The Effects of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning a Literature...

7/28/2019 The Effects of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning a Literature Review

1/58

J. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, Vol. 38(3) 255-312, 2009-2010

THE EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS(IWBs) ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING:A LITERATURE REVIEW

PETER D IGREGORIO

Suffolk County Community College, Selden, New York KAREN SOBEL-LOJESKIStony Brook University, New York

ABSTRACT

Many K-12 and higher-ed schools in both the United States and the UnitedKingdom have made a substantial investment in interactive whiteboard tech-nology. Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are generally perceived by studentsand teachers as a positive addition to the classroom learning environment.While there is support for links between IWBs and increases in student

motivation, questions remain about the relationship between IWBs, studentlearning, and achievement. In this study a literature review was conductedto better understand the research to date in this area. Several common themessurfaced including the effect of IWBs on pedagogy, motivation, interaction, perception, learning, and achievement. In addition, the research suggeststhat these effects are related to contextual factors such as teacher training,teacher confidence, school culture, technical support, and lesson prepara-tion and practice time. An IWB framework is suggested and directions for future research are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are being integrated into many classrooms espe-

cially in Great Britain and the United States. Much of the research on IWB effects

255

2010, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.doi.10.2190/ET.38.3.bhttp://baywood.com


2/58

come from Great Britain as the technology is part of a $27 billion initiative toupdate all primary and secondary schools by 2015 (Schroeder, 2007). Commonthemes on IWBs include effects on perception, motivation, attention, behavior,level of interaction between student, teacher, and IWB, learning, pedagogy, andachievement. Early evidence suggests that IWBs can have a positive effect onteaching and learning (Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2007); however, muchof this evidence is anecdotal, or based on case studies making it difficult togeneralize. Existing studies often employ methods such as focus groups, surveys,and interviews. However, more is needed in terms of quantitative, large samplestudies. Where there is data, studies often contradict one another (Glover, Miller,Averis, & Door, 2005b; Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller, 2007; Martin, 2007;Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003). In addition, research todate does not often take into account the context in which IWBs are used. Nor isthis context considered in terms of how it may affect student outcomes related toIWB usage in the classroom. Common contextual factors discussed in the current body of work include school culture, technical support, teacher training, teacher confidence, and time for teachers to prepare and practice lessons (Schuck &Kearney, 2007). Contextual factors are important to consider as they help toexplain the direct and indirect links between IWB usage and student learningand performance.

Current research also suggests that IWBs are used to reinforce current didacticteaching practices, as teachers can easily use them as a blackboard replacement(Schuck & Kearney, 2007). It has been noted that in order for IWB use to havethe greatest impact, there is a need for pedagogic change from the didactic to theinteractive (Miller, Glover, & Averis, 2004). If teachers are unaware of thefeatures of an IWB and how they link to an interactive pedagogy, often timesthe IWB becomes nothing more than a technological teaching aid (Glover et al.,2007). IWBs offer a whole new approach to pedagogy, but incorporating theminto traditional didactic teaching styles can often be accomplished easily, andwith little training (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson,2005). The fact that IWBs are not considered a disruptive technology is both aweakness and a strength (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). They can easily be integratedinto traditional pedagogy, and thus be seen as a positive addition to the class-room. However, without a progression to an interactive pedagogy, long-termmotivational and achievement gains are often not realized (Higgins et al., 2007).There is much more to the effective use of IWBs than simply ensuring thatteachers have access to the equipment (Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2005a).

It is the context in which IWBs are integrated into the classroom that couldhave the greatest effect.As a result of the extensive literature review, a suggested framework in which

to consider the context and outcomes of IWB usage has been developed inthis article. It is detailed in Figure 1. The framework is comprised of sets of variables: Environmental Factors, Interactive Whiteboard Usage, and Student

256 / D IGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI


3/58

Outcomes. The framework suggests that the level contextual factors influencehow much interactive use of IWBs occurs and the extent to which this intera-ction is used in pedagogy. This interaction level and pedagogy in turn influencesoutcomes that are both socio-emotional and include perception and motivationas well as performance based and include learning and achievement. The links between contextual factors and student outcomes is discussed in detail.

Interactive Whiteboards Overview

IWBs were originally developed for office settings and are a relatively newaddition to education (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). IWBs, sometimesreferred to as electronic whiteboards or SMART Boards, are devices that connectto a computer, which in turn are connected to a multimedia projector. Thecomputer image is projected on the IWB by the projector, and the user can controland manipulate this projected image through software installed on the computer.Similar to the way in which PDAs or smartphones are calibrated, an IWB must be oriented so that where the user presses on the board, is accurately representedon the screen. Some boards, such as the SMART Board, are touch-sensitive, andothers rely on an invisibly gridded whiteboard and an electronic pen. Another typeof technology that falls under the IWB category is the eBeam. This technologyconsists of a receiver placed on the edge of a flat surface, and a radio-waveemitting pen. The position of the pen with respect to the receiver is calculated by

the computer, thus allowing the pen to accurately represent the mouse location onthe flat surface. While this technology is less reliable than traditional IWBs, itis less expensive and more portable (Slay, Siebrger, & Hodgkinson-Williams,2008). The lower cost along with its portability make the eBeam an attractiveoption for schools that want to integrate IWB technology, but may not have thenecessary funds for a more expensive and permanent solution (Slay et al., 2008).

EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 257

Figure 1. IWB framework.

InteractiveWhiteboard

Use

Level of InteractionPedagogy

Learning Achievement

Contexual Factors

School CultureTeacher TrainingTeacher Practice and

Preparation TimeTeacher Confidence

in use of IWBTechnical Support

PerceptionMotivation


4/58

Most IWBs have two modes: computer control mode and writing mode. Whenthe IWB is in computer control mode, a pen, or stylus, acts as the mouse, and a tapas a mouse click. In writing mode, the pen, or stylus, acts as an actual writingimplement, with the computer producing digital ink on the projected image.Applications of the IWB are dependent on the software that is installed and usedon the computer connected to the IWB. Some of the many applications availableinclude hiding and revealing, writing and manipulating text, handwriting recog-nition, saving, retrieving, and printing notes, capturing and manipulating webcontent, shading, coloring, and animation. In addition, more recent SMART Boardsoftware allows the teacher to connect over the Internet to a library of subject-specific flash content like a virtual calculator, virtual frog dissector, interactivemaps, and more. Many libraries are located at the IWB manufacturers website,so that content can be added on a regular basis, giving teachers more options.

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Certain factors play a major role in how IWBs are used in education and aresometimes called contextual factors (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Schuck foundthat the most common contextual factors include school culture, teacher training,time to practice and prepare materials, teacher confidence, and technical support.Other contextual factors to consider involve classroom setup and quality of equipment (Higgins et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2005). The level at which schooldistricts or universities act on such factors varies, but the research shows that thesefactors play a major role in the effects of IWB use (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).

Many studies performed on IWBs do not include contextual variables such as

the studies performed in London schools involved with the Secondary WhiteboardExpansion Project. Some discuss a limited number of contextual factors, andthese factors are often not quantified, such as the level of interaction and teacher training. Therefore, the results of such research are often difficult to generalize.A detailed listing of papers that included contextual factors can be found inAppendix A, Table 1.

School Culture

School culture has an impact on other contextual factors (Schuck & Kearny,2007). In schools that have an IWB culture, the importance of teacher training, practice and development time, teacher confidence, and technical support is oftenrealized (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). A school led by a principal with an enthu-

siasm for technology, and one that supports innovation, is essential if IWBs areto be seen as an integral part of classroom pedagogy (Schuck & Kearny, 2007). Awhole-school approach and senior management teams that support teachers bygiving them the necessary resources to integrate IWBs into their teaching isnecessary for creating an IWB culture (Glover et al., 2005a, 2007). In addition, anopen and supportive parent-teacher culture coupled with interested students and



5/58

expectation of IWB use by teachers has also been noted as critical (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). A whole-school approach might include easy access to theInternet, as well as computer servers where documents can be easily saved,retrieved, and shared by teachers (Lewin, Somekh, & Steadman, 2008).

Teacher Training

Teacher training and professional development is essential for the effectiveuse of IWBs (Armstrong et al. 2005; Glover et al., 2005a, 2005b, 2007; Hall &Higgins, 2005; Lewin et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2004; Schuck & Kearney, 2007;Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Slay et al., 2008; Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006;Smith et al., 2005; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003; Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005;Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Teacher training can be done on an as-needed basiswith self-selecting teachers. However, as with school culture, teacher training ona whole school approach may be best. A whole school approach to training meansthat teachers will be more likely to engage in the technology (Armstrong et al.,2005) and help teachers to develop fluency (Glover et al., 2007).

Hall and Higgins (2005) note that professional development also needs to beongoing. It is easy for schools to fall into the trap of acquiring IWBs, installingthem, and then offering a one time technical training to teachers. Some schoolsmay not even offer formal training at all. Teachers may be initially interested,and some may continue to develop skills on their own, but unfortunately thistype of training program is common but not likely to result in the effectiveuse of IWBs. Technical training is necessary, but training should go beyondthe device itself. Teachers need to also be trained in how to integrate the IWBinto pedagogy (Lewin et al., 2008; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Shenton & Pagett,2007; Smith et al., 2006). This pedagogical training should include how theIWB can be used to teach to different learning styles (Miller et al., 2004), andhow an interactive multimodal approach may change their current pedagogic practices (Shenton & Pagett, 2007).

Other areas that schools might incorporate into an IWB professional develop-ment program are observation, coaching, feedback, and sympathetic discussiongroups (Smith et al., 2006). A school culture that reflects a wide buy-in fromteachers to the IWB concept will allow administrators and faculty to observe,coach, and give constructive feedback to each other (Smith et al., 2006). Asympathetic support group can help to build a sense of community and be a place for teachers to go to share their experiences (Smith et al., 2006). Bygiving teachers the proper ongoing technical and pedagogic IWB training, they

are likely to be better equipped to transform their teaching as compared to their relatively inexperienced counterparts (Lewin et al., 2008). However, developingthe necessary skill set is only one of many contextual factors that need to be considered. Teachers also need the time to practice and develop these skills,which in turn may give them the confidence to put them into practice (Shenton& Pagett, 2007).



6/58

Time and Teacher Confidence

If teachers are given the time to practice IWB usage, develop their IWBskills, and prepare materials in conjunction with IWB features, then IWBs maynot be considered a disruptive technology (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Formallygiving teachers time to explore the IWB can produce better results and aid increating an IWB culture (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). This might be accomplished by giving teachers a reduced teaching load, paying them overtime, or givingthem in-service credits toward promotion. However, there is a trade-off in termsof time spent on learning the IWB and time spent in other teaching-relatedactivities. If a school is to develop an IWB culture, then the total cost of an ongoingIWB professional development program might include time as an expense. It

is only with time that teachers will develop fluency and confidence in usingthe IWB (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). Expanding on the total school buy-inconcept, time also needs to be given to expert practitioners who can providecontinuous feedback to their colleagues (Smith et al., 2006). In addition to givingteachers time to develop and practice their skills, teachers need time to developIWB materials (Glover et al., 2005b; Miller et al., 2004; Schuck & Kearney,2007; Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Wood & Ashfield, 2008). These materialscould then be shared among other teachers within the school (Glover et al.,2007), who would then need more time to review them. Giving teachers timeto practice, develop, and create will help in building and maintaining an IWBculture. With the proper ongoing professional development program and exten-sive time, teachers will be more likely to develop fluency and become moreconfident in IWB use (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). As teacher confidence increases,their lessons have greater impact (Miller et al., 2004). Confident use of IWBsis important, especially since students are keenly aware of the IWB abilities of their teachers (Slay et al., 2008).

Technical Support

Technical support is a critical contextual factor for a successful IWB imple-mentation (Glover et al., 2005a, 2005b; Schuck & Kearny, 2007; Thompson &Flecknoe, 2003). Hall and Higgins (2005) note that students do not like tech-nical problems, which from their perspective cause disruption, delay, and frus-tration. Technical problems are many times unavoidable and unforeseeable, but by setting up a routine technology maintenance program (Miller et al., 2004), perhaps some of these issues may be avoided.

Other Contextual Factors

In addition to the main contextual factors previously discussed, there are afew other factors to consider. These include regular access to the technology(Armstrong et al., 2005; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Smith et al., 2005; Solvie,



7/58

2007), proper room arrangement and visibility (Glover et al., 2005b; Higginset al., 2007), proper IWB height for both teachers and students (Higgins et al.,2007; Smith et al., 2005), and proper classroom lighting (Smith et al., 2005).Room design should be carefully considered prior to installing an IWB. Lineof sight tests should be done and seats should be arranged so that studentshave easy access to the board. The brightness of the image cast by the projector should also be tested, and necessary room darkening equipment installed.This may include blinds over windows, or the ability to turn off banks of lightswithin the room.

Two factors that were not contained in the literature review, but should beconsidered are consistency of equipment, and access to regular whiteboards.When possible, school districts and universities should standardize on equipmentinstalled in their classrooms. This standardization should include one type of IWB and software to control it, a common computer manufacturer and relatedsoftware, and a common multimedia projector manufacturer. This will aid increating a consistent environment for teachers, and help in creating an IWBculture. When teachers move from room to room, the equipment will look andfeel the same, and user technical problems will be minimized. Providing standardwhiteboards in an IWB classroom is also important. Teachers often need atraditional whiteboard in addition to the IWB for their lessons, especially for information that needs to remain visible for the entire class period. Traditionalwhiteboards can also serve as a backup, for occasions when there is a technical problem with the IWB setup.

SummaryContextual FactorsThe contextual factors of school culture, teacher training, time to practice,

teacher confidence, and technical support are important for researchers to con-sider when studying how IWBs are used in schools. Building a school culturethat supports interactivity and technical innovation sets the groundwork for anIWB implementation (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). School culture, like other kinds of organizational culture, arises from leadership attitudes and behaviors.The school culture should include a commitment toward teacher training, timeto practice, and technical support all of which work together in forming anIWB school culture.

