Content uploaded by Karen Sobel Lojeski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen Sobel Lojeski on Dec 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
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 DIGREGORIO
Suffolk County Community College, Selden, New York
KAREN SOBEL-LOJESKI
Stony Brook University, New York
ABSTRACT
Many K-12 and higher-ed schools in both the United States and the United
Kingdom have made a substantial investment in interactive whiteboard tech-
nology. Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are generally perceived by students
and 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, student
learning, and achievement. In this study a literature review was conducted
to better understand the research to date in this area. Several common themes
surfaced including the effect of IWBs on pedagogy, motivation, interaction,
perception, learning, and achievement. In addition, the research suggests
that 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
Ó 2010, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi.10.2190/ET.38.3.b
http://baywood.com
come from Great Britain as the technology is part of a $27 billion initiative to
update all primary and secondary schools by 2015 (Schroeder, 2007). Common
themes on IWBs include effects on perception, motivation, attention, behavior,
level of interaction between student, teacher, and IWB, learning, pedagogy, and
achievement. Early evidence suggests that IWBs can have a positive effect on
teaching and learning (Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2007); however, much
of this evidence is anecdotal, or based on case studies making it difficult to
generalize. Existing studies often employ methods such as focus groups, surveys,
and interviews. However, more is needed in terms of quantitative, large sample
studies. 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 to
date does not often take into account the context in which IWBs are used. Nor is
this context considered in terms of how it may affect student outcomes related to
IWB 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 to
explain the direct and indirect links between IWB usage and student learning
and performance.
Current research also suggests that IWBs are used to reinforce current didactic
teaching 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 have
the greatest impact, there is a need for pedagogic change from the didactic to the
interactive (Miller, Glover, & Averis, 2004). If teachers are unaware of the
features of an IWB and how they link to an interactive pedagogy, often times
the IWB becomes nothing more than a technological teaching aid (Glover et al.,
2007). IWBs offer a whole new approach to pedagogy, but incorporating them
into traditional didactic teaching styles can often be accomplished easily, and
with little training (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson,
2005). The fact that IWBs are not considered a disruptive technology is both a
weakness and a strength (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). They can easily be integrated
into traditional pedagogy, and thus be seen as a positive addition to the class
-
room. However, without a progression to an interactive pedagogy, long-term
motivational and achievement gains are often not realized (Higgins et al., 2007).
There is much more to the effective use of IWBs than simply ensuring that
teachers have access to the equipment (Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2005a).
It is the context in which IWBs are integrated into the classroom that could
have 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 in
this article. It is detailed in Figure 1. The framework is comprised of sets of
variables: Environmental Factors, Interactive Whiteboard Usage, and Student
256 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Outcomes. The framework suggests that the level contextual factors influence
how 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 influences
outcomes that are both socio-emotional and include perception and motivation
as 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 new
addition to education (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). IWBs, sometimes
referred to as electronic whiteboards or SMART Boards, are devices that connect
to a computer, which in turn are connected to a multimedia projector. The
computer image is projected on the IWB by the projector, and the user can control
and 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 represented
on the screen. Some boards, such as the SMART Board, are touch-sensitive, and
others rely on an invisibly gridded whiteboard and an electronic pen. Another type
of technology that falls under the IWB category is the eBeam. This technology
consists of a receiver placed on the edge of a flat surface, and a radio-wave
emitting 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 on
the flat surface. While this technology is less reliable than traditional IWBs, it
is less expensive and more portable (Slay, Siebörger, & Hodgkinson-Williams,
2008). The lower cost along with its portability make the eBeam an attractive
option for schools that want to integrate IWB technology, but may not have the
necessary funds for a more expensive and permanent solution (Slay et al., 2008).
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 257
Figure 1. IWB framework.
Interactive
Whiteboard
Use
Level of Interaction
Pedagogy
Learning
Achievement
Contexual Factors
School Culture
Teacher Training
Teacher Practice and
Preparation Time
Teacher Confidence
in use of IWB
Technical Support
Perception
Motivation
Most IWBs have two modes: computer control mode and writing mode. When
the IWB is in computer control mode, a pen, or stylus, acts as the mouse, and a tap
as a mouse click. In writing mode, the pen, or stylus, acts as an actual writing
implement, with the computer producing digital ink on the projected image.
Applications of the IWB are dependent on the software that is installed and used
on the computer connected to the IWB. Some of the many applications available
include hiding and revealing, writing and manipulating text, handwriting recog
-
nition, saving, retrieving, and printing notes, capturing and manipulating web
content, shading, coloring, and animation. In addition, more recent SMART Board
software allows the teacher to connect over the Internet to a library of subject-
specific flash content like a virtual calculator, virtual frog dissector, interactive
maps, and more. Many libraries are located at the IWB manufacturer’s 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 are
sometimes called “contextual factors” (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Schuck found
that 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 school
districts or universities act on such factors varies, but the research shows that these
factors 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 Whiteboard
Expansion Project. Some discuss a limited number of contextual factors, and
these 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 in
Appendix 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 often
realized (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). A school led by a principal with an enthu
-
siasm for technology, and one that supports innovation, is essential if IWBs are
to be seen as an integral part of classroom pedagogy (Schuck & Kearny, 2007). A
whole-school approach and senior management teams that support teachers by
giving them the necessary resources to integrate IWBs into their teaching is
necessary for creating an IWB culture (Glover et al., 2005a, 2007). In addition, an
open and supportive parent-teacher culture coupled with interested students and
258 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
expectation of IWB use by teachers has also been noted as critical (Schuck
& Kearney, 2007). A whole-school approach might include easy access to the
Internet, 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 effective
use 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 basis
with self-selecting teachers. However, as with school culture, teacher training on
a whole school approach may be best. A whole school approach to training means
that 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 be
ongoing. It is easy for schools to fall into the trap of acquiring IWBs, installing
them, and then offering a one time technical training to teachers. Some schools
may not even offer formal training at all. Teachers may be initially interested,
and some may continue to develop skills on their own, but unfortunately this
type of training program is common but not likely to result in the effective
use of IWBs. Technical training is necessary, but training should go beyond
the device itself. Teachers need to also be trained in how to integrate the IWB
into pedagogy (Lewin et al., 2008; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Shenton & Pagett,
2007; Smith et al., 2006). This pedagogical training should include how the
IWB can be used to teach to different learning styles (Miller et al., 2004), and
how 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 discussion
groups (Smith et al., 2006). A school culture that reflects a wide “buy-in” from
teachers to the IWB concept will allow administrators and faculty to observe,
coach, and give constructive feedback to each other (Smith et al., 2006). A
sympathetic 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). By
giving 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, developing
the 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).
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 259
Time and Teacher Confidence
If teachers are given the time to practice IWB usage, develop their IWB
skills, and prepare materials in conjunction with IWB features, then IWBs may
not be considered a disruptive technology (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Formally
giving teachers time to explore the IWB can produce better results and aid in
creating an IWB culture (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). This might be accomplished
by giving teachers a reduced teaching load, paying them overtime, or giving
them in-service credits toward promotion. However, there is a trade-off in terms
of time spent on learning the IWB and time spent in other teaching-related
activities. If a school is to develop an IWB culture, then the total cost of an ongoing
IWB professional development program might include time as an expense. It
is only with time that teachers will develop fluency and confidence in using
the IWB (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). Expanding on the total school “buy-in”
concept, time also needs to be given to expert practitioners who can provide
continuous feedback to their colleagues (Smith et al., 2006). In addition to giving
teachers time to develop and practice their skills, teachers need time to develop
IWB materials (Glover et al., 2005b; Miller et al., 2004; Schuck & Kearney,
2007; Shenton & Pagett, 2007; Wood & Ashfield, 2008). These materials
could then be shared among other teachers within the school (Glover et al.,
2007), who would then need more time to review them. Giving teachers time
to practice, develop, and create will help in building and maintaining an IWB
culture. With the proper ongoing professional development program and exten-
sive time, teachers will be more likely to develop fluency and become more
confident in IWB use (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). As teacher confidence increases,
their lessons have greater impact (Miller et al., 2004). Confident use of IWBs
is 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 a
few other factors to consider. These include regular access to the technology
(Armstrong et al., 2005; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Smith et al., 2005; Solvie,
260 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
2007), proper room arrangement and visibility (Glover et al., 2005b; Higgins
et 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. Line
of sight tests should be done and seats should be arranged so that students
have 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 lights
within the room.
Two factors that were not contained in the literature review, but should be
considered are consistency of equipment, and access to regular whiteboards.
When possible, school districts and universities should standardize on equipment
installed in their classrooms. This standardization should include one type of
IWB and software to control it, a common computer manufacturer and related
software, and a common multimedia projector manufacturer. This will aid in
creating a consistent environment for teachers, and help in creating an IWB
culture. When teachers move from room to room, the equipment will look and
feel the same, and user technical problems will be minimized. Providing standard
whiteboards in an IWB classroom is also important. Teachers often need a
traditional whiteboard in addition to the IWB for their lessons, especially for
information that needs to remain visible for the entire class period. Traditional
whiteboards can also serve as a backup, for occasions when there is a technical
problem with the IWB setup.
Summary—Contextual Factors
The 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 culture
that supports interactivity and technical innovation sets the groundwork for an
IWB 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, time
to practice, and technical support all of which work together in forming an
IWB school culture.
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS: EFFECTS
In this study, consistent themes emerged regarding the effects of IWBs. The
effect of IWBs on perception, motivation, attention, behavior, level of interaction,
learning, pedagogy, and achievement were most prevalent. Appendix B, Tables 1
through 6, contains an extensive detailed summary of research findings on IWB
effects from the literature reviewed for this study.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 261
Much of the literature reviewed was specific to K-12 environment. Only
one study, Schroeder (2007), considered IWB effects in higher education. The
fact that little was found in the area of higher education is discussed further in
the 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 novelty
factor (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 could
have been a strong influence. Glover et al. (2007) note that, “It is only when basic
technological fluency and pedagogic understanding have been achieved that
teachers can overcome the novelty factor” (p. 17).
There is also a perception that the use of IWBs will positively effect student
achievement (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 (Smith
et 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 a
traditional 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 to
use, visual, interactive, immediate, and matching the students’ digital culture.
Lastly, students are aware of a teacher’s confidence and ability using an IWB
(Slay et al., 2008). If teachers lack confidence and ability, perceptions can
change, 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 the
classroom. There is some agreement that IWBs have a positive effect on student
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., 2006; Smith et al., 2005; Thompson et al., 2003; Wall et al.,
2005; Weimer, 2001; Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Some caution that that heightened
motivation correlated with IWBs may be due to the novelty factor and may
decrease over time (Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Slay et al., 2008; Smith et al.,
2005; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003; Weimer, 2001), especially if the IWB is
262 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
overused (Schroeder, 2007). Some schools in the London Secondary Whiteboard
Expansion Project reported that even where teachers were using the board in
various ways, the increase in motivation was short-lived. Slay et al. (2008) caution
that pedagogic value is of significant importance in maintaining motivational
effects. To maximize student motivation, IWBs are best used in subject-specific
ways, and should be embedded into teaching and learning (Martin, 2007).
The extent to which there is interaction with the IWB influences the effects
of the IWB on motivation, attention, and behavior. It has been noted that at
the enhanced interactivity stage (see next section), behavior problems can be
overcome (Glover et al., 2005a). If students interact with the board themselves,
motivation and attention can also be increased. It has been reported that IWB
use in the K-12 sector promotes student interest and higher levels of sustained
concentration (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 the
motivational effect of IWBs as some have reported that the technology has
renewed 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 positive
relationship between IWBs and attitude. However, some studies found that
attention to task did not significantly improve even though students seemed
enthusiastic (Solvie, 2007).
Level of Interaction
Interaction is a significant factor in sustaining student motivation and interest
(Glover et al., 2005b; Higgins et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2005). However, IWBs
are not always used interactively and can reinforce teacher-centered instruction
(Higgins et al., 2007). As stated earlier, the literature to date reflects IWBs as
a relatively non-disruptive technology and can easily be used as a blackboard
replacement. Slay et al. (2008) mention that when IWBs are used in traditional
ways, 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 display
of course content in multimedia modes. In addition, teachers report one of the
main benefits as the ability to stay in front of the class while interacting with
the 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 with
the board themselves (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). IWBs have limited impact
when teachers do not realize that interactivity also requires a new approach to
pedagogy (Armstrong et al., 2005).
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 263
In one study, primary teachers emphasize the tactile nature of the IWB and
report 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 not
always follow this approach (Higgins et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2005). Teachers
need to use appropriate software that enhances student interaction (Armstrong
et al., 2005). One example is discussed by Thompson & Flecknoe (2003) where a
software product called Easiteach Maths was used. This software was designed
to bring students to the IWB, more directly involving them in the lesson. They
found that the IWB works best when used interactively, especially when students
interact with the board themselves. Good quality IWB software could be a
good option for teachers to incorporate interaction into pedagogy. While children
often 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 through
three 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, and
is not pedagogically integrated into lessons. This may cause the IWB to be seen
as a novelty over time. The second stage is called the interactive stage. This
stage is a progression from the supported didactic stage in that a variety of stimuli
are used to illustrate, develop, and test discrete concepts. The IWB becomes the
focal point of the lesson and demands attention from the students. The findings
show that teachers still show an occasional lack of confidence, but still search
for new approaches to pedagogy. At this stage teachers are more excited and
share their experiences with other teachers. The third stage is called the enhanced
interactivity stage, where the teacher looks to integrate concept and cognitive
development in a way that exploits the interactive capacity of the IWB. The IWB
is used to prompt discussions, explain processes, develop hypotheses, and test
these by varied application (Glover et al., 2005a). This stage requires careful
lesson preparation including verbal, visual, and kinesthetic activities. It also
involves learning management, the ability to store and edit lessons, and the
willingness for pedagogic change (Glover et al., 2007). Teachers are the critical
agents in mediating the IWB software and the IWB hardware to promote inter
-
actions and interactivity (Higgins et al., 2007). The enhanced interactivity stage
is 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 student
learning styles (Glover et al., 2005a, 2005b, 2007; Schuck & Kearney, 2007;
264 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Slay et al., 2008; Thompson & Flecknoe, 2003; Wall et al., 2005; Weimer,
2001). These learning styles include the kinesthetic, visual, audio, active, and
verbal-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 enhanced
learning (Glover et al., 2007). In fact, it is not clear as to how IWB use might
affect learning outcomes or concept development (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).
This is partially due to the fact that many studies were done in schools where
IWBs were a new addition to the classroom. A key factor to keep in mind is
that IWBs are a mediating artifact. The teacher, not the technology, is still the
most 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 measurable
impact on learning (Higgins et al., 2007). This finding is especially prevalent
in studies where IWBs are found to be used as a blackboard replacement, and
their 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 not
differentiate 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. Some
research suggests that the real impact of IWBs may lie in the affective domain,
not the cognitive domain (Schroeder, 2007). While the cognitive domain focuses
on knowledge and comprehension, the affective domain focuses on the learners’
motivation, attention, emotions, self-concept, self-esteem, and social interaction
in 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 can
add a social dimension to learning where students can share knowledge publicly
and 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 teachers
and children” (Lewin et al., 2008, p. 293). The Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines pedagogy as, “the art, science, or profession of teaching.” No matter the
specific definition, one overall theme contained in the research reviewed is
that effective teaching with IWBs requires pedagogy to contain an element of
interactivity. Although IWBs are well adapted to whole-class teaching, when
not used interactively, IWBs can reinforce teacher-centered styles of pedagogy
(Armstrong et al., 2005; Schuck & Kearney, 2007; Smith et al., 2005, 2006). In
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 265
many cases, the underlying pedagogy of whole-class teaching remains unaffected
(Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Many teachers have uncritically absorbed IWBs into
their pre-IWB teaching practices (Smith et al., 2005). This can be attributed to
the fact that IWBs are a non-disruptive technology (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).
Effective pedagogical interactivity requires structured lesson planning, pace in
activities, 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 difficult
in Great Britain where many teachers are less open to involving their students
in the lesson (Hall & Higgins, 2005). Teachers and students must work together
rather than adopting the traditional formal roles of teacher and learner (Lewin
et 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 the
technology and not on how pedagogy may need to be changed. They go on to say
that the starting point for changed pedagogy is teacher awareness and imple-
mentation of interactivity. Teachers need to reach the enhanced interactivity
stage with regard to pedagogy. At this stage, there is an integration of tech-
nology, pedagogy, and learning styles. This stage can be obtained with the
following changes to pedagogy: planning for cognitive development, clear visual
representation of concepts, activities that encourage an active thinking approach,
progression, illustration, sequencing, immediate feedback, and recall to strengthen
learning (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 accessible
any 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 about
students’ individual learning styles (Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Lastly, teachers
need to realize that students are keenly aware of any shortcomings in their teachers
in 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; Slay
et al., 2008). Teachers should also learn to teach creatively, by including a wide
range 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
266 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
“attainment” are used synonymously. While achievement can be defined as an
accomplishment, and attainment can be defined as reaching a goal, they have
similar connotations.
One of the most compelling studies that showed a negligible effect of IWB
on 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 schools
not using IWBs. In addition, London schools in the Secondary Whiteboard
Expansion Project, where teachers were using the IWB in various ways, reported
no impact on pupil performance in the first year in which departments were
fully conversant with the technology (Higgins et al., 2007). Schuck and Kearney
(2007) also report that little or no difference was found on national test scores
in mathematics and science in UK primary schools when comparing IWB and
non-IWB classrooms. This apparent lack of effect on achievement is consistent
with 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 were
realized in literacy, mathematics, and science for children aged 7-11. These
gains were directly related to the length of time that students had been
taught 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 significant
gains were realized using the ready made IWB program called Easiteach
Maths. They reported a 14.1% improvement in attainment in the first term, a
22.1% 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 that
involves students directly by having them use the board themselves (Thompson
& Flecknoe, 2003).
Other research suggests that dialogic teaching, or whole-class interactive
teaching, 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 that
IWBs 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 directly
to achievement.
There is conflicting information regarding the effect of IWBs on student
achievement and attainment. This presents a challenge and more research is
needed using higher constraint research designs.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 267
Effects Summary
Appendix B, Tables 1 through 6, contains a research summary of IWB effects
on perception, motivation, level of interaction, learning, pedagogy, and achieve
-
ment. In general, IWBs are perceived positively, and studies show they can
have a positive impact on motivation. Whether this impact on perception and
motivation is just a novelty factor, and will decrease over time, or one that is longer
lasting seems to be dependent on pedagogy (Slay et al., 2008). By embedding
IWBs and interactivity into teaching and learning, the motivational effect can
be maximized (Martin, 2007). Sustaining this level of motivation and interest
can 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 (Lewin
et 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 knowledge
on how to use the IWB to teach to different learning styles in the cognitive
domain, and how to incorporate the social characteristics of the affective domain.
Teachers should strive to reach the enhanced interactivity pedagogical stage
and 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 a
two-step approach. First, allow teachers to start with just a multimedia projector
and a computer (Slay et al., 2008). Once teachers are comfortable with incor-
porating multimodal course materials into their pedagogy, they move to the
next step, and add an IWB, along with interactivity. Some teachers may simply
wish 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 didactic
to enhanced interactivity. The IWB will have the greatest effect in classrooms
with 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 engaged
in it and understood its potential in such a way that the technology is not seen
as an end in itself, but as another pedagogical means to achieve teaching and
learning goals” (Higgins et al., 2007, p. 217).
DISCUSSION—IWB FRAMEWORK MODEL
Based on the review of the literature it is posited that a more comprehensive
framework is needed to understand the effects of IWBs in the classroom. In
268 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
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 learning
and achievement, an interactive school culture is needed. A culture that embraces
change and embodies a positive attitude or “buy in” to the idea of transforming
teaching and learning through IWB use, provides the foundation on which
the other parts of the framework are developed. If senior school officials are
successful in providing a clear understanding as to what is involved in creating
an interactive IWB culture, then positive IWB effects are more likely. The culture
needs 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 its
uses. This training should be both technical and pedagogical. The pedagogical
training should be ongoing and assist teachers in transforming teaching through
the three stages of interactivity (Glover et al., 2005a). Educational leadership
must also factor in cost to implement the necessary framework. For IWBs to
have 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 successful
IWB implementation, a “return on investment” (ROI) calculation needs to
include these pieces as well.
Along with technical and pedagogical training teachers need time to practice
and develop course materials. Transitioning to an interactive pedagogy will
take time. As discussed, an interactive pedagogy is an important component if
IWBs are to be maximized for learning and achievement. Allowing teachers to
experiment with new ideas and to share these ideas with other teachers is also a
key aspect of the framework. Having a collaborative and supportive environment
should help in the transformation to an interactive pedagogy, but should also
help in creating and maintaining an open IWB culture.
With proper training, preparation, and practice time, teachers are more likely
to develop confidence in IWB use, which has been shown to affect long-term
motivation and overcome the novelty factor. Students are highly cognizant of the
technical and pedagogic abilities of their teachers and IWB use. If teachers reach
the enhanced interactivity stage, then student motivation should be maintained
over 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 learning
styles, or the affective domain, with IWBs focusing on attitude, for IWBs to have
the most effect, teachers should strive to be at the enhanced interactivity stage
(Schuck & Kearney, 2007). Effective learning can be realized more fully when
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 269
teachers value the technology and fully understand the nature of interactivity
and its pedagogic implications (Glover et al., 2007).
Providing teachers with timely technical support should help to maintain
the open IWB culture. Technical support should include both a help desk for
episodic problems as well as a regular maintenance program to help avoid
issues. Teachers might be well trained and highly motivated; however, if the
equipment doesn’t 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 factors
influence these two mediating factors that in turn will play an important role
in the extent to which the student’s perception, motivation, learning and achieve
-
ment are increased. A well-planned enhanced interactive pedagogy will have
a 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. Incorporating
an IWB into existing pedagogy will not transform learning; it will only change
how learning takes place. Without transforming learning, long term achievement
gains are less likely to be realized.
This IWB framework is put forth based on the extensive literature review
discussed 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 improving
learning and achievement outcomes within the context of the many factors
that 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, by
extending 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 regard
to the effects of IWBs on teaching and learning. Appendix C, Table 1, lists a
summary of future research findings from the studies reviewed. Much of the
research 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 more
in lessons (Hall & Higgins, 2005).
270 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
There are many different ways in which the research has been done. All
methods help to improve our understanding of the effects of IWBs on educa
-
tional outcomes. However further defining the factors put forth in the IWB
framework will help researchers more fully understand results as they relate to
one another. It is hypothesized that the contextual factors discussed have a direct
effect on the level of interaction and pedagogy used in the classroom, which
in turn have an impact on perception, motivation, learning, and achievement.
Perhaps the contextual factors posited here can be further quantified, which
would 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 differing
approaches to pedagogy. It has also been reported that older students are
not as eager to leave their seats (Smith et al., 2005), so this may have an impact
on the level of interactivity that can be achieved. Class size could also be a
consideration, as smaller seminar classes are quite different from larger lecture
hall classes.
Future research should also focus beyond generic learning gains, and on
subject-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. Future
research in these areas should take the contextual factors and mediating vari-
ables posited here into account. Different demographic groups should also be
considered when interpreting results.
A main theme in the literature is that many studies are carried out too soon
after the technology has been introduced, and are not long term. Now that
IWBs 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, and
achievement. As discussed previously, motivational effects could be attributed
to 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 underlying
factors in learning and achievement, research in long-term motivation trends
is critical. Taking this one step further, understanding how increased motivation
due 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 student
learning and achievement. As discussed, some studies have found that in many
instances IWBs are used as blackboard replacements, and underlying pedagogy
remains unchanged. Some studies find achievement gains, while others do not.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 271
It would be beneficial to understand why this perception is so widespread, and
to look at ways of correcting this view.
The added benefit of using an IWB interactively needs to be weighed against
the 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 on
investment (ROI) model should be created. This would benefit schools interested
in IWBs, but may not have the resources necessary to properly address the
required contextual factors discussed. Schools may be investing large amounts
of money to install IWBs, and later find that the effects of these IWBs are
related only to the computer, multimedia projector, and a change to a more
multimodal pedagogy, not the IWB itself.
More research should also to be done on how IWBs impact different types
of students, including special needs students, lower attaining students, average
students, students with behavioral problems, and higher attaining students. This
research could be done in subject specific areas, and at different grade levels.
Gender, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, and other demographic factors should
also be taken into consideration and studied.
Mechling et al. (2007) mention an interesting area for future research where
IWB technology should be compared to more traditional interactive methods
such as flash cards. The idea of teaching with less expensive manipulatives is one
that creates an interactive environment, but often does not require technology.
Motivation, learning, and achievement gains should be studied comparing the
use of IWBs and manipulatives.
An instrument that measures and assesses the impact of instructional methods
needs to be developed and studied (Schroeder, 2007). This type of instrument
would be beneficial to studying the impacts of IWB use. This instrument should
also include a way to factor in the level at which contextual factors are addressed
within a school.
