October 2012 Volume 15 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

simultaneously complied with ISL and SIL behaviors. As described earlier, we found that the ISL events coded in
scale 1 all complied with ISL3, and the SIL events coded in scale 2 almost all complied with SIL1 and SIL2. Thus,
students presented learning interest and active participation in these circumstances, and the use of IWB
simultaneously increased their learning efficacy. However, a total of 31.33% instructional events turned out no SIL
events (scale 0) with corresponding ISL events in scale 0, which indicates some circumstances are without any IWB
supported learning or student interactive learning behaviors.
Discussion
Teacher’s teaching
According to the analysis of the instructional events, there were over 70% instructional events that had both IST and
TSL behaviors simultaneously and nearly a medium degree of association between IST and TSL. Hennessy et al.
(2007, p. 291) revealed that whole-class teaching was the predominant mode of IWB use, with the teacher and
students focusing on the board for an average of 72% of the lesson time. This was similar to the results of this study.
We found that the teacher played mainly a coach role and extensively used IWB supported intuitive manipulation,
integrated the Internet and multimedia resources, and conducted the interactive teaching design. Use of the IWB
increased the interaction quality of teaching, helping the teacher to guide student learning. With regard to teachersupported
learning with ICT, teachers differ in the degree to which they act as coaches, observers, and facilitators of
learning, and thus differences may occur in stimulating students’ knowledge construction. These pedagogic changes
would influence the whole-class and group activities, even the use of the textbook. The observations show the
teacher adopted this new technology to guide students’ conceptual learning. However, the premise for wellconstructed
IWB integration into instruction is that the teacher would then tailor lesson plans to maximize the use of
these techniques, and not simply use the IWB for illustrative purposes (Glover et al., 2005).
Student’s learning
Compared to a teacher’s instruction, we found about 30% instructional events that were without both ISL and SIL
behaviors. Moreover, we found another 35% of instructional events without ISL or SIL behaviors and only less than
20% in which the students revealed learning interest, active participation, and simultaneously increased learning
efficacy by using the IWB. This result might be due to the fact that the classes observed in this study did not include
the extracurricular learning activities. Therefore, we suggest that future studies include observations of student selflearning
situations to better understand the effects of teaching and learning interaction associated with IWB.
Dhindsa and Emran (2006) suggested that the teacher should allow students to learn collaboratively in order to
acquire, construct and reorganize their knowledge. Obviously, in this study, the student peer cooperation (SIL3) was
unusual in the classroom. Thus, the teacher should consider how to change the pedagogic strategy in order to meet
the students’ learning needs. For example, in Wall et al.’s study (2005), the students made major comments on how
the visual and verbal elements complemented each other and promoted effective learning. This tendency illustrated
how the students felt about the IWB supporting their thinking and learning. Glover et al. (2005) pointed out that
when teachers perceive the potential of IWB to affect interaction between themselves and their students, they need
pedagogic change, especially in regard to integrating technology and media into instructional design and using more
interactive approaches.
Teaching and learning interaction
While there were over 90% instructional events that simultaneously comprised both IST and TSL behaviors in regard
to teaching and learning interaction, the results of IST and TSL as compared to ISL and SIL showed that only about
half of the instructional events revealed teacher’s instruction associated with student learning behaviors. This meant
that about 40% of teaching behaviors were not associated with student learning behaviors. In total, at least 30%
instructional events were observed without both ISL and SIL behaviors, especially in regard to learning with high
interest (SIL1), active participation (SIL2), and IWB increased learning efficacy (ISL3). To further investigate these
phenomena, we reviewed and compared the IST and TSL instructional events with the ISL and SIL results. In IST’s
364