xu.pdf


Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology

2011, 27(2), 307-325

Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy
in the teaching of Chinese language

Hui Ling Xu and Robyn Moloney
Macquarie University

There have been many positive claims made concerning the benefits of learning
through a pedagogy which makes use of an interactive whiteboard (IWB), leading to a
rapid acquisition and implementation of the IWB in schools. There is more limited
research, however, of the effectiveness of the IWB in language learning and, in
particular, in the learning of Chinese. This case study research used both qualitative
and quantitative data to collect teacher and student perceptions of the learning of
Chinese through an IWB pedagogy in one secondary school in Sydney, Australia,
involving students in three levels of senior secondary school. Our findings confirm
previous studies which state that students endorse the use of new technology in
education. In particular, our study shows that the students believed that the IWB was
effective in enhancing various aspects of their Chinese language learning. The positive
attitude of the teacher towards the use of new technology in teaching is also found to
play an important role in the implementation and success of the use of the IWB and in
turn leads to the effective teaching and learning of Chinese. This study contributes to
attention within research to the application of new technology in language learning.

Introduction

The interactive whiteboard (IWB) has now been incorporated into schools and
educational institutions internationally for the last ten years for the teaching of various
school subjects, in particular, in teaching mathematics, literacy and science, and has
generated enthusiasm from students, parents, and teachers. The use of this innovative
pedagogy has attracted robust research interest (for a review, see Smith, Higgins, Wall
& Miller 2005), with many positive claims made for its educational benefits, for
example, in its ability to capture students’ learning interests, in increasing participation
and engagement, and in developing learning skills.

There is, however, limited research into the application and success of the IWB in the
teaching and learning of foreign languages. This article reports the findings of a study
which investigated the perceptions of a teacher and students of the effectiveness of the
IWB in facilitating Chinese language learning. An additional area of interest was the
possibility, in the students’ perception, of an intersection between classroom
technologies and students’ use of technologies outside school. This study therefore
contributes to attention within research to the application of new technologies in
language learning. Section 2 presents an overview of relevant literature. Section 3 is a
presentation of the study’s methodology and research results. In Section 4, the findings
are discussed in relation to our research questions, and Section 5 offers some
concluding remarks and future research directions.



308 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

Review of the literature

An IWB is a presentation device or touch screen, the size of a conventional whiteboard,
which interfaces with a computer and a projector. The screen can be touched by either
a hand or with a special stylus, as well as by using the computer mouse or keyboard.
Extant literature has indicated that the affordances of such a device are far greater than
its parts each can achieve (see, for example, Kent, 2006; Betcher & Lee, 2009), resulting
in rapid introduction of this technology into schools in the UK, the US, Canada, and in
more recent years, Australia (Thomas & Jones, 2010). As an innovative teaching and
learning tool, the IWB has generated robust research interest among practitioners and
researchers in an effort to help shed light on its potential, its benefits, advantages or
limitations, and impact on teaching and learning. As part of this research effort, the
current study will examine IWB practice through accessing the perceptions of a teacher
and students.

The IWB has been widely used in the teaching of science, mathematics and literacy
subjects at the primary and secondary levels. A body of relevant research reports
various perceived benefits, in light of the technology’s affordances. For example,
Betcher and Lee (2009) believe that as a fully integrated, multimedia enabled, large
screen digital convergence facility, IWB enables the classroom to be ‘agile’ so that the
course of a lesson can be changed at short notice to pursue unplanned-for student
interests, helping to connect concepts being studied to new concepts or ideas. Kent’s
study (2006) also confirms the benefits of this agility of the classroom enabled by IWB.
In a mathematics context, for example, Kent notes that teachers can move easily among
virtual graphics calculators, spreadsheet programs, learning objects and mathematics
based software applications. They can use real world examples captured by digital
camera or as live data sourced in real time from the Internet.

The easy incorporation of multimedia into lessons, and access to the Internet, also
support different learning styles, allowing for visual, auditory and kinaesthetic input
(Tozcu, 2008) and quicken the pace of lessons (Beauchamp & Parkinson, 2005; Betcher
& Lee 2009). The technology allows teachers and students to capture material digitally
from a number of sources and then cut and paste them together to create new
multimedia materials, contextually relevant to students and their learning needs. Not
only does the IWB promotes co-construction of knowledge and learning materials such
as this, it is also said to promote co-learning, giving students greater learning
responsibilities, i.e. proactive learning, as the role of the teacher has shifted towards
more as a coach, observer and facilitator (Beachamp & Parkinson, 2005).

Other perceived benefits of the IWB reported in the literature also include increased
student motivation, engagement and interactivity, thus engendering more effective
learning. Interactivity is now recognised as one key to learning and sustained interest
(Higgins, Beauchamp & Miller, 2007), and is the focus of a number of studies (Levy,
2002; Cutrim Schmid, 2008; Littleton, 2010, among others). The notion of IWB
interactivity may involve students’ physical movement in the classroom, cooperation,
collaboration and competition. The inclusion of audio and visual resources and the
IWB’s ability to make digital objects movable may be important in getting the students
to interact with the board, with each other, and with the teacher. Increasingly,
however, practitioners have also come to recognise the importance of using the IWB to
promote cognitive and deeper interaction. For example, Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthven
and Winterbottom (2007) highlight the fact that IWB interaction is about shared



Xu and Moloney 309

cognition, especially in the articulation, collective evaluation and reworking of the
students’ own ideas, and co-construction of new knowledge. They anticipate an
‘enhanced interactive’ pedagogy in which there might be less dependency on front of
class teaching and increased use of pair and group work.

Research studies have also focused on the shift in pedagogy needed to exploit the
advantages of the IWB. A major advantage of IWB, according to Asmawi (2007), is that
the use of the IWB in teaching can be categorised into three modalities of learning: (1)
visual learning through the use of text and pictures, animation and video, (2) auditory
learning through pronunciation, listening to sounds or music, and (3) tactile learning
through the students’ physical interaction with the IWB. The extent to which these
three modalities are incorporated into a lesson may determine the extent to which
students are engaged in the learning process and their motivation to learn. Glover &
Miller (2001) report that several teachers in their study failed to appreciate the fact that
interactivity requires a new approach to pedagogy. In a later study, Miller & Glover
(2007) concluded that a more rapid progression from a didactic to an interactive
teaching approach could be made through ongoing professional development.

Of relevance to this project are studies which have identified affordances of IWB of
particular application to language education. The component communication skills
associated with effective language learning involve speaking, reading, writing and
listening development, memory recall, metalinguistic skills involving manipulation of
syntactical patterns (Pachler, Barnes & Field, 2009; Brown, 2007) and intercultural or
pragmatic skills (Scarino & Liddicoat, 2009). Effective language education is thus
considered to involve two things, the production of language in social interaction, and
the opportunity for students to engage with peers in interactive critical reflection about
their relationship with languages and cultures (Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino, &
Kohler, 2003). In light of these expectations, what are some research findings, limited
as there are, on the role of IWB in relation to language teaching and learning?

In a study carried out by Gray, Hagger-Vaughan, Pilkington and Tomkins (2005), a
number of areas of the effectiveness of the IWB in the teaching of languages were
reported. Teachers commented that the IWB supported them in encouraging students
to practise and recycle recently presented language. They reported that students were
‘much more focused on the words and spellings, and even though they wrote less
themselves, that this was improving their writing’. Visual effects such as colour
highlighting and animation were felt to be the most important aids in drawing
attention to language patterns. The study reported that the IWB, often in conjunction
with the use of PowerPoint slides, offered teachers a range of easily accessible ways of
drawing attention to grammatical features and patterns and that learners felt that the
use of the IWB had a positive effect on memorisation skills and writing development.
It also found that where language lessons were carefully planned, with well-sequenced
activities ready at a touch of a button, teachers appeared to have more time to engage
with students’ learning. The study concludes that, though teachers initially need extra
preparation time, the IWB is a support for good language teaching and in
supplementing the balance of activities needed, facilitating a range of practical, hands
on, kinaesthetic activities.

With regard to the teaching of Chinese using IWB, there has not been much research
done so far. However, in an empirical study by Tozcu (2008:164), it has been found
that the challenging teaching of a non-Roman script can be usefully supported by the



310 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

IWB: the visual presentation appearing to shorten the acquisition period in learners.
Pang (2006, 2008, 2009), the participant teacher in this study, who has developed and
promoted IWB pedagogy for learning Chinese, reports evidence that as a result of her
IWB pedagogy, students’ academic results improved, and that she was able to compact
the syllabus, increase pace, and reach learning goals more quickly. Pang states that her
pedagogy reflects the goals established by Betcher and Lee (2009), in which the authors
described three phases of teacher development in their use of the IWB across the
curriculum: Phase 1, doing old things in old ways; Phase 2, doing old things but in
new ways; Phase 3, doing new things in new ways. Pang describes in Section 2 below
her teaching characteristics which she considers to represent Phase 3. These
characteristics include the use of software which enables students to manipulate
language, the facilitation of students’ ability to engage in life in another context,
increased levels of interactivity and student involvement, and the use of interactive
voting systems (Betcher & Lee, 2009).

Language learning in schools is, in the Australian context, an elective study choice.
Student motivation and engagement are thus high priorities for teachers, both for their
intrinsic value, and for their role in supporting sustained language study choices. E-
learning, that is, the application of innovative technology such as the IWB certainly,
has played an important role in addressing this issue. While a large number of
uncontrolled variables and factors can affect student motivation, Weimer (2001)
reports on the findings of a study which shows a clear link between motivation and
technology. The visual aspect of the IWB has been proposed as the primary reason for
active motivated engagement in the learning process (Beeland, 2002). Smith, Hardman
and Higgins (2006) also found that pupil interest in learning is enhanced because of
the element of visual surprise that the IWB brings to lessons. The opportunity that it
gives students to present and discuss their work was also seen as improving attention
and engagement in the learning process. Scarino and Liddicoat (2009) stress that we
can use technology to provide opportunities for students to make language choices, to
create tasks, to use games, to explore texts, to engage students in language and culture
simulations, and that the use of technology makes the target language more present in
students’ lives. This reflects the broad question being asked (White, 2007) about
students’ perception of continuity or discontinuity between the classroom and their
lives outside school. That is, to what extent does the rapid increase in students’ use of
social technologies and ‘playful experimentation’ with new technologies (Turkle,
1995:267) impact on new patterns of engagement and learning?

Extant literature on the application of IWB also includes comments on its limitations
and disadvantages as well as suggestions and implications. In the language learning
context, for example, Gray et al (2005) point out that speaking practice is found to be
not well facilitated by IWB pedagogy, which seems to be in accordance with our
findings in this study. They also suggest that the IWB might force students into a
passive role where the ICT appears to be used for its novelty value, or when its link
with the achievement of learning objectives is unclear.

Although the limited relevant studies provide evidence that student language
learning, motivation and engagement may be positively affected by the use of the IWB,
teachers need to be supported in their professional development in adapting their
pedagogy in lesson preparation. The IWB may be considered more as a useful
supplement to good pedagogy rather than as a complete pedagogy in itself for the
teaching of languages. As Betcher and Lee (2009: 8) commented, “What makes the



Xu and Moloney 311

difference is the teacher who understands how to tap into the potential of this new
technology to create engaging, interesting, interactive lessons that capture the attention
and imagination of the students in pedagogically sound, creative ways.”

