RUNNING HEADER: INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Literature Review: Interactive Whiteboards in Teaching and Learning: an evolving classroom environment

James Petersen ETEC 611 Dr. Grace Lin Spring 2011 University of Hawaii at Mnoa

Author Note jpeterse@hawaii.edu

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 2

Abstract Most of the early studies of IWB adoption and use focused primarily on one of the two major forces in the classroom; teachers and students. Teacher studies dealt mainly with adoption, use, and changes in pedagogy occurring following the introduction of the IWB to the classroom. Student studies tend to look at attitude, engagement, and achievement. Teacher and student studies seem to agree that simply having the IWB technology in the classroom does not guarantee teacher success or student achievement. There are many other factors involved. An emerging area of investigation involves the study of classrooms as dynamic systems of interaction and a complex cultural environment. The introduction of tools such as IWBs can have a significant and profound impact on this environment and bring about a number of interconnected events that significantly influence the ways in which teachers teach and students learn

Keywords: IWBs, ICT, systems, pedagogy, attitudes,

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 3

Literature Review: Interactive Whiteboards in Teaching and Learning: an evolving classroom environment

Introduction Most studies of interactive whiteboard (IWB) use focus either on the teacher and the development of pedagogical strategies for the use of IWBs in the classroom or they attempt to describe student interaction with IWBs. Others have examined qualitative aspects of student engagement and learning behaviors in classrooms using IWB technologies. Some studies have begun to investigate whether there is a causal link between classroom IWB use and a positive growth in student achievement. Relatively few studies have examined the classroom as a complex setting in which student achievement is a function of the systemic and cultural context of the pedagogy, the learner and the tools for learning and teaching. A largely unanswered question is how the introduction and utilization of new Information and Computer Technology (ICT) impacts the structure, interactions within and the operation of the system as a whole and how the changes within this complex system impact student outcomes. Many have remarked that a seemingly disproportionate amount of the research literature examining the use of Interactive White Board (IWB) technology in the classroom environment comes from studies conducted in the United Kingdom. Beginning in the late 1990s, the British Home Office began encouraging and supporting local school authorities in their efforts to infuse

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 4

ICT tools into classrooms. One of the most popular of these tools was the Interactive Whiteboard. A leading body in this movement in the UK was the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). BECTA was a quasi-non-governmental organization that existed from 1997 until early 2011 and was charged with the objectives "to influence strategic direction and development of national education policy to best take advantage of technology" and "to develop a national digital infrastructure and resources strategy leading to greater national coherence" (Department for Education, 2011). Not only did BECTA advise, encourage, and support local school authorities, the organization also commissioned a number of studies of the efficacy of the various ICT tools in school settings. Much of the literature available about the use and efficacy of IWBs in the schools was the result of this nation-wide program of early technology adoption. A great deal of the rest of the available literature comes from other countries that have similar centralized educational administrative agencies such as Australia and South Africa. Since the administration of educational services in the United States is largely decentralized and the responsibility for the education of children devolves upon State and Local agencies, ICT adoption has not been so uniform and universal. It is only recently that more studies of IWB use in schools in the U.S. have begun to appear. The Teacher: Toward a developing pedagogy Many of the earlier as well as subsequent studies of IWBs in classroom environments drew upon the findings of a number of BECTA studies and were concerned with adoption and infusion of IWB technology and whether teachers who adopted this technology developed new approaches to teaching (Glover, et al., 2007). Another question of the development of pedagogy pertains to how teachers use the IWB and other ICT tools in the classroom. Of particular interest

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 5

is to determine if teachers are actually developing new ways of teaching or simply using the new technologies to supplant older classroom tools (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2008). Several investigators have noted that there seems to be a step-wise development in the adoption of the new technology: Stage one: teachers utilize the IWB as a replacement for a previously used tool Stage two: teachers begin to use some of the interactive features not previously available
Stage three: students utilize the IWB for knowledge construction and communication (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2008)

Other studies have attempted to analyze what specific pedagogic changes have resulted from teacher adoption of IWB technology. One question that developed as a result was just how interactive is interactive technology? Does the introduction of an Interactive Whiteboard actually enhance student contact with the curriculum? Kennewell, et al., found that in some cases, IWB use was actually a step backward in the sense that it served to solidify the role of the teacher as the center of learning and the classroom since the teacher had control of the tools of learning (2007). One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that many teachers do not progress along the continuum of competence and confidence-building and continue to use the IWB as a very expensive chalkboard or overhead projector (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2008). Most of the literature points out that the degree to which the IWB is integrated in learning and teaching and the uses to which the tool is put depend largely on the development of teacher skills and confidence. The Student: Impact on Student Achievement, Attitude, and Engagement The second large class of investigation of IWBs in the classroom focuses on the actions and attitudes of the student. The major findings of studies carried out by BECTA (2003) were

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 6

supported by subsequent investigations. Studies of student attitude toward IWBs in the classroom generally point out that increased motivation and engagement with classroom learning as being among the main benefits of IWB classroom use (Yez & Coyle, 2010). Yez & Coyle also mention, as do other investigators, that simply having IWB technology in the classroom is not an absolute predictor of enhanced levels of student learning; even when student attitudes toward the classroom are more positive. In an attempt to ascertain the efficacy of IWB technology in improving student outcomes, several quantitative studies have appeared. One of the most extensive of these was a two year evaluation by the Marzano Research Laboratory that was undertaken with the sponsorship of a major IWB manufacturer; Promethean Ltd. This quasi-experimental, pretest-postest, nonequivalent group study used a statistical meta-analysis of data that derived from classrooms that utilized the Promethean IWB and its associated software. The results of this study suggested that there was a positive and statistically significant correlation between teacher use of the IWB and its ActivClassroom system and a higher level of achievement among the treatment groups of students (Marzano & Haystead, 2010). Classroom Systems: An evolving classroom environment A third approach for the study of the impact of IWB technology involves examining the classroom as a dynamic interacting system. Rather than examining just changes in teaching strategies or student attitudes and outcomes, this theoretical framework seeks to describe and develop an understanding of the impact of IWB technologies on the interactions of the parts that make up the system of the classroom as a cultural entity. One theoretical framework involves the study of the classroom from a socio-cultural perspective. Vygotsky, Fisher (2006) and Wertsch (1998) described the role of tools in mediating

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 7

human activity, providing opportunities to create new kinds of activities, and that it is the skills gained from using the new tools that create different activities and strategies and not the tools themselves. One study found that the adoption of IWBs was rapid and enthusiastic, that there were measurable gains in achievement among students taught with IWBs and that the key factor in these gains was the length of student exposure to IWBs. This study found that as teachers became more skillful in the use of the technology, they developed new ways to interact with pupils. In many cases, the teachers observed had adjusted their styles to be more inclusive and cooperative in supporting learning activities (Lewin, Somekh, & Steadman, 2008). Another study that utilized a socio-cultural framework for analysis concluded that a major strength of IWBs in the classroom was as an organizational tool that provides an environment for whole-class discussions and exercises. They found that IWBs provide a more authentic environment for student learning by bringing in examples from the real world through website access and student interaction (Kearney, & Schuck, 2008). The systems perspective for the study of IWB use in the classroom also leads to different ways of analyzing the impact of the technology. In the past, most studies evaluated the use of IWBs by looking at teacher-student interactions. A different perspective is gained by examining the impact of the tool on the culture of the classroom by investigating changes in collaborative behaviors among students who have access to IWBs and use them when working together on classroom activities. One researcher found that one students utilized IWBs in collaborative activities, the vicarious presence of the teacher in the technology enabled them to connect with, interpret and act upon teacher intentions for the task. The investigator concluded that the IWB can provide an environment conducive to the creation of a shared dialogic space within

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 8

which co-constructed knowledge building can take place (Warwick, Kershner, & Staarman, 2010). Conclusion As we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, IWBs have made their presence felt profoundly in the elementary and secondary classroom. The diffusion of this technology was most rapid and has been most extensively described in countries having a relatively high degree of centralization of public education services but is rapidly spreading to locales such as the United States. Most of the early studies of IWB adoption and use focused primarily on one of the two major forces in the classroom; teachers and students. Teacher studies dealt mainly with adoption, use, and changes in pedagogy occurring following the introduction of the IWB to the classroom. Student studies tend to look at attitude, engagement, and achievement. Teacher and student studies seem to agree that simply having the IWB technology in the classroom does not guarantee teacher success or student achievement. There are many other factors involved. An emerging area of investigation involves the study of classrooms as dynamic systems of interaction and a complex cultural environment. The introduction of tools such as IWBs can have a significant and profound impact on this environment and bring about a number of interconnected events that significantly influence the ways in which teachers teach and students learn.

Petersen Page 9

References The Department for Education. (2011). BECTA. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/emailer/schools/adminandfinance/procurement/ict/a007382 5/becta?if=1 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. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2008). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards in Australian schools. Australian Educational Computing, 23(1), 8-13. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x 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 Marzano, R. J., & Haystead, M. W. (2010). Final report: A second year evaluation study of Promethean ActivClassroom. Retrieved from http://www.prometheanworld.com/upload/pdf/Final_Report_Continuation_Study_12_13 _2010_%283%29%5B1%5D.pdf Mohon, E. H. (2008). SMART Moves? A case study of one teachers pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 301312.

Petersen Page 10

Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupils learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 350-362. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001 Yez, L., & Coyle, Y. (2010). Childrens perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT Journal. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq069 Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008). Learning environments using interactive whiteboards: New learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 108-126.