Comparison of the Effects of Smart Board Technology and Flash Card Instruction on Sight Word Recognition and Observational Learning

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of SMART Board, interactive whiteboard technology and traditional flash cards in teaching reading in a small-group instructional arrangement. Three students with moderate intellectual disabilities were taught to read grocery store aisle marker words under each condition. Observational learning (students learning other group members' words) was also assessed across each condition. The effectiveness of the two procedures was evaluated using an adapted alternating-treatments design (AATD) across two conditions and replicated across students. Results indicated that both SMART Board and flash card instruction were effective in teaching target sight words. However, students read a greater percentage of observational words when words were presented using SMART Board technology.

Using Response-prompting Procedures During Small-group Direct Instruction: Outcomes and Procedural Variations

“…The time delay, simultaneous prompting, and the system of least prompts procedures are quite effective in 1:1 instruction (Doyle et al, 1988;Morse & Schuster, 2004;Wolery, Holcombe, et al, 1992), and these results suggest that they are effective in smallgroup arrangements as well. Recently, in three studies, these prompting strategies were applied in SGDI using electronic technologies such as SMART Boards (Campbell & Mechling, 2009;Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007;Mechling, Gast, & Thompson, 2008). In one study (Mechling et al, 2008), participants acquired the target behavior of reading sight words with CTD instruction when either traditional materials (e.g., flash cards) or SMART Board technology was used.…”

“…Recently, in three studies, these prompting strategies were applied in SGDI using electronic technologies such as SMART Boards (Campbell & Mechling, 2009;Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007;Mechling, Gast, & Thompson, 2008). In one study (Mechling et al, 2008), participants acquired the target behavior of reading sight words with CTD instruction when either traditional materials (e.g., flash cards) or SMART Board technology was used. However, the acquisition of group mates' target behaviors was greater in the SMART Board condition.…”

“…As shown in Table 3, most studies reported using attending cues, and the type of attending cue varied across studies. Individual attending cues (e.g., calling a student's name as a cue to look at a stimulus; Mechling et al, 2008) were used in 23 studies (53.2%), while group attending cues (e.g., ''Everybody, look''; Ledford et al, 2008) were used in 12 studies (23.4%). In one study, group and individual attending cues were compared (Keel, Slaton, & Blackhurst, 2001); in two studies, the use of attending cues depended on whether the target response for students was choral or individual ; in one study, both group and individual cues were used ; and in eight studies, the type could not be determined.…”

Student Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboards in a Third Grade Classroom

“…On the other hand, some research has been performed to determine students' perceptions of the IWB in specific content areas, but the studies were either conducted in a foreign country or in secondary classrooms (Hall & Higgins, 2005;Mechling et al, 2008;Merrett & Edwards, 2005;Wall et al, 50 2005). Therefore this study focused on determining students' perceptions of the IWB in a third grade classroom, specifically during math instruction.…”

“…According to Mechling, Gast, & Thompson (2008), students who were interviewed said that they liked the IWB because they could see the words, it was easy, and it was fun.…”