|Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
2010, 26(Special issue, 4), 553-570.
Learning as students to become better teachers: Pre-service teachers' IWB learning experience
Shanti Divaharan and Joyce Hwee Ling Koh
Nanyang Technological University
The study presented in this paper involved 124 Singaporean pre-service teachers who were attending a core information and communications technology (ICT) module, which is a component of their teacher education program. During this module, the pre-service teachers were introduced to the interactive whiteboard (IWB) through an instructional approach that consisted of tutor modeling, self-paced exploration, peer sharing, and team-based design projects. The pre-service teachers experienced the IWB first as 'students' and then explored it as teachers planning for implementation in their lessons. Qualitative data of pre-service teachers' reflections was collected to analyse their perceptions of the IWB use in their lessons and to examine how they learnt to use the board. The findings illustrated that pre-service teachers predominantly felt that the IWB was useful for engaging students in the learning process and for generating active participation vis-à-vis the interactive affordances of the board. The findings also revealed that learning about technology in teams was most useful for the successful assimilation of a technology tool that was new and unfamiliar to pre-service teachers. This paper examines how the existing IWB instructional approach can be modified to help pre-service teachers learn pedagogical uses of the IWB more effectively.
This study documents the attempt of a teacher education institute in Singapore to implement the use of the IWB in its core information and communication technology (ICT) module. Research has shown that teachers find using the IWB easier than integrating other forms of technology (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). The researchers, who were also tutors for the groups, introduced the basic features of the board by demonstrating the functions of the features during the course of their teaching. This captured the attention of the pre-service teachers as they were amazed by the flexibility and interactivity of the medium. The focus of this paper is to present the perceptions of Singapore pre-service teachers' on how the IWB can be used in their classrooms for teaching and learning. In addition, the paper will describe the IWB instructional approach used, and examine the factors that facilitated the learning of this new technology within the ICT course. The effectiveness of the IWB instructional approach will be examined and future modifications of the IWB curriculum in pre-service teacher training will be discussed.
Studies conducted by Coupal (2004) and Polyzou (2005) are in agreement that teachers favour the use of the IWB because of its ability to provide 'hands on' experience to students. Jewitt et al. (2007) suggest that interactivity can be categorised into technical interactivity, physical interactivity and conceptual interactivity. The IWBs are effective for increasing students' level of involvement in the lessons (Ball, 2003; Miller, 2003). While the IWB templates and resources inherently capture attention (Kennewell, 2005), it is important to note that teachers are the designers of the lesson and hence they also need to be equipped with the relevant skills to make pedagogically sound use of the IWB (Knight, Pennant & Piggott, 2004).
Chu (2000) conducted a research study focusing on teachers' stages of concerns about ICT knowledge as well as use of ICT in the classrooms. Chu used the 'Computing Concerns Questionnaire and Teaching with Technology Survey' to gather data. The findings of this study indicated that the level of technology confidence was positively correlated to higher use of ICT in the classrooms. Braak (2001) also conducted a study with the aim of investigating the relationship between computer use in the classroom and influencing factors on an individual level. His random sample of 236 secondary school teachers in Brussels indicated that teachers' high level of confidence in using ICT revealed that they were more inclined to change teaching through the use of technology in their classrooms. However, Braak suggested that to overcome the lack of translation of ICT competency and comfort level into strategies for applying ICT effectively, there was a need to expose teachers to good practices during in-service training. The focus of this training should be to get teachers familiarised with ICT, on the use of ICT as well as the value of ICT as a pedagogical tool.
From the findings reported, it is evident that effective use of computers is dependent on the teachers' ICT skills as well as their intention of ICT use (Albalat & Tarrago, 1995; Hodgson, 1995; Venezky, 2004). Relevant professional development can take the form of observing colleagues, learning from each other, observation of each others' ICT-integrated lessons, as well as to provide opportunities for teachers to share and collaborate with each other (Blase & Blase, 1999; Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003; Jacobsen, 2001, 2002; Prain & Hand, 2003). In fact, Jaber and Moore's (1999) findings revealed that teachers preferred continuous rather than one-off training, and they learnt more from sharing with their peers. Teachers also preferred if training focused on pedagogical use of technology. Teachers can be exposed to various ICT integration approaches through exchanges among colleagues and attending conferences, as well as observing each other's classroom practices.
The findings from these studies indicated that attention must be given to professional development for teachers if schools want to see success in effective ICT integration in the curriculum. Findings by other studies on the obstacles to effective ICT integration suggested lack of training as one of the reasons (Ertmer, 1999; Manternach-Wigans, 1999; Martin, 2000; Wang & Chan, 1995). Therefore, it might make a significant difference for ICT integration in schools if attention is given to ensure teachers are given opportunities to attend relevant professional development.
Research about professional development in IWB for teachers has been conducted. One such longitudinal study of professional development for 22 mathematics teachers was conducted in the United Kingdom. The study found that effective professional development for teachers together with specific personal coaching was needed to improve the teachers' pedagogical approach to implementing the IWB in their lessons (Miller & Glover, 2007). Another study which examined a national initiative to train all teachers in England, placed emphasis on how teachers should be trained (Davis, Preston, & Sahin, 2009). The study applied a framework by Guskey (2002) to evaluate professional development for teachers. The results of the study support an ecological view to the training of teachers and to establish a community of practice to support the continued development of teachers. A self-study methodology applied to explore a teacher's journey in a primary school in Auckland reinforced these findings. In this study, the teachers were able to focus on exploring various pedagogies associated with the use of the IWB after they had overcome issues with technical skills (Hodge & Anderson, 2007). As Haldane (2007) aptly says it:
It is the user of the board who chooses whether or not to take full advantage of the digital whiteboard's interactive potential. The digital board ... (is) not the creator of the message nor the one to decide how the messages will be conveyed. (p. 259)Most of these studies have focused on the professional development of in-service teachers. There is a need to examine how pre-service teachers' learning should be designed so that they know how to effectively design IWB integrated lessons for their students. As the IWB becomes increasingly used in schools, it is important that they have adequate preparation for using the IWB during teacher education. Pre-service teachers who are familiar with the IWB, its potential and its limitations can make informed decisions when they plan and practise their lesson during their training (Holmes, 2009). Pre-service teachers are relatively unfamiliar with teaching practices. The methods for teaching them about pedagogical uses of the IWB could be slightly different than those for in-service teachers. There is substantial evidence that faculty modeling of technology use is a particularly successful strategy for pre-service technology integration training (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Beyerbach, Walsh & Vannatta, 2001; Pope, Hare & Howard, 2002; Brush, Glazewiski, Rutowiski, Berg, Stromfors, Stock & Stutton, 2003). Handler (1993) found that those who frequently saw computers being used in their pre-service methods course felt better prepared to use the computer as an instructional tool. When faculty modeling is followed by opportunities for them to practice and apply technology tools in the preparation of instructional tasks, it increased their self reported confidence level for utilising these technologies in the classroom (Pope et al., 2002). Pellegrino and Altman (1997) commented that application and design activities allowed them to encounter the complex decisions for applying technology to their own teaching, which facilitates their transfer of technology knowledge into classroom application.
A comparison of both in-service and pre-service professional development methods reveals that the technical skills need to be addressed. During in-service teacher professional development, exposing teachers to possible pedagogical approaches seems to enable them to plan and conduct effective technology tool integrated lessons. In pre-service training, however, there seems to be a need for tutor modeling of the tool so as to allow pre-service teachers to experience the tool before they are comfortable with designing lessons that integrate the tool.
This study addresses the gap in IWB research on pre-service teachers by examining Singapore's pre-service teachers' perceptions of the IWB, and the processes they adopted to learn it. The research questions are as follows:
Figure 1: Approach to the IWB technology learning component
Tutors in these tutorial groups asked pre-service teachers about their prior experiences with the IWB. For these tutorial groups, the majority of the pre-service teachers had no prior exposure for the IWB, which was why they indicated a strong interest in selecting the IWB as one of the technology tools that they would like to learn.
The IWB technology integration module was then conducted for these classes across three two-hour tutorial sessions. These three lessons were designed based on a literature review of professional development models for teachers when learning new technology tools (see Figure 1).
Figure 2: Self paced tutorial
Pre-service teachers were also given access to video-based resources that demonstrated how the various tools of the IWB functioned (for example, see Figure 3). These resources supported pre-service teachers to build their technical skills for use of the IWB.
Pre-service teachers were also asked to explore a database of lesson templates and materials for the IWB that were prepared by teachers from Canada, United Kingdom and America. Since Singapore teachers are not yet actively involved in the use of the IWB and sharing the content they have created, the researchers had to rely on a database created by teachers from other countries for a start. This was to create awareness of the pedagogical approaches adopted by teachers when they utilise the IWB in their lesson. It was also a form of pedagogical modeling, in addition to that by the tutor.
There was no attempt to teach content knowledge during the ICT course as they were already attending methods courses for their subject specialisations.
During each reflection, pre-service teachers posted responses for the following questions:
|Use||No. of teams||% of teams|
|1.||For content presentation during frontal teaching||21||69|
|2.||Attract students' attention during frontal teaching||26||87|
|3.||Stimulate enthusiasm and excitement during frontal teaching||19||63|
|4.||Engage participation through games during frontal teaching||9||36|
|Support evaluation of students' learning||25||83|
|Support student centred learning||9||36|
|Support teacher planning of lessons||17||56|
It is colourful and we can use the ready-made templates. We can also add in pictures and it is very flexible. It is user-friendly...Using the IWB to support frontal teaching can make learning active and interactive. This can be carried out through the use of features such as drag and drop, highlight, write and erase.
I can also get my students to go up to the board and highlight important words, drag and drop boxes. It is very interactive!!Close to 87% of the teams (n = 26) thought that the IWB was a useful technology to attract students' attention during lessons. They considered it as an integrated platform that allowed them to weave together multiple modes of learning resources, which will be visually appealing to the students:
There is a complete platform because pictures, graphs and texts can be incorporated into one lesson ...More than half the teams (n=19) also felt that the IWB can help them stimulate enthusiasm and excitement during class, thereby encouraging participation especially from those who seldom contribute:
We can use the IWB as a video player, which is good for introductory purposes. We can embed external Flash files and pictures ...
I can use this (IWB) to increase the students' enthusiasm and interest to learn something new36% of the teams (n = 9) also felt that the interactive nature of the board will allow them to play games with students, giving them more opportunities for participation as compared to just using the computer and projection screen.
During (whole class) evaluation ... IWB can be used a platform to replace verbal assessment ...They felt that it was a non-threatening and informal mode of assessing students' learning:
Design quizzes, checking on students' understanding while conducting lessons ...
(The platform) ... can be used to assess student's basic understanding of the topic.
To portray common mistakes made by peers, so that they are able to learn from each other ... to test for understanding of students on a new topic.
If students make mistakes, they realise their mistakes in a more light-hearted manner ... (through funny sound effects and graphics)
However, they also noted some limitations of the IWB. About 94% of the teams (n = 29) agreed that the board only processed one touch input at any point in time. Opportunities to use it for collaborative learning was therefore curtailed:
Does not support collaborative learning ... not everyone can take part at the same time.
Also it is very easy for the teacher to create and edit templates almost immediately.But, they also raised several classroom management issues associated with using the IWB. One was cost (25% of the teams). They perceived the IWB to be an expensive platform, and it was difficult to have one in every classroom. The pre-service teachers were also worried about what they will do in the event of a power failure (31% of the teams).
Can be stored, shared and retrieved easily on a school database to allow sharing of resources.
|Factor||No. of teams||% of teams|
|Hands on exploration||29||96|
|Self-paced learning tutorial and video resources||9||30|
|Learning in teams||28||93|
By playing with it for a while, I find that it's interactive and I'm sure this will arouse the kid's interest greatly.
Clicked on everything to see what it was all about ... Explored the various functions available to us ... Tried a few activities to decide which we wanted.
Reading up in advance about the IWB. Through examples given by the tutor and hands on practices. We need to try out the features in the IWB to familiarise ourselves with the tools we can use.
Try out the different templates ... we also viewed sample activities to improve on our lessons ... downloaded the software to play around at home.
The tutor demonstrated the use of the IWB and I find it very interesting because I have never used it before. And I thought it would be useful and interesting to be used in the classroom.
(We) observed the tutor using the IWB and were amazed by the technology and the different features of the IWB.
The other teams' presentation helped expose me to various other types of activities.
Also, we also learnt more about the IWB from other teams' products.
That there were more activities and we saw how other teams made use of them in different ways. (e.g. inserting a video)
Some teams explored and learnt together.Other teams adopted a collaborative learning approach where they each learnt something different and then they came together to share with their team mates and to learn from each other.
Each of us try out different templates and show teams members what we have.
When we tried on a specific template, we will discuss if it's appropriate for our activity. One of us searched for the content and the other will try to master the functions.
There were more ideas generated, since it was done in a team. We could instantly decide if the activity was effective.
we explored the entire software on our own, before coming together to decide on the better ones to use for the activity.... We showed each other the new things we found and how we could apply it to our activity.
We divided our learning task by giving each other different roles to play. We browsed through different examples to select the appropriate examples which are best suited for our topic. We ensured that one of us keep each other on task (Morale Booster). We also discussed about the questions that we would like to ask our students.
