Let’s start with a bit of entertainmentInteractive whiteboards at EmbassyCES

http://www.embassyces.com/about/news.aspx

So, interactive whiteboards ...... create dynamic, engaging and fun lessons!

... enrich teaching!

... enrich learning! ... make people learn better, faster and more!

... create more enjoyable lessons!... are interactive between the teacher and the students!

... make people participate more!... are ”very fantastic and amazing”!

Does that sound good to you?Does that sound too good to you?

The effects of IWB use on EFL classroom practice

Learning outcomes: at the end of the session, you will ...1.... be familiar with the results of current research on IWBs.2.... be familiar with the findings of a research project conducted at the language school EmbassyCES London.3.... be equipped with knowledge that can guide investments and training in IWB use.

IWB research overview1. Mainly conducted in a primary school context 2. Different subjects: science, maths, literacy3. Small-scale action research projects by individuals

or individual schools4. Insights from general research on ICT and CALL5. From different perspectives

1. Student (Higgins et al 2005)2. Teacher (Kennewell 2004)3. Holistic (Levy 2002)

6. ELT: Banks (2004), Cutrim Schmid (2009)

What does the literature say?• Expansion of the classroom

and access to the world• Online resources• Authentic, updated material• Appeal to digital natives• Better explanations and

presentations• Multi-modality• Cater for different learning

styles and intelligences• Strengthening of motivation,

attention, discipline and interaction

• More possibilities for collaborative learning

• Possibility to save and recycle material

• Require more preparation • Teacher familiarity with and

attitudes to technology• Resistance to change• Lack of software• Can support a teacher-centred

approach • Increase a focus on materials• Danger of ’death by power

point syndrome’• Are not used interactively• Limitations in the design limits

activity

Educational paradigms continuum Instruction

• Focus on the teacher and the teaching process.

• Behaviorist in nature.• Learning is the transmission and reception of

knowledge.• The learner is a passive receiver of learning.• The teacher is a controller, an expert, an

authority who presents the material and transmits knowledge to the learners.

• The classroom is centred around the teacher, has high TTT and frequent use of IRF.

• The underlying idea is that the learners can be taught in the same way. There is little if any attention to motivation.

Learning

• Focus on the learners and learning processes.

• Constructivist in nature.

• Learning is an active individual construction.

• The learner is an active participant and contributor.

• The instructor is a facilitator and counsellor whose responsibility is to optimise learning conditions for the learners and act as a scaffold.

• The classroom is decentralised and has high STT, interaction and student activity.

• The underlying idea is that the learners are individuals who are motivated, engaged and learn in different ways.

Teacher-centring • ”One of the advantages of IWBs is that they allow teachers to teach from the front of

the class. Teachers run the risk, however, that this might reinforce their traditional lecturing role. There is the danger of reifying the electronic whiteboard, so that it is used by the teacher as an instrument of increased power and authority. There is the danger that lessons might become more teacher-centred with the use of more powerful technology.” (Cutrim Schmid 2009)

• “There is an inherent risk that IWBs may encourage a teacher-centred approach.” (Davies et al 2005)

• “Although the students get access to the IWBs, this access is always teacher-centred, i.e. on the basis of what the teacher wants to show the whole class, rather than independent and autonomous.” (Hall and Higgins 2005)

• “IWB technology was used to support a transmission model of learning.” (Goodison 2003)

• “Most examples of interaction comprised mainly quick-fire question and answer work. Feedback follow up, which would encourage thinking and learning in the IRF sequence was not in evidence in the lessons investigated and the pattern of control of content was fully in the teachers’ hands.” (Smith et al 2004)

Learner-centring• ”The IWB can be used to deliver instruction in a variety of ways that may be

categorized based on three modalities of learning: visual, auditory and tactile. Therefore students with a range of different learning styles can benefit from it.” (Beeland 2002)

• ”The interactive whiteboard can help them give more effective explanations since they can draw on a greater number and wider variety of learning resources, and in this way their lessons can include variety and cater to different learning styles.” (Levy 2002)

• ”An IWB helps teachers to use a wide variety of different teaching styles, benefiting all types of learners. Our brains access information through visual, auditory and kinesthetic sensory inputs and these are all available with an IWB.” (Gage 2006)

• “With reference to Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences, you can say that the interactive whiteboard provides a range of different resources and in this way helps put the theory into practice.” (Brauer 2008)

• ”When the interactive board transmits on different channels, more competencies are activated. Research has shown that we remember 20% of what we read, 30% of what we hear, 40% of what we see, 50% of what we say, 60% of what we do, and 90% of what we read, hear, see, say and do.” (Houmann 2008)

The projectResearch questions

• How are the IWBs used in the lessons?

• What are the teacher’s and students’ roles in the use of the IWB?

• What is the interaction like during IWB use?

• Which kinds of learners are catered for?

Method • Critical Theory of Technology

(Feenberg 1999): both design and use are important as technology is neither deterministic nor instrumental.

• Triangulation – 4 observations and interviews

with the teachers.– Interviews with the academic

management.– Access to the results of

Embassy’s own student survey about IWBs (secondary source).

• The students’ opinions?

Observations dataIn lock-step the teacher presents linguistic input through pictures.

Controller, by the board

Primarily receivers Visual, linguistic, interpersonal

In lock-step the teacher presents linguistic input through text. Controller, by the board

Primarily receivers Visual, linguistic, interpersonal

In lock-step the teacher presents linguistic input through a combination of text and pictures.

Controller, by the board

Primarily receivers Visual, linguistic, interpersonal, logical

In pairs or small groups the students work with something that is shown on the IWB.

Facilitator, monitoring

Active participants Visual, linguistic, interpersonal

In lock-step the teacher and the students check the answers of an exercise or the teacher elicits feedback on a task.

Controller, by the board

Some active participants

Visual, linguistic, interpersonal

In lock-step one student or several students, one student at a time, write on the board.

Helper, monitoring

One student active at a time

Visual, linguistic, kinesthetic

The teacher shows a YouTube clip as a listening exercise (English/French) to the students who work individually and later together.

Initiator, monitoring

Active listeners Visual, linguistic, intra- and interpersonal

In lock-step the teacher displays the phonetic chart to model and drills pronunciation.

Controller, by the board

Active listeners and producers

Linguistic, visual

In lock-step the teacher writes new words on the board. Controller, by the board

Primarily receivers Visual

In lock-step the teacher uses the board spontaneously to visually illustrate explanations.

Controller, by the board

Primarily receivers Linguistic, visual

In lock-step the teacher displays the digital course book and presents exercises and linguistic input.

Controller, by the board

Primarily receivers Linguistic, visual

Interviews - use and roles• “We spent ages trying to get teachers away from the boards and now I think we are back at the teachers actually spending a lot of

time at the board. I think it’s a way of getting the teacher back to the board.”• “There was one person doing something at the board and everyone else was either not paying attention or just sort of getting a

little bit bored or sort of thinking about something else so it’s really difficult to get the students to interact with the board.”• “When the teacher is at the board the attention is on the teacher so we’re going back to the teacher talking to the students and

students listening to the teacher.”• “In terms of students using it, this is actually more restricted than the usage of a normal board. With a normal whiteboard you give

them markers and you can have many people at the board doing things at the same time. With the smart board that’s not possible because if you’re using one marker you cannot use the others so you can only have one person writing and then that person has to put the marker down and then another person can take their turn.”

• “What are the other students doing while the one person is having a nice time moving things around. As I said, only one person can touch it at a time and you have to think about the other students in the class.”

• “It can increase kind of passivity and they can kind of opt out a bit more at times.”• “While there is all this potential, I did feel as well that there were drawbacks and this was one of the things that I felt myself perhaps

at times it did make the teacher and the board more of a focus.”• “Overall IWBs give more focus on the teacher, it’s more teacher-oriented because the teacher prepares the materials, the teacher

puts them on the board. There is a real danger in this overtaking.”• “There is a big danger of going back to this U-shaped class.”• ”The only problem is that only one student can use it at a time. It’s one of the drawbacks of the technology.”• “I can’t remember a lesson where I haven’t actually used the interactive whiteboard, where before we had the interactive

whiteboard I could say there’s been lessons where I haven’t used the board, so maybe in this sense there has been more of an attraction to the board.”

• ” Only the teacher or one student is active, that’s probably happening a bit more than it did, which is a bit of a downside for those people who learn by physically doing it themselves.”

• “I think initially people would have imagined that it would make the lessons much more student-centred, but I think often the more technology you introduce the students can sometimes become more sort of passive.”

Interviews – interaction patterns• “You elicit things and there’s a lot of short responses.

There’s lots of people involved shouting things out but the responses might be short.”

• “Today when I used [the IWB] a lot I noticed that every conversation becomes really short because everyone is really focused on the board. […] It takes the attention away from the real point of it and they get distracted by all this sort of pictures and colours. […]. They tend to share ideas for a shorter amount of time probably because they want you to go on and use the board some more, so yeah definitely it has changed things.”

Interviews – learning styles • “If students don’t understand something it’s really easy to get a picture on the board, to get I don’t know a little

videoclip so that we can understand you know.”• “I don’t see how this could possibly create more benefits when it comes to learning styles because what you could

do before you can do it now just using one tool.”• ”You become a bit lazy and you stop doing these things and cutting up things. Isn’t it easier just to put everything

on the board?”• “It’s added to my lessons through the visual, just the visual support it gives to students.”• “There’s a lot you can do in terms of visuals, you can bring in images, you can use YouTube. It can make it more

real and make them more involved.”• “If they can do those kind of matching things in pairs they’re much more involved than when one student comes

to the board. In the same way they’re doing something kinesthetic but only one person at a time can do it compared to when they do it in pairs.”

• ”It’s more visual, for the fact that it’s very you have auditory it already addresses two learning styles immediately.”

• “I would say that if it has any impact on their learning, it’s that they’re possible more engaged. If things are more visual on the board they are more likely to sort of retain it into their memory.”

• “It probably appeals to visual learners more because I’ve seen people using things like google images a lot just to sort of show rather than just explaining and you sort of wonder is it better for their language to have something described or explained rather than just to have an image.”

• “You can only have one person so yes I don’t think it’s necessarily well-suited for the type of activities you’d be doing in an EFL classroom on with the board, which might involve things like two teams going up and doing things at the same time.”

• “Some people put things up on the board and they can sort of move it around with their fingers and so they’re rather than getting students like perhaps to order something they’ve cut up they’ll sort of say “Look at these. How would you order these” and they do it as a whole.”

Effects – uses and roles Potential

• More effective and engaging traditionally teacher-led stages.

• Often under-planned lock-step stages can become more focused through pre-planning.

• More effective pre- and post-activity stages.• More effective student-centred work and

more time for it.

Drawbacks and dangers• Use in lock-step with high teacher activity

and limited student activity.• Movement of traditional student-centred

work to the board.• More teacher-centred lesson stages.• The same task, at the same time, in the same

way.• Increased focus on the class as a group

rather than the individual learners.• Limiting, rather than maximising student

involvement (lock-step stages are often dominated by the linguistically-stronger and more confident students.)

• Strengthening of the teacher role as the controller and director of the lesson.

• Potentially increased student passivity.

Effects – interaction • Classroom interaction should …

… challenge and push the students.… be maximally language productive.… be meaningful and interactive.

• “IRF exchanges are like discoursal training wheels.” (Candlin and Mercer 2001: 97)

• “… a reduction in the students’ ability to think.” (Kennewell et al 2008: 62).

• “Studies have shown that a student’s level of interactivity has effects on the learning outcome.” (Gillen et al 2007: 244).

• Potential risk of IWB use for language teaching and learning where interaction is at the core.

Effects – different learnersPotential

• Increased possibility for inclusion of visual material and stimulation.

• Increased and more flexible board space.

• More effective visuals.• Increased potential for interpersonal

learners who prefer working collaboratively.

Drawbacks and dangers• Lock-step leads to increased

centralisation of teaching style.• More stages where students study in

the same way.• Less kinesthetic and tactile activities.• Disadvantages for intrapersonal

learners.• Possible drawbacks of the ease of

visual conveyance of meaning?• Possible less exposure to

comprehensible teacher input and less linguistic negotiation of meaning.

• It cannot be concluded – as it is done in some publications – that IWBs necessarily cater to individual learning styles!

So, ... 1. Do IWBs really create dynamic,

engaging and fun lessons?2. Do they enrich teaching?3. Do they enrich learning? 4. Do they make people learn better,

faster and more?5. Do they create more enjoyable lessons?6. Are they interactive between the

teacher and the students?7. Do they make people participate more?8. Are they ”very fantastic and amazing”?

1. Well, maybe, but not necessarily!

2. In some ways, yes. In others no!

3. For some, yes. For others no!

4. There is no research evidence to support this.

5. For some, yes. For others no!

6. Depends what you mean by ”interactive”?

7. Potentially, some. Others possibly not!

8. In some ways, yes. In other ways, no! Or, used critically, yes!

Conclusions • The effect of IWB use is complex and should be understood in a complex way.• There is a need for literature, research and trainers who take an evaluative critical approach, and

who consider potentials as well as limitations, drawbacks and potential dangers.• We have to be aware of the interests of stakeholders – not always educational.• Teachers need to be equipped and trained to take a critical approach to IWB use.• We should embrace the new possibilities of new technology, but also consider the effects it has

on classroom practice.• We need to be aware that IWBs can have effects that go against what is considered effective or

good language teaching practice.• We need to be aware that there is a danger that IWBs can legitimate what is considered less

effective practice.• An IWB is another teaching resource that should be incorporated into the lesson and a

communicative, student-centred approach.• An IWB should not be given a more prominent role than it can be justified from a didactic

perspective.

“We live in an age that is obsessed with presentation, and young people have come to expect it, but learning a language is 90% practice following 10% presentation.

Good presentation helps, but you learn a language mainly by doing it.” (Davies 2003)

Continuous development“Having read and got an idea of the main points, I thought I’d tell you about our plans for 2010. We

are introducing more hand-held devices to classrooms next year, voting sets, tablets and wireless keyboards and mouse(s) so that more

students can be ‘active’ from their seats and the teacher can facilitate more. The Cambridge school

is getting students to devise activities for peer teaching using the IWB software.” (Barbara Gardner, EmbassyCES)

The only thing left to say is ...For more information and references

http://intactwhitboard.wordpress.com/

Thank you for your attention!Developed and presented by:

Dennis GrynnerupIH Bratislava

dgrynnerup@ihbratislava.sk