Research Summary 3: Interactive Whiteboards

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are an innovative solution to interactive lesson delivery. Encompassing a projector, touch-sensitive board and lesson creation software, the technology allows teachers to present concepts and ideas in a multitude of ways, from basic text and diagrams right through to videos, sound, animations, and online websites. These capabilities open up a myriad of options for creative teachers to enliven their delivery and engage their students with a novel and exciting technology.

As with any new technology, in the early stages of interactive whiteboard implementation there has been at once an explosion of interest and, simultaneously, a shortage of quantitative research. Qualitative studies abound on the uses of IWBs in the classroom, citing their ability to motivate and engage students (Haldane, 2007, p. 264) and their facility to encourage interactive learning episodes via the incorporation of multimedia resources (Higgins et al, 2007, p. 215). As yet there are fewer quantitative resources available on IWBs in the classroom, but the longer that IWBs are established in schools the more such studies will become available.

One such study was commissioned by interactive whiteboard provider Promethean Technologies in 2009. On behalf of Promethean, Robert Marzano conducted a study of the relationship between utilisation of the Promethean ActivClassroom package (including the IWB, software and learner response devices), and student achievement levels in over seventy US schools and across all grade levels. According to Promethean, student achievement was increased by an average of 17% in lessons delivered using the ActivClassroom (Marzano, 2009, p. v). This result was influenced by factors including the teacher's years of experience in teaching; the teacher's level of confidence with the technology and the length of time the teacher has been using the technology for; and the proportion of the lesson during which the IWB is utilised. (Marzano, 2009, p. v)

The extent to which the use of the ActivClassroom equipment improved student attainment differed across the year levels. Disappointingly, a minority of the subject groups actually recorded a decrease in results. Possible reasons for this negative growth were not articulated in the Marzano report, but may have included extenuating factors such as the loss or addition of individual students in the subject groups, teacher or student absences, environmental interruptions and so on. On the assumption that negative achievement is impossible - that is, that students cannot possibly exit a classroom having lost some of their subject knowledge - the negative achievement groups were excluded from the study's final results. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the average results in student attainments, however outside of this small number of negative achievement groups, the effect of the Promethean technologies in the study was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes studied, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Improvement in student achievement levels was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12) (Marzano, 2009, pp. 22-23). This is an overwhelmingly positive result, and supports the anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of IWBs.

The otherwise largely anecdotal evidence from teachers and students who use IWBs has been enthusiastic. Many teachers report the effectiveness of Iutilising WBs in their classroom for engaging and motivating students and facilitating more interactive lessons, as well as enabling the utilisation of a range of sources and stimuli that were previously either impossible or difficult to integrate into lessons, such as internet resources and audiovisual content. Students in some classes are reported to be highly engaged, displaying animated reactions to activities taking place on the IWB, "faces set with concentration and anticipation, delight when an observing pupil had got it right... excited and animated gestures to offer an alternative suggestion if the pupil at the board was having difficulty" (Haldane, 2007, pp. 264-265). While these behaviours may indicate enthusiasm and entertainment more so than students' measurable achievement levels, if engagement is the first step in effective teaching, then the IWBs certainly appear to be helping teachers get there.

While quantitative reportage on IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is ongoing, early signs indicate their effectiveness in fostering a more interactive and positive learning environment. Whether this interactivity is primarily between the teacher and the board, students and the board, or between all three parties, is less well documented. It has been noted that the high level of interactivity possible could encourage a teacher-centred focus within some classrooms, in which the teacher to some extent resumes their "sage on the stage" role. Similarly, a relatively low utilisation of the IWBs' interactivity does not necessarily correlate to a low level of student-to-teacher, or student-to-student interactivity.

For all the studies, articles and reviews, it is important to note that the interactive whiteboard, however novel and useful, is just a tool. Without sound pedagogical and content knowledge on the part of the teacher, the IWB may in some instances even be detrimental to class achievement (for example, where class discussion veers off-topic or where the board's capabilities become the focus of the lesson rather than the conduit of stimuli and information). To ensure that IWBs are properly utilised to their highest capacity, the pedagogical approach of the teacher, and the effectiveness of their teaching, should remain the central focus on studies on their use of interactive whiteboards.

Sources:
Durham County Council, (2002) "The Changing Role of the Teacher in using the IWB", Eaton, V., Sunnybrow Public School, http://www.durhamlea.org.uk/resources/index.html?_Action=viewrecord&_Id=1112

Edna, (2009), www.edna.edu.au

Haldane, M., "Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 257-270

Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., and Miller, D., "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225

Jewitt, C., Moss, G., and Cardini, A., "Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers' design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 303-317

Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203

Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com