You are here:

Five years of IWB in schools: Is it worth it? Factors Related to IWB ?Use in Four Western PA K-12 School Districts?

, Western Galilee College & Ohalo College, Israel, Israel ; , , Westminster College, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-92-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This research examines teacher attitudes and fears about IWB use as related to perceived classroom ?implementation to enhance student engagement and achievement. The research took place in four ?western PA school districts. Nearly 78 percent of all teachers surveyed reported using the IWB either ??“Often” or “All the time” and 75 percent of them reported using an IWB for two or more years. These ?combined data suggest that the districts in this study are investing in IWB technology and the majority ?of teachers are using IWBs on a regular basis for instruction. Number of years and frequency the ?IWB technology was used in the classroom was strongly related to levels of training and support the ?teachers believed they received, teachers' sense of self-efficacy and the perceived value of IWB ?technology as a useful tool, and teacher s' perceptions about the positive effect that integrating IWBs ?had on student achievement. ?


Peled, Y., Medvin, M. & Domanski, L. (2012). Five years of IWB in schools: Is it worth it? Factors Related to IWB ?Use in Four Western PA K-12 School Districts?. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2047-2054). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Balanskat, A., Blamier, R., Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. (European Communities, European Schoolnet, Belgium). Available at: Accessed: Nov. 16, 2010.
  2. Beauchamp, G. & Parkinson, J. (2005) Beyond the ‘wow' factor: Developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97-103.
  3. Bowyer, J., Gerard, L. And Marx, R. (2008). Building leadership for scaling science curriculum reform. In Y. Kali, M.C. Linn and J.E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. (N.Y.: Teachers College Press). Pp. 123-152
  4. Bradley, G., & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support and computer anxieties. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 267-285.
  5. Demertzi, V., Bagakis, G. & Georgiadou, S. (2009) 'School voices in Leadership for Learning within the Greek context', International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(3), 297-309
  6. Foster, E.S., Loving, C.C., & Shumate, A. (2000). Effective principals, effective professional development schools. Teaching and Change, 8(1), 76-97
  7. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
  8. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225.
  9. Honey, M. & McMillan-Culp, K. (2000). Scale and localization: The challenge of implementing what works. In Honey M. And Shookhoff C. (Eds.), The Wingspread Conference on Technology’s Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and-2053-Quality (pp. 41–46). Racine, WI: The Joyce Foundation, The Johnson Foundation, and the EDC Center for Children and
  10. Kelceoglu, I. (2008). Personal and InstitutionalFactorsAffectingFirstYearElementaryTeachers' Use of Technology. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 2064-2067). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Available at: Nov. 18, 2011.
  11. Kellenberger, D.W. (1996). Preservice teachers’ perceived computer self-efficacy based on achievement and value beliefs within a motivational framework. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 124-140.
  12. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). American Association of Colleges of
  13. 2010.Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers college records, 108(6), 1017-1054
  14. Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K. & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91–101.
  15. Solomon, G. (2000). Technology and education in the age of information. Haifa University; Haifa
  16. Varma, K., Husic, F. & Linn, M.C. (2008). Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry modules. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 341-356
  17. Wiggins, T.W. (1970). Conceptualizing principal behavior in the school climate: A systems analysis. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, (Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2-6, 1970) (ED041387)
  18. Yuen A.H.K., Law N., & Wong K.C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership: Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 158-170.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact