The Pedagogical Exploitation of the Interactive Whiteboard in the Teaching of Informatics in Primary School

The integration of digital technology into the primary classroom remains a contested pedagogical question. Our study examines how the interactive whiteboard can be exploited as a cognitive tool rather than a simple means of projection. More specifically, we focus on the teaching of Informatics in a primary school, a setting where the device is frequently reduced to a digital replacement for the traditional board. The research adopts an action research design, since the researcher is simultaneously the teacher who plans and delivers the intervention. This dual role allows the investigation of teaching practice from within. Data were collected through a reflective journal, field notes kept during and immediately after each lesson, a short pupil questionnaire supplemented by a group discussion, and samples of pupils' work. The analysis was carried out through thematic analysis. The results suggest that the interactive whiteboard supports engagement and participation, particularly when its interactive and multimedia affordances are deliberately linked to specific cognitive tasks. An important distinction emerged. The device contributes to learning not through its technical features alone but through the pedagogical framing that surrounds its use. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the shift from a presentation tool to a cognitive tool depends on the teacher's planning, the design of the activities, and the degree to which pupils themselves manipulate the interface. We also acknowledge the limitations that the dual role of teacher-researcher introduces, concerning subjectivity and researcher bias, which we addressed through triangulation and reflexivity. This is perhaps the most telling conclusion of our work. The interactive whiteboard is neither inherently transformative nor inherently trivial; its value is constituted in the pedagogical decisions of the teacher. We close with implications for teacher education and for the design of Informatics activities in primary schooling.

interactive whiteboard; Informatics education; primary school

1. Abedi, E. A. (2023). Tensions between technology integration practices of teachers and ICT in education policy expectations: implications for change in teacher knowledge, beliefs and teaching practices. Journal of Computers in Education, 11(4), 1215–1234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00296-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abedi, E. A., Prestridge, S., & Hodge, S. (2023). Teachers' beliefs about technology integration in Ghana: a qualitative study of teachers', headteachers' and education officials' perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 29(5), 5857–5877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12049-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adipat, S., Chotikapanich, R., Laksana, K., Busayanon, K., Piatanom, P., Ausawasowan, A., & Elbasouni, I. (2023). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Professional Teacher Development. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 12(1), 173–173. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2023-0015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ahumada-Newhart, V., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Virtual Inclusion via Telepresence Robots in the Classroom: An Exploratory Case Study. The International Journal of Technologies in Learning, 23(4), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0144/cgp/v23i04/9-25 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Aleksieva, L., Racheva, V., & Peytcheva-Forsyth, R. (2025). Talking Tech, Teaching with Tech: How Primary Teachers Implement Digital Technologies in Practice. Informatics, 12(3), 99–99. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics12030099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Awuor, F. M., & Okono, E. O. (2022). ICT Integration in Learning of Physics in Secondary Schools in Kenya: Systematic Literature Review. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10(9), 421–461. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.109027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Baldonado, C. J. A., & Cajandig, A. J. S. (2026). The role of interactive whiteboards in enhancing students' motivation and participation in learning mathematics: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 18(2), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2026.18.2.0151 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Beal, C., & Steier, R. (2024). Dialogues across time and space in a video-based collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 19(2), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-024-09420-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Burke, P. F., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Kearney, M., & Frischknecht, B. D. (2017). Exploring teacher pedagogy, stages of concern and accessibility as determinants of technology adoption. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 27(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2017.1387602 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. In Medical Entomology and Zoology. Japan Society of Medical Entomology and Zoology. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA71902361 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gao, X., Yang, Y., Du, Y., & Sun, D. (2024). Effect of Mind Mapping-Based Scaffolding on Elementary Students' Computational Thinking in Block-Based Programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(1), 236–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241303067 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Godec, S., King, H., Archer, L., Dawson, E., & Seakins, A. (2018). Examining Student Engagement with Science Through a Bourdieusian Notion of Field. Science & Education, 27, 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9988-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hartikainen, H., Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2019). Children's design recommendations for online safety education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 22, 100146–100146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.100146 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cirs/1299 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Larry, C. (2001). Oversold and underused computers in the classroom. http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=009577153&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Latifa, I. S., Lengkanawati, N. S., & Damayanti, I. L. (2025). Exploring Reflective Journal as a Pathway to Teacher Autonomy: A Qualitative Case Study of EFL Secondary Teachers in Indonesia. Voices of English Language Education Society, 9(2), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v9i2.30889 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070801915908 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Masoumi, D., Bourbour, M., & Lindqvist, G. (2023). Mapping Children's Actions in the Scaffolding Process Using Interactive Whiteboard. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(6), 1209–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01510-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Muslu, N., & Siegel, M. A. (2024). Feedback Through Digital Application Affordances and Teacher Practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(5), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10117-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Nepembe, V., & Simuja, C. (2023). Instructors' perspectives of TPACK in a vocational training classroom in Namibia. Journal of Vocational, Adult and Continuing Education and Training, 6(1), 18–18. https://doi.org/10.14426/jovacet.v6i1.315 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Orellana, E. R., Martín-Sánchez, I., Domínguez, J. M., & Rodríguez, I. (2025). How, when and for what purpose 16 primary school teachers use ICT: A field study. Computers and Education Open, 9, 100270–100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100270 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, And Powerful Ideas. Medical Entomology and Zoology. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA04917065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Redman, C., & Vincent, J. T. (2015). Shared cognition facilitated by teacher use of interactive whiteboard technologies. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(2), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-12-2014-0037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cirs/1748 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Valle, L., Gonzales, R., Almacen, R. M., Batucan, G., & Gonzales, G. (2024). Modeling the relationship of the TPACK framework with cyber wellness, school climate, and digital nativity of basic education teachers. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1397888 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. In Medical Entomology and Zoology. Japan Society of Medical Entomology and Zoology. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA03570814 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Woodward, J. (2000). Computers As Mindtools For Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking, 2nd Edition. Sound Ideas (University of Puget Sound), 23(2). https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/faculty_pubs/1974 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Zitouniatis, A., Lazarinis, F., & Kanellopoulos, D. (2022). Teaching computational thinking using scenario-based learning tools. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4017–4040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11366-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Impact of Health Crisis on the Evolution of the Use of Scientific Knowledge Sharing Tools by Academics: A Comparative Study Within the Faculty of Sciences of Tunis
• Availability and Accessibility of Computers and ICT Resources in Teaching and Learning Chemistry in Secondary Schools in Nyamira County, Kenya
• Building and Applying the Reckless Thinking Scale among Students of the Faculties of Education for Humanities and Pure Sciences
• Evaluating the Usability of the 3Fs Flipped Model to Enhance Student Engagement: A Case Study at INTI International College Penang
• Enhancing Attendance Authenticity in Higher Education Using A QR Code and GPS-Based Smart Attendance System