Systematic Review of the Studies Examining the Impact of the Interactive Whiteboard on Teaching and Learning: what we do learn and what we do not

PDF
Published: Nov 17, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/ppej.9873
Keywords:
Achievement classroom interaction assessment interactive whiteboards
Artemis Kyriakou
Durham University
Steve Higgins
Durham University
Abstract

This systematic review focuses on the impact of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on teaching and learning. Learning is interpreted through a Vygotskian constructivist lens, emphasizing quality through dialogic interaction. Classroom interactions and achievement in standardized tests are considered formative and summative assessment tools, respectively. Thus, our aim was to investigate whether the IWB technology had any effect on teaching and learning, reflected in standardized forms of testing or in-classroom quality measures. An online search through Proquest and FirstSearch resulted in sixteen studies of diverse methodologies. Qualitative synthesis of quantitative data indicated that IWBs have not raised the levels of pupils’ achievement and do not necessarily impact the quality of classroom learning. More longitudinal studies should focus on particular subjects taught, the age of pupils and particular type(s) of use. Overall, quality teaching is an important condition for improved learning, which does not necessarily result from IWB use.  However, there is a general consensus across all studies that learning can be facilitated and improved through the use of IWB. Synchronizing theory with technological applications seems to be key in answering such assumptions positively. More importantly, concerns are raised regarding the unfolded relation between achievement and classroom interaction.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biographies
Artemis Kyriakou, Durham University
PhD candidate, School of Education
Steve Higgins, Durham University
Professor of Education, School of Education
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate the systematic review sample
*Bahadur, G, K & and Oogarah, D. (2013). “Interactive whiteboard for primary schools in Mauritius : An effective tool or just another trend? Goonesh Kumar Bahadur, University of Mauritius, Mauritius Deorani Oogarah Primary School, Mauritius”. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9 (1), 19-35.
Beauchamp, G. (2004) “Teacher use of the Interactive Whiteboard in the Primary Schools: towards effective transition framework”. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13 (3), 327-348.
Beauchamp, G. and Kennnewell, S. (2010) “Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning”, Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766.
Boland, A., Cherry, M.G. & Dickson, R. (2014). Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide. Sage Publications, Inc.
Callingham, R. (2008). Dialogue and Feedback. Assessment in the Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(3), 18–21.
*Campbell T.L. (2010). The effects of Whiteboards on Student Achievement in Fourth grade Mathematics as measured on the Palmetto Achievement Test (PACT) at selected schools in North Central South Carolina, EdD Thesis, South Carolina State University, USA.
Cheung, A. & Slavin, R. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113.
Ciltas, A., Guler, G., & Sozbilir, M. (2012). “Mathematics Education Research in Turkey: A Content Analysis Study”. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 574-580.
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: A systematic and artistic process of instruction for supporting school and lifelong learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(2), 24–40.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd Ed.) New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck C. (2001, Winter) “High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox”, American Education Research Journal, 38 (4), 813-834.
*Diaz J.L. (2012). A Study of Education Today: Interactive Classroom Educational Technology Strategies (ICETS). EdD Thesis, Union Institute & University Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Dixon, H., & Williams, R. (2001, September). Teachers' understandings of formative assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. Retrieved July 2015 from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002533.htm
EPPI (2012), “Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-Ordinating Centre’, University of London, London. Retrieved September 2012 from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/ [Cited in Hallinger, 2013]
Esarte-Sarries V. & Paterson F. (2003) “Scratching the surface a typology of interactive teaching”. In Moyles, J., Hargreaves, L., Merry, R. Paterson F. and Esarte-Sarries V. (eds.) Interactive Teaching in the Primary School Digger Deeper into Meanings, p. 63–81. Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Gera, R. (2012). Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(3), 252–273, DOI: 10.1108/09513541211213336
Gera, R. (2012). Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(3), 252–273, DOI: 10.1108/09513541211213336
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perception of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102–117.
Hallinger, P. (2013). Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership an empirical assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, DOI:10.1177/0013161X13506594
Harlen, W. (2007) “The Quality of Learning: Assessment Alternatives for Primary Education, Research Survey ¾”, Primary Review Interim Reports, October 2007, University of Cambridge.
