Interactive Whiteboards and VR in Collaborative Learning

Interactive Whiteboards and Virtual Reality in Collaborative Learning

Students today learn through various innovative and interactive ways that differ from the learning models adopted in the past. Technology has greatly influenced these changes, particularly in the collaborative learning domain. Both teachers and learners can use interactive whiteboards to evaluate, present jointly, or engage in interactive learning activities. Tutors can also use virtual reality to support teaching while concurrently developing immersive lessons for students.

The present paper discusses interactive whiteboards and virtual reality in the area of collaborative learning. For each trend, the paper offers a description of the trend, its history, the theoretical model concerning the trend, its benefits and limitations, and best practices concerning the implementation of the trend in the education setting.

Interactive whiteboards (IW) in collaborative learning

Overview of IW

Interactive whiteboards (IW) including e-boards include large and white touch-sensitive boards that act as replacements to the conventional white or blackboards. The boards can display and react to various applications, internet resources, and projections through their connection to computers and data projectors (Saville, Beswick & Callingham, 2014). They can be permanently fixed, free-standing, or placed in a prominent position. While different IW brands exist, they operate based on the same principle. The ability of IW to offer different ways of viewing, manipulating, creating, and distributing digital learning and teaching resources through familiar software and desktop connection including connection to a network of computers demonstrate its potential as a collaborative learning tool (Saville et al., 2014). IW combine the audio-visual presentation and digital interactivity to offer an interactive learning environment.

History of IW

Nancy Knowlton and David Martin originally proposed the IW in 1987 before cofounding SMART Technologies and introducing the first SMART Board in 1991 ( Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller, 2007 ). Earlier, Xerox Parc developed the first IW intended for round-tables and small group meetings. The concept initially focused on creating a tool that would operate as a computer and a whiteboard ( Jensen, 2018 ). The SMARTboard, however, emerged as a touch-sensitive device ( Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller, 2007 ). The touch feature allowed users to manipulate the board using fingers (Thomas & Schmid, 2010). Following this introduction, other innovations related to IW emerged later such as the addition of rear projection to the IW in 1992, the introduction of pen-centric IW in 1994, and the introduction of collaborative software applications in 1997 (Thomas & Schmid, 2010). Additionally, recording applications and other basic features had been added by 2001, which allowed users to record presentations or lessons and play audio and video files (Thomas & Schmid, 2010). More advanced, multi-touch and low- cost IW exist today, which allow teachers to track pupil performance and arrange evaluation results ( Jensen, 2018 ). While originally targeting office use, the education sector started adopting interactive whiteboards by the late 1990s.

The Theoretical Framework Associated with IW

The constructivist theory explains the use of IW in classrooms. The theory posits that learning entails an active process of making meaning obtained in and with experiences and interactions with the environment (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018). Additionally, students gain learning opportunities through encountering cognitive challenge or conflict and naturally occurring and planned problem-solving tasks. Moreover, learning as a social activity involves participation, negotiation, and collaboration in authentic practices of communities (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018). IW offers a high level of interaction between students and various contexts, which enhances learning.

Benefits and Limitations of IW

IW offers enhanced lessons through integrating different learning styles into a single experience such as touch, hearing, and seeing, which allows students to learn better and memorize more. IW also enable students to interact with the learning resources, participate in the learning experience, and help each other ( Tertemiz, Sahin, Can & Duzgun, 2015 ). IW offer instant feedback to help both teachers and students to assess the learning progress. Tutors and students can easily use IW due to the presence of a specialized pen to highlight, draw or write on the board. They do not need markers or chalks that require regular cleaning. 

The ability to display different media types such as videos, illustrations, maps, graphs, or photos offers flexibility ( Tertemiz et al., 2015 ). Additionally, IW internet connection allows teachers and students to access online resources to improve and support lessons. The integration of different technologies in IW such as video cameras, cameras, microscopes, and computers support instruction. IW also enhances comprehension through increasing student attentiveness and engagement (Shi, Yang, Yang & Liu, 2012). Challenges, however, emerge when using IW in classrooms. For example, to effectively use IW, teachers must possess sufficient technical knowledge and operational competency. Besides, teachers require pedagogical knowledge of how to effectively use IW since IW increase the possibilities of accessing a wide range of instruction resources (Saville et al., 2014), According to Saville et al. (2014) IW may not engage students cognitively through its audio-visual and touch abilities since teaching approaches also affect the learning process.

Best Practices Associated with the Implementation of IW

The IW requires active teacher support to ensure dialogic and collaborative classroom activity (Saville et al., 2014). The tutor should also formulate activities that employ board affordance in promoting active learning and student agency (Saville et al., 2014). For instance, the teacher can formulate different cumulative tasks in which students control the pace such as revising previous learning. The teacher can also formulate open-ended activities such as by sharing initial subject ideas, formulating science investigations such as how to interpret data or formulating activities through the integration of material from the web such as using online simulations and video activities. The engagement structure should also be flexible to accommodate enhancing teacher and student expectation and expertise.

Virtual Reality

Overview

Virtual reality (VR) replicates environments that simulate the physical presence in locations in the imaginary or real world, which allows a user to interact in that place (Curcio, Dipace & Norlund, 2016). VR replicates an environment by creating artificial experiences involving different senses such as touch, hearing, and sight and in specific situations smell. These experiences also define potential interaction forms. The VR device can render the experiences visually on screens even though a Head-Mounted Display can offer a deeper immersion experience. Headphones or VR speakers offer the audio element while the touch interfaces increase interaction (Curcio et al., 2016). The replicated environment can be identical to the actual world such as in a classroom environment or unique from the actual world such as using synthetic graphics.

History of VR

The VR idea emerged in the 1930s after the introduction of the stereoscopic color photo display, the View-Master, in 1939 (Sutherland, 1965). The military domain also experimented with the VR idea in 1966 and introduced the VR HMD in 1968 (Sutherland, 1968). Philco Corporation created the first HMD that featured a tracking system and a screen connected to closed-circuit television. The devices focused on training military personnel in different tasks (Greenwald, 2017). These early devices did not support user interface and mobility. Sutherland later created the first HMD stereo display to connect with a computer to display photos (Sutherland, 1968). Krueger developed an interactive physical world or the Video place in the early 1970s before MIT created a virtual simulation of the Aspen city in 1977 (Greenwald, 2017). Video place used video cameras and projectors to enhance interaction through onscreen users. The military continued experimenting with VR and by the late 1980s introduced a virtual cockpit for training pilots (Greenwald, 2017). Later, Sega developed a headset focused on gaming using an LCD screen, an inertial sensor and stereo headphones to track the head and respond to head movements in 1991 (Curcio et al., 2016). In the following decades, VR stakeholders experimented with the VR idea in restricted settings before the technology entered the mass market through the Google Cardboard in 2014. Various VR devices are now available in the market.

The Theoretical Framework Associated with VR

The situated learning theory explains the application of VR in the classroom. The theory suggests that the situation and place in which students learn influence learning (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018). VR technology engages learning both physically and cognitively through interactive and immersive experiences. The virtual environments and immersive simulations focus on developing a participatory, collaborative, and compelling user experience and contain different features that cannot be found in the real environment, which improves situated student learning and engagement.

Benefits and Limitations of VR

VR systems enhance situated learning using the immersive experience of interactive processes, environment, and objects (Greenwald, 2017). In the VR environment, exchange with peers supports learning, which enhances the interpretation of ambiguous and complex data (Dawley & Dede, 2014). The immediate student exchanges assist in the consideration of different views and confirmation of the most possible interpretation. VR systems also respond to the student movements in a way that stimulates the individual perception of learners, which helps in developing understanding (Stolz, 2014). The use of VR technology, however, poses some challenges. For instance, HMD decouples a user from real body perception and the surrounding social and physical settings, which may prevent the comprehension of the presented content (Greenwald, 2017). Additionally, since learning necessitates a certain level of individual independence, the VR becomes ineffective if the virtual environment does not support independent learning for learners to be accountable individually.

Best Practices associated with the Implementation of VR

VR interfaces for multi-user collaboration must support fluent shifts between individual tasks and different collaborative coupling levels. User VR interfaces must also offer different interaction domains and support dynamic spatial restructuring (Beck, Kunert, Kulik & Froehlich, 2013). The VR system should also be created with the ability not to restrict the user perception of the immediate environment while offering the user with different individual perceptions towards a shared scene (Kunert, Kulik, Beck & Froehlich, 2014). VR system support for joint activities must consider different emergent and planned coordination processes. According to Knoblich, Butterfill, and Sebanz (2011), these process must also be based on the spatiotemporal coherence of the joint interaction space.

Conclusion

Technological advancements today enhance collaborative learning in the classroom by making it easier for teachers and students to interact and innovate. Some of the trends include interactive whiteboards and virtual reality. Interactive whiteboards empower students with the required skills and develop new learning ways that promote education and collaboration skills. The technology allows learners to interact with each other, learn from experiences and develop individual knowledge. VR also enhances the learning experience by providing enhanced versions of objects and images, which supports compelling learning experiences. While these technologies offer several benefits, they also present several challenges that must be addressed to ensure the learning experience also promotes individual student responsibility. Besides, tutors must also familiarize themselves with the technologies to ensure that they prepare lessons that teach learners the required skills.

References

Beck, S., Kunert, A., Kulik, A., & Froehlich, B. (2013). Immersive Group-to-Group Telepresence.  IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics ,  19 (4), 616–625. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2013.33

Curcio, I. D. D., Dipace, A., & Norlund, A. (2016). Virtual Realities and Education.  Research on Education and Media ,  8 (2), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/rem-2016-0019

Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2014). Situated Learning in Virtual Worlds and Immersive Simulations. In  Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: Fourth edition . Springer.

Greenwald, S., Kulik, A., Kunert, A., Beck, S., Frohlich, B., Cobb, S., ... & Newbutt, N. (2017) . Technology and Applications for Collaborative Learning in Virtual Reality.  CSCL 2017 Proceedings , 719–726. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/preview/895788/115.pdf

Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the Literature on Interactive Whiteboards.  Learning, Media and technology ,  32 (3), 213-225.

Jensen, E. (2018). The Impact of Interactive Touchscreens on Physics Education in Upper Secondary School–A Systematic Review.  Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology ,  14 (2), 15-23.

Kunert, A., Kulik, A., Beck, S., & Froehlich, B. (2014, February). Photoportals: Shared References in Space and Time. In  Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing  (pp. 1388-1399).

Knoblich, G., Butterfill, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Psychological Research on Joint Action.  Advances in Research and Theory ,  54 , 59–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385527-5.00003-6

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2018).  Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology . New York: Pearson Education.

Saville, M., Beswick, K., & Callingham, R. (2014). The Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Education. In N. Fitzallen, R. Reaburn, & S. Fan (Eds.),  The Future of Educational Research: Perspectives from Beginning Researchers  (pp. 203–216). Springer Science & Business Media.

Shi, Y., Yang, Z., Yang, H. H., & Liu, S. (2012). The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Education.  Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Internet Multimedia Computing and Service - ICIMCS ’12 . https://doi.org/10.1145/2382336.2382397

Stolz, S. A. (2014). Embodied Learning.  Educational Philosophy and Theory ,  47 (5), 474–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.879694

Sutherland, I.E. (1965). The Ultimate Display. Proceedings of the IFIP 65 Congress , Vol. 2. (pp. 506-508).

Sutherland, I. E. (1968, December). A Head-Mounted three Dimensional Display. In  Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, fall joint computer conference, part I  (pp. 757-764).

Tertemiz, N. I., Sahin, D., Can, B., & Duzgun, S. (2015). Views of Primary School Teachers and Students about The Interactive Whiteboard.  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences ,  186 , 1289–1297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.099.

Thomas, M., & Schmid, E. C. (2010).  Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice . Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.