Schola Europaea European School Brussels II

46
PANORAMA
a whole class (Moss et al, 2007). Research
studies on IWBs in secondary schools
usually focus on Science, Mathematics
(Beauchamp and Parkinson, 2005) and
English Language teaching (Schmid, 2006)
which are traditionally the subject areas
which embraced new technologies since
the 1980s. However, the use of the IWB
at secondary level tends to be dominated
by using the IWB as a presentation tool,
with PowerPoint presentations dominating
a more traditional, didactic model of
teaching (Reedy, 2008). I have noticed
that, in the dozens of teacher inspections
which I do every year, the powerful content
creation tools, which are embedded in the
proprietary and specialised software which
is bundled with IWBs (e.g. SmartNote
or ActivInspire) are usually used more
effectively by primary school teachers than
by their secondary colleagues. Hennessy
et al (2007) have found however, that
expert secondary school teachers were seen
to make excellent use of an IWB when they
were guiding students towards mentally
challenging activities and when learning
materials are constructed collaboratively by
students and their teacher in the classroom.
I suppose that one could argue that an
excellent teacher would do this anyway, with
CONCLUSION
The IWB research on teachers and teaching
suggests that the IWB was seen by many
teachers as a non-threatening, ‘bridging’ tool
which allowed non-ICT specialist teachers to
begin the process of embedding ICT into their
teaching. It seems that teachers would have
to go through a number of learning phases
before an IWB would be used by them as
a tool which could transform their pedagogies.
Time for preparation, experimentation and
reflection with the IWB was seen by many
or without an IWB. Gillen et al (2007) sound
a warning that does have resonance for
many secondary classrooms:
“However, as has been the case with
earlier ICT initiatives, there is a danger
that the introduction of this expensive,
potentially valuable piece of equipment is
‘technology-led’ (introduced because it is
available) rather than ‘education-led’ (it is
introduced because it is known to meet
the professional needs of teachers and the
educational needs of children better than
existing educational tools)”
Therefore, primary school teachers seem
to have been able to ‘exploit’ the IWB in
their classroom to being much more than a
high-tech presentation tool. The nature of
the primary school classroom, where the
pupils and their teacher spend large blocks
of time together in the same classroom is
probably more suited to ‘deeper’ use of
and experimentation with an IWB than in a
secondary classroom. The secondary teacher
usually has contact with a class for 120
minutes per week and has to cover a subject
syllabus which is usually externally assessed.
The time factor is particularly relevant here.
Maybe the primary school bias in the IWB
research literature is not surprising after all.
research studies to be critical, as was the
need for relevant and stimulating in-service
training.
The research seems to show that the use
of an IWB has a generally positive effect on
learners who seem to be more engaged
and motivated in the learning process.
However, there is little concrete evidence of
the ‘deep interactivity’ which would engage
learners at a higher cognitive level. A small