New UK study examines the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards

The DfES has just published a new large-scale evaluation of the impact in London schools of interactive whiteboards on pedagogy and pupil performance. The study, which was immediately used by the London Evening Standard as a stick to beat the Government (see How £50m went to waste on a whiteboard), is by Gemma Moss, Carey Jewitt, Ros Levacic, Vicky Armstrong, Alejandra Cardini, and Frances Castle, and was commissioned by the DfES from the Institute of Education. It provides a case-study rich snapshot of practice in London schools, along with an inconclusive statistical analysis of pupil attainment data.  The study can be freely downloaded as a PDF. I include the "findings summary" in the continuation post below, and the "detailed findings" section of the report's 6-page executive summary is worth reading. In short, as you'd expect, interactive whiteboards are no panacea; their novelty soon wears off; used badly they reinforce bad teaching, and may detract from good teaching: and in some circumstances they slow down rather than speed up learning. Are they worth the money? This issue is simply not addressed in the study, which, disappointingly, is devoid of any economic analysis.

"The main findings are that the SWE scheme substantially increased the number of IWBs in use in London secondary school core subject departments. As a technology, IWBs adapt well to the kind of whole class teaching environment favoured in secondary school core subjects. Their actual use varies according to the teacher, and between subject areas."

"The transformation of secondary school pedagogy is a long term project. The use of IWBs can contribute to this aim under the appropriate circumstances. Discussion of pedagogy should precede and embed discussion of the technology. Successful CPD is most likely to be effective if it supports individual teachers’ exploration of their current pedagogy, and helps identify how IWB use can support, extend or transform this. Discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different ways of using the technology for particular purposes should be part of the on-going work of a department. Although the newness of the technology was initially welcomed by pupils any boost in motivation seems short-lived. Statistical analysis showed no impact on pupil performance in the first year in which departments were fully equipped. This is as we would expect at this stage in the policy-cycle."

Comments

[Tom Franklin]

I have long been of the opinion that interactive whiteboards are an expensive short term measure. They have some good features - the interactiveness, but leave control entirely at the front of the class and the user with their back to the class.

Using tablet PCs with a projector the teacher can face the class, and if there are several dotted around the class then control can be passed from user to user without their having to come to the front, and can easily be used in groups.

Thus, I think that they will disappear as computers become more ubiquitous and easier to use.

[David Sugden]

First of all - I haven't read the report.

I have however, read the news reports and followed the various discussion groups analysis of IWBs.

I think the point being missed here is not that the technology is useless but that without staff training and development no technology can be deployed effectively.

IWBs can be the most powerful tool - in the right hands. Neither is that to say that Tablets, PDAs, iPods or any other technology cannot be the most wonderful tool too.

Staff just need training and time to develop new skills.

David

[Donald Clark]

You don't learn how to bat in cricket by concentrating on the bowler.

Staff training seems like the right answer, but the TTA and others have poured untold sums of money into this, and failed.

The first comment was right. This is merely an extension of the 1870 Victorian model of the blackboard. It reinforces old behaviourist teaching models (talk at them) and doesn't deliver the right type of interactivity. Interactive participation in learning comes from the learner, not the teacher and that needs one-on-one with a computer. It drives kids crazy seeing teachers struggle with technology which they themselves can use with ease.

The report is a shocker on two fronts:

1. No performance improvement
2. Avoidance of the ROI issue (they know the answer)

Whiteboards are Powerpoint+ for teachers and have nothing to do with personalised learning. As long as we see 'teachers' as the solution to learning, we'll be pouring money into the desert.

[Henry Page]

You [presumably Donald Clark...] cannot possibly compare the "1870 Victorian model of the blackboard" to the interactive whiteboard (IWB). The change that comes from IWB use is the ability to present interactive use in a whole-class context, along with a presentation multiple modalities and the possibility of individual participation by use of a tablet. To reinforce my argument, is there a language teacher left who, having used the digital CD to present sound tracks, would willingly switch back to cassette tape? Your arguments are weakened by your underestimation of the ease with which digital media can be used if the will is there.

The comment that implies that this tool does not lead to constructivist teaching is surely rooted in not having seen the IWB being used properly. This writer has obviously not witnessed a class of 5 year olds eagerly using the medium to choose their work that day - 5 year olds voting for what they want in their daily dose of education.

My last point is that there are many possible variables that could have lead to the very small improvement in test results over IWB use. These include teacher training in terms of ICT and pedagogical methodology. The study carried out only measured an improvement in test results, but what of enhanced learner attendance or longer-term issues in terms of grading? I don't think the jury is out yet, Mr. Chips.