Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 179–191 | Cite as

Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard

  • Gary Beauchamp
  • Steve Kennewell


This paper revisits the analysis of how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) can contribute to effective pedagogy. It builds on previous work concerning the relationship between the features of IWBs and associated technologies and some key components of pedagogy, including the stage of IWB use, the role of ICT, the type of interactivity, and the overarching aspect of orchestration for learning. Two example lessons are constructed to illustrate the relationships associated with a basic stage of IWB use as a blackboard substitute and the most sophisticated, synergistic stage of IWB use. The analysis of these lessons is used to show that in the synergistic lesson, the IWB functions as a hub for classroom activity. The key difference is that both the teacher and pupils use the affordances of IWB for orchestration of activity rather than merely using a set of unrelated tools predominantly used by the teacher. Implications are drawn concerning the need to develop skills in orchestration for learning alongside technical skills in IWB use through initial teacher education and subsequent professional learning.


Interactive whiteboard Transition Orchestration Affordance Teacher’s role Teacher education 


  1. Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards and effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers in Education, 3(54), 759–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289–300.Google Scholar
  4. Blau, I. (2011). Teachers for “Smart Classrooms”: the extent of implementation of an interactive whiteboard-based professional development program on elementary teachers’ instructional practices, interdisciplinary. Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(26), 275–289.Google Scholar
  5. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010). Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10(2), 159–172.Google Scholar
  6. Freire, A., Linhalis, F., Bianchini, S.L., Fortes, R.P.M., & Pimentel, M.G.C. (2010). Revealing the whiteboard to blind students: an inclusive approach to provide mediation in synchronous e-learning activities. Computers in Education, 54(4), 866–876.Google Scholar
  7. Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Editorial: research into teaching with whole-class interactive technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351–365.Google Scholar
  9. Jang, S.J., & Tsai, M-F. (2012) Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59, 327–338.Google Scholar
  10. Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, A., & Vincent, J. (2010). Collegial mentoring for effective whole school professional development in the use of IWB technologies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 477–493.Google Scholar
  12. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Beauchamp, G., Parkinson, J., Jones, S., Norman, N., et al. (2007). The use of ICT to improve learning and attainment through interactive teaching: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0167-A. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
  14. Kennewell, S., Beauchamp, G., Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lavicza, Z., & Papp‐Varga, Z. (2010). Integrating GeoGebra into IWB‐equipped teaching environments: preliminary results. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 245–252.Google Scholar
  16. 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(4), 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. López, A.S. (2010). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education 54(2010), 901–915.Google Scholar
  18. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2007). Into the unknown: the professional development induction experience of secondary mathematics teachers using interactive whiteboard technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nihat Şads, S., & Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: a qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education. doi:  10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010.
  22. Serow, P., & Callingham, R. (2011). Levels of Use of interactive whiteboard technology in the primary mathematics classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just ‘‘lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51, 1321–1341.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, H. (2001). Smartboard evaluation: final report. Kent County Council. Accessed 15th August 2012.
  25. Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: what makes a board smart? Computers in Education, 53(2), 368–374.Google Scholar
  26. Somekh, B., & Haldane, M. (2005). A typology of interactive whiteboard pedagogies. Paper presented at BERA Conference, University of Glamorgan, Wales, 15–17th September 2005.Google Scholar
  27. Tanner, H., Jones, S., Kennewell, S., Beauchamp, G., et al. (2009). An investigation of the affordances of ICT for the development of effective pedagogy in mathematics and science classrooms—the i-ped project. Welsh Journal of Education, 14(2), 137–143.Google Scholar
  28. Turel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: development, validity and reliability. Computers in Education, 57(2011), 2441–2450.Google Scholar
  29. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394.Google Scholar
  30. Twiner, A., Coffin, C., Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2010). Multimodality, orchestration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactive whiteboard: a discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: the vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers in Education, 55(1), 350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watts, M. (2003). The orchestration of learning and teaching methods in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 3(4), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4), 534–552.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations