An interactive whiteboard (IWB) is a relatively new tool that provides interesting affordances in the classroom environment, such as multiple visualization and multimedia presentation and ability for movement and animation. These affordances make IWBs an innovative tool with high potential for mathematics instructional environments. IWBs can be used to focus on the development of specific mathematical concepts and to improve mathematical knowledge and understanding. The aim of this paper is to review the existing literature upon the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in mathematics classrooms. The reviewed studies offer a wide view of IWBs’ affordances, of the more interesting didactic practices, and of the difficulties of embedding this new technology in the classroom. The capabilities of IWBs to enhance the quality of interaction, and, consequently, to improve conceptual mathematical understanding are broadly recognized. Despite these capabilities, evidence from the studies points to a certain inertia on the part of many teachers to do anything else than use IWBs as large-scale visual blackboards or presentation tools. The emerging view of how to attempt to overcome these obstacles is that there is need for greater attention to the pedagogy associated with IWB use and, more specifically, to stimulate the design of new kinds of learning environments. 1. Introduction In recent years, interactive whiteboards (IWBs) have moved from being considered a novelty into a regular part of the equipment of many classrooms, especially in the United Kingdom, and in other countries of Western Europe, North and Central America, South East Asia, and Australia. IWBs provide interesting opportunities for students and teachers alike to interact with digital content in a multiperson learning environment. This study aims to deliver a critical analysis of the literature on IWBs in mathematics teaching, with a view to identifying strong and weak points and specifying a theoretically and practically relevant research agenda. The review first shortly discusses IWB affordances and presents the focus of the study as well as the adopted methodological approach. Next, we analyse in detail the results of empirical research on the effects of the use of IWBs on learning and students’ achievement. Finally, some conclusive observations and reflections are developed, also in relation to the general literature about information and communication technology (ICT). Technologically speaking, IWBs connect a computer—linked to a data projector—and a large touch-sensitive board that displays
References
[1]
H. J. Smith, S. Higgins, K. Wall, and J. Miller, “Interactive Whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 91–101, 2005.
[2]
G. Beauchamp and J. Parkinson, “Beyond the “wow” factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard,” School Science Review, vol. 86, no. 316, pp. 97–104, 2005.
[3]
S. Kennewell, “Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK,” 2006, http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf.
[4]
N. Mercer, S. Hennessy, and P. Warwick, “Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 195–209, 2010.
[5]
BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency), “Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: a guide for secondary schools. Coventry, UK: BECTA,” 2004, http://www.dit.ie/lttc/media/ditlttc/documents/gettingthemost.pdf.
[6]
D. Glover, D. Miller, D. Averis, and V. Door, “The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sector,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5–20, 2007.
[7]
B. Somekh, M. Haldane, and K. Jones, “Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project,” Tech. Rep., Department for Education and Skills, London, UK, 2007, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/SWEEP-Report.pdf.
[8]
B. Torff and R. Tirotta, “Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics,” Computers & Education, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 379–383, 2010.
[9]
C. Bruce, R. McPherson, F. Sabeti, and T. Flynn, “Revealing significant learning moments with interactive whiteboards in mathematics,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 433–454, 2011.
[10]
D. Miller and D. Glover, “Presentation or mediation: is there a need for “interactive whiteboard technology-proficient” teachers in secondary mathematics?” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 253–259, 2010.
[11]
K. Swan, J. Schenker, A. Kratcoski, and H. van’t Hooft, “The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement,” in Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice (Premier Reference Source), M. Thomas and E. C. Schmid, Eds., pp. 131–143, Information Science Reference, Hershey, NY, USA, 2010.
[12]
R. Zevenbergen and S. Lerman, “Learning environments using interactive whiteboards: new learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies?” Mathematics Education Research Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 108–126, 2008.
[13]
S. Kennewell, H. Tanner, S. Jones, and G. Beauchamp, “Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 61–73, 2008.
[14]
Ofsted (Office For Standards in Education, UK), “Mathematics 2004–07: understanding the score. London: HMSO,” 2008, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/mathematics-understanding-score.
[15]
A. Heinze, J. R. Star, and L. Verschaffel, “Flexible and adaptive use of strategies and representations in mathematics education,” Mathematics Education, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 535–540, 2009.
[16]
D. Miller and D. Glover, “Into the unknown: the professional development induction experience of secondary mathematics teachers using interactive whiteboard technology,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 319–331, 2007.
[17]
G. Moss, C. Jewitt, R. Leva？i？, V. Armstrong, A. Cardini, and F. Castle, “The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: an evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge,” Tech. Rep., School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK, 2007, http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/ict/NewPGCE/pdfs%20IWBs/The%20interactive%20whiteboard,%20pedagogy%20and%20pupil%20performance%20evaluation.pdf.
[18]
S. Higgins, C. Falzon, I. Hall et al., “Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies,” Final Report, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK, 2005, http://dro.dur.ac.uk/1899/1/1899.pdf?DDD29+ded4ss.
