Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice

Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice:

the research literature reviewed.

Ton KoenraadHogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences

Faculty of EducationTon.Koenraad @ hu.nl

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.

2

Contents

1. Introduction …………………………………………………..….…...21.1 Method….……………………………………………………31.2 Contents.…….………………………………………………42. The added value of Interactive Whiteboards ..…………………..52.1 IWB versus computer-projector setup……………….. .52.2 Pros and Cons of Interactive Whiteboards .…………..6

3. Further analysis of some specific aspects ….………………….103.1 Engagement and motivation…..………..………………103.2 Interaction………………………….…………..…………..113.3 Learning results ..………………….……………..……....123.4 Learning styles, special education ………………..…..133.5 IWB Materials………………………………………………143.6 Training and professional development….……..........154. Conclusions………………….………………………………………..185. Literature……………………………………………………………….21

Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works Non-Commercial License is applicable to this work. Go tohttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/2.0/nl/to view the license.When referring to this publication please quote as:Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.

3

1. Introduction

This study is one of the results of the workinggroup initiated by the Faculty of Education ofthe Hogeschool Utrecht on the occasion ofmoving to a new building with technologicallystate-of-the-art equipment, including teachingspaces equipped with interactive whiteboards(IWBs). It aims to map implications for staffand curriculum and provide a specializedcollection of literature references.We present an overview of prominent researchon this subject as available at the time ofwriting (January 2008). We summarize themain conclusions from the most relevantstudies.Our main objective is to provide a resource forcolleagues, affiliated school based teachersand also for teacher educators and trainers ofpartner organisations to support thedevelopment of their personal and ourcommon knowledge base on this subject.In addition an extensive bibliography wasdeveloped as input for a domain & discipline-specific collection of resources to be used forthe professional development of individualteacher educators and to support a variety ofinitial and in-service courses.Furthermore it is hoped that access toresearch and debate about what 'goodpractice' with reference to IWB-use impliesalso contributes to the development ofeducators’ personal skills and the quality ofinitial training in this respect. Because - thoughan IWB might not immediately remind one ofcomputers – we are obviously dealing with theuse of ICT in education. And, as is the casewith all uses of ICT in training and professionalactivities, the impact the model behaviourteacher trainers (should) display may have,can be enhanced if trainers can make links to(subject-specific) pedagogy and manage toorganise reflection on the educational use ofthis specific ICT product.Finally, in providing this overview of thepublished literature on this subject in theperiod 2000-2007 we seek to offer support infinding more detailed information on specificaspects of the use of IWBs (here also referredto as ‘digiboards’) and to inspire furtherliterature and action research on subject-specific applications.

1.1 Method

The amount of publications on the educationaluse of digiboards is steadily increasing.The 'wow' factor is typical for most of thepublications that has accompanied theintroduction of this technological innovation ofthe classroom in its early stages. A substantialpart does not offer more than descriptions ofthe functionality of the boards and the softwaresupplied with them in relation to theireducational potential. Among them also quite afew personal anecdotes, a lot of opinions andsketches of personal practice. Whateverresearch is available is usually small scale andmostly based on practices in primary education(Smith et al., 2005).Until recently, scientific research was quite rare(Collie, 2002:7; Cutrim Schmid, 2007:123;Glover et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2005).And also mostly in English as educationalinstitutions in countries such as the UK,Canada, America and Australia were first toadopt this technology.With the availability of several recent large-scale studies such as Higgins et al. (2007),Moss et al. (2007), Miller & Glover (2006),Schuck & Kearney (2007) and Somekh et al.(2007) this situation has recently improved.Among others these papers report evaluationresearch of the English Department forEducation and Skills (DfES) policies on literacyand numeracy in primary education.This National Literacy Strategy (NLS) andNumeracy strategy (DfEE, 1998, 1999) aimedto stimulate the quality of whole-class teaching.It was expected that whole-class, interactiveteaching, defined as … “when pupils'contributions are encouraged, expected andextended” (DfEE, 1998a: 8), would contributeto this considerably. In this context, substantialgrants have been made available

1

to schoolsfor the purchase of digital presentationequipment.The central research question in the evaluationresearch studies is whether the underlyingassumption that the technical interactivity ofthe board will also lead to more interactiveteaching, or possibly transformation ofeducation, can be validated.

1

In the period 2003 – 2005 the UK government provided25 million Pounds worth of grant money for the purchaseof IWBs.