2.- ON INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS (AGAIN!)
Graham invited me to state my case regarding
the value of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in language education. Let me try.
As always when confronted by a technical
innovation, we should be asking ourselves the question that Neil Postman
famously posed: “What is the problem for which this technology [in this case
IWBs] is the solution?”
What is the problem? One answer that is
commonly cited is lack of motivation. IWBs help solve this by providing a
change of focus, delivering interesting content, and offering multiple
functions (including an interactive potential) that can keep learners
(especially younger ones) engaged and entertained. Fine. There is some evidence
to support this view. For example, a report on the use of IWBs with special
needs learners over a month-long period found that “the most significant
attribute was the attention and motivation the students had when working with
the board. During the course of the study, there was no diminishment in
enthusiasm and the students continued to want to complete most tasks using the
board. The collaborative interaction within the group improved over time. This
sustained motivation and persistence with the use of the board are the two key
factors in aiding with learning outcomes.” (Salinitri, et al. 2002).
On the other hand, over more extended periods
it seems that the novelty may wear off. In a one-year study of IWB impact on
the teaching of three core curriculum subjects in London secondary schools, the
researchers found that “although the newness of the technology was initially
welcomed by pupils any boost in motivation seem[ed] shortlived” (Moss et al,
2007, p. 4). (Unlike the previously mentioned study, the opinions of the
students themselves were solicited).
It seems that, as is the case with most
teaching aids, their capacity to motivate diminishes quite quickly, especially
with a generation less easily “wow-ed” by technological innovation. Also, the
pressure on teachers to use the (expensive) new toy as much as possible could
lead to over-kill. On the other hand, not to have IWBs – or to have them and
not to use them – might actually have negative effects on motivation. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that many language schools are installing IWBs because not to
do so would subject the schools to ridicule of the “how-sad-is-that?”
type. (It would of course be interesting to see if the motivational
potential of IWBs could be achieved using less expensive means, e.g. by using
data projectors and networked peripherals).
The other problem for which IWBs are a
possible solution is “the delivery-of-lesson-content problem”. IWBs deliver
content better, arguably, because (a) they are networked, (b) they combine
multi-media functions that were once distributed across audio, video, and
computer media, (c) they are visual, auditory, AND kinaesthetic and (d) they
are relatively easy to use.
They also promote a “heads-up” classroom
dynamic, and (if used to their full potential) they allow learners to interact
with the content themselves, e.g. by manipulating it, responding to it, and
even creating it. One report on IWB use in primary classrooms (Smith, 2001)
summarises these advantages in the following terms: “The interactive whiteboard
is an effective medium for teacher input to the whole class, and for reviewing
the lesson. The teacher is able to present from the front, and is better
positioned to observe pupils' response.”
Given all these benefits, one might expect a
positive impact on learning outcomes. Otherwise, why invest in them? But again,
the evidence from mainstream teaching is inconclusive. As The Guardian
reported, with reference to a two-year study covering six LEAs carried out by
Newcastle University and published by the government's ICT agency, Becta,
“pupils in schools with whiteboards scored no better in key stage 2 Sats than
pupils in schools without boards. Failure to make a difference was underlined
by the fact that those teachers surveyed were deemed to be using the boards
interactively and creatively. Moreover, around 85% of teachers believed the
whiteboard would improve children's scores” (Nightingale, 2006).
Likewise, in a study sponsored by the
University of Harvard on the impact of a massive scheme to install IWBs (using
software called Enciclomedia) in every primary classroom in Mexico, the
researchers found that “there were no significant differences in the knowledge
abilities development, application and evaluation of the contents among those
students that had access to Enciclomedia and those that did not.” (For a
discussion in Spanish, see
But, irrespective of the learning outcomes
(and we all know how hard these are to measure) there is a fundamental
ideological divide that separates the pro camp from the anti camp. One of the
assumptions underlying the “content delivery” argument is that teaching
(including language teaching) is essentially the transmission of information.
If this were the case, then IWBs are unrivalled (except perhaps by a
data-projector hooked up to a networked computer). However, if you regard
learning (and learning of languages) not as simply a form of
information-processing, but as a process of socially-situated and socially-mediated
activity, then the delivery capability of IWBs, while impressive, is of only
marginal utility. According to this (socio-cultural) view the processes of
language learning and language use “are dynamic processes in which regularities
and system arise from the interaction of people, brains, selves, societies and
cultures using languages in the world” (Ellis and Larsen-Freeman, 2006, p.
577). That is to say, language learning is not so much delivered as
co-constructed. As Brumfit (1979) wrote, “Language teaching is not
packaged for learners, it is made by them. Language is whole people.” Or,
as Breen (1985) said, “The language I learn in the classroom is a communal
product derived through a jointly constructed process.” According to this
view, what matters is the degree and quality of communicative engagement
between people, either in the classroom or outside of it, and using whatever
means (including social networking) that might facilitate it.
Therefore, if IWBs are to be truly
facilitative, it is their (socially) interactional potential that needs to be
optimised. But, in the words of a Futurelab report on IWBs, "the
introduction of a technology with numerous embedded interactive affordances
does not necessarily lead to a more interactive pedagogy" (p.8). A
frequently voiced caveat on the use of IWBs is that they actually reinforce a
transmissive, “sage-on-the-stage” pedagogy. This is not helped by the fact that
(according to a contributor to the IATEFL
I’m not saying that IWBs couldn’t be enlisted
to promote a “learning opportunities” (as opposed to a “teaching points”) view
of learning (see Allwright 2005 for this distinction). But, as Mark Prensky
reminded us at IATEFL this year, “Before you can take advantage of the technology
you have to change the pedagogy”. The uncritical enthusiasm for IWBs generated
by some users, and the exaggerated claims made for them by their merchandisers,
are ultimately counterproductive. As Moss et al. (op.cit) note: “The lack of
critical perspective on the [IWB] technology may make it harder to promote the
necessary professional discussion of its relative strengths and weaknesses” (pp
8-9).
In the end, whether or not you are drawn to
IWBs boils down to whether you construe language teaching as, on the one hand,
entertainment and delivery, or, on the other, community and communication. And
whether, faced with a new technology, your response is to adapt the pedagogy so
as to incorporate the new technology, or you use the technology only insofar as
it is consistent with your pedagogy.
References:
Allwright, D. (2005) From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond.
TESOL Quarterly, 39/1.
Aviles, K, and Vargas, R 2006. Descubre Harvard que Enciclomedia funciona mejor
en escuelas con luz http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/11/07/index.php?section=sociedad&article...
Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language
learning – a neglected situation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7.
Brumfit, C. (1979) ‘Communicative’ language teaching: an educational
perspective. In Brumfit C.J, and Johnson, K. (eds.) The Communicative Approach
to Language Teaching.
Ellis, N. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language Emergence: Implications for
Applied Linguistics—Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguistics,
27/4.
Futurelab: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/other/whiteboards_report
[no longer accessible]
Moss, et al. 2007: The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy, pupil and performance
evaluation: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR816.pdf
Nightingale, J. 2006. Whiteboards under the microscope. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/jun/20/elearning.technology
Salinitri et al. 2002. The aural enabler: creating a way of special needs kids
to participate in the classroom lesson. http://www.smarterkids.org/research/paper12.asp
Smith, H. 2001 SmartBoard evaluation: Final report.
http://www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/ict/IWB/whiteboards/report.html#11
© Copyright 2009, by Scott Thornbury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------