Content uploaded by Athanasios Drigas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Athanasios Drigas on Sep 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PAPER
INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS IN PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION
Interactive White Boards in Preschool and
Primary Education
http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v10i4.3754
Athanasios S. Drigas and George Papanastasiou
NCSR DEMOKRITOS, Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications, Net Media Lab, Athens, Greece
Abstract—Technologies within the domain of interactive,
remote and on line science which are extensively adopted in
education’s everyday life are interactive whiteboards and
related applications. Interactive whiteboards indicate posi-
tive effects on students’ learning and instructors' teaching,
promoting whole class teaching. In this review-paper we
cope with the studies that explore the integration of IWBs in
preschool and primary education in the last decade (2004-
2013). Research has shown that interactive whiteboards are
able to keep students involved and foster their attention in
every aspect of the curriculum, much easier than without it.
This technology has proven its value added to students and
teachers in different facets of teaching and learning, in liter-
acy, in mathematics, in science, in physics, its impact on
English Language Learners, on relations and learning, on
the use of IWBs by kindergartners, professional develop-
ment of teachers, pedagogical orchestration, classroom dia-
logue and pedagogic practice.
Index Terms—IWB, interactive, multimodal teaching, col-
laboration, e-teaching, e-learning
I. INTRODUCTION
IWBs introduce the education community to an im-
portant point of principle that we should be talking about
‘interactive technologies’ that use multimedia resources,
support the planning and development of resources, and
allow improved presentation by the teacher and/or pupils.
Also accommodate different learning styles, motivate and
engage pupils by their coming up to the IWB and interact
with the program through the IWB and model ICT skills.
The added value becomes a lot clearer if we focus on
teaching, where the IWB helps to sustain the pace of the
lesson and allows a seamless flow from one teaching point
to the next [1].
The ‘boon’ of the IWB technology lies in its unique
features that foster pupils’ learning through multimedia
and multi-sensory presentation, resulting in improved mo-
tivation and affect, promoting both technical and pedagog-
ic interactivity in whole class interactions [2].
There might be a ‘tipping point’ of technical compe-
tence and pedagogical interactivity, before teachers and
their classes can fully exploit these technologies in ways
that promote student learning [3].
Interactive teaching and learning based on constructiv-
ist theories, by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, have
shaped how teachers approach instructional design and
explore options which could aid in knowledge retention
and inspire the learner to participate more [4].
Blackboard was introduced in 1801 and became so per-
vasive and its use so normalised that it took 200 years to
begin to be superseded by another whole-of-class technol-
ogy board, namely ‘Interactive white board’. It is indicat-
ed that only if the vast majority of the teachers in a school
are using the digital technology effectively and not im-
proving the ways of the old, can quality teaching and im-
proved student attainment be expected [5].
One of the defining skills of quality teaching offered by
an interactive whiteboard is the digital convergence where
students can interact with the concepts, content and con-
text of a media rich, multi-literacy teaching environment
driven by the teacher’s ability to manage classroom activi-
ties, use of ICTs and enhance their existing professional
skills [6].
Quality teaching is the teacher’s ability to manage
classroom IWB’s activities, which are following closely
the framework of Gagné’s nine events of instruction. IWB
offers many features that are used to address each of the
nine steps: Gaining Attention, Informing the Learner of
Objectives, Stimulating Recall of Prior Knowledge, Pre-
senting the Stimuli, Providing Learner Guidance, Eliciting
Performance, Providing Feedback, Assessing Perfor-
mance, Enhancing Retention and Transfer [7].
II. IWBS’ ADDED VALUE TO STUDENTS
A. Implementation in Literacy.
Potentially IWBs can offer a multimodal approach to
teaching literacy which, in practice, suggests that this po-
tential is beginning to be realised. Also , in order to help
more teachers towards effective use of the IWB, it is bet-
ter to follow a ‘bottom-up’ approach in their transmission
training, which is more practitioner focused, than a ‘top-
down’ commercial one [8].
While some children benefited from the approach, of
using interactive whiteboard technology and interactive
talking books in whole-class writing lessons, teaching
children to write through examination of professional
models of writing in whole-class lessons did not promote
the most effective learning. Children should be asked to
write on topics that are meaningful to them, taking into
account their experiences and interests [9].
