**Effect of Interactive White Board on Upper Basic II Students` Academic Achievement and Retention in Basic Science and Technology in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.**** **

**ABSTRACT**

*This study was conducted to determine the effect of interactive white board on upper basic two students’ academic achievement and retention in Basic Science and technology in Uyo Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. To achieve the objectives of this study, four research questions and four null hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. A randomized pretest-posttest control group design was adopted for the study. One hundred and thirty-five (135) upper basic two students formed the sample of the study. These students were drawn from two intact classes in two public secondary schools in Uyo. The instrument used for data collection was Basic Science and Technology Achievement Test (BSTAT) on energy. This instrument was validated and its reliability co-efficient was found to be 0.72 using the test- retest method. The BSTAT was used for pretest, posttest and retention test. Students in the experimental group were taught energy using the interactive white board while those in the control group were taught using the conventional chalk board. After the treatment, BSTAT was administered as to the students. The data obtained were analyzed using mean, standard deviation and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). All the hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. The results showed that the students taught energy using interactive white board achieved and retained significantly better than those taught with the conventional chalkboard. Male and female students’ academic achievements and retention did not differ significantly when taught energy with the interactive white board. Based on the findings, it was recommended among others, that basic science and technology teachers in secondary schools should make effective use of technological resources such as the Interactive white board in teaching concepts in basic science and technology curriculum such as energy.*

**KEYWORDS:** Interactive White Board, Academic Achievement and Retention, Basic

Science and Technology** **

**INTRODUCTION**

Education is said to be an act or process of developing and cultivating physically, morally and mentally sound individuals. It can also be seen as a means of expanding, strengthening, disciplining one’s mind, faculty and the forming and revolution of principle and character in order to be fit for any calling through systematic instruction (Chaka, (2010). Nigerian education over the years had evolved through a number of phases in a bid to obtain a perfect educational system. In order to achieve this goal, information and communication technology has become one of the strategic resources, a commodity and foundation of every activity in the education sector.

According to Edefiogha (2015) and Chaka (2010) ICT is the technological tool and resources used to communicate, create, organize, disseminate, store, retrieve and manage information. The use of ICT in schools has been one of the greatest innovations in teaching and learning. There is a wide spread recognition that people need to learn how to use computers effectively in order to function in modern society.

Today, many different forms of information and communication technology have entered the classroom. The electronic interactive whiteboards are a good example of new technologies used in today`s classrooms (Sweeney, 2013). These whiteboards based on computer technologies are gradually replacing traditional black or white boards, which were once considered indispensable. An Interactive white board, also known as a smartboard, is an interactive display in the format of a whiteboard that reacts to user input either directly or through other devices (Essig, 2011). The Interactive whiteboards operate on the connection between a computer, a projector and a touch screen electronic whiteboard. At the heart of the interactive whiteboard lies a touch screen smart board which students can use the touch screen white board to experiment, solve, write and erase applications such as visual experiments, visuals, animations and graphics. Electronic microscopes, multimedia materials, videos, data tables, CD ROM, or the Internet may be used depending on the software programs used by these whiteboards (Miller, Glower & Averis, 2015). Users can control the computer using their finger or a pen device on the board’s surface. Sweeney (2011) noted that the software supplied with the interactive whiteboard will usually allow the teacher to keep notes and annotations as an electronic file for later distribution either on paper or through a number of electronic formats.

These increasing qualities of hardware and software tools resulting from the recent production of interactive whiteboards by many different companies has attracted the interest of governments. Education ministries in many countries of the world including Nigeria are now encouraging the use of interactive whiteboards in classroom. The integration of Interactive White Boards (IWBs) into educational system according to Higgins, Beauchamp and Miller (2009), began in late 1990s in the United Kingdom during an office presentation and after that, it was introduced to primary schools and its uses began in all schools. Even though the use of interactive whiteboard is relatively new and not common in Nigeria, many other countries had been making use of this technology for several years before IWBs were introduced into Nigeria. Recently, some schools in Nigeria have started striving to introduce it to their classroom teaching especially privately owned secondary schools in Uyo, Akwa Ibom and some other big cities as well as the elite schools.

The contributions of interactive whiteboard to student academic achievement have been examined by various researchers across the world. Zittle (2014), examined the influence of lessons with the interactive whiteboard on elementary school students’ achievements in geometry. The study compared pre and post test scores of 53 students who learned with the interactive whiteboard in comparison to 39 students who learned without the interactive white board. Significant statistical differences were reported between the groups’ achievements, such that the group that learned with the Interactive white board achieved higher scores. Similarly, Dhindsa and Emran (2016) compared differences between pre and post tests of college students who spent six chemistry lessons learning either with or without an interactive white board. In this study as well, statistically significant differences were found between the groups, in favor of the group that learned with the interactive whiteboard. The positive influence of Interactive white boards has also been found in the areas of mathematics and language in elementary schools in the United States (Swan et al., 2008), as well as in achievement in literacy, mathematics, and science by elementary school students in England (Lewin, Somekh, & Stephen, 2008). It is important to point out that in this study, differences emerged in the use of the interactive whiteboard between teachers who were more experienced using it and teachers who lacked such experience. According to the experienced teachers, they became integrated into their pedagogy as a mediator of their interactions with the student, among the students themselves, and between the students and the interactive whiteboard as part of the pedagogical changes taking place. After two years, skilled teachers learned to use the board for learning in pairs and in small group of three students. The researchers concluded that students feel greater motivation to demonstrate their capability and their knowledge in the operation of the various functions of the board, especially in small groups or individually, and the experienced teachers who identified this motivation used it to enhance student learning (Lewin et al., 2008).

Similar findings were obtained in a study by Lewin et al. (2008), where they found a positive correlation between British elementary school students’ achievements in language and mathematics and the length of time learning with the interactive whiteboard. At the beginning of interactive whiteboards use, the average and stronger students attained the highest scores, yet after two years all of the students improved in their achievement on national tests. The relationship between the use of the interactive whiteboard and student achievement is gaining interest across the world. Results of a local study conducted by a middle school science teacher were posted on a blog of the website of the southern district of Israel. This teacher taught the topic of “the cell” in four classes, two of which learned with the aid of an interactive whiteboard and two did not. Students’ achievements were examined via a test constructed by the supervisor, which resulted in scores, an average of 11 points higher by the students who learned in the interactive whiteboard group over the students who did not. Further analysis of the data showed that, it was primarily the students who were failing who improved in the direction towards average achievements (Elharr, 2010).

Despite these positive findings, it seems that the influence of the interactive whiteboard on achievement is not unidirectional: Higgins et al (2009), who examined the implementation of the interactive whiteboard in 5th and 6th grades in various areas of Australia, found that although students learning with the interactive whiteboard owed statistically greater achievement on national tests in math and language in 2013, the difference was small and did not repeat itself on similar tests administered in 2014. An in-depth analysis of the data shows that the use of the interactive white board contributed primarily to the achievement of students who were weak in the area of language, particularly in the area of writing. In a comparative study conducted by Christophy and Wattson (2009), a group of high school students who learned abstract terms in chemistry with the use of the interactive white board actually received lower scores on a multiple choice test of knowledge in comparison to the group that learned traditionally (without the Interactive white board).

Therefore, the present study aims at ascertaining the effect by which the interactive white board will have on academic achievement of students in Basic science and Technology.

**STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM**

The phenomenon of students` poor academic achievement in Basic Science and technology in both internal and external examination has become a source of worry to education stakeholders and the general public. Among the factors identified as the root causes of this poor academic achievement in Basic Science and technology is the conventional methods and materials used by teachers to deliver instructions as well as the complex nature of the subject. Also, most teachers handling Basic science and Technology in our secondary schools are specialized in one aspect of science (either physics, chemistry or biology) as such tend to do well in topics that relate to their area of specialization while other topics are being handle without much expertise or sometimes abandoned. Most basic science and technology teachers find certain concepts in curriculum difficult because of their inability to diversify their teaching methods and lack of relevant ICT tools in schools which makes the teachers resort to using chalkboards only to present their lessons.

Onasanya (2012) pointed out that these problems confronting the teaching and learning of Basic science and technology can be handled using slide presentation, video presentation process and other ICT software facilities in which students interact with and are guided by visual equipment aimed at achieving certain instructional goals and added that interactive white board can be used to transform classroom instruction into a series of rich memorable experiences and thus reduce boredom and forgetfulness in teaching subjects such as basic science and technology. Hence, the focus of this study is to determine the effects of interactive whiteboard on students’ academic achievement and retention in basic science and technology in Uyo Local Government Area.** **

**PURPOSE OF THE STUDY**

The purpose of this study is to find out the effects of interactive whiteboard on upper basic II students` academic achievement and retention in basic science and technology in Uyo Local Government Area.

Specifically, this study seeks to:

- Compare the academic achievement of upper basic II students taught energy using interactive whiteboard with those taught using the conventional chalk board.
- Compare the academic achievement of male and female upper basic II students taught energy using the interactive whiteboard.
- Compare the retention of upper basic II students taught energy using interactive whiteboard with those taught using the conventional chalk board.
- Compare the retention of male and female upper basic II students taught energy using the interactive whiteboard.

**RESEARCH QUESTIONS **

This study will provide answers to the following questions.

- What is the difference in the means achievement scores of students taught energy using interactive white board and those taught with the conventional chalk board?
- What is the difference in the mean achievement scores of male and female upper basic II students taught the concept of energy using the interactive white board?
- What difference exists between the means retention scores of students taught energy using interactive white board and those taught with the conventional chalk board?
- What difference exists between the mean retention scores of male and female upper basic II students taught the concept of energy using interactive white board?

**RESEARCH HYPOTHESES **

The following null hypotheses were formulated for this study and tested at 0.05 level of significance.

- There is no significant difference between the achievement scores of students taught energy using interactive white board and those taught with the conventional chalk board.
- There is no significant difference between the achievement scores of male and female students taught energy using interactive white board.
- There is no significant difference between the retention of students taught energy using interactive white board and those taught with the conventional chalk board.
- There is no significant difference between the retention of male and female upper basic two students taught energy using interactive white board.

**METHOD**

The quasi experimental design was adopted in this study. Specifically, the randomized pretest-posttest control group design was used. It is a design in which the experimental and control groups are equated by random assignment. Both groups have pretest before treatments and post-test at the end of treatments.

The area of the study was Uyo Local Government Area. Uyo is the capital city of Akwa Ibom State, it consists of four clans namely: Ikono, Etoi, Offot and Oku Clans. The local language spoken is Ibibio. Their main sources of livelihoods are: trading, private business and civil service by the government of Akwa Ibom State. Uyo Local Government is bounded on the East by Etinan Local Government, on the West by Ibesikpo Asutan Local Government Area, on the North by Abak Local Government Area as well as Itu and Uruan Local Government Areas in the South. The area lies between latitude 5.05O North and longitude 80O East having a landmass of 115km2 with a total population of 309,373 (National Census, 2006) and a density of 1400 per km2. Currently there are about thirty-six (36) secondary schools in Uyo Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State out of which fourteen (14) are public schools and twenty-two (22) are private.

The population of this study consisted of all upper basic II (JSS 2) students in all the 35 registered secondary schools in Uyo Local Government Area. The choice of the upper basic II student was based on the fact that the topic energy forms part of the JSS 2 scheme of work for Basic Science and Technology (NERDC, 2015).

A sample of 135 upper basic II (JSS 2) students in two secondary schools in Uyo Local Government Area was selected for the study. The two schools and students were selected randomly from the 35 registered secondary school by applying simple random sampling technique.

The two schools selected were assigned as experimental and control group after meeting certain criteria such as a well-equipped science laboratory, library and at least 2 qualified basic science and technology teachers. The researcher used 71 students as experimental group in the first school and 64 students as control group in the second school.

**INSTRUMENTATION**

A researcher- made 20-items 4-options multiple choice test tagged: Basic Science and Technology Achievement Test (BSTAT) was used for data collection. BSTAT was designed to measure the student’s achievement in the concept of energy. It was divided into two sections. The first section contained the student details such as serial number, gender, class and school name, while the second section consisted of four options multiple choice items. The objectives of the sub-topics in the Basic science and Technology curriculum served as a guide for developing the questions. The draft of the Basic Science and Technology Achievement Test (BSTAT) was subjected to content and face validation. The content validation of the Basic Science and Technology Achievement Test was carried out using the table of specification. It was also face validated by three experts who include; one experienced basic science and technology teacher and two lecturers in the Department of Science Education University of Uyo. Errors were pointed out and corrections were made. The reliability of (BSTAT), was carried out using test-re-test method. It was trial tested twice on 20 Basic Science students in a school not selected for the study. The results obtained were analyzed using Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) and the reliability coefficient of 0.72 was realized. This indicated that the instrument was reliable and capable of measuring the intended events with consistency. Each correct answer was scored one (1) mark and incorrect answer scored zero (0). The maximum mark obtainable on the instrument was 20.

In order to account for possible pre-existing differences in overall knowledge level of students in the concept of energy between the two groups, the Basic Science and technology Achievement Test (BSTAT) was administered as pretest to the two groups and the results was used as covariate measures. After that, the students in the two groups were taught energy by the researchers. Students in experimental group were taught energy using interactive white board which displayed the downloaded videos on the concept of energy. While those in the control group were taught with the conventional chalkboard. The teaching of the concept lasted for one week in each of the groups.

After the teaching, the re- shuffled version of the BSTAT was administered as posttest to the two groups to measure the effect of the treatment on the students’ achievement. Three weeks after the administration of the post-test, the post-test version of the Basic Science and Technology Achievement Test (BSTAT) was re-shuffled and administered as retention test to the two groups. The test scripts were collected, scored and analyzed.

The data collected from the study were analyzed using Mean and Standard deviation to answer the research questions and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.

**RESULTS**

The summary of the result gathered for answering the four research questions and testing the four hypotheses are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 below.

**Answers to Research Questions**

**Research Question 1**

What is the difference between the mean achievement score of upper basic II students taught the concept of energy using Interactive white board and those taught using the conventional chalk board?

**Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of students’ pretest and posttest by instructional materials**** **

The result in Table 1 shows that the mean gain achievement scores of upper basic two students taught the concept of energy using the Interactive white board is 7.14 while that of those taught using the conventional chalk board is 4.23. This shows that students taught using the Interactive white board had a higher mean gain achievement score than those taught with the conventional chalk board with the difference of 2.91.

**Research Question 2**

What is the difference between the mean achievement scores of male and female upper basic two students taught energy using the Interactive white board?

**Table 2: Mean and standard deviation of students’ pretest and post test by gender taught energy using interactive white board**

The result in Table 2 shows that the mean gain achievement score of male upper basic II students taught energy using the Interactive white board is 6.28 while that of female students is 7.74. This indicates that female students had a higher mean gain achievement score than their male counterparts in the concept of energy when taught with Interactive white board with a mean gain score difference of 1.46.

**Research Question 3**

What difference exists between the mean retention scores of upper basic II students taught energy using interactive white board and those taught with the conventional chalk board?** **

**Table 3: Mean and standard deviation of students’ post test and retention test scores by instructional materials**

The result in Table 3 shows that the mean gain retention score of upper basic II students taught the concept of energy using the Interactive white board is 4.93 while that of those taught using the conventional chalk board is 2.33. This shows that students taught using the Interactive white board had a higher mean gain retention score than those taught with the conventional chalk board with the difference of 2.6.

**Research Question 4**

What difference exists between the mean retention scores of male and female upper basic II students taught the concept of energy using interactive white board?

**Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of students’ posttest and retention test scores by gender**

The result in Table 4 shows that the mean gain retention score of male upper basic II students taught energy using the Interactive white board is 4.93 while that of female students is 4. 93. This indicates that both male and female upper basic II students taught energy using the Interactive white board retained the concept at the same level.** **

**Testing of the Null Hypotheses **

**Hypothesis 1**

There is no significant difference between the academic achievement of upper basic two students taught the concept of energy using interactive whiteboard and those taught with the conventional chalkboard.

**Table 5: Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of students` post-test scores classified by instructional materials with pre-test scores as covariate**

The result in Table 5 showed that, the calculated P- value .000 is less than the alpha level .05. Therefore, the null hypothesis 1 is rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference between the achievement scores of students taught energy using interactive whiteboard and those taught with the conventional chalkboard.

**Hypothesis 2**

There is no significant difference between the achievement scores of male and female upper basic II students taught energy using interactive white board.

**Table 6: Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of students` post-test cores classified by gender with pre-test scores as covariate**

The result in Table 6 showed that, the calculated P- value .198 is greater than the alpha level .05. Therefore, the null hypothesis 2 is retained. This implies that there is no significant difference between the achievement scores of male and female upper basic II students taught energy using interactive whiteboard.

**Hypothesis 3**

There is no significant difference between the retention of upper basic II students taught energy using interactive white board and those taught with the conventional chalk board.** **

**Table 7: Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of students` retention test scores classified by instructional materials with post-test scores as covariate**

The result in Table 7 showed that, the calculated P- value .000 is less than the alpha level .05. Therefore, the null hypothesis 3 is rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference between the retention scores of students taught energy using interactive whiteboard and those taught with the conventional chalkboard.

**Hypothesis 4**

There is no significant difference between the retention of male and female upper basic two students taught energy using interactive white board.** **

**Table 8: Summary of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of students` retention test scores classified by gender with post-test scores as covariate**

The result in Table 8 showed that, the calculated P- value .434 is greater than the alpha level .05. Therefore, the null hypothesis 4 is retained. This implies that there is no significant difference between the retention scores of male and female upper basic II students taught energy using interactive whiteboard.

**DISCUSSION **

The result in Tables 5 and 7 showed that students taught energy using Interactive white board achieved and retained significantly better than those taught with the conventional chalkboard. Hence, the null hypotheses I and 3 which stated that there is no significant difference between the academic achievement and retention of upper basic II students taught energy using Interactive white board and those taught using chalkboards were rejected respectively. This indicates that the type of instructional material used by teachers to deliver instructions had a statistically significant effect on the academic achievement and retention of students. The better academic achievement and retention of students taught with Interactive white board could be attributed to the fact that the animated video displaced by the white board captured the interest of all the students and motivated them to take active part in the learning process. Unlike the chalkboard which makes the lesson boring to some students. This agrees with the findings of Zittle (2014), Dhindsa and Emran (2016), Swan et al., (2008), Lewin, Somekh, & Stephen (2008) and Elharr (2010) who reported significance effects of interactive whiteboard on students’ academic achievement and retention and concluded that students feel greater motivation to demonstrate their capabilities and their knowledge in the operation of the various functions of the board, especially in small groups or individually.

The results of this study in tables 6 and 8 indicated that gender is not a strong factor to be associated with students` academic achievement and retention in Basic Science and Technology as there was no significant difference between the academic achievement and retention of male and female students on the concept of energy when taught using interactive white board. The observed insignificant effect of gender agrees with the findings of Abubaka and Oguguo (2011), Oladunjoye and Joseph (2012) and Nnoyem and Okonkwo (2012) who observed that gender is not a strong factor to be associated with students’ academic achievement and retention in science. This finding however disagrees with that of Eraikhuemen (2003) and Akpan (2015) who reported that male students performed better than their female counterparts in science and mathematics achievement test.