It was some form of a JIGSAW process whereby every individual are experts at eliciting understanding from (our tutor's) presentation. Following which, we compiled our ideas and collaborated in creating the awesome IWB lesson that impressed many.
Each one of us just experimented on our own and share some of our findings collectively.
Interesting, opportunities for collaborative learning played an important role in helping pre-service teachers gain acceptance for a new technology tool. In this study, the teams did not have to learn the technology by themselves. Rather, they worked with team members who were teaching the same subject area. This team effort seemed to benefit them since they could explore and learn together. When in doubt, there were team members they could count on to help them to overcome their difficulties. Creating opportunities for the teams to learn from each other, by encouraging a culture of sharing also opened up more learning opportunities than could have been possible if they had just learnt within their teams. The teams noted in their reflections that they learnt from other teams how the same features can be implemented in various manners. They discovered that there were other pedagogical approaches besides what their own team members had thought of. This culture of sharing enabled them to acquire a wide repertoire of pedagogical approaches for use in their subject areas.
Despite having resources to help them understand the features, in the form of self learning tutorials and video resources, the pre-service teachers found it exasperating and confusing to look for templates and resources in the software. 62% of the teams indicated that they were unfamiliar with the board and so needed time to explore the board:
Initially, we did not know what the icons meant, so we had trouble navigating the software.In addition, the pre-service teachers had problems exploring, evaluating and selecting relevant templates for their use. They either could not find them or they were not sure which template was suitable and whether it had a particular pedagogical purpose:
We could not understand certain functions when we applied the features for the first time.
The main problem is the difficulties to understand the instructions of the software.
We were unfamiliar with the layout of the IWB software. Therefore, we spend quite some time trying to figure how to manipulate the respective tools that we needed.
We are not sure which template to use for our activity. The software should give a brief description on the templates.Through analysis of the team reflections, it appeared that some form of skills training for the IWB prior to Lesson 1 (see Figure 1) would be beneficial to alleviate the frustrations pre-service teachers faced when learning how to use the IWB. As majority of them were unfamiliar with the IWB, they may have needed structured teaching of the IWB features before they were asked to do independent exploration. This would have freed time for them to pay more attention to pedagogical approaches (Crison, Lerman & Winbourne, 2007; Hodge & Anderson, 2007). In comparison, the instructional approaches used in Lesson 2 and Lesson 3 appeared to work more effectively. Pre-service teachers found peer sharing to be useful (Miller & Glover, 2007). The design of the IWB lessons in teams also helped them alleviate some of the apprehension associated with manipulating a new technology. Therefore, it is evident that more time needs to be spent on providing the pre-service teachers with skills training and thereafter, introducing the lesson resources data base for them to explore lesson ideas created and shared by teachers. This might have reduced their confusion and enabled them to focus on applying what they have learnt to their subject area.
Classification of templates and other resources confusing...
The templates and pictures are all in the same folder, thus it is hard to locate.
Not sure where to find the templates we need ... Took us a while to navigate around.
We are unsure of certain functions and where to find and edit the templates seen in the 'Examples' folder.
Figure 4: Modified approach to the IWB learning component
An analysis of their learning processes showed that besides faculty modeling and opportunities for hands on practice, learning a new technology in teams was also important. Team support was crucial in helping them work through technical difficulties associated with learning a new technology. However, self paced learning of technical skills for the IWB appeared to frustrate pre-service teachers as they generally appreciated more structured forms of technical instruction. The researchers proposed a refined the IWB instruction approach, which can form the basis of future explorations on effective teaching and learning with the IWB amongst Singapore teachers. It is not the technology that matters in the classroom; it is the teachers who conceptualise and design lessons to enhance the students' learning experience (Taber, 2003; Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Future research should focus on not only teachers learning in school but also how pre-service teachers can be inducted into the learning of new technologies.
Ball, B. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics with an interactive whiteboard. Micromath, 19(1), 4-7. http://www.atm.org.uk/journal/micromath/mm191ball.pdf
Beyerbach, B., Walsh, C. & Vannatta, R. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers' changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105-127.
Blase, J. & Blase, J. (1999). Principals' instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Adminstration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
Braak, J. v. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.
Brush, T., Glazewiski, K., Rutowiski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M. H., Stock, L. & Stutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 57-72.
Chu, J. L. (2000). Assessment of the integration of technology into the curriculum by middle and high school teachers. Unpublished EdD, Pepperdine University.
