The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) - CRIFPE

The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Benefits, and Challenges.

Fe b

rua

ry

20

16

A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers.

By Thierry KARSENTI

Legal deposit Library and Archives Canada, 2016 ISBN: 978-2-923808-52-9

This document is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (the least restrictive). For more information on this type of licence, visit the Creative Commons site at creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

To quote this document Karsenti, T. (2016). The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Benefits, and Challenges. A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers. Montreal: CRIFPE.

Data collection and analysis The team of the Canada Research Chair in Technologies in Education (Gabriel, Aurélien, Ariane, Simon, Gabrielle, Aziz) Global editing: Charles Dionne

Report available at iwb.crifpe.ca

Note The masculine gender is used in this document for the sake of simplicity and readability, and not for purposes of discrimination.

Table of Contents List of figures......................................................................................................... II Abstract.................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................2 2. The interactive whiteboard in education: what the research says.....................................5 3. Methodology....................................................................................................................9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Participants...........................................................................................................9 Data collection instruments................................................................................10 Data treatment and analysis...............................................................................10 Methodological strengths and limitations...........................................................11

4. Main results....................................................................................................................12 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

How was the IWB used?......................................................................................12 What were the main benefits of the IWB?...........................................................16 Specific benefits of IWB use................................................................................19 Challenges of IWB use in class.............................................................................20

5. Conclusion......................................................................................................................25 6. Recommendations.........................................................................................................28 7. References......................................................................................................................29 8. Works consulted.............................................................................................................33

Uses, Benefits, and Challenges

List of figures Figure 1 Presence of interactive white boards (IWB) in classrooms of various countries.............................3 Figure 2 Change in the numbers of publications addressing the IWB in education.....................................5 Figure 3 Distribution of participating students between elementary and high school................................9 Figure 4 Number of years of teaching experience for participating teachers.............................................10 Figure 5 Use frequency of the IWB by teachers.........................................................................................12 Figure 6 Use frequency of the IWB by students according to teachers.......................................................13 Figure 7 Use frequency of the IWB by students according to students......................................................14 Figure 8 Main uses of the IWB in class......................................................................................................15 Figure 9 Students’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard.................................................................16 Figure 10 Teachers’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard.................................................................16 Figure 11 Main benefits of the IWB according to students..........................................................................17 Figure 12 Main benefits of the IWB according to teachers..........................................................................18 Figure 13 Main challenges of the IWB according to teachers......................................................................21 Figure 14 Frequency of technical problems according to teachers..............................................................21 Figure 15 Technical problems that teachers felt they could resolve on their own without a technician’s help.........................................................................................................22 Figure 16 Main challenges of the IWB according to students......................................................................24

II

The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB):

Abstract Over the past five years, the interactive whiteboard (IWB) has been massively introduced into schools across the province of Québec, Canada. This study, conducted by the team of the Canada Research Chair in Technologies in Education, aimed to identify how the IWB is used in Québec schools and the associated benefits and challenges. The study participants included 11,683 students (from 4th year elementary to 5th year high school) and 1,131 teachers. Five data collection instruments were used: 1) a survey questionnaire for all students (n=11,683), 2) a survey questionnaire for all teachers (n=1,131), 3) individual interviews with teachers (n=31), 4) group interviews with teachers (8 interviews with groups of 6 to 17 teachers), and 5) group interviews with students (16 interviews with groups of 8 to 24 students). This report begins with a presentation of the main educational uses of the IWB, followed by the many benefits as perceived by teachers and students. The main challenges that this technology poses for teachers and students are then addressed. Far from calling into question the need to integrate technology in education, the results reveal that certain tools, such as the IWB, may be more complicated and time-consuming to integrate than others. Thus, teachers appeared to have problems with technical aspects of the IWB. Nevertheless, the results also show that the IWB has real educational potential. The report concludes with a list of 12 recommendations.


1.

Introduction At the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society, Kofi Annan proclaimed that rapid technology advancements can “propel” us to “improve standards of living for millions of people on this planet.” He also foresaw that the power of these tools will be increasingly felt in all areas of life, with a growing influence on economic, societal, and educational aspects. For example, in just a few short years, classrooms all across Québec have been transformed: today, students routinely have their own laptops or are participating in one touchpad per child projects.

“ ”

The IWB has invaded Québec classrooms in massive numbers in the last five years

In Québec and around the world, more and more classrooms feature an interactive whiteboard (IWB) (Figure 1). Also called an IW or an interactive digital whiteboard (IDW), it refers to an electronic whiteboard that displays content projected by a computer, tablet, or other source. The IWB combines touch (pen-and-finger) control of the screen with computerized input from a variety of devices operated by teachers or students. However, while the IWB has become practically standard in the education systems of certain American states and countries such as Australia—and especially Great Britain, where they are present in 100% of elementary schools (Kitchen et al., 2007) and 72% of high school classrooms (Lee, 2010)—, IWBs began to be introduced into Québec’s education system only in the last five years. The usual justification for this massive invasion—put forward by both governments and businesses—is that IWBs can improve school and academic outcomes for learners by improving teaching practices, by diversifying teaching resources (e.g., graphics, videos, audio), and by introducing more interactive teaching and learning activities. Nevertheless, the arrival of this technology in Québec and elsewhere raises questions about its actual usefulness for schools, particularly from a cost–benefit perspective.

“’Building an open, empowering information society is a social, economic and ultimately political challenge,’ says Secretary-General at World Summit.” UN Press Release SG/SM/9070-PI/1535. 10 December 2003. http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sgsm9070.doc.htm


Figure 1.

“

In 2016, we still do not know much about how the IWB is actually used or the real impacts on educational outcomes

”

Presence of interactive white boards (IWB) in classrooms of various countries As discussed in Section 2 below (The interactive whiteboard in education: what the research says), in 2016, we still do not know much about how the IWB is actually used or the real impacts on educational outcomes. Moreover, studies on the educational impacts of the IWB have found contradictory results. Sometimes the impacts are modest, with no real significance for learning. Alternatively, many case studies, action research studies, and anecdotal accounts describe how exceptional teachers use the IWB. These studies are instructive, and they help us understand how teachers might eventually manage to integrate the IWB in their classrooms. However, these same studies, as well as other reports of classroom experiments, tend to focus on a particular aspect: how the IWB is used by exemplary teachers and teachers who have succeeded in fully integrating the IWB into their teaching practice. Meanwhile, there are very few accounts of failed experiments. Accordingly, and as Türel (2010, p. 3050) argued over five years ago, we still do not have enough rigorous empirical evidence on the impacts of educational technology on learning and academic performance. Our http://futuresource-consulting.com/2014-06-EducationHardware-1176.html See, for example, Raby, C., Bergeron, L., Tremblay-Wragg, É., Gagnon, B. & Charron, A. (2015). Évolution des pratiques pédagogiques des enseignants quant à l’utilisation collaborative du tableau numérique interactif par des élèves du préscolaire et du primaire : une recherche-action. In S. Lefebvre and G. Samson (Eds.), Le tableau numérique interactif : quand chercheurs et praticiens s’unissent pour dégager des pistes d’action (p. 39-57). Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec (off collection).


team therefore felt it important for IWB implementation to be preceded by careful scientific reflection on how it will be used by both teachers and learners as well as a thorough analysis of the real educational impacts.

The objective of this study conducted by the team of the Canada Research Chair in Technologies in Education was to identify how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) is used in Québec schools and the associated benefits and challenges. This study therefore aimed to shed scientific light on the educational uses and impacts of the IWB. This objective is also related to the Avis sur l’éthique et les TIC à l’école [Opinion statement on the ethics of ICT at school] released in 2015 by Québec’s Commission de l’éthique en sciences et en technologie [Commission for ethics in science and technology]. Two of their recommendations remind schools to determine first and foremost the impacts of technology on academic perseverance and achievement before introducing them across the board: RECOMMENDATION 1. The Minister of education should promote the use of ICT only when it provides real added value in terms of specific characteristics, and taking into consideration the benefits for students and for course contexts (level, subject, etc.) [our translation] (p. 15). RECOMMENDATION 2. The Minister of education should conduct or commission rigorous studies in order to demonstrate the educational value of various ICT applications before proceeding to implement them [our translation] (p. 16). The present research report is organized into six sections. Following the introduction (Section I), a synthesis of the literature on IWB issues in education is presented (Section 2). The research methodology (Section 3) and the main results (Section 4) are then presented. The report ends with a conclusion (Section 5) and a list of the main recommendations (Section 6).


2. The interactive whiteboard in education: what the research says We searched the main education databases (ERIC, CAIRN, and FRANCIS) and Google Scholar for studies on uses and impacts of the IWB from preschool to postsecondary school. Figure 2 shows a screenshot of Scopus, “[…] the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings.” We observed a small number of publications on the IWB from 2009 to 2011, followed by a growing interest that subsequently declined sharply. We then constructed a matrix to summarize the reviewed studies.

