Introducing interactive whiteboards into school practice : one school ’ s model of teachers mentoring colleagues

As computer-related technologies continue to evolve, teachers face constant pressure to accommodate and implement new technologies into their repertoire of teaching pedagogies and techniques. The project from which this paper arises looks at the impact on teachers and their teaching in one Victorian secondary school following the acquisition and installation of six interactive whiteboards (IWBs). The report concentrates on the perspectives of two senior staff, and is an analysis and discussion of data relevant to these perspectives gathered as part of a larger ongoing project. In particular this paper is based on observations of two mentor teachers, and interviews conducted with both mentors and mentees. Data for the project was collected through whole-staff questionnaires, focus group interviews, observation and videorecording of lessons in which teachers used IWBs, and subsequent video-stimulated interviews with these teachers. Findings are related to issues including teachers learning how to integrate an innovation into daily teaching practice, problems of technological access and malfunctions, and teacher perceptions of the benefits to students from the innovative IWB technology. Introduction In recent years Australian schools have made a considerable financial investment in the purchase and installation of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) for classroom use. As installation involves the IWB itself, a video projector, and a computer to run specific interactive software, the cost is significant. In Victoria most funding has come from schools or clusters of schools, although the state Education Department has purchased several hundred IWBs from three different makers in order to undertake an evaluation of classroom applications of IWBs at all levels of both primary and secondary schooling. Background There is evidence from research and benchmark data that ICT applications are not providing teachers and students in many Australian schools and systems with the educational benefits that were expected. In some cases it is because teachers without qualifications and experience with ICT are required to teach in particular subjects, and in other cases it is because teachers lack access to appropriate resources and professional development (Measday, 2005; Becta, 2003). In the case of IWBs there appears to be little professional development available in Australia that links the use of interactive whiteboards with improving teaching and learning, especially in core subjects including English, mathematics and science. Much has been claimed about the potential of IWBs, including greater interactivity between teachers and students, and increased pupil engagement, motivation and enjoyment, all potentially leading to improvements in pupil attainments (Hall & Higgins, 2005). A recent review of research on the introduction of IWBs in UK classrooms (Smith et al., 2005) revealed a clear preference for their use by both teachers and pupils, noting that the government too is keen to promote this technology. This was substantiated by Cogill (2002) who stated that all the teachers in her study were enthusiastic about the tools this new technology offered, to help structure their lessons, to save time scribing, to attract and retain children’s attention and to provide large attractive text and images. Smith et al. (2005:99) state that it is still unclear whether this enthusiasm is being translated into effective and purposeful practice. IWB technology is expensive, and should be used in unique and creative ways above and beyond that which is possible when teaching with normal whiteboards or other projection methods. However these writers were not able to identify any rigorous studies describing the impact of IWB use on learners’ attainment or documenting actual changes in classroom interaction. “Most reports do not distinguish between the broader benefits of presentation techniques and the specific or unique advantages of an IWB” (Smith et al., 2005:92). Similarly the ImpaCT2 study in the UK found that “while they [IWBs] have the potential to be used very effectively in teaching and learning, some observations indicate that at present they are not yet used to their full potential” (2001, cited in Cogill, 2002:12). Cogill argues that the many variables that may be involved in the use of an IWB are as yet largely unknown. Smith et al. state that “the use of an IWB to encourage an interactive environment wherein pupils actively participate in the social (re)construction of knowledge and understanding is presented as a means to transform education … however, it is clear from the literature that this is relatively rare” (Smith et al., 2005: 96). They argue that the unique advantage of IWB technology lies “in the opportunities this technology holds for collective meaning making through both dialogic interaction with one another, and physical interaction with the board” (Smith et al., 2005:99). In their review of literature on IWB use, Smith et al. emphasised that research is needed to collect empirical evidence so that the processes of teaching and learning with this new technology are more fully understood. The present study is designed to address one particular aspect of this need. While teacher training offered by suppliers provides the basic skills for using an IWB system, this has not been found to provide pedagogical knowledge for integrating IWB use into the curriculum and the classroom to best effect. Smith et al. report that teachers who were already confident ICT users tended to become enthusiastic ‘early adopters’, able to experiment and develop their own IWB use following initial training. However teachers with less confidence and experience with ICT preferred instead more sustained and individual guidance on a ‘needto-know’ basis or as part of more structured continuing support, such as where experienced users work alongside novices. These findings contrast with results reported here. A lot of the ICT development had been owned by a small key group of people, who had themselves developed huge amounts of knowledge, but they were quite possessive about it. So I had to get ICT out of this little box. (Principal: interview 25 May 2006) From this Principal’s point of view, part of the rationale for investing in the mentors was to make ICT related knowledge and skills available to all teachers. Two other developments suggest that this process had begun earlier. By locating the IWBs throughout the school, one in each of the teaching areas, staff and students were given the message that IWBs were for use in all subject areas and at all levels. The second development was the shift from having all student computers in to reducing the number of labs by creating a number of computer pods around the school. The previous paragraphs can be summarised by saying that there is research evidence, especially from the UK, that classroom use of interactive whiteboards can make integration of ICT into all subjects easier, and consequently change aspects of pedagogy through increasing the variety and amount of ICT used for teaching and learning. For whole-class teaching interactive whiteboards are reported to be much easier to use than computers, while also allowing the re-use and sharing of resources. Students can benefit through increased opportunities for active participation in lessons and easier collaboration with peers. Interactive whiteboards make it easier to cater for the multiplicity of learning styles present in any class through the use of a variety of resources, materials and approaches. In September 2005 the Principal and ICT Co-ordinator of Rural Secondary College (RSC) met with researchers from the University of Melbourne to discuss the possibility of undertaking a joint research project based around the school’s recent acquisition of six IWBs. Following further meetings, including a visit to RSC by the university researchers, a conceptual model for a research project was agreed on. This conceptual model was further developed into a project that could commence collecting data immediately, and also into applications to the Faculty of Education and the ARC for research funding. Setting Rural Secondary College (RSC) is a Year 7 to 12 secondary school situated in a rural area of northern Victoria, approximately 200 km from Melbourne. In 2006 there are 61 teachers, some part-time, and over 800 students at RSC. In 2005 the school purchased six interactive whiteboards (IWBs), installing one in each of six wings or corridors that defined the RSC teaching spaces. This followed at the start of 2006 with the installation of a seventh IWB in a “flexible” teaching space that was not allocated to any subject area. Also in 2005, RSC was successful in gaining State Government funding to would enable the equivalent of one senior teacher to be released from teaching duties in 2006 to mentor other staff in classroom use of IWBs. The School Executive decided to internally advertise the position of IWB mentor and to ask interested teachers to formally apply. After reviewing the applications and interviewing applicants, the School Executive decided to offer two senior teachers the opportunity to have a significantly reduced teaching load for a year while they assisted colleagues to develop and use teaching materials related to classroom applications of IWBs at RSC. Aims For this research project there were two distinct sets of aims, one for the school and one for the research team. The first set relate to teaching and learning at RSC, with the three major aims being to ascertain the perceptions of RSC teachers about the professional development they experienced that specifically related to classroom use of IWBs, the teaching strategies employed when teachers used IWBs, and any related changes to classroom management and organisation. In this report the focus will be on the first of these aims: what are the perceptions of RSC teachers about one aspect of