Here is another video with a teacher-cantered approach focused on the ‘wow’ factor with more emphasis on the technological interactivity and lack of an Interactive teaching pedagogy.
Pedagogical Interactivity, Technical Interactivity, Instructional Design and orchestration.
IWB supports whole-class teaching and the rate of interactivity between teacher and pupil tends to increase with its use (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010). According to Gray et al (2005) IWBs empowers students by encouraging a student-centered approach that supports independent learning. It is important to understand that although IWBs are ‘interactive technology’ (in small group settings), as such, an ‘interactive teaching’ pedagogy needs to be adopted, which focuses on a ‘dialogic’ (student-centered) rather than an ‘authoritative’ (teacher-centered, ‘lecture’ style) interactivity to foster true learning (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010, p.759; Tanner and Jones; 2007).
There is a consistent suggestion in most literature (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010; 2007 Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Smuts, 2009; Griffin & Woods, 2006a, 2006b; Tanner and Jones, 2007; Brown, 2003) that shifting the balance of interaction in classrooms towards the dialogic end of the scale would bring improvements to the learning process and consequently to attainment outcomes. Interactivity can vary in degrees/levels based on the element of involvement or interactive learning element that is adopted by the teacher or the technology. A comprehensive discourse in context of educational setting on ‘interactive teaching’ and ‘interactive pedagogy’ is dealt by Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) and Latheef and Romeo (2010). This orchestration of inter mix between Pedagogy Interactivity (PI), Technological Interactivity (TI) and Instructional Design (ID) in educational settings in the context of IWBs is splendidly summarized by Latheef & Romeo (2010, p.3) in their figure below (diagram 1).
Diagram 1 (from Latheef and Romeo, 2010)
In their diagram Latheef and Romeo (2010) have explained the significance of interactivity in context of PI, TI, and ID and its orchestration (i.e. blending, mixing, and coordinating of PI, TI and ID) in explaining the shape of interactivity in the classroom atmosphere. Most journal articles on interactivity and IWBs either only focus on any one of the components of interactivity, or speak of all three in ambiguity, or have no reference to orchestration (Eg. Jewitt, Moss & Cardini, 2007; Griffin, 2006a, 2006b; Somyurek, 2009; Lacina, 2009). On the other hand, Latheef and Romeo (2010) exceptionally illustrate this aspect with their figure (diagram 1) with the formula- nTI + nPI + ID = ELE [where ELE is Effective Learning Episodes and n is the level of interactivity referring to the framework], and further connecting this to the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) in investigating IWBs which they depict vividly with their triangular diagram discussed later in this blog (Cited in EDF6441 course content, Monash University, Latheef and Romeo, 2010).
The above components of TI, PI, and ID is explained and understood better with their tables/diagram 2, 3, and 4 below.
Technical Interactivity
Diagram 2: [Kennewell et al 2008; Cited in EDF6441, course content, Monash University, Latheef and Romeo (2010)].
Pedagogical Interactivity
Diagram 3: [Cited in EDG6441, course content, Monash University, Latheef and Romeo (2010)].
Diagram 4 Latheef and Romeo (2010)
Based on the above figures Latheef and Romeo (2010) in their paper exemplify the affordances and caveats of the IWB orchestrated at the classroom level to explain the shape of interactivity in learning by including the classroom culture, surroundings and prior knowledge of the participants in influencing the perimeter of shape of interactivity by applying the Cultural Historical Activity Theory. We examine some of these issues under the heading Interactivity and Collaboration.
Interactivity is an important element for enhancing learning in ICT, which initiates from the constructivist school of thought that propounds learners learn best when they are actively constructing their own knowledge, based on their own experiences and their own information (Goldman & Torrisi-Steele, 2002). Multimedia technologies such as Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs), CD-ROMs and Websites probably offer the greatest potential, to date, for enhancing learning. It is the interactive nature of these media that offers the greatest pedagogical promise (Goldman & Torrisi-Steele, 2002).
Building knowledge: constructivism in learning
Another perspective besides Latheef and Romeo (2010) of the process of interactivity in specific context to IWBs is Haldane’s (2007, 268) diagram and explanation comparing learning with the use of IWBs to weaving a cloth and the different phases that is involves. This weaving of cloth/learning according to Haldane (2007) with the use of IWBs constitutes the-the warp representing what the teacher puts into the lesson and the weft is how and what the learner takes from it, raising the issue of the personalization of learning in the context of a technology that facilitates whole-class teaching. The use of IWBs, the various interactivities (such as, pedagogical, technological, and content), and the interweaving [referred by Beauchamp & Kennewell (2010) as ‘orchestration’] to enhance learning is explained in their figure (diagram 5) below. Haldane (2007) continues to elucidate in her article the features of the IWBs that enable better coordination/orchestration of resources and thereby finally contributing to tacit knowledge.
Haldane (2007, p.263) appropriately draws connection to constructivism, IWBs and learning by stating- “…learning is about making connections; joining together threads of thought and threads of extant tacit knowledge with new knowledge. When introducing new knowledge, it is the teacher’s role to help learners locate and join extant learning threads held cognitively as schema (Bruner, 1973) by the learner.” “The IWB is central to the development of the learning thread” (Haldane, 2007, p.264).
Diagram 5 (Haldane, 2007, p.268)
However, in Haldane’s (2007) example although she speaks of the different processes involved in interactive learning, there is no clear mention of the connection between PI, TI, and DI and the use of the term ‘orchestration’ as in the case of Latheef and Romeo (2010) or Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010. Haldane further does not draw on CHAT to explain interactivity in context of IWBs.
Based on the above principle of constructivism, Haldane’s (2007) diagram and Latheef and Romeo’s (2010) diagrams we can draw diagram 6, as indicated in the below web diagram (“weaving the web of learning”), which constitutes learning, based on the guidelines that we learn by constructing, connecting, interacting, and involving prior-knowledge to new-knowledge. The numbers 0, 5, 10, 15, etc. are schemas/nodes representing learning by connecting old and new knowledge. One can understand from the below web diagram that our previous schemas which involve life experiences, culture, history, circumstances, etc. all play a significant role in forming new-knowledge. The below diagram is the learning process explained in the above web diagram, which shows the process of learning that occurs between two schemas (i.e. old and new) which are inter-connected.
Diagram 6 (improvised from Haldane, 2007)
Strommen (1999, p. 2; Cited by Goldman & Torrisi-Steele, 2002) draws on the connection between technology (in our instance, IWBs) and constructivism by stating- “...simply thinking up clever ways to use computers in traditional courses [relegates] technology to a secondary, supplemental role that fails to capitalise on its most potent strengths. What is needed is a guiding philosophy that suggests principled changes in the curriculum, and effective uses of technology as part of these changes” and this philosophy, asserts Goldman & Torrisi-Steele (2002), must be constructivism.
Does that mean that we always learn new-knowledge by connecting to prior-knowledge? No. However, when we try learning without connecting it to previous knowledge, we grapple understanding new information and unless we connect it to previous knowledge/experience we are likely to forget what we learnt.
Diagram 7
In the above diagram the arrow mark (↔) connecting the different schemas/nodes (which is represented in circles) is the learning process which involves activity and interactivity which is facilitated by ICT (in this case, IWBs) where the teachers/educators, learners and communities (both within the brick-and-mortar settings and online settings) are involved in collaboration using interactive asynchronous and synchronous technologies, interactive software, interactive games, etc. to enable new learning experiences drawing connections to previous learning experiences. The teacher/educator, learners and communities will orchestrate the PI, TI and DI to fulfill richer and enhanced learning outcomes {i.e. , nTI + nPI + ID = ELE (Latheef and Romeo, 2010)}.
Diagram 8
An extension of diagram 1 in this segment by Latheef and Romeo (2010, p.3) in connection between PI, TI and ID is explained and further understood with my improvised diagram showing the process of activity being initiated with the interactivity chain that connects the pedagogy, technology and instructional design.
Therefore, the reality is the effect of ICT on learners’ attainment depends crucially on the teacher, the pedagogical approach adopted, the ICT resources employed and the learning objectives intended, and its orchestration (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Latheef and Romeo, 2010).
