Transcript Embedding Interactive Whiteboards in Teaching and Learning

Embedding Interactive Whiteboards in
Teaching and Learning: the process of change
in pedagogic practice
Bridget Somekh
Education and Social Research Institute
Manchester Metropolitan University
[email protected]
Full paper now published:
Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding
interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: the process
of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information
Technology, 13(4), 291-303, 2008
Acknowledgements
• The evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion
Project, 2004-06 was sponsored by the Department for
Education and Skills of the UK Government (now the Dept for
Children, Schools and Families).
• The MMU research team comprised: Bridget Somekh,
Maureen Haldane, Kelvyn Jones (consultant from the
University of Bristol), Cathy Lewin, Stephen Steadman, Peter
Scrimshaw, Sue Sing, Kate Bird, John Cummings, Brigid
Downing, Tanya Harber Stuart, Janis Jarvis, Diane Mavers and
Derek Woodrow
• The evaluation report (2007) is available from:
http://partners.becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansi
on.pdf
Key Features of the Design
• Mixed methods research, moving back and forth, each data
set informing the other
• Multi-level modelling statistical analysis of quantitative
data, looking at variation at the levels of school, class
(teacher) and student
• Case study data with a strong focus on classroom
observation with digital video recording
• Analysis of digital video by collaborative, progressive
focusing, using a (loose) grounded theory approach
• Length of the study – making it possible to evaluate the
embedding of IWBs over two years (as a result of agreeing
an extension with the Department for Education and Skills)
Key Features of the Findings
• Enthusiastic response of teachers in PSWE schools, leading to
integration of ICT use across the curriculum (i.e. IWB use)
• Huge increase in teachers’ ICT skills over a two year period
• Observable process of CPD through the development of a
Community of Practice – was this an example of the IWB
mediating the process of CoP formation (or strengthening)?
• Measurable gains in children’s test score results (at age 11)
in Mathematics, English and Science when they had been
taught with an IWB for more than two years
• Development of a ‘grounded’ model of the process of change
in (interactive) pedagogic practices, using triangulated data.
What were we looking at?
• Primary school classrooms in England
• IWBs permanently installed and used almost exclusively by
one teacher and a group of students and TAs
• On all day (although in some classrooms the data projector
was switched off for some of the time)
• All day access to the Internet and the school’s server with all
its resources, lesson plans
• Laptops and/or memory sticks meant that teachers could plan
at home using IWB resources/software
• Teaching dominated by ‘the Primary Strategy’ – the ‘three part
lesson’ including mandatory whole class teaching (WCT)
• Teaching Assistants (TAs) in all classrooms – often more than
one with special responsibility for specific children.
Objectives of the Evaluation
• 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 Primary Schools Whiteboard initiative (2004-06) (This
aspect of the work is not covered in this paper – see the full
report at www.becta.org.uk .)
Quantitative Data: Impact
• Tracking two groups of pupils, aged 11, who took national tests in
2005 and 2006 (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2), enabling combined and
separate analyses, using national test data aged 7 as baseline
• Multi-level-modelling (MLM) data analysis with a two level
hierarchical structure of pupil and classroom
• Analysis based on the length of exposure to IWBs (in months)
experienced by pupils.
Impact on Attainment in Maths,
Science and English at age 11
• Length of time pupils have been taught with an IWB is key
• National Test data aged 11 Maths:
– Average and high attaining pupils made greater progress
– Little effect on progress of low attaining pupils – but gains
once IWB embedded, Cohort 2
• National Test data aged 11 Science:
– Cohort 2 (embedded) showed benefits for all (ceiling effect)
• National Test data aged 11 English:
– Indications of positive gains (but measures 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 (after 2 years)
Data from Visits to Schools
• Phase 1: 10 representative schools selected from Questionnaires
– Two day visits on either two or three occasions
– Classroom observation and digital video in 4 classrooms (analysed using a
[loose] grounded theory approach)
– Interviews with teachers and selected pupils following observation
– Interviews with Principals and ICT / literacy / numeracy coordinators
– Observed teachers kept logs of use of IWBs over two weeks prior to visit
– Schools’ questionnaire data (from quantitative survey) also scrutinised
• Phase 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
Examples of
pedagogic change
Improvement to an established pedagogic practice
• the use of the IWB to facilitate a co-learner style of teaching, where teacher and
pupils (‘we’) work together. The IWB ‘mediates’ this by allowing the teacher to
‘stand off literally and/or metaphorically’.
• A new style of lesson planning by storing prepared materials for the IWB. The
plan is thereby transformed from a paper sheet which lists actions to a dynamic
‘script’ for actions. Stored and shared and can be ‘tweaked’.
Emergence of a new pedagogic practice
• The ‘script’ reduces the teacher’s cognitive load – that is, it is no longer
necessary to keep part of her mind occupied on planning what to say next and
remembering to use key vocabulary. Teachers are able to hear what individual
children are saying to a partner or a TA and focus teaching much more
specifically on children’s needs.
• the wide range of strategies used by teachers to keep the whole class mentally
engaged while individuals have come up to work at the board – eg ‘telling your
partner what you think’, writing on a ‘wipe board’ or acting as ‘scrutineers’,
‘commentators’ or ‘helpers’
The IWB mediating
pedagogic interactivity
Extract from post-visit analytical notes - Year 6 Numeracy lesson
• When the board was in use, the teacher tended to be at the board when he
needed to bring up/change to a different screen, when he needed to write
something on the board, and when he wanted to point something out. At
other times, he seemed to stand ‘away’ from the board, sometimes moving
into the classroom, but often standing just to the side of it at his desk (which
was just to the left of the screen). In terms of where the children focused
their attention – many of them often seemed to be looking at the screen
rather than at the teacher. (Of course, this was not always true and
sometimes dependent on what was being talked about/shown etc.). But, as
I looked around the room a number of times, I noticed that the children did
seem to be looking at the board and not the teacher – interestingly, this was
confirmed by the children I spoke with in the interview. They told me that
sometimes they found the board was useful for helping them to better
understand what was being explained/discussed – or, if they lost track of
where they were up to, they could look at the board for reference. Many of
them said that sometimes hearing something out loud from the teacher did
not explain it clearly to them, but looking at the same idea expressed in a
different format, i.e. on the IWB, would often help to clarify this for them.
The IWB enabling more
personalised teaching
Extract from an interview with a teacher in Phase 2 (example of tacit
knowledge being made explicit through ‘probing’ questions in an interview):
I also knew quite quickly whether they had understood or not because their
hands went up before (the SEN TA) had even said anything to them – and
then you can see whether she needs to say something to them and re-word
and re-phrase and just bring them back a step and help them – and then you
can almost see the penny drop, or that she is still going. So you think, ‘Right,
I won’t ask them that question’, because they haven’t quite got there yet. So
sometimes you might pick up – she’s still talking to them – and the rest of the
class has got to the point where they’ve answered – (so you go on with the
class) then (the SEN TA) will carry on teaching them to that point and then
they’ll pick up again (with the rest of the class).
What is the 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. (But in some cases only at the
stage of ‘fit’ with traditional practice)
• The IWB acts as a multi-modal portal (for all the resources available
through a computer/ the Internet). Teachers model use of the
internet. IWB is a Touch Screen Computer for shared working.
• The IWB is an ideal support for whole class teaching (WCT): it
focuses pupils’ attention and increases engagement. Therefore, the
impact of WCT is an integral part of what we evaluated.
• The IWB is also an ideal support for individual children working
alone, or pairs working with a skilled teacher of literacy or maths.
Anything else about the 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 SEN
pupils can demonstrate their skills and knowledge by tapping and
dragging. Teachers say this helps with assessing children’s
learning.
• Children who are not achieving ‘the expected level’ do not benefit
in terms of attainment on traditional tests from the IWB’s impact
in improving the pace, variety and interest of WCT.
• Where children are partially sighted or completely blind the use of
the IWB creates the need for new kinds of support from TAs.
A model of the process of
pedagogic change with ICT
• We were able to track the process of pedagogic change over
two years and derive a three-stage model of its development.
• The process was one of IWBs becoming integrated with
pedagogy as ‘an extension of the [teacher’s] self’ (McLuhan)
and ‘mediating’ the interactivity between teacher/students and
student/students (Wertsch, Vygotsky).
• The three stage model consists of:
– fitting new technologies into established pedagogies;
– collaborative exploration of new opportunities offered by these
technologies;
– embedding of the technologies into transformed pedagogic practices.
• Stage 1 is relatively easy to achieve. The UK primary school
supports progress to stages 2 through a Community of Practice
of teachers and TAs. Stage 3 does not always occur.
Thank you for listening
Quantitative Data
• Survey of Heads/ICT Coordinators (Nov 2004, repeated June 2005)
• Survey of two teachers in each school (Nov 2004 and June 2005)
• Schools provided ‘unique pupil numbers’ (UPNs) and these were matched
with national pupil data (NPD) to track individual pupils. The baselines
were KS1 national tests (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
• Multi-level-modelling (MLM) data analysis with a two level hierarchical
structure of pupil and classroom (as 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,
Science and English
• 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.
• KS2 Maths:
– Average and high attaining pupils made greater progress
– Little effect on progress of low attaining pupils – but gains once IWB
embedded
• KS2 Science:
– Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded, showed clear benefits for all except high
attaining girls (ceiling effect)
• 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
– IWBs appear to have a positive impact on attainment once teachers have
experienced sustained use
• KS1 Science
– 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 queries
• The length of exposure has been used, rather than a ‘with/without’ intervention
analysis
– 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.
• Surprise that we found that IWBs had made a positive impact on outcomes
(compared with the Newcastle research, DfES 2005)
– 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 because non-project schools had to be recruited to
provide the ‘without IWB’ comparators
– We investigated this and found no evidence of bias resulting from the new schools
included in the extension phase analysis.
References (1)
• Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding
interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: the process of
change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information
Technology, 13(4), 291-303.
• McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media. London and New
York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S.,
Scrimshaw, P., et al. (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools
Whiteboard Expansion Project. Coventry: Becta-DfES
http://partners.becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansion.
pdf.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of
Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
References (2)
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: learning,
meaning and identity. Cambridge UK, New York and
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
• Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
See also:
• Jones, K (2007)
http://www.cmm.bristol.ac.uk/learningtraining/sig_test/Signifi
cance_testing.html
• Kam, Cindy D and. Franzese, Robert J (2007) Modeling and
Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Rasbash, J. Steele, F. and Browne, W J, Prosser, B(2005), A
user’s guide to MLwiN version 2.0, University of Bristol