An important finding in Kate Wall’s, S. Higgins’ and
H. Smith’s enquiry is that there is an obvious visual and
verbal-social state of learning, between IWBs and pupils’
views of interacting, in the teaching and learning process-
es. IWBs can be effective tools for initiating and facilitat-
ing pupils’ understanding, remembering, and thinking,
especially where pupil involvement and use of the board is
taken place. Color and movement in particular, is seen by
the pupils to be motivating and reinforces concentration
and attention [10].
Damian Maher (2011) demonstrates the use of an e-
book through IWB’s facilities and states that through the
use of text, sound, images, color and animation a rich tap-
estry of semiotic resources was made available to allow
students to appreciate, interpret and review texts.
46
http://www.i-joe.org
PAPER
INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS IN PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION
He concludes that not only does the IWB facilitate an
increased range of modes, allowing students with different
learning styles and educational needs to participate, it also
allows for a greater level of interactivity than a data pro-
jector or traditional book [11].
B. Implementation in Mathematics.
Students’ attitudes towards the use of IWB in mathe-
matics classes is at a medium level, which can be inter-
preted as positive as they were introduced with this new
technology for the first time and students see the IWB as a
tool which increases their interest and facilitates learning.
It’s characteristic that more than half of the students stated
that they would like to do all their math lessons using the
IWB, because the IWB provided the advantage of solving
more questions, saving time and providing visuals [12].
The children, in a study presented by Merilyn Taylor
Ann Harlow, Michael Forret (2010), used the IWB space
to co-construct knowledge as they participated in socially
shared cognition. The IWB was pivotal in supporting the
development of task-related talk for the children, while the
teachers had set up their classroom learning environments
and modeled behaviors to encourage a culture of listening
to and respecting others’ views [13].
In conjunction with this, the teacher must select the so-
lutions that are discussed, analyzed, and developed further
in the IWB, and steer the discourse conducting a discus-
sion involving the entire class. The survey results showed
that the students perceived they could discuss and com-
municate more often and better with both their teacher and
classmates than in regular math lessons [14].
In the research presented by B. Torff, R. Tirotta(2010)
it is reported a study, where students exposed to IWB-
assisted lessons showed a slightly higher level of engage-
ment in mathematics classes, relative to a control group
taught without the IWB. In parallel their teachers’ atti-
tudes about the IWB were associated with slightly higher
levels of motivation; in other words, teachers who strong-
ly supported using the IWB (and likely used the technolo-
gy well) produced larger motivational effects in their stu-
dents [15].
C. Implementation in Science.
IWB can be used collaboratively in a variety of science
activities closely related to familiar classroom practice and
the children can engage effectively in the collective learn-
ing experience including the open-ended tasks, a series of
cumulative tasks set up by the teacher and paced by the
children; tasks requiring the integration of web-based ma-
terials and peripheral technologies; and investigative work
requiring discussion, visual representation, and note-
taking. This represents an interacting system with social,
cognitive, technical, and temporal dimensions [16].
P. Warwick, Neil Mercer, Ruth Kershner, Judith Kleine
Staarman (2010) examining the vicarious presence of the
teacher in pupil's learning of science, suggest that the
teacher remotely mediates the activity of the pupils at the
board in two specific and interlinked ways. The first of
these is concerned with the ways in which the pupils ap-
propriate and use introduced rules and procedures. The
second is in the ways in which the teacher uses the task
structure to guide and mediate the pupils’ actions, ena-
bling them to interpret and act upon the teacher’s inten-
tions for the task [17].
Karen Murcia and Rachel Sheffield (2010) in their re-
search suggest that teachers’ effective IWB pedagogy
impacts positively on the way students talk about science.
Seven principles of effective interactive pedagogy focused
on scaffolding deep substantial science discourse emerged
from the action research: Engaging and appealing interac-
tive displays, Accessing online information, linking in
media files, interacting with online activities, constructing
a series of interactive activities to develop the scientific
story, Reviewing learning, Using IWB tools to increase
wait time [18].
P. Warwick, Neil Mercer, Ruth Kershner (2013) aim to
show how a teacher can use the cultural tool of spoken
language in conjunction with another cultural tool, the
interactive whiteboard, to provide effective support for
children's collective learning. They are very conscious of
the need to maintain a rigorous definition of ‘scaffolding’
whereby it reduces the degrees of freedom of a task in
ways which are contingent to, and orientated to, the de-
veloping expertise of the learners, even though this scaf-
folding was sometimes achieved without the teacher being
physically present [19].
D. Implementation in Physics.
Daniela Stoica, Florica Paragina, Silviu Paragina, Cris-
tina Miron, Alexandru Jipa (2012) have tried to describe
how the interactive whiteboard can be used during Physics
classes, so as to value the opportunities offered by this
interactive tool, while taking into account the cognitive
load theory, which can provide guidelines to assist in the
presentation of information in a manner that encourages
learning. They concluded that the interactive whiteboard
has many advantages, both for teachers and students, in-
cluding the ability to manipulate objects in real time, effi-
ciency in presenting a lesson and support for the long-term
planning and use of resources as well as visual enrichment
of web documents [20].
E. Impact on English Language Learners
Using an interactive whiteboard for visual presenta-
tions, interactive games, and test reviews in an ELL class-
room not only help teachers create active learning envi-
ronments but also assist students in practicing English in
class and at home, resulting in higher test scores. In the
study conducted by Jung Won Hur & Suhyun Suh (2012),
technology motivated students during the learning process
and provided more opportunities for speaking and writing
practice, which assisted them in improving their English
proficiency. The project provided ample opportunity for
students to research a topic, develop a presentation, and
practice speaking skills. Regardless of its long-term ef-
fects, the incorporation of the new technology clearly
helped create active learning environments. This result
implies that educators should strive to find new ways to
motivate students by integrating technology and creating
engaging learning activities [21].
Omar S. López (2010) in his research concludes that the
Digital Learning Classroom equipped with an IWB tech-
nology demonstrates its potential value, to achieve per-
formance parity between English Language Learners and
regular students. Furthermore, greater results should be
expected for ELL, as teachers gain still higher levels of
proficiency in using the IWB’s advanced functions and
find ways to engage ELL students in meaningful learning
that results in higher levels of student academic achieve-
ment and challenge them to continue their studies in ad-
iJOE ‒ Volume 10, Issue 4, 2014
47
PAPER
INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS IN PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION
vanced subjects so that they can join their peers in similar
course-work-taught in the English language [22].
F. Impact on Relations and Learning
Higgins, S. E. (2010) designed a research under a pilot
program and showed that students were very positive
about the use of interactive whiteboards. They particularly
liked the multimedia potential of the technology and that
they would like it if their teachers used the interactive
whiteboard more in lessons. There were overwhelmingly
positive teachers’ and students’ perceptions of aspects
affecting teaching and learning. Results suggest that the
use of the interactive whiteboards did lead to significant
changes in teachers’ practices in the use of technology and
in aspects of classroom interaction, affecting positively the
learning process [23].
For this interaction to be more than superficial, learners
must engage with the teaching in some meaningful man-
ner, bringing something of them to the exchange and not
merely acting as passive recipients of preformed infor-
mation. It is considered that interactivity demands a grate
level of active participation by learners who contribute to
the development of collective understanding [24].
H. Riese et al.(2012), showed in their research analysis
that peer learning activity is described as a communicative
process characterised by three distinct features: (a) it relies
on meditational means; (b) it needs trust and a safe social
environment; and (c) it allows disagreement. All of these
features may be accomplished through IWB's features, as
well [25].
G. The Use of Interactive Whiteboards by
Kindergartners (and their Teachers)
An exploratory case study analyzes various dimensions
of problem solving, conducting a series of analogous
computer programming problems, using a Logo-based
environment on an IWB by 5–6 years old kindergarten
children. The teacher expressed her preference in activities
that engage the whole class, with the use of the IWB, in
comparison to the computer corner, as she believes that
this mode strengthens the collaboration and the active
participation of the children and encourages extensive
dialogue [26].
A. Morgan (2010) in his paper indicates the following
principles in the teaching and learning of children aged
three to seven years regarding the use of IWBs: Represen-
tation and organisation of ideas, visualisation and reflec-
tion on thinking, communication of ideas and collabora-
tion, extension and communication of learning to the
broader community and documentation of a more diver-
gent form of pedagogical practice [27].
A. Harlow, Bronwen Cowie & Megan Heazlewood
(2010)focus on how the features of the IWB supported
teaching actions and provided potential and structure for
the children to develop their ‘key competencies’, working
as active learners and creating a feeling of achievement or
managing self.!he authors demonstrate that it was the
teacher’s orchestration of the classroom environment,
incorporating the use of the IWB, that was the key to the
development of a classroom culture that includes a partic-
ipatory pedagogy [28].
Kung-Teck Wong, Sharon Russo, Janet McDowal
(2013) in their study showed that performance expectancy
and effort expectancy were found to have a direct and
statistically significant positive effect on behavioral inten-
tion, meaning that student teachers will engage themselves
when they are able to see the value and benefits of using
IWB. Also implies that efforts to prepare new teachers to
use IWBs effectively should synchronize the implementa-
tion with its pedagogical benefits. This is the first paper
that investigated the acceptance and use of IWB among
early childhood science student teachers based on the Uni-
fied Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) model. Hence, it provides several prominent
implications for the research and practice [29].
III. IWBS’ ADDED VALUE TO TEACHERS
A. Professional Development of Teachers.
Teachers’ professional development in the use of in-
formation and communications technology should neces-
sarily be integrated with discussion of thinking through
new ideas and trying out new practices rather than focus-
ing on technical skills alone. It is essentially the way in
which the teacher constructs and guides the work at the
IWB to promote collaborative interaction and learning that
is important [30].
P. Serow and R. Callingham (2011) through their anal-
ysis of teacher use of IWBs in four different levels, name-
ly Retreatism/Technical Deficiency (Level 0), Black/
Whiteboard Substitute (Level 1), Apprentice User (Lev-
el2) and Initiate User (Level 3) emphasised the need to
provide sustained professional development. All teachers
involved in the research expressed the view that their stu-
dents’ learning had motivated either using the IWB in the
form of a presentation tool or using the ‘fun’ nature of the
equipment [31].
Gary Beauchamp (2004) states that, IWB can create a
new freedom in pedagogy to develop a progressive
framework, or a means to deliver existing practice in an-
other format, where teacher and pupils work together to
achieve learning objectives. The technology thus becomes
a liberating force and allows children to interact confident-
ly with the IWB, developing the transition framework
from beginner to synergistic user of the IWB as follows:
black/whiteboard substitute, apprentice user, initiate user,
advanced user, synergistic user. Teachers are able to see
how this can be used to facilitate a synergy of learning,
which allows them to co-construct new understanding of
both subject content and pedagogy in the primary class-
room. In which pupils and teacher combine joint technical
skills and teachers’ pedagogic vision create a new learning
praxis [32].
Essam Bakadam and Mohammed J. Sharbib Asiri
(2012) through their findings revealed that most teachers
believe that IWB constitutes an effective and convenient
way to deliver the learning content ( 90% of them agreed
with the statement) and that it increases the level of class-
room interaction which in turn increases the learning ex-
perience. However it is recommended that teachers using
the IWB in class undergo more training so that they can
become fully aware of how to optimize its use to ensure
that learners are motivated and engaged. Overall, the re-
sults showed a positive attitude towards implementing the
IWB, indicating that it was enjoyable as an instructional
tool and technological adjunct to classroom lessons [33].
S. Hodge and B. Anderson (2007) used a qualitative,
self-study methodology to explore the impact of introduc-
ing interactive whiteboard technology to a primary school
classroom. Several key insights, described as ‘nodal mo-
ments’, provided the impetus for the teacher to review her
48
http://www.i-joe.org
PAPER
INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS IN PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION
practice, reconsider her students’ learning approaches and
becoming a much more confident user as time passed.
These features site this study at the intersection between
technical and pedagogical interactivity [34].
B. Fostering Pedagogical Orchestration
The characteristics of pedagogical interactivity are
more important in stimulating the reflection and intention-
ality of higher-order learning. If these characteristics can
be appropriated by learners when using ICT, we should
start to see the benefits of the greater learner autonomy
which ICT provides [35].
Gary Beauchamp & Steve Kennewell (2013) revisit the
analysis of how the IWB can contribute to effective peda-
gogy where the IWB functions as a hub for classroom
activity in order to facilitate effective learning by the pu-
pils.. The key difference is that both the teacher and pupils
use the affordances of IWB for orchestration of activity,
such as the accumulation of resources which are ready-to-
hand on the board, rather than merely using a set of unre-
lated tools predominantly used by the teacher [36].
IWB may be a useful heterogeneous tool kit in facilitat-
ing interactions with multiple modes of representation that
engages students in a multimodal series of recaps, elicita-
tions and reformulations. It is not that access to these
modes was previously impossible for teachers, but rather
that this technology makes it so easy and convenient for
the teachers to deploy them as rapidly as wanted to con-
struct pedagogic practices, communicative processes and
educational goals. The IWB offers a number of presenta-
tional and ICT functions, which, taken together, offers
new opportunities for fostering multifaceted pedagogic
strategies [37].
