The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):Uses, Bene�ts, and Challenges.A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers.
By Thierry KARSENTI
February 2016
Bien plus captiv
ant que le
tableau noir,
mais aussi
combien plu
s complexe et c
hronophage à util
iser
Legal deposit
Library and Archives Canada, 2016ISBN: 978-2-923808-52-9
This document is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (the least restrictive). For more information on this type of licence, visit the Creative Commons site at creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
To quote this document Karsenti, T. (2016). The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Benefits, and Challenges. A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers. Montreal: CRIFPE.
Data collection and analysisThe team of the Canada Research Chair in Technologies in Education (Gabriel, Aurélien, Ariane, Simon, Gabrielle, Aziz)Global editing: Charles Dionne
Report available at iwb.crifpe.ca
Note The masculine gender is used in this document for the sake of simplicity and readability, and not for purposes of discrimination.
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges �
Table of Contents
List of figures ........................................................................................................ II
Abstract ................................................................................................................. 1
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2
2. The interactive whiteboard in education: what the research says .................................... 5
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Participants .......................................................................................................... 93.2 Data collection instruments ............................................................................... 103.3 Data treatment and analysis .............................................................................. 103.4 Methodological strengths and limitations .......................................................... 11
4. Main results ................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 How was the IWB used? ..................................................................................... 124.2 What were the main benefits of the IWB? .......................................................... 164.3 Specific benefits of IWB use................................................................................ 194.4 Challenges of IWB use in class ............................................................................ 20
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 25
6. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 28
7. References ..................................................................................................................... 29
8. Works consulted ............................................................................................................ 33
�� The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
List of figuresFigure 1
Presence of interactive white boards (IWB) in classrooms of various countries ............................3
Figure 2 Change in the numbers of publications addressing the IWB in education ....................................5
Figure 3 Distribution of participating students between elementary and high school ...............................9
Figure 4 Number of years of teaching experience for participating teachers ............................................10
Figure 5 Use frequency of the IWB by teachers ........................................................................................12
Figure 6 Use frequency of the IWB by students according to teachers ......................................................13
Figure 7 Use frequency of the IWB by students according to students .....................................................14
Figure 8 Main uses of the IWB in class .....................................................................................................15
Figure 9 Students’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard ................................................................16
Figure 10 Teachers’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard ................................................................16
Figure 11 Main benefits of the IWB according to students .........................................................................17
Figure 12 Main benefits of the IWB according to teachers .........................................................................18
Figure 13 Main challenges of the IWB according to teachers .....................................................................21
Figure 14 Frequency of technical problems according to teachers .............................................................21
Figure 15 Technical problems that teachers felt they could resolve on their own without a technician’s help.........................................................................................................22
Figure 16 Main challenges of the IWB according to students .....................................................................24
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 1
Abstract Over the past five years, the interactive whiteboard (IWB) has been
massively introduced intoschoolsacross theprovinceofQuébec,Ca-nada.Thisstudy,conductedbytheteamoftheCanadaResearchChairinTechnologiesinEducation,aimedtoidentifyhowtheIWBisusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges.Thestudyparticipantsincluded11,683students(from4thyearelementaryto5thyearhighschool)and1,131teachers.Fivedatacollectioninstrumentswereused:1)asurveyquestionnaireforallstudents(n=11,683),2)asurveyquestionnaireforallteachers(n=1,131),3)individualinterviewswithtea-chers(n=31),4)groupinterviewswithteachers(8interviewswithgroupsof6to17teachers),and5)groupinterviewswithstudents(16interviewswithgroupsof8to24students).ThisreportbeginswithapresentationofthemaineducationalusesoftheIWB,followedbythemanybenefitsas perceived by teachers and students.The main challenges that thistechnologyposesforteachersandstudentsarethenaddressed.Farfromcallingintoquestiontheneedtointegratetechnologyineducation,theresultsrevealthatcertaintools,suchastheIWB,maybemorecomplicatedandtime-consumingtointegratethanothers.Thus,teachersappearedtohaveproblemswithtechnicalaspectsoftheIWB.Nevertheless,theresultsalsoshowthattheIWBhasrealeducationalpotential.Thereportconcludeswithalistof12recommendations.
2 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
1. INTRoDUCTIoN
Atthe2003WorldSummitontheInformationSociety,KofiAnnanpro-claimedthatrapidtechnologyadvancementscan“propel”usto“improvestandardsoflivingformillionsofpeopleonthisplanet.”1Healsoforesawthatthepowerofthesetoolswillbeincreasinglyfeltinallareasoflife,withagrowinginfluenceoneconomic,societal,andeducationalaspects.Forexample,injustafewshortyears,classroomsallacrossQuébechavebeentransformed:today,studentsroutinelyhavetheirownlaptopsorareparticipatinginonetouchpadperchildprojects.
InQuébecandaroundtheworld,moreandmoreclassroomsfeatureaninteractivewhiteboard(IWB)(Figure1).AlsocalledanIWoraninterac-tivedigitalwhiteboard(IDW),itreferstoanelectronicwhiteboardthatdisplayscontentprojectedbyacomputer,tablet,orothersource.TheIWBcombinestouch(pen-and-finger)controlofthescreenwithcompu-terizedinputfromavarietyofdevicesoperatedbyteachersorstudents.However,whiletheIWBhasbecomepracticallystandardintheeducationsystemsofcertainAmericanstatesandcountriessuchasAustralia—andespeciallyGreatBritain,wheretheyarepresentin100%ofelementaryschools(Kitchenetal.,2007)and72%ofhighschoolclassrooms(Lee,2010)—,IWBsbegantobeintroducedintoQuébec’seducationsystemonlyinthelastfiveyears.
Theusual justificationforthismassive invasion—putforwardbybothgovernments and businesses—is that IWBs can improve school andacademic outcomes for learners by improving teaching practices, bydiversifyingteachingresources(e.g.,graphics,videos,audio),andbyin-troducingmoreinteractiveteachingandlearningactivities.Nevertheless,thearrivalofthistechnologyinQuébecandelsewhereraisesquestionsaboutitsactualusefulnessforschools,particularlyfromacost–benefitperspective.
1 “’Building an open, empowering information society is a social, economic and ultimately political challenge,’ says Secretary-General at World Summit.” UN Press Release SG/SM/9070-PI/1535. 10 December 2003. http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sgsm9070.doc.htm
The IWB has invaded Québec classrooms in
massive numbers in the last five years
“”
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 3
In 2016, we still do not know much
about how the IWB is actually used or the
real impacts on educational outcomes
Figure 1. Presence of interactive white boards (IWB) in classrooms of various countries2
AsdiscussedinSection2below(Theinteractivewhiteboardineducation:whattheresearchsays),in2016,westilldonotknowmuchabouthowtheIWBisactuallyusedortherealimpactsoneducationaloutcomes.Moreover, studies on the educational impacts of the IWB have foundcontradictoryresults.Sometimestheimpactsaremodest,withnorealsignificanceforlearning.Alternatively,manycasestudies,actionresearchstudies,andanecdotalaccountsdescribehowexceptionalteachersusetheIWB.3
Thesestudiesareinstructive,andtheyhelpusunderstandhowteachersmighteventuallymanagetointegratetheIWBintheirclassrooms.Howe-ver,thesesamestudies,aswellasotherreportsofclassroomexperiments,tendtofocusonaparticularaspect:howtheIWBisusedbyexemplaryteachersandteacherswhohavesucceededinfullyintegratingtheIWBintotheirteachingpractice.Meanwhile,thereareveryfewaccountsoffailedexperiments.
Accordingly,andasTürel(2010,p.3050)arguedoverfiveyearsago,westilldonothaveenoughrigorousempiricalevidenceontheimpactsofeducational technology on learning and academic performance. Our
2 http://futuresource-consulting.com/2014-06-EducationHardware-1176.html3 See, for example, Raby, C., Bergeron, L., Tremblay-Wragg, É., Gagnon, B. & Charron, A. (2015). Évolution des pratiques
pédagogiques des enseignants quant à l’utilisation collaborative du tableau numérique interactif par des élèves du préscolaire et du primaire : une recherche-action. In S. Lefebvre and G. Samson (Eds.), Le tableau numérique interactif : quand chercheurs et praticiens s’unissent pour dégager des pistes d’action (p. 39-57). Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec (off collection).
“”
4 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
teamthereforefelt it importantfor IWBimplementationtobeprecededbycarefulscientificreflectiononhowitwillbeusedbybothteachersandlearnersaswellasathoroughanalysisoftherealeducationalimpacts.
The objective of this study conducted by the team of the Canada Research Chair in Techno-logies in Education was to identify how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) is used in Québec schools and the associated benefits and challenges.
Thisstudythereforeaimedtoshedscientificlightontheeduca-tionalusesandimpactsoftheIWB.ThisobjectiveisalsorelatedtotheAvis sur l’éthique et les TIC à l’école[OpinionstatementontheethicsofICTatschool]releasedin2015byQuébec’sCommission de l’éthique en sciences et en technologie[Commissionforethicsinscienceandtechnology].Twooftheirrecommendationsremindschoolstodeterminefirstandforemosttheimpactsoftechnologyonacademicperseveranceandachievementbeforeintroducingthemacrosstheboard:
RECOMMENDATION1.TheMinisterofeducationshouldpromotetheuseofICTonlywhenitprovidesrealaddedvalueintermsofspecificcharacteristics,andtakingintoconsiderationthebene-fitsforstudentsandforcoursecontexts(level,subject,etc.)[ourtranslation](p.15).
RECOMMENDATION2.TheMinisterofeducationshouldconductorcommissionrigorousstudiesinordertodemonstratetheedu-cationalvalueofvariousICTapplicationsbeforeproceedingtoimplementthem[ourtranslation](p.16).
Thepresentresearchreport isorganizedintosixsections.Fol-lowingtheintroduction(SectionI),asynthesisoftheliteratureonIWBissuesineducationispresented(Section2).Theresearchmethodology(Section3)andthemainresults(Section4)arethenpresented.Thereportendswithaconclusion(Section5)andalistofthemainrecommendations(Section6).
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 5
2. THE INTERACTIvE WHITEBoARD IN EDUCATIoN: WHAT THE RESEARCH SAyS
Wesearchedthemaineducationdatabases(ERIC,CAIRN,andFRANCIS)andGoogleScholarforstudiesonusesandimpactsoftheIWBfrompres-chooltopostsecondaryschool.Figure2showsascreenshotofScopus,“[…] the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings.”4Weobservedasmallnumberofpublicationson the IWB from2009to2011, followedbyagrowinginterestthatsubsequentlydeclinedsharply.Wethenconstructedamatrixtosummarizethereviewedstudies.
Figure 2. Change in the numbers of publications addressing the IWB in education
The analysis shows that although many publications have addressedthe IWB, very few have attempted to assess the educational impactsempirically(seeKhambarietal.,2014;Lopez,2010).Infact,onlyahandfulhavedoneso(seeKhambarietal.,2014;Türel,2010).Wefoundmanypedagogicalrecommendationsforteachers,butnotmuchabouttherealimpactsoftheIWB,exceptforafewstudiesbyauthorssuchasHennessy(2014) and Hennessy and colleagues (2006, 2007, 2011, 2014).Therearealsoseveralcasestudies,forexample,byKennewellandcolleagues(2007,2008),whoexaminedasmallgroupofhighlytech-savvyteachersandtheiruseoftheIWB.StudiestendtosingthepraisesoftheIWB,butoftenwithoutsolidgrounds,somewhatreminiscentofadvertisingflyersthattoutproductfeatures.Thisisnotsurprising,giventhatmanyreports
4 http://www.scopus.com/
6 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
arefundedbyIWBproducers.Indeed,Gloveretal.(2005)andSmithetal.(2005)foundthat,since2005,alargepercentageofthesestudieshavebeen funded by IWB producers. By the same token, the benefits thathavebeenclaimedinthesestudiesarenotnecessarilyconsistentwiththeteachingapproachesthatareactuallyused.
Amongthebenefitsthathavebeenaccentuated,wenotethattheIWBallowsteacherstoteachbetterbygivingdemonstrations“atthefrontoftheclass.”Inthecurrenteraofstudent-centeredlearning,wewouldliketoseelesslecturing(wheretheteacherfacestheentireclass)andmoreengagedstudentactivity.Itisthereforeratheroddthatoneofthebenefitsofatoolthatisbeingpromotedforeducationalpurposesisthatitfacilitatesteachingatthefrontoftheclassroom!ForKhambariandcol-leagues(2014),thiswouldbeproblematicforteacherswhofeelcaughtbetween the open-ended and student-centered learning approachesthatschoolsadvocateanduseoftheIWB,whichencouragesteacherstopresentideasinfrontoftheclassusinglecture-styleteaching.However,CutrimSchmid(2008)demonstratedcertainbenefits—aswellassomemajorchallenges—ofIWBuseforlanguageteaching,andSlayandcol-leagues(2008),inSouthAfrica,foundplentyofchallengesofusingtheIWB,particularlyunderuseofitsinteractivefeatures.
Wealsoretrieved15 literaturereviewsormeta-analysesonthistopic.ThemostexhaustivesynthesisontheIWBwasconductedbyMillerandGlover(2010),with100sources.However,theauthorspointedoutthattheirobjectivewasnottopassjudgmentonthemethodsusedinthestu-dies,butinsteadtodrawanoverallportraitofthesituation(p.1),whichistantamounttoreportingresultswithoutassessingthem.Furthermore,ofthe15reviewedsyntheses,onlyfourincludedadetailedexaminationofhowtheresearchersconductedtheirreview(DiGregorio&Sobel-Lojeski,2010;Golonkaetal.,2012;Saltanetal.,2009;Twineretal.,2010),pointingtoalackofrigoronthepartoftheauthors.Overall,thesestudiesandmeta-analysesmentionedtwopotentialbenefitsoftheIWB:1)betterpre-sentationofcertaintheoreticalcontentusingmultisensorialtechniques(Saltanetal.,2009),butatthesametime,andmoretothepoint,usingalecture-styleapproach(seeLittleton,2010);and2)higherstudentinterest,atleastintheshortterm(seeBalta&Duran,2015;DiGregorio&Sobel-Lojeski,2010;Walletal.,2005).Studentmotivation(seealsoHigginsetal.,2007,2010;Hall&Higgins,2005)wasalsothemostfrequentfindingacrossthestudies.Nevertheless,thisappetitefortheIWBappearstowaneovertime(seeBalta&Duran,2015;Dostal,2011;Türel,2010).
Forexample,BaltaandDuran(2015)notedthat,“As students get older, their positive attitudes toward interactive whiteboard technology decrease […]”(p.16).DiGregorioandSobel-Lojeski(2010)qualifytheimpactonstudentmotivation, proposing that the strength and duration of this impactdependsprimarilyontheteachingpracticesused(p.268).Harlowetal.(2010)alsoshowedthatcertainusesoftheIWBaddsharedinteractionalspaceswherestudentscansaveandretrievetheirwork(p.239).Inother
Of the many publica-tions on the IWB, very few have attempted to assess the educational impacts empirically
“”
As students get older, they tend to view the IWB
less positively
“”
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 7
words,theIWBhasthepotentialtoallowstudentstocollaborate(seealsoLittleton,2010;Saltanetal.,2009;Warwicketal.,2010),butonlyincertaincircumstances.ForLittleton(2010),theIWB,byenablingteachingatthefrontoftheclass,actually“saves time.”Finally,Dostal(2011)notesthattheIWBcanalsomakeiteasiertoarchiveandsharewrittenwork.Whatdoesallthishavetodowithstudents’educationaloutcomes?Todate, few serious studies have shown any real impacts of the IWB onacademicachievement.Instead,theyhavegenerallyfoundeithernoim-pacts(see,e.g.,Lopez,2010)orelseminimallypositiveimpactsforcertainsubjects—suchasmathematics(seeSwanetal.,2008),whichcouldbeattributedmoretotheattentionpaidtotheparticipatingstudentsthantotheimpactsoftheIWBitself—,orelsenegativeimpacts(seeMossetal.,2010).
Türel (2010) and Khambari and colleagues (2014) contend that not asinglestudytodatehasconcludedthat the IWBhaspositive impactsonacademicachievement.Infact,itisjusttheopposite:theseauthorsarguethatthemanytechnicalissuescombinedwithlackofsupport(seealsoFekonja-Peklajetal.,2015)aremorelikelytounderminemotivationinbothstudentsandteachers. Inthereviewedmeta-analyses,severalauthorsalsounderscoredcertainnegativeimpactsoftheIWB,suchasthetimethatteacherswastewhentheyteachwithitandthescarcityofsupporttechnicalhelp(seeDostal,2011).Accordingtootherresear-chers,whenteachersusetheIWB,theyspendmoretimedealingwithtechnologyissuesthanattendingtowhattheirstudentsarelearning(seeSundbergetal.,2012).
Theoverallfindingsofthesestudiesleadtoonlytworealconclusions:thatstudentsaremoremotivated—althoughthismotivationdiminisheswith time—(see Higgins et al., 2007), and that teachers can providebetterpresentationsoftheoreticalcontent—albeitusingalecture-styleapproach(seeLittleton,2010).
Similarly,arecentOECDreport(September2015)calledStudents, Com-puters and Learning: Making the Connection addressesissuesoftheedu-cationaluseoftheIWB.Thisextensiveinternationalinvestigation(over30countries)oftheimpactsofinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)oneducationshowsthatcountriesthatwereearlyadaptorsofcom-putertechnologyforteachingandlearning(likethosethatfirstacquiredtheIWB)tendtoshowpoorerlearningoutcomes.Anditgetsworse.Insomeschools,themorethatstudentsusenewtechnology,theworsethelearningoutcomes:“[…]but students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after accounting for social background and student demographics”(p.3).Ofcourse,therearesomeexceptions,whichsuggeststhateventhoughtechnologyholdsenormouspotential,theteachercontinuestoplayacentralrole.
To date, few serious studies have
shown any impacts of the IWB on academic
achievement
“”
The overall findings of these studies lead to only two real conclu-
sions: that students are more motivated […] and that teachers can provide better presen-tations of theoretical
content
“
”
8 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Asmentionedabove,inQuébecandelsewherearoundtheworld,manyinstructivestudies(accountsofpractices,actionresearch)haveillustratedhowteacherscanappropriatetheIWBandothertechnologytools(see,e.g.,Ersoy&Bozkurt,2015;Rabyetal.,2015).Althoughthesestudiesmaybehighlyinspiringforfutureteachersandforteacherswhowouldliketoimprovetheirteachingpractices,theydonotprovideacomprehensivepictureoftheuses,benefits,andchallengesofIWBuseintheclassroom.Andalthoughthesestudiescertainlyhavescientificlegitimacy,thereisaclearneedformoreextensivestudiestodocumentactualIWBuseandtoassesstheeducationalimpactssothatthefindingscanguidepoliciesandactionsbygovernmentandeducationdecisionmakers.There is a clear need
for more extensive stu-dies to document actual IWB use and to assess
the educational impacts
“”
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 9
3. METHoDoLoGy
Theobjectiveof this studywas to identifyhowthe interactivewhite-board(IWB)isusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges.Thissectionpresentstheresearchmethodinaccordancewiththeguidelinesof the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition(2013).First,theparticipantsarepresented(3.1),followedbythedatacollectioninstruments(3.2)andthedataanalysisstrategies(3.3).Adiscussionofthemethodologicalstrengthsandlimi-tations(3.4)concludesthissectionofthereport.
3.1 Participants
Thestudyparticipantsincluded11,683studentsenrolledinQuébecscho-ols(from4thyearelementaryto5thyearhighschool)and1,131teachers.Thestudents(6,211girls,5,472boys)werefrom10to18yearsold,withanaverageageof14.1years.Figure3showsthat88.4%wereattendinghighschool(n=10,324)and11.6%(1,359)wereattendingelementaryschool(mainly6thyear).Oftheteachers,67.4%(634women,497men)hadfrom11to25yearsofteachingexperience(seeFigure4).ThesubjectstheytaughtcoveredtherangeofthecurriculumtaughtintheQuébeceducationsystem.ParticipantswereselectedonavoluntarybasisfromschoolsinwhichtheIWBwasusedinclass.StudydatawerecollectedfromAugust2014toMay2015.
Figure 3. Distribution of participating students between elementary and high school
10 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Figure 4. Number of years of teaching experience for participating teachers
3.2 Data collection instruments
TobetterunderstandhowtheIWBisusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges,datawerecollectedfrom12,814participantswhowerecurrentlyintheeducationsystem(11,683students;1,131teachers).Fivedatacollectioninstrumentswereused:
1.Asurveyquestionnaireforallstudents(n=11,683)
2.Asurveyquestionnaireforallteachers(n=1,131)
3.Individualinterviewswithteachers(n=31)
4.Groupinterviewswithteachers(8groupsof6to17teachers)
5.Groupinterviewswithstudents(16groupsof8to24students).
3.3 Data treatment and analysis
DatawerecollectedfromquestionnairescontainingbothLikertscaleresponsesandopen-endedquestions.Thedatawereconse-quentlysubjectedtoamixedanalysis.Aquantitativeanalysis,including descriptive statistics, was conducted using SPSS235
5 http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 11
andtheonlinesurveytoolSurveyMonkey.� Theinitialresultswerecomplementedbyaqualitativeanalysisoftheopen-endedques-tionnaireresponsesusingQDAMiner,7includingcontentanalysis(see L’Écuyer, 1990; Miles & Huberman, 2003) with semi-opencodingconstructedfromtheparticipants’responsesrelatedtothemainresearchissues(uses,benefits,andchallenges).
Data from the individual and group interviews were analyzedbasedonthemethodsdevelopedbyL’Écuyer(1990)andMilesandHuberman(2003),usingacontentanalysisapproach.Quali-tativeanalyseswereagainconductedusingQDAMiner,awidelyusedqualitativedataanalysistool(Karsentietal.,2011).
3.4 Methodological strengths and limitations
Oneofthemainstrengthsofthisstudyistheresearchmetho-dology.Thecombinationofonlinequestionnairesandindividualandgroupinterviewsprovidesamajoradvantagebyallowingtriangulationofmultipledatasources.However,therearealsocertain limitations. First, the use of participants’ perceptionsmaybeconsideredalimitation,whichweattemptedtooffsetbyexaminingaverylargesample(n=12,814participants:11,683students,1,131teachers)andusingavarietyofdatacollectiontools.Toreducethismethodologicalbias,responsesbydifferentrespondenttypesweresystematicallycomparedinordertohi-ghlightdifferences.
Anotherlimitationconcernstheparticipantsample,whichwasnotrandomlyselected.However,ourpurposewasnottoselecta representative population subset. In fact, the students andteachersweredrawnspecificallyfromQuébecclassroomsthatcontainedanIWB.Why?Becauseforthisparticularstudy,itwouldbedifficultorimpossibletorandomlyselecttheparticipants.Forinstance, how could we have required students and teacherstoparticipateinthesurvey?Therefore,weusedaconveniencesample,oranon-probabilitysample.Ratherthantoprovidere-presentation,theaimwasinsteadtoreachabodyofrespondentsthatwasavailable,voluntary,andsearchable.ThesoleconditionforparticipationwasthatanIWBhadtobepresentinatleastoneoftheparticipant’sclassrooms.
