The Role of Interactive Artifacts, Whiteboards, and Classroom Dialogue

13652729, 2011, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00416.x by University Of Exeter, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Original article
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00416.x
The role of digital artefacts on the interactive

whiteboard in supporting classroom dialogue jcal_416 463..489
S. Hennessy
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 8PQ, UK
Abstract This paper explores how the interactive whiteboard (IWB) might be harnessed to support
student learning through classroom dialogue. This powerful and increasingly prevalent tech-
nology opens up opportunities for learners to generate, modify, and evaluate new ideas, through
multimodal interaction along with talk. Its use can thereby support rich new forms of dialogue
that highlight differences between perspectives, and make ideas and reasoning processes more
explicit. The emerging account builds upon Bahktin’s conception of dialogue and Wegerif’s
notion of technology ‘opening up a dialogic space for reflection’, but foregrounds the role of
mediating artefacts. Classroom dialogue in the context of IWB use is construed as being facili-
tated by teachers and learners constructing digitally represented knowledge artefacts together.
These visible, dynamic, and constantly evolving resources constitute interim records of activity
and act as supportive devices for learners’ emerging thinking, rather than finished products of
dialogue.
This primarily theoretical account is illustrated with examples from case studies of UK class-
room practice. Analysing lessons in sequence has illuminated how teachers can exploit the
IWB through cumulative interaction with a succession of linked digital resources, and through
archiving and revisiting earlier artefacts. The tool thereby helps to support the progression of
dialogue over time, across settings and even across learner groups. In sum, the article reframes
the notion of dialogue for this new context in which students are actively creating and directly
manipulating digital artefacts, and offers some practical examples.
Keywords artefact, co-construction, dialogue, interactive whiteboard, multimodal.
tural tool that is typically used for whole class teaching.

Introduction
The technology is now found in over 70% of UK class-
rooms (Futuresource Consulting 2010, p. 319); its
The extent to which technologies can facilitate dialogue
prevalence is rapidly increasing in a number of other
is the extent to which they succeed as educational tools.
(Johnson 2011, p. E246) countries too, notably Denmark and Netherlands (40%–
42% classrooms in 2009), USA, Australia, Ireland, and
This paper develops a theoretical framework for under- Mexico (almost 30% classrooms). The account is a
standing notions of classroom ‘dialogue’ and the medi- theoretical one drawing on and synthesizing published
ating role of artefacts in the context of interaction with research that has recently been carried out mainly in the
the interactive whiteboard (IWB),1 a relatively new cul- UK, but in some other countries too. Although primarily
a position paper, it also builds heavily on analyses of
Accepted: 21 February 2011
classroom observations of teachers exploiting IWBs to
Correspondence: Sara Hennessy, Faculty of Education, University of
Cambridge, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 8PQ, UK. Email: sch30@ support subject teaching and learning, conducted by the
cam.ac.uk author in collaboration with a number of colleagues.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2011), 27, 463–489 463
13652729, 2011, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00416.x by University Of Exeter, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
464 S. Hennessy
The article charts new territory by exploring the middle school, and a secondary school) and investi-
potential of using the tool in the classroom to support gated the roles of the teacher and the available
an established dialogic pedagogy, and by foreground- IWB technology in mediating student learning through
ing the role of mediating artefacts in this process. Thus, participating in classroom dialogue. Uniquely, the
it goes beyond traditional conceptions of dialogue as methodology centred on a process of joint theory
‘talk’. The account shows how IWB use can addition- building with the participating practitioners (Hennessy
ally open up a space for rich new, multimodal forms of et al. 2011, in press) in which the notion of dialogue
dialogue. The potential is for new dialogues to revolve was interrogated, refined, and recontextualized for
and evolve around digital artefacts jointly created by IWB use. The theoretical account in this paper builds
teachers and learners on the IWB. These provisional on some outcomes of that process, as well as on the
knowledge objects represent earlier, as well as current research literature and the author’s subsequent reflec-
actions and thinking; importantly, this helps both to tion on the issues emerging. In addition to conducting
highlight differences between perspectives and to observations, we collaboratively analysed lesson
maintain continuity of dialogues over time. The videos and discussed ‘critical episodes’ using selective
account illustrates the various ways in which the cumu- transcripts of dialogue to understand, reflect on, and
lative and recursive interactions central to extended develop the roles of teacher and technology. We
dialogue are facilitated by IWB technology use. It is thereby explored how established dialogic pedagogy
proposed that by rendering both learning histories and may drive teachers to exploit this powerful new tool to
trajectories more visible, digital artefacts can facilitate support collective knowledge building over time. It
the cumulative progression of dialogue. It concludes by thus complements the parallel line of work by
offering a perspective on the outcomes of drawing Mercer, Littleton, Warwick, Twiner, Gillen, Kleine
learners into a dialogic space. It is argued that these Staarman and Kershner on ‘dialogic space’ afforded by
include skills for dialogue, reasoning, and enquiry as collaborative use of the IWB in primary schools;
well as diverse, fluid forms of disciplinary knowledge their emphasis was more on children’s reasoned dis-
that are both personal and shared, internally and exter- cussion and the roles of task design, as elaborated
nally represented. below. A couple of the exemplars included from this
The supporting evidence is drawn from three project are again supported by links to video clips
research projects2 involving ten in-depth case studies of online.
eight teachers using IWBs in a variety of subject areas The account begins by introducing the underlying
carried out in (mainly secondary) schools in the East perspective on dialogue in the next section – as being
Anglia region of the UK between 2002 and 2009. The cumulative, responsive, and based on exploring differ-
methods and outcomes of this research are detailed in a ences between perspectives. The section ’Beyond talk:
number of other publications, but extracts of the data the affordances of IWB technology for multimodal
appear here by way of illustration (drawing particularly classroom dialogue’ then proposes some affordances of
on observations of one history teacher participating in IWB technology for supporting exploration of differ-
two projects). Suffice to say that in these studies video ence through multimodal forms of classroom dialogue,
recordings of two to six lessons/teacher, teacher diaries, primarily through creating and manipulating digital
observation, and meeting notes were iteratively artefacts in conjunction with talk. The section ‘Using
reviewed in conjunction with post-lesson interview data digital artefacts to sustain and progress dialogue
and screen shots of IWB artefacts in the making. Note cumulatively’ illustrates how such IWB-supported
that the examples extracted from the second project, dialogue and enquiry are cumulative and hence,
T-MEDIA, are elaborated using digital video and com- learning is progressive over time, aided particularly
mentary in the resulting online multimedia professional by revisiting earlier artefacts. The section ‘Learning
development resources.3 outcomes of IWB-mediated classroom dialogue’
The most recent of the projects was undertaken in discusses the potential outcomes of dialogues. Finally,
conjunction with Neil Mercer and Paul Warwick and overall conclusions are drawn about how a
investigated IWBs and Dialogic Teaching. We entered dialogic space created by IWB use can be productive
three ‘dialogic’ classrooms (in a primary school, a for learning.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Dialogue and IWB artefacts 465
(Mortimer & Scott 2003, p. 3). One relevant type of

Learning through dialogue
quality talk identified is ‘exploratory talk’: a means of
Conceptions of dialogue constructing shared knowledge, whereby reasoning is
visible in the talk (Mercer 1995). Participants justify
The term ‘dialogue’ is defined as ‘discussion directed their views, are willing to change their minds and reflec-
towards exploration of a subject or resolution of a tively criticize their own ideas. Preconditions for this
problem’ (Oxford English Dictionary). The notion of kind of talk include cultivating a supportive classroom
dialogue developed here builds on the writings of ethos for exploration and sharing of ideas. Drawing
Bakhtin who similarly defines dialogue as shared learners into extended and thought-provoking question-
enquiry (as opposed to conversation). His account and and-answer exchanges is associated with improved
subsequent related work by Wegerif (2007) describe learning outcomes (Rojas-Drummond & Mercer 2004).
‘dialogic’ as the gap between two or more perspectives Recent incarnations of national examinations and
held together in the tension of a dialogue, and meaning policy strategies in the UK have moved increasingly
as arising within that gap. Implications for dialogic towards an emphasis on classroom discussion of contro-
classroom interaction as an evolving pedagogical versial topics and development of dialogue skills in
approach are additionally characterized by Mortimer subjects such as history, geography, science, and
and Scott (2003) and Mercer (1995; Mercer & Littleton citizenship.4 Yet, a conflicting policy (and school
2007), who recount how teachers and learners actively inspection) emphasis on rapid lesson pace (disregarding
comment and build on each other’s ideas, posing ques- the desired pace of learning) and soliciting correct
tions, and constructing new knowledge. Implicitly answers, coupled with many teachers’ and policymak-
underpinning a dialogic pedagogy is an intersubjective ers’ lack of understanding of dialogic pedagogy, mean
epistemology that emphasizes social agency and locates that a dialogic approach and ‘exploratory talk’ are not
learning at the community level of interaction (Suthers commonly observed (Galton 2007; Mercer & Littleton
2006). Classroom dialogue thus encompasses a form of 2007). A parallel can be drawn here with the difficulties
shared cognition (based on a common focus of attention pertaining to conducting genuine enquiry in the class-
and some shared presuppositions) that facilitates room, namely where learners generate their own ques-
exchange of ideas and negotiation of new meanings in tions, explanations, and tentative theories. Hakkarainen
accordance with others’ perspectives (Rogoff 1990). (2003, p. 1086) argues that an established culture of fact
This is akin to the cumulative nature of dialogue, termed seeking means ‘a substantial epistemological shift in
‘addressivity’ and ‘responsivity’ by Bakhtin, referring pedagogy and the wider culture of schooling is needed’
to how an utterance is shaped in anticipation of a certain to infuse an enquiry stance into all learning activities.
kind of response from the intended listener, as well as In many classroom communities, a similarly radical
responsive to previous utterances and meaning making shift would be needed to create a supportive social infra-
(Bakhtin 1986, p. 91). Participants in dialogue construct structure (Bielaczyc 2001) for exploring ideas through
meaning through chained sequences of questioning and dialogue.
responding (ibid.), and chained lines of thinking and
enquiry (Alexander 2008).
Exploring difference within a dialogic space
Traditional conceptions of dialogue are centred
for reflection
around the notion of language (Volosinov 1973; Cole
1994), recently described as ‘the most ubiquitous, cre- At this point, we edge away from the prevalent socio-
ative and flexible of the meaning-making tools avail- cultural perspective and consider that use of spoken lan-
able, and it is the one most intimately connected to . . . guage as a shared tool for reasoning per se (Mercer et al.
the pursuit of reasoned argument’ (Mercer & Littleton 2004), may not in any case be the key mechanism for
2007, p. 2). Although ‘language’ may be more broadly success; improved problem-solving performance can
construed as encompassing other communicative repre- result from a particular kind of dialogic silence, or long
sentations, classroom talk in particular is currently pause. Wegerif (2007, 2008) postulates that the ground
privileged in the school context as ‘central to the rules and shared enquiry characteristics of exploratory
meaning making process and thus central to learning’ talk (e.g. asking open questions, listening with respect,

