Welcome Note

PRELUDE TO INTERACTIVITY

‘Interactivity’ or ‘interactive’ is the buzz word in today’s world. We have Interactive T.Vs, interactive websites, interactive video games, Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs), interactive learning, and so it goes. Although interactivity in technological learning is new, interactive learning dates back as far as Socrates times in the fifth century B.C where he was guided by teaching principles that encouraged questioning and active participation for productive and enlarged learning (Adler Mortimer, 1984) In this blog (http://4ieducation.blogspot.com/) given the vastness of the terminology ‘interactivity’ I have restricted it to the context of learning in technological settings and more precisely drawing examples to IWBs. I discuss the various issues surrounding this term by probing deep into what is interactivity, its definition, significance, types, orchestration, its relationship to pedagogy and collaborative learning, and other issues and potential surrounding interactivity in context with IWBs. I encourage visitors to this blog to comment and debate on ‘interactivity’ not only with reference to IWBs but with reference to ICT as a whole and thereby contribute to learning through collaboration, and develop online Communities of Practice (CoP) for fruitful learning experiences.


It is appropriate to quote an old Chinese proverb which speaks a great deal about how people learn:

“Tell me and I will forget,
show me and I may remember,
involve me and I will understand.”Interactivity is involvement.

INTRODUCTION TO INTERACTIVITY

Interactivity is a key facet of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which is frequently mentioned in justifying the educational potential of new technology. There is the erroneous supposition by many that because theoretically a technology has the functionality embedded within it (i.e. built-in or intrinsic to digital media) to promote greater interactivity and collaboration, this will automatically translate into more interactive classroom practice (Rudd, 2007; Tanner and Jones, 2007; Kennewell and Beauchamp, 2007).


It is appropriate when we discuss about interactivity we link it to Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) as research points that IWBs are the predominant ICT tools used by teachers in today’s classroom atmosphere (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007). IWBs as the name suggests, are meant to be just that-interactive (Halford, 2007). One of the foremost role for the introduction of IWBs is it promotes learning through interactivity (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010). Yet in spite of its introduction, several studies report domination of teacher talk and initiation–response–evaluation (IRE) sequences which is mainly authoritative dialogue and focussed on the teacher repeatedly asking a question, obtaining a response from a student and evaluating that response (Shuck and Kearny, 2007; Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010). For instance, Higgins et al (2005; Cited by Haldane, 2007) noted that patterns of interactivity were the same in lessons with or without an IWB. Therefore, IWBs do not necessarily mean higher degrees of interactivity.


Haldane (2007, p.258-259) with reference to interactivity and IWBs says,
“Of course, the digital whiteboard in itself is not and cannot be ‘interactive’; it is merely a medium through which interactivity may, to a greater or lesser extent be afforded. It is the user of the board who chooses whether or not to take full advantage of the digital whiteboard’s interactive potential. The digital board simply provides an opportunity for interactivity to occur…”