6 https://www.surveymonkey.com/ 7 http://provalisresearch.com/fr/produits/logiciel-d-analyse-qualitative/
12 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
4. MAIN RESULTS
Thisreportpresentsthemainresultswithrespecttotheresearchobjec-tives,asfollows:
a) EducationalusesoftheIWB
b) EducationalbenefitsofIWBuse
c) ChallengesofIWBuse.
4.1 How was the IWB used?
WebeganbyaskingtheteachershowoftentheyusedtheIWB(Figure5).Thesurveydatarevealedthat48.2%ofteachersusedtheIWB“always”or“often,”versus39.3%whousedit“sometimes”or“rarely,”andonly12.6%who“never”usedit.
Figure 5. Use frequency of the IWB by teachers
Theindividualandgroupinterviewsprovidedageneraloverviewoftheusefrequency.Teacherswhorespondedthatthey“always”or“often”usedtheIWBexplainedthatit“made it easier to present material to the class” (highschoolteacher).Othersalsofounditeasiertoshowinformationthattheyfoundonline:“I can show my students all kinds of things that I find on the Internet” (highschoolteacher).Inaddition,someteacherswhousedtheIWBregularlyfoundthatitsimplyreplacedtheoldblackboard:“[…]in some classes […] I no longer have a blackboard […] so I have no choice […]” (highschoolteacher).
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 13
Teacherswhousedit“sometimes”or“rarely,”feltthatitwasoverlycom-plicatedtouse,andthatthetechnologicalproblemsweredaunting:
“[…] sometimes, it’s not programmed […] it takes a long time to do and I don’t have the time before class […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] because it doesn’t always work […] I only use it when I have extra time […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] I sometimes use it […] but I have my plan B […] it hardly ever works […]” (highschoolteacher)..
OftheteacherswhoneverusedtheIWB,somewereunabletouseitduetotechnicalproblems:“[…] I’ve been waiting now for over two months […] the lamp doesn’t work anymore […]” (elementaryschoolteacher).Therewerealsothosewhodidn’tthinkthattheyneededittoteach:“[…] I never asked for it […] it’s complicated […] and I don’t think it’s very useful […] so, no […] I don’t use it” (highschoolteacher).
Wealsoaskedtheteachersaboutstudentparticipation:didtheyhavetheirstudentsusetheIWB(Figure6)?Thedatarevealedthatonly4.0%ofthesurveyedteachers“always”or“often”hadtheirstudentsusetheIWB,versus23.4%whohadthemuseit“sometimes”and72.6%“rarely”or“never.”
Figure 6. Use frequency of the IWB by students according to teachers
Intheindividualinterviews,theteachersputforwardmanyreasonsfornothavingtheirstudentsusetheIWB:
“[…] because it doesn’t always work
[…] I only use it when I have extra time […]”
“”
14 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
“[…] In high scho-ol […] the classes are big […] it’s hard to
manage the class when you get everybody to the front of the room
[…]”
“
”
“[…] in high school […] the classes are big […] it’s hard to manage the class when you get everybody to the front of the room […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] it doesn’t work very well […] and if on top of that I let the students use it […] I think that it would never work […]” (highschoolteacher).
WealsoaskedthestudentsabouthowtheyusedtheIWBinordertocomparetheirresponsestothoseoftheteachers(Figure7).Theresponsesshowedlittlevariationoverall,confirmingthattheydidnotusetheIWBveryoften.Thus,4.4%ofstudentsfeltthattheirteacher“always”or“often”letthemusetheIWB,with12.9%“sometimes,”“29.5%“rarely,”and53.2%“never”responses.
Figure 7. Use frequency of the IWB by students according to students
ThegroupinterviewswithstudentsprovidedfurtherinsightintosomeofthereasonsthattheteachersgaveforhavingthemusetheIWB:
“[…] our teacher lets us go on the Internet sometimes […]” (ele-mentaryschoolstudent).
“[…] as soon as it stops working […] she [the teacher] asks one of the students for help […]” (highschoolstudent).
“ […] when we do math […] I sometimes come up to the front of the class and write the answers […]” (highschoolstudent).
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 15
“[…] when we do math […] I sometimes come up to the front of the class and write the answers
[…]”
“”
Thegroupinterviewsalsogaveusadeeperunderstandingofwhy,ac-cordingtothestudents,theywererarelyaskedtousetheIWB:
“[…] we never use it […] only the teachers […]” (high school stu-dent).
“[…] it’s not very interactive […] the teachers just write on it […]” (highschoolstudent).
“[…] it’s usually not working […] I don’t think that my teachers want us to touch it […]” (highschoolstudent).
“[…] if we touch it […], the teachers are going to think that it’s our fault that it doesn’t work anymore […] so we don’t touch it […]” (highschoolstudent).
Furthermore,weaskedtheteacherstodescribethemainwaysthattheyusedtheIWBinclass.Fromtheirresponses,weidentifiedtenmainusesbyteachers(Figure8).Themostcommon,mentionedby51.6%oftheteachers, was creating multimedia presentations with programs likeNotebook or PowerPoint. Internet searches followed at 19.3%, videopresentationsat10.8%,presentationofclassnotesasPDGorWorddocu-mentsat6.9%,andmathandsciencedemonstrations(particularlymath)at4.8%.Groupcorrectionsofwrittenwork,especiallyFrenchtexts(1.7%),presentationofdigitalbooksandtextbooks(1.5%),interactiveactivitiesandexercises(1.4%),students’oralpresentations(1.2%),andgeographicmaps(0.8%)completethelist.TheseresultsindicatethattheIWBwasusedmainlytoprojectcontentontothescreen,andnotasaninteractivedigitaltooltosupportteachingandlearning. Infact,only2.6%ofthemainusesreportedbyteacherscouldbedescribedasinteractive.
Figure 8. Main uses of the IWB in class
16 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
4.2 What were the main benefits of the IWB?
WhenthestudentsandteacherswereaskedaboutthepotentialbenefitsoftheIWB,theycameupwithasubstantialnumber.
First,weaskedallthestudents(11,683)andteachers(1,131)iftheypre-ferredtheIWBorthetraditionalblackboard.AsshowninFigure9,thestudentswerealmostunanimouslyinfavoroftheIWB(99.2%)versustheblackboard(0.8%).
Figure 9: Students’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard
Thegroupinterviewswiththestudentsconfirmedthisresult:
“[…] it’s definitely better […] the teacher can go online […]” (highschoolstudent).
Weaskedtheteachersthesamequestion.AlthoughalargemajoritypreferredtheIWB(73.6%),it isnoteworthythattheteacherswereconsiderablylessenthusiasticaboutusingitinclass(Figure10).
Figure 10. Teachers’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 17
Theindividualandgroupinterviewswiththeteachersrevealedwhysomeofthemcontinuedtopreferthetraditionalblackboard:
“[…] it never works […] it’s complicated […] I’d prefer a blackboard and chalk […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] I have several groups […] in some classes, it doesn’t work […] so I have to prepare different lesson plans […] I prefer not to use it […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] I never wanted it [the IWB], I didn’t ask for anything […] I don’t use it […] I find it a waste of time […]” (highschoolteacher).
Wealsoaskedthestudentsandteachersmorespecificallyaboutthebene-fitsofhavingtheIWBintheclassroom.Accordingtothestudents(Figure11),themainbenefitwaspermanentInternetaccessinclass,mentionedby23.5%.Theyfound itamazingthattheycould“have Internet access through the whiteboard”(highschoolstudent).Theyalsoappreciatedthevisualsupportforteaching(19.1%),beingabletowatchvideos(12.2%),theirgreatermotivationtolearn(11.8%),morevariedteachingstrategies(9.3%),learningbetterandmore(9,1%),savingtime,whentherewerenotechnicalproblems(7.2%),havingamoreorganizedteacher(5.8%),communicatingwithclassmates(1.3%),anddoinginteractiveactivities(0.7%).
Figure 11. Main benefits of the IWB according to students
“[…] it never works […] it’s complicated […] I’d prefer a blackboard
and chalk […]”
“”
18 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
The main benefit of having the IWB in the classroom, as reported by29.2%oftheteachers,was“finally, having Internet access in the classroom” (highschoolteacher).Otherbenefits(Figure12)werevisualsupportforteaching (18.8%), and particularly multimedia presentations such asPowerPoint.Manyteachersalsomentionedhigherstudentmotivation(11.6%).TheyalsofoundthattheIWBhelpedthemdiversifytheirtea-chingapproach(9.5%),usuallyenabledmoreeffectiveteaching,aslongastherewerenotechnicalproblems(6.3%),andwasgenerallybeneficialforlearning(6.1%),regardlessofthesubjectbeingtaught.
Someteacherspointedoutthat,despitetheextratimetheyhadtoputin,theIWBhelpedthemorganizetheirteaching(5.9%),includingplanninglessons,managingdocuments,andsoon.Afewothers(4.0%)saidthattheIWBhelpedstudentsconcentrate.
Only3.9%oftheteachersthoughtthattheIWBcouldhavepositiveim-pactsonstudents’academicoutcomes.Asmallnumberofteachers—par-ticularlymathandscienceteachers—emphasizedtheimpactsonlearningcertainconcepts(2.8%).
Afewothers(1.3%)broughtuptheabilityto“communicate with others, in front of the students, from the front of the class […]” (highschoolteacher).Only 0.6% of the teachers mentioned interactivity as a benefit of theIWB.
Figure 12. Main benefits of the IWB according to teachers
The main benefit of the IWB […] “finally,
having Internet access in class.”
“”
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 19
The more that the students used the IWB in class, the more positive the perceived impacts on their grades, school motivation, concentra-
tion in class, and overall satisfaction at school.
“
”
4.3 Specific benefits of IWB use
Thelargenumberofparticipantsinthisstudy(11,683students)enabledperformingmoreadvancedstatisticalinferences.Briefly,thistypeofana-lysisallowsinducingcharacteristicsofagivenpopulation(inthiscase,students and teachers across Québec) based on a population sample(i.e.,theQuébecstudentsandteacherswhoparticipatedinthisstudy).As inpreviousstudies,wethenrandiversestatisticalcorrelations.Theresultsrevealedsomesignificantrelationships(seeTable1),forinstance,betweentheusefrequencyoftheIWBbystudentsandstudent-percei-vedimpactsonvariablesthatareknowntobecloselyassociatedwithacademicachievement(academicgrades,concentrationinclass,schoolmotivation,overallsatisfactionatschool).
Table 1: Correlations8 between impacts perceived by students and their IWB use frequency
Academic grades 0.308**Concentration in class 0.265*School motivation 0.367**overall satisfaction at school 0.312**
*p<0.001;**p<0.0001.
TheresultsshowthatthemorethatthestudentsusedtheIWBinclass,themorepositivetheperceivedimpactsontheirgrades,schoolmotivation,concentrationinclass,andoverallsatisfactionatschool(Table1).Inlinewithpreviousstudies,thisindicatesthattheimpactsincreasewithmorefrequentuse.PreviousstudieshavefoundthatteacherswhohadtheirstudentsusetheIWBfrequentlyperceivedsimilarimpacts,butthiswasnotthecaseforthepresentstudy.Inpreviousstudies,teacherswhohadtheirstudentsworkmoreregularlyandfrequentlywiththeIWBperceivedgreaterbenefitsforstudents.
