Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice:

the research literature reviewed.

Ton Koenraad
Hogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences
Faculty of Education

Ton.Koenraad @ hu.nl
 Contents

1. Introduction …………………………………………………..….…...2

1.1 Method….……………………………………………………3
1.2 Contents.…….………………………………………………4

2. The added value of Interactive Whiteboards ..…………………..5

2.1 IWB versus computer-projector setup……………….. .5

2.2 Pros and Cons of Interactive Whiteboards .…………..6

3. Further analysis of some specific aspects ….………………….10

3.1 Engagement and motivation…..………..………………10

3.2 Interaction………………………….…………..…………..11
3.3 Learning results ..………………….……………..……....12
3.4 Learning styles, special education ………………..…..13
3.5 IWB Materials………………………………………………14
3.6 Training and professional development….……..........15

4. Conclusions………………….………………………………………..18

5. Literature……………………………………………………………….21

Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works Non-Commercial License is applicable to this work. Go to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/2.0/nl/ to view the license.
When referring to this publication please quote as:
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 2
1. Introduction
This study is one of the results of the working
group initiated by the Faculty of Education of
the Hogeschool Utrecht on the occasion of
moving to a new building with technologically
state-of-the-art equipment, including teaching
spaces equipped with interactive whiteboards
(IWBs). It aims to map implications for staff
and curriculum and provide a specialized
collection of literature references.
We present an overview of prominent research
on this subject as available at the time of
writing (January 2008). We summarize the
main conclusions from the most relevant
studies.
Our main objective is to provide a resource for
colleagues, affiliated school based teachers
and also for teacher educators and trainers of
partner organisations to support the
development of their personal and our
common knowledge base on this subject.
In addition an extensive bibliography was
developed as input for a domain & discipline-
specific collection of resources to be used for
the professional development of individual
teacher educators and to support a variety of
initial and in-service courses.
Furthermore it is hoped that access to
research and debate about what 'good
practice' with reference to IWB-use implies
also contributes to the development of
educators’ personal skills and the quality of
initial training in this respect. Because - though
an IWB might not immediately remind one of
computers – we are obviously dealing with the
use of ICT in education. And, as is the case
with all uses of ICT in training and professional
activities, the impact the model behaviour
teacher trainers (should) display may have,
can be enhanced if trainers can make links to
(subject-specific) pedagogy and manage to
organise reflection on the educational use of
this specific ICT product.
Finally, in providing this overview of the
published literature on this subject in the
period 2000-2007 we seek to offer support in
finding more detailed information on specific
aspects of the use of IWBs (here also referred
to as ‘digiboards’) and to inspire further
literature and action research on subject-
specific applications.
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
1.1 Method
The amount of publications on the educational
use of digiboards is steadily increasing.
The 'wow' factor is typical for most of the
publications that has accompanied the
introduction of this technological innovation of
the classroom in its early stages. A substantial
part does not offer more than descriptions of
the functionality of the boards and the software
supplied with them in relation to their
educational potential. Among them also quite a
few personal anecdotes, a lot of opinions and
sketches of personal practice. Whatever
research is available is usually small scale and
mostly based on practices in primary education
(Smith et al., 2005).
Until recently, scientific research was quite rare
(Collie, 2002:7; Cutrim Schmid, 2007:123;
Glover et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2005).
And also mostly in English as educational
institutions in countries such as the UK,
Canada, America and Australia were first to
adopt this technology.
With the availability of several recent large-
scale studies such as Higgins et al. (2007),
Moss et al. (2007), Miller & Glover (2006),
Schuck & Kearney (2007) and Somekh et al.
(2007) this situation has recently improved.
Among others these papers report evaluation
research of the English Department for
Education and Skills (DfES) policies on literacy
and numeracy in primary education.
This National Literacy Strategy (NLS) and
Numeracy strategy (DfEE, 1998, 1999) aimed
to stimulate the quality of whole-class teaching.
It was expected that whole-class, interactive
teaching, defined as … “when pupils'
contributions are encouraged, expected and
extended” (DfEE, 1998a: 8), would contribute
to this considerably. In this context, substantial
1
grants have been made available to schools
for the purchase of digital presentation
equipment.
The central research question in the evaluation
research studies is whether the underlying
assumption that the technical interactivity of
the board will also lead to more interactive
teaching, or possibly transformation of
education, can be validated.
1
In the period 2003 – 2005 the UK government provided
25 million Pounds worth of grant money for the purchase
of IWBs.
3

In addition to the publications mentioned we
have also included so-called meta-analyses by
other authors and agencies such as some
studies commissioned by the British
Educational Communications and Technology
Agency (BECTA), e.g. 'What the Research
Says About Interactive Whiteboards (BECTA -
ICT Research, 2003).
Furthermore, a white paper entitled "Interactive
Whiteboards and Learning: A Review of
Classroom Case Studies and Research
Literature (SMART Technologies Inc., Apr
2004), a Smart-funded research.
And relevant parts from "The ICT Impact
Report: A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on
Schools in Europe ' (Balanskat et al., 2006), a
study commissioned by the EU.
modern foreign languages?" (BECTA, 2005)
and some articles frequently referred to in the
above meta-analyses.
Finally, to locate good practice, we have also
screened more practice-oriented publications,
lesson reports and repositories of materials,
such as "Getting the Most from Your
Interactive Whiteboard: A Guide for Secondary
Schools (Becta, 2004) and the document
'Information Guide Digital School Boards'
(Kennisnet / ICT in schools, Zadelhoff, 2007).
This literature review is therefore largely based
on international publications with a strong
focus on the situation in the United Kingdom.
To add more detail and nuance to a number of
our global and cryptically worded findings we
have amply quoted from the original,
predominantly English, papers.

For more detailed scrutiny of some specific

aspects, we also included review studies such
as "How can the use of an interactive
whiteboard enhance the nature of teaching
and learning in secondary mathematics and

1.2 Contents

In the present report, we respectively discuss the technical potential of IWBs, the impact of their use in
education, and the results of empirical research on the effects on learning and student attainment. We
first address questions one could ask when mapping the added value of digital presentation facilities.
Then we summarize the results of research on specific issues and implications for teaching and
learning processes. Whenever possible we refer to the main sources on which we base our
conclusions with respect to various issues. For more detail (including domain and subject-specific
research) a selection of literature references from other studies is available at:
http://www.callinpractice.net/IWB/Research

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 4
2. The added value of Interactive
Whiteboards
2.1 IWB versus a computer-projector setup

The discussion on the added value of IWBs

… Furthermore, IWBs seem to reinforce
among (Dutch) educationalists is dominated by
2 traditional pedagogies. They do not in
two issues: one is about the principled
themselves afford learner autonomy in the
question whether the board in fact mainly if not
way that laptop, or even desktop, PCs do.
only supports teaching functions (explain,
The long-awaited ‘transforming pedagogy’
demonstrate, present, instruct) and with that
for ICT (Somekh & Davies, 1991) clearly
stimulates whole-class, teacher-centered
requires more than regular use of ICT by
teaching (again?).
teachers; it requires a change in
The other issue is whether a computer-
pedagogical knowledge and beliefs.
projector setup might not serve equally well as
(Kennewell, 2004: 17)
it provides affordances similar to those of IWBs
at less cost.
And the images and texts that reach us
The first question is motivated by the concern through the (often American-style) marketing
that digiboards help to set the pedagogical of suppliers seem to reinforce this "traditional"
clock back. As, indeed, at first sight the 'sage- teaching model: they are evidently targeted at
on-the-stage' model seems difficult to reconcile (the basic instincts of?) teachers but do not –in
with emerging views on challenging and my opinion- trigger associations with the
effective education: independent learning, current educational climate (in the
(co-)construction of knowledge (products), Netherlands, at least).
activating methodologies. In that context, in a
number of countries at least, there is a trend to
use ICT to support diversity, personalized
learning and (tele) collaboration: made-to- Image below from : I.E Interactive Educator. Vol 3. No. 3,
measure tutorials and exercises, networks and Summer 2007. A publication of Smart Technologies
–in affluent parts of the world- (almost) all
students (?) their own laptop / pda and smart
phone.

