Response to Futurelab report on the use of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs)
Issues arising from this report that are of interest to ECHOES
[I have put references to RC in the context of baseline for ECHOES development]
Bits of a recent paper are in italics
Positives:
1. IWBs can provide more authentic contexts for situated learning
2. Learners become centrally involved in use and can actively construct their
knowledge through interaction
3. There is a greater tactile connection between learners and learning context,
which enables modelling and simulation activities to be presented more
readily
4. The ‘theatrical tension’ within the classroom afforded by IWBs can create a
more captivating learning environment
[In RC research I have used the IWB as “place” where performative actions can
be encouraged, and where repetition leads to improvisation and increased
confidence to explore and cope with change – this is in contrast to most IWB
software which focuses on operational routines that can foster a reliance on learnt
cues. The RC environment situates the IWB as a stage for interaction & gestural
expression to occur naturally.]
On the negative side, the report implies that IWBs are used in most classroom
situations to facilitate didactic approaches which increase teacher control by placing
them in the centre of the experience.
[RC is radically different as regards this point, not only does the child lead the
experience, but their engagement is reflected via the visual phenomena that unfolds
on the screen in response to the actions of the child. The teacher plays an important
role in encouraging the child to explore and in celebrating the child’s self expression.
The teacher needs also to demonstrate a willingness to be lead by the child –
ownership in this sense is placed on the performer, the child, rather than the teacher]
The F/B report implies that little work has been done that genuinely considers the
affordances of the physical and technical environment and how they can become
embedded in a broader pedagogical aim. This, I think, in central to ECHOES.
The affordances of the technology were very important in the development of RC, we
wanted a more dynamic form of interaction which place action (rather than cognition)
at the centre of the learner’s experience.
“This concept of affordances (Norman, 1988 & 1990; Gibson, 1979), which encourage a tight coupling
between the environment and a range of possible actions, encountered directly rather than abstractly,
are strong feature of ReacTickles. Dourish (2001) describes this coupling of activity and environment
as central to embodied interaction, as the source of meaning is found through actions and the
possibility for actions, rather than though a cognitive process of interpretation of graphically mediated
symbols. To illustrate this concept, when playing with ReacTickles using a mouse a range of spatial
smoothing, circling and dragging movements area afforded, the keyboard activities promote tapping,
pressing, and repetition, which elicit locational responses on the screen that match the spatial
organisation of the keys on the keyboard; using the microphone will create a response depending on
the volume of sound created by the user, either through the voice or some other instrument. When
ReacTickles are played on an interactive whiteboard, gesture and pointing are employed both to
manipulate the interface and to draw attention to the actions; gross motor movements such as
stretching and jumping become key actions in the experience as fine motor demands are reduced
However the affordances of the technology is subordinate to the role of the teachers
who need to be supported in creating interactive environments within the confines of
the classroom (which tends to be dominated by the systematic structures of
curriculum and assessment, which can limit experimentation – I will do more on this
and make reference to affordances in the context of our design approach)
The F/L report calls for longitudinal research that captures change in teacher practice,
learning and perceptions of learners over time. This means that we need to enrol
teachers!! However the report makes little or no reference to embodiment which
again, I think is key to the success of ECHOES,
The most profound learning experiences involve embodiment, live experiences and
interactions between people and the world they inhabit. More than seventy per cent of
learning experiences are accidental or informal (Thackara, 2005), and occur during
face to face communication as our body acts as a medium that transforms our
internal emotions and intentions into external signals actions, expressions, gestures
movement and so on. Direct contact with the environment that surrounds us is critical
to learning. Touching and various forms of manual investigation influence brain
function, even language and culture (Singer, 2006). For the young child, movement
and physical activities provide the foundation for higher-level cognition through the
integration of the brain’s sensory association areas (Healy, 1998). Cognitive forms of
intelligence, such as language, as well as certain visual-spatial skills, are all learned
from using the body to perform movements in sequence and by navigating the body
through space. The child’s muscles register the spatial organisation of the
environment, which provides the foundation for higher conceptual understandings,
such as proportion and velocity.
Embodied user interfaces attempt to make interaction with technology more like
everyday actions, which are continuously improvised and adapted in response to
unpredictable forces, and where interactions are rarely stable objective phenomena.
In the real-world actions are organised in response to the setting in which they arise
and as a result form part of an ongoing improvised activity, (Suchman, 1987).
Therefore the notion of embodiment is not simply about experiences that we encounter
directly through actions in the physical world, it also encompasses the notion that
real –word experiences include phenomena that unfold directly in shared actions and
conversations (Merleau-Ponty, 1962).
More thoughts on the BIG ONE
I think that in our document we need to address the design process more fully, in
particular:

We need to work with teachers to identify the key barriers to interactivity and
collaboration [I ran workshops with teachers very early on in RC before we
even reached NESTA, the prototype was very crude but the teachers were very
enthusiastic and by joining in at this stage – preproduction, I ran the first ones
at the Autism Cymru conference in 2004 and then again at the Autscape
conference in 2005 with adults and children with ASD. This is a very hands on
way of eliciting participation and could be structured to run at regular intervals
with clear design goals]

How can we work with the wider educational vision to embed interactivity &
collaboration into school routines

We need to design processes that can cope with change and which allow us to
find out what we don’t already now (My concerns with evaluation in current
document is there is little scope for this)

I think we need a low floors, high ceilings, wide walls approach to task

We should try to address the potential for kinaesthetic learning (NACCCE
report) particularly with pointing and gesture as a precursor to verbal forms of
communciation

Our proposal is technologically very complex, how can we ensure the
simplicity is prioritised in terms of ease of use and iteration of prototypes.
How do we ensure that we avoid computer mediated overload and the
cognitive stress induced by interfaces that are crowded with symbolic
representations and metaphors

We need rapid prototypes in order to find out what children will do with it
(rather than be dictated by what it does) We need to learn from children to find
out what is likely to be interesting and meaningful to them, so that we can
maximise on these interests (this will impact on task)

By working in this way we are more likely to identify circumstances that give
rise to the greatest degree of meta-cognitive engagement and interactivity in
the classroom, especially in relation to the principles of personalisation (more
on this in the DfES 2020 vision report I’ll find the references)
Thoughts on task:
(Passey and Rodgers, 2004) state that there is still little use of sensory engagement,
particularly, kinaesthetic, spatial/visual, interpersonal and intrapersonal, as a means
to encourage collaborative learning, creativity and flexible thinking. Most
educational software is designed around a structure that tends to dictate a sequence
of actions rather that allowing the child to initiate with his mind or body. Choice or
options consist of selection from buttons or interface menus and task-driven activities
tend to dominate the experience. The active areas of the screen are usually restricted
to routine mouse clicks and key presses and sensorial interaction is limited to visual
or aural feedback, rather than genuine sensory stimulation. When used in this way the
computer takes responsibility for selective attention, meaning that children are not
developing the ability to control their attention through planning and understanding
the consequences of their actions (Healy, 1998).
Whilst we know that the predictability and controllability of computers make them
ideal environments for people with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. My concerns,
however are that the operational mode of computing that can reinforce a mindset
intent on finding one right answer leading to narrowness in thinking skills and
imagination. Children with ASDs may be able to master their responses to a preprogrammed set of stimuli however, in this mode joint attention and spontaneous play
skills difficult to support. Many social skill interventions do not offer reciprocity or
child led initiations; instead they focus on discrete individual skills and inflexible
modes of communication. These approaches that teach rigid behavioural routines do
not appropriately reflect the unpredictability of typical human interaction.
I will go back into my notes on play/task, but just copying this bit from a recent paper
as the object relationship is an important one
Play has also been shown to reduce stress and to enhance creative and imaginative
thinking; children learn best when they are given the opportunity to construct
knowledge without direct instruction, when they are give full control in an openended play environment (Papert, 1972 & 1977). Papert’s book, Mindstorms (1980),
set the foundation for the generation of educational technologists who have been
profoundly influenced by his ideas on the computer as a “transitional object” and its
role as a cognitive bridge. Although there are clearly alliances with the work of child
psychologist D.W.Winnicott (1982), who presented the emotional relationship
between inanimate objects as a substitute for the presence of the mother, Papert’s
theory draws on the affective role the transitional object has in children’s learning
and therefore, is more relevant in the context of this work and children with ASDs.
OK that’s all I have time for right now, sorry to C&P bit from my most recent paer, I
can send the whole thing if you like!
Best
Wendy