The interactive whiteboard A transitional technology.pdf

Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology

2010, 26(Special issue, 4), 534-552

The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology

supporting diverse teaching practices

Arthur Winzenried, Barney Dalgarno and Jacqueline Tinkler

Charles Sturt University

This article describes the findings of a qualitative study investigating teacher

perspectives on the impact of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) on their classroom

teaching practice, using intensive case studies focusing on six primary and secondary

teachers from two rural schools. The study found that all teachers were enthusiastic,

had seen improvements in student engagement, and were able to develop and evolve

their IWB teaching strategies through explicit reflection. However, there was

considerable diversity both in the ways in which the IWB was used and in the degree

to which teachers changed their classroom teaching practices. Whereas some (Glover

and Miller, 2001; Kennewell, 2006) have been critical of IWB adoption without clear

pedagogical transformation or without utilisation of all IWB features, we argue that

one of the IWB’s key benefits is that it can be used initially without requiring a big

shift in pedagogy but that it may gradually afford more major pedagogical changes

over a longer period of time. These findings are important for the design of

professional development in schools because with such a diversity of perceived IWB

affordances, effective professional development is more likely to take the form of

informal practice sharing than of specific hardware or software training.

Introduction

In the field of education at all levels there is much excitement, concern and angst

regarding the involvement of technology in the learning process. Views can range

from excitement at the idea of a ‘connected classroom’ to a fear of computerised tutors

totally replacing the classroom teacher. Adding to some of the concerns is the sheer

cost of technology, often seen as financially crippling as far as the school environment

is concerned. Despite a number of researchers questioning the impact on schools of

large scale investment in technology (e.g. Cuban, 2001; Somekh, 2004), few

practitioners or researchers in the field would deny that there is value in the

application of some technology to learning. More commonly, there is concern amongst

those responsible for educational budgets as to the best allocation of scarce financial

resources. One of the more promising recent developments has been the increasingly

widespread availability of interactive whiteboards (IWBs), which, using a combination

of a computer, a data projector and a large, touch-sensitive screen, provide an interface

allowing tactile, widely observable and collaborative interaction. These pieces of

equipment are being increasingly appreciated for their versatility and learning

enhancement potential (Lee & Winzenried, 2009).

The literature

There is a growing body of literature related to interactive whiteboards (IWBs) and

their potential value in the teaching and learning process. Early literature tended to

Winzenried, Dalgarno and Tinkler

535

consist of case studies of implementation of IWBs in particular classrooms or schools,

focussing either on the capabilities of the technology (Smith, 2003), on the perspective

of teachers (Gatlin, 2004), the perspective of students (Hall & Higgins, 2005) or

combinations of all three (Glover & Miller, 2001; Schuck & Kearney, 2007). One of the

largest early trials of IWB implementation in Australia was that undertaken at

Richardson Primary School in the Australian Capital Territory (Kent 2004; Lee & Boyle,

2003). The consensus from these various case studies was that IWBs were more readily

adopted by teachers than many earlier technologies, that IWBs provided a range of

technical capabilities of potential benefit in achieving positive learning outcomes

across the full curriculum spectrum in contexts from early childhood to upper

secondary, but that such benefits were very much dependant on the ways in which

teachers used the IWBs in their own classrooms.

More broadly a number of researchers have attempted to explore the bigger picture

question of whether information and communication technologies (ICTs) in general

can improve learning and teaching (Higgins, 2003; Wishart & Blease 1999), but the

general consensus amongst researchers is that the more pertinent question is not

whether ICTs can improve learning but how the potential learning benefits of

particular technologies can be harnessed in particular learning contexts for achieving

particular learning outcomes and what enabling and constraining factors exist that can

help or hinder the learning process. Consistent with this more complex view of the role

of technology in the learning process, more recent research on IWBs has focused on

specific issues associated with IWB teaching and learning practice (Beauchamp, 2004;

Glover, Miller, Averis & Door, 2007; Lewin, Somekh & Steadman, 2008) or has

compared the affordances of IWBs with other learning technologies (Haldane, 2007;

Lee & Winzenried, 2009).

Potential benefits of IWBs

There are three key potential benefits of IWBs that are most frequently discussed in the

literature: increases in student engagement, more effective visual representation, and

learning through greater classroom interactivity. These are discussed in turn in the

following paragraphs.

Beeland (2001) reports on a study showing an increase in student engagement as a

result of the use of IWBs. Interestingly however, the applications of the IWB and the

balance in its use by teachers and students had a direct effect on student engagement,

though the same degree of effect was not necessarily consistent. Morgan (2008) studied

the effect of IWBs on student engagement in junior high schools and also found

beneficial effects of IWBs on student engagement in classroom lessons as well as

improvements in student behaviour.

Various researchers have highlighted the capabilities of the IWB in displaying visual

representations as being of major importance for learning, consistent with earlier

studies exploring the value of visual representation more broadly for learning

(McKendrick & Bowden 1999; Smith & Blankinship 2000). For example, Holmes (2009)

highlights the value of visual representation of mathematics concepts using an IWB. In

contrast, Reedy (2008) criticises the inappropriate use or overuse of PowerPoint

presentations with IWBs and data projectors and the negative impact it can have on

the degree to which learners actively engage in complex thinking and reasoning.

Cutrim Schmid (2008) adds to this debate in identifying key benefits to the use of

multimedia representations for language learning but also identifying potential

536

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(Special issue, 4)

problems with cognitive load and a lack of cognitive engagement if such

representations are used inappropriately.

Chuang, Shen and Wang (2008) argue that the learning benefits of IWBs are very

dependent on students interacting directly with the board themselves rather than, for

example, observing the teacher doing so and that this interaction is particularly

valuable when interactive responses are made public and discussed with the class.

Across the literature, IWBs have been used interactively and it is on this score, that

they appear in the literature to have performed particularly well (see, for example,

McCormick, 2007). As pointed out by Cutrim Schmid (2008) for example, the actual

type of interaction with the board is important and there is evidence (see, Zevenbergen

& Lerman, 2008, for example) that frequent low level interaction with the board may

have a detrimental effect on the depth of cognitive engagement (see further discussion

below).

Teacher adoption of IWBs

Armstrong, et al. (2005) consider classroom change with the introduction of IWBs and

find that the role of the teacher is pivotal to these changes. Glover and Miller (2001)

concur, identifying three types of teachers with differing attitudes towards the

adoption of IWBs: missioners, tentatives and Luddites. In later work they concluded

that in order to realise the potential benefits of an IWB, a number of conditions related

to teacher attitudes had to be met: “(a) there was a will to develop and use the

technology; (b) the teachers had to be willing to become mutually interdependent in

the development of materials; and (c) there had to be some change of thinking about

the way in which classroom activities were resourced” (Glover & Miller, 2002, p.5).

Beauchamp (2004) also emphasises the important role of the teacher in facilitating

learning benefits from IWBs, and identifies five categories of teachers’ use of the IWB:

black/whiteboard substitute, apprentice user, initiate user, advanced user, and

synergistic user. Shenton and Pagett (2007) agree that pedagogical change resulting

from the implementation of IWBs is very much teacher dependant and identify

diversity in IWB teaching approach as a key outcome of their own study.

A number of studies have found that IWBs are readily adopted by teachers and that

their usage patterns continue to evolve over time. Bennett and Lockyer (2008) for

example intensively studied four classroom teachers’ use of an IWB over two school

terms and concluded that all teachers found the technology easy to use and all were

able to readily integrate the technology into their classroom teaching. Similarly

Hedberg and Freebody (2007) in a study of 13 teachers’ use of IWBs in conjunction

with digital learning objects, found that “by the end of the year-long experience of

innovation, almost all 13 participating teachers had moved to higher levels of use of

the two innovatory technologies”, (p.3). Gatlin (2004) suggests that initial teacher

resistance is overcome after they experience positive changes in student participation

and interest once the technology is introduced and advocates that IWBs be

permanently installed in classrooms to give teachers a sense of ownership over the

new technology.

IWBs and pedagogical change

In some contexts, IWBs have been promoted to teachers as requiring little or no change

to existing lesson plans and this has been a perceived advantage (Gatlin, 2004).

Kennewell (2006) also suggests that the use of an IWB generally does not require a

Winzenried, Dalgarno and Tinkler

537

fundamental change in the teacher’s pedagogical paradigm, although he does not

necessarily see this as a positive, because, he argues, the technology may be used in

such a way as to reinforce rather than transform current teaching approaches. A

number of authors have found that teachers’ pedagogical approaches when using an

IWB were consistent with the approaches they used when teaching without technology

(Bennett & Lockyer, 2008). Gray, Pilkington, Hagger-Vaughan and Tomkins (2007)

argue that the idea of teachers transforming their pedagogy through the introduction

of ICTs is much more complex than some have claimed and identify a number of

reasons why teachers do not easily change their pedagogy.

Conversely, a number of researchers have noted that IWBs can have a profound

impact on pedagogy. Haldane (2007) goes so far as to say that IWBs create a

“distinctive pedagogy”, drawing on Kozma’s studies of how learning media define

pedagogy. Mohon (2008) argues that pedagogical change through the use of an IWB

can emerge but the new pedagogy will necessarily remain within the context of the

existing philosophy of the teacher and will be limited by how much he or she wants to

pursue new ideas in order to support learning, while Way et al.(2009) caution against

generalisations about the impact of IWBs on teachers’ pedagogy due to the enormous

diversity of teaching approaches and the complex interplay of factors that contribute to

an individual teacher’s choice of strategy to meet particular student needs.

Wood and Ashfield (2007) found that, depending on the skill and experience of the

teacher, use of an IWB could enhance the pace of whole class teaching sessions. Gatlin

(2004) concurred, arguing that the increase in pace is due to the fact that teachers no

longer have to spend time writing on or erasing from a whiteboard. Smith, Hardman

and Higgins (2006) also found that classes where IWBs were used had a faster pace,

but that there was an increase in whole class interaction and less group work. This is

consistent with the findings of Zevenbergen and Lerman (2008) who found in a study

exploring the use of IWBs in mathematics classrooms that lessons tended to be teacher

directed and fostered shallow learning. It is possible that IWB strategies which involve

frequent turn taking may result in surface level interaction and surface level cognitive

engagement. This is consistent with the ideas of Cutrim Schmid (2008) who observed

that, while IWBs improve the quantity of interaction, they do not necessarily have a

qualitative impact.

For Hodge and Anderson (2007), however, although the introduction of IWBs led to an

initial increase in teacher-centred approaches, this evolved over time towards

approaches whereby students became more active participants in lessons. Sweeney

(2010) also describes the way teachers in her study tended to initially use the IWB in a

teacher-centred way with a focus on the use of the presentation capabilities of the

whiteboard software before gradually evolving their pedagogy towards less scripted

approaches.

Professional development

The effect of providing additional training for teachers was studied in depth by Miller

and Glover (2007). They found that continuous professional development by a

designated mentor, rather than general pedagogical and technological instruction, led

to the most rapid progression from didactic to interactive teaching styles. Jewitt, Moss

and Cardini (2007) identified pedagogical mentoring, rather than purely technical

instruction for teachers, as being the key to IWBs acting as agents for change in pace

538

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26(Special issue, 4)

and interactivity in the classroom, and Jones and Vincent (2006) reported similar

findings in their study of the implementation of IWBs in a secondary school. This

echoes Glover and Miller’s earlier conclusions of 2001 that coaching, personal

development and mutually reflective activities are essential to enhancing teacher usage

of IWBs and the eventual classroom experience (see also Cutrim Schmid, 2007). Lewin,

Scrimshaw, Somekh and Haldane (2009) studied the process used to facilitate the

adoption of IWBs in a large number of primary schools in the UK and found that,

unlike secondary schools, a ‘cascade’ approach to professional development was very

successful and resulted in effective communities of practice developing within the

schools.

Hammond et al. (2009), in a study exploring the factors leading to successful use of

IWBs by student teachers found that access, support for, and modelling of, ICT use in

the classroom were key issues and that the belief that ICT could make a positive

difference to teaching and learning was also important. Shenton and Pagett (2007)

found wide variance in the ways in which teachers use IWBs, suggesting that rather

than the ‘top down’ commercial or professional models of transmission training,

teachers need more of a ‘bottom up’ approach, which is more focussed on teachers’

individual needs.

This study

Clearly, then, there are numerous examples of positive responses from teachers to the

introduction of IWBs and clear evidence for increases in student engagement. What is

still unclear is the ways in which teachers’ IWB pedagogical strategies evolve over

time, the degree to which fundamental pedagogical change occurs (or indeed is

necessary or desirable), and the degree to which the evolution of strategies are

predictable or specific to the individual. The exploration of these questions about the

ways in which IWBs impact on teaching practice are important to policy makers in

planning for support and training for teachers as part of wider IWB implementation

strategies. This study addresses these questions by exploring in depth the effect on

teaching practice of the provision of IWBs in the classrooms of two primary and four

secondary teachers.

Methodology

In order to ascertain the nature of the impact of the installation of interactive

whiteboards on teaching practice, a case study approach drawing on a

phenomenological perspective was taken, using qualitative methods of data collection

to explore the lived experience of teachers from their own perspectives. Stake (1995)

describes three types of case study: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. This study

fits most closely to Stake’s definition of a collective case study, where multiple cases

are used in order to explore the characteristics of the wider population. Six teachers

from two schools participated in the study, two primary teachers (teachers in a school

for students aged 5 to 12), and four secondary teachers (teachers in a school for

students aged 12 to 18). Both schools were located in or near a large regional centre in

New South Wales (NSW) – the secondary school being in the town itself, the primary

school being located in a small town with a population of around 4000.

All participating teachers had an interactive whiteboard in their classrooms and the

range of regular teaching experience with the IWB varied, from 1 to 8 months. Four of

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: