Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

3rd World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership (WCLTA-2012)

History and Implementation of Classroom Technology

Michael W. Firmin a, Deanna J. Genesi a
a
Cedarville University, 251 N Main, Cedarville 45314, USA

Abstract

A plenary review of the research literature is provided regarding the history of K-12 classroom technology. Coverage is
provided from the era of early “teaching machines” to the SMART technologies of Interactive White Boards (IWB). A
chronology is traced, noting the development of technology and how teachers and administrators have adapted to the
classroom milieu over decades of time. We also describe what the research literature demarcates as empirical benefits,
liabilities, limitations, and suggested practices for classroom teachers who utilize technology in their respective classrooms.
The presented paper is based on data from a master’s thesis regarding classroom technology in public school settings.
© 2012The
© 2013 Published
Authors.byPublished
ElsevierbyLtd. Selection
Elsevier and access
Ltd. Open peer review
under CCunder the responsibility
BY-NC-ND license. of Prof. Dr. Ferhan Odabaşı
Selection and peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Ferhan Odabaşı
Keywords: Education; classroom instruction; technology; history; pedagogy

1. Introduction

Technology permeates our nation. Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are just one specific aspect of
technological history. The implementation and utilization of the IWB in many schools across America today
has impacted the lives of many students. Some may wonder how technology is used in American classrooms
and even question its necessity or effectiveness. A broader look at technology and its impact on education helps
place the IWB technology into its proper context.

2. Education and technology

Technology is rapidly changing the way we live and work. The field of education is no exception. In fact,
during the late 1990s, new technologies were being invented and designed almost monthly. Technology was
abuzz and education was the primary target for those eager researchers who wanted to see if their product could
transform education as we know it. Almost a decade later, the novelty of educational technology has somewhat
worn off. Many schools are struggling to make ends meet, cutting costs wherever possible. Financial struggles
are still a reality today for many school districts. Yet even for those schools with limited financial resources,
educational technology is still a prevalent part of education today (Vail, 2003).
Over the years, our nation has felt the pressure from other countries who are continuing to successfully
integrate information and communication technologies (ICTs) into the education of their students. In order to
prepare our students to thrive in the digital age, the United States has made a commitment to provide students
with the skills and resources they will need to succeed in life (CEO Forum, 2001). According to the CEO
Forum, educators are encouraged to make the best use of available technology in order to benefit our nation’s

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Ferhan Odabaşı
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.089
1604 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

schools, surrounding communities, and most importantly, our students. Today’s students need to be taught
twenty-first century skills that they will need in order to thrive in the future. Some of these skills include digital
literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, teamwork, and the ability to create high-quality projects.
In order to do reach this lofty goal, educators need to focus technology on the key building blocks of student
achievement. Those building blocks include assessment, alignment, accountability, access, and analysis.
Just as educators should consider the building blocks of student achievement, it is also important that they
consider the many facets of education. One vital aspect to reflect on is how students learn. When teachers know
how their students learn best, real authentic learning begins to take place and students are prepared and equipped
for their future. Driscoll (2002) argued that while technology integration in schools is not easy, it is necessary.
She provided four broad principles as a framework for teachers as they think about how to integrate technology
into their daily instruction. These four principles were as follows: 1) Learning occurs in context, 2) Learning is
active, 3) Learning is social, and 4) Learning is reflective. It is important to remember that technology by itself
will not guarantee true learning. However, the proper use of available technologies does have the power to
enhance and transform education in today’s classroom.
Even with all the positive assumptions about the effective use of technology in the classroom, technology still
tends to be viewed almost timidly by many educators today. Educators are often inclined to be traditionalists;
therefore, they are not as eager to latch on to the newest and latest technological advancement that has just come
out on the market (Vail, 2003). Another factor that contributes to educators’ hesitancy in regards to technology
is that they don’t want to embrace a new technology until they see a need for it. With the passing of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, however, educators’ perspectives were bound to change. In fact, Vail
argued that it would be nearly impossible for schools to meet the demands that are placed upon them without
implementing technology in the classroom.
As with any issue, there are usually two sides of the coin. The same is true for educational technology. It is
important to recognize the differences between the quantity of technology use (how much technology is used and
why) and the quality of technology use (how technology is used and why). In past research, the focus has been
mainly on the quantity of technology use. However, it is just as valid a question to consider the quality of
technology use in schools today. In fact, recent research indicates that even when technology is used at a certain
frequency, not all technologies are found to be beneficial, constructive, or helpful (Lei, & Zhao, 2007). It is
important that educators realize that the simple use of educational technologies alone does not guarantee that
teaching and learning will somehow be transformed. Teachers must use technology efficiently and bring new
pedagogies to their instruction. The combination of new pedagogies with technology use is what leads to
improved teaching and increased student learning (Sutherland et al., 2004). Lei and Zhao (2007) emphasized
that technology is an artifact, a product, and a tool. It has the capacity to accomplish certain tasks, but that
potential is only realized when it is connected with specific problems. In other words, someone must use the
technology correctly and efficiently for any benefits to be experienced. Secondly, technology use is dependent
on the context of the situation and is closely connected with the users. In other words, the same technology can
be utilized in several different ways depending upon the purpose of the one who is using the specific technology.
Thirdly, technology use is in constant change while technology is in a static stage. Finally, technology use
allows original technologies to take on various forms and uses. Ultimately, technology use is technology-in-
context. Levin (as cited in Lei & Zhao, 2007) suggested that there are four categories in which technology may
be used. These categories are as follows: 1) technology as media for inquiry, 2) technology as media for
communication, 3) technology as media for construction, 4) and technology as media for expression.

3. Benefits of educational technology

Generally speaking, educational technology helps to create a rich, student-centered learning environment
with a vast variety of wonderful opportunities for student-centered learning (DenBeste, 2003). Furr et al. (2005)
acknowledged the benefits of educational technology, including but not limited to enlivening the classroom
setting, stimulating learning, providing immediate feedback for students, allowing students to work in small
 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617 1605

groups with their peers (either in the classroom setting or globally), and creating a classroom environment where
the teacher’s role is that of facilitator rather than lecturer.
Another benefit that educational technology brings is increased parental involvement and teacher professional
development. For example, with the aid of technology, parents are able to communicate with teachers and view
their child’s assignments, attendance, and work online. Furthermore, educators can engage in professional
development through the use of technology as it is made accessible to them anytime, anywhere (CEO Forum,
2001).
Educational technology increases students’ abilities to apply and produce knowledge for the real world.
These real-life contexts can be presented with the use of technology, making the classroom come alive. As
students are challenged to take ownership and responsibility for their learning, they find themselves becoming
more and more engaged in the learning process than ever before. In fact, as students seek to access more
information through technology, they are able to deepen their knowledge so that they can meet their own
personal needs and interests. Technology presents a challenge to students to go beyond just accepting
information because it was presented in a textbook. Students in classrooms where technology is implemented
well will apply research skills and seek evidence to support what they are learning. (CEO Forum, 2001).

4. Limitations and disadvantages of technology

While educational technology has the potential to enhance both teaching and learning, it is clear that these
technologies are not always used to their full capacity. The challenge remains to adapt teaching strategies to the
new technologies in ways that elicit and increase student learning and understanding (Lawrenz, Gravely, &
Ooms, 2006). Computer technology is simply a tool, just as is a language, or pencil and paper. While it has its
many benefits, the educator should anticipate unplanned side effects (both good and bad) of educational
technology that often surpass the original intentions (Furr et al., 2005).
Another major downside to using technology in the classroom remains the time issue. Instructing students in
the use of technology and creating resources to use with instruction takes an enormous amount of time and
effort. Furthermore, it is of utmost importance that educators choose the type of technology that best suits their
educational goals. Technology used simply for the sake of technology may “look good,” but it will most likely
be pedagogically useless (DenBeste, 2003).
Educational technology can cause a “knowledge divide,” as only some students have access to the
educational tools and learning that foster developing the skills needed for the twenty-first century. This presents
a challenge to both the state and federal governments to continue to monitor and eliminate inequities in regards
to the accessibility to educational technologies (CEO Forum, 2001).
If educational technology is to be used effectively, schools districts must also provide sufficient and
continuous professional development for educators so that they are knowledgeable with any technology that they
are being encouraged to integrate into their classrooms (CEO Forum, 2001).

5. Technology brings change

Research on the impact of technology in education is relatively new, yet there is sufficient evidence that
educational technology helps to bring about changes in the processes of teaching and learning in classrooms.
For example, technology has the potential to transform the learning environment from one that is teacher-
centered to one that is student-centered. Other changes brought on by educational technology include a problem
and project-centered environment that is collaborative, communicative, and productive. All of these
characteristics help to foster a digital learning environment where it is possible to develop the skills needed to
live in the twenty-first century (CEO Forum, 2001).
While technology use is valuable and desirable in today’s classrooms, there is a fine balance between
spending too much time using technology and spending too little time using educational technologies. Research
conducted by Lei and Zhao (2007) indicated that students benefited from spending up to about 3 hours per day
1606 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

using computer technologies, but when they spent too much time (over 3 hours) using computer technologies,
the benefits seemed to be cancelled out and unrealized. This research indicated that although the amount of time
spent using educational technologies may have a general effect on student achievement, another factor to
consider might be how the students spent their time as they used these technologies. Once again, the quality of
technology use seemed to be more important than the quantity of technology use.
As educators seek to teach with technology in order to prepare students for the future, it is imperative that
new assessments are implemented which reflect the changing pedagogical practices. Educational technology
provides a variety of authentic assessments so that students are presented with more challenging and engaging
tasks that will measure higher-level thinking skills. New technological assessments provide a more holistic
picture of teaching and learning over time (CEO Forum, 2001).
Technology does bring change, and there is a marked difference in the environment of a multimedia
classroom (a classroom which integrates cutting-edge instructional technology to enhance students’ learning and
engage them in the use of multimedia to construct and convey what they have learned) versus a traditional
classroom (a classroom equipped only with a chalkboard and pull-down ceiling screen). Does either
environment make a more positive impact on the students’ perceptions of the learning achievement of students
or on their perceptions of the instructional technology? A recent study which compared the perceptions of
college-aged students who took classes in multimedia classrooms and students who took classes in traditional
classrooms claimed that there were no considerable differences. However, the researchers did find that the
students who were enrolled in the multimedia classrooms had more positive perceptions of their instructors’
teaching methods than those students who took classes in the traditional classroom. Students who were
interviewed at the end of the study commented that while technology can help the learning process, ultimately it
is the instructor who makes the difference. Other students claimed that it was easier to pay attention and the
lessons were more interesting when the instructor used a variety of multimedia teaching tools rather than relying
solely on the textbook. Students also shared that using technology made the information seem more real. They
felt that the media being used gave them an advantage over other students taking the same class in a traditional
setting (Zhang & Deng, 2004).
While technology does incite change in the classroom environment, Kirkwood and Price (2005) challenged
teachers and school administrators to continue to develop a better understanding of technology and the issues
that often surround it so that innovations are not driven by technology alone. Technology is an important aspect
to consider, but it is just as vital to consider educators’ access to pedagogic models and processes as well as the
contexts in which the students engage with technology. Technology by itself is unlikely to improve education.
However, learning can be enhanced greatly when new innovations take the characteristics of the new technology
and the pedagogic design into account along with the context within which the learning is taking place, the
students’ characteristics and their previous experience, and their familiarity with the technology involved.
Technology on its own cannot ensure that effective learning outcomes are achieved; rather it is the educational
purposes set out by the educators that must lead the way.

6. Overview of information communication technologies (ICT) in education

Most educational technologies today fall under the category of Information Communication Technologies
(ICTs). ICT covers any product that can store, retrieve, manipulate or transmit information electronically in a
digital form. Some examples of ICT include Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Adobe Indesign, Photoshop
and Illustrator, email, video conferences, digital cameras, CD-ROMs, fax machines, and of course, the World
Wide Web (Introduction-What is ICT, 2006; Williams et al., 2000). ICT is a multi-faceted and resourceful tool
that is not easily classified in nature or function. However, it can be compared with other educational resources
like books, posters, worksheets, and videos which help stimulate, structure, and support learning activities in the
classroom. ICT is not meant to replace these more traditional tools of education. In fact, there are some cases
where the traditional approach may be more suitable. However, when integrated effectively, ICT can be used in
 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617 1607

combination with traditional resources in order to provide the best learning environment possible (Kennewell et
al., 2008).
As mentioned earlier, ICT is simply a tool for educators to implement and integrate into their daily
instruction. As research shows, ICT is not a means in and of itself. ICT does not cause learning to take place.
As one teacher shared in an interview, ICT is simply another tool. It is the teacher’s responsibility to take the
time to learn how to use it effectively (Sutherland et al., 2004).
ICT integration in classrooms is becoming more and more prevalent in schools today. Every classroom,
however, has its own unique culture which ultimately affects how ICT is integrated and implemented into daily
instruction. The classroom culture is influenced by a vast variety of people and circumstances. There are
national and global influences, not to mention the influences of the school culture and subject culture. Outside
cultures that the students bring with them to the classroom must also be considered. As teachers attempt to
integrate ICT into their daily instruction, they often adapt their teaching strategies in ways that will fit with the
particular culture or cultures in which they find themselves. A good example of this need to adapt ICT to a
particular culture is found by comparing how elementary teachers implement ICT in their classrooms versus
how secondary teachers implement ICT in their classrooms. For example, in a recent study, Sutherland et al.
(2004) found that elementary teachers were more apt to create communities of learning where both students and
teachers tapped into a wealth of ICT tools to construct knowledge. The researchers claimed that this may be in
part because primary teachers often fail to see themselves as experts in a particular subject domain as secondary
teachers often do. Consequently, primary teachers may have an advantage in that they are more prone to favor a
co-construction of knowledge approach which is ideal when integrating ICT in the classroom. Williams et al.
(2000) also researched ICT usage among both elementary and secondary teachers. Their research showed that
both elementary and secondary teachers made use of ICT in the classroom context. However, their study
reported that while both elementary and secondary teachers used ICT at a similar frequency in the classroom,
secondary teachers used ICT more in the areas of professional development, personal use, and administration.
When considering how ICT is used in schools today, it is also important to consider the teachers’ personal
attitudes and the cultural perceptions of technology that they bring with them to the classroom. Albirini (2006)
conducted a study to determine high school EFL teachers’ attitudes toward ICT in Syrian education and then
investigated the relationship between their attitudes and the factors thought to be influencing them, one of those
factors being cultural perceptions. He discovered that most of the teachers felt that computers would contribute
to improving their standard of living. These teachers also shared that they felt knowledge of computers would
earn them the respect of others and ensure them certain privileges. His findings were not all positive, however.
Albirini also found that while his respondents found ICT to be appropriate, they felt that there were other social
issues that should be addressed first. The same teachers also commented that computers are propagating too fast
and that an alternative computer might better suit their Arabic culture and identity.
Williams et al. (2000), found a significant correlation between levels of ICT use and teachers’ attitudes.
Their study showed that those teachers who were more inclined to see the benefits of ICT use for themselves
and their students tended to use ICT more often. Those teachers who were prone to experience problems and
worries tended to use ICT less because the difficulties and mishaps seemed to outweigh the possible benefits.
Interestingly, Williams et al. also found that attitudes toward ICT varied among subject teachers. Their study
showed that those who taught mathematics or science had a more negative attitude toward ICT, while those
teachers who taught business and management classes had a more positive attitude towards ICT. ICT use does
depend on many factors, as mentioned above. A few other factors that contribute to ICT use in the classroom
include the availability of computers at home and/or in the teacher’s personal time. Another factor is the
availability of portable computers for use in the teacher’s own time. In the end, Williams et al. found that
teachers are ultimately the most important agents of change in the classroom.
1608 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

7. Implementing ICT in today’s classrooms – the benefits

There are many benefits of implementing ICT into today’s classrooms. It is important to consider both
student perceptions and teacher perceptions when analyzing the benefits of ICT.
Students’ perceptions of ICT have been a focal point of research in regards to ICT usage in today’s
classrooms. Kirkwood and Price (2005) saw the significance of understanding students’ perceptions of ICT
because they claimed that the educational benefits that the students perceived as gains from using ICT were
more important than the inherent characteristics of any particular product or medium.
Beauchamp & Parkinson (2008) conducted a study in a rural part of Wales in the United Kingdom. Their
study began in an ICT-rich primary school setting and ended in a secondary school with fewer ICT resources.
The study was conducted in order to determine if students’ attitudes towards school science changed as they
transferred from an ICT-rich environment to one with fewer resources. Their interviews with the primary
students gave some valuable insight to student perceptions of ICT in the classroom. Some of the students’
perceived benefits of an ICT-rich environment were better visibility and increased student participation.
Teachers’ perceptions of ICT use have also been researched in many different studies. Williams et al. (2000)
found that half of primary teachers and 69% of secondary teachers reported that ICT has had an impact on their
teaching, although there were some variations on the secondary level between different subjects. In regards to
the impact of ICT on students’ learning, the majority of teachers (62% of both primary and secondary teachers)
thought that ICT had a positive learning effect. Albirini (2006) found that teachers had positive attitudes
towards ICT and perceived it as an asset to education. They viewed ICT as a viable educational tool that has the
potential to bring about improvements not only to their own classrooms but to their whole school community.
Albirini also found that teachers’ perceptions of the compatibility of ICT with their current teaching practices
were not as positive. Many teachers in his study were unsure about whether or not computers fit well with their
curricular goals. Teachers also felt that their class time was too limited for computer use.

8. Implementing ICT in today’s classrooms – the barriers

Implementing ICT into classroom instruction is not without its barriers and limitations. According to
Williams et al. (2000), the main reason given by primary teachers for not using ICT was the lack of availability
of ICT resources. Access to technology tended to override all other factors in determining the amount of ICT
implementation.
There are, however, other factors that inhibit ICT use in the classroom. For example, Albirini (2006) noted
that many teachers felt inadequate when asked about their computer competence. Because many teachers lack
confidence in regards to using computers and other forms of ICT, it naturally follows that there would be some
hesitancy on behalf of teachers who are required to implement ICT into their daily instruction. Other similar
barriers given by primary educators are a lack of familiarity with ICT resources and a lack of skills in order to
implement them effectively (Williams et al., 2000). Consequently, this lack of confidence deems that education
administrators make the extra effort to provide training sessions and professional development in regards to ICT
use before these teachers are expected to use the technologies in their classrooms. These training sessions,
however, add an extra financial burden to many school districts.
Another barrier to ICT implementation perceived by the teachers was the mismatch between ICT and the
current curriculum and the class time frame. Simply having access to computers was not enough to achieve
educational change. Teachers would benefit from additional planning time so that they could experiment with
new ICT technologies (Albirini, 2006).
It would seem that cost or lack of technical support would be strong inhibiting factors to ICT use in the
classroom. In many situations, that may be the case. For example, Venezky (2004) reported that one of the
three main barriers to ICT adoption in schools was infrastructure limitations, which especially included technical
support. Some of the other infrastructure limitations were the placements of the computers as well as the
 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617 1609

policies that govern student and teacher access to those computers. Yet, Williams et al. (2000) found that these
factors were minor compared to the lack of availability and lack of access to technological resources.

