The interactive whiteboard: tool and/or agent of semiotic mediation.
Jones, Pauline ; Kervin, Lisa ; McIntosh, Sophie 等
Recent developments in Information and Communications Technologies
(ICT) have transformed life in homes, schools and workplaces, and, in
the process, dramatically altering literacy practices. As a major
purpose of schooling is to equip students with skills for effective
participation in society (and the evolving workforce), it is no surprise
that there has been an increased focus on disseminating ICT throughout
education. This paper focuses on the electronic whiteboard as an
instance of the integration of newer ICTs into classroom literacy
practice. Electronic whiteboards (commonly referred to as Interactive
Whiteboards (IWBs) or Smartboards) are heavily invested in by schools
and school systems across the globe. Over 50 million [pounds sterling]
has been spent by the UK government to install them in primary and
secondary schools (Armstrong et al., 2005; Wood & Ashfield, 2008),
and the NSW state government has pledged to equip every public school
with one by 2011 (Iemma, 2007, cited in Bennett & Lockyer, 2008).
Originally designed as a presentation tool for use in the business
sector, the IWB comprises a data projector, computer and touch sensitive
screen with multiple layers. It offers the functionality of a computer
(for example, online connections, videoconferencing, hard drive access,
instant authoring and publishing etc.) and a range of peripherals for
alternative inputs. Manufacturers and distributors promise increased
student engagement (frequently glossed as pleasure, motivation and
involvement) and, as a result, enhanced student achievement. There are,
however, conflicting opinions as to whether or not IWBs represent value
for money in educational contexts.
Background
There is a growing body of research into the use of IWBs in
schools. Emergent themes revolve around student engagement and
achievement (Haldane, 2007; Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Vincent,
2007), text and software quality (Jewitt, Moss & Cardini, 2007;
Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Kennewell, Tanner, Jones &
Beauchamp, 2008) and most frequently the nature of interactivity
afforded by IWBs (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Gillen, Staarman,
Littleton, Mercer & Twiner, 2007; Haldane, 2007; Mercer et al.,
2010; Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Due to the increased availability of
IWBs in Australian classrooms, several authors have recently recommended
that further research be undertaken in this area, particularly in
relation to teacher and student perspectives about technology
integration and to changes in pedagogic practices around literacy
(Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Hughes,
2005).
Interactivity is sometimes conceived in the literature as being of
two kinds: technological interactivity and pedagogic interactivity
(Smith, Higgins, Wall & Miller, 2005). Technological interactivity
refers to the relationship between the ICT and its user, put simply as
the physical interaction between user and technology. In contrast,
pedagogic interactivity refers to a range of classroom discourse
practices through which educational outcomes are met. Kennewell et al.
(2008) describe the relationship between the two:
While technical interactivity is a valuable feature of ICT
resources, and can motivate the repetitive practise of skills when
the teacher is not present, it is the characteristics of pedagogic
interactivity that are more important in stimulating the reflection
and intentionality of higher-order learning (p. 72).
Accordingly, our interest in interactivity concerns the integration
of these two aspects, in other words, how physical and dialogic
interaction come together in teachers' practice.
Much of the literature and marketing of IWBs focuses on their
potential to transform pedagogy, that is, to offer alternatives to
teacher-centred styles of delivery (Armstrong et al., 2005), to promote
more dialogic teaching (Gillen et al. 2007), and to expand the
opportunities for classroom discourse beyond teacher presentation of
facts to the joint construction of knowledge (Reedy 2008). We recognise
the importance of these aspects of successful pedagogy but also note the
recognition of the place of teacher expertise in studies of educational
linguistics and educational sociology (e.g., Alexander, 2008; Christie,
2002; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). Accordingly, this paper focuses on
the role of the teacher in integrating the IWB into literacy teaching
and the issues arising in terms of interactivity, engagement and the
teacher's pedagogic goals.
Our research is informed by sociocultural approaches to learning
and language. From Vygotskian psychology (1978, 1986) we take the
concept of tool. The tool is significant in Vygotsky's explanation
of the social and cultural origins of human mental functioning, where it
is said to mediate human interactions with the world. Tools may be
physical or psychological. Physical tools such as hammers and scissors
are designed to mediate in the physical world, 'an instrument of
labour' (Verenikina & Gould, 1998, p. 140). Psychological tools
include most prominently language, but extend to number systems,
artworks, concept maps and software packages, which are aimed at
mediating the mind and behaviour of individuals. Psychological tools
'alter the entire flow and structure of mental functions'
(Verenikina & Gould, 1998, p. 138); they make behaviours beyond
immediate response possible, enabling humans to reconstruct, to reflect
on past activity and to construct and consider future activity. Some
tools, such as computers, offer the affordances of both physical and
psychological tools; that is to say, they make work easier or more
efficient at the same time as enabling text and image construction,
calculation, information access, storage and retrieval. After Hasan
(1996), we recognise teachers as agents of semiotic mediation
('symbolic mediation' in Vygotsky's terms (1978, pp.
19-30)), drawing on language and other psychological tools as they
design and enact their literacy programs in environments rich with
physical tools. This view of pedagogy as interactivity involving
language and other meaning-making resources requires a research approach
that enables the functions of such resources to be understood in
relation to the pedagogic goals being pursued.
Methods
This paper draws on a larger study of primary teachers'
integration of a range of newer ICTs such as wireless connectivity,
laptops, personal communication devices (such as MP3 players) and
electronic whiteboards into their literacy teaching practices. The aims
of the larger study are threefold: to develop scenarios of technology
integration across a range of settings; to assist teachers in reflecting
upon their use of technology; and to understand the impact of ICT on
patterns of classroom interactivity. The study involves six teachers
across three different school settings. The daily literacy session was
chosen because it commonly occurs in Australian primary school pedagogy
and is a readily identifiable unit of observation. The data include:
video, field notes and still images of literacy sessions in progress;
interviews with teachers; policy and planning documents and student
worksamples. The research approach included multiple classroom
observations by the three-person research team. Each team member focused
on particular aspects related to the themes of the study. For example,
Lisa focused on points at which explicit mention was made of literacy
related understandings. Sophie made detailed observations of unfolding
events with particular attention given to the use of new technologies.
Pauline mapped changes in participation structures and movements in the
use of the teaching spaces. The video and audio recordings were
summarised initially, and relevant sections identified as key moments
related to those themes of literacy skills, technology use and patterns
of interactivity. These key moments then informed the subsequent
discourse analysis explained below. Interviews were digitally recorded
and later transcribed for thematic analysis. Reflective summaries for
each case study--based on the initial thematic analysis--provided the
basis for the final teacher interviews.
Our discourse analysis of classroom data is linguistically
orientated, drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL).
(1) SFL offers a useful model for describing language in use. For the
classroom researcher, it provides an array of tools for understanding
educational discourse from the macro to micro, that is, from the global
orientation of curriculum genres to the conversational moves through
which teachers and students interact.
The curriculum genre
Christie (2002) has studied patterns of classroom interaction and
identified prevalent curriculum genres such as morning news. (2)
Curriculum genres like written genres--are goal orientated staged social
practices. The morning news session can be said to be goal orientated
because of its function in relation to children's oral language
development, social because it is achieved via the participation of a
number of individuals, and staged because it comprises several steps.
The staging of the morning news genre originally identified by Christie
is as follows:
Initiation ^ News nomination ^ News greeting ^ News giving ^ News
finish x n ^ Closure. (3)
Of course, genres are subject to shifts in context, and our
experience suggests that the morning news genre has undergone
transformation in a number of classrooms. For example, we have observed
'news circles' in which small groups of children give news to
each other simultaneously, thus transforming the middle and final stages
of the genre. It is also possible that further curriculum genres are
identified, either as a result of new research endeavours or in response
to result of shifts in curriculum and policy. Indeed, our work in
several classroom-based research projects suggests that the regular
literacy session observed in primary schools has emerged as a distinct
curriculum genre with the function of providing regular and systematic
instruction in a range of literacy skills and practices to children
(Commonwealth of Australia 1998, 2005; NSW Department of School
Education, 1997).
Observations of the discursive contexts constructed by teachers and
students during the literacy session in several different classrooms
enable us to begin to identify stages of the genre. The session usually
commences with a whole class or group plenary in which the goals and
tasks for the session are made explicit and procedures explained.
Maintaining Christie's functional labelling of elements, we have
used the term Initiation because of the orientating nature of this
initial stage. However, in schools where children move to different
physical spaces for the duration of the literacy session, this element
is almost entirely absent as children organise themselves with minimal
prompting. Hence, the Initiation is optional in our description. The
obligatory stage of the Literacy Session genre is the middle stage,
which comprises a number of different Tasks to be completed by the
students, usually over the duration of three to five days. On any one
day there are usually a number of Tasks operating concurrently. The Task
takes as its focus a particular aspect of literacy such as spelling,
grammar, literacy related games, handwriting, writing or reading.
Children are organised into smaller groups for this stage; some work
with a teacher or parent, while others work more independently, with
occasional support. The Task may require children to produce an
individual contract or to work together to meet an identified goal. The
time allocated to this stage in NSW classrooms varies from classroom to
classroom. We have observed Task stages varying from 30 to 60 minutes in
duration. The Closure or final stage of the Literacy Session curriculum
genre, like the Initiation, is optional. Where it occurs, it is usually
another whole group/ class event in which the activities undertaken in
the Task stage are reviewed, feedback is given on students'
achievements, and behaviours and future plans are outlined. This stage
is often marked by a recess or lunchbreak in the daily timetable, and
hence, children tend to be quickly dismissed at the end of the session.
Thus, our preliminary description of the staging of the Literacy Session
curriculum genre is as follows: (Initiation) ^ Task x n ^ (Closure).
Approaching pedagogy as discourse in our research project, we are
interested in the middle stage of the Literacy Session, that of the
Task. Our experience suggests that while there are differences in how
Tasks are sequenced, paced and linked to other literacy learning outside
of the designated literacy time, there was considerable similarity in
the middle stage of the genre as it was observed in operation across the
six classrooms. Importantly for our research, it was during this stage
that we most frequently observed technology to be used. For this reason,
detailed case studies of pedagogic activity during the Task stage of the
literacy session will enable us to better understand the integration of
technology in literacy pedagogy across a range of settings. The Task,
like other stages of the curriculum genre, may be further described in
terms of Phases. Phases refer to the steps through which the Task
unfolds according to the teacher's aims as she steers the dialogue.
