1. Interactive whiteboards, teacher efficacy, and student engagement. Stephen Ash Education 6590 Memorial University

6. Current research ranging from 2001 – 2010

7. IGI Global Series

8. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)

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

19. Clear display that was easily viewed by all

20. Time required for planning lessened

21. More critical of lesson materials

22. Increased momentum and pace

24. Link between increased engagement and learning

25. Interest = participation = learning

26. All learning styles were accommodated

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