The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance ...

2. 3.3 Response to technology.
Table 5 shows the items thought to measure three different aspects of response to IWB
technology; response to the technology itself, response to the teacher’s use of the technology,
and response to the opportunities the technology gives to the pupils.
Table 5: Subscales: Technology, Teacher’s Use and Pupil’s Opportunities
Technology
IWBs make learning more interesting and exciting
I think IWBs make the teacher’s drawings and diagrams easier to see
I prefer lessons which are taught with an IWB
IWBs make it easy for the teacher to repeat, re-explain and summarise
IWBs often breakdown and this wastes time
I think IWBs are difficult to use
Teacher’s use
I learn more when my teacher uses an IWB
It is easier to understand the work when my teacher uses an IWB
I think teachers go too fast when they use an IWB
Teachers teach just the same with or without an IWB
I think teacher’s lessons are more prepared and organized when they use an IWB
Pupil’s opportunities
I dislike going out to the front to use the whiteboard
I think students behave better in lessons with IWBs
I would work harder if my teacher used the IWB more often
We get to join in lessons more when my teacher uses an IWB
I concentrate better in class when an interactive whiteboard is used
Table 6 shows mean scores and standard deviations for these subscales.
Table 6: Mean Scores for Response to IWB Technology
Subscale Mean SD
Technology 0.62 0.55
Teacher’s use 0.34 0.63
Pupil’s opportunities 0.92 0.55
T-tests for differences between each pair were all significant at the 1% level after adjusting
for multiple comparisons. These results show that the most positive response was to the
technology itself, followed by the way teachers use the technology. Though the response to
the opportunities the technology gives pupils is positive there is less enthusiasm for this
aspect. These results hold for both high and low ability groups separately (p < .001).
A series of independent sample t-tests were carried out to compare mean scores of high and
low ability groups an each subscale. The only difference found was for the response to the
way the teacher uses the technology, where the mean for the high ability group was 0.70
compared to 0.41 for the low ability group (t = 3.97, df = 430, p < .001). These tests showed
150