Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard
- 977 Downloads
This paper revisits the analysis of how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) can contribute to effective pedagogy. It builds on previous work concerning the relationship between the features of IWBs and associated technologies and some key components of pedagogy, including the stage of IWB use, the role of ICT, the type of interactivity, and the overarching aspect of orchestration for learning. Two example lessons are constructed to illustrate the relationships associated with a basic stage of IWB use as a blackboard substitute and the most sophisticated, synergistic stage of IWB use. The analysis of these lessons is used to show that in the synergistic lesson, the IWB functions as a hub for classroom activity. The key difference is that both the teacher and pupils use the affordances of IWB for orchestration of activity rather than merely using a set of unrelated tools predominantly used by the teacher. Implications are drawn concerning the need to develop skills in orchestration for learning alongside technical skills in IWB use through initial teacher education and subsequent professional learning.
KeywordsInteractive whiteboard Transition Orchestration Affordance Teacher’s role Teacher education
- Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289–300.Google Scholar
- Blau, I. (2011). Teachers for “Smart Classrooms”: the extent of implementation of an interactive whiteboard-based professional development program on elementary teachers’ instructional practices, interdisciplinary. Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(26), 275–289.Google Scholar
- Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010). Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 10(2), 159–172.Google Scholar
- Freire, A., Linhalis, F., Bianchini, S.L., Fortes, R.P.M., & Pimentel, M.G.C. (2010). Revealing the whiteboard to blind students: an inclusive approach to provide mediation in synchronous e-learning activities. Computers in Education, 54(4), 866–876.Google Scholar
- Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351–365.Google Scholar
- Jang, S.J., & Tsai, M-F. (2012) Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59, 327–338.Google Scholar
- Jones, A., & Vincent, J. (2010). Collegial mentoring for effective whole school professional development in the use of IWB technologies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 477–493.Google Scholar
- Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Beauchamp, G., Parkinson, J., Jones, S., Norman, N., et al. (2007). The use of ICT to improve learning and attainment through interactive teaching: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-139-25-0167-A. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
- Lavicza, Z., & Papp‐Varga, Z. (2010). Integrating GeoGebra into IWB‐equipped teaching environments: preliminary results. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 245–252.Google Scholar
- López, A.S. (2010). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education 54(2010), 901–915.Google Scholar
- Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nihat Şads, S., & Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: a qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010.
- Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just ‘‘lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51, 1321–1341.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. (2001). Smartboard evaluation: final report. Kent County Council. http://www.kenttrustweb.org.uk/kentict/kentict_iwb_smart_final.cfm. Accessed 15th August 2012.
- Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: what makes a board smart? Computers in Education, 53(2), 368–374.Google Scholar
- Somekh, B., & Haldane, M. (2005). A typology of interactive whiteboard pedagogies. Paper presented at BERA Conference, University of Glamorgan, Wales, 15–17th September 2005.Google Scholar
- Tanner, H., Jones, S., Kennewell, S., Beauchamp, G., et al. (2009). An investigation of the affordances of ICT for the development of effective pedagogy in mathematics and science classrooms—the i-ped project. Welsh Journal of Education, 14(2), 137–143.Google Scholar
- Turel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: development, validity and reliability. Computers in Education, 57(2011), 2441–2450.Google Scholar
- Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394.Google Scholar
- Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4), 534–552.Google Scholar