Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning Gary Beauchamp a, * , Steve Kennewell b a University of Wales Institute Cardiff (UWIC), Cyncoed Road, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, United Kingdom b Swansea Metropolitan University, Townhill Road, Swansea, SA2 0UT, United Kingdom article info Article history: Received 30 April 2009 Received in revised form 21 September 2009 Accepted 21 September 2009 Keywords: Interactive learning environments Pedagogical issues Teaching/learning strategies Improving classroom teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning abstract The term ‘interactive’ appears in two distinct strands of educational research discourse: one concerning pedagogy and the other concerning new technologies in education. As new technology increasingly per- vades most classrooms in the UK, it seems likely that it would be fruitful to explore, both theoretically and empirically, links between the concepts of ‘interactive teaching’ and ‘interactive technology’. Previous reviews of the literature concerning interactive teaching have revealed a variety of ideas which are considered to be involved, with a number of common elements suggesting a scale of interac- tivity ranging from ‘authoritative’ to ‘dialogic’. There was a consistent suggestion in the literature that shifting the balance of interaction in classrooms towards the dialogic end of the scale would bring improvements to the learning process and consequently to attainment outcomes. However, current analysis focuses on whole-class teaching, which is only one mode of class organisa- tion. This paper explores the literature on interactivity in group and individual work with ICT, and char- acterises categories of interactivity for these forms of activity organisation. A framework is presented which relates these categories to those previously devised and to the ways in which teachers and learners orchestrate the features of their classroom environment and interact with ICT to support action towards learning goals. The paper argues that a shift towards a greater role for learners in orchestrating resources in the classroom will be valuable and concludes that there is potential for ICT to support more dialogic and synergistic approaches in group and individual activity than is seen at present. It also identifies the potential for using the framework in future research concerning the effects of technological develop- ments on learning in classroom settings. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Context One of the key roles claimed for ICT in promoting learning is interactivity – the ability to respond contingently to the learner’s actions (e.g., DfEE, 1998a). Recently, a body of research in England has focused on the relationship between interactive technologies and interactive pedagogical practices in the school classroom (Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthven, & Winterbottom, 2007; Kennewell, Tanner, Jones, & Beau- champ, 2008). This and other research has highlighted the role of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) in pedagogic practice (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; Moss et al., 2007; Smith, Hardman, & Higgins, 2006; Somekh & 13 others, 2007). Some patterns have emerged across this body of work, particularly the degree to which an IWB tends to support whole-class teaching rather than other modes of student grouping, and the prevalence of relatively superficial interactions which take place when an IWB is used. The rate of interaction between teacher and learners tends to increase when an IWB is used, although this does not necessarily lead to improvements in attainment (Smith et al., 2006). These findings are located in a particular context, however; in England, the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 1998b) and parallel Na- tional Numeracy Strategy (DfEE, 1999) advocated direct, interactive teaching as one of the factors contributing to success, along with dis- cussion, pace, confidence and ambition. They characterised teaching as interactive when ‘‘students’ contributions are encouraged, expected and extended” (DfEE, 1998b, p. 8). But despite the effective imposition of particular teaching strategies, teachers varied in their interpre- tation of interactive teaching (Moyles, Hargreaves, & Merry, 2003), and several studies have reported the dominance of teacher talk, the persistence of initiation–response–feedback as the principal form of discourse, the brevity of student responses and the lack of sustained interaction with individuals (see, e.g., Smith et al., 2006). 0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)2920417262. E-mail address: gbeauchamp@uwic.ac.uk (G. Beauchamp). Computers & Education 54 (2010) 759–766 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu