This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Francisco García García. Professor of Audiovisual Communication and Publicity and Main Researcher of the SOCMEDIA Researching Group of the Complutense University of Madrid e.mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Rogerio García Fernández. Doctorate Researcher of the SOCMEDIA Researching Group of the Complutense University of Madrid. e-mail: email@example.com Karla Isabel de Souza. PhD and Education Researcher of the Complutense University of Madrid e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Manuel Gértrudix Barrio. Professor of the Rey Juan Carlos University e-mail: email@example.com Keywords EHEA – European Higher Education Area, IWB – Interactive White Board, Didactic Interaction Analysis, Teaching and Learning Process Abstract The IWB – Interactive White Board is an educational tool compound by a screen, a projector and a computer that could be able to recognize a touch or any other natural mimetic movement. In this research we proposed to study the interaction among teacher and students during the use of the IWB and to observe the production of changes in the teachers’ experiences and the students’ skills and competences. How the interaction can change a class? Could the use of the IWB mediate the interaction in the classroom? The IWB is a useful tool to different kind of professors? The creation of the EHEA –
European Higher Education Area generated new goals for the European university. Among of them, there is the implementation of the ICT – Information and Communication Technologies to assure the quality of the teaching and learning process. In this new context, the study of the use of the IWB in Higher Education became necessary. For this research we recorded and analyzed classes in groups of Higher
it’s important to know if they have been used or were only purchased. 2009).056 IWB in June 2009 with a mean of 21. This process is trying to make an integration of the national education systems. The data exploited by CRUE generates a periodical report called UNIVERSITIC (UCEDA.At Spanish universities there were 1. The result could be used as a tool for evaluation of the application of the IWB in Higher Education. Therefore. The importance of the IWB increased. And the specific use of IWB . Spain with different teaching models about the use of the ICT with an adaptation of Flanders’ didactic interaction analysis method. As results we concluded that teacher’s didactic strategy for teaching model determines if the use of the IWB allow better didactic interaction. BARRO et ali. the evaluation of the use of the IWB doesn’t have a proper official method. First of all. the EHEA – European Higher Education Area. It increased about 50% in comparison with the UNIVERSITIC two years before. For this case.8 IWB per university. After the experience. We proof the hypothesis that the IWB was better used on teaching and learning process when we found more didactic interaction in the studied models. The use of the interactive technology has been generating data and evaluation reports. 1999)In Spain. or Declaration of Bologna. teachers’ skills and competences for the use of the IWB and the specifics students’ competences contribute for a more participative class. we developed a methodology based on Flanders’s Didactic Interaction Method that could describe the use of the IWB based on the professors teaching models.Interactive Whiteboard in classrooms at the Spanish universities has been also observed and stimulated. Introduction In 1999 the European Commission had started a process to change the Europeans universities. but the use of this tool must also be observed. we applied a survey. 2 .Education in Madrid. and if the use of the IWB has been helping professors to teach better. One of the goals by sectors of the EHEA is the implementation of the ICT – Information and Communication Technologies at the didactic scope. CRUE – Conference of Rectors of the Spanish Universities is the institution responsible to apply the changes proposed by the Declaration of Bologna. In addition. 1. (EHEA Commission.
The use of this tool with its characteristic (hypermedia. 2006). the purchases are real too.communication with new technologies . Hypertext. 2009) Hypermedia is a form of communication that becomes a relationship among human beings. On the Net exchanges are real. This tool sum with other changes in the classes’ life in the last years. the NetArt is Art on the Net. But.are created four paradigms that influence the relationship among author and reader: Data base. Linearity / No Linearity. by the possibilities of the defictionalization of life itself. 2009).Our point is that the interaction could make the classes better for higher education. In this context the relationship among teacher and student suffered a great change. there are some factors that can influence these relations. 3 . not only because of its mimetic nature. because the teacher was already working with images and sounds in class (SOUZA. Therefore three questions arise: Can the use of the IWB mediate the interaction in the classroom? The IWB is a useful tool to different kind of professors? Are there any problems to use the IWB to the interaction in the classroom? 2. The IWB. is the fiction of life. and Convergence (GARCÍA GARCÍA. This change even more if compared with the rise of the Internet. Of this complex relationship . the governance is real. but does not lost here the scope of its inevitable connection to reality. we also could observe a better quality of teach-and-learn process. Education and the new paradigm “The IWB – Interactive White Board is an educational tool compound by a screen. touch screen and no linearity) could be important for social use and the mimetition of the reality could be a strategy to get closer the human and the ICT. “The web is building the world.” (GARCÍA GARCÍA and GÉRTRUDIX BARRIO. so where we could observe more interaction during the use of the IWB. a projector and a computer that could be able to recognize a touch or any other natural mimetic movement” (GARCÍA FERNANDEZ. 2009). In the metaphor of virtual worlds (like Second Life or play online Warcraft) the Web is not the Second Life.
Encourage Verbal statements that involves their own value of judgment to approve. we developed a methodology based on the Flanders’s Didactic Interaction Method. It starts from the professor and feedback to the students. 3. provide data. 4 .3. Methodology To measure the interaction among professor and students during the use of the IWB. Element objective diagnosis. Evoke positive or negative feelings. Accept feelings Teacher's utterances involving the acceptance and clarification of an attitude or emotional tone of the student. 2. (Flanders. 6. Expose and explain Expose and explain. Accepts or uses of students ideas The professor can answer the ideas expressed by students in several ways. add thoughts and comments improvised. Give the Instructions Monitoring and directivity. Ask questions Questions raised by the professor who used this to move the class debate to successive stages or to introduce a new element of the proposed problem. but the category is best used when the professor's cognitive orientation incorporates the ideas expressed by students. positive. 4. express opinions. These are the most important actions: 1. 1970) This author published a list of actions that are able to describe these relations that he actions during the class or during an episode of the class were introduced in to a matrix. 5.
8. Table18.104.22.168.10. Student response Direct answer from students 22.214.171.124. The student starts the speech It happens when students' answers provide more information than required by the question. Criticizes or justifies authority Highlighting the education authority. 10.10. Matrix of Flander’s Didactic Analysis Method notations Second Note Professor Student Total Category 1 1 2 3 4 5 Student Professor 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rows 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 8-7 8-8 8-9 8-10 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 9-10 10. or when there is noise and confusion in it. Silence or confusion When communication is given in class a break.10.10- 10 First Note Total Columns 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Matrix 5 .
without the IWB •An Expert professor. Table 2. with the IWB •Usual professor. whether the IWB was used or no. whether the professor is an expert to use this tool or he needed a tutor or students help. with the IWB. with the IWB. Analysis •Usual professor. with tutor and students On the first step we has made the didactic interaction analysis to observe the most important sequence of the relations in each didactic models.3. Didactical strategy models observed Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 4. with tutor •An Inexpert professor. with the IWB •Usual professor. The variables that we choose are: whether the professor is the usual of the class for the students or not. The combination of these variables generated 5 different didactical strategies that were observed one class of each model on two different groups of Communication’s under graduate students. 2 Groups The scope of this research has touched a problem that is whether the didactical strategy of a different kind of professors can change by the use of the IWB. 6 .The scope: 5 IWB Uses Models.1.
1. It happens 12 times in this model and the questions formulated after an explanation. with 19 occurrences. In this case. Model 4 The professor has made questions after an explanation 19 times and his questions are answered directly by the students 11 times. 7 times each one.4. However. 11 of them asked after an explanation and in 11 answers the professor returns to explain the content. Model 1 With the didactic interaction analysis. we can highlight which the professor has made questions with explanations at the sequence. The pauses were more frequently associated with professor’s questions and his explanations. There were so many pauses. Didactic Interaction Analysis (Group A) The group A was composed of 44 students. So. there were 11 incidences of instructions in this model. Model 2 We didn’t observe so many didactic interactions in this model cause the most marked sequence was silence and explanation. major of them before or after an explanation with 28 and 22 occurrences each one. Model 5 The professor has made 17 questions directly answered by the students. occurred 10 times. we’ve observed that there were more incidences under a direct relation: professor’s question asked – students’ response. Model 3 About the most observed incidences. The pauses were 7 . in this case nobody answer the questions arised. It happens 14 times. the use of IWB was so rarely associated with an interaction. when the professor asked and had to continue explaining or when the class became on silence. Also. with 16 and 14 incidences each one. In this model the student participated with 12 spontaneous commentaries and then the professor made yours. it was also recurrent.