2
Awareness of multiple perspectives that can play a role
in this type of discussion is important. Next to a
deterministic approach (a specific technology is
responsible for results or consequences, whether good or
bad) versus an instrumental perspective (it is not the
technology per se that causes problems or provides
solutions but the way people apply it) ICT in Education can
also be viewed through the lens of the ‘critical theory of
technology’ (Feenberg, 1991).
This theory considers the way technology is used in
practice as the result of a complex process in which social,
historical aspects and context, power relationships and
beliefs of students and teachers play a role. For more
information about these concepts and the implications for
the research methods see Cutrim Schmid (2006: 49-52)

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 5
On the other hand - if you focus on the learning environment (VLE), for
medium as a tool designed to support whole- example, for absent pupils.
class activities - the question arises: 'What
exactly is the added value that IWBs should • You will actually not be physically near
provide compared to using 'normal' facilites the board as you need to behind your
such as a projector connected to a computer?’ computer. This comes at the expense
And, indeed, if digiboards are merely used as of interactivity between teacher and
presentation tools there seems to be hardly students or between students
any added value. This can only be created themselves.
when using specific features / properties of the
digiboard. With regard to the added value of
• Switching between the flipcharts to be
the digiboard versus 'traditional' projection
presented can be done quickly, in
issue, we found observations such as the
contrast to, for example, the linear
following:
constraints of PowerPoint
presentations.
• Digital text is not possible on a
traditional whiteboard. Using your
• You'll need to collect useful files
finger or the mouse to make text is not
yourself to develop a collection of
possible, you'll have to type which
educational material. This will be a
goes at the expense of spontaneity
more challenging task as the various
and flexibility (Kennewell, 2001)
useful tools that are standard in the
because it takes more time.
digiboard software will not be available
• You cannot save materials, elaborated
to assist you (Zadelhoff, 2007).
during the teaching process, for future
use (Longman & Hughes, 2006), thus
foregoing opportunities to deconstruct
them for process analysis (Kennewell
& Morgan, 2003) or make them
available for reference in a virtual

Despite these points Moss et al. (2007) in their final evaluation of an IWB project around London
(Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project, 2004-2007) conclude: …This research is unable to
resolve whether IWBs have more potential in the classroom than the use of data projectors and
networked peripherals (Moss et al., 2007: 8).

2.2 Pros and Cons of IWBs

In the present study, researching added value and experiences with IWBs, we also include the use of
software tools that come with digiboard brands such as Notebook (Smart Board) or e.g. ActivStudio
(ActivBoard). The diagram below provides an overview of how IWB functionalities can be used to
support the provision and processing of information.

Ways to deal with IWB features

information
Capture Taking a ‘photograph’ of (parts of) the page being displayed. Cut and paste from
Information other software such as MS Word, re-use of parts of Web pages etc.
Emphasize Ticker Tape function (word moves continuously across the screen). Marking text
parts with colour, or proviging focus with a ‘spot light’.
Save Save as presentation page for use later during lesson or future use. Save as file or
link.
Annotate or Edit Add text, arrows or lines to text or image displayed. Emphasize text with marker.
Create gapped texts. Drag objects to an appropriate location or to sequence text
fragments.
Links Links between flipcharts. Create links to websites, stored files (Excel, PPT etc) or
software applications e.g. for mind mapping.

(Adapted from Beauchamp & Parkinson (2005)

Most conclusions from literature reviews such as the BECTA report (2003) and the study "Interactive
whiteboards and Learning: A Review of Classroom Case Studies and Research Literature (SMART
Technologies Inc., 2004) are confirmed by other and also more recent studies. Below we summarize
the reported benefits of IWBs:

2002). Conceptualisation is helped by

• allows flexible use of curriculum-wide
applications for all ages (Smith A, 1999;
Latham, 2002)
• provides more teaching time because
teachers can use web-based and other
resources more efficiently (Walker, 2003)
• more opportunities for interaction (Cox et
al., 2003), cooperation (Painter, Whiting &
Wolters, 2004) and discussion in the
classroom (Levy, 2002), especially in
comparison with other ICT-use (Gerard et
al., 1999).
• provides focus (cinema effect) (Smith et
al., 2005), contributes to concentration
(Beeland, 2002; Stuart, 2004; Solvie,
2004; Kennewell, 2004) and motivation
(Levy, 2002; Longman & Hughes, 2006
:16)
• more varied and dynamic use of resources
such as software and internet (Somekh et
al., 2005; Higgins et al., 2005; Somekh,
Haldane et al., 2007)
• the increase in lesson pace resulting from
IWB use contributes to the speed at which
lesson content is covered which in its turn
provides more opportunities for elaboration
(Walker, 2002), repetition of content and
test preparation (Cuthell, 2006)
concurrent verbalisation of thoughts
(Glover et al., 2007: 17)
• multi-modal and kinaesthetic possiblities
(Miller & Glover, 2006) deepen learning
and promote metacognition (Wall et al.,
2005) particularly when materials used are
specifically designed for particular lesson
phases (introduction, interim
comprehension checks, debriefing and
reflection) (Glover et al., 2007: 14)
• enables learners to be more creative when
making presentations for fellow students
and thus promotes their self-confidence3
(Levy, 2002; Cox et al., 2003)
• storage and printing of IWB-materials
takes away the necessity to copy content
and facilitates reuse and repetition
(Walker, 2002; Fisser & Gervedink
Nijhuis, 2007: 26)

Inspired by Beauchamp and Parkinson (2005:

97) we summarize further benefits from
various perspectives, starting with the learner’s
perspective:
Some of these research results led Longman and
• because there are more opportunities to Hughes (2006) to point out the importance of more
participate and cooperate (Balanskat et al., research into the views of the students as ‘end-
2006: 6) lessons are experienced to be users’ on the impact of ICT in the classroom.
more attractive (Balanskat et al., 2006: 39)

• clear, efficient and dynamic presentations

promote engagement and motivation
(Cuthell, 2006; Wall, Higgins & Smith,
2005; Schuck & Kearney, 2007: 25; Fisser
& Gervedink Nijhuis, 2007: 26; )
• learners manage to understand more
complex concepts by physically handling
related objects and representations (Bell,
2002; Higgins & Smith, 2005; Somekh,
Haldane et al., 2007; Edwards et al.,
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
3
The implicit appreciation of learner comments
communicated by teachers by paying attention to and
reconstructing them in the form of annotations to
(replays of) flipcharts contributes to involvement,
motivation and self-confidence (Glover et al., 2007:
13).
7
…When asked for their opinions about the IWB pupils are unanimous in regarding it as fun and
"…much better than a flipchart …" or an "… old type of blackboard …". Correcting errors,
moving things about, selecting, changing, and undoing are all regarded as great features. (…)
When asked to compare the IWB with a flipchart a pupil responded with confidence: “You can’t
type on it, you can’t drag pictures onto it and you can't play games on it very well, you haven’t
got the internet and it isn't very good in the dark either”. (Longman & Hughes, 2006:14-15)

(… ) Our data let us see a little more of the pupils' perspective than of the teachers'. This we
found exciting and realised that it is important to gather more data about how pupils see this
type of technology affecting their classroom life. In our data the pupils demonstrate an easy
and ready use of key ideas about ICT – dragging, undoing, finding and displaying, etc., and
how easily they list them when asked to give examples of how the IWB helps them to learn. A
particularly interesting detail that emerged from this data is the value that pupils place on the
repeatability of demonstrations and illustrations used by the teacher
(Longman & Hughes, 2006:17)

In our sources we found the following points about IWB use as benefits specifically for teachers:

• support for and ease of integration of less hassle with different devices
ICT in classroom teaching (Smith H, (Glover et al., 2007: 13)
2001; Balanskat et al., 2006) • Allows replay of events and reviews of
• offers flexibility and saves time processes e.g. in animated
because a wide range of web-based demonstrations of models and
resources can be applied, adapted and phenomena (Berque, 2004; Miller &
customised content can be reused Glover, 2006)
(Kennewell, 2001; Kent, 2006: 3) • inspires teachers to change their
• makes teaching more stimulating for teaching methods and facilitates the
the teacher (Barry & Smith, 2005) adoption of other ICT applications
partly because the availability of (Balanskat et al., 2006: 45)
source materials facilitates addressing • IWB use contributes to teachers’
diversity4 (Glover et al., 2007: 13) and professional development (Smith A,
more rewarding (Lee & Boyle, 2003; 1999; Cuthell, 2006; Smith et al.,
Richardson, 2002) because learners 2005).
show more task-oriented behaviour
• Moss et al. (2006) and Adrian (2004)
also reported better behaviour
• Storage and printing capabilities
support reuse of lesson series
(Walker, 2002)
• Contribution to the (eventual) reduction
of workload because materials can be
easily shared (Glover & Miller, 2001;
Balanskat et al., 2006: 37; Kennewell,
2004)
• Encourages and helps to prepare
lessons (structuring information,
planning comprehension checks)
(Latham, 2002; Solvie, 2004; Smith et Broadly speaking, these results are also
al., 2005) reported in the MirandaNet Promethean
• Simplifies the deployment of resources research (Cuthell, 2006). This study consists of
and media in the teaching process: a compilation of action research reports by
practitioners in a number of countries (China,
4 Mexico and Africa)
With reference to the use of ICT to address diversity
issues 2/3 of the respondents in a recent BECTA study
(2007) considered IWBs to be an essential tool.
Disadvantages reported include the cost factor
and matters of a more technical nature like the
heat and short life of data projector lamps and
the limited accessibility of certain types of
digiboards. Further negative points are listed
below:
• A higher lesson pace, above reported
as a benefit, may well also be a
disadvantage, especially for weaker
students (Kennewell, 2004) and
students with (physical) disabilities
(Somekh & Haldane, 2006).

• There are physical/financial limitations:

often, not all classrooms in a school
are equipped with a digiboard (Stuart,
WCCE Conference, 2005)
• The centrality of the teacher is often
reinforced (Stuart, 2005; Vandewyer,
2007)
• The novelty wears off after a while,
(observation in secondary education
by Moss et al. (2006)) (Levy, 2002;
Ball, 2003; Gray et al., 2005: 43;
Vandewyer, 2007).
• Avoidance due to lack of confidence
(Duivenvoorden, 2006) and irritations
due to technical failure or lack of IWB
skills with teachers and/or learners
(Hall & Higgins, 2005)

Moss et al. (2007) observed in a number of case studies that multimedia and increased lesson pace
were used for discipline purposes rather than to support the learning process.

Like multimodality and technical interactivity a fast paced pedagogy is not

necessarily good in and of itself. There can be as significant pedagogic value in
slow board work, or real time board work, when it is used to realise a specific
pedagogic aim. Indeed, it could be argued that real time text creation is easier to
follow for a student than a pre-prepared text with no clear reading path (Moss et al., 2007).
an authentic way, discuss problem solving
It appears that when teachers have access to strategies with the learners.
an IWB, the amount of time spent on whole-
class activities increases at the expense of
time for group work (Wood, 2001; Smith et al.,
2006; Stuart, 2005; Higgins, 2005). But
Somekh et al. (2007) note that as long as
digiboard use is educationally adequate less
group work does not need to have negative
effects.

At a more abstract level Kennewell (2006)

summarizes the educational potential of IWBs
in three roles: advisor, organisor and facilitator.
The first function is associated with provision
of information in the form of prepared
'outcomes' of a debate, spontaneous or
planned Internet search activities and working
with simulations. As organizer, the digiboard
offers the opportunity to work with
unpredictable results of specific activities, e.g.
games. This gives the teacher the opportunity
to participate and, as an equal partner and in
Finally, the facilitative role offers a less rigid
structure to provide focus or do activities which
involve making choices (e.g. decide on the
wording of annotations, do matching tasks)
where the teacher can coach the discussion
about options or learners can help each other
in making choices.

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 9
3. Further analysis of some specific
aspects
Below we elaborate on some specific aspects
and summarize the main findings from various
sources with respect to these themes.
3.1. Engagement and motivation
A number of reports including Zadelhoff (2007)
and Balanskat et al. (2004) shows that
teachers find IWB-use motivating because it
can provide easy access to digital materials to
enrich their lessons.
In addition, the conditions for engagement can
be further optimized by using digiboard tools to
provide even more focus by capturing specific
moments of the process for replay or zooming
in on particular phenomena.
In this respect it should be noted that some
authors emphasize the importance of
sustainable educational effects by putting the
technical features at the service of activating
methods and teaching styles.

They notice that learners are more engaged

because the board is large and the contents
clearly visible.

The multi-media and interactive possibilities

help pupils to recognize relationships (Smith et
al., 2005: 67) for example, because related
content is presented in the same colour. In
fact, younger generations of students have
…Clearly the IWB is a lot more exciting
come to expect presentation of information to
than the blackboard and overhead
be visually enhanced (Zadelhoff, 2007; Levy
projector, and pupils will be curious to find
2002).
out about its functions and capabilities. As
a result, they may pay more attention than
And indeed, it is easier to understand the force in the past. However, once the teacher has
of a volcano eruption when the information is exhausted all the IWB routines, and the
accompanied by an animation or a film ‘wow’ factor has passed, these pupils may
fragment. revert to less attentive behaviour.
(Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 10
3.2 Interaction
For a hygienic discussion about the added
value of IWBs with respect to 'interactivity' a
detailed definition of this concept is in place.
Smith, Higgins, Wall, and Miller (2005: 94)
argue that the interactive potential of IWBs in
particular offers opportunities to create
educational added value, supported in this by
other researchers, among which Bell (2000),
Glover & Miller (2001) and Greiffenhagen
(2000).
Several authors including Kennewell (2007)
and Cutrim Schmid (2006a) make a distinction
between interactivity in a technical or physical
sense (board functionality such as the
production of sound when you touch a picture)
and the promotion of cognitive interactivity
(question - answer, comprehension check).
…However, despite the apparently passive
nature of pupils’ experience during much
whole-class teaching, pupils are still
carrying out activities. These activities may
be purely cognitive or perhaps
metacognitive – apprehending,
comprehending, memorising, assimilating,
reflecting - for periods of time during
whole-class teaching, but nevertheless they
are activities and their actions can still be
afforded or constrained by features of the
setting, including ICT. Furthermore, the
most effective teachers stimulate the
cognitive engagement of pupils by posing
questions and requesting contributions in
order to minimise the duration of periods
where they are behaving passively.
(Kennewell, 2007:3)
Hughes and Longman (2006) note that within
the latter category also qualitative differences
can be distinguished such as the use of closed
versus open questions.
A third type, finally, is the so-called socio-
cognitive interactivity (co-construction of
knowledge, encouragement of reflection,
brainstorming between teacher and student
and among students (Latane, 2002).
The views of the teacher about what
interaction means and how she defines her
role in this impacts heavily on the way the IWB
is actually used (Goodison, 2003: 557).
Research by Somekh et al. (2007) shows that
teachers, once they are used to the
technology, gradually change the 'traditional'
way they use the digiboard initially in such a
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in
way that it supports more socio-cognitive
interaction.
Smith et al. (2005: 68) report similar
observations:
…A number of positive themes also emerge
from the analysis of classroom interaction.
There was an increase in some kinds of
interaction, such as open questions or
aspects of questioning where the teacher
pursues pupils’ responses (‘uptake’
questions) or asks them to develop or
explain their ideas (‘probes’) which are
associated with effective teaching and
learning (e.g. Nystrand and Gamoran, 1991;
Muijs and Reynolds, 2001).
For further details of concepts in the discussion
of interactivity and research into the
educational value of IWB usage in this context
consult e.g. Muijs & Reynolds (2001),
Kennewell (2005), Tanner et al. (2005) and
Cutrim Schmid (2006a). Further increase in
interactivity can be realised through the
employment of additional devices.
For instance, at any phase of the lesson
comprehension checks can be done at an
individual level by providing learners with
response devices, so-called clickers (Moss et
al., 2007).
If well designed (for example, by also asking
learners to provide arguments for their
answers) the checks, questionnaires or polls
mediated by clickers can contribute to further
engagement and deepen the processing of
content5 (Cutrim Schmid, 2006c; Cutts, 2004).
6
A visualiser or document camera can be used
to organise a discussion on the basis of some
pupils’ written homework; with a webcam the
5
The trouble is from the lecturer’s point of view that the
nature of this learning cannot be observed. We cannot see
whether our students are understanding or internalising
the ideas being presented to them. Interactive teaching
involves the use of strategies that stimulate feedback from
students. This is not just of benefit to the lecturer. Students
learn much more effectively when they are active agents in
their own learning, when they make their thinking explicit
by words or actions, when they take ownership of ideas
and information. Also, some learners will benefit from
seeing other students demonstrate and explain their
thinking and model how they arrive at their solutions
6
With the help of a visualiser enhanced digital projections
can be made of physical objects. In this way students’
written work can be discussed or the operation of a
specific device can be demonstrated.
educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 11
handling of equipment during a laboratory test
can be shared with the whole group.
This sharing of individual student work in the
group and using the Internet to access reality
outside the classroom are referred to by
Longman and Hughes (2006) as examples of a
connectionistic approach.

…Connected teachers encourage learners

Using a slate, a tablet with a wireless
connection to the digiboard computer, students
can also contribute from their seats, e.g. by
annotating, changing or adding content to the
flipchart that is under discussion.
to: see interrelationships in knowledge;
connect new knowledge to its roots in old
or prior knowledge (rather than
constructing anew all the time as perhaps
constructivism might construe the
process); and encourage social
connectedness (among other things
through the use of networked technology)
to help achieve this. In the present data, the
use of the tablet illustrated how the
individual pupil is connected to the whole
class through the visibility of the activity on
the IWB. The thinking is shared and is more
likely to be owned by the group as a co-
connected and co-constructed
understanding. (Longman en Hughes,
2006:18)

Another advantage of tablet use is that it allows the teacher to move about freely in the classroom.
And, in moments of unrest, can operate the board from arbitrary positions in the classroom.
Greiffenhagen (2002) even believes that without these additional resources most IWB-use often
simply amounts to ... a 'chalk and talk' style of teaching.

3.3. Learning results

According to Higgins (2005) the results in language, maths and science in primary UK school students
improved after the introduction of the digiboard. This is particularly true of writing in the native
language and - in general- for underachieving students. It is, however, uncertain whether these effects
can be attributed exclusively to IWB-use.

