Effective Use of Interactive Whiteboard in School

GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE
SCHOOL/CLASSROOM USE OF INTERACTIVE
WHITEBOARDS

The EuSCRIBE Project

MAY 2010

PUBLISHER European Schoolnet
Rue de Trèves 61
1040 Brussels
Belgium
www.europeanschoolnet.org
info@eun.org
AUTHOR Diana Bannister, University of Wolverhampton

EDITOR Jim Ayre

DTP Helena Blahová

Published in July 2010. The EuSCRIBE project was run by The Learning Technologies Team,
Midlands Leadership Centre, University of Wolverhampton and commissioned by the
European Schoolnet Interactive Whiteboard Working Group with the support of
e-Instruction, Mimio, Promethean Ltd., and SMART Technologies.

This report is published under the terms and conditions of the Attribution 3.0 Unported
Creative Commons licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Learning Technologies Team, Midlands Leadership Centre, University of
Wolverhampton would like to thank the European Schoolnet Interactive Whiteboard
Working Group for commissioning the EuSCRIBE Project – European Schools And Classroom
Research Of Interactive Whiteboards In Education and the following colleagues for their
support with our work:

The European Schoolnet Interactive Whiteboard Working Group
Austria: Karl Lehner and Reinhold Hawle
Czech Republic: Milan Hausner, Petr Chaluš
Denmark: Per Thorboll
France: Jean-Serge Vigouroux
Hungary: Petra Perényi
Luxembourg: Daniel Weiler
Spain: Lourdes Gozalo
Switzerland: Stephanie Burton
Turkey: Volkan Celebi and Turan Sisman
European Schoolnet: Jim Ayre

And with particular thanks to the following countries that participated in link research visits:

Ireland: Jerome Morrissey and Anne White NCTE Gerry Murphy and St Joseph’s
National School — Dundalk
Italy: Leonardo Tosi; Laura Parigi and Giovanni Nulli (ANSAS)
Schools: Liceo Scientifico Statale - Parma Istituto Comprensivo Statale Baccio da
Montelupo (Firenze) and the many schools from Italy who attended the focus group.
Portugal: José Vitor Pedroso
Marco Neves and Antonio Silva from the Competence Centre located at Batalha
Secondary School, Batalha
The Secondary School Domingos Sequeira, Leiria Portugal IWB Training Company –
João Carlos Conde, www.criatividade.net, associação educativa para o
desenvolvimento da criatividade
UK: Will Ellis and Robin Englebright BECTA, Sue Courtney Donovan Sandwell LA
Stuart Bathurst Catholic High School of Performing Arts Sandwell LA, Blackheath
Primary School Sandwell LA

And to e-Instruction, Mimio, Promethean Ltd., and SMART Technologies that are
supporting the production of IWB WG deliverables and whose representatives enabled us to
capture the perspective of commercial suppliers.

With thanks from the EuSCRIBE Project Team

Diana Bannister MBE - Project Director

Andrew Hutchinson - Learning Technologies Adviser

“The whiteboard is not a magic carpet. It will not float into your
classroom and whisk your troubles away. It is more like investing in a
new house, certain things are in place when you agree to the
purchase, not all of it is organised as you would like, but with the
careful gathering of the things you need, and a few new installations,
it soon begins to feel familiar. However, it will need continued love,
investment and maintenance to ensure that it remains adequate to be
your C21st home.”

Diana Bannister

2

FOREWORD
Welcome,

At every level, in every European country, educationalists are working at different stages
with interactive whiteboards (IWB). To some, interactive whiteboards are the next best
provision to improve learning and teaching, whilst to others, this technology is a
long-standing under-used resource.

Regardless of your stage of adoption, it is time to take responsibility for how we can move
forward to effective use and application of the interactive whiteboard. The mere
introduction of this technology will not revolutionise the classroom; it is dependent upon
addressing strategic management issues at all levels.

Capturing the picture of the European use of IWB in 12 weeks is perhaps a challenge that
most would agree to with some hesitations. However, this project has been uplifting and
energising because we have had the opportunity to work with practitioners who are keen to
embrace interactive technologies and willing to learn. The experience of users provides
evidence of a vast pool of knowledge and it is the insight of practitioners that we have tried
to evidence within this report in order to determine how others can make progress.

Whether you are a practitioner, adviser or commercial supplier, this report can help you to
review your use of this technology and consider what steps can be taken to ensure that the
implementation is a smooth and replicable process, recognising that this is only the
beginning of integrating the technology.

It has not been our intention to evidence learning outcomes, nor to determine whether or
not alternative technologies would achieve similar objectives. However, we would hope that
this document enables you to collate evidence to support your work and to determine your
pathway for integrating and extending your use of the IWB within learning and teaching.

Diana Bannister MBE
Associate Director, Education Partnerships
On behalf of the EuSCRIBE Project
Learning Technologies Team
Midlands Leadership Centre
University of Wolverhampton

May 2010

3

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................. 1
Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5
What is an Interactive Whiteboard? (IWB)................................................................................................ 7
General IWB Uses ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Commonly Used IWB Tools, Techniques and Applications .............................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 19
Whole Class Teaching....................................................................................................................................... 23
Interactive/Interactivity/Interaction ........................................................................................................ 24
Learning and Teaching .................................................................................................................................... 25
Training and Continuing Professional Development (CPD)............................................................. 28
Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter Three: Overview of the Methodology ............................................................................. 31
Chapter Four: Guidelines from the Research ............................................................................... 33
1. Leadership and Organisation ................................................................................................................... 34
2. Purchase, Installation and Maintenance .............................................................................................. 37
3. Access ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
4. Classroom Management ............................................................................................................................. 44
5. Training and Continuing Professional Development ..................................................................... 46
6. Learning and Teaching................................................................................................................................ 50
7. Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 55
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 59
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 59
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 62
Bibliography and References ............................................................................................................. 63
Websites..................................................................................................................................................... 66

Appendixes
Appendix I: Key themes discussion template
Appendix II: EuSCRIBE Project Observation Form

4

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The aim of this research was to develop guidelines for the use of IWB on behalf of European
Schoolnet. Across Europe, practitioners are working at different stages with IWB. Some have
had their own IWB in their classroom for years, whilst for others, this is an embryonic idea
which has yet to be realised.

In 2009 the European Schoolnet formed an Interactive Whiteboard Working Group to begin
to address the use of this technology.1 Thirteen of the thirty-one ministries supporting
European Schoolnet are currently part of this group, each with their own strategies and aims
for achieving C21st teaching and learning. It is one of four EUN working groups established
to develop an annual work programme that is in line with the priorities defined by the
supporting Ministries.

The UK itself has the largest investment in IWB technology and Becta have now
reported that the average primary school has 18 whiteboards and the secondary school has
38. This means most primary schools have one in each classroom, whilst most secondary
schools have more than one per subject department. The Harnessing Technology Survey
2009 said IWB is still the most dominant technology. This does not necessarily equate with
effective use.

The challenge remains to ensure that the whiteboards are not just the latest technology
installed, but to train practitioners to make effective use and application within learning and
teaching. This is a continual and ongoing process.

STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
In this report, we offer a review of literature specifically on the use of IWB, focussing mainly
on studies from across the UK over the past decade. The purpose of the literature review is to
demonstrate the pace of change with the access to IWB technology, but also to outline that
many of the priorities raised by researchers and practitioners within the last ten years still
remain at the forefront of thinking today.

Within chapter three, there is an overview of the methodology adopted to collect the
evidence for this report. The researchers determined some of the key themes from a survey
which was distributed to all thirteen ministries. Beyond this, most of the details are based on
evidence from four link research visits. This has included visits to schools in Ireland, Italy,
Portugal and the UK where the researchers were able to undertake lesson observations and
interviews with teachers in each country. Alongside this, three of the countries had focus
meetings which allowed for further consideration of some of the key themes.

The observation form that was used within this project has been made available within the
appendix of the report.

1 http://moe.eun.org/web/iwbworkinggroup/iwb

5

The project director also met with four IWB commercial suppliers to discuss the key themes
and to understand more about their views and approaches across Europe. Each of these
companies had already provided presentations on their respective strategies to ministries in
the IWB Working Group in April and May 2009.

This project is relatively small scale, but the guidelines that have been developed can
hopefully be used by the classroom practitioner, adviser, the academic researcher and the
commercial supplier to understand how to implement and question existing practice with
IWB. Many of the questions that shaped this research have been used at the beginning of
each of the key areas within the guidelines. This report is not intended to provide all the
answers to these questions and it is almost certain that some of those reading will be able to
offer additional experience or examples.

K EY QUESTIONS FOR THIS RESEARCH :
1. What are the key areas of focus for schools implementing the use of IWB?
2. What do schools need to do to ensure the effective use and application of this
technology?
3. What can commercial suppliers do to improve the use of IWB?

The snapshot of evidence from this project allows the project team to draw some conclusions
and gives some indications for possible future research. As one of the commercial suppliers
stated: “We have tried to move ministries and schools on in their thinking - to make the
transition towards an interactive classroom, ultimately, this means that schools have to
define what success looks like.”

Evidence suggests that it now paramount that roles and responsibilities are defined at every
level to demonstrate that key decision makers need to be able to embrace opportunities for
technology, yet be realistic. Ministries, regional advisers and schools should define their
roadmap for improving learning and teaching in partnership and collaboration. Success
cannot be achieved in isolation. The ultimate pathway should meet the learning needs of all
pupils and maximise the potential of the technology for all practitioners.

6

WHAT IS AN I N T E R A C T I V E W H I T E B O A R D ? (IWB)

WHAT IS AN INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD?
An interactive whiteboard (IWB) is an interactive display system that is commonly used in
educational settings. The IWB forms a link between a teaching surface and a digital projector
and computer. The ‘teaching surface’ is most frequently a large wall mounted panel that
allows the user to operate the computer via interacting with the projected image.
Historically, IWBs could only be used by a single user at any one time. Recent technical
innovations now allow for multiple users to interact with the IWB on some products.

WHAT TYPES OF IWB ARE AVAILABLE?
There are variations of the basic IWB setup and these are largely classified as fixed and
mobile solutions. The user is able to ‘interact’ with the surface via an electronic stylus (pen)
or by using a finger (on touch sensitive IWBs only). There are however, other specifications
that may differ between classrooms. For instance, some interactive whiteboards contain an
integral processor and can be operated without a computer; many have a built-in
boom-mounted, short throw, projector that projects from above the teacher at an angle onto
the interactive screen and other IWBs can be moved up and down manually or electrically
depending on the height of the pupils. Most IWBs now also include a system of speakers and
sound amplification. Older IWBs may rely on the speaker system from the laptop or PC that
is attached to it in order to playback sounds from DVDs, video and audio files or from
individual pieces of software. IWB can be purchased in a variety of sizes. Smaller interactive
whiteboards may be similar in size to a large plasma television (40-50 inch / 101-127 cm)
with larger models being available up to approximately (95 inch / 241cm).

It should also be recognised that mobile interactive systems are available to schools that
allow the conversion of traditional dry wipe boards into interactive learning spaces via the
attachment of electronic sensors to the surface. These systems also supply electronic pens
and peripherals and allow interaction with the projected image.

There are several interactive devices available which can provide a complete interactive
solution for some schools, but they can also be used to complement the IWB. These include
small wireless interactive tablets that allow remote access to the board from anywhere in the
room and voting systems or Learner Response Systems (LRS) that allow students to respond
individually to a question set by the teacher via their own wireless handset. The responses
are displayed on the IWB and can include numerical and text formats as well as traditional
multiple choice responses. Users can also invest in a visualiser or document camera that
allows the teacher to project a still or live video image onto the IWB screen, annotating or
taking screenshots as necessary.

Whatever the technical solution, these technologies allow digital lesson materials to be
accessed by the teacher and students within lessons and possess many similar tools and
shared characteristics. There are, however, significant differences in functionality and design
and an accomplished user of one brand of authoring software might not be able to instantly
convert to using a different brand without some technical and pedagogical training.

7

It is paramount that the Ministries of Education, regional authorities and schools are clear
about the type of technology that is required before the procurement specification is
released to the commercial suppliers.

WHAT TYPE OF SOFTWARE IS USED ON AN IWB?
All manufacturers provide a software solution that is specifically designed to work with their
technology and most can work with other interactive technologies too. This software is
provided during purchase and can be downloaded from their websites and user
communities or installed from CD / DVD. These applications provide a vast array of tools and
content that can be used as part of teaching and learning and that foster interactivity. Tools
common to most platforms include pens, highlighters, shape constructors, timers,
screen-shades and image capture devices.

Alongside the tools available, manufacturers also provide teaching content and
electronic classroom materials. These commonly consist of a range of backgrounds such as
squared paper for use in mathematics or manuscript paper for use in music lessons, a wide
range of educational clipart, interactive objects such as electronic protractors or
stopwatches, educational games and multimedia samples. Most of the interactive whiteboard
software that is available on the market allows users to annotate over the desktop. This
allows the teacher to use the full range of IWB tools in conjunction with other commercially
available products.

Publishers now author their own IWB curriculum materials that contain interactive
lesson materials and activities. Sometimes these relate directly to specific brands of IWB but
many work across all platforms. There are websites that contain educational content that has
been produced with the IWB in mind; teachers simply repurpose existing web content and
use it on the IWB screen rather than on multiple netbooks, laptops or computers.

Commercial suppliers, national and regional projects, as well as schools are at various stages
of development with creating online user communities and groups. This means users can
actively seek to share and swap lesson materials they have created. There are currently
negotiations towards developing a common file format for different interactive whiteboard
brands. Presently, some formats will allow users to import and convert files from other types
of IWB, but this is not typical of all brands.

WHAT IS THE INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD FILE FORMAT?
As more and more case studies emerge, the issue of interoperability continues to grow.
Practitioners want to be able to access materials from a variety of websites or learning
environments and do not want to feel restricted by the file format. Commercial suppliers
currently operate their own file formats for interactive whiteboard software; for example,
teachers become familiar with saving ‘flipchart’, ‘notebook’ or ‘workspace’ files. (e.g.
*.flipchart; *.gwb; *.inc or *.notebook) However, in 2007, Becta UK began to investigate the
possibility of creating a common file format to allow practitioners to use material on an
interactive whiteboard regardless of how it had been created. An initial investigation helped
to determine a set of common functionalities. It is important to note that this is for
consideration at the point of delivery, rather than preparation of materials. Some advanced
practitioners may feel that specific functionality is lost. Users of IWBs will also continue to
have the option of using existing authoring software.
8

At the time of writing this report, Becta state that the development of the specification is
complete. There has to be a commitment to adopt the format and it is anticipated that the
suppliers will do this in the near future. The ultimate aim is to create a file format which
works seamlessly regardless of the type of interactive whiteboard in use. This will be a
recognised industry standard and this will mean that publishers and practitioners can create
materials in a single format. It will also mean that existing resources can be imported and
exported to operate within this new file format.

Frequently Asked Questions on the common file format
How will I recognise the file format?
The file format will be recognised as .*iwb
How do I get materials in .*iwb?
It will require the practitioner or IWB user to have the latest version of IWB software
available for use.
Will it work on Windows and Mac?
Yes, it should be able to work across these systems completely.
Can I use the software across the school?
Yes, you can use the software across the school; you may want to make the board
viewer available on the school VLE.
What about copyright of materials?
Further detailed consideration is still being given by Becta to issues in relation to
copyright.
Additional information will be available direct from Becta’s website.
www.becta.org.uk

9

G E N E R A L IWB U S E S

VIEWING AND INTERACTING WITH THE INTERNET WEB PAGES
Many users first begin to use the interactive whiteboard by interacting with the projected
image. New users often prefer to use websites that they are already familiar with through
their professional duties as a means of developing confidence with the technology. In these
instances the practitioner only has to concentrate on using their stylus (pen) or finger
correctly instead of a mouse. They will also develop a good understanding of where to stand
so as to be able to interact with the IWB efficiently whilst facing the audience. As teachers
develop confidence in using the IWB, they may quickly move on to involving students in
interacting with games and activities found within the websites. Many teachers quickly build
up a bank of websites that work well with their subject speciality and the IWB. Many
activities found on educational websites are also now designed specifically with the IWB in
mind.

VIEWING AND INTERACTING WITH SOFTWARE
Practitioners can use the IWB to use and interact with specific software within their
teaching. As with displaying websites, the key skill is replacing the use of a mouse with a
stylus or finger to interact with the software. Beginners may already be proficient users of
presentation software on a PC. When giving a presentation, IWB users may begin to work
with other tools from within PowerPoint such as the highlighter and pen tools. This allows
them to annotate on top of their presentation and for the presentation to become more
‘interactive’. Again, practitioners who are repurposing an existing presentation may use this
type of activity in order to build confidence during the early stages of use. Other
practitioners may use curriculum related software with which they already have some
familiarity. For example, a digital audio editor and recording application can be used for
creating podcasts. A teacher may use the IWB as a means of teaching key skills to the whole
group in using the software or for sharing the completed podcasts at the end of a lesson.

NOTE TAKING USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD SOFTWARE
Interactive Whiteboard manufacturers provide users with specially designed IWB software.
This software allows users to write notes on electronic pages throughout a lesson. The
software allows for changes to the size and colour of the pen and includes access to other
generic tools such as shape creators and line tools. A page turner will allow the addition of
new, fresh pages similar to a traditional paper based freestanding flipchart. Lesson notes and
drawings can be saved at the end of a lesson and more advanced users may use tools such as
handwriting and shape recognition in order to make script clearer. Advanced software
includes the facility to recognise text as different languages. Notes saved at the end can be
reopened at the beginning of a new lesson in order to revisit learning or to provide students
who where absent with a record of what has already happened.

10

VIEWING AND INTERACTING WITH A DVD OR VIDEO CLIP
Most computers attached to an IWB will have an integral DVD drive and player as well as a
media player. New users often find playing DVDs and media clips a simple and effective early
use. The practitioner can easily pause clips and lead class discussion around the theme of the
clip or a particular segment. IWB software also allows for screen shots to be taken that
allows the teacher to storyboard sequences. Annotation of clips, using the IWB pen or
highlighter tool, is also a simple, but effective, technique.

Streamed broadband clips are commonly used in educational settings. Websites such as
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/ offer a wide array of educational video
content that can be streamed through the IWB and shared with a whole group. Commercial
providers also provide clip banks and additional IWB resources for purchase by individual
schools and school districts.

ANNOTATING THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, WEBSITES AND IMAGES USING DESKTOP TOOLS
Interactive Whiteboard software often includes a set of desktop tools that can be
activated and used in conjunction with websites and third party software. These
applications will initially allow the teacher to write and draw over other software. With
confidence, the user may begin to access other tools such as screen shades, timers, cameras
and onscreen keyboards which can help make the use of the third party software more
dynamic and interactive.

CREATING AND TEACHING A LESSON WITH INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD SOFTWARE
Interactive whiteboard software allows the user to create and adapt pages in advance of the
lesson. The software is specifically designed to allow the authoring of lesson material by the
teacher and there are many tools that are generic to all brands. These include text, shape,
highlighter, pen, spotlight, screen capture, magnifier and fill tools. The software provides a
resource gallery of clipart, learning objects, videos and sounds, pages and backgrounds. It
allows screen objects to be layered, grouped and duplicated. Hyperlinks can be created to
embed video clips, documents and web pages in most brands. The authoring software
provides the more experienced IWB user with the opportunity to design and create
interactive learning activities that both the teacher and pupil can use during a lesson. User
communities are now established for some manufacturers that provide additional resources
and banks of lessons that may be downloaded and adapted by users. Online training and
tutorials can support the development of practitioners’ use of the IWB. This training is often
accredited and may be at additional cost to the user. Guidance from expert teachers and
face-to-face training sessions are also common strategies used by school districts, individual
schools and manufacturers in order to support the development of practice using the
technology.

11

C O M M O N L Y U S E D IWB T O O L S , T E C H N I Q U E S AND APPLICATIONS

PEN TOOLS / HIGHLIGHTERS
All interactive whiteboard software allows the user to write within the IWB software and on
top of the desktop. As a first step, users often learn to vary the colours they use to make
specific teaching points or use the highlighter tool to annotate text and images. Other
common applications are labelling diagrams and simple note-taking on a blank page. The pen
tools allow the size, colour and properties of pen lines to be changed in order to suit the
needs of the activity. Some IWB software allows the pen line properties to be changed so that
they begin and end with arrows in order that they can be used for matching activities. More
advanced users may use thicker pens to paint over words and images on the screen in order
to hide them from view. In most IWB software there is a digital eraser tool that is used to
remove writing from the screen.

DRAG AND DROP / MATCHING
The simplest action to undertake on an IWB is to drag and drop objects, moving them around
the screen. Many interactive activities are based on this simple idea. In example one the
pupils place the characters in the bus queue depending on the clues in the problem. In the
second example, materials are classified by dragging them to the correct column.

12

TEXT TOOLS
Text tools allow text boxes to be added to the
screen. This can be for individual words or
longer pieces of text. They include all of the
normal tools from a word processor that allow
for different font styles and sizes. In the example,
several text boxes have been stacked up so that
the pupils cannot read the words. The second
screenshot shows pupils removing sentences
and deciding on the correct sequence.

RUB AND REVEAL
Rub and reveal is a commonly used technique
with most interactive whiteboard software. The
user hides an object such as text or a picture
under a layer of ink. In some instances the ink is
the same colour as the page background on others
it contrasts. The user simply uses the eraser tool
to rub away the layer of ink to reveal the word or
image beneath it at an appropriate moment during
the lesson.

Text is covered with a layer of green ink then
gradually rubbed away to fully reveal it.

LAYERING
Layering allows the IWB user to place screen objects in a desired order on the screen. Users
may use this concept in a number of ways to create tasks. Example 1 shows some text hidden
underneath a speech bubble. The speech bubble is locked down and the user can pull a quote
from underneath the speech bubble at any time during the lesson. In example 2, the pupil
removes the coloured tiles to gradually reveal the mystery picture beneath.

13

GROUPING
Grouping allows the IWB user to combine more
than one image or text object in order to make a
composite image. This can be useful when creating
labels or matching activities. In the example, an
arrow and a key question have been grouped. The
arrow is place partially off screen and dragged
onto screen using the finger or stylus at the
appropriate moment during the lesson.

TEXT / HANDWRITING RECOGNITION
Most interactive whiteboard software allows the user to write with the pen tool and then
turn it automatically into text. Often the software will offer a number of text alternatives in
order to take into account different styles of handwriting. Some brands will convert
handwriting into a specific target language. e.g. a teacher in France converting handwriting
into German in a foreign language class.

TIMERS / STOPWATCHES AND CLOCKS
Countdown clocks and timers
are commonly used by teachers
as part of normal teaching.
Timers found within the IWB
software allow the teacher to
manage the length of lesson
segments and can be
programmed to play a sound or
tune to signify the end of an
activity.

14

SCREEN CAPTURE / CLIPPING / CAMERA
This tool allows the user to cut parts of an image
either from within the IWB software or from an
external source. The image can either be square
or rectangular or freehand. During this research
project teachers were observed using this tool to
cut out a character from an image taken from a
video clip. Other uses might include capturing
diagrams from websites or creating a jigsaw from
an image.

SPOTLIGHT / SEARCHLIGHT
The spotlight or searchlight tool allows the
teacher or student to explore individual parts or
aspects of the screen. The user can make the area
within the searchlight larger or smaller and may
also change its shape so that the searchlight area
is square or rectangular. This tool is often used to
explore images or texts and can also be used in
conjunction with other software and websites.

SCREEN-SHADE, BLIND, CURTAIN OR REVEALER TOOL
This tool is a simple screen cover that is used by teachers to hide all or part of the screen.
Commonly it is used to gradually introduce teaching points or an activity. It functions in a
similar way to a ‘Roller Blind’ but can also be pulled horizontally. In the first screen shot it is
being used to cover part of the screen where the Planet Earth would be. In screen shot two it
is drawn down to gradually reveal a map.

15

ANIMATION
Objects on screen can be animated in a number of ways. The simplest approach is to create a
page and duplicate it many times. The user simply moves objects slightly on each page in
sequence similar to an animator’s flipbook. As the user turns the pages, the objects move or
change. This is particularly useful if explaining processes or cycles. A second commonly used
animation technique is that of programming screen objects in order for them to move,
disappear or change when clicked on by the user when at the IWB. For instance, the image of
a door may be programmed to flip one hundred and eighty degrees. This might reveal who is
behind the door. Finally, screen objects might be programmed to move around the screen,
similar to traditional presentation software. More complex animation is possible by
importing and embedding Macromedia Flash objects or movie clips that the user has sourced
elsewhere or written themselves.

SCREEN OR PAGE RECORDER / VIDEO CAMERA
This tool can be used to record all activity that
takes place on the interactive whiteboard during a
session. It can apply to the full screen or a
particular area. The resulting video clip can be
saved in multiple formats and viewed using most
media players. Some practitioners will use this
tool to record the answer to a problem before a
lesson or to record a process then replay it during
the lesson to reinforce learning.

FILL TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
The fill tool allows users to change the colour of a
shape, text object or the background by clicking on
it and selecting a colour. In the example the fill tool
has been used to fill the regular shapes in blue and
the irregular shapes in green.

SUBJECT TOOLS
IWB software contains a number of tools that lend
themselves particularly well to specific subjects.
This example shows a range of interactive tools
for Mathematics. These tools work like their real
counterparts and can be used precisely. Initially,
many tools developed around Mathematics and
Science teaching. Recently however, tools such as
timeline makers, spellcheckers and word
generators have been developed with other
subject areas in mind.

16

STACKING OBJECTS / CLONING AND
DUPLICATING
These tools allow the user to quickly access
multiple copies of the same word or image
during a lesson. In essence, it creates a never
ending stack of objects. The user selects the
object and sets the object properties so that they
automatically duplicate when selected. In the
example, the coins are being set so that they
reproduce on demand. Individual pages can also
be duplicated within the software and advanced
users will sometimes use this function to save
time when developing lesson materials. They
may duplicate a page and change it slightly rather
than constructing a similar page from scratch.

INTERACTIVE AUTHORING
IWB software has advanced to the point where it is relatively simple for users to author
activities that combine movement, sounds, images and text with the facility to programme
specific correct and incorrect answers related to them. Example one shows an interactive
multiple choice quiz that is self-marking. Example Two shows a ‘Recycling’ lesson that
applauds pupils, using a sound file, when they recycle items correctly.

TRANSPARENCY
The transparency tool allows IWB users to
change images and text so that they can become
partially or fully transparent. It the example, the
shape has been made partially transparent so
that the squared paper can been seen through it.
This could help in this context if teaching a
Mathematics lesson on Area. Other subject
teachers may also use this function such a
layering maps so that elements of more than one
can be displayed together.

17

DUAL USER
Interactive whiteboard manufacturers now provide users with the option to purchase and
use multi-input / multi-user technology. This means that more than one person can use the
interactive whiteboard at any one time. This is accomplished by either dividing up the screen
so that each user has their own section that they can control from a remote device such as a
tablet, or by providing a second IWB user with their own set of tools that works on all or half
of the board. This is a relatively new development in IWB technology and no users were seen
to use this approach during lesson observations carried out within the EuSCRIBE Project.

USER COMMUNITIES
Many manufacturers have set up IWB user communities over the past several years. These
online communities allow users to communicate and share resources and ideas through a
website. Lessons can be contributed by users and downloaded by members. Some
manufacturers provide additional IWB Gallery resources for download and provide news on
software developments and product updates to members via e-mail. Some regional
authorities and school districts have also developed their own user groups and networks
that share IWB practice at a local level. In some areas of the UK, education authorities have
developed exemplar interactive whiteboard materials for their teachers to adapt and use as
part of their everyday teaching.

18

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review has been written to signpost practitioners towards some key areas of
thinking in relation to the use of interactive whiteboards. IWB technology has attracted
most of the research from UK academics and practitioners. Certain names have appeared
repeatedly throughout the last decade (Higgins, Miller, Glover, Hennessey, Kennewell, Smith,
Cogill to name but a few). Within this review, the author has retained the focus largely on the
UK in an attempt to allow readers to understand the high level of interest and demand that
has been created by IWB in one country and to demonstrate how future projects must build
on this existing knowledge and experience. Readers may also find it beneficial to consider
the European Schoolnet interactive whiteboard case studies.2

In many respects, the landscape in the UK has changed dramatically in the last five years.
Evidence shows that the average primary school now has 18 interactive whiteboards, whilst
the average secondary school has 38. (Becta 2009) However, we must continue to question
that even though the technology is in place, this does not mean that it is being used. The
innovators in the UK have moved on, but the advocates of IWB technology recognise that
across Europe, as the picture unfolds, we have to question not only who can access this
technology, but what must be done to ensure the consistent effective use and application of
the IWB within learning and teaching.

There is also evidence to suggest that huge national investment had a significant impact on
the adoption of IWB technology.

Kennewell and Higgins (2007) question:

“Why is this technology having such an influence on the use of ICT,
particularly in schools, when other government policies concerning
ICT have had limited impact?”

The following studies are all essential reading and help the reader to acknowledge the UK’s
commitment to IWB technology:
Ways forward with ICT led by University of Newcastle (1999)
The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation:
An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London
Challenge (2007)
The DCSF Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion led by Professor Bridget
Somekh Manchester Metropolitan University (2007)
The ICT Testbed Project set up by the Department for Education and Skills (as it
was then known) and evaluated by a team from Manchester Metropolitan
University and Nottingham Trent University. (2005)

2 http://moe.eun.org/web/iwbworkinggroup/library
19

There has also been a notable number of Best Practice Research scholarships and ICT
Bursaries. All of these studies serve as a reminder for other European countries that
alongside the financial investment, there needs to be continual commitment to funding
development and research to maintain the focus, evidence practice and inform thinking
about how to embed the IWB within learning and teaching.

There was a clear purpose in the UK to provide the technology, but also to link the projects to
learning outcomes within literacy and numeracy. This presents a defining moment because it
acknowledges that whilst the technology can lead to a change in practice, provision of new
resources and access to professional development; it is the synthesis of all of these which
leads to the improvement in learning outcomes.

Haldane (2010) recognises the magnitude of the change process. It is a relatively complex
process in that two changes are occurring in tandem: the development of new technical skills
and the deployment of such skills to effect changes in pedagogy.”

Becta (2006) suggest that schools and institutions need to determine their level of
e-maturity; this is defined as:

“The extent to which schools and their teachers make the use of ICT
integral to teaching and planning of teaching activities and provide
access to ICT inside and outside the classroom.”

This potentially huge area is compiled of three dimensions:

1. Measuring ICT infrastructure and resources

2. Organisational Co-ordination of ICT Resources

3. Engagement with learners – the extent of classroom and out of lesson use of
ICT resources in school.

This supports the understanding that schools have to plan for significant investment with
technology and this takes time. It also recognises that schools that are ready to integrate
technology should be able to clearly understand how the innovation will link to other
developments. E-Maturity can also be achieved by the individual; this work reflects the
importance that needs to be placed on the strategic management of any implementation if it
is going to impact on pupils throughout the school, rather than a minority of e-enabled
classrooms of ICT champions.

Glover et al (2005) define:

“Missioners, tentatives and luddites within schools and consider this
as key to the management of change. Whilst missioners are the
practitioners at the forefront of the innovation, “luddites are those
for whom the technology, even if understood, is seen as a threat and
as likely to change the normal teacher - taught relationship.”

20

Glover and Miller (2001) discuss one particular school where whiteboards have been
deployed throughout - the staff realise that they would not become proficient overnight.
They “wisely see themselves as gaining competence in more complex processes over a
period of up to three years.”

There is a realisation that it takes a considerable amount of time to embed the IWB within
existing initiatives in school; this is an area which needs to be addressed further within the
EuSCRIBE Project to understand what opportunities have been created by ministries,
regions and schools to scaffold the introduction of the technology as a whole school
development, rather than an ICT project.

Kennewell and Beauchamp (2007) say:

“If IWB are to meet the expectations of policy makers and achieve
the claims of practitioners, there may need to be a new wave of
professional development in ICT which takes account of the
extended list of ICT’s features and the need to embed them in
teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and reasoning.”

This acknowledges that there is a realisation that technology is here to stay. It has finally
been understood that this is no longer about the introduction of the next ‘gimmick’ into
school just to motivate or spark the interest of children. It has to be driven through the
curriculum and be planned into whole school developments and initiatives.

Bell (2002) considers this very notion:

“Is an interactive whiteboard more than a toy or gimmick? The
answer is a resounding yes! With proper planning, preparation, and
training, it is a powerful instructional tool, which can be adapted for
use with a wide range of subjects and ages.”

It is timely that the most recent publication brings together all of these authors and several
more in a publication which will undoubtedly become a key text for researchers and
practitioners alike. Interactive Whiteboards: Theory Research and Practice (2010) is a
collated wealth of experience on this technology.

Michael Thomas and Euline Cutrim-Schmid in their opening to this book (2010) state:

“Interactive whiteboards have once again proven that far from being
a solution to real pedagogical problems, educational ICTs have
become a political football, promoted by a range of commercial and
government interests, with teachers and learners left with the task
of figuring out what to do with them long after they have been
installed.”

This captures the widely accepted views of researchers and practitioners alike; it is therefore
crucial that this report contextualises the rapid introduction of IWB technology and defines
21

the direction of the issues which need to be explored further by the EuSCRIBE Project across
Europe.

The following areas have all been featured repeatedly within several studies and it is
because of this that the author has focussed the review in these broad areas:

 Whole Class Teaching

 Interactive/Interactivity/Interaction

 Learning and Teaching

 Training and CPD

 Resources

However, researchers who want to develop their own thinking on the use of IWB should also
explore literature on the use of dialogue, questioning, personalising learning and assessment
within learning and teaching.

22

WHOLE CLASS TEACHING
IWBs continue to be sold as whole class technologies and researchers have explored the
benefits for the classroom environment. H.J.Smith et al (2005) explored the potentially
positive benefits of using an interactive whiteboard for teaching and discussed each of the
following:

 Flexibility and versatility

 Multimedia/multimodal presentations

 Efficiency

 Supporting planning and the development of resources

 Modelling ICT skills

 Interactivity and participation in lessons

Levy (2002) defined four main aspects of whole class teaching and her analysis notes how
practitioners would demonstrate software, present and discuss information, facilitating
explanation of ideas and enabling students to show and receive feedback on their work.

23

I N T E R A C T I V E /I N T E R A C T I V I T Y /I N T E R A C T I O N
Several studies devote time to explore the meaning of ‘interactive’ and alongside this, the
term is scrutinised to question whether or not the whiteboard is ‘interactive’ and does it
increase interactivity in the classroom? How does it affect the interaction between teacher
and pupil? What opportunities are presented for pupils to interact with each other? (Deaney,
Chapman and Hennessey 2009) There are those, including the commercial suppliers, who
view interactive to mean that the pupil must ‘touch the IWB’ with either finger or pen.
Twiner notes that some researchers prefer to call it the digital or electronic whiteboard (e.g.
Haldane 2007).

Studies have looked at the role of the practitioner within the classroom, the movement of
pupils, the dialogue and the interface with the technology.

Alison Twiner (2010) imagines a ‘dream of interactive teaching and learning’:

“where users are physically, verbally and conceptually engaged, or
interacting with manipulable learning resources and content, in co-
constructing their understanding.”

The IWB is portrayed as a technology which offers opportunity for increased engagement
and interaction between teacher and pupil, and between one pupil and another.

24

LEARNING AND TEACHING
Early studies of the IWB viewed the innovation as the way to increase pupil and teacher ICT
skills. Practitioners were sometimes reluctant to use IWB because it exposed their ability to
use a computer and access appropriate resources more spontaneously in front of the pupils.
Glover and Miller (2001) observe:

“Teachers are hesitant about changing pedagogy in case they are let
down by their ineptitude with the basic technology.”

Some of the literature demonstrates that researchers have tried to gain more
understanding of the role of the pupil and the teacher in the classroom.

Learning in the C21st: The Case for Harnessing Technology (2007) suggests:

“Particular technologies such as interactive whiteboard, act as a
focus for learners’ attention and increase engagement in classroom–
based learning.”

“Teachers who use IWB can work more effectively because they are
freer to engage with their students and have more flexible access to
tools and resources to respond to learners needs.” (P.4)

Miller et al (2005) defines the three stages of the IWB teacher as:

 Supported didactic

 Interactive

 Enhanced Interactive

Undoubtedly, we would hope the practitioner is working towards the description associated
with the ‘enhanced interactive’:

 “The IWB is an integral part of most lessons

 The practitioner is aware of the techniques available [and]

 Fluent in their use and structure [of] lessons so that there is considerable
opportunity for pupils to respond to IAW [IWB] stimuli.”

However, as the technology gained momentum in the early part of this
decade, leaders began to realise that projects to implement the technology should be linked
to curriculum developments. Several studies are of significant importance here, given their
links to the introduction of the national literacy and numeracy strategies.

Higgins (2005) discusses the structure of lessons using IWB and notes how their
implementation in UK classrooms has been closely linked with the three part lesson which
includes a starter activity, a main part to the lesson and a plenary activity. This was
introduced as part of the national literacy and numeracy strategies. Kennewell and

25

Beauchamp (2007) draw on the work of Hughes (2001) to discuss the construction of a four
phase lesson.

Miriam Judge (2010) concludes:

“IWBs are viewed positively by both teachers and students and are
seen as devices which enhance the classroom environment as well
as having a positive impact on teachers’ professional practices.”

Beauchamp and Parkinson (2005) comment:

“The IWB also comes with its own specific software, which presents
a challenge as another new application to master but, more
importantly presents opportunities to staff and pupils.”

They consider the extra things that the whiteboard can offer:

 “Software tools

 Focusing attention

 Scaffolding learning

 Changes in Pedagogy - notably the change in pace of lessons and transitions
between different parts of the lesson.

 Illustrating and explaining

 Problem Solving”

This research is particularly important as it begins to determine that practitioners need to
develop these skills in order to retain their autonomy and ownership of their teaching
materials. It can almost be anticipated that some teachers would prefer to be skilled enough
to create their own materials.

Byron Russell (2010) suggests:

“It is perfectly within the technical competence of an increasing
number of teachers to create their own materials for the IWB that
both meet their precise requirements and that look reasonably
attractive and professional.”

Russell also discusses that teachers need to think of IWB activities as learning objects.

“Learning objects are small (typically 2 to 15 minutes) units of
learning, not a single, long linear program. They are self contained
and each can be used independently.”

26

This is sound advice, for practitioners and commercial providers alike, but it also needs to be
understood that some teachers do not consider it part of their role to create lesson materials;
it is their job to deliver the curriculum. This creates a dilemma for the commercial supplier
to determine whether they believe that they are responsible for providing the authoring and
content creation tools or the learning objects as well. The continual divide in the skills of
practitioners can almost predict that there is demand for both.

Higgins et al (2007) concludes:

“Good teaching remains good teaching with or without the
technology; the technology might enhance the pedagogy only If the
teachers and pupils engaged with it and understand its potential in
such a way that the technology is not seen as an end in itself as
another pedagogical means to achieve teaching and learning goals.”

27

TRAINING AND C O N T I N U I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T (CPD)
Much of the literature gives due consideration to the importance of training and professional
development. The early use of the IWB was linked to the embryonic development of general
ICT skills. This in itself is worthy of further research within European schools, because it is
likely that practitioners are making use of technology and already have key skills which were
not widely evident in the UK at the time IWB technology was introduced. This suggests that
time must be devoted to understanding the specific features of this technology. Hall and
Higgins (2005) note that:

“Training in the technical and pedagogical aspects of IWB should be
viewed as a continuous process, rather than a discrete one.”

Glover and Miller (2001) discuss the lack of subject specific training. This is potentially an
area which needs to be directed at the commercial supplier, as it has long been accepted that
commercial suppliers focus their training on technical skills.

Kennewell and Morgan (2003) quote Davidson (2002) from a press release. Their study
draws on the perceptions of student teachers, who discuss that the presence of an IWB had
not yet impacted on their decision to take up a post within a school. However, if this question
was asked some eight years on, it is perhaps likely that the answer would have changed for
UK newly qualified teachers.

“IWB open up whole new ways of using ICT… It is important to
ensure that training is provided to give teachers the skills and
confidence to make use of this exciting new technology.”

Even in the UK, training and professional development continue to be a challenge. As more
and more teachers gain access to their own IWB, Cogill (2010) suggests that:

“ICT skills may remain a barrier to the adoption of successful
whiteboard practice.”

Haldane (2010) cites Cordingley et al (2005) who look at the benefits of collaborative CPD
“in which at least two teacher colleagues were engaged.” The EuSCRIBE Project team have
also designed several IWB projects which have involved at least two practitioners working
together and as part of this study the researchers are keen to learn more about how schools
have approached the implementation of training and CPD.

28

RESOURCES
From the very outset, IWB have enabled the practitioner to provide pupils with an
opportunity to access electronic resources and, as internet access has grown, so has the
ability to access a prolific amount of web based materials. The research has also given due
consideration to the fact that the IWB is not a replacement for the teacher or existing
resources; it is about enabling the practitioner to make a decision about which aspects of ICT
use are most appropriate.

Kennewell and Beauchamp (2007) observe that:

“ICT does not necessarily replace these more traditional tools and
resources (although ICT has the potential to incorporate all of them
into a single format); in some situations the traditional medium may
be more appropriate, or it may be used effectively in combination
with ICT”.

Recent literature, such as the Harnessing Schools Survey 2009, has also acknowledged that
some practitioners can readily create their own materials:

“Teachers also appear to be coming more adept at creating and
sharing digital learning resources. Around three quarters of
secondary school teachers, along with around half of primary and
half special school teachers, stated that they often create their own
digital learning resources.”

However, the survey does not capture the quality of those materials, nor what needs to be
done to engage with those who continue to lack the necessary skills that are essential to
overcoming the barriers with the technology.

This is particularly important as practitioners often begin by thinking that the technology
needs to be used for the whole of the lesson. However, Hughes sees the lesson divided into
sections where some parts include use of the IWB, and by the whole class, but some phases
will involve use at certain times accompanied by other individual activities. It will be an
important part of the EuSCRIBE Project to observe when and how practitioners use the IWB
within the lesson.

Finally, Moss and Jewitt (2010) focus the objectives of the EuSCRIBE project:

“Other countries are now in a position to learn from England’s
experience with IWBs. In many ways their interest is driven by a
shared assumption that education is out of step with new times if it
does not incorporate new media and expose children to what those
new media can do.”

29

But, perhaps for some, the challenge is more complex than this; at every level there needs to
be a decision making process about the purpose of the technology and clarity about how it
meshes with existing methods and approaches. It is about being able to make informed
choices.

Commercial suppliers have continued to respond to the demands of the C21st teaching and
learning environment by creating a new wave of technologies and resources. As Bax (2010)
suggests:

“it is unlikely that the whole of IWB technology will now simply
disappear; it is far more likely that it will evolve, perhaps
converging with other technologies by taking on functions
previously reserved for separate different devices.” (cf. Jenkins
2006).

Practitioners need to accept that the technological canvas will never be blank; it will
constantly be surpassed by the emergence of another device for either the classroom or the
individual. However, it is the teacher who has to be able to embrace the emerging
technologies whilst considering what needs to be done to demonstrate to pupils how to
access and explore their learning environments.

In 2010, the UK has moved on and IWB no longer dominate the discussion when introducing
new technology within learning and teaching, but the key areas within this literature review
are ongoing and need to be revisited. E-Portfolios and learning platforms are the current
‘buzz’ technologies, and this study is a reminder that it is necessary to embed practice and to
continue to seek to renew access to professional development and resources.

This literature review has enabled the author to realise that if we continue to view IWB as a
tool for embedding the use of technology, we will not even begin to explore the full potential.
We have to consider the IWB as a specific tool in a rapidly expanding digital pencil case and
seek to understand how we can implement the technology for all practitioners. This requires
a huge change management process.

Bax (2010) suggests that:

“A technology has reached its fullest possible effectiveness when it
has arrived at the stage of ‘normalization’, namely when it is
invisible, used automatically and without our being consciously
aware of its role.”

Current practitioners can learn from the research that the effective implementation requires
careful analysis of existing practice, detailed planning and provision of appropriate training
and professional development, but this needs to be managed at all levels and linked to other
strategic developments to allow the school to ‘normalize’ this technology.

30

CHAPTER THREE: OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY
The aim of the EuSCRIBE Project was to develop guidelines for the use of interactive
whiteboards. Whilst this project has had tight timescales, we have collected evidence from
several ministries within the European Schoolnet interactive whiteboard working group.
Beyond this, we have also developed a survey which has been circulated to practitioners.

This report, however, does not attempt to itemise best practice in the particular countries
surveyed/visited. The objective is more to elicit and highlight guidelines for best
practice that will be of assistance to both teachers and policy makers across Europe
including those schools and Ministries that have not yet implemented IWB technologies as
part of their ICT strategy.

SURVEY
The purpose of the survey was to collate the views of IWB users from across the ministries
within the IWB working group. This gave a broader perspective to the project and helped us
to identify some of the key themes and focus areas for this research. It has been accepted
that a limitation of the study is that it was only available in English.

LINK RESEARCH VISITS
The link research visits have taken place across four countries including Ireland, Italy,
Portugal and the UK. This has allowed the project team to gather evidence of current practice
with the use of interactive whiteboards. Most of the visits were to schools that have been
using IWB for approximately three years, but the technology was not always available in
every classroom. The team observed practitioners using several different brands of
technology, though it is important to emphasise that this does not impact on the research.
No direct reference has been made to specific commercial suppliers.

OBSERVATIONS
The EuSCRIBE team have developed an observation record sheet which has been included in
this report as an appendix. This has enabled the team to record the use of the interactive
whiteboard within lessons and to begin to look at some of the commonalities in practice. The
final page of this proforma has been divided into four sections; these are not progressive
levels of use, but instead outline the specific main uses of IWB that can be achieved. This grid
enabled the practitioner to look at their own use of the technology and to identify areas for
development. The EuSCRIBE project team were also able to highlight with the practitioner
how other IWB skills might have been introduced within the lesson.

FEEDBACK AND INTERVIEWS
All of the practitioners involved in this research took part in either an interview or one of the
focus groups. This was an important part of the study as it gave the project team the
opportunity to ask questions based upon practice that had been observed. The EuSCRIBE
Project team also believe that an extremely valuable part of this study was to give the
teachers feedback immediately after the lesson observations; in some cases this was to the

31

individual or in small groups. This gave the project team and the practitioner the time to
share tools and applications that were utilised within the lesson and to discuss why the
lesson had been structured as it was.

FOCUS GROUPS
The focus groups brought together groups of 6-30 practitioners; this varied from country to
country. The purpose of these was to allow questions to be considered in the form of a
discussion and to allow colleagues to demonstrate their practice to each other. The focus
groups were particularly helpful when working with colleagues who were in the embryonic
stages of using interactive whiteboards and with practitioners who had only one whiteboard
in school. The focus group meant that several practitioners from different schools could
come together to consider their responses. Discussions within the focus groups highlighted
that there is still a ‘missioner’ (Glover et al, 2005) or ICT Champion pioneering IWB practice
and schools are not necessarily clear about their next steps.

MEETINGS WITH THE COMMERCIAL SUPPLIERS
The project director met with several commercial suppliers to consider the key themes of the
research. This has helped to focus the key themes within the guidelines. These meetings
also highlighted some of the questions that need to be given further consideration by the
ministries or authorities responsible for the implementation of the interactive whiteboards.
For example, what type of training plan is agreed as part of the procurement process?

32

CHAPTER FOUR: GUIDELINES FROM THE RESEARCH
The seven themes below have emerged as the key headings from within this research. The
EuSCRIBE Project demonstrates that effective implementation of IWB technology links many
aspects of whole school development and can be the trigger to address curriculum
innovation and improvement. Each of these guidelines has been presented in turn with the
questions and discussion that have been gathered with the support of practitioners who
shared evidence of their work with the EuSCRIBE team.

1. LEADERSHIP AND ORGANISATION

2. PURCHASE, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE

3. ACCESS

4. CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT

5. LEARNING AND TEACHING

6. TRAINING AND CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

7. RESOURCES

33

1. L E A D E R S H I P AND ORGANISATION

1. What is the role of the commercial supplier within the
implementation process?
2. What is the role of the regional adviser within the implementation
process?
3. How does the implementation of IWB fit with other technologies?
4. How can the school implement IWB technology effectively?
5. How can the integration of this technology be linked to existing
initiatives?

 Choosing the right person to lead the implementation of the interactive whiteboards
within an organisation is vital to the success. The challenge for most at a national,
regional and local level is that there are too many initiatives happening at the same time
and trying to synchronise these can be impossible.

 Regional advisers or similar should look to provide opportunities for clusters of schools
to develop initiatives together. This could include joint training, and creation of content.
It may also be helpful when trying to address subject specific materials.

 The headteacher has to show commitment and leadership to the long term and continual
investment in technology; this is not the job of the ICT Co-ordinator in isolation. The
research has shown that schools can find it particularly successful to have a learning and
teaching team. This is most likely co-ordinated by a member of the senior management
team. The role of this team is to decide when, why and how the whiteboards will be put
into the classrooms, but also to demonstrate to others the effective uses and application
of this technology within learning and teaching.

 A learning and teaching team needs to be a microcosm of the school, representative of
subjects and phases. The team needs to be able to acknowledge the school development
plan and be the bridge between the senior management team and classroom practice.
The practitioners should be able to identify the gaps in their knowledge, skills and
understanding. The learning and teaching team are pivotal to being able to identify how
technology can be interwoven at the same time as other initiatives. There are a few
examples of where schools have given staff the opportunity to ‘bid’ for the installation of
equipment as a priority within the school, identifying areas of priority and detailing how
evidence of practice will be shared with colleagues.

34

MAKING INFORMED CHOICES
 Who is responsible for leading the developments?

 What are your priorities for the use of learning technologies?

 What are the timescales?

 How will you achieve your goals?

DEFINE THE TECHNOLOGIES YOU REQUIRE
DEFINE ANY OTHER INTERACTIVE DEVICES
AUDIT TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
DEFINE THE SCHOOL SET UP AND CLASSROOM ORGANISATION
IDENTIFY AND COLLATE EXISTING CONTENT
CONSIDER THE CREATION OF NEW CONTENT
CONSIDER HOW RESOURCES WILL BE STORED AND SHARED
SHARE EVIDENCE OF PRACTICE

 The survey showed that in almost 50% of schools, the head teacher is responsible for
the purchase of the IWB, whilst in a further 20% the lead teacher for ICT is
responsible. It is imperative that such decisions are determined by more than one
individual and this is where it can be helpful to consult staff to gather their views.
There is an apparent gap between a decision being made at a ministerial level to
purchase IWB and schools still working in isolation to make this a reality.

 Prior to the purchase of technology and as part of ongoing training and continuing
professional development, schools should look to provide opportunities to observe
practice. Commercial suppliers could look to support this by offering incentives to
leading practice schools at a regional level. The new user has to be able to
understand how to make best use of the technology.

 The EuSCRIBE Project visited schools that have shown commitment to
developing the use of the interactive whiteboard. This has included identifying a lead
teacher to work with staff in order to demonstrate effective use of the software, to
team teach, to lead lessons and to give feedback. Whilst one person can co-ordinate
all of this, it is useful if the development can take place in teams as individuals
become complacent and use of the software can plateau.

 Leaders and practitioners need to look to develop opportunities to share practice.
This is not a process that is within existing practice for all countries. However, staff
should be encouraged not to inspect or judge, but to create, demonstrate and reflect
in collaborative groups.

 Commercial suppliers should provide opportunities to demonstrate leading
practice to principals, senior teachers and learning and teaching teams. This could be
a recognised part of the procurement process. The ministries also need to share
examples of practice within each country.

35

 It is evident from this research that schools need to consider the IWB within policies
and planning. Staff need to know how to evidence the use of digital content and the
IWB. This can be particularly important because otherwise staff have the potential to
make repeated use of digital resources without up skilling the pupils at all.

 Where staff are not considering the IWB as part of their long term planning, there is
evidence that practitioners download web based materials purely for ad hoc and
spontaneous learning. This sometimes means that activities have been selected for
their motivational aspects, because they are fun and engaging, and not necessarily
linked to the curriculum or planning. This can mean that activities may not have
learning outcomes and have been used purely to engage the pupils.

 Leaders need to make time for CPD including their own development. As one
Assistant Principal commented: “The senior teacher who is called upon to lead a class
can find it intimidating if they do not have the skills to operate the IWB.”

 One teaching assistant commented: “We have had our interactive whiteboards six
years, they are under-used, they still look new and most staff feel that they are new
because there are too many other initiatives going on in school.”

 Schools should also find time to demonstrate the technology to parents and
governors.

36

2. P U R C H A S E , I N S T A L L A T I O N AND MAINTENANCE

PURCHASE

1. What purchase models are available to schools/local
authorities/regions?
2. Who delivers product demonstrations?
3. What opportunities are available to observe practice before purchase
of new kit?
4. Do you have access to any leading practice/exemplary schools?
5. What opportunities exist to be involved in regional projects/national
initiatives?
6. Will the school need to consider the amount of direct sunlight that
classrooms receive before selecting projector specifications?
7. Is the IWB the correctly sized proportionally for the room? Can the
students see the IWB correctly?
8. At what height will the IWB be fitted at? Will fixtures and fittings need
to be adapted to allow the IWB to be fitted appropriately? Will there
be enough electrical sockets available?
9. What type of computer will link to the IWB? PC, Laptop?
10. Consider the purchase of other interactive devices which could
enhance the learning and teaching.

 Each ministry has taken a slightly different approach to the procurement of
interactive whiteboards, and for some, the ultimate decision about which system to
purchase and how to implement the technology has been passed to the individual
school.

 The research suggests that it can certainly be helpful for the ministry to make the
decision that a single brand of IWB software should be adopted by the region. There
are now some countries which adopt a mixed economy of IWB, but this needs clarity
between the ministries and commercial suppliers about contractual agreements. This
would then make initial training, implementation programme and the provision of
upgrades much easier.

 The commercial suppliers believe that the tendering process is not always helpful as
they cannot always engage in dialogue with the ministries, regional advisers or the
schools. Yet, it is extremely helpful to ensure that there has been consideration of
what each organisation is trying to achieve with the technology.

 It seems that even though IWB have been used within education for more than a
decade, there is still reluctance to buy or provide more than one per establishment at
the early stages of implementation. The price of this technology is now significantly
less. Suppliers face a challenge in providing support for countries across Europe to
ensure that old mistakes are not repeated. A practitioner working in isolation faces a
constant battle to develop ideas which perhaps exist elsewhere, but working alone
means that there is little time to research how to build on existing practice. One of
our key recommendations is that suppliers should provide a minimum of two
37

interactive whiteboards per initial installation for an establishment. This would
allow for more collaboration between practitioners on a day-to-day basis.

 There are also frequent examples within several countries of where schools have
bought more than one brand of IWB. Schools that have been involved with various
initiatives and projects have sometimes been ‘given’ a different IWB to what they
already have. Schools need to recognise that it is incredibly difficult to share
resources and ensure consistency of use by teachers and pupils when IWB are not
the same throughout the school. This is particularly noticeable in some European
secondary level schools where the teacher moves throughout the day and not the
pupils. It can mean that staff do not access the same training or resources and this is
not effective. It is therefore recommended, that even though staff may have different
IWB, it may be more cost effective to make sure that they have access to the same
authoring software for the preparation and delivery of lessons.

38

INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE

1. What key decisions are needed prior to installing IWB?
2. What support do schools receive with this?
3. Who carried out the initial software and hardware installation?
4. What are the key issues to consider for maintenance of the IWB?
5. Is there a designated person with responsibility for IWB within your
school? Who is responsible for day-to-day maintenance?
6. What problems have you encountered since purchase?
7. What technical support is available / helpline / website/ FAQs?
8. Will the practitioner know how to troubleshoot simple technical
issues and how to get these resolved?
9. Who will undertake the maintenance of the projector?
10. What warranties are available? How can schools access support if
equipment is under warranty?
11. Who will download the new version of the software, including all
resources?
12. Who will keep the teacher’s laptop up to date?
13. Who is responsible for the e-safety and internet protection?

 Purchasing interactive whiteboards can be costly if thought has not been given to
CPD, software, content and ongoing support for practitioners.

 Schools do find it difficult to keep up with the ongoing maintenance of technology.
Commercial suppliers could provide further support to make this easier. Certain
services could be ‘managed’, but this may bring with it unnecessary costs for some
schools. At the very least, someone within the region needs to know the regular
maintenance requirements and how common technical issues can be resolved.
Although commercial suppliers have ‘helpdesks’, it is rarely practical or feasible to
telephone for help in the middle of a lesson!

 Technical issues cannot go unmentioned and must be addressed at the beginning of
any implementation process. The Harnessing Technology Schools Survey (2008)
highlighted this: “Having dedicated on site technician support in a school appears to
have a positive effect: a statistically significant associate was found between reported
teacher enthusiasm in using ICT to deliver the curriculum and the level of technical
support available in a school.”

 Evidence from within this project has highlighted that technical support is
essential. Some schools do have their own technician, even if it is for only a few hours
per week; it is important for leaders to consider how practitioners will be supported
with their implementation of the technology. Technicians, however, are often seen as
already having too much to do. Commercial suppliers could provide specific training
for a technician which begins to address some of the longer term issues within
schools, e.g. upgrading software, making best use of resources, making materials
available to pupils beyond the school day.

39

 Some schools in the UK have looked to address technical support together by
employing a joint technician and positive examples of this have also been reported in
the Czech Republic As one UK practitioner commented, “we have to remember that
our technician has a big enough job to provide technical support and we cannot
expect him to provide training to our teachers when he has no experience of working
with pupils.”

 It is particularly important for schools to know how to access support if their
equipment is under warranty.

DATA PROJECTORS
 Front projection interactive whiteboards and other interactive systems work in
conjunction with a data projector. Recently, this technology has advanced greatly.
Most projectors allow the IWB to be used in well lit rooms with lots of natural light.
Some IWBs installed previously used less powerful projectors and suffered from
faintness or poor image quality. These were generally updated and replaced over
time. It some contexts, however, poor performance of projectors is directly related to
a lack of general maintenance undertaken by the school. Some institutions fail to
clean filters and follow recommended procedures and have no member of staff with
responsibility to do so. This can lead to failure of the projectors over time. Some IWB
resellers offer a cleaning service for projectors at an additional cost.

 Several years ago commercial suppliers introduced short-throw projectors that
project the image from a location very close to the IWB surface. This has been
popular with practitioners as it has reduced shadowing and glare during use.

 Modern data projectors in school based IWBs are sometimes designed to work only
via a remote control, having no control buttons on the unit itself. This is to minimise
the likelihood of theft. As a security measure, the school needs only to keep the
remote controls secure, as without them the data projectors cannot be operated and
are therefore less of a target for thieves.

 Schools should keep a supply of spare projector bulbs in stock, especially if the school
has a large number of equipped classrooms. This can minimise waiting time for a
replacement once the bulb comes to the end of its natural life.

 One commercial supplier commented that: “the IT Technician is often underpaid,
under informed and completely removed from learning and teaching.”

 Practitioners have stated that they have also been able to get support with
maintenance of projectors from the IWB sales company. Schools need to
allow time for filters to be cleaned on a regular basis; otherwise it can mean that
classrooms are without the projector whilst they are serviced by an external
company.

 Commercial suppliers need to take more responsibility for updating software in
schools. This may mean that new provision should demonstrate evidence of a longer
term partnership to support updates and access to CPD. Commercial suppliers often
provide their software as a free download. Where this is not the case, there may be
an IWB viewing utility or free trial period that allows temporary access to it.
40

 With the advent of learning platforms (Virtual Learning Environments), some schools
are now beginning to post IWB files so that pupils and parents can access them from
home. Some software allows notes and lesson materials to be exported into Portable
Data Format (PDF) that can also be accessed from most computers.

41

3. A C C E S S

1. Where should the IWB be situated?
2. How often should the practitioner be able to access the IWB?
3. What if the practitioner does not have an IWB in the classroom?
4. What advice is given by the commercial supplier set up?
5. How should the classroom be organised?

 Deciding where the first interactive whiteboard is going to be placed in school can be
a poignant decision. Ultimately the success of the first installation can determine how
other members of staff will view the technology.

 Access to the interactive whiteboard is a key factor. Unfortunately, some schools are
still choosing to put the interactive whiteboard in the computer lab so that more
practitioners can supposedly access the resource. However, practitioners who have
worked with the EuSCRIBE Project have stated that real access only begins when
there is an IWB situated in the classroom where the teacher works. The teacher
needs to be able to decide when and when not to make use of the technology. The
survey showed that 15% of respondents have full access to an IWB for every lesson.

 Some schools have highlighted that they have deliberately chosen access in computer
labs, but this is so that pupils can complete the main activity within the lesson on an
individual computer.

 Access also means that the teacher is able to practice using the software on the IWB
before the lesson and access to prepare materials beyond the school day. This should
include access away from the school premises.

 It is not just about having access to the IWB, it is also about having access to a
computer which has the relevant resources so that teachers can prepare lesson
materials.

 Some teachers believe that the IWB should only get turned on and off at the
beginning and end of each day. The truth is, it needs to be accessible so that the
teacher can plan for regular use and also be able to make spontaneous decisions
within the lesson.

 Practitioners should know that they are going to get an IWB in their room, and
should ideally be able to consider the layout of the classroom before a new IWB is put
in place. There are still examples of the IWB arriving in the school holidays and being
placed in an area of the room that makes it hard to reorganise seating.

 Most classrooms choose to site IWB in a central area of the room, at the front. It is,
however, equally important to consider whether it is necessary to move other
furniture or to ask the pupils to sit differently.

 Practitioners should plan the layout of the room based on the tasks that the pupils
will have to do. Whilst younger pupils may find it difficult initially to sit on a carpet

42

area and move back to their desks, this can be helpful to ensure that all pupils can see
the IWB.

 With secondary school/older pupils, it is likely to be more appropriate to leave them
at their desk/table. However, practitioners should also consider opportunities for
dialogue or more collaborative tasks away from the IWB.

 Over half of the respondents to the survey indicate that they currently have
access to between 1 and 5 IWB to deliver lessons. This highlights that whilst schools
may have adopted the IWB technology, it does not necessarily mean that teachers
have regular access.

SPACE AROUND THE IWB
 Whilst not every lesson will involve pupils going to the IWB, it is essential that all
pupils can see the detail on the screen. There also needs to be room for the teacher
and the pupil to stand adjacent to the IWB outside the projected image without
furniture in the way.

 Long classrooms or wide classrooms can sometimes make it difficult for pupils on the
outer edges to see the IWB. With this in mind, some practitioners in these rooms
have found it more appropriate to consider the layout of the room.

 Practitioners should also consider what is on the display boards adjacent to the IWB;
it can be extremely distracting for pupils to locate relevant information when they
can see too many other materials.

 Pupils should also be able to access the IWB, the latest installations allow for the
devices to be moved up and down, but some classrooms still have platforms for
younger children.

 The position of the interactive whiteboard is crucial and early adopters of the
technology have sometimes forgotten that, unlike some other technologies, the
equipment remains in the room.

43

4. C L A S S R O O M M A N A G E M E N T

1. In which parts of a lesson do you use the interactive whiteboard?
2. Are there lesson segments in which you use it more frequently? i.e.
introduction / starter, main activity or plenary.
3. What are the key things that you need to consider when planning
your lesson?
4. What are the benefits of using interactive whiteboards in the lesson
introduction, plenary and main activity?
5. What exemplary materials are available to teachers looking
specifically at what they are delivering within the lesson?

 Regardless of the technology, lessons need to be prepared and pupils need to know
what they are learning. The layout of the classroom can be particularly important to
the teacher. Unfortunately, some teachers continue to work in a very static
environment.

 Practitioners have reported that it can be helpful to have an additional surface to
write on alongside the whiteboard. Many practitioners make regular use of a dry
wipe board alongside the interactive whiteboard to note the lesson objectives, the
learning outcomes, the homework, the key vocabulary etc., so that certain
information remains constantly available to the pupils and the teacher.

 The structure of the lesson varies according to the style of the practitioner.
However, the practitioner does need to give some consideration to when in the
lesson the whiteboard will be used.

 Lesson observations within the EuSCRIBE Project showed that some teachers
continue to make use of the IWB throughout the lesson. Integrating the IWB into
existing lesson material can take time, but practitioners may find it useful to consider
the structure of the lesson.

 In the UK, a huge amount of work has been undertaken within the National
strategies to ensure that teachers deliver a three-part lesson in literacy and
numeracy and many practitioners continue to adopt this approach regardless of the
subject. The observation form included within these guidelines outlines the starter,
the main activity and the plenary.

 Schools need to consider where to keep whiteboard pens and the remote control so
that equipment does not get lost or stolen.

 Teachers need to retain their autonomy, but this also requires them to take
responsibility for their own learning.

 Whilst teachers want to develop their own lesson materials, this can be a huge task
for every subject initially. The EuSCRIBE Project would recommend that the
practitioner identifies a focus area for development. For example, a Primary
practitioner may choose to develop literacy resources; this does not mean he or she
only uses the whiteboard for literacy, but prioritises this subject and therefore
spends more time gathering, developing and sharing the lesson activities. If
44

practitioners within the school identify their chosen area, this can lead to more
resources.

 By comparison, a secondary practitioner will choose to focus on a particular year
group. For example, if one teacher takes year seven and another year eight science
resources, this means that more resources are created, and teachers can consider
how to prepare something that can be used by someone else.

45

5. T R A I N I N G AND CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

1. How are new practitioners introduced to interactive whiteboards?
2. What expectations are given to staff about using the equipment?
3. Was this a technical induction or did you also learn how to use the
systems within lessons? (including the opportunity to develop new
ideas)
4. What methods of training have been provided to ensure all staff are
effective users of interactive whiteboards?
5. Was this training beneficial? What aspects worked best for you?
6. Who is available to give day-to-day technical advice?
7. Are there any aspects of interactive whiteboards that you find
difficult to use?
8. In your opinion, are all staff aware of the breadth of uses to which
interactive whiteboards may be put to use?
9. What plans exist to encourage staff to undertake accredited training?
10. What continued external support do you provide?
11. What long term CPD is available?
12. Have practitioners had the opportunity to observe practice?
13. What subject specific training is available?

 The case studies from the Interactive Whiteboard Working Group show that
Ministries, regional authorities and individual schools have approached training in
various ways and the most important conclusion is that long-term training needs to
be planned as part of any effective use of interactive whiteboards.

 The training for the use of interactive whiteboards is ultimately pivotal to their
success. Too often the plan for training comes after the purchase, but this needs to be
in place before. The commercial suppliers identify that where training has been
included in the invitation to tender, then this shows that the organisation has given
consideration to the full extent of their purchase.

 Schools need to undertake an audit of ICT competencies and also audit of IWB
competencies prior to any initial training. Schools need to acknowledge that whilst
the introduction of interactive whiteboards may help to address general ICT
confidence and competence; this is not a good enough reason to justify additional
purchase of IWBs.

 Training takes time and schools cannot expect practitioners to ‘find time’ to
participate in training which is essential.

46

TRAINING AND CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW
AUDIT OF ICT CONFIDENCE AND COMPETENCE
AUDIT OF IWB CONFIDENCE AND COMPETENCE
TECHNICAL INDUCTION
Commercial Supplier should provide a three-hour face to face technical
induction
PEDAGOGICAL TRAINING
A follow up session should begin to explore some of the pedagogical
implications for the practitioner. This should be a second three-hour
face-to-face session.
CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
Practitioners should be given a third face-to-face session which allows
time for content development which the teacher can use in his/her own
classroom and share with colleagues within and beyond the school.
EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE PRACTICE

 Practitioners working with pupils at secondary level would particularly welcome
training which is subject specific. During the EuSCRIBE Project, we observed
examples of where practitioners are not aware of the interactive whiteboard
resources that are available for specific subjects; for example, a maths teacher did not
know that the IWB software has a protractor. This emphasises the importance of
development time for practitioners to explore the software. The teacher has to take
some responsibility for this as part of his or her own professional development.

 The interactive whiteboard supplier should offer as a minimum:

 3 hour technical induction

 2 further 3 hour sessions to include pedagogical training and content
development and individual creation of materials

 Groups should have no more than 12 for training — to allow staff to
interact with the IWB.

 The questionnaire and the interviews from this research demonstrated that
practitioners feel that more training is necessary. It is acknowledged that it takes
time to embed practice and the basic technical induction is rarely enough to allow the
practitioner to maximise the potential of the technology.

 However, schools do not always plan for continuous and longer-term
developmental training. This is not just desirable, but essential to success.

 One teacher commented that he is responsible for the training in school and it can be
incredibly difficult to stay ahead of the latest version of software. He suggested that it
might be useful for lead users to have early releases of the latest version to ensure
that they can be aware of the new content before leading training sessions for staff.
47

 Commercial suppliers should also consider the training that is available from
resellers or external companies who sell IWB resources. Some practitioners state
that whilst these providers can deliver technical skills, they are not able to offer
subject specific training. The Ministries and regional authorities should also identify
where specialist training will be available from.

 26% of respondents to the survey state that they are self taught users of the IWB.
This indicates that there is still work to be done to ensure adequate training
provision. Only 7% of respondents have actually worked with an expert user in their
own classroom to collaboratively deliver and ‘team-teach’ their lessons. This
suggests that there is the potential to explore the notion of team teaching further
within regional and national projects. 20% of the respondents state that one of the
main problems that they have encountered using the IWB is the lack of appropriate
training.

 All staff including practitioners, learning support assistants and technical support
personnel should have ICT targets which are part of their continuing professional
development plan. These need to reflect both the needs of the individual and the
school. The head teacher and the senior management team should also participate in
the training; this will send a clear message that this technology is a significant
investment for the organisation. Commercial providers, Ministries and regional
authorities could also look to provide specific training for leaders to help them
understand how IWB technology can begin to address school improvement.

 In more than one European country it has been noted that the vendor can
determine the ultimate success of the technology. Commercial suppliers have
recognised the need to provide training which is beyond the ‘technical mastery’ of
the equipment. However, further consideration needs to be given to the long-term
support that is available to schools. Beyond the initial induction, some practitioners
still currently receive no additional training in the use of the IWB.

 Some commercial providers do offer accredited training which is largely available
on-line. However, practitioners must understand that this is rarely enough. The
commercial suppliers need to be more aware of what is available at a local, regional
and national level. For example, several regions have their own digital repository or
knowledge base. If practitioners are to be encouraged to make best use of such
resources, then commercial suppliers need to demonstrate this as part of their
training.

 Practitioners have emphasised the value of workshop style training which involves a
blend of face to face instructional training, but with practical input. Although it can be
time consuming, it is acknowledged that it is extremely useful to be given tasks to
complete beyond the workshop in time for the next session. This means that the
practitioner has to practice the skills away from the classroom and can begin to
evidence whether he or she has actually understood how to do a specific task. This is
where it becomes more cost effective for the commercial supplier to engage with
local practitioners to provide ongoing training and support at a local level.

 Schools should also look to explore training pupils to understand the technical skills
to operate the IWB. There is evidence to show that pupils enjoy learning how to
48

master the software and there are also examples of older pupils creating resources
for younger pupils. This is something that could be explored further. Commercial
suppliers, regional authorities and individual schools could look to offer training to
pupils who, in turn could share their skills with teachers.

 Advisers and regional training providers need to give consideration to how they can
provide professional development which is linked to assessment, personalising
learning and specific areas of the curriculum that would be beneficial to whole school
development.

 Commercial suppliers should look to develop opportunities for leading practice to be
shared and encourage schools to take responsibility for their own professional
development. There are still too many examples of one teacher demonstrating good
practice in isolation, rather than whole schools working together.

 Schools could also look to work in partnership with neighbouring schools to develop
practice together.

 Whilst companies provide accredited training, practitioners’ views of this are very
mixed. Practitioners welcome the opportunity to be able to access the training as and
when they can, but this is frequently out of school hours or at weekends.

 Training providers need to know what projects and initiatives exist within the
localities.

49

6. L E A R N I N G AND TEACHING

1. In general terms, what do you use the IWB for?
2. Can you give an example of a successful activity that you have
undertaken using an IWB?
3. What skills / expertise do teachers need in order to make effective
use of the IWB system?
4. Are there any areas of the curriculum that you find particularly lend
themselves to IWB use?
5. How long does it take to prepare an IWB activity?
6. How do you use your interactive whiteboard system?
7. In what ways do you think interactive whiteboards can help you in
becoming a more effective practitioner?
8. How do you organise children of different abilities?

 Interactive whiteboards are largely recognised as a whole class presentation
technology.

 Practitioners who have made regular use of the technology soon wonder how they
ever managed without it. Within the project, practitioners acknowledge that the
whiteboard can be particularly helpful when:

 Introducing key ideas

 Researching information

 Presenting lesson content

 Showing film clips

 To evaluate lessons and projects

 Lesson content can be saved, modified, printed, used again and shared with other
colleagues. However, all of these skills are only an advantage on an interactive
whiteboard, rather than other technologies, if the practitioner makes use of the
specific interactive whiteboard software.

 Commercial suppliers and publishers have made significant progress with the types
of materials that are now created for use within learning and teaching. Some
practitioners still depend heavily on using complete lesson content and materials.
The recent introduction of lesson activities that can be adapted by the practitioner
has been welcomed. However, not all schools may know these exist if they do not
operate the latest version of the software.

50

1. Do you notice improved pupil motivation during lessons? If “Yes” do
you think that this can be sustained over the long term?
2. What are the teaching and learning objectives - are these visible to
the pupils?
3. How are support assistants or other adults used when using
interactive whiteboards? Deployment, location, role etc….
4. How do classroom ‘dynamics’ change when you are using interactive
whiteboards?
5. How can practitioners and pupils access the IWB materials before,
during and after the lesson?
6. Are the pupils invited to the IWB or are they encouraged to
approach?
7. What kind of dialogue is taking place in the classroom?
8. Why should practitioners keep a record of what is delivered on the
IWB?
9. What can the practitioner do to ensure that every pupil is making
individual progress?

 Some practitioners still continue to believe that it can take hours to prepare a lesson
activity. The EuSCRIBE Project suggests that as a guide, a one hour lesson should take
30 minutes preparation of the digital content for the IWB materials. (Half the
delivery time) If materials are taking longer to prepare using IWB software, this
perhaps begins to indicate that the practitioner needs further training, or better
access to resources. Practitioners may take longer to prepare the lesson content, but
this is dependent on other factors including experience, subject knowledge and
intended learning outcomes.

 Alongside the training of practitioners, the senior leadership team in school should
also consider how resources are going to be stored and shared with colleagues.

 Practitioners continue to raise concerns about “double preparation” for lessons in
case of technical issues or loss of internet connection. This is a valid point, but
teachers should always have activities for the pupils to undertake individually or in
groups which do not involve access to the interactive whiteboard. It is not realistic to
have an individual back up plan for every single lesson; this is when teachers have to
be skilled enough to draw upon other resources.

 Within the lesson observations and teacher interviews, we also observed that the
position of the practitioner can be particularly important to the lesson. Some
teachers take an instructional and didactic position at the front of the classroom near
the IWB. Pupils are invited to the IWB and instructed what to do. In other classrooms,
teachers move around the classroom and provide opportunities for pupils to
contribute their thoughts or ideas at the IWB. This can vary according to the age and
subject being taught as well as the general delivery style and confidence of the
teacher.

51

 Practitioners need to consider the abilities of the pupils that they are working with
when using the IWB. This can include: the position of the pupils, the content on the
IWB, the amount of content visible to the pupils and the layout on the IWB. During
this project, the observations showed that some practitioners used large amounts of
text on the IWB in fonts that were difficult to read.

 The survey also highlighted that only 10% of respondents currently use the IWB to
share pupils’ work with the rest of the class. This is an area that can be developed by
schools.

 Commercial suppliers have created content strategies and given due consideration to
the needs of publishers. However, there needs to be development of quality
standards for content.

 The IWB should largely be considered as a whole class technology. With this in mind,
the practitioner needs to consider how long it should be used for within the lesson,
and whether or not it is appropriate to use the technology for the whole lesson. We
should perhaps question whether any resource can be used effectively with the
whole class in isolation for 50 minutes, regardless of whether it is a PC or an IWB.
Some practitioners aptly demonstrated that there is perhaps a time and a place for
using only the IWB throughout the lesson, for example, with infants when looking at
the development of communication skills or with older pupils when introducing or
revisiting a topic; this provided evidence that the IWB is being used as the
predominant resource within the lesson.

 However, practitioners suggest that it is hard to make assessments of individual
pupil progress and even more challenging to evidence this if they have not prepared
an individual activity for the pupils.

 One of the key areas of learning and teaching which can be further developed is the
role of questioning within the classroom. Throughout this project, during interviews
and within feedback after the observations, we have worked with the schools to
consider what types of questions are being asked in the classroom. As one teacher
commented: “I have never thought about this before, I don’t even think about the
questions I am asking, I have never planned them.” This is certainly an area that
could be developed as part of future research.

 Alongside this is the role of dialogue and discussion. These are all areas which can be
researched by individuals, but also within schools and regional authorities.

 Practitioners do need to record or log details of what they have been doing within
lessons to avoid repetition or duplication.

 Practitioners should not feel the need to assess every activity. Assessment can be by
questioning, task activity or outcome.

 There is a gap between what is provided and how it is used. The practitioner has
expectations of the IWB, but these are soon shattered if the technology does not
enable him/her to achieve.

52

 It is not just a matter of moving through the IWB software to get to the next
activity, the practitioner should be constantly reviewing the success of the pupils and
making assessments to inform teaching and learning.

 School communities have many decisions to make around their choice and
deployment of interactive whiteboard software. Following the successful installation
of hardware, schools need to decide what type of computer will be connected to the
IWB in their classrooms. Typically, this is either a laptop or desktop computer, with
internet access. As installation companies do not always install the associated
software and drivers onto the attached computer, this needs to sometimes be done
afterwards by a technician, adviser or the teacher themselves. Most commercial
suppliers provide a download service for their software and some also provide it on
disc. Network and stand alone versions of the software may both be available; so,
depending on the size of the school, the type of network and the number of IWBs, the
programmes may be installed in different ways.

 Once the software is available for use on the attached computer and functioning
correctly, there are several other issues to consider. Firstly, commercial suppliers
regularly release updates and additional resources for their software. Often teachers
are blocked from installing these updates as they do not possess administration
rights for their network or computer. Where teachers do have administrator
privileges, it can lead to a situation where some classes regularly update their
software and others do not, this leading to a point where it is possible that teachers
in the same school could be using different versions of the software, with different
functionality and file types. If a network manager or technician is unaware of a
change to the software or important update, then these can be left not installed for
long periods. Sometimes resource galleries, from some commercial suppliers, are not
installed or are installed incorrectly, as the technician or network manager fails to
understand their significance in the teacher designing interactive lessons and
activities. Sometimes it has been observed, in a small minority of cases, that these
resources have been purposely not installed due to the amount of time involved in
the process.

 A key driver in successfully beginning to use the IWB software is for the
practitioner to be able to access the software outside normal lesson times. When
preparing an activity or lesson in advance, it is highly unlikely that the teacher would
do this on the interactive whiteboard at school. Most users would prefer to access the
software from home or from an office during free periods in order to prepare
activities. Where a teacher has a laptop with the software installed, that they can use
for their professional duties and take home, it is much easier for them to develop the
necessary skills and knowledge of the software. Where this is not possible, it is vital
that practitioners are given home access to the IWB software so that they can install
it on their own personal computer. However the home access is provided, it is also
important that users think about how they will transport files and lesson materials.
Practitioners use pen drives / memory sticks, some transport them via a portable
hard-drive with others e-mailing themselves the files for a lesson and logging on to
download them from the location of the lesson. More teachers are now able to access
the school network remotely and can therefore save IWB files directly to a specific
folder from wherever they are working to access later. IWB mature schools may also
53

have a mechanism for sharing lesson materials, practice and files between teachers
and departments. This could include building an IWB lesson resource bank over time
that is accessed and updated each term or year.

54

7. R E S O U R C E S

1. To what extent are you able to make use of software that is available
with the IWB?
2. How often do you create your own resources for the IWB?
3. What happens to resources (flipcharts/ notebooks/ workspaces) you
create?
4. Are there any other educational resources that you regularly use in
conjunction with IWBs? How are these used?
5. What content do practitioners want access to?
6. How do you share content that has been created by teachers/other
practitioners?
7. How do colleagues share resources with you?
8. What do you think about resources created by suppliers including
materials from on-line communities?
9. What other resources are needed?
10. What about copyright and intellectual property rights?

 New users of interactive whiteboards expect access to a full range of digital
resources, but finding your way around these takes time. The questionnaire to
practitioners and visits to schools has shown that practitioners do not always know
what they have access to. A common problem is that practitioners do not know their
way around the software provided within the interactive whiteboard. In some cases,
the resources have not been fully installed and made available to the practitioner.
One experienced user who was a secondary maths teacher was not aware of the
maths resources which are readily available within the software.

 One of the biggest problems identified is that many teachers still continue to access
the resources via their own laptop. This means that potentially each member of staff
has access to different materials and stores completed resources in different places.

 The percentage of practitioners using other resources to work with the interactive
whiteboards, for example individual devices such as voting systems or Learner
Response Systems, is likely to grow over the next few years. The integration of other
interactive devices needs to be planned.

 Teachers have responded positively to the use of lesson toolkits and templates that
have been developed by some of the commercial suppliers. These are not whole
lessons nor are they complete resources, but, by being able to adapt materials and
link them directly to individual teacher’s planning, these allow the teacher to spend
less time having to create everything from the beginning. However, these do need to
be used with caution, because some tasks would not be appropriate for every pupil
within the class. It may require some additional input from the teacher to
differentiate for the individual learning needs of the pupil.

 Regions should look to provide opportunities to create lesson resources
collaboratively. Practitioners comment that they need time to develop materials that

55

are specific to their own subject. Commercial suppliers could look to facilitate
‘content development’ time.

 Schools should identify resource leaders who know how to create /develop their
own resources and who can demonstrate new ways of teaching and learning. This
could work as part of the proposed learning and teaching team.

 Resources need to be transferable, organised and understood and integrated with
assessment.

 Practitioners are demanding more customisable resources where activities can be
adapted and linked to many areas of the curriculum. The commercial supplier needs
to create resources which are customisable.

 Identifying resources continues to be a growing challenge. Quantity and volume does
not necessarily relate to quality. Some commercial suppliers offer their own online
community, and even have areas on social networking sites. These are recognised as
useful by practitioners because they provide lesson ideas, lesson materials and
access to existing users and their practice. However, some users are concerned that
not all materials have been reviewed and not all materials are suitable for every
practitioner. The less experienced users still download and use these lessons without
reviewing the content before use. Practitioners raise concerns that materials can
rarely be used as they first appear.

 It has been suggested that commercial suppliers should look to develop peer review
and comment systems. Teachers readily acknowledge that quality determines
whether or not a resource can be used. Commercial suppliers should look for current
practitioners to review existing materials that have been created by others. Indeed,
there is also a ministerial responsibility to ensure that the quality of materials that
are being shared.

 To some extent, this is also true of published resources, which are sometimes chosen
to stimulate and motivate pupils. There is some evidence to discuss that some of the
activities have not been fully linked to the curriculum and are not always appropriate
to the specified age groups. Some published resources are also concerned with
encouraging pupils to select the right answer, rather than allowing them to form
their own opinion or ideas.

 Practitioners also identify that there is not always the opportunity to share
resources. Many staff currently create resources in isolation and store these on their
own laptop. Schools need to address where lesson materials are stored and should
make provision through the Virtual Learning Environment. (VLE) Some schools have
also found opportunities within staff meetings or professional development time for
colleagues to share a resource, an activity or new skill.

 Staff and pupils should also have access to the software beyond the classroom in
other areas of the school and at home. This means that pupils should be able to
access the resources through the VLE.

 Across Europe, not all schools have reliable and secure internet access, but this is
essential for the practitioner to be able to remain spontaneous. It is also appropriate
56

for head teachers and senior leaders to consider what firewalls are in place to
prevent teachers and pupils accessing inappropriate information.

 The use of resources in a particular language continues to remain a barrier.
Commercial suppliers have begun to address this according to need and demand
from users within particular areas. Ministries should seek to agree the provision of
specific resources as part of their agreed implementation plan with the commercial
supplier. These resources have to be in place at the point of purchase. Commercial
suppliers also need to know what other content or materials exist locally and can be
readily used on the IWB.

 This might include knowledge of regional groups or partnerships which could
support practitioners to make best use of the technology.

 It is strongly recommended that IWB software is networked. This means that staff
can access materials, but upgrades can be done more routinely.

 Staff can also access the software outside their teaching hours to be able to plan and
develop ideas.

 Practitioners should not forget the value of concrete resources. Whilst lessons come
to life using the visual content on the IWB, pupils also benefit from being able to
handle objects. For example, the IWB has pictures of money, but practitioners
recognise that pupils benefit when they can see, touch and hold real coins.

 Practitioners may find it helpful to think and plan through the following steps when
selecting resources for the IWB.

Identify
Develop
Review
Create
Modify
Evaluate

Share

 Practitioners like to be able to access other resources alongside the IWB. In the
survey, respondents confirmed that they continue to make access of large dry wipe
boards and small wipe boards within the classroom. There is also evidence of
teachers using voting systems or learner response systems (LRS), slates, remote
tablets, visualisers, document cameras, wands, netbooks, wireless mouse,
microphones and video conferencing equipment. Only two respondents said that

57

they had used mobile phones with the IWB. The notion of individual student devices
being used with the IWB is a key area to be explored further.

 Copyright/Intellectual Property Rights do need to be considered by the teacher
before sharing resources. Teachers should look to add Creative Commons’ licences to
resources that are being uploaded to communities or virtual learning environments.
Links to websites which outline the issues are available on page 66 of this report.

58

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
At the beginning of this millennium in the UK, IWB were the catalyst for the change of
delivery of ICT in schools. A direct financial investment and a strategic approach from
national and regional projects soon led the UK to confirm that the IWB is an essential tool for
teaching and learning, but it will not transform practice in isolation.

Communities of practice have flourished, not just in the UK but in several European
countries, and there is a greater awareness from the commercial suppliers that IWBs have to
meet the demands of the C21st classroom. This report will help to highlight how IWB users
can now benefit from this understanding whilst realising that general advances are greatly
improved not only in hardware, but also in terms of internet connection and access to web
based materials. The IWB is a growing expectation within classrooms at primary and
secondary level. The next step is for schools to address how they can personalise learning
more effectively by linking whole class technologies with individual student devices.

In many respects, this enables those countries that are in the embryonic stages of adopting
IWB technology to acknowledge from the outset that this is something which needs to be
implemented across the school and embedded within learning, teaching and assessment. It
also serves to remind practitioners that we cannot become complacent about remaining
current with training and professional development. It requires commitment from the school
leadership. It is only then that the technology will become fully integrated.

T HIS RESEARCH BEGAN WITH THREE KEY QUESTIONS :
1. What are the key areas of focus for schools implementing the use of IWB?
2. What do schools need to do to ensure the effective use and application of this
technology?
3. What can commercial suppliers do to improve the use of IWB?

The research began with a survey which was distributed by the European Schoolnet IWB
working group to many practitioners. This was followed by link research visits, observations,
interviews and focus groups within four countries: Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the UK. This
data was collated and the analysis of the project team has led us to define seven themes for
schools to work with when implementing this technology.

These themes need to be constantly revisited and the key decision makers leading the
implementation and integration of the technology need to be able to empower others to
manage the effective use and application of this technology.

 The sharing of practice should be regular and planned, encouraging all practitioners
to contribute. Communities of practice need to be developed at a regional, national
and international level. This should provide opportunities to meet face to face and
collaborate in a virtual workspace.

59

 Schools need to define their own roadmap for technology. Schools should have a CPD
plan and the training for the IWB should be embedded within this.

 Schools can develop learning and teaching teams, defining roles and responsibilities
which embraces how IWB meshes seamlessly in with whole school developments.
This team can co-ordinate access to appropriate training, resources and
opportunities to observe practice and work collaboratively within lessons.

 Speaking to so many practitioners who have worked in isolation within their school
over the years, one of the key recommendations for all ministries who are new to the
use of this technology is that an initial installation within a school should always be a
minimum of two. This will allow at least two staff to work together, preferably within
one department or year group to share ideas, develop content and promote the use of
the technology beyond one area. The IWB should be the same brand across the
school.

 Schools should acknowledge that all staff have the right to appropriate training and
CPD, but this is only valuable if access to the IWB technology is regular.

 There are still too many examples of ‘missioners’ (Glover et al 2005) or ICT
champions in schools and it is time to move on.

 Practitioners should seek the opportunity to observe practice on a regular basis.

 Practitioners should explore the types of questions they are asking in the classroom
and consider how the activities are challenging individual pupils when using whole
class technologies. This includes the paper-based tasks that pupils are given to do
within a lesson.

 Practitioners should explore how they are using other resources to enrich pupil
learning.

 Practitioners need to take responsibility for their training and long term CPD that
they need to use the IWB. This includes knowledge of the general uses, tools,
techniques and applications. It also includes knowledge of where to store files,
organise lesson materials and locate resources.

 Commercial suppliers can work with ministries to ensure that training and CPD is
provided as part of the initial specification with ministries. The implementation of
IWB technology goes far beyond the provision of hardware.

 Commercial suppliers should seek to provide access to more subject specific training.
This needs to involve the professional development of advisers at a regional level.

 Commercial suppliers should look to provide training for technicians and technical
support so that schools are self-supporting and remain current with their knowledge
of software versions, interactive devices and resources.

 Commercial suppliers should recognise that content now has to be customisable;
practitioners should not be bound by the technology, but enabled. Teachers do want
to take ownership of their teaching materials, but the IWB software can sometimes
be restrictive as it demands knowledge of advanced skills to achieve professional
60

outcomes. There is a clear future for ‘templates’ and ‘toolkits’ which scaffold learning
objects.

 Commercial suppliers should make practitioners, pupils and parents more aware of
how the IWB software can be accessed beyond the school day. This will encourage
pupils to access materials beyond the lesson and develop the ability for the teacher to
be able to share pupil work.

 Health issues have been raised within the European Schoolnet IWB case studies, but
not within evidence collated as part of the EuSCRIBE Project. This is perhaps because
we worked with keen adopters and no problems had been encountered which
indicated health issues. However, ministries cannot afford to completely ignore
some of the issues that have been raised. Commercial suppliers should offer guidance
about how to address health and safety matters. This should also include guidance to
schools about e-safety.