466 S. Hennessy
self-critique) serve to open and maintain a dialogic We recently explored with collaborating teachers the
‘space of reflection’. This allows creative solutions to question of whether participants in dialogue need to try
problems to spontaneously emerge – although exploring to reach a consensus view, as is sometimes suggested
and rejecting possible solutions may help to prepare the explicitly (e.g. Toulmin 1958; Mercer & Littleton 2007,
ground for such breakthroughs. Wegerif argues that the pp. 72–73) or implicitly (e.g. Gee & Green 1998). The
dialogic space is more fundamental than words. He con- phrases ‘common understanding’ and ‘common knowl-
strues the dimension of creative reasoning in dialogue as edge’ (Edwards & Mercer 1987) are sometimes inter-
a ‘dance of perspectives’ in which each new perspective preted in terms of convergence, although Floriani (1993,
on a problem is labelled (Wegerif et al. 2010, p. 615). p. 263) asserts that ‘having common knowledge does not
From Bakhtin’s (1981) dialogic perspective, meaning mean or insure one way of interpreting history [in its
arises in the context of a difference between voices widest sense]’. Feito (2007), in his article on ‘Allowing
opening up a space for dialogue, so that (in contrast with not-knowing in a dialogic discussion’, has likewise
established perspectives5) differences are in no sense observed very little consensus seeking or summarizing
contradictions needing to be overcome. Wegerif et al. in a dialogic classroom where authority is decentralized.
(2010) contrast this metaphor of ‘thinking as dialogue Wegerif (2007, p. 282) suggests that dialogue is ‘charac-
across difference’ – and hence, teaching and learning as terised by uncertainty, multiplicity and open-endedness’
drawing students into spaces of dialogue across differ- and observes that children successful at problem solving
ence – against other perspectives including thinking as are more able to remain with the silent pauses in such
cultural tool use. Wegerif concludes that thinking dialogue. Thus, divergent thinking and challenge
is a response to new challenges within a dialogic increase the potential for dialogue – as described by one
relationship, so that out of the tension between view- student who told me, ‘I think if you are [working] in a
points comes not only criticism and judgment, but also pair you’ve got the problem that if they don’t have a dif-
insight and understanding (Wegerif 2010b, Chapter 1). ferent view, you don’t really have anything to do’.
A series of studies of ‘alternative conceptions’ in The key authors in this field concur that disagreement
science by Howe and colleagues (Howe et al. 2005; offers an important stimulus. However, Mercer and
Howe et al. 2007; Howe 2010) provides substantial Littleton (2007) and Howe et al. (1992) also helpfully
empirical evidence for ‘the power of difference in the assert that working towards a carefully reasoned con-
pursuit of shared goals’ (Howe 2010, p. 41). The sensus viewpoint – in terms of weighing up the relative
research shows that within-group resolution of differ- strengths of one’s own and others’ opinions to achieve a
ences – requiring principled evaluation of competing group view rather than acquiescence to another or
ideas and production of a superior account – is not only majority view (which may be conceptually inferior to
rare, but has no immediate impact on learning, as mea- one’s own) – keeps participants fruitfully engaged with
sured by post-test performance. Instead, disagreement others’ ideas (Wells 1999). Our team ultimately agreed
may create contexts where propositions and explana- and concluded that an appreciation of a number of dif-
tions are more likely. It is these that are associated with ferent valid views, sometimes culminating in a synthe-
increased understanding when teachers are non- sis of those views, is in itself a key outcome of dialogic
directive. Exchange, recording, and evaluation of differ- interaction (Hennessy et al. 2011, in press). In sum,
ing views during high-quality group dialogue can, reaching consensus is unnecessary, and insisting on
however, unsettle children and motivate them to reflect convergence is in fact monologic; Howe et al. (2007)
privately on the content and on subsequent experiences report that premature closure undermines delayed reso-
long after the group interaction, thus, making signifi- lution and obstructs learning. However, striving for con-
cant conceptual progress. The notions of unresolved sensus may be fruitful because making difference and
contradiction – rendering conflicting conceptions more uncertainty explicit, and reasoning about areas of dis-
salient – and ‘delayed resolution’ (Howe et al. 2005) agreement, provide an incentive for communication and
seem consistent with that of a dialogic ‘space of reflec- change. Open-mindedness is central here, or being
tion’ upon multiple perspectives (Wegerif 2010a). Ulti- ‘open to otherness’ (Wegerif 2010a, p. 319), so that
mately, exploring difference with others culminates in entering a dialogic space means a shift from narrow
independent thought (Ryan 2009). concerns, fixed identity, and authoritative knowledge.

The discussion now articulates the role of IWB tech- quent communal use, in reciprocal meaning making.
nology here. It begins by documenting some affor- This resonates with the (artefact or) knowledge creation
dances supportive of exploring difference through metaphor of learning outlined by Paavola and
collaborative enquiry, especially using modes of com- Hakkarainen (2005) and Hakkarainen and Paavola
munication other than talk. (2007). The interaction between individual expertise
and communal knowledge is said to be ‘materialised’ as
Beyond ‘talk’: the affordances of interactive new, shared objects of activity are developed for subse-
whiteboard technology for multimodal quent use. Hence, individual initiative serves the com-
classroom dialogue munal effort to create something new. This ‘trialogical’
approach to learning contrasts with the monological
The choice of the IWB as a technology context to
knowledge acquisition and dialogical participation
research relates to its unique status as a generic class-
metaphors of learning (Sfard 2006). Interaction takes
room tool as well as to its physical dominance of the
place through – and knowledge becomes embodied in –
teaching space. Through being linked to a computer
mediating artefacts and practices (rather than being
with Internet access, it is an unrestricted portal for inter-
acquired by individuals or constructed in social interac-
action with an infinitely wide range of secondary digital
tions). Trialogical objects include both material arte-
resources. This offers teachers tremendous ease and
facts, such as practices or reports, and conceptual
flexibility in sourcing materials to stimulate dialogue. In
artefacts such as research problems, theories, questions,
addition, IWB use can support community knowledge
and designs. These may be externally represented using
building through text and object construction within its
text, graphics, photographs, sketches, etc.
proprietary software environments, aided by its special-
The key characteristics of the trialogical approach are
ized tools for direct manipulation of digital objects.
that it:
In this section, I argue that using the IWB can poten-
tially support collaborative learning by making differ-
1 concentrates on processes which aim at developing
ences between perspectives more explicit while
shared objects;
understanding is developing. It opens up new opportu-
2 takes place across long timescales;
nities for learners and teachers publicly to express,
3 involves interaction between individual and collec-
explain, justify, evaluate, and reformulate ideas – both
tive processes;
orally and using other rich symbolic representations.
4 relies on cross-fertilization of knowledge practices;
This account is based on the central premise that ‘we
5 relies on collaborative technologies designed to elicit
think with and through artefacts’ (Säljö 1995, p. 91),
object-oriented activities;
and these artefacts constitute mediational means
6 develops through transformations and reflections
(Wertsch 1998) with particular affordances (Gibson
across forms of knowledge.
1979) and constraints. In other words, they can facilitate
or inhibit certain patterns of action. The increasingly
These features could also be argued to characterize
recognized role of artefacts in cognitively mediating
dialogue in the context of IWB use. The focusing on
between individual and world is of particular relevance
developing shared artefacts and continuity over the
to the IWB context, where digital artefacts are
longer term, under-represented in some accounts of
co-constructed by learners and teachers. However, the
dialogue, constitutes a particularly helpful starting
goal of such interaction is not to learn to use the IWB as
point. Whereas artefacts are viewed by the trialogical
a cultural tool. It is to use it to draw learners into new
approach as products, the particular strength of the IWB
forms and spaces of productive dialogue between differ-
technology is its support for continuous development of
ent perspectives, as elaborated below.
ideas, as elaborated below.
The trialogical approach to learning Digital artefacts
Digital artefacts on the IWB are viewed as collabora- The IWB (incorporating both hardware and software) is
tively created and evaluated for immediate or subse- often construed as a mediating artefact: a primary arte-

468 S. Hennessy
fact that is directly used (Wartofsky 1979). Mediation is plexity of classroom interaction through focusing atten-
made by the teacher and students – who need to under- tion on its multiple communicative modes. Modes are
stand the mode of functioning of the tool in relation to organized sets of semiotic resources for representation
the goals of the activity it mediates (Cole 1994). In this and communication, including image, gesture, gaze,
context, goals are both dialogic and substantive. Digital interaction with objects, writing, and speech. Situated
artefacts are secondary artefacts rather than mental enti- communication always involves multiple modalities of
ties. They are actual physical or perceptual ‘reflexive meaning making (Lemke 1999). The IWB currently
embodiments of forms of action or praxis, in the sense acts as a focal point in many classrooms for multimodal
that they are symbolic externalizations or objectifica- interaction with digital media resources. These include
tions of such modes of action – “reflections” of them’ texts, drawings, diagrams, still photographs, multime-
(Wartofsky 1979, pp. 201–202). Wartofsky argues that dia presentations, animations, simulations and models
the artefact is the vehicle of information across genera- of dynamic processes, interactive diagrams, maps,
tions. It underpins cultural evolution – through being concept maps, databases, graphs, tables, hyperlinked
redesigned to achieve new goals and activities (Pea web pages, audio and video files, mathematical repre-
1993). sentations, etc. The potential of graphical and dynamic
From this perspective, talk as a tool for interrogating representations in rendering complex concepts and pro-
difference no longer hogs the limelight. Wells (1999, cesses easier to share, discuss, visualize, and understand
Chapter 3) adopts a broader view of ‘utterance’ and of is recognized by students and teachers alike. Digital
‘knowledge artefacts’ than the usual association with resources and co-constructed artefacts can take any of
talk and written texts. He refers to ‘any semiotically these forms or employ combinations of them. They can,
mediated activity’ and to understanding development in fact, communicate meaning less abstractly than oral
through action too (while acknowledging that talk has texts (Wells 1999, Chapter 4) because interaction with
some unique qualities and plays a significant role in them is usually mediated through both teachers’ and
collaborative work). An object orientation is central students’ interpretative talk, gaze, and gesture at certain
to his account and is considered the source of the power- points during the course of activity. This offers opportu-
ful and generative nature of enquiry. Nevertheless, nities to check understanding and supply clarification.
examples given in fact centre around talk and writing as Recent Mexican work identifies gesture as ‘the main
devices for thinking, i.e. as supportive of the process of orchestration strategy to organise talk, electronic
coming to understand a subject area rather than merely resources displayed on the IWB, and participation of
to communicate. These linguistic devices may indeed students in a coherent whole’ (Fernández-Cárdenas &
together constitute the most powerful semiotic system Silveyra-De La Garza, 2010, p. 184).
available to us. However, understanding of the role of In our case studies, we attended to teachers’ and
other artefacts as mediators of social cognition (facili- learners’ exploitation of the multiple modes of repre-
tating shared memory and communication of ideas, e.g. sentation (aural, visual, textual, graphical, etc.) enabled
Säljö 2009) is also important, albeit presently hazy. In by the IWB and its software, rather than carrying out a
this account, I construe a digital artefact produced on multimodal analysis of their interactions with the board
the IWB as both a ‘knowledge artefact’ and ‘improvable (attending to gesture, gaze, etc.). We also looked holis-
object’(in Wells’ terminology). It is not a container (Pea tically at how construction of digital artefacts is sup-
1993), but a symbolic, externalized representation of ported by related activity and resources employed away
the socio-cognitive activity that is taking and has taken from the board. There is no space to describe this analy-
place. Interaction with digital artefacts can make new sis in detail here; it is the subject of another paper by S.
conceptual perspectives available to learners through Hennessy (in preparation), which introduces the notion
laying them open to collective scrutiny. of a ‘dialogic classroom space’and elaborates the teach-
er’s complex strategies for orchestrating this wider
dialogic activity. Moreover, we have observed how
Multimodal representation
teachers combine complementary modes (a ‘multimo-
Recent work on multimodality (e.g. Kress et al. 2001; dal ensemble’: Jewitt 2008) and use them to contextual-
Jewitt 2006) assists us further in understanding the com- ize and enrich each other in making sense of the ongoing

