Editor

JLLT edited by Thomas Tinnefeld
Showing posts with label 81 Anesa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 81 Anesa. Show all posts
Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 4 (2013) Issue 2
pp. 11-23


Teaching ESP through the Use of Interactive Whiteboards in University Lectures:
An Investigation into Users’ Reactions


Patrizia Anesa (Bergamo, Italy)


Abstract (English)
Given the increasing presence of interactive whiteboards in different educational fields, this study investigates the reasons lying behind their relatively limited use in academia. Focusing on a series of academic lectures taking place in an Italian University, the investigation shows the main advantages (such as clarity, interactivity, quick retrieval of information) and drawbacks (e.g. in terms of costs) related to the use of this tool in these communicative events. This work presents the users’ reactions both from the lecturer’s and the students’ points of view and is based on specialized courses of English that focus on the language of economics.
Key words: interactive whiteboard, university lectures, students' questionnaire, ESP


Abstract (Italiano)
Data la crescente presenza di lavagne interattive in diversi campi educativi, questo studio indaga le ragioni che determinano un uso relativamente limitato di questi strumenti nel mondo accademico. Concentrandosi su una serie di lezioni accademiche che si svolgono in un’università italiana, l'indagine mostra i principali vantaggi (quali chiarezza, interattività, rapido recupero delle informazioni) e gli svantaggi (ad esempio in termini di costi) legati all'utilizzo di questo tipo di lavagne in questi eventi comunicativi. Il lavoro presenta sia le reazioni del docente che quelle degli studenti e si basa su corsi di inglese specialistico concernenti il linguaggio economico.
Parole chiave: lavagna interattiva, lezioni universitarie, ICT, questionario studenti, ESP




1 Introduction

The rapid development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is transforming both the world of industry and that of education and now represents one of the building blocks of modern societies (Daniels 2002, Christie et al. 2002). The increasing use of these technologies in education is often driven by the substantiation that they may enhance improvements in teaching and learning processes (Breen et al. 2001). In particular, by adopting constructivist learning approaches, the use of contemporary ICTs may also support student-centred and resource-based settings (Berge 1998; Barron 1998). Consequently, it has been argued that new technologies may facilitate active learning and higher-order thinking (Alexander 1999; Jonassen 1999).

The use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) has grown considerably in recent years (Miller & Glover 2002; Solvie 2004). While some studies have highlighted the positive effects of IWBs in class (Glover & Miller 2002), others have been more cautious in establishing a direct correlation between its use and an improvement in effective learning and have highlighted that their increasing use may derive from a “bandwagon effect” (Smith et al. 2005).

While originally limited to primary education, these tools have since been employed in other fields, even outside the educational one. Increasing attention has been devoted to the use of ICTs in higher education and to the important potential they display in university learning environments (Morell 2004). However, their actual utilization in the academic world is still quite limited (Anesa & Iovino 2012).

IWBs are touch-sensitive digital tools which are connected to a computer and to a projector. Different models are now available and the tool used for this study was a Smart Board with a short-throw projector, a 77” screen, not displaying an integrated central processing unit. The board was experimentally used at the University of Bergamo, Italy, in a series of 8 English lectures taking place in an ESP course that focused on the language of Economics. Every lesson was 120 minutes long and involved approximately 60-70 first-year students. The lessons were observed and a questionnaire was administered at the end of the eighth lesson to evaluate the students’ reactions; moreover, the lecturer was interviewed using a semi-structured interview.


2 The instructor’s Perspective

Studies on the use of IWBs in learners’ education demonstrate that IWBs can be beneficial to the pace of the lesson and in terms of student-teacher engagement (Ball 2003). The lecturer interviewed confirmed these advantages and pointed out that one of the main benefits of the IWB is that everything is concentrated in one place, preventing students from constantly shifting their focus from the lecturer to the screen and vice versa. Moreover, using the equipment motivated the lecturer to include more technological resources in her material, as this is rendered very simple by the use of the board.

The training for the use of the IWB took only one day and was sufficient for the acquisition of its basic functions. Once the basic operational concepts were acquired, the lecturer was able to use the IWB independently throughout the course and felt that her efficiency in the preparation of teaching materials was significantly higher.

Setting-up before each lesson took a few minutes because only one IWB was available within the university and the classroom used for the lessons inevitably changed according to the different academic activities taking place. The board, therefore, had to be moved into the right classroom, and then realigned; it also had to be connected to the projector and the computer, but in total these operations took only a few minutes. In terms of time the board proved to be particularly efficient in that it allowed notes, comments, exercise keys and extra explanations to be saved for future lectures, as well as for students who could not be present.

Research (e.g. Cox et al. 2003) has shown that teachers generally feel that IWBs can considerably reduce both preparation time and the need for duplication. In the case analysed here, it was felt that the possibility of saving and retrieving material made the use of the equipment very time-efficient. Moreover, it also proved to be an asset from an organizational point of view, as the material stored and archived in a digital format could easily be exchanged with other colleagues.

When asked to identify potential disadvantages, the lecturer pointed out that the most obvious limit to the use of the interactive board in academic environments was posed by the potential reluctance of adults to take part in interactive activities, especially those that involved standing up and coming to write on the board. This aspect can be seen, however, not as a drawback (in relation to a traditional board) but simply as a missed opportunity to maximize the potential benefits of the IWB. The large number of people in the class, as mentioned above, also limited the potential for interactivity.

It should also be highlighted that the peculiarities of different educational environments could bring new difficulties to the use of IWB. For example, even though in this case no students had their laptops with them, the use of laptops is a standard practice in other institutions, and having the students focused on their own screens could represent a limit to the benefits of the IWB. As has already been mentioned, another disadvantage was represented by some logistical issues, such as booking, transporting, installing and checking the equipment before the lesson.


4. Students’ Reactions

4.1 The Questionnaire

A questionnaire was delivered to the students attending the lectures in question in order to get their feedback on the course and, more specifically, on their reactions to the use of the IWB. The questionnaire was administered online and the typical categories of questions based on the informant’s degree of freedom, i.e. open-ended and closed questions, were combined. It was deemed necessary to include both open-ended questions and closed questions with the aim of benefiting from the advantages, and mitigating the disadvantages, that are typically associated with each approach (see Merriam & Simpson 1995 for details).

The questionnaire made substantial use of Likert scaling (cf. Carifio & Perla 2007). Closed questions are generally considered to be easy to analyse and the number of irrelevant or incomplete questions is limited. They are generally easy to code and tabulate, especially if the questionnaire is administered online. However, they may be particularly susceptible to investigator bias in that only the options contemplated by the investigator are listed. Moreover, because proving a response through ticking an option is an easy and quick activity, it may not encourage respondents to think extensively about the question before answering. Whenever possible closed questions also offered the respondent an opportunity to include options that had not originally been contemplated (e.g. by providing an “other” option to be completed by the respondent), which is deemed to increase the reliability of results (Haarman 1997: 41).

The use of open-ended questions formed the second pillar of the survey, allowing for more in-depth observations and more personal comments to be obtained. More specifically, they were used to investigate opinions and perceptions. In this case responses are less conditioned and students enjoy a higher level of freedom to express their thoughts; therefore, these answers often offer more depth and variety.

Questions were devised according to some of the basic principles outlined in Cox 1996. For instance, it is generally agreed that informants may, with different levels of intentionality, endeavour to please the researcher. Attempts were therefore made to address this issue in the design of the questionnaire, by including questions that somehow check the consistency of previous questions. Respondents were also allowed to modify their answers at any time before submitting them. The questionnaire was administered collectively in class, as collective administration ensures a high response rate. Moreover, the administrator can emphasise the importance of the questionnaire in order to promote the respondents’ involvement and is available for any necessary explanation and to answer any questions respondents may have in order to avoid misinterpretation (see Kumar 2005:129).

The linguistic formulation was intended to be as simple and clear as possible, avoiding uncommon terminology or jargon. We also tried to avoid stretching the respondents’ competence to issues beyond their knowledge. For example, posing a question such as “What is the adequate prerequisite students should have for….?” would go beyond the students’ competence, whereas a more appropriate question should investigate, for instance, how easily they could follow the lessons. Moreover, the use of absolutes was avoided; for instance, sentences like “the course met all my expectations” would have been problematic because they inevitably tend to limit the respondents’ choice and to avoid the endpoints of the scale (e.g. within a Likert item).

The questionnaire was available in both English and Italian. Given that nearly all the respondents were Italian, most students chose to answer the Italian language version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was two pages in length, and the average time taken to complete it was approximately 10 minutes. As the accuracy of the responses may decrease after several questions the total number of questions was limited to the most salient aspects under investigation.

The use of a questionnaire is generally less costly and time consuming than other methods of data collection and allows a good amount of information to be collected in a short time. It also offers a high level of anonymity, therefore generally promoting more honest and independent answers. As the response rate was 100% (as is often the case in collective administration), issues related to self-selecting bias are reduced, and the findings are more representative of the population being investigated. It should, however, be kept in mind that the response rate was obviously calculated on the basis of the students present in class at the time the questionnaire was distributed and not on the total number of students enrolled on the course.


4.2 Questionnaire: Findings and Discussion

As mentioned, the questionnaire was administered in class. The total number of respondents was 73 and included both male and female students, as shown in Figure 1:





The questionnaire included general questions about the course, but for the purpose of this paper we will focus on the section devoted to the students’ reactions to the use of the IWB1 in the lesson. The IWB was generally assigned a good level of clarity and only a very low number of students considered it confusing (see Fig. 2):




It has been demonstrated that the use of an IWB is stimulating for young learners, but the idea that older learners may be less attracted by it is plausible. However, in this case the majority of students generally considered it quite stimulating:


The IWB was also considered relatively flexible, generally useful and quite effective in gaining their attention (see Figures 4, 5 and 6):






Students were also asked to answer open questions which allow us to gain a deeper understanding of their reactions to the use of the IWB. Glover et al. (2005) found that young learners are aware of some of the benefits of the use of IWBs, such as the fact that learning is reinforced by a more rapid response to interactive material. In the case analysed here university students also responded positively to the use of IWB.

A fundamental aspect highlighted by Miller et al. (2005) is that the use of IWBs somehow causes a higher level of credibility to be assigned to both the teacher and the subject being taught because the supporting technology is considered to be more advanced.

One of the respondents wrote that one of the potential disadvantages to the use of an IWB is that a teacher who is not a computer expert may have difficulty with its use. However, it should be highlighted that, from a technical point of view, the use of an IWB is actually highly user-friendly. No other negative aspects or disadvantages in relation to the use of the board were identified, but in one case it was stressed that the tool itself could not determine a significant difference. Indeed, one student commented that the IWB “isn’t so important” and it is undeniable that the board is only a tool and, like all tools, its usefulness depends on the way it is used.

In general terms, the students pointed out a long series of positive aspects, such as the ability to enhance engagement, participation, and interaction, as the responses below show2:

(1) The lesson becomes clearer and more interesting, and it is stimulating for the students.
(2) It grabs the students’ attention more immediately compared to a traditional board.
(3) It is useful to enhance students’ participation.
(4) It is more interactive.
(5) Lessons are more interesting.

Students also highlighted some practical benefits associated with IWBs, such as good visibility, clarity and short retrieval time:

(6) The teacher can write on it and so all the students can see it.
(7) It is faster and more practical.
(8) It’s big, easy to see.
(9) It is a useful and practical tool that facilitates the students in that whatever is written can also be projected and it is clearly visible from anywhere in the classroom. Moreover, students can take note simultaneously with the teacher.
(10) The texts can be updated with extra information that was not included in the original text.
(11) Exercises can easily be deleted and be done again if necessary.
(12) You can work directly on different types of files.
(13) Everything can quickly be shown again, for example if a student has lost track of what is being said, or is late for class.

This last point proved particularly practical: indeed, as attendance was not compulsory, it was useful to have all the notes available for quick retrieval for those students who missed a lesson or a part of it. Students also pointed out other benefits related to the use of the IWB in the specific subject they were being taught:

(14) Integrations can quickly be written down by the teacher, instead of being dictated, which is very useful as we are dealing with a foreign language.
(15) Keys to the exercise can be shown, saved, and retrieved immediately in case students don’t catch something. It is particularly important so that we can check the correct spelling of new words.