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS: EFFECTS

In this study, consistent themes emerged regarding the effects of IWBs. Theeffect of IWBs on perception, motivation, attention, behavior, level of interaction,learning, pedagogy, and achievement were most prevalent. Appendix B, Tables 1through 6, contains an extensive detailed summary of research findings on IWBeffects from the literature reviewed for this study.



8/58

Much of the literature reviewed was specific to K-12 environment. Onlyone study, Schroeder (2007), considered IWB effects in higher education. Thefact that little was found in the area of higher education is discussed further inthe section on directions for future research.

Perception

There is some agreement that students have a positive perception of the IWB(Armstrong et al., 2005; Glover et al., 2005b; Martin, 2007; Miller et al., 2004;Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Smith et al., 2005; Wall et al., 2005). However,questions remain as to whether this perception is simply related to the noveltyfactor (Glover et al., 2005b, 2007), or whether it is more long lasting. Many of

the studies in this review were not longitudinal, and were done shortly after the IWB has been introduced to the school. Therefore, the novelty factor couldhave been a strong influence. Glover et al. (2007) note that, It is only when basictechnological fluency and pedagogic understanding have been achieved thatteachers can overcome the novelty factor (p. 17).

There is also a perception that the use of IWBs will positively effect studentachievement (Slay et al., 2008). While this will be discussed further on, it should be noted that while this perception exists, it is without much empirical support.Claims have also been made that IWBs promote an interactive class (Smithet al., 2006); however, it has also been noted that, in many ways, the func-tionality of the IWB can be viewed as a modern technological version of atraditional blackboard (Wood & Ashfield, 2008, p. 94). Schuck and Kearney(2007) state that lessons using IWBs were perceived as better than other

class work. They relate this to the fact that IWBs can be perceived as easy touse, visual, interactive, immediate, and matching the students digital culture.Lastly, students are aware of a teachers confidence and ability using an IWB(Slay et al., 2008). If teachers lack confidence and ability, perceptions canchange, and IWBs can be perceived as just another presentational gimmick(Glover et al., 2005b).

Motivation, Attention, and Behavior

Motivation, attention, and behavior represent an overall student attitude in theclassroom. There is some agreement that IWBs have a positive effect on studentmotivation (Armstrong et al., 2005; Glover et al., 2005b, 2007; Hall & Higgins,2005; Higgins et al., 2007; Lewin et al., 2008; Martin, 2007; Schmid, 2006;

Schroeder, 2007; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Slay et al.,2008; Smith et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2005; Thompson et al., 2003; Wall et al.,2005; Weimer, 2001; Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Some caution that that heightenedmotivation correlated with IWBs may be due to the novelty factor and maydecrease over time (Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Slay et al., 2008; Smith et al.,2005; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003; Weimer, 2001), especially if the IWB is



9/58

overused (Schroeder, 2007). Some schools in the London Secondary WhiteboardExpansion Project reported that even where teachers were using the board invarious ways, the increase in motivationwas short-lived. Slay et al. (2008) cautionthat pedagogic value is of significant importance in maintaining motivationaleffects. To maximize student motivation, IWBs are best used in subject-specificways, and should be embedded into teaching and learning (Martin, 2007).

The extent to which there is interaction with the IWB influences the effectsof the IWB on motivation, attention, and behavior. It has been noted that atthe enhanced interactivity stage (see next section), behavior problems can beovercome (Glover et al., 2005a). If students interact with the board themselves,motivation and attention can also be increased. It has been reported that IWBuse in the K-12 sector promotes student interest and higher levels of sustainedconcentration (Glover et al., 2007). Some relate this to the multimedia aspects of the IWB, and that presentations are more visually stimulating (Hall & Higgins,2005; Slay et al., 2008). This visual appeal is noted as one of the main con-tributors to motivation (Smith et al., 2006). Teachers can also benefit from themotivational effect of IWBs as some have reported that the technology hasrenewed part of their enthusiasm for teaching (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).Motivation still largely depends on the overall quality of teaching (Schroeder,2007), not simply on a piece of technology. Support was found for a positiverelationship between IWBs and attitude. However, some studies found thatattention to task did not significantly improve even though students seemedenthusiastic (Solvie, 2007).

Level of InteractionInteraction is a significant factor in sustaining student motivation and interest

(Glover et al., 2005b; Higgins et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2005). However, IWBsare not always used interactively and can reinforce teacher-centered instruction(Higgins et al., 2007). As stated earlier, the literature to date reflects IWBs asa relatively non-disruptive technology and can easily be used as a blackboardreplacement. Slay et al. (2008) mention that when IWBs are used in traditionalways, the value of the IWB can be attributed simply to the use of a data projector and computer. For some teachers, interactivity is not as important as the displayof course content in multimedia modes. In addition, teachers report one of themain benefits as the ability to stay in front of the class while interacting withthe multimedia course content. Interactivity needs to exist between teachers and

students, students and students, and teachers and teachers (Glover et al., 2005b).Many teachers have a tendency to dominate the IWB lesson, simply use it for interactive whole class discussions, and not invite the students to interact withthe board themselves (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). IWBs have limited impactwhen teachers do not realize that interactivity also requires a new approach to pedagogy (Armstrong et al., 2005).



10/58

In one study, primary teachers emphasize the tactile nature of the IWB andreport that students and teachers should be interacting with the IWB (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). This was found to be a common theme (Shenton & Pagett,2007; Smith et al., 2005; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003). However teachers do notalways follow this approach (Higgins et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2005). Teachersneed to use appropriate software that enhances student interaction (Armstronget al., 2005). One example is discussed by Thompson & Flecknoe (2003) where asoftware product called Easiteach Maths was used. This software was designedto bring students to the IWB, more directly involving them in the lesson. Theyfound that the IWB works best when used interactively, especially when studentsinteract with the board themselves. Good quality IWB software could be agood option for teachers to incorporate interaction into pedagogy. While childrenoften want to interact with the board, it has been noted, however, that older students are not as eager to leave their seats as younger students (Smith et al.,2005). This finding has implications for the higher education sector and will be discussed later in this study.

According to Glover, teachers who set out to use the IWB progress throughthree stages of interactivity (Glover et al., 2005a, 2007). Stage one is called the supported didactic stage. At this stage, the IWB is used as visual support, andis not pedagogically integrated into lessons. This may cause the IWB to be seenas a novelty over time. The second stage is called the interactive stage . Thisstage is a progression from the supported didactic stage in that a variety of stimuliare used to illustrate, develop, and test discrete concepts. The IWB becomes thefocal point of the lesson and demands attention from the students. The findingsshow that teachers still show an occasional lack of confidence, but still searchfor new approaches to pedagogy. At this stage teachers are more excited andshare their experiences with other teachers. The third stage is called the enhanced interactivity stage, where the teacher looks to integrate concept and cognitivedevelopment in a way that exploits the interactive capacity of the IWB. The IWBis used to prompt discussions, explain processes, develop hypotheses, and testthese by varied application (Glover et al., 2005a). This stage requires carefullesson preparation including verbal, visual, and kinesthetic activities. It alsoinvolves learning management, the ability to store and edit lessons, and thewillingness for pedagogic change (Glover et al., 2007). Teachers are the criticalagents in mediating the IWB software and the IWB hardware to promote inter-actions and interactivity (Higgins et al., 2007). The enhanced interactivity stageis needed for IWB use to have the greatest impact on teaching and learning

(Glover et al., 2005a, 2007).

