Interactive whiteboards and pedagogy2003
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Interactive whiteboards and pedagogy2003

on

  • 3,129 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,129
Views on SlideShare
2,913
Embed Views
216

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
45
Comments
0

1 Embed 216

http://10dt056.pbworks.com 216

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Interactive whiteboards and pedagogy2003 Interactive whiteboards and pedagogy2003 Presentation Transcript

  • Jane Feener In partial fulfillment of the requirements of Ed 6390
    • It is a large touch-sensitive board which is connected to a digital projector and a computer.
    • It can be operated via the computer keyboard and mouse, or by tapping on the screen image
  •  
  •  
    • Increased efficiency
    • Multimedia and multisensory presentation of material
    • Increased motivation
    • Promotes interactivity
    • Can promote creativity
  •  
  •  
    • Teachers reported favourable reactions to this new technology
    • Teachers felt that the nature of their teaching had changed
    • Teachers made their lessons more enjoyable and interesting
  •  
    • Three pedagogic phases of IWB use:
    • “ Teachers who reach this level of competence show considerably enhanced understanding of the learning process, talk about the ways that technology can support learning, and show ingenuity in developing materials to meet specific learning needs”
    • (Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door,2007, p.10)
    • “ Teachers are offered opportunities to design, create and employ digital resources that demand creativity in teaching”
    • (Wood & Ashfield, 2008, p.94)
    • Promotes teacher centered instruction when not used correctly
    • Students can become spectators
    • Information overload due to fast paced lessons
  •  
    • Reduces teacher-student interaction
    • Discourages student participation
    • Overwhelms students
    • There has been little evidence in the literature to show links between IWB use and student achievement
    • However, recent research has pointed to positive gains in literacy, mathematics, and science in classrooms where the IWB has been utilized for a longer period of time.
    • “ Good teaching remains good teaching with or without the technology”
    • (Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller,2007, p.217)
  •  
  •  
  •  
    • Establish a community of practice to support colleagues
    • Interactive Whiteboard
  •  
    • BECTA (2003b) What the research say about interactive whiteboards . The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, Coventry, England
    • Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers' integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33 (4), 289-300.
    • Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51 (4), 1553-1568.
    • Geronazzo, M. (2011) SMARTBoard interactive whiteboard reaches 20 year milestone. Retrieved from http://investor.smarttech.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=543246
    • Gillen, J., Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 243-256.
    • Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (1), 5-20.
    • Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2), 102-117.
    • Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010). Keeping in touch with learning: The use of an interactive whiteboard in the junior school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19 (2), 237-243.
    • Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32 (3), 213-225.
    • Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32 (3), 303-317.
    • Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24 (1), 61-73.
    • Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Educational and Information Technologies , 13 (2), 291-303.
    • Lewin, C., Scrimshaw, P., Somekh, B., & Haldane, M. (2009). The impact of formal and informal professional development opportunities on primary teachers’ adoption of interactive whiteboards. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18 (2), 173-185.
    • Lopez, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 901-915.
    • Magana, S., & Frenkel, P. (2009). Transforming teaching and learning for the 21 st century. Retrievedttp://www.prometheanworld.com/upload/pdf/Transforming_Teaching_and_Learning_for_the_21st_Century_V6.
    • Mathews-Aydinli, J., & Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students' and teachers' attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23 (3), 235-252.
    • McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communications technology, knowledge and pedagogy. Education, Communication and Information, 1( 1), 37-57.
    • Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010). Presentation or mediation: Is there a need for "interactive whiteboard technology-proficient" teachers in secondary mathematics? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19 (2), 253-259.
    • Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002 (1), 5-19.
    • Mohon, E. H. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teacher's pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33 (4), 301-312.
    • Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaaic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) project: London challenge. London: Institute of Education.
    • Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4), 494-510.
    • Reedy, G. B. (2008). PowerPoint, interactive whiteboards, and the visual culture of technology in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (2), 143-162.
    • Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just "lipstick"? Computers & Education, 51 (3), 1321-1341.
    • Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher–pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 443-457.
    • Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2), 91-101.
    • Watson, A. (2010). Interactive whiteboards to reach 900 000 unit sales. Retrieved from http://www.futuresource-consulting.com/pdfs/2010-02_IWB_release.pdf
  • Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4), 534-552. Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (1), 84-96. Yelas, J., & Engles, P. (2010). Project ACTIVate: Innovations from New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4), 432-446