Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
effects' (cited in Somekh et al. 2007: 164), which appear to be evolutionary and lon-
gitudinal - it takes time. In addition to the costs of ongoing training for teachers,
there is also the need to train teaching assistants and supply staff. Pupils have cited
their frustration with support and supply staff lacking the necessary skills to use the
interactive whiteboard (Hall and Higgins 2005).
With respect to time:
There is a consistent finding across all data that the length of time pupils have
been taught with an interactive whiteboard is the major factor that leads to
attainment gains. This appears to be the result of the interactive whiteboard
becoming embedded in teachers' pedagogy: that is, when teachers have had
sustained experience (around two years) of using an interactive whiteboard,
they are able to change their teaching practices to make best use of its facilities.
(Somekh et al. 2007: 4)
Interestingly, in some cases Somekh et al. (2007) were able to report improved results,
particularly for maths and science, with those teachers who had managed to integrate
interactive whiteboards into their classroom practice after approximately two years.
This is further supported by Moss et al. (2007:47) who found similar subject varia-
tion in take up: 'the relevance of interactive whiteboard technologies was more easily
recognised and realised in maths and science' where as in English 'the benefits of the
technology seemed less immediately apparent'.
Implementation of whole-class technologies is affected by other school factors, which
have been found to greatly influence the impact of any technology. One of the most
important is supportive leadership, which is necessary to affect organizational and cul-
tural change in classroom practice (Glover and Miller 2002). Somekh et al. (2007) found
that leaders who promoted change, although not necessarily expert themselves in the
newly adopted technologies, were effective when they empowered others to learn. This
model of 'distributed leadership' is known to be powerful with respect to technology take
up in general, not just interactive whiteboards (Lawson and Comber 2004; Younie 2007).
In considering the conditions required for the effective implementation of inter-
active whiteboards, the conditions that constrain also become apparent. With respect
to understanding what constrains teachers' uses of interactive whiteboards (or any
technology) the 'old chestnuts' of restrictive curriculum and assessment regimes that
prioritize standardized testing come to the fore again. Somekh et al. (2007) in refer-
ence to the work of Lewin et al. (2003) cite the need for more flexible curricular and
pupil/teacher roles, in order to realize the benefits of technology. Pressures to cover
the content of the curriculum 'restrict freedom to make the most of the interactive
pedagogies afforded by the interactive whiteboard' (Somekh et al. 2007: 165).
Overall, however, interactive whiteboard use appears to contribute to increasing
teachers' technology skills. Interestingly Koenraad (2008: 19) observed: 'one of the
more consistent findings is that the adoption process of interactive whiteboards by
practitioners is a lot more fluent compared to the integration of the Internet and
the use of subject-specific software'. This rapid adoption is supported by Higgins
et al. (2005) research, which is explained by teachers' pedagogy, because it reinforces
Search WWH ::




Custom Search