The objective of our study is to analyze the utility and the integration of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) and interactive textbook into the teaching skills. This project concerns middle and high school teachers with professional career guidance in France. The research had as objectives the appropriation in the use of IWB features and the analysis of potential affordances and used by teachers in teaching-learning situations. The five hypotheses were tested from the research design type mixed-method. The results related to our initial hypotheses show that the use of functionalities of an IWB and a digital teaching book depend on teaching disciplines. Thus, history–geography teachers and those in languages frequently use simple features of an IWB. Teachers in science and mathematics perceive and use the affordances in a more complex level of an IWB, which means they add items to the device to enrich the list of functions.
AkrichM. (1998) Les utilisateurs, acteurs de l’innovation [Users, actors of innovation]. Education Permanente134: 79–90.
2.
AmiguesR. (1991) Peer interaction and conceptual change. In: MandlH.de CorteE.BennetN.FriedrichH. F. (eds) Learning and instruction, Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, pp. 27–43.
3.
BarM. (2004) Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience5: 617–629.
4.
BeauchampG. (2004) Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education13(3): 327–348.
5.
BeauchampG. (2011) Interactivity and ICT in the primary school: Categories of learner interactions with and without ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education20(2): 175–190.
6.
Becta (2007, July). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project (Research Report). Education & Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University.
7.
BorghiA. -M.FluminiA.NatrajN.WeatonL. A. (2012) One hand, two objects: Emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain Cognition80(1): 64–73.
8.
BrilB. (2002) Apprentissage et contexte [Learning in context]. Intellectica2(35): 251–268.
9.
ColeM.EngestromY. (1993) A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In: SalomonG. (ed.) Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
De FornelM. (1992) Alors tu me vois? Objet technique et cadre interactionnel dans la pratique visiophonique. Culture technique24.
11.
Duroisin, N., Temperman, G., & De Lièvre, B. (2011). Effets de deux modalités d’usage du tableau blanc interactif sur la dynamique d’apprentissage et la progression et la progression des apprenants. In Actes du colloque EIAH’2011, Mons, Belgique.
12.
EcoU. (2007) La soglia e l’infinito. In: PaolucciC. (ed.) Studi di semiotica interpretativa, Milano: Bompiani, pp. 145–176.
13.
Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. CHI, New Orleans.
14.
GibsonJ. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
GibsonE. J.AdolphK. E.EpplerM. A. (1999) Affordances. In: WilsonR. A.KeilF. C. (eds) MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 4–6.
16.
HigginsS.FalzonC. (2005) Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies: Final report to DjES, Newcastle, Australia: University of Newcastle.
17.
HigginsS.BeauchampG.MillerD. (2007) Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning Media and Technology32(3): 213–225.
18.
HillierE.BeauchampG.WhyteS. (2013) A study of self-efficacy in the use of interactive whiteboards across educational settings: A European perspective from the iTILT project. Educational Future5(2): 3–23.
JackendoffR. (2006) The peculiar logic of value. Journal of Cognition and Culture6(3–4): 375–407.
21.
JewittC.MossG.CardiniA. (2007) Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and Technology32(3): 303–317.
22.
JoshuaS. (1996) Le concept de contrat didactique et l’approche vygotskienne. In: RaiskyC.CaillotM. (eds) Au-delà des didactiques, le didactique, Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
KennewellS.MorganA. (2006) Factors influencing learning through play in ICT settings. Computers and Education46(3): 256–279.
25.
KöhlerW. (1938) The place of value in a world of facts, London, England: Kegan Paul.
26.
KoffkaK. (1935) Principles of Gestalt psychology, New York, NY: Hartcourt.
27.
KreftingL. (1991) Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy45(3): 214–222.
28.
Kytta, M. (2003). Children in outdoor contexts: Affordances and Independent mobility of environmental child friendliness (Academic Dissertation). Université de technologie de Helsinki, Finland.
29.
Lefebvre, S., & Samson, G. (2013). État des connaissances sur l’implantation du tableau numérique interactif (TNI) à l’école [Review on interactive whiteboard integration in school]. Revue STICEF, Volume 20.
30.
LeonovaT. (2004) L'approche écologique de la cognition sociale et son impact sur la conception des traits de personnalité [The ecological approach of social cognition and their impact on personality traits design]. L'année psychologique104(2): 249–294.
31.
LewinC.SomekhB.SteadmanS. (2008) Embedding interactives whiteboard in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogical practice. Education and Information Technologies13(4): 291–303.
32.
