Article Sidebar

Submitted
Nov 29, 2019
Accepted
Mar 17, 2020
Published
May 7, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1277 Download : 743

Main Article Content

Abstract

The demand for an increasingly differentiated education, which takes into account the individual differences of children to stimulate effective learning, accompanies the introduction of new technologies at school. Amongst these, the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB), which allows multimodality and sharing of contents, is one of the most widespread tools in schools. The aim of the study was to test with a sample of primary school children the impact of a teaching session with the use of the IWB (vs. traditional lessons) on knowledge performance. In addition, we were interested in investigating the role of metacognition as a potential moderator on learning effects. Our results revealed an advantage of IWB use in learning achievement. Notably, the increase in learning outcomes only occurred among children with low metacognitive skills. This shows that new technologies can play an important role both per se and in supporting learning processes, especially of less metacognitive students, therefore contributing to reduce the gap between children with differential metacognitive skills. The results are analyzed in light of the important role in the nowadays world of Information and Communication Technologies, which can become an extremely relevant and appealing educational and cultural compensation tool.

Keywords

ICT Metacognitive Learning IWB Smart Teaching

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

Author Biography

Elisa Bisagno, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Research Fellow, Dept. of Education and Humanities

How to Cite
Cadamuro, A., Bisagno, E., Di Bernardo, G. A., Vezzali, L., & Versari, A. (2020). Making the school Smart: the interactive whiteboard against disparities in children stemming from low metacognitive skills. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135191

