teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in …...teacher use of the interactive whiteboard 329...

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2004

327

Teacher Use of the Interactive Whiteboard in Primary Schools: towards an effective transition framework

GARY BEAUCHAMP University of Wales Swansea, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT The growing use of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) in primary school teaching forms part of a number of initiatives within the schools of the United Kingdom to develop the use of information and communications technology (ICT) in teaching and learning. The IWB presents both challenges and opportunities to teachers, particularly in terms of staff development and training. This study uses classroom observation and semi-structured interviews with teachers now working in a recently built, technology-rich primary school to develop a generic progressive framework and developmental model for schools introducing the IWB. This framework can be used to assess and guide teacher progress on the continuum towards becoming a ‘synergistic user’. As teachers make this transition there is a fundamental requirement to adopt an interactive teaching style, alongside the gradual development of specific ICT skills. The study also examines implications for teacher education and training for schools, both prior and subsequent to the introduction of the IWB into classroom use. These include specific technical and pedagogical competencies which need to be addressed for effective interactive use of the IWB in classroom teaching.

There have been a number of initiatives to promote and develop the use of information and communications technology (ICT) in teaching and learning over the past five years in the United Kingdom (UK). Evidence is growing that ICT resourcing in schools can have a positive effect on young children’s attainment in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency [Becta], 2001, 2002). However, the literature to date (Moseley & Higgins, 1999; Kennewell et al, 2000; Becta, 2001, 2002; Kennewell, 2001; NAACE/Becta, 2001; National Foundation for Educational Research, 2002; Twining, 2002) is far from unanimous about why this should be so and whether such claims are indeed

Gary Beauchamp

328

justified (Goodison, 2002a). A variety of factors are suggested as possible influences including classroom practice, subject content and resourcing. One of the emerging resources affecting primary (i.e. ages 5-11 years) classroom practice in the UK is the interactive whiteboard (IWB). This has implications for teacher education and training – both in-service and pre-service.

A major stimulus for IWB use in the UK was created in January 2002 by the Welsh Assembly Government’s announcement of a £9.9 million grant to provide every primary school with one whiteboard, computer and projector, while every secondary school would get three. At the same time, pilot studies were taking place in England which resulted in the announcement in September 2003 of the ‘Schools Interactive Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Initiative 2003-04’, which led to £25 million being spent in England to further enhance the provision of IWBs in schools, as well as establishing a ‘National Whiteboard Network’. These moves make the IWB a particularly important focus for educational debate and research. This level of policy direction may be unique to the UK, but it is likely that other countries will be following developments with interest.

The IWB is here regarded as any board connected to a PC, capable of displaying a projected image which allows the user to control the PC by touching the board or with the computer mouse. One additional feature of the IWB is the accompanying ‘native’ software which provides the facility to write by hand on blank ‘pages’ and includes tools for controlling features, such as font colour and line thickness, as well as resources for classroom use, such as lined and squared paper of different sizes, clip art and ready-made lesson materials.

The IWB presents both challenges and opportunities to teachers and, indeed, students training to be teachers. As may be expected, despite the benefits to be gained from exploring new technologies (Harris, 2002), there is an inevitable investment of time, effort, new learning and willingness to change existing teaching strategies (Keeler, 1996) involved in this process. It is perhaps hardly surprising that experienced teachers need more convincing that this is worthwhile (Glover & Miller, 2002a, b), but there is some evidence to suggest that student teachers ‘predominantly see them [IWBs] as an important feature of their future teaching’ (Kennewell & Morgan, 2003, p. 74).

The pressure on serving teachers to make the transition to using the IWB will intensify as they become more prevalent in schools in the UK and elsewhere. In some cases this will be part of a carefully planned process where IWBs are gradually introduced throughout a school, in others it may be a more ad hoc arrangement as money becomes available, whereas in others, IWBs may become available to every class as part of a new school build or a major cash investment at local or national level. Although the training methodology may differ according to each situation, this article

TEACHER USE OF THE INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD

329

attempts to outline a generic framework which can be applied to identify teachers’ progress along a continuum towards becoming what is defined as a ‘synergistic’ user. Such a framework may also subsequently be used to help plan and focus appropriate training for teachers.

Method

The study was undertaken in a recently built, technology-rich primary school where IWBs are used as the main delivery medium in every classroom throughout the curriculum. The school was specifically designed to try and enhance learning through the use of ICT, with the IWB considered as integral to this process. Most of the staff in the school had also worked in the previous (technology-poor) incarnation of the school and moved to the new purpose-built accommodation after a two-year planned period of staff training. In this context, teachers were able to compare and contrast the impact of the IWB (and other features of new technology) on their classroom practice as well as elucidating features of, and the sequence in, their training which were important in equipping them to cope with the new demands made of them. Whilst the teachers may have possessed differing levels of generic ICT confidence, the IWB was new to them.

The research conducted reflected calls for studies based on classroom observation (Chalkey & Nicholas, 1997) and acknowledges the framework provided by the work of Becker (1958) and the Grounded Theory of Glaser & Strauss (1967). Both works divide the fieldwork process into four stages: data collection, validation, interpretation and action (Hopkins, 2002).

Data Collection

The initial data collection was undertaken using classroom observations over two days by a single researcher, with the informed consent of both school management and the teachers themselves. The researcher observed a series of lessons taught by seven teachers working with a variety of age ranges and across the curriculum. Contemporaneous notes were taken and issues arising were discussed in unstructured interviews with teachers after each lesson. As all the teachers observed had given prior consent, and were aware of which lessons would be observed well in advance, it must be assumed that they were offering examples of their best practice. The first series of observations focused on teachers’ use of ICT in the classroom and identified the generic ICT skills and pedagogic practice of the teachers concerned. It should be noted that after two years of training in the previous school, staff had been using the IWB for over a year and, although they had started from the same starting point, it was possible to identify a range of competencies and pedagogic practice.

Gary Beauchamp

330

As Hopkins (2002, p. 133) notes, ‘at the end of the data collection stage, not only have we collected data, but we have also established a number of hypotheses, constructs or categories that begin to explain what is happening in the classroom’. Although not all ‘competencies’ were witnessed in every lesson, a first draft of a progressive series of skills and aspects of pedagogy was developed, which delineated the transition from beginner to synergistic user of the IWB as follows:

o black/whiteboard substitute; o apprentice user; o initiate user; o advanced user; o synergistic user.

Validation

Having developed a first draft of the characteristics of each stage of progression, a second series of observations was undertaken after a year, in which teachers were able to further develop their practice. This was especially helpful in reviewing the latter stages of the developmental framework. The second series of classroom observations focused on matching teachers’ practice with ICT to the hierarchical framework previously developed to provide a focus for the interviews which followed.

In order to help validate these findings, and to ‘ground’ the theory, taped interviews were conducted with ‘key respondents’ (Hopkins, 2002, p. 136), that is, the teachers themselves (n = 7). In these interviews, the framework itself was presented and provided the structure for the interview itself. The teachers had between 4 and 25 years’ experience and may thus be considered as representative of the primary teaching profession in the UK. They considered the skills listed in the progression framework and their observations were assimilated into the final version below. It should be noted that as a generic framework was being developed, no attempt was made to relate these stages to teachers’ age or teaching experience. Indeed, part of the validation was to try and eliminate these variables and ensure that a model was developed which was applicable to all teachers.

Interpretation and Action

As there is no existing construct for the progression under discussion, a qualitative analysis was undertaken of all the evidence from classroom observations and teacher judgements revealed in the interviews. The observations allowed the identification of common features used by different teachers, as well as key differences, which might be representative of stages of development in using the IWB. These focused on the features of ICT used


331

and their relationship with pedagogic activity. Possible variables identified were generalised as relating to:

o operating system use and file management (OS); o mechanical skills (MS); o program variables (PV); o classroom management and pedagogy (CMP).

These variables were not necessarily discrete, and there were occasions, particularly in mechanical skills and teacher pedagogy, where the same evidence supported advances in both categories. In the discussion that follows, these variables are identified in the text as OS, MS, PV and CMP and linked by numbers to their appearance in the summary figures which follow each stage.

Transition Framework

Black/Whiteboard Substitute

All primary teachers in the UK use a black/whiteboard in their teaching on a regular basis. It would seem apparent, and indeed logical, that the first stage of the transition is to use the IWB as a black/whiteboard substitute. As Somekh & Davies (1991, p. 153) point out, ‘computers, of themselves, are not transforming’ and the same is true of the IWB. In reality, during the initial transition stage the IWB, like the computer before it, is ‘assimilated to existing pedagogic assumptions’ (Eraut, 1991, p. 37).

Whilst this situation allows the teacher to continue to function in a familiar teaching style, it does not necessarily affect (or even allow) the fundamental change in their pedagogy which is needed to incorporate the integration of new technologies. In this context, teachers are using the IWB as a ‘neutral tool’ (Lim & Barnes, 2002, p. 37). In the early stage of transition, teachers predominantly use the IWB to write and draw, as they would on a traditional white/blackboard, using the native software for the IWB (PV1.1 and OS1.1). Whilst this may seem an apparently innocuous task, concerns were highlighted in interviews in the early stages of IWB use (MS1.1), such as:

where the pen is and the actual cursor, there’s a gap between them, so you’re writing here somewhere and the writing appears somewhere above or below where you’re writing. Sometimes you can take your pen off the board and to continue in the same spot and things like that is quite difficult. And writing on lines, if you put a line on the board … (Teacher A)

Having mastered basic writing and drawing techniques, teachers gradually supplemented this by some use of saved word processing files (PV1.1 and

Gary Beauchamp

332

OS1.2). However, these files were normally used to show the whole class an example which would take too long to write up (a reading text, sentences for grammar work or a spelling list). Although the teacher often used the IWB software to annotate the text (for example, to insert an apostrophe in a different colour using the pen), these changes were rarely saved in the lessons observed at this level (OS1.3). It may be conjectured that lack of confidence in saving and organising files made it easier to start again from scratch each time, rather than have to save to a specific location.

It is evident at this stage that teachers wish to retain control of the IWB. In effect, the whiteboard is used as a large screen for a projected computer desktop with the teacher performing normal tasks on the computer to a larger audience, with little or no pupil use of the board (CMP1.1). A seemingly inevitable consequence is that there is little interactivity, which is required for enhanced learning (McCormick & Scrimshaw, 2001). However, this does have the indirect benefit of allowing children to observe the ‘manipulation of the operating system, the main applications and the network structure on a routine basis, so that ... they are fully aware of what needs to be done’ (Goodison, 2002b, p. 288) in their own work. In the case of the IWB, although this can be done by using the mouse of the attached computer, it also involves the teacher learning how to use the IWB pen in place of the mouse (MS1.2).

