IWB Case Studies

2.7. Review of Case Studies and Analyses

Many experts like Beauchamp et al (2005), Hall and Higgins (2005), Hennessy et al (2007), Kennewell et al (2008) and Wood and Ashfield (2008) have expressed concern for how the educator’s attitude impacts the effectiveness and benefits of the IWB. Below are the analyses of three cases studies that were chosen specifically because they cover these benefits of IWB and were published in the last ten years. It was important to pick case studies that specifically discussed the use of the interactive whiteboard and not just ICT devices.

First the case studies chosen were conducted by: Glover et al (2007), Hennessy et al (2007), and Wood and Ashfield (2008). Each case discusses the use of the interactive whiteboard

Without the teacher’s ability to apply the IWB, the tool was useless and teachers turned to other approaches to design of the instruction. However, Glover et al (2007) found that as soon as the educator had a valid level of knowledge about IWB, they had confidence and the level of participation between them and the students rose greatly. Much of the level of success for the IWB was directly attributed to the awareness the teacher was able to create about the new tool and the different ways it could be used. The focus of the study does not look at the activity but the teacher and his or her motivation to use the tool. There is a direct correlation between the IWB use to the level of benefit as it relates to how the device connects the teacher with the student. While some experts look to the classroom members as active teachers for the class or all the class is the teacher, Glover et al (2007) supports having a holistic view of the classroom where the teacher is the centre but also seeks to promote the learners’ level of participation through multiple intelligences and opportunities to explore contact with the teacher’s presentation as the focal point and knowledge

The IWB also supports a high level rules based structures to form within the primary level context but also this too can change as the students move into higher cycles and yearn for more learning environments based upon independent learning. Wood and Ashfield (2008) also comment IWB enhances the use of CLIL because it allows the teacher to share instances of cultural context that may have been more difficult to present to a class under traditional tolls and methods. The IWB is valuable for the classroom as it expands the dimension of intertextual reality for the student by offering them a line of reasoning that also relates to his or her age level and cognitive ability. Within this environment, the teacher as well as the student’s classmates are able to see them with these abilities and talents which also contributes to wellbeing but rationale for students picking teammates for IWB activities. For e educator, they are able to see how well rounded the student is becoming and how CLIL works to bring the connections together for