References

  1. Amiri, R., & Sharifi, M. (2014). The Influence of Using Interactive Whiteboard on Writings of EFL Students Regarding Adverbs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 242-250. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.413
  2. Alvarez, C., Salavati, S., Nussbaum, M., & Milrad, M. (2013). Collboard: Fostering new media literacies in the classroom through collaborative problem solving supported by digital pens and interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education,63, 368-379. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.019
  3. Antonietti, A. (2011). Classe 2.0. Il ruolo della riflessione metacognitiva. Bricks, 1, 100-105.
  4. Antonietti, A., & Colombo, B. (2008). Computer-supported learning tools: A bi-circular bi-directional framework. New Ideas in Psychology, 26, 120-142. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.08.001
  5. Balta, N. & M. Duran (2015). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in elementary and secondary school classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14, 15-23.
  6. Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 381-401.
  7. Battro, A. M. (2010). The Teaching Brain. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4, 28-33. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228x.2009.01080.x
  8. Bennett, S. J. & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers' integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33, 289-300. doi:10.1080/17439880802497008
  9. Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
  10. Bidaki, M. Z., & Mobasheri, N. (2013). Teachers’ Views of the Effects of the Interactive White Board (IWB) on Teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 140-144. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.027
  11. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & T. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
  12. Burke, P. F., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Kearney, M., & Frischknecht, B. (2017). Exploring teacher pedagogy, stages of concern and accessibility as determinants of technology adoption. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27, 149-163. doi:10.1080/1475939x.2017.1387602
  13. Cadamuro, A., Bisagno, E., Pecini, C., & Vezzali, L. (2019). Reflecting A… “Bit”. What Relationship Between Metacognition And ICT?. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15, 183-195. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135025
  14. Carletti, A., & Varani, A. (2007). Ambienti di apprendimento costruttivisti. In A. Carletti & A. Varani (eds.), Ambienti di apprendimento e nuove tecnologie. Nuove applicazioni della didattica costruttivistica nella scuola (pp. 27-61). Trento: Erickson.
  15. Carr, M., & Kurtz, B. E. (1991). Teachers' perceptions of their students' metacognition, attributions, and self-concept. British Journal of educational Psychology, 61, 197-206.
  16. Celik, S. (2012). Competency levels of teachers in using interactive whiteboards. Contemporary educational technology, 3, 115-129.
  17. Chen, H. R., Chiang, C. H., & Lin, W. S. (2013). Learning Effects of Interactive Whiteboard Pedagogy for Students in Taiwan from the Perspective of Multiple Intelligences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49, 173-187. doi:10.2190/ec.49.2.c
  18. Clements, D.H., and Nastasi, B.K. (1993). Electronic media and early childhood education. In Handbook of research on the education of young children, ed. B. Spodek, 251–275. New York: Macmillan.
  19. Comi, S., Gui, M., Origo, F., Pagani, L., & Argentin, G. (2016). Is it the Way They Use it? Teachers, ICT and Student Achievement. Statistics Working Paper No. 341.
  20. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51, 1553-1568. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005
  21. Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2017). The Effect of Smart Boards on the Cognition and Motivation of Students. Higher Education Studies, 7, 60. doi:10.5539/hes.v7n1p60
  22. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of Fostering Self-Regulated Learning among Students. A Meta-Analysis on Intervention Studies at Primary and Secondary School Level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231-264. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x
  23. DiGregorio, P., & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2010). The Effects of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning: A Literature Review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38, 255-312. doi:10.2190/et.38.3.b
  24. Dostal, J. (2009). Interactive Whiteboards in Instruction, Journal of Technology and Information Education (on-line): Olomouc-EU: Palacky University: Volume 1, Issue 3, pp.11-16.ISSN 1803-537X (print). ISSN 1803-6805 (on-line)
  25. Fekonja-Peklaj, U., & Marjanovič-Umek, L. (2015). Positive and negative aspects of the IWB and tablet computers in the first grade of primary school: a multiple-perspective approach. Early Child Development and Care, 185, 996-1015. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.974592
  26. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
  27. Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 348-358. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00269.x
  28. Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2007). Leading changed classroom culture - the impact of interactive whiteboards. Management in Education, 21, 21-24. doi:10.1177/0892020607079988
  29. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 14, 155-170. doi.org/10.1080/14759390500200199
  30. Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x
  31. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 283-301. doi:10.1080/17439880701511131
  32. Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007) Authentic Learning Supported by Technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44, 219-236. doi: 10.1080/09523980701491666
  33. Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the Education Endowment Foundation. School of Education, Durham University.
  34. http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_(2012).pdf
  35. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 213-225. doi:10.1080/17439880701511040
  36. Hockly, N. (2013). Interactive whiteboards. ELT Journal, 67, 354-358. doi:10.1093/elt/cct021
  37. Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivistic learning. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 137-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  38. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  39. Kelley, P., Underwood, G., Potter, F., Hunter, J. & Beveridge, S. (2007). Viewpoints: Interactive whiteboards: Phenomenon or fad? Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 333-347
  40. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2008). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards in Australian schools. Australian Educational Computing, 23, 8-13.
  41. Kerawalla, Lucinda; Petrou, Marilena and Scanlon, Eileen (2012). Talk Factory: supporting 'exploratory talk' around an interactive whiteboard in primary school science plenaries. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22, 89-102.
  42. Kervin, L. K., Verenikina, I., Wrona, K., & Jones, P. T. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactivity, activity and literacy teaching. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=edupapers.
  43. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical E-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24-33. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00157.x
  44. Lazzaretti, L., Cadamuro, A., Di Bernardo, G.A., Pecini, C. (2019). Flipped Classroom e didattica tradizionale. Uno studio in una scuola primaria. Psicologia Dell'educazione, 2, 87-99.
  45. Luo, Y. F., & Yang, S. C. (2016). The Effect of the Interactive Functions of Whiteboards on Elementary Students’ Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 680-700. doi:10.1177/0735633115628032
  46. Maher, D. (2011). Using the multimodal affordances of the interactive whiteboard to support students’ understanding of texts. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 235-250. doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.536553
  47. Manny-Ikan, E., Dagan, O., Tikochinski, T., & Zorman, R. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning: An evaluation of the Smart Classroom Pilot Project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 249-273.
  48. Mariz, C., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2017). Interactive whiteboards in education: A literature scoping survey. Australian Educational Computing, 32, 1-18.
  49. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19, 195-209.
  50. MIUR. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (1995). Direttiva del 4 ottobre 1995, n. 318. Programma di sviluppo delle tecnologie didattiche nel sistema scolastico. http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/norme/direttive/multilab.html
  51. MIUR. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (2015). Piano Nazionale Scuola Digitale. http://www.istruzione.it/scuola_digitale/allegati/Materiali/pnsdlayout-30.10-WEB.pdf
  52. Morgan, A. (2012). Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play in the classroom with children aged three to seven years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18, 93-104. doi:10.1080/13502930903520082
  53. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007). The Interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) project: London challenge (p. 816). London: School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.
  54. Mouza, C. (2005). Using technology to enhance early childhood learning: The 100 days of school project. Educational Research Evaluation, 11, 513-528. doi:10.1080/13803610500254808
  55. Murcia, K. (2014). Interactive and multimodal pedagogy: A case study of how teachers and students use interactive whiteboard technology in primary science. Australian Journal of Education, 58, 74-88. doi:10.1177/0004944113517834
  56. Polly, D., & Rock, T. (2016). Elementary Education Teacher Candidates’ Integration of Technology in the Design of Interdisciplinary Units. TechTrends, 60, 336-343. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0059-y
  57. Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II. Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9, 6, 1-6.
  58. Ramirez-Arellano, A., Bory-Reyes, J., & Hernández-Simón, L. M. (2019). Emotions, Motivation, Cognitive-Metacognitive Strategies, and Behavior as Predictors of Learning Performance in Blended Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57, 491-512. doi:10.1177/0735633117753935
  59. Rivoltella, P.C. (2008). Digital Literacy: Tools and Methodologies for Information Society. IGI Global, Hershey, USA.
  60. Roebers, C. M., Krebs, S. S., & Roderer, T. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and control in elementary school children: Their interrelations and their role for test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 141-149. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.003
  61. Şad, S. N., & Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59, 1184-1191. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.010
  62. Scardamalia M., Bereiter C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (ed.). Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97-118.
  63. Silva, E. (2009). Measuring Skills for 21st-Century Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 630-634. doi:10.1177/003172170909000905
  64. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51, 1321-1341.
  65. Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 443-457. doi:10.1080/01411920600635452
  66. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x
  67. Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching Science, Technology and Society. Developing Science and Technology Series. Taylor and Francis, 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007.
  68. Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53, 368-374. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.012
  69. Šumak, B., Pušnik, M., Heričko, M., & Šorgo, A. (2017). Differences between prospective, existing, and former users of interactive whiteboards on external factors affecting their adoption, usage and abandonment. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 733-756. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.006
  70. Swan, K., Schenker, J. & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. Dans J. Luca & E. Weippl (Dir.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (p. 3290-3297). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  71. Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., & van ‘t Hooft, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and student achievement. In Thomas, M. and Schmid, E. C. (Eds.), Interactive Whiteboards for Education and Training: Emerging Technologies and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 131-143.
  72. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 197-206. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00205.x
  73. Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54, 379-383. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
  74. Tucci, V., & Antonietti, A. (2009). Che cosa comporta introdurre nuove tecnologie didattiche a scuola: un modello. TD-Tecnologie Didattiche, 48, 16-21.
  75. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' Belief and Use of Interactive Whiteboards for Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 381-394.
  76. Varani, A. (2007). Tecnologia e metacognizione. In A. Carletti, & A. Varani (A cura di), Ambienti di apprendimento e nuove tecnologie: Nuove applicazioni della didattica costruttivista nella scuola (p. 250-257). Trento: Erickson.
  77. Vivanet, G. (2014). Sull’efficacia delle tecnologie nella scuola: analisi critica delle evidenze empiriche. TD Tecnologie Didattiche, 22, 95-100.
  78. Wall, K. & Higgins, S. (2006). Facilitating Metacognitive talk: a research and learning tool. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 2006, 29, 39-53. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). “The visual helps me understand the complicated things”: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 851-867. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x
  79. Warwick, P., Mercer, N., & Kershner, R. (2013). “Wait, let”s just think about this’: Using the interactive whiteboard and talk rules to scaffold learning for co-regulation in collaborative science activities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 42-51. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.004
  80. Zittle, F. (2004). Enhancing Native American Mathematics Learning: The Use of Smartboard-generated Virtual Manipulatives for Conceptual Understanding. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004 (pp. 5512-5515). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.