PROS & CONS

Affordances and issues of Interactive Whiteboard

Introduction:

   Multimedia in education combines five basic types of media into the learning environment: text, video, sound, graphics and animation (hyperlink: encyclopedia.jrank.org). Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) is a presentation device that employs all of these media in whole classroom settings with the help of a computer and projector to display and manipulate images on the board using a pen or finger as a mouse with the help of a software thereby making it a powerful new tool for education (Somyurek et al, 2009). There is a considerable investment made on IWBs because of its affordances. However, the issue is: Does IWBs contribute to learning? Is it worth the cost? What factors promote and deter its potential in education? Are our schools and teachers equipped to handle this new technology? And these and many other issues are addressed below.

AFFORDANCES

The affordances of IWBs are classified broadly under affordances for teachers and students.

Affordances to Teachers

• IWBs provide more efficient opportunities for colleagues to prepare, share and re-use ideas and resources, collaborate and support each other, extend partnership outside the school community, and even ease some of the loneliness and pressure amongst teachers (Stein, 2005; Becta, 2003). Teachers developed comprehensive libraries of interactive teaching resources that are readily accessible to be downloaded from the internet (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).
• Teachers felt more interested in using ICT as a result of IWBs and made possible the Integration of ICT/e-learning into their lesson plan more easily (Griffin & Woods, 2006b; Becta 2003). In fact, its user-friendly application and working makes even technophobic teachers at ease (Brown, 2003).
• Encourages teachers to change their pedagogy, and fosters learning (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007).
• Teachers can create lessons that are more inclusive of all learning styles (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).
• IWBs shifted emphasis from printed material and drew attention to use of visual kinesthetic learning thereby opening opportunities to introduce new and enriching experiences that foster spontaneity and flexibility (Kennewell 2001; Cited by Becta 2003).
• They apply real-time learning atmosphere by customizing learning objects from a range of existing content (Brown, 2003).
• Use of laptops increased among teachers using the IWBs, although teachers had to increase their workload and work from home to prepare materials, it made them more reliant on laptops (Griffin & Woods, 2006).
• IWBs helped in time and resource management of syllabus thereby allowing teachers better personal organization and enhanced classroom teaching and management skills amongst teachers (Gray et al, 2005).
• The key benefits of the pedagogy for interactive whiteboards for teachers and students are: their size, which facilitates collaborative group working; their interactivity, which facilitates active learning, not just passive reception of information; their accessibility, for learners with visual or physical impairment; their recordability, so that an end product can be emailed, stored for subsequent re-use, or deconstructed to analyze a process (Brown,2003).

Affordances to Students

• According to Gray et al (2005) IWBs empowers students by encouraging a student-centered approach that supports independent learning; provides a very positive effect on students’ memory and writing skills; help teachers and students by providing transparency and realization of learning objectives; enables learning through practice sessions; stimulates reflection, reasoning and analysis amongst teachers and students.
• The use of IWB to display students’ work improved students’ presentation skills and their pride in the standards of creative work, which is excellent as it provided motivation for better quality work from students, and improved creativity and self-confidence (Griffin & Woods, 2006a; Becta, 2003).
• Engages students to a greater extent than conventional whole-class teaching by facilitating participation through interactive learning on the board, thereby increasing enjoyment and motivation (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007).
• They allow learners to work collaboratively on a shared task with better participation in brainstorming ideas using ICT (e.g., Kahootz) consequently contributing to personal and social skills (Brown, 2003; Becta, 2003).
• Makes efficient presentation of web-based and other resources and promotes more varied, creative, seamless use of teaching materials (walker 2003, cited by Becta, 2003). Enhances presentation of content by incorporating material in a lesson that include pictures from the internet, graphs from spreadsheet and text from Word file in addition to allowing student and teacher make notes on these objects thereby allow learners to absorb information more easily (Brown, 2003).
• Accommodates different learning styles (Becta, 2003).
• Provides learner feedback rapidly when used for whole class interactive testing and understanding of subject-matter (Brown, 2003).
• IWBs are particularly useful for special-needs children. The large scale of interactive whiteboard panels and the option to control them and write on them using fingers make them useful assistive devices for a range of visual and physical impairments. Especially, as it eradicates the need for a keyboard, whilst the synchronized software and the ability to work with all programs on the PC offers a huge potential for blind students, hearing impaired students and tutors (TechLearn; Becta, 2003).
• Uses a wide range of interactive literacy and numeracy games. (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).
• Can encourage the growth of a conjecturing atmosphere in the classroom and a playful attitude to learning (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010)
• The visual material displayed on IWBs is particularly helpful to students from non-English speaking backgrounds (Gray et al, 2005).
• The IWBs and internet resources helped overcome barriers of distance and lack of exposure to a range of experiences for students (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).
• Concepts that cannot be easily presented in static print form can be demonstrated using movement, color and music (Criswell, 2008).
• Visual presentations as an enrichment activity serves as an alternative to excursions, especially in rural or economically-socially disadvantaged schools (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).
• Printed and laminated materials have been scanned into IWB thereby saving on photocopying and preparation of teaching resources (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).
• IWBs helped develop research skills, summarization and note-taking skills, problem solving activities, practical work (e.g., graphing), opportunities for group discussion and social interaction, including turn-taking, respect for other’s opinions, talking in a group, using highly motivational activities that retain student interest, and last but not the least, makes possible participation in yoga, and Pilates fitness and dance activities (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).

    Although the affordances are many to teachers and students there are serious issues that confront IWBs. Most research findings of the affordances of IWBs are not based on scientific research (Lacina, 2009) and there are literature-gaps which is evident with the lack of refereed academic journal articles (Somyurek et al, 2009). Many schools are in their preliminary stages of implementation of IWBs thereby facing teething issues and the enthusiasm and motivation is short lived (Lacina, 2009). The success of IWB is heavily reliant on several factors such as access, sharing of ideas and resources among teachers, technical support, ongoing training, pedagogy and many more which is discussed below.

ISSUES

Installation of IWBs:

   IWBs as the name suggests, are meant to be just that-interactive (Halford, 2007). However, the height of the board is a significant deterrent to its interactivity. Fixed height boards are often too high to reach the top or too low for their bottom to be readily visible (Brown, 2003). IWBs have been installed directly over existing whiteboards and young children cannot reach them without steps (Griffin & Woods, 2006b). Further, IWBs placed too high for students to reach them safely or in rooms with too much light/glare becomes a problem particularly for students who are visually disabled or have motor difficulties (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). Front projection boards can be obscured by the user(s) hence IWBs targeted to students with special-needs have to work on methods of overcoming shadowing (e.g., rear projection) as these students have particular difficulty in understanding the relationship between their own bodies and the projector as a light source (Brown, 2003; Griffin & Woods, 2006a). Further, substandard installation with trailing cables poses a serious safety risk for teachers and students (Stein, 2005).


Fixed Vs flexible IWBs

   Interactive whiteboards can be fixed or free-standing. Free-standing boards have the advantage of portability, but it also makes them and their associated projectors vulnerable to theft (Brown, 2003). The Victorian government does not allow for portable boards unless the need is justified, they can be moved between teaching areas but they have to be realigned with the projector, which can be a inconvenient. Research also shows that portable IWBs are used less often than fixed IWBs (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). Fixed boards can be made more secure but they are less flexible in their use.

Cost

   The cost of interactive whiteboards is significant. Interactive whiteboards are more expensive than conventional whiteboards or projector/screen combinations (Brown, 2003). Added to the cost of IWB are other costs including installation, costs of the projector, its bulb, IWB pens, furniture for equipment such as the keyboard, remote control and slate, and a computer to run with the board (Halford, 2007; VicGovDeptEdu). Generally speaking, the higher the resolution and the faster the tracking speed, the more the board will cost (Brown, 2003).

   The lowest cost IWBs are the dual membrane resistive boards which can be operated with a fingertip or special stylus. The more expensive variety being impact-resistant whiteboards and laser-scanner whiteboards. Soft dual membranes surfaces are easily damaged and so replacement costs need to be factored in (Brown, 2003) and the need to train users not to use ordinary white board markers on them is vital to avoid nasty surprises. The need to upgrade and add new technology such as scanners, to get the most benefit from the IWBs needs to be included in the cost (Griffin & Woods, 2006b). Although software is included in the purchase price there is the need to ascertain what software accompanied the IWB as different packages offer different software and their functions vary.


