Педагогические науки/5. Современные методы преподавания

к.ф.н., доцент Шингарева М.Ю., магистрант Мырзабаев Б.

Академический инновационный университет, Казахстан

To the Question of Interactive Whiteboards Adoption in the Classroom.

In recent years, there has been a growing level of interest in the electronic or interactive whiteboard, well documented by the educational press. The components of an IWB are comprised of a three-way system between data projector, computer and an electronic screen. Once in place the IWB allows an individual to interact with software at the front of a class rather than from the computer. Effectively, the computer screen is projected onto the electronic whiteboard and presented to the class with the teacher, or perhaps student, selecting, activating and interacting with the programs (Wood & Ashfield, 2008).

The potential for the IWB is based on its enormous capabilities because of the vast amount of features available. The IWB is well-adapted to whole-class teaching, especially in the ability to foster demonstrations, and presenting information in a variety of ways making the lesson more appealing for the students. In respect to learning, the interactive use of the IWB has the potential to meet the needs of a wider range of learners and impact classroom management. The IWB makes it much easier to incorporate a wide use of multimedia resources in lessons such as text, pictures, video, sound, diagram, and online websites (Johnson, 2002). The resources are attractive to both teachers and children and captures the students' attention more strongly that other classroom resources (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005). Miller has identified six common techniques that are used in the lessons with an interactive whiteboard. They are drag and drop, hide and reveal, color, shading and highlighting, matching equivalent terms, movement and animation, and immediate feedback (Miller, 2004).

Presentation systems are an exciting and expanding mixture of educational tools growing from computer, projection, and other technologies. There are several advantages to using interactive whiteboards over traditional boards when teaching the curriculum. These include the ability to write on touch-sensitive surfaces, save documents, and simultaneously display multiple documents. Additionally, the features of the board make accommodations and modifications for students with learning disabilities since interactive whiteboards allow teachers to demonstrate processes on the board while students follow along on worksheets or in notebooks (Mounce, 2008).

The flexibility of the IWB creates many possibilities. Users can control programs with a click and drag, mark up or annotate text and images, or use optical character recognition features on a computer-generated image displayed on or behind a touch surface. The projectors used with interactive whiteboards offer even more possibilities. They can be connected to (and project from) video recorders, DVD players, and more, or they can be connected to a school network digital video distribution system.

The four most common techniques of securing interactivity are:

· drag-and-drop: matching a response to a stimulant;

· hide-and-reveal: opening a response when a stimulant is understood, often used in a step-by-step feature or when using software with an immediate response (though this might be mediated by the teacher);

· matching: for example, equivalent terms such as vocabulary in foreign language;

· using movement: to demonstrate principles, for instance, angles on a line, sentence construction.

We found it quite surprising how this relatively limited and simple repertoire of techniques could be used in subjects to produce highly engaging lessons where pupils appeared to be learning components of a modern foreign language.

Teachers can create interactive games for the whiteboard using common software such as Excel or a multimedia presentation program such as PowerPoint. Creating games using PowerPoint can increase student interest, participation and quality of images while at the same time reducing transition time between lesson activities. Interactive games created in Excel or PowerPoint enable students to actively practice skills, review content, and demonstrate knowledge. Game templates (i.e., Jeopardy, Who Wants to be a Millionaire) may be downloaded from various Web sites, and teachers can create activities that contain skills specific to academic units. Pairing these newly created presentations and games with an interactive whiteboard allow students to learn through active learning and can increase student participation (Mounce, 2008).

One of the most common advantages noted was the impact the IWB has in motivating students. Teachers are able to use the boards to model abstract ideas in a way that students might be given a deeper understanding. The pace of the lessons can be increased since the lessons can be pre-made, there is no time spent producing the lessons on the chalkboard (Miller, 2004). Lesson transition can be smoother, using the previous lesson for reinforcement or to extend learning. An advantage to the use of lessons on the board is the ability to share and reuse the lessons. Research favored the relatively easy use of the boards compared to other technology that some teachers struggle to use (Smith et al., 2005). Such features as clip art images and photos, sound, animations, video and hyperlinks were all commented on by the teachers interviewed as elements that served to enhance their teaching. They felt that the use of these features helped to capture the children's attention, maintain their concentration and motivate them to learn.

Student response systems are often included with an IWB. With these devices, teachers are able to present material and receive feedback from their students. The units enable students to answer test questions posted on the whiteboard, work on puzzles, solve math problems, take part in polls and surveys, and more.

Some teachers and student teachers highlighted the fact that good visual resources supported the 'visual learners' within the class, and that those images displayed on the IWB were often a better quality than alternative resources such as overhead transparencies, posters and photocopied worksheets. In their view, this improved the quality of pupils' learning. Both teachers and students felt that the IWB and associated software enabled them to create 'lively and exciting lessons', drawing on video clips, photographs, animations and text from a variety of sources.

Research appears to highlight the way in which the IWB could support a teacher's preferred style of whole-class interactive teaching. In general, all of the individuals interviewed and observed felt that the IWB had enhanced whole-class teaching and learning. It is essentially the teacher who determines what resource to use and how it will be utilized. The quality and clarity of multimedia resources may offer enhanced visual material for presenting to a large audience, and the teacher is able to move between varieties of electronic resources, with greater speed in comparison to non-electronic resources, with opportunities to edit, record, and retrieve data represented.

There were some disadvantages of IWB that the research has shown, most of which were practical issues related to the IWB. The cost of the boards is expensive, especially when compared to other technology that can be used for displaying computer output. IWBs can be difficult to maintain, especially when not in use or when in a classroom with a teacher without the necessary skills. There is some difficulty getting the right height for the children and teachers, lighting and seating arrangement (Smith et al., 2005). Research also pointed out that initially, preparation for lessons took longer and time was needed to become proficient in the use of the IWB board.

Literature

1. 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 EducationalTechnology, 39(1), 84-96.

2. 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, 91-101.

3. Mounce, A. B. (2008). Teaching content with interactive whiteboards. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(1), 54-80.

4. Johnson, C. (2002). The writing's on the board. Educational Computing & Technology, 9, 58-59.

5. Miller, D. (2004). Enhancing mathematics teaching: Using interactive whiteboards with compass, ruler and protractor. Mathematics in School, 33(4), 3-15.