1. The impact of IWBs on literacy and numeracy teaching in primary schools Professor Steven Higgins School of Education Durham University s.e.higgins@dur.ac.uk

2. Overview 30 month project 2002-04 Evaluating PNS ‘Embedding ICT’ pilot 6 LEAs; 84 schools; all Y5 & Y6 classes Formative data –Technical; logistics; training Evaluative research –Classroom interaction –Teacher and pupil perceptions –Impact on attainment - KS2 SATs

3. Research data Structured observations –184 lessons –With & without IWBs –Repeated after 1 year: ‘embedding effect’ 29 lesson videos Teacher use web-logs (1200 weeks) Pupil attitude data 68 teacher interviews 12 pupil group interviews & 80 ‘pupil views’ templates

4. Political context Formative data used Prospective technology but retrospective pedagogy Pilot becomes policy after 12 months PNS moves from CfBT to Capita Final report became ‘stalled’

5. Reported use of IWBs Online web forms completed twice by teachers for about 6 weeks in Spring 2003 and again in Spring 2004 655 forms in 2003; 817 weeks of forms for 2004. Patterns consistent across the schools Teachers reported using the IWB in about two thirds of literacy and mathematics lessons in 2003 and nearly three-quarters of these lessons in 2004.

6. Reported use Reported use was significantly greater in the second year of the pilot project (2004) –in both mathematics (6.3% increase) –and literacy (9.7% increase). Use of the IWB in 2003 was relatively consistent throughout the school week. Greatest use on Mondays - least on Fridays

7. Reported use in mathematics and English

8. Structured lesson observations Live coding on palmtop Observer software (Noldus Information Technology) Structured recording of classroom discourse: IRF structure (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Smith & Hardman 2003) –Actor Teacher/pupil/gender –Questions Open /closed /repeat /uptake /probe –Other moves e.g. Evaluation /Explanation /Direction /Refocus Frequency and duration

9. Lesson observations

10. Lesson sections (duration)

11. Teacher moves Pupil moves Other moves

13. Comparisons

14. Whiteboard differences

15. Whiteboard effects Faster pace - more interactions More shorter answers More evaluation Less uptake questions Shorter pupil presentations

16. Subject differences

17. Literacy and numeracy Significant differences between lessons Not related to the IWB Numeracy –Faster pace; more closed questions & teacher direction Literacy –More open & uptake questions; more pupil presentation

18. Gender differences

19. Feedback and gender

20. Gender differences

21. Girls and boys participation Boys get more frequent attention –Closed questions, direction, evaluation and refocus, praise Average duration of moves remains constant Disproportionate increase in attention as ratio of boys to girls increases IWB makes no difference - increase in responses - faster pace

22. Pupils’ views Twelve group interviews (72 pupils) Pupils very positive about IWBs –multimedia features –believed IWB helped them to pay better attention –Most liked having their work shown on the IWB –Mathematics the most popular lesson Pupils identified the common technical and logistical problems –Recalibration, bright sunlight, moving objects hard to see, some colours difficult to read Universally wanted to use the board more themselves

23. Pupil attitudes Quantitative web survey in pilot schools Some evidence it slows the increase of negative attitudes between Y5 and Y6 Pupils most negative on Wednesdays!

24. Teachers’ views 68 teachers interviewed Overall, extremely positive about IWBs impact –on their teaching –about the training and support – and that the IWB improved confidence in using ICT 100% thought it helped achieve teaching aims –the range of resources available, –the stimulating nature of the technology and multimedia –the flexibility that the technology offers. 99% believed that it improved pupils’ motivation 85% believed it would lead to improved attainment

25. Teachers’ views 71% reported doing more whole class teaching 81% said workload had increased due to the IWB –35% of these believed this was temporary as they developed and stored their resources 56% said they had not noticed any differences between boys and girls in relation to the IWB 44% said they had noticed differences, usually a positive impact on boys (more motivated and interested or more focused and involved).

26. But… IWB schools performed very slightly better on national tests in mathematics and science after one year (effect size of 0.1 maths and 0.11 sci both sig. ; 0.04 English ns.) After two years, once ‘embedded’, no (sig.) difference Pupil-level data similar very small improvements after one year and no difference after two. Some evidence that IWBs improve performance of low- achieving pupils in English - with greatest impact on writing. Impact broadly similar for both boys and girls.

27. Speculations Classrooms have strong discourse structures IWBs have an impact on interaction Subject pedagogy is more robust than technology pedagogy Boys are more evident in discourse, but not better at learning –Participation in lessons but not participation in learning? What did the IWB replace and what did the teachers stop doing?

28. Interactivity Technical interactivity Teaching interactivity

29. Publications Smith, F., Higgins, S and Hardman, F. (2007) Gender inequality in the primary classroom: will interactive whiteboards help? Gender and Education 19 Smith, H. and Higgins, S. (2006) Opening Classroom Interaction: The Importance of Feedback Cambridge Journal of Education 36.4 pp. 485–502. Smith, F., Hardman, F. and Higgins, S. (2006) The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies British Educational Research Journal 32.3 pp 443-457. Wall, K., Higgins, S. and Smith, H (2005) ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards British Journal of Educational Technology 36.5 pp 851-867. Hall, I and Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 pp 102-117. Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J. (2005) Interactive Whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 pp 91-101. Higgins, S., Falzon, C.,Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F., Smith, H. and Wall, K. (2005) Embedding ICT In The Literacy And Numeracy Strategies: Final Report Newcastle: Newcastle University.

30. References Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils London, Oxford University Press. Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2003) Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing classroom interaction, Educational Studies, 29(1), 39–47.