Disparity in practice: Diverse strategies among teachers implementing interactive whiteboards into teaching practice in two Swedish primary schools

Learning, Media and Technology

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 253-270

  Sundberg, Bodil ^a   Spante, Maria ^b   Stenlund, Jörgen ^a  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY WEST   (Sweden)

Author keywords

ICT; implementation process; interactive whiteboards; primary teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866872746     PISSN: 17439884     EISSN: 17439892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2011.586352     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Al Fudail, M. and Harvey, M. 2008. Investigation teacher stress when using technology. Computers & Education, 51(3): 1103-10.
2. Beauchamp, G. and Kenwell, S. 2008. The influence on the interactivity of teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4): 305-15.
3. Beauchamp, G. and Kenwell, S. 2010. Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3): 759-66.
4. Bennet, S. and 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.
5. Dawes, L. 2000. First connections: Teachers and the national grid for learning. Computers & Education, 33(4): 235-52.
6. DiGregorio, P. and Sobel-Lojeski, K. 2010. The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on student performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3): 255-312.
7. Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research, London: Sage.
8. Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K. and Mercer, N. 2007a. Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4): 348-58.
9. Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N. and Twiner, A. 2007b. A 'learning revolution'? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3): 243-56.
10. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. and Winterbottom, M. 2007. Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3): 283-301.
11. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. and Miller, D. 2007. Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3): 213-25.
12. Jedeskog, G. 2005. "Ch@nging School". In Implementation of ICT in Swedish school, campaigns and experiences 1984-2004, Uppsala Universitet: Pedagogiska Institutionen.
13. Jedeskog, G. 2007. ICT in Swedish schools 1984-2004: How computers work in the teachers' world. Seminar.net Media, Technology & Lifelong Learning, 3(1: 1-19. http://seminar.net/index.php/home (accessed June 8, 2011)
14. Kang, N.-H. and Wallace, C. 2005. Secondary science teachers' use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1): 140-65.
15. Lewin, C., Somekh, B. and Steadman, S. 2008. Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 13(4): 291-303.
16. Mortimer, E. and Scott, P. 2003. Meaning making in secondary science classrooms, Philadelphia: McGraw-Hill Education.
17. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. and Castle, F. 2007. The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) London challenge, Vol. 816, London: School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.
18. Schmid, E. C. 2008. Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4): 1553-68.
19. SFS. 1985:1100. Swedish Code of Statutes. http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19851100.htm (accessed April 29, 2011).
20. SFS. 2010:800. Swedish Code of Statutes. http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/?nid=3911&bet=2010:800 (accessed April 29, 2011).
21. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K. and Miller, J. 2005. Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2): 91-101.
22. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, London: Sage Publications.
23. Swedish National Agency for Education (NAE). 2010a. An overview of the Swedish educational system. http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/190.
24. Swedish National Agency for Education (NAE). 2010b. Rapport 350. Skolverkets lägesbedömning 2010. Del 2-Bedömningar och slutsatser. Fritzes kundservice, 106 47 Stockholm
25. Wahlström, N. 2008. After decentralization: Delimitations and possibilities within new fields. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(6): 725-42.