Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 409–423 | Cite as

Teacher use of the interactive whiteboards in Flemish secondary education—mapping against a transition framework



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.


Interactive whiteboard Transition framework Online quantitative survey Teachers Flemish secondary education 


  1. Austin, N. (2003). Mighty white., The Guardian.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, M. A. (2001). Update to survey of use of interactive electronic whiteboard in instruction.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berk, R. A. (1986). A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on criterion-referenced tests. Review of Educational Research, 56(137–172).Google Scholar
  8. Blanton, P. (2008). Using interactive whiteboard to enhance student learning. The Physics Teacher, 46(3), 188–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Branzburg, J. (2008). The whiteboard revolution. Technology & Learning, 28(9), 44.Google Scholar
  10. Buckinghamshire, L. E. A. (2002). Developing the use of interactive whiteboards.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Colpaert, J. (2010). Elicitation of language learners’ personal goals as design concepts. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 259–274.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys. The tailord design method. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Ekhami, L. (2002). The power of interactive whiteboards. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 18(8), 35–38.Google Scholar
  18. EURYDICE. (2011). Key data on learning and innovation through ICT at school in Europe, 2011: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Harlow, A. (2010). Online surveys-possibilities, pitfalls and practicalities: the experience of the TELA evaluation. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(2), 95–108.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Jamerson, J. (2002). Helping all children learn: action research project.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Koehler, M. (2011). What is TPACK?, from
  32. Lavicza, Papp-Varga, Z., & Zsuzsanna. (2010). Integrating GeoGebra into IWB–equipped teaching environments: preliminary results. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Messenger, C. (2009). Interactive displays / ICT products market: quarterly insight state of the market report (Vol. Quarter 4): Futuresource ConsultingGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, Glover, & Averis. (2008). Enabling enhanced mathematics teaching: Final Report.: National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1991). Psychological testing: principles and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scheys, M. (2010). Statistisch jaarboek van het Vlaams onderwijs - schooljaar 2009–2010 (S. O. e. Vorming, Trans.) (pp. 645–663). Brussel: Vlaamse Gemeenschap.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, H. J. (2001). Smartboard evaluation: Final report.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tameside, M. B. C. (2003). Interim report on practice using interactive whiteboards in Tameside primary schools.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, G. (2010). Yearbook of statistics:telecommunication/ICT indicators: 2000–2009 International Telecommunication Union.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Turel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: development, validity and reliability. Computers in Education, 57(2011), 2441–2450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Sience, 46(2), 186–204.Google Scholar
  59. Walker, D. (2002, 12-09-2002). White enlightening., Times Educational Suplement.Google Scholar
  60. 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).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stijn Van Laer
    • 1
  • Gary Beauchamp
    • 2
  • Jozef Colpaert
    • 3
  1. 1.KU LeuvenHeverleeBelgium
  2. 2.Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff School of EducationCardiffUK
  3. 3.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations