10. Effect on Teacher Efficacy 2) Authenticity and connectedness(2,5,7,14,23,26) - “real-world” - relevance and personal meaning - rich multimedia - use of students’ personal work - up-to-date technologies
11. Effect on Teacher Efficacy 3) Organization and lesson planning(3,5,13,14,16,18,23,24,34) - prepare, organize, and store - variety of materials - increased sharing - lesson flow - revitalization - lessening of preparation time
12. Effect on Teacher Efficacy 4) Varied, creative, and engaging classrooms(2,3,5,10,12,13,16,17,18) - maintain interest, focus, and attention - multiple examples of course material - intrinsic and extrinsic motivation - “fun” - students used teacher techniques
13. Effect on Teacher Efficacy 5) Teacher motivation and enjoyment(3,13,24,33,34) - creativity = more energy - enthusiasm in planning transferred to the classroom - student enjoyment sparked further teacher enthusiasm - learning potential - empowerment
14. Effect on Student Engagement Increased enjoyment and motivation(6,8,21,24,25,31) - fun and interesting lessons - new dimension to learning - student control - facilitation of learning - student desire
15. Effect on Student Engagement 2) Participation, collaboration, and concentration(2,3,10,13,16,17,18,24,25,31,32,33) - interact with lesson - visible and audible to all - create, critique, and evaluate - student-centred
16. Effect on Student Engagement 3) Promoting different learning styles(2,3,6,8,13,24,26,33) - aural, visual, and kinesthetic - broader selection of materials - involvement of all learners - assist with special needs students
17. Effect on Student Engagement 4) Understanding and reviewing classroom material(22,24,31) - revisit, clarify, and reinforce - saving of material - focus on learning moment - enthusiastic and innovative teachers = better explanations
28. Limitations and Conclusion 2) Professional development(2,5,6,8,16,20,23,25,26,34,35) - type and amount - ICT training and basic whiteboard skills - ongoing - a “new wave” of professional development to include peer sharing, peer learning, and professional learning communities
29. Limitations and Conclusion 3) Interpretation of interactivity(4,24) - less reliance on physical interactivity - true interactivity = whole class engagement and cognitive development
30. Limitations and Conclusion Interactive whiteboards “have demonstrated a capacity to engage and motivate students and there is a recognition by students that this form of new technologies enhances learning experiences” (Erikson & Grant, 2007, p. 15).
31. References 1. Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38-43. doi: 10.1080//00091383.2011.533096 2. Beeland, W. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Proceedings from ITTE 2002: Annual Conference of the Association of I nformation Technology for Teacher Education. Dublin: Ireland. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.135.3542&rep=rep1&type=pdf 3. Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Interactive whiteboards: new tools, new pedagogies, new learning? Retrieved from http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Interactive- whiteboard-survey.pdf 4. Cuthell, J. P. (2005). Seeing the meaning. The impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching and learning. Proceedings from WCCE ’05: The Eighth IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education. Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from http://crescerinteractivo.portodigital.pt/downloads/ SeeingTheMeaning- ImpactInteractiveWhiteboards.pdf 5. Divaharan, S., & Koh, J. (2010). Learning as students to become better teachers: Pre-service teachers' IWB learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 553-570. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/divaharan.html 6. Erikson, D., & Grant, W. (2007). Student perceptions of IWBs as a teaching and learning medium. Australian Educational Computing, 22(2), 10-16. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/journal/22/2/student-perceptions-iwbs-teaching-and-learning-medium 7. Gillen, J., Staarman, J., 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
32. 8. Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: The pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10(3), 257-278. doi:10.1080/14759390100200115 9. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170. doi:10.1080/14759390500200199 10. Higgins, S. (2010). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. . In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 86-101). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch006 11. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225. doi:10.1080/17439880701511040 12. Interactive whiteboards and learning. SMART Technologies White Paper. (2006). Retrieved from http://www2.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/2C729F6E-0A8D-42B8-9B32-90BE0A746D8/0/ Int_Whiteboard_Research_Whitepaper_Update.pdf 13. Judge, M. (2010). Documenting teachers and students experiences with interactive whiteboards in Ireland: Key findings from an Irish pilot project. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), I nteractivewhiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 250-263). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch017 14. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2008). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards in Australian schools. Australian Educational Computing, 23(1), 8-13. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/ journal/23/1/exploring-pedagogy-interactive-whiteboards-australian-schools 15. Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf
33. 16. 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 17. Kennewell, S., & Morgan, S. (2003). Student teachers’ experiences and attitudes towards using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children. Proceedings from CRPIT ’03: The International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 3.5 Open Conference on Young Children and Learning Technologies. Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society. Retrieved from http://www.acs.org.au/documents/public/ crpit/CRPITV34Kennewell1.pdf 18. Lim-Fong, B., & Robins, R. (2010). Technology shaping a democratic classroom. In M. Thomas& E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 225-237). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch015 19. Mergler, A. G., & Tangen, D. (2010). Using microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in pre-service teachers. Teaching Education, 21(2), 199-210. doi:10.1080/10476210902998466 20. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010a). Interactive whiteboards: A literature survey. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 1- 19). doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch001 21. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010b). Interactive whiteboards in the Web 2.0 classroom. In A. Tatnall (Ed.), Web technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (4 Volume). (pp. 774-793). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-982-3.ch042 22. Mohon, E. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teacher’s pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 301-312. doi:10.1080/17439880802497032
34. 23. Moss, G., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 20- 36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch002 24. Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/northcote.html 25. Schmid, E. C. (2009). The pedagogical potential of interactive whiteboards 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 491-505). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-190-2.ch026 26. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just lipstick. Computers & Education, 51, 1321-1341. doi:10.1016/j.compendu.2007.12.006 27. Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., & van-‘t Hooft, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and student achievement. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 131-143). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1- 61520-715-2.ch009 28. Sweeney, T. (2006). Are interactive whiteboards a novelty or can they be used as a catalyst for building professional learning communities and pedagogic change? Australian Educational Computing. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/sites/acce.edu.au/files/ archived_papers/ conf_P_560_trudy%20sweeney.doc 29. Sweeney, T. (2008). Transforming learning with interactive whiteboards: Towards a developmental framework. Australian Educational Computing, 23(2), 24-31. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/journal/23/2/transforming-learning-interactive-whiteboards-towards- developmental-framework
35. 30. Twiner, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the discourses of transformation, affordance, orchestration and participation. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. (pp. 37-52). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch003 31. 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 32. Warwick, P., & Kershner, R. (2008). Primary teachers' understanding of the interactive whiteboard as a tool for children's collaborative learning and knowledge-building. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 269-287. doi:10.1080/17439880802496935 33. Winzenried, A. (2006). Interactive whiteboards: For better or worse? Australian Educational Computing. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/sites/acce.edu.au/files/archived_papers/ conf_P_276_ACEC2006.doc 34. Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 534-552. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/ winzenried.html 35. Yelas, J., & Engles, P. (2010). Project ACTIVate: Innovations from New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 432-446. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ ajet26/yelas.html
![Rationale ,[object Object]]()