Interactive whiteboards have both benefits and drawbacks for student learning according to research. [1] They can improve instructional materials and engagement, but may hinder student interaction, collaboration and lower-functioning students. [2] Recommendations include installing them in classrooms where teachers are already comfortable with technology and implement student-centered lessons. Priority should be given to increasing technology coaches, ubiquitous access to devices, staff training and infrastructure over further interactive whiteboard deployment. Funding for whiteboards should come from grants, not district funds.

1. Interactive Whiteboard Strategy
What impact do interactive whiteboards have on student learning and the
development of 21st Century digital literacy?
Positive
• Improve variety of teacher instructional material
• Positively impact student engagement
• Increase pace of instruction
• Cursory evidence of positive impact on learning in high functioning students
Detractions
Do not support 21st Century teaching methods
•
• Hinder student interaction
• No long term effect on student achievement & test scores
• Do not afford ubiquitous access to technology and student collaborative
learning
• Affects on student engagement and positive behavior wear off.
• Increase pace of lessons negatively impact student conversation,
collaboration and possibly have a negative impact on learning of lower
functioning students
• Does not support many NET-s standards
What options have been considered in terms of distribution of interactive
whiteboards in other districts?
• Distribute to same team / grade level
• Give to teachers with exceptional technical skill
• Put in primary rooms as there is anecdotal evidence that this age group
benefits more from the multimedia content
• Distribute to classes with higher functioning students as there is anecdotal
evidence that they benefit more after two years of use
• Distribute to a Math and/or Science room
Recommendations:
Supporting material and descriptions from other school districts clearly support the
installation of IWB's in classrooms where teachers are already comfortable with
technology, already implement strong, student centered classrooms and are willing
to commit to a collaborative professional development community.
Applications for teachers can be done online, and consist of a commitment in terms
of professional development, collaboration with staff as well as documentation of
professional growth and usage. Suggested criteria for a selection should include:

2. • Technical proficiency
• Willingness to commit to utilizing a collaborative tool with other teachers
• Willingness to commit to documenting usage methods & sharing
Willingness to commit to 21st Century instruction and NET-S standards
•
• A teacher one grade higher or lower that an already existing installation
• A classroom of higher functioning students (if possible)
The priority and acquisition of IWB's should be set within the context of the
strategic plan and a district focus on 21st Century Skills. Considered within current
fiscal constraints and listed in order of positive impact, an increase in building-
based technology coaches, ubiquitous access to technology (1:1), staff
development and construction of a reliable technology infrastructure should be
considered before a dramatic increase in IWB deployment.
With this in mind it is suggested that funding for Smartboards should come solely
from the Grant Foundation. District funding could be allocated to supporting the
types of project and development mentioned that better support the district's
commitment to 21st Century digital literacy and standards.
Sources:
1. Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards Steve Higgins, Gary Beauchamp and Dave Miller Learning, Media
and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213–225
2. A “LEARNING REVOLUTION”? INVESTIGATING PEDAGOGIC PRACTICES AROUND INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN
BRITISH PRIMARY CLASSROOMS JULIA GILLEN*, JUDITH KLEINE STAARMAN#, KAREN LITTLETON*, NEIL
MERCER#, ALISON TWINER* Paper presented at the AERA Conference, 2006 in San Francisco, USA.
3. Smith, F., Hardman, F. & Higgins, S. (2006) The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher pupil interaction in the
national literacy and numeracy strategies, British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443–457.
4. The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard
Expansion (SWE) Project: London ChallengeDr. Gemma Moss, Dr. Carey Jewitt, Professor Ros Levaãiç, Dr. Vicky
Armstrong, Alejandra Cardini and Frances Castle
5. Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK
Swansea School of Education. http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf
6. PANACEA OR PROP: THE ROLE OF THE INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD IN IMPROVING TEACHING
EFFECTIVENESS.Derek Glover, Dave Miller, Doug Averis, Keele University, Staffordshire, U. K.http://www.icme-
organisers.dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdf
7. Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project - summary report Report to the Department for
Children, Schools and Families July 2007 http://www.becta.org.uk
8. Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK
Swansea School of Education. http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ken06138.pdf
9. ITMF evaluation (Ramboll Management, 2005)
10. The ICT Impact Report: A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on Schools in Europe.
http://insight.eun.org/shared/data/pdf/impact_study.pdfBalanskat, Anja; Blamier, Roger; Kefala, Stella(European
Communities, European Schoolnet, Brussels, Belgium , Dec 2006)
11. Higgins, S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., et al. (2005) Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies: final report
(Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle University).