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.