61

RECOMMENDATIONS
This project has shown that there are a significant number of practitioners across Europe
who are seeking to move forward with IWB technology. There is a clear need for further
research at a national and European level to ensure that schools know how to embed the
technology within every classroom.

1. The EuSCRIBE Project recommends that Ministries in the European Schoolnet
IWB Working Group look to work with commercial suppliers to develop testbeds
across Europe for interactive whiteboards and other interactive devices. This
could also include consideration of alternative technologies.

IWB Working Group look to award funding to advisers at a regional level to
co-ordinate development projects. This would allow leaders to undertake
research and demonstrate the benefits of working in partnership and
collaboration to show exemplary practice.

Interactive Whiteboard Working Group look to award funding for EU
Scholarships for whole school development.

Interactive Whiteboard Working Group look to award funding to EU practitioners
who can undertake research and development within their own classroom.

5. The EuSCRIBE Project recommends that a European conference is organised to
share practice and consider future steps for development for schools and
classrooms. This project has attracted international interest as other countries
beyond Europe are keen to embrace IWB and need guidelines to inform schools.
There are leading schools that could learn much from each other.

Finally, time remains the biggest barrier to the use of the IWB. This is a long-term
development, but it needs short term, realistic goals. The use of the IWB has to be embedded
within school improvement. We hope that all readers will be able to take these seven themes
forward as a foundation within their own work. It can undoubtedly be expanded and
adapted to embrace your own individual circumstances.

We wish you every success on your journey!

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
1. Beauchamp, G and Parkinson, J (2005) Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing
interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, March 2005,
86(316), pp 97-103.

2. Becta (2009) Harnessing Technology Schools Survey July 2009, Analysis report.
Peter Rudd et al National Foundation for Educational Research. Available from:
http://www.becta.org.uk Research report.

3. ImpaCT2 – Pupils’ and Teachers’ perceptions of ICT in the Home, School and
Community (DfES/0742/2002, Becta 2002). Bridget Somekh et al Becta.

4. ImpaCT2 – Pupils’ and Teachers’ perceptions of ICT in the Home, School and
Community SUMMARY (The Impact of information and Communication Technologies
on Pupil Learning and Attainment) Becta : Coventry : 2002:
www.becta.org.uk/research/ImpacCT2

5. Becta (2005) How can the use of an interactive whiteboard enhance the nature of
teaching and learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreign languages? ICT
Research Bursaries. Available from:http://www.becta.org.uk Research Report.

6. Becta ICT Advice, Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard – a guide for
secondary schools [Becta 2004], 01/2003-04/a/NP/10k

7. Becta (2008) Harnessing Technology schools survey : executive summary, Paula
Smith et al, National Foundation for Educational Research, September 2008.
Available from: http://www.becta.org.uk. Research report.

8. Becta (2003) What the research says about interactive whiteboards, Becta ICT
Research, Available from:www.becta.org.uk/research.

9. Becta (2007), Learning in the 21st century – The Case for Harnessing Technology,
09/DD07-08/73/MP/1K.

10. Beeland, William D, Jr (2002)– Student Engagement, Visual Learning and Technology:
Can Interactive Whiteboards Help?
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf
accessed May 27th 2010

11. Bell, Dr. Mary Ann, Why Use an Interactive Whiteboard? A Baker’s Dozen Reasons.
Taken from http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/ mabell.html.

12. Butt, Sarah and Cebulla Andreas (2006) E-Maturity and School Performance: A
Secondary Analysis of COL Evaluation Data http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-
dir/downloads/page_documents /research/reports/ematurity_colanalysis.pdf
accessed May 27th 2010

63

13. Cogill, Julie (2002) How Is The Interactive Whiteboard Being Used In The Primary
School And How Does This Affect Teachers And Teaching?

http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/whiteboards/IFS_Interactive_whiteboards_
in_the_primary_school.pdf accessed May 27th 2010

14. Deaney, R (a), Chapman, A (b) and Hennessy, S (a); (a) University of Cambridge,
Faculty of Education, (b) Institute of Education, University of London; A case-study of
one teacher’s use of an interactive whiteboard system to support knowledge co-
construction in the history classroom. The Curriculum Journal, Vol.20, No.4,
December 2009, pp 365-387.

15. Futurelab (2007) Interactive whiteboards in the classroom, Tim Rudd, Senior
Researcher, Futurelab Available from:

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/events/listing/whiteboards/report.

16. Glover, D. and Miller D (2001), Keele University, United Kingdom, Running with
Technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive
whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, Vol.10, No.3, 2001.

17. Glover, D. and Miller D (2005), Keele University, United Kingdom, The interactive
Whiteboard: a literature survey, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol.14, No.2,
2005.

18. Hall, I and Higgins, S (2005), Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive
whiteboards, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2005. Journal of Computer Assisted learning 21,
pp102-17.

19. Higgins, Steve 9(a), Beauchamp, Gary (b), and Miller, Dave (c) (2007), Reviewing the
literature on interactive whiteboards, (a) University of Durham, UK, (b) Swansea
Institute of Higher Education, UK,(c) Keele University, UK. Learning, Media and
Technology, Vol.32, No.3, September 2007, pp.213-225.

20. Kennewell, S and Beauchamp, G, Swansea School of Education, UK. The features of
interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning, Learning, Media and
Technology, Vol.32, No.3, September2007, pp.227-241.

21. Kennewell, S (a) and Higgins S (b); (a) Swansea Institute of Higher Education, UK; (b)
Durham University, UK; Learning, Media and Technology, Vol.32 No.3, September
2007, pp.207-212.

22. Kennewell, S and Morgan, A, Department of Education, University of Wales, Swansea,
Student Teachers’ Experiences and Attitudes Towards Using Interactive Whiteboards
in the Teaching and Learning of Young Children; Copyright @ 2003, Australian
Computer Society, Inc. This paper was presented at the IFIP Working Groups 3.5
Conference: Young Children and Learning Technologies, held at UWS Parramatta in
July 2003

23. Levy, P (2002) Interactive Whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield
schools: a developmental study. Department of Information Studies (DIS), University
64

of Sheffield. This report draws on Masters dissertation research carried out by Clara
Crehan and Chrispin Hamooya, DIS, University of Sheffield, 2000-2001.

24. Moseley, D.V. Higgins, Steve. Bramald, R and Hardman, F. (1999) Ways Forward with
ICT: Effective Pedagogy using Information and Communication Technology for
Literacy and Numeracy in Primary Schools .
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cflat/publications/index/1999 accessed May 27th 2010

25. Moss, Dr. Gemma and Jewitt, Dr. Carey et al (2007) The Interactive Whiteboards,
Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools
Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge Institute of Education ISBN
978 1 844788521

26. Smith, F, Hardman, F and Higgins, S (2005), University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK,
The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies,British Educational Research Journal, Vol.32, No.3
June 2006, pp. 443-457.

27. Smith, Heather J, Higgins, S, Wall, K and Miller, J, Centre for Learning and Teaching,
School of Education Communication and Language Sciences, University of Newcastle
upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon?
A critical review of the literature. Available at Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005 –
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, pp91 101.

28. Smith, H (a) and Higgins, S (b), (a) University of Newcastle, UK, (b) University of
Durham, UK, Opening classroom interaction: the importance of feedback. Cambridge
Journal of Education, Vol.36, No.4, December 2006, pp. 485-502.

29. Somekh, Bridget et al (2007) Evaluation of the ICT Testbed Project. Manchester
Metropolitan University and Nottingham Trent University
http://www.evaluation.icttestbed.org.uk accessed May 27 th 2010

30. Thomas, M (a) and Cutrim Schmid, E (b); (a) Nagoya University of Commerce &
Business, Japan, (b)University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany; (2010) Interactive
Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice. Information Science
Reference, IGI Global ISBN:978-1-61520-715-2 (Hardcover)

31. Wall, K, Higgins, S and Smith, H, The visual helps me understand the complicated
things: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British
Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.36, No.5 2005, pp 851-867.

65

WEBSITES
EUROPEAN SCHOOLNET

http://moe.eun.org/web/iwbworkinggroup/iwb Interactive Whiteboard
Working Group
http://lreforschools.eun.org The Learning Resource Exchange for schools

CZECH REPUBLIC

http://dum.rvp.cz - Portal for sharing various digital resources, part of the LRE
http://www.veskole.cz - Mostly frequented portal for interactive LOs (school
administered)
http://www.dzs.cz European Cooperation in Education
http://www.rvp.cz - Czech curriculum portal including national repository of digital
learning materials
ITALY
http://www.scuola-digitale.it ANSAS IWB dedicated website
http://wiidea.scuole.bo.it The italian WiiMote teachers ‘community
PORTUGAL

http://moodle.crie.min-edu.pt/course/view.php?id=396 Interactive
Whiteboards at the Team for Educational and Technology Resources Moodle
platform
https://www.portaldasescolas.pt/portal/server.pt/community/00_recursosed
ucativos/ Schools’ Portal, Portuguese Ministry of Education, Learning Resources
section
UK

http://www.becta.org.uk British Educational Communications and Technology
Agency
http://www.teachers.tv/ (The homepage for Teacher TV – Many references to IWB
use if used as a search term )
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/ictis/infrastructure/iwb Advice
and guidance on using IWBs in different areas of the curriculum
http://t-media.educ.cam.ac.uk/T-Media-Mathematics/start.html

66

COPYRIGHT LINKS
http://creativecommons.org/about/ information on Creative Commons licenses
http://www.copyrightaware.co.uk Industry Trust advice on copyright
http://jisc-casper.org/content/view/about Copyright advice and support project
for e-learning resources

LINKS OF COMMERCIAL IWB SUPPLIERS THAT SUPPORTED THIS STUDY
http://www.einstruction.eu The EMEA eInstruction website
http://www.einstruction.com The official eInstruction website
https://www.eicommunity.com The eIcommunity - user group for einstruction
http://mimio.dymo.com The official Mimio website
http://www.mimioconnect.com The Mimio user community and lesson bank
http://www.prometheanlearning.com Promethean Training and Online Learning
Hub
http://www.prometheanplanet.com Promethean user community
http://www.prometheanworld.com The Official Promethean website
http://smarttech.com/ The official SMART website
http://www.exchange.smarttech.com/index.html SMART online user community
and resource exchange

67

APPENDIX I: KEY THEMES DISCUSSION TEMPLATE
Commercial Suppliers Training Leadership Learning and Teaching

Purchase/Maintenance/Installation Classroom Management and Organisation Questioning Personalising Learning

Technical Resources – including other interactive Pupil Perspective Data and Assessment
devices

Access Digital Content – including development of
Communities of Practice
Evidence/Research/Case Study Materials/References

Other areas for consideration

EuSCRIBE Project 2010 – Key Themes Discussion Template

This document can be enlarged and used to guide discussion groups when planning for the implementation of IWB technology.

Appendix I- 1

APPENDIX II: EUSCRIBE PROJECT LESSON
OBSERVATION RECORD (FOR USE WITH LESSON USING IWB)

School:
Country: Area/Locality:
Date: Yr Group: No. of Students:
Lesson Focus:
Observer Name: Practitioner Name:

Classroom Layout (sketch): Include location of IWB and computer

Resources Other Interactive Devices e.g
visualiser, Learner Response
System

Digital Resources (including key IWB software)

©Copyright Midlands Leadership Centre, University of Wolverhampton 2010

Appendix II - 1

Lesson Section and Content Specific IWB Use
Lesson Objectives

Starter Activity Teacher:

Pupils:

Main Activity Teacher:

Pupils:

Plenary Teacher:

Pupils:


Appendix II - 2

Key Activities – within and beyond the lesson

Planning and Preparation

Access to/Storage and Saving of Work

Assessment/Data

Key Questions

Timing 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

IWB
Used
Starter

Main
Activity
Plenary


Appendix II - 3

Uses, Tools and Techniques
General Uses
Play DVD Play Video Clip Play Sound View/Interact
with website

Use Third Video Presentation/ Examining
Party Conferencing Powerpoint Still Images
Software
Share Share Pupil Using IWB Brainstorming
Electronic Work Software Note-taking
Files
Annotation IWB Software Other Other
Over Desktop

Using Content
Built in Built in Flash Commercial IWB Content from
Content Content Content Manufacturer
Template
Pages
Downloaded National/Local Other Other
Lesson Government
Content Content
Tools and Applications
Pens Highlighters Blinds/Spotlights Handwriting
Recognition
Camera Tool Timers Maths Tools Screen
e.g. protractor Recorder
Sound
Recorder
Split Screen Magnifier Other Other

Techniques
Grouping Layering Rub and Reveal Fill Revealing

Object Actions Infinite Matching e.g. Matching e.g.
Copying Snap back Connectors
Links Text Drag and Drop Media
Embedding Manipulation Storyboarding
Media
Transparency Animation Other Other

Other Notes for Discussion with Practitioner


Appendix II - 4

Effective Use of Interactive Whiteboard in School

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Effective Use of Interactive Whiteboard in School (20)

More from ischool webboard (7)

Recently uploaded (20)

Effective Use of Interactive Whiteboard in School