MalleinP.ToussaintY. (1994) L’intégration sociale des technologies d'information et de communication. Une sociologie des usages [Social integration of ICT. A sociology of uses]. Technologie de l’information et société6(4): 315–335.
33.
Manny-IkanE.DaganO.TikochinskiT. B.ZormanR. (2011) Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning—An evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM Pilot Project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects7: 250–273.
34.
Millerand, F. (2002). La dimension cognitive de l’appropriation des artefacts communicationnels [Cognitive dimension of communicational artefact’s appropriation]. In F. Jauréguiberry & S. Proulx (Eds.), Internet: nouvel espace citoyen [Internet: The Citizen new space] (pp. 181–203). l’Harmattan.
35.
MorgagniS. (2011) Repenser la notion d’affordance dans ses dynamiques sémiotiques [Rethinking the affordance concept in their semiotics dynamics]. Intellectica55(1): 241–267.
36.
NiveleauC. E. (2006) Le concept gibsonien d’affordance: Entre filiation, rupture et reconstruction conceptuelle [The affordance gibsonian concept: Between filiation, breakage and reconstruction]. Intellectica43: 159–199.
37.
NormanD. A. (1988) The psychology of everyday things, New York, NY: Basic Books.
38.
PacurarE.AbbasN. (2013) Analysis of French secondary school teachers’ intention to integrate digital work environments into their teaching practices. Education and Information Technologies18(4)): doi:10.1007/s10639-013-9301-9.
39.
PaolucciC. (2010) Strutturalismo e interpretazione, Milano: Bompiani.
40.
PerayaD.RickenmannR. (1998) New perspectives for media education. Theory and practice. Educational Media International (EMI)35(2): 125–132.
41.
Perriault, J. (1989). La logique de l’usage. Essai sur les machines à communiquer [The logic of use. Essai on the communication technologies], Paris, Éd. L'Harmattan, coll. Anthropologie, ethnologie, civilisation, p. 253.
42.
ProulxS. (2005) Penser les usages des technologies de l’information et de la communication aujourd’hui: Enjeux, modèles, tendance [Think the ICT uses today: Issues, models and tendancy]. In: VieireL.PinèdeN. (eds) Enjeux et usages de TIC: Aspects sociaux et culturels, Tome 1: PUB, pp. 7–20.
43.
RabardelP. (1995) Les hommes et les technologies [Humans and technologies], Paris: Armand Colin.
44.
RosenthalV. (2005) Formes, sens et développement: quelques aperçus de la microgenèse [The forms, orientation and development: Some perceptions of microgenesis]. Texto2005. Retrieved from http://www.revue-texto.net/Inedits/Rosenthal_Formes.html.
45.
Samuel, M. (2007). Appropriation et médiation dans un dispositif d’enseignement à distance [Appropriation and mediation in distance teaching environment] (Master dissertation). Université Toulouse III, Toulouse, France.
46.
SimonianS.AudranJ. (2012) Approche anthropo-écologique du non-usage [Anthropo-ecological approach of non-use]. Recherches & Educations6: 161–177.
47.
SmithH.HigginsS.WallK.MillerJ. (2005) Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning21(2): 91–101.
48.
SweeneyT. (2013) Understanding the use of interactive whiteboards in primary science. Australian Journal of Educational Technology29(2): 217–232.
49.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Sydney: Allyn and Bacon.
50.
TurelY.JohnsonT. E. (2012) Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society15(1): 381–394.
51.
Van LaerS.BeauchampG.ColpaertJ. (2014) Teacher use of the Interactive whiteboards in flemish secondary education—Mapping against a transition framework. Education and Information Technologies19: 409–423.
52.
Villemonteix, F., & Béziat, J. (2013). Le TNI à l’école primaire: Entre contraintes et engagement [The IWB at primary school: Between constranits and engagement]. Revue STICEF, Volume 20.
53.
von BonsdorffP. (2000) Urban richness and the art of building. Yhteiskunta-suunnittelu3(38): 28–40.
54.
Voulgre, E. (2012). Utilisations du manuel scolaire en version électronique par des enseignants en collège et lycée [Digital teaching school book use by secondary school teachers]. Rubrique de la Revue STICEF, Volume 19.
55.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). La méthode instrumentale en psychologie [The instrumental method in psychology]. In B. Schneuwly & J. P. Bronkart (Eds.), Vygotsky aujourd’hui [Vygotsky today] (pp. 39–48). Delachaux et Niestlé.
56.
WellsA. J. (2002) Gibson’s affordances and Turing’s theory of computation. Ecological Psychology14(3): 141–180.
