Effective practice in technologyenhanced learning: interactive whiteboards - Teaching with Technologies: The Essential Guide - page 50

Younie 2007). Hooper and Rieber's (1995) seminal stage model of teacher progres-
sion with technology (from familiarization, utilization, integration, reorientation to
evolution) went even further and argued that, if teachers did not progress through
these stages, the technology would be most likely to be abandoned.
In addition to Glover and Miller's (2007) scales of 'interactivity' outlined above,
other scales construct use in terms of surface use to 'deep integration'. This is similar to
West Burnham's (2007) model of learning and stages of progression, from shallow to
deep to profound learning. Each are necessary and serve different functions: for exam-
ple, surface or single-loop learning serves the learning of, for example, mathematical
timetables by rote or technical features of computers. Deep or double-loop learners know
how to create knowledge and are reflective about what they learn and how they learn.
Profound or triple-loop learning is not only about 'the what' and 'the how', but also 'the
why'. For example, as a teacher becomes more expert with using the interactive white-
board, so they progress from using it superficially for 'initiate-response-feedback' stimu-
lus at the start of a lesson (without extension or evaluation), to engaging with more
interactive strategies, which demands greater pupil reflection and cognitive challenge.
Higgins et al. (2005) found that as interactive whiteboards became more embed-
ded into classroom practice, so patterns of interaction changed.
Teachers asked more open questions, repeat questions, probes (where a
teacher asks for further information or an explanation of the answer from a
pupil), longer answers from pupils, and almost twice the amount of evalu-
ative responses from teachers . . . There was a faster pace, measured by the
number of interactions.
(Higgins et al. 2005: 4)
The notion of incremental shifts in the pedagogical use of the interactive whiteboard,
like the progression from novice to expert, is akin to Lave and Wenger's (1991) con-
ception of moving from the periphery to the centre in a community of practice, as
learning how to use the whiteboard more interactively becomes embedded into prac-
tice. However, all this takes time, which leads us to consider those factors that affect
the take-up of technology for classroom practice.
Emerging conditions for the effective implementation of interactive whiteboards
in classrooms
The key factors identified from research as affecting the implementation of inter-
active whiteboards were time and costs (Somekh et al. 2007). Although significant
government funding enabled the widespread adoption of interactive whiteboards in
schools, following the initial expense of installation, came the need to fund teachers'
training in their use, which also required time . Also, it is demanding of teachers' time
to produce resources for interactive whiteboard use, as discussed and, although these
can be shared and saved for future use, there is still the initial outlay in preparation
time. Higgins et al. (2005) found that it typically took one year of using the interac-
tive whiteboard before teachers created their own resources, referred to as 'embedding