The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching
Abstract
Abstract Recent policy initiatives in England have focused on promoting ‘interactive’ teaching in schools, with a clear expectation that this will lead to improvements in learning. This expectation is based on the perceived success of such approaches in other parts of the world. At the same time, there has been a large investment in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) resources, and particularly in interactive whiteboard technology. This paper explores the idea of interactive teaching in relation to the interactive technology which might be used to support it. It explains the development of a framework for the detailed analysis of teaching and learning in activity settings which is designed to represent the features and relationships involved in interactivity. When applied to a case study of interactive teaching during a lesson involving a variety of technology‐based activities, the framework reveals a confusion of purpose in students' use of an ICT resource that limits the potential for learning when students are working independently. Discussion of relationships between technical and pedagogical interactivity points a way forward concerning greater focus on learning goals during activity in order to enable learners to be more autonomous in exploiting ICT's affordances, and the conclusion identifies the variables and issues which need to be considered in future research which will illuminate this path.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
Bornstein, M. H., & Gibson, J. J. (1980) · The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · doi:10.2307/429816 · Cited by 22,935
Cited by
Xu, H. L., & Moloney, R. (2011) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v7n11p20 · Cited by 27
Turvey, K. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.013 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05-09
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-73
- ISSN
- 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2729
- OpenAlex
- W1583441259
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 60.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.