Coupal, L. V. (2004). Constructivist learning theory and human capital theory: Shifting political and educational frameworks for teachers' ICT professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 587-596.
Crison, C., Lerman, S. & Winbourne, P. (2007). Mathematics and ICT: A framework for conceptualising secondary school mathematics teachers' classroom practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), 21-39.
Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). Training teachers to use new technologies impacts multiple ecologies: Evidence from a national initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 861-878.
Demetriadis, S., Barbas, A., Molohides, A., Palaigeorgiou, G., Psillos, D., Vlahavas, I., et al. (2003). Cultures in negotiation: Teachers acceptance/resistance attitudes considering the infusion of teachnology into schools. Computers & Education, 41, 19-37.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for Technology Integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47-61.
Flanagan, L. & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N. & Twiner, A. (2007). A 'learning revolution'? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: Weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257-270.
Handler, M. G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers & Education, 20(2), 147-156.
Hodge, S. & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: A teacher's journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282.
Hodgson, B. R. (1995). The roles and needs of mathematics teachers using IT. In D. Watson & D. Tinsley (Eds.), Integrating information technology into education (pp. 27-37). London: Chapman & Hall.
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. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/holmes.html
Jaber, W. E. & Moore, D. M. (1999). A survey of factors which influence teachers' use of computer-based technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(3), 253-266. [thesis version verified 14 Jun 2010 at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-71997-02347/unrestricted/WJABER2.PDF]
Jacobsen, D. M. (2001). Building different bridges: Technology integration, engaged student learning, and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington. [verified 14 Jun 2010] http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ ERICServlet?accno=ED453232
Jacobsen, D. M. (2002). Building different bridges two: A case study of transformative professional development for student learning with technology. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. [verified 14 Jun 2010] http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/aera/building_bridges_two.html
Jewitt, C., Moss, G. & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers' design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303-317.
Kennewell, S. (2005). Researching the influence of interactive presentation tools on teacher pedagogy. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/151717.doc
Kennewell, S. & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227-241.
Knight, P., Pennant, J. & Piggott, J. (2004). What does it mean to 'use the interactive whiteboard' in the daily mathematics lesson? Micromath, 20(2), 14-16.
López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901-915.
Manternach-Wigans, L. K. (1999). Computer technology integration in Iowa high schools: Perceptions of teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University, Iowa. [verified 14 Jun 2010; 11.5 MB] http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/09/ae.pdf
Martin, W. B. (2000). Learning from the Colwell school: An ethnographic case study of an educational technology culture. Unpublished PhD, Cornell University.
Miller, D. (2003). Developing interactive whiteboard activity. Micromath, 19(33-35).
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.
Pellegrino, J. W. & Altman, J. E. (1997). Information technology and teacher preparation: Some critical issues and illustrative solutions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 89-121.
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.
Polyzou, A. (2005). Growth in teachers' knowledge while learning to teach with multimedia: What has been learned from concrete educational experiences? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 205-223.
Pope, M., Hare, D. & Howard, E. (2005). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191-203.
Prain, V. & Hand, B. (2003). Using new technologies for learning: A case study of a whole-school approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 441-458.
Shuldman, M. (2004). Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact teacher technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 319-343.
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K. & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
Snider, S. L. (2002). Exploring technology integration in a field-based teacher education program: Implementation efforts and findings. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 230-249.
Soetaert, R. & van Belle, G. C. J. (2001). Breakdown into the virtual user-involved design and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 31-42. [conference version verified 14 Jun 2010 at http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED421147]
Solvie, P. A. (2004). The digital whiteboard: A tool in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57(5).
Strudler, N. B. & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 63-81.
Taber, K. S. (2003). Responding to alternative conceptions in the classroom. School Science Review, 84(308), 84-108.
Venezky, R. L. (2004). Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education, Communication and Information, 4(1), 3-21.
Wang, P. & Chan, P. S. (1995). Advantages, disadvantages, facilitators and inhibitors of computer-aided instruction in Singapore's secondary schools. Computers & Education, 25(3), 151-162.
Wood, R. & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and leanring in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.
|Authors: Assistant Professor Shanti Divaharan|
Learning Sciences & Technologies
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University
1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616
Assistant Professor Joyce Koh Hwee Ling
Learning Sciences & Technologies
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University
1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616
Please cite as: Divaharan, S. & Koh, J. H. L. (2010). Learning as students to become better teachers: Pre-service teachers' IWB learning experience. In M. Thomas & A. Jones (Eds), Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(Special issue, 4), 553-570. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/divaharan.html