How can interactive whiteboards contribute to pedagogic change Learning from case studies in English

1
How can interactive whiteboards contribute to
pedagogic change? Learning from case studies in
English primary schools FIP WG 3.1/ 3.3/ 3.5
conference at Ålesund, June 2006

• Bridget Somekh and Maureen Haldane
• Centre forICT, Pedagogy and Learning
• ESRI Education and Social Research Institute

2
The SWEEP Research

• Thank you to the DfES and all the people who made
  this work possible
• The Schools Whiteboard Expansion Evaluation
  Project (SWEEP) is funded by the English
  Department for Education and Skills (April 2004
  June 2006 with an extension to March 2007)
• The SWEEP evaluation team members are Bridget
  Somekh, Maureen Haldane, Kelvyn Jones (Univ of
  Bristol), Cathy Lewin, Stephen Steadman, Peter
  Scrimshaw, Kate Bird, John Cummings, Brigid
  Downing, Tanya Harber Stuart, Janis Jarvis, Diane
  Mavers and Derek Woodrow
• Teachers and children in the 10 case study
  schools made the researchers welcome and 6
  schools attended the SWEEP Case Study Schools
  Sharing Day in May 2006.

3
Overview of our presentation

• Very rapid uptake of Interactive Whiteboards
  (IWBs) in English Primary schools. Presentation
  draws on the Evaluation of the PSWE national
  programme for the Dept for Education and Skills
• Research Methods focus on digital video
  classroom observations
• Example of writing up observations without using
  images of children (method of reporting)
• Discussion points from the research findings (a
  selection)
• A powerful pedagogic tool for whole-class
  teaching
• Interactivity what is it? how do we evaluate
  it?
• Teachers ICT skills
• Using the IWB with very young children special
  value
• Using the IWB with children with special
  educational needs

4
Interactive Whiteboards in UK Primary schools

• IWBs welcomed enthusiastically by primary
  teachers. Used to teach all subjects across the
  curriculum, and heavily used in Literacy and
  Numeracy (PSWE implemented by Strategy Team).
  They are on all day.
• Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion project
  (PSWE) 10million 21 Local Authorities
  2003-04 plus around 50 pump priming effect
  in PSWE schools
• By Nov 2004 24 of PSWE schools had data
  projectors in all classrooms (almost all with
  IWBs)
• Survey of LAN infrastructure and ICT Equipment in
  English Schools (03.06 v2), Atkins management
  consultants
• Mean number of IWBs in primary school at end of
  2005 was 6.4
• 50 have six or more. Only 6 reported not
  having an IWB.
• http//partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?sectionrh
  catcode_re_rp_ap_03rid11340

5
Research Methods

• A national evaluation study feeding into the
  development of policy (through both the former
  ICT in Schools Division and the Standards
  Division of the DfES)
• Multi-level modelling of the attainment of
  individual children (with or without IWBs) in
  particular classrooms in terms of gains in
  national test scores
• Questionnaire surveys at the beginning and end of
  2004 to Headteachers/ coordinators and two
  classroom teachers
• Observations of the national IWB training
  programme for Local Authority consultants, and
  interviews with the central team and LA staff
• Case study visits to 10 schools selected to be
  representative (but with an element of
  self-selection of early adopters) with guaranteed
  confidentiality regarding both names and images
  92 video-recorded lesson observations (two
  teachers in each school on 2 or 3 visits),
  interviews with the teacher and children from
  observed classrooms, plus headteachers and
  Literacy/Numeracy/ICT coordinators. Video
  analysed thematically using a progressive
  focusing technique.
• A follow-up extension study in 2006-07 to track
  teachers/classrooms that the MLM data shows to be
  exceptional and to provide a further year of
  MLM data

6
Teaching taking away to 4-5 year olds

• Example of a descriptive account from the draft
  report
• The lesson draws on the classs theme story of
  the Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf. Five
  bundles of straw are displayed on one side of the
  board and a straw house and a pig on the other
  side.
• The children count aloud as the teacher taps the
  bundles of straw with the electronic pen.
• To take a bundle away she taps and drags it with
  the pen and hides it behind the straw house. How
  many bundles are left?
• She demonstrates counting with her fingers, with
  very animated facial expressions, saying Look at
  me! Look at me! She asks the children to use
  their fingers to give her the answer. Show me
  on your fingers let me see. Lots of hands go
  up. Dont tell me, show me! The emphasis is on
  getting them to show her their fingers so that
  she can see which children have got the right
  answer. There is a pattern of moving between
  demonstrating the take away sum with the straw
  bundles on the board and getting the children to
  show her on their fingers. Finally one child is
  called upon to give the answer verbally.
• The relationship between the teacher and the
  children is intimate. She moves between sitting
  on her chair and standing up to manipulate
  objects on the IWB. Her face is lively and
  interesting to watch.

7
Discussion points from the research findings

• The IWB is a powerful pedagogic tool for
  whole-class teaching
• It fits the needs of whole-class teaching (WCT)
  excellently (WCT is required every day by
  government strategies for teaching numeracy and
  literacy)
• Children like it in WCT because we can see! (in
  the Big Books sessions)
• Children like it because they can erase / undo
  things
• Teachers can explain skills like using a
  thermometer or a protractor, and demonstrate
  exactly what they want children to do in their
  writing books
• It helps teachers to explain abstract concepts
  because examples can be changed and dynamic
  models used
• Teachers can use multiple forms of representation
  (both on and off the IWB)
• It changes the focus of childrens attention so
  that the ambience is more or working together
• Surprise catches attention!
• The internet can be accessed as and when it is
  needed to find information thus helping to
  situate learning in todays world.
• Teachers have developed new ways of planning
  lessons around resources stored on their laptops
  and on the schools server. Resources are
  backed up

8
Discussion points from the research findings

• Interactivity is a feature of the interaction
  between teacher, IWB and the children. The IWB
  mediates interaction (Wertsch 1998) if it is
  used skilfully. Kinds of interaction observed
  are
• Children coming up to the IWB to manipulate it
• Children interacting mentally with the IWB as the
  teacher demonstrates something, or another child
  drags or clicks
• Teachers using their faces, voices, hands, and
  children using hands, wipe boards, answering
  questions all in interaction with the IWB
• Teachers ICT skills appear to have increased
  hugely as a result of using ICT daily through
  the IWB
• IWB pedagogy is developing rather differently
  with 4-7 year olds
• the three part lesson gives opportunities for
  individual or small group work with the IWB
  (sometimes with a teacher or teaching assistant)
• non-writers can show knowledge/skills by
  dragging / clicking
• this supports the development of a positive
  learner identity

9
Discussion points from the research findings

• The IWB has great potential value for teaching
  children with special educational needs (SEN)
• Individual children have been observed work alone
  on the IWB, keeping to task, fully engaged in
  learning
• Teachers can observe at a distance and assess a
  childs knowledge/skills easily and accurately
• Pairs of children can be taught literacy and
  numeracy skills intensively, with high levels of
  motivation BUT highly skilled teaching is
  needed
• SEN children may find learning harder rather than
  easier when an IWB is used for whole-class
  teaching (WCT)
• The pace is often faster so there is less time to
  think things through
• More (different) examples are given to illustrate
  a teaching point (but that may not help if you
  didnt get it the first time (?) )
• BUT, they will probably appear to be fully
  engaged during WCT with an IWB, thereby giving
  out the wrong signals to the teacher