The IWB and the Productive Pedagogy Puzzle

in the EFL / ESL Classroom

By GM van de Water
Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) have been a fixed feature
in many foreign language classrooms around the globe
for more than a decade. Although the technology was
heralded as the catalyst for improved learning in the new
century (Hockly 2013, pp. 354 - 355), research
demonstrates that its use does not necessarily translate
into improved student achievement (Hockly 2013, p. 354;
Higgins, Beauchamp & Miller 2007, p. 221; Moss et al.
2007, cited in Lacina 2009, p. 271). A fruitful marriage
between technology and pedagogy is the answer to the
problem (Hockly 2013, p. 357). This paper identifies and
deconstructs some common applications of IWBs in
foreign languages classrooms, and proposes some
suggestions for the application of the IWB as a stimulus
for communicative language learning in secondary
EFL/ESL classrooms. However, first we need to describe
IWB features for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the
technology, and secondly, we need to discuss why the
IWB has not transformed English language learning.
An IWB is the TARDIS of teaching technology in that it incorporates multiple tools in one package: a
whiteboard, coursebook, display screen, printer and access to the Internet. Essentially, it is a touchsensitive display screen the size of a traditional whiteboard that needs to be connected to a computer
and a projector to access its features. The screen can be controlled with the touch of a finger, a
dedicated pen, or remote devices. With the use of dedicated software, objects displayed on the board
can be highlighted, dragged and dropped, or, hidden and revealed. All documents created on the
computer can be displayed on the board, including text documents, presentations and spreadsheets,
which can be hyperlinked to webpages. These documents can be annotated and modified during class
and printed from the IWB or saved for future use.
No silver bullet
The IWB has proven to be no silver bullet for student achievement. Several research findings indicate a
disappointing return on an expensive investment. Higgins, Beauchamp & Miller report that the use of
an IWB may have no significant or measurable impact on achievement (2007, p. 221). This warning is
confirmed by a statistical analysis of 9,000 students attending thirty different schools, which found that
there was no increase in achievement in three core subject areas during the 2004/2005 school year
(Moss et al. 2007, cited in Lacina 2009, p. 271). Some caution is required before drawing sweeping
conclusions from these findings since it is extremely difficult to establish a direct causal relationship
between the technology and student attainment (Hockly 2013, p. 355).

The IWB and the Productive Pedagogy Puzzle

in the EFL / ESL Classroom

This is due to a multitude of factors involved, including the way teachers use the IWB, the classroom
context, the amount of professional development received by the teacher, the materials used,
students motivation, and expectations and attitudes (ibid.). Nonetheless, the findings do confirm that
the use of an IWB in and of itself does not perforce translate into student achievement more needs
to happen for this to eventuate.
The crux of the problem is knowing how to use IWB features and affordances in order to create
innovative lessons that encourage active learning and improved student achievement. Contrarily,
professional literature indicates that by and large the use of IWBs has not been coupled with
innovative pedagogy. Instead, the technology appears to have been uncritically absorbed into
teachers pre-IWB practice (Smith et al. 2005, p. 96) or used to support a teacher-centred
transmission or presentational approach to learning (Reedy 2008, cited in Hockly 2013, 357). In the
foreign languages classroom, the IWB is used predominantly to conduct behaviourist CALL activities
(Schmid 2010, p. 160).
The IWB is a fixed feature in many English language learning classrooms, and recently, discourse has
progressed from a debate on whether the technology is good or bad to an exploration of the specific
IWB affordances (Hockly 2013, p. 356). Below I will discuss the three main affordances identified and
demonstrate that an uncritical adoption of ideas can lead to adverse effects on learning. Critical
awareness is the key to solving the IWB and productive pedagogy puzzle.
Multimodal teaching: Multimedia overkill
Professional literature identifies multimodality and fast-paced deliveries as two of the main benefits of
IWBs (Hockly 2013, p. 355). Multimodal teaching involves delivering content knowledge verbally as
well as visually in one or more visual representations (Kuo, Yu & Hsiao 2013, p. 31). This can include
PowerPoint presentations and multimedia
resources such as graphics, photographs
and videos. Adding non-verbal content to
verbal presentations enhances students
understanding (Kuo, Yu & Hsiao 2013, p.
37). Unlike traditional presentation
technologies such as DVD players and
overhead projectors, IWBs allow for easy
access to and seamless integration of a
variety of resources, which increases the
efficiency
of
classroom
delivery.
Consequently,
presentations
move
You have to solve this problem by yourself. You
without apparent effort from the visual to
the verbal and back again with less time
cant call tech support.

The IWB and the Productive Pedagogy Puzzle

in the EFL / ESL Classroom

spent on a preoccupation with resources (Smith et al. 2005, p. 93). However, there are three problems
with this approach.
First of all, although multimedia presentations on the IWB capture and hold pupils attention much
more strongly than other classroom resources (Smith et al. 2005, cited in Higgins, Beauchamp & Miller
2007, p. 215), uncritical use of multimedia may reduce rather than enhance language learning. A
research project on the effect of multimedia annotations on foreign language learners reading
comprehension found that pronunciations, audio recordings and videos affected reading
comprehension negatively . . . because the [learners] visual channel became overloaded with verbal
visual information received from the text and non-verbal visual information from the videos (Sakar &
Ercetin 2005, cited in Schmid 2008, p. 1556).
The second problem with this approach is that the board is used as a teaching tool rather than a
learning tool in that the IWB is used to deliver information rather than a tool to construct meaning
collaboratively. Presenting and delivering multimedia does not necessarily support learners
comprehension. Instead, students must interact with these representations in meaningful ways for
example by developing concepts and integrating the new information with existing knowledge in
order to learn from it (Schmid 2008, p. 1556). This illustrates that a teacher needs to evaluate the
educational value of a multimedia resource first before adding it to a presentation. Furthermore, a
teacher cannot assume that a multimedia representation is self-explanatory. Simply showing a process
to a learner with the aid of dynamic visuals would not miraculously produce understandings of that
process (Goldman 2003, cited in Smith et al. 2005, p. 97). Instead, the visuals need to be carefully
sequenced, any distractions removed and connections need to be explained (Smith et al. 2005, p. 97).
This demonstrates that comprehension flows from sound teaching practices rather than any inherent
qualities of multimodal affordances.
Lastly, a presentational approach has limited potential for student engagement. Hockly cites a case
study of English language learning in Spain where the teacher tended to control the board, which was a
source of frustration for the students, who expressed a desire to use the board more often
themselves (2013, p. 357). However, the discussion below demonstrates that the quality rather than
the quantity of this interaction is a determining factor in meaningful learning and continued student
engagement.
Interactive teaching: Language drills with frills
Interactivity is the third main benefit of IWBs identified by professional literature (Hockly 2013, p.
355). Miller et al. claim that teachers must reach what is referred to as an enhanced interactive phase
in IWB methodology in order to achieve a significant impact on teaching and learning (2005, p. 23).

The IWB and the Productive Pedagogy Puzzle

in the EFL / ESL Classroom

This phase is characterised by lessons structured so that students frequently interact with the board
individually, in pairs or groups (2005, pp. 12 - 13). They provide the following examples of enhanced
interactivity in the foreign languages classroom: physical interaction with content when students
manipulate and move words on the IWB (2005, p. 19); immediate feedback provided by hide and
reveal features when students fill in exercises on the board (2005, p. 20); and, animation of materials
including verb endings flying in to join verbs (2005, p. 17).
These examples demonstrate a strong resemblance to behaviourist CALL, which is characterised by
repetitive language drills, restriction to correct answers only and immediate true/false feedback by a
patient and nonjudgmental computer (Warschauer & Healey 1998, p. 57). These activities diminish the
role of the teacher as well as the students. The teacher is the orchestrator of the IWB by revealing the
correct answer after a student has dragged and dropped language items, while the rest of the class
waits passively for the correct and perhaps predictable - answer. Language drills with interactive frills
removes power from students to ask as well as answer questions, and to evaluate their own and
others understanding (Smith et al. 2005, p. 95). Although there is no problem with explicit grammar
and vocabulary language teaching per se contrarily the method is a time-tested approach to achieve
linguistic accuracy however, Mroz et al. report that only rarely are teachers questions used to assist
pupils to more complete and elaborate ideas (2000, cited in Smith et al. 2005, p. 95).
Furthermore, the examples provided by Smith et al. demonstrate underlying assumptions that
kinaesthetic approaches are naturally meritorious and improve whole-class learning. Contrarily, these
assumptions appear to be apocryphal upon closer inspection. Kinaesthetic learning involves learning
through touch and movement. In the foreign languages classroom, linguistic comprehension is
consolidated by physically moving language content on the IWB with a finger, pen or remote device
(Smith et al. 2005, p. 97). However, Smith et al. question the learning benefits of physical interaction
with the IWB if there is no direct relationship between the movement and the learning content (2005,
p. 97). This relationship can be readily established in a geometry class, however, the connection
between language items for example grammatical constructs - and physical movement is less
apparent. Therefore, the challenge an EFL/ESL teacher faces is to establish the relationship between
language content and physical movement first in order to attain learning benefits from kinaesthetic
features.
Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence that the entire class benefits when one or several
students interact with the IWB. Although there is a wealth of anecdotal literature that describes
increased social interaction and collaboration among peers, who may even display intense interest in
what others do on the IWB (Miller et al. 2005, p. 21), however, there are research reports that claim
the contrary. A scientific study from the University of London reports that although students
demonstrated increased engagement and motivation when taught using IWBs, nonetheless, this

The IWB and the Productive Pedagogy Puzzle

in the EFL / ESL Classroom

engagement is short-lived (Lacina 2009, p. 271). Furthermore, the long wait times for turn-taking on
the IWB reduces the pace of the lesson and can cause boredom (Smith 2001, cited in Smith et al.
2005, p. 95). This is a likely outcome if the IWB is used for language drills with frills only and no
collaborative meaning-making occurs. However, the suggestions below demonstrate that the IWB can
be used as an interactive hub to construct meaning collaboratively and enhance communicative
language teaching.
An alternative approach
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is characterised by text and task authenticity, studentcentredness and an emphasis on collaborative and cooperative learning (Brandl 2008). The IWB is an
appropriate tool to cultivate this approach as well as integrate ICT and cultural diversity in the
classroom.
The teaching suggestion below requires a reconceptualization of the role of the teacher in that he or
she is no longer the orchestrator of the IWB but rather the mediator between the technology and the
students. This project requires students to use the IWB for collaborative mind mapping, whereby they
add to whole-class concept-building using their own multimedia presentations. Since the students set
the pace and evaluate each others contributions, cognitive overload and boredom is avoided.
For this project, common coursebook themes can be used as a springboard. For example units on My
Home or Housing can be become the basis for a research task on different types of dwellings around
the world. Divide the class into continents Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America whereby
each group researches different dwellings in their allocated continent. Students need to find visual
representations of the dwelling and formulate answers to the questions what environmental,
economic and cultural circumstances influenced the choice of living arrangements. The purpose of this
task is to enrich vocabulary, develop an understanding how languages evolve and develop through
contact with other cultures, as well as develop an understanding that environmental, financial and
cultural factors often determine the choice of housing which can vary immensely worldwide. Students
need access to mobile devices or a computer lab to conduct the research.

Individual research should culminate in one collaborative, whole-class mind map of dwellings created
on the IWB. This mind map is developed and extended during group presentations during which each
group presents their continent together. Students can add any form of multimedia as well as written
information to the mind map. As an added level of complexity, students need to evaluate and present
similarities between their chosen dwellings in the group to prevent the presentation dissolving into a
random collection of dwellings. The aural presentations can be recorded on the IWB and added to the
mind map. Once all groups have delivered a presentation, the mind map can be shared on the school
Moodle or an online medium.

The IWB and the Productive Pedagogy Puzzle

in the EFL / ESL Classroom

This task can be expanded by problematizing housing in students own country and explore why
differences exist between socio-economic groups. The class should be divided into groups representing
for example the aged, refugees, migrants, students and people with disabilities. The presentations
should focus on evaluation and problem-solving rather than describing.
Adopting or changing methodology is a challenging process that requires an attitude change from the
teacher as well as the students. However, I would like to conclude this paper with an easily
implemented idea that is a step towards a more democratic, constructivist and communicative
classroom. Next time a student asks a question, why not invite him or her to Google the answer on the
IWB and report the findings back to the class?

References:
Brandl, K 2008, Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction, Communicative
Language Teaching in Action, accessed online,
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/samplechapter/0131579061.pdf, viewed 2 May 2015.
Higgins, S, Beauchamp, G & Miller, D 2007, Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards, Learning,
Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 213 225.
Hockly, N 2013, Interactive whiteboards, ELT Journal, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 354 358.

The IWB and the Productive Pedagogy Puzzle

in the EFL / ESL Classroom

Kuo, FO, Yu, PT & Hsiao, WH 2013, Develop and Evaluate the Effects of Multimodal Presentation System on
Elementary ESL Students, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 29
40.
Lacina, J 2009, Interactive Whiteboards: Creating Higher-Level, Technological Thinkers?, Childhood Education,
vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 270 272.
Miller, D, 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, viewed 23 April 2015,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110130111510/http:/www.partners.becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/bursaries05/interactive_whiteboard.pdf
Schmid, EC 2008, Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language
classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology, Computers & Education, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1553
1568.
Schmid, EC 2010, Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative
language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol.
19, no. 2, pp. 159 172.
Smith, HJ, Higgins, S, Wall, K & Miller J 2005, Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of
the literature, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 91 101.
Warschauer, M & Healey, D 1998, Computers and language learning: an overview, Language Teaching, vol. 31,
no. 2, pp. 57 71.