1. Interacting with Interactive Whiteboards
Chapter Two
A Field Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education
TOURO UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
With Emphasis in
Technology
By
Brandy Shelton
EDU 716
July 2010

2. Chapter 2
Introduction
Classrooms have been evolving rapidly since the late 1980’s when computers became a
more tactile piece of equipment that educators realized could be a part of teaching. Since then
chalkboards have evolved into white erase boards, which are now evolving into interactive
whiteboards (IWB). An interactive whiteboard is a touch-sensitive display that connects to a
computer and a digital projector. Through this connection, a person can control computer
applications, write notes in digital ink, present lessons, and save all work to be shared later
(SMART Board Interactive Whiteboards). There is no doubt that the IWB can change the face
of any classroom and how teachers plan and present information. The question seems to be how
do teachers get to a point that they are proficient with the new technology and have integrated it
into their curriculum? The answer doesn’t seem to be too far off of what we already know
about good teaching: it takes a solid understanding of the content, integrates the technology
appropriately, and has a strong foundation in pedagogy.
TPCK
Lee Shulman stated in 1987 that there were at least seven categories teachers’
knowledge could be categorized into. Pedagogical Content Knowledge was one that held
special interest for Shulman because it identified the core bodies of teaching. “[Pedagogical
Content Knowledge] represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of
how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse
interests and abilities of learners, and present for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). Running
with Shulman’s framework on Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Punya Mishra and Matthew
Koehler added technology as a component creating TPCK (Technological Pedagogical Content

3. Knowledge). TPCK is defined as “the relationship between the pedagogy within a subject area
(the practice in the setting), the subject domain, culture (the ecology of the setting) and the
technology (the tool within the setting)” (John &Sutherland, 2005, p. 405). In Mishra and
Koehler’s framework content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge
all overlap with one another in the style of a Venn diagram (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: TPCK framework as noted by Mishra and Koehler (2007)
Source: Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology.
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2007.
Within this diagram are not only the individual components, but also how they interact with one
another represented as Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Pedagogical
Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPCK). The knowledge that teachers bring with them to the classroom is

4. essential because it is how teachers decide how to present information or have students work
with it. When teachers receive a new piece of technology in their classroom their knowledge of
how to use that piece may not always extend to knowing how to incorporate it into the
curriculum. Using TPCK teachers must make a conscious decision how content or technology-
heavy their lesson or unit of study will be.
Figure 2: Adaptation of Kosiak and LeDocqu’s (2008) three-dimensional model of TPCK.
Source: Kosiak, J., & LeDocq, R. (2008). Connecting preservice teachers’ knowledge of
mathematics, pedagogy and technology through learning object design.
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2008, 5263-5270.
Using an adaptation of Kosiak and LeDocq’s (2008) three-dimensional model of TPCK
(Figure 2), the attention should be drawn to how the three components of TPCK are connected
to one another. Pedagogy is always the base that content and technology is built upon.
Depending on the teacher’s decision to make a lesson or unit more focused on the content of a
topic, technology becomes less of a focus and more of a supportive tool. For example, a unit’s

5. goal might be to cover community history and the key figures that helped an area grow and
flourish, internet resources or multimedia video would become supplementary to the unit. On
the other hand, a lesson or unit could be more focused on technology by having students create
a project with the content to present what they have learned about the subject. For example,
students present the information they have learned about their community history via a
PowerPoint presentation or digital story. In the latter example students already have most of the
content they would need to go forward with a presentation, but may need more instruction on
how to put together a clear and interesting presentation, or how to use the equipment, which is
why it would be a more technology-based lesson. In this way the TPCK model really helps
teachers understand how technology and content work with one another to develop engaging
and interactive lessons.
Training Teachers in Technology
The prior knowledge a teacher brings with them into a classroom helps determine what
topics are taught, and even more importantly, how they are presented. So what knowledge do
teachers need to have regarding technology prior to planning and teaching with it? How do we
know if the training they are receiving is helping them use the technology effectively?
As explained earlier, TPCK is the framework that teachers use when developing a lesson or unit
that integrates technology. Some teachers come to the table with prior knowledge on how to
use a piece of technology, like Power Point, in their personal life and time. They may know
how to manipulate a program and work with it in one context, but have trouble transferring that
knowledge into the classroom setting. The cognitive constructivist learning theory
acknowledges that people must be aware of their own beliefs before questioning others or
considering changing their own beliefs (Hughes, 2005). Teachers must be able to recognize

6. what they believe about their own pedagogical styles before being willing to change them to
incorporate something new, like technology. In this way teachers are often pushed into
professional development opportunities that are offered by their school districts and claim to
give more insight to the newest technology entering the classroom. Professional development
opportunities are meant to help teachers develop or refine a skill that they are planning to use, or
are currently using, in their classrooms. Many school districts decided to use professional
development as a way to help teachers integrate the new types of technology into their
classroom and planning times. Many of these workshops turned out to be short-term or one-
shot time periods that were meant to help teachers understand and work with the equipment or
software (Hughes, 2005). Most teachers walked away from these development days knowing
how to turn something on and off, or open and close a program, but that was it. They were still
unsure how to incorporate the curriculum or content. McKenzie (2001) stressed that teachers
need more content-based examples and more connections to the curriculum they would use with
the technology. With this newfound understanding school districts began providing more
content-based technology preparation. “Approaches that emphasize content would target
teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in contrast to when
technology is learned as a separate, unrelated skill,” (Hughes, 2005). These types of workshops
not only show teachers how the technology works, but it also gives teachers examples of how
they can integrate it into their curriculum and content. It’s important that these workshops are
geared towards teachers’ specific grade levels and content areas, so that they are of use to the
teachers that attend them. Because of their short nature, teachers should be able to walk out of a
content-based technology workshop with ideas and lessons that they can begin using as soon as
they begin planning for their next lesson.

7. Training teachers with technology shouldn’t stop after the professional development
workshop. Groff and Mouza (2008) believed that an effective professional development model
should include training, experimentation, and follow-up support. Most of the workshops that
take place in school districts address the training aspect and some even give teachers time to
experiment and play with the new technology, but most lack the follow-up support aspect.
Zech, Gause-Vega, Bray, Secules, and Goldman (2000) presented the content-based
collaborative inquiry (CBCI) model that addresses the need for follow-up and support after a
teacher learns a new skill. These small, collaborative inquiry groups have shown to be
successful for teacher development because this approach focuses on supporting teachers in
sharing their knowledge and questions, connects learning to contexts of teaching (site and
subject-specific), and promotes active engagement over time. The CBCI model advocates for
teachers at the same school site, grade level, or subject to talk about what questions or struggles
they might be experiencing in their classrooms on a regular basis. In addition to talking about
problems that arise and providing a dialogue to come up with solutions, observing colleagues
teach a lesson or skill that a teacher might need more clarification on can be very helpful. For
example, if a teacher struggles with how to teach simplifying fractions to fifth grade students,
talking with colleagues at the same grade level and school site about the strategies they use can
be very helpful. A colleague might talk about something that was done at a recent workshop or
a program that they felt helped their class grasp the concept. Those suggestions become better
illuminated when the struggling teacher can observe her colleagues implement those strategies
by taking a class period to observe the actual lesson or see a review of it.
Learning new technology and how to implement it into the classroom is very similar to
the above example with simplifying fractions. Attending a workshop and learning how to use

8. equipment or software is a good start, but should not be the end of the professional development
cycle. Training should also include experimentation and examples of implementation in content
and subject-specific curriculum. After the workshop there should be follow-up support built in
within the school or the district as a whole. Teachers should be able to open a dialogue with
one another that includes questions, concerns, and suggestions from one another. There should
also be opportunities for teachers to observe one another using the technology or software
within a lesson or unit successfully so that they can find ways to implement it effectively into
their own teaching.
What is an Interactive Whiteboard?
Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are touch-sensitive new generation boards controlled by
a computer that is connected to a digital projector (Saltan & Arslan, 2009). They were
originally developed for offices and businesses, but soon found their way into the classroom.
IWBs usually consist of four components: a computer, a projector, the appropriate software, and
a large wall-mounted or free-standing screen. The computer can be controlled by touching the
board directly, or with a special pen (Saltan & Arslan, 2009).

9. Figure 3: Components of an IWB as depicted by Faith Saltan and Kursat Arslan, 2009.
Source: Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2009). A new teacher tool, interactive white boards: A
meta analysis. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference 2009, 2115-2120.
As described by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA),
some of the potential applications for the IWB are:
• Using web-based resources in whole-class teaching
• Showing video clips to help explain concepts
• Demonstrating a piece of software
• Presenting students’ work to the rest of the class
• Creating digital flipcharts
• Manipulating text and practicing handwriting
• Saving notes written on the board for future use
• Quick and seamless revision (BECTA, 2003, p.1)

10. With these basic operations available for use with just about any IWB, the creative possibilities
are limitless. Teachers are able to create notes on any type of lesson in a digital flipchart, save
the chart for future revision or review, or even print or e-mail it to a student who missed the
lesson.
IWBs as a Classroom Management Tool
Teachers have reported that IWB’s help improve classroom management (Graham,
2004; Cuthell, 2004). Students are more likely to be engaged and participating in the lesson,
and less likely to be off-task. In a study done by Karen Graham in 2004, teachers found that the
pace of the work being completed actually increased due to students’ eagerness and motivation
to use the IWB. Students knew that they would have more opportunities to use the technology
if they stayed on task and completed their assignments. Furthermore, students reported that
they tried harder to pay attention to directions and instruction the first time it was given so that
they were more likely to move onto a game or other IWB activity. Graham and her teacher’s
assistant reported that students did not habituate to the new learning environment, and remained
engaged and excited to learn throughout the study. This was partially due to the fact that
Graham worked hard to involve her students in the lesson, making it more student-centered and
less teacher-centered. Graham described different websites that she found useful in teaching
and reviewing numerous math and language arts concepts. The use of student-centered
activities and new educational games and videos both played a large role in improving the
classroom environment and engagement level. Due to these changes classroom management
was a minimal part of the teacher’s worries and even students noticed the positive change as can
be seen in this quote from one of Graham’s students:

11. “It has made the class work more. The class loves doing work and it has improved the speed of
work. Our behavior is always better and every morning I really want to come to school and do
some work!” (Graham, 2004, p. 21)
The Challenges of the IWB
With great technology, come great pitfalls for teachers to stumble into. Like every other
piece of equipment that enters the classroom, the IWB isn’t perfect and schools and teachers
must work to find solutions to these new problems. One of the first problems that many schools
come across is deciding how an IWB should be implemented into the school. Some schools
work to put one in every classroom, or department, while other schools decide to have one per
grade level that must be shared amongst multiple classes. Surveys done by John Cuthell in
2003 found that teachers who had IWBs in their own classrooms were most enthusiastic about
using them, and most likely to use them regularly (Cuthell, 2004). Teachers who had limited
access to an IWB saw little change in their teaching style and were not as motivated to plan
lessons that involved the new technology.
Another challenge that researchers have found is that most teachers are learning how to
use their IWB “on the job” (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). After an IWB is installed many schools
send their teachers to the installation company, or have a representative visit the school to teach
staff how to use the equipment. However, these tutorials don’t stray far from how to manipulate
the basic controls. From an interview Shenton and Pagett (2007) had with a teacher regarding
the training she had received she said, “we did have someone talk to us when it was installed,
but it was very simple – this is a mouse!” (Shenton and Pagett, 2007, p. 132). This often leaves
teachers to figure out how to incorporate the IWB into their lessons and daily classroom
routines on their own. Learning to use new equipment without guidance or templates can be
time consuming and frustrating. Due to the extra time many teachers would need to spend

12. making PowerPoint presentations, downloading material, and preparing their own materials,
some teachers are simply put-off with the technology and revert to using an IWB like they
would any whiteboard. Shenton and Pagett (2007) found that teachers who were willing to put
in the extra time to learn how to use the IWB on their own often looked for outside guidance by
evaluating new software or attending professional development courses and workshops.
The Stages of Implementing an IWB
Much like any new skill, learning how to use and implement an IWB into a classroom’s
daily lessons and routines doesn’t happen overnight. Gary Beauchamp (2004) observed
classrooms and interviewed teachers from a technology-rich primary school in order to build a
framework of the continuum teachers work through when implementing IWBs. The stages that
Beauchamp (2004) describes transition from beginner to synergistic user as follows:
• Black / Whiteboard Substitute
• Apprentice User
• Initiate User
• Advanced User
• Synergistic User (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 330)
Beauchamp’s description of learning stages related to the IWB isn’t far off from the “Evolution
of Teacher Thought and Practice” (Apple, Inc., 2006) as described by Apple Classrooms of
Tomorrow (ACOT). Much like Beauchamp’s continuum, ACOT’s evolution begins at an
“entry” point and transitions to “innovation.”

13. Figure 4: Evolution of Teacher Thought and Practice as described by ACOT (Apple, Inc.,
2006).
Source: Apple, Inc. (2006, February). Lessons from the journey: An overview of the Apple
classrooms of tomorrow (ACOT). PowerPoint Data file presented at Cupertino, CA.
As Figure 4 shows, as the stage of teacher development transitions, the types of training and
description of use becomes more involved and complex. This is very similar to Beauchamp’s
(2004) model because as teachers become more confident and knowledgeable regarding their
IWB, they also become more innovative and creative with the types of activities their classes
take part in.
Stage 1: Black/ Whiteboard Substitute

14. When teachers first begin using an IWB they are learning to transition from a traditional
blackboard or whiteboard. The similar writing surface often leads teachers to use the IWB as a
black/whiteboard substitute. Teachers tend to write and draw on the board just as they would on
a traditional board, and gradually supplement with word processing files. At this level teachers
are still becoming more adept to using the pen as a writing tool, and their finger as a mouse or
cursor. Once teachers have mastered basic writing and drawing techniques, they begin to
supplement with word processing files that they have created for a lesson or saved from a lesson
done prior to the IWB.
Lessons at this stage are still predominantly teacher-centered and do not involve students
coming up to the board to interact or create on their own. “In effect, the whiteboard is used as a
large screen for a projected computer desktop with the teacher performing normal tasks on the
computer to a larger audience” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 332). In order for higher-level thinking
and enhanced learning to take place, teachers must transition to the next stage of the continuum
and include students with the interaction of the IWB. One danger teachers face in this stage is
allowing their IWB to become a presentation board rather than a resource for interactive
learning. This can be avoided by focusing more on questioning during a lesson and bringing
students up to the board to become familiar with the IWB.
At black / whiteboard substitute stage teachers are able to maintain eye contact with
their students for longer periods of time than compared to a traditional board because they were
able to stand to one side of the board to manipulate the text. This often led to more engagement
among the class, and less classroom management problems during the lesson.
Stage 2: Apprentice User

15. The apprentice user “is characterized by the use of a wider range of existing computer
skills in a teaching context” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 334). This usually means that teachers need
to be more confident in their computer skills in order to make the jump from a black /
whiteboard substitute to an apprentice user. As a teacher’s confidence in their computer skills
and their relation to the IWB grows, their existing computer knowledge can be transferred to be
used with the IWB. For example, teachers at the apprentice stage are more likely to save and
reopen word processing and native IWB software files. Teachers are also likely to use them
later as evidence of a concept taught, or as a reference for future concepts. It is common for
teachers to begin using PowerPoint at this stage as well. The PowerPoint program provides
structure and was the first program teachers advised others to learn how to use once they
became accustomed to the native IWB software.
An apprentice user begins to use more graphics throughout their lessons, however they
tend to be clip art that ‘decorates’ the page rather than being used a visual model or for a
specific effect. Although this is a positive step in the continuum of IWB development, the use
of ‘decorative’ images can also be misleading for students if the images are inaccurate or detract
from the lesson content. As teachers become more knowledgeable regarding what is available
on the internet and within their school network, they often become more selective in their use of
graphics.
At this stage teachers are rapidly developing their information and communications
technology (ICT) skills. They must learn to begin transferring their skills and knowledge to
their students via the adaptation to “coach, observer, and facilitator” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 335).
In this way teachers must be willing to give up some of the control of the IWB and plan more
activities and lessons that involve student interaction. At this stage teachers can ask students to

16. highlight with the pen or drag an item from part of the board to another, although the teacher is
normally choosing the appropriate tools for the lesson.
The teacher works to build verbal ICT skills along with manual skills at this level as
well. Much like a teacher would teach academic vocabulary related to a core subject such as
English, social sciences, or science, IWB/ICT vocabulary is needed when working with the
IWB. Teachers often do this be asking questions like, “where should I click?” or “where should
I drag this item to?” Students are able to pick up on the IWB/ICT vocabulary very quickly in
this manner and often instruct their teacher on what they are doing wrong if a problem arises.
For example, if a teacher was unable to use the mouse or cursor, students may instruct them
click off of the pen option. The development of the IWB/ICT vocabulary at this stage of the
continuum is critical if lessons are going to become less linear and more creative.
As students use the IWB more and interact with the technical vocabulary and
components on a more frequent basis, there is a possibility that they will know more than the
teacher does about manipulating the technology. This can intimidate teachers and hurt their
self-confidence if they are corrected by a student on how to perform a task or fix a technical
problem. Although some teachers may perceive the free in-service training from students as a
negative aspect, it could also be seen as a positive one in that it brings both students and teacher
closer to the next level on the IWB continuum.
Stage 3: Initiate User
An initiate user has reached a stage where they are aware of the potential that the IWB
has to change or strengthen their practice and pedagogy. “Teachers begin to combine their own
skills as pedagogues with those of their pupils, and the IWB, to initiate a classroom practice
which produces a new pedagogy” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 338). Initiate users begin to use more

17. programs and software that are selected for their ease of use and appropriateness for the lesson.
Teachers in this stage also learn to master opening more than one page or program at one time,
allowing them to maximize and minimize each window as needed. With this new skill teachers
often use one program as an introduction to a lesson, and then switch to another to continue the
lesson with a more appropriate format. Teachers found that this approach allowed them to
present the content in a variety of formats, thus leading to higher levels of engagement amongst
students.
With this approach teachers quickly learned that it was important to have prepared
pages or slides to access and revise. The same was true for pre-selected internet sites. Initiate
user teachers realize that the internet has an abundant number of resources available, and have
begun to save them in their Favorites menu within the browser. They often use labeled folders
to organize the different sites as well.
Another part of this stage of development is the further involvement of students in the
use of the IWB. The physical interaction that students have with the IWB actually gives them
more self-confidence and builds their self-esteem because they thoroughly enjoy using the
technology. Teachers are “designing their lessons so that children are now required to extend
their existing skills” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 339). For example, where before a teacher would
have students come up to the IWB and hand them the correct color pen to use to make a
correction, students are now responsible for choosing the correct color to make a correction or
choosing the correct tool to use from the tool menu. These small steps help students and teacher
move towards the next step in the IWB continuum, and ultimately become closer to being a
synergy user.
Stage 4: Advanced User

18. An advanced user sees the possibilities an IWB has to offer and wants to explore them.
“This moves beyond a fascination with technical capabilities, towards the excitement of
discovering their impact on teaching and learning” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 340). Teachers at this
stage are likely to use hypertext and hyperlinks within their prepared lessons to encourage
higher level thinking. As teachers revise their earlier lessons, opportunities to include hypertext
and hyperlinks often come up due to the greater knowledge that they have at this stage. Many
teachers in Beauchamp’s (2004) study felt that when they looked at lessons they created as an
apprentice use there was room for improvement, even though they felt they were great lessons
at the time they created them. Advanced users now have enough knowledge that they see what
can be improved upon, especially when it comes to past lessons.
Teachers are also more likely to use sound and video files to demonstrate concepts that
are difficult to replicate in a classroom. These types of files can be embedded into a file or
page, appear as a clickable graphic, or as a hyperlinked item of a text. Teachers do not use
sound and video files to ‘decorate’ their pages or lessons at this stage, but instead to illustrate a
teaching point.
Scanners are also an integral part of the advanced user’s toolbox. Imported scanned
images from previous lessons, children’s work, textbook pages, and worksheets decreases the
‘heads-down’ effect that textbooks often bring about. Teachers have even found that when
students have the textbook or worksheet in front them along with on the IWB, students choose
to look at the board instead. The focus switches from the desk material, to the IWB by choice.
Another tool that Beauchamp (2004) found some teachers using was the ‘Slate’, “a small
handheld board allowing remote control of the IWB by teacher or children” (Beauchamp, 2004,
p. 341). The Slate can be passed from student to student to add content to a digital flip chart, or

19. from group to group to do the same, or the teacher can edit or revise student work seamlessly.
Another perk of the Slate is that it includes the involvement that students would experience if
they were to work on the IWB, without the undue movement that can sometimes slow a lesson
down. Tools like the Slate, sound and video files, and scanned images bring teachers to the last
stage of the IWB continuum.
Stage 5: Synergistic User
A synergistic IWB user combines all of the knowledge from the previous stages and
applies it to a bigger understanding regarding a teacher’s pedagogical practices. “It is the
realization that the IWB can create a new freedom in pedagogy, and is not an end in itself, or a
means to deliver existing practice in another format, which perhaps encapsulates this final stage
in the transition framework” (Beauchamp, 2004, p. 343). Teachers and students have reached a
state of equality in their understanding of how to use and manipulate the IWB. This creates a
synergistic state which pushes teachers and students to create new learning scenarios and
lessons to achieve learning objectives. Teachers who have reached this stage in the continuum
design lessons that demonstrate an intuitive interaction with the IWB and incorporate their
students in the process as well. Their lessons are student-centered and use different tools such
as internet sites, sound and video files, hyperlinks and hypertext, and scanned images to better
convey a concept or subject. The teacher still has control of the lesson and direction it should
take, but students play an active role in questioning and problem-solving by physically
interacting with the IWB.
All five stages of Beauchamp’s (2004) learning stages relate to how most teachers move
along the IWB continuum. Many teachers reach a certain stage and stop moving forward, while

20. few ever reach the final stage of synergistic user. Table 1 outlines each stage and the different
skills both teachers and students tend to master at that level.
Operating System Mechanical Skills Program Variables Classroom Management
and File Management (MS) (PV) and Pedagogy
(OS) (CMP)
Black/Whiteboard -Predominant use of text -Teacher learning to -Predominant use of -IWB used by teacher
Substitute and drawing. write and draw. native IWB software only.
-Limited use of stored -Use of IWB pen in with perhaps one -Quicker pace to
files. place of mouse. additional word lessons.
-Changes made to files processing program. -More eye contact with
and annotations rarely class.
saved. -Presentation of
information over
questioning.
Apprentice User -Predominant use of -Children use to write, -Introduction of -Child use of board
stored teacher resources. highlight, and drag PowerPoint. planned by teacher.
-Files used in lessons are content on the board. -Use of PowerPoint to -Used most commonly
often saved for reference structure lessons or part in teaching core
or evidence. of a lesson. subjects.
-A limited use of -Use of imported -Use of ICT
‘external’ material. existing graphics in ‘vocabulary’ by teacher
PowerPoint or to and children when using
‘decorate’ other work. the IWB.
Initiate User -Ability to maximize and -Children select tools -Use of a wider range of -Teacher initiated and
minimize files to allow and input to the IWB. programs. planned opportunities
multiple programs to be -A wider range of for children to select
open and switched effects, like sound, in tools and input to the
between. PowerPoint. IWB
-Use of stored sequence -Use of a wider range of -Used in a growing
of pages (i.e. flip charts graphics including those range of subject areas.
from the native IWB from other sources, such -Growing use of external
program). as the internet, resources (i.e. links to
-Beginning to organize specifically chosen for Internet sites).
work into “Favorite” purpose and not just
folders in the internet ‘decoration.’
browser.
Advanced User -Imported use of -Children frequently -Use of video clips and -Children frequently and
scanned images (by and confidently use sound files – including confidently use the IWB
teacher) from range of the IWB as part of the material developed by as part of the lesson,
sources including lesson, often staff. often spontaneously and
previous lessons, spontaneously and -Use of hyperlinks and unplanned.
children’s work, unplanned. hypertext within and -Use of revised and
textbook pages, and -Incorporation of between programs and ‘improved’ versions of
worksheets. other input devices external resources. previous lessons, with
(i.e. the IWB ‘slate’). emphasis on pupil
learning rather than
technical facility.
-Incorporation of other
input devices (i.e. the
IWB ‘slate’).
Synergistic User -High level of -High level of -High level of -Teachers demonstrate
confidence by pupils and confidence by pupils confidence by pupils and an intuitive interaction
teacher. and teacher. teacher. with technology which
facilitates a fluid lesson
structure.
-Both teacher and pupils

21. are able to construct
meaning and dictate the
direction, momentum,
and scale of the next
step in the lesson.
Table 1: The stages of IWB implementation as adapted from Gary Beauchamp (2004).
Source: Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary
schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Pedagogy and Education,
13(3), 327-348.
Summary
IWBs have changed the face of classrooms all over the world. They have pushed
teachers to reevaluate their pedagogical practices, and made schools and districts rethink their
professional development choices.
Using Lee Shulman’s definition of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1987),
Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler added technology to the model, creating Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2007). This model stood on the
idea that teachers use a strong base in pedagogy to guide their lessons in content and
technology, with a balance needed in each area in order for a lesson to be adequate for student
understanding.
With the new technology that enters our classrooms, such as IWBs, so do the
opportunities for professional development either within our schools or school districts. These
workshops have been geared toward aiding teachers in basic operation of software and
equipment, but lack the real guidance most teachers need in order to incorporate the new
technology into their planning and curriculum (Hughes, 2005; McKenzie, 2001). Many districts
are now looking at workshops that offer explanation, time for experimentation, and instruction
that is grade or subject-specific so that teachers are able to walk away with ideas they can
implement right away. These types of professional development opportunities are much more
helpful than those geared towards basic operation, but still lack a follow-up component that

22. supports teachers once they head back into the classroom. Follow-up support and peer
observation are both essential pieces of the professional development cycle.
As IWBs entered classrooms, many teachers loved them and hated them at the same
time. The technology behind them was astounding and the IWB engaged students the moment
it was turned on, but many teachers were struggling with how to use them effectively rather than
a fancy presentation platform. Researchers have found that teachers who have an IWB in their
classroom are more likely to use them on a regular basis and more openly incorporate them into
their lessons and daily routines (Cuthell, 2004). Teachers also found themselves learning how
to use the boards “on the job” and spending much of their own time and energy creating
material and learning how to use the software outside of school hours. Some professionals
found themselves attending extra workshops or professional development days to learn how to
use the software and equipment more effectively, while others simply used the IWB as they
would a traditional blackboard or whiteboard.
The stages that most teachers go through when implementing an IWB into their
classroom and curriculum is outlined by Gary Beauchamp (2004). The continuum Beauchamp
described began at a new IWB user, or black / whiteboard substitute, and continued to an
experienced user, or synergistic user. With each stage in Beauchamp’s framework teachers and
students become more knowledgeable of the IWB’s uses, and more equal in their ability to think
creatively and problem-solve in the context of a lesson. Although all teachers do not reach the
highest level of IWB implementation, those that do become synergistic users, incorporate
student-centered lessons intuitively, and use various tools and formats to engage their students
and present concepts appropriately.

