INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 1

The Effectiveness of Interactive Whiteboards on the Achievement of Elementary Students

Renee Hudson

Montgomery County Public Schools/UMUC

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 2

Abstract

Interactive whiteboards are in many elementary classrooms and have many uses that can

promote student learning. They are a technology designed for whole group instruction and most

studies find that they increase student motivation. Many studies research the relationship

between the interactive whiteboard and interactivity. This paper questions whether teachers use

this new technology as interactive, constructivist learning tools or just as a way to give teacher-

centered presentations to students. Interactive whiteboards that are used as part of the

constructivist approach in the classroom will increase student interactivity. The role of dialogic

discourse is discussed because it is a necessary component of interactivity. Teacher training is

important to realizing the full potential of the interactive whiteboard in elementary classroom.

Teacher education programs and teacher professional development trainings should include

teaching how to use the technology as well as facilitating interactivity so that students can

construct their own knowledge and therefore improve student achievement.

Keywords: interactive whiteboard, interactivity, constructivism

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 3

The Effectiveness of Interactive Whiteboards on the Achievement of Elementary Students

Introduction

Technology is a major part of our lives in the 21st century. According to the Teachers

tools for the 21st century survey in 1999 almost all public school teachers (99%) reported having

computers available somewhere in their schools and 84% of them reported having computers

available in their classrooms (Vrasidas, & McIsaac, 2010). In addition to computers, by 2014

many classrooms now use the interactive whiteboard to facilitate their instruction. Teachers

must learn to integrate technology if they are to keep up with students who see technology as a

normal part of their everyday life (Chien, 2013). An interactive white board can be described as

a computer connected to a data projector which projects images onto a touch or pen-sensitive

screen (Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, & Swan, 2010).

The interactive whiteboard hardware uses software such as ActivInspire to create

flipcharts. A flipchart has various pages that a student can draw on, manipulate, uncover with a

spotlight, or add a photo, video or hypertext link, etc. Many public school systems and some

websites share flipcharts that are created by other teachers. A teacher can easily edit shared

flipcharts to meet the needs of his/her class. This paper will explore the research that exists to

address the question: What is the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards on the achievement of

elementary students?

Implications of Research

There have been many studies done about the use of interactive white boards. Many of

the studies focus on upper grades or teachers attitudes toward interactive white boards. There

also have been many studies done on how interactive technology like the whiteboard affects
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 4

interactivity in the classroom. These studies on interactivity found that when teachers use the

interactive whiteboard in the elementary classroom, teachers often fail to utilize the whiteboards

full interactive potential. Almost all of research reported the interactive whiteboard to be highly

motivating for pupils (Gillen, Staarman, Littleton, Mercer, & Twiner, 2007). Few studies have

been done on elementary students on the effects interactive whiteboards have on the students

achievements. However, much information can be ascertained from all of these studies.

Uses of the Interactive Whiteboard

There are many reasons that teachers identify for using the interactive whiteboard such

as, flexibility and versatility; multimedia/multisensory presentation; saving and printing work;

efficiency; planning and saving lessons; teaching (Information and Communication Technology)

ICT; and interactivity and participation (Kennewell, Tanner, Jones, Beauchamp, 2008). There

are many interactive whiteboard instructional strategies that have had a positive effect on student

learning, such as highlighting, coloring, writing, flipping back and forth through previous

content, using pictures, hiding and revealing, dragging and dropping, matching items, using the

spotlight, capturing screenshots of web pages and observing different media (Turel, & Johnson,

2012). All of these instructional strategies are available on a large, colorful interactive screen.

But even with all of these benefits, will teachers use interactive whiteboards if they have them in

their classrooms? If teachers do use them, will they be able to use them in such a way to

increase student interactivity and student achievement? If teachers use interactive whiteboard

technology every day, it may not lead to the sort of changes in pedagogy that may be needed to

improve learning and attainment beyond what can be achieved with the best use of non-digital

tools for teaching and learning (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2008). Teachers not only need to
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 5

understand how to use the interactive whiteboard technology, but also how it will/can improve

their instruction.