the asking with continuing an explanation. The students have participated spontaneously answering about the professors’ questions after an explanation. the most noted incidences were made when the students answer before the professor asked another question. Model 4 The professor has made 14 questions after an explanation. but only a few of them directly answered. It happened 22 times at this model and then the use of students’ interventions by the professor and the pauses during the explanations. with high frequency comparing to the others of the group B.44 before an explanation and 42 after an explanation. for 15 times the professor used the answers of the students for a new explanation. So. Furthermore. with 31 occurrences. Model 1 Among the incidences observed by the research we could highlight that the professor asked 35 times that the students answer immediately. Model 5 8 . with 17 and 18 occurrences. with 22 occurrences. there were also a high number of students answers. Model 2 At the model 2. Didactic Interaction Analysis (Group B) Was formed of 35 students.2. with 9 occurrences before and another 9 occurrences after the professors’ explanation. the didactic interaction analysis is able to observe that the professor made a didactic strategy that could use the students’ interventions. So. The students’ participation were more spontaneous than stimulated. with 3 occurrences. Model 3 The professor has used. Were also recurrent the questions that were made after an explanation 20 times. 4. It was so much because of the dynamic structure of this model than the others observed.
In model 3 the teacher encouraged students to participate in the class spontaneously. we can conclude that the amount of didactic interaction events was not associated neither with the model nor the use of the IWB. Thus. 4.3. and we observed constant didactic interaction relationships in each case. The Survey with the students At the end we applied a survey to the students for evaluates the use of this ICT in the classroom. although in group A. with 25 and 23 occurrences each one. but is associated to the conducing and strategy that the professor actually used. The model 5 was the one that had a greater difference between the groups.The most of the incidences were about the spontaneous participation of the students with 25 occurrences before a professor’s explanation and another 17 occurrences after a professor’s explanation. Comparision of the groups The conclusions of the didactic interaction analysis highlight two issues: although the professors plan the class in the same way. the didactic interactions occur differently in each group. In the model 1 the interaction pairs were more incidents at the didactic questionanswer and explanation questions. In the group B the teacher took the intervention of students differently than in the group A. The model 4 was similar than the model 1. but in group A the class had six categories that were highlighted in addition to the question and answer relation. 5. The survey was made based on 4 blocs: 9 . in the group B which one highlights the questions and answer relation. In model 2. there was less interaction. the interaction was explored with much more didactic skills. pairs of highest incidence were question-answer and use the comment of the student to ask another question. The professor was made13 questions after an explanation. We used the Likert scale to observe the students opinions. but with ask and answer questions directly. in group B. so. There was also many pauses among the professor’s explanations.
0 1. Three questions were of stratification. stimulation and interaction. if they are men or women. If they liked it or not and what they think about the functions of the IWB: the touch screen.3 100.0 Valid Missed Total Group A Group B Total System Frequency 44 35 79 1 80 10 . In group A 56% of the total in group B 44% of the total. we separated the sample of the students in the groups A and B. D) Observation about the IWB proprieties and the professor’s didactic strategy by the students’ point of view. Table 3.A) Stratification – Who were the student. Then we did other three questions related to the experience with ICT. motivation. Attention.before and after the use of the IWB to know how the experience of the students was. the multimedia and the quality of the projection. In relation to groups.8 100.0 98. The sample consisted of a total of 80 students who participated on the classes with the use of the IWB. if they have touched the IWB during the classes. In the initial part of the survey questions did in June. The perception of students the about how the use of this technology made effect in their learning and participation. 65% of them already knew about the IWB before this project.0 55. by age. We also observed that the women are 61% of the students and men only 35%. and only 15% of the students touched the screen during the classes. and 81% said that had advanced informatics knowledge.3 100.8 44.7 55. and if they knew the IWB before the sections. Groups Valid Percent Percent Percent Accumulated 55. B) Interest and opinion about the IWB – We wanted to know how much this subject is interesting for the students. we observed that most students answered the questions.7 43. C) Didactic Experience .
