The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 7: Sources of funding after September 2004 1,000 Count 500 0 Other Science Maths English LC/SWE Other Science English Other funder Can Overall IWB Provision be explained by School Type? It might be assumed that certain types of schools are more likely to have greater IWB provision – as measured by how small the pupil/IWB intensity ratio is 5 . For example, schools with a technology specialism might be expected to have used part of their capital grant for specialist designation to purchase IWBs. However, Figure shows there is surprisingly little difference in IWB provision between specialist types: the only group with notably better IWB provision is the Science specialist schools. The fact that technology schools IWB provision is almost identical to that at nonspecialist schools could be explained by the fact that they mostly received specialist status (and hence initial capital grant) at a time when IWBs were new and very expensive; 18 of 24 technology schools in the survey received their specialist status prior to 2002. 5 For this section 10 schools with an intensity ratio of over 300 are excluded since they are extreme outliers. 106
Figure 8: IWB intensity by specialist type 6 70 Intensity of IWB provision (low=good) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Nonspecialist schools Arts schools Language schools Sports schools Technology schools Business and Enterprise schools Science schools Maths and Computing schools There was no association between school governance (e.g. foundation, voluntary aided), school type (grammar, secondary modern, comprehensive) and IWB intensity ratio in this set of survey data. The only clear relationship between the IWB intensity measure and a school-level characteristic was that of school size. Figure 8 shows that the larger schools often have a higher intensity measure: this means that in larger schools, pupils may actually have less lesson time in a classroom with an IWB than in smaller secondary schools. Figure 8: Association between IWB intensity and school size 140 120 Pupil/IWB intensity ratio 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Size of schools (pupils) 6 Humanities and Engineering excluded since only one school in each. Combinations of specialism (3 schools) also excluded. 107
Page 1 and 2:
RESEARCH The Interactive Whiteboard
Page 4 and 5:
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……
Page 6 and 7:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AIMS AND METHODS
Page 8 and 9:
substantially enhance the use of IW
Page 10 and 11:
Observations for this project sugge
Page 12 and 13:
1. THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT Thi
Page 14 and 15:
2003). Whilst many of the factors t
Page 16 and 17:
A range of data was collected in ea
Page 18 and 19:
3.2.4 Pupil Focus Groups Focus grou
Page 20 and 21:
3.5 Statistical Analysis of Pupil A
Page 22 and 23:
• Reasons given for the choice of
Page 24 and 25:
5. FINDINGS: THE IMPACT OF THE INTR
Page 26 and 27:
colleagues or using commercial soft
Page 28 and 29:
textbooks or worksheets. This is tr
Page 30 and 31:
5.3 How the Available Resources Sha
Page 32 and 33:
Illustrative Case Study. Example: T
Page 34 and 35:
Illustrative Case Study. Example: U
Page 36 and 37:
Illustrative Case Study. Example A
Page 38 and 39:
Illustrative Case study. Example B
Page 40 and 41:
Illustrative Case Study. Example C
Page 42 and 43:
• Familiarise themselves with the
Page 44 and 45:
were aware of this dimension and ha
Page 46 and 47:
is not good, if the students aren
Page 48 and 49:
5.9.2 Teachers’ use of Multi-Medi
Page 50 and 51:
Figure 8: Frequency of using IWB by
Page 52 and 53:
Science classroom that map onto exi
Page 54 and 55:
long run. Few teachers however curr
Page 56 and 57:
On the negative side, a sizable min
Page 58 and 59: These kinds of difficulties can be
Page 60 and 61: change in their own setting. Others
Page 62 and 63: a number of schools is for us a sec
Page 64 and 65: Table 1: Key School-Level Statistic
Page 66 and 67: 8.1.2. Difference-in-Differences (S
Page 68 and 69: Table 5 sets out the same type of r
Page 70 and 71: unlikely that right-hand censoring
Page 72 and 73: 8.1.4 Difference-in-Differences (Be
Page 74 and 75: 8.1.5 Discussion Overall, this stat
Page 76 and 77: figure; the mean percentages of pup
Page 78 and 79: Conclusion The larger scale survey
Page 80 and 81: Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K.,
Page 82 and 83: schools. These were combined with p
Page 84 and 85: elevant hard and software and the r
Page 86 and 87: Within government generally, where
Page 88 and 89: Yet if there is little doubt in pol
Page 90 and 91: overhead projector (OHPs) (Though,
Page 92 and 93: intention to equip all children wit
Page 94 and 95: technology in much the same terms (
Page 96 and 97: In some lessons with IWBs these tec
Page 98 and 99: use shows considerable variation in
Page 100 and 101: Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2001) "Run
Page 102 and 103: Annex C Analysis of the IWB Baselin
Page 104 and 105: Table 7: Number of IWBs by Departme
Page 106 and 107: Figure 3: Funding source by subject
Page 110 and 111: Are perceptions of ICT consistent w
Page 112 and 113: Table 8: Allocation of LC funding t
Page 114 and 115: Can perceptions of ICT resources in
Page 116 and 117: Figure 16: Number of IWBs in Maths
Page 118 and 119: schools have done this) and 100 mea
Page 120 and 121: Use of IWBs in Science Departments
Page 122 and 123: department feels all six areas are
Page 124 and 125: Use of IWBs in English Departments
Page 126 and 127: The training needs of English depar
Page 128 and 129: Annex D Analysis of the IWB Teacher
Page 130 and 131: Figure 3: Type of interactive white
Page 132 and 133: Reported Frequency of IWB Use by Te
Page 134 and 135: Figure 8: Frequency of using IWB by
Page 136 and 137: How are Teachers using their IWB? A
Page 138 and 139: Figure 14: Ease of finding suitable
Page 140 and 141: What type of IWB training have teac
Page 142 and 143: investment of time to integrate int
Page 144 and 145: Many of the newer teachers do not a
Page 146 and 147: Figure 25: Statements which the hig
Page 148 and 149: eport IWBs are used hardly ever or
Page 150 and 151: Table 2: Positive Statements: Perce
Page 152 and 153: 2. 3.3 Response to technology. Tabl
Page 154 and 155: Annex F: Survey Instruments 1. The
Page 156 and 157: PERFORMANCE: AN EVALUATION Baseline
Page 158 and 159:
Room Subject Source of funding Date
Page 160 and 161:
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS, PEDAGOGY A
Page 162 and 163:
2. The pupil survey INTERACTIVE WHI
Page 164:
Copies of this publication can be o
show all

The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?