Draft+report

Type here a draft report by April 3. Your tutor will provide you with some feeback before the final report submission

Two broad categories emerge in the research: 1. the IWB as a tool to enhance teaching 2. as a tool to support learning. (Smith et al, 2005)

1. Enhancing Teaching 1 flexibility and versatility for use with a wide range of age groups, learning needs and educational settings multimedia/multimodal presentation - the ability to manipulate and interact with material and use a wide range of media. It is important to note here that the latter can also be achieved with just a data projector. Much of the research fails to recognise that it is the ability to control the computer from the screen that distinguishes the IWB from a data projector on its own. 2 efficiency - the touch-sensitive nature of IWBs facilitates a more efficient and professional delivery of multimedia resources, but this does not have a direct impact on learning. 3 supporting planning and the development of resources - A key feature differentiating the IWB from a data projector/screen is the ability to save the additions/modifications/changes made to the prepared lesson i.e. to capture the lesson as it unfolds. 4 interactivity - IWBs are claimed to increase student motivation through whole class and group interactions (McDowell and Murray, 2005), and to engage students kinaesthetically in their learning. But the research suggests that not all teachers are doing this because it slows down the pace of the lesson (Smith et al, 2005).

2. Supporting learning 1 Motivation and affect - students report that lessons are more enjoyable and interesting (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005), but will this novelty value wear off? 2 Multimedia and multi-sensory presentation - use of stimulating visual images enhances pupil recall; but this can be also be achieved with just a data projector. Using dynamic visuals as part of the teaching process does not, however, guarantee that students will learn; it depends on the subject matter and crucially on the "specific arrangement of visuals (static or dynamic) with verbal information in order to highlight important relationships" (Mayer, 2003, cited in Smith et al, 2005, p97). Some research argues (SMART Technologies 2004) that physical interaction with the board enhances learning but this is not borne out by the majority of the research except perhaps in some areas of maths (Smith et al, 2005). Massey University Learning and Educational Technology students believe that Interactive whiteboards are the way of the future and schools should be encouraging teachers to use them within New Zealand classrooms. Interactive whiteboards are a touch sensitive board attached to a computer and a data projecter. They are operated using a pen shaped mouse or whiteboard marker which enables the user to control the computer through the whiteboard. Interactive whiteboards have two uses within the classroom. One is to enhance teaching and the other is to support learning. They come with a range software which is easy to use and can be used with different ages and curriculums. S tudents report that lessons are more enjoyable and interesting (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005) using interactive whiteboards and all learners including visual, auditory, and kinaestethic can be catered for in an improved way. IWBs are claimed to increase student motivation through whole class and group interactions (McDowell and Murray, 2005) and being able to present information in a variety of creative ways increases the motivation of the teacher also (Gillen et al, 2007). Along with developing children's creativity, thinking skills and independence (Hodge & Anderson, 2007), some teachers have reported that IWB allow more versatility, flexibility and efficiency in the classroom allowing teachers to "support multiple needs with one lesson" (Slay et al., 2008).  Schools must however weigh up the cost of interactive whiteboards against other technologies that can make the most difference for the biggest number of students. Along with the large initial cost of installation, there is the huge cost of training. To take full advantage of the interactive whiteboard technology, schools need to provide teachers with a sufficient level of training and support (Miller & Glover, 2007; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2007). Finding the time and resources, to support the extensive and ongoing training in interactive whiteboard technology, can be considerably difficult for many schools. IWB's also have a tendency to create a more teacher-centred classroom as the IWB is mounted in the one place and the focus of the students is on that one place. This goes against a trend towards a more learner centred classroom. = Press Release =

Interactive Whiteboards In The Classroom: An Exciting Way To Learn
Massey University Learning and Educational Technology students believe that Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are the way of the future and schools should be encouraging teachers to use them within New Zealand classrooms. Interactive whiteboards are a touch sensitive board attached to a computer and a data projector. They are operated using a pen shaped mouse or whiteboard marker which enables the user to control the computer through the whiteboard. Interactive whiteboards have two uses within the classroom. One is to enhance teaching and the other is to support learning. They come with a range software which is easy to use and can be used with different ages and curricula. Students report that lessons are more enjoyable and interesting (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005) using IWBs and all learners including visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic can be catered for in an improved way. IWBs are claimed to increase student motivation through whole class and group interactions (McDowell and Murray, 2005) and being able to present information in a variety of creative ways increases the motivation of the teacher also (Gillen et al, 2007). Along with developing children's creativity, thinking skills and independence (Hodge & Anderson, 2007), some teachers have reported that IWBs allow more versatility, flexibility and efficiency in the classroom allowing teachers to "support multiple needs with one lesson" (Slay et al., 2008). Schools must however weigh up the cost of IWBs against other technologies that can make the most difference for the biggest number of students. Along with the large initial cost of installation, there is the cost of training. To take full advantage of the interactive whiteboard technology, schools need to provide teachers with a sufficient level of training and support (Miller & Glover, 2007; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2007). Finding the time and resources to support the extensive and ongoing training in interactive whiteboard technology, can be considerably difficult for many schools. IWBs also have a tendency to create a more teacher-centred classroom as the IWB is mounted in the one place and the focus of the students is on that one place. This feature goes against a trend towards a more learner centred classroom. However, there are pros and cons to all teaching innovations and if students have increased enjoyment and motivation using this technology, the incorporation of IWBs as a teaching tool has the potential to make learning exciting.