Balanskat et al. (2006: 27) and Smith et al. (2005) also have their doubts:

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 12
….The impact of IWBs is harder to identify in terms of pupils’ learning. Initially it appears that
there was a small but statistically significant gain in the IWB project schools attainment in
mathematics and science after a few months of use by their teachers. However for the next
year group who had been in classes where IWBs were used for at least a year and a half no
similar benefit could be identified. Smith et al. (2005:68)

As possible explanations for this outcome (unexpected according to both the students and teachers
because they all felt the quality of the learning process had improved) they suggested either the
possibly negative effect of written tests or the Hawthorn effect. Unlike Moss et al. (2007:9) Somekh et
al. (2007) could report improved results, especially for maths and science, with those teachers who
had managed – after approximately two years – to integrated IWB-use in their teaching methods
repertoire.

….There is a consistent finding across all data that the length of time pupils have been taught
with an interactive whiteboard is the major factor that leads to attainment gains. This appears
to be the result of the interactive whiteboard becoming embedded in teachers’ pedagogy: that
is, when teachers have had sustained experience (around two years) of using an interactive
whiteboard, they are able to change their teaching practices to make best use of its facilities.
The qualitative data strongly support this. Somekh et al. (2007: 4)

Kent (2006), reporting about 4 years of digiboard use at his primary school in Australia, notes that
school results for national standard tests clearly improved, with noticeably positive attainment records,
particularly of special educational needs (SEN) pupils.Miller et al. (2005) and Knight, Pennant &
Piggott (2005) argue that IWBs, when their interactive potential is fully exploited, can create better
conditions for learning (mathematics) compared to 'standard'
black- or whiteboards (Smith et al., 2005:68)

3.5. Learning styles, special education

As we remarked in Section 2.2., one of the elements of

educational added value is the support digiboards can
provide for scaffolding various learning styles and addressing diversity issues (Bell, 2002; Cuthell,
2003, Burden & Sietniekas, 2004, Glover, 2007: 13).

Technical features such as the possibility to combine images, text and sound and the support for
tactile activities such as drag-and-drop contribute to the processing of information (Salinitri & Smith,
2002; Carter, 2002; Sessoms, 2007) and engagement and concentration, particularly with younger
and SEN pupils (Ofsted, 2005; Zirkle, 2003)

…The degree of engagement and participation was felt to be increased; this was particularly
important for the less able children. One way in which this was achieved was by calling pupils up to
the board to interact with the material; it was important that the younger children were able to drag
words and images as objects rather than writing or drawing. One teacher saw the ‘hands-on’
interaction was very valuable for this pupil, but also thought that all the other pupils were
cognitively engaged in the same task – indeed, they were considering whether or not the
selected pupil might complete the task successfully, how they would do it themselves, and what
mistakes the selected pupil might make. (Kennewell, 2004:12).

Because there is no keyboard needed it is easier (Goodison, 2002; Thomson et al., 2003) and
motivating (Somekh, Haldane et al., 2007) for young children and students with physical disabilities to
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 13
use computer technology. Blanton et al. (2000) and Cooper & Brna (2002) report, with some reserve,
an increase in concentration ability and positive effects in the training related to social skills and
behaviourial problems of students with learning and educational problems. Somekh et al. (2007)
confirm these conclusions.

On the other hand, they attribute only a limited improvement in learning outcomes in literacy and
numeracy to the digiboard use in whole-class sessions. In contrast to the use in small groups (n <4)
that appears to have resulted in significantly better scores for those subjects (including dyslexic
children).

As mentioned above, the use of digiboards also has educational disadvantages - particularly for
students with physical disabilities, such as a higher lesson pace. Somekh et al. (2007), for example,
point out the fact that this impedes the work of teaching assistants when supporting blind students in
the processing of the contents on the board.
Consequently - with a view to the positive impact of working in small groups - Somekh et al. (2007)
stress the importance of involving teaching assistants in IWB-related professional development
activities.

3.6 IWB materials

As we also found in our own research the
availability of textbook-independent teaching
materials, especially designed for IWB-use
(both commercial and open source) is still very
limited (Somekh et al., 2007). Most of it is
intended for use in primary education. For
secondary education, quantitatively speaking,
science is better off than the social sciences,
there is relatively little for English as a first
language, but this amount is still ample
compared to modern languages (Gray et al,
2005: 42). This conclusion is also partly
corroborated by UK teachers’ views on the
challenge of finding suitable materials.
The majority of the current collection of
freeware materials made available by
hardware suppliers such as Smart Board is
related to the Canadian and American
curriculum. Recently the number of commercial
initiatives that produce textbook-independent
materials for use on a particular digiboard
brand or board-specific software has started
growing.

Just under a third of teachers (30%)

reported that they find it difficult to find
suitable IWB resources. The same number
of teachers report that they find it
easy to find resources. English teachers
were most likely to find it difficult to access
IWB resources. It is unclear however if this
reflects a lower availability of IWB As yet teachers solve this shortage of
resources for English teaching or simply materials by using and exchanging their own
lower technological confidence amongst products (generally mostly PowerPoint
English teachers. In our sample, the Maths content). Hardware suppliers encourage this
and Science teachers are most likely to exchange by offering facilities for storage and
report that they find getting IWB resources community development. Educational software
straightforward (Moss, 2007: 24) such as Encarta or specially designed

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 14
websites are also used. According to Zadelhoff
(2007) and Louwers (2007) various
educational publishers are developing
digiboard materials to support their textbooks.
In first generation materials this usually boils
down to providing electronic versions of pages
from the currently available text- or workbook.
This situation is expected to change for the
better when updates or new publications come
available.
In the meantime many schools and
departments have started producing their own
materials.
The teachers involved face the challenge of
value creation with text types (images, graphs,
exercises (work)books) that have not been
designed specifically for use on a digiboard. In
practice, most materials (including those of the
publishers) make but very limited use of the
7
interactive capabilities of IWBs (Jewitt, 2007) .
Another impediment for the exchange of
(quality) materials is the intellectual property
issue.
So there is still much duplication of work, also
at enterprise level, because the currently
available commercial products can usually only
be used on a specific digiboard brand.
But there is also good news: there is a BECTA
initiative, launched in August 2007, to develop
a standard file format for IWBs in collaboration
with interested industries. The question,
however, is how long it will take to realize
compatability, given the huge commercial
interests at this stage of market development
(estimated size in 2008: 1 trillion (Davis, 2007).
3.7 Training and professional development
for teachers
Many authors (Smith et al., 2005; Ofsted,
2005) emphasize the importance of good
training. As Kennewell & Morgan (2003: 2)
point out:
7 unproductively rather than promoting new,
One thing that was surprising was that over 70
percent of teachers make their own materials for the
interactive whiteboard. In a way it's nothing new to
say that the materials used in a classroom shape
the pedagogy of the classroom. But what was
interesting was that the things that got displayed on
the interactive whiteboard - and this is true with a lot
of commercial materials as well - tend to be
designed around familiar practices, familiar kinds of
texts and materials. So the worksheet, for example,
migrates to the interactive whiteboard.
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
…’ In order to exploit all the features of
these devices whilst interacting with a
class, teachers need to develop a number
of new techniques to reach automaticity
and to gain an understanding of the role of
their features in teaching and learning
(Smith, 2002; Glover and Miller, 2002a;
Warren, 2002). These are not trivial matters
to learn…’
Kennewell (2007) emphasizes that initial
training and professional development is
extremely important because what a teacher
actually does with an IWB is obviously more
important than the device itself, as in fact true
for any device. In comparative research on
teaching practices and attainment results
under the condition 'with and without digiboard’
Moss et al. (2007) and Higgins et al. (2005)
showed that no major changes occur in
teaching methods and practices of the
teachers involved and that in fact:
In the majority of lessons observed the
nature and quality of pupil learning was
consistent with practice observed in
classrooms without IWBs:
• In many instances the texts in use on the
IWB replicated the features of texts
associated with existing technologies (TV;
computers; blackboard) and often
shared the form and function of traditional
textbooks and worksheets
• Patterns of pupil-teacher discourse were
largely unchanged
• .Technical. or .physical. interactivity with
the IWB was seldom harnessed to
produce significant shifts in understanding.
Moss e.a. (2007:44)
Partly based on research of Higgins (2006)
and Nordkvelle & Olsen (2005) also Somekh &
Haldane (2006) point to the fact that teachers
apply their current teaching style and practices
when they start using digiboards:
… For example, it has been found that
IWBs tend to reinforce established styles of
whole-class teaching - sometimes
extending the teacher’s ‘whole-class mode’
innovative teaching approaches (Higgins,
2006).
… As with other uses of information and
communications technology (ICT) in
classrooms, IWBs are often made to fit
‘pre-existing instructional practices’
(Nordkvelle & Olsen, 2005).
15
Kennewell et al. (2007) conclude that
transformation of education in terms of more
independent and individualized learning is not
widespread in the UK. Rather, there appears
to be an incentive for traditional teacher-
centered approaches.
Factors that contribute to effective use include
the availability of adequate conditions so that
teachers can develop self-confidence and can
integrate digiboard use into their educational
practice (Levy, 2002; Glover & Miller, 2001).
Key elements here are aspects such as time
(Glover et al, 2007: 17), adequate access to
IWBs, sample materials and technical support
(Glover & Miller, 2002a; Agterberg and
Teeuwes, 2007: 17).
How training and professional development
programmes can best be designed is a matter
for further research. The relevance of some
design features, however, can already be
established.
Thus it is clear that teachers should have
adequate ICT skills (Duivenvoorden, 2006).
And a subject-specific component is of great
importance. The training must be tailored to
the individual needs of teachers (Levy, 2002)
so that they can become familiar with methods
and techniques relevant to the subject that
they teach. After all, disciplines have their
specific educational culture and pedagogies
(Haldane & Somekh, 2005:13).
Students, too, must learn how to work with
IWBs to allow active participation and
overcome possible embarrassment about their
technical skills (Glover et al., 2007: 17).
Teachers need a clear understanding of the
concept of 'interactivity' and develop a
common frame of reference in this respect
(Glover, 2005: 7). Also for use in their
respective research projects Miller et al.
(2004), Cuthell (2007) and Vincent and Jones
(2007) developed descriptions of teacher
competencies and developmental stages
teachers go through (Haldane & Somekh,
2005).
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
Miller et al. (2004) defined three stages in
competence development process with respect
to digiboard use by teachers:
a) to visually support teacher-centred
knowledge and information transmission
(supportive didactic)
b) to stimulate student responses through the
use of verbal, audio and visual stimuli and
graphical representations of concepts
(interactive)
c) like b) but more flexible, with even more
intensive participation by students through
exploratory activities and group work using a
mix of self-developed materials and Internet
resources (enhanced interactive).
It is self-evident that, especially for this latter,
more process-oriented approach, thorough
subject knowledge is indispensable. Indeed, it
may well be the decisive factor to allow flexible
handling of pre-prepared materials as the
following observation in primary education
shows:
…The flow of the lesson was not purely
linear; teachers moved backwards and
forwards through the content and process
of the lesson by scrolling documents,
selecting powerpoint slides, and ‘flipping’
through pages of the ‘flipchart’ software
provided with the IWBs. They also
responded to points arising from the class,
although some opportunities were missed.
This may have been caused by a reluctance
to depart from the highly detailed planning
employed when their subject knowledge
was limited. (Kennewell, 2004: 12)
16
Implementation strategies that foster informal
cooperation and a buddy approach have
shown to be effective forms of professional
development (Cuthell, 2006; Kennewell, 2004).
…Developing multimedia teaching
materials is a significant addition to
workload in the early stages, though
preparation time decreases once a range of
materials exists. The expectations that the
whiteboards engender in pupils, however,
put pressure on teachers to constantly
improve the presentation and content of
lessons. The capacity to share resources
via the school network and internet could
reduce workloads, but evidence suggests
that this is currently underused (Glover and
Miller, 2001).
Moss et al (2007: 59) also believe that an
exploratory, trial-and-error approach where
experiences are shared, co-ordinated by an
enthusiastic colleague in their own school, is a
more effective training model than the
demonstration and training of a set of IWB
techniques, for example drag-and-drop or
hide-and-reveal. The more so because this
latter model is based on the false assumption
that there is well-defined and exhaustive body
of knowledge of all the possible applications of
the IWB technical features.
Training of board techniques must therefore be
linked to educational theory and practice (Miller
& Glover, 2007) and it is for this reason that
Somekh et al. (2007) view accredited training
programmes for trainers and teachers as
indispensable.
Although Glover et al. (2007: 15) report that
teachers are quick to realise that having and
sharing a collection of teaching materials offers
great advantages Somekh et al. (2007)
recommend to postpone the development of
such a resource till after the exploratory phase
as described above.
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 17
Furthermore they advise to make sure that
activities to this end are only initiated on the
basis of needs explicitly expressed by the
teachers involved. So as to prevent this type of
activity turning into a goal in itself and to avoid
likely overlap with content in repositories
elsewhere.
Successful CPD is most likely to be
effective if it supports individual teachers,
exploration of their current pedagogy, and
helps identify how IWB use can support,
extend or transform this. Discussion of the
relative strengths and weaknesses of
different ways of using the technology for
particular purposes should be part of the
on-going work of a department.
Somekh (2007) stresses the importance of
training and continuing professional
development (CPD) with a view to the gradual
improvement of student results.
The training of pre-service teachers (in
training) appears to be still in its infancy, as
also reflected by the limited number of
8
publications about this topic . From a survey
involving a cohort of primary education student
teachers Kennewell and Morgan (2003) report
a positive attitude towards presentation
technologies. Their research also showed that
young teachers who currently start working in
schools equipped with IWBs report to dearly
miss a dialogue in their training about (subject-
specific) IWB-related pedagogy and/or about
possible added value of IWB use.
As already noted by other authors (Graham &
Thornley, 2000; Koenraad, 2005: 4) also
Condie and Munro (2007) argue that
experiential learning, in particular for the
development of competencies in the field of
educational computing, is of vital importance in
teacher education. Student teachers should be
offered practical experiences with the
integration of ICT in education. This implies
that –as students - they have experienced
innovative (subject-specific) computer use, are