As mentioned above, the results of the present study do not allowconcludingoverallpositiveornegativeimpactsofIWBuseonstudents’academicachievement.Infact,only3.9%oftheteachersreportedsuchimpacts.Nevertheless,thestatisticalinferencesrevealedthatthemorethatstudentsusedtheIWBinclass,themorepositivetheirperceptionsoftheimpactsontheiracademicgrades,schoolmotivation,concentrationinclass,andoverallsatisfactionatschool(Table1).
8 Correlation type: Kendall’s tau correlation (to learn more about this test statistic, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendall_rank_correlation_coefficient )
20 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Weshouldkeepinmind,however,thatonly4.0%oftheteacherssaidthatthey“always”or“often”hadtheirstudentsusetheIWB.How,then,canthisparticularresultbeexplained?Wemayproposetwoexplanations.First,IWBusecouldhaveprovidedsomeinteractivesituations,wherestudentsparticipatedactivelyinlearning.Second,theIWBwouldhaveprovidedstudentswithsomeopportunitiestousespecializedsoftwarethatcouldhelpthemlearncertainacademiccontent.
4.4 Challenges of IWB use in class
InadditiontoaskingtherespondentsabouttheusesandbenefitsoftheIWBinclass,weaskedbothstudentsandteachersaboutthechallengestheyencountered.
TheteachersmentionedsomemajorchallengesofIWBuseinclass(Fig-ure13).Themostformidablechallengewastechnicalproblems,citedby70.6%:“[…] I’ve never seen anything that broke down so much […] and you have to wait for the technician […] he spends all his time fixing them […]”(highschoolteacher).At17.3%,thetimespentworkingwiththeIWBwasanothermajorissue.It’satime-consumingtool,andtheteachersgavemanyreasonsforthis:
“[…] it takes up a lot of teaching time […] you see, to learn how to use the IWB, I have to give up even more of my evenings and weekends […]” (elementaryschoolteacher).
“[…] preparing lessons for the IWB […] it really takes a lot of time […] which I don’t have […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] I find that I have to fool with the Interactive whiteboard before every class […] it takes too much time […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] learning how to use all the IWB features […] it takes time […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] for me, it’s finding materials that takes up my time […]”(highschoolteacher).
Theresultsindicatethatthiskindoftoolistime-consumingforteachers,whoalreadyhaveaheavyworkload.Inaddition,severalteachers(9.6%)broughtupthesizeofthescreen:“[…] I have 32 students in my class […] the screen is too small if you’re sitting at the back [of the class]” (highschoolteacher).Classmanagementwasmentionedbyafewteachers(1.4%).Lastonthelistwasinadequatetraining(1.1%).Formanyteachers,theproblemwasnotalackoftrainingassuch,butratherlackoftimetolearnhowtousetheIWBbeforetryingitoutwiththestudents:
Only 4.0% of the teachers said that they
“always” or “often” had their students use the IWB
“”
“[…] I’ve never seen anything that broke down so much […] and you have to wait for the technician […] he spends all his time
fixing them […]”
“”
This kind of tool is time-consuming for tea-
chers, who already have a heavy workload
“”
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 21
“[…] I took some useful training sessions […] but I didn’t have the time to really sit down in class and try it out […] I need that […] without my students around me […]” (highschoolteacher).
“[…] the training, it’s only part of the problem […] what I would need is training in my classroom […] that way I could be ready for my students […]” (highschoolteacher).
Figure 13. Main challenges of the IWB according to teachers
TheteacherswereaskedhowfrequentlytheyhadtodealwithtechnicalproblemswhentheyusedtheIWBinclass(Figure14).Theresultsshowthat 93.5% felt that they“always” (23.6%) or“often” (69.9% had suchproblems.Only6.5%feltthatthey“sometimes”(2.9%),“rarely”(2.3%)or“never”(1.3%)hadtodealwiththem.Thesefindingsindicatethattech-nicalproblemsconstitutethegreatestchallengeofIWBuseinclass.
Figure 14. Frequency of technical problems according to teachers
22 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
92.6 % of the teachers had technical problems
that required outside help to resolve.
“”
Thesefrequencieswereconfirmedbytheresultsoftheindividualandgroupinterviews:
“[…] I have technical problems very often […] and then I have to wait for the technician […]” (elementaryschoolteacher).
“[…] there’s always something that needs fixing […] it gets in the way of my teaching […]” (highschoolteacher).
Wealsoaskedtheteachershowmanyofthetechnicalproblemstheymanagedtoresolveontheirown(Figure15).Overall,theresultsshowthattheIWBincurredmajorandfrequenttechnicalproblemsthattheteacherswereusuallyunabletoresolvebythemselves(Figure14).Thus,only7.4%oftheteacherssaidthattheycouldresolvetechnicalproblemsontheirown.
Inotherwords,92.6%oftheteachershadtechnicalproblemsthatrequi-redoutsidehelp,usuallyatechnician.Thus,thegreatmajorityofthemfeltthattheyweremoreorlessatthemercyofthetechnician—employedbytheschoolboardortheIWBprovider—whohadtocometotheirrescue:“[…] whenever there’s a problem […] we have to wait for the technician […] sometimes it takes weeks […]”(highschoolteacher).
Theseresultsindicatethat,duetothemanytechnicalproblems,teachers(especiallyhighschoolteachers)whousedtheIWBwereforcedtopreparetwosetsoflessonplans.PlanningalessonwiththeIWBalreadytookuptoomuchtime,andontopofthat,theyhadtoplanaback-uplessonincasetheIWBdidn’twork:“[…] if the interactive whiteboard wasn’t working with a group […] I have to make another lesson plan […] this doubles the work […] “ (highschoolteacher).
Figure 15. Technical problems that teachers felt they could resolve on their own without a technician’s help
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 23
“”
The small screen size was the second most
often cited problem by students
Thestudentswerealsoaskedaboutproblemsandchallengesofusingthe IWB (Figure 16). Although the problems they mentioned differedsomewhat from those mentioned by the teachers, there were certainsimilarities.Forexample,technicalproblemsheadedthelist,at33.5%:“[…] it usually doesn’t work […] the teachers waste a lot of time installing it […]”(highschoolstudent).
Thesecondmostoftencitedproblemwasthesmallscreensize(25.4%):“[…] the screen’s too small […] my TV at home is bigger […]”(highschoolstudent).Thesmallscreensizewasaparticularsourceofcomplaintforhighschoolstudents.SomeofthemhadabiggerTVscreenathomeforwatchingfilmsandplayingcomputergamescomparedtotheIWBscreenatschoolforlearningmath,science,French,andothersubjects.
ManystudentsalsocomplainedthattheirteacherwasineptatusingtheIWB(19.0%):“[…] even though it’s not always their fault […] but it breaks anyway”(highschoolstudent).Forthestudents,theproblemappearedtobethattheteachersweretoooftenunabletoresolvetechnicalproblemsthatarose:
“[…] my teacher can never fix it when there’s a problem […] she always says she has to wait for the technician […]” (high schoolstudent).
“[…] the digital whiteboard is super complicated […] my teachers can never get it to work […] we have to wait for a technician […]” (highschoolstudent).
Manystudentscitedlossofmotivationasachallenge(18.3%):
“[…] at first, I liked it […] but after a while […] it got boring […] a lot of students are practically asleep […]” (highschoolstudent).
“[…] it wasn’t’ interesting to look at hundreds of pages scrolling down […]” (highschoolstudent).
Atthebottomofthelist(3.8%)camethelackofinteractivityinthelessonswhentheirteacherusedtheIWB:“[…] it’s monotonous […] there’s only the teacher talking all alone […] we students […] don’t do anything […]”(highschoolstudent).Theresultsshowthatthestudentsdidn’tappreciatethelackofinteractivitywhenteachersusedtheIWB.Inotherwords,thevastmajorityoftheteachersusedtheIWBasadigitalprojectorandfailedtotakeadvantageofthemanyinteractivefeatures.
“”
Many students cited loss of motivation as a
challenge.
24 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Figure 16. Main challenges of the IWB according to students
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 25
5. CoNCLUSIoN
For the OECD (2015), technology represents the“very future” of edu-cation.Moreover,becausetechnologyhasinvadedeverycornerofourlives,itbecomesincreasinglyvitalforupcominggenerationstoacquiretechnology skills if they want to succeed professionally and socially.Thereiseveryreasontobelievethatbeingabletoself-train,self-learn,andcommunicateviatechnologywillbethesinequanonconditionforadaptingtoandfullyparticipatinginsocietiesthatareinpermanentflux.Equally,thereiseveryreasontobelievethatlearningwithtechnologyisakeycompetencythatwillenableyouthtosucceedinschool,andmorebroadly,intheknowledgesocietyinwhichwenowlive.
Theaimofthisstudy,conductedbytheteamoftheCanadaResearchChairinTechnologiesinEducation,wastoidentifyhowtheinteractivewhiteboard(IWB)isusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges.Studydatawerecollectedfrom11,863studentsand1,131teachers.
Farfromcallingintoquestionthecriticalneedtointegratetechnologyintoeducation,theresultsofthisstudyinsteadhighlightthefactthattheclassroomintegrationofcertaintechnologytools,suchastheIWB,maybemorecomplicatedandtime-consumingthanothers.Theresultsshowthattheparticipatingteachershadsubstantialtechnicalproblemswith the IWB.However, the results also indicate that the IWBhas realpedagogicalpotential.
Wehavepresentedtheusesandbenefitsof the IWB,whichhasbeenintroducedenmasseintoschoolsallacrossQuébecforthelastfiveyears.Webeganwiththestudents’appreciationofhavingthistechnologyintheclassroom:99.2%preferredtheIWBoverthetraditionalblackboard.Amongtheteachers,however,althoughalargemajority(73.6%)appea-redtoprefertheIWBovertheblackboard,anon-negligiblepercentage(26.4%)actuallypreferredthetraditionalblackboard.TheproblemmayhavebeenrelatedtotheimpositionoftheIWB,whichcreatedasituationwhereteachershadnochoicebuttointegratetheIWBintotheirteaching.Amandatorynewmethodortechnologyispalatableonlywhensomedegree of choice is involved. On this topic, self-determination theory(SDT),developedbyDeciandRyan(1985),providessomeinsightintothepossiblemotivationsofteacherswhopreferredusingtheblackboardovertheIWB.
That said, our results also show that slightly over half the teachers inthisstudydidnotusetheIWBregularly(48.2%),andthat51.8%usedit“sometimes,”“rarely,”oreven“never.”ThereisalotofworktodoinordertopersuademoreteacherstousetheIWBmoreofteninclass.
“
”
Far from calling into question the critical
need to integrate tech-nology into education,
this study instead highli-ghts that the classroom integration of certain technology tools, such
as the IWB, may be more complicated and time-consuming than
others
The students appreciated having technology in the classroom: 99.2%
preferred the IWB to a traditional blackboard
“”
26 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Our results indicate that the teachers used the IWB primarily as a
digital projector
“”
Theproblemdoesnotliesolelyintheteachers’usesoftheIWB:thestu-dentsalsohadfewopportunitiestoworkwiththeIWBinclass.Infact,ourresultsshowthat,overall,only4.0%ofthestudentswereallowedtouseitregularlyinclass.
