What about the whiteboards?

(Ramblings about interactive whiteboards in English primary schools)

(The following is my own inimitable distillation of recent papers from Futurelab, Bridget Somekh and others.)

Funding initiatives have led to the widespread introduction of interactive whiteboards (IWB’s) to English primary classrooms. This has been an interesting phenomenon, seemingly led by the technology rather than pedagogical imperatives! Not that I would argue for them to be taken away; whatever the relationship between the teachers and the whiteboard there would be very few who would willingly go back to only a dry wipe board.

The board and the projector are not inextricably linked for while the board is useless without the projector the reverse is not true. It is probably true to say that when the IWB arrived most teachers received a short session on how to use it with a sprinkling of lesson ideas if they were lucky. Typically this led to the teacher increasingly presenting their lessons with prepared material and the internet onto the board but using only limited interactive facilities from the board itself. In fact, many teachers would have known little difference if the board was replaced by a screen.

While the boards have been rolling into classrooms the Department for Children, S Schools and Families (DCFS) in their quest to raise literacy and numeracy standards have been rolling out what is now the Primary Framework (http://tinyurl.com/42cnzh) with a strong element of whole class didactic teaching running through. This is of course a marriage made in heaven for the IWBs since they support teacher led whole class teaching so well. Many would say that the IWB has transformed whole class teaching and brought about the much sought after integration of ICT into subject teaching. Certainly there is no denying lessons are generally brighter, more dynamic and interesting. Children like the boards and engage quickly with them.

OK, so what about the interactivity bit? It is unfair to say that the Primary Framework promotes only whole class teaching. Back when the National Numeracy Strategy was first launched back in 1998 the teacher training packages were strong on punchy and energetic lesson starters with quick fire questioning. No one could doze on the carpet then! Ten years on it seems that some of this has transferred into everyday practice but there has something of a relaxation too. A handful of great Interactive Teaching Programs (ITP’s) have become truly embedded in practice and the IWBs have been ready and waiting.(ITP’s at http://tinyurl.com/3bf6rt)

Looking at the messages from the DCFS we see encouraging language. We have “personalisation, learner demand, empowering learners, transform teaching, dialogue and participation” cropping up everywhere; and still the IWB is ready and waiting.

In fact, it turns out that the IWB is actually just a tool! If we are to have the empowered learners and all the other laudable language reflected in practice then the IWB has only a small stake in the process. It seems that it is the pedagogy itself that will have to change. There, I’ve said it! Isn’t this what education professionals have been saying forever; but changing practice is a slow process.

Don’t we always take in what we are ready for? Does this go right back to our early schemas! We can roll out a national initiative like the Primary Strategy and the bits that get adopted into mainstream practice are those that fit comfortably with what we know. If the DCFS really wants all those buzz words to get off the page and into classrooms then something more will have to happen. Here’s a bit from the Futurelab paper:

“There is a clear need for the government and training providers to exemplify deeply interactive learning experiences and environments at classroom level. These should include examples and suggestions about the ways in which various technologies, including IWBs, might be used to enhance such experience. Clear reference to the policies, strategies and initiatives that underpin this needs to be made, and a clear statement to help teachers and schools recognise they have permission to innovate’ in this area. This should not, however, take the form of a how to’ approach, as this might be viewed as topdown and prescriptive, but rather it should seek to encourage teachers to be active in developing their own specific approaches, informed, but not prescribed by, a clear and transformational educational vision of the future.”

It seems that there is work to be done before the IWB is ready to show its true colours.

References

Somekh, B and Haldane, M (2006). How can interactive whiteboards contribute to pedagogic change? Learning from case studies in English primary schools. Paper presented at: Imagining the Future for ICT and Education Conference, 26-30 June 2006, Ãlesund, Norway. http://ifip35.inf.elte.hu/alesund/?q=node/155

Futurelab (2007) Interactive whiteboards in the classroom. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/events/listing/whiteboards/report