running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale

Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2001

257

Running with Technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school

DEREK GLOVER & DAVID MILLER Keele University, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This article reports on the impact on teaching of the introduction of interactive whiteboard technology into one secondary comprehensive school. It uses research evidence from a whole-staff questionnaire and in-depth structured interviews with one third of the staff. It outlines the views of both staff and students and describes the use, learning and teaching implications, problems and potential of the technology. Findings are related to two typologies – that of use as an aid to efficiency, extension or transformation in teaching, and that of teacher attitudes as missioners, tentatives or Luddites. It concludes that problems with use and limited impact on learning and teaching are more likely to occur where teachers fail to appreciate that interactivity requires a new approach to pedagogy. Training and personal development involving coaching and mutually reflective activity is of the greatest help to staff.

Background

There has been recent, and considerable, investment in the installation of interactive whiteboards in schools in the United Kingdom. In part this has been financed by specific grants through Department for Education and Skills (DfES) Technology College or Education Action Zone bids, and in part from resources found as part of planned annual budgets within schools. Where the former funding has occurred, there is a tendency for several interactive whiteboards to be installed, often on a ‘one per subject area’, or ‘one per block of classrooms’ basis. Where school budgets are being used, installation is much more piecemeal (Glover & Miller, 2001a). The school used for our research has secured funding through Technology College arrangements to allow for the widespread use of interactive whiteboards. Few schools are as well provided with multimedia technology but it is clear

Derek Glover & David Miller

258

that secondary schools are increasingly using interactive whiteboards in an experimental and developmental way. This is leading to significant pedagogic change by some technologically competent teachers in some secondary schools but there is a marked difference in the pace of change from school to school.

Effective teaching requires that the teacher is aware of and responds to the diversity of learning needs and learning styles within the group being taught, as shown, for example, by Tuohy (1999) and Joyce et al (1997). Teachers should, theoretically, be able to respond to the needs of individuals, subgroups and whole classes by drawing upon and then developing and annotating a range of saved material in the support of logical and reasoned learning. McCormick & Scrimshaw (2001) have indicated that this potential may not be realised unless technology is more than an aid to efficiency, or an extension device. For them pedagogic change is necessary so that the technology becomes a transformative device to enhance learning. Earlier researchers (Greiffenhagen, 2000; Malavet, 1998) have highlighted practical and methodological problems in the use of interactive whiteboards even where the transformative aim is the pedagogic goal of the teacher. For Guimares et al (2000) this new technology can enhance learning through a ‘process of co-construction’ sustained by ‘organic, adaptive and generative’ learning material. This implies that teachers should recognise and adopt a more interactive approach to teaching.

Theoretically, the interactive whiteboard is more than a computer, a projector or a screen – its sum is greater than its parts, and when all the technology is turned off the board surface can be used as a conventional dry-wipe whiteboard should it be required. It can enable the teacher to use high-quality material previously prepared by a teacher or group of teachers using software packages; to use multimedia material including electronic microscopes, video clips, board work, data tables, sketches, CD-ROM, or Internet images; and facilitates simulation activities incorporating student input and reasoned discussion, and immediate recording of the contents of the board at any stage in the development of an argument. However, if it is only being used as an adjunct to teaching its potential remains unrealised and pedagogic change may not occur.

Our aim in this research has been to ascertain the extent to which teachers recognise the potential of the technology as an aid to learning and the impact that it is having on the learning experience of students. We have already indicated the typology of type of use, varying from a teaching aid to a truly interactive device at the heart of all teaching, but we also explore a further typology. This reflects the attitude of the staff to working with and adapting to new technology on a continuum from the keen and competent ‘missioner’ using the technology in a fluent way in all teaching to the ‘Luddite’, who refuses to develop any facility in its use.

THE PEDAGOGIC IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

259

Methodology

To ascertain the extent to which pedagogic change is occurring within schools, the researchers used a questionnaire on the practicalities and nature of use with all 46 staff in a 750 student, co-educational, secondary comprehensive school catering for the 11-16 age range. The staff responded to a questionnaire with 19 items, some with closed answers, some with ranking of alternatives and some with opportunity for open comment. A copy is shown in Appendix A. We are aware that its use in one school offers only a limited sample but we were also aware that here all the leadership and management systems were in place to maximise opportunities for staff in a school that has been highly commended for its stimulating teaching and learning as a Technology College. In short, it demonstrates use in highly favourable conditions. The results were then analysed and 14 members of staff were interviewed in depth using a structured interview format to further probe issues of motivation and use. This group was chosen to give a range of interviewees from those using the technology in most lessons to those who were yet to use the technology at all. Groups of nine Year 8 and nine Year 9 students (12-14 years) were also interviewed to assess their views of the way in which teachers used the interactive whiteboards.

The school makes use of two technologies and this permits some comparison of the potential of each system.

a. The mathematics faculty have four sets of apparatus whereby the teacher’s computer is linked to a projector and this then displays computer-generated material onto a normal classroom whiteboard. The image projected onto the board can then be annotated with board pens, recalled by the teacher from a previous PowerPoint, Excel or similar file, and saved for future use. This system lacks true interactivity because annotations cannot be saved to the file, the images are controlled from the teacher’s computer rather than from the board, materials cannot be printed from screen (although they can be printed from the computer programme), and the board is not touch sensitive. Its great advantage is that it is less than half the cost of the alternative system. The view of the staff using the system is that, for their teaching purposes, the computer programmes and displays offer all that they require for effective teaching in their subject. They recognise however, that interactivity is not focused on the board because of a lack of flexibility – materials have to be pre-prepared. As a result lessons tend to follow a pattern of discussion, demonstration or example, and worked exercises constrained to some extent by these materials.

b. All other faculties with interactive whiteboards have one fully interactive system. In these the computer is linked to a projector and also to a touch-sensitive whiteboard. Images from the computer are then displayed on to the whiteboard, but there is reciprocity so that the computer can be controlled


260

from the whiteboard. This is done using an appropriate electronic ‘pen’ in much the same way as a mouse controls the cursor on a computer screen. The advantages of such a system are that the teacher remains at the front of the room and controls the computer from the screen, thus maintaining traditional ‘control’ of the group. The system also offers the opportunity for the board to be used as a normal whiteboard with highlighting, superposed comment or explanation, and labelling. These can all be on top of the images from computer software data, a video clip, a slide, or an Internet connection and so the process of editing, recording changes and building a sequential lesson flows seamlessly from the one control point. At any time the screen content can be saved to the computer and then printed off either as material for the group or as a record of the lesson for the teacher or absent students. Teachers commend the total flexibility that the system offers and where they are confident in its use observations indicate that they are more ready to respond to student need by resorting to the use of ‘normal’ board writing to illustrate a point.

Use

It has been argued (Greiffenhagen, 2000) that the availability of interactive whiteboards as a teaching aid is only of value where it becomes part of the regular pattern of classroom life – the novelty value may provide a temporarily heightened interest but it is only when the full potential is realised that all teaching can be enhanced. Of the 46 staff in the school 4% use whiteboards in most lessons, and 20% at least once per day. Of the remainder, 40% use it at least once per week, and 36% make occasional use of the facility. These figures were substantiated by the experience of the students, who thought that they had used the boards in an average of three lessons in the past week.

If over half the users only make limited use it could suggest that the whiteboards are standing unused for much of the week. Fourteen staff have access to the whiteboards because they are working in rooms in which they are installed, but the other respondents acknowledge that if they want access to the interactive whiteboards this can be arranged easily within faculties or in the information and communications technology (ICT) rooms. Examination of the relationship between the need to pre-book and use shows that the 71% who can access the boards at any time make the most positive comments on all aspects of use. Their enthusiasm has had a positive influence in that 88% of respondents believe that facilities are to be further developed in the school and interviews show the majority of staff to be enthusiastic about their potential. One managerial problem stems from the feeling of ‘being overlooked’ by those who are not high on the list to have the new facilities in their rooms.