The study

Aims of the project

A recent large-scale report on Chinese language education in Australian schools has
found that various factors have affected both the retention rate and the achievement of
expected proficiency in Chinese (Orton, 2008). Apart from pedagogical challenges in
the classroom context such as the lack of target language-competent speakers to
interact with, and external factors such as the lack of support at various levels, the
intrinsic difficulty of the Chinese language, such as tones and characters, is also found
to be a restriction for students of English-speaking backgrounds (Orton, 2008:5). To
overcome the daunting task of learning Chinese, the report made numerous
recommendations such as a greater use of modern technology to assist in oral, reading
and writing competence (Orton, 2008:33). This case study is therefore timely. Its aim
was to study an Australian school where one teacher is actively applying the IWB in
the teaching and learning of Chinese. Specifically, this study investigates, within the
following four objectives, students’ and teacher’s perceptions of the use of the IWB in
learning Chinese:

1. To observe how the IWB is being used by the teacher in the classroom.
2. To investigate students’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of this

technology.
3. To investigate the teacher’s views on the use of the IWB.
4. To investigate if there is a continuity in the use of technology inside and outside

school.

While the second and third objectives are the main concern of this study, the first
objective serves as a backdrop for the researchers to understand students’ perceptions
and responses with regard to classroom IWB activities. Tapscott (2009) claims that if
we understand the ‘Net Generation’, we can understand the future. Thus, we include
the fourth objective in the hope that the information yielded would be useful for
educational practitioners when developing technology-based pedagogical practice to
meet the needs of students growing up in a digital world.

Site and participants

The case study school is an independent girls’ school, encompassing both primary and
secondary levels, both day and boarding school, in Sydney, Australia. The school
follows the NSW Board of Studies Curriculum and Language syllabus (Board of
Studies NSW, 2003), and prepares students for the NSW Higher School Certificate
(HSC). The school was selected for the study due to its sustained inclusion, over at
least five years, of technologies in pedagogy, and in particular its provision of IWB
units in classrooms.

Student participants were the students in the Chinese classes of Years 10, 11 and 12.
The total number of student participants was 18. Among the students, there was a
considerable diversity in the years they had spent at the school and the amount of time



312 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

they had studied Chinese. Students had been exposed to IWB Chinese teaching for up
to 6 years. Student information from interview data indicated diversity in family,
cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

The female teacher, of Hong Kong background, is between 30 and 40 years of age, and
has taught at the school for eight years. The teacher was chosen due to her prominence
as a proponent of the application of IWB in her Chinese teaching. She has regularly
been involved, as part of professional development, in teaching both experienced
teachers and pre-service teachers how to use the IWB and in promoting its benefits
(Pang, 2006, 2008, 2009). The teacher began developing her IWB pedagogy in 2004, and
uses a range of technology-related skills both in her school life and private life.

The two researchers are both trained language teachers in the secondary and tertiary
contexts.

Methodology

This project used four data collection tools including both quantitative and qualitative
methods:

• Classroom observation. This was included to capture the interaction between teacher
and students and to observe the nature of the IWB activities used. For each level of
Year 10, 11 and 12, three fifty-minute lessons were recorded with a total
observation of nine lessons. Classroom observations were video recorded.
Researchers also took detailed field notes while watching the lessons.

• Student survey (Appendix 1). The survey was administered to all three year-levels.
The questionnaire consisted of 22 statements with a Likert-scale response, a ranking
exercise of the importance of various aspects related the IWB and a question to find
out what technologies students use outside of school.

• Focus group interview (Appendix 2). In order to capture the students’ more personal
metacognitive responses to their learning and more analytical reflections, 30-
minute focus group interviews were conducted, audio recorded, transcribed and
analysed. Student participation was on a volunteer basis. The small sample size is
due to the small class numbers.

• Teacher interview. Semi-structured interview questions investigated the teacher’s
practice and views concerning the effectiveness of the IWB, students’ learning, and
possible limitations of the IWB. The interview was audio recorded, transcribed and
analysed.

The transcripts of interviews with the teacher and student groups were thematically
and inductively coded by Content Analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). A form of
methodological triangulation was achieved through the use of the different sources of
data, exploring pedagogy and student learning from the different perspectives
represented.

Results and discussion
Classroom observation

Classroom observation was carried out to provide the context for better understanding
of our response data. Nine classroom lessons were observed and video recorded, and
notes were taken. Pedagogy observed in Year 10 and 11 included the use of the IWB to



Xu and Moloney 313

facilitate the following activities: language games, such as the use of voting devices for
such activities as expression of preferences, oral repetition of listening materials,
teacher explanation of syntax, pattern practice and manipulation of syntactical
elements on the board, reading aloud from text on the board, which can be recorded
on the IWB and played back. Year 12 classes featured also text analysis, by annotating
a text on the IWB (reading comprehension). The annotated text was then saved and
emailed to all the students. Another Year 12 activity was a collaborative writing task
on the IWB, which was also then saved and emailed to them. Segments of cultural
information were accessed through relevant cultural websites in all classes observed.
The teacher made extensive use of the capabilities of the IWB, its software, its ability to
project selected teaching text materials from CD and its Internet capacity. In
summation, the IWB is central to her teaching and is the resource focus of her
classroom. The pedagogy seen in this Chinese language classroom case study matches
some elements of the enhanced interactive stage, described by Miller, Averis, Door and
Glover (2005), that is, the fluent integrated use of the board, awareness of its capability
and facilitation of an enhanced active learning in students. The teacher appeared to be
confident and experienced in the use of the board and its related technologies.

The design and progress of the lessons may be described as technology-centred,
although significant student collaboration and interaction are involved in tasks. The
New South Wales Quality Teaching Model (White, 2007) proposes that three dimensions
are involved in quality teaching: intellectual quality of content, supported by a quality
learning environment and by the perception of the significance of learning.
Significance refers to making learning meaningful and important to learners, drawing
connections with prior knowledge and contexts outside of the classroom and
facilitating multiple ways of knowing or cultural perspectives. The IWB pedagogy
observed reflected intellectual quality in its facilitation of construction of language and
in depth understanding. It provided a quality learning environment, where teacher
and students worked productively in a classroom focused on learning, with high
expectations and positive relationships. This third aspect will become visible in
student perceptions, in the analysis of student interview data below.

Student survey data

The survey was administered at the beginning of the second semester (September)
2009. The survey questionnaire consists of three parts. Part one has 22 questions which
were grouped broadly in four dimensions, concerning the use of the IWB in the
following contexts:

1. promotion of students’ engagement and motivation (Questions 1 to 3);
2. improvement of language skills (Questions 4 to 9);
3. improvement of teaching and learning outcomes (Questions 10 to 19);
4. possibility of limitations and negative perceptions (Questions 20-22).

Each of these questions is followed by a five-point Likert scale, with the alternatives
labelled from ‘Strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly agree’ (5). To avoid the halo effect,
several questions were phrased negatively. The anonymous survey data was analysed
with the assistance of statistical analysis software SPSS and the results are presented
below in Table 1.



314 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

Table 1: Student survey data Likert scale 1-5 response to statements (N=18)
SkewnessThe IWB Min Max Mean Stddev Stat Std error

1 increases motivation 2 5 3.94 .725 -.955 .536
2 makes it more interesting 3 5 4.39 .608 -.408 .536
3 encourages participation 4 5 4.72 .461 -1.085 .536
4 helps me remember vocabulary 2 5 3.33 .840 .074 .536
5 helps good accent 1 4 2.78 .732 -.629 .536
6 improves my listening 2 5 3.72 .826 -.813 .536
7 improves fluency 2 4 3.00 .686 .000 .536
8 helps me remember characters 2 5 3.94 .802 -.663 .536
9 helps me write better 2 4 2.89 .676 .132 .536
10 increases awareness of life in China 1 4 2.50 .924 -.252 .536
11 helps me study for exams 2 5 3.17 .707 .873 .536
12 connection to multimedia helps me retain

information
3 5 3.67 .594 .210 .536

13 allows me to retain more information 4 5 4.50 .514 .000 .536
14 helps me grasp ideas 3 5 4.00 .686 .000 .536
15 makes my results better 2 5 2.89 .758 1.105 .536
16 makes learning easier 2 4 3.61 .608 -1.362 .536
17 allows extension work 2 5 3.06 .725 .955 .536
18 is best for teaching and learning languages 3 5 4.39 .608 -.408 .536
19 is not as good as a textbook 1 3 2.39 .778 -.852 .536
20 is used too much 1 3 2.11 .583 .016 .536
21 can be boring 1 4 2.39 1.195 .063 .536
22 is not good for teaching some activities 2 5 3.50 .924 -.252 .536

A comparison of the mean scores on the questions show that the first three questions,
which gauge students’ views on engagement of learning, encompassing motivation,
interests and participation, scored relatively high, with mean scores nearing 4 and
above. The second dimension, reflected in questions (4) to (9), focuses on what the IWB
does best in facilitating acquisition of language skills. We were surprised to find that
the results show relatively lower rating to these statements. However, a closer look at
each question shows that in the eyes of the students, the most effective functions of
IWB is in helping them remember characters (question 7). Given that learning
characters is generally perceived as a difficult task for English speaking students, this
finding certainly has positive implications for the design of teaching activities to assist
students in this linguistic aspect. Slightly lower in terms of rating is in improving
listening (question 6), and remembering vocabulary (question 4). But IWB does not do
so well in helping oral proficiency (questions 5 and 7). This might have to do with the
individual teacher’s choice of IWB activities and it seems in accordance with our
observation that only limited speaking practice was done in the classes observed. Also
worth noting is that students gave a low rating to statement (9) which is concerned
with writing skills.

Examining the scores of questions 10 to 18 shows that in terms of whether IWB
facilitates teaching and learning outcomes, students’ ratings are generally positive. For
example, students highly endorse the use of IWB in teaching and learning foreign
languages (question 18). They also believe that IWB assists the learning process by
helping them retain more information and grasp ideas better (questions 13 and 14); it
also makes learning easier and to some extent, helps them study for exams and allows
extension work (questions 16, 11, 17 respectively). However, it appears that these



Xu and Moloney 315

perceived advantages did not translate directly into better study results, as indicated
in the response to question 15 which scores a mean of less than 3. While this is
surprising, we believe that there are many other factors at work, not captured in this
case study, to enable one to achieve high linguistic proficiency. Another surprising
finding is that cross-cultural awareness was not perceived to be enhanced by the use of
IWB, given that one of the great functions of IWB is its easy incorporation and access
to the Internet and all the global content it can bring to viewers in a fraction of time.
But as our subject sample is small, we cannot conclude that this is a general
disadvantage of the IWB.

The last four questions of Table 1 are designed to find out whether students believe
that there are limitations of the use of IWB in the teaching and learning of Chinese. The
results show that the responses to these few questions score relatively low, suggesting
that the students on the whole would prefer a more multimedia-based pedagogy than
a more traditional approach.

In order to consolidate the findings of the Likert scale questions, we gave students a
ranking exercise whereby they ranked the relative importance of six aspects of IWB
(see Appendix 1). The results, shown in Figures 1 and 2, strongly support other
sources of data which confirmed that the visual, interaction and fun aspects are very
important to the students, but whether it is part of a multimedia approach, it is
effective in presenting language content, or it is good to have modern technology in
language teaching are relatively unimportant. What these results are telling us is that
students are no longer overwhelmed by the novelty of using technology itself, in the
educational context, as they grow up in this e-era, but that if there are any technologies
to be used in the classroom, they would like them to be fun and interactive.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all important Relatively
unimportant

Somewhat
important

Important Quite important Very important

Frequency

Visual
Interaction
Fun

Figure 1: Visual, interaction and fun rankings (N=18)



316 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Not at all important Relatively
unimportant

Somewhat
important

Important Quite important Very important

Frequency

Multimedia
Effectiveness
Moderntech

Figure 2: Multimedia, effectiveness and moderntech rankings (N=18)

With regard to technologies students use outside the school, Table 2 shows ‘iPod’,
‘games’ and ‘YouTube’ are what the students use most. Even though they also use
websites, they do not use ‘podcast’ as much. This may be because the contents of
podcast are seen by the students as irrelevant to their study or not as interesting as
games or YouTube.

Table 2: Technologies students use outside school

Podcasts iPod Websites YouTube Games Study sites Other
Chosen 2 11 10 10 11 6 10
Not chosen 16 7 8 8 7 12 8
% Chosen 11% 61% 56% 56% 61% 33% 56%

Student focus group data

The interview questions for student focus groups were similar to the survey questions
but allowed for more in depth discussion and personal reflections. A number of
recurring themes emerged from the student data, as displayed in Table 3 below.

It will be noted that across the three year groups some themes were represented in
common while other themes are represented differently. While the sample is small,
some observations can be made, as discussed below.



Xu and Moloney 317

Table 3: Number of students who mentioned thematic items in focus group interviews
Yr10
n=7

Yr11
n=8

Yr12
n=3

Total
N=18

The IWB is fun 6 4 0 10
The IWB gives confidence 4 2 0 6
The IWB is interactive 7 8 0 15
The visual aspect is helpful 6 5 3 14
The IWB helps me remember 6 3 1 10
The IWB creates physical movement in room 3 1 1 5
The IWB helps character writing 3 1 1 5
The IWB sometimes wastes time 1 4 3 8
The IWB allows sharing of study resource 0 1 3 4
The IWB connects Chinese with out of school use of
technologies

5 4 3 12

Due to the similarity of questions, there is some consistency between the survey data
and this interview data. However, the interview data reveals more depth and some
extra aspects of student perceptions of IWB use. Four themes emerging from this data
will be discussed below. The themes are:

• Interactivity, associated with engagement and motivation
• Visual presentation and recall abilities
• Connectedness of Chinese with out of school use of technologies
• Diversity in student perceptions and possible limitations

1. Interactivity and engagement

From Table 3 interview data, all students in Years 10 and 11 were keen to emphasise
their positive perception of interactivity in class through IWB language learning
activities and games. Classroom observation confirmed that students interacted
frequently through competitive IWB games involving manipulation of language
elements and the use of IWB voting devices.

Year 10 students stressed their enjoyment of ‘…games that we can play so it’s like
we’re actually interacting, like playing’ (Year 10 Student 1). They recognise that games
create a positive learning environment: ‘… like everyone’s screaming and like it’s
really fun’ (Year 10 Student 2). They also recognise that games represent learning
functions: ‘We play games sometimes for reinforcement’ (Year 11 Student 1).

Student comments suggest a confirmation of the finding by Moloney (2008) that
students perceived games as a vehicle for purposeful language. Year 10 unanimously
expressed enjoyment of using IWB interactive voting devices (referred to as ‘cool
gadgets’). Cutrim Schmid (2007) has studied the use of these voting devices in
language learning and attributes their use with enhanced self-esteem in learners. Year
10 students reported they were keen to get out of their seats and participate in IWB
activities.

We may observe student expression of their enjoyment of the IWB activities as a
motivating factor in their Chinese study. Students drew comparisons with their other
subjects, firstly in the pedagogical models they observe: ‘…makes the class more
interactive and gets the students involved rather than the teacher standing in front of
the classroom like our other subjects’ (Year 11 Student 3).



318 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

Students also identify that the IWB activities define a classroom environment for them
which is less stressful than other subjects and promotes self-esteem (Cutrim Schmid,
2007).

I really like Chinese. I look forward to it, as it is fun. (Year 10 Student 6)

Because you enjoy it more and it doesn’t seem like a lesson, it’s more a learning
experience. (Year 11 Student 2)

I can just chill out. The IWB makes it fun. (Year 11 Student 1)

…Not such a heavy feeling going to class. (Year 10 Student 4).

Students also aligned the interactivity of IWB activities with the facilitation of shared
social benefits or personal development: ‘Doing the games fosters more friendships’
(Year 11 Student 2). ‘The IWB is interactive and collaborative. It allows different people
to come together’ (Year 11 Student 2).

Year 12 students discussed different motivating factors aligned with their needs,
highlighting a specific application of interactive collaboration which motivates their
senior study. In preparation for required HSC skills, Year 11 and 12 frequently
participate in class in collectively analysing a reading comprehension passage of
Chinese displayed on the IWB. This involves collaboratively working on the passage
and annotating it with vocabulary, meanings, and notes. The collaborative work is
then saved and sent by email to every student to enable further study at home. All
three Year 12 students commented on the value of this practice, as, unlike the
incomplete notes they may have taken as individuals, they all receive a perfect and
equal set of notes. They perceive this co-created resource as an equitable practice,
giving them equal opportunity for success.

2. Visual presentation and increased recall abilities

The most salient theme in both the survey and interview data across the three year
groups was the students’ perception of the visual aspect of IWB learning. Students
associate the visual display of characters on the IWB with the facilitation of their
learning and recall of Chinese language:

What the IWB does best is reading and listening. When I see characters, I tend to
remember things more if I see and listen together. (Year 11 Student 1)

The visual helps me improve my memory and store the character. (Year 10 Student 2)

You can colour-code the different radicals so you can remember characters easier.
(Year 11 Student 3)

Visual. You can see it. It’s useful for characters. (Year 12 Student 1).

Students expressed some familiarity with the current theoretical notions of learning
styles, for example, the Fleming VARK model (visual, auditory, reading, kinaesthetic)
(Fleming, 2010). A number of students display a degree of metacognition in identifying
themselves as visual learners.

Students offered perceptions of their self-identified learning styles:

I am a photographic memory kid. It is easier to see the IWB. (Year 10 Student 4)



Xu and Moloney 319

I am definitely a visual learner. I have to be able to see it and interact with it. (Year 10
Student 5)

In their positive perception and analysis of their IWB learning, these students appear
to suggest that the use of technologies ‘changes not only one’s preferred forms of
learning but also beliefs about learning and knowing (Turkle, 1995:132). Prensky (2001)
comments that students ‘think and process information fundamentally differently
from their predecessors’ and has identified some aspects of student capabilities which
relate to their interaction with IWB pedagogy, for example, that they think learning
should be fun, they like to receive information fast, prefer visual graphics and are
capable of absorbing data from a number of different sources.

3. Perception of continuity between Chinese study and out of school use of technologies

In both the survey data and in the interview data, students reported their out of school
use of technologies as part of their Chinese learning and for social purposes. Twelve
out of the eighteen students reported in interviews that at home they use some form of
technology for leisure or to study, as noted above in Student survey data. They receive
and submit homework online in text or media files and correspond with the teacher.
This is a spatial and temporal expansion of their learning opportunities.

Students commented that in the context of their engagement with the IWB learning:

It is our generation kind of thing. We are IT users. (Year 10 Student 6)

It is a social thing now that we use technology. (Year 11 Student 2)

We are used to using (technology) already, so we don’t really question why we use it.
(Year 10 Student 3)

Students see that there is a connection between the study of Chinese and the context of
their life outside school which is integral to their perception of Significance in learning.
In the student data we see several elements described in the Quality Teaching Model
(White, 2007) which suggests that Significance includes accessing students’ background
knowledge, knowledge integration, inclusivity and connectedness.

This data suggests that it is not only the affordance of the IWB that makes it a
successful pedagogy and learning tool. Important contributing factors are the students’
own capacity, skills and technological confidence which they bring to it. These things
work together with the IWB and the teacher, to facilitate successful learning outcomes.

4. Diversity of perceptions and possible limitations

It can be seen in Table 2 that there was diversity amongst the year groups in their
perceptions of the use of the IWB. For example, Year 12 students are aware of the need
to complete syllabus requirements to achieve good results in the NSW Board of
Studies High School Certificate, a public matriculation examination.

In Table 2, it can be seen that while ‘fun’ was important to Year 10, it was not
important to Year 12. ‘Interactivity’ was important to both Years 10 and 11, but had
disappeared from student perceptions by Year 12. Year 11 and 12 commented that
while they had enjoyed games and the voting devices in the junior years, they



320 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

preferred now to get on with HSC focused study. A Year 12 student referred to some
of the games as ‘…childish. They work well with the younger girls’ (Year 12 Student
1). It is recognised that between Year 10 (age 15/16) and Year 12 (age 17/18) there is a
significant shift in students’ social emotional and cognitive development (Meece,
1997). The teacher interview data reveals that the teacher is aware of this and, in her
perception, adjusts her pedagogy accordingly.

While some girls identified themselves as visual learners, a small number of students
identified themselves as having different learning styles, preferring to learn through
listening, reading and writing.

My learning style is different. (Year 11 Student 2)

I am a traditional learner. I like to learn by writing. (Year 12 Student 3)

Perceptions of possible limitations of IWB pedagogy were also evident across the age
range. While Year 10 were unanimous in their perception that interaction generated
through the use of the IWB is the best vehicle for all sorts of learning, Year 11 and 12
expressed that some aspects of language learning could be done better without the
IWB (Table 1, Question 22). The senior students suggested that they would like more
time spent on the production of spontaneous speech and the production of
handwritten writing passages, neither of which would involve the IWB.

In regard to the limitations of technology, it did not appear to bother Year 10 if
technology failed occasionally or was unreliable. Year 12, however, expressed some
impatience if classroom time were occasionally wasted owing to technical difficulties.

The culturally diverse students of the three Year groups were asked if they had
engaged in intercultural language learning. This was explained as the inclusion of
discussion and critical reflection in comparing Chinese language and culture with their
own first language and culture (Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino & Kohler, 2003). This
integrated aspect of language learning is now mandated by the current Syllabus
(Board of Studies NSW, 2003). It could be that the question was not well understood or
the terms were unfamiliar but students did not appear to identify this as an aspect of
their learning and made little response. Classroom observation also confirmed that
limited intercultural reflective questions were asked or discussed. This is not a
limitation of the IWB, but perhaps indicates the need to switch off the IWB
occasionally for focus on reflection and intercultural enquiry.

