Module 4: Interactive whiteboards

As someone who has never taught in a classroom and who had finished high school before interactive whiteboards (IWBs) became common place in many schools, my interaction with the technology is limited. My research, however, has led me to the conclusion that the benefits of IWBs make them a valuable asset to classrooms and many of their major downfalls are avoidable with appropriate training of teachers in the effective use of the technology. This point is summarised by Glover et al. (2007) who concluded “the quality of the teaching that ensures progress; the IWB alone does not guarantee it”. 

Winzenried, Dalgarno and Tinkler (2010) state that the three most commonly cited benefits of IWBs are their ability to increase student engagement, provide visual representations of concepts and increased interactivity. I see the potential benefits of IWBs in my future teaching area of mathematics, where visual representations have been shown to enhance student understanding of mathematical concepts (Holmes, 2009). IWBs support this by allowing for the use a variety of multimedia within lessons like video, pictures and diagrams (Higgins et al., 2007).

The technology is generally easy for teachers to use and integrate into teaching methods (Bennett & Lockyer , 2008). A study by Winzenried, Dalgarno and Tinkler (2010) noted that IWBs can be incorporated into lessons without major changes to current teaching practices in order for gradual adoption of their additional applications. IWBs allow for a broad range of technical capabilities that are applicable in many contexts and areas of the curriculum. Kennewell (2006) argues however that this may not be such a positive consequence of IWBs as he sees the technology as lacking the ability to transform current teaching approaches. 

IWBs provide an interactive interface that encourages collaboration and have been highly regarded for their potential in enhancing learning (Lee & Winzenried, 2009). However, the benefits of IWBs are very much dependent on the way in which they are utilised by teachers (Winzenried, Dalgarno, & Tinkler, 2010), where Cutrim Schmid (2008) identified a lack of depth of cognitive engagement if the technology is used inappropriately. The temptation to overuse low level interaction applications such as Powerpoint, which is detrimental to learners engagement in complex thinking, is an issue often associated with IWBs in classrooms (Reedy, 2008).

Another drawback to IWBs, as with many technologies to be used in classrooms, is their associated costs. The whiteboards range from $800 to $2500 and there is the additional cost of supporting equipment such as projectors, computers and software (Lacina, 2009). 

References

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), pp. 289-300. 

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), pp. 1553-1568. 

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, 31(1), 5–20.

Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), pp. 213-225.

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), pp. 351-365. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/holmes.html. 

Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK. In Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf 

Lacina, J. (2009),  Interactive whiteboards: Creating higher-level, technological thinkers? Childhood Education, 85(4), pp.270-272

Lee, M. & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools. Melbourne: ACER Press. 

Reedy, G. (2008). PowerPoint, interactive whiteboards, and the visual culture of technology in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2), pp. 143-162. 

Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4) , pp. 534-552. Retrieved from https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1071/330