TYPES

3 Phases of Educational Technology for success in ICT

Types of Interactivity

Not all interactivity contributes to augmented learning outcomes, and there is consensus amongst most scholars (Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Kennewell et al, 2008; Smuts, 2009; Griffin & Woods, 2006a, 2006b; Tanner and Jones, 2007; Brown, 2003; Latheef and Romeo, 2010) that it is dialogic interactivity that should be fostered and encouraged. The IWB is a powerful device for integrating media elements into teaching to enhance content and support collaborative learning; however the hazard that they may not be used to their full potential and in many cases may only be used as a ‘glorified’ whiteboard is overwhelming (Brown, 2003).

‘Taming’ ICT

Most early research findings on IWBs point that they were praised for the ‘wow’ factor or for its surface interactivity (Latheef & Romeo, 2010). Research findings on IWBs also point that teachers in Victoria use them for non-interactive purposes such as screening DVDs and PowerPoint presentations and other similar purposes (Griffin & Woods, 2006a, 2006b). The heavy use of IWBs as a visual presentation device is excellently elucidated by Tanner and Jones (2007) to prove that during early stages of implementation, IWBs (technology) is assimilated into existing approaches with superficial changes in practice and restores the teacher-centered (authoritative) approach to classroom by removing the autonomy students have in ICT (i.e., ‘taming’ ICT) and reinforces the traditional approach. Tanner and Jones (2007) further indicate that the novelty of IWB will wear off if it is much loved and accepted for its surface features (pace, accuracy, involvement, motivation) instead of its deeper features (automation, editability, transformability and feedback) that have a permanent value to education.

IWBs use a wide range of interactive literacy and numeracy games (Griffin & Woods, 2006a). However, often one confronts with multimedia educational products that are nothing more than “electronic page turners” where Interaction to pupil is restricted to the ability to “turn the pages” by scrolling or clicking a button. However, as we know the critical value of interactive multimedia technologies is that they can be used effectively to empower students to take a more pro-active role in acquiring, analysing and synthesising information (Goldman & Torrisi-Steele, 2002). It is the potential of multimedia, such as the IWBs, that foster higher level of interactivity that distinguishes it from older technologies such as projectors, radio and television (i.e, IWBs is an active form of learning, whereas projectors, radio and television are passive forms. Goldman & Torrisi-Steele, 2002).

Types of Interactivity

IWB supports whole-class teaching and the rate of interactivity between teacher and pupil tends to increase with its use (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010). However, not all interactivity contributes to enhanced student learning. Tanner and Jones (2007, p.38) based on the teacher/pupil control, nature of interactivity and support provided through their discourse classify interactivity at various levels from ‘intra-activity’, ‘surface interactivity’, ‘deeper interactivity’, ‘dialogical deep interactivity’ and ‘full interactivity’ based on the teacher-pupil control of interaction. Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) classify the scale of interactivity ranging from ‘authoritative’ (teacher-centered approach) to ‘dialogic’ (student-centered approach). Similar varying degrees of classification can be found by several other authors (Gray et al, 2005, speaks of “controlled pre-communicative activities” and dialogic) thereby lacking consistency in the classification of interactivity differing and varyingly based on student-teacher control, level of interaction, technological control and degrees of interactivity and orchestration. However, the commonality in all classification is the degree or level or depth of interactivity between teacher-learner and technology. A new dimension added to this is Instructional Design (ID) by Beauchamp and Kennewell (2010) and Latheef and Romeo (2010) which is dealt with in-depth under the heading Pedagogical Interactivity.

Interactive Music involving students