Abstract
This paper draws on research carried out for the UK government during 2004–2006 to evaluate the impact of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning in primary schools in England. Multilevel modelling showed positive gains in literacy, mathematics and science for children aged 7 and 11, directly related to the length of time they had been taught with an interactive whiteboard (IWB). These gains were particularly strong for children of average and above average prior attainment. Classroom observations, together with teacher and pupil interviews, were used to develop a detailed account of how pedagogic practice changed. Results from the multilevel modelling enabled the researchers to visit the classrooms of teachers whose pupils had made exceptional progress and seek to identify what features of pedagogy might have helped to achieve these gains. It was also possible to examine possible reasons for the lack of impact of IWBs on the progress of low prior attainment pupils, despite their enthusiasm for the IWB and improved attention in class. The IWB is an ideal resource to support whole class teaching. Where teachers had been teaching with an IWB for 2 years and there was evidence that all children, had made exceptional progress in attainment in national tests, a key factor was the use of the IWB for skilled teaching of numeracy and literacy to pairs or threesomes of children. Young children with limited writing skills, and older pupils with special educational needs are highly motivated by being able to demonstrate their skills and knowledge with the tapping and dragging facilities of the IWB. These effects are greatest when they have the opportunity, individually or in small groups, for extended use of the IWB rather than as part of whole class teaching. The IWB is in effect a mediating artefact in interactions between teacher and pupils, and when teachers use an IWB for a considerable period of time (at least 2 years), teachers learn how to mediate the greatly increased number of possible interactions to best aid pupils’ learning. The IWB’s use becomes embedded in their pedagogy as a mediating artefact for their interactions with their pupils, and pupils’ interactions with one another, and this is when changes in pedagogic practice become apparent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology. Pedagogy & Education, 13(3), 327–248. doi:10.1080/14759390400200186.
Fisher, T. (2006). Educational transformation: is it, like “beauty”, in the eye of the beholder, or will we know when we see it. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3–4), 293–303. doi:10.1007/s10639-006-9009-1.
Gillen, J., Kleine Staarman, J., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243–256. doi:10.1080/17439880701511099.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 5–20. doi:10.1080/17439880601141146.
Goldstein, H. (1983). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. C. Greene, & V. J Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5–18). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Haldane, M. (2005). A typology of interactive whiteboard pedagogies. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Glamorgan, September.
Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303–317. doi:10.1080/17439880701511149.
Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1–2), 101–116.
Kennewell, S. (2004) Researching the influence of interactive presentation tools on teacher pedagogy. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, UMIST, Manchester, September.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, C., Scrimshaw, P., & Somekh, B. (in press). The impact of formal and informal professional development opportunities on primary teachers’ adoption of interactive whiteboards. Technology, Pedagogy & Education (in press).
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & 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), 443–457. doi:10.1080/01411920600635452.
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91–101. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x.
Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation. London and New York: Routledge.
Somekh, B., Underwood, J., Convery, A., Dillon, G., Jarvis, J., Lewin, C., et al. (2007a). Evaluation of the ICT test bed project: final report. Coventry, UK: BECTA.
Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., et al. (2007b). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard project. Coventry, UK: BECTA.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakorri, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social sciences. In A. Tashakorri, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank our colleagues in the project team whose contributions informed our work: Maureen Haldane, Kelvyn Jones, Peter Scrimshaw, Sue Sing, Kate Bird, John Cummings, Brigid Downing, Tanya Harber Stuart, Janis Jarvis, Diane Mavers and Derek Woodrow. We would also like to thank the teachers and local authority staff who participated in the project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewin, C., Somekh, B. & Steadman, S. Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Educ Inf Technol 13, 291–303 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z