encouraged to experiment during internships
and get competent mentoring.
8
This small number is also partly due to the fact that IWBs
were (still are?) not widely used in (UK) teacher education:
at the time these organisations were not included in the
national grant programme.
Trainee teachers need to have the
opportunity to […] explore potential
applications in the context of their own
teaching practice (Graham & Thornley,
2000). However, this necessitates teacher
educators being competent and confident
with ICT resources and the associated
pedagogy themselves (Yildirim, 2000).
Teacher educators will need to be much
more than expert users of ICT; they will
need to be ‘specialist educators who can
make students secure in the range of
pedagogical uses soon to be required of
beginning teachers’ (Simpson et al., 1999).
(Condie & Munro, 2007: 17)
4. Conclusions
The results of the currently available research
present a predominantly positive picture of the
educational possibilities of digiboards to
enhance (whole-class) lesson phases such as
instruction, presentation, brainstorming and
debriefing.
There is consensus on the contribution of this
tool to three aspects of educational practice:
the presentation of information and resources,
the power of visualization in the interpretation
of concepts and models, the facilitation of
interaction and organization of activities with a
whole-class focus.
On the other hand it is clear that the
technology itself can not perform miracles and
that the expected added value can only be
realised with the help of the professionalism of
the teacher.
Next to adequate training and professional
development for IWB use to be successful
educationally (Fisser & Gervedink Nijhuis,
2007: 27), other factors are relevant such as
the school culture, the implementation strategy
(Wiezeried, 2006), leadership and
management support (Lee, 2004). In short, the
usual factors involved when introducing ICT
applications in education.
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
As yet, the key questions: “Does the use of
IWBs lead to educational innovation or merely
to optimalisation of traditional education? " and
"Do IWBs contribute to better school results?"
cannot be answered with certainty. The
opinions expressed about these issues vary
considerably in the papers studied.
Having determined that ... "the use of the IWB
may be the most significant change in the
classroom learning environment in the past
decade ..." Higgins et al. (2007) conclude that:
The key issue emerging from this analysis
is that although the IWB may alter the way
that learning takes place, and that the
motivation of teachers and pupils may be
increased, yet this may have no significant
or measurable impact on achievement. The
research literature has yet to demonstrate
the direction that teachers need to move to
ensure that the proven changes the IWB
can bring about in the classroom discourse
and pedagogy are translated into similar
and positive changes in learning (Higgins
et al., 2007: 221).
Other researchers (Miller & Glover, 2007;
Somekh et al., 2007) have shown effects and
expect positive results in due course if
adequate training is provided and teachers are
allowed sufficient time to adopt the new
technologies Fisser &. Gervedink Nijhuis,
2007: 27).
There is still too little empirical, qualitative,
longitudinal and subject-specific research
available for firm conclusions, perhaps with
mathematics as an exemplary exception.
For similar conclusions on these matters see
Schuck & Kearney (2007: 13) and Moss et al.
(2007). Rutt (2007) has a number of
suggestions on what type of follow-up research
is needed.
18
Somekh et al. (2007) and Jewitt (2007), too,
point out that possible effects can only be
attributed to digiboards after a considerable
period of time.
The ability of the technology to adapt to
existing pedagogy at this stage in the
implementation cycle suggests that judging
any distinctive contribution that IWBs can
make to pupil learning will be a long-term
process dependent on on-going
exploration of what the technology can best
be used for. (Somekh et al., 2007:7)
Also, we should realise that many of the
conclusions reached are based on research
done in primary education, especially in the
curriculum areas numeracy and literacy and
that many studies were carried out during the
first phase of implementation.
This should be taken into account when
drawing conclusions from the available results.
Furthermore, it should be remembered that the
majority of the conclusions reported in this
review study were based on research in other
countries (UK, Australia, America, Canada),
each with its own specific educational
approach and (school) culture, and therefore
possibly not fully applicable to the Dutch
situation or other countries for that matter.
One of the more consistent findings is that the
adoption process of IWBs by practitioners is a
lot more fluent compared to the integration of
Internet and the use of subject-specific
software.
Especially where teachers with adequate ICT
skills and a positive attitude towards the use of
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
ICT in education are concerned
(Duivenvoorde, 2008:11) 9.
Some authors (Smith A, 1999; Heppel, 2004)
see this as an advantage because, indirectly,
IWB-use appears to contribute to increasing
teachers’ ICT skills. And this, in its turn,
improves the chances that teachers also start
using other ICT applications and in this way
contribute to the further integration of ICT in
education (Somekh et al., 2007).
“It strikes me that the importance of
whiteboards is that they are one of the first
pieces of IT technology which are "owned"
by the teacher as opposed to the learner -
good teachers of course will share it with
their pupils - it is this ownership and place
at the heart of teaching (as opposed to
learning) which excites teachers - and
rightly so in my view.” Martyn Wilson,
Hampshire County Inspector for IT
With respect to this issue Hall en Higgins
(2005) argue that:
‘…Indeed it is reasonable to conjecture
that it is precisely because the IWB is so
suited to supporting whole-class teaching
that it has been adopted so rapidly in
comparison with more personal
technologies which integrate less readily
into traditional teaching methods. This may
lead to the technology merely being used to
reinforce current teaching approaches,
rather than supporting a transforming
pedagogy.’
Furthermore Moss et al. (2007:47) note that
differences in teachers’ appreciation of
digiboards can also be related to the particular
school subject they teach:.
The case studies suggest that the
relevance of IWB technologies was more
easily recognised and realised in Maths and
Science than in English, where the benefits
of the technology seemed less immediately
apparent. (Moss et al., 2007:47)
It appears to take an exploratory attitude to
realize the potential and added value of
digiboards. Implementation is more successful
if the possibilities of IWBs are explored in
collegial collaboration (Fisser &. Gervedink
9
Duivenvoorde qualifies her research results by pointing
to a possible unrepresentativeness of the cohort of
respondents involved (Duivenvoorde, 2006: 13).
19
Nijhuis, 2007: 25). In this respect Cutrim
Schmid (2006c: 60) and Hughes & Longman
(2005: 11) emphasize that learners should also
be involved.
An interesting action research study
(Kennisrotonde, issue 063) in this context is
the development of IWB-related pedagogy
explicitly driven by the educational principles
(Dalton-education) of the school involved (the
Omnibus, Almere).
Student-centered methodologies are being
developed through experiments where (small
groups of) pupils use digiboards as a 'mind
tool' (Kirschner & Wopereis, 2003) and to
present results of groupwork. A first, interim
report shows that students already have
defined some concrete and practical
applications10.
The main threat to the effectiveness of that
process are the established views of the
(experienced) teachers based on previous
experiences with media in their own teaching
practices (Burden, 2002). Data from recent
research on ICT use in the Netherlands
(Gennip, Smeets & Marx, 2007) suggests that
it will be a while before IWBs change teaching
practices in innovative ways. One reason
being that teachers –both in primary and
secondary education- appear to apply activities
targeted at transfer of knowledge more
frequently than methods to stimulate
knowledge construction. Besides, in general,
these knowledge transfer activities are not
supported by ICT (Gennip et al, 2007: 13). This
leads us to expect that the impact of IWBs in
10
As reported (in Dutch) at:
http://www.ictopschool.net/kennis/vraagstukken/006
3/voortgang/Voortgangsbericht.2007-06-28.4935
‘…Pupils suggest to use the board during Music lessons,
for spelling and reading in groups, to present groupwork
and watch film fragments and for remedial teaching
On the other hand the are also critical and expect some
pupils to lose concentration when digiboards are used all
the time during lessons.
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
education will be restricted if teachers do not
sufficiently realize (Glover, 2005: 99) that for
real interactivity to take place specifically
designed materials (Stranders, 2008: 58),
dialogical skills ( Mercer et al, 2007) and
appropriate methodologies are needed.
The case studies revealed over time the
process of IWBs becoming embedded
through initial adoption and ‘fit’ with
existing pedagogies, and later, to varying
extents in different classrooms,
enabling/encouraging the development of
new social practices. These more
fundamental changes occurred through the
activities of both teachers and children as
they experimented with new ways of using
the board, through a process that was often
challenging for the teacher and is best
described by Wertsch (Mind as Action
1998) as ‘the tension between agent and
tool’. The changes were always closely
related, however, to the teacher’s existing
pedagogic orientation, and extended and
enriched the existing levels and nature of
interactivity rather than transforming
didactic teachers into child-centred
teachers (my italics).
One great benefit of the board, however,
was to enliven and enrich didactic
pedagogy so that teachers who may
previously have found it difficult to sustain
children’s attention were able to convey
information and concepts more effectively.
In some classrooms we saw clear evidence
of gains in children’s sense of positive
identity; and in others the use of the
internet on the IWB appeared to assist
teachers in bringing the outside world into
the classroom to create more authentic
contexts for ‘situated learning’ (Somekh,
2006)
And – to conclude – the results reported in this
review provide, to us at least, yet another
confirmation of an old adagium about the
integration of ICT in education: ' It's not so
much the program: more what you do with
it […]' an observation made in 1986 by Chris
Jones about a piece of software for language
learning, which he included in the title of one of
his papers.
20
Literature
Consult: http://www.callinpractice.net/IWB for a more
up-to-date version of the references below to IWB-related
research in general and IWB use in language education in
particular.