Teacher interview data

An analysis of the transcript of the interview with the teacher provided several
supporting themes. The teacher is an enthusiast for the IWB and says she ‘can’t do
without it now’. She believes the IWB changed her approach from a focus on teaching,
to a focus on what the students were learning. She believes the IWB is a particularly
suitable tool for the acquisition of Chinese characters which is the skill that students
find most difficult. Her perception is that since 2004 her IWB teaching has changed,
with the advent of e-books (CDs), web-based materials and online dictionaries, all of
which ‘started to give my lesson a lot more freedom’. The IWB allows her to make her
classroom digital. ‘You can use resources from all over the world’. The teacher asserts
that in 2005/2006 the number of students in her elective class increased threefold. It is
her impression that the IWB saves her preparation time as all preparation can be done



Xu and Moloney 321

on a laptop. She also stressed the inclusivity of teaching with the IWB, such as with the
voting tools: ‘everyone can be connected to the board’.

When asked about student outcomes, she claims that the IWB has speeded up the
achievement of outcomes. ‘They speak better, write better. It helps them to apply
language better. It certainly improves speaking and listening outcomes. For reading
and writing it helps deliver the content better’.

Innovative practices include her use of Voice Thread, an online recording tool with
which students can write an article, record it online and listen to themselves, as well as
the use of Skype to communicate with a sister school. The teacher stresses that ‘you still
have to be lively and energetic, to motivate students. A successful lesson is one where
students leave with huge smile on their face, when they feel they have learnt so much’.
She believes the use of email technology enables her to track student work more
accurately.

The teacher stresses that her program is broader than just her use of the IWB and
includes excursions relating to cultural events in Sydney. She is aware of the need for
differentiation between year groups and ability levels and believes the IWB pedagogy
supports both gifted and weaker students. The teacher also draws a correlation
between the use of the IWB and strong HSC results. The Year 12 class observed is the
first class to have been exposed to IWB teaching at the school from Year 7 to Year 12.

The teacher is proficient in using a range of technologies in her personal life. She chats
in class about new technologies and new products on the market, and she believes that
the use of the IWB can make learning continuous with the students’ use of technology
throughout their lives.

Concluding remarks and recommendations

This study set out to investigate perceptions in one school context of learning Chinese
through a pedagogy which makes extensive use of the IWB. Both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies were used to collect the research data. However, as the
study has a relatively small subject sample, it was not the purpose of the study to
conduct an exhaustive and comparative examination of learning with the IWB
measured against existing practices and standards. Nevertheless, our case study
confirms various research findings on the application of the IWB in the educational
context. In particular, in the context of teaching and learning a non-Romanised
language such as Mandarin Chinese, it shows that the IWB has a role to play in three
areas of effective language learning.

Firstly, in both student and teacher perceptions, it facilitates learning that is motivated
and engaged, and learning that is collaborative and co-constructed, as demonstrated
by students’ consistent high rating on these themes (refer to Table 1 and 3). Secondly, it
demonstrates that the visual advantage of the IWB facilitates recall of Chinese
characters, which has always been regarded by students and practitioners alike as one
of the most formidable tasks in learning Chinese. Thirdly, as an integrated learning
technology, it is perceived as meaningful and continuous with students’ and teachers’
use of technologies in their broader lives, and has thus created a teaching and learning
space beyond the four walls of the traditional classroom. What is also significant in the
findings is that the teacher’s technology skills and the teacher’s enthusiasm and



322 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

positive attitude in embracing new technology in teaching the Net Gen (Tapscott, 2009:
xi) play a vital role in the adaptation, implementation and creation of IWB-based
activities.

As a resource in language teaching however, the IWB is not without limitations. In this
particular teaching context of senior secondary Chinese learning, there were areas such
as in speaking and communicative skills where the use of the IWB, in some students’
perceptions, was considered not to be effective in facilitating mastery and confidence.
Also of interest is the finding that the IWB was of less appeal to Year 12 students than
to the younger students. The older students wanted to make the most efficient use of
their classroom time, aligned with development of specific examination skills needed.
The older students did not perceive games or other more animated activities to be
associated with serious learning in the year in which they were to sit for university
entrance exams.

Pedagogical recommendations can be drawn from this study. It is clear that the
fostering of positive attitudes, and the training of teachers, in educational institutions
are both necessary if the IWB is to be incorporated into existing language teaching and
pedagogy in this digital age. As a useful supplement to good pedagogy, rather than a
complete pedagogy in itself, the scope of applications to support engaging and
effective language teaching and learning is wide-ranging, diverse and continuously
expanding. As with any resource, however, there is an indication that the age and
different learning needs of students should be taken into consideration by teachers
both in their design of IWB activities, and in the extent of the use of the IWB. The IWB
creates visual opportunities for facilitating student discussion of different linguistic
and cultural perspectives, highlighted in today’s intercultural approach to language
learning. Deeper critical reflection about language and culture needs time, and
thoughtful verbal dialogue between students, to construct knowledge together. As has
been noted, there are times to turn the focus back into the body of the class, and
perhaps to turn the IWB off. Professional development of teacher and student skills in
dialogic intercultural enquiry has yet to be further developed, in the context of IWB
pedagogy.

Appendix

Appendix 1: Student survey questionnaire and Appendix 2: Student focus group interview
questions are contained in the accompanying file ‘xu-appendix.pdf’, URL
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/xu-appendix.pdf

References
Asmawi, A. (2007). Interactive whiteboard: A new dimension in teaching and learning. Masalah

Pendidikan Jilid, 27, 213-219.

Beeland, W. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive
whiteboards help? Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teacher
Education. Trinity College, Dublin. [verified 9 Apr 2011]
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.135.3542&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Betcher, C. & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Melbourne:
ACER Press.



Xu and Moloney 323

Board of Studies NSW (2003). Languages K-10 Syllabus. Sydney: Board of Studies.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy, 3rd ed.
Pearson Education.

Department of Education and Training (2008). Quality teaching.
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/areas/qt/index.htm

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom
language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard
technology. System, 35(2), 119-133.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard
technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education,
50(1), 338-356.

