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)
