Effective practice in technologyenhanced learning: interactive whiteboards - Teaching with Technologies: The Essential Guide - page 42

Like other technological innovations, it was originally created for business and devel-
oped for the boardroom (like PowerPoint) and has since been adapted for educational use.
Theory and research base
This chapter draws both on large-scale empirical studies of the roll-out of interac-
tive whiteboards across the UK, which examine impact, and on more recent, smaller,
qualitative work, which examines pedagogical aspects of developing interactivity
and dialogic learning with interactive whiteboards. The former draws on the DCSF-
funded SWEEP projects (Moss et al. 2007; Somekh et al. 2007) and the latter on the
work of Hennessy et al. (2010), Mercer et al. (2010) and Warwick et al. (2010) from
the Cambridge University interactive whiteboard research group.
A history of research on interactive whiteboards
Early research on interactive whiteboards focused on descriptions of the functional-
ity of the boards and the software. Methodologically this research tended to be small
scale, based on action research by enthusiastic innovators and focused mostly on
practices in primary schools (Smith et al. 2005; Koenraad 2008). Research has since
developed to include large-scale investigations with more representational samples
(Higgins et al. 2007; Moss et al. 2007; Miller and Glover 2006). In England two impor-
tant studies were conducted in 2007, which were the Schools Whiteboard Expan-
sion Evaluation (SWEEP) projects, in which Somekh et al. assessed the impact of
interactive whiteboards in primary schools and Moss et al. evaluated the roll-out in
secondary schools from a sample of 30 schools in London (10 per cent representa-
tive sample). This research funded by the government found a number of significant
advantages to teaching with an interactive whiteboard.
The key question many researchers start by asking is whether the interactive white-
board only supports teacher-led functions (explain, demonstrate, present, instruct),
which in turn supports whole-class, teacher-centred pedagogy and thereby 'sets the ped-
agogical clock back' (Koenraad 2008: 5). More probing questions are: to what extent can
interactive whiteboards support more progressive pedagogies tailored towards greater
independent and personalized learning, and more constructivist pedagogies supporting
the co-construction of knowledge? To what extent can this technology enhance pupil
collaboration and support diversity, and dialogic approaches to learning? These latter
questions form part of the current research landscape. For example, more recent studies
by Hennessy et al. (2011), Mercer et al. (2010) and Warwick et al. (2010) examine pupil
collaborative group work at the interactive whiteboard and are finding innovation is
possible if the teacher appropriately frames the activities at the board to extend thinking.
Impact of interactive whiteboards on pupil motivation and learning
'The use of the interactive whiteboard may be the most significant change in the
classroom learning environment in the past decade . . .' (Higgins, Beauchamp and
Miller 2007: 221).