OurresultsindicatethattheteachersusedtheIWBprimarilyasadigitalprojector, with only rare recourse to the interactive features (1.4% ofreporteduses).Wemaythereforeproposethatforthegreatmajorityofteachers,anelectronicprojector—atfarlesscostandwithamuchlargerscreen—wouldbemoresuitablefortheirteachingpurposes.Inaddition,thistypeofsystemwouldentailfarfewertechnicalproblemscomparedtotheIWB.Furthermore,theIWBmayrepresentaconflictforteacherswhoarereluctanttorevertbacktolecture-styleteaching.Ontheonehand,theeasiestwaytousetheIWBisasaprojectionscreen.Ontheotherhand,itcomeswithanumberoftechnicalchallengesifteacherswanttousetheinteractivefeatures.OurresultsarefairlyconsistentwiththoseofKhambariandcolleagues,whoobservedacertainamountofconflictbetweenopenteachingapproaches(alsocalledstudent-centeredlearning,amongothers)anduseoftheIWB,wheretheteacherusuallystandsinfrontoftheclassanddeliversalecture-stylelesson.Itisalsopossiblethatteachersdon’tusetheIWBinteractivelywiththeirstudentsbecausetheydon’twanttodealwithallthetechnicalissues.
Thatsaid,itisnoteworthythattheresultsofthislarge-scalestudyshowthattheIWBofferssignificantbenefitsforclassroomuse,suchasInternetaccess,visualteachingsupport,videopresentation,motivationtolearn,more effective learning, and efficient organization.We may thereforeconcludethatajudicioususeofeducationaltechnology,whenaccom-paniedbyadequatetraining,wouldbeliabletohavepositiveimpactsonstudents’academicoutcomes.Furthermore,wemustnotforgetthattheresultsofthisstudyhighlightthefactthattheimpactsonthestudentsdependedmainlyonhowtheteacherusedtheIWBinclass.Hence,al-thoughtheIWBhasenormouseducationalpotential,itisuptoteachersandstudentstotakeadvantageofallthattheIWBhastoofferinordertorealizethatpotential.
TheoverallresultsofthisstudyshowthatthemorethatstudentsworkedwiththeIWB,themorepositivetheirperceptionsofitsimpactsontheiracademicachievement,schoolmotivation,concentrationinclass,andoverallsatisfactionatschool.Thesearepromisingresults,andthehopeisthatmorethan just4.0%ofteacherswillventure intonewterritoryandencouragetheirstudentstoworkwiththeIWB.Thereisanexcitingnewworldofeducationaltreasurestoexplore,andteacherswhotaketheplungewillreaptherewards.
This study clearly shows that technical problems posed a dauntingchallengeforteacherswhoattemptedtousetheIWB.Over92.6%oftheteacherswequeriedreportedtechnicalproblemsthattheywereunabletoresolveontheirown.Othersignificantproblemswereraisedaswell:
“
”
The more that students work with the IWB, the
more positive their percep-tions of its impacts on their
academic achievement, school motivation, and ove-
rall satisfaction at school
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 27
theextraeffortrequired—oftenontheirowntime—tolearnhowtousealltheIWBfeatures,thesmallscreensize(especiallyforlargehighschoolclasses),classroommanagementproblems,andtrainingissues.WemayconcludethatclassroomuseoftheIWBcanbetime-andenergy-consu-mingforteachers.
Inlightoftheabove,inadditiontoinstallingIWBsinclassrooms,itwouldbeimportanttoprovideteacherswithadequatetechnologicalandpeda-gogicalsupportasneeded.WemightalsoarguethattheIWBshouldnotbeinstalledinclassroomsuntilteachersarefullypreparedtoembraceit.TeachersneedpedagogicaldayssotheycantakeindividualorgrouptrainingsessionstolearnhowtousealltheIWBfeaturesandfunctions,andespeciallytheinteractiveaspectsthatallowstudentstoengagemoreactivelyinlearning.Manystudieshavedemonstratedtheeffectivenessofhands-ontechnologytrainingsessionsaswellasadequatetechnicalandpedagogicalsupport.
Basedon theoverall results,wecannotdefinitivelyconclude that theIWBhaseithernegativeorpositiveimpactsonstudentoutcomes.Only3.9%oftheparticipatingteacherssuggestedthatusingtheIWBcouldpositivelyimpactstudents’academicgrades.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheother96.1%feltthattheIWBhadnegativeimpacts.WhatitmeansisthatthevastmajorityoftheteachersfeltthatthewaysthattheyusedtheIWBdidnothavepositiveimpactsontheirstudents’grades.Inaddition,themajorityoftheteachersfeltthattheirusesoftheIWBhadsimilarimpacts,inmanyrespects,totheirusesofmoretraditionaleducationaltools,suchastheblackboard.
BasedontheobservationthatthevastmajorityoftheteachersusedtheIWBasanelectronicprojector—whichcostsless,hasamuchlargerscreen,andentailsfewertechnicalheadaches—,wemightsuggestthatthe2011impositionoftheIWBonallofQuébec’steachers,acrosstheboard,wasahastydecision. Itmighthavebeenwisertoprovidethe IWBonlytoteacherswhowereinclinedtouseitmoreoftenandtakeadvantageofitsfullpotential.
Today,whetherornottechnologyimpactseducationaloutcomesmaynotbetherightquestiontoask.Perhapsweshouldinsteadtrytofindoutwhichconditions canfosterpositiveimpactsoftechnologyonstudentengagementandacademicoutcomes.Furthermore,inordertobetterappreciatethetruevalueandpotentialoftechnologyforlearning,thecentralissueishowthatpotentialcanberealized.Webelievethattech-nologytoolssuchastheIWBcanbeusedeffectively—eveniftheydonotallholdthesamepotential—dependingonhowtheteacherusesthemandwhatstudentsareallowedtodowiththem.Inthisperspective,theessentialissueinIWBuseatschoolishowtotapthatpotentialthroughreflectiveuse,wherestudentsarealsoinvitedtoworkwithit,asreportedbyonly4%oftheteachersinthisstudy.
“”
Make sure that teachers get adequate technological and pedagogical support
“
”
The essential issue in IWB use at school is how to tap that potential through reflective use, where stu-dents are also invited to
work with it, as reported by only 4% of the teachers in
this study
28 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
6. RECoMMENDATIoNS
Basedontheresultsofthisstudy,thefollowingrecommendationsareproposed:
1. EncouragemoreteacherstousetheIWBregularly.
2. ProvidespecifictrainingprogramstopreparemoreteacherstousetheIWB’sinteractivefeatures.
3. ProvidespecifictrainingprogramstopreparemoreteacherstohavetheirstudentusetheIWB.
4. RecognizethetimethatteachersspendlearninghowtousetheIWB.
5. RethinktechnicalsupportstrategiesforteacherswhoregularlyusetheIWBsothattheyfeelgenuinelysupported.
6. Donot imposenewtechnologytoolsonteachers involuntarilyandacrosstheboard.
7. WhenitcomestimetodomajorupkeepsandupgradesontheIWBsthatwereinstalledfiveyearsago,itwouldbeimportanttoconsiderwhetherteacherswhoarenotpronetorealizingthefull interactivepotentialoftheIWBmightpreferanewelectronicprojectorinstead.
8. WhenpurchasingIWBsinfuture,consideralargerscreensize,espe-ciallyforhighschoolclassrooms,whichtypicallycontain30ormorestudents.
9. Raiseteachers’awarenessofstudents’motivationlossandtheneedtoapplyvariousstrategiestostimulatetheirtasteforlearning.
10. BecausepracticallyallQuébecclassroomscurrentlyhaveanIWB,allfutureteachersshouldbetrainedinpedagogicalandinteractiveusesoftheIWB.
11. Continue to assess the uses, benefits, and challenges of the IWB inclass.
12. Conductfurtheractionresearchandcasestudiesoneducationalinte-grationoftheIWB.9
9 Similar to the studies by Raby.
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 29
7. REFERENCES
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.(2013).Publication manual of the American Psychological Association.(5eéd.)Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Balta,N.&M.Duran(2015).“Attitudesofstudentsandteacherstowardstheuseofinteractivewhiteboardsinelementaryandsecondaryschoolclassrooms.”Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2):15-23.
Commissiondel’éthiqueenscienceetentechnologie,(2015).Avis sur l’éthique et les TIC à l’école : un regard posé par de jeunes. Québec:GourvernementduQuébec.
CutrimSchmid,E.(2008).Potentialpedagogicalbenefitsanddrawbacksofmul-timediauseintheEnglishlanguageclassroomequippedwithinteractivewhi-teboardtechnology.Computers and Education, 51(4),1553-1568.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005
DiGregorio,P.,&Sobel-Lojeski,K.(2009-2010).Theeffectsofinteractivewhi-teboards(IWBs)onstudentperformanceandlearning:Aliteraturereview.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3),255-312.
Deci,E.L.etRyan,R.M.(1985).Intrinsicmotivationandself-determinationinhumanbehavior.NewYork,NY:Plenum.
Dostal,J.(2011).Reflectionsontheuseofinteractivewhiteboardsininstructionininternationalcontext.The New Educational Review, 25(3),205-220.
Ersoy,A.andM.Bozkurt(2015).Understandinganelementaryschoolteachers’journeyofusingtechnologyintheclassroomfromsandtabletointeractivewhiteboard.International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1):469-488.
Fekonja-Peklaj,U.andL.Marjanovič-Umek(2015).PositiveandnegativeaspectsoftheIWBandtabletcomputersinthefirstgradeofprimaryschool:amulti-ple-perspectiveapproach.Early Child Development and Care, 185(6):996-1015.
Glover,D.,Miller,D.,Averis,D.,&Door,V.(2005).Theinteractivewhiteboard:Aliteraturesurvey.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2),155-170.doi:10.1080/14759390500200199
Golonka,E.M.,Bowles,A.R.,Frank,V.M.,Richardson,D.L.,&Freynik,S.(2012).Technologiesforforeignlanguagelearning:Areviewoftechnologytypesandtheireffectiveness.Computer Assisted Language Learning.Advancedonlinepublication.doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Hall,I.,&Higgins,S.(2005).Primaryschoolstudents’perceptionsofinterac-tivewhiteboards.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2),102-117.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x
Harlow,A.,Cowie,B.,&Heazlewood,M.(2010).Keepingintouchwithlearning:Theuseofaninteractivewhiteboardinthejuniorschool.Technology, Peda-gogy and Education, 19(2),237-243.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491234
30 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Hennessy, S.(2014).Usingtheinteractivewhiteboardtosupportdialogueinthewholeclasscontext.DansN.Pachler&M.Leask(Dir.),Learning to Teach Using ICT in the Secondary School.(3eéd.).NewYork:TaylorandFrancis.
Hennessy,S.,Deaney,R.,&Ruthven,K.(2006).Situatedexpertiseinintegratinguseofmultimediasimulationintosecondaryscienceteaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7),701-732.doi:10.1080/09500690500404656
Hennessy,S.,Deaney,R.,Ruthven,K.,&Winterbottom,M.(2007).Pedagogicalstrategiesforusingtheinteractivewhiteboardtofosterlearnerparticipationinschoolscience.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),283-301.doi:10.1080/17439880701511131
Hennessy,S.,Warwick,P.&Mercer,N.(2011).Adialogicinquiryapproachtowor-kingwithteachersindevelopingclassroomdialogue.Teachers College Record,113(9),1906-1959.
Hennessy,S.,Warwick,P.,Brown,L.,Rawlins,D.,&Neale,C.(2014).Developing in-teractive teaching and learning using the IWB: Teacher Resource.MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.
Hennessy,S.,Wishart,J.,Whitelock,D.,Deaney,R.,Brawn,R.,Velle,L.l.,...Win-terbottom,M.(2007).Pedagogicalapproachesfortechnology-integratedscienceteaching.Computers and Education, 48(1),137-152.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.02.004
Higgins,S.,Beauchamp,G.,&Miller,D.(2007).Reviewingtheliteratureoninte-ractivewhiteboards.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),213-225.doi:10.1080/17439880701511040
Karsenti,T.,Komis,V.,Depover,C.,etCollin,S.(2011).LesTICcommeoutilsderechercheensciencesdel’éducation.DansT.KarsentietL.Savoie-Zajc(dir.),Larechercheenéducation:étapesetapproches(pp.168-192).Saint-Laurent:ERPI.
Kennewell,S.,&Beauchamp,G.(2007).Thefeaturesofinteractivewhiteboardsandtheirinfluenceonlearning.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),227-241.doi:10.1080/17439880701511073
Kennewell,S.,Tanner,H.,Jones,S.,&Beauchamp,G.(2008).Analysingtheuseofinteractivetechnologytoimplementinteractiveteaching:Originalarticle.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1),61-73.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
Khambari,M.N.,Hassett,D.,Thomas,M.,&Wong,S.L.(2014).Interactivewhite-boardsinclassrooms:Debates,issues,andimpedingfactors.DansProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2014, 957-962.
Kitchen,S.,Finch,S.Sinclair,R.&NationalResearchCentreforSocialSciences.Harnessing Technology schools survey 2007.Coventry:Becta.Récupérédehttp://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1554/1/becta_2007_htssfindings_report.pdf
L’Écuyer,R.(1990).Méthodologie de l’analyse développementale de contenu. Mé-thode GPS et concept de soi.Sainte-Foy,QC:Pressesdel’UniversitéduQuébec.
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 31
Lee,M.(2010).Interactivewhiteboardsandschooling:Thecontext.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),133-141.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491215
Littleton,K.(2010).Researchintoteachingwithwhole-classinteractivetechno-logies:Emergentthemes.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),285-292.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491240
Lopez,O.S.(2010).Thedigitallearningclassroom:ImprovingEnglishlanguagelearners’academicsuccessinmathematicsandreadingusinginteractivewhiteboardtechnology.Computers & Education, 54(4),901-915.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019
Miles,M.B.etHuberman,A.M.(2003).Analyse des données qualitatives.Bruxelles,Belgique:DeBoeckSupérieur.
Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010a).Enhancedinteractivityinsecondarymathematics.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for educa-tion: Theory, research and practice(p.118-130).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010b).Interactivewhiteboards:Aliteraturesurvey.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.1-19).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Moss,G.,&Jewitt,C.(2010).Policy,pedagogyandinteractivewhiteboards:WhatlessonscanbelearntfromearlyadoptioninEngland?DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.20-36).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
O’Connell,L.,Chaillez,P.-D.,Raby,C.(2015).UtilisationcollaborativedevotreTNI…Oui,maiscomment?Revue préscolaire, 53(1),39-41.
O’Connell,L.,Chaillez,P.-D.,Raby,C.,Charron,A.etBergeron,L.(2015).Unmo-dèlepourmaximiserl’utilisationdevotreTNI.Revue préscolaire,53(1),37-39.
OECD.(2015).Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection.SériePISA,OECDPublishing.http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-compu-ters-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm
Raby,C.,Bergeron,L.,Tremblay-Wragg,É.,Gagnon,B.etCharron,A.(2015).Évolutiondespratiquespédagogiquesdesenseignantsquantàl’utilisationcollaborativedutableaunumériqueinteractifpardesélèvesdupréscolaireetduprimaire:unerecherche-action.DansS.LefebvreetG.Samson(Dir.),Le tableau numérique interactif : quand chercheurs et praticiens s’unissent pour dé-gager des pistes d’action (pp.39-57).Québec:Pressesdel’UniversitéduQuébec-Horscollection.
Saltan,F.&Arslan,K.(2009).Anewteachertool,interactivewhiteboards:Ametaanalysis.DansI.Gibsonetal.(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009(p.2115-2120).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Slay,H.,Siebörger,I.,&Hodgkinson-Williams,C.(2008).Interactivewhiteboards:Realbeautyorjust“lipstick”?Computers and Education, 51(3),1321-1341.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006
Smith,H.J.,Higgins,S.,Wall,K.,&Miller,J.(2005).Interactivewhiteboards:boonorbandwagon?Acriticalreviewoftheliterature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2),91-101.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x
32 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Sundberg,B.,Spante,M.,&Stenlund,J.(2012).Disparityinpractice:diversestra-tegiesamongteachersimplementinginteractivewhiteboardsintoteachingpracticeintwoSwedishprimaryschools.Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3),253-270.doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.586352
Swan,K.,Schenker,J.&Kratcoski,A.(2008).Theeffectsoftheuseofinteractivewhiteboardsonstudentachievement.DansJ.Luca&E.Weippl(Dir.),Procee-dings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecom-munications 2008(p.3290-3297).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Türel,Y.(2010).Developingteachers’utilizationofinteractivewhiteboards.DansD.Gibson&B.Dodge(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010(p.3049-3054).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Twiner,A.,Coffin,C.,Littleton,K.,&Whitelock,D.(2010).Multimodality,orches-trationandparticipationinthecontextofclassroomuseoftheinteractivewhiteboard:adiscussion.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),211-223.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491232
Wall,K.,Higgins,S.,&Smith,H.(2005).‘Thevisualhelpsmeunderstandthecomplicatedthings’:Pupilviewsofteachingandlearningwithinterac-tivewhiteboards.British Journal of Educational Technology, 3�(5),851-867.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x
Warwick,P.,Mercer,N.,Kershner,R.,&Staarman,J.K.(2010).Dansthemindandinthetechnology:Thevicariouspresenceoftheteacherinpupil’slearningofscienceincollaborativegroupactivityattheinteractivewhiteboard.Compu-ters and Education, 55(1),350-362.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001
Warwick,P.,Mercer,N.,Kershner,R.,&Staarman,J.K.(2010).Dansthemindandinthetechnology:Thevicariouspresenceoftheteacherinpupil’slearningofscienceincollaborativegroupactivityattheinteractivewhiteboard.Compu-ters & Education, 55(1),350-362.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 33
8. WoRKS CoNSULTED
Akbaş, O., & Pektaş, H. M. (2011). The effects of using an interactive whiteboard on the academic achievement of university students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(2). Récupéré de http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v12_is-sue2/akbas/index.htm
Al-Qirim, N. (2011). Determinants of interactive white board success in teaching in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 56(3), 827–838. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.024
Albaaly, E., & Higgins, S. (2012). The impact of interactive whiteboard technology on medical students’ achievement in ESL essay writing: An early study in Egypt. Lan-guage Learning Journal, 40(2), 207-222. doi:10.1080/09571736.2010.543953
Amaro-Jimenez, C. & Beckett, G. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: All-in-one tool for ESL teaching and learning. Dans J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Dir.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (p. 2331-2337). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Argott, B. (2012). The effects of teaching using the SMARTboard versus discrete trial teaching on acquisition and student engagement for children with autism. Mémoire de maîtrise inédit, Caldwell College. Récupéré de la base de données ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 1510412)
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), 457–469. doi:10.1080/00131910500279551
Bannister, D., Hutchinson, A., & Sergeant, H. (2010). Effective implementation of learner response systems: moving beyond the right response. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 144-161). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Bavaro, T. (2010). Technological innovation in action : Transforming the learning landscape for multi-locations through networked interactive whiteboards. Dans C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Dir.), Proceedings of ascilite 2010 (p. 70–74). Brisbane, Australie: University of Queensland. Récupéré de http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Bavaro-concise.pdf
Bax, S. (2010). Magic wand or museum piece? The future of the interactive whi-teboard in education. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 264-277). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Beach, J. S. (2012). Interactive whiteboard transition: A case study. Thèse de doctorat inedited, Tennessee University. Récupéré de http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_grad-diss/1266
Beach, J., Wendt, J. & Owens, C. (2012). Interactive whiteboard transition study. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Edu-cation International Conference 2012 (p. 1669-1676). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
34 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
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. doi:10.1080/14759390400200186
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033
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. doi:10.1080/17439880802497008
Bettsworth, B. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to teach grammar in the MFL classroom: A learner’s perspective. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 216-224). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Blue, E., & Tirotta, R. (2011). The benefits & drawbacks of integrating cloud computing and interactive whiteboards in teacher preparation. TechTrends, 55(3), 31–39.
Boulc’h, L., & Baron, G. (2011). Connaissances et représentations du Tableau Numé-rique Interactif chez les futurs professeurs des écoles : Réflexions sur la formation aux technologies éducatives. Dans G.-L. Baron, É. Bruillard, & V. Komis (Dir.), Sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication (STIC) en milieu éducatif : Analyse de pratiques et enjeux didactiques, Actes du quatrième colloque international DIDAPRO 4 - Dida&STIC (p. 77–91). Athènes, Grèce: New Tech-nologies.
British Educational Communication and Technology Agency. (2003). What the re-search says about interactive whiteboards. Coventry, Royaume-Uni : BETCA.
Campbell, C., & Martin, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the first year expe-rience : Integrating IWBs into pre-service teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 68-75.
Celik, S. (2012). Competency levels of teachers in using interactive whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 115-129. Récupéré de http://www.cedtech.net/articles/32/323.pdf
Cogill, J. (2010). A model of pedagogical change for the evaluation of interactive whiteboard practice. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 162-178). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Coyle, Y., Yanez, 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. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.10.002
Cruze, C. & Shafer, K. (2011). Technology in the mathematic’s classroom: A teacher candidate’s perspective. Dans M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (p. 4312-4318). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of techno-logy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62. doi:10.1080/09588220600804012
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 35
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35(2), 119-133. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.01.001
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of mul-timedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whi-teboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1553-1568. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education, 50(1), 338-356. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.001
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2011). Video-stimulated reflection as a professional development tool in interactive whiteboard research. ReCALL, 23(3), 252-270. doi:10.1017/S0958344011000176
Cutrim Schmid, E., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 197-215). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive whiteboards in state school set-tings: Teacher responses to socio-constructivist hegemonies. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2), 65-86. Récupéré de http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2012/cu-trimschmidwhyte.pdf
Damcott, D., Landato, J. & Marsh, C. (2000). Report on the use of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard in physical science. Récupéré de http://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library
Davis, N., & Loveless, A. (2011). Reviewing the landscape of ICT and teacher edu-cation over 20 years and looking forward to the future. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 247–261. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.610928
Dawson, P. (2010). Networked interactive whiteboards : Rationale, affordances and new pedagogies for regional Australian higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 523–533.
Depover, C., Karsenti, T., & Komis, V. (2007). Enseigner avec les technologies. Favoriser les apprentissages, développer des compétences. Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
De Vita, M., Verschaffel, L., & Elen, J. (2012). Acceptance of interactive whiteboards by Italian mathematics teachers. Educational Research, 3(7), 553-565.
Dhindsa, H. S., & Shahrizal-Emran. (2011). Using interactive whiteboard technology-rich constructivist learning environment to minimize gender differences in chemistry achievement. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(4), 393-414. Récupéré de http://www.ijese.com/IJESE_v6n4_Dhindsa.pdf
Divaharan, S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2010). Learning as students to become better teachers : Pre-service teachers’ IWB learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 553-570.
Drijvers, P. (2011). Teachers transforming resources into orchestrations. Dans G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Dir.), From text to “lived” resources (p. 265–281). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8_14
36 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Duroisin, N., Temperman, G., & De Lièvre, B. (2011). Effets de deux modalités d’usage du tableau blanc interactif sur la dynamique d’apprentissage et la progression des apprenants. Dans Actes de la Conférence Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain 2011 (p. 257-269). Récupéré de http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00609090/
Elvers, G. C. (2000). The digital whiteboard as a notes-taking aid. Récupéré de http://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library
Fraser, V., Garofalo, J., & Juersivich, N. (2011). Enhancing lesson planning and qua-lity of classroom life: A study of mathematics student teachers’ use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2), 169–188.
Gadbois, S. A., & Haverstock, N. (2012). Middle years science teachers voice their first experiences with interactive whiteboard technology. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(1), 121-135. doi:10.1080/14926156.2012.649053
Garavaglia, A., Garzia, V., & Petti, L. (2012). Quality of the learning environment in digital classrooms: An Italian case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1735–1739. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.369
Gill, S. R., & Islam, C. (2011). Shared reading goes high-tech. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 224–227. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01028
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348-358. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00269.x
Gillen,J.,Staarman,J.K.,Littleton,K.,Mercer,N.,&Twiner,A.(2007).A«learningrevolution»?InvestigatingpedagogicpracticearoundinteractivewhiteboardsinBritishprimaryclassrooms.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),243-256.doi:10.1080/17439880701511099
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology:The pedagogic impactof the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondaryschool.Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education, 10(3),257–278.doi:10.1080/14759390100200115
Golonka,E.M.,Bowles,A.R.,Frank,V.M.,Richardson,D.L.,&Freynik,S. (2012).Technologiesforforeignlanguagelearning:Areviewoftechnologytypesandtheireffectiveness.Computer Assisted Language Learning.Advancedonlinepu-blication.doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Gray,C.(2010).Meetingteachers’realneeds:Newtoolsinthesecondarymodernforeignlanguagesclassroom.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interac-tive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.69-85).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Gray,C.,Hagger-Vaughan,L.,Pilkington,R.,&Tomkins,S.-A.(2005).Theprosandconsofinteractivewhiteboardsinrelationtothekeystage3strategyandframework.The Language Learning Journal, 32(1),38–44.doi:10.1080/09571730585200171
Haldane,M.(2010).Anewinteractivewhiteboardpedagogythroughtransformativepersonaldevelopment.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p.179-196).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 37
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactivewhiteboards.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2),102-117.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x
Hall,J.,Chamblee,G.&Slough,S.(2012).Implicationsofinteractivewhiteboardsresearch for the mathematics classrooms. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.4825-4830).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Hamdan,K.,Al-Qirim,N.,&Asmar,M.(2012).TheeffectofSmartBoardonstudentsbehaviorandmotivation.DansProceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) (p.162–166).doi:10.1109/INNO-VATIONS.2012.6207723
Hammond,M.,Fragkouli,E.,Suandi,I.,Crosson,S.,Ingram,J.,Johnston,...Wray,D.(2009).WhathappensasstudentteacherswhomadeverygooduseofICTduringpre-servicetrainingentertheirfirstyearofteaching?Teacher Development, 13(2),93–106.doi:10.1080/13664530903043939
Hammond,M.,Reynolds,L.,&Ingram,J.(2011).HowandwhydostudentteachersuseICT?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3),191-203.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00389.x
Hennessy,S.,Deaney,R.,&Tooley,C.(2010).Usingtheinteractivewhiteboardtostimulateactivelearninginschoolscience.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.102-117).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Higgins,S.(2010).TheimpactofinteractivewhiteboardsonclassroominteractionandlearninginprimaryschoolsintheUK.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.86-101).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Higgins,S.,Beauchamp,G.,&Miller,D.(2007).Reviewingtheliteratureoninteractivewhiteboards.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),213-225.doi:10.1080/17439880701511040
Higgins,S.,Falzon,C.,Hall,I.,Moseley,D.,Smith,F.,Smith,H.,&Wall,K.(2005).Em-bedding ICT In the literacy and numeracy strategies. Newcastle, Royaume-Uni:UniversityofNewcastleuponTyne.
Hodge,S.,&Anderson,B.(2007).Teachingandlearningwithaninteractivewhi-teboard: a teacher’s journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282.doi:10.1080/17439880701511123
Holmes,K.(2009).Planningtoteachwithdigitaltools:Introducingtheinteractivewhiteboardtopre-servicesecondarymathematicsteachers.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3),351–365.
Hsieh,K. (2011).Preservice teachers’attitudesandopinions towards interactivewhiteboardsande-textbooks.DansS.Lin&X.Huang(Dir.),Advances in Computer Science, Environment, Ecoinformatics, and Education (Vol.217,p.362-366).Berlin,Allemagne:SpringerBerlinHeidelberg.
Hutchison,A.,&Reinking,D.(2011).Teachers’perceptionsofintegratinginformationand communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national surveyintheUnitedStates.Reading Research Quarterly,4�(4),312–333.doi:10.1002/RRQ.002
38 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Isman,A.,Abanmy,F.A.,Hussein,H.B.,&AlSaadany,M.A.(2012).Saudisecondaryschoolteachersattitudes’towardusinginteractivewhiteboardinclassrooms.Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 286-296. Récupéré dehttp://www.tojet.net/articles/v11i3/11327.pdf
Jang, S.-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching todeveloptheTPACKofsecondaryscienceteachers.Computers & Education,55(4),1744–1751.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.020
Jang,S.-J.,&Tsai,M.-F.(2012).ExploringtheTPACKofTaiwaneseelementaryma-thematicsandscienceteacherswithrespecttouseofinteractivewhiteboards.Computers & Education, 59(2),327-338.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.003
Jeunier,B.,Morcillo-Bareille,A.,Camps,J.-F.,Galy-Marié,E.,&Tricot,A.(2005).Ex-pertise relative aux usages du tableau blanc interactif en école primaire.Toulouse,France:ERT34-HypermédiasetApprentissages.
Johnson,E.M.,Ramanair,J.,&Brine,J.(2010).“It”snotnecessarytohavethisboardtolearnEnglish,butit’shelpful’:studentandteacherperceptionsofinteractivewhiteboarduse. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,4(3),199–212.doi:10.1080/17501229.2010.513444
Judge,M.(2010).Documentingteachers’andstudents’experienceswithinteractivewhiteboardsinIreland:KeyfindingsfromanIrishpilotproject.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.250-263).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Juersivich,N.,Garofalo,J.,&Fraser,V.(2009).Studentteachers’useoftechnology-generatedrepresentations:Exemplarsandrationales.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2),149–173.
Karsenti,T.,Collin,S.,&Dumouchel,G.(2012).L’enversdutableau:cequedisentlesrecherchesdel’impactdesTBIsurlaréussitescolaire.Vivre le primaire, 25(2),30-32.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007).The features of interactive whiteboardsandtheirinfluenceonlearning.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),227-241.doi:10.1080/17439880701511073
Kershner,R.,Mercer,N.,Warwick,P.,&KleineStaarman,J.(2010).Cantheinteractivewhiteboardsupportyoungchildren’scollaborativecommunicationandthinkingin classroom science activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4),359-383.doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9096-2
Kershner,R.,Warwick,P.,Mercer,N.,&KleineStaarman,J.(2012).Primarychildren’smanagementofthemselvesandothersincollaborativegroupwork:“Sometimesittakespatience….”Education 3-13.Advanceonlinepublication.doi:10.1080/03004279.2012.670255
Kim,S.(2011).Preparing‘tech-savvyteachers’foreffectivetechnologyintegrationincurriculumandinstruction:Acasestudy.DansM.Koehler&P.Mishra(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011(p.2553-2558).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Kobak,M.,&Taskin,N.R.(2012).Prospectiveteachers’perceptionsofusingtech-nology in three different ways. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 4�,3629–3636.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.118
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 39
Lajoie,S.P.,&Lu,J.(2012).Supportingcollaborationwithtechnology:doessharedcognitionleadtoco-regulationinmedicine?Metacognition and Learning, 7(1),45-62.doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9077-5
Lewin,C.,Somekh,B.,&Steadman,S.(2008).Embeddinginteractivewhiteboardsinteachingandlearning:Theprocessofchangeinpedagogicpractice.Education and Information Technologies, 13(4),291-303.doi:10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z
Lim-Fong,B.,&Robins,R.(2010).Technologyshapingademocraticclassroom:TheLivingstonecasestudy.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p.225-237).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Lipton,M.L.,&Lipton,L.G.(2010).Enhancingtheradiologylearningexperiencewith electronic whiteboard technology. American Journal of Roentgenology,194(6),1547–1551.doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3729
Lisi,J. (2010). Interactive whiteboard technology: Perspectives and attitudes on FSL teachers.Mémoiredemaîtriseinédit,Queen’sUniversity.Récupérédehttp://qs-pace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/6134
Littleton,K.,Twiner,A.,&Gillen,J.(2010).Instructionasorchestration:Multimodalconnectionbuildingwiththeinteractivewhiteboard.Pedagogies, 5(2),130-141.doi:10.1080/15544801003611193
Lu,J.,&Lajoie,S.P.(2008).Supportingmedicaldecisionmakingwithargumenta-tion tools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 425-442. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.005
Lu,J.,Lajoie,S.P.,&Wiseman,J.(2010).Scaffoldingproblem-basedlearningwithCSCLtools.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3),283-298.doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6
Maher,D.(2011).Usingthemultimodalaffordancesoftheinteractivewhiteboardto support students’understanding of texts. Learning, Media and Technology, 3�(3),235-250.doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.536553
Maher, D. (2012).Teaching literacy in primary schools using an interactivewhole-class technology: Facilitating student-to-student whole-class dialogicinteractions.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1),137–152.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659888
Maher,D.,Phelps,R.,Urane,N.,&Lee,M.(2012).Primaryschoolteachers’useofdi-gitalresourceswithinteractivewhiteboards:TheAustraliancontext.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1),138-158.
Manny-Ikan,E.,Dagan,O.,Tikochinski,T.B.,&Zorman,R.(2011).Usingtheinte-ractive white board in teaching and learning – An evaluation of the SMARTCLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7,249-273.
Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approachto teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26-34. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00449.x
40 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Martinez,M.(2011).Le tableau blanc interactif, le tableau noir de demain? Compa-raison de l’usage de ces deux outils et analyse des effets produits sur les interactions sociales en classe : l’exemple du projet-pilote d’une école vaudoise. Mémoire demaîtriseinédit,UniversitédeGenève.Récupérédehttp://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/vital/access/manager/Repository/unige:16954
Martinovic,D.,&Zhang,Z.(2012).SituatingICTintheteachereducationprogram:Overcomingchallenges,fulfillingexpectations.Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3),461–469.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.001
Meng,H.,&Wang,D.-C.(2012).Robustdesignforgame-basedinstructionusinginteractivewhiteboards.DansProceedings of the 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning(p.250–253).doi:10.1109/DIGITEL.2012.66
Meyer,A.(2012).Enseigner avec un tableau blanc interactif: une (r)évolution? Analyse instrumentale d’une séquence d’enseignement de la géométrie au primaire. Mé-moiredemaîtriseinédit,UniversitédeGenève.Récupérédehttp://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/maltt/memoire/Meyer2012.pdf
Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010a).Enhancedinteractivityinsecondarymathematics.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.118-130).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010b).Interactivewhiteboards:Aliteraturesurvey.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.1-19).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Morgan,A.(2010).Interactivewhiteboards,interactivityandplayintheclassroomwith children aged three to seven years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(1),93-104.doi:10.1080/13502930903520082
Morgan,G.L. (2008). Improving student engagement: Use of the interactive white-board as an instructional tool to improve engagement and behavior in the junior high school classroom.ThèsededoctoratineditedLibertyUnivesity.Récupérédehttp://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/121/
Moss,G.,&Jewitt,C.(2010).Policy,pedagogyandinteractivewhiteboards:WhatlessonscanbelearntfromearlyadoptioninEngland?InM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.20-36).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Mott,M.S.,Sumrall,W.J.,Rutherford,A.S.,Sumrall,K.,&Vails,T.(2010).“Lecture”withinteractioninanadultsciencemethodscourse-session:Designinginteractivewhiteboardandresponsesystemexperiences.Journal of Literacy and Techno-logy, 11(4).Récupérédehttp://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume_11_4/JLT_v11_4_mott.pdf
Murcia,K.(2012).Integratingdigitaltechnologiesintothecontemporaryscienceclassroom.DansK.C.D.Tan&M.Kim(Dir.),Issues and challenges in science educa-tion research(p.225–243).Dordrecht:SpringerNetherlands.doi:10.1007/2F978-94-007-3980-2_15
Ochoa,M.,Walker,B.,Barrett,A.&Hines,A.(2012).Developinganewlibrarianrole:AplantoprepareteachereducationstudentsforusingSMARTTechnologies.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.4168-4171).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 41
OECD.(2010).Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA.Paris,France:OECDPublishing.
Oigara, J. N., &Wallace, N. (2012). Modeling, training, and mentoring teachercandidates to use SMART Board technology. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9,297-315.Récupérédehttp://iisit.org/Vol9/IISITv9p297-315Oigara097.pdf
Orr,M.(2008).LearnerperceptionsofinteractivewhiteboardsinEFLclassrooms.CALL-EJ , 9(2).Récupérédehttp://callej.org/journal/9-2/orr.html
Peled,Y.,Medvin,M.&Domanski,L.(2012).FiveyearsofIWBinschools:Isitworthit?FactorsrelatedtoIWBuseinfourWesternPAK-12schooldistricts.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.2047-2054).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Pilolli,P.,Ruffoni,M.,Bosetti,M.&Ronchetti,M.(2012).Breakingthevendorlock-intrapwithWiildOS,anoperatingsystemtosupportinteractivewhiteboards.DansT.Amiel&B.Wilson(Dir.),Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012(p.243-248).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Pisanu,F.&Gentile,M.(2012).Integratingtechnologiesandinstructionalcoope-rativelearningbasedstrategiesforeffectiveIWBuseinclassroom:Astudyonclassroomdatafromstudentsperceptionsandteachersbehaviors.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Inter-national Conference 2012(p.3026-3031).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Robinson,H.(2012).Earlychildhoodteachercandidatesdevelopingmultimedialessonsforusewithinteractivewhiteboards.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.4048-4049).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Russell,B.(2010).DesigningresourcesforIWBs:Theemergingrolesofeducationalpublishers and materials writers. Dans M.Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 53-68).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Ryan,J.,Scott,A.,&Walsh,M.(2010).Pedagogyinthemultimodalclassroom:Ananalysisofthechallengesandopportunitiesforteachers.Teachers and Teaching, 1�(4),477–489.doi:10.1080/13540601003754871
Sabieh, C. (2011). Adopting interactive whiteboards: An education win-win setup? Dans M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (p. 1034-1039).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Şad, S. N. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education:Validityand reliability studies. Computers & Education, 58(3), 900–907. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.017
Şad,S.N.,&Özhan,U.(2012).HoneymoonwithIWBs:Aqualitativeinsightinpri-marystudents’viewsoninstructionwithinteractivewhiteboard.Computers & Education, 59(4),1184–1191.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010
Sammons,D.,Murandu,M.&Strickland,J.(2002).UtilizingSmartBoardstoenhancetechnology integration inuniversityclassrooms.DansP.Barker&S.Rebelsky(Dir.),Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002(p.1713-1714).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
42 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Samson,G.,&Lefebvre,S.(2012).Mettrelespointssurlesietlesbarressurlest:LecasduTBI.Vivre le primaire, 25(4),32-33.
Schnackenberg,H.L.,&Heymann,M.J.(2012).Interactivewhiteboards:Worththeinvestment?Journal of Cases on Information Technology,14(1),15–25.doi:10.4018/jcit.2012010102
Schnittka,C.G.,&Bell,R.L.(2009).Preservicebiologyteachers’useofinteractivedisplay systems to support reforms-based science instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2),131–159.
Schroeder, R. (2007). Active learning with interactive whiteboards: A literaturereviewandacasestudyforcollegefreshmen.Communications in Information Literacy,1(2),64-73.
Serow,P.,&Callingham,R.(2011).Levelsofuseofinteractivewhiteboardtechnologyin the primary mathematics classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(2),161-173.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.588418
Shenton,A.,&Pagett,L.(2007).From«bored»toscreen:Theuseoftheinterac-tivewhiteboardforliteracyinsixprimaryclassroomsinEngland.Literacy, 41(3),129-136.
Singh,T.K.R.,&Mohamed,A.R.(2012).Secondarystudents’perspectivesontheuseoftheinteractivewhiteboardforteachingandlearningofScienceinMalaysia.Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3),9-14.
Skutil,M.,&Manenova,M. (2012). Interactivewhiteboard intheprimaryschoolenvironment. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, �(1),123-130.
Slay,H.,Siebörger,I.,&Hodgkinson-Williams,C.(2008).Interactivewhiteboards:Realbeautyorjust“lipstick”?Computers & Education,51(3),1321–1341.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006
Smith,F.,Hardman,F.,&Higgins,S.(2006).Theimpactofinteractivewhiteboardsonteacher-pupilinteractionintheNationalLiteracyandNumeracyStrategies.British Educational Research Journal, 32(3),443-457.doi:10.1080/01411920600635452
Soares,D.A.(2010).IWBsassupportfortechnology-relatedprojectsinEFLeducationinBrazil.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.238-249).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Somekh,B.,Haldane,M.,Jones,K.,Steadman,S.,Scrimshaw,P.,Sing,S.,Bird,K.,etal.(2007).Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project - summary report.Coventry,Royaume-Uni:BECTA.
Spears,A.Y.(2011).Investigating SMARTBoard technology for mathematics educa-tion to improve the learning of digital native students.Thèsededoctoratinedite,LindenwoodUniversity.RécupérédelabasededonnéesProQuestDissertationsandTheses.(UMINo.3450242)
Such,C.,Miller,M.,Everett,C.,Davis,G.,Howlett,P.,&Martin,E.(2012).Exploringtheimpactoftrainingontheuseofinteractivewhiteboards(IWB)andhowlecturersintegratetheiruseinhighereducationclassrooms.Networks,(15),17-21.
Sundberg,B.,Spante,M.,&Stenlund,J.(2012).Disparityinpractice:diversestrategiesamongteachersimplementinginteractivewhiteboardsintoteachingpracticeintwoSwedishprimaryschools.Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3),253-270.doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.586352
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 43
Swan,K.,Kratcoski,A.,Schenker,J.,&van-’tHooft,M.(2010).Interactivewhiteboardsandstudentachievement.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p.131-143).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Tate,L.(2002).Using the interactive whiteboard to increase student retention, atten-tion, participation, interest, and success in a required general education college course.Récupérédehttp://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library
Taylor,M.,Harlow,A.,&Forret,M.(2010).Computerprogrammingenvironmentandaninteractivewhiteboardtoinvestigatesomemathematicalthinking.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8,561-570.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.078
Thomas,M.&CutrimSchmid,E.(Dir.).(2010).Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice.Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Torff,B.,&Tirotta,R.(2010).Interactivewhiteboardsproducesmallgainsinelemen-tarystudents’self-reportedmotivationinmathematics.Computers & Education, 54(2),379-383.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
Tozcu,A.(2008).Theuseofinteractivewhiteboardsinteachingnon-romanscripts.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2),143–166.doi:10.1080/09588220801943726
Türel,Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development,validityandreliability.Computers & Education,57(4),2441–2450.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.005
Türel,Y.K.,&Johnson,T.E.(2012).Teachers’beliefanduseofinteractivewhiteboardsforteachingandlearning.Educational Technology & Society, 15(1),381–394.
Twiner,A. (2010). Interactivewhiteboardsandthediscoursesoftransformation,affordance,orchestrationandparticipation.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.37-52).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Twiner,A.,Coffin,C.,Littleton,K.,&Whitelock,D. (2010).Multimodality,orches-tration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactivewhiteboard:adiscussion.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),211-223.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491232
Villemonteix,F.,&Stolwijk,C.(2011).Processusd’adoptionduTNI:quellepartdesoi?InG.-L.Baron,E,Bruillard,&V.Komis(Dir.),Sciences et technologies de l’in-formation et de la communication (STIC) en milieu éducatif: Analyse de pratiques et enjeux didactiques. Actes du 4e colloque international DIDAPRO (p.251-260).Athènes,Grèce:NewTechnologies.
Wall,K.,Higgins,S.,&Smith,H.(2005).«Thevisualhelpsmeunderstandthecompli-catedthings»:Pupilviewsofteachingandlearningwithinteractivewhiteboards.British Journal of Educational Technology, 3�(5), 851-867. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x
Warnock,S.H.,Boykin,N.J.,&Tung,W.C.(2011).AssessmentoftheimpactofSmartBoardTechnologySystemuseonstudentlearning,satisfaction,andperformance.Journal of Research in Education, 21(1).Récupérédehttp://www.eeraonline.org/journal/files/v21/JRE_v21n1_Article_1_Warnock.pdf
44 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Warwick,P.,Hennessy,S.,&Mercer,N.(2011).Promotingteacherandschoolde-velopment through co-enquiry: Developing interactive whiteboard use in a«dialogicclassroom».Teachers and Teaching, 17(3),303-324.doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.554704
Wilson,G.,&Randall,M.(2010).Implementingandevaluatinga“NextGenerationLearning Space”: A pilot study. Dans C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S.Housego(Dir.),Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future: proceedings of ascilite 2010 (p. 1096-1100). Brisbane, Australie: University ofQueensland.Récupérédehttp://epubs.scu.edu.au/tlc_pubs/185
Wood,R.,&Ashfield,J.(2008).Theuseoftheinteractivewhiteboardforcreativeteachingandlearninginliteracyandmathematics:acasestudy.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1),84-96.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00703.x
Xu,H.L.,&Moloney,R. (2011).“Itmakesthewholelearningexperiencebetter”:Studentfeedbackontheuseoftheinteractivewhiteboardinlearningchineseattertiarylevel.Asian Social Science,7(11),20–34.doi:10.5539/ass.v7n11p20
Xu,H.L.,&Moloney,R.(2011).PerceptionsofinteractivewhiteboardpedagogyintheteachingofChineselanguage.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2),307-325.
Yang,K.-T.,&Wang,T.-H.(2012).InteractivewhiteBoard:Effectiveinteractivetea-chingstrategydesignsforbiologyteaching.DansA.Silva,E.Pontes,A.Guelfi&S.T.Kofuji(Dir.),E-Learning - Engineering, on-job training and interactive teaching(p.139-156).Récupérédehttp://www.intechopen.com/
Yeh, H.T., Cheng,Y.C. & Chung, M. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions onlearningandusinginteractivewhiteboards.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.1298-1300).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Zatz,P.,Bell,R.&Binns,I.(2008).Preservicephysicalscienceteachers’useofinte-ractivedisplaysystemsinthesingle-computerclassroom.DansK.McFerrinetal. (Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008(p.4826-4833).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
Zevenbergen,R.,&Lerman,S.(2007).Pedagogyandinteractivewhiteboards:Usinganactivitytheoryapproachtounderstandtensionsinpractice.DansJ.Watson&K.Beswick(Dir.),Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematical Research Group of Australasia(Vol.2,p.853-862).Adelaide:MERGA.Récupérédehttp://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP812007.pdf
Zevenbergen,R.,&Lerman,S.(2008).Learningenvironmentsusinginteractivewhi-teboards:Newlearningspacesorreproductionofoldtechnologies?Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1),108-126.
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 45
46 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 47
48 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 49
50 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):
Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 51