Future research should also focus on the pedagogical progression from the
supported didactic stage to the interactive stage to the enhanced interactivity
stage. Investigating how one progresses and what is needed to accomplish this
progression would be beneficial to both researchers and practitioners. The
results 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 in
the classroom, a parsimonious model of the environmental or contextual factors
will help to enhance researchers’ understanding of the results. Future studies
involving IWB impacts should report on the level in which contextual factors,
such as the ones posited in the framework discussed, are addressed.
272 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 273
APPENDIX A
Table 1 – Contextual Factors
Author(s) Year Journal Contextual Factors
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Hall & Higgins
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
2005
2005a
2005b
2007
2005
2007
2008
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
Learning, Media and
Technology
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Learning, Media and
Technology
Education & Information
Technologies
A whole approach to training means that teachers will be more likely to
engage in the technology and would then develop confidence. Long-
term engagement is important. Regular access to IWBs is important.
Important factors include training opportunities, encouragement from
senior leaders, availability of equipment, technical support, resource
management, and ongoing professional development.
Time to prepare materials, training, access to software, proper room
arrangement, good visibility, and technical support are necessary.
Missioners need to convince senior management to provide necessary
resources. Whole-school professional development to help teachers
develop fluency. Teachers should be able to share resources and
software. Need to develop an IWB cultural within school.
Need up-to-date equipment, training programs, continuing professional
development, and technical support. Environment must allow for
increased student access to the technology.
IWBs must be maintained, placed at the correct height for both teachers
and students, have proper lighting and seating arrangements.
Need both technical and pedagogical training. Total school buy-in is
needed including access to school servers and the Internet.
APPENDIX A (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Contextual Factors
Martin
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
Schroeder
Schuck & Kearney
2007
2007
2004
2006
2007
2007
Literacy
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Communications in
Information Literacy
Study done at The
University of
Technology Sydney
To maximize the use of IWBs as a positive influence on teaching, four
factors must be considered: technological fluency, a range of IWB
materials, classroom management skills to maximize the attention
span of students, and an awareness if the complex interaction of
teaching and learning styles. Also need technology maintenance, staff
development and materials development.
Need the following factors: a principal with enthusiasm for the tech
-
nology, interest of the students in the technology, a school culture that
has a supportive and open staff and parent culture, as well as an
expectation that teachers would use the IWB, professional develop
-
ment by the school and commercial IWB suppliers, and time for
teachers to develop their skills and to prepare materials. Professional
development should focus on the IWB and pedagogy, not just on
technical training. Technical support and easy access to IWBs is
essential. Teachers should share their resources.
274 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Shenton & Pagett
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
Smith, Hardman,
& Higgins
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
Solvie
2007
2008
2006
2005
2007
Literacy
Computers &
Education
British Educational
Research Journal
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Good software that accompanies the IWB is important. In-service
training is important. Teachers need time in preparing materials.
Teachers need to become confident users. Training should focus on
pedagogical skills, not just technical confidence.
Type of technology is important to mention, as interactive pen-based
systems are cheaper and more portable, but less reliable. Other
factors include screen visibility, IWB competency, value of multimedia
content, motivation of teacher, and cost. Teachers must continue to
practice the skills they have acquired from previous training classes.
They need time to engage with the technology.
Professional development is needed encouraging changing
pedagogic understanding and practices. Teachers need extensive
time to try out these new practices and get feedback from expert
practitioners. Professional development should also include
observation, coaching, sympathetic discussion groups, and
feedback.
Training and support are essential. Proper viewing is essential
consisting of items such as limiting sunlight, board height, and clean
screens and lenses. Using a good color and font scheme in IWB
materials is also important to proper viewing. Teachers must have
frequent access to the technology, and this access should be in their
own classroom.
Teacher innovation is important, as well as IWB specific software.
Having them readily available in a standard classroom is also
important.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 275
APPENDIX A (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Contextual Factors
Thompson &
Flecknoe
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2003
2005
2001
2008
Management in
Education
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
Technical support and teacher technical knowledge is important.
Teachers need training in how to teach using IWBs and controlling the
pace of lessons.
Teachers need process and curriculum-focused training, as well as
training in how IWBs can affect students’ understanding,
remembering, and thinking.
Teachers need time to develop resources for the IWB screen.
Teachers need the technical ability, but must also have a clear
understanding of children’s learning and how this may be facilitated
with whole-class lessons. Teachers should be involved in every step of
the software development stage. The software shouldn’t control the
teacher; the teacher should control the software.
276 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
APPENDIX B
Table 1 – Perception
Author(s) Year Journal Perception
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Hall & Higgins
2005
2005a
2005b
2007
2005
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
Learning, Media and
Technology
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Perception is Positive.
Positive student perceptions. Some observers have raised concerns
that the IWB can just be another presentational gimmick.
“It is only when basic technological fluency and pedagogic
understanding have been achieved that teachers can overcome the
novelty factor” (p. 17).
Much has been claimed: greater interactivity, increased engagement,
motivation and enjoyment, all leading to improvement is achievement.
These claims have mostly come from manufacturers, policy makers
and, academics. Need more input from students directly. Students like
versatility, multimedia, and fun that IWBs provide. They also like the
tactile elements of the board and being able to manipulate objects.
Students don’t like technical problems and not being able to see the
board (sunlight).
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 277
APPENDIX B – Table 1 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Perception
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
Martin
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
Schroeder
2007
2008
2007
2007
2004
2006
2007
Learning, Media and
Technology
Education & Information
Technologies
Literacy
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Communications in
Information Literacy
Positive about the impact and potential of IWBs. This ‘feel good’ factor
could be related to the Hawthorne Effect.
Teachers with access to IWBs are perceived by students to be twice as
readily available to help during the course of a lesson, while teachers
without access to IWBs follow more routing lessons with fewer
collaborative activities. Students perceive their class as positive when
teachers use the IWB well and are competent in its use. When only
used on occasion, teachers seem to be more tentative and students
lack confidence.
Students perceive the IWB much more as a computer than a
whiteboard.
Students value IWBs for their versatility, multimedia capabilities, and
fun and games.
278 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Schuck & Kearney
Shenton & Pagett
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
Smith, Hardman,
& Higgins
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
Solvie
Thompson &
Flecknoe
2007
2007
2008
2006
2005
2007
2003
Study done at The
University of
Technology Sydney
Literacy
Computers &
Education
British Educational
Research Journal
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Management in
Education
Teachers and students suggest that there is an improvement in
lessons in which IWBs are used. Teachers, students, and school
administrators feel IWBs are beneficial because they are easy to use,
they are visual, interactive, immediate, and match to students’ digital
culture. Lessons using the IWB were perceived as ‘better than’ other
classroom work.
There is an assumption that IWB use will impact positively on learners’
achievements. Students are aware of a teacher’s confidence and
ability using an IWB.
A claim made by commentators is that IWBs can promote an
interactive class.
Literature review states that evidence in many studies are in the form of
surveys, interviews, and questionnaires related to teachers’ and
students’ perceptions of IWB use. These are informal methods, so
interpretations should be taken with caution. Also, the authors were
unable to find any rigorous studies on IWB use and their impact on
attainment and changes in classroom interaction. Literature states a
clear preference for IWB use by both students and teachers.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 279
APPENDIX B – Table 1 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Perception
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2005
2001
2008
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
Overall comments are positive from students on the use of IWBs to
teach the metacognitive process.
“In many ways, the functionality of the IWB could be viewed as a
modern technological version of a traditional blackboard” (p. 94).
280 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
APPENDIX B
Table 2 – Motivation / Attention / Behavior
Author(s) Year Journal Motivation / Attention / Behavior
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Hall & Higgins
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
2005
2005a
2005b
2007
2005
2007
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
Learning, Media and
Technology
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Learning, Media and
Technology
IWBs are motivational because pupils can interact with it.
At the enhanced interactivity stage, behavior problems are usually
overcome due to sequence and pace of learning.
An improved and interesting presentation has a strong motivational
effect. Motivational gains also help students with learning problems.
Some literature shows a link between the capacity of the IWB
technology to enliven presentation and motivate pupil participation.
IWB use in K-12 sector promotes student interest and more sustained
concentration. Student motivation and understanding can be fostered
for those with special education needs.
Students say multimedia aspects of IWB hold their attention, increase
their engagement and motivation.
IWBs are widely claimed to motivate students, resulting in
improvement in attention and behavior. London schools in the
Secondary Whiteboard Expansion project, where teachers used the
boards in various ways, reported that an increase in motivation was
short-lived.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 281
APPENDIX B – Table 2 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Motivation / Attention / Behavior
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
Martin
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
Schroeder
2008
2007
2007
2004
2006
2007
Education & Information
Technologies
Literacy
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Communications in
Information Literacy
Improved enthusiasm and attention.
To maximize motivation, technology needs to be used in subject-
specific ways and embedded in teaching and learning. Study noted
little change in behavior of special needs children. Higher achieving
girls participated most frequently in ‘positive’ behaviors followed by
higher achieving boys. Positive effects on motivation were noted.
Group arrangement activity on a large interaction screen makes
images more visible and increase attention to the task.
Students recognize the potential for IWBs to raise their motivation for
sharing knowledge with their course mates by means of individual or
group presentations.
The way in which information is presented on an IWB through the
use of color and movement is seen by students to be motivating
and reinforces concentration and attention. The novelty factor can
diminish if used in every lesson, and much depends on the overall
quality of teaching.
282 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Schuck & Kearney
Shenton & Pagett
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
Smith, Hardman,
& Higgins
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
2007
2007
2008
2006
2005
Study done at The
University of
Technology Sydney
Literacy
Computers &
Education
British Educational
Research Journal
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Students were generally on-task and motivated. Student motivation
and engagement is enhanced. Motivation also relates to teachers as
they look to present lessons in a more visually stimulating and
interactive way. Teachers reported that IWBs had renewed their
enthusiasm for teaching. In many cases, all of these findings could be
at least partially attributable to the novelty effect.
IWBs are highly motivating to students and keep them on task.
Learners love to have technology as they can relate to it. This
increases the motivational benefit of IWBs. Attention can wear off due
to the novelty factor, which is why pedagogic value is of utmost
importance.
Research suggests that dialogic teaching leads to different levels of
participation and engagement. IWBs are motivating because of
strong visual and conceptual appeal of the information displayed,
and the physical interaction aspect. The widely claimed advantage
with regard to motivation is that IWBs incorporate large visual
images.
Literature review has found that students are motivated in IWB
lessons because of the high level of interaction and students enjoy
interacting physically with the board by manipulating text and
images. There are some concerns about the novelty factor with
IWBs, as students become accustomed with its use. However, an
experimental study showed that motivation improved in a class
using an IWB.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 283
APPENDIX B – Table 2 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Motivation / Attention / Behavior
Solvie
Thompson &
Flecknoe
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2007
2003
2005
2001
2008
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Management in
Education
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational Technology
IWBs allow the author to combine teacher modeling of literacy tasks
with student involvement. The author imagined that by increasing
students’ attention, achievement would increase as well. This was not
as successful as hoped. Student attention to task was not significantly
improved during IWB lessons even though students appeared
enthusiastic.
Results show a crude indication that behavior did improve and that
pupils were more motivated and on task during the lessons. Reduc-
tions in negative behavior were significant. Could be attributed to the
novelty factor, but there was no noticeable decrease in enthusiasm
over time. Over use of the IWB with little student interaction can lead to
boredom and subsequent disruptive behavior.
Students believe that concentration was aided by the use of IWBs.
Students were highly motivated, and this was indicated as a key factor
impacting on the students’ metacognitive process.
Study to measure motivation impact suggests that motivation may be
affected by the use of IWBs at least initially. It was difficult to determine
if this effect is a temporary one. Motivation is an underlying factor in
learning and achievement. There is some evidence of a relationship
between student motivation and student performance.
Previous research highlights the motivational impact of IWBs on
students.
284 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
APPENDIX B
Table 3 – Level of Interaction
Author(s) Year Journal Level of interaction
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
2005
2005a
2005b
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
Teachers need to use the appropriate software that affords
interaction and this may not be achieved if the IWB is seen as a
presentation tool only. IWBs are least effective and have limited impact
when teachers do not realize that interactivity requires a new approach
to pedagogy.
3 stages are noted: supported didactic – IWB is used as visual support
which causes students to see the IWB as a novelty, interactive –
progression from supported didactic where a variety of stimuli are
used to illustrate, develop, and test discrete concepts, evidence of
occasional lack of confidence, full potential is not developed,
enthusiasm is growing, enhanced interactivity – change of thinking,
teacher looks to integrate concept and cognitive development
in a way that exploits the interactive capacity of the technology.
Teaching can only be enhanced if interactivity is understood.
Interactivity is recognized as the key to both learning and sustained
interest. Interactivity needs to exist between teachers and students,
students and students, and teachers and teachers.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 285
APPENDIX B – Table 3 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Level of interaction
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Hall & Higgins
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
2007
2005
2007
Learning, Media and
Technology
Learning, Media and
Technology
Learning, Media and
Technology
Interactivity is most effectively sustained through effective questioning
as well as a wider range of activity in lessons. Interactivity needs
to be both teacher-student and student-student which may require a
change in classroom practice. 3 stages are noted: supported
didactic – IWB is used as visual support which causes students to see
the IWB as a novelty, interactive – progression from supported didactic
where a variety of stimuli are used to illustrate, develop, and test
discrete concepts, evidence of occasional lack of confidence,
full potential is not developed, enthusiasm is growing, enhanced
interactivity – change of thinking, teacher looks to integrate concept
and cognitive development in a way that exploits the interactive
capacity of the technology. Enhanced interactivity can be achieved
through lesson preparation (building on use of verbal, visual, and
kinesthetic), lesson structure, learning management, storing and
editing lessons, pedagogic change.
The concept of interactivity needs to be accurately and operationally
defined for teachers.
Many times IWBs are not used interactively, and can reinforce
teacher-centered instruction. Interactivity is the key to both learning
and sustained interest. Techniques to enhance interactivity include:
drag and drop, hide and reveal, color, shading, highlighting, matching
of equivalent terms, movement or animation, and immediate feedback.
Teachers are the critical agents in mediating the software and using
the technology to promote interactions and interactivity.
286 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
Martin
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
Schroeder
Schuck & Kearney
2008
2007
2007
2004
2006
2007
2007
Education & Information
Technologies
Literacy
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Communications in
Information Literacy
Study done at The
University of
Technology Sydney
Literature states insufficient evidence to identify the actual impact of
IWBs on learning in terms of classroom interaction.
Using IWBs as an adjunct, rather than an integrated element in
teaching, minimizes interaction and the matching of teaching to the
learning needs. The key to stimulating use of IWBs is a well-paced
lesson that maximizes the interactivity of the board.
Many primary teachers emphasized the tactile nature of the IWB.
Students must be interacting with the board, not just the teacher. The
ability to dynamically manipulate and annotate objects was stressed.
Many teachers simply use the IWB in the form of interaction for whole
class discussions. Observers found the main benefit from the board is
not the ability to provide interactivity, but to prepare, organize, and
store lessons with access to useful resources.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 287
APPENDIX B – Table 3 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Level of interaction
Shenton & Pagett
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
Smith, Hardman,
& Higgins
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
2007
2008
2006
2005
Literacy
Computers & Education
British Educational
Research Journal
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
IWBs allow children and teachers to interact with it, but this will not
necessarily promote an interactive style of teaching and learning.
Many teachers have a tendency to dominate the whiteboard lesson,
giving students few invitations to use the board themselves.
When used in traditional ways, the value of the IWB can be attributed
simply to the use of a data projector and a computer. Interactivity
per se did not seem as important as the multimedia display of course
content. Some teachers view the IWB as a blackboard replacement
where others view it as a support for interactive, participatory, and
cooperative learning. The most recognized benefit of the IWB was the
ability for teachers to stay in front of the class, a position of authority,
while still interacting with the technology. This aids in proper
classroom management (being in front of the class).
The idea of dialogic teaching should replace the terms of interactive or
whole class teaching. A dialogic classroom has the essential features
of being collective, reciprocal, and cumulative.
Literature review has found that students are motivated in IWB lessons
because of the high level of interaction and students enjoy interacting
physically with the board by manipulating text and images. Evidence
also suggests that not all teachers involve students to this extent.
Involving students sometimes reduces the pace of the lessons and can
cause boredom. Also some reports state that older students are not as
eager to leave their seats as younger students. It is felt by some
288 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Solvie
Thompson &
Flecknoe
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2007
2003
2005
2001
2008
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Management in
Education
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational Technology
that IWBs increase student-teacher interaction, however, this can be
done in other ways not involving the IWB. The quality of this interaction
must also be addressed, not only the frequency.
