Interactive Whiteboards: A Literature Survey

Introduction

This is not a unique literature survey. Higgins et al. (2007), Cuthell (2007) and Glover et al. (2005), among others, have considered the emerging research literature into interactive whiteboard use and established typologies of introduction and use, developed the research rationale for classroom practice and pointed to the need for pedagogic change to accommodate the affordances offered by the technology. Smith et al. (2005) offer a more critical review of the literature pointing to the methodological problems arising from considerable case-study research of a narrative nature which is frequently less than objective when undertaken by teachers who are convinced of the potential of IWBs. Slay et al. (2008) suggest that within developing countries there may be greater economy through the use of a data projector and screen than by using IWB technology. Our literature review makes no methodological judgments but draws on the growing body of published research in the various areas related to IWBs as a background to understanding trends in the practice and pedagogy of interactive learning. It follows the introduction of new technology into schools and colleges and looks at the way in which some teachers and researchers move from its use to enhance presentation and motivation to awareness of the need for changed pedagogic approaches.

Interactive whiteboard systems were developed experimentally in the 1980s largely in higher education law and medical faculties in the United States using an approach from the commercial world (Greiffenhagen, 2002; Murphy et al., 1995; Armstrong et al., 2005; Passey, 2006). Within two decades their use has spread throughout all sectors of education around the world. Most of the early commentators on IWBs (see for example, Greiffenhagen, 2000) begin with a description of the systems involved reflecting the need to inform readers of the technology. Later writers such as Hennessy et al. (2007) update this approach with an element of evaluation as follows: