The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1: Key School-Level Statistics for the Sample compared to all London Schools Schools in sample = 36 All London schools = 412 Obs Mean / % Std. Dev. Obs Mean / % Std. Dev. Roman Catholic 36 14% 403 17% Church of England 36 0% 403 7% School has Sixth Form 36 58% 403 59% Grammar schools 36 6% 403 4% Secondary modern 36 8% 403 2% Gov: Community 36 58% 403 51% Gov: Vol Aided 36 17% 403 29% Gov: Foundation 36 25% 403 19% Boys only 36 11% 403 15% Girls only 36 28% 403 21% GCSE 5A*-C 2002 36 53% 23% 388 49% 21% FSM eligibility in 2001 36 23% 15% 393 27% 18% % SEN with stat in 2001 36 3% 2% 393 3% 2% % SEN w/out stat in 2001 36 18% 10% 393 20% 10% % white ethnicity in 2001 36 55% 28% 393 56% 26% FTE pupils in 2001 36 1,084 322 393 1,016 311 Note: these statistics are not weighted by pupil numbers in schools Description of sample Table 2 and Table 3 describe the key statistics for the data used in this study. There are four cohorts of pupils in total: pupils completing KS3 in 2004; pupils completing KS3 in 2005; pupils completing KS4 in 2004; and pupils completing KS4 in 2005. The test scores in English, Maths and Science for KS2 and KS3 are calculated directly from actual marks achieved on KS papers, and are calibrated as fractional level equivalents. The GCSE outcome score is the (best) grade achieved in English, Maths and Science separately. A value of 8 indicates an A*; 7=A, and so on….The reported levels of IWB installations in departments in October 2003 and October 2004 are calculated. The rationale for choosing these dates is that, provided an IWB is in a classroom by October, it can be used for the vast majority of the academic year. The number of IWBs in the department is adjusted for the size of the school. So, a value of 4 on the scale means that there are 4 IWBs in the department per 1,000 pupils in the school. Both tables show the very large increase in IWB installation in English, Maths and Science departments between October 2004 and October 2005. This increase is largest for Science and Maths departments, with English departments only having about half the resource level of the other core subjects by October 2005. 62
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Sample in Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 Analysis 2004 2005 obs mean s.d. obs mean s.d % eligible for FSM 5,646 26% 5,773 26% % female 5,665 55% 5,809 56% % black ethnicity 5,519 17% 5,677 18% % indian ethnicity 5,519 12% 5,677 10% % pakistani ethnicity 5,519 6% 5,677 7% % bangladeshi ethnicity 5,519 2% 5,677 2% % asian other ethnicity 5,519 5% 5,677 6% % other ethnicity 5,519 9% 5,677 9% % EAL 5,646 38% 5,773 39% % SEN with statement 5,646 3% 5,773 3% % SEN without statement 5,646 19% 5,773 18% KS3 English score 5,333 5.58 1.18 5,499 5.68 1.13 KS3 Maths score 5,503 5.91 1.39 5,665 6.00 1.38 KS3 Science score 5,501 5.46 1.20 5,649 5.51 1.14 KS2 English score 5,093 4.45 0.78 5,216 4.41 0.82 KS2 Maths score 5,153 4.40 0.89 5,261 4.45 0.88 KS2 Science score 5,165 4.68 0.64 5,281 4.70 0.69 IWB in English per 1,000 pupils in Oct 5,134 0.18 0.69 5,245 2.27 2.49 IWB in Maths per 1,000 pupils in Oct 5,134 0.58 1.12 5,245 4.84 2.69 IWB in Science per 1,000 pupils in Oct 5,134 0.43 0.83 5,245 5.35 2.95 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Sample in Key Stage 3 to Key Stage 4 Analysis 2004 2005 Variable name obs mean s.d. obs mean s.d % eligible for FSM 5,380 24% 5,590 23% % female 5,395 55% 5,661 54% % black ethnicity 5,292 17% 5,500 16% % indian ethnicity 5,292 14% 5,500 12% % pakistani ethnicity 5,292 7% 5,500 6% % bangladeshi ethnicity 5,292 2% 5,500 2% % asian other ethnicity 5,292 5% 5,500 5% % other ethnicity 5,292 9% 5,500 9% % EAL 5,380 41% 5,590 39% % SEN with statement 5,380 3% 5,592 3% % SEN without statement 5,380 17% 5,592 17% KS4 English score 5,395 4.68 1.92 5,661 4.66 1.86 KS4 Maths score 5,395 4.46 2.07 5,661 4.46 2.02 KS4 Science score 5,395 4.35 2.07 5,661 4.32 2.05 KS3 English score 4,937 5.59 1.21 5,202 5.44 1.26 KS3 Maths score 5,071 5.85 1.44 5,312 5.90 1.40 KS3 Science score 5,064 5.49 1.20 5,316 5.56 1.19 IWB in English per 1,000 pupils in Oct 4,849 0.15 0.53 5,040 2.26 2.49 of ac. Year IWB in Maths per 1,000 pupils in Oct of 4,849 0.59 1.08 5,040 4.87 2.66 ac. Year IWB in Science per 1,000 pupils in Oct of ac. Year 4,849 0.41 0.67 5,040 5.33 2.92 63
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 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?