Introduction
The Interactive Whiteboard in the classroom
Conclusions and directions for further action/research

Interactive Whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study

Philippa Levy

Department of Information Studies (DIS), University of Sheffield

January 2002

This report draws on Masters dissertation research carried out by Clara Crehan and Chrispin Hamooya, DIS, University of Sheffield, 2000-2001.

1. Introduction

This is the final report of a small-scale study that focused on the introduction of Interactive Whiteboard (IW) technology into classroom teaching in two Sheffield secondary schools. This introductory section explains its context, purposes and methodology. Section 2 summarises key findings, and Section 3 draws conclusions and identifies directions for future action/research.

1.1 Context and purposes

As noted by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTa), new technologies that facilitate whole-class teaching “aim to enable access to and use of digital resources for the benefit of the whole class while preserving the role of the teacher in guiding and monitoring learning”. BECTa also draws attention to aspects of good practice in whole-class teaching:

“High-quality direct teaching is oral, interactive and lively… It is a two-way process in which pupils are expected to play an active part by answering questions, contributing points to discussions, and explaining and demonstrating their methods to the class. Advances in technology means that ICT [information and communications technology] can now play an important role in the classroom, supporting the teacher and enabling whole class interactive teaching” (www.becta.org.uk, accessed 15/12/01).

Interactive Whiteboard technology offers one approach to ICT-based classroom teaching, and its use is becoming increasingly widespread in both primary and secondary schools. The technology comprises three main pieces of equipment: a computer connected to a projector and a touch-sensitive whiteboard. The computer screen image is projected onto the whiteboard, from which an electronic ‘pen’ allows the computer to be controlled. BECTa suggests that amongst other benefits, the IW enables enhanced presentation of content, allows students to absorb information more easily and to participate in classroom discussions by freeing them from copious note taking; and saves teachers valuable preparation time. It also suggests that because it supports familiar front-of-class delivery, IW technology may encourage ‘technophobic’ teachers to adopt ICT (see www.becta.org.uk). However, there has been little systematic research as yet into the impact of IW technology on educational practices and outcomes, or into the staff and other development issues involved in the adoption of this new technology.

This small-scale research project was initiated by Sheffield City Learning Centres (CLCs) to explore teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of the impact of adopting Promethean™ IW technology in two secondary schools (City School and Yewlands School; henceforth CS and YS), and to investigate some of the issues arising at an early stage of implementation. The Promethean™ system offers is composed of the following main elements:

· ACTIVboard and pen, enabling activities such as direct writing onto the board, on-screen editing including highlighting, labelling and erasing of content;

· ACTIVstudio software, enabling activities such as storage, retrieval and integration of multimedia resources (video, animation, graphics, text and audio); use of ‘flipcharts’ that simulate traditional white- or blackboard presentation; use of pre-installed content; handwriting recognition; Web browsing; annotation and saving of changes; export of files to intranet or other destinations;

· ACTIVslate, enabling students to contribute to IW presentations by using a small, portable screen with an electronic pen, rather than by directly annotating the ACTIVboard itself;

· ACTIVote, a voting keypad enabling students to respond to assessment and other questions, which then can be analysed and presented rapidly by the ACTIVstudio software;

· ACTIVprep-pad, a small graphics tablet acting as a portable preparation tool for teachers.

In focusing on IW-based innovation in the two schools, the project’s purposes were both developmental and strategic. A key objective for the CLCs is to ensure that the development of new educational practice is collaborative, self-reflective and grounded in evidence about what works (or does not work) in relation to educational goals in specific contexts. The project’s aim was to assist the CLCs to begin to monitor systematically the process and impact of IW innovation from the perspectives of key stakeholders – learners and teachers – as a means of identifying pointers to good practice and issues for further development. It should therefore be seen as an exercise in formative, rather than summative, evaluation. (It is perhaps worth emphasizing, in the light of this, what the project was not designed to do: it was not designed to assess the quality of educational performance against pre-identified criteria; to compare the achievements of the two schools or of individual teachers; to evaluate the features of the specific IW system; or, to compare IW-based teaching with other methods.) From a strategic perspective, a further aim of the project was to work towards establishing a longer-term (and broader-based) research arm within the CLC initiative, through collaboration with researchers in educational informatics in DIS, at The University of Sheffield.

1.2 Scope and methodology

The project was taken forward through two, complementary Masters dissertation projects by students in DIS, that were carried out between April and September, 2001. Their projects focused on:

· the impact of IWs on teaching in a range of subject areas – teachers’ perspectives (Chrispin Hamooya, MA Library and Information Management);

· the impact of IWs on pupils’ learning experiences in a range of subject areas – learners’ perspectives (Clara Crehan, MSc Information Systems).

Key research questions were as follows:

· What are teachers aiming to achieve in using the IWs?

· How are they using them, in a range of subject areas?

· What is seen to work well? Less well?

· Perceived benefits? Difficulties?

· How does the IW change how teachers teach, and learners learn?

· What conclusions can be reached about good practice? Further development?

In terms of its broad methodological framework, an action research approach was taken to the project. Action research in educational settings aims at improving educational processes through practitioners’ involvement in researching their own professional activities. It is essentially:

· action-oriented – that is, primarily concerned with understanding and improving action at a local level rather than with developing theory, although also a means of developing validated conceptual models that may have wide relevance;

· collaborative – in that, from a developmental (and ethical) point of view, it is seen as important that teachers and other practitioners affected by innovations should have the opportunity to participate in identifying research/evaluation issues, monitoring activities, ‘making sense’ of what is learned, and planning further developments in their own practice;

· interpretative – that is, concerned with understanding experiences, processes and issues from the points of view of those involved, with the aim of building more informed, shared understandings; normally there is a strong emphasis on gathering qualitative, as well as quantitative, data.

Action research projects are designed as systematic, problem-solving sequences of cycles involving planning, acting, observing (monitoring) and reflecting (analysing), as illustrated below.

A typical action research project therefore would include the following steps:

· Development of a plan of action, either to improve an aspect of current practice or to instigate and evaluate a new educational initiative;

· Implementation of the action;

· Monitoring and documentation of the action - including the practitioner’s own perspectives and the perspectives of other participants (e.g. learners, managers). Research methods adopted at this stage might include participant observation, interviews and questionnaire surveys;

· Critical reflection and data analysis, to inform decision-making about further action and research.

In the case of this project, the following methods of data collection were used:

· 17 classroom observations across a range of subject areas (8 at CS, 9 at YS); these were carried out as a means of enabling researchers to identify key features of current practice and to develop lines of inquiry to be followed up by means of interviews with teachers and student questionnaires;

· 11 interviews with teachers (6 at CS, 5 at YS); these focused on: teacher’s general perspectives on teaching and their aims in using the IW; how they approach using the IW and perceive its impact; what problems and issues they identify in relation to use of the IW and developing IW expertise;

· Questionnaires to all Year 9 students in both schools (189 students at CS and 97 students at YS returned questionnaires, representing a response rate of almost 100%). The questionnaire asked for quantitative and qualitative feedback about general attitudes to computers, the extent to which students had been exposed to IW-based teaching, and their reactions to this;

· Two follow-up focus group discussions with students, in which themes arising from questionnaires were explored further.

It was not possible, within the scope of this project, to develop anything approaching a full-scale action research programme. However, the involvement of teachers at key stages of planning the research, interpreting its findings and considering implications for a further cycle of action/research, through participation in a series of research workshops, was an important feature of the project and reflects the commitment to an action research ethos. The project was managed by Philippa Levy (lecturer in DIS and coordinator of its Educational Informatics Research Group). This work involved: establishing the methodological approach for the project; supervising the Masters dissertation projects within the action research framework; facilitating a number of meetings with teachers and others involved in the CLC developments; summarising and reporting key research findings; identifying, in collaboration with teachers and other stakeholders, potential directions for further action/research. Dave Miller and Andrew Madden, also members of the Educational Informatics Research Group in DIS, also had input into the project.

2. The Interactive Whiteboard in the classroom

This section summarises feedback from teachers and learners about their experience of using the IW in the classroom, their views on its educational impact and potential, and issues related to further development of IW-based practice in the two schools; in doing so, it offers a ‘snapshot’ of perspectives, practice and issues at a specific point in time – an early stage in IW adoption and use. The summary draws on both qualitative and quantitative data that were gathered by means of the Masters dissertation projects, but does not attempt to present all of these data; further detail can be found in the Masters dissertations themselves.

2.1 Teaching

In all subjects, IW-based lessons in both schools are generally divided into two or three distinct parts. Teachers log on to the IW at the start of the lesson, and begin with revision of previously covered material and an introduction to the day’s topic. Revision time is normally brief - around five minutes - and includes some question and answer interaction. The IW is used to remind students of previously covered content, and if the day’s topic is new, to present statements of learning aims and objectives. Teachers then move on to introduce new material, typically using the IW as a whole-class teaching tool for a maximum of twenty minutes, during which time there is further question and answer interaction. In the second part of lessons, students work on designated learning tasks, either as individuals, or in pairs or small groups. Teachers move around the class, responding to questions and offering help. Some lessons conclude with a return to whole-class use of the IW, typically used this time as a vehicle to show and discuss students’ work, and to sum up the lesson. Students’ work may be selected and presented by the teacher, or students may be invited to the front of the class to show their work through the IW.

The IW is used in the schools to support four main aspects of whole-class teaching, with variations from lesson to lesson depending on the demands of the subject and individual teachers’ approaches:

· giving software demonstrations;

· presenting and discussing information and learning resources in a variety of formats;

· facilitating explanation of concepts, models, ideas, etc. by both teachers and students;

· enabling students to show, and receive feedback on, their work.

In addition to the ACTIVboard and pen, all teachers use the electronic ‘flipcharts’ and aspects of the system’s built-in collection of images, symbols, maps and other resources, as well as resources that they have developed themselves. Some also make use in the classroom of the capability to access the Web, and of the ACTIVote and ACTIVslate features.

Teachers at both schools tend to see their roles as facilitators of active approaches to learning. They aim to stimulate their students’ interest, enthusiasm and motivation, and to encourage and support those who are struggling. They frequently highlight the importance of putting information across in an enjoyable, visually stimulating way, of challenging students to adopt critical and inquiring approaches to their subject, and of facilitating exploration and sharing of understandings and experiences in the classroom. Teachers also draw attention to the importance of helping students to develop confidence and personal, social and learning skills, for example in relation to working independently and collaboratively. Within this context, teachers are very positive overall – and some, extremely positive - about the role of the IW in the classroom. All are able to identify a range of educational and practical benefits, and some already have gained a good deal of personal satisfaction from the opportunity to use the new technology. One comments that, “it gives a great buzz about being a teacher”(CS). At the same time, most are cautious about over-estimating the transformative potential of new technology, and generally see the IW as a new item in their teaching toolkit rather than as something that might change fundamentally their professional role and practice. They emphasise that the IW is not a panacea for the educational challenges and problems inherent in their work, and also draw attention to a number of difficulties experienced in the ‘early adoption’ phase of IW use.

2.1.1 Presenting information and learning resources

Teachers report a number of benefits associated with using the IW to present information and learning resources, highlighting in particular the following points:

· The IW offers an easy and effective means of demonstrating software. Teachers of technology-based subjects (IT, ICT and Design Technology) particularly value the IW as a tool for whole-class software demonstration, with the additional benefit of being able to annotate the screens being displayed. In some lessons, students are seated at PCs and follow technical instructions directly as they are given; in others, they take notes from the IW demonstration and then move to their own PCs. In either case, this is a significant practical improvement on asking large groups of students to gather around a single desktop PC, since it eliminates disruption associated with movement around the classroom, improves visibility for the students, and reduces time spent in repeating explanations to individuals or writing out procedural instructions on a traditional board. One teacher explains that, “Instead of asking 20-30 students to gather around a PC where only 2-4 students are going to see what you are doing and the rest are at the back playing, they are all seated there and they are looking - and if anybody is not looking, you can spot them […] and I know everybody can see what you are trying to show” (YS). Another agrees: “When using the Whiteboards […] pupils are quicker to access parts of the computer. In the room [where there is an IW], I can easily show where to click, with the pen. I do not need to start writing. Every kid can see where to go. In the other room [without an IW] a 15-inch monitor is not big enough; they cannot see where exactly the mouse is clicking on, and I would spend about 5 minutes writing up the steps, they will be asking me questions, ‘I cannot get this, I cannot do that’ - there is a lot of disruption” (CS).

