The impact of IWBs on standards and pedagogy in primary schools: an evaluation of the PSWE initiative commissioned by th

1. a presentation to the ITiE SymposiumLondon9.10.2007 The impact of IWBs on standards and pedagogy in primary schools:an evaluation of the PSWE initiative commissioned by the DfES With thanks to the SWEEP Team led by Professor Bridget Somekh: Maureen Haldane, Cathy Lewin, Peter Scrimshaw, Stephen Steadman, Kelvyn Jones (University of Bristol), John Cummings and colleagues at MMU Bridget Somekh and Maureen Haldane

2. Key features of the study • It was carried out over a longer period than many other studies. PSWE was funded in 2003-04 and final case studies were conducted in autumn term 2006. • It combined quantitative methods (multi-level modelling) with extensive classroom observations (using digital video) to enable exploration of the meaning of the quantitative outcomes

3. Objectives of SWEEP • Assess the extent of the impact on literacy and mathematics • Identify the effects on a range of other outcomes • Investigate the contribution to development of pedagogies and cross-curricular embedding of ICT • Evaluate the impact on teacher professional development • Evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation and operation of the PSWE initiative (2004-06) (This aspect of the work is not covered in this seminar – see the full report.)

4. General points • The IWB has been welcomed enthusiastically by primary teachers; its take-up in primary schools has been rapid; it is seen as immediately useful for whole class teaching • Additionally, particularly at KS1, it is used for small-group work and occasionally for individual work in the middle part of the lesson • Typically it is linked to the internet and the school server and on all day – making the internet easily available at any time • Primary pupils are universally enthusiastic about IWBs: visibility (“We can see!”), access/touch, variety in lessons – and always an element of surprise (hence the ‘wow’ effect does not go away completely)

5. Quantitative Data • Survey of Heads/ICT Co-ordinators (Nov 2004, repeated June 2005) • Survey of two teachers in each school (Nov 2004 and June 2005) • Schools provided UPNs and length of exposure to IWBs of pupils taught by these teachers, and these were matched with NPD data to track individual pupils. The baselines were KS1 (for KS2) and FSP (for KS1). • Tracking pupils who took national tests in both 2005 and 2006 (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2), enabling combined and separate analyses • MLM data analysis with a two level hierarchical structure of pupil and classroom (as these pupils share the same experience) • Analysis based on the length of exposure to IWBs (in months) experienced by classes of pupils. Intervention measured as a continuous variable rather than a binary measure of exposed or not.

6. Impact on Attainment in Maths, • The length of time pupils have been taught with an IWB is the major factor that leads to attainment gains. This appears to be an effect of embedding IWB use in teachers’ pedagogy – the qualitative data strongly supports this interpretation. • Data were analysed • for both cohorts combined • for each cohort separately. • KS2 Maths: • Average and high attaining pupils made greater progress. This ranged from 2.5 months for girls of average prior attainment to 5 months for boys of high prior attainment (combined analysis) • Little effect on progress of low attaining pupils for the combined cohorts – but gains for all levels of prior attainment for both genders once teachers had had sustained experience of using the technology.

7. Impact on Attainment in Science and English • KS2 Science: • Analysis of Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded, showed clear benefits for all except high attaining girls (ceiling effect). The most marked effect was for boys with low prior attainment who made some 7.5 months additional progress when they had two years exposure to IWBs compared with no exposure. • KS2 English: • Indications of positive gains (but measures in English are less stable) • Cohort 2, once IWBs were embedded, showed a positive trend in low attaining boys’ writing (p<0.094) of 2.5 months additional progress

8. Impact on Attainment (continued) KS1 findings are less robust because Foundation Stage Profiles for these children were in the trial stage • KS1 Maths • IWBs appear to have a positive impact on attainment once teachers have experienced sustained use. In cohort 2 high prior attainment girls made gains of 4.75 months, catching up with high attainment boys (although these girls showed a dip in performance in cohort 1 when the IWB was new to both them and their teachers). • KS1 Science • IWBs used much less for Science in Cohort 1. However, girls of all attainment levels appear to make greater gains with an IWB, and there were indications of positive impact on average and above average boys. • KS1 English • Once IWBs become embedded average and high attaining pupils appear to benefit from exposure to IWBs. • No effect on low attaining pupils, which may lead to widening the gaps in progress between them and their peers.

9. Additional analysis to address questions • The length of exposure has been used, rather than a ‘with/without’ intervention analysis • Collapsing into a dichotomous category would lose power to detect the effects and lose richness of data. This is particularly the case because we were unable to get an equal number of classes without the intervention. • Surprise that we found that IWBs had made a positive impact on outcomes (compared with the Newcastle research) • At least some support for this finding from each of the cohorts and each of the sexes: even with small numbers there is consistency on replication. • Considerably more training, and far more available materials, for the PSWE teachers than for those involved in the Newcastle research. • Our findings suggest that the key is embedding of the IWB in teachers’ pedagogic practice and that this can only be achieved over time. So a study conducted two years later would expect to have different findings. • Possibility of bias in the sample • We have investigated this and cannot find any evidence of bias resulting from the new schools included in the extension phase analysis.