Whole Group Instruction and Interactivity

The interactive whiteboard is the only educational ICT tool expressly designed for

whole-class interaction (Gillen, Staarman, Littleton, Mercer, & Twiner, 2007). Without proper

training, teachers may resort to a more teacher-directed approach, which resembles a lecture.

The use of the (white) boards can encourage teachers to revert to full class teaching with fewer

opportunities for multiple student responses (Northcote, et al., 2010). It can be tempting for

teachers to use the interactive white board in this way, but the potential for greater student

achievement comes from a student-centered activity with the interactive whiteboard.

The interactive whiteboard in itself is not and cannot be interactive; it is merely a

medium through which interactivity may, to a greater or lesser extent, be afforded (Haldane,

2007). Research has shown that students benefit from the constructivist teaching approach more

than they do from the teacher-directed approach. For students to fully benefit from the

interactive whiteboard, the teacher must be able to fully utilize the technology to facilitate

interactivity. This interactivity will create a constructivist learning environment, which will

improve student achievement.

Constructivism

In a constructivist learning environment, children actively construct their knowledge

(Strommen, 1992). As opposed to the teacher-directed classroom, which is teacher-centered, the

constructivist classroom is student-centered. Students assimilate new information to simple,

pre-existing notions, and modify their understanding in light of new data (Strommen, 1992).

As students construct their knowledge, they are active participants in their learning instead of
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 6

passive learners. In a constructivist classroom, students work together and collaborate. When

children collaborate, they share the process of constructing their ideas, instead of simply laboring

individually (Strommen, 1992).

Constructivism is a social process. Proponents of sociocultural theory argue that

learning is primarily a social process mediated through interactions using tools (Maher, 2012).

Teachers must be willing to use the interactive whiteboard as a tool to facilitate a constructivist

approach in the classroom as opposed to using it to lecture to the students.

Interactivity and Dialogic Discourse

Many teachers find it a challenge to facilitate a constructivist approach when only one

student can interact with the interactive whiteboard at a time. However, interactions are socially

reciprocal actions involving two or more people (Maher, 2012). Interactive whiteboards have

the potential to be a tool for interactivity. This social interactivity comes from dialogic

discourse. The term dialogic discourse draws from the notion of learning as a dialogue(Maher,

2012). When there are dialogic interactions, learning is collective, reciprocal, supportive and

cumulative (Maher, 2012).

Teacher-centered lectures or presentations consist of very few interactions between the

teacher and the students. Whereas the student-centered, constructivist activities that include

dialogic dialogue are on the opposite end of the interactivity scale. Table 1 shows the levels of

interactivity in whole-class teaching (Kennewell, et al., 2008). This table shows that the type of

interactivity that occurs when there is higher student control is the type of interaction that

happens when there is dialogic discourse.

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 7

Table 1: Levels of Interactivity in whole-class teaching

Source: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Feb 2008, Vol 24 Issue 1, p61-73, found on p63

Many of the studies that focused on how interactive technology affects interactivity in the

classroom found that students are interacting with each other even though only one student can

use the interactive whiteboard at a time. For example, if a student is at the whiteboard, other

students have been found to coach the student. A teacher who fosters a collaborative,

constructivist environment in his/her classroom will allow students to give clues or offer support

to the student at the whiteboard. In this type of environment the teacher facilitates learning so

that the interactive white board allows knowledge to be shared publicly, allowing students to

learn together (Maher, 2012).

Beauchamp and Kennewell (2008) found that there was more interactivity among

students when a student was in front of the class than if the teacher was at the whiteboard. They

found that the empathy from other pupils and the unpredictability of outcome on the board

maintained engagement and participation from the class (2008). In one study, students were

using the interactive whiteboard to edit a text together. The students were talking with each

other, making suggestions and building on each others ideas and then when a consensus was

reached the student with the keyboard would make the change (Maher, 2012). This type of

coaching or interactivity exists in classrooms that are student-centered. When students interact
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 8

with the interactive whiteboard in this kind of classroom, they work and learn together, even in

the whole-class environment. The student-centered classroom is where students take more

control of the learning environment and become active constructors of knowledge while working

on authentic tasks (Vrasidas et al., 2010).