9. ICT brings change

As previously mentioned, there are benefits and barriers to implementing ICT in the classroom. In order to
implement ICT effectively, change is inescapable. According to Wheeler (2001), new technologies have
provoked an entirely new and positive dimension to the art of teaching and learning. These changes, in turn,
require a great investment by educators in the areas of time, effort, and overall commitment.
Successful implementation of ICT requires a balance between both the school’s infrastructure and the
competencies of its teachers. During the initial stages of ICT implementation, it is of utmost importance to have
a reliable and user-friendly infrastructure to work with. However, as teachers become more technically
competent, the shift towards more training opportunities in regards to ICT implementation and pedagogical
abilities is necessary. The research shows that the most beneficial staff development programs were the ones
that taught both ICT skills and related pedagogical skills (Venezky, 2004). A study conducted by Williams et al.
(2000) asked teachers to share ideas for how to make future ICT training more effective and beneficial.
According to these teachers, future training sessions should be flexible, allowing teachers to choose trainings
that best fit their needs. These sessions should also be designed to increase familiarity with a wide range of ICT
resources, and they should be focused on the types of ICT resources that are currently available in their school.
While there is definitely a need for training in regards to ICT development among teachers, Venezky (2004)
argued that equal emphasis needed to be placed on administrative training for knowledge management,
teamwork, and communication relations among teachers and administrators. Beyond these changes, it is also
vitally important to learn how to create an environment where students feel safe to try new things and make
mistakes. In order to successfully implement ICT in the classroom, teachers and administrators must remember
that whether we embark on a new journey to include ICT resources, or whether we circle back to more
traditional methods of teaching, the end result of the efforts made will ultimately be not from the power of ICT,
but the power of the creative and imaginative mind that is willing to think “outside the box” to create the best
learning environment possible for the students (Venezky, 2004).
Ultimately, ICT causes fear for some educators because technical education can seem to be overwhelming,
compared to the more traditional forms of education. While ICT implementation does bring change to the
classroom, Venezky (2004) suggested that a balance is needed between activity-laden projects and virtual
experiences versus more traditional forms of learning, such as lectures, practice sessions and classroom
discussions.
ICT implementation also brings changes for the teacher in the classroom. One way teachers must change is
quite obvious. With the introduction of ICT into the classroom, teachers must learn how to apply these new
technologies effectively in their efforts to improve their teaching as well as their students’ learning. These
changes are comprehensive and cover methodology, assessment, tracking, record keeping, communication, and
curriculum evaluation. Teachers may also struggle with collaborative learning and sharing resources and
working spaces. One of the most critical issues is the extent to which teachers will relinquish control so that
their students can drive their own learning. Encouraging students to use computers gives them power to access,
manipulate, modify, store, and retrieve information which ultimately gives them more autonomy in the
classroom (Wheeler, 2001). While the implementation of ICT does encourage students to be constructors of
new knowledge, Sutherland et al. (2004) stated that students still perceive their teacher as the knowledge
provider simply because of the tradition of schooling. Regardless of students’ perceptions however, there are
times when a students’ knowledge about using ICT technologies will exceed the teacher’s knowledge. This can
prove to be intimidating for teachers and cause them to fear the implementation of ICT in their classrooms. Yes,
the role of the teacher will change, but Sutherland et al. (2004) argued that ICT does not simply change the role
of the teacher from “teller” to “facilitator.” They viewed the teacher’s role as a gradual shifting of perspectives
from the “more knowledgeable-other,” to the “co-constructor of knowledge,” to the “vicarious participant.” In
1610 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

other words, sometimes the teacher’s role is to lead the students, sometimes it is to interact and engage the
students in conversation, and sometimes it is to remain silent.
According to Wheeler (2001), there are four main ways that the teachers’ roles will change as they integrate
ICT into their classrooms. First of all, because ICT will make some resources obsolete, teachers will need to
employ electronic forms of distributed communication. Secondly, ICT will most likely make some forms of
assessment redundant and unnecessary. Certain forms of traditional testing will eventually be replaced with
computer-based assessments. Thirdly, as mentioned before, it will no longer be sufficient for teachers to merely
impart knowledge. Teachers will be expected to encourage thinking skills, promote information literacy, and
nurture collaborative working skills to prepare their students for the outside world of technology. Finally,
teachers will need to move beyond the traditional linear method of teaching and design lessons with non-linear
elements.
The use of technology in the classroom presents a need for a healthy balance between whole-class and
individual/group work. With the implementation of ICT, it is often assumed that individual and group work will
replace whole class work. Sutherland et al. (2004) argued that a balance between the two is a key aspect to
successfully implementing ICT into school subjects. While using some forms of technology seem to be more
suitable for individuals or small groups, the same technology can be used to benefit the whole class as the
students use it to present what they have learned. The sharing of student work with the entire class is helping
teachers and students to shift from individual knowledge to collective and shared knowledge.
The use of ICT brings up the issue of interactivity in the classroom. Kirkwood and Price (2005) claimed that
ICT has been transforming the nature of long distance education for individual learners in various ways. ICT
has introduced a new level of interaction that previously had been difficult to achieve. Software related to the
subjects being taught can engage students with new learning activities across a wide range of disciplines.
Furthermore, the Internet enables two-way communication to be enhanced, making dialogue not only possible
with other pupils but with tutors as well. As the student body becomes more diverse, teachers at all levels of
education (elementary to secondary and especially beyond) will need to be aware of their potential learners and
their familiarity with ICT as well as their ability to access it from home.
Interactivity is a term that educators are familiar with, but it has many facets. In fact, Hargreaves et al. (2003)
came up with 9 different types of interactive teaching constructs. As they interviewed teachers’ perceptions
concerning interactive teaching, they found that they offered several conceptualizations of interactive teaching
especially in reference to different purposes and contexts. While ICT does encourage a sense of interactivity,
Tanner and Jones (2007) saw the importance of considering the differences between technical interactivity,
pedagogical interactivity, and conceptual interactivity. Technical interactivity simply refers to the student’s
interaction with ICT (i.e. manipulating text and images). Pedagogical interactivity and conceptual interactivity
are more in-depth. Pedagogical interactivity is necessary for effective teaching while conceptual interactivity is
essential for effective learning. Their study showed that ICT was popular among the students involved in their
study, but their interest was mainly concerning the superficial features of the technology. Oftentimes,
interaction in whole class settings is teacher dominated as the teacher asks questions and the students quickly
give a response (Burns & Myhill, 2004). The students that Tanner and Jones (2007) interviewed gave evidence
that the quality of teacher-pupil interaction was the most important factor for significant learning. ICT alone did
not contribute to pedagogical or conceptual interaction.
According to Venezky and Davis (as cited in Venezky, 2004), ICT rarely acts by itself as a catalyst for
change in schools. In other words, simply implementing ICT in schools does not guarantee that schools will
change their approaches to teaching or change some other major aspect of education. However, ICT can be a
powerful lever for actually reaching planned educational innovations that were previously set goals. ICT has
helped to reach goals that were essential for overall change, but it was not the cause for that change. ICT simply
cannot be added to a particular educational situation and be expected to solve its problem. In order for ICT to be
a lever for change, someone must first set a goal or a vision for change and then implement ICT in order to meet
that goal. When used properly and efficiently, ICT can prove to be very powerful. With the use of ICT, schools
can access a vast array of resources; form learning communities by connecting with families and teachers; give
 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617 1611

students opportunities to work outside of class from anywhere that they have Internet access; and bring in
experts from around the world (Venezky, 2004).

10. Interactive whiteboard

The interactive whiteboard (IWB) is a branch of ICT that has played a huge part in transforming today’s
classrooms. The IWB is large touch-sensitive board that controls a computer that is connected to a digital
projector (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). The IWB is sometimes referred to as an electronic whiteboard
or SMART Board. In 1991, a pioneer company called SMART Technologies produced the first SMART Board
interactive whiteboards. Since then, IWBs have a come a long way and many schools have these special
whiteboards in their classrooms (SMART Technologies, 2006).
The IWB is a technological tool that has great potential. Smith et al. (2005) researched IWBs and came to
the following conclusion: The IWB is not only a tool to enhance teaching, but it is also a tool to support
learning. Beeland (2002) stated that the IWB is a tool for delivering instruction in a variety of ways that fall into
one of three modalities of learning: visual learning, auditory learning, and tactile learning. The IWB helps
students who are visual learners by providing them with a variety of visuals ranging from text and pictures to the
use of animation and videos. Auditory learners also benefit from using the IWB through activities such as
listening to sounds or music as part of a classroom presentation. Even tactile learners find the IWB helpful as
they physically interact with the whiteboard by touching and moving things on the screen (Beeland, 2002).
Generally speaking, you can perform a variety of different functions with the IWB. For example, you can
write, erase, and perform mouse functions with your finger, a pen or any other object that has a firm
maneuverable surface. You can write in digital ink over websites and other applications. You can save your
work or your notes and move them into a different software application. In the latest version of the IWB, you
can even download software onto a personal computer. This is a great advantage for teachers because it allows
them to create lessons from home. Furthermore, it allows students to review lessons and complete their work
from home, provided that they have access to the Internet (Starkman, 2006).
Beyond the three different learning modalities that the IWB promotes, there is a variety of other more
specific ways that the IWB can be used in the classroom setting. According to Reardon (2002), the IWB can be
used to record class notes and homework assignments; prerecord a daily lesson; connect a whiteboard to a
computer and the Internet; and integrate software programs into instruction. Ziolkowski (2004) surveyed some
teachers in his local high school and found some creative ways that the teachers implemented the IWB in their
classrooms. Ziolkowski used the “notebook feature” of the SMART Board to import images into his physics
class. Other teachers made lessons ahead of time, saved them, and then used them repeatedly to demonstrate
skills that the students needed to know and understand. A language arts teacher imbedded a variety of images,
sound clips, and movie clips into his lessons, which were mostly downloaded from Internet searches. Gillen et
al. (2008) researched the use of the IWB as a resource in a primary science classroom. They found that the
teachers in their study used the IWB to present their objectives at the beginning of the lesson. Shenton and
Pagett (2007) found that language arts teachers made pre-prepared screens so that they could scaffold and
modify writing, using the IWB’s tools to highlight texts in color and magnify them for closer perusal. Teachers
also saved work only to return to it later and review it with their students. As previously mentioned, sometimes
they also downloaded resources from the Internet to use with their lessons. Multimodal texts such as hyperlinks
to other websites were commonly used as well. Villano (2006) found that teachers can manipulate a variety of
tools that enables them to present slides, take notes, write in digital ink, control applications on a computer, and
save work to share at a later time. Beyond the classroom, Fletcher (2006) stated that while teachers can use the
IWB for demonstrations and introductions to specific units, they can also capture that same information and
present it on their websites so that students can view it at their leisure.
The IWB is ever evolving. One of the emerging forms of the IWB is the wireless tablet. This portable
wireless tablet functions similarly to the IWB. Wireless tablets allow teachers to stand at a distance from the
IWB and yet control what is displayed on the whiteboard for the students to see (Landis, 2005).
1612 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

The term “e-teaching” is a unique term used to describe the new pedagogy that is evolving with the use of the
IWB. E-teaching involves the use of ICT to enhance the art of teaching students. E-teaching allows teachers to
make use of a wide variety of resources through one simple piece of equipment – the IWB (Kent, 2006).
Another emerging form of the IWB has proven to enhance the learning of deaf students as well as students
with learning disabilities. Software called SynchronEyes has proven effective for deaf students. SynchronEyes
allows a teacher to monitor each student’s computer screen as well as disable the mouse and keyboard controls
when the students should be looking forward to the front of the room. Teachers can also choose for certain
messages to appear on the students’ individual computer screens so they know when to stop working and look to
the front of the room (Mackall, 2004).

11. Implementing the IWB

Implementing the IWB into the classroom setting will no doubt change the classroom culture. Glover and
Miller (2007) researched the effects of implementing IWBs into all mathematic classrooms in secondary
schools. After implementing this change, many other changes took place in these classrooms. Some of these
changes included classroom organization; pupil-pupil interaction; teacher-pupil interaction; selection of software
and other resources; the IWB as the focus for the activities; rapport between learners and the subject being
taught; and pair, collaborative and group learning. According to these researchers, all of these changes appeared
to generate a culture of learning within each classroom.
While implementing the IWB tends to change the classroom culture, it is just as true that the classroom
culture plays a huge role in how well the IWB will be implemented into the daily routine of instruction. If the
classroom culture is not supportive and fails to create an environment where both students and teachers feel safe
to explore the IWB without fearing failure, successful implementation of the IWB will be hindered (Kennewell
& Beauchamp, 2007). According to Kent and Facer (2004), socio-culture theory brings the culture of human
action to the front and center. One must first realize that both the teacher and the students work within a local
classroom that is influenced by local, national and even global factors. It is within this context that the teacher
and students bring their own personal history of experiences which relates specifically to their previous cultures
of learning and tool use. Knowing this, it is not surprising that when a teacher or a student is faced with a new
technology, both are prone to make sense of it in terms of their previous knowledge and experience of older
technologies.
In order to use the IWB effectively, Glover and Miller (2007) made the following suggestions: the classroom
should be arranged in a way that the equipment complements rather than intrudes upon the learning
environment; the lesson should include stimulating software in a stepped learning process with plenty of
opportunities for pupil activity; and the teacher should be demonstrative, embracing, and aware of all students so
as to present a lesson that engages and captures the students’ full attention.
Cox and Abbott’s study (as cited in Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007) showed that when the IWB is
effectively implemented, it carries a great opportunity to impact student learning. The key to effective
implementation lies with the teacher, the pedagogical approach adopted, the ICT resources employed, and the
learning objectives intended. Research has shown that the IWB can have a positive impact on learning. For
example, the IWB engages students; promotes a longer attention span and better focus; provides visual and
dynamic representations; improves student motivation; encourages the pace and flow of a lesson; and provides
multimodality (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Smith et al., 2005). Other positive results of using the IWB
include differentiation; reflection; collaboration; and retention and transfer of knowledge learned (Kennewell &
Beauchamp, 2007).
If the IWB is properly implemented and perceived as more than a mere presentation tool, it can promote
interaction in the classroom. The classroom teacher needs to recognize that the IWB can be used in this way and
then use appropriate software that affords that positive interaction between teachers and students and between
students and their classmates. An IWB can afford interactivity by encouraging students to make use of the
different ways of manipulating the applications that are running on the screen. Interactivity can also be
 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617 1613

increased as students and teachers both interact with the IWB through the use of the keyboard, the electronic
pens, or from digital control devices from other parts of the room (Armstrong et al., 2005).

12. Benefits of using the IWB

The IWB is a unique piece of technology that allows both teachers and students to perform a variety of
techniques as well as tap into a wealth of resources. Kennewell and Beauchamp (2007) found that teachers felt
that the IWB was especially effective in gaining and then keeping their students’ attention for longer periods of
time. They also felt that the IWB’s large display helped their students to focus on the content being taught
rather than on the teacher or on their classmates. On a more practical level, teachers found the IWB to be a great
advantage because it allowed them to make their resources and then save them for the actual lesson. Kennewell
et al. (2008) also found that this technology made it easier for teachers to prepare material in advance, quickly
retrieve it for classroom display, and then manipulate the items directly on the whiteboard. According to
Kennewell and Beauchamp’s (2007) study, teachers also felt that their students were more apt to get involved
when they taught with the IWB. While at first it may have been overwhelming to develop lessons for the IWB,
teachers found it much easier to navigate the IWB and prepare lessons over time as they had more opportunities
to practice and familiarize themselves with this particular technology. Furthermore, by preparing and loading
lessons in advance, teachers felt that the IWB helped to create a smoothness to their organizational activities and
overall classroom management. Ultimately, the greatest benefit perceived by these teachers was the notable
increase in the students’ level of engagement in the lessons.
The IWB has a variety of features that makes teaching and learning more effective. For example, as primary
teachers taught science lessons, they presented the vocabulary words on the IWB and then highlighted key terms
in red to carry high-sensory modality and capture the students’ attention. Another common feature implemented
by these teachers was that of the ‘block reveal’ technique. This allowed the teacher to cover up parts of the IWB
so that the students could only see parts of the information at a time. The ‘block reveal’ technique is a great way
to manage the pace of the movement throughout the lesson (Gillen et al., 2007).
The IWB makes it possible for students to see not only what is portrayed on the IWB but also any changes or
additions that are made with the electronic pens. The IWB is very similar to a chalkboard, but it carries the
possibility of using color, images and even moving images. The IWB also makes it very easy for teachers to
access a wide range of resources and materials to support instruction. Oftentimes the IWB is controlled by the
teacher as she stands at the front of the classroom. However, there are handheld remote control devices
available which allow the teacher to make changes on the IWB from anywhere in the room (Clyde, 2004).
According to Kelley, Underwood, Potter, Hunter, and Beveridge (2007), a genuine advantage of using the
IWB is the ability of the teacher to face the class for longer periods of time for each lesson since PowerPoint and
other software programs allowed the teachers to prepare a few extra visuals. Other benefits for using the IWB
include the following: much clearer images and sounds; flexibility; and upward compatibility. Schweder et al.
(2008) found that the IWB is also very mobile, making it more accommodating to students with special needs.
The height of the IWB is easily adjusted so that it can accommodate those in wheelchairs or those who have
other disabilities. Even students with hearing and visual losses are able to participate in various interactive
whiteboard activities.
While the use of the IWB does not guarantee that a higher focus is being placed on learning, the benefits of
the IWB do seem to support more effective teaching. For example, the IWB is reported to enable smooth
transitions between activities; quicken the pace of the lesson; provide “seamless flow” from one teaching point
to another; reduce the time spent on managing resources; and prepare the lesson for classroom presentation
(Smith et al., 2005). Ultimately the IWB does add value to the classroom, but the value added focuses mainly
on teaching more efficiently.
One of the major benefits of using the IWB is that this technology makes it extremely easy and convenient
for educators to employ multiple modes of representation with one simple resource, the IWB. It could be argued
that teachers could find the individual resources needed and implement them separately, but the IWB makes it
1614 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

possible to accomplish all of those goals with just one piece of technology. As teachers make wide use of the
many different forms of representation on the IWB, students generally become more engaged in the lesson being
taught. The IWB itself does not accomplish this feat. Teachers ultimately have to take advantage of their
students’ interests and then engage them multi-modally so that they can create cohesion and continuity that
might not be achieved in a more traditional setting where there seems to be more of a disconnect between
disparate events. According to Smith et al. (2005), some of the potential benefits of using the IWB include the
following: flexibility, multi-media/multimodal presentations, efficiency, the ability to model ICT skills,
interactivity and participation in lessons, and ease in the planning and the development of resources. The IWB
also helps to quicken the pace of lessons. Less time is spent moving from one idea to the next when the IWB is
implemented because such a plethora of resources are found in this one piece of technology.
The use of the IWB has the potential to increase interaction between teachers their pupils, but this
interactivity depends on the skill of the teacher (Jones, 2004). According to Knight, Pennant, and Piggott
(2004), the interactivity of the IWB comes more into play as teachers move down the following continuum of
teaching contexts: 1) teacher as demonstrator, 2) teacher as modeler, 3) teacher in control, 4) pupils in control
with the teacher advising, and 5) pupils working independently. Gillen et al. (2007) discussed classroom
interactivity, but they made a distinction between technical interactivity and pedagogical interactivity. In terms
of technical interactivity, the IWB seems to make a much smoother presentation from one technology to another.
Pedagogical interactivity, on the other hand, is a little more complex. Teachers who use the IWB often find
themselves standing at the front of the room near the whiteboard, which often means that the teacher is more apt
to lead to a more traditional style of teaching. However, a truly effective teacher will use the IWB in order to
produce a lively, varied and complex interactive lesson where the students are actively involved in the
manipulation of information.

13. Disadvantages and limitations of the IWB

As with any new technology, there are always disadvantages and limitations that hinder its use. One of the
disadvantages of the IWB is that only one person can use the board at any given moment, which limits the
amount of interaction that the teachers can have with their students at any particular time (Shenton & Pagett,
2007). Another disadvantage from using the IWB is that oftentimes the student’s active involvement with the
IWB during whole-class instruction slows down the pace of the lesson and can cause boredom for the other
students (Smith et al., 2005).
If the IWB is to be used effectively in the classroom, teachers must be properly trained and then provided
with the necessary support to continue implementing the technology available at their fingertips. According to
Freedman (as cited in Clyde, 2004), the IWB is often underused because teachers lack the time to find and
develop resources and materials to use in the classroom. As Shenton and Pagett (2007) noted, practical issues
such as technical support and installation of new equipment, could prove to be very troubling if these issues
cannot be acknowledged in a reasonable fashion. In order for the IWB to make positive changes in today’s
classrooms, there is sufficient evidence that professional development support must be provided frequently
(Glover & Miller, 2007).

14. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions

Glover and Miller (2003) studied teachers’ attitudes towards the installation of IWBs in their classrooms.
Their research showed a variety of attitudes/perceptions among the teachers chosen to be a part of the study.
They classified the teachers’ attitudes into one of the following categories: the missioners, the tentatives, the
luddites, the revolutionaries, the gradualists, and the reactionaries. Each category consists of teachers with
certain characteristics. For example, the “missioners” are those teachers who have already implemented the
IWB into their lessons and who strive to get other teachers involved in that way. The “tentatives” are those who
are interested in the IWB yet are fearful because of their lack of knowledge. The “luddites” are those teachers
 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617 1615

who have had trainings for how to use the IWB, but they are fearful of embarking on a new journey and putting
forth the extra time and effort needed to use the IWB effectively. “Revolutionaries” believe that the IWB has
value and they seek to find ways to get other teachers on board with them to use it effectively. “Gradualists” are
teachers who are aware of the need to change, but they change slowly, over time. Finally, the “reactionaries”
are those teachers who are fearful that the new technology would bring problems for the school so they use the
current or potential resource problems as a means of deferring change. Based on this study, when administrators
want to implement the IWB into their classrooms, they need to take into consideration the attitudes and
perceptions of their teachers since the pace of change clearly rests in their willingness to jump on board and
make the changes a possibility.
In a study conducted by Shenton and Pagett (2007), teachers’ perceptions on the IWB were researched in six
British primary classrooms. Many of these teachers saw the IWB as a powerful, extra resource to support their
teaching. The IWB allowed them to be more creative with their lesson presentations. Furthermore, the IWB
helped them with classroom organization and time management. Because the IWB is so versatile, the teachers
could accomplish a variety of tasks without the distractions that often result when one has to stop and pass out
papers or change to another form of technology. One teacher in particular felt that the IWB had the potential to
lead to more “whole-class, teacher-led lessons.” While most teachers felt that the IWB had great potential to
engage students in the learning process, they did not deny the fact that there was always a tendency for them to
dominate the IWB so that students were not as fully engaged with the IWB as they could have been had they had
more of an opportunity to explore it on their own. The teachers also admitted that it took a considerable amount
of time and effort to create materials to use with the IWB, especially for those teachers who were implementing
this type of teaching for the first time. While teachers recognized that the IWB had a positive impact on
students by motivating them to learn and stay focused, they also recognized that for some students, the IWB
served as a distraction for them. These teachers then had the challenge of finding ways to help those students to
stay focused.
Many of the students’ perceptions of the IWB are similar to those of their teachers. For instance, Shenton
and Pagett (2007) interviewed students from six primary classrooms in Britain. The students said that they liked
the IWB because they could use it to view pictures from the Internet and watch video clips. In another study of
British primary students, Hall and Higgins (2005) found that students liked the IWB because it had a wide range
of resources that were versatile and easy to use. They also seemed to enjoy the multi-media capabilities of the
technology and claimed that these elements helped to gain and hold their attention during the class lessons. For
example, the students were very interested in the visual aspects (color and movement) as well as the audio
aspects (sounds and videos). The students interviewed in this study also commented that the IWB made learning
more fun and enjoyable. While these students’ perceptions of the IWB were generally positive, they also shared
what they did not like about the IWB. Some of the problems perceived by students included failings of the
technology itself (i.e. the IWB “freezing up” or shutting down and the sunlight shining on the IWB, creating a
glare on the screen). Another common perceived problem among the students interviewed was the need to
reorient the board. Students also complained that the IWB is sometimes fuzzy and difficult to read. Finally,
students expressed their desire to use the IWB more in the classroom if possible.
Wall et al. (2005) conducted a study in English primary classrooms to research students’ perceptions of the
IWB in the classroom. Overall, the students claimed that the IWB assisted their understanding and learning and
motivated them to engage in the lesson because of their desire to use the IWB personally. In regards to their
teachers, the students in this study claimed that the IWB not only helped their teacher to explain certain
concepts, but it also helped them to become more enthusiastic and innovative in their teaching. When asked to
share some of the disadvantages of using the IWB, the students mainly focused on the technical reliability of the
whiteboard and the associated equipment. Another negative comment repeated frequently was the need for
reorienting the board in the middle of a lesson. Students also complained about waiting for the technology to
start up.
1616 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617

Students with learning disabilities also prefer using the IWB. According to Mechling, Gast, & Thompson
(2008), students who were interviewed said that they liked the IWB because they could see the words, it was
easy, and it was fun.

References

Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers
& Education, 47, 373-398.
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for
investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57, 457-469.
Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2008). Pupils’ attitudes towards school science as they transfer from an ICT-rich primary school to a
secondary school with fewer ICT resources: Does ICT matter? Education & Information Technologies, 13, 103-118.
Beeland, W.D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning, and technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Retrieved February
14, 2009, from http://education.smarttech.com/ste/en-
US/News+and+research/Research/International/US/2002/Student+Engagement.htm
Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 34, 35-49.
Clyde, L. A. (2004). Electronic whiteboards. Teacher Librarian, 32, 43-44.
DenBeste, M. (2003). Power point, technology and the web: More than just an overhead projector for the new century? History Teacher, 36,
491-504.
Driscoll, M. P. (2002). How people learn (and what technology might have to do with it. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information
and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470032)
Fletcher, G. H. (2006). Imagine the possibilities T.H.E. Journal.
Furr, P., Ragsdale, R., & Horton, S. (2005). Technology’s non-neutrality: Past lessons can help guide Today’s classrooms. Education &
Information Technologies, 10, 277-287.
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and
support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 348-358.
Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A 'learning revolution'? investigating pedagogic practice around
interactive whiteboards in british primary classrooms. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32, 243-256.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2003). Players in the management of change: Introducing interactive whiteboards into schools. Management in
Education, 17, 20-23.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2007). Leading changed classroom culture -- the impact of interactive whiteboards. Management in Education
(Sage Publications Inc.), 21, 21-24.
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21,
102-117.
Hargreaves, L., Moyles, J., Merry, R., Paterson, F., Pell, A., & Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003). How do primary school teachers define and
implement 'interactive teaching' in the national literacy strategy in England? Research Papers in Education, 18, 217-236.
Introduction-What is ICT? (2006). Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.tutor2u.net/business/ict/intro_what_is_ict.htm
Jones, K. (2004) Using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of mathematics: a research bibliography. MicroMath, 20, 5-6.
Keller, T. (2008). The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism. New York, New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
Kelley, P., Underwood, G., Potter, F., Hunter, J., & Beveridge, S. (2007). Viewpoints. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32, 333-347.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media, &
Technology, 32, 227-241.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive
teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73.
Kent, N., & Facer, K. (2004). Different worlds? A comparison of young people's home and school ICT use. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 20, 440-455.
Kent, P. (2006). Using interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11, 23-26.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty
first century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards and
experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30, 257-
274.
Knight, P., Pennant, J., & Piggott, J. (2004). What does it mean to "use the interactive whiteboard" in the daily mathematics lesson? Micro
Math, 20, 14-16.
Landis, M. (2005, March/April). Eight ways to integrate whiteboard into instruction. Media and Methods, 41, 4.
Lawrenz, F., Gravely, A., & Ooms, A. (2006). Perceived helpfulness and amount of use of technology in science and mathematics classes at
different grade levels. Technology in Science and Mathematics Classes, 106, 133-139.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49, 284-296.
 Michael W. Firmin and Deanna J. Genesi / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013) 1603 – 1617 1617

Mackall, P. (2004). Interactive whiteboards enhance the learning experience for deaf, hard-of-hearing students. T H E Journal, 31, 64-66.
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Thompson, K. L. (2008). Comparison of the effects of smart board technology and flash card instruction on
sight word recognition and observational learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 34-46.
Merrett, S., & Edwards, J. (2005). Enhancing mathematical thinking with an interactive whiteboard. Micro Math, 21, 9-12.
Ozel, S., Ebrar Yetkiner, Z., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Technology in K-12 mathematics classrooms. School Science & Mathematics, 108,
80-85.
Pountain, D. (2001). The new penguin dictionary of computing: An a-z of computing jargon and concepts. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.
Reardon, T. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in school: Effective uses. Media & Methods, 38, 12.
Schut, C. R. (2007). Student perceptions of interactive whiteboards in a biology classroom (Master’s thesis, Cedarville University, 2007).
Schweder, W., Wissick, C. A., & Mounce, A. B. (2008). Teaching content with interactive whiteboards. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 23, 54-58.
Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From ‘bored’ to screen: The use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in
England. Literacy, 41, 129-136.
SMART Technologies, Company Info. (2006). Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-
US/About+Us/Company+Info/History.htm
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
Starkman, N. (2006). The wonders of interactive WHITEBOARDS. T H E Journal, 33, 36-38.
Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M., et al. (2004). Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding
ICT into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 413-425.
Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). Using video-stimulated reflective dialogue to learn from children about their learning with and without ICT.
Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 16, 321-335.
The CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2001). School technology and readiness report: Key building blocks for student
achievement in the 21st century: assessment, alignment, accountability, access, analysis. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February
14, 2009, from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf
Vail, K. (2003). School technology grows up. American School Board Journal, 190, 34-37.
Venezky, R. L. (2004). Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education, Communication & Information, 4, 3-21.
Villano, M. (2006). Picture this! T H E Journal, 33, 16-20.
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, 851-867.
Wheeler, S. (2001). Information and communication technologies and the changing role of the teacher. Journal of Educational Media, 26, 7-
17.
Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 31, 307-320.
Zhang, S. & Deng, H. (2004). Perception of learning effectiveness in the multimedia classroom vs. the traditional classroom: A case study.
Media Review, 11, 87-107.
Ziolkowski, R. (2004). Interactive whiteboards: Impacting teaching and learning. Media & Methods, 40, 44-44.