Fleming, N. D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To
Improve the Academy, 11, 137-149. [verified 9 Apr 2011] http://canterbury-nz.academia.edu/
ColleenMills/Papers/242118/Not_Another_Inventory_Rather_a_Catalyst_for_Reflection

Fleming, N. D. (2010). VARK - A Guide to Learning Styles. http://www.vark-
learn.com/english/index.asp

Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2007). Into the unknown: The professional development induction
experience of secondary mathematics teachers using interactive whiteboard technology.
Learning, Media & Technology, 32(3), 319-331. [verified 9 Apr 2011]
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a781206019&fulltext=713240928

Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R. & Tomkins, S. (2005). The pros and cons of
interactive whiteboards in relation to the key Stage 3 strategy and framework. Language
Learning Journal, 32, 38-44. [verified 9 Apr 2011]
http://www.ittmfl.org.uk/modules/ict/2c/paper2c1.pdf

Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for
using the interactive whiteboard to foster learning participation in school science. Learning,
Media and Technology, 32(3), 283-301. [verified 9 Apr 2011]
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~db=all~content=a781204804~fulltext=71
3240930

Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive
whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225. [verified 9 Apr 2011]
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~db=all~content=a781205355~fulltext=71
3240930

Kent, P. (2006). Using interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching. Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(2), 23-26. http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/
contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ793925

Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A
developmental study. Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. [verified 9
Apr 2011] http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm

Liddicoat, A., Papademetre, M., Scarino, A. & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on intercultural language
learning. Australian Government: Department of Education Science and Training. [verified 9
Apr 2011; 2.4 MB] http://www.curriculum.edu.au/nalsas/pdf/intercultural.pdf



324 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2011, 27(2)

Littleton, K. (2010). Research into teaching with whole-class interactive technologies: Emergent
themes. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 285-292.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a924101155&fulltext=713240928

Meece, J. (1997). Child and adolescent development for educators. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mercer, N., Hennessy, S. & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate
classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2) 195-209.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a924106035&fulltext=713240928

Miller, D., Averis, D., Door, V. & Glover, D. (2005). How can the use of an interactive whiteboard
enhance the nature of teaching and learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreign
languages? [viewed 19 May 2010 at http://www.becta.org.uk, verified 24 Apr 2011 at
https://content.ncetm.org.uk/itt/sec/KeelePGCEMaths2006/InteractiveWhiteboard&
DataProj/Research/BectaReportMiller&co.pdf

Miller, D. & Glover, D. (2001). Running with technology: The pedagogic impact of the large-scale
introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 10(3), 257-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390100200115

Moloney, R. (2008). Young language learners and their intercultural competence: An immersion
classroom case study. Saarbrucken: Verlag Doktor Mueller.

Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L. & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards:
Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/northcote.html

Orr, M. (2008). Learner perceptions of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. CALL-EJ
Online, 9(2). http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/9-2/orr.html

Orton, J. (2008). Chinese language education in Australian schools. University of Melbourne.
Confucius Institute. [verified 9 Apr 2011; 2.93 MB] http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/
verve/_resources/chinese_language_education_in_australian_schools_file.pdf

Pachler, N., Barnes, A. & Field, K. (2008). Learning to teach modern foreign languages in the
secondary school. 3rd edition. London: Routledge.

Pang, F. (2006). Teaching languages with interactive whiteboards. Proceedings of 3rd National IWB
Net Conference.

Pang, F. (2008). Teaching languages with interactive whiteboards. Proceedings of Workshop.
Chinese Language Teachers Association.

Pang, F. (2009). Fourteen ways to inspire your students in a language classroom. Proceedings of
Chinese Language Teachers Conference. Department of Education and Training. Sydney, NSW.

Prensky. M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. MCB University
Press. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-
%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf

Ryan, G. W. & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 769-802. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Scarino, A. & Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Teaching and learning languages: A guide. Commonwealth of
Australia. http://www.tllg.unisa.edu.au/guide.html



Xu and Moloney 325

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.

Smith, F., Hardman, F. & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-
pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York: McGraw Hill.

Thomas, M. & Jones, A. (2010). Editorial 26(4): Preface to the Special issue. In M. Thomas & A.
Jones (Eds), Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(Special issue, 4), iii-vi.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/editorial26-4.html

Tozcu, A. (2008). The use of interactive whiteboards in teaching non-Roman scripts. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 143-166.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. NY: Simon & Schuster.

Wall, K., Higgins, S. & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated
things’: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.

Weimer, M. (2001). The influence of technology such as a SMART Board interactive whiteboard
on student motivation in the classroom. Smarter Kids Foundation. [verified 8 Apr 2011]
http://downloads.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/research_library/k-12/the_
influence_of_technology_such_as_a_smart_board_interactive_whiteboard_on_student_moti
vation_in_the_classroom.pdf

White, K. (2007). Interactive whiteboard trial, South Western Sydney Region: A report. Centre
for Learning Innovation, Department of Education and Training, NSW. [verified 8 Apr 2011]
http://www.cli.nsw.edu.au/cli/files/interactive_whiteboard_trial_easiteach.pdf

Authors: Dr Hui Ling Xu
Chinese Program, Department of International Studies, Macquarie University
Email: huiling.xu@mq.edu.au
Web: http://www.asianlang.mq.edu.au/chinese/staff/staff-huilingxu.html

Dr Robyn Moloney
Department of Education, Macquarie University
Email: robyn.moloney@mq.edu.au
Web: http://www.educ.mq.edu.au/contact/our_staff/dr_robyn_moloney.jsp

Please cite as: Xu, H. L. & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard
pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27(2), 307-325. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/xu.html