In another study, done by Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, K. (2007) with a group of three

students, positive results were found for teaching sight words on an interactive whiteboard. Each

student had their own sight words, but they also learned the other students sight words. Results

of this study support the large screen for delivering target information and learning of other

students information by making images more visible and increasing attention to the task

(Mechling et al., 2007).

This type of interaction could occur using non-interactive whiteboard tools, however the

interactive whiteboard allows for the use of these strategies with ease and smooth transitions.

Teachers can access pages from a previous days flipchart to activate background knowledge, or

the teacher can use photographs taken of a previous days lesson/activity to not only activate

background knowledge, but do so in an authentic way. Although all teachers are striving for

continuity in lessons and may be willing to use a wide range of resources, the interactive white

board facilitates the accomplishment of this (Gillen, Littleton, Twiner, Staarman, & Mercer,

2008).

Teacher Training

Most of the studies found that interactive whiteboards have the potential for interactivity

and improved student achievement, but it is up to the teacher to create this proper environment.

For the interactive whiteboard to be educationally successful, then changes need to be made to

pedagogical practices (Maher, 2012). One study charted the usage frequency of the interactive
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 9

whiteboard features (Turel et al., 2012). It found that not all functions were frequently used.

Many of these functions may not have been used as frequently due to the lack of training.

Incorporating these seldom used functions, especially importing a picture or movie, or using the

Internet or a hyperlink, would improve the effectiveness of the interactive whiteboard

experience. Table 2 shows the usage frequency of these features from this study. In teacher

education programs and teacher professional development trainings on how to use the interactive

whiteboard, if there is an emphasis on facilitating interactivity so that students can construct their

own knowledge, student achievement could improve.

Table 2: Usage frequencies of interactive whiteboard features

Source: Turel, Y., & Johnson, T.E. (2012). Teachers belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning.

Educational Technology & Society 15(1), 381-394.

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 10

Conclusion

Although more research needs to be done on the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards

on the achievement of elementary students, the current research indicates that the interactive

whiteboard is highly engaging and motivating for students. If teacher education programs and

teacher professional development emphasize the importance of facilitating interactivity into their

teaching approach, interactive whiteboards can be utilized to their fullest potential. The social

and highly motivating aspect of interactive whiteboards allows students to work together and

share their learning. Therefore, interactive whiteboards can be very effective in improving the

achievement of elementary students if teachers understand how to create an interactive

environment in their classroom using the interactive whiteboard as a tool.

References:

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2008). The influence of ICT on the interactivity of learning.

Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 305-315.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9071-y

Chien, Y. (2013). The integration of technology in the 21st century classroom: Teachers

attitudes and pedagogical beliefs toward emerging technologies. Journal of Technology

Integration in the Classroom, 5(1), 5-11. Retrieved from Ebscohost.

Gillen, J. J., Littleton, K. K., Twiner, A. A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. N. (2008). Using the

interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a

primary science classroom. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348-358.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00269.x
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 11

Gillen, J., Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A "learning revolution"?

Investigating pedagogic practices around interactive whiteboards in british primary

classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511099

Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning.

Learning, Media And Technology, 32(3), 257-270.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511107

Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive

technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

24, 61-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x

Maher, D. (2012). Teaching literacy in primary schools using an interactive whole-class

technology: Facilitating student-to-student whole-class dialogic interactions. Technology,

Pedagogy And Education, 21(1), 137-152.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1080/1475939X.2012.659888

Mechling, L., Gast, D., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of smart board technology: an investigation

of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism & Developmental

Disorder, 37(10), 1869-1882. Retrieved from Ebscohost.

Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards:

Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 26(4),

494-510. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/northcote.pdf

Strommen, E. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom.. Education &

Urban Society, 24(4), 466. Retrieved from Ebscohost.

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 12

Turel, Y., & Johnson, T.E. (2012). Teachers belief and use of interactive whiteboards for

teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society 15(1), 381-394. Retrieved

from http://www.ifets.info/journals/15_1/32.pdf

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. (2010). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher education:

Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Education Media International, 127-132.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523980110041944