Hennessy, S. (2011) “The role of digital artefacts on the interactive whiteboard in supporting classroom dialogue”. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 463-489.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). “Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards”. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 213–225.
*Higgins, S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., Moseley, D, Smith, H.,Wall, K. & Smith, F. (2005). Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies. Final report, University of Newcastle.
Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: Introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351-365. Retrieved October 2013 from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/holmes.html
Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S. (2005). “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-88. Retrieved August 2013 from: http://education.mit.edu/papers/GamesSimsSocNets_EdArcade.pdf
*Huang, T. H., Liu, Y. C., Yan, W. T. & Chen, Y. C. (2009). Using the innovative cooperative Learning model with the interactive whiteboard to primary school students’ mathematical class: Statistic vs. pie chart and solid diagram. In L. Cameron & J. Dalziel (Eds), Proceedings of the 4th International LAMS Conference 2009: Opening Up Learning Design. (pp.84-94). 3-4th December. 2009, Sydney: LAMS Foundation.
*Hwang, W., Chen, N. & Hsu, R. (2006). “Development and evaluation of multimedia whiteboard system for improving mathematical problem solving”. Computers & Education, 46(2), 105-121
John, P. D. (2005). The sacred and the profane: Subject sub-culture, pedagogical practice and teachers’ perception of the classroom uses of ICT. Educational Review, 57(4), 471–490.
*Kennewell, S., Beauchamp, G., Jones, S., et al. (2007). The Use of ICT to Improve Learning and Attainment through Interactive Teaching: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0167-A. Swindon: ESRC
Kent, P. (2006). Using Interactive Whiteboards to Enhance Mathematics Teaching. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(2), 23–26.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff J., & Haas, J. (2009). The instructional power of digital games, social networking, simulations, and how teachers can leverage them. The Education Arcade at MIT.
*Lopez O. (2010). “The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology”. Computers & Education, 54(4), 901-915.
Loveless, A. M. (2003). The interaction between primary teachers’ perceptions of ICT and their pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 313–326.
*Martin S.(2007). “Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new approach to teaching children to write?” Literacy, 41(1), 26-34.
*Masera R. (2010). Effects of traditional versus tactual/kinesthetic Interactive-Whiteboard Instruction on Primary Students' vocabulary achievement and attitude-test scores. EdD Thesis, St.John’s University, New York.
McFarlane, F., Schroeder, F., Enriquez, & M., Dew, D. (2011). How do we lead when change is constant? The Journal of Rehabilitation, 77(4), 4-12.
Murphy, J., Vriesenga, M. & Storey, V. (2007). “Educational administration quarterly, 1979-2003: an analysis of types of work, methods of investigation, and influences”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 5, 612-28.
Penn, H. & Lloyd, E. (2006). “Using Systematic Reviews To Investigate Research in Early Childhood”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(3), 311–330.
Peterson, E., & Siadat, M. V. (2009). Combination of formative and summative assessment instruments in elementary algebra classes : A prescription for success. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 16(2), 92–102.
*Rains C. (2011). Effect of Interactive Whiteboard Instruction on 5th Grade Standardized Test Scores in the Area of Mathematics. EdD Thesis, Walden University, USA.
Slay, H., Siebӧrger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just ‘‘lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341.
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, 21(2), 91-101.
*Somekh et al.(2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project. Manchester Metropolitan University.
*Swan, K., Schenker, A. & Kratcoski A. (2010). Interactive Whiteboards and Student Achievement. In Thomas, M. & Schmid, E., C. (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: theory, research and practice. USA: IGI Global.
*Thompson, J. & Flecknoe, M. (2003). “Raising attainment with an interactive whiteboard in Key Stage 2”. Management in Education, 17(3), 29-33.
Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221–237, DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2013.830079
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. J. (2005). ‘‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things”: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Education Technology, 36(5), 851–867.
*Watt, K. (2009). A comparison of the effects of programmed learning sequenced and Interactive Whiteboard instruction on the Mathematics achievement and attitudes of the eighth-grade students. EdD Thesis, St. John’s University, New York.
*Winkler , R. L. (2011). Investigating the Impact of Interactive Whiteboard Professional Development on Lesson Planning and Student Achievement. EdD Thesis, Liberty University, USA.