What does the literature tell us?

Review of the Literature

A review of the literature revealed inconclusive evidence as to the impact of IWBs on student achievement. The literature underscores the need for further research. Deubel (2010) points out that although some literature reviewed is positive about the impact and the potential of IWBs, it is primarily based on the views of teachers and pupils; there is insufficient evidence to identify the actual impact of such technologies upon learning either in terms of classroom interaction or upon attainment or achievement. Indeed, some research showed positive results; however, others argue that IWB effectiveness were the result of qualified teachers and not directly associated with IWBs. Most of the literature pointed to professional development with emphasis on digital efficacy as a necessary component to teaching with IWBs. This literature review examines the evidence of IWBs on student achievement as well as factors that influence IWBs’ effectiveness.

Student Learning

            Much of the evidence surrounding IWBs and student achievement is inconclusive.  Swan, Schenker, and Kratcoski (2008) explored the effects of IWBs on reading and mathematics achievement of students in a small school in northern Ohio. The study showed teachers whose students scored above the mean on both reading mathematics assessments were found to use IWBs more frequently than the teachers whose students score at or below the mean on test. The results were most evident in fourth and fifth grade levels. The study also noted that teachers with high achieving students used IWBs in more creative ways.  In another study, Marzano (2009) discovered using IWBs was associated with a 16 percentile point gain in student achievement. He notes specific IWB features associated with student achievement: learner response devices, graphics to represent information, and interactive reinforcers.  As a result, he discovered that IWBs were most effective when students interacted with its features suggesting engagement to be an essential factor.  However, Marzano (2009) states that 23 percent of the cases, teachers had better results without the IWBs.  Marzano (2009) and Swan, Schenker, and Kratcoski (2008) looked to determine the effectiveness of IWBs; however, both point to the teachers’ level of instruction as a key factor that influenced achievement. According to Deubel (2010) it is not the medium, but instructional methods and teacher effectiveness that cause learning. This conflict in results leaves one to question if achievement gains were the result of IWBs or quality teaching.  

Deubel (2010) continues to argue that much of the evidence is anecdotal, and improved student performance appears to be in terms of increasing learning in the affective domain rather than the cognitive domain.  This argument suggests that while IWBs motivate and engage students, this does not necessarily constitute as learning. However, most teachers agree that motivation and engagement leads to learning. One cannot examine the effectiveness of IWBs and domains of concept knowledge without considering the views of students. Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) reported on pupil views of IWBs and found that students overwhelmingly believed IWBs helped them learn and assisted their understanding of difficult concepts.  Students in the study described IWBs as “fun” and “motivational.”  One ten year old girl in the study remarked, “You learn better with a smartboard because you can demonstrate things and not just tell about them” (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005).  Wall, Higgins, and Smith (2005) suggest that student metacognition and positive perceptions of IWBs can influence motivation and therefore enhance achievement.

 Teachers’ Beliefs

            Researchers have relied on the perceptions of teachers as a main source of information to determine the effectiveness of IWBs on learning (Turel & Johnson, 2012). The research by Marzono (2009) and Swan, Schenker, and Kratcoski (2008) point to instructional strategies, techniques, and teachers’ IWB use as factors that influence student learning. Marzono (2009), who was a teacher before becoming a researcher, remarked that, “If I had been a teacher in a classroom where I had access to those tools, I could have been a better teacher” (as cited in Manzo, 2009, p. 34).   In order to gain perspective of the overall research, it is important to consider the views of teachers.             

Wood and Ashfield (2008) collected data from observations of whole-class lessons and interviews involving IWB usage and found that teachers liked IWBs because they could support teachers’ preferred style of whole-class interactive teaching. In this way, teachers can use IWBs to enhance lessons without changing the way they teach. In terms of creative teaching, Wood and Ashfield (2008) assert that teachers are particularly positive about the ways IWBs allow them to select, modify, and navigate resources.

In one recent study by Turel and Johnson (2012), 174 teachers, who actively use IWBs for instruction, responded to several questions about their use of IWBs. Of the 174 participants, 70.1% believe using an IWB helps their lessons be more interactive, 75.2% of participants believe using an IWB increases students’ interest in class, and 91.4% believe IWB provides advantages to make the course content more visual (Turel & Johnson, 2012).  Most importantly, 77% of teachers believe using IWB improves students’ learning (Turel & Johnson, 2012).  This final piece of data shows that most teachers believe IWBs improve student achievement. Many teachers feel that by interacting with their students daily, they develop an inside understanding of their knowledge and abilities; as a result, the certainty that IWBs improve student learning can be seen as valid. This assertion is certainly the basis for more research.              

Technical Efficacy

            Much of the literature surrounding IWBs and student achievement led to teachers’ technical efficacy as an essential component.  Some features of IWBs were seen as more effective than others, and it was up to a knowledgeable teacher to know how to use the correct features. Student achievement was directly impacted by certain tools on IWBs (Marzano, 2009). Often IWBs are seen as ineffective simply because teachers lack the technical skills and instructional techniques to use them effectively (Desantis, 2012). As a result, technical efficacy can impact IWBs’ effectiveness on student learning, and therefore, should be studied.

            According to Marzano (2009) there was a direct correlation between student achievement and features on the IWB.  These features include learner response devices, visuals, and interactive reinforcers. Using these devices and features was associated with a 26 to 31 percentile point gain (Marzano, 2009).  Likewise, Swan, Schenker, and Kratcoski (2008) noticed a difference between students who scored above and below the mean. It was discovered that students who scored above the mean used IWBs to support student presentations while students scoring below the mean were more likely to have teachers who used IWBs for their own presentations (Swan, Schenker, and Kratcoski, 2008). Furthermore, teachers who only present course content on an IWB may not give students an opportunity to sufficiently use it during instruction. Such kinds of teacher-centered practices may lead to a decrease in student attention and motivation (Turel and Johnson, 2012).  These findings suggest that the more students interact with IWB features, the greater the impact on learning. As a result, teachers must interact with IWBs thoughtfully, in accordance with what they know about good classroom practice; simply assuming that using technical tools can automatically enhance student achievement would be a mistake (Manzano, 2009).  Technical efficacy is the key to IWB effectiveness.

            Teachers are overwhelmingly positive about the effects of IWBs on student achievement. However, few teachers receive training; in fact, many of them learned IWB skills on their own (Turel & Johnson, 2012).  One cannot help but wonder if the majority of teachers are underutilizing their IWBs.  Through teacher questionnaires, Turel and Johnson (2012) found that one third of 174  teachers still reported that they need IWB training.  However, according to Slay, Sieborger, and Hodgkinson-Williams (2008) even after comprehensive IWB training sessions, teachers who do not sufficiently use an IWB and do not practice what they have learned may have lost their initial IWB skills and knowledge as well as their confidence over time ( as cited in Turel & Johnson, 2012).  Districts are investing large sums of money to install IWBs without training teachers to effectively use them. These findings indicate the need for teacher training that is ongoing. According to Brooks-Young (2007) schools that adopt IWBs frequently fall short in establishing the shared vision, professional development, technical support, and targeted assessment required for teachers to maximize their IWBs by using them to provide student centered instruction (as cited in Desantis, 2010).  Successful integration of technology requires professional development that is focused on building technical efficacy.  Introductory technology professional development should include time to learn technology, application to teaching, collaboration, and reflection on teaching (Desantis, 2010). Teachers’ technical efficacy poses a challenge to measuring the impact of IWBs on student learning. Until teachers are using IWBs in a way that is student centered and effective, it is difficult to determine the impact of IWBs on student achievement.