Although this does restrict the interactivity of a lesson, it does represent a fundamental change in the pace with which teachers can deliver a lesson (CMP1.2). The ability to open and close even a limited series of files (or other prepared resources) is still much quicker than having to write on, and then wipe off, a traditional board. Teacher D explained this situation as:

if you haven’t actually finished a lesson, if you were using a blackboard, you’d have to rub that work off, go on to your next lesson and the following day you’d have to recap, you’d have to write it all out again. With the whiteboard you can save the work that you’ve discussed and the experiments that you’ve done and bring that back tomorrow.

In addition, in all the lessons observed the teachers were able to maintain eye contact with the class to a much greater extent than using a traditional board, as they merely had to stand to one side facing the class and tap the screen to effect transitions, rather than have to turn their back to write on or clean the board (CMP1.3). In terms of class control it may be conjectured that such an approach can only be beneficial. In addition, the teacher is free to consider the teaching and management of a lesson, having already considered and prepared the content and its presentation. In turn, as teachers move away from handwritten work and towards using saved files, it also prevents them worrying about the presentation of their work on the


333

board – a factor particularly relevant to student teachers who have to learn ‘board writing’.

One final consideration at this stage of development resulted from the ease with which information can be presented as teachers become more proficient in using the IWB. There is an inherent danger that the IWB becomes an information presentation platform, rather than another resource for developing questioning and interactive learning (CMP1.4). Galton et al (1999) have highlighted that in Key Stage 2 (7-11 years) teachers spent more time providing information than asking questions. It remains a cause for concern that, in the first stage of transition to the IWB, this temptation can be intensified by the IWB and associated software. Teachers need to be aware of this potential and ensure a balance between the technology and effective pedagogic practice. Hence, a self-analysis of current teaching style needs to be an inherent and continuing facet of a teacher’s transition through the stages which follow.

Black/whiteboard substitute Operating system use and file management (OS)

Mechanical skills (MS)

Program variables (PV)

Classroom management and pedagogy (CMP)

1.1 Predominant use of text and drawing on the IWB – opening program

1.1 Teacher learning to write and draw on the IWB

1.1 Predominant use of native IWB software with perhaps one additional word processing program

1.1 Board used by teacher only

1.2 Limited use of stored files (e.g. Word files with spelling lists or grammar exercises) – opening files

1.2 Use of IWB pen to navigate the operating system (click and drag) in place of mouse

1.2 Quicker pace to lessons

1.3 Changes made to files and annotations rarely saved

1.3 More eye contact with class

1.4 Presentation of information over questioning

Figure 1. Stage 1: Black/whiteboard substitute.

Gary Beauchamp

334

Apprentice User

The next stage of development is characterised by the use of a wider range of existing computer skills in a teaching context, although lessons still proceed in a largely linear direction. This may be regarded as a straight path through a subject without reaching any ‘crossroads where there are several branches’, each of which a more advanced user of the IWB can make a ‘vivid experience’ (Warren, 2003, p. 103). To provide these crossroads requires both pedagogic imagination and specific ICT skills. The acquisition of these skills, and the realisation of the learning possibilities they engender, are an important part of the progress of the apprentice user.

This supposition was supported by all the teachers interviewed, who commented on the need to be a ‘confident’ computer user as the essential prerequisite to successful use of the IWB. Teacher E was typical when she stated that ‘it helps if you’re a confident [computer] user otherwise you’re trying to get to grips with too many things at a time and it can be a bit frightening’. This would seem to support the findings of Williams et al (2000, p. 312) that teachers ‘who use computers at home use ICT more frequently in school’ – although with the added caveat that ‘no clear relationship between home use of computers and attitude’ was found in their sample group. It also raises the question for any schools considering transferring to IWBs as to whether they should provide staff with suitable PCs to use at home – an issue which will be returned to below.

As teachers’ confidence in the new technology grows, then existing computer skills are transferred to use with the IWB. One example is that greater teacher confidence in saving and opening files results in the predominant, rather than occasional, use of stored resource files (OS2.1). In addition, these amended files are now often saved for future use or as part of an evidence base (OS2.2). Several teachers interviewed were unaware of the ‘save as’ feature instead of ‘save’ (so that the original files remain available for future use) and when shown this option realised its potential and changed their practice on saving files forthwith. It was apparent that relatively simple training can have significant effects on the way files are stored and used.

Another facet of improved teacher confidence in ICT was the use of other programs, notably PowerPoint. All the teachers observed used this program regularly without any pressure from school management (PV2.1). In interviews with teachers most reported it would be the first program they would advise teachers to learn after the ‘native’ board software required for basic IWB management. The program was used extensively to provide structure to the whole lesson or part of a lesson (Beauchamp & Parkinson, in press) – for example, the introduction to the whole class (PV2.2). It is interesting to note that the need to structure slides into sequences reflecting the fundamental learning objectives for each lesson ensured that teachers


335

had to consider afresh the order in which they presented ideas and the size of each ‘step’ within them. Pragmatic concerns, such as the fact that if too many ideas are presented on an individual slide it becomes hard to read, also force teachers to break down progression in lessons into smaller steps (Parkinson & Hollamby, 2003). As such, particularly in science lessons, interviews revealed that teachers had to consider the fundamental features of a concept and to present them logically and coherently. As this process involves teachers having to fundamentally re-examine individual concepts, it may merit further research into whether this process helps them to develop their own subject knowledge.

As teachers begin to use a wider range of programs, there is also a growing use of graphics. At this stage, this mainly takes the form of clip art used as ‘decoration’ rather than using for a specific effect – which appears at the next stage of transition – or instead of hand-drawn images to illustrate an object or action or, occasionally, to gain children’s attention (PV2.3). Two other sources of images, and indeed other resources such as mathematics games, which become evident at this stage are the Internet and the school network (OS2.3). The former requires confidence in using a web browser, whilst the latter requires file management skills. Both of these skills grow in significance and use as teachers progress through the framework below.

Although this is a positive step in terms of teacher use of software, in some instances the use of poor quality or inaccurate images or clip art can detract from the lesson progression or, at worst, actually mislead pupils in the development of a concept. As teachers become more confident in using the Internet, and in using a scanner, this problem is alleviated – although they should remain aware of the need to be selective in their use of graphics.

At this basic transition level, teachers are beginning to reassess their own practice in the light of greater technical ability. This is complicated because it is not just teachers’ ICT skills that need to be developed, but also teachers need to ‘accept changes in their role and in the interactions they [have] with students and they also [have] to support children as their roles [change] too’ (Harris, 2002, p. 457). This adaptation to ‘coach, observer and facilitator’ arises as teachers transfer greater responsibility for their own learning to their pupils (Smeets & Mooij, 2001, p. 404). Bork (2000, p. 78) summarises this as a situation where learning ‘is fully active, focusing on the student as learner rather than on authority figures’.

The first step in this process is to allow the children themselves to use the IWB as part of planned activities within lessons (CMP2.1). Most of the planned pupil use of the IWB involved using the pen to highlight (e.g. circling an error in text) or drag items (e.g. words to be added in cloze exercises) – although the appropriate option from the Tools menu was normally chosen by the teacher. In addition, children themselves had to

Gary Beauchamp

336

learn how to write on the board (MS2.1). Although this was normally only single words at this stage, in the lessons observed this did cause some problems as children struggled to adjust the size and scale of their writing. The small size of their writing (where they transferred their normal writing to the board) made it nearly impossible for other children to read from any distance. In addition, many also encountered the same problems as teachers themselves did above with the gap between pen and board. Conversely, the very public nature of the writing process drew the teachers’ attention to other factors of the writing process, such as one situation where a teacher was able to correct the pencil grip of a child which had been missed previously. In the first set of lesson observations this happened most frequently in the core subjects – English, mathematics and science – particularly in English (CMP2.2).

It should be noted that this interaction between pupils and the IWB can be affected by very pragmatic issues. One such is the height that the IWB is mounted from the ground, as younger children, even with a step used in many classes, cannot reach the board enough to make meaningful interaction with it. To enable children to do so, and avoid a return to more traditional practice, the teacher begins to act as a mediator to involve the children in interaction with the IWB by asking questions such as ‘where shall I click?’ or ‘where shall I drag it to?’ This use of ICT ‘vocabulary’ by teachers and children is an important facet of this stage of development and was observed often in pupil/teacher interaction (CMP2.3). In the lessons observed children were familiar with, and used, relevant vocabulary. They frequently referred to the need to ‘click’, ‘drag’ and even more technical issues such as ‘you forgot to calibrate the board’ or ‘you’re still on the pen’ (option in the menu) when a teacher could not get the pen to act as mouse and move to the next slide. In addition, teachers also used appropriate vocabulary in their own interactions and instructions. The latter feature of the teachers’ practice was itself a step in the transition process which they had not recognised until it was highlighted to them in interviews. Vocabulary seems likely to develop as teachers become frequent and confident users of computers in general terms, as much of the vocabulary is common with the IWB. In fact, the planned incidental use of appropriate IWB/ICT vocabulary is little different from what teachers would do if introducing any new technical term in other areas of the curriculum (such as science, music or second-language teaching) which have their own specific vocabulary.

The growing use of the board by children presents other problems and possibilities for teachers and children. For teachers there are pragmatic concerns, such as ‘until you get to grips fully with it, if a child comes out [to the IWB] and clicks something they shouldn’t you don’t want to look silly by saying I don’t know what to click to get out of it’ (Teacher E). This concern


337

over vulnerability can also happen when children have different teachers with varying use of the IWB. Teacher E explained that:

if children have different teachers for English and Maths and they use the whiteboard a lot with one teacher and not with the other, they [the children] are telling the teacher ‘you click this to get out from this’ or ‘if you want to use the rubber you haven’t got to do that, you do this’. Then it knocks the teacher’s confidence and they think next time I’m not going to ask them.

Although it is ironic that children should be providing staff with free in-service training (INSET), there remains an issue for teachers if children are learning to use the resources at a quicker rate than staff. Whether they perceive it as a negative feature, which would intimidate them, or a positive feature, that can help them develop, is contingent upon teachers’ confidence and their perception of the possible synergy in this process for mutually beneficial progress. A positive perception of this process leads the teacher towards the initiate level below, and beyond.

Apprentice user as above and in addition

Operating system use and file management (OS)




2.1 Predominant use of stored (teacher-derived) teaching resources

2.1 Children learn to write, highlight and ‘drag’ content (e.g. words) on the board (e.g. cloze procedure)

2.1 Introduction of PowerPoint

2.1 Child use of board – planned by teacher

2.2 Files used in lessons are often saved for reference or evidence – using ‘save as’ feature instead of ‘save’

2.2 Use of PowerPoint (limited transitions and effects) to structure lesson or part of a lesson – using mainly text

2.2 Used most commonly in teaching of core subjects (English, maths and science)

2.3. A limited use of ‘external’ material – e.g. Internet or material from school network

2.3 Use of imported existing graphics (clip art, pictures, etc.) in PowerPoint or to ‘decorate’ other work

2.3 Use of ICT ‘vocabulary’ by teacher (and children) when using the IWB

Figure 2. Stage 2: Apprentice user.

Gary Beauchamp

338

Initiate User

Having served an ‘apprenticeship’, and achieved a level of technical competence, the key development in this stage is an awareness of the potential of the IWB to change and enhance practice. Teachers begin to combine their own skills as pedagogues with those of their pupils, and the IWB, to initiate a classroom practice which produces a new pedagogy. This pedagogy begins to appreciate the potential synergy in the interaction of humans and technology and recognises how existing teaching competencies can be enhanced and developed by the use of the IWB and associated technology and programs. The inherent change at this stage results in comments such as ‘I could never go back to not using it [IWB]’ (Teacher B), a sentiment which was shared by all the teachers interviewed. Prior to the initiate user stage, the challenge posed by the technology masks the potential benefits and teachers may be happier to revert to a more traditional (and/or familiar) methodology. The initiate user is hence one who is initiated (in a technological sense) and also one who is able to initiate (in a pedagogic sense).

In this context, the initiate user begins to use a greater variety of programs (PV3.1) and each is selected for the particular strength or ease of use of a facility. Hence, rather than trying to achieve all the required effects within one program, the teacher is able to select the appropriate facility (normally based on previous experience, but also on the recommendation of a colleague) within most programs available. However, to facilitate this process effectively, without slowing the pace of the lesson, teachers need specific computer skills to be able to maximise and minimise windows (rather than opening and closing programs) and switch between open programs within the operating system (OS3.1). Again, this is something which a confident computer user would probably bring to the IWB, rather than learning it as a new skill if they had not used computers extensively before. This also means that it is a skill which can be learned away from, and prior to using, the IWB.

In practice, in the lessons witnessed in both sets of observations this resulted in two or more programs being used within the introduction of a lesson, rather than elsewhere. Teacher B and Teacher A both confirmed during interviews that this was a deliberate approach to allow them to present their teaching point in a variety of formats to gain the children’s attention and interest – and hence achieve the learning objective. Inherent in this approach is the need to have stored sequences of ‘pages’ or slides (within one or more files) already prepared which teachers are able to access and amend (OS3.2) – often achieved by using the native board software to annotate another program, e.g. PowerPoint. This approach is also now being used extensively across the whole range of curriculum subjects (CMP3.2).


339

As teachers grow more confident in exploring resources such as the Internet, they discover a plethora of available resources – especially Internet sites. A growing, and considered, use of these is evidence of the transition to initiate user (CMP3.3). The corollary of this is the need to be able to access these sites easily and there was plenty of evidence of teachers using the Favourites menu in their Internet browsers to store and access sites from labelled folders – often named by topic or task, such as ‘maths games’ (OS3.3).

Another feature of this stage of development is the growing involvement of children in actually using the IWB themselves. It is contended that this physical interaction is a necessary precursor to interaction with the teaching presented via the IWB on a deeper cognitive level. The important feature of such work at this stage is that it is planned by the teachers and is an integral part of the learning process (CMP3.1). One by-product of this process is an increase in children’s self-esteem. A typical attitude was that of Teacher E, who noted that:

with the lower ability children it’s fantastic, very visual and they just enjoy learning, they love it ... they love coming out taking part, writing on Miss’s board, they love that ... They seem to be more prepared to have more of a go, sometimes if I ask them if they know how to spell something, some of them will shy back in their seats, but if they think they can come out and have a go on the board, they’re not bothered whether they get it wrong or not because they’re coming out and they’re using the pen, they just have a try, they love it.

Despite this positive development, children’s use of the IWB needs to be developmental. Even though children may have written or drawn on the IWB before, teachers at this stage are designing their lessons so that children are now required to extend their existing skills. This is a necessary facet of the progress towards achieving the possibility of a synergy of teachers’ and pupils’ skills. One specific example is extending the annotation work undertaken in the previous stage, where the teacher selected the appropriate options from the software menu for the children to write on the board in the correct colour, to a situation where children are now required to select tools from the menus for a specific task, such as ‘come and add the commas in the sentences on the board using the red pen’ [1] (Teacher A) (MS3.1).

However, in themselves, such activities cannot really be regarded as much different than handing children red chalk to do the same task on a traditional blackboard, therefore the teacher has still not made the transition in teaching pedagogy, which perhaps remains the final, and most fundamental, step to becoming a synergistic user.

Gary Beauchamp

340

Initiate user

as above and in addition Operating system use and file management (OS)




3.1 Ability to maximise and minimise files to allow multiple programs to be open and switched between

3.1 Children select tools and input to the IWB

3.1 Use of a wider range of programs (NB at beginning of lessons)

3.1 Teacher initiated and planned opportunities for children to select tools and input to the IWB (see also MS3.1)

3.2 Use of stored sequences of pages (e.g. ‘flip charts’ in native software program)

3.2 A wider range of effects, including sound files, in PowerPoint

3.2 Used in growing range of subject areas, including foundation (art, music, history, geography, etc.) subjects

3.3 Beginning to organise work into Favourites folders in Internet browser

3.3 Use of a wider range of graphics, including those from other sources, such as the Internet, specifically chosen for purpose and not just ‘decoration’

3.3 Growing use of external resources – e.g. links to Internet sites

Figure 3. Stage 3: Initiate user.

Advanced User

As teachers see possibilities in a program they want to ‘play around with them and find out what they can do’ (Teacher A). This moves beyond a fascination with technical capabilities, towards the excitement of discovering their impact on teaching and learning. This in turn opens up new possibilities which begin a move away from a linear direction in lessons to a more creative use of hyperlinks and hypertext advocated by Warren (2003) (PV4.2). The use of hypertext and hyperlinks encourages more lateral thinking, but also requires a degree of technical understanding. It is, however, yet again another skill that can be learned by using, for example, word processing packages, prior to use of the IWB.


341

The possibilities to build in hyperlinks often come as teachers revisit and revise a lesson. Without exception, the teachers interviewed all commented on their dissatisfaction with their earlier lessons when they returned to them with greater technical knowledge or a wider appreciation of the capabilities of an existing program.[2] Teacher A was typical in her explanation that ‘I have used them [IWB lessons] again, but when I look at them now I think, oh no, that could have been better and I thought that was really good at the time’. Teacher F took this further in asserting that ‘the more you do, the more you realise what you can do’. What is perhaps less clear in these self-analyses is whether the criteria for judgement are the effect on pupil learning or proficiency in using the technology. For teaching to be effective, and for teachers to be considered advanced users, pupil learning and involvement must be the guiding principles in any evaluation of IWB lessons.

As advanced users, teachers begin to explore new features of software including the use of sound files, either as an embedded file, appearing as a clickable graphic, or as a hyperlinked item of text to a separate file (PV4.1). However, these are not ‘decorating’ the presentation (as in earlier stages where teachers were developing their technical competence), but are an integral part of the learning process and are used to illustrate a teaching point. In this context, a sound effect is not used to capture children’s attention on a slide transition, but may be used, for instance, to demonstrate the sound quality of a musical instrument. In the same way, an advanced user will incorporate the use of video files into lessons to demonstrate concepts which are hard to replicate in the primary classroom – such as a video simulation of the human heart beating and the circulation of the blood around the body.

In addition to a high level of skill in using software, the advanced user should also demonstrate a mastery of the common IWB and other ICT hardware found in the primary school. In particular, there should be evidence of a growing use of peripheral devices such as scanners (available in every classroom in the school) to prepare teaching resources. In the second series of observations in particular, when many teachers had developed their ICT capability, there was much evidence of the use of imported scanned images (by the teacher) from a range of sources including previous lessons, children’s work (Teacher C), textbook pages (Teacher C) and worksheets (Teachers E, C and A) for whole-class use (OS4.1). This approach moves attention away from the ‘heads down’ nature of textbooks on desks and focuses attention towards the teacher and the IWB. In the lessons observed where this approach was used, even if books were available on the desks, most children chose to look at the IWB. Other IWB resources witnessed in the lessons observed included the IWB ‘Slate’ (a small handheld board allowing remote control of the IWB by teacher or children).

Gary Beauchamp

342

This facilitated the greater involvement of children, and the handing over of power by teachers. The Slate was passed around the room from individual to individual on a table or from group to group, which allowed the active involvement of more children without undue movement to the IWB (MS4.2 and CMP4.3). In addition, the use of IWB ‘voting’ hardware (although not observed) may hold the same potential.

Advanced user as above and in addition





4.1 Imported use of scanned images (by teacher) from range of sources including previous lessons, children’s work (Teacher C), textbook pages (Teacher C) and worksheets (Teachers E, C and A) for whole-class use

4.1 Children frequently and confidently use the IWB as part of lesson, often spontaneously and unplanned – ‘come and show me what you mean’ (Teacher G)

4.1 Use of video clips and sound files – including material developed by staff

4.1 Children frequently and confidently use the IWB as part of lesson, often spontaneously and unplanned – ‘come and show me what you mean’ (Teacher G)

4.2 Incorporation of other input devices – for example, the IWB ‘Slate’ into normal lessons – see also CMP4.3

4.2 Use of hyperlinks and hypertext within and between programs and external resources – e.g. websites – non-linear thinking

4.2 Use of revised and ‘improved’ versions of previous lessons, with emphasis now on pupil learning rather than technical facility

4.3 Incorporation of other input devices – for example, the IWB ‘Slate’ into normal lessons

Figure 4. Stage 4: Advanced user.

Although beneficial in developing learning, the use of larger files (such as graphics and sound files) did create potential problems for teachers working outside of school. Teacher C noted that there was a need for school to provide teachers with large-capacity storage devices for home use, as the


343

files were too large for work outside of the school environment. A consequence of this is that schools will also need to provide compatible facilities within the school, so that resources developed at home can be added to the school network. Whilst the use of the network allows schools to do this centrally and access is available in individual classrooms, the implications for a school of over 20 staff all wanting to load resources centrally may mean that it would be better to provide resources in individual classrooms or within class ‘clusters’ or teams. In a small networked school this may not apply, but any small school without a network would need the facilities available in each classroom. Teacher C also noted the same problem in using certain software packages at home in that ‘some of us have got them at home, but some people’s computers won’t cope with them’.[3]

Although such concerns may appear negative features, the growing confidence of teachers, and the increased technical competence of the children, also allow more unplanned opportunities for children to use the IWB without damaging teacher confidence – presumably because these teachers are less concerned about knowing how to sort out any problems which may arise from children pressing something they should not, as stated earlier. As a consequence, in lessons by advanced users, children frequently and confidently use the IWB as part of lessons, often spontaneously and unplanned – ‘come and show me what you mean’ (Teacher G) (MS4.1 and CMP4.1).

Synergistic User

This growing equality of teacher and pupil represents the foundations of the final stage in the transition framework. Teachers are able not only to see how the technology works on a functional level, but are also able to see how this can be used to facilitate a synergy of learning in which pupils and teacher combine joint technical skills and teachers’ pedagogic vision to create a new learning praxis. It is the realisation that the IWB can create a new freedom in pedagogy, and is not an end in itself, or a means to deliver existing practice in another format, which perhaps encapsulates this final stage in the transition framework. All the teachers interviewed regarded the IWB as integral to their teaching, but the only teacher regarded as approaching a synergistic user focused on the opportunities offered by the IWB to create new learning scenarios (rather than reinterpreting existing strategies), where teacher and pupils work together to achieve learning objectives. The technology thus becomes a liberating force and allows children to interact confidently with, and respond to, the IWB at both a physical and cognitive level. A synergistic user demonstrates an intuitive interaction with technology which facilitates a fluid lesson structure (CMP5.1). Both teacher and pupils are able to construct meaning and dictate

Gary Beauchamp

344

the direction, momentum and scale of the next step in the lesson, although the teacher retains control of the central theme which is dictated by the learning objective of the lesson (CMP5.2).

Stage 5: synergistic user as above and in addition





5.1 High level of competence by pupils and teacher



5.1 Teachers demonstrate an intuitive interaction with technology which facilitates a fluid lesson structure

5.2 Both teacher and pupils are able to construct meaning and dictate the direction, momentum and scale of the next step in the lesson

Figure 5. Stage 5: Synergistic user.

Implications for Teacher Education and Training

If schools are to invest in using the IWB in the classroom, they should also be aware that an investment will be needed in preparing teachers for the new role, both in terms of technical competence and classroom pedagogy. At whatever scale the IWB is introduced, it should be part of a planned transition with suitable preparation time and appropriate budget prior to the arrival of the hardware. However, this is not to say that work cannot begin without an IWB in every classroom, as some of the necessary experience can be gained with school and home based PCs. In the course of the framework outlined above, it has been possible to identify specific computer skills which can be developed before teachers transfer to the IWB. Such an approach would help to ensure that the demands made upon teachers to learn new skills are thus restricted to those inherent to the IWB and associated software, rather than having to also learn generic new computer skills at the same time.


345

Technical Competencies

The interviews and classroom observations indicate that the following skills can usefully be learned on a PC prior to the move to IWBs in the classroom:

o navigate the operating system; o save and open files; o file management; o click and drag; o minimising and maximising windows and switching between open

programs; o use of imported existing graphics (clip art, pictures, etc.) from within

programs and from other sources, especially the Internet; o imported use of scanned images; o ability to use a search engine on the Internet; o ability to organise Internet pages into Favourites folders (see also file

management); o use of hyperlinks and hypertext within and between programs and

external resources – e.g. websites, moving between other pages within a file or hyperlinks from spelling lists and word banks.

Staff Development and Training

Although developing these technical skills will be beneficial across the curriculum, they do not address all the specific demands of the IWB. In the school studied there was a two-year preparation period, where all staff had group input on one IWB. Whilst this period of time was dictated by the new school building timescale, it does not seem unrealistic for schools to set aside a year of planned specific IWB training, before large-scale introduction of the IWB. There are obvious budgetary implications in this, and careful consideration is needed of the order and content of training given. One purpose of the progressive framework above is to help in this planning.

Once the IWB has been introduced, staff development can continue with INSET and peer support, again providing sufficient funds have been set aside. Indeed, such training should form an integral part of any budget involving the move to effective IWB use in primary classrooms. Most teachers interviewed stated that they would prefer to continue receiving training in specific programs after they had received initial generic input during the introduction of the IWB to the classroom or school. They stressed that this training should be planned so as to allow teachers sufficient time to incorporate the programs into lessons until they felt confident in using them, before embarking on training for another program. It seems likely from the interviews that the time taken in this process would vary from teacher to teacher and therefore, although whole-staff training

Gary Beauchamp

346

may be appropriate in the early stages of learning the IWB software, as teachers become more expert users there may be a need for schools to allow staff more freedom to attend training when and if required.

Conclusion

By observing teachers in a technology-rich primary school, and discussing their classroom practice, it has been possible to develop a progressive framework and developmental model for schools introducing the IWB. It has been noted that there is much that can be done to prepare staff prior to the arrival of IWBs, and that such a training model may be advantageous. In the early stages of IWB use, generic training input to large groups of teachers may be useful, but subsequently teachers need time to assimilate the lessons learned into their practice, until they feel confident in being able to cope with most facets of a program and other features of the technology. However, teachers will progress at different speeds and their training requirements will need to be met in a flexible and supportive environment. As their confidence grows, they will incorporate more child use of the board into their lessons and children themselves will become confident users of the technology. The objective of this training is to develop a synergy between teachers, their pupils and technology. The resultant synergistic user, or users, as this transition should also include pupils, should regard the IWB as a liberating and enabling tool which allows them to co-construct new understanding of both subject content and pedagogy in the primary classroom.

Correspondence

Dr Gary Beauchamp, Department of Education, University of Wales Swansea, Hendrefoelan, Swansea SA2 7NB, United Kingdom ([email protected]).

Notes

[1] Sentences written in Microsoft Word (prepared before lesson) and children required to select pen and colour from board software palette before adding to text.

[2] It is worth noting that most of the latter awareness was developed from discussion with, and suggestions by, colleagues. This situation does suggest that peer observation would be an extremely useful (not to say cost-effective) method of staff development.

[3] Computers had often been purchased by the teachers themselves in order to prepare for the move to new technology. Schools should be aware of this in any training development plan and budget for all staff to have access at


347

home to high-specification machines which will cope with the demands of software used in daily teaching.

References

Beauchamp, G. & Parkinson, J. (in press) Beyond the ‘Wow’ Factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard, School Science Review.

Becker, H. (1958) Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation, American Sociological Review, 28, pp. 652-660.

Bork, A. (2000) Learning Technology, EDUCAUSE Review, January/February. Available at: www.educause.edu/pub/er/archive.asp

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) (2001) Primary Schools of the Future: achieving today. Coventry: Becta.

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) (2002) ImpaCT2: final report. Coventry: Becta.

Chalkey, T.W. & Nicholas, D. (1997) Teachers’ Use of Information Technology: observations of primary school classroom practice, Aslib Proceedings, 49(4), pp. 97-107.

Eraut, M. (1991) The Information Society – a challenge for education policies? Policy, Options and Implementation Strategies. London: Cassell.

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D. & Pell, A. (1999) Inside the Primary Classroom – 20 years on. London: Routledge.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine.

Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2002a) The Interactive Whiteboard as a Force for Pedagogic Change: the experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority, in Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, pp. 5-19. Norfolk: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2002b) The Introduction of Interactive Whiteboards into Schools in the United Kingdom: leaders, led and the management of pedagogic and technological change, International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(24). Available at: www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume6/glover.html/

Goodison, T.A. (2002a) ICT and Attainment at Primary Level, British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, pp. 201-211.

Goodison, T.A. (2002b) Learning with ICT at Primary Level: pupils’ perceptions, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, pp. 282-295.

Harris, S. (2002) Innovative Pedagogical Practices Using ICT in Schools in England, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, pp. 449-458.

Hopkins, D. (2002) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Keeler, C.M. (1996) Networked Instructional Computers in the Elementary Classroom and their Effect on the Learning Environment: a qualitative evaluation, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), pp. 329-345.

Gary Beauchamp

348

Kennewell, S. (2001) Using Affordances and Constraints to Evaluate the Use of Information and Communications Technology in Teaching and Learning, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1&2), pp. 101-116.

Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2003) Student Teachers’ Experiences and Attitudes Towards Using Interactive Whiteboards in the Teaching and Learning of Young Children, in Proceedings of Young Children and Learning Technologies Conference. Sydney: International Federation for Information Processing.

Kennewell, S., Parkinson, J. & Tanner, H. (2000) Developing the ICT Capable School. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Lim, C.P. & Barnes, S. (2002) ‘Those Who Can, Teach’ – the pivotal role of teacher in the information communication and technologies (ICT) environment, Journal of Educational Media, 27(1/2), pp. 19-40.

McCormick, R. & Scrimshaw, P. (2001) Information and Communications Technology, Knowledge and Pedagogy, Education, Communication and Information, 1, pp. 37-57.

Moseley, D. & Higgins, S. (1999) Ways Forward with ICT: effective pedagogy using ICT for literacy and numeracy in primary schools. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.

NAACE/British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) (2001) Key Characteristics of Good Quality Teaching and Learning with ICT: a discussion document. NAACE/Becta.

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (2002) Innovative Classroom Practices using ICT in England. Slough: NFER.

Parkinson, J. & Hollamby, P. (2003) PowerPoint: just another slide show or a useful learning aid? School Science Review, 84(309), pp. 61-68.

Smeets, E. & Mooij, T. (2001) Pupil-centred Learning, ICT, and Teacher Behaviour: observations in educational practice, British Journal of Educational Technology, 23, pp. 403-417.

Somekh, B. & Davies, R. (1991) Towards a Pedagogy for Information Technology, The Curriculum Journal, 2, pp. 153-170.

Twining, P. (2002) Conceptualising Computer Use in Education: introducing the computer practice framework, British Educational Research Journal, 28, pp. 95-110.

Warren, C. (2003) Interactive Whiteboards: an approach to an effective methodology, Computer Education, 103, pp. 11-12.

Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A. & Tuson, J. (2000) Teachers and ICT: current use and future needs, British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, pp. 307-320.

teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in …...teacher use of the interactive whiteboard 329...

Documents