Microsoft Word josefinfinalversion docx

2.4 Interactive Whiteboards in education
The IWB was first introduced into schools in early 2000. It has become necessary for schools 
to keep up with the global development of technology and the IWB was supposed to be the 
new innovative technology that would create a better whole-class learning (Twiner, 2010). 
The diverse possibilities with the IWB were also supposed to provide opportunities for a more 
varied content in the education, which was suggested to create more stimulating learning and 
teaching experiences (Levy, 2002). Also, because of the IWB’s potential to show anything 
displayed on the computer to the whole class at the same time, the IWB allowed teachers to 
teach ICT-based lessons to the whole class at the same time (Al-Saleem, ibid:131). 

---

12
Consequently, this created a concern among researchers and educators that the IWB would 
reinforce a transmission model of education and enhance a teacher-centred teaching-style 
where the pupils are passive receivers (Dudeney, 2006). However, Betcher and Lee (op cit) 
claim that the researchers adopting this position have based their evidence on teachers who 
are not using the IWB correctly.
Almost two decades from the IWB’s first appearance in the classroom and despite the many 
benefits with the IWB, it is still uncertain whether the IWB is a justified investment or not in 
terms of improving language proficiency levels. There is a lack in the evidence whether the 
IWB has had any effect on the pupils’ achievements. Determinant factors like how teachers 
use the IWB, the classroom context, the material used, the attitude and the confidence and 
training the teacher has, as well as the pupils’ motivation, attitudes and expectations may be 
some of the factors behind the lack of evidence (Hockly, op cit). Furthermore, teachers’ 
pedagogical methods in using the IWB also have an impact on the outcomes. Studies have 
highlighted the significance of continual professional development and training for teachers, 
mixed with exploration of effective pedagogical practice as significant factors for the 
effective use of the IWB (Miller and Glover, 2010). To put an IWB in a classroom is not 
enough to improve the teaching and learning experience. As with any other teaching device, 
the teacher has to be creative with the IWB. The tool does not make a bad teacher good, but it 
can make a good teacher better, if it is used correctly (Betcher, Lee, op cit). In an article 
written by Bax (2006), the IWB and its advantages and disadvantages are discussed (Bax, 
ibid). When analysing the fact that the IWB has had little or no impact at all on exam results 
(Nightingale, 2006) Bax (2006) asks the question: have pens had a noticeably impact on exam 
results? – (Bax, ibid).
Furthermore, he states that whenever a new technology appears in education, some people 
seem to believe or suggest that the tool will ‘magically’ do the work on its own. However, 
this is not always the case, as a new teaching aid requires a great deal of commitment from 
the teacher (Bax, ibid). For the IWB to be effective in the classroom it has to, become a part 
of the everyday teaching according to Betcher and Lee (op cit). The tool has to be integrated 
into all lessons by all teachers, in order for teachers and pupils to gain confidence in using it. 
Only when teachers use the IWB as naturally as pen and paper it will be a successful tool 
(Betcher and Lee, ibid). Bax (2003) uses the word ‘normalisation’ to define the state where 
technology is fully integrated in the language teaching and has become as natural as textbooks 

---

13
and pens (Bax, ibid). Consequently, the teachers’ role is of importance; their attitudes towards 
the IWB have a major impact on whether the IWB will have a beneficial effect on teaching 
and learning or not (Betcher, Lee, op cit).
Although there are many opportunities with an IWB, some teachers see the IWB as nothing 
more than an expensive screen (Betcher, Lee, ibid). According to Betcher and Lee (ibid), 
teachers can be divided into three categories concerning the incorporation of new technology 
into the classroom. The first group is made up of teachers who are very enthusiastic over any 
new technology. They have a positive attitude towards the tool and see all the benefits of its 
use. The enthusiasm makes them eager to learn and they are capable of acquiring a basic set 
of skills fairly quickly, which makes it easier for them to learn the more advanced and 
involved functions later. They see it as an additional stimulating means to teach their pupils. 
The second group concludes the teachers who are interested and have a positive attitude 
towards the new technology. However, they are a bit circumspect with regards to the 
technology. They can see possibilities with the new technology and how it would be 
advantageous to integrate the tool into the classroom, but they do not trust themselves fully to 
manage the new technology in a way that leads to an increase in the pupils’ motivation and 
learning. The third group contains teachers who only see the obstructions instead of the 
possibilities. They see the new technology as a waste of money that could be used for the 
purchase of multiple textbooks instead and the time it will take to learn the new tool will 
interfere with valuable teaching time (Betcher and Lee, ibid). Teachers’ varied views on new 
technology can impede the acceptance of the new tools in the classroom. The optimal 
situation would be if all teachers saw the potential benefits of the new technological aids and 
directly integrated them in their everyday teaching, as with pencil and paper. Unfortunately, 
this is not the case (Betcher and Lee, ibid).
With this in mind, it is therefore of great importance that the head teacher and school board 
provide some sort of training for teachers to get everybody on board. Additionally, it is up to 
the head teacher and school board to stress the value in using the new technology and to 
convey the expectations they have on the teachers to make the most of the new technology 
(Betcher, Lee, ibid). Nevertheless, it is also crucial for teachers to invest time in developing 
skills and expertise in using the IWB’s functions to gain confidence. They should explore the 
IWB’s full range of functionalities and co-operate and share resources and knowledge with 
co-workers (BECTA, ibid). A study by Reedy (2008) with data collected from a secondary 

---

14
comprehensive school in London, where IWBs had been placed in all classrooms, clearly 
shows evidence of the significance of practical training. The teachers had not been provided 
with much training, nor did they receive any support from the school board, which affected 
their usage of the IWBs negatively (Reedy, ibid).
The IWB’s predominant role in most of the participants’ classrooms in this study was to 
present information through PowerPoint presentations to the pupils. The pupils were 
passively receiving information that the teachers conveyed through the IWBs (Reedy, ibid). 
The participants’ lack of knowledge prevented them from using the IWB as interactively as 
they wanted and to its full capacity. It was therefore most frequently used non-interactively 
(Reedy, ibid).