Advertisement

The Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Education

Opportunities and Challenges
  • Marissa Saville
  • Kim Beswick
  • Rosemary Callingham
Part of the Bold Visions in Educational Research book series (BVER)

Abstract

Interactive white boards (IWBs) have been heralded by many as a valuable teaching tool offering innumerable opportunities for increasing student engagement and learning (Campbell & Kent, 2010; Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2005). Although research clearly shows IWBs have the potential to transform the way in which teachers teach (Glover et al., 2005), this potential is not realised simply by their installation into a classroom setting.

Keywords

Student Teacher Future Teacher Technological Skill Teaching Pedagogy Dynamic Geometry Software 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skills, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  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. Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Melbourne, VIC: ACER.Google Scholar
  8. Bretscher, N. (2009, January/February). Dynamic geometry software: The teacher’s role in facilitating instrumental genesis. Paper presented at the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  9. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project. Manchester: Education and Social Research Institute, Manchester, Metropolitan University. Retrieved from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/international_research/uk/becta_executive_expansion_summary.pdf
  10. Campbell, C. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the first year experience: Integrating IWBs into pre-service teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, C., & Kent, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards in pre-service teacher education: Examples from two Australian universities. In M. Thomas & A. Jones (Eds), Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(Special issue, 4), 447–463. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/campbell.html
  12. Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9, Article 37. Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-37
  13. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Interactive whiteboards: New tools, new pedagogies, new learning? Some views from practitioners. Retrieved from http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/?s=interactive+whiteboards%3A+new+tools%2C+new+pedagogies%2C+new+learning%3F
  15. Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information and Management, 36(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch, K., & Kent VanTyle, W. (2009). Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technology use. Computers & Education, 53(2), 300–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Futuresource. (2011). Interactive whiteboard market valued at $1.4bn according to new Futuresource report. Retrieved from http://www.widepr.com/press_release/15473/interactive_whiteboard_market_valued_at_1_4bn_according_to_new_futuresource_report.html
  19. Gillen, J., Kleine Staarman, J., 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(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: The pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(3), 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glover, D., Miller, D. J., & Averis, D. (2004, July). Panacea or prop: The role of the interactive whiteboard in improving teaching effectiveness. Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Technical University of Denmark. Retrieved from http://www.icmeorganisers.dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdf
  22. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Teaching, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2) 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodwin, K. (2011). Engaging students in literacy learning with interactive whiteboards. Sydney, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.Google Scholar
  24. Greiffenhagen, C. (2000). A report into whiteboard technologies. (unpublished) Oxford, Computing Laboratory. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.comlab.ox.ac.uk/pub/Documents/techreports/TR-16-00.pdf
  25. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1998). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 3(3), 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammon, M., Reynolds, L., & Ingram, J. (2011). How and why do student teachers use ICT? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, S. (2002). Innovative pedagogical practices using ICT in schools in England. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hennessy, S. (2011). The role of digital artefacts on the interactive whiteboard in supporting classroom dialogue. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. London & NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. John, P. D., & Baggott La Velle, L. (2004). Devices and desires: Subject subcultures, pedagogical identity and the challenge of information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joint Information Systems Committee. (2009). Effective practice in a digital age: A guide to technology enhanced learning and teaching. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elearningprogramme.aspx
  33. Kennewell, S. (2005, September). Researching the influence of interactive presentation tools on teacher pedagogy. In the proceedings of the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, Wales. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/151717.doc
  34. Kennewell, S. (2006, November). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: A synthesis of research from the UK. In Proceedings Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf
  35. Knight, P., Pennant, J., & Piggott, J. (2004). What does it mean to ‘use the interactive whiteboard’ in the daily mathematics lesson? MicroMath, 20(2), 14–16.Google Scholar
  36. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40(3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study (Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield). Retrieved from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
  38. Mayo, N., Kajs, L., & Tanguma, J. (2005). Longitudinal study of technology training to prepare future teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  39. McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communication technology, knowledge and pedagogy. Education, Communication and Information, 1, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCoy, C. (2010). Perceived self-efficacy and technological proficiency in undergraduate college students. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1614–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCoy, S., Galletta, D. F., & King, W. R. (2007). Applying TAM across cultures: The need for caution. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKenzie, J. (1999). How teachers learn technology best. Bellingham, WA: FNO.Google Scholar
  43. McKenzie, J. (2002). Just in time technology: Doing better with fewer. Bellingham, WA: FNO.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, D. J., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Developing pedagogic skills for the use of the interactive whiteboard in mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.keele.ac.uk/media/keeleuniversity/fachumsocsci/sclpppp/education/interactivewhiteboard/BERA%20Paper%20Sep%202005.pdf
  45. Prensky, M. (2005). Adopt and adapt: School technology in the 21st century. Edutopia. Retrieved fromGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenfeld, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (2005). Promoting classroom technology use. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 145–184.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(22), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51 (3), 1321–1341.CrossRefGoogle 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, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sweeney, T. (2008). Transforming learning with interactive whiteboards: Towards a developmental framework. Australian Educational Computing, 23(2), 24–31.Google Scholar
  51. Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413–424.Google Scholar
  52. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 522(2), 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Warren, C. (2003). Interactive whiteboards: An approach to an effective methodology. Computer Education, 103, 11–12.Google Scholar
  55. Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 350–362. www.marcprensky.com/…/Prensky-Adopt_and_Adapt-Edutopia-01

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marissa Saville
  • Kim Beswick
  • Rosemary Callingham

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations