The Interactive White Board in the Higher Education: Skills

and competences in the didactic interaction models

Francisco García García. Professor of Audiovisual Communication and Publicity and

Main Researcher of the SOCMEDIA Researching Group of the Complutense University
of Madrid e.mail: fghenche@gmail.com

Rogerio García Fernández. Doctorate Researcher of the SOCMEDIA Researching

Group of the Complutense University of Madrid. e-mail: rogeirogf@globo.com

Karla Isabel de Souza. PhD and Education Researcher of the Complutense University of
Madrid e-mail: karlaisabel@globo.com

Manuel Gértrudix Barrio. Professor of the Rey Juan Carlos University e-mail:
manuel.gertrudix@urjc.es

Keywords

EHEA – European Higher Education Area, IWB – Interactive White Board, Didactic
Interaction Analysis, Teaching and Learning Process

Abstract
The IWB – Interactive White Board is an educational tool compound by a screen, a
projector and a computer that could be able to recognize a touch or any other natural
mimetic movement. In this research we proposed to study the interaction among teacher
and students during the use of the IWB and to observe the production of changes in the
teachers’ experiences and the students’ skills and competences. How the interaction can
change a class? Could the use of the IWB mediate the interaction in the classroom? The
IWB is a useful tool to different kind of professors? The creation of the EHEA –
European Higher Education Area generated new goals for the European university.
Among of them, there is the implementation of the ICT – Information and
Communication Technologies to assure the quality of the teaching and learning process.
In this new context, the study of the use of the IWB in Higher Education became
necessary. For this research we recorded and analyzed classes in groups of Higher

1 
 
Education in Madrid, Spain with different teaching models about the use of the ICT
with an adaptation of Flanders’ didactic interaction analysis method. After the
experience, we applied a survey. We proof the hypothesis that the IWB was better used
on teaching and learning process when we found more didactic interaction in the studied
models. As results we concluded that teacher’s didactic strategy for teaching model
determines if the use of the IWB allow better didactic interaction. In addition, teachers’
skills and competences for the use of the IWB and the specifics students’ competences
contribute for a more participative class.

1. Introduction

In 1999 the European Commission had started a process to change the Europeans
universities, the EHEA – European Higher Education Area, or Declaration of Bologna.
This process is trying to make an integration of the national education systems. One of
the goals by sectors of the EHEA is the implementation of the ICT – Information and
Communication Technologies at the didactic scope. (EHEA Commission, 1999)In
Spain, CRUE – Conference of Rectors of the Spanish Universities is the institution
responsible to apply the changes proposed by the Declaration of Bologna. The use of
the interactive technology has been generating data and evaluation reports. And the
specific use of IWB - Interactive Whiteboard in classrooms at the Spanish universities
has been also observed and stimulated. The data exploited by CRUE generates a
periodical report called UNIVERSITIC (UCEDA, BARRO et ali. 2009).At Spanish
universities there were 1,056 IWB in June 2009 with a mean of 21.8 IWB per
university. It increased about 50% in comparison with the UNIVERSITIC two years
before. The importance of the IWB increased, but the use of this tool must also be
observed. First of all, it’s important to know if they have been used or were only
purchased, and if the use of the IWB has been helping professors to teach better.
Therefore, the evaluation of the use of the IWB doesn’t have a proper official method.
For this case, we developed a methodology based on Flanders’s Didactic Interaction
Method that could describe the use of the IWB based on the professors teaching models.
The result could be used as a tool for evaluation of the application of the IWB in Higher
Education.

2 
 
Our point is that the interaction could make the classes better for higher education, so
where we could observe more interaction during the use of the IWB, we also could
observe a better quality of teach-and-learn process. But, there are some factors that can
influence these relations. Therefore three questions arise: Can the use of the IWB
mediate the interaction in the classroom? The IWB is a useful tool to different kind of
professors? Are there any problems to use the IWB to the interaction in the classroom?

2. The IWB, Education and the new paradigm

“The IWB – Interactive White Board is an educational tool compound by a screen, a

projector and a computer that could be able to recognize a touch or any other natural
mimetic movement” (GARCÍA FERNANDEZ, 2009). The use of this tool with its
characteristic (hypermedia, touch screen and no linearity) could be important for social
use and the mimetition of the reality could be a strategy to get closer the human and the
ICT.

“The web is building the world, not only because of its mimetic
nature, by the possibilities of the defictionalization of life itself.
On the Net exchanges are real, the purchases are real too, the
governance is real, the NetArt is Art on the Net. In the metaphor
of virtual worlds (like Second Life or play online Warcraft) the
Web is not the Second Life, is the fiction of life, but does not lost
here the scope of its inevitable connection to reality.”
(GARCÍA GARCÍA and GÉRTRUDIX BARRIO, 2009)

Hypermedia is a form of communication that becomes a relationship among human

beings. Of this complex relationship - communication with new technologies - are
created four paradigms that influence the relationship among author and reader: Data
base; Linearity / No Linearity; Hypertext; and Convergence (GARCÍA GARCÍA,
2006). In this context the relationship among teacher and student suffered a great
change. This change even more if compared with the rise of the Internet, because the
teacher was already working with images and sounds in class (SOUZA, 2009). This tool
sum with other changes in the classes’ life in the last years.

3 
 
 3. Methodology

To measure the interaction among professor and students during the use of the IWB, we
developed a methodology based on the Flanders’s Didactic Interaction Method.
(Flanders, 1970) This author published a list of actions that are able to describe these
relations that he actions during the class or during an episode of the class were
introduced in to a matrix. These are the most important actions:

1. Accept feelings

Teacher's utterances involving the acceptance and clarification of an attitude or

emotional tone of the student. Evoke positive or negative feelings.

2. Encourage

Verbal statements that involves their own value of judgment to approve. Element
objective diagnosis, positive.

3. Accepts or uses of students ideas

The professor can answer the ideas expressed by students in several ways, but the
category is best used when the professor's cognitive orientation incorporates the ideas
expressed by students.

4. Ask questions

Questions raised by the professor who used this to move the class debate to successive
stages or to introduce a new element of the proposed problem.

5. Expose and explain

Expose and explain, express opinions, provide data, add thoughts and comments
improvised.
6. Give the Instructions

Monitoring and directivity. It starts from the professor and feedback to the students.

4 
 
7. Criticizes or justifies authority

Highlighting the education authority.

8. Student response

Direct answer from students

9. The student starts the speech

It happens when students' answers provide more information than required by the
question.

10. Silence or confusion

When communication is given in class a break, or when there is noise and confusion in
it.

Table1. Matrix of Flander’s Didactic Analysis Method notations

Second Note
Professor Student
Total
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rows
1 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10
2 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10
3 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10
4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10
5 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10
Student Professor

6 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10
7 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10
8 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 8-7 8-8 8-9 8-10
9 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 9-10
10- 10- 10- 10- 10- 10- 10- 10- 10- 10-
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
First Note

Total Total
Columns Matrix

5 
 
 3.1.The scope: 5 IWB Uses Models, 2 Groups

The scope of this research has touched a problem that is whether the didactical strategy
of a different kind of professors can change by the use of the IWB.

The variables that we choose are: whether the professor is the usual of the class for the
students or not; whether the IWB was used or no; whether the professor is an expert to
use this tool or he needed a tutor or students help. The combination of these variables
generated 5 different didactical strategies that were observed one class of each model on
two different groups of Communication’s under graduate students.

Table 2. Didactical strategy models observed

Model 1 •Usual professor, without the IWB

Model 2 •An Expert professor, with the IWB

Model 3 •Usual professor, with the IWB, with tutor

Model 4 •An Inexpert professor, with the IWB

Model 5 •Usual professor, with the IWB, with tutor and students

4. Analysis

On the first step we has made the didactic interaction analysis to observe the most
important sequence of the relations in each didactic models.

6 
 
 4.1. Didactic Interaction Analysis (Group A)
The group A was composed of 44 students.

Model 1

With the didactic interaction analysis, we’ve observed that there were more incidences
under a direct relation: professor’s question asked – students’ response. It happens 12
times in this model and the questions formulated after an explanation, occurred 10
times. However, it was also recurrent, 7 times each one, when the professor asked and
had to continue explaining or when the class became on silence. So, in this case nobody
answer the questions arised. It happens 14 times.

Model 2

We didn’t observe so many didactic interactions in this model cause the most marked
sequence was silence and explanation. In this case, the use of IWB was so rarely
associated with an interaction.

Model 3

About the most observed incidences, we can highlight which the professor has made
questions with explanations at the sequence, with 19 occurrences. In this model the
student participated with 12 spontaneous commentaries and then the professor made
yours. The pauses were more frequently associated with professor’s questions and his
explanations, with 16 and 14 incidences each one.

Model 4

The professor has made questions after an explanation 19 times and his questions are
answered directly by the students 11 times. There were so many pauses, major of them
before or after an explanation with 28 and 22 occurrences each one.

Model 5

The professor has made 17 questions directly answered by the students, 11 of them
asked after an explanation and in 11 answers the professor returns to explain the
content. Also, there were 11 incidences of instructions in this model. The pauses were

7 
 
44 before an explanation and 42 after an explanation. It was so much because of the
dynamic structure of this model than the others observed.

4.2. Didactic Interaction Analysis (Group B)

Was formed of 35 students.

Model 1

Among the incidences observed by the research we could highlight that the professor
asked 35 times that the students answer immediately. Were also recurrent the questions
that were made after an explanation 20 times. Furthermore, for 15 times the professor
used the answers of the students for a new explanation.

Model 2

At the model 2, the most noted incidences were made when the students answer before
the professor asked another question. It happened 22 times at this model and then the
use of students’ interventions by the professor and the pauses during the explanations.
So, the didactic interaction analysis is able to observe that the professor made a didactic
strategy that could use the students’ interventions.

Model 3

The professor has used, with high frequency comparing to the others of the group B, the
asking with continuing an explanation, with 31 occurrences. So, there were also a high
number of students answers, with 22 occurrences. The students have participated
spontaneously answering about the professors’ questions after an explanation, with 17
and 18 occurrences.

Model 4

The professor has made 14 questions after an explanation, but only a few of them
directly answered, with 3 occurrences. The students’ participation were more
spontaneous than stimulated, with 9 occurrences before and another 9 occurrences after
the professors’ explanation.

Model 5

8 
 
The most of the incidences were about the spontaneous participation of the students
with 25 occurrences before a professor’s explanation and another 17 occurrences after a
professor’s explanation. The professor was made13 questions after an explanation.
There was also many pauses among the professor’s explanations, with 25 and 23
occurrences each one.

4.3. Comparision of the groups

The conclusions of the didactic interaction analysis highlight two issues: although
the professors plan the class in the same way, the didactic interactions occur differently
in each group, and we observed constant didactic interaction relationships in each case.

In the model 1 the interaction pairs were more incidents at the didactic question-
answer and explanation questions. In model 2, although in group A, there was less
interaction; in group B, pairs of highest incidence were question-answer and use the
comment of the student to ask another question. In model 3 the teacher encouraged
students to participate in the class spontaneously, in the group B which one highlights
the questions and answer relation. The model 4 was similar than the model 1, but with
ask and answer questions directly. The model 5 was the one that had a greater difference
between the groups, but in group A the class had six categories that were highlighted in
addition to the question and answer relation, so, the interaction was explored with much
more didactic skills. In the group B the teacher took the intervention of students
differently than in the group A. Thus, we can conclude that the amount of didactic
interaction events was not associated neither with the model nor the use of the IWB, but
is associated to the conducing and strategy that the professor actually used.

5. The Survey with the students

At the end we applied a survey to the students for evaluates the use of this ICT in the
classroom. We used the Likert scale to observe the students opinions. The survey was
made based on 4 blocs:

9 
 
 A) Stratification – Who were the student, we separated the sample of the students in
the groups A and B; if they are men or women; by age, if they have touched the
IWB during the classes; and if they knew the IWB before the sections.

B) Interest and opinion about the IWB – We wanted to know how much this subject
is interesting for the students. If they liked it or not and what they think about
the functions of the IWB: the touch screen, the multimedia and the quality of the
projection.

C) Didactic Experience - before and after the use of the IWB to know how the
experience of the students was. The perception of students the about how the use
of this technology made effect in their learning and participation.

D) Observation about the IWB proprieties and the professor’s didactic strategy by
the students’ point of view. Attention, motivation, stimulation and interaction.

The sample consisted of a total of 80 students who participated on the classes with the
use of the IWB. In the initial part of the survey questions did in June. Three questions
were of stratification. Then we did other three questions related to the experience with
ICT.

In relation to groups, we observed that most students answered the questions. In group
A 56% of the total in group B 44% of the total. We also observed that the women are
61% of the students and men only 35%, and only 15% of the students touched the
screen during the classes. 65% of them already knew about the IWB before this project,
and 81% said that had advanced informatics knowledge.

Table 3. Groups

Valid  Percent 
   Frequency Percent  Percent  Accumulated 
Valid  Group A  44 55,0 55,7  55,7 
Group B 35 43,8 44,3  100,0 
Total  79 98,8 100,0    
Missed  System  1 1,3   
Total  80 100,0      
 

10 
 
Table 4. Gender

Valid  Percent 
   Frequency Percent  Percent  Accumulated  
Valid  Man  28 35,0 36,4  36,4 
Woman 49 61,3 63,6  100,0 
Total  77 96,3 100,0    
Missed  System  3 3,8      
Total  80 100,0   
 

Table 5. Touched the screen

 
Valid  Percent 
   Frequency Percent  Percent  Accumulated 
Valid  Yes  12 15,0 16,0 16,0 
No  63 78,8 84,0 100,0 
Total  75 93,8 100,0   
Missed  System  5 6,3      
Total  80 100,0      
 

Graph 1. Already knew the IWB Graph2. Advanced informatics knowledge

19%
35%
Sí Sí
No No
65%
81%

5.1. The IWB was approved by the students

11 
 
We can observe with the results presented in the survey that the IWB was approved by
students. And it is present in two parts of the survey: at the results about the personal
interests and to the didactic issues.

Regarding the personal opinions, we highlight that 60% of the students really liked the
full use of the IWB in the classroom. In relation to the inherent characteristics of the
IWB we also observed that students had high approval with 86% of the touch screen,
80% approval of its multimedia capabilities and 77% of the projection of the content.

In relation to educational issues, for 54% of the students the IWB increases the
educational possibilities, for 51% IWB promotes interaction among teacher and student,
for 55% the use of IWB permits the professor to give more much information on
classes, also favors the attention, with 50% on high approval.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Relations among the use of the IWB and the learning

The first question that we made was whether it is related to the disapproval of the IWB,
but the analysis showed that there are no correlations. The opinions about learning are
correlated with the fact that most liked the use of the IWB. Although the students liked
the IWB in the classroom, this tool didn’t make an impact over their learning. For 54%
did not participate in classes more than without the IWB. For 41%, the IWB did not
improve learning, but for 45% the students do not learn better without IWB. The second
conclusion is that the use of IWB is not related to learning better, because students were
divided in questions about their own learning.

6.2. A General Scheme of Didactic Interaction with the IWB

 

In all classes teachers plan their actions. But external or internal factors of the
class can change. The episodes are the parts that compose a class. It could be analyzed
through didactic interaction analysis. The second issue is the use of IWB. Teachers have
to have skills and competencies for the use of this ICT. A content analysis using the
IWB serves as a tool to study this tool. It is also essential the teaching strategy. Whether

12 
 
a professor encourages your students they will participate more. Finally students have to
want to participate in the classes in their own competences.

This model aims to teach what should be developed for the use of IWB improve
teacher-student interaction to be implemented in another research.

Image 1. A General Scheme of Didactic Interaction with the IWB

How as shown in the Image, the IWB is a perfect tool to mediate the relationship among
professors and students if in the classes’ plan the professor choose some episodes to use
them like an effective interactive tool. To do that the professors must to have skills and
competences on ICT and build a didactic strategy to develop the didactic interaction
with the participation of the students on their own competences.

13 
 
7. Bibliography

EHEA - THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA. The Bologna Declaration of

19 June 1999. Mirado en.: http://www.eees.es/pdf/Declaracion_Bolonia.pdf

FLANDERS, Ned A. Análisis de la Interacción Didáctica. Editorial Anaya/2,

Salamanca, 1970.

GARCÍA FERNANDEZ, R. La Pizarra Digital Interactiva en la Educación Superior:

Análisis de interacción didáctica y modelos de enseñanza. Monography to Advanced
Studies Diploma. Facultad de Ciencias de Información. Universidad Complutense de
Madrid, 2009.

GARCÍA GARCÍA, F. Contenidos educativos digitales: Construyendo la Sociedad del

Conocimiento. RED Digital – Revista de Tecnología de la Información y Comunicación
Educativa. Madrid, n. 6, Marzo de 2006. Disponible en:
http://reddigital.cnice.mec.es/6/Portada/portada.php.. ISSN: 1696-0826.

GARCÍA GARCÍA, F. and GERTRUDIX BARRIO, M. El Mare Nostrum Digital: Mito,

ideología y realidad de un imaginario sociotécnico IN Revista Icono 14, n.12, 2009.
http://www.icono14.net/monografico/mare-nostrum-digital

SOUZA, K. I. Vídeo Digital na educação: aplicação da narrativa audiovisual, Tese

(Doutorado em Educação) – UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2009.
(http://libdigi.unicamp.br/document/?code=000446165)

UCEDA ANTOLIPNI, J.; BARRO AMENEIRO, S.y otros. UNIVERSITIC. Las TIC en el
sistema universitario español. Madrid, Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades
Españolas (CRUE), 2009

14