Introduction

As more schools and universities invest in new technology for the classroom, more and more teachers are being encouraged to incorporate the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) into their lesson plans and curriculum. Proponents of whiteboard technology claim that it can increase student motivation and be an all-in-one tool for teachers, aiding in both lesson planning and classroom activities. However, learning to efficiently utilize this new technology can be a daunting task and has led to a number of issues as teachers struggle to master new technology while meeting the demands of their teaching field. Below are some common issues teachers may face when first learning to use IWB technology, along with some tips to help teachers overcome these obstacles.

Planning Time

Teachers using IWBs for the first time report spending more time planning lessons and preparing materials than they might spend in a more traditional setting. However, once teachers become more comfortable with the technology, IWBs can actually reduce planning time, because IWB lessons can be saved for future use and shared with other instructors (Hedberg & Freebody, 2007, pp. 24, 31; Lewin, Somekh, & Steadman, 2008, p. 296). Lewin et al. (2008, p. 299) suggest that IWB technology can actually aid in lesson planning by providing an “invisible script” for the lesson as students move from one activity to the next.

Teachers worried about the amount of time they are spending planning lessons and activities for IWBs will find they gradually spend less time planning as they become more familiar with the technology. Moreover, many schools encourage their teachers to collaborate and share whiteboard resources, and a number of premade whiteboard lesson plans and activities can be found online. There are many websites (e.g., Nicholson, 2009; Scholastic, 2013) where busy teachers can find suitable activities for their classes, reducing the amount of time that even those unfamiliar with IWB technology will spend planning classroom activities.

Technical Issues

As with any technology, technical issues are a major concern for teachers considering implementing whiteboard technology into their lesson plans and pedagogic practices. However, as one study notes, when something goes wrong technically, the students are always ready to offer suggestions and solutions (Hedberg & Freebody, 2007, p. 35). Other solutions include teachers familiarizing themselves with the technology, asking the school for more technology support and training, and always having a backup plan in case the technical problem cannot be solved. Because technical issues can be an obstacle with any classroom technology, teachers certainly should not let the fear of technical problems prevent them from utilizing IWB technology.

Too Teacher Centered/Not Enough Student Interaction

Rather than fostering a student-centered, interactive learning environment, IWBs have been accused of encouraging a more teacher-centered style of learning. This is because some teachers use IWBs in a supported didactic role to aid a lecture style of teaching. Furthermore, teachers may not understand how to occupy other students in the class while one student is at the board; therefore, the whiteboard may, paradoxically, make the class less student centered as the teacher or one student at a time uses the new technology (Northcote, Mildenhall, Marshall, & Swan, 2010, p. 496). Although the new technology may be exciting and interesting for students in the beginning, if teachers do not use it in an interactive manner, students quickly become bored with the IWB.

To effectively use the whiteboard for a more student-centered, interactive approach, teachers must do more than use it to lecture and transmit information. One possible solution is to assign students roles for different whiteboard activities, such as group leader, recorder, presenter, and so on, and let them work through the activity as a group. These roles ensure that each student is actively involved in the whiteboard activity. Another easy solution is to provide students with their own handheld whiteboards to work through questions or problems at their seats (Lewin et al., 2008, p. 300). While one student is working at the IWB, the other students are able to check their work with their own whiteboards. Finally, IWBs can be integrated into a set of rotating stations and activities so that smaller groups of students use the whiteboard at a time. In Hedberg and Freebody’s (2007) study of IWB use in schools in Australia, one teacher who used the IWB as one of three stations found that he was able to ask much deeper questions while moving between stations and observing students.

Although the research suggests that IWBs have the potential for enhancing interactivity in the classroom, whether this can be “realized in terms of technical, physical and conceptual interactivity remains to be seen” (Northcote et al., 2010, p. 509). Ultimately, it is up to the teacher to utilize the interactive whiteboard technology in a more student-centered, interactive manner.

