Interactive Whiteboard Use and Student Engagement

  • Carol Le Lant
  • Michael J. Lawson
Part of the Higher Education Horizons book series (HEHO)


Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) have been associated with positive affect, and are perceived as motivational for students and teachers. Their multimedia capabilities have been reported to capture students’ attention and support the transition from concrete learning to more abstract concepts. Betcher and Lee (2009, p. 1) state that “Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) have the capacity to fundamentally change – and indeed revolutionise – the nature of teaching”.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ACARA, T. A. C., Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d.). Australian curriculum. Retrieved from
  2. Allsopp, D. H., Colucci, K., Doone, E., Perez, L., Bryant, E. J., & Holhfeld, T. N. (2012). Interactive whiteboard technology for students with disabilities: A year long exploratory study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. 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), 455–467.Google Scholar
  4. BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from Scholar
  5. Bell, M. A. (2002). Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker's dozen reasons! Teachers.Net Gazette, 3(1). Retrieved from
  6. Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burnett, C. (2010). Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 247–270.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, A. (2002). Using interactive whiteboards with deaf children. Retrieved from Scholar
  9. Cogill, J. (2003). The use of interactive whiteboards in the primary school: Effects on pedagogy (16). Coventry: BECTA.Google Scholar
  10. Coyle, V., Yan, L., & Verdu, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children’s language use in an ESL immersion classroom. System, 38(4), 614–625. Retrieved from Scholar
  11. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the english language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education, 51, 1553–1568.Google Scholar
  12. de Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2004). Paying attention to attention: New economies for learning. Educational Theory, 54(4), 381–397.Google Scholar
  13. Dugard, P., File, P., & Todman, J. (2012). Single-case and small-n experimental designs: A practical guide to randomization tests (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Egerton, J., Cook, J., & Stambolis, C. (2009). Developing a model of pedagogical best practice in the use of interactive whiteboards for children with autism and complex learning disabilities: Implications for initial teacher training. United Kingdom: Sunfield Research Organisation. Retrieved from Scholar
  15. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student Engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 97–131). New York: Springer –Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. H. (2003, 12–13 March). School engagement. Paper presented at the Indicators of Positive Development Conference, Child Trends, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A 'learning revolution'? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243256.Google Scholar
  18. 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 and Technology, 32(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  19. Goldsmith, R. R., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2004). Use of technology in interventions for children with autism. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 1(2), 166–178.Google Scholar
  20. Guthrie, J. T. D., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice: Overcoming learning difficulties. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102–117.Google Scholar
  22. Higgins, S. (2010). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education : theory, research and practice (pp. 86–101). Hershey, PA: ICI Global.Google Scholar
  23. Higgins, S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F., Smith, H. J., & Wall, K. (2005). Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies. Retrieved from
  24. Hodge, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: A teacher's journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271–282.Google Scholar
  25. Jamerson, J. (2002). Helping all children learn: Action research project. Smarter Kids Foundation. Retrieved from Scholar
  26. Jones, R., Kervin, L., & McIntosh, S. (2011). The interactive whiteboard: Tool and/or agent of semiotic mediation. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(1), 38–60.Google Scholar
  27. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: Implications for affective computing. Paper presented at the Twenty fourth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society, Florida.Google Scholar
  28. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227–241.Google Scholar
  29. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  30. Le Lant, C. (2015). The effect of interactive whiteboard use on the engagement of students with intellectual disability in early reading lessons. (PhD), Flinders University.Google Scholar
  31. Learning Development Centre. (2008). Interactive whiteboards for students with special needs. Retrieved from
  32. Levin, J. R., Ferron, J. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2012). Nonparametric statistical tests for single-case systematic and randomized ABAB…AB and alternating treatment intervention designs: New developments, new directions. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 599–624.Google Scholar
  33. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Retrieved from
  34. Lovell, M. (2014). Interactive whiteboard use: Changes in teacher pedagogy in reading instruction in the primary grades. University of Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from
  35. Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26–34.Google Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2 ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, D., Averis, D., Door, V., & Glover, D. (2005). How can the use of an interactive whiteboard enhance the nature of learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreign languages? Retrieved from
  38. Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Enhancing mathematics teaching through new technology: The use of the interactive whiteboard. Retrieved from Scholar
  39. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environment. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.Google Scholar
  40. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaaic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) project: London challenge. Research report RR816. UK Institute of Education, Dept. for Education and Skills. Retrieved from Scholar
  41. Murcia, K. (2014). Interactive and multimodal pedagogy: A case study of how teachers and students use interactive whiteboard technology in primary science. Australian Journal of Education, 58(1), 74–88.Google Scholar
  42. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39) Columbia: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pennington, R. C. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(4), 239–248.Google Scholar
  44. Sakar, A., & Ercetin, G. (2005). Effectiveness of hypermedia annotations for foreign language reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 28–38.Google Scholar
  45. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametllera, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36.Google Scholar
  46. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Castro, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and valuation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33.Google Scholar
  47. Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just "lipstick"? Computers and Education, 51, 1321–1341.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, H. (2001). SmartBoard evaluation: Final report. Retrieved from Scholar
  49. Smith, H. J., 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.Google Scholar
  50. Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., . . . Woodrow, D. (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools Whiteboard Expansion Project. Retrieved from
  51. Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). Learning from children about their learning with and without ICT using video-stimulated reflective dialogue. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 708–716). Melbourne: MERGA Inc.Google Scholar
  52. Whitby, P. J. S., Leininger, M. L., & Grillo, K. (2012). Tips for using interactive whiteboards to increase participation of students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(6), 50–57.Google Scholar
  53. Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Hammond, D. (2010). Comparative intervention designs. In D. L. Gast (Ed.). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 329–381). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Yakubova, G., & Taber-Doughty, T. (2013). Brief report: Learning via the electronic interactive whiteboard for two students with autism and a student with moderate intellectual disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1465–1472.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Le Lant
    • 1
  • Michael J. Lawson
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationFlinders UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationFlinders UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations