DEFINITION

Teacher-centered Versus student-centered learning






LITERATURE GAPS, INCONSISTANCIES AND DEFINITION


Literature gaps


A review of four major academic databases (Proquest Dissertations, Proquest Education, ERIC via EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect), indicates that school students are a strikingly under-researched and are underrepresented group of critical stakeholders in ICT (Tan and McWilliam, 2008). These literature gaps intensify when they get to the area of interactivity especially in context with IWBs, given the novelty of IWBs and the concept of dialogic interactivity to ICT. Much of the existing literature on IWBs in educational settings is U.K. based (Latheef & Romeo, 2010), and much of this work is based on personal experiences, opinions, perspectives and lack scientific research, and many existing research on IWBs do not address issues such as validity, universality, reliability, triangulation, etc (Eg. Halford, 2007; Becta, 2003; Criswell, 2008; Hayes, 2007; Lacina, 2009; Brown, 2003). The research studies are at small-scale and largely relying on informal interviews and surveys (Smith et al, 2005; Cited by Latheef & Romeo, 2010). In spite of the lack of scientific study of the relationship between student achievements and use of IWB there is heavy investment from governments and educational institutions on IWBs (Gray et al, 2005). For instance, The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) provided a staggering £10 million in a span of one year between 2003 and 2004 for primary schools in U.K. (Haldane, 2007).




Inconsistencies


While everyone seems to have something to say about the significance of interactivity, no one seems to have a clear understanding of just what makes something interactive (Smuts, 2009). There is much difficulty and debate in defining the term interactivity, lack of consensus on the types of interactivity, and the theories of interactivity are still at an early stage of development (Sims, 1999; Kirsh, 1997). In fact, McGovern (2002; Cited by Smuts, 2009, p.67) calls interactivity as an ‘over-hyped’ word that often fails and Manovich (2001) explains that he finds the term interactive "to be too broad to be truly useful". There is an urgent need to clear the doubt and skepticism around interactivity with robust research backed by sufficient government funding. As Gauthier (2009, p.39) aptly summarizes it, “The key is to get the daily experts: teachers, tutors, principals, mentors, university professors, etc., talking and sharing their ideas and experiences.”




Definition of IWB and Interactivity


IWB


Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) is a presentation device that employs and integrates text, video, sound, graphics and animation in whole-classroom settings with the help of a computer and projector to display and manipulate images on the board using a pen or finger as a mouse with the help of a software thereby making possible student-teacher interaction employing online resources making it a powerful new tool for education in whole-classroom settings (Somyurek et al, 2009). IWBs are also called as “Smart Boards”, “eBoard”, “digital Whiteboard”, or “interactive Whiteboard” (Mahamed and Ottmann, 2005).

The Interactive Whiteboard; A Beginner's Guide





Interactivity


The difficulty in defining interactivity is aptly summarized in Sims (hyperlink: Sims, 1999, p.258) words- “While interactivity as a concept has retained high profile throughout the history of computer based learning, its interpretation has undergone a metamorphosis and continues to be regarded as complex and difficult to define.” Even after a decade of Sims bringing to attention this issue there still exists inconsistency in the definition of interactivity, its theories, types, etc.


Smuts (2009, p.65) in his paper questions the validity of existing definitions of interactivity and redefines interactivity as:
“Something is interactive if and only if it (1) is responsive, (2) does not completely control, (3) is not completely controlled, and (4) does not respond in a completely random fashion”.


This definition of interactivity has two elements-something is interactive for an individual if it responds in a way that is neither (1) radically random nor (2) almost completely controllable (Smuts, 2009). This definition does not necessarily restrict interactivity to the application of technology but also embraces other bodies of knowledge (e.g. theatre, music, etc) and can be criticized for being too broad in its scope, expansive in approach, and having multi-perspective.


Given the scope of our study and the topic of discussion a more appropriate definition of interactivity would be one defined by Latheef & Romeo (2010, p.2) where they describe interactivity as- “It is used to describe the interactions between teachers, learners and technology in the classroom to enhance learning.”. “Interactivity is defined as the exchange of information, and communication, in the process of teaching and learning, among the teacher and learners via the IWB and other mediums in order to achieve educational goals.” In this definition we understand that:
• Interactivity as a terminology is used in an educational context, more precisely in classroom atmosphere.
• Interactivity involves interaction (i.e. it is a two way process in varying degrees) between teacher and learner.
• Information and Communication is exchanged between subjects (i.e. teacher and learner)
• Technology is the tool that mediates between the subjects (e.g. IWBs, computers, software, etc in educational settings).
• The end goal for this process of interactivity is to accomplish an educational intent. And,
• Interactivity enhances learning.


Although this definition is restrictive in its scope compared to Smuts (2009) it is applicable to educational settings more specific to ICT, and can be extended to brick-and-mortar institutions and virtual school settings, and is relevant to the scope of our topic of discussion.