Abstract
This article explores the concept of lesson interactivity within six primary and elementary teachers’ use of whole-class and personal digital devices over multiple lessons including Interactive Whiteboards, data projectors, laptop computers, and others. The analysis focuses on the differences between technical vs pedagogic interactivity (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005) where technical interactivity refers to direct tactile interaction with technology and pedagogic interactivity refers to the interaction between teachers, students, and lesson content which may occur with or without technology use. Technical interactivity varied in duration between teachers and lessons, but teachers’ use of whole-class devices typically exceeded students’ use. Use of personal devices by students was infrequent, and often supported the content displayed on a whole-class device. In terms of pedagogic interactivity facilitated by technology use, the most frequent activities were teacher-directed questioning and guided practice, during which the teachers had a correct answer or method in mind. Use of deeper pedagogic interaction through discussion, student inquiry, or research were not observed. Teachers expressed that they faced barriers to interactive technology use including program and resource constraints as well as lack of teacher comfort with technology. This research was conducted following Tri-Council guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans. It has passed the research ethics board of two universities and two school districts.
Highlights
Technology integration in education is mandated by programs of study in Canada and in many other places around the world
Interactivity is frequently reported as a benefit of technology use in education, especially with whole-class technologies such as Interactive Whiteboards, yet researchers and manufacturers who make these claims often fail to define what is meant by interactivity or how it is measured (Lovell & Phillips, 2012) and ignore limitations to the hardware such as slowing of lesson pacing (Mohon, 2008) and enabling fewer students to interact with the hardware (Quashie, 2009)
In Study 1, observed lessons varied in length from 21 to 85 minutes, for a total of 35.2 hours of observation in total. Teachers indicated in their interviews that they used the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) ‘all the time’ during their teaching
Summary
Technology integration in education is mandated by programs of study in Canada and in many other places around the world. Despite reports of increased interaction in promotional literature, support from case studies is mixed (Lovell & Phillips, 2012) with some reporting increased interaction (i.e., Haldane, 2007), some reporting decreased interaction (i.e., Mohon, 2008), and some reporting mixed results (i.e., Quashie, 2009) Across these studies and others, researchers rarely report criteria used to determine whether and how teaching is interactive or the duration of interactive activities in comparison to perceived non-interactive studies. In the case of wholeclass technologies such as IWBs, at times it is used to refer to the capacity to respond to touch – the title Interactive Whiteboard (Saddler Jones, 2012), to students’ tactile interaction with the IWB (such as in Mohon, 2008), and to interaction between and amongst teachers, students, and lesson content (such as in Haldane, 2007)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