23. There are still many more questions that teachers are still asking themselves when it
comes to the limits of an IWB, but our focus now should be on how to most effectively reach
students with different subject matters via the IWB. What strategies work best at teaching
language arts, or math concepts? How can we apply what we know about more traditional
teaching to the technology-based IWB? An even better question is, how should schools and
school districts go about preparing their teachers for IWB implementation as a classroom
management tool and within their curriculum? Although more research is becoming available
in these areas, there is still more that needs to be done, particularly in the United States. IWB’s
are not a fad that will dissipate in a year or two. They have proven themselves to be an integral
part of any 21st century classroom, therefore learning to interact with them effectively will not
only help our students, but also our teachers.

24. References
Apple, Inc. (2006, February). Lessons from the journey: An overview of the Apple classrooms of
tomorrow (ACOT). PowerPoint Data file presented at Cupertino, CA.
Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards
an effective transition framework. Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348.
BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20040212080428/http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/
research/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf
Cuthell, J. (2004). Can technology transform teaching and learning? The impact of interactive
whiteboards. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, 1133-1138.
Feng, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2005). K-12 teachers’ pedagogical reasoning in planning instruction
with technology integration. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2005, 3173-3180.
Graham, K. (2004). Switching on switched off children. Retrieved July, 2010, from Virtual
Learning website: http://www.virtuallearing.org.uk/2003research/
Switching_Switched_Off.doc
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology
use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

25. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experience in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. J.I. of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-
302.
Hughes, J. (2008). The development of teacher TPCK by instructional approach: Tools,
videocase, and problems of practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
13(2), 277-302.
Jennifer, K., & LeDocq, R. (2008). Connecting preservice teachers’ knowledge of mathematics,
pedagogy, and technology through learning object design. Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008, 5263-
5270.
John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2005, November). Affordance, opportunity and the pedagogical
implications of ICT. Educational Review, 57(4), 405-413.
Kosiak, J., & LeDocq, R. (2008). Connecting preservice teachers’ knowledge of mathematics,
pedagogy and technology through learning object design. Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008, 5263-
5270.
Leftwich, A., Brush, T., Abaci, S., Powell, N., Roman, T., VanLeusen, P., & Strycker, J. (2009).
How teachers use technology differently in varied subject areas and grade level: A
national study. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2009, 4107-4112.
McKenzie, J. (2001, January). Head of the class. Retrieved July, 2010, from
http://www.electronic-school.com database.

26. McNeese, M. N., Ph. D., Hartsell, T., Ph.D., McGarity, T., M.A., & Harper, L., Ph.D. (2003).
Integrating SMARTBoard technology into higher education online training: A
perspective between genders. Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in
Corporate Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003, 1108-1114.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK):
Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007.
Murcia, K. (2010, March). Multi-modal representations in primary science: What’s offered by
interactive whiteboard technology. Teaching Science, 56(1), 23-29.
Sahin, I., Akturk, A. O., & Schmidt, D. (2009). Relationship of preservice teachers’
technological pedagogical content knowledge with their vocational self-efficacy beliefs.
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2009 , 4137-4144.
Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2009). A new teacher tool, interactive white boards: A meta analysis.
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2009 , 2115-2120.
Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007, November). From ‘bored’ to screen: the use of the interactive
whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England . Literacy, 41(1), 129-136.
Shulman, L. S. (1987, Spring). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

27. SMART Board Interactive Whiteboards. (n.d.). SMART Technologies. Retrieved July, 2010,
from SMART website: http://smarttech.com/us/Solutions/Education+Solutions/
Products+for+education/Interactive+whiteboards+and+displays/
SMART+Board+interactive+whiteboards
Zech, L. K., Gause-Vega, C. L., Bray, M. H., Secules, T., & Goldman, S. R. (2000). Content-
based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining
educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 207-217.