Interactive whiteboards are now relatively widely available in schools and colleges, and numbers have risen considerably since 2003, when the government of the day provided substantial funding to Local Authorities to support the acquisition and embedding of interactive whiteboards in primary and secondary schools.

At the time, the primary-focused policy evaluation was significant, measuring amongst other things, the effects of exposure to teaching with the whiteboard for longer than the pilot and other previous studies. The secondary-focused evaluation was not as long. The primary study (Somekh et al, 2007) found that the more experience the teacher has of using the whiteboard, the greater the likelihood of positive attainment gains for pupils (see Scientific Method). However, these impacts were variable. For example, in Key Stage 2 maths, average and high attaining children made the equivalent of an extra 2.5-5 months of progress over the course of two years, and in Key Stage 2 science, all pupils except high attaining girls made up to 7.5 months progress. Similar impacts were not seen in secondary schools, where the evaluation was not as long.

This tells us something about the innovation dip that often occurs when new technologies are introduced into educational settings. The evidence from the Whiteboard evaluations and the ICT Test Bed evaluation suggest that it takes between 18 months and 2 years for a technology to become well-embedded for the benefits to be felt. This is a long time in policy terms, and could be something to do with the reticence of policy makers to invest in new technologies in a 'top down' way. Perhaps in this time of austerity we ought to be doing more with 'bottom up' technologies, often owned by learners, rather than investing in large scale infrastructure at the national level.

But what does this all mean?

We know that teachers use their whiteboards a great deal, and report that they like them very much. In 2010 96% of primary, 53% of secondary and 71% of special school teachers in the UK said that they used their whiteboards in at least half of lessons (Becta, 2010). Learners didn’t report anything like that level of use in the classroom, and this is our first hint that what whiteboards are good for is improving pace and engagement in lessons. It means that the whiteboard isn’t necessarily the tool for doing something new pedagogically. It isn’t disruptive. It doesn’t facilitate transformative learning, but rather improves the quality of existing practice when used well. A recent study by Underwood et al (2009) has found that the whiteboard particularly helps in the following ways:

- facilitates integration and allows engagement with learning when the teacher relinquishes control of the technology to the pupil.

- supports personalisation where used for self-assessment

- supports inclusion in some obvious ways (e.g. enlarging text for pupils with sight impairment) and some less obvious ways (e.g. in enabling more innovative ways of expressing, recording and sharing pupil ideas).

These benefits are not to be underestimated, but like any tool, remaining critical about the use of the whiteboard in the classroom is important. A study by Warwick and Bristol Universities highlights the importance of being aware of the role of technology in creating and manipulating power and control in the classroom, as shown by this quote from a teacher.

'I tend not to use the whiteboard as an interactive screen for the young people because it can cause disruption – I use it on my laptop, so they shout out the answers and I do the interacting.'

In talking to trianee teachers we found that many felt more in control of the lesson when they used an IWB as saw they could face the class (rather than turn their back on the class to write on the board) and they could more easily prepare 'lively' resources in advance of the lesson. In particular they could use multi media to illsutrate ideas and engage pupils. However we aslo found that the idea of dialogic teaching support with the IWB was not widley understood and we did ahave examples of trainee teachers giving overlong presentations as they were wedded to their presentation sllides rather than fdocused on 'whole class interative' teaching.

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

What do you think about the quote from the teacher? Does this reflect your practice? Do you think there might be sectoral differences between primary, secondary, FE and HE? What evidence supports your view?

Do you use an interactive whiteboard in your teaching? Who mainly interacts with the whiteboard? What difference, if any, does this tool make to you and your students?

THINGS TO READ

There is a growing literature on this – these are some examples

Hennessy, S, Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. and Winterbottom, M. (2007) Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science, Learning, Media & Technology, 32, 3, 283 - 30

Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. and Miller, D. (2007) Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards, Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 3, 213 – 225.

Moss, G. Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. and Castle, F. with Allen, B., Jenkins, A., Hancock, M. and High, S. The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge, DCFS, London, Research Report RR816 accessed at www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR816.pdf

Rudd, T. (2007) Do whiteboards have a future in the UK classroom?Futurelab, Bristol and accessed at:

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/events/listing/whiteboards/report

Schmid, E. (2008) Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard technology System, Computers & Education, 35, 2, 119-133.

Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K. and Miller, J. (2005) Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 2, 91-101.

Becta (2003) summarised some of the early research into IWBs in Becta (2003) What the Research Says about Interactive Whiteboards, Becta, Coventry.