Transcript The impact of IWBs on standards and pedagogy in primary

a presentation to the ITiE Symposium
London
9.10.2007
The impact of IWBs on standards and pedagogy
in primary schools:
an evaluation of the PSWE initiative commissioned by the DfES
Bridget Somekh and Maureen Haldane
With thanks to the SWEEP Team led by Professor Bridget Somekh:
Maureen Haldane, Cathy Lewin, Peter Scrimshaw, Stephen Steadman, Kelvyn Jones (University of Bristol),
John Cummings and colleagues at MMU
Key features of the study


It was carried out over a longer period than
many other studies. PSWE was funded in 200304 and final case studies were conducted in
autumn term 2006.
It combined quantitative methods (multi-level
modelling) with extensive classroom
observations (using digital video) to enable
exploration of the meaning of the quantitative
outcomes
Objectives of SWEEP





Assess the extent of the impact on literacy and
mathematics
Identify the effects on a range of other outcomes
Investigate the contribution to development of
pedagogies and cross-curricular embedding of ICT
Evaluate the impact on teacher professional
development
Evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation and
operation of the PSWE initiative (2004-06) (This aspect
of the work is not covered in this seminar – see the full
report.)
General points

The IWB has been welcomed enthusiastically by primary teachers;
its take-up in primary schools has been rapid; it is seen as
immediately useful for whole class teaching

Additionally, particularly at KS1, it is used for small-group work and
occasionally for individual work in the middle part of the lesson

Typically it is linked to the internet and the school server and on all
day – making the internet easily available at any time

Primary pupils are universally enthusiastic about IWBs: visibility
(“We can see!”), access/touch, variety in lessons – and always an
element of surprise (hence the ‘wow’ effect does not go away
completely)
Quantitative Data

Survey of Heads/ICT Co-ordinators (Nov 2004, repeated June 2005)

Survey of two teachers in each school (Nov 2004 and June 2005)




Schools provided UPNs and length of exposure to IWBs of pupils
taught by these teachers, and these were matched with NPD data
to track individual pupils. The baselines were KS1 (for KS2) and FSP
(for KS1).
Tracking pupils who took national tests in both 2005 and 2006
(Cohort 1 and Cohort 2), enabling combined and separate analyses
MLM data analysis with a two level hierarchical structure of pupil
and classroom (as these pupils share the same experience)
Analysis based on the length of exposure to IWBs (in months)
experienced by classes of pupils. Intervention measured as a
continuous variable rather than a binary measure of exposed or not.
Impact on Attainment in Maths,

The length of time pupils have been taught with an IWB
is the major factor that leads to attainment gains.
This appears to be an effect of embedding IWB use in teachers’
pedagogy – the qualitative data strongly supports this
interpretation.

Data were analysed



for both cohorts combined
for each cohort separately.
KS2 Maths:


Average and high attaining pupils made greater progress. This
ranged from 2.5 months for girls of average prior attainment to
5 months for boys of high prior attainment (combined analysis)
Little effect on progress of low attaining pupils for the combined
cohorts – but gains for all levels of prior attainment for both
genders once teachers had had sustained experience of using
the technology.
Impact on Attainment in Science
and English

KS2 Science:


Analysis of Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded,
showed clear benefits for all except high attaining girls
(ceiling effect). The most marked effect was for boys
with low prior attainment who made some 7.5 months
additional progress when they had two years
exposure to IWBs compared with no exposure.
KS2 English:


Indications of positive gains (but measures in English
are less stable)
Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded, showed a
positive trend in low attaining boys’ writing (p<0.094)
of 2.5 months additional progress
Impact on Attainment (continued)
KS1 findings are less robust because Foundation Stage Profiles for these
children were in the trial stage

KS1 Maths


KS1 Science


IWBs appear to have a positive impact on attainment once teachers
have experienced sustained use. In cohort 2 high prior attainment
girls made gains of 4.75 months, catching up with high attainment
boys (although these girls showed a dip in performance in cohort 1
when the IWB was new to both them and their teachers).
IWBs used much less for Science in Cohort 1. However, girls of all
attainment levels appear to make greater gains with an IWB, and
there were indications of positive impact on average and above
average boys.
KS1 English


Once IWBs become embedded average and high attaining pupils
appear to benefit from exposure to IWBs.
No effect on low attaining pupils, which may lead to widening the
gaps in progress between them and their peers.
Additional analysis to address questions

The length of exposure has been used, rather than a ‘with/without’
intervention analysis


Surprise that we found that IWBs had made a positive impact on
outcomes (compared with the Newcastle research)




Collapsing into a dichotomous category would lose power to detect the
effects and lose richness of data. This is particularly the case because we
were unable to get an equal number of classes without the intervention.
At least some support for this finding from each of the cohorts and each of
the sexes: even with small numbers there is consistency on replication.
Considerably more training, and far more available materials, for the PSWE
teachers than for those involved in the Newcastle research.
Our findings suggest that the key is embedding of the IWB in teachers’
pedagogic practice and that this can only be achieved over time. So a study
conducted two years later would expect to have different findings.
Possibility of bias in the sample

We have investigated this and cannot find any evidence of bias resulting
from the new schools included in the extension phase analysis.
Data from Visits to Schools

Cohort 1: 10 representative schools selected from Quest’rs







Two day visits
Classroom observation and digital video in 4 classrooms (analysed
using a grounded theory approach)
Interviews with teachers and selected pupils following observation
Interviews with Heads and ICT / literacy / numeracy coordinators
Observed teachers’ logs of use of IWBs over two weeks prior
Questionnaire data also scrutinised
Cohort 2: 9 teachers selected whose pupils in 2005 showed
progress in national tests different from the main trend


Classroom observation and digital video (qualitative analysis to test
hypotheses from prelim MLM analysis, and focused on the role of the
IWB in mediating the interactivity between teacher and pupils).
Interviews with observed teachers and pupils, Heads and ICT
coordinators
Impact of the IWB on Pedagogy and
Embedding ICT across the curriculum



The IWB is embedded in teaching and learning across the whole
curriculum in these primary schools.
When connected to the internet and the school’s network, the IWB acts as
a multi-modal portal to the full range of ICT resources and teachers model
use of the internet.
The IWB is an ideal resource to support whole class teaching (WCT): it
focuses pupils’ attention and increases engagement. NB: if children have
cognitive difficulties in learning to read which WCT does not address, the
addition of an IWB may make lessons more enjoyable, but no more
effective.

When teachers have used an IWB for a considerable period of time (at
least two years in our observations) the IWB becomes embedded in their
pedagogy as a mediating artefact to increase their interactivity with pupils.
New patterns of teaching practice (or new developments of established
patterns) are observable and some teachers can articulate the advantages
clearly (for others the knowledge is “tacit”).
Examples of pedagogic change

Improvements of previous pedagogy:



E.g. Use of IWBs to facilitate a co-learner style of
teaching, where pupils and teachers (“we”) work
together using the IWB as a shared space.
Lesson plans developed in the form of prepared IWB
presentations
New pedagogic practices

E.g. Teachers use IWB presentations prepared in
advance. These ‘scripts’ act as an aide memoir and
reduce teachers’ cognitive load enabling them to
focus their attention during the lesson wholly on
listening to the children’s talk and watching the
interactions between the TA and children with SEN.
This leads to more personalised learning for children
in a whole-class setting.
Impact of the IWB on pedagogy




Teachers say that the IWB is particularly useful when teaching difficult
concepts or demonstrating skills (it supports visualisation)
Young children who have not yet acquired writing skills, and older
pupils with special educational needs, are highly motivated by being
able to demonstrate their skills and knowledge with the tapping and
dragging facilities of the IWB. Teachers say this provides an excellent
resource to assess children’s learning.
Children with SEN (including those who are not achieving ‘the expected
level’) do not benefit in terms of attainment from the IWB’s impact in
improving the pace, variety and interest of WCT. However, in some
high achieving classrooms, pupils whose baseline scores were low had
been taught regularly in pairs or threes by a teacher or trained TA using
the IWB. This appeared to be an important factor in their success.
Where children are partially sighted or completely blind the use of the
IWB creates the need for new kinds of support from TAs.
Impact of IWBs/ PSWE on CPD






Learning together with a pressing ‘need to know’ is a powerful strategy
for CPD.
LA training (cascaded from the NWN team) was increasingly effective
over time. But in-school support from the ICT coordinator was also
crucially important
Teachers with continuous use of an IWB rapidly become confident,
skilled users of ICT with a level of competence in IWB use. Advanced
use of IWBs requires sustained training over time.
By autumn 2006 the base of expertise in IWB use had moved out of the
LAs into the schools.
The IWB has had a transformative impact on lesson planning and the
storing and availability of teaching resources: plans and resources have
become integrated. They are kept in folders on the school’s server
giving easy access to the Head and other teachers.
Competence in using the IWB is essential, but advanced skills in its use
appear to be less important than the way that good teachers have
embedded their use in their pedagogy as ‘extensions of themselves’
(McLuhan).
Recommendations





Consideration should be given to installing IWBs in all classrooms in
primary schools (the job seems to be half done)
Serious consideration should be given to developing strategies other
than whole class teaching (WCT) for using IWBs to support pupils of
lower ability: the IWB gives the potential for real gains in
conjunction with new strategies for teaching in pairs and threes.
Small group teaching with the IWB for children who are in danger of
failing to reach the ‘expected levels’ in English and Maths needs to
be provided by teachers or TAs trained in teaching literacy and
numeracy (most TAs quickly acquire basic competence in using the
IWB).
IWB manufacturers need to develop interoperability of software
between boards.
Technical support is essential. Some schools have sent TAs on
specialist courses (this has proved very successful for dealing with
day to day problems).