Language educators differ in their views of the value of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) for teaching and learning foreign languages.
In our EU-funded project iTILT (http://itilt.eu) we are supporting the use of this tool in communicative language teaching. Our classroom illustrations (http://itilt.eu/advanced-search) show teachers how the IWB can be used in different language classrooms.
We also, however, acknowledge the difficulties that can arise with the tool - see Cutrim Schmid & Whyte (http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2012/cutrimschmidwhyte.pdf) or Whyte, Beauchamp & Hillier (http://books.google.ie/books?printsec=frontcover&id=KxdY807kumMC&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)for example.
Other educators argue that time is up for the IWB, and that this technology is already being overtaken by other technologies such as tablets and other types of interactive projection (Jeff Herb http://instructionaltechtalk.com/apple-tv-vs-interactive-whiteboards-in-the-classroom/ but see also Matt Granger's reply in the comment section)
The Learning Technologies special interest group of IATEFL is hosting a webinar on this topic this weekend (http://ltsig.org.uk/ Pete Sharma and Gavin Dudeney) so if you have something to say or just want to hear the arguments, this event may be worth a look.
Cutrim Schmid, E. & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive Whiteboards in School Settings: Teacher Responses to Socio-constructivist Hegemonies. Language Learning and Technology 16 (2), 65-86.
Whyte, S., Beauchamp, G., & Hillier, E. (2012). Perceptions of the IWB for second language teaching and learning: the iTILT project. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing, EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012, Proceedings (pp. 320-6). © Research-publishing.net Dublin 2012.
Via Shona Whyte, Graham Stanley