ICT in learning and teaching
Findings from qualitative research
Interactivity
Interactive whiteboards provide a shared pedagogical space where teachers and pupils can interact with curriculum content and one another. Not only does it focus the individual pupils on the learning resource but it also provides a communal image and space and encourages socially supported learning. In most KS1 classrooms pupils were not only invited to write on the board but were encouraged to manage its functions.
Key Stage 2 classrooms were more formally laid out, though some did have a gathering space at the front. Nevertheless, it was common for pupils to be asked to come forward and either write on the boards or type into the computer to move the lesson forward. The interactivity was also implicit in the questioning and discussion that took place, often stimulated by the images presented using the classroom technologies. Using the ActivSlate meant that the teacher could stand anywhere in the room (often at the back, ensuring that the children were totally focused on the screen) and also that the children could interact with the resource without moving from their seats, which made it quicker.
Interactivity does, of course, vary with the phase of schooling. Teachers of primary pupils generally reported that pupils were attentive during the parts of the lesson when the interactive whiteboard is being used, and are keen to 'have a turn'. This may be to do with having an audience. For some older Key Stage 2 children, writing on the interactive whiteboard in front of the whole class opens them up to public viewing, which some pupils do not enjoy ('I was dead nervous, man'), but in many classes it was a normal and accepted activity. By contrast, using the ActivSlate meant that pupils in Key Stage 2 were able to remain in their own seats, where the teacher felt they were more comfortable. A secondary teacher, however, commented that, although Key Stage 3 students like to go up to the interactive whiteboard and use the pens, Year 10 and 11 students don't want to do this because 'they're a bit more grown up'. This would seem, however, not the universal experience.
In some classrooms an even larger screen, a computer, data projector and wireless tablet together offer similar functionality to a whiteboard and can be used with similar software, enabling teachers and pupils to move letters around the screen, highlight text and annotate material as well as interact with any program. Where visualisers are used they are not in themselves 'interactive' but pupils do use them to demonstrate their work (writing on a sheet of paper or filling in the answers to a workbook) instead of writing on a whiteboard. Visualisers can also be used to project and magnify whatever is being done under the camera - demonstrating wiring a plug or dissecting a flower, for example. The pupils also like putting their own completed (handwritten work) on the visualiser so that they can share it with the rest of the class. The advantage of both the visualiser and wireless tablet is that they are writing in a plane they are used to (they are horizontal like a desk, not upright) and use natural sized handwriting which is then blown up on the large screen. The pupils do, however, have the complication of having to interact with two surfaces at once, the tablet on which they are writing and the screen on which it appears, and some pupils do not initially find this easy. In many schools these resources have been introduced in phases and therefore teacher expertise and confidence with all the elements of the classroom technology are currently more variable.
In secondary schools and in FE the interactivity was generally built in through questioning and discussion, and also through individual written activities in the handouts that were interspersed throughout the lesson. In well conducted lessons, the whole-class technologies proved an aid to stimulating discussion and participation. Some secondary lessons did, however, involve student interaction using the board and in some FE sessions, with a small number of students, the board was used as a working area where students were fully involved with the various activities. In one FE session in particular it was recognised as a focus to encourage students to talk more to each other, and to share, and the IWB appeared to work well.
Questions that remain to be answered
This research suggests many positive consequences of the investment in whole-class technologies. Questions still remain, however, about whether the classrooms have significantly changed in terms of children's learning and whether the technologies have helped develop the pedagogic skills of teachers.
- Whole-class technologies change the ambiance of the classroom. There is the dominating effect of a large bright screen, the tactile nature of the interaction, the teacher as entertainer/performer, and the novelty effect. This has significant potential for pedagogy, which some teachers claim to be exploring in innovative ways. It often appears, however, that the significance only lies in the way that display technologies make it easier to integrate the various types of media and present materials attractively. Where this is the case, whilst the technologies are valuable they are not necessarily innovative. In our limited observations it was in the imaginative use of the IWB in KS1, the use of classroom-made videos, and potentially the use of new assessment and administrative tools, which was truly innovative.
- The practitioners observed in these 24 lessons were competent users of classroom technologies. This is evidence of improved technical skills. Evidence from other visits suggests that other individuals and teams have developed at different rates. So are we seeing different levels of technical and pedagogical skills? What produces good skill/pedagogic development and what causes the differences? Is it a result of sharing of skills/practice within departments? Between schools? Is it pressure from learners or colleagues? More exploration is needed to ascertain the significant factors in teachers' ICT development.
- Individuals are building up banks of resources, and resources are being shared within schools and colleges, particularly within primary year groups or secondary school/FE departments. This was regarded positively by most staff involved in this research. Some critical analysis of the quality of resources is needed. Is the technical support of a team of experts, commissioning and payment for content to be made available one way forward or do teachers need to 'own' the resource? In the FE sector, there is a large bank of highly interactive online materials - centrally developed using a learning object approach, created by commercial multimedia companies at high cost (£20M). The use of the materials in the sector is so far generally below expectations. ICT Test Bed colleges are looking at how the materials can be used but no use was observed or mentioned in the lessons. Critically assessing available content takes time and teachers perhaps feel that creating their own resources is more productive, more attuned to their pupils' needs and it is easier to recall what it can do. In the development of the VLEs it will be interesting to monitor the way in which they are utilised.
- There are notable differences in observed levels of maturity of classroom technology use (including pupil interaction with technology). Is this a function of the types of technology or the method of introduction? It is clear that installing a visualiser and interactive tablet linked to a computer and data projector, as opposed to an interactive whiteboard, allowed teachers to adopt the individual technologies one at a time over a longer period of time, with the result that wireless tablets and even visualisers were not yet in regular use in all classrooms where they had been installed by the autumn of 2004. On the other hand, it may be that a staged introduction will lead to a more gradual maturity compared to a large and sudden injection of technology which leads to too rapid development (in the sense that it might satiate the learner). The key question is which approach will give most pedagogic change in the long term?
- Teachers have taken specific interests in particular new resources that fit with their curriculum needs or meet individual preferences. Do we have real evidence of change in teaching style or is this a matter of individual teacher attitude and style? Are teachers merely extending what they have always done when using the new technologies? Genuinely innovative work was evident in some classrooms: for example, where pupils' use of video cameras was linked with whole-class technologies, and in one Year 6 class where all pupils had been given their own wireless laptop computers and link their use to the interactive whiteboard. Providing different sets of computer-based learning activities, linked with the use of whole-class technologies, improved differentiation in an innovative way. However, this level of innovation was not general across the 24 classrooms.
- The classroom technologies have had a positive impact on structure and pace within a lesson, largely because resources are ready prepared but can still be easily adapted or annotated during the lesson. This has meant that material is covered more efficiently, opening up space for more repetition or further discussion. It is interesting to ask whether the curriculum is being enriched, or merely accelerated, as a consequence. Both alternatives clearly have important benefits. Positive effects were noted on learner skills perhaps owing to increased practice time as a result of speedier initial delivery by the teacher.
- In the FE colleges the lessons using whole-class technology provided little evidence of differentiated learning taking place. This is a matter of concern since classes with an over reliance on whole-class teaching are not well regarded by inspectors. It may be that the presence of the whole-class technologies reinforces the ease of whole-class teaching so that teachers get caught up in the technology and interactive learning takes second place. This may be of less concern in schools where there has been an explicit policy requirement for teachers to engage in more whole-class teaching. However, the new policy emphasis on personalised learning indicates that schools, too, need to take more account of the need for learner interactivity.
- There may be a danger of overuse of PowerPoint. The 'bullet point' metaphor, which suggests that learners are the target of teacher-prepared information, is not insignificant. The researchers saw some innovative use of PowerPoint, but in some classrooms it seems that teachers spend too much time reading slides aloud to classes. Is there is a shortage of pedagogic skills in using PowerPoint to create effective learning activities? How could this be developed?
- In view of current policy initiatives to encourage personalized learning from primary schools through to learners of all ages, it is important to ask how the increasing use of whole-class technologies could help with progressing learners' Individual Learning Plans. If the new emphasis on personalised learning indicates a move away from regarding whole-class teaching as the preferred norm, does this have implications for high levels of investment in technologies which specifically support and encourage whole-class teaching?
- In some FE classrooms there was no clear acceptance that the IWB was 'worth the investment'. There is a feeling that what the whiteboard adds to a lesson is not very significant over what can be done using a data projector and an ordinary whiteboard (technology that has been in use in colleges for maybe 4-5 years - although certainly not in all curriculum areas). Whilst this is far from a universally held view, the advantages need to be systematically considered and the investment weighed against these gains. The active participation of younger pupils would certainly support the IWB at that stage of schooling, and the management of the images seen in mathematics lessons and text manipulation seen in KS2 would be strong incentives for the investment. Evidence of effective use in some subjects at secondary level, (modern foreign language lessons, for example) also supports further investment in IWBs, but the value in some other subjects may be more questionable.