ELT Journal Advance Access published May 10, 2013

technology for the language teacher

Interactive whiteboards
Nicky Hockly

In this series, we explore current technology-related themes and topics. The

series aims to discuss and demystify what may be new areas for some readers
and to consider their relevance to English language teachers.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 13, 2013

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) have been present in educational
settings for over a decade now. However, the evidence on whether they
improve student attainment is inconclusive. In this article, we explore
the rise of IWBs, review some of the research, and consider how this is
relevant to the English language classroom.

IWBs in IWBs first appeared in classrooms in significant numbers in the

mainstream early 2000s, particularly in the United Kingdom. Providing up to
education 10 million to support the introduction of IWBs into primary schools
(20032004), the UK government was one of the first to champion the
use of this new educational technology, as part of the National Literacy
Strategy and the National Numeracy Strategy. This decision came in
response to the political climate of the time, and a perceived need to
focus on the development of ICT skills within mainstream schooling
if Britain was to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized
world. IWBs, it was felt, provided the sort of innovative technology that
would support better learning in a whole-class setting. This dominant
discourse claimed that IWBs would transform and revolutionize
teaching and learning (Twiner 2010: 38). The result was the top-down
implementation of educational hardware (IWBs) in schools driven
by the technology itself rather than by any underlying pedagogical
principles or research studies. It is a strategy that has been replicated
the world over by educational bodies and governments with the
resources to do so. As Thomas and Cutrim Schmid (2010) note:

The integration of interactive whiteboards in classrooms around the

world over the last decade provides a fascinating case study of the
current state of pedagogy and increasingly interventionist role adopted
by governments in directing education policies and national curricula.
(Thomas and Cutrim Schmid ibid.: xx)
The integration of IWBs in classrooms also provides a fascinating case
study of technological determinism, in which the technology itself is
seen as somehow inherently capable of ensuring effective pedagogy and

ELT Journal; doi:10.1093/elt/cct021  Page 1 of 5

The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
 enhanced student attainment. As has happened with much education
technology in the past (Selwyn 2011), IWBs were initially touted as
the harbingers of a new dawn of learning. However, in the words of
Laurillard (2008: 1), education is on the brink of being transformed
through learning technologies; however, it has been on the brink for
some decades now. To determine to what extent IWBs have lived up to
their vaunted potential, let us turn to the research.

The research There is now a substantial body of research into IWBs, which can
be divided into three main phases of investigation (Moss and Jewitt
2010). The first phase (20002003) consisted of small-scale research
projects that took place concurrently with the initial appearance of
IWBs in (mainly primary) classrooms. Findings were often anecdotal or
described practice as educators came to grips with the new technology
(for example Cogill 2002). Findings focused particularly on the IWBs
ability to capture and sustain student interest and testified to increased
student motivation in the classroom.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 13, 2013

A second phase of research, from approximately 2003 to 2007, saw
large-scale studies (for example those funded through UK government
agencies; see BECTA 2004) focusing on the effects of IWBs on
classroom interactions and on teachers practice. The main benefits of
IWBs identified centred around notions of
multimodality: the IWBs capacity to harness a wider range of
multimodal resources in order to facilitate pupil learning [...]
pace: its capacity to increase the pace and efficiency of classroom
delivery and therefore best use of teacher time [...]
interaction: its capacity to enhance interactive whole-class
teaching [...]
(Moss and Jewitt op.cit.: 29)

A third phase of research, dating from approximately 2007 to the

present, points to mixed findings on the efficacy of IWBs. A direct
causal relationship between IWBs and student attainment is extremely
difficult to prove because of the many factors involved, for example
the way teachers use the IWB, the classroom context, the amount of
professional development received by the teacher, the materials used,
students motivation, and expectations and attitudes. At the very least,
these factors need to be taken into account when considering whether
IWBs have any impact on learning. For instance, findings have pointed
to the importance of professional development and training in IWB use
for teachers, as well as how staff consultation on the implementation of
IWBs can lead to greater acceptance and use (Miller and Glover 2010:
10). Thus, the relationship between IWBs and student attainment can
be summed up as follows:

The mere introduction of the technology does not guarantee

an enhanced learning environment. The presence of IWBs can
represent opportunities for teachers to use information in more
effective ways, primarily in terms of organization and management,

Page 2 of 5 Nicky Hockly

 however this does not automatically suggest that the learning
environment for students will be enhanced. The role of the teacher,
his or her knowledge of the technology and how to use it, will be the
most important factors in determining if successful progress can be
identified and supported. (Thomas and Cutrim Schmid op.cit.: xx)
Indeed, the view that any technology will by and of itself automatically lead
to better learning is misleading. As Neil Selwyn (op.cit.: 89) points out:
Any technology must be seen in terms of the limits and structures that
it imposes as well as the opportunities that it may offer for individual
action and agency [...] It is important to recognise that educational
technologies do not always change things for the better. Technologies
do not always allow people to work more efficiently or support people
in doing what they want. Instead educational technologies can often
have unexpected and unintended consequences. Technologies are
often linked to a range of other issues far beyond immediate concerns
of the individual learner or classroom.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 13, 2013

IWBs in ELT IWBs also made an appearance in English language teaching in the
early 2000s and again tended to follow a top-down implementation
model. The British Council was one of the first organizations to
introduce IWBs into their teaching centres all over the world, with
many other language teaching centres following their lead (Dudeney
and Hockly 2012). The introduction of IWBs into English language
classrooms in many instances appeared to respond to a perceived
need (usually by language school managers and directors) to keep up
to date and to be seen as having the latest equipment. Coupled with
pressure from IWB manufacturers teaming up with ELT publishers,
IWBs were seen as the latest must have teaching device. Rarely was
the introduction of IWBs into the classroom solicited by teachers or
students. Even less frequently was reference made to the improvements
in student learning that might be expected to follow the introduction of
IWBs. This is because it has proved extremely difficult to point to any
specific improvements in student attainment due to the use of IWBs.

Within the field of ELT, the initial debate over whether IWBs are good
or bad, and between IWB sceptics (for example Dudeney 2006)
and IWB evangelists (notably publishers and IWB manufacturers),
has given way to a more measured response in which ways to most
effectively explore the specific affordances of IWBs are seen as the way
forward, given that in many classrooms, IWBs are now a fact of life. For
example, the European Union-funded project Interactive Technologies
in Language Teaching (iTILT: http://www.itilt.eu/) identifies the lack
of teacher training and appropriate materials as major challenges in
the effective use of IWBs. This project seeks to redress this situation by
providing both a teaching handbook for classroom teachers and a range
of IWB materials, along with other resources such as videos of IWB
classrooms in action.
Implications for The pros and cons of IWBs for language teachers have been well
English language documented, and in this article we shall highlight the most significant
teachers (see Moss and Jewitt op.cit.: 268 for further description and reference

Interactive whiteboards Page 3 of 5

 to specific research studies). High on the list of advantages are
increased engagement and motivation for learners, while high on the
list of disadvantages are technical challenges, the considerable cost of
some IWBs, and a general lack of support and training for teachers
when starting out with IWBs.

However, it is still unclear whether the considerable investment in

hardware is justified in terms of measurable student attainment. For
those schools that have already invested in IWBs, the research findings
point towards the importance of continual professional development
for teachers coupled with an exploration of effective pedagogical
practices that integrate the use of the board into pedagogically sound
teaching. As a fixed board at the front of the room, the IWB can
support a teacher-centred transmission or presentational approach
to learning (Reedy 2008). A recent study into the use of IWBs with
young learners in Spain (Yez and Coyle 2011) noted exactly this issue;
although the learners were engaged by the use of the whiteboard, they

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 13, 2013

expressed a desire to use the IWB more often [themselves] (ibid.:
453). In this case study, the teacher tended to use and control the board
in lessons, without inviting the learners to use it; this was clearly a
source of frustration for these learners. The teachers own pedagogical
practices will frequently determine how the IWB is used in individual
classrooms, and in this case study, we see it being used consistently as a
teacher-centred tool; however, training has been shown to help teachers
explore alternative approaches.
However, for those schools that have not yet invested in IWBs, given
the significant expense in hardware and necessary training, other
alternatives may be worth exploring. The rise of mobile and handheld
learning presents one such alternative (Hockly 2012). Hardware
budgets can arguably be better spent on class sets of mobile devices and
a screen and projector. There are also low-cost portable alternatives to
standard IWBs, which can turn standard whiteboards into interactive
surfaces.
To move beyond the use of the IWB as a teacher-fronted tool simply
showing pre-packaged coursebook materials, it can be more useful to
conceive the board as a digital hub (Moss, Jewitt, Levai, Armstrong,
Cardini, Castle, et al. 2007: 92) for students to share their own work
and interact with lesson content via their own networked devices.
Significantly, publishers themselves are moving away from creating
IWB-compatible versions of coursebooks to coursebook-related content
online, which is accessible not just by the teacher via the board but by
students themselves with their own devices in a connected classroom.

References and how does this affect teachers and teaching?

BECTA. 2004. Getting the Most from Your
Interactive Whiteboard. A Guide for Primary
Schools. Available at http://goo.gl/zmjk4
(accessed on 8 March 2013).
Cogill, J. 2002. How is the interactive
whiteboard being used in the primary school
Available at http://goo.gl/ko4pH (accessed on
6 March 2013).
Dudeney, G. 2006. Interactive, quite bored.
IATEFL CALL Review: 89. Available at http://
ltsig.org.uk/archives/cr0602.pdf (accessed on
6 March 2013).

Page 4 of 5 Nicky Hockly

Dudeney, G. and N. Hockly. 2012. ICT in ELT:
how did we get here and where are we going?
ELT Journal 66/4: 53342.
Hockly, N. 2012. Technology for the language
teacher: mobile learning. ELT Journal 67/1: 804.
Laurillard, D. 2008. Digital Technologies and their
Role in Achieving our Ambitions for Education.
London: Institute of Education.
Miller, D. and D. Glover. 2010. Interactive
whiteboards: a literature survey in M. Thomas
and E. Cutrim Schmid (eds.).
Moss, G. and C. Jewitt. 2010. Policy, pedagogy
and interactive whiteboards: what lessons can be
learnt from early adoption in England? in
M. Thomas and E. Cutrim Schmid (eds.).
Moss, G., C. Jewitt, R. Levai, V. Armstrong,
A. Cardini, F. Castle, et al. 2007. The Interactive
Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance
Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools
Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London
Challenge. London: DfES.
Reedy, G. 2008. PowerPoint, interactive
whiteboards, and visual culture of technology in
schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 17/2:
14362.
Selwyn, N. 2011. Education and Technology:
Key Issues and Debates. London: Continuum
International.
Interactive whiteboards
Thomas, M. and E. Cutrim Schmid (eds.). 2010.
Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory,
Research and Practice. New York, NY: IGI
Global.
Twiner, A. 2010. Interactive whiteboards and
the discourses of transformation, affordance,
orchestration and participation in M. Thomas
and E. Cutrim Schmid (eds.).
Yez, L. and Y. Coyle. 2011. Childrens
perceptions of learning with an interactive
whiteboard. ELT Journal 65/4: 44657.
The author
Nicky Hockly is a Director of Pedagogy of the
Consultants-E (www.theconsultants-e.com),
an online training and development
organization. She has been involved in EFL
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 13, 2013
teaching and teacher training since 1987
and is co-author of How to Teach English
with Technology, Learning English as a Foreign
Language for Dummies, Teaching Online,
and most recently Digital Literacies (2013),
as well as an e-book, Webinars: A Cookbook
for Educators. She maintains a blog about
e-learning at www.emoderationskills.com and
is a keen user of new technologies.
Email: nicky.hockly@theconsultants-e.com
Page 5 of 5