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

School of EducationSchool of Education

Durham UniversityDurham University

s.e.higgins@dur.ac.uks.e.higgins@dur.ac.uk

Overview• 30 month project 2002-04• Evaluating PNS ‘Embedding ICT’ pilot• 6 LEAs; 84 schools; all Y5 & Y6 classes• Formative data

– Technical; logistics; training

• Evaluative research– Classroom interaction– Teacher and pupil perceptions– Impact on attainment - KS2 SATs

Research data• Structured observations

– 184 lessons– With & without IWBs– Repeated after 1 year: ‘embedding effect’

• 29 lesson videos• Teacher use web-logs (1200 weeks)• Pupil attitude data• 68 teacher interviews• 12 pupil group interviews & 80 ‘pupil views’ templates

Political context• Formative data used

• Prospective technology but retrospective pedagogy

• Pilot becomes policy after 12 months

• PNS moves from CfBT to Capita

• Final report became ‘stalled’

Reported use of IWBs• Online web forms completed twice by teachers for

about 6 weeks in Spring 2003 and again in Spring 2004

• 655 forms in 2003; 817 weeks of forms for 2004.• Patterns consistent across the schools• Teachers reported using the IWB in about two thirds

of literacy and mathematics lessons in 2003 and nearly three-quarters of these lessons in 2004.

Reported use• Reported use was significantly greater in the

second year of the pilot project (2004) – in both mathematics (6.3% increase) – and literacy (9.7% increase).

• Use of the IWB in 2003 was relatively consistent throughout the school week.

• Greatest use on Mondays - least on Fridays

Reported use in mathematics and English

All mathematics & literacy lessons

Numeracy 2003 Literacy 2003 Numeracy 2004 Literacy 2004

Total % of

sample Total

% of sample

Total % of

sample Total

% of sample

Used IWB 2219 68% 2096 64% 3026 74% 3009 74%

Did not use IWB

1056 32% 1179 36% 1059 26% 1076 26%

Sample size*: 3275 days (from 655 forms.) Sample size*: 4085 days (from 817 forms.)

* S ample = all valid lesson records submitted.

Structured lesson observations

• Live coding on palmtop• Observer software (Noldus Information Technology)

• Structured recording of classroom discourse: IRF structure (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Smith & Hardman 2003)

– ActorTeacher/pupil/gender

– QuestionsOpen /closed /repeat /uptake /probe

– Other movese.g. Evaluation /Explanation /Direction /Refocus

Frequency and duration

Lesson observations

Year o f observation

School year

Medium used Numeracy Literacy Total

2003 Year 5 With whitebo ard 30 30 60 Without whiteboard 27 27 54 Sub-total: 57 57 114

2004 Year 5 With whitebo ard 15 15 30 Year 6 With whitebo ard 20 20 40 Sub-total: 35 35 70 Total: 184

Lesson sections (duration)

00:00:00

00:07:12

00:14:24

00:21:36

00:28:48

00:36:00

00:43:12

Whole class Groupwork Individual

Du

rati

on (

min

s)

With IWB

Without IWB

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Rat

e (n

per

hou

r)

Teacher moves

Pupil moves

Other moves

Discourse move Mean duration (secs) Percentage duration Open question 4.1 2.3 Closed question 3.5 5.8 Repeat question 4.4 2.0 Uptake question 3.3 1.2 Probe 2.7 1.7 Evaluation 4.7 7.5 Explain 12.2 27.8 Direct 8.1 9.4 Refocus 6.0 2.4 Pause 5.0 3.0 Interrupt 12.0 0.5 Genera l talk 6.2 0.2 Presents 9.9 16.9 Answer 4.4 16.5 Choral res ponse 10.1 1.0 Spontaneous contribution 7.0 1.6

Total: 100%

Comparisons

Whiteboard differences

Whiteboard effects• Faster pace - more interactions

• More shorter answers

• More evaluation

• Less uptake questions

• Shorter pupil presentations

Subject differences

Literacy and numeracy• Significant differences between lessons• Not related to the IWB• Numeracy

– Faster pace; more closed questions & teacher direction

• Literacy– More open & uptake questions; more pupil

presentation

Gender differences Receiver

Discourse move Whole class Boy Girl Other Total Open question 85.6 7.6 6.5 0.2 100% Closed question* 73.1 15.1 10.4 1.4 100% Repeat question 74.3 15.8 9.7 0.2 100% Uptake question 57.5 27.5 15.0 0.3 100%

All questions (mean) 72.6 16.5 10.4 0.5 100% Probe 2.2 51.7 46.1 0.0 100% Evaluation* 8.5 50.0 40.9 0.6 100% Explain 91.6 5.2 3.0 0.1 100% Direct* 67.9 15.8 13.3 3.0 100% Refocus* 30.4 49.1 18.4 2.1 100%

Initiator

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

• Pupils most negative on Wednesdays!

Teachers’ views• 68 teachers interviewed • Overall, extremely positive about IWBs impact

– 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.