10. Data from Visits to Schools • Cohort 1: 10 representative schools selected from Quest’rs • Two day visits • Classroom observation and digital video in 4 classrooms (analysed using a grounded theory approach) • Interviews with teachers and selected pupils following observation • Interviews with Heads and ICT / literacy / numeracy coordinators • Observed teachers’ logs of use of IWBs over two weeks prior • Questionnaire data also scrutinised • Cohort 2: 9 teachers selected whose pupils in 2005 showed progress in national tests different from the main trend • Classroom observation and digital video (qualitative analysis to test hypotheses from prelim MLM analysis, and focused on the role of the IWB in mediating the interactivity between teacher and pupils). • Interviews with observed teachers and pupils, Heads and ICT coordinators

11. Impact of the IWB on Pedagogy and Embedding ICT across the curriculum • The IWB is embedded in teaching and learning across the whole curriculum in these primary schools. • When connected to the internet and the school’s network, the IWB acts as a multi-modal portal to the full range of ICT resources and teachers model use of the internet. • The IWB is an ideal resource to support whole class teaching (WCT): it focuses pupils’ attention and increases engagement. NB: if children have cognitive difficulties in learning to read which WCT does not address, the addition of an IWB may make lessons more enjoyable, but no more effective. • When teachers have used an IWB for a considerable period of time (at least two years in our observations) the IWB becomes embedded in their pedagogy as a mediating artefact to increase their interactivity with pupils. New patterns of teaching practice (or new developments of established patterns) are observable and some teachers can articulate the advantages clearly (for others the knowledge is “tacit”).

12. Examples of pedagogic change • Improvements of previous pedagogy: • E.g. Use of IWBs to facilitate a co-learner style of teaching, where pupils and teachers (“we”) work together using the IWB as a shared space. • Lesson plans developed in the form of prepared IWB presentations • New pedagogic practices • E.g. Teachers use IWB presentations prepared in advance. These ‘scripts’ act as an aide memoir and reduce teachers’ cognitive load enabling them to focus their attention during the lesson wholly on listening to the children’s talk and watching the interactions between the TA and children with SEN. This leads to more personalised learning for children in a whole-class setting.

13. Impact of the IWB on pedagogy • Teachers say that the IWB is particularly useful when teaching difficult concepts or demonstrating skills (it supports visualisation) • Young children who have not yet acquired 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. Teachers say this provides an excellent resource to assess children’s learning. • Children with SEN (including those who are not achieving ‘the expected level’) do not benefit in terms of attainment from the IWB’s impact in improving the pace, variety and interest of WCT. However, in some high achieving classrooms, pupils whose baseline scores were low had been taught regularly in pairs or threes by a teacher or trained TA using the IWB. This appeared to be an important factor in their success. • Where children are partially sighted or completely blind the use of the IWB creates the need for new kinds of support from TAs.

14. Impact of IWBs/ PSWE on CPD • Learning together with a pressing ‘need to know’ is a powerful strategy for CPD. • LA training (cascaded from the NWN team) was increasingly effective over time. But in-school support from the ICT coordinator was also crucially important • Teachers with continuous use of an IWB rapidly become confident, skilled users of ICT with a level of competence in IWB use. Advanced use of IWBs requires sustained training over time. • By autumn 2006 the base of expertise in IWB use had moved out of the LAs into the schools. • The IWB has had a transformative impact on lesson planning and the storing and availability of teaching resources: plans and resources have become integrated. They are kept in folders on the school’s server giving easy access to the Head and other teachers. • Competence in using the IWB is essential, but advanced skills in its use appear to be less important than the way that good teachers have embedded their use in their pedagogy as ‘extensions of themselves’ (McLuhan).

15. Recommendations • Consideration should be given to installing IWBs in all classrooms in primary schools (the job seems to be half done) • Serious consideration should be given to developing strategies other than whole class teaching (WCT) for using IWBs to support pupils of lower ability: the IWB gives the potential for real gains in conjunction with new strategies for teaching in pairs and threes. • Small group teaching with the IWB for children who are in danger of failing to reach the ‘expected levels’ in English and Maths needs to be provided by teachers or TAs trained in teaching literacy and numeracy (most TAs quickly acquire basic competence in using the IWB). • IWB manufacturers need to develop interoperability of software between boards. • Technical support is essential. Some schools have sent TAs on specialist courses (this has proved very successful for dealing with day to day problems).