**CONCLUSION**

Based on the finding made in this study, it is concluded that the use of Interactive white board in teaching Basic Science and technology concepts facilitate student’s academic achievement and retention than the use of the conventional chalkboards. Gender is not a significant determinant of students’ achievement and retention in Basic Science and Technology.** **

**RECOMMENDATIONS**

In view of the results of this study, the following recommendations were made:

- Basic Science and Technology teachers should always make effective use of technological resources such as the Interactive white board in teaching of perceived difficult and abstract concepts in Basic Science and technology curriculum such as energy.
- The Government and school administrators should ensure that all schools are adequately equipped with relevant technological resources necessary for effective teaching and learning.
- Seminars, workshops and conferences should be organized for Basic science and Technology teachers to update their knowledge on how to use the different educational technology resources such as the interactive white boards to enhance their lesson delivery.

**REFERENCES**

Abubaka, R. B. & Oguguo, O. D. (2011). Age and gender as predictors of academic achievement of College Mathematics and Science students. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Teaching, Learning and Change (ICTLC) p. 736.

Akpan, E. O. (2015) Gender dimension in prediction of students’ performance in Mock-SSCE Practical and Theory Chemistry Examinations in some Secondary Schools in Nigeria. International Journal of Education 2(2): 16-22.

Avni, E., Rotem, A., & Ben Cehfer, A. (2010). The renaissance of frontal teaching with and without the IWB [In Hebrew]. Retrieved from http://www.avrumrotem.com/BRPortal Storage/a/25/33/77-INvANEIcVn.pdf. on June 6, 2019.

Chaka, J. G. (2008). Information and communication technology (ICT) as a vital tool in the Educational Sector Reforms in Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Sociology in Education, 2(2)181-190

Christophy, E., & Wattson, E. (2009). The effect of interactive whiteboards on student learning in the Chemistry classroom. Retrieved from http://faculty.shaexcelsior.org on June 6, 2019.

Dhindsa, H. S., & Emran, S. H. (2016). Use of the interactive whiteboard in constructivist teaching for higher student achievement, Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference for the Middle East Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Computing, (pp. 175-188). Abu Dhabi. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.100.2093&rep=rep1&type=pdf. on June 20, 2019.

Edfigho D. H (2015). Information and Communication Technology and overall development. Nsukka: Stanzer Printers.

Elharr, S. (2010). Improving student achievement in science with the interactive whiteboard [In Hebrew].Retrieved from http://merkazh.blogspot.com/2010/06/blog-post_1287. html. on June 16, 2019.

Eraikhuemen, L. (2003). The influence of gender and school location on students’ academic achievement in senior secondary school Mathematics. Ife Journal of Theory and Research in Education, 7 (2): 99 – 112.

Essig, D. (2011). A case study of interactive whiteboard professional development for elementary Mathematics teachers. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Walden University.

Higgins, S. F, Beauchamp, C. K., & Miller, I. (2009). Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies. Newcastle, UK: University of Newcastle on Tyne.

Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Stephen, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291-303.

Miller, D., Glover, D., & Avris, D. (2015). Developing pedagogic skills for the use of the interactive white-board in mathematics. Staffordshire, UK: University of Keele, Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.keele.ac.uk.on May 12, 2019.

Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC) (2012). 9-year Basic Education Curriculum (BEC): Basic Science and Technology JSS1-3. Lagos: NERDC press.

Nnoyem, I. E., & Okonkwo, I. G. (2012). Influence of gender and location of school on students’ achievement in Chemistry. Journal of Research in Education, 1 (1): 9 – 14.

Oladunkoye, A. A., & Joseph, Z. S. (2012). Computer-aided instruction and students academic achievement in Basic Technology in Okechukwu, A. (Ed.) STAN 53rd Annual Conference Proceedings. HEBN Publishers Plc. 24 – 33.

Onasanya S. A. (2012). The impact of computer in a developing country like Nigeria. Journal Research Production, 1, 91 – 102.

Swan, K., Schenker, J., & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Tele-communications 2008 (pp. 3290-3297). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Sweeney, T. (2013). Understanding the use of interactive whiteboards in primary science. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 217-232.

Zittle, F. (2014). Enhancing native American mathematics learning: The use of Smartboard generated virtual manipulatives for conceptual understanding. Retrieved from http://education.smarttech.com. on May10, 2019.

**AUTHORS: DR. JOHN. T MKPANANG AND EKONG, BARNABAS ANTHONY**