Teacher use of the interactive whiteboards in Flemish secondary education—mapping against a transition framework
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) are a relatively new, but increasingly more common, tool in the classrooms of Flemish Secondary schools. This paper reports on research which attempted to map not only the amount of IWB use in Flemish secondary schools but, perhaps more importantly, to assess how they are used and the progress of teachers in developing their IWB skills in the classroom. An online quantitative survey was conducted, based on a detailed IWB transition framework. The survey (n = 433) identified the distribution and usage levels of the IWB by teachers in Flemish Secondary Education. The results show that the distribution of IWBs is affected by the educational network to which a teacher belongs. In terms of the level of IWB use, teachers classified themselves predominantly in the first two stages of the transition framework (Black/Whiteboard Substitute and Apprentice use). This would suggest that teachers in Flemish Secondary Education have been initiated (in a technological sense) in using the IWB and are beginning to initiate (in a pedagogic sense) wider usage, including incorporating pupil use of the IWB. In this process, however, teachers appeared to be more confident in technical use of the ICT skills, but less confident in developing new pedagogic approaches which may exploit the full potential of the IWB.
Supplementary Material (0)
- Austin, N. (2003). Mighty white., The Guardian.
- Bauman, S., Jobity, N., Airey, J., & Atak, H. (2000). Invite, intros and incentives: Lessons from a web survey. Paper presented at the 55th annual conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research., Portland.
- Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327–348. CrossRef
- Beauchamp, G. (2011). Interactivity and ICT in the primary school: categories of learner interactions with and without ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(2), 175–190. CrossRef
- Bell, M. A. (2001). Update to survey of use of interactive electronic whiteboard in instruction.
- Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289–300. CrossRef
- Berk, R. A. (1986). A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on criterion-referenced tests. Review of Educational Research, 56(137–172).
- Blanton, P. (2008). Using interactive whiteboard to enhance student learning. The Physics Teacher, 46(3), 188–189. CrossRef
- Branzburg, J. (2008). The whiteboard revolution. Technology & Learning, 28(9), 44.
- Buckinghamshire, L. E. A. (2002). Developing the use of interactive whiteboards.
- Clarebout, G., Braak, J. v., & Elen, J. (2010). MICTIVO: monitoring ICT in het vlaamse onderwijs: verslag bijkomende analyses: finale versie (p. 59). Leuven: Vlaamse Overheid.
- Colpaert, J. (2010). Elicitation of language learners’ personal goals as design concepts. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 259–274. CrossRef
- Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010). Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10(2), 159–172. CrossRef
- de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
- Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151. CrossRef
- Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys. The tailord design method. New York: Wiley.
- Ekhami, L. (2002). The power of interactive whiteboards. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 18(8), 35–38.
- EURYDICE. (2011). Key data on learning and innovation through ICT at school in Europe, 2011: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
- Eysenbach, G., & Wyatt, J. (2002). Using the internet for surveys and health research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 4(2). doi:10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13
- Freire, A., Linhalis, F., Bianchini, S. L., Fortes, R. P. M., & Pimentel, M. G. C. (2010). Revealing the whiteboard to blind students: an inclusive approach to provide mediation in synchronous e-learning activities. Computers in Education, 54(4), 866–876. CrossRef
- Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 243–256. CrossRef
- Glover, D., & Bush, T. (2005). The online or e-survey: A research approach for the ICT age. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 28(2), 135–146. CrossRef
- Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257–270. doi:10.1080/17439880701511107. CrossRef
- Haldane, M. (2010). A New Interactive Whitebaord Pedagogy. In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.), Interctive whitebaord for education: theory, research and practice (pp. 179–196). New York: Information Science Reference.
- Harlow, A. (2010). Online surveys-possibilities, pitfalls and practicalities: the experience of the TELA evaluation. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(2), 95–108.
- Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225. doi:10.1080/17439880701511040. CrossRef
- Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351–365.
- Jamerson, J. (2002). Helping all children learn: action research project.
- Jang, S.-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers in Education, 55, 1744–1751. CrossRef
- Jones, A., & Vincent, J. (2010). Collegial mentoring for effective whole school professional development in the use of IWB technologies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 477–493.
- Koehler, M. (2011). What is TPACK?, from http://www.tpck.org/
- Lavicza, Papp-Varga, Z., & Zsuzsanna. (2010). Integrating GeoGebra into IWB–equipped teaching environments: preliminary results. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 245–252. CrossRef
- Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: the process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291–303. doi:10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z. CrossRef
- López, A. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: improving english language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901–915. CrossRef
- Maher, D. (2011). Using the multimodal affordances of the interactive whiteboard to support students’ understanding of texts. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 235–250. CrossRef
- Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 195–209. CrossRef
- Messenger, C. (2009). Interactive displays / ICT products market: quarterly insight state of the market report (Vol. Quarter 4): Futuresource Consulting
- Miller, & Glover. (2010). Chapter 1: interactive whiteboards: a literature survey. interactive whiteboards for education: theory, research and practice (pp. 1–19). Keele: Premier Reference Source.
- Miller, Glover, & Averis. (2005). Presentation and pedagogy: The effective use of interactive whiteboards in mathematics lessons. Paper presented at the sixth British Congress of Mathematics Education, University of Warwick.
- Miller, Glover, & Averis. (2008). Enabling enhanced mathematics teaching: Final Report.: National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics.
- Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2007). Into the unknown: the professional development induction experience of secondary mathematics teachers using interactive whiteboard technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 319–331. doi:10.1080/17439880701511156. CrossRef
- Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. CrossRef
- Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1991). Psychological testing: principles and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
- Passey, D. (2006). Technology enhancing learning: analysing uses of information and communication technologies by primary and secondary school pupils with learning frame-works. Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 139–166. CrossRef
- Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. CrossRef
- Scheys, M. (2010). Statistisch jaarboek van het Vlaams onderwijs - schooljaar 2009–2010 (S. O. e. Vorming, Trans.) (pp. 645–663). Brussel: Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
- Serow, P., & Callingham, R. (2011). Levels of use of Interactive Whiteboard technology in the primary mathematics classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(2), 161–173. CrossRef
- Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinsonwilliams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers in Education, 51(3), 1321–1341. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006. CrossRef
- Smith, H. J. (2001). Smartboard evaluation: Final report.
- Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., et al. (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project - summary report. (P. a. L. Centre for ICT, Trans.): Manchester Metropolitan University.
- Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: what makes a board smart? Computers in Education, 53(2), 368–374. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.012. CrossRef
- Tameside, M. B. C. (2003). Interim report on practice using interactive whiteboards in Tameside primary schools.
- Taylor, G. (2010). Yearbook of statistics:telecommunication/ICT indicators: 2000–2009 International Telecommunication Union.
- Thinyane, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). An investigation into the use of interactive whiteboards in South African schools. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction, Algarve, Portugal.
- Turel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: development, validity and reliability. Computers in Education, 57(2011), 2441–2450. CrossRef
- Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394.
- Van Laer, S. (2011). De toegevoegde waarde van het Interactive Whiteboard in het Vlaams secundair onderwijs. Het gebruiksniveau bij leerkrachten in kaart gebracht. (Masters). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
- Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Sience, 46(2), 186–204. CrossRef
- Walker, D. (2002, 12-09-2002). White enlightening., Times Educational Suplement.
- Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
About this Article
- Teacher use of the interactive whiteboards in Flemish secondary education—mapping against a transition framework
Education and Information Technologies
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Interactive whiteboard
- Transition framework
- Online quantitative survey
- Flemish secondary education
- Author Affiliations
- 1. KU Leuven, Kapeldreef 62, 3001, Heverlee, Belgium
- 2. Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff School of Education, Cyncoed Road, CF23 6XD, Cardiff, UK
- 3. University of Antwerp, Venusstraat 35, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium