Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just "lipstick"?

Computers and Education

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 1321-1341

  Slay, Hannah ^a   Siebörger, Ingrid ^a   Hodgkinson Williams, Cheryl ^a  

^a RHODES UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Improving classroom teaching; Interactive learning environments; Interactive pen technology human computer interaction; Interactive whiteboards; Interdisciplinary projects; Teaching learning strategies

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; LAPTOP COMPUTERS; PLANNING; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; TEACHING; TECHNOLOGY;

CASE STUDIES; DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; IMPROVING CLASSROOM TEACHING; INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; INTERACTIVE PEN TECHNOLOGY HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION; INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES; INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD; INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS; INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECTS; POTENTIAL BENEFITS; ROLL-OUTS; SOUTH AFRICA; TEACHING AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; TEACHING/LEARNING STRATEGIES; WHITEBOARDS;

EDUCATION;

EID: 48549099799     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Armstrong V., Barnes S., Sutherland R., Curran S., Mills S., and Thompson I. Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review 57 4 (2005) 457-469
2. Barker, R., & Gardiner, J. (2007). e-Education and e-Skills. In Focus on the digital age [cited 15 August 2007]. .
3. Beauchamp G. Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology Pedagogy and Education 13 3 (2004) 327-348
4. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2004). Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: A guide for secondary schools. Coventry: BECTA.
5. Brandt, I. (2006). Models of Internet connectivity for secondary schools in the Grahamstown Circuit, MSc Thesis. Grahamstown, South Africa: Computer Science Department, Rhodes University.
6. Brown, S. (2003). Interactive whiteboards in education. TechLearn for Joint Information Systems Committee [cited 21 May 2007]. .
7. Coffey A., and Atkinson P. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies (1996), Sage, Thousand Oaks
8. Cordingley P. Teachers using evidence: Using what we know about teaching and learning to reconceptualize evidence-based practice. In: Thomas G., and Pring R. (Eds). Evidence-based practice in education (2004), Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire
9. Damcott, D., Landato, J., Marsh, C., & Rainey, W. (2002). Report on the use of the smart board interactive whiteboard in physical science. Smarter Kids Foundation [cited 21 May 2007]. .
10. Denzin N.K. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (1978), McGraw-Hill, New York
11. Department of Education (2003). Draft White Paper on e-Education: Transforming learning and teaching through Information and Communication Technologies. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Education.
12. Edwards J., Hartnell M., and Martin R. Interactive whiteboards: Some lessons from the classroom. Micromath 18 (2002) 30-33
13. Erickson F. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In: Wittrock M.C. (Ed). Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. (1986), Macmillian, New York
14. Glaser B.G., and Strauss A.L. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (1967), Aldine, Chicago, USA
15. Glover D., and Miller D. Running with technology: The pedagogic impact of the large scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 10 3 (2001) 257-278
16. Glover D., Miller D., Averis D., and Door V. The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media & Technology 32 1 (2007) 5-20
17. Hall I., and Higgins S. Primary school students' perception of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 2 (2005) 102-117
18. Howie S.J., Muller A., and Paterson A. Information and Communication Technologies in South African secondary schools (2005), HSRC Press, Cape Town, South Africa
19. Inkululeko Technologies (2006). tuXlab [cited 15 August 2007]. .
20. Intel Education (2007). Intel Teach Program [cited 15 August 2007]. .
21. John P.D. The sacred and the profane: Subject sub-culture, pedagogical practice and teachers' perception of the classroom uses of ICT. Educational Review 57 4 (2005) 471-490
22. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield [cited 21 May 2007]. .
23. Loveless A.M. The interaction between primary teachers' perceptions of ICT and their pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies 8 4 (2003) 313-326
24. Luidia Systems (2007). eBeam Interactive Whiteboard Technology [cited 21 May 2007]. .
25. Maholwana-Sotashe, N. L., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. A. (2005). Integrating ICT into the curriculum: Secondary teachers' perceptions qualitative multiple case studies in Grahamstown secondary schools. In Proceedings of the Kenton conference, Mpekweni.
26. Mbane, N., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. A. (2005). Secondary school learners' perceptions of the value of integrating ICT into the curriculum: A multiple case study in the Grahamstown circuit. In Proceedings of the Kenton conference, Mpekweni.
27. Merrett S., and Edwards J.A. Enhancing mathematical thinking with an interactive whiteboard. Micromath 21 3 (2005) 9-12
28. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an english education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual (pp. 5-19).
29. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007). The Interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) project: London challenge (p. 816). London: School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.
30. National Education Policy Investigation (1992). Governance and Administration: Report of the NEPI Governance and Administration Research Group. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press and the National Education Co-ordinating Committee.
31. Orlando, A. D. (2005). The Integration of Learning Technologies in the Elementary Classroom: Identifying Teacher Pedagogy and Classroom Culture, PhD. Philadelphia, USA: Education Department, Drexel University.
32. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. In: Carter B., and New C. (Eds). Making realism work: Realist social theory and empirical research (2004), Routledge, London
33. Pawson R., and Tilley N. Realistic evaluation (1997), Sage, London
34. Prior, G., & Hall, L. (2004). ICT in Schools Survey 2004: Findings from a survey conducted in Spring 2004. Published by Department for Education and Skills. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series [cited 15 August 2007]. .
35. QSR International (2007). Nvivo 7 research software for analysis and insight [cited 21 August 2007]. .
36. Robson C. Real world research (1993), Blackwell, Oxford
37. SchoolNet South Africa (2003). SchoolNet South Africa [cited 15 August 2007]. .
38. Schurink W., Schurink E., and Poggenpoel M. Focus group interviewing and audio-visual methodology in qualitative research. In: De Vos A. (Ed). Research at grass roots: A paper for the caring professions (1998), J.L. van Schaik Academic, Pretoria, South Africa 313-333
39. Sharma, R. C., (2003). Barriers in using technology for education in developing countries. In Proceedings of the international conference on information technology: Research and education (ITRE 2003).
40. Slay, H., Sieborger, I. & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. A. (2007). An investigation into the use of interactive whiteboards in South African schools. In IADIS interfaces and human-computer interaction conference (IHCI'07), Portugal.
41. Smith, H. (2001). Smartboard evaluation: final report. Kent National Grid for Learning [cited 20 August 2007]. .
42. Smith H.J., Higgins S., Wall K., and Miller J. Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 (2005) 91-101
43. Smith P.K., Cowie H., and Blades M. Understanding children's development (2004), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
44. Strauss A.L. Qualitative analysis for social scientists (1987), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
45. Tedre M., Sutinen E., Kähkönen E., and Kommers P. Ethnocomputing: ICT in cultural and social context. Communications of the ACM 49 1 (2006) 126-130
46. Walker, C. (2006). Personal communication. Khyana Project, Western Cape Education Department.
47. Wall K., Higgins S., and Smith H.J. "The visual helps me understand the complicated things": Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Education Technology 36 5 (2005) 851-867
48. Watson D. Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies 6 4 (2001) 251-266
49. Weimer, M. J. (2001). The influence of technology such as SMART board interactive whiteboard on student motivation in the classroom. Smarter Kids Foundation. Available at .
50. Whitlow, B. (1998a). Lucent Scholars Khula Project [cited 21 August 2007]. .
51. Whitlow, B. (1998b). Outreach from FENAC [cited 21 August 2007]. .
52. Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD. New York: Palgrave.
53. Wood C. Interactive whiteboards - a luxury too far?. Teaching ICT 1 2 (2002)