It is significant that one of the problems noted by Greiffenhagen – that of underuse of facilities because of lack of training – is being overcome in


261

this sample with 97% of the teachers given general training for interactive whiteboard use. This is because of the priority given to the new technology by the school. Only 36%, however, say that they have had subject-specific training. This is possibly a reflection of the slowness with which the subject leaders have developed and shared particular pedagogies. Interview evidence shows that the general training provided by the suppliers had a great initial impact because of its slick presentation and high-quality prepared material. The long-term value of this type of training has, however, been questioned as shown in interview comments:

It fired me up to look at its possibilities and I was most impressed with the way in which the chap worked from the board, developed a seamless presentation and made it look so easy. When it came down to it I realised that we needed a great deal of time and the opportunity to find things out for ourselves. (Design technology teacher)

I know that we work in a Technology College and I know that I ought to be making more use of the whiteboards but I have been put off by the way in which the whiz kids can operate and I feel so lacking in competence beside them. If only there was the time to work it out and the softly softly approach could be used I would get there. (Humanities teacher)

But five of the interviewees spoke of the way in which staff are coaching one another and arrangements have been made to allow novice users to observe and work with colleagues as part of peer support in the development of software, the use of programmes and the use of the whiteboard for specific purposes:

We had to learn from a young member of staff but because we worked alongside him and we developed lessons together, we were prepared to use it for basic things – using Power Point at first but we got braver and now use it for the net, spreadsheets and that sort of thing. (Head of geography)

Impact on Teaching Method

Respondents were asked to rank the five advantages most frequently claimed by four main hardware suppliers for the interactive whiteboard as a teaching aid. The results are shown in Figure 1. This is based on the percentage of responses ranking each feature on a 1 to 5 scale and it is displayed in the order of the first ranking. The intended use of the board in lessons has to be thought through beforehand, at least in the early stages of the development of personal confidence by the teacher. As a result lesson planning is thought to be tighter by those making frequent use of interactivity. This has prompted discussion between subject staff on the aims


262

of a particular lesson, on alternative means of delivery, and on the potential for matching the teaching to group, if not individual, need. Interviewees spoke of the value of the shared development of material for topics and approaches to teaching. At its simplest staff feel that their teaching with the interactive whiteboard has a more clearly defined structure and planned progression. With confidence and developing skills staff illustrated enhanced learning through ‘attempts to prompt multiple intelligences and alternative learning styles in any one lesson’ (Head of English). Although more evenly ranked than other features, it is clear that teachers recognise that this occurs.

Questionnaire evidence indicates that improved presentation is the most frequent result of the technology. Teachers are aware that they are more able to respond to individual student need by using the facilities and rank this second to presentation. Appreciation of multimedia use is fairly evenly ranked. Surprisingly, the sales pitch that argues for the offprinting of lesson notes for later use by students is ranked as least significant. The teaching staff have so far made very limited use of print-offs from the screen either for class or individual student use but comments indicate that the potential has been recognised, although with reservations:

I am worried that the cost of offprints particularly in colour could be a disadvantage … and we also have to watch that we don’t fall into the trap of using too many worksheets by another name. (Head of faculty of technology)

Figure 1. The advantages of interactive whiteboards for teaching. These results confirm the interview evidence in that staff of this school were aware of the following:


263

… it adds a whole new dimension to the way in which we can do things and with Power Point as the driving programme we are sure that we offer the students a good standard of presentation of lessons (Head of faculty of mathematics)

and

… as soon as I saw what was going on to the screen I realised that I could respond to the differing visual and auditory learning strengths of the group ... it has made me think more about the impact of what I am offering the classes and as a result I am more careful in the structure of what I do. (Mathematics teacher)

But it is recognised that whilst there are strong advantages in student motivation there can be:

… problems when the lesson that has been prepared on disc doesn’t go exactly to plan and you have to think on your feet … but then teaching is like that anyway. (Languages teacher)

The use of saved work is a fundamental, but as yet underdeveloped, gain from the system with only 12% of all staff claiming that they always store their work, 33% sometimes doing so and only 20% rarely or never. Retrieval is seen as the basis of lesson planning on subsequent occasions either with the use of the last board as the starting point for progression or because it can be ‘retrieved to revise, revisit, adapt or consolidate’ (head of faculty of English).

The ability to save materials is seen as a means of teaching development based on reflections not just from lesson to lesson but also from year to year when:

… it is very useful as a means of planning on the basis of past teaching and following review with colleagues we can share, adapt and develop according to needs.

And:

… although you don’t use exactly the same lesson it helps to have the disc with the materials available for two or more classes in the same year group and this is of particular help when you teach a subject that involves limited contact with many groups. (Humanities teachers)

The importance of posting to the shared documents network for faculty and school was mentioned in the staff interviews but in discussion it was clear that teachers face a dilemma when:

I am happy to put my material into shared documents and hope that others may want to use it but as a professional I am reluctant to take plans and ideas from that source when it seems as if I am not doing my own work properly. (Science teacher)


264

Some of the open comment on questionnaires refers particularly to the capacity of the system to enhance ICT skills (16%), and to ensure that access to video, CD-ROM presentations and the Internet was available, and visible to all in the classroom (23%). Under such circumstances one teacher refers to:

… the instant access to material from a variety of sources and the possibility of using pre-prepared lessons that move without apparent effort from the visual to the verbal and back again. (Head of faculty of English)

A scientist referred to:

… the use of demonstration programmes for the whole class without the usual hustle round a monitor.

Other subject-specific advantages were mentioned for English (video clips), maths (translation, rotations, graphs), and science (microscopes, moving images).

Student reaction in group interviews supported most of the comments made above. For them lessons based on the whiteboard:

Seemed to be more interesting.

Were usually much more easy to follow and the teacher could go back over things if you needed it.

Could often help those who were having difficulty understanding.

Mean that the teacher has to have things ready and the lesson then goes better.

Motivation

Although the distinction between quality teaching and student motivation may be blurred, it is evident that those who have made use of the technology see this aspect as a separate gain from the technology:

Although the students haven’t ever made a big thing of it they do seem to be more attentive when the whiteboards are being used, and I think that they are now being more discerning about the way in which we present material. Because they expect the best we give the best. (Languages teacher)

Open comment further develops these ideas. Motivation is connected with the ‘cool’ image for 12% of respondents with words such as ‘modern image’, but 60% make reference to the enhanced interest arising from the use of good software programmes, high-quality presentations, and:


265

… the use of an approach which is up to the level of expectation for a generation which is so immersed in media that anything we can do pales into insignificance. (Humanities teacher)

And:

… the way in which it engages the students, maintains their interest, and motivates the less bookish. (English teacher)

A teacher who has developed an interest in the use of the technology after initial cynicism, sounded one note of caution that echoed a reluctance to admit the true benefits of the system:

… there is some concern that we put ourselves in the position where we have to produce media rather than lessons. (Humanities teacher)

Overall, the staff have concluded that where they are making occasional use of interactive whiteboards they find enhanced student interest but the mathematicians, who as a group of staff are making the fullest and most regular use of interactive boards, suggest that:

… once they become used to things you are forced back onto your ability to engage them with the lesson materials and approaches – the glitz soon goes! (Mathematics teacher)

The interview comments from the students also indicate that the motivational power of the technology could be overstated because:

Lessons are usually interesting and the whiteboard is only another way of getting the point across.

We are used to using computers in our work and the whiteboard is only another way of doing this.

Teachers sort of take things for granted and don’t like to make things special in case we expect it all the time.

Nine of the questionnaire respondents outline ways in which students become more engaged with the work because of the use of the technology in front of the class:

They love to make their own Power Point presentations and then readily assume the role of teacher … at the same time the class are more ready to watch and respond.

And:

students want to make the best possible impression on their mates and so strive to outdo each other in showing the capability of the technology … this helps the boys in particular to feel that they are achieving. (English teachers)


266

Motivation is clearly enhanced and there are five references to improved behaviour for some or all participating students:

Using students’ work as a stimulus to the lesson does a lot to keep them on task. (Humanities teacher)

Above all:

Students learn quicker because they are able to follow the argument being set out by the teacher who can then pick up and reinforce teaching and learning about difficult concepts. (Head of faculty of mathematics)

Figure 2. The advantages of interactive whiteboards for student motivation. There is generally even ranking for the attraction provided by the brighter presentation made possible by well-prepared lessons using the whiteboards. Interest arising from the use of multimedia approaches is not yet highly rated possibly because the majority of staff are ‘learning slowly from our colleagues, or students doing teacher training’. The possibility of offering flexible responses to individual student need is also not yet ranked highly and this may indicate further training needs. Open comment does, however, indicate awareness of the need to match teaching method to enhanced student experience with a:

… need to use it to the full to meet the needs of some of the lower ability students. (Mathematics teacher)

… need for earlier and better preparation but then once the material is there it can be developed and amended from year to year. (Head of faculty of languages)


267

… need to develop facility in use so that I can use it to access material from the internet without delay. (Humanities teacher after attempting video conferencing with East Africa)

The immediate advantage is that:

it means that lessons are more self-contained and structured because you have to have things well-prepared beforehand and that has got to be the biggest plus! (English teacher)

Problems in the Use of the Technology

Interview evidence in other schools associated with this investigation suggests that, at least in the initial stage of introduction, teachers are hesitant about changing pedagogy in case they are let down by their ineptitude with the basic technology. With the generous but still limited distribution of equipment in the sample school it could be thought that there would be problems arising from access. However, room booking is not ranked as a first priority problem by any respondent and is rated as the least significant of problems overall. Comparative figures are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Problems encountered in the use of interactive whiteboards.

The use of the equipment for full class visibility can be problematic where the conventional whiteboard:


268

… is frequently used but has to be put to the side of the whiteboard so one third of the class cannot really see what the teacher is doing’. (Humanities teacher)

Overcoming a feeling of ineptitude and developing facility in the use of the technology to maximise the impact of teaching potential is ranked highly as a current inhibitor by two thirds of the respondents. Overwhelmingly, in the cohort of 200 polled in another part of the research there is a feeling that they have insufficient time to develop the technology and the materials for its successful use. In the school under review this was a first priority for 58% of the respondents, but there is clear evidence that:

… once you get the hang of things, and provided you realise that it will take you two or three years to build up a good library of materials and documents, the time taken is vastly overstated – after all it takes time to get things on to the laptop as you plan anyway. (Humanities teacher)

One of the problems is that the use of linked multimedia also takes time to organise and requires further training. This ranks alongside technological ineptitude as a concern. Unsurprisingly, those who make regular use of the interactive whiteboards minimise this as ‘just another use of the computer’ but three of those interviewed spoke of lack of confidence as a barrier to use, especially if:

… it is a group that you could have problems with … but it can be overcome if you always have the strategies you used to use up your sleeve until you are on top! (Mathematics teacher)

Comment details many aspects of technological problems noted by half the users:

My worry is still that the wires might just get in the way of student movement.

… the possibility that supply teachers might use the boards in the wrong way although the students have learned to yell out when somebody goes to use the wrong marker.

… freezing of the screen just at a crucial point … and the need to get technological help that might not be readily available.

Above all there has been concern with the repeated failure of the flipchart software used to retrieve the data on screen after student annotation:

… it is so frustrating when you have developed the lesson to that point and then find that you can’t save what the youngsters have done to use as a starting point for the next lesson. (Languages teacher)

Teachers comment on the lack of suitable software although they acknowledge that the amount is growing. They also speak of the need for time to:


269

… explore and get confident in the use of the software that comes with the machine – it takes time to be as good as their demonstrators and we need to be as competent as that if we are to use it as other than an add-on to the lessons. (Science teacher)

That said, there is no doubt that teachers do not make too much of the problems and one comments very positively:

It is a matter of familiarity … I am going to (move to) a school that hasn’t got such a level of provision and I realise that I will have to rethink the way in which I approach my teaching especially where you want to use material from several sources. (English teacher)

The students appear more phlegmatic than the staff in these matters, reporting that:

It doesn’t often go wrong and when it does the teacher gets on with things.

There is usually someone in the room who can make a comment that might help but we aren’t allowed to call out.

It seems to me that we couldn’t learn Maths half as well if we didn’t have the computers and the screens because we use them as part of the way of learning.

Further Training

The results outlined above offer some indicators for future training programmes. The investigation sought to clarify the extent of use of other equipment jointly with the interactive whiteboards. This could develop the potential of the technology to offer what is shown on the small screen to the class-wide audience. The use of video and the Internet is already well developed as a teaching aid, with the use of each exceeding 25% of the respondents, and 20% refer to the use of PowerPoint and Excel programs as the basis of their teaching. However, the failure of staff to realise the multimedia potential of the technology is shown in that only 5% use video clips, microscopes, or computer-assisted design, and only one respondent has, as yet, used a digital camera or video conferencing. These results suggest that the staff as a whole are still at the stage of using technology as an interest enhancer rather than as a new approach to learning.

When asked to specify their training needs, one third mentioned difficulty in learning the techniques and in planning lessons. One commented positively that problems had been overcome because of the availability of laptop computers for staff use at home and:

… it is becoming less of a problem as I develop my ability to use the processes that I have learned. (Humanities teacher)


270

Generic skills are also as important as time to some respondents. One comments that:

I need to go beyond the basic to develop things like sequential diagrams, clipcharts using stuff from the web;

and:

… they are a really exciting tool, and I want to learn to use the software properly so that I can overcome the ‘use it or lose it’ syndrome. (English teachers)

The needs analysis suggests that 65% of the staff require opportunities to explore the potential of the technology in association with other users in their subject area. Coaching has obviously played its part so far but one head of department argues:

… we have got to get beyond the stage of knowing how to use the equipment, to ask ourselves, why we are using it … and if we can’t improve our teaching then we ought to be honest and revert to conventional approaches. (Head of faculty of English)

Conclusions

The general enthusiasm for the use of interactive whiteboards is inescapable in this school, with most staff questioned and interviewed aware of its potential and prepared to learn and develop techniques for enhanced teaching and learning. This has been helped by in-service training, not directly associated with technology, but aimed at raising staff awareness of multiple intelligences and alternative learning preferences in a way that means they are constantly striving to match student needs. Philosophically, most staff are in favour of the technology and enthusiastic about its use. In practical and pedagogic terms, however, the technology is apparently underdeveloped and student evidence suggests that despite good intentions by many staff it may well be currently underused.

In particular:

o There appears to be little difference in teacher enthusiasm for the limited system in use in mathematics and the more sophisticated system available elsewhere in the school – does this indicate that cheaper systems available in more rooms could be cost-effective or would the loss of board-driven interactivity be too great?

o The systems have been introduced in a way that ensures wide availability and the teaching staff have been given every support in the use of the basic technology but there is evidence that the teaching potential is only being fully developed by those who have access in their normal teaching rooms on a regular basis.


271

o Where the technology is in use it is generally linked to PowerPoint and other Microsoft programs. It is then used as an extension of the computer. This limits full interactivity with spontaneous use of the full range of multimedia resources. Additional coaching personnel and time are needed on a one to two or three basis to ensure that subject-specific training needs can be met. Those who are conversant and confident in the use of the technology can then help those who are still rather timid about its use.

o Compared with the other schools visited in this investigation, little use appears to be being made in the school of the saving potential of the technology except as a teacher record. It may be that teaching approaches have minimised the need for saving but there may be potential in the offprinting of developmental material or in the production of notes for those students who for some reason miss a lesson.

o Staff spoke enthusiastically of the way in which they posted materials to shared document facilities. Conversations with staff indicate that there is then some reluctance to draw upon the work of colleagues. It is possible that there is a tension between the collegiality that is strong in the school in terms of helping each other, and a feeling that there would be some loss of professionalism if use could be made of work produced by a colleague. This seems to indicate missed opportunities for some time saving but reflects an underlying professional self-sufficiency. The head teacher is encouraging ‘the celebration of sharing so that we work more smartly’.

o Leadership at school and department level has related the use of the technology to the philosophy and practice of teaching and learning and it is significant that no respondent has seen the whiteboard as a panacea for classroom management difficulties. Indeed, the staff accept that it is only where classes are fully under control and motivated to learn before new approaches are tried, that the interactive whiteboards can be developed.

o Compared with the national picture, there was little evidence of staff resistance to consider the use of new technology. Rather, they are keen to have access to the technology, want to develop their capacity to use it, and then wisely see themselves as gaining competence in more complex processes over a period of up to 3 years.

This investigation sought to describe the practicalities of large-scale interactive whiteboard use within one school in a favourable context. Analysis of the questionnaire and interview responses on an individual basis shows that the emerging pattern of pedagogy reflects two factors.


272

Use in Teaching

Following the analysis offered by McCormick & Scrimshaw (2001), staff are using the interactive whiteboards in one of three ways:

o as an aid to efficiency – shown in humanities teaching, where the enhanced screen size has led to improved vision of video material;

o as an extension device – shown in science teaching with the integration of multimedia materials to the point that the quality of teaching is improved;

o as a transformative device – shown in mathematics teaching, where learning takes place through board interaction and associated group and class discussion.

Attitude to Technology

Following the analysis used by Glover & Miller (2001b), staff tend to follow three attitudes to the technology:

o as missioners intent on securing a following for the technology based upon their own enthusiasm and obvious technical skills and with a readiness to embrace interactive learning styles;

o as tentatives prepared to use the technology but lacking the confidence to change their approaches to teaching so that there is only limited development of interactive learning;

o as Luddites unwilling to make use of the technology except as an improved visual aid and with no shift from largely transmissive teaching styles.

After discussion with the head teacher, and with guarantees of confidentiality, the respondents were classified using the two typologies.

Only five of the 46 staff can be considered to be making full use of the technology, with evidence of changing teaching techniques and a determination to make interactivity a tool in effective learning. They are keen to use the technology at its inception in the school and have devoted a great deal of time to the production of materials and to persuading colleagues of the value of changed approaches and increased interactivity and flexible learning. They offer a clearly reasoned match between individual and group learning needs and the wealth of stimulation that can be provided. They show evidence that they are ‘transformative’ users and have the confidence to use technology as missioners.

Thirty-eight teachers have made some attempt to use the interactive whiteboards for extension of teaching or to aid efficiency. They are gaining in confidence and readiness to experiment. The use they make is, however, limited to some but not all lessons and it is minimally interactive. Eighteen of this group have, however, made attempts to secure further training within their subject areas, and so whilst tentative they are increasingly positive and are anxious to be supported by missioner colleagues, especially in three


273

faculty areas. The remaining 20 are also tentative with limited use of the technology but they show signs of procrastination because of ‘lack of appropriate software in the subject’, ‘a real fear that I cannot sustain the use over a period of time’ and ‘an order of priorities that puts this low on my training needs’. This subgroup could be said to be compliant rather than positive.

Fortunately for this school, there are only three Luddites, totally opposed to the introduction of any pedagogic and technological change. They have not made any use of the interactive whiteboards and have actively undermined some of the tentatives who are seeking to improve. It is clear that their reactionary attitudes are a problem in other areas of school management.

Such a classification is of limited help to the school because, as the head teacher says, it ‘adds substance to something we already thought we knew’. Nevertheless, the value of this sort of investigation is that the overall school survey, the discussion of results and then the use of a self-evaluation exercise leading to categorisation of teaching approaches have prompted staff to see that pedagogic change is essential for the efficient and effective use of new technology. A programme of coaching opportunities has now been instituted for each subject area and timetable time has been provided on a termly basis to allow all staff in each subject area to have half a day for reflective developmental planning directed at improved teaching using the whiteboards. It remains to be seen whether the compliant tentatives and the Luddites can be won over.

Correspondence

Professor Derek Glover, Department of Education, Keele University, Keele ST5 5BG, United Kingdom ([email protected]).

References

Glover, D. C. & Miller, D. (2001a) A Report to Blackburn and Colne EAZ [Education Action Zone] on New Technologies. Keele: Department of Education

Glover, D. C. & Miller, D. (2001b) Missioners, Tentatives and Luddites: leadership challenges for school and classroom posed by the introduction of interactive whiteboards into schools in the United Kingdom. Paper for the BEMAS Conference, Newport Pagnell, October.

Greiffenhagen, C. (2000) A Report into Whiteboard Technologies. Unpublished memorandum. Oxford: Computing Laboratory.

Guimares, N., Chambel, T. & Bidarra, J. (2000) From Cognitive Maps to Hypervideo: supporting flexible and rich learner-centred environment, Interactive Multi-media Electronic Journal of Computer Enhanced Learning, 2(2). Available on-line at http://www.imej.wfu.edu/articles/2000/2/index.asp


274

Joyce, B., Calhoun, E. & Hopkins, D. (1997) Models of Learning – tools for teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Malavet, P. A. (1998) Interactive Whiteboards: the technology of the future working with traditional pedagogical methodology. Gainesville: College of Law.

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

Tuohy, D. (1999) The Inner World of Teaching: exploring assumptions. London: Falmer Press.

APPENDIX A. Topics in Questionnaire to Teaching Staff

Subject area? How frequently do you use interactive whiteboards in teaching? Most lessons O At least once a day O At least once a week O Occasionally O How many interactive whiteboards are available in the school? Do you have to pre-book interactive whiteboard facilities? Yes O No O Are interactive whiteboard facilities to be extended in the school? Yes O No O Don’t know O Have you had general training in the use of interactive whiteboards? Yes O No O Have you had subject specific training in the use of interactive whiteboards? Yes O No O What do you consider to be your greatest training need in the use of interactive whiteboards?


275

The claimed motivational advantages for students for the use of interactive whiteboards are as follows. Please rank these from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest) on the basis of your experience.

Advantage RankAttracts interest Brighter presentation Multimedia use Technological flexibility Meets learning needs

What other motivational advantages have you noticed? The claimed teaching advantages for students for the use of interactive whiteboards are as follows. Please rank these from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest) on the basis of your experience.

Advantage Rank Brighter presentation Tighter lesson structure Use of multimedia Available screen prints Meeting varying learning needs

What other teaching advantages have you noticed? Frequently mentioned problems in the use of interactive whiteboards are given below. Please rank these from 1 (highest significance) to 5 (lowest significance) on the basis of your experience.

Problem Rank Room booking Vision for entire class Time for preparation Technological ineptitude Multimedia problems

What other problems have you noticed? How often do you save and store material from lessons using interactive whiteboards? Always O Mostly O Sometimes O Rarely O Never O


276

What do you consider to be the advantages of saving your work in this way? How has the interactive whiteboard affected your approach to teaching and learning? The interactive whiteboard is a means to the wider use of technology in the classroom. Please indicate any joint use e.g. with Internet, microscope, video etc. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the use of interactive whiteboards.


277


278

running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale

Documents