Critical engagement is possible if teachers move away from using
IWBs as an attention getting device, to one of active student
engagement in literacy activities.
A study used a ready made application called Easiteach Maths which
helps teachers deliver math lessons via the IWB. Easiteach was
developed specifically to bring interactivity and greater student
involvement to lessons by having students interact with the board. The
board works best when used interactively, particularly when students
use the boards themselves.
IWBs can be a valuable tool for teaching students about metacog-
nition: thinking about learning. Students overwhelmingly want to be
able to interact with the board themselves.
In a case study, it was found that teachers did not seek to engage
children in higher level thinking through discussion and interaction,
and students took on a passive role. Opportunities for interaction and
discussion were limited, and multimedia resources replaced the
teacher.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 289
APPENDIX B
Table 4 – Learning
Author(s) Year Journal Learning
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
2005
2005a
2005b
2007
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
Learning, Media and
Technology
IWBs can be seen as interest enhancers instead of a new approach to
learning. There are no absolute properties of the IWB that allow us to
predict the effects it will have on learning. What students learn relates to
how a technology is used in the classroom and teachers’ and students’
perceptions of how it can be used. Physical interaction with text and
language is powerful to the learner.
IWBs offer flexibility, sequentiality, and the matching of learning to
student learning styles.
Long-term learning gains outweigh management problems as teachers
become increasingly more competent with the technology. Kinesthetic
learning arises from movement, color, and the linkage of diagrams and
verbal annotations in the development of concepts. The IWB has been
used to link teaching and learning styles to student needs. Links are
noted between the capacity of the IWB technology and its ability to
reinforce learning. Interactivity and the nature of questioning have to
change to optimize learning gains.
The use of IWB technology alone cannot lead to enhanced learning.
IWB use in K-12 sector promotes more effective learning when technol
-
ogy is used to support variety of learning styles. Effective learning has
been realized where teachers value the technology and fully understand
the nature of interactivity and its pedagogic implications. Effective learn
-
ing is inhibited where the IWB is given a novelty value by the teacher.
290 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Hall & Higgins
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
Martin
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
2005
2007
2008
2007
2007
2004
2006
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Learning, Media and
Technology
Education & Information
Technologies
Literacy
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Interactivity can assist learning. IWBs may alter the way learning takes
place, but really has no measurable impact.
IWBs have to be used and seen as a mediating artifact. If they are
used as a glorified blackboard or as an occasionally animated passive
whiteboard, then there will be little effect on student learning.
Literature states insufficient evidence to identify the actual impact of
IWBs on learning in terms of classroom interaction or upon attainment
and achievement. A study with interactive Big Books showed no
pattern on writing performance. The Hawthorne Effect may have influ-
enced results. Students did not transfer learning into their own work.
Study indicates increased correct reading and matching of word sets
using SMART Board technology. Not sure if this learning is
transferrable to new material.
Using IWBs as an adjunct, rather than an integrated element in
teaching, minimizes interaction and the matching of teaching to the
learning needs. In a study it was found that in terms of learning and
understanding, student reaction suggests that the use of IWBs made
no difference to their experience. This indicates that the teacher rather
than the technology is the most important element.
Study indicates that IWBs can be an effective tool for initiating and
facilitating the learning process, especially where student participation
is encouraged.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 291
APPENDIX B – Table 4 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Learning
Schroeder
Schuck & Kearney
Shenton & Pagett
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
2007
2007
2007
2008
Communications in
Information Literacy
Study done at The
University of Technology
Sydney
Literacy
Computers & Education
Most studies do not show much of an increase in learning in cognitive
areas; more often they point to increases in the affective domain. The
affective domain focuses on learner’s motivations, attention, and
emotional response to learning. It also focuses on self-concept, self-
esteem, and social interaction in the learning environment. Many
studies show a positive impact on students’ affective learning.
It is not yet clear how IWB use might affect learning outcomes or
concept development. This is due to the fact that much of the research
so far has been conducted in schools where IWBs are a recent
addition, and not yet integrated into classroom practice. The versatility
of the IWB makes it possible to cater to students with different
backgrounds and learning styles. For IWBs to have a significant impact
on teaching and learning outcomes, teachers must be at the enhanced
interactive stage.
Some students claim that being able to move and interact with objects
on the board helps them learn.
The IWB is seen as an effective tool for initiating and facilitating the
learning process, especially when learners could use the IWB
themselves. The time lost trying to diagnose technical problems and
use the board properly can detract from the learning experience. It is
argued that IWBs support a wider range of learning styles, but this is
related to the variety of different resources available using the tool.
292 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Smith, Hardman, &
Higgins
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
Solvie
Thompson &
Flecknoe
2006
2005
2007
2003
British Educational
Research Journal
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Management in
Education
It is suggested that more interactive forms of whole class teaching will
help in raising literacy and numeracy standards, thus raising learning
performance. IWBs add a social dimension to learning where students
can share knowledge publicly and learn by making mistakes together.
Student interest in learning was enhanced because of the element of
surprise that IWBs bring to lessons.
There are two broad categories: IWBs as a tool for enhancing
learning, and as a tool to support learning. IWBs provide for a more
social constructivist view of learning where the teacher acts as the
mediator between the students and the software. The literature
does relate the physical and tactile nature of IWBs with the
reinforcement of learning especially when students use the board
themselves. However, it is debatable whether physical interaction itself
enhances learning, other than to motivate students to pay more
attention.
The author found that by adding components engaging the
students such as social interaction, student collaboration, strategy use,
and support in decision making, continued use of the IWB engaged
learning. Students manipulated text on the board, and the author used
visual displays and graphic tools to enhance the
literacy classes.
IWB use had a significant positive impact on both teaching and
learning in the classroom. The board helps teach to different learning
styles including, kinesthetic, audio, and visual learners. IWBs promote
active learning.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 293
APPENDIX B – Table 4 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Learning
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2005
2001
2008
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
Many students feel that the IWB helped to initiate and facilitate
learning. IWB use also assisted their understanding. Students also felt
that the IWB appealed to their visual, auditory and verbal-social
learning styles. Students mentioned the value of IWBs in teaching
mathematics, English, and science.
Motivation is an underlying factor in learning and achievement. There
is some evidence of a relationship between student motivation and
student performance. IWBs allow teaching to a wide range of learning
styles.
If the IWB is used as the focus and hub of interaction, it is possible
that learning opportunities may be supported and enhanced in a
meaningful way.
294 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
APPENDIX B
Table 5 – Pedagogy
Author(s) Year Journal Pedagogy
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
2005
2005a
2005b
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
IWB supports whole class teaching concept. When not used inter
-
actively, IWBs can reinforce teacher-centered styles of delivery. Rather
than transforming pedagogy, IWBs can be easily assimilated into
existing pedagogy. IWBs are least effective and have limited impact
when teachers do not realize that interactivity requires a new approach
to pedagogy. Many teachers are likely to use the IWB as an extension of
a regular whiteboard. Helped to break down the barriers between
students and normal teacher space. Teachers are the critical agents in
mediating the software.
At the interactive stage, there is a linking of technology and pedagogy.
At the enhanced interactivity stage, there is an integration of technology,
pedagogy, and learning styles.
Missioners are teachers who not only understand the technology, but
also have the ability to see how it can be used to their advantage, and
frequently develop software to meet learning situations and foster
pedagogic change. Tentatives, lack technological skill, but through
one-to-one coaching can develop confidence and move ahead.
Luddites see the technology as a threat. Need to move from didactic to
the interactive, and from the use of the IWB as an adjunct to use as an
integrated element into lesson planning and the classroom. As teachers
become more fluent, the IWB becomes the focus of changed
approaches to pedagogy. Unless the IWB is only used as a traditional
presentation device, teaching practice must change.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 295
APPENDIX B – Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Pedagogy
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Hall & Higgins
2007
2005
Learning, Media and
Technology
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Early research focused on benefits of the technology rather than on
how pedagogy may need to be changed. Without this, IWBs can be
seen as a passing presentational aid or motivational spur. The
starting point for changed pedagogy is teacher awareness and
implementation of interactivity. Enhanced interactivity can be
obtained with the following changes to pedagogy: planning for
cognitive development, clear visual representation of concepts,
activities that encourage an active thinking approach, progression,
illustration, sequencing, immediate feedback, and recall to strengthen
learning.
Students are keenly aware of any shortcomings in their teachers in
relation to pedagogical uses of the IWB. In order to realize the
potential of the IWB, teachers need to be confident in their use.
Students would like to have more access to using the board
themselves. This leads to more exploratory learning. As teachers begin
to use the IWB, their traditional teaching practices give way to new
more flexible ones. There is clearly a power, status and control issue in
an IWB classroom. The teacher role needs to change to more of a
facilitator, and allow for more exploration. This can be difficult as
teachers are under pressure to get through the curriculum and raise
standards and attainment. This is more of an issue in Great Britain than
in the US where teachers are less open to the notion of more pupil
participation.
296 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
Martin
2007
2008
2007
Learning, Media and
Technology
Education & Information
Technologies
Literacy
IWBs are well adapted to whole-class teaching. Effective pedagogical
interactivity requires structured lesson planning, pace in activities, and
a cognitive review. “Good teaching remains good teaching with or
without the technology; the technology might enhance the pedagogy
only if the teachers and pupils engaged in it and understood its
potential in such a way that the technology is not seen as an end in
itself but as another pedagogical means to achieve teaching and
learning goals” (p. 217). As teachers become more fluent, they
recognize the link to pedagogical change, and become a catalyst for
further change.
Pedagogy is defined as “being the interactive process that goes on
between teachers and children, in this case in planned learning”
(p. 293). Teachers need to adjust their style to be more inclusive and
cooperative in supporting learning. Teacher and student must work
together rather than adopting the traditional formal roles of teacher
and learner. This is more common with younger children, and
becomes less frequent when teaching older children. If teaching with
IWBs is to work well, the IWB has to be used as a mediating artifact.
Teachers must also allow students to interact with the IWB. Lesson
plans must be structured, with associated resources and can now be
stored and accessible anytime. Three pedagogic stages: Stage 1 –
teachers fitting new technologies into existing pedagogy, Stage 2 –
teachers engaging in collaborative exploration, Stage 3 – teachers
using the technology skillfully and intuitively thus extending and
expanding existing pedagogy. High levels of technical expertise are
not necessary to transform pedagogy.
Whole-class teaching and having students interact with the board
slowed down the pace of lessons. Confident use is essential for success.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 297
APPENDIX B – Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Pedagogy
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
Schroeder
2007
2004
2006
2007
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Communications in
Information Literacy
There is a need for pedagogic change from the didactic to the
interactive, and from using media as a visual support, to the integration
of media into lesson planning and IWB use. As teachers become more
aware of the range of ways of working with IWBs, they gain confidence
and lessons have greater impact. Early evidence suggests that IWBs
are a useful “prop” for teachers looking to expand their teaching to
differing learning styles, but real gains may only be realized when
good teachers are provided with the necessary time, resources, and
training.
There is a point of conflict between teacher and student use of the
technology. Some teachers prefer a more traditional classroom, and
students prefer lessons where they move between using the IWB and
their desks. Some students wanted to use the board to hide and deal
with their difficulties individually, while other students wanted to create
a sense of community, and work out difficulties with the help of the
group. If IWBs are to transform pedagogy, dialogue between students
and teachers is essential.
298 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Schuck & Kearney
Shenton & Pagett
2007
2007
Study done at The
University of
Technology Sydney
Literacy
Research suggests that IWBs are mainly being used to reinforce
current teaching approaches such as the teacher as the central
authoritative expert. The fact that IWBs are not a disruptive
technology is both a weakness and a strength. The impact of IWBs
was most positive in terms of the increased preparation that teachers
were putting into their lessons. Teachers also said that they were
spending more time thinking about their students’ individual learning
styles as a result of using the IWB. Teachers play a critical role in
ensuring effective use of IWBs as pedagogical tools at all stages.
The type of pedagogical approach that teachers take with IWBs largely
depends of attitude, and a willingness to embed the technology into
their teaching style. This is dependent on contextual factors (listed in
Table 1). Teachers need to be at the enhanced interactive stage have
the time for planning and preparation. There was strong emphasis on
the increased pace of lessons resulting from the ability to quickly
access materials on the IWB. Teachers believe that the IWB embraces
children’s digital culture. Teacher confidence with the IWB is important.
Small group work was infrequently used in IWB instruction. In general
there was little use
of the full potential of IWBs.
IWBs can potentially offer a multimodal approach to teaching literacy.
Teachers generally see the IWB as a new item in their teaching
toolkit rather than something that might change their teaching
methodology. The potential for IWBs is more obvious in subjects
other than literacy.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 299
APPENDIX B – Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Pedagogy
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
Smith, Hardman,
& Higgins
2008
2006
Computers & Education
British Educational
Research Journal
Teachers report on the IWB’s efficiency, flexibility, versatility, and the
ability to access multimedia content while being able to manage the
class more easily. In cases where teachers didn’t have the proper IWB
skills, the technology was poorly used. Students are keenly aware of
this deficiency. Teachers must continue to practice the skills they have
acquired from previous training classes. It is suggested that a laptop
and data projector are a worthwhile investment and the advantage of
improved classroom visibility to computer-based content was the main
factor, not the board. Knowledge of IWB skills does not mean that they
are being applied. Perhaps the best way to incorporate IWBs into
teaching and learning is to first roll out a computer with a data
projector. Allow teachers to become comfortable with this technology,
then after a year or so, (after teachers have proven that they could and
wanted to incorporate the technology into their teaching) give them an
IWB. Technologies should not be imposed as they can have disruptive
effects. Teachers need time to engage with the technology and find
ways that it can be used to suit their pedagogic strategies.
Research suggests that dialogic teaching strategies are often not
implemented, as more traditional patterns of whole class interaction
are used. Study found that IWB lessons contained more whole class
teaching and less group work. IWB lessons had significantly more
open questions, answers from students, and evaluation. This
increased the pace of the lessons. No gender differences were found
on frequency of answering questions, but overall this number was
higher among IWB lessons. This effect did not last the second year.
300 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
Solvie
Thompson &
Flecknoe
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
2005
2007
2003
2005
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Management in
Education
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
Study finds support for some IWB claims, but no fundamental change
in underlying pedagogy. IWBs do not provide a technological fix in
order to bring about a fundamental change in the underlying
pedagogy of whole class teaching.
Teaching themes include flexibility, versatility, multimedia/multimodal
presentation, efficiency, supporting planning, and interactivity and
participation in lessons. IWBs facilitate whole class discussions which
lead to sharing of ideas and generation of theories. Facing the class
while teaching is reported as a major advantage as teachers can
spend more time focusing on students. This is also a more
comfortable pedagogic stance for teachers. Some literature state that
IWB use has far from transformed classroom practice. Many teachers
have uncritically absorbed IWBs in to their pre-IWB teaching practices.
IWBs facilitate preparation of lessons and navigation to specific
components during instruction. The author’s initial use of IWBs as a
tool to gain and maintain attention transformed over time as a tool for
engaging students in the lesson. The author reconsidered his
pedagogical practice and transformed his teaching practice.
Study used a ready made application called Easiteach Maths which
helps teachers deliver math lessons via the IWB.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 301
APPENDIX B – Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Learning
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2001
2008
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
Research indicates that it is the skill and professional knowledge of the
teacher who mediates the interaction between the technology and the
students in whole-class lessons. The quality of the teaching in these
whole-class lessons determines its success. Research shows,
however, that IWB use is not transforming the underlying pedagogy of
whole-class teaching, as it remains largely unaffected. Teachers must
teach creatively, by including a wide range of media such as video,
animations, graphics, and text. This creative teaching must contain
relevant content for students to have ownership. The pace of lessons
can be maintained using an IWB as teachers can navigate through
material quickly.
302 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
APPENDIX B
Table 6 – Achievement
Author(s) Year Journal Achievement
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Hall & Higgins
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
2005
2005a
2005b
2007
2005
2007
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
Learning, Media and
Technology
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Learning, Media and
Technology
There is almost no evidence of measured gains in student progress and
long-term achievement as a result of changed teaching and learning
approaches. This is likely to change with further research.
It is still the quality of teaching that ensures progress; the IWB alone
does not guarantee it.
IWBs appear to have a negligible effect in student attainment. After a 2
year study, there were no significant differences in test scores between
schools using IWBs and schools in the comparison group. London
schools in the Secondary Whiteboard Expansion project, where
teachers used the boards in various ways, reported no impact on pupil
performance in the first year in which departments were fully conversant
with the technology.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 303
APPENDIX B – Table 6 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Achievement
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
Martin
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
Schroeder
2008
2007
2007
2004
2006
2007
Education & Information
Technologies
Literacy
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Communications in
Information Literacy
Positive gains in literacy, mathematics, and science for children aged
7-11 which was directly related to the length of time that they had been
taught with an IWB. These gains were stronger for children of average
or above average prior attainment. There was also a lack of impact on
the progress of low prior attainment pupils.
Literature states insufficient evidence to identify the actual impact of
IWBs on learning in terms of classroom interaction or upon attainment
and achievement. Short duration of study did not allow an accurate
measurement of achievement.
Theoretically, if the IWB is used so that lessons offer variety, challenge
and interactivity, student achievement will be enhanced.
304 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Schuck & Kearney
Shenton & Pagett
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
Smith, Hardman,
& Higgins
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
Solvie
Thompson &
Flecknoe
2007
2007
2008
2006
2005
2007
2003
Study done at The
University of
Technology Sydney
Literacy
Computers & Education
British Educational
Research Journal
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Management in
Education
There is not sufficient evidence in current literature to show links
between IWB use and performance attainment. It has been found that
there was little or no difference on national test scores in mathematics
and science in UK primary schools. Other studies have concluded that
there appears to be no evidence linking increased pupil attainment
with the use of IWBs.
Research suggests that dialogic teaching can lead to higher levels of
student achievement.
There does not appear to be any empirical evidence linking IWBs use
and attainment.
The author imagined that by increasing students’ attention,
achievement would increase as well. This was not as successful as
hoped.
Study used a ready made application called Easiteach Maths which
helps teachers deliver math lessons via the IWB.
There was a 14.1% improvement in attainment in first term, a 22.1%
improvement in the second term, and a 39.4% improvement overall. All
children, regardless of prior attainment made similar gains although
lower prior achievement students made a higher proportional gain.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 305
APPENDIX B – Table 6 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Achievement
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2005
2001
2008
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
Motivation is an underlying factor in learning and achievement. There
is some evidence of a relationship between student motivation and
student performance.
306 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
APPENDIX C
Table 1 – Directions for Future Research
Author(s) Year Journal Directions for Future Research
Armstrong, Barnes,
Sutherland, Curran,
Mills, & Thompson
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Glover, Miller,
Averis, & Door
Hall & Higgins
2005
2005a
2005b
2007
2005
Educational Review
Management in
Education
Technology, Pedagogy,
and Education
Learning, Media and
Technology
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Need to consider both the technology and the pedagogy of interactivity.
Need to better research IWB features such as storage and retrieval of
data and lesson plans; potential gains from printing and posting to the
web of IWB material. Differing perceptions based on gender. Need both
generic and subject-specific investigation of learning gains. Need to
investigate the link between concepts and cognitive development in an
IWB-rich environment. Need to research long-term achievement gains
as a result of changed teaching and learning approaches. Need to look
into whether the costs of equipment, training, software, maintenance,
and support have brought anticipated gains (ROI).
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 307
APPENDIX C – Table 1 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Directions for Future Research
Higgins, Beauchamp,
& Miller
Lewin, Somekh, &
Steadman
Martin
Mechling, Gast, &
Krupa
Miller, Glover, &
Averis
Schmid
2007
2008
2007
2007
2004
2006
Learning, Media and
Technology
Education & Information
Technologies
Literacy
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders
Paper presented at
Tenth International
Congress of
Mathematics Education
Computer Assisted
Language Learning
Need better studies on IWB use and low-attaining, very young pupils.
Need to look into how increased motivation due to IWB use is
translated into learning. Need to look into the direction that teachers
need to move to ensure that the proven changes that IWBs have on
interaction and pedagogy, translate to an increase in learning.
Longitudinal studies are necessary. Need to investigate how IWBs can
be used more effectively for teaching writing. Need to look at which
strategies are effective in enhancing the progress of all learners.
Need to compare IWB technology to more traditional setups such as
flash cards for teaching sight word reading. Should also more fully
examine interactive and multi-media features of technology for
delivering instruction to students with differing abilities.
308 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Schroeder
Schuck & Kearney
Shenton & Pagett
Slay, Siebörger, &
Hodgkinson-Williams
2007
2007
2007
2008
Communications in
Information Literacy
Study done at The
University of
Technology Sydney
Literacy
Computers & Education
Many studies are done in the K-12 sector, and more research
needs to be done in college and university settings. The develop-
ment of an instrument to measure and assess the impact of
instructional methods, such as IWB use, is needed. Need studies
investigating the cognitive and long-term effects of IWB use in the
classroom.
How does pedagogy with IWBs change over time? How are learning
outcomes influenced by IWB use? How do teachers view IWBs in
terms of its use as a technological tool or pedagogical tool? Studies
are needed to assess key learning outcomes after IWBs have been
embedded in classroom practice. Need to evaluate benefits of IWB
use across all subject areas. Need long-term longitudinal studies.
Need more formal studies, rather than relying on anecdotal evidence.
What are implications for student teachers? Nature of motivation needs
to be investigated. How can IWBs be used in small group work and
peer learning?
The commercialization of pedagogical tools needs to be recognized
and researched. Using IWBs in a cross-curricular approach needs to
be addressed.
If IWBs are going to be used with traditional didactic teaching
methods, should schools simply invest in a computer and a data
projector as the interactive nature of the IWB is not used? The
added benefit of interactivity needs to be weighed up against the
benefits perceived by the school, its administrators, teachers,
and students.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 309
APPENDIX C – Table 1 (Cont’d.)
Author(s) Year Journal Directions for Future Research
Smith, Hardman,
& Higgins
Smith, Higgins,
Wall, & Miller
Solvie
Thompson &
Flecknoe
Wall, Higgins, &
Smith
Weimer
Wood & Ashfield
2006
2005
2007
2003
2005
2001
2008
British Educational
Research Journal
Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning
Educational Philosophy
and Theory
Management in
Education
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
SmarterKids.org
research study
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
Research is needed to collect empirical evidence on the process of
teaching and learning using IWBs. A good place to start is to look at
the intersection between technical and pedagogic interactivity.
The effect of IWBs on motivation in the long-term needs to be
addressed.
310 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
REFERENCES
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005).
Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use
of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005a). Leadership implications of using
interactive whiteboards. Management in Education, 18(5), 27-30.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005b). The interactive whiteboard: A
literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 14(2), 155-170.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective
pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern
languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media, &
Technology, 32(1), 5-20.
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive white
-
boards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102-117.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive
whiteboards. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in
teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education &
Information Technologies, 13(4), 291-303.
Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approach to teaching
children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26-34.
Mechling, L., Gast, D., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of SMART Board Technology: An
investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism
& Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 1869-1882.
Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Panacea or prop: The role of the inter-
active whiteboard in improving teaching effectiveness. Paper presented at the
Tenth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen, July. Available
online at: http://www.icme-organisers.dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdf (accessed February
12, 2009).
Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the
English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62.
Schroeder, R. (2007). Active learning with interactive whiteboards: A literature review
and a case study for college freshmen. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(2),
64-73.
Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards:
A case study of six schools (Sydney, University of Technology Sydney). Available
online at: http://www.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/iwbproject/pdfs/iwbreport
web.pdf (accessed February 12, 2009).
Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From ‘bored’ to screen: The use of the interactive
whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41(3), 129-136.
Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real
beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on
teacher–pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457.
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS / 311
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon
or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
Solvie, P. (2007). Leaping out of our skins: Postmodern considerations in use of an
electronic whiteboard to foster critical engagement in early literacy lessons. Educa
-
tional Philosophy & Theory, 39(7), 737-754.
Thompson, J., & Flecknoe, M. (2003). Raising attainment with an interactive whiteboard
in Key Stage 2. Management in Education, 17(3), 29-33.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the compli
-
cated things’: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.
Weimer, M. J. (2001) The influence of technology such as SMART board interactive
whiteboard on student motivation in the classroom. Available online at: http://smarter
kids.org/research/paper7.asp (accessed February 12, 2009).
Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative
teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.
Direct reprint requests to:
Mr. Peter DiGregorio
Suffolk County Community College
1001 Crooked Hill Rd.
Brentwood, NY 11717
e-mail: digregp@sunysuffolk.edu
312 / DIGREGORIO AND SOBEL-LOJESKI
Copyright of Journal of Educational Technology Systems is the property of Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
