Group items tagged

In all subjects, IW-based lessons in both schools are generally divided into two or three distinct parts.  Teachers log on to the IW at the start of the lesson, and begin with revision of previously covered material and an introduction to the day’s topic.  Revision time is normally brief - around five minutes - and includes some question and answer interaction.  The IW is used to remind students of previously covered content, and if the day’s topic is new, to present statements of learning aims and objectives.  Teachers then move on to introduce new material, typically using the IW as a whole-class teaching tool for a maximum of twenty minutes, during which time there is further question and answer interaction.  In the second part of lessons, students work on designated learning tasks, either as individuals, or in pairs or small groups.  Teachers move around the class, responding to questions and offering help.  Some lessons conclude with a return to whole-class use of the IW, typically used this time as a vehicle to show and discuss students’ work, and to sum up the lesson.  Students’ work may be selected and presented by the teacher, or students may be invited to the front of the class to show their work through the IW.

Teachers at both schools tend to see their roles as facilitators of active approaches to learning

       It is easy to draw on a greater number and wider variety of information and learning resources.

Key question for the research Our key question is: What are the essential features of interactivity, intrinsic in the use of interactive whiteboards, which make them more effective than current similar presentation media (whiteboard, OHP, computer with data projector) and how can these be promoted and then sustained? and subsidiary to that: how can the interactive whiteboard be used in ways that are more effective than current use of other presentation media? what should one look for in commercial or other available interactive whiteboard materials to maximise any benefits of the use of the interactive whiteboard? what type of materials should teachers look to produce for themselves given the constraints that they are working under? what model of professional development in this context best supports the growth of the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom?

What makes the whiteboard interactive? The more I am playing and experimenting with the SmartBoard and the software Notebook 10, the more I am convinced that the power is IN THE SOFTWARE.  But not the software itself, but how it is used as a tool to present the lesson in a new way, for a different learning style, for access outside of the classroom.

What will keep the teachers going to create and search for new innovative ways to use their IWB? What will keep the students engaged and INTERACTIVE with a lesson?

This article presents the interactive whiteboard as a unique teaching and learning medium and explores the distinctive pedagogy that is emerging as its functionality continues to be exploited by increasing numbers of teachers. It draws on Kozma's studies of the characteristics of other learning media and how these define pedagogic opportunities to benefit individual learners. His analytical approach is extrapolated into the context of a technology-enhanced whole group teaching and learning environment. Interactivity between teachers, learners and the medium of the digital whiteboard provides the focus for analysis of learning and teaching within this emergent learning environment. The process of learner's engagement with the medium is explored from the perspectives of both pupils and teachers, drawing on lesson observations and data elicited through interviews. [Author's abstract]

Smith, Hardman and Higgins (2005) compared lessons with and without IWBs during 2003 and 2004. They concluded that while IWBs are “useful presentational tools… the technology by itself will not bring about fundamental change in the traditional patterns of whole class teaching” (455). They also questioned the efficacy of “extensive top-down staff development” in-service training. This issue is also raised by Armstrong et al. (2005) who suggest that without effective training “it is unlikely that teachers will either be aware of or be able to exploit the potential affordances of IWBs” (467).