Learning

IWBs offer the opportunity to better match learning to different studentlearning styles (Glover et al., 2005a, 2005b, 2007; Schuck & Kearney, 2007;



11/58

Slay et al., 2008; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003; Wall et al., 2005; Weimer,2001). These learning styles include the kinesthetic, visual, audio, active, andverbal-social. There are, however, to date no absolute properties of an IWB have been identified that would allow one to predict the effects they have on learning(Armstrong et al., 2005), and the use of IWBs alone cannot lead to enhancedlearning (Glover et al., 2007). In fact, it is not clear as to how IWB use mightaffect learning outcomes or concept development (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).This is partially due to the fact that many studies were done in schools whereIWBs were a new addition to the classroom. A key factor to keep in mind isthat IWBs are a mediating artifact. The teacher, not the technology, is still themost important element in student learning (Miller et al., 2004).

Some studies found there is limited impact of IWBs on cognitive learning(Martin, 2007; Miller et al., 2004; Schroeder, 2007), and that IWBs may alter the way learning takes place, but has not been shown to have a measurableimpact on learning (Higgins et al., 2007). This finding is especially prevalentin studies where IWBs are found to be used as a blackboard replacement, andtheir effect on learning is negligible (Lewin et al., 2008). On the other hand,some studies show support for a link between IWB use and learning (Glover et al., 2005b; Schmid, 2006; Smith et al., 2005, 2006; Solvie, 2007; Thompson& Flecknoe, 2003; Wall et al., 2005; Wood & Ashfield, 2008), but do notdifferentiate between transferrable learning versus other kinds of learning(Martin, 2007; Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007). So there are contradictions.However, the answer may lie in the type of learning domain under study. Someresearch suggests that the real impact of IWBs may lie in the affective domain,not the cognitive domain (Schroeder, 2007). While the cognitive domain focuseson knowledge and comprehension, the affective domain focuses on the learnersmotivation, attention, emotions, self-concept, self-esteem, and social interactionin the learning environment. It is this type of learning that could be more impor-tant to learning and achievement (Weimer, 2001). It may be that IWBs canadd a social dimension to learning where students can share knowledge publiclyand learn by making mistakes together (Smith et al., 2006).

Pedagogy

Pedagogy is sometimes defined differently. For example, according to Lewin, pedagogy is defined as the interactive process that goes on between teachersand children (Lewin et al., 2008, p. 293). The Merriam-Webster dictionary

defines pedagogy as, the art, science, or profession of teaching. No matter thespecific definition, one overall theme contained in the research reviewed isthat effective teaching with IWBs requires pedagogy to contain an element of interactivity. Although IWBs are well adapted to whole-class teaching, whennot used interactively, IWBs can reinforce teacher-centered styles of pedagogy(Armstrong et al., 2005; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Smith et al., 2005, 2006). In



12/58

many cases, the underlying pedagogy of whole-class teaching remains unaffected(Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Many teachers have uncritically absorbed IWBs intotheir pre-IWB teaching practices (Smith et al., 2005). This can be attributed tothe fact that IWBs are a non-disruptive technology (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).Effective pedagogical interactivity requires structured lesson planning, pace inactivities, and a cognitive review (Higgins et al., 2007). The role of the teacher needs to change to one of a facilitator, which will allow more student exploration(Hall & Higgins, 2005). This may become a barrier in cases when the teacher wants to maintain a traditional didactic teaching style. It is also more difficultin Great Britain where many teachers are less open to involving their studentsin the lesson (Hall & Higgins, 2005). Teachers and students must work together rather than adopting the traditional formal roles of teacher and learner (Lewinet al., 2008). Without this pedagogical change, IWBs can be seen as a passing presentational aid or motivational spur (Glover et al., 2007).

Glover et al. (2007) report that early research focused on the benefits of thetechnology and not on how pedagogy may need to be changed. They go on to saythat the starting point for changed pedagogy is teacher awareness and imple-mentation of interactivity. Teachers need to reach the enhanced interactivitystage with regard to pedagogy. At this stage, there is an integration of tech-nology, pedagogy, and learning styles. This stage can be obtained with thefollowing changes to pedagogy: planning for cognitive development, clear visualrepresentation of concepts, activities that encourage an active thinking approach, progression, illustration, sequencing, immediate feedback, and recall to strengthenlearning (Glover et al., 2007).

Lewin et al. (2008) state that if IWBs are to have an impact, the IWB has to be seen as a mediating artifact. Teachers must allow students to interact with the board, and lesson plans need to be structured with associated resources accessibleany time. Two effects of IWBs on pedagogy are that teachers are putting increased preparation time into their lessons, and they are spending more time thinking aboutstudents individual learning styles (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Lastly, teachersneed to realize that students are keenly aware of any shortcomings in their teachersin relation to pedagogical uses of the IWB (Hall & Higgins, 2005; Slay et al.,2008). Teachers should practice their skills and develop confidence (Hall &Higgins, 2005; Martin, 2007; Miller et al., 2004; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Slayet al., 2008). Teachers should also learn to teach creatively, by including a widerange of media such as video, animations, audio, graphics, animations and text(Wood & Ashfield, 2008) In addition, this creative teaching should contain

relevant content for students to have ownership (Wood & Ashfield, 2008).

Achievement

There is some controversy as to the effects of IWB use and achievement.For the purposes of this literature review, the terms achievement and



13/58

attainment are used synonymously. While achievement can be defined as anaccomplishment, and attainment can be defined as reaching a goal, they havesimilar connotations.

One of the most compelling studies that showed a negligible effect of IWBon achievement is Higgins et al. (2007). After a 2 year study, no significant dif-ferences were found in test scores between schools using IWBs, and schoolsnot using IWBs. In addition, London schools in the Secondary WhiteboardExpansion Project, where teachers were using the IWB in various ways, reportedno impact on pupil performance in the first year in which departments werefully conversant with the technology (Higgins et al., 2007). Schuck and Kearney(2007) also report that little or no difference was found on national test scoresin mathematics and science in UK primary schools when comparing IWB andnon-IWB classrooms. This apparent lack of effect on achievement is consistentwith other studies contained in this review (Glover et al., 2005b; Martin, 2007;Smith et al., 2005; Solvie, 2007).

On the other hand, Lewin et al. (2008), note that positive gains wererealized in literacy, mathematics, and science for children aged 7-11. Thesegains were directly related to the length of time that students had beentaught using an IWB. In addition, these gains were stronger for children of average or above average prior attainment. There was negligible impact on prior low attaining pupils. Thompson & Flecknoe (2003) note that significantgains were realized using the ready made IWB program called Easiteach Maths. They reported a 14.1% improvement in attainment in the first term, a22.1% improvement in the second term, and a 39.4% improvement overall.All children, regardless of prior attainment levels, made similar gains. It should be noted that Easiteach Maths is a highly interactive software package thatinvolves students directly by having them use the board themselves (Thompson& Flecknoe, 2003).

