The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Bene˜ts, …iwb.crifpe.ca/files/Rapport.pdf · The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Benefits, and Challenges. A survey of ... troducing

The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):Uses, Bene�ts, and Challenges.A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers.

By Thierry KARSENTI

February 2016

Bien plus captiv

ant que le

tableau noir,

mais aussi

combien plu

s complexe et c

hronophage à util

iser

Legal deposit

Library and Archives Canada, 2016ISBN: 978-2-923808-52-9

This document is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (the least restrictive). For more information on this type of licence, visit the Creative Commons site at creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

To quote this document Karsenti, T. (2016). The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Benefits, and Challenges. A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers. Montreal: CRIFPE.

Data collection and analysisThe team of the Canada Research Chair in Technologies in Education (Gabriel, Aurélien, Ariane, Simon, Gabrielle, Aziz)Global editing: Charles Dionne

Report available at iwb.crifpe.ca

Note The masculine gender is used in this document for the sake of simplicity and readability, and not for purposes of discrimination.

Uses, Benefits, and Challenges �

Table of Contents

List of figures ........................................................................................................ II

Abstract ................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2

2. The interactive whiteboard in education: what the research says .................................... 5

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Participants .......................................................................................................... 93.2 Data collection instruments ............................................................................... 103.3 Data treatment and analysis .............................................................................. 103.4 Methodological strengths and limitations .......................................................... 11

4. Main results ................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 How was the IWB used? ..................................................................................... 124.2 What were the main benefits of the IWB? .......................................................... 164.3 Specific benefits of IWB use................................................................................ 194.4 Challenges of IWB use in class ............................................................................ 20

5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 25

6. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 28

7. References ..................................................................................................................... 29

8. Works consulted ............................................................................................................ 33

�� The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):

List of figuresFigure 1

Presence of interactive white boards (IWB) in classrooms of various countries ............................3

Figure 2 Change in the numbers of publications addressing the IWB in education ....................................5

Figure 3 Distribution of participating students between elementary and high school ...............................9

Figure 4 Number of years of teaching experience for participating teachers ............................................10

Figure 5 Use frequency of the IWB by teachers ........................................................................................12

Figure 6 Use frequency of the IWB by students according to teachers ......................................................13

Figure 7 Use frequency of the IWB by students according to students .....................................................14

Figure 8 Main uses of the IWB in class .....................................................................................................15

Figure 9 Students’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard ................................................................16

Figure 10 Teachers’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard ................................................................16

Figure 11 Main benefits of the IWB according to students .........................................................................17

Figure 12 Main benefits of the IWB according to teachers .........................................................................18

Figure 13 Main challenges of the IWB according to teachers .....................................................................21

Figure 14 Frequency of technical problems according to teachers .............................................................21

Figure 15 Technical problems that teachers felt they could resolve on their own without a technician’s help.........................................................................................................22

Figure 16 Main challenges of the IWB according to students .....................................................................24

Uses, Benefits, and Challenges 1

Abstract Over the past five years, the interactive whiteboard (IWB) has been

massively introduced intoschoolsacross theprovinceofQuébec,Ca-nada.Thisstudy,conductedbytheteamoftheCanadaResearchChairinTechnologiesinEducation,aimedtoidentifyhowtheIWBisusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges.Thestudyparticipantsincluded11,683students(from4thyearelementaryto5thyearhighschool)and1,131teachers.Fivedatacollectioninstrumentswereused:1)asurveyquestionnaireforallstudents(n=11,683),2)asurveyquestionnaireforallteachers(n=1,131),3)individualinterviewswithtea-chers(n=31),4)groupinterviewswithteachers(8interviewswithgroupsof6to17teachers),and5)groupinterviewswithstudents(16interviewswithgroupsof8to24students).ThisreportbeginswithapresentationofthemaineducationalusesoftheIWB,followedbythemanybenefitsas perceived by teachers and students.The main challenges that thistechnologyposesforteachersandstudentsarethenaddressed.Farfromcallingintoquestiontheneedtointegratetechnologyineducation,theresultsrevealthatcertaintools,suchastheIWB,maybemorecomplicatedandtime-consumingtointegratethanothers.Thus,teachersappearedtohaveproblemswithtechnicalaspectsoftheIWB.Nevertheless,theresultsalsoshowthattheIWBhasrealeducationalpotential.Thereportconcludeswithalistof12recommendations.

2 The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):

1. INTRoDUCTIoN

Atthe2003WorldSummitontheInformationSociety,KofiAnnanpro-claimedthatrapidtechnologyadvancementscan“propel”usto“improvestandardsoflivingformillionsofpeopleonthisplanet.”1Healsoforesawthatthepowerofthesetoolswillbeincreasinglyfeltinallareasoflife,withagrowinginfluenceoneconomic,societal,andeducationalaspects.Forexample,injustafewshortyears,classroomsallacrossQuébechavebeentransformed:today,studentsroutinelyhavetheirownlaptopsorareparticipatinginonetouchpadperchildprojects.

InQuébecandaroundtheworld,moreandmoreclassroomsfeatureaninteractivewhiteboard(IWB)(Figure1).AlsocalledanIWoraninterac-tivedigitalwhiteboard(IDW),itreferstoanelectronicwhiteboardthatdisplayscontentprojectedbyacomputer,tablet,orothersource.TheIWBcombinestouch(pen-and-finger)controlofthescreenwithcompu-terizedinputfromavarietyofdevicesoperatedbyteachersorstudents.However,whiletheIWBhasbecomepracticallystandardintheeducationsystemsofcertainAmericanstatesandcountriessuchasAustralia—andespeciallyGreatBritain,wheretheyarepresentin100%ofelementaryschools(Kitchenetal.,2007)and72%ofhighschoolclassrooms(Lee,2010)—,IWBsbegantobeintroducedintoQuébec’seducationsystemonlyinthelastfiveyears.

Theusual justificationforthismassive invasion—putforwardbybothgovernments and businesses—is that IWBs can improve school andacademic outcomes for learners by improving teaching practices, bydiversifyingteachingresources(e.g.,graphics,videos,audio),andbyin-troducingmoreinteractiveteachingandlearningactivities.Nevertheless,thearrivalofthistechnologyinQuébecandelsewhereraisesquestionsaboutitsactualusefulnessforschools,particularlyfromacost–benefitperspective.

1 “’Building an open, empowering information society is a social, economic and ultimately political challenge,’ says Secretary-General at World Summit.” UN Press Release SG/SM/9070-PI/1535. 10 December 2003. http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sgsm9070.doc.htm

The IWB has invaded Québec classrooms in

massive numbers in the last five years

“”


In 2016, we still do not know much

about how the IWB is actually used or the

real impacts on educational outcomes

Figure 1. Presence of interactive white boards (IWB) in classrooms of various countries2

AsdiscussedinSection2below(Theinteractivewhiteboardineducation:whattheresearchsays),in2016,westilldonotknowmuchabouthowtheIWBisactuallyusedortherealimpactsoneducationaloutcomes.Moreover, studies on the educational impacts of the IWB have foundcontradictoryresults.Sometimestheimpactsaremodest,withnorealsignificanceforlearning.Alternatively,manycasestudies,actionresearchstudies,andanecdotalaccountsdescribehowexceptionalteachersusetheIWB.3

Thesestudiesareinstructive,andtheyhelpusunderstandhowteachersmighteventuallymanagetointegratetheIWBintheirclassrooms.Howe-ver,thesesamestudies,aswellasotherreportsofclassroomexperiments,tendtofocusonaparticularaspect:howtheIWBisusedbyexemplaryteachersandteacherswhohavesucceededinfullyintegratingtheIWBintotheirteachingpractice.Meanwhile,thereareveryfewaccountsoffailedexperiments.

Accordingly,andasTürel(2010,p.3050)arguedoverfiveyearsago,westilldonothaveenoughrigorousempiricalevidenceontheimpactsofeducational technology on learning and academic performance. Our

2 http://futuresource-consulting.com/2014-06-EducationHardware-1176.html3 See, for example, Raby, C., Bergeron, L., Tremblay-Wragg, É., Gagnon, B. & Charron, A. (2015). Évolution des pratiques

pédagogiques des enseignants quant à l’utilisation collaborative du tableau numérique interactif par des élèves du préscolaire et du primaire : une recherche-action. In S. Lefebvre and G. Samson (Eds.), Le tableau numérique interactif : quand chercheurs et praticiens s’unissent pour dégager des pistes d’action (p. 39-57). Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec (off collection).

“”


teamthereforefelt it importantfor IWBimplementationtobeprecededbycarefulscientificreflectiononhowitwillbeusedbybothteachersandlearnersaswellasathoroughanalysisoftherealeducationalimpacts.

The objective of this study conducted by the team of the Canada Research Chair in Techno-logies in Education was to identify how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) is used in Québec schools and the associated benefits and challenges.

Thisstudythereforeaimedtoshedscientificlightontheeduca-tionalusesandimpactsoftheIWB.ThisobjectiveisalsorelatedtotheAvis sur l’éthique et les TIC à l’école[OpinionstatementontheethicsofICTatschool]releasedin2015byQuébec’sCommission de l’éthique en sciences et en technologie[Commissionforethicsinscienceandtechnology].Twooftheirrecommendationsremindschoolstodeterminefirstandforemosttheimpactsoftechnologyonacademicperseveranceandachievementbeforeintroducingthemacrosstheboard:

RECOMMENDATION1.TheMinisterofeducationshouldpromotetheuseofICTonlywhenitprovidesrealaddedvalueintermsofspecificcharacteristics,andtakingintoconsiderationthebene-fitsforstudentsandforcoursecontexts(level,subject,etc.)[ourtranslation](p.15).

RECOMMENDATION2.TheMinisterofeducationshouldconductorcommissionrigorousstudiesinordertodemonstratetheedu-cationalvalueofvariousICTapplicationsbeforeproceedingtoimplementthem[ourtranslation](p.16).

Thepresentresearchreport isorganizedintosixsections.Fol-lowingtheintroduction(SectionI),asynthesisoftheliteratureonIWBissuesineducationispresented(Section2).Theresearchmethodology(Section3)andthemainresults(Section4)arethenpresented.Thereportendswithaconclusion(Section5)andalistofthemainrecommendations(Section6).


2. THE INTERACTIvE WHITEBoARD IN EDUCATIoN: WHAT THE RESEARCH SAyS

Wesearchedthemaineducationdatabases(ERIC,CAIRN,andFRANCIS)andGoogleScholarforstudiesonusesandimpactsoftheIWBfrompres-chooltopostsecondaryschool.Figure2showsascreenshotofScopus,“[…] the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings.”4Weobservedasmallnumberofpublicationson the IWB from2009to2011, followedbyagrowinginterestthatsubsequentlydeclinedsharply.Wethenconstructedamatrixtosummarizethereviewedstudies.

Figure 2. Change in the numbers of publications addressing the IWB in education

The analysis shows that although many publications have addressedthe IWB, very few have attempted to assess the educational impactsempirically(seeKhambarietal.,2014;Lopez,2010).Infact,onlyahandfulhavedoneso(seeKhambarietal.,2014;Türel,2010).Wefoundmanypedagogicalrecommendationsforteachers,butnotmuchabouttherealimpactsoftheIWB,exceptforafewstudiesbyauthorssuchasHennessy(2014) and Hennessy and colleagues (2006, 2007, 2011, 2014).Therearealsoseveralcasestudies,forexample,byKennewellandcolleagues(2007,2008),whoexaminedasmallgroupofhighlytech-savvyteachersandtheiruseoftheIWB.StudiestendtosingthepraisesoftheIWB,butoftenwithoutsolidgrounds,somewhatreminiscentofadvertisingflyersthattoutproductfeatures.Thisisnotsurprising,giventhatmanyreports

4 http://www.scopus.com/


arefundedbyIWBproducers.Indeed,Gloveretal.(2005)andSmithetal.(2005)foundthat,since2005,alargepercentageofthesestudieshavebeen funded by IWB producers. By the same token, the benefits thathavebeenclaimedinthesestudiesarenotnecessarilyconsistentwiththeteachingapproachesthatareactuallyused.

Amongthebenefitsthathavebeenaccentuated,wenotethattheIWBallowsteacherstoteachbetterbygivingdemonstrations“atthefrontoftheclass.”Inthecurrenteraofstudent-centeredlearning,wewouldliketoseelesslecturing(wheretheteacherfacestheentireclass)andmoreengagedstudentactivity.Itisthereforeratheroddthatoneofthebenefitsofatoolthatisbeingpromotedforeducationalpurposesisthatitfacilitatesteachingatthefrontoftheclassroom!ForKhambariandcol-leagues(2014),thiswouldbeproblematicforteacherswhofeelcaughtbetween the open-ended and student-centered learning approachesthatschoolsadvocateanduseoftheIWB,whichencouragesteacherstopresentideasinfrontoftheclassusinglecture-styleteaching.However,CutrimSchmid(2008)demonstratedcertainbenefits—aswellassomemajorchallenges—ofIWBuseforlanguageteaching,andSlayandcol-leagues(2008),inSouthAfrica,foundplentyofchallengesofusingtheIWB,particularlyunderuseofitsinteractivefeatures.

Wealsoretrieved15 literaturereviewsormeta-analysesonthistopic.ThemostexhaustivesynthesisontheIWBwasconductedbyMillerandGlover(2010),with100sources.However,theauthorspointedoutthattheirobjectivewasnottopassjudgmentonthemethodsusedinthestu-dies,butinsteadtodrawanoverallportraitofthesituation(p.1),whichistantamounttoreportingresultswithoutassessingthem.Furthermore,ofthe15reviewedsyntheses,onlyfourincludedadetailedexaminationofhowtheresearchersconductedtheirreview(DiGregorio&Sobel-Lojeski,2010;Golonkaetal.,2012;Saltanetal.,2009;Twineretal.,2010),pointingtoalackofrigoronthepartoftheauthors.Overall,thesestudiesandmeta-analysesmentionedtwopotentialbenefitsoftheIWB:1)betterpre-sentationofcertaintheoreticalcontentusingmultisensorialtechniques(Saltanetal.,2009),butatthesametime,andmoretothepoint,usingalecture-styleapproach(seeLittleton,2010);and2)higherstudentinterest,atleastintheshortterm(seeBalta&Duran,2015;DiGregorio&Sobel-Lojeski,2010;Walletal.,2005).Studentmotivation(seealsoHigginsetal.,2007,2010;Hall&Higgins,2005)wasalsothemostfrequentfindingacrossthestudies.Nevertheless,thisappetitefortheIWBappearstowaneovertime(seeBalta&Duran,2015;Dostal,2011;Türel,2010).

Forexample,BaltaandDuran(2015)notedthat,“As students get older, their positive attitudes toward interactive whiteboard technology decrease […]”(p.16).DiGregorioandSobel-Lojeski(2010)qualifytheimpactonstudentmotivation, proposing that the strength and duration of this impactdependsprimarilyontheteachingpracticesused(p.268).Harlowetal.(2010)alsoshowedthatcertainusesoftheIWBaddsharedinteractionalspaceswherestudentscansaveandretrievetheirwork(p.239).Inother

Of the many publica-tions on the IWB, very few have attempted to assess the educational impacts empirically

“”

As students get older, they tend to view the IWB

less positively

“”


words,theIWBhasthepotentialtoallowstudentstocollaborate(seealsoLittleton,2010;Saltanetal.,2009;Warwicketal.,2010),butonlyincertaincircumstances.ForLittleton(2010),theIWB,byenablingteachingatthefrontoftheclass,actually“saves time.”Finally,Dostal(2011)notesthattheIWBcanalsomakeiteasiertoarchiveandsharewrittenwork.Whatdoesallthishavetodowithstudents’educationaloutcomes?Todate, few serious studies have shown any real impacts of the IWB onacademicachievement.Instead,theyhavegenerallyfoundeithernoim-pacts(see,e.g.,Lopez,2010)orelseminimallypositiveimpactsforcertainsubjects—suchasmathematics(seeSwanetal.,2008),whichcouldbeattributedmoretotheattentionpaidtotheparticipatingstudentsthantotheimpactsoftheIWBitself—,orelsenegativeimpacts(seeMossetal.,2010).

Türel (2010) and Khambari and colleagues (2014) contend that not asinglestudytodatehasconcludedthat the IWBhaspositive impactsonacademicachievement.Infact,itisjusttheopposite:theseauthorsarguethatthemanytechnicalissuescombinedwithlackofsupport(seealsoFekonja-Peklajetal.,2015)aremorelikelytounderminemotivationinbothstudentsandteachers. Inthereviewedmeta-analyses,severalauthorsalsounderscoredcertainnegativeimpactsoftheIWB,suchasthetimethatteacherswastewhentheyteachwithitandthescarcityofsupporttechnicalhelp(seeDostal,2011).Accordingtootherresear-chers,whenteachersusetheIWB,theyspendmoretimedealingwithtechnologyissuesthanattendingtowhattheirstudentsarelearning(seeSundbergetal.,2012).

Theoverallfindingsofthesestudiesleadtoonlytworealconclusions:thatstudentsaremoremotivated—althoughthismotivationdiminisheswith time—(see Higgins et al., 2007), and that teachers can providebetterpresentationsoftheoreticalcontent—albeitusingalecture-styleapproach(seeLittleton,2010).

Similarly,arecentOECDreport(September2015)calledStudents, Com-puters and Learning: Making the Connection addressesissuesoftheedu-cationaluseoftheIWB.Thisextensiveinternationalinvestigation(over30countries)oftheimpactsofinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)oneducationshowsthatcountriesthatwereearlyadaptorsofcom-putertechnologyforteachingandlearning(likethosethatfirstacquiredtheIWB)tendtoshowpoorerlearningoutcomes.Anditgetsworse.Insomeschools,themorethatstudentsusenewtechnology,theworsethelearningoutcomes:“[…]but students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after accounting for social background and student demographics”(p.3).Ofcourse,therearesomeexceptions,whichsuggeststhateventhoughtechnologyholdsenormouspotential,theteachercontinuestoplayacentralrole.

To date, few serious studies have

shown any impacts of the IWB on academic

achievement

“”

The overall findings of these studies lead to only two real conclu-

sions: that students are more motivated […] and that teachers can provide better presen-tations of theoretical

content

“

”


Asmentionedabove,inQuébecandelsewherearoundtheworld,manyinstructivestudies(accountsofpractices,actionresearch)haveillustratedhowteacherscanappropriatetheIWBandothertechnologytools(see,e.g.,Ersoy&Bozkurt,2015;Rabyetal.,2015).Althoughthesestudiesmaybehighlyinspiringforfutureteachersandforteacherswhowouldliketoimprovetheirteachingpractices,theydonotprovideacomprehensivepictureoftheuses,benefits,andchallengesofIWBuseintheclassroom.Andalthoughthesestudiescertainlyhavescientificlegitimacy,thereisaclearneedformoreextensivestudiestodocumentactualIWBuseandtoassesstheeducationalimpactssothatthefindingscanguidepoliciesandactionsbygovernmentandeducationdecisionmakers.There is a clear need

for more extensive stu-dies to document actual IWB use and to assess

the educational impacts

“”


3. METHoDoLoGy

Theobjectiveof this studywas to identifyhowthe interactivewhite-board(IWB)isusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges.Thissectionpresentstheresearchmethodinaccordancewiththeguidelinesof the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition(2013).First,theparticipantsarepresented(3.1),followedbythedatacollectioninstruments(3.2)andthedataanalysisstrategies(3.3).Adiscussionofthemethodologicalstrengthsandlimi-tations(3.4)concludesthissectionofthereport.

3.1 Participants

Thestudyparticipantsincluded11,683studentsenrolledinQuébecscho-ols(from4thyearelementaryto5thyearhighschool)and1,131teachers.Thestudents(6,211girls,5,472boys)werefrom10to18yearsold,withanaverageageof14.1years.Figure3showsthat88.4%wereattendinghighschool(n=10,324)and11.6%(1,359)wereattendingelementaryschool(mainly6thyear).Oftheteachers,67.4%(634women,497men)hadfrom11to25yearsofteachingexperience(seeFigure4).ThesubjectstheytaughtcoveredtherangeofthecurriculumtaughtintheQuébeceducationsystem.ParticipantswereselectedonavoluntarybasisfromschoolsinwhichtheIWBwasusedinclass.StudydatawerecollectedfromAugust2014toMay2015.

Figure 3. Distribution of participating students between elementary and high school


Figure 4. Number of years of teaching experience for participating teachers

3.2 Data collection instruments

TobetterunderstandhowtheIWBisusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges,datawerecollectedfrom12,814participantswhowerecurrentlyintheeducationsystem(11,683students;1,131teachers).Fivedatacollectioninstrumentswereused:

1.Asurveyquestionnaireforallstudents(n=11,683)

2.Asurveyquestionnaireforallteachers(n=1,131)

3.Individualinterviewswithteachers(n=31)

4.Groupinterviewswithteachers(8groupsof6to17teachers)

5.Groupinterviewswithstudents(16groupsof8to24students).

3.3 Data treatment and analysis

DatawerecollectedfromquestionnairescontainingbothLikertscaleresponsesandopen-endedquestions.Thedatawereconse-quentlysubjectedtoamixedanalysis.Aquantitativeanalysis,including descriptive statistics, was conducted using SPSS235

5 http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/


andtheonlinesurveytoolSurveyMonkey.� Theinitialresultswerecomplementedbyaqualitativeanalysisoftheopen-endedques-tionnaireresponsesusingQDAMiner,7includingcontentanalysis(see L’Écuyer, 1990; Miles & Huberman, 2003) with semi-opencodingconstructedfromtheparticipants’responsesrelatedtothemainresearchissues(uses,benefits,andchallenges).

Data from the individual and group interviews were analyzedbasedonthemethodsdevelopedbyL’Écuyer(1990)andMilesandHuberman(2003),usingacontentanalysisapproach.Quali-tativeanalyseswereagainconductedusingQDAMiner,awidelyusedqualitativedataanalysistool(Karsentietal.,2011).

3.4 Methodological strengths and limitations

Oneofthemainstrengthsofthisstudyistheresearchmetho-dology.Thecombinationofonlinequestionnairesandindividualandgroupinterviewsprovidesamajoradvantagebyallowingtriangulationofmultipledatasources.However,therearealsocertain limitations. First, the use of participants’ perceptionsmaybeconsideredalimitation,whichweattemptedtooffsetbyexaminingaverylargesample(n=12,814participants:11,683students,1,131teachers)andusingavarietyofdatacollectiontools.Toreducethismethodologicalbias,responsesbydifferentrespondenttypesweresystematicallycomparedinordertohi-ghlightdifferences.

Anotherlimitationconcernstheparticipantsample,whichwasnotrandomlyselected.However,ourpurposewasnottoselecta representative population subset. In fact, the students andteachersweredrawnspecificallyfromQuébecclassroomsthatcontainedanIWB.Why?Becauseforthisparticularstudy,itwouldbedifficultorimpossibletorandomlyselecttheparticipants.Forinstance, how could we have required students and teacherstoparticipateinthesurvey?Therefore,weusedaconveniencesample,oranon-probabilitysample.Ratherthantoprovidere-presentation,theaimwasinsteadtoreachabodyofrespondentsthatwasavailable,voluntary,andsearchable.ThesoleconditionforparticipationwasthatanIWBhadtobepresentinatleastoneoftheparticipant’sclassrooms.

6 https://www.surveymonkey.com/ 7 http://provalisresearch.com/fr/produits/logiciel-d-analyse-qualitative/


4. MAIN RESULTS

Thisreportpresentsthemainresultswithrespecttotheresearchobjec-tives,asfollows:

a) EducationalusesoftheIWB

b) EducationalbenefitsofIWBuse

c) ChallengesofIWBuse.

4.1 How was the IWB used?

WebeganbyaskingtheteachershowoftentheyusedtheIWB(Figure5).Thesurveydatarevealedthat48.2%ofteachersusedtheIWB“always”or“often,”versus39.3%whousedit“sometimes”or“rarely,”andonly12.6%who“never”usedit.

Figure 5. Use frequency of the IWB by teachers

Theindividualandgroupinterviewsprovidedageneraloverviewoftheusefrequency.Teacherswhorespondedthatthey“always”or“often”usedtheIWBexplainedthatit“made it easier to present material to the class” (highschoolteacher).Othersalsofounditeasiertoshowinformationthattheyfoundonline:“I can show my students all kinds of things that I find on the Internet” (highschoolteacher).Inaddition,someteacherswhousedtheIWBregularlyfoundthatitsimplyreplacedtheoldblackboard:“[…]in some classes […] I no longer have a blackboard […] so I have no choice […]” (highschoolteacher).


Teacherswhousedit“sometimes”or“rarely,”feltthatitwasoverlycom-plicatedtouse,andthatthetechnologicalproblemsweredaunting:

“[…] sometimes, it’s not programmed […] it takes a long time to do and I don’t have the time before class […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] because it doesn’t always work […] I only use it when I have extra time […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] I sometimes use it […] but I have my plan B […] it hardly ever works […]” (highschoolteacher)..

OftheteacherswhoneverusedtheIWB,somewereunabletouseitduetotechnicalproblems:“[…] I’ve been waiting now for over two months […] the lamp doesn’t work anymore […]” (elementaryschoolteacher).Therewerealsothosewhodidn’tthinkthattheyneededittoteach:“[…] I never asked for it […] it’s complicated […] and I don’t think it’s very useful […] so, no […] I don’t use it” (highschoolteacher).

Wealsoaskedtheteachersaboutstudentparticipation:didtheyhavetheirstudentsusetheIWB(Figure6)?Thedatarevealedthatonly4.0%ofthesurveyedteachers“always”or“often”hadtheirstudentsusetheIWB,versus23.4%whohadthemuseit“sometimes”and72.6%“rarely”or“never.”

Figure 6. Use frequency of the IWB by students according to teachers

Intheindividualinterviews,theteachersputforwardmanyreasonsfornothavingtheirstudentsusetheIWB:

“[…] because it doesn’t always work

[…] I only use it when I have extra time […]”

“”


“[…] In high scho-ol […] the classes are big […] it’s hard to

manage the class when you get everybody to the front of the room

[…]”

“

”

“[…] in high school […] the classes are big […] it’s hard to manage the class when you get everybody to the front of the room […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] it doesn’t work very well […] and if on top of that I let the students use it […] I think that it would never work […]” (highschoolteacher).

WealsoaskedthestudentsabouthowtheyusedtheIWBinordertocomparetheirresponsestothoseoftheteachers(Figure7).Theresponsesshowedlittlevariationoverall,confirmingthattheydidnotusetheIWBveryoften.Thus,4.4%ofstudentsfeltthattheirteacher“always”or“often”letthemusetheIWB,with12.9%“sometimes,”“29.5%“rarely,”and53.2%“never”responses.

Figure 7. Use frequency of the IWB by students according to students

ThegroupinterviewswithstudentsprovidedfurtherinsightintosomeofthereasonsthattheteachersgaveforhavingthemusetheIWB:

“[…] our teacher lets us go on the Internet sometimes […]” (ele-mentaryschoolstudent).

“[…] as soon as it stops working […] she [the teacher] asks one of the students for help […]” (highschoolstudent).

“ […] when we do math […] I sometimes come up to the front of the class and write the answers […]” (highschoolstudent).


“[…] when we do math […] I sometimes come up to the front of the class and write the answers

[…]”

“”

Thegroupinterviewsalsogaveusadeeperunderstandingofwhy,ac-cordingtothestudents,theywererarelyaskedtousetheIWB:

“[…] we never use it […] only the teachers […]” (high school stu-dent).

“[…] it’s not very interactive […] the teachers just write on it […]” (highschoolstudent).

“[…] it’s usually not working […] I don’t think that my teachers want us to touch it […]” (highschoolstudent).

“[…] if we touch it […], the teachers are going to think that it’s our fault that it doesn’t work anymore […] so we don’t touch it […]” (highschoolstudent).

Furthermore,weaskedtheteacherstodescribethemainwaysthattheyusedtheIWBinclass.Fromtheirresponses,weidentifiedtenmainusesbyteachers(Figure8).Themostcommon,mentionedby51.6%oftheteachers, was creating multimedia presentations with programs likeNotebook or PowerPoint. Internet searches followed at 19.3%, videopresentationsat10.8%,presentationofclassnotesasPDGorWorddocu-mentsat6.9%,andmathandsciencedemonstrations(particularlymath)at4.8%.Groupcorrectionsofwrittenwork,especiallyFrenchtexts(1.7%),presentationofdigitalbooksandtextbooks(1.5%),interactiveactivitiesandexercises(1.4%),students’oralpresentations(1.2%),andgeographicmaps(0.8%)completethelist.TheseresultsindicatethattheIWBwasusedmainlytoprojectcontentontothescreen,andnotasaninteractivedigitaltooltosupportteachingandlearning. Infact,only2.6%ofthemainusesreportedbyteacherscouldbedescribedasinteractive.

Figure 8. Main uses of the IWB in class


4.2 What were the main benefits of the IWB?

WhenthestudentsandteacherswereaskedaboutthepotentialbenefitsoftheIWB,theycameupwithasubstantialnumber.

First,weaskedallthestudents(11,683)andteachers(1,131)iftheypre-ferredtheIWBorthetraditionalblackboard.AsshowninFigure9,thestudentswerealmostunanimouslyinfavoroftheIWB(99.2%)versustheblackboard(0.8%).

Figure 9: Students’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard

Thegroupinterviewswiththestudentsconfirmedthisresult:

“[…] it’s definitely better […] the teacher can go online […]” (highschoolstudent).

Weaskedtheteachersthesamequestion.AlthoughalargemajoritypreferredtheIWB(73.6%),it isnoteworthythattheteacherswereconsiderablylessenthusiasticaboutusingitinclass(Figure10).

Figure 10. Teachers’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard


Theindividualandgroupinterviewswiththeteachersrevealedwhysomeofthemcontinuedtopreferthetraditionalblackboard:

“[…] it never works […] it’s complicated […] I’d prefer a blackboard and chalk […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] I have several groups […] in some classes, it doesn’t work […] so I have to prepare different lesson plans […] I prefer not to use it […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] I never wanted it [the IWB], I didn’t ask for anything […] I don’t use it […] I find it a waste of time […]” (highschoolteacher).

Wealsoaskedthestudentsandteachersmorespecificallyaboutthebene-fitsofhavingtheIWBintheclassroom.Accordingtothestudents(Figure11),themainbenefitwaspermanentInternetaccessinclass,mentionedby23.5%.Theyfound itamazingthattheycould“have Internet access through the whiteboard”(highschoolstudent).Theyalsoappreciatedthevisualsupportforteaching(19.1%),beingabletowatchvideos(12.2%),theirgreatermotivationtolearn(11.8%),morevariedteachingstrategies(9.3%),learningbetterandmore(9,1%),savingtime,whentherewerenotechnicalproblems(7.2%),havingamoreorganizedteacher(5.8%),communicatingwithclassmates(1.3%),anddoinginteractiveactivities(0.7%).

Figure 11. Main benefits of the IWB according to students

“[…] it never works […] it’s complicated […] I’d prefer a blackboard

and chalk […]”

“”


The main benefit of having the IWB in the classroom, as reported by29.2%oftheteachers,was“finally, having Internet access in the classroom” (highschoolteacher).Otherbenefits(Figure12)werevisualsupportforteaching (18.8%), and particularly multimedia presentations such asPowerPoint.Manyteachersalsomentionedhigherstudentmotivation(11.6%).TheyalsofoundthattheIWBhelpedthemdiversifytheirtea-chingapproach(9.5%),usuallyenabledmoreeffectiveteaching,aslongastherewerenotechnicalproblems(6.3%),andwasgenerallybeneficialforlearning(6.1%),regardlessofthesubjectbeingtaught.

Someteacherspointedoutthat,despitetheextratimetheyhadtoputin,theIWBhelpedthemorganizetheirteaching(5.9%),includingplanninglessons,managingdocuments,andsoon.Afewothers(4.0%)saidthattheIWBhelpedstudentsconcentrate.

Only3.9%oftheteachersthoughtthattheIWBcouldhavepositiveim-pactsonstudents’academicoutcomes.Asmallnumberofteachers—par-ticularlymathandscienceteachers—emphasizedtheimpactsonlearningcertainconcepts(2.8%).

Afewothers(1.3%)broughtuptheabilityto“communicate with others, in front of the students, from the front of the class […]” (highschoolteacher).Only 0.6% of the teachers mentioned interactivity as a benefit of theIWB.

Figure 12. Main benefits of the IWB according to teachers

The main benefit of the IWB […] “finally,

having Internet access in class.”

“”


The more that the students used the IWB in class, the more positive the perceived impacts on their grades, school motivation, concentra-

tion in class, and overall satisfaction at school.

“

”

4.3 Specific benefits of IWB use

Thelargenumberofparticipantsinthisstudy(11,683students)enabledperformingmoreadvancedstatisticalinferences.Briefly,thistypeofana-lysisallowsinducingcharacteristicsofagivenpopulation(inthiscase,students and teachers across Québec) based on a population sample(i.e.,theQuébecstudentsandteacherswhoparticipatedinthisstudy).As inpreviousstudies,wethenrandiversestatisticalcorrelations.Theresultsrevealedsomesignificantrelationships(seeTable1),forinstance,betweentheusefrequencyoftheIWBbystudentsandstudent-percei-vedimpactsonvariablesthatareknowntobecloselyassociatedwithacademicachievement(academicgrades,concentrationinclass,schoolmotivation,overallsatisfactionatschool).

Table 1: Correlations8 between impacts perceived by students and their IWB use frequency

Academic grades 0.308**Concentration in class 0.265*School motivation 0.367**overall satisfaction at school 0.312**

*p<0.001;**p<0.0001.

TheresultsshowthatthemorethatthestudentsusedtheIWBinclass,themorepositivetheperceivedimpactsontheirgrades,schoolmotivation,concentrationinclass,andoverallsatisfactionatschool(Table1).Inlinewithpreviousstudies,thisindicatesthattheimpactsincreasewithmorefrequentuse.PreviousstudieshavefoundthatteacherswhohadtheirstudentsusetheIWBfrequentlyperceivedsimilarimpacts,butthiswasnotthecaseforthepresentstudy.Inpreviousstudies,teacherswhohadtheirstudentsworkmoreregularlyandfrequentlywiththeIWBperceivedgreaterbenefitsforstudents.

As mentioned above, the results of the present study do not allowconcludingoverallpositiveornegativeimpactsofIWBuseonstudents’academicachievement.Infact,only3.9%oftheteachersreportedsuchimpacts.Nevertheless,thestatisticalinferencesrevealedthatthemorethatstudentsusedtheIWBinclass,themorepositivetheirperceptionsoftheimpactsontheiracademicgrades,schoolmotivation,concentrationinclass,andoverallsatisfactionatschool(Table1).

8 Correlation type: Kendall’s tau correlation (to learn more about this test statistic, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendall_rank_correlation_coefficient )


Weshouldkeepinmind,however,thatonly4.0%oftheteacherssaidthatthey“always”or“often”hadtheirstudentsusetheIWB.How,then,canthisparticularresultbeexplained?Wemayproposetwoexplanations.First,IWBusecouldhaveprovidedsomeinteractivesituations,wherestudentsparticipatedactivelyinlearning.Second,theIWBwouldhaveprovidedstudentswithsomeopportunitiestousespecializedsoftwarethatcouldhelpthemlearncertainacademiccontent.

4.4 Challenges of IWB use in class

InadditiontoaskingtherespondentsabouttheusesandbenefitsoftheIWBinclass,weaskedbothstudentsandteachersaboutthechallengestheyencountered.

TheteachersmentionedsomemajorchallengesofIWBuseinclass(Fig-ure13).Themostformidablechallengewastechnicalproblems,citedby70.6%:“[…] I’ve never seen anything that broke down so much […] and you have to wait for the technician […] he spends all his time fixing them […]”(highschoolteacher).At17.3%,thetimespentworkingwiththeIWBwasanothermajorissue.It’satime-consumingtool,andtheteachersgavemanyreasonsforthis:

“[…] it takes up a lot of teaching time […] you see, to learn how to use the IWB, I have to give up even more of my evenings and weekends […]” (elementaryschoolteacher).

“[…] preparing lessons for the IWB […] it really takes a lot of time […] which I don’t have […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] I find that I have to fool with the Interactive whiteboard before every class […] it takes too much time […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] learning how to use all the IWB features […] it takes time […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] for me, it’s finding materials that takes up my time […]”(highschoolteacher).

Theresultsindicatethatthiskindoftoolistime-consumingforteachers,whoalreadyhaveaheavyworkload.Inaddition,severalteachers(9.6%)broughtupthesizeofthescreen:“[…] I have 32 students in my class […] the screen is too small if you’re sitting at the back [of the class]” (highschoolteacher).Classmanagementwasmentionedbyafewteachers(1.4%).Lastonthelistwasinadequatetraining(1.1%).Formanyteachers,theproblemwasnotalackoftrainingassuch,butratherlackoftimetolearnhowtousetheIWBbeforetryingitoutwiththestudents:

Only 4.0% of the teachers said that they

“always” or “often” had their students use the IWB

“”

“[…] I’ve never seen anything that broke down so much […] and you have to wait for the technician […] he spends all his time

fixing them […]”

“”

This kind of tool is time-consuming for tea-

chers, who already have a heavy workload

“”


“[…] I took some useful training sessions […] but I didn’t have the time to really sit down in class and try it out […] I need that […] without my students around me […]” (highschoolteacher).

“[…] the training, it’s only part of the problem […] what I would need is training in my classroom […] that way I could be ready for my students […]” (highschoolteacher).

Figure 13. Main challenges of the IWB according to teachers

TheteacherswereaskedhowfrequentlytheyhadtodealwithtechnicalproblemswhentheyusedtheIWBinclass(Figure14).Theresultsshowthat 93.5% felt that they“always” (23.6%) or“often” (69.9% had suchproblems.Only6.5%feltthatthey“sometimes”(2.9%),“rarely”(2.3%)or“never”(1.3%)hadtodealwiththem.Thesefindingsindicatethattech-nicalproblemsconstitutethegreatestchallengeofIWBuseinclass.

Figure 14. Frequency of technical problems according to teachers


92.6 % of the teachers had technical problems

that required outside help to resolve.

“”

Thesefrequencieswereconfirmedbytheresultsoftheindividualandgroupinterviews:

“[…] I have technical problems very often […] and then I have to wait for the technician […]” (elementaryschoolteacher).

“[…] there’s always something that needs fixing […] it gets in the way of my teaching […]” (highschoolteacher).

Wealsoaskedtheteachershowmanyofthetechnicalproblemstheymanagedtoresolveontheirown(Figure15).Overall,theresultsshowthattheIWBincurredmajorandfrequenttechnicalproblemsthattheteacherswereusuallyunabletoresolvebythemselves(Figure14).Thus,only7.4%oftheteacherssaidthattheycouldresolvetechnicalproblemsontheirown.

Inotherwords,92.6%oftheteachershadtechnicalproblemsthatrequi-redoutsidehelp,usuallyatechnician.Thus,thegreatmajorityofthemfeltthattheyweremoreorlessatthemercyofthetechnician—employedbytheschoolboardortheIWBprovider—whohadtocometotheirrescue:“[…] whenever there’s a problem […] we have to wait for the technician […] sometimes it takes weeks […]”(highschoolteacher).

Theseresultsindicatethat,duetothemanytechnicalproblems,teachers(especiallyhighschoolteachers)whousedtheIWBwereforcedtopreparetwosetsoflessonplans.PlanningalessonwiththeIWBalreadytookuptoomuchtime,andontopofthat,theyhadtoplanaback-uplessonincasetheIWBdidn’twork:“[…] if the interactive whiteboard wasn’t working with a group […] I have to make another lesson plan […] this doubles the work […] “ (highschoolteacher).

Figure 15. Technical problems that teachers felt they could resolve on their own without a technician’s help


“”

The small screen size was the second most

often cited problem by students

Thestudentswerealsoaskedaboutproblemsandchallengesofusingthe IWB (Figure 16). Although the problems they mentioned differedsomewhat from those mentioned by the teachers, there were certainsimilarities.Forexample,technicalproblemsheadedthelist,at33.5%:“[…] it usually doesn’t work […] the teachers waste a lot of time installing it […]”(highschoolstudent).

Thesecondmostoftencitedproblemwasthesmallscreensize(25.4%):“[…] the screen’s too small […] my TV at home is bigger […]”(highschoolstudent).Thesmallscreensizewasaparticularsourceofcomplaintforhighschoolstudents.SomeofthemhadabiggerTVscreenathomeforwatchingfilmsandplayingcomputergamescomparedtotheIWBscreenatschoolforlearningmath,science,French,andothersubjects.

ManystudentsalsocomplainedthattheirteacherwasineptatusingtheIWB(19.0%):“[…] even though it’s not always their fault […] but it breaks anyway”(highschoolstudent).Forthestudents,theproblemappearedtobethattheteachersweretoooftenunabletoresolvetechnicalproblemsthatarose:

“[…] my teacher can never fix it when there’s a problem […] she always says she has to wait for the technician […]” (high schoolstudent).

“[…] the digital whiteboard is super complicated […] my teachers can never get it to work […] we have to wait for a technician […]” (highschoolstudent).

Manystudentscitedlossofmotivationasachallenge(18.3%):

“[…] at first, I liked it […] but after a while […] it got boring […] a lot of students are practically asleep […]” (highschoolstudent).

“[…] it wasn’t’ interesting to look at hundreds of pages scrolling down […]” (highschoolstudent).

Atthebottomofthelist(3.8%)camethelackofinteractivityinthelessonswhentheirteacherusedtheIWB:“[…] it’s monotonous […] there’s only the teacher talking all alone […] we students […] don’t do anything […]”(highschoolstudent).Theresultsshowthatthestudentsdidn’tappreciatethelackofinteractivitywhenteachersusedtheIWB.Inotherwords,thevastmajorityoftheteachersusedtheIWBasadigitalprojectorandfailedtotakeadvantageofthemanyinteractivefeatures.

“”

Many students cited loss of motivation as a

challenge.


Figure 16. Main challenges of the IWB according to students


5. CoNCLUSIoN

For the OECD (2015), technology represents the“very future” of edu-cation.Moreover,becausetechnologyhasinvadedeverycornerofourlives,itbecomesincreasinglyvitalforupcominggenerationstoacquiretechnology skills if they want to succeed professionally and socially.Thereiseveryreasontobelievethatbeingabletoself-train,self-learn,andcommunicateviatechnologywillbethesinequanonconditionforadaptingtoandfullyparticipatinginsocietiesthatareinpermanentflux.Equally,thereiseveryreasontobelievethatlearningwithtechnologyisakeycompetencythatwillenableyouthtosucceedinschool,andmorebroadly,intheknowledgesocietyinwhichwenowlive.

Theaimofthisstudy,conductedbytheteamoftheCanadaResearchChairinTechnologiesinEducation,wastoidentifyhowtheinteractivewhiteboard(IWB)isusedinQuébecschoolsandtheassociatedbenefitsandchallenges.Studydatawerecollectedfrom11,863studentsand1,131teachers.

Farfromcallingintoquestionthecriticalneedtointegratetechnologyintoeducation,theresultsofthisstudyinsteadhighlightthefactthattheclassroomintegrationofcertaintechnologytools,suchastheIWB,maybemorecomplicatedandtime-consumingthanothers.Theresultsshowthattheparticipatingteachershadsubstantialtechnicalproblemswith the IWB.However, the results also indicate that the IWBhas realpedagogicalpotential.

Wehavepresentedtheusesandbenefitsof the IWB,whichhasbeenintroducedenmasseintoschoolsallacrossQuébecforthelastfiveyears.Webeganwiththestudents’appreciationofhavingthistechnologyintheclassroom:99.2%preferredtheIWBoverthetraditionalblackboard.Amongtheteachers,however,althoughalargemajority(73.6%)appea-redtoprefertheIWBovertheblackboard,anon-negligiblepercentage(26.4%)actuallypreferredthetraditionalblackboard.TheproblemmayhavebeenrelatedtotheimpositionoftheIWB,whichcreatedasituationwhereteachershadnochoicebuttointegratetheIWBintotheirteaching.Amandatorynewmethodortechnologyispalatableonlywhensomedegree of choice is involved. On this topic, self-determination theory(SDT),developedbyDeciandRyan(1985),providessomeinsightintothepossiblemotivationsofteacherswhopreferredusingtheblackboardovertheIWB.

That said, our results also show that slightly over half the teachers inthisstudydidnotusetheIWBregularly(48.2%),andthat51.8%usedit“sometimes,”“rarely,”oreven“never.”ThereisalotofworktodoinordertopersuademoreteacherstousetheIWBmoreofteninclass.

“

”

Far from calling into question the critical

need to integrate tech-nology into education,

this study instead highli-ghts that the classroom integration of certain technology tools, such

as the IWB, may be more complicated and time-consuming than

others

The students appreciated having technology in the classroom: 99.2%

preferred the IWB to a traditional blackboard

“”


Our results indicate that the teachers used the IWB primarily as a

digital projector

“”

Theproblemdoesnotliesolelyintheteachers’usesoftheIWB:thestu-dentsalsohadfewopportunitiestoworkwiththeIWBinclass.Infact,ourresultsshowthat,overall,only4.0%ofthestudentswereallowedtouseitregularlyinclass.

OurresultsindicatethattheteachersusedtheIWBprimarilyasadigitalprojector, with only rare recourse to the interactive features (1.4% ofreporteduses).Wemaythereforeproposethatforthegreatmajorityofteachers,anelectronicprojector—atfarlesscostandwithamuchlargerscreen—wouldbemoresuitablefortheirteachingpurposes.Inaddition,thistypeofsystemwouldentailfarfewertechnicalproblemscomparedtotheIWB.Furthermore,theIWBmayrepresentaconflictforteacherswhoarereluctanttorevertbacktolecture-styleteaching.Ontheonehand,theeasiestwaytousetheIWBisasaprojectionscreen.Ontheotherhand,itcomeswithanumberoftechnicalchallengesifteacherswanttousetheinteractivefeatures.OurresultsarefairlyconsistentwiththoseofKhambariandcolleagues,whoobservedacertainamountofconflictbetweenopenteachingapproaches(alsocalledstudent-centeredlearning,amongothers)anduseoftheIWB,wheretheteacherusuallystandsinfrontoftheclassanddeliversalecture-stylelesson.Itisalsopossiblethatteachersdon’tusetheIWBinteractivelywiththeirstudentsbecausetheydon’twanttodealwithallthetechnicalissues.

Thatsaid,itisnoteworthythattheresultsofthislarge-scalestudyshowthattheIWBofferssignificantbenefitsforclassroomuse,suchasInternetaccess,visualteachingsupport,videopresentation,motivationtolearn,more effective learning, and efficient organization.We may thereforeconcludethatajudicioususeofeducationaltechnology,whenaccom-paniedbyadequatetraining,wouldbeliabletohavepositiveimpactsonstudents’academicoutcomes.Furthermore,wemustnotforgetthattheresultsofthisstudyhighlightthefactthattheimpactsonthestudentsdependedmainlyonhowtheteacherusedtheIWBinclass.Hence,al-thoughtheIWBhasenormouseducationalpotential,itisuptoteachersandstudentstotakeadvantageofallthattheIWBhastoofferinordertorealizethatpotential.

TheoverallresultsofthisstudyshowthatthemorethatstudentsworkedwiththeIWB,themorepositivetheirperceptionsofitsimpactsontheiracademicachievement,schoolmotivation,concentrationinclass,andoverallsatisfactionatschool.Thesearepromisingresults,andthehopeisthatmorethan just4.0%ofteacherswillventure intonewterritoryandencouragetheirstudentstoworkwiththeIWB.Thereisanexcitingnewworldofeducationaltreasurestoexplore,andteacherswhotaketheplungewillreaptherewards.

This study clearly shows that technical problems posed a dauntingchallengeforteacherswhoattemptedtousetheIWB.Over92.6%oftheteacherswequeriedreportedtechnicalproblemsthattheywereunabletoresolveontheirown.Othersignificantproblemswereraisedaswell:

“

”

The more that students work with the IWB, the

more positive their percep-tions of its impacts on their

academic achievement, school motivation, and ove-

rall satisfaction at school


theextraeffortrequired—oftenontheirowntime—tolearnhowtousealltheIWBfeatures,thesmallscreensize(especiallyforlargehighschoolclasses),classroommanagementproblems,andtrainingissues.WemayconcludethatclassroomuseoftheIWBcanbetime-andenergy-consu-mingforteachers.

Inlightoftheabove,inadditiontoinstallingIWBsinclassrooms,itwouldbeimportanttoprovideteacherswithadequatetechnologicalandpeda-gogicalsupportasneeded.WemightalsoarguethattheIWBshouldnotbeinstalledinclassroomsuntilteachersarefullypreparedtoembraceit.TeachersneedpedagogicaldayssotheycantakeindividualorgrouptrainingsessionstolearnhowtousealltheIWBfeaturesandfunctions,andespeciallytheinteractiveaspectsthatallowstudentstoengagemoreactivelyinlearning.Manystudieshavedemonstratedtheeffectivenessofhands-ontechnologytrainingsessionsaswellasadequatetechnicalandpedagogicalsupport.

Basedon theoverall results,wecannotdefinitivelyconclude that theIWBhaseithernegativeorpositiveimpactsonstudentoutcomes.Only3.9%oftheparticipatingteacherssuggestedthatusingtheIWBcouldpositivelyimpactstudents’academicgrades.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheother96.1%feltthattheIWBhadnegativeimpacts.WhatitmeansisthatthevastmajorityoftheteachersfeltthatthewaysthattheyusedtheIWBdidnothavepositiveimpactsontheirstudents’grades.Inaddition,themajorityoftheteachersfeltthattheirusesoftheIWBhadsimilarimpacts,inmanyrespects,totheirusesofmoretraditionaleducationaltools,suchastheblackboard.

BasedontheobservationthatthevastmajorityoftheteachersusedtheIWBasanelectronicprojector—whichcostsless,hasamuchlargerscreen,andentailsfewertechnicalheadaches—,wemightsuggestthatthe2011impositionoftheIWBonallofQuébec’steachers,acrosstheboard,wasahastydecision. Itmighthavebeenwisertoprovidethe IWBonlytoteacherswhowereinclinedtouseitmoreoftenandtakeadvantageofitsfullpotential.

Today,whetherornottechnologyimpactseducationaloutcomesmaynotbetherightquestiontoask.Perhapsweshouldinsteadtrytofindoutwhichconditions canfosterpositiveimpactsoftechnologyonstudentengagementandacademicoutcomes.Furthermore,inordertobetterappreciatethetruevalueandpotentialoftechnologyforlearning,thecentralissueishowthatpotentialcanberealized.Webelievethattech-nologytoolssuchastheIWBcanbeusedeffectively—eveniftheydonotallholdthesamepotential—dependingonhowtheteacherusesthemandwhatstudentsareallowedtodowiththem.Inthisperspective,theessentialissueinIWBuseatschoolishowtotapthatpotentialthroughreflectiveuse,wherestudentsarealsoinvitedtoworkwithit,asreportedbyonly4%oftheteachersinthisstudy.

“”

Make sure that teachers get adequate technological and pedagogical support

“

”

The essential issue in IWB use at school is how to tap that potential through reflective use, where stu-dents are also invited to

work with it, as reported by only 4% of the teachers in

this study


6. RECoMMENDATIoNS

Basedontheresultsofthisstudy,thefollowingrecommendationsareproposed:

1. EncouragemoreteacherstousetheIWBregularly.

2. ProvidespecifictrainingprogramstopreparemoreteacherstousetheIWB’sinteractivefeatures.

3. ProvidespecifictrainingprogramstopreparemoreteacherstohavetheirstudentusetheIWB.

4. RecognizethetimethatteachersspendlearninghowtousetheIWB.

5. RethinktechnicalsupportstrategiesforteacherswhoregularlyusetheIWBsothattheyfeelgenuinelysupported.

6. Donot imposenewtechnologytoolsonteachers involuntarilyandacrosstheboard.

7. WhenitcomestimetodomajorupkeepsandupgradesontheIWBsthatwereinstalledfiveyearsago,itwouldbeimportanttoconsiderwhetherteacherswhoarenotpronetorealizingthefull interactivepotentialoftheIWBmightpreferanewelectronicprojectorinstead.

8. WhenpurchasingIWBsinfuture,consideralargerscreensize,espe-ciallyforhighschoolclassrooms,whichtypicallycontain30ormorestudents.

9. Raiseteachers’awarenessofstudents’motivationlossandtheneedtoapplyvariousstrategiestostimulatetheirtasteforlearning.

10. BecausepracticallyallQuébecclassroomscurrentlyhaveanIWB,allfutureteachersshouldbetrainedinpedagogicalandinteractiveusesoftheIWB.

11. Continue to assess the uses, benefits, and challenges of the IWB inclass.

12. Conductfurtheractionresearchandcasestudiesoneducationalinte-grationoftheIWB.9

9 Similar to the studies by Raby.


7. REFERENCES

AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.(2013).Publication manual of the American Psychological Association.(5eéd.)Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Balta,N.&M.Duran(2015).“Attitudesofstudentsandteacherstowardstheuseofinteractivewhiteboardsinelementaryandsecondaryschoolclassrooms.”Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2):15-23.

Commissiondel’éthiqueenscienceetentechnologie,(2015).Avis sur l’éthique et les TIC à l’école : un regard posé par de jeunes. Québec:GourvernementduQuébec.

CutrimSchmid,E.(2008).Potentialpedagogicalbenefitsanddrawbacksofmul-timediauseintheEnglishlanguageclassroomequippedwithinteractivewhi-teboardtechnology.Computers and Education, 51(4),1553-1568.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005

DiGregorio,P.,&Sobel-Lojeski,K.(2009-2010).Theeffectsofinteractivewhi-teboards(IWBs)onstudentperformanceandlearning:Aliteraturereview.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3),255-312.

Deci,E.L.etRyan,R.M.(1985).Intrinsicmotivationandself-determinationinhumanbehavior.NewYork,NY:Plenum.

Dostal,J.(2011).Reflectionsontheuseofinteractivewhiteboardsininstructionininternationalcontext.The New Educational Review, 25(3),205-220.

Ersoy,A.andM.Bozkurt(2015).Understandinganelementaryschoolteachers’journeyofusingtechnologyintheclassroomfromsandtabletointeractivewhiteboard.International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1):469-488.

Fekonja-Peklaj,U.andL.Marjanovič-Umek(2015).PositiveandnegativeaspectsoftheIWBandtabletcomputersinthefirstgradeofprimaryschool:amulti-ple-perspectiveapproach.Early Child Development and Care, 185(6):996-1015.

Glover,D.,Miller,D.,Averis,D.,&Door,V.(2005).Theinteractivewhiteboard:Aliteraturesurvey.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2),155-170.doi:10.1080/14759390500200199

Golonka,E.M.,Bowles,A.R.,Frank,V.M.,Richardson,D.L.,&Freynik,S.(2012).Technologiesforforeignlanguagelearning:Areviewoftechnologytypesandtheireffectiveness.Computer Assisted Language Learning.Advancedonlinepublication.doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315

Hall,I.,&Higgins,S.(2005).Primaryschoolstudents’perceptionsofinterac-tivewhiteboards.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2),102-117.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x

Harlow,A.,Cowie,B.,&Heazlewood,M.(2010).Keepingintouchwithlearning:Theuseofaninteractivewhiteboardinthejuniorschool.Technology, Peda-gogy and Education, 19(2),237-243.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491234


Hennessy, S.(2014).Usingtheinteractivewhiteboardtosupportdialogueinthewholeclasscontext.DansN.Pachler&M.Leask(Dir.),Learning to Teach Using ICT in the Secondary School.(3eéd.).NewYork:TaylorandFrancis.

Hennessy,S.,Deaney,R.,&Ruthven,K.(2006).Situatedexpertiseinintegratinguseofmultimediasimulationintosecondaryscienceteaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7),701-732.doi:10.1080/09500690500404656

Hennessy,S.,Deaney,R.,Ruthven,K.,&Winterbottom,M.(2007).Pedagogicalstrategiesforusingtheinteractivewhiteboardtofosterlearnerparticipationinschoolscience.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),283-301.doi:10.1080/17439880701511131

Hennessy,S.,Warwick,P.&Mercer,N.(2011).Adialogicinquiryapproachtowor-kingwithteachersindevelopingclassroomdialogue.Teachers College Record,113(9),1906-1959.

Hennessy,S.,Warwick,P.,Brown,L.,Rawlins,D.,&Neale,C.(2014).Developing in-teractive teaching and learning using the IWB: Teacher Resource.MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.

Hennessy,S.,Wishart,J.,Whitelock,D.,Deaney,R.,Brawn,R.,Velle,L.l.,...Win-terbottom,M.(2007).Pedagogicalapproachesfortechnology-integratedscienceteaching.Computers and Education, 48(1),137-152.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.02.004

Higgins,S.,Beauchamp,G.,&Miller,D.(2007).Reviewingtheliteratureoninte-ractivewhiteboards.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),213-225.doi:10.1080/17439880701511040

Karsenti,T.,Komis,V.,Depover,C.,etCollin,S.(2011).LesTICcommeoutilsderechercheensciencesdel’éducation.DansT.KarsentietL.Savoie-Zajc(dir.),Larechercheenéducation:étapesetapproches(pp.168-192).Saint-Laurent:ERPI.

Kennewell,S.,&Beauchamp,G.(2007).Thefeaturesofinteractivewhiteboardsandtheirinfluenceonlearning.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),227-241.doi:10.1080/17439880701511073

Kennewell,S.,Tanner,H.,Jones,S.,&Beauchamp,G.(2008).Analysingtheuseofinteractivetechnologytoimplementinteractiveteaching:Originalarticle.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1),61-73.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x

Khambari,M.N.,Hassett,D.,Thomas,M.,&Wong,S.L.(2014).Interactivewhite-boardsinclassrooms:Debates,issues,andimpedingfactors.DansProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2014, 957-962.

Kitchen,S.,Finch,S.Sinclair,R.&NationalResearchCentreforSocialSciences.Harnessing Technology schools survey 2007.Coventry:Becta.Récupérédehttp://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1554/1/becta_2007_htssfindings_report.pdf

L’Écuyer,R.(1990).Méthodologie de l’analyse développementale de contenu. Mé-thode GPS et concept de soi.Sainte-Foy,QC:Pressesdel’UniversitéduQuébec.


Lee,M.(2010).Interactivewhiteboardsandschooling:Thecontext.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),133-141.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491215

Littleton,K.(2010).Researchintoteachingwithwhole-classinteractivetechno-logies:Emergentthemes.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),285-292.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491240

Lopez,O.S.(2010).Thedigitallearningclassroom:ImprovingEnglishlanguagelearners’academicsuccessinmathematicsandreadingusinginteractivewhiteboardtechnology.Computers & Education, 54(4),901-915.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019

Miles,M.B.etHuberman,A.M.(2003).Analyse des données qualitatives.Bruxelles,Belgique:DeBoeckSupérieur.

Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010a).Enhancedinteractivityinsecondarymathematics.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for educa-tion: Theory, research and practice(p.118-130).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010b).Interactivewhiteboards:Aliteraturesurvey.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.1-19).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Moss,G.,&Jewitt,C.(2010).Policy,pedagogyandinteractivewhiteboards:WhatlessonscanbelearntfromearlyadoptioninEngland?DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.20-36).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

O’Connell,L.,Chaillez,P.-D.,Raby,C.(2015).UtilisationcollaborativedevotreTNI…Oui,maiscomment?Revue préscolaire, 53(1),39-41.

O’Connell,L.,Chaillez,P.-D.,Raby,C.,Charron,A.etBergeron,L.(2015).Unmo-dèlepourmaximiserl’utilisationdevotreTNI.Revue préscolaire,53(1),37-39.

OECD.(2015).Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection.SériePISA,OECDPublishing.http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-compu-ters-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm

Raby,C.,Bergeron,L.,Tremblay-Wragg,É.,Gagnon,B.etCharron,A.(2015).Évolutiondespratiquespédagogiquesdesenseignantsquantàl’utilisationcollaborativedutableaunumériqueinteractifpardesélèvesdupréscolaireetduprimaire:unerecherche-action.DansS.LefebvreetG.Samson(Dir.),Le tableau numérique interactif : quand chercheurs et praticiens s’unissent pour dé-gager des pistes d’action (pp.39-57).Québec:Pressesdel’UniversitéduQuébec-Horscollection.

Saltan,F.&Arslan,K.(2009).Anewteachertool,interactivewhiteboards:Ametaanalysis.DansI.Gibsonetal.(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009(p.2115-2120).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Slay,H.,Siebörger,I.,&Hodgkinson-Williams,C.(2008).Interactivewhiteboards:Realbeautyorjust“lipstick”?Computers and Education, 51(3),1321-1341.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006

Smith,H.J.,Higgins,S.,Wall,K.,&Miller,J.(2005).Interactivewhiteboards:boonorbandwagon?Acriticalreviewoftheliterature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2),91-101.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x


Sundberg,B.,Spante,M.,&Stenlund,J.(2012).Disparityinpractice:diversestra-tegiesamongteachersimplementinginteractivewhiteboardsintoteachingpracticeintwoSwedishprimaryschools.Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3),253-270.doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.586352

Swan,K.,Schenker,J.&Kratcoski,A.(2008).Theeffectsoftheuseofinteractivewhiteboardsonstudentachievement.DansJ.Luca&E.Weippl(Dir.),Procee-dings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecom-munications 2008(p.3290-3297).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Türel,Y.(2010).Developingteachers’utilizationofinteractivewhiteboards.DansD.Gibson&B.Dodge(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010(p.3049-3054).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Twiner,A.,Coffin,C.,Littleton,K.,&Whitelock,D.(2010).Multimodality,orches-trationandparticipationinthecontextofclassroomuseoftheinteractivewhiteboard:adiscussion.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),211-223.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491232

Wall,K.,Higgins,S.,&Smith,H.(2005).‘Thevisualhelpsmeunderstandthecomplicatedthings’:Pupilviewsofteachingandlearningwithinterac-tivewhiteboards.British Journal of Educational Technology, 3�(5),851-867.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x

Warwick,P.,Mercer,N.,Kershner,R.,&Staarman,J.K.(2010).Dansthemindandinthetechnology:Thevicariouspresenceoftheteacherinpupil’slearningofscienceincollaborativegroupactivityattheinteractivewhiteboard.Compu-ters and Education, 55(1),350-362.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001

Warwick,P.,Mercer,N.,Kershner,R.,&Staarman,J.K.(2010).Dansthemindandinthetechnology:Thevicariouspresenceoftheteacherinpupil’slearningofscienceincollaborativegroupactivityattheinteractivewhiteboard.Compu-ters & Education, 55(1),350-362.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001


8. WoRKS CoNSULTED

Akbaş, O., & Pektaş, H. M. (2011). The effects of using an interactive whiteboard on the academic achievement of university students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(2). Récupéré de http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v12_is-sue2/akbas/index.htm

Al-Qirim, N. (2011). Determinants of interactive white board success in teaching in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 56(3), 827–838. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.024

Albaaly, E., & Higgins, S. (2012). The impact of interactive whiteboard technology on medical students’ achievement in ESL essay writing: An early study in Egypt. Lan-guage Learning Journal, 40(2), 207-222. doi:10.1080/09571736.2010.543953

Amaro-Jimenez, C. & Beckett, G. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: All-in-one tool for ESL teaching and learning. Dans J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Dir.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (p. 2331-2337). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Argott, B. (2012). The effects of teaching using the SMARTboard versus discrete trial teaching on acquisition and student engagement for children with autism. Mémoire de maîtrise inédit, Caldwell College. Récupéré de la base de données ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 1510412)

Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457–469. doi:10.1080/00131910500279551

Bannister, D., Hutchinson, A., & Sergeant, H. (2010). Effective implementation of learner response systems: moving beyond the right response. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 144-161). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Bavaro, T. (2010). Technological innovation in action : Transforming the learning landscape for multi-locations through networked interactive whiteboards. Dans C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Dir.), Proceedings of ascilite 2010 (p. 70–74). Brisbane, Australie: University of Queensland. Récupéré de http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Bavaro-concise.pdf

Bax, S. (2010). Magic wand or museum piece? The future of the interactive whi-teboard in education. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 264-277). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Beach, J. S. (2012). Interactive whiteboard transition: A case study. Thèse de doctorat inedited, Tennessee University. Récupéré de http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_grad-diss/1266

Beach, J., Wendt, J. & Owens, C. (2012). Interactive whiteboard transition study. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Edu-cation International Conference 2012 (p. 1669-1676). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.


Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348. doi:10.1080/14759390400200186

Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033

Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289-300. doi:10.1080/17439880802497008

Bettsworth, B. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to teach grammar in the MFL classroom: A learner’s perspective. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 216-224). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Blue, E., & Tirotta, R. (2011). The benefits & drawbacks of integrating cloud computing and interactive whiteboards in teacher preparation. TechTrends, 55(3), 31–39.

Boulc’h, L., & Baron, G. (2011). Connaissances et représentations du Tableau Numé-rique Interactif chez les futurs professeurs des écoles  : Réflexions sur la formation aux technologies éducatives. Dans G.-L. Baron, É. Bruillard, & V. Komis (Dir.), Sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication (STIC) en milieu éducatif : Analyse de pratiques et enjeux didactiques, Actes du quatrième colloque international DIDAPRO 4 - Dida&STIC (p. 77–91). Athènes, Grèce: New Tech-nologies.

British Educational Communication and Technology Agency. (2003). What the re-search says about interactive whiteboards. Coventry, Royaume-Uni : BETCA.

Campbell, C., & Martin, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the first year expe-rience : Integrating IWBs into pre-service teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 68-75.

Celik, S. (2012). Competency levels of teachers in using interactive whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 115-129. Récupéré de http://www.cedtech.net/articles/32/323.pdf

Cogill, J. (2010). A model of pedagogical change for the evaluation of interactive whiteboard practice. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 162-178). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Coyle, Y., Yanez, L., & Verdu, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children’s language use in an ESL immersion classroom. System, 38(4), 614-625. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.10.002

Cruze, C. & Shafer, K. (2011). Technology in the mathematic’s classroom: A teacher candidate’s perspective. Dans M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (p. 4312-4318). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of techno-logy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62. doi:10.1080/09588220600804012


Cutrim Schmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35(2), 119-133. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.01.001

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of mul-timedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whi-teboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1553-1568. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education, 50(1), 338-356. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.001

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2011). Video-stimulated reflection as a professional development tool in interactive whiteboard research. ReCALL, 23(3), 252-270. doi:10.1017/S0958344011000176

Cutrim Schmid, E., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 197-215). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive whiteboards in state school set-tings: Teacher responses to socio-constructivist hegemonies. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2), 65-86. Récupéré de http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2012/cu-trimschmidwhyte.pdf

Damcott, D., Landato, J. & Marsh, C. (2000). Report on the use of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard in physical science. Récupéré de http://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library

Davis, N., & Loveless, A. (2011). Reviewing the landscape of ICT and teacher edu-cation over 20 years and looking forward to the future. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 247–261. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.610928

Dawson, P. (2010). Networked interactive whiteboards  : Rationale, affordances and new pedagogies for regional Australian higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 523–533.

Depover, C., Karsenti, T., & Komis, V. (2007). Enseigner avec les technologies. Favoriser les apprentissages, développer des compétences. Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

De Vita, M., Verschaffel, L., & Elen, J. (2012). Acceptance of interactive whiteboards by Italian mathematics teachers. Educational Research, 3(7), 553-565.

Dhindsa, H. S., & Shahrizal-Emran. (2011). Using interactive whiteboard technology-rich constructivist learning environment to minimize gender differences in chemistry achievement. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(4), 393-414. Récupéré de http://www.ijese.com/IJESE_v6n4_Dhindsa.pdf

Divaharan, S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2010). Learning as students to become better teachers : Pre-service teachers’ IWB learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 553-570.

Drijvers, P. (2011). Teachers transforming resources into orchestrations. Dans G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Dir.), From text to “lived” resources (p. 265–281). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8_14


Duroisin, N., Temperman, G., & De Lièvre, B. (2011). Effets de deux modalités d’usage du tableau blanc interactif sur la dynamique d’apprentissage et la progression des apprenants. Dans Actes de la Conférence Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain 2011 (p. 257-269). Récupéré de http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00609090/

Elvers, G. C. (2000). The digital whiteboard as a notes-taking aid. Récupéré de http://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library

Fraser, V., Garofalo, J., & Juersivich, N. (2011). Enhancing lesson planning and qua-lity of classroom life: A study of mathematics student teachers’ use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2), 169–188.

Gadbois, S. A., & Haverstock, N. (2012). Middle years science teachers voice their first experiences with interactive whiteboard technology. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(1), 121-135. doi:10.1080/14926156.2012.649053

Garavaglia, A., Garzia, V., & Petti, L. (2012). Quality of the learning environment in digital classrooms: An Italian case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1735–1739. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.369

Gill, S. R., & Islam, C. (2011). Shared reading goes high-tech. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 224–227. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01028

Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, 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. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00269.x

Gillen,J.,Staarman,J.K.,Littleton,K.,Mercer,N.,&Twiner,A.(2007).A«learningrevolution»?InvestigatingpedagogicpracticearoundinteractivewhiteboardsinBritishprimaryclassrooms.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),243-256.doi:10.1080/17439880701511099

Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology:The pedagogic impactof the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondaryschool.Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education, 10(3),257–278.doi:10.1080/14759390100200115

Golonka,E.M.,Bowles,A.R.,Frank,V.M.,Richardson,D.L.,&Freynik,S. (2012).Technologiesforforeignlanguagelearning:Areviewoftechnologytypesandtheireffectiveness.Computer Assisted Language Learning.Advancedonlinepu-blication.doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315

Gray,C.(2010).Meetingteachers’realneeds:Newtoolsinthesecondarymodernforeignlanguagesclassroom.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interac-tive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.69-85).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Gray,C.,Hagger-Vaughan,L.,Pilkington,R.,&Tomkins,S.-A.(2005).Theprosandconsofinteractivewhiteboardsinrelationtothekeystage3strategyandframework.The Language Learning Journal, 32(1),38–44.doi:10.1080/09571730585200171

Haldane,M.(2010).Anewinteractivewhiteboardpedagogythroughtransformativepersonaldevelopment.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p.179-196).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.


Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactivewhiteboards.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2),102-117.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x

Hall,J.,Chamblee,G.&Slough,S.(2012).Implicationsofinteractivewhiteboardsresearch for the mathematics classrooms. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.4825-4830).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Hamdan,K.,Al-Qirim,N.,&Asmar,M.(2012).TheeffectofSmartBoardonstudentsbehaviorandmotivation.DansProceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) (p.162–166).doi:10.1109/INNO-VATIONS.2012.6207723

Hammond,M.,Fragkouli,E.,Suandi,I.,Crosson,S.,Ingram,J.,Johnston,...Wray,D.(2009).WhathappensasstudentteacherswhomadeverygooduseofICTduringpre-servicetrainingentertheirfirstyearofteaching?Teacher Development, 13(2),93–106.doi:10.1080/13664530903043939

Hammond,M.,Reynolds,L.,&Ingram,J.(2011).HowandwhydostudentteachersuseICT?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3),191-203.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00389.x

Hennessy,S.,Deaney,R.,&Tooley,C.(2010).Usingtheinteractivewhiteboardtostimulateactivelearninginschoolscience.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.102-117).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Higgins,S.(2010).TheimpactofinteractivewhiteboardsonclassroominteractionandlearninginprimaryschoolsintheUK.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.86-101).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Higgins,S.,Beauchamp,G.,&Miller,D.(2007).Reviewingtheliteratureoninteractivewhiteboards.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),213-225.doi:10.1080/17439880701511040

Higgins,S.,Falzon,C.,Hall,I.,Moseley,D.,Smith,F.,Smith,H.,&Wall,K.(2005).Em-bedding ICT In the literacy and numeracy strategies. Newcastle, Royaume-Uni:UniversityofNewcastleuponTyne.

Hodge,S.,&Anderson,B.(2007).Teachingandlearningwithaninteractivewhi-teboard: a teacher’s journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282.doi:10.1080/17439880701511123

Holmes,K.(2009).Planningtoteachwithdigitaltools:Introducingtheinteractivewhiteboardtopre-servicesecondarymathematicsteachers.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3),351–365.

Hsieh,K. (2011).Preservice teachers’attitudesandopinions towards interactivewhiteboardsande-textbooks.DansS.Lin&X.Huang(Dir.),Advances in Computer Science, Environment, Ecoinformatics, and Education (Vol.217,p.362-366).Berlin,Allemagne:SpringerBerlinHeidelberg.

Hutchison,A.,&Reinking,D.(2011).Teachers’perceptionsofintegratinginformationand communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national surveyintheUnitedStates.Reading Research Quarterly,4�(4),312–333.doi:10.1002/RRQ.002


Isman,A.,Abanmy,F.A.,Hussein,H.B.,&AlSaadany,M.A.(2012).Saudisecondaryschoolteachersattitudes’towardusinginteractivewhiteboardinclassrooms.Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 286-296. Récupéré dehttp://www.tojet.net/articles/v11i3/11327.pdf

Jang, S.-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching todeveloptheTPACKofsecondaryscienceteachers.Computers & Education,55(4),1744–1751.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.020

Jang,S.-J.,&Tsai,M.-F.(2012).ExploringtheTPACKofTaiwaneseelementaryma-thematicsandscienceteacherswithrespecttouseofinteractivewhiteboards.Computers & Education, 59(2),327-338.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.003

Jeunier,B.,Morcillo-Bareille,A.,Camps,J.-F.,Galy-Marié,E.,&Tricot,A.(2005).Ex-pertise relative aux usages du tableau blanc interactif en école primaire.Toulouse,France:ERT34-HypermédiasetApprentissages.

Johnson,E.M.,Ramanair,J.,&Brine,J.(2010).“It”snotnecessarytohavethisboardtolearnEnglish,butit’shelpful’:studentandteacherperceptionsofinteractivewhiteboarduse. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,4(3),199–212.doi:10.1080/17501229.2010.513444

Judge,M.(2010).Documentingteachers’andstudents’experienceswithinteractivewhiteboardsinIreland:KeyfindingsfromanIrishpilotproject.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.250-263).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Juersivich,N.,Garofalo,J.,&Fraser,V.(2009).Studentteachers’useoftechnology-generatedrepresentations:Exemplarsandrationales.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2),149–173.

Karsenti,T.,Collin,S.,&Dumouchel,G.(2012).L’enversdutableau:cequedisentlesrecherchesdel’impactdesTBIsurlaréussitescolaire.Vivre le primaire, 25(2),30-32.

Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007).The features of interactive whiteboardsandtheirinfluenceonlearning.Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),227-241.doi:10.1080/17439880701511073

Kershner,R.,Mercer,N.,Warwick,P.,&KleineStaarman,J.(2010).Cantheinteractivewhiteboardsupportyoungchildren’scollaborativecommunicationandthinkingin classroom science activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4),359-383.doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9096-2

Kershner,R.,Warwick,P.,Mercer,N.,&KleineStaarman,J.(2012).Primarychildren’smanagementofthemselvesandothersincollaborativegroupwork:“Sometimesittakespatience….”Education 3-13.Advanceonlinepublication.doi:10.1080/03004279.2012.670255

Kim,S.(2011).Preparing‘tech-savvyteachers’foreffectivetechnologyintegrationincurriculumandinstruction:Acasestudy.DansM.Koehler&P.Mishra(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011(p.2553-2558).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Kobak,M.,&Taskin,N.R.(2012).Prospectiveteachers’perceptionsofusingtech-nology in three different ways. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 4�,3629–3636.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.118


Lajoie,S.P.,&Lu,J.(2012).Supportingcollaborationwithtechnology:doessharedcognitionleadtoco-regulationinmedicine?Metacognition and Learning, 7(1),45-62.doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9077-5

Lewin,C.,Somekh,B.,&Steadman,S.(2008).Embeddinginteractivewhiteboardsinteachingandlearning:Theprocessofchangeinpedagogicpractice.Education and Information Technologies, 13(4),291-303.doi:10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z

Lim-Fong,B.,&Robins,R.(2010).Technologyshapingademocraticclassroom:TheLivingstonecasestudy.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p.225-237).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Lipton,M.L.,&Lipton,L.G.(2010).Enhancingtheradiologylearningexperiencewith electronic whiteboard technology. American Journal of Roentgenology,194(6),1547–1551.doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3729

Lisi,J. (2010). Interactive whiteboard technology: Perspectives and attitudes on FSL teachers.Mémoiredemaîtriseinédit,Queen’sUniversity.Récupérédehttp://qs-pace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/6134

Littleton,K.,Twiner,A.,&Gillen,J.(2010).Instructionasorchestration:Multimodalconnectionbuildingwiththeinteractivewhiteboard.Pedagogies, 5(2),130-141.doi:10.1080/15544801003611193

Lu,J.,&Lajoie,S.P.(2008).Supportingmedicaldecisionmakingwithargumenta-tion tools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 425-442. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.005

Lu,J.,Lajoie,S.P.,&Wiseman,J.(2010).Scaffoldingproblem-basedlearningwithCSCLtools.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3),283-298.doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6

Maher,D.(2011).Usingthemultimodalaffordancesoftheinteractivewhiteboardto support students’understanding of texts. Learning, Media and Technology, 3�(3),235-250.doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.536553

Maher, D. (2012).Teaching literacy in primary schools using an interactivewhole-class technology: Facilitating student-to-student whole-class dialogicinteractions.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1),137–152.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659888

Maher,D.,Phelps,R.,Urane,N.,&Lee,M.(2012).Primaryschoolteachers’useofdi-gitalresourceswithinteractivewhiteboards:TheAustraliancontext.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1),138-158.

Manny-Ikan,E.,Dagan,O.,Tikochinski,T.B.,&Zorman,R.(2011).Usingtheinte-ractive white board in teaching and learning – An evaluation of the SMARTCLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7,249-273.

Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approachto teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26-34. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00449.x


Martinez,M.(2011).Le tableau blanc interactif, le tableau noir de demain? Compa-raison de l’usage de ces deux outils et analyse des effets produits sur les interactions sociales en classe : l’exemple du projet-pilote d’une école vaudoise. Mémoire demaîtriseinédit,UniversitédeGenève.Récupérédehttp://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/vital/access/manager/Repository/unige:16954

Martinovic,D.,&Zhang,Z.(2012).SituatingICTintheteachereducationprogram:Overcomingchallenges,fulfillingexpectations.Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3),461–469.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.001

Meng,H.,&Wang,D.-C.(2012).Robustdesignforgame-basedinstructionusinginteractivewhiteboards.DansProceedings of the 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning(p.250–253).doi:10.1109/DIGITEL.2012.66

Meyer,A.(2012).Enseigner avec un tableau blanc interactif: une (r)évolution? Analyse instrumentale d’une séquence d’enseignement de la géométrie au primaire. Mé-moiredemaîtriseinédit,UniversitédeGenève.Récupérédehttp://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/maltt/memoire/Meyer2012.pdf

Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010a).Enhancedinteractivityinsecondarymathematics.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.118-130).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Miller,D.,&Glover,D.(2010b).Interactivewhiteboards:Aliteraturesurvey.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.1-19).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Morgan,A.(2010).Interactivewhiteboards,interactivityandplayintheclassroomwith children aged three to seven years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(1),93-104.doi:10.1080/13502930903520082

Morgan,G.L. (2008). Improving student engagement: Use of the interactive white-board as an instructional tool to improve engagement and behavior in the junior high school classroom.ThèsededoctoratineditedLibertyUnivesity.Récupérédehttp://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/121/

Moss,G.,&Jewitt,C.(2010).Policy,pedagogyandinteractivewhiteboards:WhatlessonscanbelearntfromearlyadoptioninEngland?InM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.20-36).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Mott,M.S.,Sumrall,W.J.,Rutherford,A.S.,Sumrall,K.,&Vails,T.(2010).“Lecture”withinteractioninanadultsciencemethodscourse-session:Designinginteractivewhiteboardandresponsesystemexperiences.Journal of Literacy and Techno-logy, 11(4).Récupérédehttp://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume_11_4/JLT_v11_4_mott.pdf

Murcia,K.(2012).Integratingdigitaltechnologiesintothecontemporaryscienceclassroom.DansK.C.D.Tan&M.Kim(Dir.),Issues and challenges in science educa-tion research(p.225–243).Dordrecht:SpringerNetherlands.doi:10.1007/2F978-94-007-3980-2_15

Ochoa,M.,Walker,B.,Barrett,A.&Hines,A.(2012).Developinganewlibrarianrole:AplantoprepareteachereducationstudentsforusingSMARTTechnologies.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.4168-4171).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.


OECD.(2010).Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA.Paris,France:OECDPublishing.

Oigara, J. N., &Wallace, N. (2012). Modeling, training, and mentoring teachercandidates to use SMART Board technology. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9,297-315.Récupérédehttp://iisit.org/Vol9/IISITv9p297-315Oigara097.pdf

Orr,M.(2008).LearnerperceptionsofinteractivewhiteboardsinEFLclassrooms.CALL-EJ , 9(2).Récupérédehttp://callej.org/journal/9-2/orr.html

Peled,Y.,Medvin,M.&Domanski,L.(2012).FiveyearsofIWBinschools:Isitworthit?FactorsrelatedtoIWBuseinfourWesternPAK-12schooldistricts.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.2047-2054).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Pilolli,P.,Ruffoni,M.,Bosetti,M.&Ronchetti,M.(2012).Breakingthevendorlock-intrapwithWiildOS,anoperatingsystemtosupportinteractivewhiteboards.DansT.Amiel&B.Wilson(Dir.),Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012(p.243-248).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Pisanu,F.&Gentile,M.(2012).Integratingtechnologiesandinstructionalcoope-rativelearningbasedstrategiesforeffectiveIWBuseinclassroom:Astudyonclassroomdatafromstudentsperceptionsandteachersbehaviors.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Inter-national Conference 2012(p.3026-3031).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Robinson,H.(2012).Earlychildhoodteachercandidatesdevelopingmultimedialessonsforusewithinteractivewhiteboards.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.4048-4049).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Russell,B.(2010).DesigningresourcesforIWBs:Theemergingrolesofeducationalpublishers and materials writers. Dans M.Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 53-68).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Ryan,J.,Scott,A.,&Walsh,M.(2010).Pedagogyinthemultimodalclassroom:Ananalysisofthechallengesandopportunitiesforteachers.Teachers and Teaching, 1�(4),477–489.doi:10.1080/13540601003754871

Sabieh, C. (2011). Adopting interactive whiteboards: An education win-win setup? Dans M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (p. 1034-1039).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Şad, S. N. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education:Validityand reliability studies. Computers & Education, 58(3), 900–907. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.017

Şad,S.N.,&Özhan,U.(2012).HoneymoonwithIWBs:Aqualitativeinsightinpri-marystudents’viewsoninstructionwithinteractivewhiteboard.Computers & Education, 59(4),1184–1191.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010

Sammons,D.,Murandu,M.&Strickland,J.(2002).UtilizingSmartBoardstoenhancetechnology integration inuniversityclassrooms.DansP.Barker&S.Rebelsky(Dir.),Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002(p.1713-1714).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.


Samson,G.,&Lefebvre,S.(2012).Mettrelespointssurlesietlesbarressurlest:LecasduTBI.Vivre le primaire, 25(4),32-33.

Schnackenberg,H.L.,&Heymann,M.J.(2012).Interactivewhiteboards:Worththeinvestment?Journal of Cases on Information Technology,14(1),15–25.doi:10.4018/jcit.2012010102

Schnittka,C.G.,&Bell,R.L.(2009).Preservicebiologyteachers’useofinteractivedisplay systems to support reforms-based science instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2),131–159.

Schroeder, R. (2007). Active learning with interactive whiteboards: A literaturereviewandacasestudyforcollegefreshmen.Communications in Information Literacy,1(2),64-73.

Serow,P.,&Callingham,R.(2011).Levelsofuseofinteractivewhiteboardtechnologyin the primary mathematics classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(2),161-173.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.588418

Shenton,A.,&Pagett,L.(2007).From«bored»toscreen:Theuseoftheinterac-tivewhiteboardforliteracyinsixprimaryclassroomsinEngland.Literacy, 41(3),129-136.

Singh,T.K.R.,&Mohamed,A.R.(2012).Secondarystudents’perspectivesontheuseoftheinteractivewhiteboardforteachingandlearningofScienceinMalaysia.Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3),9-14.

Skutil,M.,&Manenova,M. (2012). Interactivewhiteboard intheprimaryschoolenvironment. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, �(1),123-130.

Slay,H.,Siebörger,I.,&Hodgkinson-Williams,C.(2008).Interactivewhiteboards:Realbeautyorjust“lipstick”?Computers & Education,51(3),1321–1341.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006

Smith,F.,Hardman,F.,&Higgins,S.(2006).Theimpactofinteractivewhiteboardsonteacher-pupilinteractionintheNationalLiteracyandNumeracyStrategies.British Educational Research Journal, 32(3),443-457.doi:10.1080/01411920600635452

Soares,D.A.(2010).IWBsassupportfortechnology-relatedprojectsinEFLeducationinBrazil.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.238-249).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Somekh,B.,Haldane,M.,Jones,K.,Steadman,S.,Scrimshaw,P.,Sing,S.,Bird,K.,etal.(2007).Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project - summary report.Coventry,Royaume-Uni:BECTA.

Spears,A.Y.(2011).Investigating SMARTBoard technology for mathematics educa-tion to improve the learning of digital native students.Thèsededoctoratinedite,LindenwoodUniversity.RécupérédelabasededonnéesProQuestDissertationsandTheses.(UMINo.3450242)

Such,C.,Miller,M.,Everett,C.,Davis,G.,Howlett,P.,&Martin,E.(2012).Exploringtheimpactoftrainingontheuseofinteractivewhiteboards(IWB)andhowlecturersintegratetheiruseinhighereducationclassrooms.Networks,(15),17-21.

Sundberg,B.,Spante,M.,&Stenlund,J.(2012).Disparityinpractice:diversestrategiesamongteachersimplementinginteractivewhiteboardsintoteachingpracticeintwoSwedishprimaryschools.Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3),253-270.doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.586352


Swan,K.,Kratcoski,A.,Schenker,J.,&van-’tHooft,M.(2010).Interactivewhiteboardsandstudentachievement.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p.131-143).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Tate,L.(2002).Using the interactive whiteboard to increase student retention, atten-tion, participation, interest, and success in a required general education college course.Récupérédehttp://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library

Taylor,M.,Harlow,A.,&Forret,M.(2010).Computerprogrammingenvironmentandaninteractivewhiteboardtoinvestigatesomemathematicalthinking.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8,561-570.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.078

Thomas,M.&CutrimSchmid,E.(Dir.).(2010).Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice.Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Torff,B.,&Tirotta,R.(2010).Interactivewhiteboardsproducesmallgainsinelemen-tarystudents’self-reportedmotivationinmathematics.Computers & Education, 54(2),379-383.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019

Tozcu,A.(2008).Theuseofinteractivewhiteboardsinteachingnon-romanscripts.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2),143–166.doi:10.1080/09588220801943726

Türel,Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development,validityandreliability.Computers & Education,57(4),2441–2450.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.005

Türel,Y.K.,&Johnson,T.E.(2012).Teachers’beliefanduseofinteractivewhiteboardsforteachingandlearning.Educational Technology & Society, 15(1),381–394.

Twiner,A. (2010). Interactivewhiteboardsandthediscoursesoftransformation,affordance,orchestrationandparticipation.DansM.Thomas&E.CutrimSchmid(Dir.),Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice(p.37-52).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Twiner,A.,Coffin,C.,Littleton,K.,&Whitelock,D. (2010).Multimodality,orches-tration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactivewhiteboard:adiscussion.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2),211-223.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491232

Villemonteix,F.,&Stolwijk,C.(2011).Processusd’adoptionduTNI:quellepartdesoi?InG.-L.Baron,E,Bruillard,&V.Komis(Dir.),Sciences et technologies de l’in-formation et de la communication (STIC) en milieu éducatif: Analyse de pratiques et enjeux didactiques. Actes du 4e colloque international DIDAPRO (p.251-260).Athènes,Grèce:NewTechnologies.

Wall,K.,Higgins,S.,&Smith,H.(2005).«Thevisualhelpsmeunderstandthecompli-catedthings»:Pupilviewsofteachingandlearningwithinteractivewhiteboards.British Journal of Educational Technology, 3�(5), 851-867. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x

Warnock,S.H.,Boykin,N.J.,&Tung,W.C.(2011).AssessmentoftheimpactofSmartBoardTechnologySystemuseonstudentlearning,satisfaction,andperformance.Journal of Research in Education, 21(1).Récupérédehttp://www.eeraonline.org/journal/files/v21/JRE_v21n1_Article_1_Warnock.pdf


Warwick,P.,Hennessy,S.,&Mercer,N.(2011).Promotingteacherandschoolde-velopment through co-enquiry: Developing interactive whiteboard use in a«dialogicclassroom».Teachers and Teaching, 17(3),303-324.doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.554704

Wilson,G.,&Randall,M.(2010).Implementingandevaluatinga“NextGenerationLearning Space”: A pilot study. Dans C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S.Housego(Dir.),Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future: proceedings of ascilite 2010 (p. 1096-1100). Brisbane, Australie: University ofQueensland.Récupérédehttp://epubs.scu.edu.au/tlc_pubs/185

Wood,R.,&Ashfield,J.(2008).Theuseoftheinteractivewhiteboardforcreativeteachingandlearninginliteracyandmathematics:acasestudy.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1),84-96.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00703.x

Xu,H.L.,&Moloney,R. (2011).“Itmakesthewholelearningexperiencebetter”:Studentfeedbackontheuseoftheinteractivewhiteboardinlearningchineseattertiarylevel.Asian Social Science,7(11),20–34.doi:10.5539/ass.v7n11p20

Xu,H.L.,&Moloney,R.(2011).PerceptionsofinteractivewhiteboardpedagogyintheteachingofChineselanguage.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2),307-325.

Yang,K.-T.,&Wang,T.-H.(2012).InteractivewhiteBoard:Effectiveinteractivetea-chingstrategydesignsforbiologyteaching.DansA.Silva,E.Pontes,A.Guelfi&S.T.Kofuji(Dir.),E-Learning - Engineering, on-job training and interactive teaching(p.139-156).Récupérédehttp://www.intechopen.com/

Yeh, H.T., Cheng,Y.C. & Chung, M. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions onlearningandusinginteractivewhiteboards.DansP.Resta(Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(p.1298-1300).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Zatz,P.,Bell,R.&Binns,I.(2008).Preservicephysicalscienceteachers’useofinte-ractivedisplaysystemsinthesingle-computerclassroom.DansK.McFerrinetal. (Dir.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008(p.4826-4833).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Zevenbergen,R.,&Lerman,S.(2007).Pedagogyandinteractivewhiteboards:Usinganactivitytheoryapproachtounderstandtensionsinpractice.DansJ.Watson&K.Beswick(Dir.),Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematical Research Group of Australasia(Vol.2,p.853-862).Adelaide:MERGA.Récupérédehttp://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP812007.pdf

Zevenbergen,R.,&Lerman,S.(2008).Learningenvironmentsusinginteractivewhi-teboards:Newlearningspacesorreproductionofoldtechnologies?Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1),108-126.








Documents

The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Bene˜ts, …iwb.crifpe.ca/files/Rapport.pdf · The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Benefits, and Challenges. A survey of ... troducing