Figure 2.

Change in the numbers of publications addressing the IWB in education The analysis shows that although many publications have addressed the IWB, very few have attempted to assess the educational impacts empirically (see Khambari et al., 2014; Lopez, 2010). In fact, only a handful have done so (see Khambari et al., 2014; Türel, 2010). We found many pedagogical recommendations for teachers, but not much about the real impacts of the IWB, except for a few studies by authors such as Hennessy (2014) and Hennessy and colleagues (2006, 2007, 2011, 2014). There are also several case studies, for example, by Kennewell and colleagues (2007, 2008), who examined a small group of highly tech-savvy teachers and their use of the IWB. Studies tend to sing the praises of the IWB, but often without solid grounds, somewhat reminiscent of advertising flyers that tout product features. This is not surprising, given that many reports http://www.scopus.com/


are funded by IWB producers. Indeed, Glover et al. (2005) and Smith et al. (2005) found that, since 2005, a large percentage of these studies have been funded by IWB producers. By the same token, the benefits that have been claimed in these studies are not necessarily consistent with the teaching approaches that are actually used.

“

Of the many publications on the IWB, very few have attempted to assess the educational impacts empirically

” “ ”

As students get older, they tend to view the IWB less positively

Among the benefits that have been accentuated, we note that the IWB allows teachers to teach better by giving demonstrations “at the front of the class.” In the current era of student-centered learning, we would like to see less lecturing (where the teacher faces the entire class) and more engaged student activity. It is therefore rather odd that one of the benefits of a tool that is being promoted for educational purposes is that it facilitates teaching at the front of the classroom! For Khambari and colleagues (2014), this would be problematic for teachers who feel caught between the open-ended and student-centered learning approaches that schools advocate and use of the IWB, which encourages teachers to present ideas in front of the class using lecture-style teaching. However, Cutrim Schmid (2008) demonstrated certain benefits—as well as some major challenges—of IWB use for language teaching, and Slay and colleagues (2008), in South Africa, found plenty of challenges of using the IWB, particularly underuse of its interactive features. We also retrieved 15 literature reviews or meta-analyses on this topic. The most exhaustive synthesis on the IWB was conducted by Miller and Glover (2010), with 100 sources. However, the authors pointed out that their objective was not to pass judgment on the methods used in the studies, but instead to draw an overall portrait of the situation (p. 1), which is tantamount to reporting results without assessing them. Furthermore, of the 15 reviewed syntheses, only four included a detailed examination of how the researchers conducted their review (DiGregorio & Sobel-Lojeski, 2010; Golonka et al., 2012; Saltan et al., 2009; Twiner et al., 2010), pointing to a lack of rigor on the part of the authors. Overall, these studies and meta-analyses mentioned two potential benefits of the IWB: 1) better presentation of certain theoretical content using multisensorial techniques (Saltan et al., 2009), but at the same time, and more to the point, using a lecture-style approach (see Littleton, 2010); and 2) higher student interest, at least in the short term (see Balta & Duran, 2015; DiGregorio & SobelLojeski, 2010; Wall et al., 2005). Student motivation (see also Higgins et al., 2007, 2010; Hall & Higgins, 2005) was also the most frequent finding across the studies. Nevertheless, this appetite for the IWB appears to wane over time (see Balta & Duran, 2015; Dostal, 2011; Türel, 2010). For example, Balta and Duran (2015) noted that, “As students get older, their positive attitudes toward interactive whiteboard technology decrease […]” (p. 16). DiGregorio and Sobel-Lojeski (2010) qualify the impact on student motivation, proposing that the strength and duration of this impact depends primarily on the teaching practices used (p. 268). Harlow et al. (2010) also showed that certain uses of the IWB add shared interactional spaces where students can save and retrieve their work (p. 239). In other


“

To date, few serious studies have shown any impacts of the IWB on academic achievement

”

“

The overall findings of these studies lead to only two real conclusions: that students are more motivated […] and that teachers can provide better presentations of theoretical content

”

words, the IWB has the potential to allow students to collaborate (see also Littleton, 2010; Saltan et al., 2009; Warwick et al., 2010), but only in certain circumstances. For Littleton (2010), the IWB, by enabling teaching at the front of the class, actually “saves time.” Finally, Dostal (2011) notes that the IWB can also make it easier to archive and share written work. What does all this have to do with students’ educational outcomes? To date, few serious studies have shown any real impacts of the IWB on academic achievement. Instead, they have generally found either no impacts (see, e.g., Lopez, 2010) or else minimally positive impacts for certain subjects—such as mathematics (see Swan et al., 2008), which could be attributed more to the attention paid to the participating students than to the impacts of the IWB itself—, or else negative impacts (see Moss et al., 2010). Türel (2010) and Khambari and colleagues (2014) contend that not a single study to date has concluded that the IWB has positive impacts on academic achievement. In fact, it is just the opposite: these authors argue that the many technical issues combined with lack of support (see also Fekonja-Peklaj et al., 2015) are more likely to undermine motivation in both students and teachers. In the reviewed meta-analyses, several authors also underscored certain negative impacts of the IWB, such as the time that teachers waste when they teach with it and the scarcity of support technical help (see Dostal, 2011). According to other researchers, when teachers use the IWB, they spend more time dealing with technology issues than attending to what their students are learning (see Sundberg et al., 2012). The overall findings of these studies lead to only two real conclusions: that students are more motivated—although this motivation diminishes with time—(see Higgins et al., 2007), and that teachers can provide better presentations of theoretical content—albeit using a lecture-style approach (see Littleton, 2010). Similarly, a recent OECD report (September 2015) called Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection addresses issues of the educational use of the IWB. This extensive international investigation (over 30 countries) of the impacts of information and communication technology (ICT) on education shows that countries that were early adaptors of computer technology for teaching and learning (like those that first acquired the IWB) tend to show poorer learning outcomes. And it gets worse. In some schools, the more that students use new technology, the worse the learning outcomes: “[…] but students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after accounting for social background and student demographics” (p. 3). Of course, there are some exceptions, which suggests that even though technology holds enormous potential, the teacher continues to play a central role.


“

There is a clear need for more extensive studies to document actual IWB use and to assess the educational impacts

As mentioned above, in Québec and elsewhere around the world, many instructive studies (accounts of practices, action research) have illustrated how teachers can appropriate the IWB and other technology tools (see, e.g., Ersoy & Bozkurt, 2015; Raby et al., 2015). Although these studies may be highly inspiring for future teachers and for teachers who would like to improve their teaching practices, they do not provide a comprehensive picture of the uses, benefits, and challenges of IWB use in the classroom. And although these studies certainly have scientific legitimacy, there is a clear need for more extensive studies to document actual IWB use and to assess the educational impacts so that the findings can guide policies and actions by government and education decision makers.

”


3.

Methodology The objective of this study was to identify how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) is used in Québec schools and the associated benefits and challenges. This section presents the research method in accordance with the guidelines of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition (2013). First, the participants are presented (3.1), followed by the data collection instruments (3.2) and the data analysis strategies (3.3). A discussion of the methodological strengths and limitations (3.4) concludes this section of the report.

3.1

Participants The study participants included 11,683 students enrolled in Québec schools (from 4th year elementary to 5th year high school) and 1,131 teachers. The students (6,211 girls, 5,472 boys) were from 10 to 18 years old, with an average age of 14.1 years. Figure 3 shows that 88.4% were attending high school (n = 10,324) and 11.6% (1,359) were attending elementary school (mainly 6th year). Of the teachers, 67.4% (634 women, 497 men) had from 11 to 25 years of teaching experience (see Figure 4). The subjects they taught covered the range of the curriculum taught in the Québec education system. Participants were selected on a voluntary basis from schools in which the IWB was used in class. Study data were collected from August 2014 to May 2015.

Figure 3.

Distribution of participating students between elementary and high school


Figure 4.

3.2

Number of years of teaching experience for participating teachers

Data collection instruments To better understand how the IWB is used in Québec schools and the associated benefits and challenges, data were collected from 12,814 participants who were currently in the education system (11,683 students; 1,131 teachers). Five data collection instruments were used: 1. A survey questionnaire for all students (n = 11,683) 2. A survey questionnaire for all teachers (n = 1,131) 3. Individual interviews with teachers (n = 31) 4. Group interviews with teachers (8 groups of 6 to 17 teachers) 5. Group interviews with students (16 groups of 8 to 24 students).

3.3

Data treatment and analysis Data were collected from questionnaires containing both Likert scale responses and open-ended questions. The data were consequently subjected to a mixed analysis. A quantitative analysis, including descriptive statistics, was conducted using SPSS 23 http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/

10


and the online survey tool SurveyMonkey. The initial results were complemented by a qualitative analysis of the open-ended questionnaire responses using QDA Miner, including content analysis (see L’Écuyer, 1990; Miles & Huberman, 2003) with semi-open coding constructed from the participants’ responses related to the main research issues (uses, benefits, and challenges). Data from the individual and group interviews were analyzed based on the methods developed by L’Écuyer (1990) and Miles and Huberman (2003), using a content analysis approach. Qualitative analyses were again conducted using QDA Miner, a widely used qualitative data analysis tool (Karsenti et al., 2011).

3.4

Methodological strengths and limitations One of the main strengths of this study is the research methodology. The combination of online questionnaires and individual and group interviews provides a major advantage by allowing triangulation of multiple data sources. However, there are also certain limitations. First, the use of participants’ perceptions may be considered a limitation, which we attempted to offset by examining a very large sample (n = 12,814 participants: 11,683 students, 1,131 teachers) and using a variety of data collection tools. To reduce this methodological bias, responses by different respondent types were systematically compared in order to highlight differences. Another limitation concerns the participant sample, which was not randomly selected. However, our purpose was not to select a representative population subset. In fact, the students and teachers were drawn specifically from Québec classrooms that contained an IWB. Why? Because for this particular study, it would be difficult or impossible to randomly select the participants. For instance, how could we have required students and teachers to participate in the survey? Therefore, we used a convenience sample, or a non-probability sample. Rather than to provide representation, the aim was instead to reach a body of respondents that was available, voluntary, and searchable. The sole condition for participation was that an IWB had to be present in at least one of the participant’s classrooms.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/ http://provalisresearch.com/fr/produits/logiciel-d-analyse-qualitative/


11

4.

Main results This report presents the main results with respect to the research objectives, as follows:

4.1

a)

Educational uses of the IWB

b)

Educational benefits of IWB use

c)

Challenges of IWB use.

How was the IWB used? We began by asking the teachers how often they used the IWB (Figure 5). The survey data revealed that 48.2 % of teachers used the IWB “always” or “often,” versus 39.3% who used it “sometimes” or “rarely,” and only 12.6% who “never” used it.

Figure 5.

Use frequency of the IWB by teachers The individual and group interviews provided a general overview of the use frequency. Teachers who responded that they “always” or “often” used the IWB explained that it “made it easier to present material to the class” (high school teacher). Others also found it easier to show information that they found online: “I can show my students all kinds of things that I find on the Internet” (high school teacher). In addition, some teachers who used the IWB regularly found that it simply replaced the old blackboard: “[…] in some classes […] I no longer have a blackboard […] so I have no choice […]” (high school teacher).

12


Teachers who used it “sometimes” or “rarely,” felt that it was overly complicated to use, and that the technological problems were daunting:

“ ”

“[…] because it doesn’t always work […] I only use it when I have extra time […]”

“[…] sometimes, it’s not programmed […] it takes a long time to do and I don’t have the time before class […]” (high school teacher). “[…] because it doesn’t always work […] I only use it when I have extra time […]” (high school teacher). “[…] I sometimes use it […] but I have my plan B […] it hardly ever works […]” (high school teacher).. Of the teachers who never used the IWB, some were unable to use it due to technical problems: “[…] I’ve been waiting now for over two months […] the lamp doesn’t work anymore […]” (elementary school teacher). There were also those who didn’t think that they needed it to teach: “[…] I never asked for it […] it’s complicated […] and I don’t think it’s very useful […] so, no […] I don’t use it” (high school teacher). We also asked the teachers about student participation: did they have their students use the IWB (Figure 6)? The data revealed that only 4.0% of the surveyed teachers “always” or “often” had their students use the IWB, versus 23.4% who had them use it “sometimes” and 72.6% “rarely” or “never.”

Figure 6.

Use frequency of the IWB by students according to teachers In the individual interviews, the teachers put forward many reasons for not having their students use the IWB:


13

“

“[…] in high school […] the classes are big […] it’s hard to manage the class when you get everybody to the front of the room […]” (high school teacher).

“[…] In high school […] the classes are big […] it’s hard to manage the class when you get everybody to the front of the room […]”

”

Figure 7.

“[…] it doesn’t work very well […] and if on top of that I let the students use it […] I think that it would never work […]” (high school teacher). We also asked the students about how they used the IWB in order to compare their responses to those of the teachers (Figure 7). The responses showed little variation overall, confirming that they did not use the IWB very often. Thus, 4.4% of students felt that their teacher “always” or “often” let them use the IWB, with 12.9% “sometimes,” “29.5% “rarely,” and 53.2% “never” responses.

Use frequency of the IWB by students according to students The group interviews with students provided further insight into some of the reasons that the teachers gave for having them use the IWB: “[…] our teacher lets us go on the Internet sometimes […]” (elementary school student). “[…] as soon as it stops working […] she [the teacher] asks one of the students for help […]” (high school student). “ […] when we do math […] I sometimes come up to the front of the class and write the answers […]” (high school student).

14


The group interviews also gave us a deeper understanding of why, according to the students, they were rarely asked to use the IWB: “[…] we never use it […] only the teachers […]” (high school student).

“

“[…] it’s not very interactive […] the teachers just write on it […]” (high school student).

“[…] when we do math […] I sometimes come up to the front of the class and write the answers […]”

”

“[…] it’s usually not working […] I don’t think that my teachers want us to touch it […]” (high school student). “[…] if we touch it […], the teachers are going to think that it’s our fault that it doesn’t work anymore […] so we don’t touch it […]” (high school student).

Furthermore, we asked the teachers to describe the main ways that they

used the IWB in class. From their responses, we identified ten main uses by teachers (Figure 8). The most common, mentioned by 51.6% of the teachers, was creating multimedia presentations with programs like Notebook or PowerPoint. Internet searches followed at 19.3%, video presentations at 10.8%, presentation of class notes as PDG or Word documents at 6.9%, and math and science demonstrations (particularly math) at 4.8%. Group corrections of written work, especially French texts (1.7%), presentation of digital books and textbooks (1.5%), interactive activities and exercises (1.4%), students’ oral presentations (1.2%), and geographic maps (0.8%) complete the list. These results indicate that the IWB was used mainly to project content onto the screen, and not as an interactive digital tool to support teaching and learning. In fact, only 2.6% of the main uses reported by teachers could be described as interactive.

Figure 8.

Main uses of the IWB in class


15

4.2

What were the main benefits of the IWB? When the students and teachers were asked about the potential benefits of the IWB, they came up with a substantial number. First, we asked all the students (11,683) and teachers (1,131) if they preferred the IWB or the traditional blackboard. As shown in Figure 9, the students were almost unanimously in favor of the IWB (99.2 %) versus the blackboard (0.8 %).

Figure 9:

Students’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard The group interviews with the students confirmed this result: “[…] it’s definitely better […] the teacher can go online […]” (high school student). We asked the teachers the same question. Although a large majority preferred the IWB (73.6%), it is noteworthy that the teachers were considerably less enthusiastic about using it in class (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Teachers’ preference for the IWB over the blackboard 16


“ ”

The individual and group interviews with the teachers revealed why some of them continued to prefer the traditional blackboard:

“[…] it never works […] it’s complicated […] I’d prefer a blackboard and chalk […]”

“[…] it never works […] it’s complicated […] I’d prefer a blackboard and chalk […]” (high school teacher). “[…] I have several groups […] in some classes, it doesn’t work […] so I have to prepare different lesson plans […] I prefer not to use it […]” (high school teacher). “[…] I never wanted it [the IWB], I didn’t ask for anything […] I don’t use it […] I find it a waste of time […]” (high school teacher). We also asked the students and teachers more specifically about the benefits of having the IWB in the classroom. According to the students (Figure 11), the main benefit was permanent Internet access in class, mentioned by 23.5%. They found it amazing that they could “have Internet access through the whiteboard” (high school student). They also appreciated the visual support for teaching (19.1 %), being able to watch videos (12.2 %), their greater motivation to learn (11.8 %), more varied teaching strategies (9.3 %), learning better and more (9,1 %), saving time, when there were no technical problems (7.2 %), having a more organized teacher (5.8 %), communicating with classmates (1.3 %), and doing interactive activities (0.7 %).

Figure 11. Main benefits of the IWB according to students


17

“ ”

The main benefit of the IWB […] “finally, having Internet access in class.”

The main benefit of having the IWB in the classroom, as reported by 29.2% of the teachers, was “finally, having Internet access in the classroom” (high school teacher). Other benefits (Figure 12) were visual support for teaching (18.8 %), and particularly multimedia presentations such as PowerPoint. Many teachers also mentioned higher student motivation (11.6 %). They also found that the IWB helped them diversify their teaching approach (9.5 %), usually enabled more effective teaching, as long as there were no technical problems (6.3 %), and was generally beneficial for learning (6.1 %), regardless of the subject being taught. Some teachers pointed out that, despite the extra time they had to put in, the IWB helped them organize their teaching (5.9%), including planning lessons, managing documents, and so on. A few others (4.0%) said that the IWB helped students concentrate. Only 3.9% of the teachers thought that the IWB could have positive impacts on students’ academic outcomes. A small number of teachers—particularly math and science teachers—emphasized the impacts on learning certain concepts (2.8%). A few others (1.3%) brought up the ability to “communicate with others, in front of the students, from the front of the class […]” (high school teacher). Only 0.6% of the teachers mentioned interactivity as a benefit of the IWB.

Figure 12. Main benefits of the IWB according to teachers

18


4.3

Specific benefits of IWB use The large number of participants in this study (11,683 students) enabled performing more advanced statistical inferences. Briefly, this type of analysis allows inducing characteristics of a given population (in this case, students and teachers across Québec) based on a population sample (i.e., the Québec students and teachers who participated in this study). As in previous studies, we then ran diverse statistical correlations. The results revealed some significant relationships (see Table 1), for instance, between the use frequency of the IWB by students and student-perceived impacts on variables that are known to be closely associated with academic achievement (academic grades, concentration in class, school motivation, overall satisfaction at school).

Table 1:

Correlations between impacts perceived by students and their IWB use frequency Academic grades Concentration in class School motivation Overall satisfaction at school

“

The more that the students used the IWB in class, the more positive the perceived impacts on their grades, school motivation, concentration in class, and overall satisfaction at school.

”

0.308** 0.265* 0.367** 0.312**

*p < 0.001; **p < 0.0001. The results show that the more that the students used the IWB in class, the more positive the perceived impacts on their grades, school motivation, concentration in class, and overall satisfaction at school (Table 1). In line with previous studies, this indicates that the impacts increase with more frequent use. Previous studies have found that teachers who had their students use the IWB frequently perceived similar impacts, but this was not the case for the present study. In previous studies, teachers who had their students work more regularly and frequently with the IWB perceived greater benefits for students. As mentioned above, the results of the present study do not allow concluding overall positive or negative impacts of IWB use on students’ academic achievement. In fact, only 3.9% of the teachers reported such impacts. Nevertheless, the statistical inferences revealed that the more that students used the IWB in class, the more positive their perceptions of the impacts on their academic grades, school motivation, concentration in class, and overall satisfaction at school (Table 1).

Correlation type: Kendall’s tau correlation (to learn more about this test statistic, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kendall_rank_correlation_coefficient )


19

“ ” “

Only 4.0% of the teachers said that they “always” or “often” had their students use the IWB

4.4

We should keep in mind, however, that only 4.0% of the teachers said that they “always” or “often” had their students use the IWB. How, then, can this particular result be explained? We may propose two explanations. First, IWB use could have provided some interactive situations, where students participated actively in learning. Second, the IWB would have provided students with some opportunities to use specialized software that could help them learn certain academic content.

Challenges of IWB use in class

“[…] I’ve never seen anything that broke down so much […] and you have to wait for the technician […] he spends all his time fixing them […]”

”

In addition to asking the respondents about the uses and benefits of the IWB in class, we asked both students and teachers about the challenges they encountered. The teachers mentioned some major challenges of IWB use in class (Figure 13). The most formidable challenge was technical problems, cited by 70.6%: “[…] I’ve never seen anything that broke down so much […] and you have to wait for the technician […] he spends all his time fixing them […]” (high school teacher). At 17.3%, the time spent working with the IWB was another major issue. It’s a time-consuming tool, and the teachers gave many reasons for this: “[…] it takes up a lot of teaching time […] you see, to learn how to use the IWB, I have to give up even more of my evenings and weekends […]” (elementary school teacher). “[…] preparing lessons for the IWB […] it really takes a lot of time […] which I don’t have […]” (high school teacher). “[…] I find that I have to fool with the Interactive whiteboard before every class […] it takes too much time […]” (high school teacher). “[…] learning how to use all the IWB features […] it takes time […]” (high school teacher).

“ ”

“[…] for me, it’s finding materials that takes up my time […]” (high school teacher).

This kind of tool is time-consuming for teachers, who already have a heavy workload

20

The results indicate that this kind of tool is time-consuming for teachers, who already have a heavy workload. In addition, several teachers (9.6%) brought up the size of the screen: “[…] I have 32 students in my class […] the screen is too small if you’re sitting at the back [of the class]” (high school teacher). Class management was mentioned by a few teachers (1.4%). Last on the list was inadequate training (1.1%). For many teachers, the problem was not a lack of training as such, but rather lack of time to learn how to use the IWB before trying it out with the students:


“[…] I took some useful training sessions […] but I didn’t have the time to really sit down in class and try it out […] I need that […] without my students around me […]” (high school teacher). “[…] the training, it’s only part of the problem […] what I would need is training in my classroom […] that way I could be ready for my students […]” (high school teacher).

Figure 13. Main challenges of the IWB according to teachers The teachers were asked how frequently they had to deal with technical problems when they used the IWB in class (Figure 14). The results show that 93.5% felt that they “always” (23.6%) or “often” (69.9% had such problems. Only 6.5 % felt that they “sometimes” (2.9%), “rarely” (2.3%) or “never” (1.3%) had to deal with them. These findings indicate that technical problems constitute the greatest challenge of IWB use in class.

Figure 14. Frequency of technical problems according to teachers


21

These frequencies were confirmed by the results of the individual and group interviews: “[…] I have technical problems very often […] and then I have to wait for the technician […]” (elementary school teacher). “[…] there’s always something that needs fixing […] it gets in the way of my teaching […]” (high school teacher). We also asked the teachers how many of the technical problems they managed to resolve on their own (Figure 15). Overall, the results show that the IWB incurred major and frequent technical problems that the teachers were usually unable to resolve by themselves (Figure 14). Thus, only 7.4% of the teachers said that they could resolve technical problems on their own.

“

92.6 % of the teachers had technical problems that required outside help to resolve.

”

In other words, 92.6 % of the teachers had technical problems that required outside help, usually a technician. Thus, the great majority of them felt that they were more or less at the mercy of the technician—employed by the school board or the IWB provider—who had to come to their rescue: “[…] whenever there’s a problem […] we have to wait for the technician […] sometimes it takes weeks […]” (high school teacher). These results indicate that, due to the many technical problems, teachers (especially high school teachers) who used the IWB were forced to prepare two sets of lesson plans. Planning a lesson with the IWB already took up too much time, and on top of that, they had to plan a back-up lesson in case the IWB didn’t work: “[…] if the interactive whiteboard wasn’t working with a group […] I have to make another lesson plan […] this doubles the work […] “ (high school teacher).

Figure 15. Technical problems that teachers felt they could resolve on their own without a technician’s help

22


“ ”

The small screen size was the second most often cited problem by students

The students were also asked about problems and challenges of using the IWB (Figure 16). Although the problems they mentioned differed somewhat from those mentioned by the teachers, there were certain similarities. For example, technical problems headed the list, at 33.5%: “[…] it usually doesn’t work […] the teachers waste a lot of time installing it […]” (high school student). The second most often cited problem was the small screen size (25.4%): “[…] the screen’s too small […] my TV at home is bigger […]” (high school student). The small screen size was a particular source of complaint for high school students. Some of them had a bigger TV screen at home for watching films and playing computer games compared to the IWB screen at school for learning math, science, French, and other subjects. Many students also complained that their teacher was inept at using the IWB (19.0%): “[…] even though it’s not always their fault […] but it breaks anyway” (high school student). For the students, the problem appeared to be that the teachers were too often unable to resolve technical problems that arose: “[…] my teacher can never fix it when there’s a problem […] she always says she has to wait for the technician […]” (high school student).

“ ”

Many students cited loss of motivation as a challenge.

“[…] the digital whiteboard is super complicated […] my teachers can never get it to work […] we have to wait for a technician […]” (high school student). Many students cited loss of motivation as a challenge (18.3%): “[…] at first, I liked it […] but after a while […] it got boring […] a lot of students are practically asleep […]” (high school student). “[…] it wasn’t’ interesting to look at hundreds of pages scrolling down […]” (high school student). At the bottom of the list (3.8%) came the lack of interactivity in the lessons when their teacher used the IWB: “[…] it’s monotonous […] there’s only the teacher talking all alone […] we students […] don’t do anything […]” (high school student). The results show that the students didn’t appreciate the lack of interactivity when teachers used the IWB. In other words, the vast majority of the teachers used the IWB as a digital projector and failed to take advantage of the many interactive features.


23

Figure 16.

24

Main challenges of the IWB according to students


5.

Conclusion

“

Far from calling into question the critical need to integrate technology into education, this study instead highlights that the classroom integration of certain technology tools, such as the IWB, may be more complicated and time-consuming than others

” “

The students appreciated having technology in the classroom: 99.2% preferred the IWB to a traditional blackboard

”

For the OECD (2015), technology represents the “very future” of education. Moreover, because technology has invaded every corner of our lives, it becomes increasingly vital for upcoming generations to acquire technology skills if they want to succeed professionally and socially. There is every reason to believe that being able to self-train, self-learn, and communicate via technology will be the sine qua non condition for adapting to and fully participating in societies that are in permanent flux. Equally, there is every reason to believe that learning with technology is a key competency that will enable youth to succeed in school, and more broadly, in the knowledge society in which we now live. The aim of this study, conducted by the team of the Canada Research Chair in Technologies in Education, was to identify how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) is used in Québec schools and the associated benefits and challenges. Study data were collected from 11,863 students and 1,131 teachers. Far from calling into question the critical need to integrate technology into education, the results of this study instead highlight the fact that the classroom integration of certain technology tools, such as the IWB, may be more complicated and time-consuming than others. The results show that the participating teachers had substantial technical problems with the IWB. However, the results also indicate that the IWB has real pedagogical potential. We have presented the uses and benefits of the IWB, which has been introduced en masse into schools all across Québec for the last five years. We began with the students’ appreciation of having this technology in the classroom: 99.2% preferred the IWB over the traditional blackboard. Among the teachers, however, although a large majority (73.6%) appeared to prefer the IWB over the blackboard, a non-negligible percentage (26.4%) actually preferred the traditional blackboard. The problem may have been related to the imposition of the IWB, which created a situation where teachers had no choice but to integrate the IWB into their teaching. A mandatory new method or technology is palatable only when some degree of choice is involved. On this topic, self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (1985), provides some insight into the possible motivations of teachers who preferred using the blackboard over the IWB. That said, our results also show that slightly over half the teachers in this study did not use the IWB regularly (48.2%), and that 51.8% used it “sometimes,” “rarely,” or even “never.” There is a lot of work to do in order to persuade more teachers to use the IWB more often in class.


25

The problem does not lie solely in the teachers’ uses of the IWB: the students also had few opportunities to work with the IWB in class. In fact, our results show that, overall, only 4.0% of the students were allowed to use it regularly in class.

“ ”

Our results indicate that the teachers used the IWB primarily as a digital projector

That said, it is noteworthy that the results of this large-scale study show that the IWB offers significant benefits for classroom use, such as Internet access, visual teaching support, video presentation, motivation to learn, more effective learning, and efficient organization. We may therefore conclude that a judicious use of educational technology, when accompanied by adequate training, would be liable to have positive impacts on students’ academic outcomes. Furthermore, we must not forget that the results of this study highlight the fact that the impacts on the students depended mainly on how the teacher used the IWB in class. Hence, although the IWB has enormous educational potential, it is up to teachers and students to take advantage of all that the IWB has to offer in order to realize that potential.

“

The more that students work with the IWB, the more positive their perceptions of its impacts on their academic achievement, school motivation, and overall satisfaction at school

”

Our results indicate that the teachers used the IWB primarily as a digital projector, with only rare recourse to the interactive features (1.4% of reported uses). We may therefore propose that for the great majority of teachers, an electronic projector—at far less cost and with a much larger screen—would be more suitable for their teaching purposes. In addition, this type of system would entail far fewer technical problems compared to the IWB. Furthermore, the IWB may represent a conflict for teachers who are reluctant to revert back to lecture-style teaching. On the one hand, the easiest way to use the IWB is as a projection screen. On the other hand, it comes with a number of technical challenges if teachers want to use the interactive features. Our results are fairly consistent with those of Khambari and colleagues, who observed a certain amount of conflict between open teaching approaches (also called student-centered learning, among others) and use of the IWB, where the teacher usually stands in front of the class and delivers a lecture-style lesson. It is also possible that teachers don’t use the IWB interactively with their students because they don’t want to deal with all the technical issues.

The overall results of this study show that the more that students worked with the IWB, the more positive their perceptions of its impacts on their academic achievement, school motivation, concentration in class, and overall satisfaction at school. These are promising results, and the hope is that more than just 4.0% of teachers will venture into new territory and encourage their students to work with the IWB. There is an exciting new world of educational treasures to explore, and teachers who take the plunge will reap the rewards. This study clearly shows that technical problems posed a daunting challenge for teachers who attempted to use the IWB. Over 92.6% of the teachers we queried reported technical problems that they were unable to resolve on their own. Other significant problems were raised as well:

26


“ ”

Make sure that teachers get adequate technological and pedagogical support

the extra effort required—often on their own time—to learn how to use all the IWB features, the small screen size (especially for large high school classes), classroom management problems, and training issues. We may conclude that classroom use of the IWB can be time- and energy-consuming for teachers. In light of the above, in addition to installing IWBs in classrooms, it would be important to provide teachers with adequate technological and pedagogical support as needed. We might also argue that the IWB should not be installed in classrooms until teachers are fully prepared to embrace it. Teachers need pedagogical days so they can take individual or group training sessions to learn how to use all the IWB features and functions, and especially the interactive aspects that allow students to engage more actively in learning. Many studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of hands-on technology training sessions as well as adequate technical and pedagogical support. Based on the overall results, we cannot definitively conclude that the IWB has either negative or positive impacts on student outcomes. Only 3.9% of the participating teachers suggested that using the IWB could positively impact students’ academic grades. This does not mean that the other 96.1% felt that the IWB had negative impacts. What it means is that the vast majority of the teachers felt that the ways that they used the IWB did not have positive impacts on their students’ grades. In addition, the majority of the teachers felt that their uses of the IWB had similar impacts, in many respects, to their uses of more traditional educational tools, such as the blackboard.

“

The essential issue in IWB use at school is how to tap that potential through reflective use, where students are also invited to work with it, as reported by only 4% of the teachers in this study

”

Based on the observation that the vast majority of the teachers used the IWB as an electronic projector—which costs less, has a much larger screen, and entails fewer technical headaches—, we might suggest that the 2011 imposition of the IWB on all of Québec’s teachers, across the board, was a hasty decision. It might have been wiser to provide the IWB only to teachers who were inclined to use it more often and take advantage of its full potential. Today, whether or not technology impacts educational outcomes may not be the right question to ask. Perhaps we should instead try to find out which conditions can foster positive impacts of technology on student engagement and academic outcomes. Furthermore, in order to better appreciate the true value and potential of technology for learning, the central issue is how that potential can be realized. We believe that technology tools such as the IWB can be used effectively—even if they do not all hold the same potential—depending on how the teacher uses them and what students are allowed to do with them. In this perspective, the essential issue in IWB use at school is how to tap that potential through reflective use, where students are also invited to work with it, as reported by only 4% of the teachers in this study.


27

6.

Recommendations Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. Encourage more teachers to use the IWB regularly. 2. Provide specific training programs to prepare more teachers to use the IWB’s interactive features. 3. Provide specific training programs to prepare more teachers to have their student use the IWB. 4. Recognize the time that teachers spend learning how to use the IWB. 5. Rethink technical support strategies for teachers who regularly use the IWB so that they feel genuinely supported. 6. Do not impose new technology tools on teachers involuntarily and across the board. 7. When it comes time to do major upkeeps and upgrades on the IWBs that were installed five years ago, it would be important to consider whether teachers who are not prone to realizing the full interactive potential of the IWB might prefer a new electronic projector instead. 8. When purchasing IWBs in future, consider a larger screen size, especially for high school classrooms, which typically contain 30 or more students. 9. Raise teachers’ awareness of students’ motivation loss and the need to apply various strategies to stimulate their taste for learning. 10. Because practically all Québec classrooms currently have an IWB, all future teachers should be trained in pedagogical and interactive uses of the IWB. 11. Continue to assess the uses, benefits, and challenges of the IWB in class. 12. Conduct further action research and case studies on educational integration of the IWB.

Similar to the studies by Raby.

28


7.

References American Psychological Association. (2013). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (5e éd.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Balta, N. & M. Duran (2015). “Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in elementary and secondary school classrooms.” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2): 15-23. Commission de l’éthique en science et en technologie, (2015). Avis sur l’éthique et les TIC à l’école : un regard posé par de jeunes. Québec : Gourvernement du Québec. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1553-1568. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2008.02.005 DiGregorio, P., & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2009-2010). The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on student performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255-312. Deci, E. L. et Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Dostal, J. (2011). Reflections on the use of interactive whiteboards in instruction in international context. The New Educational Review, 25(3), 205-220. Ersoy, A. and M. Bozkurt (2015). Understanding an elementary school teachers’ journey of using technology in the classroom from sand table to interactive whiteboard. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1): 469488. Fekonja-Peklaj, U. and L. Marjanovič-Umek (2015). Positive and negative aspects of the IWB and tablet computers in the first grade of primary school: a multiple-perspective approach. Early Child Development and Care, 185(6): 996-1015. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170. doi:10.1 080/14759390500200199 Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2012). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315 Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102-117. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010). Keeping in touch with learning: The use of an interactive whiteboard in the junior school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 237-243. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491234


29

Hennessy, S. (2014). Using the interactive whiteboard to support dialogue in the whole class context. Dans N. Pachler & M. Leask (Dir.), Learning to Teach Using ICT in the Secondary School. (3e éd.). New York : Taylor and Francis. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701-732. doi:10.1080/09500690500404656 Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 283-301. doi:10.1080/ 17439880701511131 Hennessy, S., Warwick, P. & Mercer, N. (2011). A dialogic inquiry approach to working with teachers in developing classroom dialogue. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1906-1959. Hennessy, S., Warwick, P., Brown, L., Rawlins, D., & Neale, C. (2014). Developing interactive teaching and learning using the IWB: Teacher Resource. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., Velle, L. l., . . . Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers and Education, 48(1), 137-152. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2006.02.004 Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225. doi:10.10 80/17439880701511040 Karsenti, T., Komis, V., Depover, C., et Collin, S. (2011). Les TIC comme outils de recherche en sciences de l’éducation. Dans T. Karsenti et L. Savoie-Zajc (dir.), La recherche en éducation : étapes et approches (pp. 168-192). Saint-Laurent : ERPI. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227241. doi:10.1080/17439880701511073 Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching: Original article. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2007.00244.x Khambari, M. N., Hassett, D., Thomas, M., & Wong, S. L. (2014). Interactive whiteboards in classrooms: Debates, issues, and impeding factors. Dans Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2014, 957962. Kitchen, S., Finch, S. Sinclair, R. & National Research Centre for Social Sciences. Harnessing Technology schools survey 2007. Coventry : Becta. Récupéré de http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1554/1/becta_2007_htssfindings_report.pdf L’Écuyer, R. (1990). Méthodologie de l’analyse développementale de contenu. Méthode GPS et concept de soi. Sainte-Foy, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

30


Lee, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and schooling: The context. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 133-141. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491215 Littleton, K. (2010). Research into teaching with whole-class interactive technologies: Emergent themes. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 285-292. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491240 Lopez, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54(4), 901-915. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2009.09.019 Miles, M. B. et Huberman, A. M. (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives. Bruxelles, Belgique: De Boeck Supérieur. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010a). Enhanced interactivity in secondary mathematics. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 118-130). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010b). Interactive whiteboards: A literature survey. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 1-19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Moss, G., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: What lessons can be learnt from early adoption in England? Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 20-36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. O’Connell, L., Chaillez, P.-D., Raby, C. (2015). Utilisation collaborative de votre TNI… Oui, mais comment? Revue préscolaire, 53(1), 39-41. O’Connell, L., Chaillez, P.-D., Raby, C., Charron, A. et Bergeron, L. (2015). Un modèle pour maximiser l’utilisation de votre TNI. Revue préscolaire, 53(1), 37-39. OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. Série PISA, OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm Raby, C., Bergeron, L., Tremblay-Wragg, É., Gagnon, B. et Charron, A. (2015). Évolution des pratiques pédagogiques des enseignants quant à l’utilisation collaborative du tableau numérique interactif par des élèves du préscolaire et du primaire : une recherche-action. Dans S. Lefebvre et G. Samson (Dir.), Le tableau numérique interactif : quand chercheurs et praticiens s’unissent pour dégager des pistes d’action (pp.39-57). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec - Hors collection. Saltan, F. & Arslan, K. (2009). A new teacher tool, interactive white boards: A meta analysis. Dans I. Gibson et al. (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (p. 2115-2120). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers and Education, 51(3), 1321-1341. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006 Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards : boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x


31

Sundberg, B., Spante, M., & Stenlund, J. (2012). Disparity in practice: diverse strategies among teachers implementing interactive whiteboards into teaching practice in two Swedish primary schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 253-270. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.586352 Swan, K., Schenker, J. & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. Dans J. Luca & E. Weippl (Dir.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (p. 3290-3297). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Türel, Y. (2010). Developing teachers’ utilization of interactive whiteboards. Dans D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (p. 3049-3054). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Twiner, A., Coffin, C., Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2010). Multimodality, orchestration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactive whiteboard: a discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 211-223. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491232 Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Dans the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers and Education, 55(1), 350-362. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001 Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Dans the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 350-362. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001

32


8.

Works consulted Akbaş, O., & Pektaş, H. M. (2011). The effects of using an interactive whiteboard on the academic achievement of university students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(2). Récupéré de http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v12_issue2/akbas/index.htm Al-Qirim, N. (2011). Determinants of interactive white board success in teaching in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 56(3), 827–838. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2010.10.024 Albaaly, E., & Higgins, S. (2012). The impact of interactive whiteboard technology on medical students’ achievement in ESL essay writing: An early study in Egypt. Language Learning Journal, 40(2), 207-222. doi:10.1080/09571736.2010.543953 Amaro-Jimenez, C. & Beckett, G. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: All-in-one tool for ESL teaching and learning. Dans J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Dir.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (p. 2331-2337). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Argott, B. (2012). The effects of teaching using the SMARTboard versus discrete trial teaching on acquisition and student engagement for children with autism. Mémoire de maîtrise inédit, Caldwell College. Récupéré de la base de données ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 1510412) Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457–469. doi:10.1080/00131910500279551 Bannister, D., Hutchinson, A., & Sergeant, H. (2010). Effective implementation of learner response systems: moving beyond the right response. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 144-161). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Bavaro, T. (2010). Technological innovation in action : Transforming the learning landscape for multi-locations through networked interactive whiteboards. Dans C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Dir.), Proceedings of ascilite 2010 (p. 70–74). Brisbane, Australie: University of Queensland. Récupéré de http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Bavaro-concise.pdf Bax, S. (2010). Magic wand or museum piece? The future of the interactive whiteboard in education. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 264-277). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Beach, J. S. (2012). Interactive whiteboard transition: A case study. Thèse de doctorat inedited, Tennessee University. Récupéré de http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1266 Beach, J., Wendt, J. & Owens, C. (2012). Interactive whiteboard transition study. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (p. 1669-1676). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.


33

Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348. doi:10.1080/14759390400200186 Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759-766. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2009.09.033 Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289-300. doi:10.1080/17439880802497008 Bettsworth, B. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to teach grammar in the MFL classroom: A learner’s perspective. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 216-224). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Blue, E., & Tirotta, R. (2011). The benefits & drawbacks of integrating cloud computing and interactive whiteboards in teacher preparation. TechTrends, 55(3), 31–39. Boulc’h, L., & Baron, G. (2011). Connaissances et représentations du Tableau Numérique Interactif chez les futurs professeurs des écoles : Réflexions sur la formation aux technologies éducatives. Dans G.-L. Baron, É. Bruillard, & V. Komis (Dir.), Sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication (STIC) en milieu éducatif : Analyse de pratiques et enjeux didactiques, Actes du quatrième colloque international DIDAPRO 4 - Dida&STIC (p. 77–91). Athènes, Grèce: New Technologies. British Educational Communication and Technology Agency. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Coventry, Royaume-Uni : BETCA. Campbell, C., & Martin, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the first year experience : Integrating IWBs into pre-service teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 68-75. Celik, S. (2012). Competency levels of teachers in using interactive whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 115-129. Récupéré de http://www. cedtech.net/articles/32/323.pdf Cogill, J. (2010). A model of pedagogical change for the evaluation of interactive whiteboard practice. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 162-178). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Coyle, Y., Yanez, L., & Verdu, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children’s language use in an ESL immersion classroom. System, 38(4), 614-625. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.10.002 Cruze, C. & Shafer, K. (2011). Technology in the mathematic’s classroom: A teacher candidate’s perspective. Dans M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (p. 4312-4318). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62. doi:10.1080/095882 20600804012

