This exploratory study was conducted with a group of teachers at four partnership school sites (elementary, middle, and high school) who taught students with a range of disabilities. The study was designed to gain insight into how these teachers used interactive whiteboard technology (IWBT) in their classrooms, to ascertain their perceptions regarding the use of this technology for students with disabilities (SWD), and to learn about their perceptions regarding professional development needs related to the effective use of IWBT for SWD. Two points of focus were the extent to which these teachers' use of IWBT complemented research-supported instructional practices for SWD and the impact of contextual factors on their practice. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingerR. M.BollingR. M.OatsR. G.GagnonW. A. (2000). Effects of teacher self-monitoring on implementation of curriculum-based measurement and mathematics computation achievement of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 219–226.
2.
BallB. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics with an interactive whiteboard. Micromath, 19(1), 4–7.
3.
CarnineD. (1997). Bridging the research to practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513–521.
4.
DiGregorioP.Sobel-LojeskiK. (2010). The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on student performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255–312.
5.
EdwardsJ.HartnellM.MartinR. (2002). Interactive whiteboards: Some lessons for the classroom. Micromath, 18(2), 30–34.
6.
EkhamiL. (2002). The power of interactive whiteboards. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 18, 35–38.
GloverD.MillerD. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 1, 5–19.
9.
GloverD.MillerD.AverisD.DoorV. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 14(2), 155–170.
10.
GreenwoodC. R.AbbottM. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276–289.
11.
HigginsS.BeauchampG.MillerD. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning Media & Technology, 32, 213–225.
12.
JohnsonC. (2002). The writing's on the board. Educational Computing & Technology, September, 58–59.
13.
KennewellS. (2004). Researching the influence of interactive presentation tools on teacher pedagogy. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Manchester.
14.
KennewellS.BeauchampG. (2003). The influence of a technology-rich classroom environment on elementary teachers' pedagogy and children's learning. Young Children and Learning Technologies: Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, 34, 65–70.
15.
LathamP. (2002) Teaching and learning primary mathematics: The impact of interactive whiteboards. London: BEAM Education.
16.
LevyP. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study (Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield). Retrieved from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm.
17.
MartinS. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approach to teaching children to write?Literacy, 41, 26–34.
18.
MechlingL.GastD.KrupaK. (2007). Impact of SMART Board Technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869–1882.
RichardsonA. (2002). Effective questioning in teaching mathematics using an interactive whiteboard. Micromath, 18(2), 8–12.
21.
ShapiroE. S.EdwardsL.ZigmondN. (2005). Progress monitoring of mathematics among students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(2), 15–32.
22.
SmithH.HigginsS.WallK.MillerJ. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91–101.
23.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of the research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
24.
StephensC. D. (2000). Forget the sailboat let's go whiteboarding. Dental Update, 27(5), 236–240.
25.
SutherlandK. S.WehbyJ. H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113–121.
26.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 129–140.
27.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 98–114.
28.
WalkerD. (2002, September 13). White enlightening. Times Educational Supplement, 13, 19.