· Using IW-based resources reduces time spent in writing. The opportunity to draw on resources from the IW ‘library’ or from material prepared by teachers in advance of lessons cuts down significantly on time that would otherwise be spent writing and drawing on a traditional board. One teacher explains that,“You have far more time for your lesson to teach. You are not worried about spending 5 minutes writing. The stuff is on the board; it is there straight away. So you are focused to start giving the content to the pupils” (YS). Teachers also point out the value of being able to display their own handwriting more neatly, by using the IW handwriting recognition feature.

· It is easy to draw on a greater number and wider variety of information and learning resources. Teachers appreciate the opportunity to increase the variety and types of resources used in their lessons, tending to point in particular to the increased entertainment value of this approach to teaching. As one explains, “through the Whiteboard […] I do access a lot of resources that spice my lessons. The lessons are not routine where you do the same things over and over, which is kind of boring. Now you can colour the lesson with sound, video, and images depending on the topic” (YS). Some teachers also point out – and appreciate - the increased glamour associated with the role of ‘high tech’ resource presenter. For example: “It makes the teacher flashy - while standing in front of them, knowing that I can get any material I want for the lesson.” (CS).

· IW resources can be used flexibly and spontaneously in response to different needs. Teachers value the flexibility with which IW resources can be manipulated, and point out the advantages of being able to move easily between resources in response to needs that emerge during lessons. One teacher comments that, “The use of flipcharts means that I can go forward or backward in the lesson depending on the needs of the kids” (CS). For example, it is possible to show previously used materials if students have missed lessons, or if they need to revisit concepts; revision for whatever reason can take place seamlessly at any time during the IW presentation. Another teacher explains that, “If someone is struggling, you can bring out the last lesson. It is always there in front you and they can see what was done. And then you move on” (YS). Conversely, more advanced resources can be shown when students are learning quickly. This flexibility means that presentations can be adapted during lessons to suit the needs of higher and lower ability students; one teacher comments that, “I can differentiate all my delivery depending on the abilities of the kids. So I can have just a basic flipchart, and if it suits the higher group, I can use the flipchart I have designed, but if it is not suitable for the group, I can just scale it down slightly” (CS). Teachers also note that the IW offers creative ways of responding spontaneously to questions or of developing ideas – for example, by showing information from the Internet: “Sometimes a kid may say ‘where is this city?’, then I can say, ‘let’s have a look at the Internet’. I can search the map or picture and show it to the pupil” (YS).

· Materials generated in the classroom can be saved and re-used. Teachers value the practical and educational benefits of saving work that is generated dynamically during classes. For example, it is possible to save ‘flipcharts’ displaying resources identified during the class itself, or students’ and teachers’ annotations to pre-prepared materials. As one teacher says, “If I was very innovative in the lesson, maybe some good ideas popped up in my head, making my lesson brilliant! Earlier, I had no way of saving it, now I can. I can use this lesson in future lessons”(YS). Once saved, new resources can be re-used either with or without further adaptation.

· Students can be encouraged to use Internet-based information resources independently. Some teachers access the Web during classes, for example, carrying out information searches using search terms generated during class discussion and asking students to continue to search for useful sites after the lesson and to provide feedback about the results at a later date. Teachers also draw attention to the value of giving students access to resources used in IW-based teaching from outside the classroom, via the Internet, although few have done so thus far.

2.1.2 Facilitating classroom interaction and activity

Teachers report a number of ways in which the IW can be used to support facilitation of classroom interaction and activity, highlighting in particular the following points:

· The IW frees up time for interaction and task-related activity. Classroom observations suggest that most interaction between teachers and students, and between students, occurs during the second part of lessons, when students are working on learning tasks. Some teachers suggest that the efficiency with which IW-based demonstrations and presentations can be made in the introductory parts of lessons allows more time to be spent on interactive, activity-based learning than would otherwise be possible. For example, one teacher notes that, “the Whiteboard itself may not offer any interactivity in terms of communication with the pupils. What it does is that it allows me to give my work to the pupils easily and fast, thus giving more ample time to see what the pupils are doing and help them with their work” (CS).

· The IW is an effective stimulus for teacher-student interaction. Other teachers argue that the IW can be used as a stimulus for interaction between teacher and students, for example by encouraging students to offer answers to questions, which if correct can be noted on the IW ‘flipchart’. In this way, students also contribute to generating learning resources that can be re-used. Some teachers consider that use of the IW stimulates higher levels of student participation in whole-class discussion than would otherwise be the case, perhaps because of the strong visual and conceptual appeal of the information and learning resources that are displayed. For example, one teacher explains that, “From the Whiteboard I then draw resources, which improves pupils’ thoughts, and from there we start discussing what they think about whatever we are doing. I can say the Whiteboard enhances interactivity in that some of the resources it has help us in discussions and this is important. Pupils contribute more” (CS). Another teacher feels that the IW can sometimes encourage more active, questioning approaches to learning: “[Students] ask questions like, ‘what if we do this sir?’ And we can do it on the Whiteboard. All the sources of information are there, we can tap into anything” (YS).

· The IW is an effective means of enabling students to present and discuss work. When used to encourage students to present their work to the class, the IW becomes a focal point for both teacher-student and student-student discussion and feedback. Some teachers suggest that the use of the IW may stimulate more active and participatory approaches to learning in the sense that some students are keen to use the medium to present their work.

2.1.3 Educational impact

Overall, teachers are positive about the educational impact of the IW, highlighting in particular the following points:

· The IW seems to make learning more enjoyable and more interesting. Almost all interviewed teachers share the view that many students enjoy IW-based lessons more than other lessons, and tend to be more interested in, and engaged by, the teaching. Two comments are representative of this view: “[The Whiteboard] makes learning more entertaining, more fun, less humdrum” (YS) and “I give pupils things that make their life more interesting and exciting” (CS). Both classroom observations by researchers and teachers’ own observations suggest that the quality of students’ attention in many IW-based lessons is generally high. A teacher notes that, “The children are very much engaged when using the Whiteboard in some of the lessons... children are attentive and I think they learn a lot. I think they stay on top of things. They kind of are looking forward to see what will come up next” (CS). However, there is some concern amongst teachers that the higher levels of attention may be largely a matter of novelty-value, and that the impact of using the IW may therefore diminish with time.

· The IW can help teachers to give more effective explanations. Some teachers emphasise that the IW enables them to provide more vivid illustrations and better explanations using the IW than would otherwise be possible; for example, by using the electronic pen to annotate images or symbols, exploiting the impact of the system’s range of ‘focusing tools’, and by accessing the wide pool resources that is close at hand. They value especially the capacity to reinforce ideas and concepts visually. For example: “Writing on paper it may be difficult to conceptualise, so we use a range of visual materials that actually bridge the gap. This allows the students to take the idea that we have placed there and develop that idea to something that is far more tangible” (CS).

· The IW may help to improve learning outcomes and increase learners’ motivation. Some teachers suggest that because of the wider range of resources and formats at their disposal, and the capacity to offer better explanations, IW-based teaching helps students to grasp ideas and concepts more easily - and that this, in turn, may be assumed to have a positive impact on their motivation to learn. One teacher comments, that: “It makes it easier for pupils to understand certain concepts. Through this pupils find it easier to learn and they are motivated to learn as they understand things easily as they can see what is going on” (CS).

2.2 Learning

All 97 Y9 questionnaire respondents at Yewlands School, and 183 out of 189 respondents at City School, had attended one or more IW-based classes. Their responses confirm that the IW was already being used in a range of subjects in Y9 in both schools, with the highest levels of use being in Design Technology and Geography at Yewlands, and in Maths and Science at City. At City, Y9 students had attended IW-based classes in Maths (41%), Science (35%), English (33%), Music (29%) and ICT (12%). At Yewlands the range of subjects was slightly wider - students having attended IW-based classes in Design Technology (80%), Geography (75%), English (47%), IT (32%), Science (26%), Religious Studies (21%) and Media Studies (3%) – and students at Yewlands were likely to have had more exposure to IW-based teaching than students at City. Many students had had some experience of direct personal use of IW technology, in that some (40% at City; 54% at Yewlands) had personally used a PC connected to the IW, and the electronic pen on the ACTIVboard (37% at City; 46% at Yewlands). Fewer had personally used the ACTIVote feature (17% at City; 3% at Yewlands) and even fewer still the ACTIVslate (7% at City; 3% at Yewlands).

Overall, feedback from this cohort of students about IW-based learning and teaching is very positive. In their questionnaire responses, most indicate that they like the use of the IW in the classroom (84% at City; 86% at Yewlands), and most others are neutral, rather than negative, on this question. They often compare the IW favourably to traditional whiteboards and blackboards, and many (62% at City; 77% at Yewlands) agree that the IW makes ‘a big difference’ to the way classes are taught. Students are aware of – and appreciate - the positive impact of new technology on their school’s profile; for example, two City School students note that, “It makes our school look smart, and, “I think that they are important to the school”. A typical recommendation from students is that the schools should acquire more IWs, ideally one for every classroom, and that they should be used across more subjects. For example: “There should be more in the school” (YS), “They should be in every class in the school” (CS), and “They should be introduced in more subjects” (CS). It is worth noting that questionnaire responses also point to very positive attitudes towards IT in general amongst these students. Nearly all indicate that they like using computers (92% at City; 93% at Yewlands), and many are confident about their own computer skills, claiming that they find computers easy to use (79% at City; 86% at Yewlands).

2.2.1 Engaging with information and learning resources

Students report a number of benefits arising from the use of IW-based information and learning resources, highlighting in particular the following points:

· Information displayed on the IW is easy to see, and teachers’ handwriting is easy to read. This straightforward point is the one that students most frequently make, suggesting that from their perspective, visual clarity and convenience is one of the most highly valued features of the IW. Information on an Iw is easier to see than when displayed on a traditional board or on a classroom PC, and teachers’ writing is more legible, especially when the IW’s handwriting recognition function is used. Representative comments from students include:“I like the Whiteboard because you can see the writing more clearly” (CS); “It is easier to see when watching videos, easier to see writing, easier to show information to the class” (YS); “Easier to see when sitting at the back of the class, clear text, not messy hand writing” (YS). Some students also highlight the other practical benefits of not having to crowd around one PC in IT-related subjects.

· Students have access to more information and learning resources, and a wider variety of formats. Students consider that IW use exposes them to ‘more information’ during lessons. For example, three students comment that, “It is more fun and you get more information” (CS); “When you use Whiteboards it’s more helpful and you can get more information” (YS), and, “There are more things to help you on it” (CS). They appreciate having easy access to distributed resources, commenting sometimes on the value of Web-based resources from beyond the classroom or school. For example: “I enjoy looking at the Internet in Science” (CS), and “ I find it exciting, we often go on the Internet and there is more brought into the classroom” (YS). The greater variety of information formats at their disposal is also appreciated, partly but not only for entertainment value. They perceive the IW as a versatile teaching tool – “you can do more” (YS) – and find the use of multimedia resources stimulating. Students draw attention, approvingly, to the use of images, graphics and sound as well as text, and often single out the use of IW-based video for special mention. Yewlands students rate video and graphics as the two most useful IW presentation features, whilst City students rate graphics and the Internet/Web most highly.

· Information and learning resources can be saved and re-used. Students appreciate having easy access at a later date to materials produced for, or generated during, previous lessons. Comments include: “Better than the normal board because you bring up past information” (CS), and, “I like the way you can save work and when you need it you just click a button” (CS). Sometimes students highlight the value of this feature for formal revision purposes: “Since we started using the Whiteboards in class we all have work saved so we can revise for our SATs, which is very helpful” (CS).

2.2.2 Participating in classroom interaction and activity

Students report a number of ways in which the IW supports interaction in the classroom, highlighting in particular the following points:

· The IW can facilitate cohesive and participative whole-class learning. Some of their comments suggest that students see the IW can be a powerful and valuable means of drawing the class together, and of stimulating participation across the class as a whole. For example, Yewlands students report that they like the IW because, “We can do work together” and “[IWs] are there so all the class can work together”. Similarly, City students note that, “I like the Whiteboards because they are big and everyone can join in what’s going on”, and, “I think it makes people more interested in joining in and learning”. Their feedback also suggests that many students are keen to use IW technology themselves. For example, in explaining what they like about the IW, some draw attention to the opportunity to use the electronic pen: “You can draw on them if you are allowed to” (CS). Others highlight the ACTIVote feature: “I like using [IWs] because I enjoy using ACTIVote” (CS).

· The IW can offer a focus for teacher-student and student-student interactions. Some students note, approvingly, that the IW is used as a vehicle for interaction in their classes. For example, it is seen as positive that, “The class can write on it and talk at the same time” (YS). However, questionnaire responses are mixed on the question of whether or not lessons in which IWs are used are livelier than other lessons. A small majority of students at both schools agrees that this is the case (51% at City; 54% at Yewlands). Most others in both schools (39% at City; 40% at Yewlands) are neutral on this question.

· The IW is an enjoyable and effective means of presenting and discussing personal work. Students appreciate having the opportunity to use the IW to show their work to others in the class, and some consider that it helps them to articulate their ideas and give explanations. For example: “It is also good to show the class your work and what you have learnt” (YS), and, “I like the fact that you show work to other people and it’s easier for you to explain things to the class” (YS). Students also value the opportunity to see each other’s work displayed in this way: “It gives you the chance to see other people’s work” (YS).

2.2.3 Educational impact

Many students are positive about the overall educational impact of the IW, both in terms of their learning experiences and their learning achievements. The view that “[IWs] help teach and students to learn” (YS), is widely shared, and teachers’ approaches to using the IW are often judged to be effective. For example: “I think the Whiteboards are very well used in our school” (YS). Some students appear to suggest that the IW can enhance teachers’ performance; for example, one student noting with approval that, “the teachers act good when using them” (CS). Students’ feedback includes the following positive views:

· The IW can make learning more enjoyable. Many students comment that the IW helps make learning fun. A typical comment is: “I like the Whiteboards because they make the class fun” (YS). Indeed, a small majority of students at both schools (57% at City; 63% at Yewlands) indicate in their questionnaire responses that IW-based lessons are ‘more fun than other classes’, most others in both schools being neutral on this question; as one student comments, “I like the Whiteboards because it makes lessons more enjoyable” (CS). Students frequently use the word ‘exciting’ to describe the impact of the IW; for example: “I think classes are more exciting and everyone is interested in looking at the board. Different fonts and colours are easy to change and the work on the board gives you more understanding and fun in the lesson” (CS); “Things are quicker and more exciting” (YS). Some students note the impact of the ‘novelty value’ of the technology in this context; for example:“They are different and it’s a change” (YS).

· The IW can make learning more interesting. A majority of students at both schools (57% at City; 68% at Yewlands) indicate that they find IW-based classes ‘more interesting than other classes’, most others in both schools being neutral on this question. This view is confirmed in numerous comments; for example: “The lessons are more interesting” (CS); “They are more interesting than normal Whiteboards” (YS); “It’s something different to look at and it is more interesting” (YS); and“The Whiteboards make lessons more interesting, which helps us learn more” (YS). To some, the technology itself is of intrinsic interest; one student comments that, “I like the fact that it is hi-tech” (CS).

· The IW encourages students to pay more attention. A number of students claim that they are more able to focus their attention on IW-based presentations and explanations than would otherwise be the case. For example: “I like the Whiteboards because they are cool and I pay more attention than on a blackboard” (CS), and “They catch my attention more” (YS). Some observe that this seems to be the case for others too: “More people pay more attention on Whiteboards than on blackboards” (CS).

· Using the IW saves time and enables lessons to move more quickly. Students recognise that the IW enables teachers to use classroom time more efficiently, in terms of the ease and speed with which pre-prepared materials can be accessed and presented, and because both teachers and students spend less time writing. Several students highlight their appreciation of the more rapid pace of IW-based teaching. For example: “Things are quicker and more exciting” (CS), and “Using the Whiteboards is a quick way of working in class. They are interesting and a good thing” (CS).

· The IW embeds ‘learning about IT’ across the curriculum. Some students note with approval that when IWs are installed in subject classrooms, it becomes unnecessary to go to a designated computer room to work with a computer. Using the IW in a range of subjects is also seen to enhance IT-related awareness and learning: “You can learn more about IT in every subject” (CS); “I think it makes you learn more about computers” (YS), and, “I think there should be more Whiteboards around school so that more people can learn about computers” (CS).

· The IW can make learning easier and faster. Although not a universal view – for instance, one student observes that “I don’t care if I’m taught with a Whiteboard or a blackboard, I still learn the same” (CS) – many students believe that IW-based teaching improves their learning, both because they are more interested, and because teachers’ explanations, multimedia resources and the large screen make subjects easier to understand. One student’s comment suggests that the IW might have an impact on attendance at school, as well as on learning: “Sometimes you don’t feel like coming to school because it is boring but with the Interactive Whiteboard school is not as boring. I think that my learning has improved” (CS). Other comments include: [IWs] are easier to learn from” (CS); “The Whiteboards help me understand the lesson” (CS); “The projector makes it possible for the teacher to show animation and moving on diagrams and helps pupils learn faster” (YS); “It is easier to understand if you can see the point put across on a big screen” (YS); “Since I started using the Whiteboard I understand things much better and I like them”(CS). Some feel that this positive experience is widespread: “Everyone can follow in a big way” (YS). Students frequently note that the IW helps teachers to give more effective explanations and demonstrations, for example in subjects such as IT, Maths and Science: “The Whiteboards are easier to understand when the teacher is explaining things” (CS), “Teachers can explain things better when using a computerized whiteboard” (CS); “Teachers explain lessons better and you listen more” (YS); and sometimes the visual element is highlighted: “I think to me personally it has helped me improve my work because of the ways things can be explained in diagrams” (CS).

Whilst many students are enthusiastic about the use and impact of IWs, others are somewhat indifferent; one, for example, commenting that, “I am not really bothered if classes have a Whiteboard or not” (CS). A small number appear distinctly negative. Critical feedback – from those with positive views overall, as well as from those with more negative perspectives - draws attention to the following points:

· Technical difficulties are not uncommon. Many students draw attention to technical difficulties that disrupt IW-based lessons, citing occurrences of both network and equipment failure (the latter including both projector breakdown and difficulties with IW system features). Comments include: “Half the time they don’t work properly” (CS); and, “Sometimes they crash or go a bit wrong” (CS), and some students draw attention to the need to ensure consistently that there is back-up technology or other contingency planning, for situations in which technical difficulties prevail: “If they break down we have nothing to use for learning” (CS).

· Poor visibility is a frequent problem. Ironically - given that enhanced visibility is seen by students to be a key advantage of IW-based learning - IW-based lessons are not infrequently affected by strong sunlight in rooms without blinds, preventing students from seeing material presented on the screen. For example: “I do not like [the IW] on a sunny day because you cannot see it” (CS). It is not unknown for this problem to make it impossible to use the IW at all. Poor visibility can also result from the use of inappropriate colours and fonts on the flipchart, as noted during research observations and in student feedback. Students comment, for example, that “Light coloured pens are hard to see” (CS), and that, “The writing is sometimes hard to read when the teacher has it too thin and you are sat near the back” (CS). Dust on the projectors also affects the quality of the images projected onto the screen.

· Inexperienced use of the IW reduces its value. Many students from both schools commend their teachers’ use of the IW. At the same time, it is suggested that teachers sometimes appear to find the IW “complicated to use” (YS). Difficulties in setting up the technology, and in manipulating its features, are perceived as evidence of teachers’ inexperience, and students note that this often disrupts IW-based lessons. One comments that, “I do not like the fact that some teachers are inexperienced with the Whiteboard” (CS). Another criticizes teachers for spending too much time “messing around switching it on” (CS). Others suggest that the advantages of the medium can be outweighed by teachers’ lack of expertise: “If you know how to use them it’s fine, but otherwise I think blackboards are better and less complicated and sometimes Whiteboards can hold up the lesson” (CS); “The Whiteboards in some cases help the lesson but in others it makes it worse because the teacher runs out of space and it takes ages for them to set up” (CS), and – more brutally - “I prefer normal boards because the teachers don’t act clever using them” (CS). On the other hand, some students also draw attention to their own ‘learning curve’ as regards the technology; which one student regards as something of a distraction from the subject in hand: “[The IW is] good but you don’t learn as much because then you have got to learn what buttons to press as well as your work” (CS). Some students report that they find the ACTIVslate and ACTIVote features slow and awkward to use - for example: “I don’t like the ACTIVvote because it is boring and hard to use” (YS) – and others highlight difficulties they have had with the electronic pen: “It is hard to write” (CS).

· Pedagogic approaches to using the IW vary in appeal. Students express disappointment and frustration with some approaches to using the IW, particularly when they consider that its capabilities are being under-exploited. For example: “If teachers are going to use them [as a traditional whiteboard] then I wouldn’t bother wasting all that money” (CS); “I think Whiteboards are no different [when the teacher] just writes on it, nothing interesting about that” (CS); “They are not being used for much more than showing text and pictures. Animations, diagrams etc. are not being used a lot” (YS); “We don’t get to see animations, graphics, internet/web, sound or video… [IWs] are boring and at least a blackboard would not break in the middle of a lesson” (CS). Whilst some students express reservations about showing work to others via the IW - as one points out, “If you make a mistake, the whole class can see” – many more express disappointment at not being given opportunities to use the technology themselves. For example, in the context of their ‘dislikes’ about the IW, students note that: “[the teacher] doesn’t let us touch it” (CS) and, “We are not allowed to use them” (CS); “I think they would be better if students used them more” (CS); and, “Whiteboards are a good idea but it would be better if students could use them too” (CS). Some feedback suggests that there is over-lengthy use of the IW as a presentation medium in some lessons, indicating that the IW is not a guaranteed cure for boredom. For example: “I don’t like something about the Whiteboard because we have to be quiet and stay still” (YS); “The lesson can get a bit boring just using the whiteboard all the time” (YS); “I think it gets a bit boring after looking at them all the time” (YS); “Sometimes they can get that little bit boring and they don’t always liven up the class” (CS). And whereas some point to ways in which teachers’ use of the IW can help clarify their understanding, others suggest that it can have the opposite effect: “It can be confusing” (CS); “It is complicated to take in” (CS). The message appears to be that traditional media – or techniques - are sometimes more straightforward: “Sometimes blackboards are better” (CS).

2.3 Developing IW-based practice

Both students’ and teachers’ perspectives on the use of the IW in the classroom draw attention to a number of issues of relevance to further development of IW-based practice in the schools. Issues raised are as follows:

· Technical difficulties and failure in the classroom. Although the IW hardware and software has proved itself generally robust and easy to use, technical glitches associated with the IW and with the network disrupt lessons and undermine teachers’ confidence. One teacher comments that: “You go in the classroom, worried with the technology; worried that some thing will happen that will disturb the lesson” (CS). Like students, teachers note the need for contingency planning (such as paper flipchart, or blackboard) in case of technical failure, and also emphasise the importance of rapid ‘troubleshooting’ assistance from support colleagues. IW system problems that teachers have encountered relate to: the electronic pen (lack of response); manipulation of certain images and symbols on the ACTIVboard (awkward to move, or unresponsive); use of the ACTIVslate (lack of signal between slate and board); projector and bulb failure. The position of the screen in some rooms prevents some teachers from using the whole workspace (placed too high). More generally, teachers are conscious that network log-on is often very slow, disrupting the start of lessons and cutting down the overall lesson time.

