Smith, Hardman and Higgins (2005) compared lessons with and without IWBs during 2003 and 2004. They concluded that while IWBs are “useful presentational tools… the technology by itself will not bring about fundamental change in the traditional patterns of whole class teaching” (455). They also questioned the efficacy of “extensive top-down staff development” in-service training. This issue is also raised by Armstrong et al. (2005) who suggest that without effective training “it is unlikely that teachers will either be aware of or be able to exploit the potential affordances of IWBs” (467).

Robert Martellacci represents the other end of the hardware-software scale. He believes that the software teachers use with the whiteboard, not the board itself, is the more critical component.

Key question for the research Our key question is: What are the essential features of interactivity, intrinsic in the use of interactive whiteboards, which make them more effective than current similar presentation media (whiteboard, OHP, computer with data projector) and how can these be promoted and then sustained? and subsidiary to that: how can the interactive whiteboard be used in ways that are more effective than current use of other presentation media? what should one look for in commercial or other available interactive whiteboard materials to maximise any benefits of the use of the interactive whiteboard? what type of materials should teachers look to produce for themselves given the constraints that they are working under? what model of professional development in this context best supports the growth of the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom?

integración de tecnología y la alfabetización en el siglo XXI