• Adrian B.F. (2004). Incorporating the SMART Board
for Smart Teaching. techlearning.com.
http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?
articleID=51200657
• Agterberg, M., & Teeuwes, P. (2007) Een onderzoek
naar de inzet van digitale schoolborden.
http://www.ictopschool.net/infrastructuur/digitaal-
schoolbord/Files/onderzoek_mrt2007/
• Balanskat, A., Blamier, R., Kefala, S. The ICT Impact
Report: A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on
Schools in Europe. (European Communities,
European Schoolnet, Belgium)
http://insight.eun.org/shared/data/pdf/impact_study.pd
f AACE Phoenix, Arizona
• Ball, Barbara (2003). Teaching and Learning
Mathematics with an Interactive Whiteboard.
Micromath (Spring 2003) 4–7. 2003."
• Barry, M. & Smith, P. (2005) Throw away the chalk.
Connected 12. Learning & Teaching Scotland.
• Beauchamp, G & Parkinson, J. (2005) Beyond the
‘wow' factor: Developing interactivity with the
interactive whiteboard. School Science Review March
2005 86(316), 97-103
• BECTA (2003). What the Research Says about
Interactive Whiteboards, www.becta.org.uk/research
• BECTA (2004) Getting the most from your interactive
whiteboard: a guide. Published on the Becta web site
9th July 2004. Accessed September 6th 2006
• Beeland Jnr, W. D. (2002). Student Engagement,
Visual Learning and Technology: Can Interactive
Whiteboards Help? Annual Conference of the
Association of Information Technology for Teaching
Education, Trinity College, Dublin.
• Bell, M. A. (2000). Impact of the electronic interactive
whiteboard on students attitudes and achievement in
eighth-grade writing instruction. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, Baylor University.
• Bell, M. A. (2002). Why Use an Interactive
Whiteboard? A Baker's Dozen Reasons!,
http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02
• Berque, D (2004) Fostering Classroom Engagement
with Electronic Whiteboards, Tablet PCs, and
DyKnow. Paper presented at EduCause 2004
http://www.educause.edu/Browse/705&ITEM_ID=207
• Blanton, Bonnie Little and Rebecca Helms-Breazeale
(2000). Gains in Self-Efficacy: Using SMART Board
Interactive Whiteboard Technology in Special
Education Classrooms.
www.smarterkids.org/research/paper2.asp Augusta
State University.
• Burden, K (2002). Learning from the bottom up – the
contribution of school based practice and research in
the effective use of interactive whiteboards for the
FE/HE sector. Discussion paper presented at LSDA,
Making an Impact Regionally Conference. The Earth
Centre, Doncaster, 21 June 2002.
http://ww.lsda.org.uk/files/lsda/regions/8_Bio_KBurde
n.pdf
• Burden, K. & Sietniekas, (2004). Evaluation report for
Westminster Education Action Zone. The impact of
the interactive whiteboard initiative in schools across
WEAZ. The University of Hull, UK.
• Carter, A. (2002). Using Interactive Whiteboards with
Deaf Children.
http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/activities/intranet/teacher/ict/w
hiteboards/ Becta.
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
• Condie, R. & Munro, R (2007)The impact of ICT in
schools – a landscape review (Coventry, Becta)
www.publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=28
221&page=1835
• Cooper, B. & Brna, P. (2002) Supporting high quality
interaction and motivation in the classroom using ICT:
the social and emotional learning and engagement in
the NIMIS project
• Cox, Margaret, M. Webb, C. Abbott, B. Blakeley, T.
Beauchamp, and V. Rhodes (2003). ICT and
Pedagogy: A review of the Research Literature.
http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ict
_pedagogy_summary.pdf Department for Education
and Skills and Becta.
• Cuthell, J. P. (2006). Tools for Transformation: The
Impact of Interactive Whiteboards in a range of
contexts. Proceedings of SITE 2006. AACE Phoenix,
Arizona
• Cuthell, J. P. (2007). Ambassadors for ACTIVlearning
. Proceedings of SITE 2007 (pp. 1443 – 11449)
• Cuthell, J., P. (2003). Interactive Whiteboards: new
tools, new pedagogies, new learning? Some views
from practitioners
http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/changemanage/iwb/
Views%20from%20practitioners.pdf
• Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006a). Investigating the Use of
Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the Language
Classroom through the Lens of a Critical Theory of
Technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 47 – 62.
• Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006b). Promoting Higher Levels
of Learner Active Participation in the Language
Classroom with Interactive Whiteboard Technology.
Presented at the IATEFL Learning Technologies SIG.
Learning Technologies in the Language Classroom: A
step closer to the future. University of Cyprus
(Nicosia), 26-28 May 2006.
• Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006c). Using a Voting System in
Conjunction with Interactive Whiteboard Technology
to Enhance Learning in the English Language
Classroom. Computers and Education.
• Cutrim Schmid, E. (2007). Enhancing Performance
Knowledge and Self-Esteem in Classroom Language
Learning: the Potential of the ACTIVote System
Component of Interactive Whiteboard Technology.
System – Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2007
• Cutrim Schmid, Euline (In Press). The Pedagogical
Potential of Interactive Whiteboards 2.0. In Thomas,
M. (Ed) The Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and
Second Language Learning. IGI Global, USA
• Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, C., and Draper, S.
(2004). Maximising dialogue in lectures using group
response systems. In Proceedings of the 7th IASTED
international conference on computers and advanced
technology in education, Hawaii, USA.
• Davis, M.R. (2007). Whiteboards Inc. Interactive
Features Fuel Demand for Modern Chalkboards.
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2007/09/12/02boar
d.h01.html
• Duivenvoorden, E. (2006). Interactieve schoolborden
en de attitude van leerkrachten ten opzichte van ICT
in het onderwijs: onbekend maakt onbemind? Open
Universiteit Nederland.
• Edwards, Julie-Ann, M. Hartnell and R. Martin. (2002)
Interactive Whiteboards: Some Lessons for the
Classroom. Micromath (Summer 2002): 30-33.
• Fisser, P.H.G. &. Gervedink Nijhuis, G.J. (2007)
Eindrapportage Digitale Schoolborden. Implementatie
en gebruik van digiborden bij de scholen van de
Stichting voor Christelijk Primair Onderwijs Centraal
Twente.
21
• Gennip, H., van, Smeets. E., Marx, T. (2007).
Onderwijs met ict 2007. Belangrijkste
onderzoeksuitkomsten tweede jaar monitor ‘ Vier in
balans’ .
http://www.ictopschool.net/onderzoek/files/ICTOSFile.
2008-04-09.3413/file/
• Glover, D and Miller, D (2001). Running with
technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale
introduction of interactive whiteboards in one
secondary school. Journal of Information Technology
for Teacher Education, 10 (3), pp257-276
• Glover, D. and Miller, D. (2002) The interactive
whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: the
experience of five elementary schools in an English
education authority. Information Technology in
Childhood Education Vol. 2002 Issue 1: AACE Digital
Library
• Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., Door, V. (2005) The
Interactive Whiteboard: a literature survey.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education Volume 14
Number 2, Pp. 106-113. MirandaNet Promethean
Ambassadors Available at:
http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/partners/promethean_a
mbassadors.htm
• Glover, D., Miller, D.J., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007).
The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers
using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and
modern languages: an empirical analysis from the
secondary sector, Learning, Media and Technology,
Volume 32, Issue 1 pp. 5 – 20. Abstract at:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=
10.1080/17439880601141146
• Goodison, T. (2002a) ICT and attainment at primary
level. British Journal of Educational Technology,
33(2), 201-211.
• Goodison, T. (2002b) Enhancing learning with ICT at
primary level. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 33(2), 215-228.
• Goodison, T. (2003). Integrating ICT in the
classroom: a case study of two contrasting lessons.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5),
549–566.
• Gray, C. et al., (2005) The pros and cons of
interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3
strategies and framework. Language Learning
Journal. v32. 38-44.
• Graham, S and Thornley, C (2000). Connecting
classrooms in pre-service education: conversations
for learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 11 (1) 7–22
• "Gray C., Hagger-Vaughan L, Pilkington R. &
Tomkins S-A. (2005) ""The pros and cons of
interactive whiteboards in relation to the Key Stage 3
Strategy and Framework"", Language Learning
Journal (ALL) 32: 38-44."
• Greiffenhagen, C. (2000) A Report into Whiteboard
Technologies’ Unpublished memorandum. Oxford
University Computing Laboratory
• Greiffenhagen, C. (2000). From traditional
blackboards to interactive whiteboards: a pilot study
to inform technology design. Proceedings of the 24th
International Conference Psychology of Mathematics
Education, 24(2), 305 – 312.
• Greiffenhagen, C. (2002) Out of the Office into the
School: electronic whiteboards for education,
http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/christian.greiffe
nhagen/pub/boards/
• Hall, I and Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school
students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 102-117.
• Higgins, S. (2006) White Elephants. TES magazine
http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2202050
• Higgins, S, Beauchamp, G and Miller, D (2007).
Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards.
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
Learning, Media and Technology, Vol 32 No 3 pp
213-35
• Higgins, S., Falzon, C.,Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F.,
Smith, H. and Wall, K. (2005) Embedding ICT In The
Literacy And Numeracy Strategies: Final Report
(Newcastle, Newcastle University).
• Jewitt, C, Moss, G. and Cardini, A. (in press) Pace,
Interactivity and Multimodality in Teacher Design of
Texts for Interactive White Boards in the Secondary
School Classroom
• Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2003). Student
Teachers’ Experiences and Attitudes Towards Using
Interactive Whiteboards in the Teaching and Learning
of Young Childeren.
http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV34Kennewell1.pdf
• Kennewell, S. (2001) Interactive whiteboards – yet
another solution looking for a problem to solve?
Information Technology in Teacher Education, 39, 3-
6.
• Kennewell, S. (2004) Researching the influence of
interactive presentation tools on teacher pedagogy.
Paper presented at BERA 2004
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/151717.do
c
• Kennewell, S. (2005) Interactive teaching with
interactive technology. In Proceedings of the World
Conference in Computer Education , Stellenbosch,
South Africa, July 2005
• Kennewell, S. (2006) Reflections on the interactive
whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research
