Passive learning on the IWB

Does the maximisation of the IWB have a positive influence on teaching?  Walker-Tileston (2004) argues that children learn best through their dominant senses, seeing, hearing and touching.  Interactive classrooms can appeal to all three senses simultaneously through a variety of visual representations, sounds and the capacity to touch and interact with the board.  Therefore, I carried out a short experiment to see whether my Jnr3 students retained and remembered vocabulary and grammar structures better through memory games on the IWB.  The experiment was carried out for a period of 6 weeks on units 11-13 of English in Mind on 12 students.  Memory games were used on the IWB for the vocabulary in units 11 and 13 and for the grammar in unit 12.  The resources used were: Pelmanism on the IWB, Quizzlet.com and the English in Mind DVD.  At the end of each unit, students had to complete a unit check on the target language covered.  The results obtained demonstrated that in both vocabulary and grammar exercises, students’ average marks were higher when only the coursebook had been used.  However, marks were generally higher for vocabulary exercises (average 75%) than grammar (average 68%).  To complete the experiment students were asked to fill in a questionnaire at the end to reflect on the sample lessons.  The results were quite contradictory.  Their responses revealed that students unanimously preferred doing exercises on the IWB and preferred vocabulary exercises in general.  However, 73% felt they had learnt more doing exercises in the coursebook and 64% felt that they had learnt more from grammar exercises.  91% found exercises more interesting on the IWB and found exercises more difficult in the coursebook.  Ironically, when asked to choose which exercises they had learnt the most from this year, they all chose exercises from the coursebook (50% chose Check your progress and 50% chose Read and listen).  With regards to general feedback, 55% would like more exercises on the IWB or in the computer room, especially relating to grammar, 36% would like less homework and 9% would like more exercises relating to vocabulary. 

It is clear from the results that students enjoy working with the IWB, but they also seem to have a preference for what is easier, which did equate to better acquisition when learning vocabulary in general.  Even though the lessons included an element of interactivity, the fact that I was teaching old things in new ways resulted in passive learning, thus students only remember a meagre amount of the target language taught.  I believe that the uniqueness of IWB technology lies in the possibility for an intersection between technical and pedagogic interactivity.  Transforming teaching and learning with technology is a function of pairing thoughtful product design with current research in order to support instructional assessment practices that work.  Unfortunately, I speak the language of technology with a pronounced accent.  To eliminate passive learning and engage the digital era students when using the IWB it is essential that new content be taught in new ways.


(posted on behalf of Flor)