8 93.1.0 Table 5.4 36.Table 4.0 100. Gender Valid Percent Percent Accumulated 36.0 61.8 6.0 78.0 Valid Percent Percent Accumulated 16. The IWB was approved by the students 11 .0 100. Touched the screen Valid Frequency 12 63 75 5 80 Percent 15.0 100.0 84.3 96.0 Missed Total Yes No Total System Graph 1. Advanced informatics knowledge 35% 65% 19% Sí No 81% Sí No 5.3 100.3 3.8 100.0 Valid Missed Total Man Woman Total System Frequency 28 49 77 3 80 Percent 35.4 63.0 16. Already knew the IWB Graph2.6 100.
with 50% on high approval. In relation to the inherent characteristics of the IWB we also observed that students had high approval with 86% of the touch screen. For 41%. we highlight that 60% of the students really liked the full use of the IWB in the classroom. Regarding the personal opinions. The opinions about learning are correlated with the fact that most liked the use of the IWB. for 55% the use of IWB permits the professor to give more much information on classes. 80% approval of its multimedia capabilities and 77% of the projection of the content. 6.We can observe with the results presented in the survey that the IWB was approved by students. A content analysis using the IWB serves as a tool to study this tool.1. but for 45% the students do not learn better without IWB. for 51% IWB promotes interaction among teacher and student. But external or internal factors of the class can change. Although the students liked the IWB in the classroom. 6.2. And it is present in two parts of the survey: at the results about the personal interests and to the didactic issues. The episodes are the parts that compose a class. It could be analyzed through didactic interaction analysis. but the analysis showed that there are no correlations. also favors the attention. A General Scheme of Didactic Interaction with the IWB In all classes teachers plan their actions. this tool didn’t make an impact over their learning. In relation to educational issues. It is also essential the teaching strategy. For 54% did not participate in classes more than without the IWB. for 54% of the students the IWB increases the educational possibilities. The second issue is the use of IWB. The second conclusion is that the use of IWB is not related to learning better. Conclusions 6. Whether 12 . Relations among the use of the IWB and the learning The first question that we made was whether it is related to the disapproval of the IWB. Teachers have to have skills and competencies for the use of this ICT. the IWB did not improve learning. because students were divided in questions about their own learning.
the IWB is a perfect tool to mediate the relationship among professors and students if in the classes’ plan the professor choose some episodes to use them like an effective interactive tool. To do that the professors must to have skills and competences on ICT and build a didactic strategy to develop the didactic interaction with the participation of the students on their own competences. 13 . Image 1. This model aims to teach what should be developed for the use of IWB improve teacher-student interaction to be implemented in another research.a professor encourages your students they will participate more. A General Scheme of Didactic Interaction with the IWB How as shown in the Image. Finally students have to want to participate in the classes in their own competences.
M. 2009. Facultad de Ciencias de Información.THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA.cnice. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.pdf FLANDERS. F. El Mare Nostrum Digital: Mito.y otros. (http://libdigi. Monography to Advanced Studies Diploma. Vídeo Digital na educação: aplicação da narrativa audiovisual. Bibliography EHEA . Tese (Doutorado em Educação) – UNICAMP . GARCÍA GARCÍA.12. UNIVERSITIC.eees.es/6/Portada/portada. K.: http://www. Ned A. Marzo de 2006.es/pdf/Declaracion_Bolonia. Salamanca. ISSN: 1696-0826.icono14. 1970. and GERTRUDIX BARRIO. R. 2009 14 . S. GARCÍA FERNANDEZ. Madrid. n. n. Las TIC en el sistema universitario español. Contenidos educativos digitales: Construyendo la Sociedad del Conocimiento. http://www.7.php. GARCÍA GARCÍA. BARRO AMENEIRO. Madrid.. 6. The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. RED Digital – Revista de Tecnología de la Información y Comunicación Educativa. Editorial Anaya/2. I. 2009. ideología y realidad de un imaginario sociotécnico IN Revista Icono 14. 2009.net/monografico/mare-nostrum-digital SOUZA. La Pizarra Digital Interactiva en la Educación Superior: Análisis de interacción didáctica y modelos de enseñanza. Mirado en. Disponible en: http://reddigital.Universidade Estadual de Campinas.br/document/?code=000446165) UCEDA ANTOLIPNI. J. F.unicamp. Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas (CRUE).. Análisis de la Interacción Didáctica.mec.