Teaching Style

Teachers may be wary of adopting new technology because they feel that it will not fit their teaching style, but studies have shown that, over time, use of whiteboard technology can actually change teachers’ pedagogic practices (Hedberg & Freebody, 2007, p. 8; Lewin et al., 2008, p. 301; Northcote et al., 2010, pp. 495–496). Lewin et al. (2008, pp. 296–301) found that teachers develop entirely new ways of working by drawing on possibilities offered by the board and progress through a set of three stages, eventually integrating the technology into their pedagogy as “an extension of the teacher’s self.” However, many studies also emphasize the time factor, suggesting that teachers need an extended period of time first to become comfortable with the technology and then to incorporate it into their teaching practices (Hedberg & Freebody, 2007, p. 8; Lewin et al., 2008, p. 301; Northcote et al., 2010, pp. 495–496). This suggests that the best solution to teachers’ initial wariness about adopting IWB technology may be simply to give them training and time to adjust to new possibilities in their teaching practices.

Lack of Training and Support

As Hedberg and Freebody (2007, p. 7) note, many teachers have never used information and communications technologies like IWBs as learners themselves and often have no training or previous experience with such technologies. Although successful implementation of IWB technology requires collaboration between teachers and experts, successful teaching experience in using this technology, and participation in a learning environment that provides continuous support, many teaching contexts lack one or more of these elements (Hedberg & Freebody, 2007, p. 7). With regard to new technology, not only teachers but also schools as a whole can be seen to progress through a series of stages: from an initial infusion stage in which IWBs are purchased in isolation from their intended use and little strategic thought is given to their integration into the curriculum, to the transformation stage in which students are genuinely engaged in using the whiteboard as a means of knowledge construction (Hedberg & Freebody, 2007, pp. 47–48; Northcote et al., 2010, p. 496). The emphasis a school puts on using the whiteboard and the amount of technological resources it allocates to whiteboard training seem to affect this progression, and lack of technology infrastructure and lack of ongoing support are two major obstacles to integrating new technology into the learning environment (Hedberg & Freebody, 2007, p. 7).

Teachers do not always have much input into the amount of technological support and training they receive, but they can always request and encourage administrators to support continuing technological support and IWB training. Teachers can also learn from each other and work together to overcome a lack of technological or training support for their institutions. Finally, as with lesson planning, there are many online resources with tutorials and videos demonstrating how to create whiteboard lesson plans and activities, so teachers should not feel limited by the training and report they receive from their schools.

Conclusion

IWBs can be a powerful tool for increasing both students’ and teachers’ motivation, but, as with any new technology, teachers need training and familiarity with the technology to use it properly. A yearlong study conducted by Hedberg and Freebody (2007) found a large discrepancy between teachers’ use of IWBs, their effectiveness, and the teachers’ level of skill and understanding of the new technology. Those teachers who most strongly embraced and effectively deployed the technology claimed that students had become more engaged in learning and performed at higher levels than before; however, many teachers in the study never progressed past a very basic understanding and use of the technology. This suggests that with repeated use of IWBs, proper training and technical support, and a determined attitude to overcome any problems or issues that may arise, teachers can become effective implementers of IWB technology to improve their lessons and motivate both students and themselves.

References

Hedberg, J., & Freebody, K. (2007). Towards a disruptive pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.ndlrn.edu.au/verve/_resources/towards_a_disruptive_pedagogy_2007.pdf

Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13, 291–303.

Nicholson, D. (2009, July 19). 20 interactive whiteboard resources for teachers [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.whiteboardblog.co.uk/2009/07/20-interactive-whiteboard-resources-for-teachers/

Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 494–510.

Scholastic. (2013). Teachers. Retrieved fromhttp://www.scholastic.com/smarttech/teachers.htm

Amanda Hilliard teaches English classes to international military students at the Defense Language Institute English Language Center at Lackland Air Force Base. She has also taught in the Intensive English Program at Kennesaw State University (Georgia, USA), and YBMECC and Duksung Women’s University, both in South Korea. She holds an MA in TEFL/TESL from the University of Birmingham, in England.