The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT This report consists of eight sections. Sections 2-7 report on the qualitative case studies and the survey data. Section 8 contains the statistical analysis of the impact of IWBs on pupil performance. Sections 2 and 3 focus on the research brief and how it was fulfilled, giving details of the methods of data collection and analysis. Section 4 describes the context of the implementation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) programme, with a focus on both the policy context and the local context of the schools. Section 5 considers the impact of the introduction of IWBs on teaching and learning. This section is divided into three parts. • Part One, The Use of IWB Resources, outlines the variation in use observed in the case studies and focuses on the range of resources which seemed to influence teacher and pupil interaction with the board; • Part Two, Developing Pedagogy and the Impact on Pupils' Learning, explores the range of pedagogic practice observed with IWBs; • Part Three, Collaborative Curricular Development, examines differences in the ways in which IWBs were used in each core subject area and the extent to which their potential may vary according to the particular curriculum topic as well as subject domain. Section 6 discusses teacher and pupil perceptions of IWBs. Section 7 focuses on teacher CPD and the effectiveness of the structures in place to guide project implementation. Section 8 reports on the statistical analysis carried out as part of this study. The Annexes. Annex A contains an overview of the methods used. Details of the literature review, the analysis of the baseline survey, teacher survey and pupil survey are given in annex B to E. 10
2. RESEARCH BRIEF 2.1 Aims of the Evaluation This study was designed to evaluate the educational and operational effectiveness of the London Challenge element of the Schools interactive Whiteboard Expansion project (SWE). The SWE funding stream was intended to fully equip at least one core subject department in each London secondary school with interactive whiteboards (IWBs) and became available for this purpose in 2003/4. To examine the impact of the introduction of IWBs to London secondary core subject departments as part of the SWE scheme, the evaluation employed a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods. Detailed objectives The detailed objectives of the research were to assess: • The impact of interactive whiteboard use on teaching and learning, including an exploration of differences in whiteboard use in different subject areas, and in comparison to other technologies; • The impact of interactive whiteboard use on teacher/pupil motivation, and pupil attendance and behaviour; • The impact of SWE’s approach to teacher CPD designed to foster effective uptake of the technology and the development of best practice; • The effectiveness of the structures in place at LEA and school level to guide the project implementation in local settings; • The impact of interactive whiteboard use on standards in core subjects at KS3 and GCSE. 2.2 Background The literature review conducted for this study (See Annex B) considered the potential IWBs offer as part of current education policy, including its aim of producing an ICT rich environment in schools adequate to current educational needs; and as a specific technology which might have particular strengths and weaknesses in its own right. More specifically, the review considered: • The main potential IWBs represent for improving pupil attainment and pedagogy as this is understood within the current policy cycle and in the literature more broadly; • The main factors which might influence how that potential is realised; • The extent to which the range of data collected for this study could either corroborate or extend existing lines of approach in the literature. Whilst the policy literature on ICT in schools remains optimistic about the potential benefits of the new technologies in terms of improving the efficiency of teachers’ work, the overall quality of teaching and learning and pupils’ attainment, it also recognises that simply getting the equipment into schools is not enough to guarantee impact (Pittard et al 11
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 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 108 and 109:
Figure 7: Sources of funding after
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?