Paralinguistic communication can be observed in terms of kinesics (focusing on gestural body language) and proxemics (focusing on the use of space) (cf. Ekman 1957; Hall 1968; Poyatos 1983). Some observations also captured the fundamental concept that (unlike with the use of an overhead projector and no board) the possibility of observing the teacher and the screen simultaneously can also help comprehension; indeed, this allowed students to have access to paralanguage aspects and body language (cf. Pennycook 1985):

(16) We can look at the teacher while she talks and it’s a bit easier to understand.

Students also noticed that the tool meant an avoidance of moving between flipcharts, boards and a laptop, avoiding potential instances of confusion and allowing the lesson to move at a good pace.


5. Conclusions

Professionals working in the educational field are inevitably expected to continuously adapt to changing situations (Fullan 2007; McCormick & Scrimshaw 2001) and are also expected to develop competencies in ICTs. Indeed, given that new teaching and research approaches are largely based on the use of new technologies (Yusuf 2005), it is expected that such tools be incorporated into everyday academic situations and included in the developments of academic curricula (Watson 2006).

This paper has described the main features of the IWB used and has highlighted opinions and perceptions on the use of the tool offered by the lecturer and by the students. The lecturer highlighted a series of advantages, such as a higher level of involvement on the part of the students. Students also appreciated the use of the board and emphasized its clarity, interactivity and its ability to grab their attention.

Further research in this area is needed, in that studies on the use of IWBs in academia are particularly limited, whereas IWBs are used more and more extensively in primary schools, and even in business environments. The experimental use of IWBs in ESP courses was welcomed by the students and the lecturer and, therefore, it is important to analyse the factors that determine the currently limited use of this equipment in a university context. We can bring forward hypotheses related, for instance, to the cost of the tool itself, logistical aspects, such as the difficulty of transportation into different rooms, and the (presumed) lack of time for lecturers to get acquainted with the tool.

A key limitation of this study lies in the lack of generalizability of these findings across different settings, and further investigation needs to be carried out in order to ensure optimal use of this equipment according to specific cultural environments and in relation to different learning objectives. Further avenues for research could focus on a larger number of participants in order to gain further insights into the use of the tool and its potential benefits, and further studies could clearly be extended to other fields beyond ESP. Moreover, attention should be given to the analysis and exploration of the effects of IWBs in terms of educational achievement, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Another aspect which is still under-researched is the use of IWBs with disabled students in academic environments; indeed, while some research has been carried out on the use of IWBs with disabled children, this topic has, to the best of our knowledge, only been sporadically investigated in relation to academic learning environments (cf. Bertarelli et al. 2010).


References

Alexander, Johanna (1999). Collaborative Design, Constructivist Learning, Information Technology Immersion, & Electronic Communities: A Case Study. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, no. 7, pp. 1-2.

Anesa, Patrizia & Iovino, Daniela (2012). Interactive Whiteboards as Enhancers of Genre Hybridization in Academic Settings. In Berkenkotter, Carol; Bhatia, Vijay K. & Gotti, Maurizio (eds). Insights into Academic Genres. pp. 419-438. Bern: Peter Lang.

Ball, Barbara (2003). Teaching and Learning Mathematics with an Interactive Whiteboard. Micromath, (Spring), pp. 4-7.

Barron, Ann (1998). Designing Web-based Training. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 355-371.

Berge, Zane (1998). Guiding Principles in Web-based Instructional Design. Education Media International, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 72-76.

Bertarelli, Fabio; Corradini, Matteo; Guaraldi, Giacomo; Genovese, Elisabetta; Kilwake, Juma & Mutua, Stephen (2010). The Digital Board in a University Setting: Two Real Cases in Europe and East Africa. In Lytras, Miltiadis D.; Ordóñez De Pablos, Patricia & Avison, David (eds). Technology Enhanced Learning. Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform. pp. 259-264. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Breen, Rosanna; Lindsay, Roger; Jenkins, Alan & Smith, Pete (2001). The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in a University Learning Environment. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 26, pp. 95-114.

Carifio, James & Perla, Rocco J. (2007). Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 106-116.

Christie, Michael F; Jaun, André & Jonsson, Lars-Erik (2002). Evaluating the Use of ICT in Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 13-20.

Cox, James (1996). Your Opinion, Please! How to Build the Best Questionnaire in the Field of Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cox, Margaret; Webb, Mary; Abbott, Chris; Blakeley, Barry; Beauchamp, Tony & Rhodes, Valerie (2003). ICT and Pedagogy: A Review of the Research Literature. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series, 18. Retrieved 18th August 2012 from:

Daniels, John (2002). Foreword. In Information and Communication Technology in Education–A Curriculum for Schools and Programme for Teacher Development, pp. 3-4. Paris: UNESCO.

Ekman, Paul (1957). A Methodological Discussion of Non-Verbal Behavior. The Journal of Psychology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 141-149.

Fullan, Michael (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Glover, Derek; Miller, Dave; Averis, Douglas & Door, Victoria (2005). Leadership Implications of Using Interactive Whiteboards: Linking Technology and Pedagogy in the Management of Change. Management in Education, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 27-30.

Haarman, Louann (1997). Methodology and Methods in Second Language Research: A Selective Introduction. In Gagliardi, Cesare (ed) Metodologia della ricerca applicata in linguistica inglese. pp. 13-81. Pescara: Libreria dell’Università.

Hall, Edward T. (1968). Proxemics. Current anthropology, vol. 9, no. 2-3, pp. 83-100.

Jonassen, David H. (1999). Computers as Mind Tools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kumar, Ranjit (2005). Research Methodology (2nd Ed). London: Sage.

Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McCormick, Robert (2004). Collaboration: The Challenge of ICT. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 14, no.2, pp. 159-176.

McCormick, Robert & Scrimshaw, Peter (2001). Information and Communications Technology, Knowledge and Pedagogy. Education, Communication & Information, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 39-57.

Merriam, Sharan B. & Simpson, Edwin L. (1995). A Guide to Research for Educators and Trainers of Adults (2nd Ed.). Malabra: Krieger.

Miller, Dave; Averis, Douglas; Door, Vicotria & Glover, Derek (2005). How Can the Use of an Interactive Whiteboard Enhance the Nature of Teaching and Learning in Secondary Mathematics and Modern Foreign Languages? Becta ICT Research Bursary 2003-04. Retrieved 20th August 2012 from:

Miller, Dave & Glover, Derek (2002). The Interactive Whiteboard as a Force for Pedagogic Change: The Experience of Five Elementary Schools in an English Education Authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, no. 1, pp. 5-9.

Morell, Teresa (2004). Interactive Lecture Discourse for University EFL Students. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 325-338.

Pennycook, Alastair (1985) Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Paralanguage, Communication, and Education, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 259 -282.

Poyatos, Fernando (1983). Language and Nonverbal Systems in the Structure of Face-to-Face Interaction. Language Communication, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 129-140.

Smith, Heather; Higgins, Steve; Wall, Kate & Miller, Jen (2005). Interactive Whiteboards: Boon or Bandwagon? A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 91-101.

Solvie, Pamela A. (2004). The Digital Whiteboard: A Tool in Early Literacy Instruction. Reading Teacher, vol. 57, no.5, pp. 484-487.

Watson, Deryn (2006). Understanding the Relationship between ICT and Education Means Exploring Innovation and Change. Education and Information Technologies, vol. 11, pp. 199-216.

Yusuf, Mudasiru O. (2005). Information and Communication Education: Analyzing the Nigerian National Policy for Information Technology. International Education Journal, vol. 6, no.3, pp. 316-321.



Author:
Patrizia Anesa (PhD)
University of Bergamo
Piazza Rosate 2
24129 Bergamo
Italy



1 The term LIM (Lavagna Interattiva Multimediale) is the Italian acronym that was used to refer to the IWB.

2 Answers given in English have been left in their original form, even in the presence of mistakes. Answers given in Italian have been translated.