Interactivity with the interactive whiteboard in traditional and innovative primary schools: An exploratory study

Abstract

One of the main affordances of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) is its potential for increasing classroom interactivity, yet little is known about the interactivity it supports in schools with different educational concepts. In this study we analysed what types of wholeclass interactivity the IWB supports in schools with either a traditional or an innovative school concept. Interactivity was operationalized in terms of operation of the IWB, control of the IWB content, and the whole-class dialogue. A cross-case analysis of videotaped lesson observations revealed patterns in the interactivity related to school type. Comparison of the prevalent interactivity patterns at the two school types shows that students at the innovative schools had a more active role in the content of the IWB-supported lessons than those at the traditional schools. The students at the traditional schools operated the IWB more often, which coincided, however, with little or no student control of the IWB content and with whole-class dialogue that focused on knowledge transmission. At the innovative schools the active student role regarding lesson content did not coincide with student operation of the IWB. These findings indicate a link between the school's educational concept and the type of interactivity in IWB-supported lessons. IntroductionOver the past decade the interactive whiteboard (IWB) has proved to be a valuable tool for teaching and learning. Earlier research on the use of the IWB as a pedagogical tool mainly explored the potential it might hold for education, as Glover, Miller, Averis, and Door (2005) show in their literature review. More recent studies focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the IWB as an educational tool (Cutrim Schmid, 2008;Slay, Siebörger, & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008;Somyürek, Atasoy, & Özdemir, 2009) or investigate how the IWB is actually being used in pedagogical settings (Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006;Haldane, 2007;.Findings suggest that the IWB can be used to support different types of classroom interactivity. Although Smith et al. (2006) find in their study that the IWB is mostly used for whole-class teaching with a relatively high pace and frequent yet short student answers, other studies show that it can support both a teacher-directed and a more student-directed pedagogic approach to whole-class teaching (Gillen, Kleine Staarman, Littleton, Mercer, & Twiner, 2007). In this study we investigate what types of interactivity occur in IWB-supported lessons in schools with either a teacher-directed pedagogy or a student-directed pedagogy. Classroom interactivity supported by the IWBAfter the introduction of the IWB into the classroom arena, most studies focused on the use of the IWB to support whole-class lessons . More recent studies focus on the use of the IWB in individual and group work by students as well, for instance in collaborative tasks in which children share ideas about a topic .Its potential for supporting classroom interactivity is one of the main reasons given by teachers for adopting ...

The physical placement of classroom technology and its influences on educational practices

“…In their review, Smith et al (2005) found that the IWB is often placed too high for pupils, and even teachers may have difficulty reaching the top. Interestingly, it seems that the positioning of the teacher and the IWB within the classroom determine the type of interactivity in IWB-supported lessons (see also de Koster, Volman, & Kuiper, 2013). Clearly, effectively installing technology is much more complicated than simply providing technology and securing a connection to the Internet.…”

Do “Interactive” Educational Technologies Promote Interactive Literacy Instruction?

“…In this article, I examine the concept of interactivity of teachers' use of whole-class devices, personal digital devices, and no technology from a pedagogical perspective. Interactivity is frequently reported as a benefit of technology use in education, especially with whole-class technologies such as Interactive Whiteboards (de Koster, Volman, & Kuiper, 2013;Haldane, 2007), yet researchers and manufacturers who make these claims often fail to define what is meant by interactivity or how it is measured (Lovell & Phillips, 2012) and ignore limitations to the hardware such as slowing of lesson pacing (Mohon, 2008) and enabling fewer students to interact with the hardware (Quashie, 2009).…”

“…Researchers of pedagogical change have focused on the perceived increase in lesson interactivity afforded by IWB and other technology use (de Koster et al, 2013;Gray, Hagger-Vaughan, Pilkington, & Tomkins, 2005;Haldane, 2007;Quashie, 2009). Yet, despite reports of increased interaction in promotional literature, support from case studies is mixed (Lovell & Phillips, 2012) with some reporting increased interaction (i.e., Haldane, 2007), some reporting decreased interaction (i.e., Mohon, 2008), and some reporting mixed results (i.e., Quashie, 2009).…”

Concept-guided development of technology in ‘traditional’ and ‘innovative’ schools: quantitative and qualitative differences in technology integration

“…Concept-guided development of technology, in which school teams develop and implement forms of technology use in line with the school's educational concept, is a pedagogy-driven approach that aims to promote this fit and is therefore expected to promote the integration of technology that can enhance learning. Previous studies (de Koster et al 2012(de Koster et al , 2013 have shown that schools with different educational concepts, either 'traditional' or 'innovative', 1 that developed their use of technology in a concept-guided way, realized clearly distinguishable types of technology use, aimed at supporting various types of teaching and learning. It was not known, however, whether this would lead to similar levels of integration in schools with different educational concepts.…”