The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance ...

is not good, if the students aren’t on task, some of them may be prone to play
up a little bit. So the idea is keeping it flowing, keeping them on task, keeping
them engaged. On the whole keeping the class in a bit better order,
hopefully.” (Teacher)
The issue of pace is also interconnected with the issue of interactivity in the
classroom as one way to increase the pace of a lesson is to limit and tightly control
the space for students to act.
The question of pace, like multimodality, raises questions about pedagogy and about
the control and the use of pace to manage effective learning. Whilst the technology
clearly has the capacity to facilitate increased pace of delivery, there needs to be
clearer consideration of when it is in the interests of teachers and learners to take
advantage of this and when it is not.
Summary
Like multimodality and ‘technical interactivity’ a fast paced pedagogy is not
necessarily good in and of itself. There can be as significant pedagogic value in
slow board work, or real time board work, when it is used to realise a specific
pedagogic aim. Indeed, it could be argued that real time text creation is easier to
follow for a student than a pre-prepared text with no clear reading path.
The literature review suggests that pedagogies that are interactive – particularly
employing technical and physical interaction with the IWB - multimodal, and fast
paced are considered to be broadly beneficial. The case studies suggest that these
aspects of IWB use cannot be treated uncritically, and that more attention needs to
be paid to when, and under what circumstances such pedagogies improve learning.
5.9 Does the Technology Change the Nature and Quality of Pupil
Learning?
In the majority of lessons observed the nature and quality of pupil learning was
consistent with practice observed in classrooms without IWBs:
• In many instances the texts in use on the IWB replicated the features of texts
associated with existing technologies (TV; computers; blackboard) and often
shared the form and function of traditional textbooks and worksheets
• Patterns of pupil-teacher discourse were largely unchanged
• “Technical” or “physical” interactivity with the IWB was seldom harnessed to
produce significant shifts in understanding.
For instance, the most common interactions expected of pupils with the board were
to come to the front and write on it, as they would on a blackboard; to re-order items
on the board by using drag and drop or by drawing lines between individual items; or
to click to reveal hidden answers. These activities were often most widely used with
lower ability groups.
44