   As a result of these huge initial and ongoing costs many schools cannot afford to have them installed in all classrooms and thereby creating access issues.

Access

   Sharing too few IWBs between too many teachers has resulted in few being competent. Lack of convenient access to IWB in all classrooms, means that teachers must share, negotiate and timetable use; spend time finding cords, setting up laptops and calibrating them at start of lessons, consequently they often not used (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). On the other hand, teachers who had an IWB available at all times used the IWBs more often, with more confidence and for a wider range of activities than teachers who had to share and timetable its use (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). Therefore, there is a direct relationship between access to IWBs and its usage amongst teachers.

   Further, even in classes were IWBs were available at all times there were problems in its use due to the lack of dedicated PCs. The other obstacle to use is the time teachers spend at the start and end of every class setting up and disconnecting their own laptops and calibrating the boards in order to use the IWBs, and in some instances computers were too old to run the IWB software (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). Inadequate computers and other technology (servers, scanners, etc.) to support the use of the IWBs discouraged and underutilized its potential (Lacina, 2009). Currently, ICT expenditure in schools on IWBs has geared in these factors at the initial cost of purchasing them and provide for these needs. Even in instances where all hardware and software was provided there are problems with technical support, on-going pre-service and in-service training.

In-service training and professional development

   According to Hooper & Rieber (1995; cited by, Somyurek et al 2009, p.371), “There are five stages of technology adaptation-familiarization, utilization, integration, reorientation, and evolution. Generally, initial training is provided, but lack of continued professional development (CPD) and support restricts the use and functionality offered by IWBs (Stein, 2005). Teachers who are confident and possessed the right skills are depended on the IWB and teachers with limited skills and knowledge of digital resources are less likely to embrace IWBs (Stein, 2005). Therefore teachers’ skill levels have a direct relationship to technical support and training and their access to IWBs. Further, teachers’ positive attitudes, confidence and skill levels in software and hardware of IWBs influence children’s learning outcomes (Stein, 2005).


   Somyurek et al (2009) points how one of the world-wide gigantic projects of ICT in education, in Turkey at the cost of $1 billion investment, was ineffective and inefficient because of the belief that investment in hardware alone is sufficient. Therefore, there are no short-cuts to the introduction of ICT/IWBs in education, investment in training needs to be provided on an ongoing basis and should be appropriate to individual needs of teachers (Becta, 2003). Fears and misconstruction about IWBs need to be addressed immediately (Stein, 2005).

With introduction of IWBs and the lack of training and time allocated, many teachers had to find their own time to learn more about this new technology. Although teachers spend many hours of their own time, schools cannot completely rely on this goodwill, they will need to provide time for discovery forms of play and need to budget for this (Halford, 2007). Teachers need to be given opportunities to follow up these sessions with 'sandpit'2 time (Halford, 2007, p.35). Casual Relief Teaching (CRT) staff need to know how to start the boards even if it is only for basic 'blackboard' work (Halford, 2007). For CRT’s the Victorian Institute of Teaching training on IWBs consists of half-an-hour’s training.

   The cost of professional learning, including explicit ICT training with the equipment, is very high and ongoing. The United States spends $80 per student, while only $6 per student is spent on professional learning in ICT for teachers (Halford, 2007). There is an urgent need for the government to allocate more funding in on-going teacher training and support.


  Even in instances where teachers were provided with adequate training and equipment, there are problems with lack of on-line educational resources.

Educational Material or resources

   Access to the internet and the proliferating educational sites that provide curriculum resources are an important aspects in the effective use of IWBs in classrooms. In particular, the shortage of secondary school resources, lack of availability of suitable interactive teaching resources, inadequate advice and support in locating age-appropriate interactive teaching resources suitable to Key Learning Areas impede its use (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). While digital-resources are mostly international and give a global perspective to children, the literacy and numeracy level assumed is higher than the level expected by a teacher (Halford, 2007). There is also the need for a domestic outlook that includes the state and national curriculum; one of the most important and useful for Australian and New Zealand schools is The Learning Federation (TLF) (hyperlink: The learning federation; Halford, 2007). TLF learning objects are closely aligned to the Australian curriculum and feature Australian backgrounds, characters and creatures with narrators having a local accents.

   The process of evaluating the value and relevance of learning objects of available digital resources for IWBs is the most time-consuming tasks for teachers (Halford, 2007). There are many commercial and non-commercial sites and sorting through these is laborious. It is also critical for classroom teachers to collaborate with the providers and programmers in the creation of digital learning objects. Such collaboration ensures not only relevant curriculum content but also year-level-appropriate learning objects in numeracy and literacy based on sound pedagogy to maintain student interest (Halford, 2007). Teachers have emphasized the need for resource banks suitable for use with the IWBs, while teachers in some schools have worked collaboratively to build bibliographies of resources from popular websites such as BBC Schools, Number Gym, E Chalk, Top Marks or Priory Wood (Griffin & Woods, 2006a).


   Teachers were further confronted with the issue of the difficulty of archiving the overabundance of exciting and relevant websites to share this amongst colleagues. While some schools provide their staff with opportunities to share this information at staff/ICT meetings others have stored these materials for use in following years to be shared with other teachers and new staff (Halford, 2007).

Technology, pedagogy and Interactivity

   The IWB is a powerful device for integrating media elements into teaching to enhance content and support collaborative learning; however the hazard that they may not be used to their full potential and in many cases may only be used as a ‘glorified’ whiteboard is overwhelming (Brown, 2003). This may change as users become more familiar with them and they are more readily available. Teachers had become discouraged by the difficulty of learning how to use the software because of lack of training and administrative support, the initial challenge of learning, and the frustration of finding interactive-level-appropriate digital educational material that resulted in its limited use or use for non-interactive purposes such as screening DVDs or PowerPoint presentations (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). Interactive whiteboards can be primarily used as a presentation device, but in that case a desktop/notebook PC attached to a data projector would do as well at a much lesser cost.

   It is important to understand that IWBs are ‘interactive technology’ (in small group settings), as such an ‘interactive teaching’ approach/pedagogy needs to be adopted, which focuses on a ‘dialogic’ rather than an ‘authoritative’ interactivity to foster true learning (Gary and Kennewell, 2010, p.759). Interactivity can be superficial or deep varying from ‘intra-activity’, ‘surface interactivity’, ‘deeper interactivity’, ‘dialogical deep interactivity’ and ‘full interactivity’ based on the teacher-pupil control of interaction (Tanner and Jones, 2007, p.38). Some teachers use the IWBs features of interactivity but direct it towards “controlled pre-communicative activities” (Gray et al, 2005, p.43) in their presentation (i.e., low-level funneling questioning). In fact, IWBs can have “the negative side effect of ‘taming’ ICT by removing pupil autonomy and restoring the teacher-centered classroom” (Tanner and Jones, 2007, p.39). Therefore, IWBs in themselves without a proper pedagogy will be ineffective. This can be overcome by giving teachers appropriate long-term professional training.


Conclusion:

   The affordances of IWBs are many but are surrounded with many caveats. There are many facets to the success of ICT/IWBs in education and investment in hardware alone is insufficient. Currently, there is an urgent need to address issues, such as, adequate on-going teacher training and professional development, a more proactive stance by school-management, appropriate digital resources, and sound pedagogy in technology. Further, the need for research on the affordances of IWBs especially on the relationship between student achievement and technology, the role of full interactivity between teaching and technology, and the need for government funding to advance these needs are paramount. Therefore, the need of the hour is a varied and requires a multi-directional approach.
 
 
 
 

INTERESTING READINGS:

READING 1

Somyurek, S., Atasoy,B., Ozdemir, S., (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53, 368–374.

This peer-reviewed paper is a Turkish based research study, consistently drawing examples from U.K, examining the effectiveness of IWBs in schools through the collection of primary data and identifies problems, reasons, and significance of issues to tackle them. It expounds the ineffective and inefficient use of investment in ICT when it is a unidirectional process (i.e., investment on hardware only) by drawing examples from previous investment. This paper brings to attention the multidimensional components and linkages that surround the success of ICT in educational settings. The other components that are crucial for the success of IWBs are:

• The need to move from short-term to on-going training.
• Adequate curriculum-appropriate educational software and resources to avoid repetitive use of material and thereby enhancing its potential.
• The need for improved support, planning and technology implementations from administrations and organizations and appropriate technical support and maintenance.

Therefore, for successful implementation of IWBs, efficacious linkages among different components such as hardware, software and quality digital material, in-service training for principals and teachers, curriculum integration, financial resources for maintenance, and technical and pedagogical support is paramount.

READING 2

Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S., (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32, 38–44.

Findings of this research study are based on primary data, with details of methodology, standard of ethics, etc. addressed. The authors bring to attention some practical problems and advantages that the participants (language teachers) encounter during the use of IWBs in classrooms. Although the findings are consistent with other research findings the question of “universality” and “generalization” is not addressed. The summary of the findings of this study under the category of affordances of IWBs are:

• For students: they foster a student-centered approach, promote independent learning, augment memory and writing skills, and encourages learning through practice sessions.
• For teachers: they enhance classroom teaching and management skills, time and resource management of syllabus, personal organization; stimulates reflection, reasoning and analysis of teaching, provides transparency and realization of learning objective.

The summary of cons of IWBs is fittingly highlighted by bringing to attention:

• Predominant use of Power Point presentation (‘show and tell’ teaching style);
• Teacher “controlled pre-communicative activities” (p.43);
•  lack of international perspective;
•  need for a sound pedagogy; to include planning, preparation, training and support on IWBs in teacher timetables;
• the shortage of resources on the web; and
• limitations of IWBs in large class settings.

The study does not address the various levels of interactivity that exist in teaching-pedagogy and one will need to refer other sources (E.g., see Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010; And, Tanner & Jones, 2007).

READING 3

Tanner, H., & Jones. S, (2007). How interactive is your whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 200, 37-41. Retrieved March 14, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. Document ID: 1299085551.

The authors bring to attention the role of interactivity in teaching and technology (IWBs). One of the most important arguments in favor of introducing ICT in education is that it promotes learning through interactivity. This paper highlights that technology in itself does not encourage a more interactive approach. On the contrary, during early stages of implementation, technology is assimilated into existing approaches with superficial changes in practice. For instance, the IWBs in their initial stages of implementation restores the teacher-centered (authoritative) approach to classroom by removing the autonomy students have in ICT (i.e., ‘taming’ ICT) and reinforces the traditional approach. This is further substantiated with examples, such as, the extensive use of Power point presentation that restricts teachers-pupil interactivity and the lack of online digital resources leaving the only option of purchasing commercially-produced IWB resources which have their own drawbacks. The authors point that the novelty of IWB will wear off if it is much loved and accepted for its surface features (pace, accuracy, involvement, motivation). It is the deeper features (automation, editability, transformability and feedback) that have a permanent value to education.

This paper has a simple and easy classification of the various types/levels of interactivity that exists in teaching based on the teacher-pupil control of interaction, which is aptly summarized with a diagram. This article is an excellent starting point to a beginner student or teacher who is unfamiliar with the concept of interactivity.
 
 

 READING 4

Lacina, J., (2009). Interactive Whiteboards: Creating Higher-level, technological Thinkers? Childhood Education, 85 (4) 270-272. ProQuest Education Journals.

This paper gives us a brief critical outlook of the American perspective to IWBs and brings to attention many flaws of IWBs, which many papers overlook. Some criticisms raised are:

• the lack of resources and professional development,
• teachers not being critical and interactive with technology,
• IWBs makes students “spectators” instead of critical thinkers,
• is not applicable in large classroom settings,
• teachers possessing computers that are not compatible with IWB
• the software, motivation and engagement amongst students is short lived,
• the need to evaluate which teachers (i.e., provide teachers who focus on inquiry-based and critical approach)
• subjects (Maths, Science and English as a Second Language classrooms benefit from the interactive nature of IWBs) should have IWBs, and
• Finally the heavy investment from educational institutions in spite of the lack of scientific study of the relationship between student achievements and use of IWB.

Although the article provides insights into many issues that confront IWBs the reader will need to supplement it with other readings for a deeper understanding of the issues raised here.

READING 5

Halford, B., (2007). Interactive whiteboard-the future s already here. Teacher, August, 32-35.

    This article is an account of the implementation of IWBs in a school in New South Wales, Australia and the issues they confronted in the process. The paper cites Australian backgrounds and brings to attention issues such as professional development and the need for ‘sandpit’1 time, issues related to Australian online digital resources, archiving of resources, and installation problems that many articles overlook. The study draws attention to the need for teachers to seek resources that are domestic and local in order to make the curriculum relevant and level appropriate. It points to some practical problems that many teachers face when using IWBs in finding such resources, and the need for schools to allocate ‘sandpit’ time in their professional learning timetable and rather than solely rely on the goodwill of teachers to do so at their own leisure. The author also highlights many practical issues faced by schools and teachers during installation of IWBs. However, a more detailed description of these issues from an Australian perspective can be sought in Griffin & Woods report (2006a, 2006b).
 


Search criteria for above readings:

    Journal articles were downloaded from ProQuest, Eric, and A+Education using a multi-database search from Monash University Library. As the review question is internet based most articles had references from open-source databases, thereby escalating my search. I also searched internet sites such as: Google, Google scholar, Google books, government databases (local, federal, and international), conferences, etc. Search terms included, but were not limited to the following: ‘Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs)’,’ interactivity’, ‘ICT’ and/or ‘effective learning’. As the largest numbers of IWBs exist in Britain most empirical work relevant to my review question is British-based, although other countries such as America, Australia, Turkey and Europe have adopted IWBs.

   Although I adopted diverse search strategies resulting in hundreds of articles, peer-reviewed journals based on empirical work were limited, this literature-gaps is substantiated by Somyurek et al (2009), Lacina (2009) and others. I narrowed my annotated bibliography down to these five journal articles in order to present a diverse perspective to the review question.

REFERENCES

1. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S., (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education 54, 759–766. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033.

2. Becta, 2003. “What the research says about interactive whiteboards”. Available: http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf

3. Brown, S. (2003). Interactive white boards in education. Retrieved 05 2010, from JISC: TechLearn http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Interactivewhiteboards.pdf

4. Criswell, C., (2008). New Dimensions in White. Teaching Music, Aug, 16, 1, 28-29. ProQuest Education Journals.

5. Hayes, D., (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers & Education 49 (2007) 385–395.

6. Griffin, P., & Woods, K., (2006). Interactive Whiteboards in Victorian Schools-Installation and procesess of use. Assessment Research Centre-Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia Available: http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/arc/PDFs/2006-1407.pdf

7. Griffin, P., & Woods, K (2006). Interactive Whiteboards in Victorian Schools Enhancing Teacher and Pupil Engagement in Learning. Excerpts from the Report to the Victorian Department of Education and Training. Dept of Education and Early Childhood and Education. Available: http://epotential.education.vic.gov.au/showcase/download.php?doc_id=733

8. Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S., (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, Winter, No 32, 38–44.
 
9. Halford, B., (2007). Interactive whiteboard-the future s already here. Teacher, August, 32-35.


10. 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 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511073

11. Lacina, J., (2009). Interactive Whiteboards: Creating Higher-level, technological Thinkers? Childhood Education, Summer, 85, 4, 270-272. ProQuest Education Journals.

12. Multimedia in Education - Introduction, The Elements of, Educational Requirements, Classroom Architecture and Resources, Concerns. Available: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6821/Multimedia-in-Education.html#ixzz0jOlskBy1

13. Somyurek, S., Atasoy,B., Ozdemir, S., (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53, 368–374.

14. Stein, G. (2005). Pedagogy, practice and ICT. Client research, development and publication. http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/departments/client/pdfs/gs-interactive-whiteboards-primary.pdf

15. The Learning Federation. http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/default.asp

16. Tanner, H., & Jones. S, (2007). How interactive is your whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 200, 37-41. Retrieved March 14, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. Document ID: 1299085551.

17. Victorian Government Department of Education URL: http://epotential.education.vic.gov.au/showcase/download.php?doc_id=643