Twiner et al., (2010, quoted in Beauchamp,
2013) defines multimodality as the form of the content, whether it be pictures
or words, written or spoken, for example. Multimedia is then said to be the
different ways the content is provided to you; television, radio and books are
examples of these.
Interactive
whiteboards have been widely written about (Lacina, 2009; Jewitt et al., 2007) and are the focal point of
many classrooms, creating dialogic spaces for students (De Silva et al., 2016). These are examples of
multimodality and an example of media used in classrooms. Torff and Tirotta
(2010) found that using these boards helped to motivate students but only by a
small margin. The margin increased, however, when the practitioner was more
enthusiastic about using the boards, perhaps strengthening the opinion of
Beauchamp (2013), that technology in education needs to be used correctly by
the practitioner to improve learning.
Papastergiou et al., (2011) also found in their study
that students who used multimedia blogging for their school work did not actually
learn any more about the topic, but did show signs of higher internet
self-efficacy and multimedia processing.
References
Beauchamp, G.
(2013) ICT in the Primary School From Pedagogy to Practice. Hoboken:
Taylor and Francis.
De Silva, C.,
Chigona, A., & Adendorff, S. (2016) ‘Technology integration: Exploring
interactive whiteboards as dialogic spaces in the foundation phase classroom’, Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), pp. 141-150.
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), pp. 303-317.
Lacina, J.
(2009). Technology in the Classroom Interactive Whiteboards: Creating
Higher-level, Technological Thinkers? Childhood Education, 85(4),
270-272.
Papastergiou, M.,
Gerodimos, V., & Antoniou, P. (2011) ‘Multimedia blogging in physical
education: Effects on student knowledge and ICT self-efficacy’, Computers & Education, 57(3), pp. 1998-2010.
Torff, B., &
Tirotta, R. (2010) ‘Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary
students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics’, Computers & Education, 54(2), pp. 379-383.
I completely understand and agree with all the points you have made in this post however, it is also important to consider some of the other negatives that come with interactive whiteboards as a form of multimedia. Martin (2007) argues that if a teacher isn’t confident or knowledgeable in using the interactive whiteboard then the success of it won’t be as effective and children won’t benefit from it. Moreover, Sedler (2009) talks of the cost of interactive whiteboards. She discusses how this is a challenge for public schools as they are not able to afford them. Just like other types of multimedia, interactive whiteboards have a tendency to have technical difficulties, require special software, and the calibration/sensitivity can be temperamental.
ReplyDeleteMartin, S. (2007) ‘Interactive Whiteboards and Talking Books: A New Approach to Teaching Children to Write?’, Literacy, 41(1), pp. 26-34.
Sedler, M. (2009) The Impact of a Technology-Rich Classroom on the Measure of Academic Performance in Mathematics at Grades 3, 4, 5, and 6. PhD thesis. Baker University. Available at: https://www.bakeru.edu/images/pdf/SOE/EdD_Theses/Sedler_Michelle.pdf (Accessed: 12 January 2017).
Stout, L., et al. (2013) A Comparison Group Study of Teaching with the Interactive Whiteboard and Its Impact on Student Achievement Outcomes for Grade 5 Students of Economic Disadvantage. PhD Thesis. Dallas Baptist University. Available at: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.cardiffmet.ac.uk/docview/1494527678/ (Accessed: 12 January 2017).
Whiteboards are an obvious multimodal device when it comes to a modern classroom. However Morgan (2010) states that they aren't being used to incorporate play in the classroom which is a key principle for early years settings.
ReplyDeleteThe presentation below compares whiteboards to others multi-modal sources in the classroom.
https://1drv.ms/p/s!ArIn9i80P9mNhHxTToXPOWhLyG7Z
(Please click through the images whilst listening)
Morgan, A. (2010) 'Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play in the classroom with children aged three to seven years', European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(1), PP. 93-104.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56JZfpY9aAo&spfreload=10
ReplyDeleteAbove is a video link which is a review of the benefits of IWB (interactive whiteboard) from a English Learning Centre.
I completely agree with all the comments made. Interactive Whiteboards can be extremely beneficial, but like Bethany and AIden have mentioned they do not come without their issues. Uskov, Howlett and Jain (2016) state that research showed that the main negatives of interactive whiteboards for teachers, were technical issues, alongside less control over pupils work and tasks they were completing.
However, on the flip side i believe that interactive whiteboards are a great form of multimedia and can provide young pupils with key skills that others will not have had at such young ages. For example, children are able to learn by having information displayed on the interactive whiteboard, and if there are questions teachers are able to branch out mind maps and text boxes to help children understand. these can then be wiped clear back to the original information, but the child no has a full understanding (Wells, 1999).
Reference:
Uskov, V. Howlett, R. Jain, L (2016) Smart Education and E learning. Springer.
Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Backing up my point made above, 'Globster' is a great example of a multimedia tool/website which can be used to help children learn. I have attached a short video which explains the content and structure of it.
ReplyDeleteI believe Globster is a great way to help stimulate children's cognitive and sensory capacities which is important in order to challenge higher order thinking (Hernandez & Gonzalez, 2011).
Obviously a downside to Globster is that children would need access to a mobile device in order to view their work which, for children in poverty may not be easy.
https://youtu.be/w8Jj_r-nl_c
Hernandez, P. & Gonazles, J.L. (2011) 'Application of Multimedia Technology to Study the Ordinal Competences of Children from 3 to 7 Years Old', International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 18(3), pp. 127-136.