SMART Boards, Interwrite Boards, Leader Boards, StarBoards, Activboard, Walk-and-Talk boards are pieces of hardware that are a part of the ever growing scope of IWB technology. In essence these “Chalkboards of the Future” are quickly becoming standard pieces of classrooms of the 21st century.
Are the capabilities of IWBs and subsequently the rush to integrate them into classrooms justified (Branzburg, 2008)? According to SMART Technologies website (2008), the first IWB was developed over a period of 4 years (circa 1991) by the company’s co-founders, David Martin and Nancy Knowlton.
School districts have begun to stock their classrooms with IWBs in order to improve the learning and teaching taking place. Neal Starkman (2006) states the Lambton Kent School District is an example of a school district rushing to integrate IWBs, where 40 of 53 schools in the district have installed such devices in the southern Ontario region. In many cases, it is noted that teachers are seeing students more engaged than ever and want more, as well as the IWB being seen as a very liberating tool in a child’s developmental learning that allows students to construct new ways of learning in classrooms (Beauchamp, 2004; Starkman, 2006).
Proponents of IWBs lean on the tenets of the effectiveness of promoting interactive teaching and learning. Online portal Excellence Gateway (2008) states that interactive teaching involves the use of strategies that stimulate feedback from students, as students learn more effectively when they are active agents in their own learning, when they make their thinking explicit by words or actions, and when they take ownership of ideas and information; moreover, many learners will benefit from seeing other students demonstrate and explain their thinking and model how they arrive at their solutions. Additionally, the use of the boards will encourage interactive teaching as in many cases the boards were as a teaching tool useful for promoting interactive whole class teaching" (Kennewell, Tanner, Jones, & Beauchamp, 2007; Shenton, Pagett, 2007; Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005). The methodology used to promote the interactive/whole class teaching ideology is still predicated on the fact that teachers are the agents of change or mediators of the technology while presenting valuable and appropriate learning interactions (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran & Mills, 2005).
Dr. Mary Ann Bell (2002) conducted her doctoral research on IWBs in an 8th grade writing class. Bell (2002) concluded that her study showed statistically significant improvement in student attitudes towards both using computers in instruction and towards writing instruction. Furthermore, Bell(2002) also noted that teachers who were queried about their opinions regarding board use, showed the completed survey answers resulted in a high degree of satisfaction from educational leaders ranging from early elementary to higher academic settings.
IWBs further the search for a “perfect classroom” with interactivity by integrating digital information into teaching, presenting, and brainstorming (Averill, 2006). Easy-to-use collaboration products note marked improvements in learning, productivity, and overall pace of delivery by enhancing the communication medium (Averill, 2006; Wood & Ashfield, 2007). IWBs also create an active and engaged audience with increased student participation and better time on task returns, which translates into saving the teacher much needed time and effort to accomplish classroom and directed curriculum goals (Averill, 2006; Bush, Priest, and Coe, Evershed, 2004).
Multidimensional capabilities specifically directed to a multimodal/multimedia teaching experience is one more oft mentioned positives of IWBs. The increased variability of IWBs allows for an expanded multimodal/multimedia based approach to lesson planning and presentation, which in turn reaches a variety of learning styles (Gillen, Littleton, Twiner, Staarman, & Mercer, 2007; Hall, Higgins, 2007; Liu, Wang, Liang, Chan, Ko, & Yang, 2003; Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005; Slay, Sieborger, & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008).
Tom Decraene (2003), director of Technology for Cranbrook Schools in Michigan, furthers these sentiments by saying the technology of IWBs have increased the knowledge and decision making by teachers about its uses in schools. These experiences noted in the Cranbrook study have revealed that teachers will continue to find innovative applications for the peripherals, not because of pressure from administration, but due to ease of use and their interest in continuing to add value to their classroom learning experiences (Decraene, 2003).
The role IWBs play in the instruction and education of physically disabled students also lends to the positive influence of the presence of the IWB in the classroom. Dr. Mary Bell (2002) refers to the use of IWBs and the significance they have involving students with limited motor skills and they ease of use they experience in comparison to more precise “mouse clicking” operations performed with standard computer terminals. Phil MacKall (2004) reports as well that IWBs and their “center of the classroom approach/position” allow instructors of the deaf and hearing impaired to remain the front and center when communicating with students and using these boards for web based activities.
Interactive, inclusive, improved and motivated learning for our students has become the norm in classrooms with IWBs present. There are unfortunately documented instances where major investments have been made and in some cases IWBs are rarely used to their full potential; however, hopefully through in depth studying of the benefits of IWBs along with much needed professional development, this will soon become less the norm (Barber, 2008). Ultimately, most studies show interactive whiteboards (IWB) improve the learning that takes place in our classrooms and thus better prepares our students for the highly competitive and technology driven world we live in.
References
Averill, D (2006/09/21). Making the leap to interactive whiteboards. T.H.E. Journal, Retrieved July, 8, 2008, from http://www.thejournal.com/the/newsletters/smartclassroom/archives/?aid=19277
Armstrong, V, Barnes, S, Sutherland, R, Curran, S, & Mills, S (2005). Collaborative Research Methodology for Investigating Teaching and Learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology.. Educational Review, 57, Retrieved July, 11, 2008,from http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ufqQaxWspGEJ:www.interactiveeducation.ac.uk/Publications/Armstrong%2520%26%2520Barnes%2520-%2520proof.pdf+Collaborative+Research+Methodology+for+Investigating+Teaching+and+Learning:+the+use+of+interactive+whiteboard+technology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Barber, D (2008 May). Learning and teaching with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/hww/results/results_common.jhtml;hwwilsonid=VDLSX1R4QRUKNQA3DILSFF4ADUNGIIV0
Beauchamp, G (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy in Education, 13, Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/smpp/content~content=a751266932?words=beauchamp&hash=950828977
Bell, Dr. M.A. (2002/January). Why use an interactive whiteboard? The Teachers.net Gazette, 3, Retrieved July, 8, 2008, from http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/mabell.html
Branzburg, J (2008). The whiteboard revolution. Technology & Learning, 28, Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.21
Bush, N., Priest, J. and Coe, R., et al. (2004) An exploration of the use of ICT at the Millennium Primary School Greenwich . BECTA , Retrieved July 10, 2008 http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/greenwich_mps_report.pdf
Decraene, T (2003/02). Cranbrook schools: the case for interactive white boards in the classroom.. Leading English Education and Resouce Network, Retrieved July, 9, 2008, from http://www.scholarsearchassoc.com/articles-schools/MICRA/MICRA_030205.htm
Gillen, J, Littleton, K, Twiner, A, Staarman , J.K. , & Mercer, N (2007). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, Retrieved July 10, 2008,from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/120173937/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.
Hall, I, & Higgins, S (2007). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/118652049/HTMLSTART.
Kennewell, S, Tanner, H, Jones , S, & Beauchamp, G (2007). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, RetrievedJuly 10, 2008, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/119400800/HTMLSTART.
Liu, T.C., Wang, H.Y., Liang, J.K., Chan, T.W., & Ko, H.W. (2003). Wireless and mobile technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, Retrieved July 11, 2008,from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/118838483/HTMLSTART.
Mackall, P (2004/May). Interactive whiteboards enhance the learning experience for deaf, hard-of-hearing students. T.H.E. Journal, Retrieved July, 8, 2008, from http://www.thejournal.com/articles/16784_2
Shenton, A, & Pagett, L (2007). From 'bored' to screen: the use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41, Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/117971323/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.
Slay, H, Sieborger, I, & Hodgkinson-Williams, C Interactive whiteboards: real beauty or "just lipstick"?. Computers & Education, 51, Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www.sciencedirect.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCJ-4S02D4T-1&_user=1069227&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051267&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1069227&md5=c827e6d61cff6d1d021a506ab151e986.
Smith, H, Higgins, S, Wall, K, & Miller, J (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, RetrievedJuly 10, 2008, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/118652048/HTMLSTART.
Starkman, N (2006/May). The wonders of interactive whiteboards. T.H.E. Journal, Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www.thejournal.com/articles/18500
Wall , K, Higgins, S, & Smith, H The visual helps me understand the complicated things': pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/118683426/HTMLSTART.
Wood, R, & Ashfield, J (2007). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/cgi-bin/fulltext/119388563/HTMLSTART.
(2008 ). QIA Excellence Gateway. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from Working with Electronic Whiteboards Web site: http://excellence.qia.org.uk/page.aspx?o=ferl.aclearn.page.id864
(2008). Company info: company history. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from SMART Technologies Web site: http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-US/About+Us/Company+Info/History.htm