[19]
A. H. Schoenfeld, “Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics,” in Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, D. Grouws, Ed., pp. 334–370, MacMillan, New York, NY, USA, 1992.
[20]
J. L. Galvan, Writing Literature Reviews: A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Pyrczak Publishing, Los Angeles, Calif, USA, 2006.
[21]
S. Merrett and J. Edwards, “Enhancing mathematical thinking with an interactive whiteboard,” MicroMath, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 9–12, 2005.
[22]
M. Thomas and C. E. Schmid, Eds., Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice (Premier Reference Source), Information Science Reference, Hershey, NY, USA, 2010.
[23]
S. Higgins, G. Beauchamp, and D. Miller, “Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 213–225, 2007.
[24]
F. Smith, F. Hardman, and S. Higgins, “The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies,” British Educational Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 443–457, 2006.
[25]
B. Tataroglu and A. Erduran, “Examining students’ attitudes and views towards usage an interactive whiteboard in mathematics lessons,” Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2533–2538, 2010.
[26]
S. Jones and H. Tanner, “Teachers’ interpretations of effective whole class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms,” Educational Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 265–274, 2002.
[27]
D. Glover, D. Miller, and D. Averis, “The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom practice: examples drawn from the teaching of mathematics in secondary schools in England,” in Proceedings of the International Conference “The Decidable and the Undecidable in Mathematics Education”, Brno, Czech Republic, 2003, http://math.unipa.it/~grim/21_project/21_brno03_Miller-Averis.pdf.
[28]
D. Miller, D. Averis, V. Door, and D. Glover, “How can the use of an interactive whiteboard enhance the nature of teaching and learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreign languages?” Tech. Rep., BECTA, 2005, https://content.ncetm.org.uk/itt/sec/KeelePGCEMaths2006/InteractiveWhiteboard&DataProj/Research/BectaReportMiller&co.pdf.
[29]
D. Miller, D. Glover, and D. Averis, “Presentation and pedagogy: the effective use of interactive whiteboards in mathematics lessons,” in Proceedings of the 6th British Congress of Mathematics Education, D. Hewitt and A. Noyes, Eds., pp. 105–112, British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, London, UK, 2005, http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip25-1/BSRLM-IP-25-1-14.pdf.
[30]
C. Jewitt, G. Moss, and A. Cardini, “Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers' design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 303–317, 2007.
[31]
G. Beauchamp, S. Kennewell, H. Tanner, and S. Jones, “Interactive whiteboards and all that jazz: the contribution of musical metaphors to the analysis of classroom activity with interactive technologies,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 143–157, 2010.
[32]
P. Serow and R. Callingham, “Levels of use of interactive whiteboard technology in the primary mathematics classroom,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 161–173, 2011.
[33]
R. Wood and J. Ashfield, “The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 84–96, 2008.
[34]
R. Zevenbergen and S. Lerman, “Pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: using an activity theory approach to understand tensions in practice,” in Mathematics: Essential Research, Essential Practice, K. Beswick and J. Watson, Eds., Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 853–864, MERGA, Adelaide, Australia, 2007, http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/18685/49294_1.pdf?sequence=1.
[35]
D. Glover and D. Miller, “Optimising the use of interactive whiteboards: an application of developmental work research (DWR) in the United Kingdom,” Professional Development in Education, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 469–483, 2009.
[36]
D. Miller, D. Glover, and D. Averis, “Enabling enhanced mathematics teaching with interactive whiteboards,” Final Report, National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, Keele University, Keele, UK, 2008, http://www.keele.ac.uk/media/keeleuniversity/fachumsocsci/sclpppp/education/interactivewhiteboard/ncetmreport-1.pdf.
[37]
K. Holmes, “Planning to teach with digital tools: introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 351–365, 2009.
[38]
D. Miller and D. Glover, “Enhanced interactivity in secondary mathematics,” in Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice, M. Thomas and E. C. Schmid, Eds., pp. 118–130, Information Science Reference, Hershey, NY, USA, 2010.
[39]
Z. Lavicza and Z. Papp-Varga, “Integrating GeoGebra into IWB-equipped teaching environments: preliminary results,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 245–252, 2010.
[40]
R. Straesser, “Cabri-géomètre: does Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) change geometry and its teaching and learning?” International Journal of Computers For Mathematical Learning, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 319–333, 2001.
[41]
D. Essig, A case study of interactive whiteboard professional development for elementary mathematics teachers [Doctoral dissertation], UMI Dissertation Publishing no. 3450045, ProQuest, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA, 2011.
[42]
M. K. Stein and M. Smith, “Reflections on practice: selecting and creating mathematical tasks: from research to practice,” Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 344–350, 1998.
[43]
G. Salomon and D. Ben-Zvi, “The difficult marriage between education and technology: is the marriage doomed?” in Instructional Psychology: Past, Present, and Future Trends, L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, and S. Vosniadou, Eds., pp. 209–222, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2006.
[44]
K. Littleton, “Research into teaching with whole-class interactive technologies: emergent themes,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 285–292, 2010.