activity. For instance, one English teacher observed to create a shared framework of understanding as a basis
played an audio recording of a poet (Simon Armitage) for joint knowledge building. In particular, part of the
reading his own gritty text in his regional accent; the text teacher’s role is to question, recap, elaborate, and refor-
and a photograph of the poet were simultaneously dis- mulate students’ contributions (Mercer 2004). S/he is
played. The experience made the poem come alive for thereby actively ‘interweaving different modalities’ to
learners, allowing them insight into the author’s per- ‘create cohesion and continuity from what might other-
spective; as poetry’s meaning resides with the listener wise be seen by students as no more than a series of dis-
or reader; however, that meaning became one of many parate events’ (Gillen et al. 2008, pp. 357–8).
as different learners in the class constructed their own
(S. Hennessy & J. Bullock, in preparation). This kind of
Other affordances supportive of dialogue
IWB use opens up and shapes a dialogic space (con-
strued as both physical and cognitive) through engaging The visibility of the large IWB screen and its interactive
learners and offering them an opportunity for exploring tools clearly offer an advantage over other systems
difference in the course of forming their own views. designed to support collaborative learning. It helps to
Such exploration includes considering particularly per- maintain a simultaneous focus of attention for large
tinent perspectives juxtaposed with those of peers and learner groups and allows them to jointly construct
teacher – fostering a creative tension (Wegerif 2007). In digital artefacts through a process of negotiation that
some contexts, such as teaching science disciplinary imbues them with meaning. Stenning et al. (1999)
knowledge, it is of course then desirable to foreground argue that educational dialogue is particularly amenable
and clarify an authoritative view (Scott et al. 2010). to capture and reuse, because it makes explicit infer-
Exploring ideas dialogically with the aid of digital ences that would normally remain unspoken. It is here
resources can help to build up and make accessible the that activity based around the IWB plays an important
‘scientific story’ (Ogborn et al. 1996). role. It goes beyond purely oral forms of dialogue to
The dynamic interaction between learners’ own talk create new kinds that make the cognitive goals and rea-
and a given (projected) text (described by Wells 1999, soning processes of the IWB users more tangible. Fea-
Chapter 4) is another example of the strength of modes tures perceived as supporting this include dynamic
in combination. Here, I build on a socio-linguistic tradi- representation of processes, simultaneous display and
tion of work on intertextuality and, in particular Flori- comparison of different processes or objects, and mean-
ani’s (1993), illustrations of how written texts are ingful feedback contingent on user input (Kennewell &
shaped by and related to oral texts or ‘talked into being’ Beauchamp 2007). Use of unique tools such as those for
(p. 242). This takes place in different ways according to highlighting and (graphical or textual) annotation of
what each mode affords. Thus, examining only one kind projected objects can be particularly effective in
of text provides only a partial understanding of what drawing attention to salient aspects of a representation,
participants construct. That work is extended here as in the following example in which audio and textual
through exploring how digital artefacts are likewise col- resources were again combined.
lectively constructed in action (I prefer ‘artefacts’ to the A primary school teacher, Diane, played an audio file
conventional ‘texts’ as the term more saliently encom- of herself reading out a personal safety scenario for chil-
passes graphical and other nonlinguistic modes of rep- dren (aged 10) to discuss. This allowed her to devote full
resentation). As illustrated in subsequent sections via attention to observing individual children’s responses.
examples from practice, these artefacts are manipulated Rowena, a student, was then asked to take ‘suggestions
or annotated, chosen as significant, reconstructed from about what people think is really important’ from the
different points in time, revisited, interpreted or criti- class, and she highlighted the text on the IWB accord-
cally analysed, negotiated, and modified. This happens ingly (Fig 1). Finally, she annotated around the text to
in conjunction with spoken dialogue that offers students represent her peers’ understandings of the characters’
opportunities to make links with previous tasks and to feelings. In this second stage, students were evidently
reconstruct meaning (Green et al. 2008; Scott et al. stimulated to go beyond the printed text, generating and
2010). In this way, talk is used as a tool along with other explaining their own ideas and illustrating empathy (e.g.
resources for social action by both learners and teacher ‘beaten’, ‘confused’). Note that Littleton et al. (2010)

470 S. Hennessy
describes how an original poetry text can actually disap-

pear – ‘becoming visual and fragmented (although
these new fragments are perhaps being woven into a
richer cloth of experience)’. Its imagery is thereby
reshaped as the relationship of word and visual image.
Figure 2 depicts an example of transforming a poetry
text. The sequence of slides illustrates how the origi-
nally projected text has indeed disappeared in the course
of a developing dialogue that is nonlinear and interwo-
ven with the evolving artefact(s). The dialogue thus
launches itself in new directions from the preceding
reifications of previous acts. Here, it explores a
Fig 1 Learners’ annotation of a ‘personal safety’ scenario text. a
offer a similar example of primary children interpreting

a character’s feelings, in that case enterprisingly anno-
tating frozen frames of a DVD extract played on the
IWB. They describe how the teacher ‘reworks and
recasts, and gives authority to pupils’ contributions, refr-
aming and legitimating them within the lesson context –
thus, the object is improvable through the interaction
and discourse around it’ (p. 135). In our example, the b
teacher successfully managed the dialogue within a
whole class containing a large proportion of children
with behavioural difficulties and other special needs.
She maximized participation through selecting volun-
teers carefully, continually monitoring engagement, and
asking a student to record at the IWB. She mediated the
discussion within the class, and during the follow-up
small group activity, engaging with the detail of their
contributions. She deliberately refrained from re-
voicing their contributions, though, to encourage chil-
dren to develop confidence and skill in expressing their c
own ideas. Ultimately, she was very impressed with the

words the students generated (Fig 1), commenting that it
was rewarding to see individuals who were shy, quiet,
and easily confused, producing really relevant input.
The digital artefact being iteratively constructed in
the above example exploited the affordance of direct
manipulation to actively develop, share and reformulate
joint meanings. This affordance supports easy experi-
mentation and reasoning activities such as visualizing
Fig 2 Series of interactive whiteboard slides used during an
or modelling a problem, scenario, event, or process;
English lesson on the poem ‘Education for Leisure’ by Carol Ann
planning; explicating ideas and arguments; co- Duffy (a) describing a teenager’s feelings (b) linking an image to a
constructing or deconstructing texts and other artefacts poem’s persona and (c) brainstorming the poems’ messages
to create new, richer ones. For instance, Jewitt (2009) about society.

character’s feelings, the significance of an evocative The focus here is on two, interrelated features of dia-
image (second slide) for the poem’s persona, and the logue facilitated by IWB technology: cumulative and
ways in which the image and poem, plus other poems recursive interactions that serve to progress learning
studied, reflect today’s society. Its provisional reifica- over time – within and across lessons. Such interactions
tion within the artefacts, capturing learners’ interpreta- exploit the complementary affordances of provisional-
tions, is evidently facilitated through exploiting the ity and stability of IWB resources and artefacts. These
affordances of direct manipulation, highlighting, and affordances offer the freedom to save, re-use, or con-
annotation of images and texts by hand in real time tinue building on an evolving artefact, or to treat it as
during discussion. purely transient and modifiable, according to purpose.
Such IWB activity offers an immediate responsive- In this section, it is proposed that by rendering both
ness and additionally, a personal character, whereas learning histories and trajectories more visible, IWB
type is perceived as more authoritative and pre- digital artefacts can facilitate the cumulative nature of
meditated Jewitt (2009). It also highlights the ‘added dialogue. Note that in our collaborative work with
value’ of the IWB over a computer and data projector teachers during the IWBs and Dialogic Teaching
alone. Some parts of this activity and the others project, we adopted and elaborated Alexander’s (2008)
described in the article could potentially be carried out definition of ‘cumulative’ as orientation to and building
without the technical interactivity, for example, when upon others’ contributions. We noted that the term
displaying a sequence of pictures or a single picture ‘cumulative talk’ is used quite differently by Mercer
along with a voiceover. However, exploiting the added (2000) to mean passive, uncritical accumulation of
functionality and the responsiveness can significantly utterances in which contextual references are left
extend and enrich the experience. implicit, and individual differences in perspective are
This section has outlined some affordances of IWB minimized. Alexander’s account of teachers offering
technology for supporting dialogue through exploring learners individually tailored responses during dialogue
and representing differences in perspectives. These is more akin to Mercer’s ‘exploratory talk’; there,
underpinned the process of co-constructing and partners build critically and constructively on others’
manipulating digital artefacts, in conjunction with utterances, actively offering suggestions and justified
talk. They included access to a wide range of digital arguments for joint consideration.
resources, visibility, multimodality, dynamic represen- Although cumulative interaction is a critically impor-
tation of processes, contingent feedback, focusing tant characteristic of the dialogic process, it is the
attention through highlighting and annotating, juxtapo- hardest to achieve (Alexander 2008). Meaning making
sition, and direct manipulation of objects and processes. through interaction in a whole-class setting is a complex
The particular affordances of the IWB depend of course process requiring learners (and teachers) to draw on
on the context in which it is used. The interface to any their own individual resources, previous experience, or
technology in no sense determines the quality of inter- knowledge of the target subject matter, and the
actions or the understanding that is developed (Mercer relevant classroom discourse from earlier interchanges
1993), it merely facilitates. Research confirms that or lessons. Additionally, they have to shape their contri-
pedagogical interactivity is more important than techni- butions in response, as Wells (1999, pp. 107–108)
cal interactivity in stimulating the reflection and elaborates:
intentionality of higher-order learning (Kennewell &
Beauchamp 2007), thus the teacher’s and students’ One has to interpret the preceding contribution in terms
of the information it introduces as well as of the speaker’s
actions are pivotal, as discussed below. stance to that information, compare it with one’s own
current understanding of the issue under discussion, and
then formulate a contribution that will, in some relevant
Using digital artefacts to sustain and progress way, add to the common understanding achieved in the
dialogue cumulatively discourse so far, by extending, questioning or qualifying
what has already been said.
Let us turn now to consider in more detail how teachers
and learners perceive and exploit the aforementioned – If, however, the discourse context involves IWB
and some further – affordances of the IWB in practice. digital artefacts rather than talk, then the process of

472 S. Hennessy
recording in a relatively stable way enables the learner

to visualize previous contributors’ ideas and connec-
tions between them, rather than having to hold them in
short-term memory. (Gillen et al. 2008, p. 356, describe
how ‘the IWB forms a cumulative backdrop as an updat-
ing source of reference and attention for the develop-
ment of ideas’). Thus, learners can interact with and
respond to a greater range of ideas. Objects remain
stable for as long as desired, yet at the same time they
are provisional and can be debated or moved in the
course of considering alternatives (Warwick et al.
2010). By contrast, a nondigital board affords one
‘screen’ that can be displayed throughout a lesson, or
erased and replaced with further single screens, but is in
the longer term, temporary (Jewitt 2009). As elaborated Fig 3 Students’ collective representation of a food chain in
further in the following subsections, dialogue in this science.
context might therefore be construed as cumulative in
several ways – all mediated by the teacher. annotation by successive students of a digital photo-
graph of a historical portrait (see Fig 4 and Supporting
1 Contributions are immediately responsive to and Information Video Clip S1). Here, learners subse-
constructed upon those of others. quently interpreted their peers’ thinking by drawing
2 Contributions accumulate over time (across lessons) links to labels that others had written without comment
so that learners further develop their own prior around a projected digital photograph of a historical
knowledge and ideas through ‘progressive portrait (of the young Queen Elizabeth I). This activity
discourse’. developed a collective, enhanced understanding of the
3 Revisiting and sometimes repurposing records ‘Golden Age’ of Elizabeth (Deaney et al. 2010). It also
produced earlier is a form of recursion that again maximized the number of students that could interact
supports cumulative dialogue and it may be teacher- directly with the portrait. The teacher built upon the stu-
or student-led; dents’ interpretations in the plenary by subtly helping
4 Interaction with artefacts created by other learners them to understand Elizabeth’s motives and subsequent
or experts renders learning cumulative over space events. He created continuity by comparing the portrait
and time in a particular way not easily afforded by
other technologies.
Responsivity
Let us begin by examining the notion of cumulative in

terms of responsivity and accommodation to others’
ideas. A single rich resource can be progressively
manipulated and interacted with in different ways for
different purposes, often within the relatively short time
period of a lesson. The artefact is essentially trans-
formed to become multiple artefacts or incarnations of
the original. Examples of responsivity being built into
the activity itself include: (1) the progressive building
up of a food chain (Fig 3) with each student using drag-
and-drop to add a link in turn, and communicating their Fig 4 Annotated portrait of the young Queen Elizabeth I in a
reasoning (Hennessy et al. 2007); and (2) the graphical history lesson.

with a previously displayed one of the older Elizabeth. ers – in readily reversible ways that support the tempo-
He questioned the ‘reality’ portrayed by any historical rary exploration of ideas (Twiner et al. 2010). Like
artefact, concluding both that pictures only tell a partial utterances (Bakhtin 1986), they are never final or fixed
story, and that his own ideas had been changed by the but exist transiently within the dialogic space. The
activity. In this democratic classroom, the teacher was developing knowledge structures associated with arte-
also a learner. facts created using an IWB are ‘open to modification,
These examples illustrate how use of continually expansion, and revision by members as they interact
accessible and visually displayed artefacts may support across time and events’ as with other cultural models
collaborative knowledge building in new ways. Simi- (Gee & Green 1998, p. 124). Gee and Green drew on
larly, the text and graphical notes produced using ‘pro- Spradley’s (1980, p. 9) notion of a cognitive map that we
gressive enquiry’ systems such as Computer-Supported constantly redraw to serve as a guide for interpreting our
Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE: Scardama- experience, responding to unanticipated events. In sum,
lia & Bereiter 1994), now called Knowledge Forum use of the IWB perhaps helpfully allows evolving cogni-
[a networked learning environment offering a shared tive representations to be externalized, further shaped
virtual space for articulating conceptions and building, and utilized for interpreting and organizing new ideas.
searching, linking, and appropriating knowledge:
(Hakkarainen 2003)], remain readily accessible. Wells
Dialogue and co-enquiry progressing between lessons
(1999) suggests that this renders them much more likely
to be responded to in a dialogic, cumulative knowledge Constructing and interacting with evolving digital arte-
building manner than more transitory oral discourse. facts at the IWB can facilitate development of a coher-
He proposes that diagrams, drawings, working models, ent line of co-enquiry that is sustained over the longer
maps, proofs, algebraic equations, musical perfor- term, extending the dialogic space beyond the scope of a
mances, etc. can play a similarly important role in single lesson. By contrast, in whole class teaching with
knowledge building and can likewise give rise to ‘lively the IWB – and generally – there is often an emphasis on
conversation’ that helps to progress a discourse. Such simply exchanging and comparing ideas (Serret & Har-
‘improvable objects’ are particularly effective if they rison 2007; Alexander 2008). As illustrated in some of
represent the creator’s current understanding, for which the selected examples and video clips, it requires a
an explanation has to be given to justify its acceptance skilled teacher to guide the enquiry. This often empha-
(Wells 2009, p. 290), as happened in the two examples sizes building up sophisticated understanding of a
above. The process of explaining to other enquirers process, for example, in our studies, photosynthesis, the
fosters deep conceptual understanding as weaknesses, genre of crime writing, or developing perspectives on
inconsistencies, or limitations in the ‘knowledge object’ trench warfare. The latter is now illustrated through a
tend to become more salient (Hatano & Inagaki 1992); foray into one dialogic history classroom. The case
recognizing inadequacies is likely to motivate its study illustrates how the IWB ‘flipchart’ (a sequence of
improvement through joint activity. Creating concrete screens created in one file using the proprietary soft-
representations and receiving feedback allows learners ware), tools, and resources can be employed to create a
to oscillate productively between their own tentative composite, evolving representation of knowledge, that
explanations and critique of their externalized represen- is not temporally located, nor necessarily permanently
tations from another’s perspective according to Hay’s crystallized. Rather, it is the interim sum of (ongoing)
(2008) account of dialogical concept mapping. This is dialogic experiences over time: initially shaped through
expected to apply to the use of the IWB too (which inci- teacher anticipation of its future context of usage and
dentally constitutes a potentially powerful forum for then continuing to evolve.
concept mapping).
Finally, the well-recognized affordance of provision-
Example from secondary history
ality underpins the notion of improvability in the context
of IWB use (likewise in CSILE and similar environ- In this study of three lessons (described in more detail by
ments). Digital artefacts are dynamically constructed, Mercer et al. 2010) with a class of boys aged 12–13,
easily and infinitely manipulable by teachers and learn- in-depth collaborative exploration took place over time

474 S. Hennessy
of the open-ended question: ‘Can we imagine the expe- rative insight’ described by Dooley (2009, 2010).
rience of trench warfare?’The teacher, Lloyd, employed These were facilitated by both use of provisional lan-
a wide range of multimedia resources, beginning with guage and stability of children’s ideas when repre-
whole class interpretation of an army doctor’s 1914 sented on a rolling blackboard in the context of whole
diary text. One boy used the IWB underlining tool to class mathematical conversation. The dialogue demon-
identify key phrases in the text and the class was asked to strates that Lloyd’s use of such a rich range of
explain his choices, another example of built-in respon- resources helped students to forge their own connec-
sivity. The teacher then used the ‘cover and reveal’ facil- tions between the different perspectives embodied in
ity to focus attention on selected segments of a graphic the resources and in their peers’ oral contributions, as
Wilfred Owen poem (Dulce et Decorum est). IWB well as to maintain their engagement. Littleton et al.
activities were interspersed with pair and class discus- (2010, p. 138) likewise postulate that using multiple
sions (as elaborated by S. Hennessy in preparation), and repetitions across semiotic domains renders these
short dramatizations of one segment of the poem by stu- engaging and challenging rather than boring and
dents and teacher, comparing their different interpreta- patronizing. The measured and respectful nature of the
tions. Further, IWB resources structuring the activities dialogue could also be interpreted in terms of Wegerif
included separate audio and video tracks of a single et al.’s (2010) description (of electronic discussions) as
trench warfare film, a scanned textbook trench diagram, ‘listening to different perspectives in a way that allows
and photographs. These resources collectively embod- for the emergence of creative new perspectives
ied diverse experiences of life in the trenches. In turn, (insights) that expand the dialogue without necessarily
they shaped the ebb and flow of the dialogic space being a resolution to any problem’. Here, the dialogue
through conjuring up spectrums of different perspec- is progressively broadened and deepened as the differ-
tives – those held by their creators, by their subjects (sol- ences between perspectives are clarified and the boys
diers), and those subsequently developed by the learners are skilfully drawn into ultimately reflecting on the
(which may or may not have overlapped with the overarching process of dialogic co-enquiry itself. They
others’). Lloyd’s use of the multi-faceted IWB resources move beyond the original question posed; Lloyd later
could hence, be construed as drawing students into a considered that the students’ responses had exceeded
space (or series of spaces) of dialogue across difference, his expectations.
where the various perspectives were in constant interac- Note that the artefact created during this class dis-
tion, becoming salient sometimes in sequence (during or cussion – notes recorded by the teacher on the IWB
across lessons) and sometimes at once (the compilation (Fig 5) – was a relatively impoverished representation
Supporting Information Video Clip S2 illustrates some of the thinking going on. It successfully served the pur-
of the activity during these two lessons). poses of focusing students on the question, summariz-
The lesson sequence culminated not in a common ing succinctly the key points being made in response,
view of that subject matter, but in a rich, teacher- and facilitating further linking between them. Yet, it
mediated dialogue between learners which drew on could not capture the depth of analysis and responsivity
their experiences of the digital resources encountered that the natural language discussion portrayed. By con-
and interacted with. The class discussion in the third trast, a trench diagram (Fig 6) was drawn (side-on
lesson followed talk in pairs and synthesized students’ view) later in the same lesson by six students in turn,
evolving views about how far historians can extrapolate each cumulatively adding elements perceived to be
from using such sources and from partial experience, typically present. It comprised an imaginative range of
and how convergent their thinking can realistically be. such elements and succinctly portrayed rather more
An extract with some commentary alongside is pre- than was stated verbally. Talk was minimal during the
sented in Table 1. drawing and merely served to identify the nature or
This discussion offers a powerful example of dia- origin of the artefacts depicted; this collective symbolic
logic reasoning and meaning making, and of learners’ representation was instead ‘drawn into being’ (cf. Flo-
metacognitive reflection supported by the teacher riani 1993). These artefacts and the dialogue depicted
and by IWB use. This episode resonates with the in Table 1 encapsulated much of the rich multimodal
notions of ‘collaborative metacognition’ and ‘collabo- experience and pair/class dialogue of the previous

Table 1. Extract from dialogue around ‘Is it possible for us to imagine the experience of trench warfare?’
Edited transcript Commentary
Dillon: We don’t actually know if that’s true because it’s a Spontaneously raising questions about reliability of the
DVD. So because we weren’t actually alive, some of that evidence (teacher follows up by making this explicit).
might be true, but we can’t be sure. [. . .]
Ricky: It’s like when you imagine winning the lottery. . . it Recognizing that meanings are inevitably partial through
wouldn’t necessarily be like what you think. their situation within given contexts, based on our
Teacher (T): Very good. I think that’s quite a nice analogy. I construal of that context and our past experiences;
mean it’s different, but it’s almost beyond our making a distinction between (historical records of)
experience. Alex? experience versus feelings.
Alex: I think there are probably bits we can imagine and T deliberately brings in a significant comment he heard
bits we can’t. Robert make during pair work and then ‘stored up’. He
T: All right. Robert, can I take the point that you made? It commonly used this strategy of bringing private
links in with what Alex said. Listen to this. This is interactions into the public arena, and constantly
Robert’s view. encouraged students to comment (respectfully) and
Robert: You can imagine what it would look like, but you build on others’ viewpoints.
Two students who joined the review meeting later on
can’t imagine what it would feel like or how you would
be feeling. remembered Robert’s point as a key one emerging from
the dialogue.
T: Ok. What do you think about that Owen? [repeats
Robert’s comment] I quite like that.
Owen: Yes, because on the DVDs or on the films and the Highlighting the relevance of the vast range of resources
poems and stuff, it explains and you can see what it previously encountered by the class; these resources
looks like, in wasteland, and you’re both in trenches, were anticipated by Lloyd (during lesson planning) to
but you wouldn’t know what it was like to go ages be used to guide formulation of learners’ thinking, as
without food or water. they are here. At the same time learners are critically
T: Ok, go on Ricky. acknowledging their limitations in answering the
Ricky: That’s partially true, but you wouldn’t know what it enquiry question.
would be like to be shot by a bullet or be bombed or
something. You wouldn’t see what it looked like either.
T: Owen is nodding his head there in agreement with T signals peer consensus, then demonstrates his own
what you were saying. . . . You know, this notion about open-mindedness, modelling for the class realignment
it’s something completely outside of our experience. . . I of his thinking with new ideas encountered. He then
like Robert and it wasn’t what I’d thought of. I thought I makes connections between these learners’ recent
was going to write something else on here. Yes ‘what it contributions and previous categories generated by
looked like’ [writing on board], not ‘what it felt like’. their peers, maintaining them in the public arena.
You are then able to bring in all the things that Felix
and Adill or Joe or whoever it was who came up with
this idea [indicates the first three categories listed on
the IWB: see Fig 5]. So yes there are some things we can
describe about it, but the actual feelings are rather
difficult. Any other points to make here? Felix?
Felix: Well, about the feelings, every single person’s Recognition of the relativist viewpoint that individuals
experience with it would be different . . . Everybody’s bring their own conceptual frameworks, perspectives,
got different feelings towards the war . . . and you experiences, recollections and emotions to bear, and
wouldn’t know what anyone would have felt like, even they attribute salience or pertinence differently to
if we were there, you would only know what you felt aspects of a single, commonly experienced event.
like.
T: Yes, can we ever achieve a common understanding of T considers Felix’s point to be very important; in our video
anything? review meeting he subsequently proposed asking
students what this is telling us about how people
experience history or about whether we can in fact
reach a common understanding of what happened in
the past. He ‘allows not-knowing’ (Feito 2007).
IWB, interactive whiteboard.

476 S. Hennessy
managing a cumulative and exploratory dialogue with a

whole class, immediately drawing links between per-
spectives, are evident in the dialogue in Table 1.
Revisiting
Supporting intertextuality through revisiting

The IWB offers the facility to display several screens in
turn and uniquely to archive a sequence of screens,
including any alterations to them. It offers a physical,
permanent record of collaborative activity that can be
Fig 5 History teacher’s recording on the IWB of class discussion
usefully revisited, referenced, or modified during subse-
on trench warfare.
quent activity, soon after or much later in time.
This material permanence of form helps to underpin
lessons, with intertextual referencing by students to ‘the recursive reflection and revision that is so important
earlier digital resources: ‘building on their informed a characteristic of knowledge building’ (Wells 1999, p.
speculation from some of the things that they had seen’ 116). Nondigital artefacts such as written texts,
(Lloyd). sketches, maps, and diagrams can play a similar role of
The case study serves to demonstrate how the teacher course, but are less malleable or accessible by a whole
mediated the cumulative interaction with the IWB to class. By embodying the decision making, interpreta-
support progressive discourse. The piecemeal, graphi- tions, and progress made, digital artefacts can be argued
cal construction of the joint artefact illustrates learner to provide a focus for ‘progressive discourse’ (Bereiter
agency in the process of constructing and modifying 2002) across lessons, as well as within. In particular,
meaning (Gee & Green 1998). We can see how this providing easier access to earlier representations sup-
process – likewise the activity over the three lessons – ports the process of intertextuality.
encompasses an ongoing interaction between individual In Bakhtin’s account, the meanings emerging
expertise and common knowledge. It is also evident that through interaction reflect the different past experiences
the teacher’s employment of such an imaginative mix of and frames of reference that each participant brings, as
resources and linked activities served to engage all of well as the immediately preceding utterances. Students
the learners in the class despite the inevitably limited responding to the demands of dialogic enquiry must
opportunities for their direct manipulation at the board therefore reconstruct their view of the past (Kumpu-
during any one lesson. His own responsivity and skill in lainen & Lipponen 2010, p. 56). This is challenging
when oral texts are normally transient as previously
mentioned, and it is particularly difficult to maintain
fluency in all of the open-ended threads in a discussion
lasting several weeks (Feito 2007). The functionality of
the IWB tool affords a far greater stability associated
with the continued visibility of representations (until
their purpose has been served and changes have been
discarded: Twiner et al. 2010). These representations
serve the functions of recording and summarizing, and
of ‘reigniting’ prior cognitive reasoning, as well as the
‘epistemic’ function of use as a tool for thinking, and
developing and refining understanding through dia-
logue (Feito 2007).
At its simplest, this can mean revisiting with a class
Fig 6 Diagram of a World War I trench collectively drawn by digital resources that teachers themselves have created
learners in history. in advance. For example, a graphical representation of

Fig 7 Drag-and-drop activity constructing the photosynthesis Fig 8 Collective representation of small groups’ advice on per-
equation in science. sonal safety.
the equation of photosynthesis (Fig 7) was progres-

sively built up – and earlier elements constantly revis- Alternatively co-constructed artefacts may be revis-
ited – over six lessons in one case study, as detailed ited. The first two annotated slides shown in Fig 2 were
by Hennessy et al. (2010).6 Accompanied by practical returned to in the subsequent lesson, reportedly in order
investigation, this pivotal use of the equation structured to bridge between lessons. This revisiting pulled
the activities and helped students to explore and under- together ideas from the two poems studied and refo-
stand the role of each core element in the overall cused students, allowing them constant reference to
process. their earlier ideas and thoughts. These aides memoires
Another example illustrates how the primary teacher reminded learners of what they already knew, and pro-
devised an activity in which groups of children revisited vided a springboard for further discussion of the themes
a collection of images she had collated during the previ- depicted. Indirect reference to resources or artefacts on
ous lesson, pertaining to personal safety issues and in the IWB includes our observations of the same teacher’s
particular, the scenario depicted in Fig 1. A student from unobtrusive display of a series of flipchart slides con-
each group came up in turn to the IWB to annotate, taining questions, suggestions, and previously viewed
sharing the advice they had generated during group or annotated stimulus images linked to three poems
discussions (‘as a team working for Childline’) and studied over a school term, and excerpts from them (see
recorded on large sheets of paper (see an example in Fig 9).
Fig 8). The teacher helped to make the dialogue cumula-
tive between lessons and within the session by first pre-
paring the image collection and then prompting students
about the emerging contributions with open-ended,
probing questions such as ‘Why did Mehmet write “be
assertive”?’ ‘Why are you [suggesting she calls the]
police?’ ‘Does anyone agree that’s a good step to take?’
She thereby helped children to be responsive and build
on each other’s ideas. Her sensitive mediation spawned a
number of thoughtful ideas, reasoned arguments, and
mature insights into the characters’ mindsets as the class
together explored some complex issues and ethical
dilemmas (e.g. the worry that a family would be split up
if a domestic violence situation was reported); this is
illustrated in Supporting Information Video Clip S3. Fig 9 ’Silent scaffolding’ of poetry writing in English.

478 S. Hennessy
These fragmented but evocative representations of resources for the continuing dialogue, and this is not
the poem again acted as prompts or aides memoires, restricted to class discussion. We could construe learn-
reigniting collective interpretations of the themes and ers’ re-use of co-constructed artefacts in a new context
characters, and being made available for optional con- as a form of internal dialogue that perpetuates and
sultation, while students were drafting their own poems; builds upon earlier whole class dialogue (conducted
the teacher called this ‘silent scaffolding’ (Hennessy & within the same or a previous lesson). Revisiting can
Deaney 2009). Both of these examples were teacher- scaffold learners’ subsequent sense-making conversa-
initiated revisiting that clearly depended on significant tions – both external and internal ones. This iterative
advance preparation in collating previous resources, process includes making the difference or agreement
and in the second case, generating new forms of between perspectives salient, hence, creating another
prompting to overlay (both on screen and verbally). In subject for discussion or reflection. Howe’s (2010)
another recent study of IWB use in a middle school research confirms that differences typically trigger ref-
English classroom, many students asked for slides erences to conceptual material, sometimes that derived
depicting typical crime story structures and adaptations from earlier problems. Such references are linked with
from an earlier lesson to be displayed again in order to construction of superior frameworks and improved
support development of their own crime stories. In the post-test performance. It would be useful to explore
history lesson sequence outlined above, students also empirically whether exploiting the revisiting affordance
requested access to earlier resources: of the IWB, initiated by either teachers or students
seeking to make references back to earlier ideas, solu-
When we were writing our piece on WW1 we had every- tions, or learning experiences, supports this kind of con-
thing on the IWB and we were constantly going up and
flicking through it (Danny). ceptual change through dialogic resolution.
Extrapolating again from research on nondigital texts
Likewise, Paavola and Hakkarainen observed how suggests that revisiting screens instantly invokes the
the activities of participants in the Knowledge Forum previous context in which an artefact was constructed,
learning environment are strongly organized around the including any differences in interpretations and under-
knowledge artefacts they are creating and have already standing, and this shapes the context currently being
created. In the ‘Artifacts’ project, ‘whenever students constructed (Floriani 1993, p. 257). Invoking prior con-
started to investigate a topic, they opened up corre- texts means invoking not just texts but social and discur-
sponding shared views of the database and used those to sive practices and ‘us[ing] the past to shape the future’
guide and constrain their enquiry. Even classroom dis- (ibid., p. 259). Could using the IWB offer a powerfully
cussions were organized around a shared screen’ suggestive, additional resource for Floriani’s notion of
(Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005, p. 551). Despite their establishing a ‘dialogue between past and present texts’
shared ownership, IWB artefacts are usually less acces- (ibid.)? Certainly the interrelationships between differ-
sible after the lesson to students than to teachers (gate- ent modes of dialogue, occurring within different class-
keepers), however. The use of the IWB as a potential room spaces (e.g. in groups at tables or at the IWB at the
repository of resources or artefacts for student access is front), and both synchronously within a lesson event
underdeveloped, perhaps for logistical reasons. Our and asynchronously over lessons, have implications for
primary teacher pointed out that in principle, students us as researchers seeking insight into the knowledge-
could go and listen again to her audio recording of the building process. The inter-connectedness of classroom
personal safety text; she had previously encouraged events embedded within the larger cycles of related
their return to stored webpages, vocabulary, and images activity found in most classrooms confirms the impor-
(but not sound files). This constitutes another form of tance of access to – and iterative, analytical consider-
revisiting – continuing a dialogue within students’ per- ation of – the full range of interactions over time
sonal learning spaces. (Mercer 2008). That is, understanding what was accom-
In all of these kinds of revisiting, digital artefacts, like plished in any one episode or lesson requires an under-
other produced texts, become ‘academically and standing of how the teacher purposefully created
socially significant resources for future work’ (Green intertextual relationships with students and of the differ-
et al. 2008, p. 126). They constitute rich referential ent responses from students as they made sense of the

activities collectively and individually, negotiating described throughout the paper; as educators, our
common knowledge (Edwards & Mercer 1987). primary concern is of course with learning. According
to Wegerif (2007), the voices interacting within an
Revisiting digital artefacts created by others
ongoing dialogue include artefacts themselves. As with
Cole and Engestrom (1993, p. 14) suggest that the sub-
other emerging views of technology itself as a partici-
jective aspect of artefacts can be seen in terms of the
pant in classroom interaction (e.g. Kennewell et al.
‘cognitive residue of prior actions crystallized in the
2009), caution must be exercised in interpreting such
object’. This includes both residues from classroom
phrasing in order to avoid the danger of erroneously
activity, and knowledge that has been recreated and
attributing agency or autonomy: as indicated earlier,
revised by humans many times before. The latter knowl-
these belong to teachers and learners while technology
edge embodies what is more widely known in the disci-
is only ever a passive ‘participant’. A helpfully succinct
pline, but also mediates knowing in action in new
description that explicitly focuses on the process rather
situations of application (Wells 1999, Chapter 3), such
than products of dialogue and resonates with my view of
as the classroom. Digital artefacts, again like utterances,
dialogic interaction with digital artefacts on the IWB as
are shared resources that can later be drawn upon or
it has unfolded in this paper, is:
transformed by new communicators in new dialogues.
‘Revisiting’ may therefore be extended to include inter- Cognitive artefacts, tools, poems, plays, pictures and so
acting with digital artefacts created by experts in the sub- on, sediment and embody a perspective or voice on the
stantive area or by other groups of learners, for various world in a way that can be shared and taken up in new
ways in new dialogues across space and time. Although
purposes – perhaps as scaffolding, as a stimulus to
they have an aspect as objects in physical space their
provoke thinking and make explicit learners’ own views meaning is given within dialogic space . . . it is intrinsic
in response, or again to explore difference between per- to their nature that they are many things at once. (Wegerif
spectives across groups as well as within. For example, 2007, p. 279)
we observed our history teacher display a spider
Wegerif explicitly plays down the role of producing
diagram depicting a brainstorm from another class about
artefacts in those contexts where induction into open-
‘how wars start’ for comparison and contrast with
ended dialogic enquiry is itself the aim. He asserts that
current conceptions. This strategy enlarges the learning
increasing awareness of the process (a form of deepen-
community by allowing teachers and students to provide
ing, as intimated above) and capacity for reflective and
resources for different cohorts or generations.
creative thought is the aim of ‘dialogue across differ-
In the same way that words carry with them the
ence’. Stated learning objectives for a given classroom
voices of those who have used them before (Bakhtin
activity may not in fact encompass this notion of dia-
1981, p. 924) and become one’s own only when appro-
logue as a goal in itself, although arguably they should
priated and adapted, displaying and commenting on
include learning to think and to learn. Our observations
previous groups’ digital representations, as in our
of IWB use have illustrated how employing rich multi-
example, does not invoke the original dialogue nor
media resources and collectively producing new arte-
allow access to an earlier dialogic space. Because mean-
facts can be particularly effective in supporting the
ings do not exist independently of dialogue, the use of a
process of learners re-evaluating their own thinking and
co-constructed artefact within its original setting, and
broadening their understanding in new directions – as
its meaning to other learners subsequently interacting
already evidenced in the dialogue in Table 1. There, the
with it, will differ. In this view, new ideas and interpre-
‘collaborative metacognition’ (Dooley 2010) skilfully
tations continue to arise out of difference (Wegerif
supported by the teacher demonstrated generalization
2008). By contrast, revisiting by the same learners may
and reflective thinking about the process of dialogic
extend and develop a dialogue over time.
co-enquiry. Indeed, the nature of the artefact is often
less important than the inter-subjective process of creat-
Learning outcomes of IWB-mediated
ing it, and its utility may in any case be short lived. IWB
classroom dialogue
artefacts can constitute a dynamic form of scaffold for
This section considers the potential outcomes of the thinking, and as the earlier discussion on provisionality
kinds of technology-supported dialogic teaching and improvability implies, they are often needed only

480 S. Hennessy
for certain stages of activity, after which support can be Mexican research demonstrates generalizable oracy
faded. and literacy gains through collaborative writing in
In the real world of schooling, most of the teaching which learners ‘blend their voices’ and blend existent
and learning is shaped to some extent by the prevailing texts with new ones (intertextuality), through iterative
curriculum and assessment frameworks, and these tend cycles of action and reflection (Rojas-Drummond et al.
to combine content and process objectives. The latter 2010). Scott et al. (2010) have further illustrated how
often explicitly or implicitly encompass skills for dia- dialogic pedagogy supports the meaningful learning of
logue and – particularly in science education where scientific concepts. Opening up a dialogic space is con-
theories may be compared and evaluated – skills for sidered fruitful, at least in topic areas where ‘intellec-
argumentation (e.g. Erduran et al. 2004) and enquiry. In tual tension’ between ideas is likely to arise, that is,
history, Lloyd defined his ‘second order’ or process when learning demands (Leach & Scott 2002) are
learning objective as developing the ability to see that high.
people hold different views on things – in other words, The aforementioned work of Rojas-Drummond et al.
as becoming more dialogic. He also posed the question (2010) introduces an interesting degree of complexity,
of what students are learning through dialogue: however. In their studies, activity was characterized by
exploratory talk when collaboratively writing argumen-
I’m not sure where we capture that. . . . We almost tative texts, and in other cases (divergent tasks where
dismiss it, and it’s what comes later on when they write
something [individually] that’s [deemed] more signifi- there is not one solution and where differences of
cant. . . . because we’ve been brought up in a particular perspective are not necessarily manifested), by ‘co-
context of education which values the outcome at the constructive’ talk. The latter is similar, except that chil-
end. I think I’m guilty of this as well, that if they haven’t dren do not make their reasoning and argumentation
written it down, almost I can’t believe they know it! But
hopefully, I bet they do, and they could tell me. explicit. In this talk, children may be proposing ideas
and questioning and they ‘typically chain, integrate,
Lloyd raises a crucial and perplexing issue here, elaborate and/or reformulate each other’s contributions
one which is rarely problematized in the literature, to negotiate meanings and jointly construct solutions to
including within the trialogical approach: is dialogue problems, including differences of perspectives’ (ibid.,
truly an end in itself or is something else ultimately p. 135). ‘Co-constructive’ talk might be construed as
appropriated by individuals and collectively? Critical having multimodal manifestations when the IWB is
reasoning skills are one potential, often desired and used; in particular, the Mexican research indicates that
measurable outcome (Vygotsky 1978; Dawes et al. creative brainstorming tasks, to which the IWB is emi-
2004), yet do participants subsequently come to nently well-suited (e.g. Fig 2) may be less conducive to
develop any substantive disciplinary knowledge or new reasoning. Access to physical representations may in
creative ideas? general reduce the need to make reasoning verbally
There is a strong consensus view emerging among explicit, as demonstrated in the studies by Murphy et al.
the key researchers in this field (see the collection (2010) of young children’s collaboration on open-
edited by Littleton & Howe 2010) that academic ended written arithmetic tasks after exploratory talk
success is partly related to the quality of educational training. An example from our own data is the very
dialogues, but the ways in which that success is mea- concise talk-in-action by learners simply describing
sured are diverse. The literature indicates that dialogic their additions to the trench diagram drawn on the IWB
teaching approaches can serve as a vehicle for fostering (Fig 6), e.g. ‘people kneeling down at the sides of the
development of substantive knowledge in addition to ditch’, ‘sandbags’, etc. There was only one, brief
dialogue and reflective thought. A series of studies has explicit explanation: ‘In the movie [intertextuality] you
shown that exploratory talk training as in the ‘Thinking saw that sort of periscope-type thing that you looked
Together’ approach (Dawes et al. 2004) stimulates over the top of the trench with, so that would probably
both development of (individual and group) reasoning be there’. The rich graphic representation of students’
skills plus learning gains in mathematics and science at perspectives on trench warfare during this third lesson
primary level (Wegerif et al. 1999; Mercer et al. 2004; of the series was itself ‘co-constructive’ and chained,
Mercer & Sams 2006; Rojas-Drummond et al. 2010). obviating the need for fuller talk.

We can conclude that purpose is all-important and More research is needed into this complex area
high quality dialogue can involve ‘exploratory’ and/or though, as the degree and stimuli for change seem to
‘co-constructive’ kinds of talk and activity; it does not vary enormously according to individual perspective,
necessarily involve making reasoning explicit nor con- prior experience, motivation and receptiveness to new
verging upon a ‘correct’ representation, a solution or ideas, as one of Lloyd’s students described:
consensus view. Instead dialogue aims to augment
understanding with new perspectives (Wegerif 2010a), I find sometimes people just bring their own ideas.
although not necessarily with immediate effect. As People like Tim . . . Then there are people like Jack. He’ll
discussed above, the research by Howe et al. (1992) just take the discussion we’ve had and just form his own
view from the discussion instead of using his own knowl-
indicates that learning involves private construction of edge from before.
conceptions some time after group interaction, rather
than internalization of jointly constructed conceptions, Mercer (2000, p. 172) confirms that by bringing dif-
and in certain cases, a ‘period of incubation’ (Dooley ferent contextualizing resources to the task of making
2010) may be fruitful. sense of experience, ‘individuals can add to the richness
However, we know that both learners and teachers of the collective intellect’; both teacher and learners
can change their views soon afterwards to accommo- contribute here. An example is a science teacher relay-
date new ideas or take on some aspects of a collectively ing examples of previous students’ personal, nonverbal
generated representation, as in the trench drawing representations illustrating how the plant cell wall pro-
example, where one student later reported: tects and supports: these drawings had reportedly
depicted hitting a brick wall with a fist or car bashing
We’ve all drawn our own pictures of the trench, kind of into it and bouncing off as the cell wall flexed (the
like everyone’s got their own view, and then through the
teacher sketched only a rough brick wall on the IWB
IWB everyone’s building a communal view of the trench
. . . and then we looked at what the book said. while explaining this verbally). These representations
were ‘repurposed’ (rather than revisited directly) and
After joint reflection on this episode, two students used as scaffolding for his subsequent class, stimulating
asserted that they would use ‘quite a lot of the other peo- a variety of new drawings in exercise books (aides-
ple’s ideas’, if drawing another trench themselves. One memoires for the originators: Hennessy et al. 2010). A
stated: few of these were then drawn freehand onto the IWB or
projected there using a flexible camera (form of visual-
It would be kind of a mix because I put barely any people izer) and publicly explained by pupils. Some represen-
in mine originally. I had one guy standing with a rifle and tations in books were quite evidently based on the
then everyone was like, ‘oh put more people in’. And like
the water and everything, it is totally different to what original students’ ideas or on peers’ ideas shared via the
I put. IWB, while others were new perspectives (e.g. the cell
wall protects a football player from a ball kicked
The teacher also thought his representation would towards him as in Fig 10, the drawing adjacent to ‘Cell
change: wall’).
What is certain is that there is no simplistic input-
I would now think more about a side-on view of a trench; output mechanism for learning through dialogue. More-
I’d think more about that than I would about the textbook
[diagram] . . . because it’s made quite an impression
over, ‘cumulative’, and ‘progressive’ do not imply a
on me. straightforward linear trajectory of learning (Twiner
et al. 2010) nor a common final product. In contrast, a
These quotes confirm the impact on individual think- trialogical approach to e-learning (Tzitzikas et al. 2006)
ing of progressively negotiating a communal represen- within the Knowledge-Practices Laboratory assumes
tation. This itself made explicit and democratically that community interactions and development of new
brought together multiple ideas based partly on shared knowledge artefacts merely involve union or intersec-
experience of exposure to digital resources in an activity tion of individual knowledge bases. Rather, the ultimate
context where learners controlled the stylus and picture outcome may be far ‘more than the sum of its parts’.
content entirely, with no teacher input. Encouragement for this position comes from observa-

482 S. Hennessy
2004) and as observed in our primary and middle

school dialogic classrooms, or implicitly through
modelling them as our secondary history teacher did;
2 appreciation of different perspectives on a topic,
including those of peers, teacher, and sometimes
experts (e.g. scientific theories), coupled with either a
consensus view, a collection of ideas, or an agree-
ment to differ (differences will be more apparent with
convergent rather than divergent tasks: Rojas-
Drummond et al. 2010);
3 fluid forms of content and process knowledge that are
both individual and shared, internally and externally
represented, and situated within the dialogue itself,
Fig 10 Learners’ interactive whiteboard representations of sugar while evolving further through dialogue as it contin-
storage in science.
ues over time, internally (dialogic reflection) if not
interpersonally.
tions by Hershkowitz et al. (2006) of dyads and triads
solving mathematical problems, which indicated that To reiterate, the primary products are thus not the
collective construction may have been richer than might material digital artefacts themselves, although these
have been the case for the individual partners, yet indi- may constitute a powerful, re-useable, and multimodal
viduals had unique methods of constructing a solution. form of external knowledge representation – albeit in
The latter evolved from different needs at different new contexts and for new purposes. More significantly,
points in time, and constructs of individuals within the these may usefully embody some of the thinking to date,
group varied accordingly. and reify the dialogue associated with their construc-
In the earlier examples of cumulative dialogue epi- tion. Hence, they are subsequently useful not only to
sodes at the IWB observed in our studies (e.g. building learners, but perhaps to teachers or researchers inter-
up a food chain), responsive actions typically comprised ested in assessing what has been learned: a thorny issue.
kinaesthetic interactions with the board accompanied How can we know what change has taken place within a
by brief spoken explanations of rationale. They yielded group of learners, what measurement techniques we can
some significant outcomes in the form of collectively use, and how long after dialogic interaction should we
produced objects – represented mentally as well as digi- investigate this? As the discussion on revisiting indi-
tally. These embodied new or refined, more complex cated, artefacts do not form a direct conduit to a learn-
knowledge structures that were open to appropriation er’s understanding (Roschelle 1996), so by themselves
by individuals both during and following the process of offer us only limited insight. Other attempts at direct
meaning making. Different individuals may well appro- introspection into cognitive representations are not fea-
priate different aspects of a collective representation, or sible either (without influencing the representations of
be stimulated to later reflect on and revise their own interest). Observational data may be unreliable too as
conceptions in a new direction, in response to encoun- apparently passive students may in fact be engaged in
tering those of other learners. internal dialogue.
We can conclude that the products of dialogic activity The model of distributed cognition (Salomon 1993)
may comprise: in which culturally shared models are not stored in any
single person’s head, but are distributed (either physi-
1 dialogue, reasoning, and enquiry skills themselves (if cally or socially) across the different sorts of expertise
pedagogy is supportive); it is probably necessary to and viewpoints found in a group, has some resonance
develop these in teachers and learners before expect- with the account being developed here, and some
ing them to use the IWB in genuinely interactive implications concerning outcomes. In particular, it
ways in whole class settings – either explicitly as in similarly asserts that cognition develops contingently
the ‘Thinking Together’ approach (Dawes et al. upon others’ responses, assisted by (evolving) cultural

tools acting as mediating artefacts. The theory high- metacognitive reflections on all of those processes, may
lights the difficulties, though, of even identifying the well continue. And of course, new goals, problems,
level of divergence in thinking, and of knowing what mediational means, perceptions, and interactions inevi-
others who are not articulating their thinking have tably arise in new situations, shaping new dialogues and
previously experienced, conceptualized, or appropri- meanings. Note that this lack of either containment or
ated, and how this is currently shaping their personal concrete product is a key feature of successful learning
interpretations. in formal educational settings. It means that bounded
Recordings in exercise books and subsequent inter- models such as activity systems offer limited value in
view responses can shed some light. In our studies, understanding the complexities of learning in a dialogic
these tended to indicate that learners (and teachers) per- classroom; genuine dialogue will not confine itself to
ceived digital artefacts non-uniformly, and made use of the 50-minute lesson, the serendipitous grouping of 30
them to varying degrees and in various ways, as they students of a similar age, or the space within four class-
might with other artefacts. Mavers (2009) addresses this room walls. In sum, digital artefacts have a varying but
in her compelling account of how primary children limited shelf life, and the outcomes of drawing learners
focused on different aspects of a resource and into dialogue are far more than these.
re-versioned texts for their own purposes when record-
ing personal representations, even when ‘copying’ from Conclusions
a board or book; this involved making shifts in meaning
in the course of doing important ‘semiotic work’. Hay’s The practices of working innovatively with knowledge
(2008) work on dialogical concept mapping, along with become accessible to school children when . . . they
successful employment of the stimulated recall inter- are provided with advanced tools for creating and build-
view technique in research studies in this area (e.g. ing knowledge based on the new information and com-
munication technologies (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005,
Wegerif et al. 2010), indicates that using digital arte-
p. 549).
facts as stimuli for discussion with or between students
about their learning – either during a lesson or some I have argued that the IWB constitutes a powerful
time afterwards – may be a fruitful form of formative or new form of such a cultural tool. Its particular affor-
summative assessment. Comparing artefacts such as dances, including visibility, provisionality, stability,
concept maps produced at the beginning and end of a direct manipulation, multimodality, and re-usability,
lesson sequence, as did one primary teacher observed potentially offer strong support for cumulative, collabo-
by Kleine Staarman (personal communication), power- rative, and recursive learning. Its effective use by teach-
fully illustrates to learners themselves how their think- ers can provide appropriate scaffolding to help make
ing has moved on. explicit and create knowledge, through opening up a
Finally, while co-constructed digital artefacts play a (physical and cognitive) dialogic space in which new
critical supportive role in classroom dialogue, most are personal and shared meanings can be negotiated. This
physically abandoned as the class ultimately moves on space is potentially productive for learning because: (1)
to other topics. However, the dialogue and the thinking different ideas can more easily be juxtaposed, fore-
may of course continue in some form or another, beyond grounded, explored, connected, compared, and con-
the production of specific knowledge artefacts and trasted, rendering strengths and weaknesses more
beyond the boundaries of the school setting – in spaces salient; and (2) learners can jointly construct and inter-
and ways that we cannot possibly capture. For example act with digital artefacts on the board. These external
when, in their future lives, the students in the history representations of conceptual and procedural knowl-
class encounter other accounts of warfare, we might edge and cultural information are the support for and the
expect their responses to be influenced by the meanings interim records of the creative process. They become
created within their classroom dialogue. Likewise, rich, situated resources for a group, shaped by prior
when they go on to study other topics within school, history, and providing access to participants’ interpreta-
their experience of processes of enquiry, dialogic inter- tions and current understandings as well as to external
action, role play, interpretation of historical artefacts, others’ ideas; they may incorporate multiple voices. At
extrapolation from specific situations, as well as their the same time, they may help learners to differentiate

484 S. Hennessy
between perspectives, supporting further joint reflec- successfully for classroom learning without merely
tion and synthesis. To conclude, artefacts could be said being seduced by their technological glitz (Lankshear &
to act as staging posts and launching pads for evolving Knobel 2006). In fact, our own and other research (Ken-
dialogues that are fluid and elastic as they continually newell & Beauchamp 2007; Gillen et al. 2008) indi-
leapfrog in new directions – sometimes circular – from cates that fairly prosaic uses of the IWB (e.g. displaying
provisional reifications in the artefact. They afford pro- a question and recording students’ responses around it)
gression in learning through cumulative development of can actually be remarkably effective when a dialogic
new shared understandings – both of curriculum content pedagogy is the driving force. So rather than starting
and the process of co-enquiry itself. Hence, construct- with the technology and seeking to exploit its ‘whizzy’
ing digital artefacts, usually in conjunction with features, teachers might join us in extending the enquiry
co-constructive talk, can serve to both broaden and into how patterns of interaction and activity already
deepen classroom dialogue. established in the dialogic classroom can be supported
To fully exploit the potential of the IWB requires and enhanced by exploiting the unique combination of
further research into how different modes of representa- affordances of the IWB and its future incarnations in
tion and communication are privileged; how their affor- pedagogically principled ways.
dances, constraints and degrees of use vary according to A starting point might be the multimedia professional
pedagogic purpose, nature of activity and teacher’s development resources we are creating to stimulate
familiarity with the IWB and its software; whether and teachers’ interest in exploring new dialogic approaches
how each mode makes a distinct contribution to shaping and reflecting on their own practice.7 The resources are
the kinds of dialogue that ensue and the kinds of co-authored with our partner practitioners and they
meaning that are made; how combining or layering communicate in accessible language the notion of dia-
modes can reshape domain knowledge, add value and logue developed above, along with its preconditions and
communicate more complex meanings (as in McVee some strategies to support it. Activities centre on the
et al.’s 2008 study of digital composition using Hyper- exemplars of practice in this article and others arising
Studio or digital video). Further work is needed to from our studies, illustrated by video clips, screenshots,
unpack the assumption that multimodality promotes teacher narratives, etc. The aim is to draw out from the
learning, already questioned by Jewitt (2008), and to above theoretical development of ideas some practical
explore the increased demands on students. Mayer’s pointers for teachers wanting to exploit the technology
(2001) research into multimedia learning portrays the in more interactive ways than is typically observed.
benefits of multiple representations, especially text and The author welcomes further dialogue with peers
animation, but learners must actively make and under- about these ideas.
stand connections between them (Ainsworth 1999),
while avoiding cognitive overload, redundancy, and
Acknowledgements
split attention effects (Sweller 1999). Our history teach-
er’s isolation in turn of the soundtrack and the visual The work on which this paper draws was funded by the
elements of the same DVD provides one exemplar on UK Economic and Social Research Council (see details
which more research might build; how useful are such in Note ii) and I am very grateful for their support over
pedagogical strategies (‘less is more’?) and what might the last 8 years. Likewise, this paper would not have
the teacher need to do in addition? Do such strategies – been possible without the contributions to the work
and the layering of modes – strategically focus learners’ made by my original collaborators Rosemary Deaney
attention? and Kenneth Ruthven, and more recent collaborators
Finally, although use of the IWB is still emergent, Neil Mercer and Paul Warwick (whose parallel work on
new features, new forms (e.g. horizontal ‘tabletop’ group activity at the IWB additionally made for fruitful
boards), and new technologies are inevitably springing interchange). Appreciation is also extended to the dedi-
up. As these tools and our uses of them evolve, new cated teachers who willingly participated in the various
forms of dialogue will inevitably emerge. The peda- case studies, to Karen Littleton, Rupert Wegerif, and
gogical issues discussed here, nevertheless, remain per- the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful com-
tinent if we want to harness the tools purposefully and ments on earlier drafts of the article, and to Bryony

Horsley-Heather for efficient secretarial assistance and M. Holquist), pp. 60–102. University of Texas Press,
data processing. Austin, TX.
Bereiter C. (2002) Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Notes
Bielaczyc K. (2001) Designing social infrastructure: the
1
The IWB is a system comprising a computer linked to a data projector and a challenge of building computer-supported learning com-
large electronic board displaying the projected image. The touch-sensitive munities. In European Perspectives on Computer-
board allows direct input via finger or stylus so that objects can be easily
Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the
manipulated or modified by teacher or students.
2
The projects were all funded by the UK Economic and Social Research First European Conference on Computer-Supported Col-
Council. They included SET-IT (‘Situated Expertise in Technology-Integrated laborative Learning (eds P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings &
Teaching’: R000239823) in 2002–2005 (with Kenneth Ruthven and Rosemary K. Hakkarainen), pp. 106–114. University of Maastricht,
Deaney); T-MEDIA (‘Teacher Mediation of Subject Learning with Technology: Maastricht.
A Multimedia Approach’: RES000230825) in 2005–2007 (with Rosemary
Cole M.A. (1994) A conception of culture for a communica-
Deaney), and the ‘IWBs and Dialogic Teaching’ project undertaken in collabo-
ration with Neil Mercer and Paul Warwick as part of a personal Research Fel- tion theory of mind. In Intrapersonal Communication: Dif-
lowship programme of work carried out in 2007–2010 by the author (ref. ferent Voices, Different Minds (ed. D.R. Vocate), pp. 77–98.
RES063270081). Reports and publications from each are available at http:// Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/istl/. The first two projects did not focus Cole M.A. & Engestrom Y. (1993) A cultural-historical
on dialogue, but the themes emerging encompassed dialogic interaction and this
approach to distributed cognition. In Distributed Cogni-
stimulated further investigation.
3
The T-MEDIA multimedia resources (see Hennessy & Deaney 2007) are all tions: Psychological and Educational Considerations
freely available at http://t-media.educ.cam.ac.uk. (ed. G. Salomon), pp. 1–46. Cambridge University Press,
4
The UK National Strategies for primary and lower secondary schooling include Cambridge.
dialogue under ‘Speaking and Listening’ skills, however, definitions are incon- Dawes L., Mercer N. & Wegerif R. (2004) Thinking Together:
sistent. They range in the same document (DfES 2003) from ‘Speaking: to use
A Programme of Activities for Developing Speaking, Lis-
and reflect on some ground rules for dialogue, e.g. making structured, extended
contributions, speaking audibly, making meaning explicit and listening tening and Thinking Skills for Children Aged 8–11. Imagi-
actively’ (p. 9) in Year 4 to ‘Speaking: to use techniques of dialogic talk to native Minds, Birmingham.
explore ideas, topics or issues, e.g. . . . using formal language and spoken stan- Deaney R., Chapman A. & Hennessy S. (2010) A case study of
dard English’ (p. 11) in Year 6. one teacher’s use of the interactive whiteboard to support
Syllabi and standardized examinations at age 16 are reportedly undergoing
knowledge co-construction in the history classroom. The
the biggest shake-up for 20 years and will include stimulus questions
such as ‘why do people become terrorists?’ (history). Geography, science, and Curriculum Journal 20, 365–387.
citizenship are further areas where controversial topics are already discussed Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003) Speaking,
and a move for philosophy in schools directly targets reasoning and evaluation Listening, Learning: Working with Children in Key Stages 1
skills. and 2 (No. 0623-2003). DfES, London.
5
Vygotsky’s dialectic perspective and Engestrom’s expansion of Activity
Dooley T. (2009) Primary pupils in whole-class mathematical
Theory both assert that learning is stimulated by prior inner contradictions
(Wegerif 2008). conversation. Paper presented at the Day Conference of the
6
Video illustrations of how the equation was built up over time and how the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics
teacher managed and structured the activities surrounding it can be seen on the (BSRLM) in February 2009, University of Cambridge.
T-MEDIA multimedia science resource at http://t-media.educ.cam.ac.uk (see Dooley T. (2010) The Construction of Mathematical Insight
Clips 1.3, 2.3. 4.2, 5.1).
7
by Pupils in Whole-Class Conversation. University of
The resources are currently under development; they are freely available via
our website at http://dialogueiwb.educ.cam.ac.uk/. Cambridge, Cambridge.
Edwards D. & Mercer N. (1987) Common Knowledge: The
Development of Understanding in the Classroom. Rout-
References
ledge, London.
Ainsworth S.E. (1999) A fixed taxonomy of multiple Erduran S., Simon S. & Osborne J. (2004) TAPping into argu-
representations. Computers and Education 33, 131– mentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s
152. argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science
Alexander R.J. (2008) Towards Dialogic Teaching. Rethink- Education 88, 915–933.
ing Classroom Talk, 4th edn. Dialogos UK Ltd, Cambridge. Feito J.A. (2007) Allowing not-knowing in a dialogic
Bakhtin M.N. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. University of discussion. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Texas Press, Austin, TX. Teaching and Learning 1. Available at: http://academics.
Bakhtin M.N. (1986) The problem of speech genres. In georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v1n1/feito/ij_feito.htm (last
Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (eds C. Emerson & accessed 7 June 2010).

486 S. Hennessy
Fernández-Cárdenas J.M. & Silveyra-De La Garza M.L. tives through in-depth video analysis of pedagogic
(2010) Disciplinary knowledge and gesturing in communi- strategies. Teachers College Record 111, 1753–1795.
cative events: a comparative study between lessons using Hennessy S., Deaney R., Ruthven K. & Winterbottom M.
interactive whiteboards and traditional whiteboards in (2007) Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive
Mexican schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 19, whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science.
173–193. Learning, Media and Technology, Special Issue on Interac-
Floriani A. (1993) Negotiating what counts: roles and tive Whiteboards 32, 283–301.
relationships, texts and contexts, content and meaning. Hennessy S., Deaney R. & Tooley C. (2010) Using the inter-
Linguistics and Education 5, 241–274. active whiteboard to stimulate active learning in school
Futuresource Consulting (2010) Interactive displays quar- science. In Interactive Whiteboards: Theory, Research and
terly insight: State of the market report, Quarter 1: Future- Practice (eds M. Thomas & E. Cutrim-Schmid), pp. 102–
source Consulting. 117. IGI-Global, Hershey, PA.
Galton M. (2007) Learning and Teaching in the Primary Hennessy S., Warwick P. & Mercer N. (2011) A dialogic
Classroom. Sage, London. inquiry approach to working with teachers in developing
Gee J.P. & Green J.L. (1998) Discourse analysis, learning, and classroom dialogue. Teachers College Record (in press).
social practice: a methodological study. Review of Hershkowitz R., Hadas N. & Dreyfus T. (2006) Diversity in
Research in Education 23, 119–169. the Construction of a Group’s Shared Knowledge. Proceed-
Gibson J.J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Percep- ings of the 30th Annual Conference of the International
tion. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
Gillen J., Littleton K., Twiner A., Staarman J.K. & Mercer N. Vol. III. Czech Republic, Prague.
(2008) Using the interactive whiteboard to resource conti- Howe C. (2010) Peer dialogue and cognitive development: a
nuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science two-way relationship? Chapter 2. In Educational Dia-
classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, logues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interac-
348–358. tion (eds K. Littleton & C. Howe), pp. 32–47. Routledge,
Green J., Yeager B. & Castanheira M. (2008) Talking texts Abingdon.
into being: on the social construction of everyday life and Howe C., Tolmie A. & Rodgers C. (1992) The acquisition of
academic knowledge in the classroom. In Exploring Talk in conceptual knowledge in science by primary school chil-
School (eds N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson), pp. 115–130. dren: group interaction and the understanding of motion
Sage, London. down an inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental
Hakkarainen K. (2003) Progressive inquiry in a computer- Psychology 10, 113–130.
supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Howe C., McWilliam D. & Cross G. (2005) Chance favours
Teaching 40, 1072–1088. only the prepared mind: incubation and the delayed effects
Hakkarainen K. & Paavola S. (2007) From monological of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology 96,
and dialogical to trialogical approaches to learning. 67–93.
Paper presented at the international workshop ‘Guided Howe C., Tolmie A., Thurston A., Topping K., Christie D.,
Construction of Knowledge in Classrooms’. Available Livingston K., Jessiman E., Donaldson C. (2007) Group
at: http://escalate.org.il/construction_knowledge/papers/ work in elementary science: towards organisational prin-
hakkarainen.pdf (last accessed 10 December 2010). ciples for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruc-
Hatano G. & Inagaki K. (1992) Desituating cognition through tion 17, 549–563.
the construction of conceptual knowledge. In Context and Jewitt C. (2006) Technology, Literacy and Learning: A Multi-
Cognition: Ways of Knowing and Learning (eds P. Light & modal Approach. Routledge, London.
G. Butterworth), pp. 115–133. Harvester, New York. Jewitt C. (2008) Teachers’ pedagogic design of digital interac-
Hay D.B. (2008) Developing dialogical concept mapping as tive whiteboard materials in the UK secondary school.
e-learning technology. British Journal of Educational Designs for Learning 1, 42–54.
Technology 39, 1057–1060. Jewitt C. (2009) The changing pedagogic landscape of subject
Hennessy S. & Deaney R. (2007) Teacher Mediation of English in UK classrooms. In Multimodal Representation
Subject Learning with ICT: A Multimedia Approach (RES- and Knowledge. Routledge Studies in Multimodality Series
000-23-0825). Final Report to ESRC (Final Report No. (ed. K.L.O. Halloran). Routledge, New York. (in press).
RES-000-23-0825). Johnson M. (2011) Review of ‘Educational dialogues’ – by
Hennessy S. & Deaney R. (2009) ‘Intermediate theory’ build- Karen Littleton & Christine Howe. British Journal of Edu-
ing: integrating multiple teacher and researcher perspec- cational Technology 42, E46.

Kennewell S. & Beauchamp G. (2007) The features of interac- Mercer N. (2008) The seeds of time: why classroom dialogue
tive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences
Media and Technology 32, 227–241. 17, 33–59.
Kennewell S., Beauchamp G., Jones H. & Tanner H. (2009) Mercer N. & Littleton K. (2007) Dialogue and the Develop-
Interactive Teaching and ICT (ITICT). Final Report. Uni- ment of Children’s Thinking. Routledge, London.
versity of Swansea, Swansea. Mercer N. & Sams C. (2006) Teaching children how to use
Kress G.R., Jewitt C., Ogborn J. & Tsatsarelis C. (2001) Mul- language to solve maths problems. Language and Educa-
timodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the tion 20, 507–527.
Science Classroom. Continuum, London and New York. Mercer N., Dawes L., Wegerif R. & Sams C. (2004) Reason-
Kumpulainen K. & Lipponen L. (2010) Productive interaction ing as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language
as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. Chapter 3. In to learn science. British Educational Research Journal 30,
Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting 367–385.
Productive Interaction (eds K. Littleton & C. Howe), Mercer N., Hennessy S. & Warwick P. (2010) Using interac-
pp. 48–63. Routledge, Abingdon. tive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue.
Lankshear C. & Knobel M. (2006) New Literacies: Everyday Themed Issue of Technology, Pedagogy and Education on
Practices and Classroom Learning, 2nd edn. Open Univer- Interactive Whole Class Technologies (Guest Edited by
sity Press, Maidenhead. Hennessy & Warwick) 19, 195–209.
Leach J. & Scott P. (2002) Designing and evaluating Mortimer E.F. & Scott P.H. (2003) Meaning Making in Sec-
science teaching sequences: an approach drawing upon the ondary Science Classrooms. Open University Press, Milton
concept of learning demand and a social constructivist Keynes.
perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education 38, Murphy C., Fisher R. & Wegerif R. (2010) Talking counts: An
115–142. intervention programme to investigate and develop the role
Lemke J. (1999) Typological and topological meaning in of exploratory talk in young children’s arithmetic. Mathe-
diagnostic discourse. Discourse Processes 27, 173–185. matics Colloquia Seminar, University of Cambridge.
Littleton K. & Howe C., eds (2010) Educational Dialogues: Ogborn J., Kress G., Martins I. & McGillicuddy K. (1996)
Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction. Explaining Science in the Classroom. Open University
Routledge, Abingdon. Press, Buckingham.
Littleton K., Twiner A. & Gillen J. (2010) Instruction as Paavola S. & Hakkarainen K. (2005) The knowledge creation
orchestration: multimodal connection building with the metaphor – An emergent epistemological approach to
interactive whiteboard. Pedagogies: An International learning. Science & Education 14, 537–557.
Journal 5, 130–141. Pea R.D. (1993) Practices of distributed intelligence and
McVee M.B., Bailey N.M. & Shanahan L.E. (2008) Exploring designs for education. In Distributed Cognitions: Psycho-
digital composition: Mediation for social literacies in logical and Educational Considerations (eds G. Salomon,
a 5th grade, 9th grade, and a teacher education classroom. R. Pea, J. Seely Brown & C. Heath), pp. 47–87. Cambridge
Paper presented at the American Educational Research University Press, Cambridge.
Association. Rogoff B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive
Mavers D. (2009) Student text-making as semiotic work. Development in Social Context. Oxford University Press,
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9, 141–155. Oxford.
Mayer R.E. (2001) Multimedia Learning. Cambridge Univer- Rojas-Drummond S. & Mercer N. (2004) Scaffolding the
sity Press, New York. development of effective collaboration and learning. Inter-
Mercer N. (1993) Computer-based activities in classroom national Journal of Educational Research 39, 99–111.
contexts. In Language, Classrooms & Computers (ed. P. Rojas-Drummond S., Littleton K., Hernández F. & Zúñiga M.
Scrimshaw), pp. 27–39. Routledge, London. (2010) Dialogical interactions among peers in collaborative
Mercer N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge: writing contexts. Chapter 7. In Educational Dialogues:
Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners. Multilingual Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction
Matters, Clevedon; Philadelphia, PA. (eds K. Littleton & C. Howe), pp. 128–148. Routledge,
Mercer N. (2000) Words and Minds: How We Use Language Abingdon.
to Think Together. Routledge, London. Roschelle J. (1996) Designing for cognitive communication:
Mercer N. (2004) Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In
classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Computers, Communication & Mental Models (eds D.L.
Applied Linguistics 1, 137–168. Day & D.K. Kovacs), pp. 13–25. Taylor & Francis, London.

488 S. Hennessy
Ryan J. (2009) Mathematical argument in discussion: Tzitzikas Y., Christophides V., Flouris G., Kotzinos
changing your mind. Paper presented at the British D., Markkanen H., Plexousakis D., Spyratos N. (2006)
Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Day Trialogical E-learning and emergent knowledge artifacts.
Conference. In Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge
Säljö R. (1995) Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive Sharing, EC-TEL 2006 Workshops Proceedings (eds E.
practices. In Learning in Humans and Machines: Towards Tomadaki & P. Scott), pp. 385–399. University of Patras,
an Interdisciplinary Learning Science (eds P. Reimann & Greece.
H. Spada), pp. 83–96. Pergamon, Oxford. Volosinov V.N. (1973) Marxism and the Philosophy of Lan-
Säljö R. (2009) Technology, mediation and access to the guage. Seminar Press, New York.
social memory. Paper presented at the CAL09 Conference, Vygotsky L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of
Brighton. Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press,
Salomon G. (1993) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological Cambridge, MA.
and Educational Considerations. Cambridge University Wartofsky M. (1979) Models: Representation and the Scien-
Press, Cambridge. tific Understanding, Vol. XLVIII. D. Reidel, London.
Scardamalia M. & Bereiter C. (1994) Computer support for Warwick P., Mercer N., Kershner R. & Kleine Staarman J.
knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the (2010) In the mind and in the technology: the vicarious
Learning Sciences 3, 265–283. presence of the teacher in pupils’ learning of science in col-
Scott P., Ametller J., Mortimer E. & Emberton J. (2010) laborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard.
Teaching and learning disciplinary knowledge: developing Computers and Education 55, 350–362.
the dialogic space for an answer when there isn’t even a Wegerif R. (2007) Dialogic, Education and Techno-
question. Chapter 14. In Educational Dialogues: Under- logy: Expanding the Space of Learning. Springer, New
standing and Promoting Productive Interaction (eds K. York.
Littleton & C. Howe), pp. 289–303. Routledge, Abingdon. Wegerif R. (2008) Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of
Serret N. & Harrison C. (2007) Exploring the dialogic poten- ontological assumptions in research on educational dia-
tial of classroom talk in the context of primary science logue. Journal of the British Educational Research Asso-
thinking lessons. Paper presented at the British Educational ciation 34, 347–361.
Research Association 2007, Institute of Education, Univer- Wegerif R. (2010a) Dialogue and teaching thinking with tech-
sity of London. nology: opening, expanding and deepening the ‘inter-face’.
Sfard A. (2006) Participationist discourse on mathematics Chapter 15. In Educational Dialogues: Understanding and
learning. In New Mathematics Education Research and Promoting Productive Interaction (eds K. Littleton & C.
Practice (ed. J.M.W. Schlöglmann), pp. 153–170. Sense Howe), pp. 304–322. Routledge, Abingdon.
Publishers, Rotterdam. Wegerif R. (2010b) Mind Expanding: Teaching for Thinking
Spradley J. (1980) Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart & and Creativity in Primary Education. Open University
Winston, New York. Press/McGraw Hill, Buckingham.
Stenning K., McKendree J., Lee J., Cox R., Dineen F. & Wegerif R., McLaren B.M., Chamrada M., Scheuer O.,
Mayes T. (1999) Vicarious learning from educational dia- Mansour N., Mikšátko J., Williams M. (2010) Exploring
logue. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Confer- creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dia-
ence on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, logues. Computers & Education 54, 613–621.
Palo Alto, California. Wegerif R., Mercer N. & Dawes L. (1999) From social inter-
Suthers D.D. (2006) Technology affordances for intersubjec- action to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of
tive meaning-making. Paper presented at the International a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development.
Conference for Computers in Education, Bejing. Learning and Instruction 9, 493–516.
Sweller J. (1999) Instructional Design in Technical Areas. Wells G. (1999) Dialogic Inquiry, Toward a Sociocultural
ACER Press, Camberwell. Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge University
Toulmin S. (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge Univer- Press, Cambridge.
sity Press, Cambridge. Wells G. (2009) The Meaning Makers: Learning to Talk
Twiner A., Coffin C., Littleton K. & Whitelock D. (2010) and Talking to Learn, 2nd edn. Multilingual Matters,
Mulitmodality, orchestration and participation in the Bristol.
context of classroom use of the interactive whiteboard: a Wertsch J. (1998) Mediated action. In A Companion to Cogni-
discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 19, 143– tive Science (eds W. Bechtel & G. Graham), pp. 518–525.
157. Blackwell, Oxford.

history lessons showing a student explaining his under-

Supporting information
lining within a war diary text on the IWB, another pair
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the explaining at the IWB the video storyboard they have
online version of this article: co-constructed and the class discussing the boys’ ideas.
Video Clip S1. (9 min) at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/ Video Clip S3. (10 min) at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/
1085166, depicting students annotating a portrait of the media/1085308, illustrating students choosing and
young Queen Elizabeth I. This is also available as Clip annotating images pertaining to a personal safety sce-
1.2 in the online history multimedia resource at http://t- nario, group report back and class discussion.
media.educ.cam.ac.uk, where analytic commentary Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the
from participating teachers and researchers plus other content or functionality of any supporting materials
supporting material can be found. supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing
Video Clip S2. (2 min) at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/ material) should be directed to the corresponding author
1085205: a compilation of clips from two consecutive for the article.

The Role of Interactive Artifacts, Whiteboards, and Classroom Dialogue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Interactive Artifacts, Whiteboards, and Classroom Dialogue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13652729, 2011, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00416.x by University Of Exeter, Wiley Online Library on [03/11/2022].

The role of digital artefacts on the interactive

Keywords artefact, co-construction, dialogue, interactive whiteboard, multimodal.

tural tool that is typically used for whole class teaching.

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

(Mortimer & Scott 2003, p. 3). One relevant type of

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The trialogical approach to learning Digital artefacts

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

describes how an original poetry text can actually disap-

Fig 1 Learners’ annotation of a ‘personal safety’ scenario text. a

offer a similar example of primary children interpreting

own ideas. Ultimately, she was very impressed with the

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

recording in a relatively stable way enables the learner

Let us begin by examining the notion of cumulative in

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Edited transcript Commentary

IWB, interactive whiteboard.

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

managing a cumulative and exploratory dialogue with a

Supporting intertextuality through revisiting

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

the equation of photosynthesis (Fig 7) was progres-

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

2004) and as observed in our primary and middle

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

history lessons showing a student explaining his under-

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

You might also like