Asynchronous and synchronous interactivity
IWBs enable collaborative and interactive learning between teachers, students and their peers in whole-class settings through asynchronous methods (any transfer of information that is stored or archived and then later accessed), like e-mails, threaded discussion forum, web pages, blogs, etc., or synchronous methods (interaction that occurs and takes place in real time) by way of online chats, live audio/video conferencing, etc. Some benefits besides aiding interactivity of asynchronous and synchronous technologies is it allows students the necessary ‘‘think time”, helping shy students unable to interact at the classroom level the opportunity to become involved in conversations, encourages independent learning skills, promotes metacognition and reflection in facilitating student learning (McLoughlin, Lee and Chan, 2006), allows students to formulate and make corrections on their messages prior to sending/posting, positively affects learner's confidence as communicators, and promotes writing, reading and analytic skills (Barbour & Reeves, 2009).
Excellent examples of the above instances of use of IWBs in fostering online learning communities can be found with classroom teachers using blogs (Top 20 teacher blogs, Teacher Podcasts, teachertube) vodcasts, podcasts, etc in getting students involved in their homework, daily school work, and other learning activities (For instance, my children’s ‘show-and-tell’ is emailed to the teacher and is exhibited via the IWB). This can encourage the growth of a conjecturing atmosphere in the classroom and a playful attitude to learning and encourages teachers to change their pedagogy, and fosters dialogic interactive learning (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Tanner and Jones, 2007).
Further, the interactivity that is brought about as a result of the visual material displayed by IWBs is particularly helpful to students from non-English speaking backgrounds (Gray et al, 2005), helps overcome barriers of distance and lack of exposure to a range of experiences for students and provided an alternative to excursions, especially in rural or economically-socially disadvantaged schools (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). However, as Tanner and Jones (2007, p.41) caution us “The effective use of IWBs must go beyond the manipulation of colourful, dynamic images…, pupils must operate on the images they see using their own mental facilities and develop schemata that will stand when the screen is dark.” Another difficulty related to IWBs in asynchronous and synchronous collaboration is the availability of bandwidth. Many research studies point issues such as these especially in rural settings (Issues in Recording and Streaming SMART Board™ Interactions).
Using Social networking tools for education- a case study of organic chemistry education.
Click on the link below:
http://www.scivee.tv/node/12354
Top 10 Reason's to Use a Blog in the Classroom
Communities of Practice (CoP)
IWBs besides building strong relations between teachers, students, and parents they also provide opportunities for social interaction between individuals and communities, where students can reach out and interact with and/or build knowledge communities, human–object interaction, and also intelligent interaction between artefacts (Kerawalla et al, 2009; Warburton, 2009). In the words of Latheef (Power Point, Course Content, EDF6441, Monash University, 2010, p.19) “Mostly use of technology such as IWBs, there is always some degree of collaboration at least from peers and the teachers”. Many research scholars have discovered that IWBs tend to create communities of learners where students and teachers benefit (Murcia & McKenzie, 2009). They not only get the young learners involved (interactive) they also alleviate feelings of isolation associated with technological-learning and actually help by supporting collaborative knowledge building activities and supports meaning-making through reflective learning, giving different geographic and cultural perspectives and enhancing global competitiveness and skills for the new knowledge economy (Russell, 2005a). IWBs in classrooms, enables teachers to incorporate blogs, wikis and pod-casting, as well as other asynchronous and synchronous communication and collaboration tools, into their courses and opportunities to comment on their student’s work thereby enhancing community presence, developing online Communities of Practice (CoP) promoting a sense of belonging and purpose that coheres around groups, subcultures and geography (Warburton, 2009; Kerawalla et al, 2009). Therefore, IWBs can contribute to interactivity by moving beyond the four walls of a classroom, as Russell and Russell (1999, p.14) point out that “Cyberspace is a mirror of our society”.
However, in spite of all the potential that IWBs can offer to us in CoP research points out that we tend to restrict our interactive learning environment to the classroom settings. For instance, Gray et al (2005) in their research brings to attention this issues and calls for teachers to have an international perspective to classrooms. A potential benefit related to the use of IWBs in classrooms, in relation to students and society, is the rich Global Community Presence. No doubt, if students meet people in cyberspace, it is doubtful that the same mix of ethnicity, gender, nationality, or social-economic grouping which whey encounter in their daily lives will be found on-line (Russell and Russell, 1999). This diversity and mix of people will enrich multiculturalism, secularism and instill values of a Global Citizen and bring about an appreciation of all people, culture, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. and these will ultimately play a significant role to determine how we learn.
There is urgent need for research in how our cultural and historical backgrounds influence our interactivity in learning and the need to maximise this potential with the use of IWBs. Recent research in this area is by Kennewell & Beauchamp, (2007, see diagram on p.67) and Zevenbergen & Lerman (2007, hyperlink: see diagram on p.855, Figure 1: Engeström’s third generation activity theory) using activity theory, and Latheef and Romeo (2010) using the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) on a richer exploration of interactivity in specific context to IWBs. While Zevenbergen & Lerman (2007) have adopted a similar diagram to Latheef and Romeo (2007) it is not in context with CHAT, interactivity (i.e. PI, TI and ID) and not as eloquently elaborated. A synopsis of Latheef and Romeo’s (2010) is outstandingly expounded below.
ACTIVITY SYSTEM
Figure 2 (Cited in EDF6441, Course Content, Monash University, Latheef and Romeo, 2010).
An Introduction to Activity Theory
Based on the above figure Latheef and Romeo (2010) in their paper epitomize the characteristics (merits and demerits) of the IWB orchestrated at the classroom echelon and the activities (conscious and unconscious) that explain the shape of interactivity in learning by including the classroom culture, environment and how previous knowledge of the students influence the shape of interactivity by applying the CHAT. They point out that humans interact with their environments consciously and unconsciously through their daily activities by connecting with the environment, and learn collaboratively with the teacher and peers, mediated with the use of IWBs.
It is appropriate to quote Haldane (2007, p.260), in relation to IWBs and student learning, to complete our discussion on this segment- “The questions posed or suggestions offered by learners involved in the social discourse help them and the other learners who are listening to construct new concepts and ideas according to their past and current knowledge (Bruner, 1973). However, we are reminded by Berlo (1960) that the choice and even the meaning of the words that we use to make sense of our experiences, actually depend on the life experiences that we have had in relation to these words, and therefore dialogue and questioning are essential aids to understanding and interpreting the knowledge put forward during a lesson.”