F. Smith, Hardman Frank and Higgins Steve (2006) in
their article argue that an IWB lesson had a faster pace,
contained more whole class teaching and less group work
than non-IWB lessons and this was true for both numeracy
and literacy lessons. With regard to the frequency of dis-
course moves, the lessons which used IWBs had signifi-
cantly more open questions, answers from pupils and
evaluation. According to the researchers, while the emerg-
ing literature is promising and generally supportive of
IWBs they do not suggest a fundamental change in teach-
ers’ underlying pedagogy and more extensive research
needs to be carried out into ways of effectively supporting
teachers in their professional development, in order to
change traditional patterns of whole class interaction nec-
essary for responsive teaching, to increase the opportuni-
ties for extended teacher–pupil interactions [38].
B. Sundberg, Maria Spante & Jörgen Stenlund (2012)
found in their project that the implementation process of
IWBs is very technology-oriented, dependent on attitudes
either being less accustomed to the digital world than the
children or saw it as a way to invite the students to be-
come active. Thus, different types of communicative ap-
proaches (dialogic–authoritative and interactive–non-
interactive) emerged among the teachers regarding wheth-
er and how they used the IWBs in their lectures. What
also became increasingly clear during this study was the
apparent distinction between the interactive utility of the
technology and teachers’ part of the pedagogical applica-
tions [39].
C. Promoting Classroom Dialogue
IWB does offer some useful facilities for supporting
children’s discussion. One of these is really related to a
pedagogic approach in which teachers encourage students
to participate actively. This dialogic space allows them to
‘scaffold’ collaborative tasks by arranging material, in a
specific sequence and implement a dialogic pedagogy that
incorporates three aspects: IWB’s use for creating joint
activity, student’s use of such joint collaborative activity
and the teacher’s use of a dialogic pedagogy organising
activities [40].
Tanner H., Beauchamp G., Jones, S. & Kennewell, S.
(2010) observed that in effective learning environments,
teachers and learners often moved outside the constraints
of pre-determined orchestration and began to improvise,
like jazz musician’s unplanned improvisations in response
to stimuli from other players. The dynamic and contingent
properties of ICT can facilitate the exploration of ideas
and improvisation by both pupils and teachers leading to
effective teaching and learning [41].
Neil Mercer, Sara Hennessy & Paul Warwick (2010)
investigated how teachers could use the technical interac-
tivity of the IWB to create interesting multimodal stimuli
for whole-class dialogue. It is clear from their study that
the effective use of the IWB as an educational tool is not
inherent in the hardware, software or even the materials it
displays. It is predicated upon the evolving pedagogy and
the teacher’s practical understanding of how to engage
students and to help them learn [42].
D. Influence on Pedagogic Practice (Creation,
Interaction, Collaboration ,E-teaching)
The shared representation of content on the IWB poten-
tially may be used: a) to function as a communicative and
pedagogic tool in the teacher–pupil interactions, b) to en-
courage more interactive and non-authoritative dialogue,
c) to alter well-documented features of normal classroom
interaction, d) to build a shared frame of reference be-
tween teacher and children or to build common
knowledge amongst members of the class and e) pursue
teachers’ pedagogic tools [43].
V. Armstrong et al. (2006) illustrate that through the in-
troduction of IWBs into the classroom teachers have
deepened and enhanced their own reflections on their
changing pedagogic practices. Teachers and students are
critical agents in mediating the software and bring a
much-needed critical perspective to the research process,
which relate to their previous cultures of teaching, learn-
ing and tool use [44].
Cathy Lewin, Bridget Somekh, Stephen Steadman
(2008) argue that the IWB’s use becomes embedded in the
teachers’ pedagogy as a mediating artefact for their inter-
actions with their pupils, and pupils’ interactions with one
another, and this is when changes in attainment, attend-
ance and behavior become apparent [45].
Michiel Renger, Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten, Gert-Jan
de Vreede (2008) offer a first overview of advantages and
disadvantages of interactive whiteboards, providing first
insights in the various settings in which they can be used
to support collaborative modeling and manipulate the
model directly, stimulating participation. They discuss the
way IWB’s are used on three different topics: the group
composition, technology and modeling approach, concern-
ing the group size, level of participation, role assignment
manipulation and access rights, text and structure recogni-
iJOE ‒ Volume 10, Issue 4, 2014
49
PAPER
INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS IN PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION
tion, storage and versioning, no process support, chauf-
feured and facilitated process [46].
An interactive whiteboard is a necessary component for
an e-teaching approach to classroom practice. The interac-
tivity, the tactile nature of students’ interactions with the
board alongside with the teacher’s ability to manage class-
room activities where students can interact with the con-
cepts, content and context of the lesson, promotes an ele-
vated level of engagement with the lesson that makes e-
teaching as a pedagogical approach effective in the long
term [6].
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Evidence showed that IWB’s impact in the pedagogy of
the class depends on teacher’s fluency in the use of IWB
affordances as long as whole-class use of its technology to
enliven presentation, increase pupil participation and rein-
force learning. Teachers are critical agents in implement-
ing the software and in ensuring the appropriate use of the
technology to promote quality interactions and interactivi-
ty, although in terms of impact on pupils’ attainment the
IWBs appeared to have a negligible effect [47].
The benefits of a successive adaptation of the IWB
technology could be gained through a more open, collabo-
rative and imaginative use of its affordances, taken into
consideration useful insights provided by the students,
into the uses of IWB and most of all through an educa-
tional climate that don’t militates against increased pupil
access to the technology [48].
Pupil perspectives identify the IWB’s visual, aural, tac-
tile and multimedia presentation. Thus, IWB has devel-
oped a perception as a tool for implementing engaging
pedagogies and serves as a focus for communal attention,
action and cognition [49].
The effectiveness of the IWB has been proven either di-
rectly or indirectly, demonstrating a number of benefits
perceived for teaching including efficiency, versatility,
multimodal presentation and interactivity, which are in-
tended to be transformed into benefits for learning, such as
engaging less able, longer attention span and better focus,
visual and dynamic representations, motivation, pace and
flow. In addition there are some others that are worthy of
further investigation such as differentiation, reflection,
collaboration, retention and transfer [50].
REFERENCES
[1] Paul Kelley , Guy Underwood , Franc Potter , Jane Hunter & Sue
Beveridge: VIEWPOINTS, Learning, Media and Technology,
32:3, 333-347, 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511
164
[2] J. Smith et al. Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A
critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning 21, pp91–101, 2005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2005.00117.x
[3] Sara Hennessy & Paul Warwick. Research into teaching with
whole class interactive technologies, Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 19:2, 127-131, 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1475939X.2010.491211
[4] Tara J. Brigham: Smart Boards: A Reemerging Technology, Med-
ical Reference services Quarterly, 32:2, 194-202, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2013.776903
[5] Mal Lee: Interactive whiteboards and schooling: the context,
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19:2, 133-141, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2010.491215
[6] Peter Kent: Smartboards: Interactive Whiteboards in Classrooms
Embedding Learning Technologies Module 13, 15th International
Conference of the Society of Information Technology and Teacher
Education, Atlanta USA, 2004
[7] Beth Mc Kinney, Exploring Interactive Whiteboard Use in the 4 –
6 grade classroom using Gagne's nine events of Instruction, A Dis-
sertation in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama
2012
[8] Shenton, A. and Pagett, L., From ‘bored’ to screen: the use of the
interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in
England. Literacy, 41: 129–136, 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9345.2007.00475.x
[9] Martin, S., Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new ap-
proach to teaching children to write?. Literacy, 41: 26–34, 2007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00449.x
[10] Wall, K., Higgins, S. and Smith, H., ‘The visual helps me under-
stand the complicated things’: pupil views of teaching and learn-
ing with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 36: 851–867, 2005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2005.00508.x
[11] Damian Maher, Using the multimodal affordances of the interac-
tive whiteboard to support students’ understanding of texts, Learn-
ing, Media and Technology, 36:3, 235-250, 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.536553
[12] Berna Tataro"lu, Ayten Erduran, Examining students’ attitudes
and views towards usage an interactive whiteboard in mathematics
lessons, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 2, Is-
sue 2, Pages 2533-2538, 2010
[13] Merilyn Taylor, Ann Harlow, Michael Forret, Using a Computer
Programming Environment and an Interactive Whiteboard to In-
vestigate Some Mathematical Thinking, Procedia - Social and Be-
havioral Sciences, Volume 8, Pages 561-570 , 2010
[14] Claudio Alvarez, Sadaf Salavati, Miguel Nussbaum, Marcelo
Milrad, Collboard: Fostering new media literacies in the classroom
through collaborative problem solving supported by digital pens
and interactive whiteboards, Computers & Education, Volume 63,
Pages 368-379, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2012.12.019
[15] Bruce Torff, Rose Tirotta, Interactive whiteboards produce small
gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathe-
matics, Computers & Education, Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 379-
383, 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
[16] Ruth Kershner, Neil Mercer, Paul Warwick, Judith Kleine
Staarman, Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s
collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science
activities?, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collabo-
rative Learning Volume 5, Issue 4 , pp 359-383, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9096-2
[17] Paul Warwick, Neil Mercer, Ruth Kershner, Judith Kleine
Staarman, In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious pres-
ence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative
group activity at the interactive whiteboard, Computers & Educa-
tion, Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 350-362, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001
[18] Murcia, Karen; Sheffield, Rachel Australasian Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, v26 n4 spec iss p417-431, 2010
[19] Paul Warwick, Neil Mercer, Ruth Kershner, ‘Wait, let's just think
about this’: Using the interactive whiteboard and talk rules to scaf-
fold learning for co-regulation in collaborative science activities,
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages
42-51, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.004
[20] Daniela Stoica, Florica Paragina, Silviu Paragina, Cristina Miron,
Alexandru Jipa, The interactive whiteboard and the instructional
design in teaching physics, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences, Volume 15, Pages 3316-3321, 2011
[21] Jung Won Hur & Suhyun Suh, Making Learning Active with
Interactive Whiteboards, Podcasts, and Digital Storytelling in ELL
Classrooms, Computers in the Schools, 29:4, 320-338, 2012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.734275
[22] Omar S. López, The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving Eng-
lish Language Learners’ academic success in mathematics and
reading using interactive whiteboard technology, Computers &
Education, Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 901-915, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019
[23] Higgins, S. E. ’The impact of interactive whiteboards on class-
room interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK.’, in
Interactive whiteboards for education : theory, research and prac-
tice.Hershey, Pa: IGI Global, pp. 86-101,2010
[24] Tanner, H., Jones, S., Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. Interactive
whole class teaching and interactive white Boards, Proc of the
50
http://www.i-joe.org
PAPER
INTERACTIVE WHITE BOARDS IN PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY EDUCATION
conference of Mathematics Education Research Group of Austral-
asia - 28 (Melbourne), 2, 720-727, 2005
[25] Hanne Riese , Akylina Samara & Slvi Lillejord, Peer relations in
peer learning, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Edu-
cation, 25:5, 601-624,2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.
2011.605078
[26] G. Fessakis, E. Gouli, E. Mavroudi, Problem solving by 5–6 years
old kindergarten children in a computer programming environ-
ment: A case study, Computers & Education, Volume 63, Pages
87-97, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
[27] Alex Morgan, Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play in the
classroom with children aged three to seven years, European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 18:1, 93-104, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930903520082
[28] Ann Harlow, Bronwen Cowie & Megan Heazlewood, Keeping in
touch with learning: the use of an interactive whiteboard in the
junior school, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19:2, 237-
243, 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2010.491234
[29] Kung-Teck Wong, Sharon Russo, Janet McDowall, "Understand-
ing early childhood student teachers’ acceptance and use of inter-
active whiteboard", Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 30
Iss: 1, pp.4 - 16, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/106507413
11288788
[30] Paul Warwick & Ruth Kershner, Primary teachers’ understanding
of the interactive whiteboard as a tool for children’s collaborative
learning and knowledge!building, Learning, Media and Technolo-
gy, 33:4, 269-287, 2008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743988080
2496935
[31] Penelope Serow & Rosemary Callingham, Levels of use of Inter-
active Whiteboard technology in the primary mathematics class-
room, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20:2, 161-173, 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2011.588418
[32] Gary Beauchamp, Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in
primary schools: towards an effective transition framework, Tech-
nology, Pedagogy and Education volume 13, Issue 3,p.327-348,
2004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200186
[33] Essam Bakadam, Mohammed J. Sharbib Asiri, Teachers’ Percep-
tions Regarding the Benefits of using the Interactive Whiteboard
(IWB): The Case of a Saudi Intermediate School, Procedia - So-
cial and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 64, Pages 179-185, 2012
[34] Sue Hodge & Bill Anderson, Teaching and learning with an inter-
active whiteboard: a teacher’s journey, Learning, Media and
Technology, 32:3, 271-282, 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/174
39880701511123
[35] Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S. and Beauchamp, G., Analys-
ing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive
teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24: 61–73, 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
[36] Gary Beauchamp, Steve Kennewell, Transition in pedagogical
orchestration using the interactive whiteboard, Education and In-
formation Technologies, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 179-191, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9230-z
[37] Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J.K. and Mercer,
N., Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and
support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24: 348–358, 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00269.x
[38] Smith, Fay, Hardman, Frank and Higgins, Steve, 'The impact of
interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the Nation-
al Literacy and Numeracy Strategies', British Educational Re-
search Journal, 32:3,443 – 457, 2006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01411920600635452
[39] Bodil Sundberg , Maria Spante & Jörgen Stenlund, Disparity in
practice: diverse strategies among teachers implementing interac-
tive whiteboards into teaching practice in two Swedish primary
schools, Learning, Media and Technology, 37:3, 253-270, 2012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.586352
[40] Neil Mercer , Paul Warwick , Ruth Kershner & Judith Kleine
Staarman, Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ‘dialogic
space’ for children's collaborative activity?, Language and Educa-
tion, 24:5, 367-384, 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09500781003642460
[41] Tanner, H., Beauchamp, G., Jones, S. & Kennewell, S., Interactive
Whiteboards and All That Jazz: Analysing Classroom Activity
with Interactive Technologies. Presented at Annual Meeting of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2010
[42] Neil Mercer , Sara Hennessy & Paul Warwick, Using interactive
whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue, Technology, Peda-
gogy and Education, 19:2, 195-209, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2010.491230
[43] Julia Gillen , Judith Kleine Staarman , Karen Littleton , Neil Mer-
cer & Alison Twiner, A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating peda-
gogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary
classrooms, Learning, Media and Technology, 32:3, 243-256,2007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511099
[44] Victoria Armstrong , Sally Barnes , Rosamund Sutherland , Sarah
Curran , Simon Mills & Ian Thompson, Collaborative research
methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of in-
teractive whiteboard technology, Educational Review, 57:4, 457-
469, 2005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910500279551
[45] Cathy Lewin, Bridget Somekh, Stephen Steadman, Embedding
interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of
change in pedagogic practice, Education and Information Tech-
nologies, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 291-303, 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z
[46] Michiel Renger, Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten, Gert-Jan de Vreede,
Using Interactive Whiteboard Technology to Support Collabora-
tive Modeling, Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use Lec-
ture Notes in Computer Science Volume 5411,pp 356-363, (2008)
[47] Steve Higgins , Gary Beauchamp & Dave Miller, Reviewing the
literature on interactive whiteboards, Learning, Media and Tech-
nology, 32:3, 213-225, 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17439880701511040
[48] Hall, I. and Higgins, S., Primary school students' perceptions of
interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
21: 102–117, 2005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2005.00118.x
[49] Kennewell, S., Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenom-
enon: a synthesis of research from the UK Swansea School of Ed-
ucation, 2006
[50] Steve Kennewell & Gary Beauchamp, The features of interactive
whiteboards and their influence on learning, Learning, Media and
Technology, 32:3, 227-241, 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17439880701511073
AUTHORS
Athanasios Drigas is a Senior Researcher at N.C.S.R.
Demokritos. He is the Coordinator of Telecoms Lab and
founder of Net Media Lab since 1996. From 1985 to 1999
he was the Operational manager of the Greek Academic
network. He has been the Coordinator of Several Interna-
tional Projects, in the fields of ICTs, and e-services (e-
learning, e-psychology, e-government, e-inclusion, e-
culture etc). He has published more than 200 articles, 7
books, 25 educational CD-ROMs and several patents. He
has been a member of several International committees for
the design and coordination of Network and ICT activities
and of international conferences and journals. (e-mail:
dr@iit.demokritos.gr)
George Papanastasiou is a Special Education Teacher
at a public primary school in Athens. Among various
research projects, in the framework of the project "Further
training of educators in the use and application of ICTs in
the teaching practice" under the Education and Life-Long
Learning Operational Programme, Ministry of Education
and Religious Affairs, he has co-authored Volume A
"Theoretical Framework: The Interactive Whiteboard in
the school classroom: Pedagogical Approaches - Teaching
Applications" and Volume B "Educational Scenarios for
the Use of the Interactive Whiteboard" (e-mail:
gpapanasta@gmail.com)
Submitted 08 April 2014. Published as re-submitted by the authors 08
June 2014.
iJOE ‒ Volume 10, Issue 4, 2014
51
