PART A: CURRENT APPLICATION OF AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY.
This paper will consider and examine one of the more recent innovations in computer-related technology: the interactive whiteboard, known as and referred to hereafter as the IWB.
The classroom of the 21st century is vastly different from those of a hundred years earlier. The most obvious change has been to the board which used to be dark green and chalk oriented and is now not only white and shiny favouring felt-tip markers and easy erasure, but also, increasingly, interactive. Today, technology in many forms, but particularly the computer, has transformed the whole approach to teaching and learning across the world and IWB manufacturers have embraced computer technology to provide innovative and exciting experiences for learners and teachers alike.
According to the eHow website (Barton, 2011), IWB’s were first developed in the 1990’s, initially for office and boardroom use but becoming increasingly incorporated into classroom applications. Their capabilities to involve students in either individual or whole class learning allows teachers to provide flexibility and versatility by presenting lesson activities, videos, websites, in fact, everything that is accessible with a computer, which is then projected on a large, interactive board that is visible to the whole class. On an IWB teachers can deliver lessons across all ages and in a variety of settings. In a critical review on interactive whiteboards, Smith, Higgins, Wall and Miller (2005) cite various studies identifying IWB application as occurring from nursery to higher and further education and even in distance education. The content and activities that can be utilised are also diverse and are only limited by the teachers’ imagination and the learners’ physical inhibitors such as the fine or gross motor skills of very young learners. Harmer (2007) refers to the teaching methodology he calls E.S.A. through which the teacher should deliver lessons that engage the students, provide study of the learning point and then activate the learning through consolidation exercises which activate their newly acquired knowledge. The interactivity that IWB’s provide enables ESA to be implemented in the classroom through a plethora of computer-accessible activities and the capability of moving text and images around the screen with just a pen or finger is appealing to all (2007). Of course, IWB’s must be used appropriately to enhance learning and teaching and provide the optimum impact as explained in an information document published by the Department for Education and Skills in England who were pioneers of IWB implementation in classrooms (DfES, 2004). They identify three areas of IWB use that lead to reaching their potential. Firstly, Presentation, demonstration and modelling if applied with appropriate software can improve understanding of new concepts. Secondly, actively engaging students, as previously noted, increases learner motivation and involvement and lastly, planning, pace and flow of lessons can be greatly enhanced with the IWB (DfES, 2004, p.5)
There are however, many cautions related to the use of IWB’s in the classroom. Lacina (2009) refers to a number of studies in her article that raise various issues warranting consideration such as whether adequate technical resources and professional development are provided; whether due consideration is given to the costs involved to set up IWB use and, if sufficient preparation to incorporate the technology into classroom instruction has been allowed. Furthermore, the possibility of less instructional time could result from using IWB’s only for whole-class instruction as ‘students must wait and watch as their peers interact one-on-one with the IWB’ (Lacina, 2009). Smaller classes would benefit more because of greater learner participation in the interactive components of a lesson. IWB’s initially require a computer and a projector as well as the whiteboard itself. In addition, accessories such as the special marker pens (for some brands) and speakers for audio production are essential accessories for the effective use of IWB’s. Other hardware available but not necessarily essential, such as individual wireless keyboards, student’s individual controls through which students can type and send responses which can be collated and displayed on the large IWB screen for the whole class to see (as in a vote on ideas) and smaller slate-like screens that enable participation for each student - or one for the teacher which allows classroom mobility while still maintaining control of the screen - are all available resources for IWB’s that could enhance learning, although at great expense. Teachers must be trained thoroughly to be completely competent and confident in their ability to apply the technology to its optimum advantage. One final caution noticed in several websites and publications was that of potential eye-strain for teachers looking directly into badly-positioned projectors. Importantly, overall, there is no conclusive evidence that suggests the use of IWB’s being responsible for increased levels of language acquisition, either in speed or competence.
Nonetheless, in the ESL/EFL classroom, an IWB represents a multitude of teaching and learning experiences. Teachers can ‘draw on and annotate a wide range of web-based resources’ (DfES, 2004) by accessing and presenting information computer technology (ICT) and integrating it into lessons that students can be engaged in through interactivity. The novelty and fun factor of using IWB’s instead of pen and paper or just looking at a standard whiteboard or chalkboard engages, and therefore enhances, learning. Also, the capacity of the IWB to save and print work facilitates returning to prior lessons and revision exercises minimising duplication effort and allowing teachers to readily share or re-use their lesson materials. Work samples created on IWB’s can be posted to learner’s blogs or ePortfolios for assessment and/or perusal by permitted others.
Dudeney & Hockly (2007) reaffirm this positive opinion of IWB use in the ESL/EFL classroom. Having access to such new and innovative multimedia technology has, they say, increased both teacher and learner motivation. IWB’s provide a multitude of tools which can be utilised for teaching and learning as activities such as matching, labelling, grouping, sorting, gap filling and ordering can be drawn from an inexhaustible supply of resources. Teaching the macro-skills, grammar and vocabulary become more interesting on the whiteboard because the technology presents them in new and exciting programs on a larger, interactive screen. Content from the World Wide Web, CD-ROM’s, video, audio and visual software as well as websites and word-processing functions can be utilised. Leading coursebook publishers like Headway have designed software programs such as iTools which utilise IWB’s in conjunction with their workbooks providing teachers and students with an extra dimension for learning as they allow for expansion of all the exercises in the books. For example, teacher trainer Gareth Davies provides a commentary for iTools programs on the Headway website and, talking about one of four permanent features of the programs, describes the sound feature which provides ‘interactive phonemic charts that are divided by consonants, vowels and dipthongs’ (Headway, 2011). Simply by clicking on any part of the script on the screen, opens up new interactive activity. Dudeney and Hockly in their book, how to teach english with technology, further describe the ease with which the IWB can be used:
‘at the touch of a pen a teacher can play a section of an audio CD, Bring up a transcript of the audio, highlight or underline part of it, make it disappear again while the audio is replayed, bring back the highlighted transcript, then move straight to a drag-and-drop activity’ .
(2007, p.123).
Specifically, in the ESL and EFL contexts, IWB’s can present authentic English as it used in a myriad of real-life situations, by accessing video and audio for the learners to hear and experience and then be able to participate in interactive exercises. Teacher-centredness can be avoided by using the IWB to model language, highlight pronunciation and sound construction of native speech and by allowing students to step forward to interact on the board and even present activities. Other technology-based lesson activities enhanced by IWB use are emailing, group presentations, class blogs, webquests, interactive games and reference tools such as concordances. Screenshots of websites can present opportunities for many activities.
The case for use of IWB’s in the ESL/EFL classroom is very strong since they offer exciting and new methods of interactive learning and teaching methods with irresistible versatility.
Assessment of the amount of time given to the IWB application of learning, as determined by teacher knowledge of the learners, is recommended. An integrated approach where the IWB is combined with teacher-created materials or realia, and lessons designed in collaboration with the learners is likely to result in a satisfying experience for learners and teachers alike where boredom is avoided and motivation for learning optimised. IWB’s most definitely provide the ‘wow’ factor to provide such a positive learning environment.
REFERENCES:
Barton, M 2011 The history of interactive whiteboards. eHow website accessed 2/9/2011 at http://www.ehow.com/facts_6976419_history-interactive-whiteboards.html
Department for Education and Skills 2004 Embedding ICT @ Secondary: Use of interactive whiteboards in English. Accessed 2/9/2011 at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/1281-2005PDF-EN-01.pdf
Dudeney, G and Hockly, N 2007 how to teach English with technology. Pearson Education Limited. Essex, England.
Harmer, J 2007 The practice of English language teaching. 4th edn. Pearson Education Limited. Essex, England.
Gramarye, 2011 Headway itools for ESL/EFL - Smartboard software review 80 accessed 3/9/2011 at http://gramarye.hubpages.com/hub/Headway-itools-Smartboard-software-review
Lacina, J 2009 Interactive whiteboards: creating higher-level, technological thinkers? In Childhood Education. Association for Childhood Education International. ISSN: 0009-4056 Issue: Summer, 2009 Source Volume: 85 Source Issue: 4 accessed 3/9/2011 at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Childhood-Education/198931292.html
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K. and Miller, J. (2005) Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21: 91–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x
No comments:
Post a Comment