Written assignment Interactive Whiteboards in the web 2.0 Classroom
- 1. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Written Assignment “Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom” Student’s name: Eliane Custode Lecturer: Paula Ledesma Morning Shift 2010
- 2. An Interactive Whiteboard is a powerful and exciting tool which combines text, photographs and pictures, animation, audio and video clips. It can provide exposure to real-world language, which in turn can motivate students by using multimedia in their language course. It can provide variety in presenting and practising new language. Moreover, Interactive whiteboards have very positive impacts on the attention, attitude and motivation of the learners. They have been scientifically proven to prolong young children’s attention span by 70% and have the unique capacity of catering for all types of learning abilities. Furthermore, Interactive whiteboards can accommodate different learning styles. They are said to provide for different input preferences, visual, auditory and kinesthetic (Ball, 2003). Tactile learners can benefit from touching and marking at the board, audio learners can have the class discussion while visual learners can see what is taking place as it develops at the board. Glover and Miller (2003) have demonstrated that teachers need to be helped through a three stage development process so that they can move from traditional to increasingly more interactive approaches, specified as: a. Supported didactic, where the teacher makes some use of the IWB but only as a visual support to the lesson and not as integral to conceptual development. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Title: Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom Eliane Custode 2010 2
- 3. b. Interactive, where the teacher makes some use of the potential of the IWB to stimulate student responses from time to time in the lesson and to demonstrate some concepts. c. Enhanced interactivity, where the teacher develops the materials so that the students focus upon the IWB as a means of prompting, explaining, developing and testing concepts for most of the lesson. It is only at the third stage that the potential of the board as the focus of learning based upon a new understanding of the learning process, is recognized and realized by the teacher (Miller & Glover, 2004; Ziolkowski, 2004; Watson, 2006). The capacity to use the equipment in this way is dependent upon both technical fluency in the use of the equipment and associated software, and pedagogic understanding and flexibility to exploit the possibility of interactivity between teacher and student, and student and student. While it would be easy to claim great advantages for the IWB in motivating students at all ages it is evident that it is the quality of the teaching that ensures progress. It is important for teachers to gain some confidence and knowledge about using this tool before introducing it to the learners or creating lessons using Interactive Whiteboards. There are two pedagogic areas for further investigation. The first is the relationship between the teacher, the student and the materials involved. For enhanced interactivity to occur this has to be understood as a chain reaction where the IWB is a means of mediation between learners and learning. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Title: Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom Eliane Custode 2010 3
- 4. Taking into account some lessons observations, there are four elements in this process: a. Teaching approach. Ernest (1994) suggests a simple scale for the approach used by teachers. At the lowest level the teacher is an “instructor” concerned with the presentation of concepts as rules followed by practice. At the higher level offering approaches that enhance understanding, and at the highest level the teacher is a “mediator” bridging between student understanding and development. b. The use of the interactive whiteboard. The teacher-as-instructor will be working with prepared material, to be presented in a logical sequence, and often with a PowerPoint sequence as the basis of the teaching. The material is likely to be focused on statements of facts and definitions, headings etc. but there will also be examples to be copied and exercises to be completed. On the other hand, the teacher-as-mediator will be concerned with how the IWB can support the features of mediation such as modeling and coaching in relation to the topic under consideration. In collaborative classrooms, modeling serves to share with students not only what one is thinking about the content to be learned, but also the process of communication and collaborative learning. Modelling may involve thinking aloud (sharing thoughts about something) or demonstrating (showing students how to do something in a step-by-step fashion). Coaching involves giving hints or cues, providing feedback, redirecting students’ efforts, and helping them use a strategy. c. Questioning. Experienced and effective teachers use questioning intuitively. Much has been written about the nature of questions and the art of questioning. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Title: Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom Eliane Custode 2010 4
- 5. Mason (2000) clearly demonstrates the complexities of the process and relates questioning to both conceptual and cognitive development. d. Learning Models. The fourth element in developing interactivity stems from the learning model espoused by the teacher. Mooij (2004) argues that teachers have to be aware not only of the technical aspects of newer technologies but also of the curricular and instructional gains that can be made, and more importantly of the way in which technology and pedagogy can be integrated to achieve flexible and individually sensitive learning situations. Besides, Kennewell (2001) suggests that effective evaluation of ICT use will prompt more awareness of, and adaptation to, the complexity of influences in the classroom. Appendix 1 shows how learners interact with IWB. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Title: Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom Eliane Custode 2010 5
- 6. Works Cited Ball, B. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics with an interactive whiteboard. Micromath (Spring), 4–7. Ernest, P. (1994). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In Bloomfield, A.& Harries, T. (Eds.). Teaching and Learning Mathematics. Derby: Association of Teachers of Mathematics. Glover, D., & Miller, D. J. (2003). Players in the Management of Change: introducing interactive whiteboards into schools. Management in Education,17(1), 20-23. Kennewell, S. (2001). Interactive whiteboards— Yet another solution looking for a problem. Information Technology in Teacher Education, 39, 3-6. Mason, J. (2000). Asking mathematics questions mathematically. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 97-111. Mooij, T. (2004). Optimising ICT effectiveness in instruction and learning. Computers and Education, 42(1) 25-44. Thomas, M (2008). Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. Pp. 506-525. United States of America and United Kingdom: Information Science Reference Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Title: Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom Eliane Custode 2010 6
- 7. Watson, D. (2006). Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means exploring innovation and change. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3/4), 199. Ziolkowski, R. (2004). Interactive Whiteboards: Impacting Teaching and Learning. Media & Methods, 40(4), 44. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Title: Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom Eliane Custode 2010 7
- 8. Appendix 1 Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Instituto Nacional Superior del Profesorado Técnico Title: Interactive Whiteboards in the Web 2.0 Classroom Eliane Custode 2010 8