Embedding Interactive Whiteboards in Teaching and Learning: the process of change in pedagogic practice Bridget Somekh Education and Social Research Institute Manchester Metropolitan University Full paper now published: Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: the process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technology, 13(4), , 2008

Acknowledgements The evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project, was sponsored by the Department for Education and Skills of the UK Government (now the Dept for Children, Schools and Families). The MMU research team comprised: Bridget Somekh, Maureen Haldane, Kelvyn Jones (consultant from the University of Bristol), Cathy Lewin, Stephen Steadman, Peter Scrimshaw, Sue Sing, Kate Bird, John Cummings, Brigid Downing, Tanya Harber Stuart, Janis Jarvis, Diane Mavers and Derek Woodrow The evaluation report (2007) is available from: dir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansi on.pdf dir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansi on.pdf

Key Features of the Design Mixed methods research, moving back and forth, each data set informing the other Multi-level modelling statistical analysis of quantitative data, looking at variation at the levels of school, class (teacher) and student Case study data with a strong focus on classroom observation with digital video recording Analysis of digital video by collaborative, progressive focusing, using a (loose) grounded theory approach Length of the study – making it possible to evaluate the embedding of IWBs over two years (as a result of agreeing an extension with the Department for Education and Skills)

Key Features of the Findings Enthusiastic response of teachers in PSWE schools, leading to integration of ICT use across the curriculum (i.e. IWB use) Huge increase in teachers’ ICT skills over a two year period Observable process of CPD through the development of a Community of Practice – was this an example of the IWB mediating the process of CoP formation (or strengthening)? Measurable gains in children’s test score results (at age 11) in Mathematics, English and Science when they had been taught with an IWB for more than two years Development of a ‘grounded’ model of the process of change in (interactive) pedagogic practices, using triangulated data.

What were we looking at? Primary school classrooms in England IWBs permanently installed and used almost exclusively by one teacher and a group of students and TAs On all day (although in some classrooms the data projector was switched off for some of the time) All day access to the Internet and the school’s server with all its resources, lesson plans Laptops and/or memory sticks meant that teachers could plan at home using IWB resources/software Teaching dominated by ‘the Primary Strategy’ – the ‘three part lesson’ including mandatory whole class teaching (WCT) Teaching Assistants (TAs) in all classrooms – often more than one with special responsibility for specific children.

Objectives of the Evaluation Assess the extent of the impact on literacy and mathematics Identify the effects on a range of other outcomes Investigate the contribution to development of pedagogies and cross-curricular embedding of ICT Evaluate the impact on teacher professional development Evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation and operation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard initiative ( ) (This aspect of the work is not covered in this paper – see the full report at

Quantitative Data: Impact Tracking two groups of pupils, aged 11, who took national tests in 2005 and 2006 (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2), enabling combined and separate analyses, using national test data aged 7 as baseline Multi-level-modelling (MLM) data analysis with a two level hierarchical structure of pupil and classroom Analysis based on the length of exposure to IWBs (in months) experienced by pupils.

Impact on Attainment in Maths, Science and English at age 11 Length of time pupils have been taught with an IWB is key National Test data aged 11 Maths: –Average and high attaining pupils made greater progress –Little effect on progress of low attaining pupils – but gains once IWB embedded, Cohort 2 National Test data aged 11 Science: –Cohort 2 (embedded) showed benefits for all (ceiling effect) National Test data aged 11 English: –Indications of positive gains (but measures less stable) –Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded, showed a positive trend in low attaining boys’ writing (p<0.094) of 2.5 months additional progress (after 2 years)

Data from Visits to Schools Phase 1: 10 representative schools selected from Questionnaires –Two day visits on either two or three occasions –Classroom observation and digital video in 4 classrooms (analysed using a [loose] grounded theory approach) –Interviews with teachers and selected pupils following observation –Interviews with Principals and ICT / literacy / numeracy coordinators –Observed teachers kept logs of use of IWBs over two weeks prior to visit –Schools’ questionnaire data (from quantitative survey) also scrutinised Phase 2: 9 teachers selected whose pupils in 2005 showed progress in national tests different from the main trend –Classroom observation and digital video (qualitative analysis to test hypotheses from prelim MLM analysis, and focused on the role of the IWB in mediating the interactivity between teacher and pupils). –Interviews with observed teachers and pupils, Heads and ICT coordinators

Examples of pedagogic change Improvement to an established pedagogic practice the use of the IWB to facilitate a co-learner style of teaching, where teacher and pupils (‘we’) work together. The IWB ‘mediates’ this by allowing the teacher to ‘stand off literally and/or metaphorically’. A new style of lesson planning by storing prepared materials for the IWB. The plan is thereby transformed from a paper sheet which lists actions to a dynamic ‘script’ for actions. Stored and shared and can be ‘tweaked’. Emergence of a new pedagogic practice The ‘script’ reduces the teacher’s cognitive load – that is, it is no longer necessary to keep part of her mind occupied on planning what to say next and remembering to use key vocabulary. Teachers are able to hear what individual children are saying to a partner or a TA and focus teaching much more specifically on children’s needs. the wide range of strategies used by teachers to keep the whole class mentally engaged while individuals have come up to work at the board – eg ‘telling your partner what you think’, writing on a ‘wipe board’ or acting as ‘scrutineers’, ‘commentators’ or ‘helpers’

The IWB mediating pedagogic interactivity Extract from post-visit analytical notes - Year 6 Numeracy lesson When the board was in use, the teacher tended to be at the board when he needed to bring up/change to a different screen, when he needed to write something on the board, and when he wanted to point something out. At other times, he seemed to stand ‘away’ from the board, sometimes moving into the classroom, but often standing just to the side of it at his desk (which was just to the left of the screen). In terms of where the children focused their attention – many of them often seemed to be looking at the screen rather than at the teacher. (Of course, this was not always true and sometimes dependent on what was being talked about/shown etc.). But, as I looked around the room a number of times, I noticed that the children did seem to be looking at the board and not the teacher – interestingly, this was confirmed by the children I spoke with in the interview. They told me that sometimes they found the board was useful for helping them to better understand what was being explained/discussed – or, if they lost track of where they were up to, they could look at the board for reference. Many of them said that sometimes hearing something out loud from the teacher did not explain it clearly to them, but looking at the same idea expressed in a different format, i.e. on the IWB, would often help to clarify this for them.

The IWB enabling more personalised teaching Extract from an interview with a teacher in Phase 2 (example of tacit knowledge being made explicit through ‘probing’ questions in an interview): I also knew quite quickly whether they had understood or not because their hands went up before (the SEN TA) had even said anything to them – and then you can see whether she needs to say something to them and re-word and re-phrase and just bring them back a step and help them – and then you can almost see the penny drop, or that she is still going. So you think, ‘Right, I won’t ask them that question’, because they haven’t quite got there yet. So sometimes you might pick up – she’s still talking to them – and the rest of the class has got to the point where they’ve answered – (so you go on with the class) then (the SEN TA) will carry on teaching them to that point and then they’ll pick up again (with the rest of the class).

What is the impact of the IWB on Pedagogy and Embedding ICT across the curriculum? The IWB is embedded in teaching and learning across the whole curriculum in these primary schools. (But in some cases only at the stage of ‘fit’ with traditional practice) The IWB acts as a multi-modal portal (for all the resources available through a computer/ the Internet). Teachers model use of the internet. IWB is a Touch Screen Computer for shared working. The IWB is an ideal support for whole class teaching (WCT): it focuses pupils’ attention and increases engagement. Therefore, the impact of WCT is an integral part of what we evaluated. The IWB is also an ideal support for individual children working alone, or pairs working with a skilled teacher of literacy or maths.

Anything else about the Impact of the IWB on pedagogy? Teachers say that the IWB is particularly useful when teaching difficult concepts or demonstrating skills (it supports visualisation) Young children who have not yet acquired writing skills, and SEN pupils can demonstrate their skills and knowledge by tapping and dragging. Teachers say this helps with assessing children’s learning. Children who are not achieving ‘the expected level’ do not benefit in terms of attainment on traditional tests from the IWB’s impact in improving the pace, variety and interest of WCT. Where children are partially sighted or completely blind the use of the IWB creates the need for new kinds of support from TAs.

A model of the process of pedagogic change with ICT We were able to track the process of pedagogic change over two years and derive a three-stage model of its development. The process was one of IWBs becoming integrated with pedagogy as ‘an extension of the [teacher’s] self’ (McLuhan) and ‘mediating’ the interactivity between teacher/students and student/students (Wertsch, Vygotsky). The three stage model consists of: –fitting new technologies into established pedagogies; –collaborative exploration of new opportunities offered by these technologies; –embedding of the technologies into transformed pedagogic practices. Stage 1 is relatively easy to achieve. The UK primary school supports progress to stages 2 through a Community of Practice of teachers and TAs. Stage 3 does not always occur.

Thank you for listening

Quantitative Data Survey of Heads/ICT Coordinators (Nov 2004, repeated June 2005) Survey of two teachers in each school (Nov 2004 and June 2005) Schools provided ‘unique pupil numbers’ (UPNs) and these were matched with national pupil data (NPD) to track individual pupils. The baselines were KS1 national tests (for KS2) and FSP (for KS1). Tracking pupils who took national tests in both 2005 and 2006 (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2), enabling combined and separate analyses Multi-level-modelling (MLM) data analysis with a two level hierarchical structure of pupil and classroom (as pupils share the same experience) Analysis based on the length of exposure to IWBs (in months) experienced by classes of pupils. Intervention measured as a continuous variable rather than a binary measure of exposed or not.

Impact on Attainment in Maths, Science and English The length of time pupils have been taught with an IWB is the major factor that leads to attainment gains. This appears to be an effect of embedding IWB use in teachers’ pedagogy – the qualitative data strongly supports this interpretation. KS2 Maths: –Average and high attaining pupils made greater progress –Little effect on progress of low attaining pupils – but gains once IWB embedded KS2 Science: –Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded, showed clear benefits for all except high attaining girls (ceiling effect) KS2 English: –Indications of positive gains (but measures in English are less stable) –Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded, showed a positive trend in low attaining boys’ writing (p<0.094) of 2.5 months additional progress

Impact on Attainment (continued) KS1 findings are less robust because Foundation Stage Profiles for these children were in the trial stage KS1 Maths –IWBs appear to have a positive impact on attainment once teachers have experienced sustained use KS1 Science –IWBs used much less for Science in Cohort 1. However, girls of all attainment levels appear to make greater gains with an IWB, and there were indications of positive impact on average and above average boys. KS1 English –Once IWBs become embedded average and high attaining pupils appear to benefit from exposure to IWBs. –No effect on low attaining pupils, which may lead to widening the gaps in progress between them and their peers.

Additional analysis to address queries The length of exposure has been used, rather than a ‘with/without’ intervention analysis –Collapsing into a dichotomous category would lose power to detect the effects and lose richness of data. This is particularly the case because we were unable to get an equal number of classes without the intervention. Surprise that we found that IWBs had made a positive impact on outcomes (compared with the Newcastle research, DfES 2005) –At least some support for this finding from each of the cohorts and each of the sexes: even with small numbers there is consistency on replication. –Considerably more training, and far more available materials, for the PSWE teachers than for those involved in the Newcastle research. –Our findings suggest that the key is embedding of the IWB in teachers’ pedagogic practice and that this can only be achieved over time. So a study conducted two years later would expect to have different findings. Possibility of bias in the sample because non-project schools had to be recruited to provide the ‘without IWB’ comparators –We investigated this and found no evidence of bias resulting from the new schools included in the extension phase analysis.

References (1) Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: the process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technology, 13(4), McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., et al. (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project. Coventry: Becta-DfES dir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansion. pdf. dir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansion. pdf Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

References (2) Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge UK, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. See also: Jones, K (2007) cance_testing.html cance_testing.html Kam, Cindy D and. Franzese, Robert J (2007) Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Rasbash, J. Steele, F. and Browne, W J, Prosser, B(2005), A user’s guide to MLwiN version 2.0, University of Bristol