Other research suggests that dialogic teaching, or whole-class interactiveteaching, can lead to higher achievement (Smith et al., 2006). However, dia-logic teaching can be accomplished with traditional teaching methods and basic use of the IWB. Motivation is one of the underlying factors in learn-ing and achievement (Weimer, 2001). While findings generally showed thatIWBs had a positive effect on motivation (Armstrong et al., 2005; Glover et al.,2005b, 2007; Hall & Higgins, 2005; Higgins et al., 2007; Lewin et al.,2008; Martin, 2007; Schmid, 2006; Schroeder, 2007; Schuck & Kearney,2007; Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Slay et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2005, 2006;

Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003; Wall et al., 2005; Weimer, 2001; Wood & Ashfield,2008), there is not much research linking this increased motivation directlyto achievement.

There is conflicting information regarding the effect of IWBs on studentachievement and attainment. This presents a challenge and more research isneeded using higher constraint research designs.



14/58

Effects Summary

Appendix B, Tables 1 through 6, contains a research summary of IWB effectson perception, motivation, level of interaction, learning, pedagogy, and achieve-ment. In general, IWBs are perceived positively, and studies show they canhave a positive impact on motivation. Whether this impact on perception andmotivation is just a noveltyfactor, and will decrease over time, or one that is longer lasting seems to be dependent on pedagogy (Slay et al., 2008). By embeddingIWBs and interactivity into teaching and learning, the motivational effect can be maximized (Martin, 2007). Sustaining this level of motivation and interestcan be accomplished through quality interaction between teacher and student,student and student, and teacher and teacher. (Glover et al., 2005b). Some studies

have also linked motivational effect to achievement (Weimer, 2001). Achieve-ment has been reported by some to be positively impacted by IWBs (Lewinet al., 2008; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003), while others see negligible impacts(Glover et al., 2005b; Higgins et al., 2007; Martin, 2007; Schuck & Kearney,2007; Smith et al., 2005; Solvie, 2007).

Implementing an interactive pedagogy, teachers may acquire the knowledgeon how to use the IWB to teach to different learning styles in the cognitivedomain, and how to incorporate the social characteristics of the affective domain.Teachers should strive to reach the enhanced interactivity pedagogical stageand view the IWB as a mediating artifact. Perhaps the most cost effective and pedagogically effective way to incorporate IWBs into the classroom is to take atwo-step approach. First, allow teachers to start with just a multimedia projector and a computer (Slay et al., 2008). Once teachers are comfortable with incorporating multimodal course materials into their pedagogy, they move to thenext step, and add an IWB, along with interactivity. Some teachers may simplywish to use the presentational abilities of the computer and multimedia projector,keep their didactic teaching style, and not make changes to their pedagogy.Others may be willing to transform their teaching style from supported didacticto enhanced interactivity . The IWB will have the greatest effect in classroomswith teachers willing to make this transformation. It is important to remember that, good teaching remains good teaching with or without the technology;the technology might enhance pedagogy only if the teachers and pupils engagedin it and understood its potential in such a way that the technology is not seenas an end in itself, but as another pedagogical means to achieve teaching andlearning goals (Higgins et al., 2007, p. 217).

DISCUSSIONIWB FRAMEWORK MODEL

Based on the review of the literature it is posited that a more comprehensiveframework is needed to understand the effects of IWBs in the classroom. In



15/58

the framework put forward (see Figure 1), the contextual factors of school culture,teacher training, time to practice, teacher confidence, and technical support com- bine to influence pedagogy and level of interaction which then effect perception,motivation, learning and achievement.

In order for IWBs to have their greatest positive influence on student learningand achievement, an interactive school culture is needed. A culture that embraceschange and embodies a positive attitude or buy in to the idea of transformingteaching and learning through IWB use, provides the foundation on whichthe other parts of the framework are developed. If senior school officials aresuccessful in providing a clear understanding as to what is involved in creatingan interactive IWB culture, then positive IWB effects are more likely. The cultureneeds to be one that is shared by all school stakeholders including adminis-trators, teachers, staff, students, and parents. To help in creating this culture,teachers need to be given the training and time to explore the IWB and itsuses. This training should be both technical and pedagogical. The pedagogicaltraining should be ongoing and assist teachers in transforming teaching throughthe three stages of interactivity (Glover et al., 2005a). Educational leadershipmust also factor in cost to implement the necessary framework. For IWBs tohave the greatest effect on teaching and learning, the total cost of an imple-mentation is likely to go beyond the cost of IWB equipment alone. Therefore,in order to develop the appropriate contextual factors necessary for successfulIWB implementation, a return on investment (ROI) calculation needs toinclude these pieces as well.

Along with technical and pedagogical training teachers need time to practiceand develop course materials. Transitioning to an interactive pedagogy willtake time. As discussed, an interactive pedagogy is an important component if IWBs are to be maximized for learning and achievement. Allowing teachers toexperiment with new ideas and to share these ideas with other teachers is also akey aspect of the framework. Having a collaborative and supportive environmentshould help in the transformation to an interactive pedagogy, but should alsohelp in creating and maintaining an open IWB culture.

With proper training, preparation, and practice time, teachers are more likelyto develop confidence in IWB use, which has been shown to affect long-termmotivation and overcome the novelty factor. Students are highly cognizant of thetechnical and pedagogic abilities of their teachers and IWB use. If teachers reachthe enhanced interactivity stage, then student motivation should be maintainedover time. Without this level of confidence and pedagogical transformation, an

IWB might simply be seen as a technological tool and not a mediating artifact.Whether it is in the cognitive domain, with IWBs lending to different learningstyles, or the affective domain, with IWBs focusing on attitude, for IWBs to havethe most effect, teachers should strive to be at the enhanced interactivity stage(Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Effective learning can be realized more fully when



16/58

teachers value the technology and fully understand the nature of interactivityand its pedagogic implications (Glover et al., 2007).

Providing teachers with timely technical support should help to maintainthe open IWB culture. Technical support should include both a help desk for episodic problems as well as a regular maintenance program to help avoidissues. Teachers might be well trained and highly motivated; however, if theequipment doesnt work or breaks down regularly, the educational process could be negatively impacted.

The next part of the framework deals with the use of interactive whiteboards particularly with the level of interaction and pedagogy. The contextual factorsinfluence these two mediating factors that in turn will play an important rolein the extent to which the students perception, motivation, learning and achieve-ment are increased. A well-planned enhanced interactive pedagogy will havea greater effect than a traditional didactic pedagogy with respect to IWB use.Using an IWB as a blackboard replacement may have an initial beneficial effect, but the research to date has shown limited long-term benefit. Incorporatingan IWB into existing pedagogy will not transform learning; it will only changehow learning takes place. Without transforming learning, long term achievementgains are less likely to be realized.

This IWB framework is put forth based on the extensive literature reviewdiscussed in this study. While this framework may not account for all cases,it is put forth to help school leadership to begin the process of improvinglearning and achievement outcomes within the context of the many factorsthat have been found to be important contributors to success in these areas.The research is still in its early stages and, therefore, comparatively speaking,there are many studies that result in contradictory outcomes. Therefore, byextending a parsimonious framework from which explanatory power for varying results may be found, researchers may be able to further refine their investigations.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There is still a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done with regardto the effects of IWBs on teaching and learning. Appendix C, Table 1, lists asummary of future research findings from the studies reviewed. Much of theresearch reviewed was done in the United Kingdom, a country that has invested

a great deal of money to investigate how best to incorporate IWBs and infor-mation and communication technologies (ICT) into the classroom (Schroeder,2007; Slay et al., 2008). More studies need to be done in the United States,where pedagogical practices vary and students are encouraged to participate morein lessons (Hall & Higgins, 2005).



17/58

There are many different ways in which the research has been done. Allmethods help to improve our understanding of the effects of IWBs on educa-tional outcomes. However further defining the factors put forth in the IWBframework will help researchers more fully understand results as they relate toone another. It is hypothesized that the contextual factors discussed have a directeffect on the level of interaction and pedagogy used in the classroom, whichin turn have an impact on perception, motivation, learning, and achievement.Perhaps the contextual factors posited here can be further quantified, whichwould aid in future data analysis performed on IWB impacts.

All but one of the studies listed in this review deal with the K-12 sector.More research is needed at the higher education level (Schroeder, 2007),as more investments in IWBs are made at this level. Institutions of higher learning often have varying school cultures, and professors who have differingapproaches to pedagogy. It has also been reported that older students arenot as eager to leave their seats (Smith et al., 2005), so this may have an impacton the level of interactivity that can be achieved. Class size could also be aconsideration, as smaller seminar classes are quite different from larger lecturehall classes.

Future research should also focus beyond generic learning gains, and onsubject-specific learning (Glover et al., 2005b; Schuck & Kearney, 2007), cross-curricular learning (Shenton & Pagett, 2007), and interdisciplinary learning.While some subject-specific research is available, it should be expanded. Futureresearch in these areas should take the contextual factors and mediating vari-ables posited here into account. Different demographic groups should also beconsidered when interpreting results.

A main theme in the literature is that many studies are carried out too soonafter the technology has been introduced, and are not long term. Now thatIWBs have been integrated into many schools over longer periods of time,studies can be revisited, and more longitudinal studies should be considered.These longitudinal studies could then also focus on the long-term impacts of IWBs on pedagogy, level of interaction, perception, motivation, learning, andachievement. As discussed previously, motivational effects could be attributedto the novelty factor, and future studies should attempt to address some of this issue. If, as reported by Weimer (2001), motivation is one of the underlyingfactors in learning and achievement, research in long-term motivation trendsis critical. Taking this one step further, understanding how increased motivationdue to IWB use is translated into learning, also needs to be addressed (Higgins

et al., 2007).There is a perception that an IWB implementation will, by itself, be moti-vating to both students and teachers, enhance interactivity, and increase studentlearning and achievement. As discussed, some studies have found that in manyinstances IWBs are used as blackboard replacements, and underlying pedagogyremains unchanged. Some studies find achievement gains, while others do not.



18/58

It would be beneficial to understand why this perception is so widespread, andto look at ways of correcting this view.

The added benefit of using an IWB interactively needs to be weighed againstthe benefits perceived by the school, its administrators, teachers, and students(Slay et al., 2008). Future research needs to be done in this area, and a return oninvestment (ROI) model should be created. This would benefit schools interestedin IWBs, but may not have the resources necessary to properly address therequired contextual factors discussed. Schools may be investing large amountsof money to install IWBs, and later find that the effects of these IWBs arerelated only to the computer, multimedia projector, and a change to a moremultimodal pedagogy, not the IWB itself.

More research should also to be done on how IWBs impact different typesof students, including special needs students, lower attaining students, averagestudents, students with behavioral problems, and higher attaining students. Thisresearch could be done in subject specific areas, and at different grade levels.Gender, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, and other demographic factors shouldalso be taken into consideration and studied.

Mechling et al. (2007) mention an interesting area for future research whereIWB technology should be compared to more traditional interactive methodssuch as flash cards. The idea of teaching with less expensive manipulatives is onethat creates an interactive environment, but often does not require technology.Motivation, learning, and achievement gains should be studied comparing theuse of IWBs and manipulatives.

An instrument that measures and assesses the impact of instructional methodsneeds to be developed and studied (Schroeder, 2007). This type of instrumentwould be beneficial to studying the impacts of IWB use. This instrument shouldalso include a way to factor in the level at which contextual factors are addressedwithin a school.

Future research should also focus on the pedagogical progression from the supported didactic stage to the interactive stage to the enhanced interactivitystage. Investigating how one progresses and what is needed to accomplish this progression would be beneficial to both researchers and practitioners. Theresults could be used as a guideline for schools in creating an efficient training program for teachers. In addition to teachers who create their own IWB materials,there are a number of commercial products available. Research should consider these commercial software products and discuss their impacts and effective-ness more fully. Lastly, group and peer learning using IWBs should be further

researched (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).While there is a great deal of research available on the effects of IWB use inthe classroom, a parsimonious model of the environmental or contextual factorswill help to enhance researchers understanding of the results. Future studiesinvolving IWB impacts should report on the level in which contextual factors,such as the ones posited in the framework discussed, are addressed.



19/58


A P P E N D I X A

T a b l e 1

C o n t e x t u a l F a c t o r s

A u t h o r ( s )

Y e a r

J o u r n a l


A r m s t r o n g , B

a r n e s ,

S u t h e r l a n d , C

u r r a n ,

M i l l s ,

& T h o m p s o n

G l o v e r , M i l l e r ,

A v e r i s , &

D o o r


A v e r i s , &

D o o r


A v e r i s , &

D o o r

H a l l & H i g g i n s

H i g g i n s , B

e a u c h a m p ,

& M i l l e r

L e w i n

, S o m e k h , &

S t e a d m a n

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 5 a

2 0 0 5 b

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

E d u c a t i o n a l R e v i e w

M a n a g e m e n t i n

E d u c a t i o n

T e c h n o l o g y , P e d a g o g y ,

a n d E d u c a t i o n

L e a r n i n g , M

e d i a a n d

T e c h n o l o g y

J o u r n a l o f C o m p u t e r

A s s i s t e d L e a r n i n g

L e a r n i n g , M

e d i a a n d

T e c h n o l o g y

E d u c a t i o n

& I n f o r m a t i o n

T e c h n o l o g i e s

A w h o l e a p p r o a c h t o t r a i n i n g m e a n s t h a t t e a c h e r s w i l l b e m o r e l i k e l y t o

e n g a g e i n t h e t e c h n o l o g y a n d w o u l d t h e n d e v e l o p c o n f i d e n c e . L

o n g -

t e r m e n g a g e m e n t i s i m p o r t a n t . R e g u l a r a c c e s s t o I W B s i s i m p o r t a n t .

I m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s i n c l u d e t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s , e n c o u r a g e m e n t f r o m

s e n i o r l e a d e r s , a v a i l a b i l i t y o f e q u i p m e n t , t e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t , r

e s o u r c e

m a n a g e m e n t , a n d o n g o i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t .

T i m e t o p r e p a r e m a t e r i a l s

, t r a i n i n g , a c c e s s t o s o

f t w a r e , p r o p e r r o o m

a r r a n g e m e n t , g o o d v i s i b i l i t y

, a n d t e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t a r e n e c e s s a r y .

M i s s i o n e r s n e e d t o c o n v i n c e s e n i o r m a n a g e m e n t t o p r o v i d e n e c e s s a r y

r e s o u r c e s . W h o l e - s c h o o l p r o

f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t t o h e l p t e a c h e r s

d e v e l o p

f l u e n c y . T

e a c h e r s s h o u l d b

e a b l e t o s h a r e r e s o u r c e s a n d

s o f t w a r e . N e e d t o d e v e l o p a n I W B c u l t u r a l w i t h i n s c h o o l .

N e e d u p - t o - d a t e e q u i p m e n t , t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s , c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l

d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d t e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t . E

n v i r o n m e n t m u s t a l l o w

f o r

i n c r e a s e d s t u d e n t a c c e s s t o t h e t e c h n o l o g y .

I W B s m u s t b e m a i n t a i n e d

, p l a c e d a t t h e c o r r e c t h e i g h t f o r b o t h t e a c h e r s

a n d s t u d e n t s

, h a v e p r o p e r l i g h t i n g a n d s e a t i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s

.

N e e d b o t h t e c h n i c a l a n d p e d a g o g i c a l t r a i n i n g . T

o t a l s c h o o l b u y - i n i s

n e e d e d i n c l u d i n g a c c e s s t o s c h o o l s e r v e r s a n d t h e I n t e r n e t .


20/58

A P P E N D I X A ( C o n t d

. )

A u t h o r ( s )

Y e a r

J o u r n a l


M a r t i n

M e c h l i n g ,

G a s t ,

&

K r u p a

M i l l e r , G

l o v e r , &

A v e r i s

S c h m i d

S c h r o e d e r

S c h u c k & K e a r n e y

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 7

L i t e r a c y

J o u r n a l o f A u t i s m

&

D e v e l o p m e n t a l D i s o r d e r s

P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t

T e n t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l

C o n g r e s s o f

M a t h e m a t i c s E d u c a t i o n

C o m p u t e r A s s i s t e d

L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g

C o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n

I n f o r m a t i o n L i t e r a c y

S t u d y d o n e a t T h e

U n i v e r s i t y o f

T e c h n o l o g y

S y d n e y

T o m a x i m i z e t h e u s e o f I W B s a s a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e o n t e a c h i n g , f

o u r

f a c t o r s m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d : t e c h n o l o g i c a l

f l u e n c y , a

r a n g e o f I W B

m a t e r i a l s

, c l a s s r o o m m a n a g e m e n t s k i l l s t o m a x i m i z e t h e a t t e n t i o n

s p a n o f s t u d e n t s

, a n d a n a w a r e n e s s i f t h e c o m p l e x i n t e r a c t i o n o f

t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g s t y l e s . A

l s o n e e d t e c h n o l o g y m a i n t e n a n c e , s

t a f f

d e v e l o p m e n t a n d m a t e r i a l s d e v e l o p m e n t .

N e e d t h e

f o l l o w i n g

f a c t o r s : a p r i n c i p a l w i t h e n t h u s i a s m

f o r t h e t e c h -

n o l o g y , i n t e r e s t o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e t e c h n o l o g y , a s c h o o l c u l t u r e t h a t

h a s a s u p p o r t i v e a n d o p e n s t a f

f a n d p a r e n t c u l t u r e , a

s w e l l a s a n

e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t e a c h e r s w o u l d u s e t h e I W B

, p r o

f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p -

m e n t b y t h e s c h o o l a n d c o m m e r c i a l I W B s u p p l i e r s , a

n d t i m e

f o r

t e a c h e r s t o d e v e l o p t h e i r s k i l l s a n d

t o p r e p a r e m a t e r i a l s

. P r o

f e s s i o n a l

d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d f o c u s o n t h e I W B a n d p e d a g o g y , n o t j u s t o n

t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g . T

e c h n i c a l s u p p o

r t a n d e a s y a c c e s s t o I W B s i s

e s s e n t i a l . T e a c h e r s s h o u l d s h a r e t h e i r r e s o u r c e s .



21/58

S h e n t o n

& P a g e t t

S l a y ,

S i e b r g e r ,

&

H o d g k i n s o n - W i l l i a m s

S m i t h

, H a r d m a n ,

& H i g g i n s

S m i t h

, H i g g i n s ,

W a l l , & M i l l e r

S o l v i e

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 7

L i t e r a c y

C o m p u t e r s

&

E d u c a t i o n

B r i t i s h E d u c a t i o n a l

R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l



E d u c a t i o n a l P h i l o s o p h y

a n d T h e o r y

G o o d s o

f t w a r e t h a t a c c o m p a n i e s t h e I W B i s i m p o r t a n t . I

n - s e r v i c e

t r a i n i n g i s i m p o r t a n t . T

e a c h e r s n e e d t i m e i n p r e p a r i n g m a t e r i a l s

.

T e a c h e r s n e e d t o b e c o m e c o n f i d e n t u s e r s . T r a i n i n g s h o u l d f o c u s o n

p e d a g o g i c a l s k i l l s , n o t j u s t t e c h n i c a l c o n f i d e n c e .

T y p e o f t e c h n o l o g y i s i m p o r t a n t t o m e n t i o n , a s i n t e r a c t i v e p e n - b a s e d

s y s t e m s a r e c h e a p e r a n d m o r e p o r t a b l e

, b u t l e s s r e l i a b l e

. O t h e r

f a c t o r s i n c l u d e s c r e e n v i s i b i l i t y , I W B c o m p e t e n c y , v

a l u e o f m u l t i m e d i a

c o n t e n t , m o t i v a t i o n o f t e a c h e r , a n d

c o s t . T

e a c h e r s m u s t c o n t i n u e t o

p r a c t i c e t h e s k i l l s t h e y h a v e a c q u i r e d f r o m p r e v i o u s t r a i n i n g c l a s s e s .

T h e y n e e d t i m e t o e n g a g e w i t h t h e

t e c h n o l o g y .

P r o

f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t i s n e e d e d e n c o u r a g i n g c h a n g i n g

p e d a g o g i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d p r a c t i c e s . T

e a c h e r s n e e d e x t e n s i v e

t i m e t o t r y o u t t h e s e n e w p r a c t i c e s

a n d g e t f e e d b a c k

f r o m e x p e r t

p r a c t i t i o n e r s . P

r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d a l s o i n c l u d e

o b s e r v a t i o n , c o a c h i n g , s

y m p a t h e t i c d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s , a n d

f e e d b a c k .

T r a i n i n g a n d s u p p o r t a r e e s s e n t i a l

. P r o p e r v i e w i n g i s e s s e n t i a l

c o n s i s t i n g o f i t e m s s u c h a s l i m i t i n g

s u n l i g h t

, b o a r d h e i g h t

, a n d c l e a n

s c r e e n s a n d l e n s e s . U

s i n g a g o o d c o l o r a n d f o n t s c h e m e i n I W B

m a t e r i a l s i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o p r o p e r v i e w i n g . T

e a c h e r s m u s t h a v e

f r e q u e n t a c c e s s t o t h e t e c h n o l o g y , a

n d t h i s a c c e s s s h o u l d b e i n t h e i r

o w n c l a s s r o o m .

T e a c h e r i n n o v a t i o n i s i m p o r t a n t , a s w e l l a s I W B s p e c i f i c s o

f t w a r e .

H a v i n g t h e m r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n a s t a n d a r d c l a s s r o o m i s a l s o

i m p o r t a n t .



22/58

A P P E N D I X A ( C o n t d

. )

A u t h o r ( s )

Y e a r

J o u r n a l


T h o m p s o n

&

F l e c k n o e

W a l l , H i g g i n s , &

S m i t h

W e i m e r

W o o d & A s h

f i e l d

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 8


E d u c a t i o n

B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f

E d u c a t i o n a l

T e c h n o l o g y

S m a r t e r K i d s . o r g

r e s e a r c h s t u d y

B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f

E d u c a t i o n a l

T e c h n o l o g y

T e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t a n d t e a c h e r t e c h n i c a l k n o w l e d g e i s i m p o r t a n t .

T e a c h e r s n e e d t r a i n i n g i n h o w t o t e a c h u s i n g I W B s a n d c o n t r o l l i n g t h e

p a c e o f l e s s o n s .

T e a c h e r s n e e d p r o c e s s a n d c u r r i c u l u m - f o c u s e d t r a i n i n g , a

s w e l l a s

t r a i n i n g i n h o w I W B s c a n a f

f e c t s t u d e n t s u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,

r e m e m b e r i n g , a

n d t h i n k i n g .

T e a c h e r s n e e d t i m e t o d e v e l o p r e s o u r c e s

f o r t h e I W B s c r e e n .

T e a c h e r s n e e d t h e t e c h n i c a l a b i l i t y

, b u t m u s t a l s o h a v e a c l e a r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c h i l d r e n s l e a r n i n g a n d h o w t h i s m a y b e f a c i l i t a t e d

w i t h w h o l e - c

l a s s l e s s o n s . T e a c h e r s s h o u l d b e i n v o l v e d i n e v e r y s t e p o f

t h e s o

f t w a r e d e v e l o p m e n t s t a g e . T

h e s o

f t w a r e s h o u l d n t c o n t r o l t h e

t e a c h e r ; t h e t e a c h e r s h o u l d c o n t r o l t h e s o

f t w a r e .



23/58

A P P E N D I X B

T a b l e 1

P e r c e p t i o n

A u t h o r ( s )

Y e a r

J o u r n a l

P e r c e p t i o n

A r m s t r o n g , B

a r n e s ,

S u t h e r l a n d , C

u r r a n ,

M i l l s ,

& T h o m p s o n


A v e r i s , &

D o o r


A v e r i s , &

D o o r


A v e r i s , &

D o o r

H a l l & H i g g i n s

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 5 a

2 0 0 5 b

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 5

E d u c a t i o n a l R e v i e w


E d u c a t i o n

T e c h n o l o g y , P e d a g o g y ,

a n d E d u c a t i o n

L e a r n i n g , M

e d i a a n d

T e c h n o l o g y



P e r c e p t i o n i s P o s i t i v e .

P o s i t i v e s t u d e n t p e r c e p t i o n s . S

o m e

o b s e r v e r s h a v e r a i s e d c o n c e r n s

t h a t t h e I W B c a n j u s t b e a n o t h e r p r e s e n t a t i o n a l g i m m i c k .

I t i s o n l y w h e n b a s i c t e c h n o l o g i c a l f l u e n c y a n d p e d a g o g i c

u n d e r s t a n d i n g h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d t h a t t e a c h e r s c a n o v e r c o m e t h e

n o v e l t y f a c t o r ( p

. 1 7 )

.

M u c h h a s b e e n c l a i m e d : g r e a t e r i n t e r a c t i v i t y

, i n c r e a s e d e n g a g e m e n t ,

m o t i v a t i o n a n d e n j o y m e n t , a l l l e a d i n g t o i m p r o v e m e n t i s a c h i e v e m e n t .

T h e s e c l a i m s h a v e m o s t l y c o m e

f r o m m a n u f a c t u r e r s , p

o l i c y m a k e r s

a n d

, a c a d e m i c s . N e e d m o r e i n p u t f r o m s t u d e n t s d i r e c t l y

. S t u d e n t s l i k e

v e r s a t i l i t y

, m u l t i m e d i a

, a n d

f u n t h a t I W B s p r o v i d e . T h e y a l s o l i k e t h e

t a c t i l e e l e m e n t s o f t h e b o a r d a n d b e i n g a b l e t o m a n i p u l a t e o b j e c t s .

S t u d e n t s d o n t l i k e t e c h n i c a l p r o b l e m s a n d n o t b e i n g a b l e t o s e e t h e

b o a r d ( s u n l i g h t ) .



24/58

A P P E N

D I X B

T a b l e 1 ( C o n t d

. )

A u t h o r ( s )

Y e a r

J o u r n a l

P e r c e p t i o n

H i g g i n s , B

e a u c h a m p ,

& M i l l e r

L e w i n

, S o m e k h , &

S t e a d m a n

M a r t i n

M e c h l i n g ,

G a s t ,

&

K r u p a

M i l l e r , G

l o v e r , &

A v e r i s

S c h m i d

S c h r o e d e r

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

L e a r n i n g , M

e d i a a n d

T e c h n o l o g y

E d u c a t i o n

& I n f o r m a t i o n

T e c h n o l o g i e s

L i t e r a c y

J o u r n a l o f A u t i s m

&

D e v e l o p m e n t a l D i s o r d e r s

P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t

T e n t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l

C o n g r e s s o f

M a t h e m a t i c s E d u c a t i o n

C o m p u t e r A s s i s t e d

L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g

C o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n

I n f o r m a t i o n L i t e r a c y

P o s i t i v e a b o u t t h e i m p a c t a n d p o t e n t i a l o f I W B s . T h i s f e e l g o o d f a c t o r

c o u l d b e r e l a t e d t o t h e H a w t h o r n e E f f e c t .

T e a c h e r s w i t h a c c e s s t o I W B s a r e p e r c e i v e d b y s t u d e n t s t o b e t w i c e a s

r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o h e l p d u r i n g t h e

c o u r s e o f a l e s s o n , w

h i l e t e a c h e r s

w i t h o u t a c c e s s t o I W B s

f o l l o w m o r e r o u t i n g l e s s o n s w i t h f e w e r

c o l l a b o r a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . S

t u d e n t s p e r c e i v e t h e i r c l a s s a s p o s i t i v e w h e n

t e a c h e r s u s e t h e I W B w e l l a n d a r e c o m p e t e n t i n i t s u s e . W h e n o n l y

u s e d o n o c c a s i o n , t

e a c h e r s s e e m t o b e m o r e t e n t a t i v e a n d s t

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	juan-lapeyre
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

The Effects of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning a Literature...

Documents