aspects, still not fully realized. Further

research is needed in this area to not only understand how students are learning, but to better

teach future generations of music students.

Conclusion

In the course of this research, the hypotheses presented were confirmed to be true.

-Students enjoy when more technology is present in the classroom, and therefore enjoyed

their lessons when on a SMART Board.

-Posting additional notes and in-class notes worked hand in hand with the paper notes.

-100% of students surveyed had a computer and use the internet on a daily basis, but the

number of students who accessed teacher webpages and used the internet for school work

of 30


drastically dropped.

-Student average test scores rose by almost 12%

-Percentage of students receiving a passing test score increased by 4%

Preliminary reporting of the data from this research to the administration of the Pioneer

Charter School of Science yielded several unexpected benefits. PCSS administration is willing

not only to examine the data, but would like to present it to the faculty as a whole in order to

encourage technology use in the classroom. In addition, it was also proposed to utilize the data

collected as a preliminary foundation for a research paper on technology in the classroom.

of 30


References Burnard, P., Burnard, D. Steven, C., Rusinek, G., & Saether, E., (2008). Inclusive pedagogies in music education: A comparative study of music teachers' perspectives from four countries. International Journal of Music Education. Retrieved 10 Feb, 2013 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/8591/1/8591a.pdf. Day, T. & Travers, J, (2012). Special and inclusive education a research perspective. Oxford: Peter Lang, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2012. Retrieved 10 Feb, 2013 from http://0site.ebrary.com.lilac.une.edu/lib/unelib/docDetail.action?docID=10620558. Finney, J. & Burnard, P., (2007). Music education with digital technology. London: Continuum. Retrieved 10 Feb, 2013 from http://0- site.ebrary.com.lilac.une.edu/lib/unelib/docDetail.action?docID=10285058. Heikkila, E., & Knight, A., (2012). Inclusive Music Teaching Strategies for Elementary-Age Children with Developmental Dyslexia. Music Educators Journal 99.1: pp. 54-59. Sage Journals. Retrieved 10 Feb., 2013 from http://mej.sagepub.com/content/99/1/54. Holmes, T., & Pender, T., (2012). Electronic and experimental music: technology, music, and culture. 4th ed. New York: Routledge. Retrieved 10 Feb, 2013 from

http://0-site.ebrary.com.lilac.une.edu/lib/unelib/docDetail.action?docID=10545404. Mato, T., (2011). Integrating Technology in the Music Classroom. St Mary's College of Maryland. Retrieved 10 Feb. 2013 from http://www.smcm.edu/educationstudies/pdf/rising- tide/volume-4/Takako-Mato- MRP.pdf. Mitchell, D., (2008) What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education: Using Evidence-Based Teaching Strategies. London: Routledge. Retrieved 10 Feb. 2013 from http://0- site.ebrary.com.lilac.une.edu/lib/unelib/docDetail.action?docID=10205666. NAfME. National Standards for Music Education. Retrieved 10 Feb 2013 from http://musiced.nafme.org/resources/national-standards-for-music-education/. Rudolph, T. (2007). Technology in the General Music Classroom: Music Education Technology. Retrieved 10 Feb, 2013 from http://0search.proquest.com.lilac.une.edu/docview /195567440?accountid=12756. Smith, Mark K. (2008), Gardner "Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences and education", the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved 10 Feb, 2013 from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm.

of 30


Appendix A: Student Consent Form

Utilizing SmartBoard Technology: Enhancing Effectiveness and Inclusion in Music Education

Research Description

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted Mr James Francis. The purpose of this research is to not only aid in the graduate research of Mr Francis, but to help research in relation to SmartBoards in the classroom.

Your participation will involve anonymous surveys and anonymous test scores.

Risks and discomforts

There are no known risks associated with this research.

Potential benefits

This research will help benefit not only the music classroom at PCSS, but will potentially aid PCSS in furthering technology integration in the classroom as well as increasing knowledge and sensitivity to inclusion education.

Protection of confidentiality

We will do everything we can to protect your privacy. Your identity will not be revealed in any way, including but not limited to publications or PCSS professional developments.

Voluntary participation

Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time. You will not be penalized in any way should you decide not to participate or to withdraw from this study.

of 30


Contact information

If you have any questions or concerns about this study or if any problems arise, please contact Mr Francis at PCSS at 860-336-7365. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please contact PCSS at 617-389-7277.

Informed Consent:

I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions.

_______ give my consent to participate in this study by Mr Francis.

_______ do not give my consent to participate in this study by Mr Francis.

Participant’s signature______________________________ Date:_________________

Parent’s signature _________________________________ Date:_________________

of 30


Appendix B: Teacher Survey

Research Study Teacher Questionnaire

Directions: Please answer these questions to the best of your knowledge. There is no right or wrong answer, and your answers are not scored. This is also anonymous, so your identity or your answers will never be revealed. Please check off or mark an ‘X’ where your answer would go, unless asked for a more specific answer.

Background Information: This information will be used to generate anonymous graph and chart data for use in a research study. These graphs and charts can be made available upon request.

1. Do you own a home computer (this includes devices such as desktops, laptops, and tablet PCs such as an iPad, but does not include cell phones, iPods, gaming devices, or any other electronic device)?

Yes_______

No _______

2. If you answered yes to question 1, approximately how many hours per week do you use your computer for school related activities (e.g. checking a database, completing a school assignment, checking a teacher website, or other like activities):

Between 0 – 5 hours _____ Between 5 – 10 hours _____ Between 10 – 15 hours_____ 15+ hours____

3. On average, how much do you use your SMART Board per week in hours?

0 – 5 hrs_____ 5 – 10 hrs _____ 10 – 15 hrs _____ 15 – 20 hrs _____ 20+ hrs _____

4. If you had the choice, would you prefer more technology, or less technology in the classroom?

I prefer when there is more technology in the classroom _____

I prefer when there is less technology in the classroom _____

5. Do you think using a SmartBoard helps make teaching easier for you?

Yes_______

No _______

of 30


Appendix C: Student Survey

Research Study Student Questionnaire

Directions: Please answer these questions to the best of your knowledge. There is no right or wrong answer, and your answers are not scored. This is also anonymous, so your identity or your answers will never be revealed. Please check off or mark an ‘X’ where your answer would go, unless asked for a more specific answer.

Background Information: This information will be used to generate anonymous graph and chart data for use in a research study. These graphs and charts can be made available upon request.

1. Do you own a home computer (this includes devices such as desktops, laptops, and tablet PCs such as an iPad, but does not include cell phones, iPods, gaming devices, or any other electronic device)?

Yes_______

No _______

2. If you answered yes to question 1, approximately how many hours per week do you use your computer for school related activities (e.g. checking a database, completing a school assignment, checking a teacher website, or other like activities):

Between 0 – 5 hours _____ Between 5 – 10 hours _____ Between 10 – 15 hours_____ 15+ hours____

3. On average, how many of your teachers use a SMART Board?

0_____ 1_____ 2_____ 3_____ 4_____ More than 5_____

4. If you had the choice, would you prefer more technology, or less technology in the classroom?

I prefer when there is more technology in the classroom _____

I prefer when there is less technology in the classroom _____

5. Do you think using a SmartBoard helps make learning easier for you?

Yes_______

No _______

EDU 690 Action Research Project

Documents

Transcript of EDU 690 Action Research Project