1. Interactive Whiteboards Shannon Burns-Casimier Dr. Robert Hancock Walden University August 2012

2. Need for Interactive Whiteboards Creating video files used to teach a lesson, software application, and/or load a post on the web or server Digital storytelling Taking and storing notes Encouraging and motivating participants to actively engage in activities Visual images of thoughts/ideas Accommodates different learning styles Used in distance learning communities Developing higher order thinking skills and brainstorming skills Used to search global information/resources Used to share lesson plans, textbooks, graphic s, and charts Teaching steps in math problems, diagramming activities, vocabulary terms Use the record feature to narrate informational text

3. Research In 1987, Nancy Knowlton and David Martin founded Smart Technologies in Calgary, AB, Canada In 1991, Smart Technology developed its first Smart Board Interactive Whiteboard. The first Interactive Whiteboard provided touch control of computer applications and standard Microsoft applications directly on the whiteboard. In 1992, Smart Technology collaborated and formed an alliance with Intel to form a join product development of the Interactive Whiteboard. The company introduced the Interactive Whiteboard to classroom settings, in corporate meetings, and globally around the world.

4. Development Prior to 1991, no one was familiar with the Interactive Whiteboards. Although early versions of the Interactive Whiteboard sought to enable lectures at a distance, there were the low-speed modems, early software and slow processors with little graphics capability. In 1992, the joint alliance of Smart Technologies and Intel developed and designed Interactive Whiteboards. Interactive Whiteboards were designed to both share information from a personal computer and to engage people in group environments. David Martin’s vision to broadened the dissemination of the message without having a mouse and keyboard, instead he developed an emerging mode of natural touch with the fingers.

5. Commercialization of Interactive Whiteboards In 2004-2006, the Interactive Whiteboards hit its biggest peak by selling 100,000 units in the UK. According to Futuresource, 2.6 million units have been sold in the UK by 2010. Vendors are concerned that due to funding being cut in schools, the demand for Interactive Whiteboards are being sold to health care agencies, companies, and corporations.

6. Knowledge Stage In 1987, Nancy Knowlton and David Martin founded Smart Technology in Calgary, AB, Canada. In 1991, Smart Technology developed its first Smart Board Interactive Whiteboard. The first Interactive Whiteboard provided touch control of computer applications and standard Microsoft applications directly on the whiteboard.

7. Rogers’ Five Stages of Innovation Decision Process Knowledge Stage The Interactive Whiteboards allow the shift in pedagogy for teachers to become more effective at reaching their students’ learning styles and meeting their students’ needs. Persuasion Stage Effective training of faculty and staff members to use the Interactive Whiteboard device and software products as well as also providing them with technical support. Decision Stage Research the effective use of the IWBs within the educational setting. Implementation Stage Advertising, Production, Manufacturing, and Technical Support Confirmation Stage Positive results which shows an increase in students’ performance and schools’ performance.

8. Persuasive Stage In 1992, Smart Technology collaborated and formed an alliance with Intel to formed a joint product development of the Interactive Whiteboard. That same year, the company introduced the Interactive Whiteboard to classroom settings, in corporate meetings, and globally around the world.

9. Decision Stage In 1992, Smart Technologies introduced the Interactive Whiteboard to classroom settings, in corporate meetings, and globally around the world.

10. Implementation Stage 1994: Numonics established the 1 st pen-centric interactive whiteboard. 1997: Smart Technologies developed a collaborative software program called Smart Notebook. 2001: Recording software was developed as well as the ability to play videos, audio files, and record lessons and/or presentations. 2002: SMART Board became wireless. 2003: SMART Technology established its first online community for educators. 2004: Promethean designed ActiVotes as a learner response system. 2006: ActivBoard was developed. 2008: The 1 st SMART Table was created. 2009: Promethean created ActivInspire. 2011: 1 st solar-power IWB was developed. 2012: SMART released the 1 st four-touch IWB

11. Confirmation Stage Within the last twenty years, Interactive Whiteboards have become the leading the technology in educational settings. Interactive Whiteboards transforms classrooms from traditional nature to dynamic and integrative learning environment. Over 20 million students in more than 900,000 classrooms in more than 175 countries around the world are currently using SMART products. In the United Kingdom, over 70% of their classrooms uses IWs. Netherlands and Denver uses IWs within 40-42% of its schools. Australia, United States, Canada, Ireland, and Mexico uses IWs in about 30% of their schools.

12. S-Curve of Interactive Whiteboards

13. Sales of Interactive Whiteboards According to Futuresource Consulting, Interactive Whiteboards sales at 100% with over 3.6 million IWs have been installed globally within classroom settings. Although there have been challenges to budgets and reductions to funding in the United States, the U.S. is still a very important market with classroom penetration levels at 35%.

14. Innovators and Early Adopters Nancy Knowlton and David Martin were the designers of the Interactive Whiteboards. Teachers who are familiar with implementing and using technology devices within their classroom curriculums. Teachers who adapt their lesson plans and classroom activities to meet all students’ learning styles.

15. Innovators and Early Adopters Nancy Knowlton and David Martin were the designers of the Interactive Whiteboards. Teachers who are familiar with implementing and using technology devices within their classroom curriculums. Teachers who adapt their lesson plans and classroom activities to meet all students’ learning styles.

16. Laggards & Adoption Strategies Teachers who are reluctant to use technology devices within their classroom curriculums. Teacher Support Teams available to assist other teachers in effectively implementing and using Interactive Whiteboards within their classrooms. Bi-weekly demonstrations by teachers modeling classroom lessons/activities using the Interactive Whiteboard.

17. Attributes for Meeting Critical Mass Compatibility- The traditional whiteboards to Interactive Whiteboards with more enhanced features. Trialability- Provide an Interactive Whiteboard pilot program/classroom within each school. Observability- Teachers and other staff members want/need to observe their colleagues effectively implementing and using the Interactive Whiteboard within their classrooms.

18. Diffusion in a Centralized System In order for Interactive Whiteboards to be adopted by the Board of Directors, IWBs will have to be diffused through a centralized system due to the lack of funding within school districts. If the government is involved in the diffusing aspect of Interactive Whiteboards, they will contribute the funding necessary for school districts to purchase the Interactive Whiteboards.

19. Key change agents and their roles in the educational field The Superintendents, Board Members, Principals, Assistant Principals, as well as Teachers are the key change agents within the educational field. As key change agents these individuals play a vital role in influencing their staff members’ attitudes and behaviors towards diffusing innovations. As key change agents, they can offer knowledgeable professional development workshops to their staff members on how to effectively implement Interactive Whiteboards into the classroom curriculums to accommodate all learning styles and to meet the needs of all students. Professional development workshops should display data/evidence showing how Interactive Whiteboards have made a positive impact on students’ academic performance. Key change agents should also ensure all questions and/or technical issues will be addressed by onsite Technical Support Personnel.

20. IWBs have met Critical Mass Interactive Whiteboards have met critical mass in the educational field on a global level.