Description+of+Use

=Nicola in Charge here= //Description of how IWBs can be used in the subject area(s) based on your own research"//

An interactive whiteboard is interactive precisely because of its ability to interpret a touch of the screen as either digital ink or a mouse control. The whiteboard is connected to a computer screen, and displays the output of the screen on its surface.

Love and Garcia (2004) describe four different kinds of interactive whiteboards: retro fitted sensing boards that capture the writing on a whiteboard into the classroom computer, solid state boards that use an electronic pen to select from menus displayed on the whiteboard, analog-resistive surface boards that allow people to use any object (pen or finger) to operate the board, and Digital Vision Touch (DViT) boards that use cameras around the perimeter of the display area to detect movement of any object.

In the classroom, the IWB can be used in a similar way to a data projector: to access multimedia resources, the internet and to share presentations. IWB-specific software provides a range of tools that offer 'opportunities for distinctive teaching strategies'. Beauchamp & Parkinson (2005) describe five different strategies supported by IWB:
 * Capturing images and text from a range of sources.
 * Emphasising text, spotlight or reveal tool allows focus or revealing of different areas of the screen
 * Annotating and modifying by adding text and moving items around
 * Linking information with hyperlinks between files, programs and internet sites
 * Storing any activity that was completed during the IWB lesson, in the form of flipchart pages. With the IWB the learners are able to create artefacts that can be reused later to support further learning.

These strategies encourage collaboration and interactivity as children manipulate text and images on the screen, with a wireless keyboard or mouse, or via infra red ‘slates’ that can be used from anywhere in the room. The IWB was used most often by the Kopu Project Case Study teacher to engage students in collaborative learning, class discussions, feedback sessions and recording student responses (Howe 2005). It was also used for small group work.

In a case study of the use of IWB in a New Zealand school, Gilroy (2005) found that IWB allowed teachers to store templates of maths games. The teacher and student could refer back to the stored notes from previous classes. In English classes, the teacher presented current events from online newspapers, and students were less reluctant to share their work with the rest of the class. Poetry was written on top of images, and stored to be reviewed later. The complete text of a book could be displayed on the IWB. In social studies and science, the teacher recorded notes during the class against templates, diagrams and maps. Gilroy noted that the students were highly motivated to play the IWB ‘games’ in their free time and during lunch hours.

Project ACTIVate schools used IWBs to support a range of specific learning strategies and student needs. lWB were implemented to support the inquiry learning process (Woods et al, 2005); for fostering cooperative learning in Tuakana and Teina (older students and younger students) learning environment in Kura Kaupapa Maori (Murray & Morunga, 2005) (Ellis & Wainui, 2005); to increase student motivation and on-task behaviour (Bowman & Tait, 2005) (Ridley 2005) and to improve standards of literacy (McDonald et al, 2005) and oral literacy through the combination of IWB and video conferencing (Kennedy & Anderson, 2005).

IWB support the theory of cognitive apprenticeships, where a teacher or peers provide scaffolds to support cognitive growth (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989). Boyle (2005) describes how teachers set out to use IWB to scaffold learning and provide effective and meaningful feedback to students. The scope was expanded by using IWBs as a context for developing the thinking skills curriculum, with the use of ‘Thinking Maps’ (Hyerle et al, 2004). They observed that students’ verbal interactions increased significantly as they developed confidence with the IWB. However, there was no data about interactions between students prior to the introduction of the IWB, nor did the study measure progress of students using Thinking Maps without the IWB, therefore there was no conclusive evidence that the reported benefits were truly attributable to the IWB.