Overview. 30 month project 2002-04Evaluating PNS
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
1. The impact of IWBs on literacy and numeracy teaching in primary schools Professor Steven Higgins
School of Education
2. Overview 30 month project 2002-04
Evaluating PNS ‘Embedding ICT’ pilot
6 LEAs; 84 schools; all Y5 & Y6 classes
Technical; logistics; training
Teacher and pupil perceptions
Impact on attainment - KS2 SATs
3. Research data Structured observations
With & without IWBs
Repeated after 1 year: ‘embedding effect’
29 lesson videos
Teacher use web-logs (1200 weeks)
Pupil attitude data
68 teacher interviews
12 pupil group interviews & 80 ‘pupil views’ templates
4. Political context Formative data used
Prospective technology but retrospective pedagogy
Pilot becomes policy after 12 months
PNS moves from CfBT to Capita
Final report became ‘stalled’
5. Reported use of IWBs Online web forms completed twice by teachers for about 6 weeks in Spring 2003 and again in Spring 2004
655 forms in 2003; 817 weeks of forms for 2004.
Patterns consistent across the schools
Teachers reported using the IWB in about two thirds of literacy and mathematics lessons in 2003 and nearly three-quarters of these lessons in 2004.
6. Reported use Reported use was significantly greater in the second year of the pilot project (2004)
in both mathematics (6.3% increase)
and literacy (9.7% increase).
Use of the IWB in 2003 was relatively consistent throughout the school week.
Greatest use on Mondays - least on Fridays
7. Reported use in mathematics and English
8. Structured lesson observations Live coding on palmtop
Observer software (Noldus Information Technology)
Structured recording of classroom discourse: IRF structure (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Smith & Hardman 2003)
Open /closed /repeat /uptake /probe
e.g. Evaluation /Explanation /Direction /Refocus
Frequency and duration
9. Lesson observations
10. Lesson sections (duration)
14. Whiteboard differences
15. Whiteboard effects Faster pace - more interactions
More shorter answers
Less uptake questions
Shorter pupil presentations
16. Subject differences
17. Literacy and numeracy Significant differences between lessons
Not related to the IWB
Faster pace; more closed questions & teacher direction
More open & uptake questions; more pupil presentation
18. Gender differences
19. Feedback and gender
20. Gender differences
21. Girls and boys participation Boys get more frequent attention
Closed questions, direction, evaluation and refocus, praise
Average duration of moves remains constant
Disproportionate increase in attention as ratio of boys to girls increases
IWB makes no difference - increase in responses - faster pace
22. Pupils’ views Twelve group interviews (72 pupils)
Pupils very positive about IWBs
believed IWB helped them to pay better attention
Most liked having their work shown on the IWB
Mathematics the most popular lesson
Pupils identified the common technical and logistical problems
Recalibration, bright sunlight, moving objects hard to see, some colours difficult to read
Universally wanted to use the board more themselves
23. Pupil attitudes Quantitative web survey in pilot schools
Some evidence it slows the increase of negative attitudes between Y5 and Y6
Pupils most negative on Wednesdays!
24. Teachers’ views 68 teachers interviewed
Overall, extremely positive about IWBs impact
on their teaching
about the training and support
and that the IWB improved confidence in using ICT
100% thought it helped achieve teaching aims
the range of resources available,
the stimulating nature of the technology and multimedia
the flexibility that the technology offers.
99% believed that it improved pupils’ motivation
85% believed it would lead to improved attainment
25. Teachers’ views 71% reported doing more whole class teaching
81% said workload had increased due to the IWB
35% of these believed this was temporary as they developed and stored their resources
56% said they had not noticed any differences between boys and girls in relation to the IWB
44% said they had noticed differences, usually a positive impact on boys (more motivated and interested or more focused and involved).
26. But… IWB schools performed very slightly better on national tests in mathematics and science after one year (effect size of 0.1 maths and 0.11 sci both sig. ; 0.04 English ns.)
After two years, once ‘embedded’, no (sig.) difference
Pupil-level data similar very small improvements after one year and no difference after two.
Some evidence that IWBs improve performance of low-achieving pupils in English - with greatest impact on writing.
Impact broadly similar for both boys and girls.
27. Speculations Classrooms have strong discourse structures
IWBs have an impact on interaction
Subject pedagogy is more robust than technology pedagogy
Boys are more evident in discourse, but not better at learning
Participation in lessons but not participation in learning?
What did the IWB replace and what did the teachers stop doing?
29. Publications Smith, F., Higgins, S and Hardman, F. (2007) Gender inequality in the primary classroom: will interactive whiteboards help? Gender and Education 19
Smith, H. and Higgins, S. (2006) Opening Classroom Interaction: The Importance of Feedback Cambridge Journal of Education 36.4 pp. 485–502.
Smith, F., Hardman, F. and Higgins, S. (2006) The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies British Educational Research Journal 32.3 pp 443-457.
Wall, K., Higgins, S. and Smith, H (2005) ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards British Journal of Educational Technology 36.5 pp 851-867.
Hall, I and Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 pp 102-117.
Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J. (2005) Interactive Whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 pp 91-101.
Higgins, S., Falzon, C.,Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F., Smith, H. and Wall, K. (2005) Embedding ICT In The Literacy And Numeracy Strategies: Final Report Newcastle: Newcastle University.
30. References Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils London, Oxford University Press.
Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2003) Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing classroom interaction, Educational Studies, 29(1), 39–47.