from the UK.
http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf
• Kennewell, S. and Morgan, A. (2003) Student
teachers’ experiences and attitudes towards using
interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning
of young children’. In Young children and learning
technologies, eds. Wright, J., McDougall, A.,
Murnane, J. and Lowe, J., Sydney: Australian
Computer Society. 71-76.
• Kent, P. (2006) Using Interactive Whiteboards to
enhance Maths teaching. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom. Journal of the Australian
Association of Mathematics Teachers, Volume 11
Number 2, 2006.
• Kirschner, P.A., & Wopereis, I.G.J.H. (2003).
Mindtools for teacher communities: A European
perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
12, 105-124
• Knight, P., Pennant, J., & Piggot, J. (2005). The
power of the interactive whiteboard. MicroMath, 11-
15. Landis, M. (March/April 2005)
• Koenraad, A. L.M. (2005). Developing network-based
language learning & teaching in education and
teacher training: The MICaLL project. In Schäffer, D.,
and Adamopoulou, M. (Eds). Fremdsprache Deutsch
Europäisch. Neue Wege zum Sprachenlernen mit
dem Daf-Netzwerk. (pp. 141-158). Pallini:
Ellinogermaniki Agogi.
http://www.koenraad.info/publications
• Kollie, E. (2008) Interactive Whiteboards. School
Planning and Management; v47 n1 , p88-90
http://www.peterli.com/spm/resources/articles/archive
.php?article_id=1705
• Latane, B (2002) Focused Interactive Learning: A
Tool for Active Class Discussion. Teaching of
Psychology, 2002, Vol. 29, No. 1, Pages 10-15
• Latham, P. (2002) Teaching and learning primary
mathematics: the impact of interactive whiteboards
BEAM research papers.
http://www.beam.co.uk/pdfs/RES03.pdf North
Islington Education Action Zone.
• Lee, M. (2004). Is it time to rethink your ICT and
education strategy? The Practicing Administrator,
26(2), 14-16.
22
• Lee, Mal, and Boyle, Maureen. (2003) The
Educational Effects and Implications of the Interactive
Whiteboard Strategy of Richardson Primary School: A
Brief Review. Richardson Primary School.
www.richardsonps.act.edu.au/RichardsonReview_Gr
ey.pdf
• Levy, P. (2002) Interactive Whiteboards in learning
and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a
developmental study, Department of Information
Studies, University of Sheffield.
http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
• Longman, D., Hughes, M. (2006). Whole class
teaching strategies and interactive technology:
towards a connectionist classroom.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/161224.ht
m •
• Louwers, T. (2006) Primair onderwijs omarmt digitaal
schoolbord. COS 18, 7
• Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., Dawes, L., Sams, C. &
Fernandez, M. (2007). How computers can help
children think together about texts. In C. Kinzer & L.
Verhoeven (eds), Interactive Literacy. New York:
McGraw Hill.
• Miller, D. & Glover, D. (2007) Into the unknown: the
professional development induction experience of
secondary mathematics teachers using interactive
whiteboard technology
www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ed/iaw/docs/IAWResearch.pd
f pedagogy with interactive whiteboards: A case study
• Miller, D.J, Glover, D. & Averis D. (2004) Enhancing
mathematics teaching through new technology: the
use of the interactive whiteboard - Advice for teachers
of mathematics. Practical advice based on Nuffield
funded research.
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ed/iaw/docs/Advice%20f
or%20teachers%20of%20mathematics.pdf
• Miller, D.J, Glover, D. & Averis D. (2004) Matching
Technology and Pedagogy in Teaching Mathematics:
Understanding Fractions using a ‘Virtual Manipulative’
Fraction Wall, British Educational Research
Association, Manchester
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ed/iaw/docs/BERA%20
Paper%20Sep%202004.pdf
• Miller, D.J., & Glover, D. (2006). Interactive
whiteboard evaluation for the secondary national
strategy: Developing the use of interactive
whiteboards in mathematics, Final Report for the
Secondary National Strategy. Available at:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/keystage3/downloa
ds/ma_iaw_eval_rpt.pdf
• Miller, D.J., Averis, D., Door, V. & Glover, D., (2005).
How can the use of an interactive whiteboard
enhance the nature of teaching and learning in
secondary mathematics and modern foreign
languages? Report made to Becta.
http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/b
ursaries05/interactive_whiteboard.pdf
• Miller, D.J., Glover, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005).
From technology to professional development: How
can the use of an interactive whiteboard in initial
teacher education change the nature of teaching and
learning in secondary mathematics and modern
languages? Training and Development agency,
London. Report made to the Teacher Training
Agency.
http://www.ttrb.ac.uk/attachments/0d65acf3-488a-
4fca-8536 918d6dafd694.pdf
• Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levačić, R. (2006) Evaluation of
Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project-
London Challenge
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR8
16.pdf
• Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2001) Effective Teaching:
Evidence and practice London: Paul Chapman
Publishing
Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed.
• Nordkvelle, Y. T., and J. K. Olson. 2005. Visions for
ICT, ethics and the practice of teachers. Education
and Information Technologies (pp. 12– 17).Boston:
Springer
• Ofsted (2005), Primary National Strategy: An
evaluation of its impact in primary schools 2004/05.
London: Ofsted
• Painter, D., Whiting, E. & Wolters, B. (2005) The Use
of an Interactive Whiteboard in Promoting Interactive
Teaching and Learning.
http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/DeerParkES/TR/ActivBrdT
R.pdf
• Richardson, Anne. Effective Questioning in Teaching
Mathematics Using an Interactive Whiteboard.
Micromath (Summer 2002): 8-12."
Rudd, T. (2007) Interactive whiteboards in the
classroom.
www.futurelab.org.uk/events/listing/whiteboards/repor
t.
• Salintri, Geri, K. Smith, and C. Clovis. (2002) The
Aural Enabler: Creating a Way for Special Needs
Kids to Participate in the Classroom Lesson.
www.smarterkids.org/research/paper12.asp.
University of Windsor.
• Stranders, D. (2008) Het digitaal schoolbord. Een
verrijking voor het onderwijs. Afstudeeronderzoek
PABO Christelijke Hogeschool Ede
• Schuck, S. & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploring
of six schools. (Sydney, University of Technology
Sydney)
http://www.ed-
dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/iwbproject/home.h
tml
• Sessoms, D. (2007). Using Interactive Boards to
Enhance Teaching and Learning for Students with
Learning Disabilities. In Proceedings SITE 2007
Conference
• Smith, A (1999). Interactive Whiteboard Evaluation.
www.mirandanet.ac.uk
• Smith, H. (2001) Smartboard Evaluation: Final
Report, www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/whiteboards/report
• Smith H.J., Higgins S., Wall K., Miller J. (2005).
Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A
critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning. 2005, 21, 91-101
• Smith, F., Hardman, F., and Higgins, S. (2006). The
impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil
interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy
Strategies. British Educational Research Journal,
31(3), 443-457
• Solvie, Pamela A. The Digital Whiteboard: A Tool in
Early Literacy Instruction. Reading Teacher 57.5
(February 2004): 484-7."
• Solvie, Pamela A. (2001)The Digital Whiteboards as
a Tool in Increasing Student Attention During Early
Literacy Instruction.
www.smarterkids.org/research/paper13.asp
Morris Area Elementary School.
• Somekh, B and Haldane, M (2006). How can
interactive whiteboards contribute to pedagogic
change? Learning from case studies in English
primary schools. Paper presented at: Imagining the
Future for ICT and Education Conference, 26-30
June 2006,Ålesund, Norway.
• Somekh, B et al. (2005) Interim Report to the
Department for Education and Skills. Unpublished
report from the SWEEP project
• Somekh, B., M. Haldane, et al. (2007). Evaluation of
the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project.
London, Report to the Department for Education and
Skills
• Stuart, S. (2005) Presentation at the WCCE
conference 2005.
23
• Stuart, S., Brown, M., & Draper, S. W. (2004). Using
an electronic voting system in logic lectures: one
practitioner’s application. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 20, 95–102.
• Tanner, H., Jones, S. Kennewell, S., and
Beauchamp, G. (2005) ‘Interactive Whiteboards and
Pedagogies of Whole Class Teaching’ . Paper
presented at Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australasia (MERGA - 28), Melbourne, Australia.
July 2005. Available:
http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP832005.pdf
• Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Stewart, R. (2003).
Beyond Web Accessibility: Technology Accessibility
Policies in Higher Education. Paper presented at the
Center On Disabilities Technology And Persons With
Disabilities Conference 2003.
www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2003/proceedings/172.htm
• Vandewyer, F. (2007). Digitale schoolborden: een
kritische kijk. COS JAARGANG 19, 7.
http://www.computersopschool.nl/navigatie.asp?id=16
0
• Walker, D. (2002a). White Enlightening. Times
Educational Supplement. London.
• Walker, D. (2002b). Meet Whiteboard Wendy. Times
Educational Supplement. London.
• Walker, R. (2003). Interactive whiteboards in the MFL
classroom. TELL & CALL, 3(3), 14 – 16. http://www.e-
lisa.at/magazine/tellcall/03_03.asp
• Wall, K, Higgins, S, and Smith, H (2005), ‘The visual
helps me understand the complicated things’: pupil
views of teaching and learning with interactive
whiteboards. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 36 (5) 851–867
• Warren, C. (2002). Interactive Whiteboards: an
approach to an effective methodology.
http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/whiteboards/An_app
roach_to_an_effective_methodology.pdf
• Wiezenried, A. (2006) Implementing interactive
whiteboards: What can we learn?
• http://www.ministryofteaching.edu.au/journal/pdfs/3-
winzenried+lee_6-8.pdf
• Wood, C. (2002). Interactive Whiteboards - A luxury
too far? Teaching ICT 1(2)."
• Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational
computing course on preservice and inservice
teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and
use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
32 (4), 479-495
• Zadelhoff, T., van (2007). Informatiewijzer Digitale
Schoolborden. Kennisnet / ICT op School
http://www.ictopschool.net/infrastructuur/publicaties/ki
jkenkies/digitaal-schoolbord/document
• Zirkle, Meredith L. (2006). The Effects of SMART
Board™ Interactive Whiteboard on High School
Students with Special Needs in a Functional
Mathematics Class.
http://edcompass.smarttech.com/en/learning/research
/pdf/mennoniteUniversityResearch.pdf Eastern
Mennonite University. 2003. "

Koenraad, A.L.M. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature reviewed. 24