Beauchamp,+G.+Interactivity+in+the+classroom

Beauchamp, G., et. al., Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning [Part of a special issue: Learning in Digital Worlds: Selected Contributions from the CAL 09 Conference]. Computers & Education v. 54 no. 3 (April 2010) p. 759-66

=Abstract= The term 'interactive' appears in two distinct strands of educational research discourse: one concerning pedagogy and the other concerning new technologies in education. As new technology increasingly pervades most classrooms in the UK, it seems likely that it would be fruitful to explore, both theoretically and empirically, links between the concepts of 'interactive teaching' and 'interactive technology'. Previous reviews of the literature concerning interactive teaching have revealed a variety of ideas which are considered to be involved, with a number of common elements suggesting a scale of interactivity ranging from 'authoritative' to 'dialogic'. There was a consistent suggestion in the literature that shifting the balance of interaction in classrooms towards the dialogic end of the scale would bring improvements to the learning process and consequently to attainment outcomes. However, current analysis focuses on whole-class teaching, which is only one mode of class organization. This paper explores the literature on interactivity in group and individual work with ICT, and characterizes categories of interactivity for these forms of activity organisation. A framework is presented which relates the se categories to those previously devised and to the ways in which teachers and learners orchestrate the features of their classroom environment and interact with ICT to support action towards learning goals. The paper argues that a shift towards a greater role for learners in orchestrating resources in the classroom will be valuable and concludes that there is potential for ICT to support more dialogic and synergistic approaches in group and individual activity than is seen at present. It also identifies the potential for using the framework in future research concerning the effects of technological developments on learning in classroom settings. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

=Argument= The learner must play a larger part in the classroom to take full advantage of the new media classroom.

=Key Passages= “One of the key roles claimed for ICT in promoting learning is //interactivity// – the ability to respond contingently to the learner’s actions (e.g.,  [|DfEE, 1998a] DfEE, (1998a). //Initial teacher training national curriculum for the use of information and communications technology in subject teaching. Circular 4/98 Annex B//. London: Department for Education and Employment.  [|DfEE, 1998a]).”

“...achieve goals. Such orchestration only seems to have been analysed in studies of ICT activity, however. The simple categorisation of interaction with computers (watching, finding, doing, using, constructing, and creating) identified by ([|Damarin, 1982], cited in [|Sims, 1997]) seemed to map well into the most of the proposed interaction categories.”

“For each category, we use the elements of orchestration to analyse the potential for ICT to contribute to the effectiveness of the interaction. Activity with ICT differs from tasks using non-ICT resources in that the technology has a key role in orchestration, additional to that of the teacher and students.”

=Selected Works Cited= [|Alexander, 2004] R. Alexander, Dialogic teaching, Dialogos, York (2004). [|Bauersfeld, 1988] H. Bauersfeld, Interaction, construction and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In: D. Grouws, T. Cooney and D. Jones, Editors, //Effective mathematics teaching//, NCTM/Lawrence Erlbaum, Reston, VA (1988). [|Beauchamp, 2004] G. Beauchamp, Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) in primary schools – Towards an effective transition framework, //Technology, Pedagogy and Education// **13** (3) (2004), pp. 327–348. [|Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2008] G. Beauchamp and S. Kennewell, The influence of ICT on the interactivity of teaching, //Education and Information Technologies// **13** (4) (2008), pp. 305–315. [|Birnbaum, 1990] I. Birnbaum, The assessment of IT capability, //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning// **6** (1990), pp. 88–97. [|Blatchford et al., 2006] P. Blatchford, E. Baines, C. Rubie-Davies, P. Bassett and A. Chowne, The effect of a new approach to group-work on student–student and teacher–student interaction, //Journal of Educational Psychology// **98** (2006), pp. 750–765. [|Burgoon et al., 2000] J. Burgoon, J. Bonito, B. Bengtsson, C. Cederberg, M. Lundeberg and L. Allspach, Interactivity in human–computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence, //Computers in Human Behaviour// **16** (2000), pp. 553–574. [|Chou, 2003] C. Chou, Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers, //British Journal of Educational Technology// **34** (3) (2003), pp. 265–279. [|Damarin, 1982] Damarin, S. (1982). Fitting the tool with the task: A problem with the instructional use of computers. //Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York//. [|DfEE, 1998a] DfEE, (1998a). //Initial teacher training national curriculum for the use of information and communications technology in subject teaching. Circular 4/98 Annex B//. London: Department for Education and Employment. [|DfEE, 1998b] DfEE, (1998b). //The national literacy strategy//. London: DfEE. [|DfEE, 1999] DfEE, (1999). //The national numeracy strategy//. London: DfEE. [|Galton et al., 1999] M. Galton, L. Hargreaves, C. Comber, D. Wall and A. Pell, Inside the primary classroom: 20 years on, Routledge, London (1999). [|Galton et al., 2009] M. Galton, L. Hargreaves and A. Pell, Group work and whole-class teaching with 11–14 year olds compared, //Cambridge Journal of Education// **39** (1) (2009), pp. 119–140. [|Hennessy et al., 2007] S. Hennessy, R. Deaney, K. Ruthven and M. Winterbottom, Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science, //Learning Media and Technology// **32** (3) (2007), pp. 283–301. [|Kennewell et al., 2000] S. Kennewell, J. Parkinson and H. Tanner, Developing the ICT capable school, RoutledgeFalmer, London (2000). [|Kennewell and Beauchamp, 2007] S. Kennewell and G. Beauchamp, The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning, //Learning Media and Technology// **32** (3) (2007), pp. 227–241. [|Kennewell et al., 2007] Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Beauchamp, G., Parkinson, J., Jones, S., Norman, N., et al. (2007). //The use of ICT to improve learning and attainment through interactive teaching: Full research report ESRC end of award report, RES-139-25-0167-A//. Swindon: ESRC.. [|Kennewell et al., 2008] S. Kennewell, H. Tanner, S. Jones and G. Beauchamp, Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching, //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning// **24** (1) (2008), pp. 61–73. [|Kennewell et al., 2009] Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Beauchamp, G., Parkinson, J., Jones, S., Loughran, C., et al. (2009). Final report to Becta concerning the use of video-stimulated reflective dialogue for professional development in ICT. [|Laurillard, 2002] D. Laurillard, Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies, RoutledgeFalmer, London (2002). [|Luckin, 2008] R. Luckin, The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology to scaffold learning, //Computers & Education// **50** (2) (2008), pp. 449–462. [|Mercer and Littleton, 2007] N. Mercer and K. Littleton, Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking, Routledge, London (2007). [|Moss et al., 2007] Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, 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 DfES research report 816, London: DfES. [|Moyles et al., 2003] J. Moyles, L. Hargreaves and R. Merry, Interactive teaching. In: J. Moyles, L. Hargreaves, R. Merry, F. Paterson and V. Esartes-Sarries, Editors, //Interactive teaching in the primary school: Digging deeper into meanings//, Open University Press, Maidenhead (2003), pp. 171–192. [|Oliver, 1996] Oliver, R. (1996) Interactions in multimedia learning materials: The things that matter. In C. McBeathf & R. Atkinson (Eds.). The learning superhighway: New world? new worries? Proceedings of the third international interactive multimedia symposium, 303–308. Perth, Western Australia, 21–25 January.  Accessed 9.2.09.. [|Plowman, 2005] Plowman, L. (2005). Getting the story straight the role of narrative in teaching and learning with interactive media. In P. Gardenfors, & P. Johansson (Eds.). //Cognition education and communication technology//, (pp. 55–76). [|Proske et al., 2007] A. Proske, S. Narciss and H. Körndler, Interactivity and learners’ achievement in web-based learning, //Journal of Interactive Learning Research// **18** (4) (2007), pp. 511–531. [|Ravenscroft et al., 2007] A. Ravenscroft, R. Wegerif and R. Hartley, Reclaiming thinking: Dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. In: J. Underwood and J. Dockrell, Editors, //Learning through Digital Technologies//, British Psychological Society, London (2007). [|Rojas-Drummond and Mercer, 2004] S. Rojas-Drummond and N. Mercer, Scaffolding the development of effect and learning, //International Journal of Educational Research// **39** (1–2) (2004), pp. 99–111. [|Salmon, 2004] G. Salmon, E-moderating (2nd ed.), RoutledgeFalmer, London (2004). [|Scott et al., 2006] P.H. Scott, E.F. Mortimer and O.G. Aguiar, The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons, //Science Education// **90** (2006), pp. 605–631. [|Sims, 1997] R. Sims, Interactivity: A forgotten art?, //Computers in Human Behavior// **13** (2) (1997), pp. 157–180. [|Smith et al., 2005] H. Smith, S. Higgins, K. Wall and J. Miller, Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature, //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning// **21** (2005), pp. 91–101. [|Smith et al., 2006] F. Smith, F. Hardman and S. Higgins, The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher–pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies, //British Educational Research Journal// **32** (3) (2006), pp. 443–457. [|Somekh, 2001] B. Somekh, Methodological issues in identifying and describing the way knowledge is constructed with and without information and communications technology, //Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education// **10** (2001), pp. 157–178. [|Somekh et al., 2007] Somekh, B. and 13 others (2007). //Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project: Report to the Department for Education and Skills//. Manchester: MMU. [|Tanner et al., 2005] Tanner, H., Jones, S., Kennewell, S., and Beauchamp, G. (2005). Interactive whiteboards and pedagogies of whole class teaching. In //Proceedings of MERGA 28, mathematics education research group of Australasia conference, Melbourne, July 2005//. .. [|Wegerif, 2004] R. Wegerif, The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations, //Computers and Education// **34** (1,2) (2004), pp. 179–191 [|Wegerif, 2008] R. Wegerif, Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue, //British Educational Research Journal// **34** (3) (2008), pp. 347–361.