Interactive Whiteboard Use: Changes in Teacher Pedagogy in Reading Instruction in the Primary Grades
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) use is increasing in Canadian classrooms accompanied by numerous claims of benefits for pedagogy and learning. The purpose of this study was to examine how IWBs are integrated into reading instruction in the primary grades (K-3), how their use enhances or alters teacher pedagogy and practices, and supports curricular technology integration mandates. Four teachers who taught in mainstream primary classrooms and were frequent IWB users participated in this four-month study. Eight English Language Arts lessons were observed per teacher. Data sources included interviews, observational data, logs, reflective journal responses, and training materials. Quantitative data on duration and frequency of activities with and without IWB use were analyzed to compare teacher and student use, the content of reading instruction, and the interactivity of activities. IWBs were in active use for approximately 50% of instructional time. The most frequent uses were guided practice, information provision, and questioning. Students engaged in paper-based literacy practices such as worksheet completion and shared and independent reading. The type and duration of students’ IWB use varied between and among classrooms. Paper-based texts and not digital texts predominated. Overall, the primary use of the IWB was to display information and interactive affordances were used infrequently. The teachers perceived IWB use made lessons more engaging and motivating, but support for their perceptions was inconclusive and mixed. Teachers concluded the IWB was a tool that improved the efficiency and effectiveness of teaching, however the nature of their pedagogy had not changed. My results contribute comprehensive, empirical support to the growing debate over pedagogical benefits and changes with IWB use, particularly for interactivity. The appeal of the IWB is such that use of the interactive and multimedia functions may overshadow the development of effective pedagogies and materials. Administrators are cautioned to consider carefully reports of benefits to determine under which circumstances use would be beneficial for their teachers and students. Additionally, teacher training must provide support for pedagogical decision-making in subject areas. Further research to determine the optimal conditions for training and use would assist educators and administrators to use the IWB to best benefit in teaching reading.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».