Literature+Review

IWBs, interactive whiteboards, are quickly becoming an integral part of the educational landscape. As members of the educational community strive to transform traditional classrooms in which teachers are primarily the focus of students' attention to engaging multisensory interactive learning experiences for students, IWBs can be a key component of that transformation. Kaufman (2009) states, "The capacity of interactive whiteboards to incorporate a wide range of media and produce student-centered activities seems to be the driving force behind their increased popularity in educations institutions (p. 25). Teachers can add substantial depth to the learning environment by integrating the technology into their pedagogical practices because the technology allows them to incorporate music, animation, images, video, graphs, charts, and other interactive digital elements.
 * Literature review **

Interactive whiteboards function by connecting a computer to a projector. The user can manipulate the computer from a distance by using transmitters or wireless devices. The devices communicate with the computer via a wireless dongle and allow the computer's desktop image to be displayed on a traditional whiteboard or other surface. In order to maximize the effectiveness of IWBs as part of instructional practices, an understanding of the technology and how it impacts pedagogy becomes necessary. Students seem increasingly comfortable with using technology for learning, and IWBs can reinforce their learning by creating some degree of excitement as part of the learning experience. Hall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) state, "The way in which information is presented, through colour and movement in particular, is seen by the pupils to be motivating and reinforces concentration and attention" (p. 866). In addition to motivating students and creating excitement for learning, IWBs also have an impact on teachers from a pedagogical perspective. Lewin, Somekh, and Steadman (2008) state, "One example of an improvement on an already established practice is the use of the IWB to facilitate a co-learner style of teaching, where teacher and pupils ('we') work together rather than adopting more formal roles as teacher and learner" (298).

Even though teachers have been shifting away from the traditional classroom design where they were often the focal point of instruction, frequently relying on lecture, overhead projectors, and chalk or marker boards for years, IWBs have both accelerated the transformation and reshaping of teacher practices from a larger perspective. In regards to these changes, as part of their study involving 2000 students and their assessment of IWBs on students' achievement, attendance, and behavior, and IWBs impact on instruction, Lewin, Someky, and Steadman, (2008) state, "The first of these comes about precisely because of the way in which the use of structured lesson plans, with associated choices of resources, can now be stored in computer memory, accessible at any time from the IWB" (p. 299). Other researchers have found even more specific changes or shifts in instructional practices resulting from the integration of IWBs. As part of their study involving four Australian primary school classrooms and the integration of IWBs, Bennett and Lockyer (2008) state, "The main impacts on lessons were an increased use of the Internet, software, and visual resources as part of lessons; modelling and discussion of IT skills; and modelling of Internet research skills" (p. 298).

For the successful integration and implementation of IWB technology to occur, proper foundations and preparation must be put into place. Bennett and Lockyer (2008) state as part of their conclusion from the study above mentioned, "These findings suggest high levels of integration and acceptance of this technology may come from the early advantages that teachers experience in using IWBs in their classrooms, from which it may be possible to leverage the future development of pedagogy" ( p. 298). The efficacy of IWB assisted instruction is related to training, knowledge, and comfort level of the users. Kaufman, in his 2008 mixed approach study of teachers using Promethean Interactive Whiteboards in Loudon County, Virginia, analyzed the results of advanced professional learning activities which focused on the implementation and use of these IWBs in classrooms and the effects of that training on teacher's comfort levels with using the technology. All faculty were given two hours of initial training; as part of his research, he facilitated an additional three 4-hour workshops which were provided over a two month period for teachers to better learn both beginning level and advanced level IWB specific instructional tools and practices. Kaufman (2008) states, "The purpose of this study was to determine the effect training had on teacher skill development and understanding with regards to the interactive whiteboard and //ActivStudio//" (p. 24).

Following the initial training provided by the system, and prior to his series of facilitated training sessions, Kaufman measured teachers' attitudes toward the use of their IWBs using a six- question survey and five-question structured interview. He also administered assessment during the training sessions to determine participants levels of understanding of topics being presented. Following the series of training sessions, participants responded to a follow up a follow-up survey. As part of his conclusion, Kaufman (2008) suggests that future studies should be conducted to determine the impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching, learning, and changing teacher pedagogy (p. 32). With his mixed methods approach involving teachers and their comfort levels with the technology and their degree of understanding of some effective practices using the tool, he was able to clearly analyze the overall situation in his learning community and devise a model and perhaps direction for future researchers regarding the implementation and integration of IWBs.

References 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. Retrieved from ERIC database. Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary School Students' Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboards. //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning//, //21//(2), 102-117. Retrieved from ERIC database. Kaufman, D.. (2009). How Does the Use of Interactive Whiteboards Affect Teaching and Learning? //Distance Learning,// //6//(2), 23-33. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1903519791).

Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S.. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291-303. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1898732381).