· Time constraints. Teachers acknowledge that careful advance preparation for IW-based teaching is essential, and that the more time spent in planning, the better the outcome is likely to be. They also note that time spent in preparing IW lessons is an investment for the future, since lessons can be re-used at a later date, and easily changed and improved if necessary. As one teacher explains, “That is an investment - putting in the time [at school] and at home - all those resources that I prepared this year are now still there - I believe my work will be a lot easier from now onwards” (CS). Another notes that, “It is much, much easier to develop a lesson because you got the information there and you can develop whatever you have done and improve on those because you have saved the lessons” (YS). However, most see time constraints as a significant problem in terms of what they can realistically achieve with the IW in the short term. Initial lesson planning is time-consuming; depending on individual levels of expertise with the technology, single lessons can take between a whole day and a few hours to prepare. One experienced IT user notes that, “Sometimes I have wanted to make nice flipcharts, more interactivity, it has taken me twice as long as the lesson takes to teach. This is almost 2 hours preparation” (CS). Others with less IT experience find preparing IW resources still more time-consuming; as one teacher notes, “I spend a lot of time to find out how things work.”(YS).

· Access to IW classrooms. Teachers emphasise that their motivation to use the IW, and their development of IW expertise, depend to a large extent on the practical matter of easy and frequent access to IW classrooms for teaching. Ideally, they prefer to have an IW in their own classroom, and may not consider it worthwhile to move to a different classroom just to teach with the IW. For example: “It is often probably not worth moving rooms in order to use the board. It is better to use it in your own room in your own area” (YS). It is also pointed out that there is little incentive to spend time preparing IW-based lessons when teachers need to deliver the same lesson in a traditional format in classrooms that are not equipped with an IW – a situation that not infrequently occurs. At the same time, infrequent use of the IW places constraints on the development of expertise: “We are timetabled to go there. You go at your time and that is it. Our skill levels are somewhat low because we do not use it regularly” (CS). Slow log-on is also a particular problem when IW classrooms are shared, as one teacher explains: “If you want to start a lesson very quickly, that is an issue, because the network is slow and that is not your classroom. It is fine if it is your classroom and that is your board. You can log on in the morning and then log off when you leave at the end of the day” (YS).

· Variation in training needs. Teachers using the IW have all received training, and have access to handbooks produced by the software vendor. Some are particularly enthusiastic ‘early adopters’, and are already confident and skilled users – typically, having approached the IW with a good foundation of IT skills. One notes, for example, that: “You must consider that I am IT literate and I have a lot of motivation to put things up [on the IW] because I see value for it” (CS). These teachers tend to portray themselves as self-starting in relation to the IW, in terms of developing their IW practice on a largely independent basis following introductory training. As one explains, “I taught myself to get competent in IT matters. I am also interested in that. I have learnt a lot about IT and I have equally learnt about the [IW] software” (YS). However, those with less confidence about IT are less comfortable with ‘self-training’ and experimentation, and suggest a need for more sustained, ideally individually tailored, guidance as they develop their IW practice. For example, one teacher identifies a need for: “a human-to-human contact type of training where we can ask and get demonstrations” (CS) and another notes that “Giving somebody a booklet is not training” (CS). The research suggests that there are differing perspectives amongst colleagues on IW training in this respect – in that whilst some are comfortable with a ‘learning by doing’ approach, others feel the need for more structured on-going support (as well as more classroom time with the IW). A number of teachers consider that they are not yet using IW system features to their fullest advantage, including basic preparation and presentation techniques as well as use of ACTIVote and ACTIVslate. As one says, “I recognise that I am not yet realising the potential of the Whiteboard, especially its interactive potential. I think I need a proper, comprehensive training period, in order to properly embed the various techniques which truly effective use of the board requires” (YS).

· Resource creation. Interviews with teachers suggest that there are different perspectives on ‘in-house’ IW resource-creation. One view is that this is the responsibility of subject teachers, another that on-going support from technical staff might usefully include resource-creation: “The problem is getting the materials there to use. I do not regard that as a part of the my job and I am unlikely to have the enthusiasm or the time to be constantly doing the complex task of creating those materials in a medium that is not particularly accessible to me […] I would like technicians around who could produce materials for me […] and then put them like this, on my file – and I just use them in my lessons.”

· Resource-sharing and information-exchange. Teachers point out the benefits of resource-sharing and exchange of ideas about IW use between colleagues, and some materials developed by teachers are already being made accessible via their school network. This has advantages for both resource and staff development: “I can say [to colleagues], look at this lesson, it really worked very well - try that lesson. [Colleagues] can do that and can make a few changes to that lesson. And that can improve the lesson. You are storing the lessons and improving on them” (YS). However, time constraints are seen as a significant limitation on what can be achieved in this respect: “We just simply can not find the time to sit down and see what the others are doing” (CS).

3. Conclusions and directions for further action / research

The research summarised in Section 2 captures aspects of the experience of IW-based innovation in the two schools and identifies hurdles that needed to be overcome at an early stage in the use of this technology. Educational and support practice in both schools have moved forward since it was carried out. Many technical and practical difficulties have been resolved in the intervening period, and there has been more extensive staff involvement in training. More IWs have been installed in one of the schools. Teachers involved in more advanced development already envisage taking forward a number of new activities, including: making further use of the resources offered through the IW provider’s ‘user group’; making resources available to students via the school intranet; exploring ways of adapting IW resources to meet different learning styles and needs; developing ways of exploiting the ACTIVote system further; exploring possibilities for capturing the soundtrack of classes as well as learning materials; exploring the potential for collaborative teaching at a distance, by making lessons in one school available to others, either in real-time or as archived resources; developing a CLC ‘library’ of good practice; developing differentiated independent learning resources for students to use as a follow-up to IW-based classes.

Despite continuing change and development in the schools, the research has proved to be successful in highlighting pointers to good practice and in revealing a number of development issues that are of continuing relevance - suggesting directions, therefore, for a further cycle (or cycles) of action/research. Key points arising from the research are as follows.

· In terms of evidence for the value of IW-based teaching, the research is extremely encouraging. Student feedback is generally very positive and teachers identify a range of very significant educational and practical benefits; in fact, there is a striking match between learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on educational impact. It is especially noteworthy that both learners and teachers perceive a significant role for the IW in helping to motivate students, focus their attention, and stimulate involvement in whole-class learning. The positive impact of IW-based teaching is identified in three main areas of classroom practice: presentation of information and learning resources; explanation of concepts and ideas; facilitation of interaction and activity.

· There are a number of pointers to good pedagogic practice. Teachers are already using the IW in creative ways that are compatible with, and supportive of, their educational goals, and the educational value of fairly straightforward, practical improvements associated with IW use - such as improved visibility of learning resources and demonstrations - should not be underestimated. The research suggests that learners particularly appreciate, and respond to: clarity of visual presentation; the use of a variety of media; opportunities to access Web-based information resources; classroom review and re-use of previously encountered materials; generating learning resources interactively in class; taking a ‘hands-on’ approach to the technology.

· Negative responses to IW-based teaching are associated mainly with: classroom difficulties with technical and other equipment (relatively minor, as long as addressed rapidly); the psychological and practical effects of the inevitable ‘learning curve’ for novice IW users (both students and teachers); limitations on teachers’ access to IW technology; constraints on teachers’ time for developing resources and practice; teachers’ needs for both basic technical training and tailored developmental support.

· For a variety of reasons, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the research suggests that significant early investment of resources is an important success factor in the development and acceptance of IW-based teaching. This applies to provision of technical and physical resources (e.g., installation of IWs in enough classrooms, installation of classroom blinds) as well as to provision of sufficient time and support for staff training and development.

These points, and further developments within the CLCs since the research was carried out, suggest the following development issues for further cycles of action/research.

· Indications of effective and less effective styles of IW-based teaching confirm the importance of staff training and development activities that extend beyond basic technical training, even early on in the use of the new technology. Teachers need to feel confident with technical matters, but also need opportunities to explore broader pedagogic issues from the outset. The research draws attention to a number of themes that could be explored, such as the pedagogic value and practical implications of facilitating a ‘hands-on’ approach to the technology amongst students. There will also be value in staff development sessions designed to encourage peer support within and between subject disciplines and schools, as a means of sharing ideas, examples of practice, and resources.

· The research suggests that the schools will reap significant benefits from developing much more extensive use of multimedia resources across the subject curriculum. As regards access to a wider pool of electronic information resources, for example via the Web, it is recommended that the schools consider the opportunities offered by IW technology to place more emphasis on ‘information literacy’ skills development in the curriculum, including Internet searching skills and independent use of electronic information resources.

· The research highlights the practical and psychological importance (for both teachers and students) of rapid, effective technical back-up for IW-based classroom teaching. Support staff also have a key role to play in both initial training and on-going, developmental support. The research strongly suggests that there will be value in developing differentiated support strategies for teachers with different learning needs and styles, at both an early stage of implementation and beyond.

· It seems clear that IW technology has a positive role to play in whole-class teaching, and that it offers teachers opportunities to enhance their current practice in a variety of ways. However, from the broader perspective of e-learning, the IW is just one element within an integrated ICT-based learning environment. From this perspective, the IW has a role in more fundamental educational change, and its use in whole-class teaching should be seen as part of a broader strategy to support adaptive, ICT-based approaches to flexible and independent learning, for example by enabling students to use classroom resources in open-learning mode via the school’s intranet. These ideas are being taken forward in the CLCs, and it is recognised that in this context there is a need to explore issues related to pedagogy more broadly. It is also particularly important that ICT development is placed within a coherent strategic framework for educational development in the schools, and that a strategic approach is also adopted to the facilitation of broad-based ‘cultural change’ in relation to pedagogic innovation and the use of ICTs. There may be lessons to be learned from the higher education sector’s experience in this respect over recent years. For example, a variety of institutional and inter-institutional models of ‘awareness-raising and training’ for cultural change have been adopted with some success, and might be transferable to the CLC context. It is therefore recommended that the CLC consider the feasibility of establishing a long-term developmental programme for teachers and support staff, which might also serve as a model for other schools.

The success of this small-scale project indicates that there will be value in taking forward further research in support of evidence-based practice in the CLCs. Such research should arise out of, and inform, areas of strategic and developmental interest for the schools. Action research - carried out through and within practice, with the full involvement of practitioners themselves - is a well-established and particularly appropriate methodological approach in this context. It has recently begun to be used within the field of e-learning as a means of evaluating the design, facilitation and impact of new initiatives, and for developing innovative conceptual models that can be used as a resource by the wider educational community. The project that is the subject of this report was a useful, small-scale pilot in this respect. However, there is a good deal of scope in the future to adopt more in-depth, extensive approaches to action research within the CLC context, for example through teachers’ part- or full-time involvement in action research based higher Masters or PhD projects in association with DIS at the University of Sheffield. This would strengthen staff expertise in research-based innovation in the schools and contribute to building broader-based cultures of ‘reflective practice’. In addition to local benefits, both the research findings and the research-based development model would be of interest to teachers, policy-makers and researchers in the wider educational community. Suggestions for areas of investigation, arising out of the IW research reported in this document, and out of discussions with teachers in the schools, include:

· Development, evaluation and theorization of IW-based pedagogy;

· Pedagogic approaches to information literacy development in the networked school;

· Development, use and evaluation of adaptive e-learning resources;

· Development and evaluation of a model for practitioner learning (staff development) in the context of ICT-based ‘cultural change’.