Armstrong (2005) discuss that some teachers perceive the
interactive whiteboard (e.g. SMART Boards) as a presentation tool only.
How can we get teachers to embrace the interactivity of this tool and make more
engaging experiences for their students?
Armstrong’s (2005) paper is based on a two-year research
project on a digital approach in the context of teaching and learning. Since there
is very minimal research on that important topic, the project sets up as a goal
“to capture, analyze and communicate the complex interactions between students,
teacher and technology that occur in the classroom” (455). In his paper Armstrong also includes three
cases, based on observations and conducted interviews with three teachers who
have access and use IWB with a different degree. It is well-known that IWBs are not necessarily
used interactively and can actually reinforce teacher-centered styles of
delivery (Levy, 2002; Kennewell, 2004; Knight et al., 2004). If this issue is
not addressed, as Glover & Miller argue, there may be a tendency for IWBs
to be utilized more as an “interest enhancer than as a new approach to learning”
(2001, p. 269).
The theoretical frame of the research project, as Armstrong
defines it, comes mostly from socio-cultural theories of learning (Vygotsky,
1978; Wertsch, 1991). A significant characteristic of socio-cultural theory is
the assumption that all human action is mediated by tools. (456)
Socio-cultural theory also focuses attention on the cultural
aspects of human action. For instance, teacher and students work within a local
classroom culture, which is affected by local, national, and global factors.
(456) In addition, educator and students
“bring to the classroom a history of experiences”(456). All of that can affect
the usage of the IWB in particular.
For example, a lot of teachers were expecting to make use of
digital whiteboards as an addition of the non-digital whiteboard. Therefore, the
IWB would potentially afford a real interaction in the classroom, only if the
teacher perceives that it can be used in this way. This brings the issue of
training the educators properly. There is another crucial issue; that is to use
the appropriate software for the content being taught. To do that, the teacher also needs
training in this regard. On that point Armstrong argues that “the affordances
of the IWB are inextricably linked to the software used [since, for instance,] a
digital IWB is very different from a non-digital whiteboard there is no
guarantee that this potential will be realized in the classroom”(457).
In the realization of the project, one video camera was used
to capture the entire class and one camera was recording the contacts with IWB.
The videos were presented in analysis sessions in which participated both researchers and
teacher practitioners.
Case 1:
Sarah Curran had every day access to IWB in her classroom and
had obtained some kind of proper preparation
in the use of it. The sequence of lessons observed at Whitehall Primary was
focused on science. The third lesson, for instance, was focused around the
software Virtual fish tank. When the data was reviewed, it became known that
the way in which Sarah and the pupils engaged with this “software in the lesson
was at odds with Sarah’s intended lesson objectives.” (459)
What the students were doing was watching the software as
‘gaming’ software. First, they were presented with the fish tank activity. “Researchers also found that the resembling gaming software’s
visual representation—— influenced in this case teacher’s use of language in
presenting the task to the class.”
Consequently, the original lesson objectives had been
undermined by the quality of the software and its understanding by the teacher
and students. This experience, however, allowed Sarah to “examine the
relationship between the software and the difficulties she had experienced in
achieving her learning objectives” (461). Thus, she realized how important the
choice of the software is in order to achieve the lesson objectives.
Case 2:
Simon Mills, a math teacher, was mostly self-taught and
technology knowledgeable. In the course of the project, Simon became very interested
in the work of Mercer (1995; 2000), mainly the idea that classroom chat could
be seen as a “social mode of thinking” (462). According to Armstrong, for Mills
“within this approach the IWB, and carefully selected software environments,
had become a key tool in facilitating, scaffolding, supporting, and recording
the outcomes of class conversations. These learning conversations were
structured to develop mathematical ideas within the objectives of the National
Numeracy Strategy using the IWB as a shared communication space.” (462)
By looking at his lessons in more detail Mills observed that
“although lessons and activities were initiated and scaffolded through use of
the software environments, the choice of software to match learning objectives
and outcomes enabled students and
teacher to engage in multiple discourses around the subject matter.” (463) Thus,
Mills’ case study shows the significance of teachers having long-term and constant
engagement with new technologies. With his daily experience as a IWB-user this
teacher was able to completely incorporate IWB into his classroom actions. (463)
Case 3:
Ian Thompson, an English teacher, an amateur user with no regular
access to IWB, had a small chance to explore exact software packages for his topic.
For his lessons, “he chose to use the
Smart Notebook, a feature of SMART Boards that allows the text to be moved
around using the drag and drop facility” (464) All through Thompson’s series of lessons, the teacher’s
focus was on developing pupils’ understanding of Dual Narrative [telling a
story in two different perspectives]. (465) Thompson affirmed that this way of teaching
was unlikely to come from his normal way of teaching. He was a bit hesitant to ask students to come
up to the board however with the IWB “it seemed like the natural thing to do
and that helped to break down those barriers between pupils and normal teacher space”
(465).
In my opinion, this article is an eye-opener, because it demonstrates
through the research that “ because teachers are critical agents in mediating
the software, training and ongoing support for them is required to
appropriately use IWBs and to support their selection of appropriate software”(466).
Moreover, by participating in this research, teachers have
really understood and improved their view on their altering teaching practices “of
working with interactive whiteboard technology, which brings a much needed
real-life perspective to understanding and unpacking the complexities of the
classroom”(466). My hope is that such
type of research will lead to a properly designed training for different content
teachers which as a result will enable them to reach the full potential of this
digital tool in their classroom for the benefit of the interactively engaged
learners.
For a beginner's guide on how to use a SMART board, please take a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwla8E6jz4g&feature=related
-Ekaterina
