The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Science classroom that map onto existing pedagogic practices, but this is less the case in the English classroom. There are canonical visual representations and demonstrations in the Maths and Science curriculum which the visual features of IWBs, such as drawing software and peripherals like visualizers, can enhance leading to new forms of display and collective analysis. • The IWB can represent concepts dynamically – rotate objects, represent objects moving in relation to one another, show process of change - in ways that overcome some traditional learning problems that have been produced by the static character of images in the Science and Maths classroom. This potential can enable concepts to be represented in ways that help students to see something newly and differently and in doing show shift the curriculum focus. For example dynamic representation of states of matter can enable students to engage with representations of the process of transformation of one state of matter to another (e.g. a liquid to a gas) in the Science classroom. The potential for dynamic representations to contribute to learning within the English curriculum is less clear, except in relation to the analysis of dynamic texts (e.g. films) and media concepts related to film and animation. • In the English classroom the focus is on the display of dynamic texts rather than their manipulation as is the case in Maths and Science. Often the work of the English curriculum is to ‘translate’ the visual and multimodal into written forms. Concepts may be represented in a variety of forms. The use of image in the English classroom occurs most often in lower ability classes – in which the visual is seen as a pedagogic tool for engaging less linguistically literate students: for example lower ability students may be shown the film of a play and read one or two acts of the play while higher ability students are more likely to read the whole play and be shown one or two acts on film. In this way the curriculum that is made available to students is intimately tied to the forms of representation of the classroom. Summary The question of what mode is ‘best’ for what purpose depends on the curriculum subject. This is key to understanding how the multimodal facilities of the IWB are taken up across the curriculum subjects and topics and applied according to the teachers’ perception of the abilities of the students. 5.10.5 Interactivity The type of interaction and interpretation required in the English, Maths and Science classroom are different in character. • The stress on investigation, demonstration and physical manipulation as ways of engaging with concepts place different demands on learners in Maths and Science compared with English. • The dominant focus on writing in the English classroom means that the texts that students make often come to stand for the student and represent their work and the end product of a process of learning. This provides a context 50
where such texts may be later worked on in a whole class context, via annotation and discussion by the teacher using the display facilities of the IWB. " In Maths the focus is on students’ real time construction of a text. It is therefore rare for a teacher to go over students’ work once it is completed. It is more common for a student to ‘narrate’ and physically demonstrate a problem solving process in the Maths classroom and to be asked to use the IWB to achieve this. • Technical and physical interactivity by students at the IWB featured in all subject areas. Often such activity seemed to offer limited opportunities for conceptual thinking. Technical and physical interaction with the board was more common within: o The Maths classroom; o Lower ability classes in all subject areas. • Conceptual interactivity, that is to say, interactive pedagogy that opened up new spaces for extended dialogue in the classroom, was relatively rare in Maths, English and Science. When present, this form of interactivity was often associated with the use of different peripherals but also drew on different features of the IWB according to subject: in English, its capacity for digital display; in Maths, for dynamic manipulation; in Science, for visualisation. Summary The pedagogic potential of IWBs (as with any technology ‘new’ or ‘old’) is not absolute but differs for Maths, Science and English as well as according to the topics covered within each of those subjects. The distinctive curriculum demands of Maths, Science and English shape different pedagogic practices, as well as teachers’ choice and use of texts, which lead in turn to different uses of IWB technology 5.11 The Extent to Which IWB Technology Contributes to Efficient Work Management and Collaborative Resource Use The majority of teachers surveyed reported that IWBs made some aspects of their teaching and classroom management more efficient, in particular the repetition, reexplaining and summarising of teaching points (88 per cent) and whole class teaching (70 per cent). Over half of teachers surveyed (62 per cent) state that lessons using IWBs take longer to prepare. This is not surprising at this stage in the policy implementation given that new resources need to be sourced and developed and many teachers are developing their own new resources rather than using resources developed by others. Almost all of the teachers (97 per cent) who participated in the survey agree that building up a bank of IWB resources to share with colleagues will save time in the 51
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?