The impact of IWBs on The impact of IWBs on literacy and numeracy literacy and numeracy teaching in primary teaching in primary schools schools Professor Steven Higgins Professor Steven Higgins School of Education School of Education Durham University Durham University [email protected][email protected]
30
Embed
The impact of IWBs on literacy and numeracy teaching in primary schools
The impact of IWBs on literacy and numeracy teaching in primary schools. Professor Steven Higgins School of Education Durham University [email protected]. Overview. 30 month project 2002-04 Evaluating PNS ‘Embedding ICT’ pilot 6 LEAs; 84 schools; all Y5 & Y6 classes Formative data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The impact of IWBs on literacy The impact of IWBs on literacy and numeracy teaching in primary and numeracy teaching in primary
schoolsschoolsProfessor Steven HigginsProfessor Steven Higgins
Discourse move Whole class Boy Girl Other Total Spontaneous contribution 2.7 58.1 38.4 0.9 100% Answer* 8.2 49.9 41.4 0.5 100%
Feedback and gender
Evaluation type Boys Girls Total Praise* 55.0 45.0 100.0% Accept* 49.6 50.4 100.0% Criticise 58.4 41.6 100.0% Contribution type Procedural 51.9 48.1 100.0% Curricular 65.3 34.7 100.0%
Gender differences
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Open q
uesti
on
Closed
ques
tion
Repea
t que
stion
Uptake
ques
tion
Probe
Evalua
tion
Explai
n
Direct
Refocu
s
Presen
t
Sponta
neou
s con
t
Answer
Per
cent
age
cont
ribu
tion
IWB
Other
Girl
Boy
Whole class
Girls and boys participation• Boys get more frequent attention
– Closed questions, direction, evaluation and refocus, praise
• Average duration of moves remains constant• Disproportionate increase in attention as ratio
of boys to girls increases• IWB makes no difference - increase in
responses - faster pace
Pupils’ views• Twelve group interviews (72 pupils)• Pupils very positive about IWBs
– multimedia features– believed IWB helped them to pay better attention – Most liked having their work shown on the IWB – Mathematics the most popular lesson
• Pupils identified the common technical and logistical problems– Recalibration, bright sunlight, moving objects hard to see, some
colours difficult to read
• Universally wanted to use the board more themselves
Pupil attitudes• Quantitative web survey in pilot schools
• Some evidence it slows the increase of negative attitudes between Y5 and Y6
– on their teaching– about the training and support– and that the IWB improved confidence in using ICT
• 100% thought it helped achieve teaching aims– the range of resources available, – the stimulating nature of the technology and multimedia– the flexibility that the technology offers.
• 99% believed that it improved pupils’ motivation • 85% believed it would lead to improved attainment
Teachers’ views• 71% reported doing more whole class teaching• 81% said workload had increased due to the IWB
– 35% of these believed this was temporary as they developed and stored their resources
• 56% said they had not noticed any differences between boys and girls in relation to the IWB
• 44% said they had noticed differences, usually a positive impact on boys (more motivated and interested or more focused and involved).
But…
• IWB schools performed very slightly better on national tests in mathematics and science after one year (effect size of 0.1 maths and 0.11 sci both sig. ; 0.04 English ns.)
• After two years, once ‘embedded’, no (sig.) difference• Pupil-level data similar very small improvements after one
year and no difference after two.• Some evidence that IWBs improve performance of low-
achieving pupils in English - with greatest impact on writing.• Impact broadly similar for both boys and girls.
Speculations• Classrooms have strong discourse structures• IWBs have an impact on interaction• Subject pedagogy is more robust than technology
pedagogy• Boys are more evident in discourse, but not better
at learning– Participation in lessons but not participation in learning?
• What did the IWB replace and what did the teachers stop doing?
Interactivity
Technical interactivity
Teaching interactivity
PublicationsSmith, F., Higgins, S and Hardman, F. (2007) Gender inequality in the primary classroom: will interactive
whiteboards help? Gender and Education 19
Smith, H. and Higgins, S. (2006) Opening Classroom Interaction: The Importance of Feedback Cambridge Journal of Education 36.4 pp. 485–502.
Smith, F., Hardman, F. and Higgins, S. (2006) The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies British Educational Research Journal 32.3 pp 443-457.
Wall, K., Higgins, S. and Smith, H (2005) ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards British Journal of Educational Technology 36.5 pp 851-867.
Hall, I and Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 pp 102-117.
Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J. (2005) Interactive Whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 pp 91-101.
Higgins, S., Falzon, C.,Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F., Smith, H. and Wall, K. (2005) Embedding ICT In The Literacy And Numeracy
Strategies: Final Report Newcastle: Newcastle University.
ReferencesSinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the
English used by teachers and pupils London, Oxford University Press.
Smith, F. & Hardman, F. (2003) Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing classroom interaction, Educational Studies, 29(1), 39–47.