34


Cutrim Schmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35(2), 119-133. doi:10.1016/ j.system.2007.01.001 Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1553-1568. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2008.02.005 Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education, 50(1), 338-356. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.001 Cutrim Schmid, E. (2011). Video-stimulated reflection as a professional development tool in interactive whiteboard research. ReCALL, 23(3), 252-270. doi:10.1017/ S0958344011000176 Cutrim Schmid, E., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 197-215). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive whiteboards in state school settings: Teacher responses to socio-constructivist hegemonies. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2), 65-86. Récupéré de http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2012/cutrimschmidwhyte.pdf Damcott, D., Landato, J. & Marsh, C. (2000). Report on the use of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard in physical science. Récupéré de http://smarttech.com/us/ Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library Davis, N., & Loveless, A. (2011). Reviewing the landscape of ICT and teacher education over 20 years and looking forward to the future. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 247–261. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.610928 Dawson, P. (2010). Networked interactive whiteboards : Rationale, affordances and new pedagogies for regional Australian higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 523–533. Depover, C., Karsenti, T., & Komis, V. (2007). Enseigner avec les technologies. Favoriser les apprentissages, développer des compétences. Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec. De Vita, M., Verschaffel, L., & Elen, J. (2012). Acceptance of interactive whiteboards by Italian mathematics teachers. Educational Research, 3(7), 553-565. Dhindsa, H. S., & Shahrizal-Emran. (2011). Using interactive whiteboard technologyrich constructivist learning environment to minimize gender differences in chemistry achievement. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(4), 393-414. Récupéré de http://www.ijese.com/IJESE_v6n4_Dhindsa.pdf Divaharan, S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2010). Learning as students to become better teachers : Pre-service teachers’ IWB learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 553-570. Drijvers, P. (2011). Teachers transforming resources into orchestrations. Dans G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Dir.), From text to “lived” resources (p. 265–281). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8_14


35

Duroisin, N., Temperman, G., & De Lièvre, B. (2011). Effets de deux modalités d’usage du tableau blanc interactif sur la dynamique d’apprentissage et la progression des apprenants. Dans Actes de la Conférence Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain 2011 (p. 257-269). Récupéré de http://telearn.archivesouvertes.fr/hal-00609090/ Elvers, G. C. (2000). The digital whiteboard as a notes-taking aid. Récupéré de http:// smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/Research+Library Fraser, V., Garofalo, J., & Juersivich, N. (2011). Enhancing lesson planning and quality of classroom life: A study of mathematics student teachers’ use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2), 169–188. Gadbois, S. A., & Haverstock, N. (2012). Middle years science teachers voice their first experiences with interactive whiteboard technology. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(1), 121-135. doi:10.1080/1 4926156.2012.649053 Garavaglia, A., Garzia, V., & Petti, L. (2012). Quality of the learning environment in digital classrooms: An Italian case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1735–1739. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.369 Gill, S. R., & Islam, C. (2011). Shared reading goes high-tech. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 224–227. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01028 Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348358. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00269.x Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A « learning revolution »? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256. doi:10.1080/17439880701511099 Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: The pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education, 10(3), 257–278. doi:10.1080/14759390100200115 Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2012). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315 Gray, C. (2010). Meeting teachers’ real needs: New tools in the secondary modern foreign languages classroom. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 69-85). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S.-A. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. The Language Learning Journal, 32(1), 38–44. doi:10.1080/09571730585200171 Haldane, M. (2010). A new interactive whiteboard pedagogy through transformative personal development. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 179-196). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

36


Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102-117. doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x Hall, J., Chamblee, G. & Slough, S. (2012). Implications of interactive whiteboards research for the mathematics classrooms. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (p. 4825-4830). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Hamdan, K., Al-Qirim, N., & Asmar, M. (2012). The effect of Smart Board on students behavior and motivation. Dans Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) (p. 162–166). doi:10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2012.6207723 Hammond, M., Fragkouli, E., Suandi, I., Crosson, S., Ingram, J., Johnston,... Wray, D. (2009). What happens as student teachers who made very good use of ICT during pre-service training enter their first year of teaching? Teacher Development, 13(2), 93–106. doi:10.1080/13664530903043939 Hammond, M., Reynolds, L., & Ingram, J. (2011). How and why do student teachers use ICT? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 191-203. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2010.00389.x Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Tooley, C. (2010). Using the interactive whiteboard to stimulate active learning in school science. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 102117). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Higgins, S. (2010). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 86101). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225. doi:10.1080/1743 9880701511040 Higgins, S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F., Smith, H., & Wall, K. (2005). Embedding ICT In the literacy and numeracy strategies. Newcastle, Royaume-Uni : University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Hodge, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: a teacher’s journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282. doi:10.1080/17439880701511123 Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: Introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351–365. Hsieh, K. (2011). Preservice teachers’ attitudes and opinions towards interactive whiteboards and e-textbooks. Dans S. Lin & X. Huang (Dir.), Advances in Computer Science, Environment, Ecoinformatics, and Education (Vol. 217, p. 362-366). Berlin, Allemagne: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333. doi:10.1002/ RRQ.002


37

Isman, A., Abanmy, F. A., Hussein, H. B., & Al Saadany, M. A. (2012). Saudi secondary school teachers attitudes’ toward using interactive whiteboard in classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 286-296. Récupéré de http://www.tojet.net/articles/v11i3/11327.pdf Jang, S.-J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744–1751. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.020 Jang, S.-J., & Tsai, M.-F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327-338. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.003 Jeunier, B., Morcillo-Bareille, A., Camps, J.-F., Galy-Marié, E., & Tricot, A. (2005). Expertise relative aux usages du tableau blanc interactif en école primaire. Toulouse, France : ERT34 - Hypermédias et Apprentissages. Johnson, E. M., Ramanair, J., & Brine, J. (2010). “It”s not necessary to have this board to learn English, but it’s helpful’: student and teacher perceptions of interactive whiteboard use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 199–212. doi:10.1080/17501229.2010.513444 Judge, M. (2010). Documenting teachers’ and students’ experiences with interactive whiteboards in Ireland: Key findings from an Irish pilot project. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 250-263). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Juersivich, N., Garofalo, J., & Fraser, V. (2009). Student teachers’ use of technologygenerated representations: Exemplars and rationales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 149–173. Karsenti, T., Collin, S., & Dumouchel, G. (2012). L’envers du tableau: ce que disent les recherches de l’impact des TBI sur la réussite scolaire. Vivre le primaire, 25(2), 30-32. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227-241. doi:10.1080/17439880701511073 Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 359-383. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9096-2 Kershner, R., Warwick, P., Mercer, N., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2012). Primary children’s management of themselves and others in collaborative group work: “Sometimes it takes patience ….” Education 3-13. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/0 3004279.2012.670255 Kim, S. (2011). Preparing ‘tech-savvy teachers’ for effective technology integration in curriculum and instruction: A case study. Dans M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (p. 2553-2558). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Kobak, M., & Taskin, N. R. (2012). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of using technology in three different ways. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3629–3636. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.118

38


Lajoie, S. P., & Lu, J. (2012). Supporting collaboration with technology: does shared cognition lead to co-regulation in medicine? Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 45-62. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9077-5 Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291-303. doi:10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z Lim-Fong, B., & Robins, R. (2010). Technology shaping a democratic classroom: The Livingstone case study. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 225-237). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Lipton, M. L., & Lipton, L. G. (2010). Enhancing the radiology learning experience with electronic whiteboard technology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 194(6), 1547–1551. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3729 Lisi, J. (2010). Interactive whiteboard technology: Perspectives and attitudes on FSL teachers. Mémoire de maîtrise inédit, Queen’s University. Récupéré de http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/6134 Littleton, K., Twiner, A., & Gillen, J. (2010). Instruction as orchestration : Multimodal connection building with the interactive whiteboard. Pedagogies, 5(2), 130-141. doi:10.1080/15544801003611193 Lu, J., & Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Supporting medical decision making with argumentation tools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 425-442. doi:10.1016/ j.cedpsych.2008.05.005 Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 283-298. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6 Maher, D. (2011). Using the multimodal affordances of the interactive whiteboard to support students’ understanding of texts. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 235-250. doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.536553 Maher, D. (2012). Teaching literacy in primary schools using an interactive whole-class technology: Facilitating student-to-student whole-class dialogic interactions. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 137–152. doi:10.1080/ 1475939X.2012.659888 Maher, D., Phelps, R., Urane, N., & Lee, M. (2012). Primary school teachers’ use of digital resources with interactive whiteboards: The Australian context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 138-158. Manny-Ikan, E., Dagan, O., Tikochinski, T. B., & Zorman, R. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning – An evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 249-273. Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26-34. doi:10.1111/j.14679345.2007.00449.x


39

Martinez, M. (2011). Le tableau blanc interactif, le tableau noir de demain? Comparaison de l’usage de ces deux outils et analyse des effets produits sur les interactions sociales en classe : l’exemple du projet-pilote d’une école vaudoise. Mémoire de maîtrise inédit, Université de Genève. Récupéré de http://archive-ouverte.unige. ch/vital/access/manager/Repository/unige:16954 Martinovic, D., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Situating ICT in the teacher education program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 461–469. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.001 Meng, H., & Wang, D.-C. (2012). Robust design for game-based instruction using interactive whiteboards. Dans Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (p. 250–253). doi:10.1109/DIGITEL.2012.66 Meyer, A. (2012). Enseigner avec un tableau blanc interactif: une (r)évolution? Analyse instrumentale d’une séquence d’enseignement de la géométrie au primaire. Mémoire de maîtrise inédit, Université de Genève. Récupéré de http://tecfa.unige. ch/tecfa/maltt/memoire/Meyer2012.pdf Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010a). Enhanced interactivity in secondary mathematics. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 118-130). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010b). Interactive whiteboards: A literature survey. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 1-19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Morgan, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play in the classroom with children aged three to seven years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(1), 93-104. doi:10.1080/13502930903520082 Morgan, G. L. (2008). Improving student engagement: Use of the interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool to improve engagement and behavior in the junior high school classroom. Thèse de doctorat inedited Liberty Univesity. Récupéré de http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/121/ Moss, G., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: What lessons can be learnt from early adoption in England? In M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 20-36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Mott, M. S., Sumrall, W. J., Rutherford, A. S., Sumrall, K., & Vails, T. (2010). “Lecture” with interaction in an adult science methods course-session: Designing interactive whiteboard and response system experiences. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 11(4). Récupéré de http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume_11_4/ JLT_v11_4_mott.pdf Murcia, K. (2012). Integrating digital technologies into the contemporary science classroom. Dans K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Dir.), Issues and challenges in science education research (p. 225–243). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/2F97894-007-3980-2_15 Ochoa, M., Walker, B., Barrett, A. & Hines, A. (2012). Developing a new librarian role: A plan to prepare teacher education students for using SMART Technologies. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (p. 4168-4171). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

40


OECD. (2010). Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Oigara, J. N., & Wallace, N. (2012). Modeling, training, and mentoring teacher candidates to use SMART Board technology. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 297-315. Récupéré de http://iisit.org/Vol9/IISITv9p297315Oigara097.pdf Orr, M. (2008). Learner perceptions of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. CALL-EJ , 9(2). Récupéré de http://callej.org/journal/9-2/orr.html Peled, Y., Medvin, M. & Domanski, L. (2012). Five years of IWB in schools: Is it worth it? Factors related to IWB use in four Western PA K-12 school districts. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (p. 2047-2054). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Pilolli, P., Ruffoni, M., Bosetti, M. & Ronchetti, M. (2012). Breaking the vendor lockin trap with WiildOS, an operating system to support interactive whiteboards. Dans T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Dir.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2012 (p. 243-248). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Pisanu, F. & Gentile, M. (2012). Integrating technologies and instructional cooperative learning based strategies for effective IWB use in classroom: A study on classroom data from students perceptions and teachers behaviors. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (p. 3026-3031). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Robinson, H. (2012). Early childhood teacher candidates developing multimedia lessons for use with interactive whiteboards. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (p. 4048-4049). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Russell, B. (2010). Designing resources for IWBs: The emerging roles of educational publishers and materials writers. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 53-68). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Ryan, J., Scott, A., & Walsh, M. (2010). Pedagogy in the multimodal classroom: An analysis of the challenges and opportunities for teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 16(4), 477–489. doi:10.1080/13540601003754871 Sabieh, C. (2011). Adopting interactive whiteboards: An education win-win set up? Dans M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (p. 1034-1039). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Şad, S. N. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability studies. Computers & Education, 58(3), 900–907. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2011.10.017 Şad, S. N., & Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1184–1191. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010 Sammons, D., Murandu, M. & Strickland, J. (2002). Utilizing SmartBoards to enhance technology integration in university classrooms. Dans P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Dir.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002 (p. 1713-1714). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.


41

Samson, G., & Lefebvre, S. (2012). Mettre les points sur les i et les barres sur les t : Le cas du TBI. Vivre le primaire, 25(4), 32-33. Schnackenberg, H. L., & Heymann, M. J. (2012). Interactive whiteboards: Worth the investment? Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 14(1), 15–25. doi:10.4018/ jcit.2012010102 Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2009). Preservice biology teachers’ use of interactive display systems to support reforms-based science instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 131–159. Schroeder, R. (2007). Active learning with interactive whiteboards: A literature review and a case study for college freshmen. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(2), 64-73. Serow, P., & Callingham, R. (2011). Levels of use of interactive whiteboard technology in the primary mathematics classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(2), 161-173. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.588418 Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From « bored » to screen: The use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41(3), 129-136. Singh, T. K. R., & Mohamed, A. R. (2012). Secondary students’ perspectives on the use of the interactive whiteboard for teaching and learning of Science in Malaysia. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 9-14. Skutil, M., & Manenova, M. (2012). Interactive whiteboard in the primary school environment. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 123-130. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321–1341. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2007.12.006 Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457. doi:10.1080/01411920600635452 Soares, D. A. (2010). IWBs as support for technology-related projects in EFL education in Brazil. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 238-249). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., Sing, S., Bird, K., et al. (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project - summary report. Coventry, Royaume-Uni : BECTA. Spears, A. Y. (2011). Investigating SMARTBoard technology for mathematics education to improve the learning of digital native students. Thèse de doctorat inedite, Lindenwood University. Récupéré de la base de données ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3450242) Such, C., Miller, M., Everett, C., Davis, G., Howlett, P., & Martin, E. (2012). Exploring the impact of training on the use of interactive whiteboards (IWB) and how lecturers integrate their use in higher education classrooms. Networks, (15), 17-21. Sundberg, B., Spante, M., & Stenlund, J. (2012). Disparity in practice: diverse strategies among teachers implementing interactive whiteboards into teaching practice in two Swedish primary schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 253-270. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.586352

42


Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., & van-’t Hooft, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and student achievement. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 131-143). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Tate, L. (2002). Using the interactive whiteboard to increase student retention, attention, participation, interest, and success in a required general education college course. Récupéré de http://smarttech.com/us/Resources/Research+and+data/ Research+Library Taylor, M., Harlow, A., & Forret, M. (2010). Computer programming environment and an interactive whiteboard to investigate some mathematical thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 561-570. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.078 Thomas, M. & Cutrim Schmid, E. (Dir.). (2010). Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019 Tozcu, A. (2008). The use of interactive whiteboards in teaching non-roman scripts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 143–166. doi:10.1080/0958822080 1943726 Türel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2441–2450. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2011.07.005 Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394. Twiner, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the discourses of transformation, affordance, orchestration and participation. Dans M. Thomas & E. Cutrim Schmid (Dir.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (p. 3752). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Twiner, A., Coffin, C., Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2010). Multimodality, orchestration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactive whiteboard: a discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 211-223. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.491232 Villemonteix, F., & Stolwijk, C. (2011). Processus d’adoption du TNI : quelle part de soi? In G.-L. Baron,E, Bruillard, & V. Komis (Dir.), Sciences et technologies de l’information et de la communication (STIC) en milieu éducatif: Analyse de pratiques et enjeux didactiques. Actes du 4e colloque international DIDAPRO (p. 251-260). Athènes, Grèce: New Technologies. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). « The visual helps me understand the complicated things »: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2005.00508.x Warnock, S. H., Boykin, N. J., & Tung, W. C. (2011). Assessment of the impact of Smart Board Technology System use on student learning, satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Research in Education, 21(1). Récupéré de http://www.eeraonline.org/ journal/files/v21/JRE_v21n1_Article_1_Warnock.pdf


43

Warwick, P., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2011). Promoting teacher and school development through co-enquiry: Developing interactive whiteboard use in a « dialogic classroom ». Teachers and Teaching, 17(3), 303-324. doi:10.1080/135 40602.2011.554704 Wilson, G., & Randall, M. (2010). Implementing and evaluating a “Next Generation Learning Space”: A pilot study. Dans C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Dir.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future: proceedings of ascilite 2010 (p. 1096-1100). Brisbane, Australie: University of Queensland. Récupéré de http://epubs.scu.edu.au/tlc_pubs/185 Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00703.x Xu, H. L., & Moloney, R. (2011). “It makes the whole learning experience better”: Student feedback on the use of the interactive whiteboard in learning chinese at tertiary level. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 20–34. doi:10.5539/ass.v7n11p20 Xu, H. L., & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 307-325. Yang, K.-T., & Wang, T.-H. (2012). Interactive whiteBoard: Effective interactive teaching strategy designs for biology teaching. Dans A. Silva, E. Pontes, A. Guelfi & S. T. Kofuji (Dir.), E-Learning - Engineering, on-job training and interactive teaching (p. 139-156). Récupéré de http://www.intechopen.com/ Yeh, H.T., Cheng, Y.C. & Chung, M. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions on learning and using interactive whiteboards. Dans P. Resta (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (p. 1298-1300). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Zatz, P., Bell, R. & Binns, I. (2008). Preservice physical science teachers’ use of interactive display systems in the single-computer classroom. Dans K. McFerrin et al. (Dir.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (p. 4826-4833). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2007). Pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: Using an activity theory approach to understand tensions in practice. Dans J. Watson & K. Beswick (Dir.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematical Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, p. 853-862). Adelaide: MERGA. Récupéré de http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP812007.pdf Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008). Learning environments using interactive whiteboards : New learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 108-126.

44



45

46



47

48



49

50



51