Thus, the model of genre analysis can be seen as hierarchically
organised in similar fashion to the approach adopted by many teachers as
they plan their lessons in terms of stages/activities and steps.
Phases, like Stages and Genres, are identified by changes in
language use, but are often accompanied by more subtle shifts in the
organisation of students, the use of resources (including technology)
and learning space. A number of commonly occurring Phases have been
identified (Christie, 2002) some of which are explained briefly below.
These too are labelled functionally.
The Prelude Phase refers to the step in a classroom activity in
which the teacher prepares the students for completing a Task. It is
usually brief, teacher fronted, and orientated locally to the next step
in an instructional sequence, rather than to the broader goals of the
literacy session or curriculum unit. Talk tends to be teacher dominated,
with students' contributions invited into brief turns allocated by
the teacher. An instance of a Prelude may comprise a demonstration of a
task to be done, or a set of oral instructions. As we shall see, it also
sometimes functions to motivate or engage the children in the learning
to be undertaken in the subsequent Phase.
The Expose Phase is similarly teacher dominated. However, in
contrast to the local nature of the Prelude Phase, an Expose is
orientated to the broad instructional goals; it is the 'teaching
point'. Because of this, it features explicit teaching and the
presentation of new knowledge or ideas. In the literacy session,
instances of the Expose may focus on new grammatical knowledge, the
shared reading of a new focus text, or deconstruction of a text form.
This Phase is the point at which teachers' expertise in relation to
content is most evident; thus it is critical to the development of
students' knowledge with respect to the curriculum domain under
focus.
The Consolidation Phase refers to a step in the Task in which the
teacher draws together the key ideas that have been explored earlier. It
usually provides an opportunity for the students to apply new learning
and to reiterate important ideas. Once more, teacher expertise is vital
to this Phase as they must ensure that critical knowledge and
understandings are made visible to the students. Accordingly, the
Consolidation tends to be orientated to the teacher's broad
instructional goals and is critical in advancing students'
cumulative understandings of the curriculum domain. It is usually
briefer than the Expose but lengthier than the Prelude. While the talk
is teacher controlled, there is usually opportunity for students to
contribute and to use language related to the new understandings or
control of content.
All three of the Phases described above tend to be teacher-fronted
episodes; additional Phases in which students work in groups, pairs or
individually have also been identified and described (Christie, 2002;
Jones, 2005). For example, a Task Collaboration Phase has been observed
in the operation of other curriculum genres. Here, students work in
groups to collectively complete activities such as problem solving,
design tasks and experiments. Hence the talk has evidence of students
initiating dialogue, expressing ideas, reasoning, arguing for different
positions and negotiating through disagreements and misunderstandings.
Another Phase identified is the Individual Contract in which students
work individually and independently.
Our explanation here has focused on the Prelude, Expose and
Consolidation Phases because of their appearance in the particular
instance of the Literacy Session genre described in this paper. It is
important to note that configurations of Phases vary considerably across
instances of classroom genres, shaped by teachers' pedagogic styles
and goals and their understandings of students' strengths and
needs. Tasks we observed varied in terms of which Phases occurred and
their order. For example, not all included an Expose or a Consolidation
Phase. One instance (observed in a multi-age rural classroom) featured
an Expose in which the teacher showed the children a new handwriting
skill, followed by an Individual Contract in which students completed a
handwriting activity requiring them to practise the new skill.
Interactivity in dialogue
In order to examine how teachers, students and technology interact
in the moment by moment unfolding of the curriculum genre, we have
employed Exchange Structure analysis (after Martin & Rose, 2007).
The SFL model recognises that interaction involves an exchange between
speakers and that this exchange involves two commodities: information
and goods-and-services. Information exchanges are knowledge (K)
exchanges and goods-and-services exchanges are action (A) exchanges.
Further, speakers are distinguished as either the individual with
authority in respect of the information under negotiation (the Primary
Knower or K1) or the individual responsible for performing the service
(the Primary Actor or Al). In classroom discourse, the teacher is most
frequently the Primary Knower (Kl) and Secondary Actor (A2). Students in
turn are most often secondary Knowers (K2) and Primary Actors (Al). Thus
we find interactions such as the following:
Teacher: K1 That word is an adjective
S: K2 Oh right
Teacher: A2 Show me the verb in that sentence
S: A1 There's one (pointing) *
* Al moves are frequently non-verbal (NV)
Of course, teachers frequently ask students for information which
they already know; in these cases the initial move is an anticipatory
move which delays (d) the exchange of information:
Teacher: dK1 What kind of word comes next?
S: K2 An adjective
Teacher: K1 Yes
It is through such moves as these that teachers and students enact
their institutional positions across numerous classroom settings each
day, moves which seem to show much resilience in spite of the recent
rapid social change and the saturation of newer technologies.
Similarly, speakers can initiate an action exchange by offering to
perform a service before doing so, or by seeking permission to do so.
Such moves are unusual in our data, but, the following is one such
occurrence:
S: dA1 May I please press 'Startover'
(referring to game on IWB)
Teacher: A2 Okay press Startover for me
S: Al NV (pressing the screen)
Speakers delay the completion of the exchange in a range of ways.
For example, teachers often give feedback to a correct response. A
common feedback move in classroom dialogue is that provided by the
teacher (A2) in response to a student's compliance as below:
Teacher: A2 Naomi, find me the adjective (pointing to a range
of cards with words and phrases written on them)
Naomi: A1 Here (selecting the appropriate card)
Teacher: A2f Okay great
Teachers make a number of other moves that delay the completion of
the exchange. These moves are frequently related to the management of
events and students' attention. They track the action or knowledge
under negotiation by repetition or emphasis. They monitor students'
attention by means of phatic moves such as (shh, no). They also nominate
students for turns in the exchanges by using vocatives (Ash, Nina), the
affirmative (yes) and gestures such as pointing and nodding. In the
analysis, such moves are labelled tr (track), mon (monitor) and nom
(nominate).
Teacher: dK1 What's the verb in that sentence? (pointing to display)
nom Alicia
Alicia: K2 slides
Teacher: K1 Yes slides
While students have less latitude than teachers in extending
dialogue, they frequently draw on a range of resources for extending
their participation in dialogue. Such moves are important for expressing
pleasure and involvement. For example, they may register their
engagement in the interaction with exclamations (yeah!), laughter and
through non-verbal means. They also make bids for turns; sometimes
verbally but often by means of gesture. These moves are labelled reg and
bids (NV) as follows:
Teacher: dK1 What's the verb in that
sentence? (pointing to display)
Ss: bids Yes Yes
Teacher: nom Alicia
Alicia: K2 slides
Teacher: K1 slides
Ss: reg Yes!
Sometimes exchanges are interrupted because clarification is
required or because one speaker wishes to challenge the contribution of
another. These tend to extend the exchange further than the minimally
interactive moves described above because they demand a responding move.
Such moves are labelled clf , rclf , ch and rch (where r = response).
Likewise, the tracking moves described above may also be accompanied by
a response move (rtr).
Teacher: dK1 What's the verb in that sentence?
(pointing to display)
Tacher: nom Alicia
Alicia: clf The verb?
Teacher: rclf Yes the verb
Alicia: K2 slides
Teacher: K1 Slides okay
Thus it is possible to closely examine pedagogic discourse in terms
of technological and pedagogic interactivity--the interplay of physical
action and knowledge negotiation--using Exchange Structure. As we will
see, the linguistically orientated analysis helps make the literate
knowledge under construction visible. It reveals a good deal about the
nature of participation patterns and sheds light on the role of the IWB
in the pedagogic process. It is, however, important to point out that
discourse analysis and interpretation is part of an ongoing and
iterative process. It involves working at both the level of genre and at
that of conversational move, using insights from each, together with our
knowledge of classrooms and the relevant informing theories, to describe
and understand the practice represented here.
The research setting
The data presented in this paper was collected at a large
non-government school in the south west of Sydney. The school had
recently been renovated around a vision of high technology and
collaborative pedagogy. Classrooms are open-plan with multiple classes
sharing learning spaces designed around and equipped with wireless
connections. Our observations took place early in the school year; the
renovations were just completed and there was a palpable sense of
excitement among the school community. The school executive and
interviewed teachers spoke of the importance of new technologies for
student engagement and in equipping students for the future. Parents
were highly visible in the school playground and took part in the
literacy sessions observed.
Here we focus on how one teacher, Mary, (4) integrated an IWB into
an instance of her literacy session. The instance represents one of
three literacy sessions observed in her Year Three classroom. Each
session was video recorded and observed in the manner described above.
The initial interview provided details of Mary's access to
technology for teaching, her experiences and attitudes toward ICTs, and
her goals for the literacy sessions. Researchers pooled observations
soon after each literacy session to make initial interpretations. On
completion of the three observations, a reflective summary of
Mary's practice was jointly constructed. This formed the basis for
a second interview in which researchers' interpretations were
checked, and emergent themes and Mary's future plans were
discussed. The team returned later in the year and interviewed her for a
third time in relation to her evolving use of the available
technologies. The video observations were initially examined for key
moments related to the themes of literacy knowledge and skills,
technology and interactivity. Subsequent analysis of the video and audio
transcription enabled description of the curriculum genre and its
dialogic unfolding.
An experienced teacher of upper-primary classes and trained
secondary English teacher, Mary explained that she was getting to know
her younger pupils and the different curriculum expectations for them.
She was also becoming accustomed to the new space and resource
arrangements--sharing them with two other teachers and approximately 80
children (as depicted in Figure 1). Sometimes the children are taught as
one group, at other times they work as a single class with one teacher
in each of the three classroom spaces. For the literacy session, the
children are organised into small groups of 10-12 to complete a number
of Tasks over several days.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The Literacy Task
Our discussion in this paper centres on a Task concerned with
children's grammatical knowledge. Mary's objectives were to
ensure that they were able to identify and label nouns, verbs,
adjectives and adverbs in sentences, and to recognise the constituents
of a sentence. She saw these as important understandings for the
children in order to monitor their own written expression.
Throughout the Task, Mary and the children were seated in front of
the IWB in the open area of the teaching space. The IWB featured an
interactive grammar game, 'The Silly Sentence' machine,
represented in Figure 2 (5). The game instructed players to 'Click
on a picture from each column to make a silly sentence'.
The selection was then highlighted on the display and
'read' by an electronic voice. The completed sentences were
displayed and players could elect to have the complete sentence read
electronically. Mary described this activity as 'a little like a
pre-test' and a 'lead-in', from which she would be able
to determine how confident the children were with this knowledge in
preparation for further teaching. The Task was completed in
approximately 35 minutes and comprised three Phases in the following
sequence: Prelude A Expose A Consolidation.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The Prelude Phase revolved around playing the Silly Sentence game.
Mary's goals were to engage the students' interest and to
focus their attention on sentence constituents. She sat to one side of
the IWB near to her laptop, from which she controlled the whiteboard
display. The children were seated in front of the IWB as indicated in
Figure 3. In turn, the children selected items according to the probes
identified by the display--who, how, type, what and where (see Figure 2
above). Collectively, Mary and the students constructed nonsense
sentences such as 'The monster reads a huge bicycle on the
moon' and 'The robot jumps a slimy hotrod at the school'.
The duration of this Phase was approximately 12 minutes.
The aim of the Expose Phase was to introduce the class labels for
sentence constituents and to give the children practice in identifying
these items and combining them into sentences. Mary was also able to
gain a sense of where to focus future teaching. This Phase involved a
shift of attention away from the IWB to small colour-coded cards
representing word classes. For example, the 'who' or noun
cards were presented on pink and purple cards, the 'how' or
verb cards were on green cards, the 'type' or adjectives were
on yellow cards, and the 'where' or adverbials of place were
on blue cards. The participants remained in front of the IWB, but Mary
moved from her chair to sit on the floor with the children who were
organised into a more intimate circle formation (see Figure 4). The
cards were on the floor in the centre of the circle. The duration of the
Expose was approximately 15 mins.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The final phase of the Task represents an instance of a
Consolidation Phase (see Figure 5). It marked a brief return to the IWB
where the children were asked to select the item by class label (e.g.
noun) rather than the more functional label used previously (e.g. who).
Mary's aim was to provide opportunity for the students to use the
class labels in relation to the functional probes. This phase was very
brief (2 mins), coming to an abrupt end, for the children to move to
another classroom space to undertake a different Task, and for Mary to
prepare to repeat this Task with another group of children.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Interactivity, technology and literate knowledge
The linguistically orientated analysis revealed a good deal about
the nature of interactivity during the Task. It confirmed our initial
generic description of the learning context under construction; we could
identify shifts in language use that coincided with the commencement of
a Phase and moves between Phases. The analysis allowed us to map the
participation of teacher and students across the Phases and also
revealed something of the nature of the commodity under negotiation at
different Phases of the Task. The patterns of interactivity as
demonstrated by the Exchange Structure analysis are summarised in Table
2.
In the initial phase of the Task, there were many more
Action-orientated moves made as the game was introduced and played.
These are evident in Text extract 1.
Text extract 1
1 Teacher: K1 Okay now the robot's going to do something
2 dK1 Amber what's the robot going to do?
3 A2 Can you come up and tap something in the how column?
4 Amber: A1 NV (moving to the IWB)
5 Teacher: tr ... in the how column
6 dK1 Where's the how column?
7 A2 Nina sit down! (as another child reaches up to point to
the display)
8 Nina: A1 NV (resuming her seat on the floor)
9 Amber: A1 NV (pointing to 'jumps' and hesitates)
10 Teacher: A2 Tap it
11 = (6) Tap which one you think
12 tr The ROBOT....
13 K2 What is he going to do?
14 Amber: A1 NV (tapping the image representing 'jumps')
15 Teacher: A2f ... JUMPS Good
(6) = indicates a move expanding on a previous move; for example, by
repetition or elaboration.
As noted previously, children are most often Primary Actors (A1) in
discourse such as this; their teachers occupy A2 moves as they direct
learning activity. For the most part, the Action moves were made by the
children as they selected images from the IWB display. However, there
were also a number of teacher moves made to manage students'
behaviour. Sometimes these were completed exchanges, as evident in lines
7 and 8; however, at other times they were minimally interactive, such
as nominations of children for turns. There were also a number of
supporting moves made by the teacher to assist children in becoming
familiar with the technology and software. These were evident in the
instances of less obtrusive tracking and monitoring exchanges (as in
lines 5 and 11), which also served as low-key management strategies.
The significant number of moves which figured within exchanges (see
Table 2) and thus extended the interaction were for the most part
associated with the intense involvement of the children. This is
indicated in the volume of bids for turns made by the students and the
reasonably good-natured challenges to nominations for turn-taking. The
game was certainly successful in engaging them with grammar. Because the
sentence constituents were described using generally accessible language
(that is, 'who', 'how', 'where' etc.), it
was difficult not to accomplish the activity correctly. Accordingly,
throughout the Prelude Phase the children's participation was
marked by enthusiasm, laughter and involvement. Mary's sequencing
of the interactivity was significant to her pedagogy. Towards the end of
the Prelude Phase, when the children were confident with constructing
sentences according to the software intent, the dialogue moved beyond
the game concerns. Mary asked the children to consider the reasons why
each sentence was considered nonsense and how they might be made more
sensible. In this way, a series of moves such as that illustrated in
Text extract 2 was initiated. In these moves we see how the interactive
focus changed from action to knowledge.
Text extract 2
1 Teacher: A2 Okay let's read it all together
2 All: A1 THE MONSTER READS A HUGE BICYCLE ON THE MOON
3 Teacher: dK1 What do you notice about that sentence?
4 = Why is it silly?
5 S: K2 Cause there's no such thing as a bicycle on
the moon
6 Teacher: K1f Well, that's one thing that's silly about it
isn't it?
7 K1 What else is silly?
8 S: K2 Monsters don't go to the moon
9 Teacher: K1f No
10 K1 What else is silly about it?
11 S: K2 A monster can't read
12 Teacher: K1f A monster can't read!
13 K1 What else can't he do?
Here, the students were encountering some notion of semantics at
the same time as they were acquiring grammatical knowledge, thus,
conceptual demands beyond those of the game were made. This dual
orientation was a key element in Mary's instructional goals.
The Expose, the next Phase, marks a further shift into information
exchange, as the teacher-made cards and grammatical class terms were
introduced to the children. This shift is evident in the significant
number of knowledge-orientated exchanges evident in Table 2, as
exemplified in Text extract 3.
Text extract 3
1 Teacher: dK1 So what do we call those words
2 Ss: bids NV
3 S: K2 (inaudible)
4 Teacher: ch Oh not quite
5 S: K2 A doing word
6 Teacher: K1 A doing word
7 dK1 what's another name for a doing word?
8 Ss: bids NV
9 S: K2 I know ... a verb!
10 Teacher: K1 A verb!
Sensing this Phase could be challenging for the students, Mary had
sequenced the interactivity carefully. When all the cards and their
class labels and functions had been introduced--and misunderstandings
dealt with--she asked individuals to select particular coloured cards to
jointly construct a sentence. Most students accomplished this with
little effort as we see in Text extract 4. The dialogue at this stage of
the Task is evidence of a return to action-orientated exchanges,
reminiscent of the software, with children often calling out suggestions
and providing feedback to each other.
Text extract 4
1 Teacher: A2 Bailey can you pick up a pink one for me please?
2 nom Bailey....
3 Ss: A2 THE DOG
4 Teacher: tr Only one (Bailey attempts to select a second card)
mon Sh
5 A2 Ben, pick a verb for me
6 Ben: A1 NV (selecting a green card with the word 'swims'
on it)
7 Teacher: A2f SWIMS
8 A2 Alan, can you pick a yellow one for me?
At this point, the students were then asked to nominate why
particular sentences were silly in the manner of the earlier exchanges.
This too was readily accomplished by most children. However, towards the
end of the Expose Phase, the nature of engagement changed; the
children's physical restlessness and shifts in attention captured
by the video recording suggested that neither the activity nor the small
cards held their attention to the extent of the IWB. As the Phase was
concluding, the students requested permission to return to the IWB game.
This diminishing of attention was a problem for Mary. The Expose is the
obligatory nub of instruction where the conceptual terrain is usually at
its most challenging and where children's involvement is most
desirable. As the number of monitoring and challenging moves indicates
(see Table 2), a substantial amount of Mary's time in the Expose is
devoted to managing behaviour and correcting responses. The
children's confidence with the grammatical terms was noticeably
less here; punctuation and grammar were frequently confused and several
students were not yet able to apply the class labels accurately. The
coloured cards were designed to bridge between the IWB game and the
terminology of the curriculum. Their use may have made the task easier
for some students, but we observed few references to the IWB during this
Phase until its conclusion.
Analysis of dialogue during the brief final Consolidation Phase
reveals the nature of students' participation changed again. It was
overwhelmingly action-orientated as the Task focus returned to the IWB
game and the children once again showed considerable enthusiasm.
Text extract 5
1 Teacher: A2 Okay who can pick a ... a noun at the start,
a noun at the start (selecting a student)
2 S: clf Miss a noun? (checking)
3 Teacher: rcf Quickly a noun
4 = A noun at the start quickly
5 A1 NV (Student moves to the board and selects
'read' from the 'how' column in error)
6 S: ch No no that's not a noun at the start
7 = At the start a noun
8 S: rch Oh yeah (realising his mistake)
However the action now requires the children to apply knowledge;
they must recognise the class labels in lieu of the functional labels of
the software display. As we see in Text extract 5 above, the student
selected was unsuccessful at matching the noun with 'who' but
the pressures of time prohibited Mary from pursuing the error. The
students had been promised another turn and they selected the
constituents for one more sentence without nominating either a label or
a function. This Phase then became a brief wrap-up rather than an
opportunity to apply and refine the new knowledge about clause
constituents as had been anticipated by Mary in her planning.
In summary then, the interactivity observed is the result of the
interplay between the teacher's curriculum goals and technology.
However, the relationship between the two was marked by tension with
regard to a number of aspects of pedagogy that are usually the domain of
teacher expertise, but were encroached upon by the technology in play.
For example, the IWB distorted the importance of some elements of the
Task at the expense of what was most educationally salient. In this way
the technology could be seen to manipulate what students took from the
literacy Task, signalling what counted as literate knowledge by
foregrounding the software content. This was in contrast to the
teacher's intentions. Further, the technology activity suggested
the brisk turn-taking of drill and practise activity as legitimate
learning in the domain of English. The game also extended the duration
of the Phase considerably, thus restricting the time available for the
presentation and application of new knowledge. In this way, the pacing
of the task, also usually an issue of pedagogic design, was shaped by
the IWB.
The children's participation was significantly enhanced by the
technology. Certainly their pleasure in the novelty of the IWB and the
game-like nature of the task were evident. So too was their physical
involvement with the software. We suggest such intense engagement was
assisted by some of the unique affordances of digital technology; for
example, the ready access to image and text (written and aural) and the
choice provided by non-linearity (there are a large number of
possibilities for sentences to be constructed). In the Prelude Phase,
children's engagement was at its peak. Yet a good deal of the flow
of dialogue took place between the children and the IWB; the
teacher's contributions were of secondary Actor. In this way,
agency with respect to mediation could be seen to be distributed between
teacher and the IWB. In contrast, the teacher-made tools designed to
support the instructional dialogue fall short of the task, despite the
prominence of the teacher and backgrounding of the IWB in the Expose
Phase.
With respect to the literate knowledge under construction, we note
the atomistic nature of the Task. We described the truncation of the
final Phase of the Task, that point at which the students needed some
support to bring together the skills of the game and their knowledge of
grammatical class items. However, to do so would have been somewhat
challenging because the game options mixed words and phrases. In order
to avoid confusion, there is much sense in keeping sentence (or clause)
and group ranks separate for young learners when teaching function and
class labels. Further, the software used was developed for educational
use in the USA and accessed through a maze of links from a UK school
website. In this respect, there is a good deal of distance from the
curriculum environment of NSW schools where grammar is presented in the
context of whole texts. The atomistic nature of the knowledge under
construction in this instance is not solely an outcome of the technology
use, but rather broader curriculum moves. We nevertheless recognise that
the game used here lent itself to short bursts of skills practise in
isolation from the more sustained and sequenced teaching in which
students can develop knowledge cumulatively. There is some thought
needed to the design of further activities which would enable
Mary's students to apply such grammatical knowledge to reason about
and to analyse text, or, to bring their text production practices under
greater control.
Conclusion
While we recognise the caution necessary in generalising beyond the
single case study presented in this paper, the insights it affords
provide direction for further research that seeks to understand the
array of technological tools and their potential with respect to
literacy pedagogy. Such research, we anticipate, will involve teachers
as they blend technology with their practice, helping to understand the
affordances and impacts on curriculum design and delivery as well as on
student learning.
As we have seen, the IWB is by no means a neutral tool; its impact
on the classroom is considerable. Entering into the discourse as a
bearer of content, it influences the design and pacing of activity and
hence interactivity. It has the potential to shape the nature of
curriculum knowledge under construction in classrooms, as well as to
influence notions of literate practice and of learning. With respect to
the interactions observed, we recognise that our analysis is restricted
by the curriculum context into which the IWB is introduced. As Moss
(2004) points out, the delineation of literacy pedagogy into a daily
timetabled block or session has already fragmented primary English.
The increasing level of specialisation required for text-level work
makes it harder to identify continuities in the routines necessary
to execute a particular task that can meaningfully repeat from one
slot to another. It becomes harder to find an appropriate space
within which such text-level specialisation can be fully developed.
There is a danger that tasks shrink to fit the timeslots available,
whilst the time slots available are determined by the need to cover
the curriculum. (p. 129)
When curriculum is perceived as comprising discrete skills and
'bite-sized' knowledge--as is evident in the many commercial
texts, photocopied worksheets, and drill and practise games designed for
use by busy teachers in the literacy session--IWBs offer considerable
opportunity for software designers to shape what constitutes English
curriculum and pedagogy. Because many teachers report spending
significant amounts of time sourcing software, designing their own texts
for use with the IWB, and blending a range of technologies, we
understand the appeal of such readily available materials. However, we
see much opportunity and necessity for those with expertise in language
and pedagogy to engage in and collaborate over such an endeavour.
To return to the distinction between technological and pedagogic
interactivity, we understand that technology has always been an integral
part of the learning process, shaping the forms of interactivity that
are possible. However, we suggest that it is important to recognise how
newer technologies do this in ways that are both similar to and
different from older technologies. One critical difference is the nature
and intensity of student engagement. We have observed moments of
excitement and pleasure in this and other classrooms, moments that we
would wish all literacy classrooms could experience. Yet, engagement is
a term that occurs frequently in our discussions with teachers. We
suggest that technologies such as the IWB, with their multiple forms of
message, take on a privileged space in classrooms. They intensify
learners' participation in, and amplify the importance of, the
activity. We have seen the physical and emotional involvement fostered
by technology, but engagement in learning relies upon cognitive
involvement too. We argue that teachers alone have responsibility in
this respect and their role in integrating new technologies into
curriculum planning to ensure student engagement includes intellectual
involvement. The success of this will be evident in the classroom
contexts constructed in the unfolding of pedagogic interactivity where
all tools--psychological and physical--come into play. We argue that
close attention to classroom discourse in the collaborative research
endeavour will assist teachers to maintain their agentive roles with
respect to technology and pedagogic practice.
Note: We are grateful to Mary and her students for their willing
participation in the research project. They welcomed us into the
classroom and into their busy days with much warmth and generosity. We
also thank the reviewers of an earlier version of the paper for their
extensive and constructive feedback that has informed our further
analysis.
References:
Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S.
& Thompson, I., (2005). Collaborative research methodology for
investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard
technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
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.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The 'digital
natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional
perspective. London: Continuum.
Commonwealth of Australia (1998). Literacy for all: The challenge
for Australian educators (Online version). Retrieved from
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/schools/literacy&
numeracy/publications/lit4all.htm (accessed 21 September 2008).
Commonwealth of Australia (2005). Teaching reading: Report and
recommendations. National inquiry into the teaching of literacy (Online
version). Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/
report_recommendations.pdf (accessed 15 September 2008).
Gillen, J., Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner,
A. (2007). A 'learning revolution'? Investigating pedagogic
practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms.
Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256.
Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard:
Weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3),
257-270.
Halliday, M. (2009). The essential Halliday J. Webster, (Ed.).
London: Continuum.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work:
The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect,
20(1), 6-30.
Hasan, R. (1996). Speech genre, semiotic mediation and the
development of higher mental functions. Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning
C. Cloran, D. Butt & G. Williams, (Eds.). London: Cassell.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning
experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.
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.
Jones, P. (2005). Intersubjectivity and learning: A socio-semantic
investigation of classroom discourse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
School of English, University of New South Wales, 2005)
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of
interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media
and Technology, 32(3), 227-241.
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.
Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse ( 2nd
ed.) London: Continuum.
Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J.K. (2010).
Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide 'dialogic
space' for children's collaborative activity? Language and
Education, 24(5), 367-384.
Moss, G. (2004). Changing practice: The national literacy strategy
and the politics of literacy policy. Literacy, 34(3), 126-133.
New South Wales (NSW) Department of School Education (1997).
Teaching reading: A K-6framework. Ryde, NSW: NSW Department of School
Education.
Reedy, G. (2008). PowerPoint, interactive whiteboards, and the
visual culture of technology in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 17(2), 143-162.
Smith, H., 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.
Verinikina, I., & Gould, E. (1998). Tool based psychology as a
philosophy of technology. Australasian Journal of Information Systems,
6(1), 136-144.
Vincent, J. (2007). The interactive whiteboard in an early years
classroom: A case study in the impact of a new technology on pedagogy.
Australian Educational Computing, 22(1), 20-25.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes M.Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E.
Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language A. Kozulin (Ed.).
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
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.
Pauline Jones, Lisa Kervin & Sophie McIntosh
University of Wollongong
(1) Space prohibits a detailed explanation of the theory here;
instead readers are referred to Halliday (2009) and Martin & Rose
(2007).
(2) Further, Christie (2002) has described the ways in which
curriculum genres combine to form curriculum macrogenres that are
usually represented in textbooks, units of work and other similarly
cumulative sequences of instruction.
(3) Initial capitals are conventionally employed to denote
technical use of these words. The notation adopted is: a indicates
'followed by'; x n indicates an element repeated a number of
times. Although the elements of morning news genre are considered
obligatory, descriptions of other genres include optional elements
(indicated thus ( )).
(4) Pseudonyms are used to represent teachers and students
throughout the paper.
(5) Authorisation to use the original software image is
unavailable. This facsimile is a reliable representation of the
original.
Table 1: The literacy session as a
curriculum genre (after Christie, 2002)
Lay terms Discourse analysis terms
Literacy session Curriculum genre
Stages (eg introduction, activity/ Schematic stages (eg Initiation,
ies, conclusion) Task, Closure)
Steps in the activity (eg Phases (eg Prelude, Expose, Task
demonstration, modelling, guided Collaboration, Individual
and independent practice) Contract, Consolidation)
Table 2: Summary of Exchange Structure Analysis
Move Prelude Expose
Knowledge-orientated moves
Teacher Students Teacher Students
dK1 8
K1 21 2 26 6
K2 6 15 2 29
K2f 1
Action-orientated moves
dA1 2
A1 3 4 2 5
A1 NV 30 1 15
dA2 4
A2 41 20 30 3
A2 NV 4
A2f+ ([dagger]) 15 7 9 1
Negotiating moves *
nom 5 3
nom NV 2 6
bid * ([section]) *
ch 1 5 7 3
rch 1 2 2
clf 2 1
rclf 2 1
tr 14 3
rtr 1 1
reg 1
mon 8 5
Move Consolidation
Knowledge-orientated moves
Teacher Students
dK1
K1
K2
K2f
Action-orientated moves
dA1
A1 1 2
A1 NV 5
dA2
A2 8
A2 NV 1
A2f+ ([dagger]) 3 1
Negotiating moves *
nom 1
nom NV
bid *
ch 1
rch 1
clf 1
rclf 1
tr
rtr
reg
mon
* include moves which manage, extend and interrupt exchanges
([dagger]) On 9 occasions, the IWB completed an A2f move as
it repeated the selections made by the students.
([section]) Students' bids for turns were made constantly
throughout each Phase of the Task but intensified at those points
where the IWB was the focus. The bids were most frequently
non-verbal; indicated by hand-raising and/or clicking fingers and
often accompanied by gasps.
