The Efficacy of Interactive White Boards MEIT503 Sept 10 FINAL

8/4/2019 The Efficacy of Interactive White Boards MEIT503 Sept 10 FINAL

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-efficacy-of-interactive-white-boards-meit503-sept-10-final 1/54

1

Making an argument:

Examining the efficacy of Interactive Whiteboards and ancillary technologies

in the Post-Compulsory context: What factors are inhibiting adoption?

The efficacy of Interactive Whiteboards (IWB‘s) in post-compulsory

educational contexts is surprisingly unsubstantiated. There is a burgeoning body of

research within the Primary and Secondary sectors, which examine the usefulness

of these innovations in a variety of disciplines and age ranges, but there is no

analogue within the HE and FE environments. Partially this is undoubtedly a

consequence of their being no strategic imperative on these sectors to roll out IWB‘s.

Primary and Secondary schools received £25 million of funding specifically to equip

classrooms with IWB‘s in 2004 (DfES 2004). Resultantly, within the UK, 70% of

Primary and Secondary Schools are believed to have boards; No comparable data is

available for the post-compulsory sectors, but penetration is currently significantly

below this level.

This study will concern itself not just with the numbers, but also attempt to

assay the perceived and potential pedagogic value of these boards, and ascertain

the degree of training currently provided within the sector to facilitate their

successful use. As such it is a binary study; The first part of the essay will be

predicated on my proposing a hypothesis, and the second part will focus on the

construction and utility of a test mechanism to ascertain its validity. There may also

be specific cultural issues pertaining to the adoption and incorporation of these and



2

other technologies within the Higher and Further Education contexts, and these also

warrant consideration herein. Hopefully the results of the survey will articulate any

cultural and/or pedagogic issues which are impeding take up, but it is equally

possible that with historically a far less proscriptive funding regimen, it is simply the

case that HE and FE procurement priorities have been focused elsewhere. It is also

my contention that in many cases HE Colleges are well equipped in terms of units,

but as these were often installed without a commensurate training programme to

express their pedagogic value and assuage staff anxieties concerning the utilisation

of technology within their lessons, they are under used.

Additionally, in the incorporation of Classroom Technologies in HE there is

typically scant consideration of the ways in which culturally the value of these tools

can be demonstrated, resulting in the under use (and ultimately obsolescence) of

expensively procured resources. BECTA, the body providing strategic advice on the

procurement and utilisation of Classroom Technologies within the Compulsory and

FE milieu advise that teaching staff can maximise the pedagogical impact of IWB‘s

by investing time in training to become confident users, exploring the full range of

capabilities of whiteboards and collaborating and sharing resources with other

teachers(BECTA ICT Research 2003). As we will see, the extent to which this

guidance is adhered to is variable across all sectors, and indeed negligible within the

HE setting. I will consider some of the most prevalent models of change agency and

diffusion of innovation in exploring ways of mitigating cultural resistance to the

adoption of IWB‘s and other Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) tools.



3

Firstly, a brief orientation in what Interactive Whiteboards are, and what they

are for. To paraphrase the JISC‘s Briefing for Senior Managers in HE and FE, an

IWB is a ―..large physical display panel that can function as an ordinary whiteboard,

a projector screen, an electronic copy board or as a computer projector screen on

which the computer image can be controlled by touching or writing on the surface of

the panel instead of using a mouse or keyboard‖ (TechLearn 2005). They have a

myriad of advantages over conventional whiteboards, not least the capacity to

incorporate highly visual interfaces which communicate learning graphically and in

real time, and utilising media that are often highly flexible and, crucially, interactive.

As a very crude example, an IWB can display the rotation of an object in space in a

way that simply isn‘t possible using chalk.

They afford the user the opportunity to manipulate on-screen data easily and

effectively. Additionally, being digital media any interactions can be recorded and

edited/amended afterwards, or made available to others in a variety of formats (e.g.

presented online, e-mailed as a WMV file etc). They also allow teaching and support

staff to easily and rapidly create customised learning objects from a range of existing

content and adapt it to the needs of the class in real time. When combined with an

ancillary technology like a Voting Kit, they allow the teacher to take and exhibit a

―snapshot‖ of group understanding which enables the skilled facilitator the

opportunity to amend the lesson in real time, allowing them to either remediate or

develop interesting tangents. This degree of interactivity can also make a

traditionally didactic learning experience (like receiving a lecture) far less passive for

the participant.



4

In the first instance, I will make a critical review of the literature available

(overwhelmingly from research conducted within KS 1-4 contexts), then move on to

review the strategic imperatives underpinning and incentivising the mobilisation of

these units in the classroom. I will then analyse the results of a survey conducted

with teaching and support staff in the post-compulsory (i.e. Further and Higher

Education) sectors, and assess how cognate these results are with the experiences

documented elsewhere. The survey will look at ways in which IWB‘s (and

associated classroom technologies) are currently being utilised, and assay the

perceived pedagogic benefit within these environments. The survey will be made

available as both a web-based tool (using a piece of proprietorial software called

―Survey Monkey‖) or in a word document issued via e-mail; It will be disseminated to

all pertinent lists chronicling HE and FE support networks covered by the JISC

Regional Support Centre South West.

Within the KS 1-4 milieu, research indicates perceptions of the effectiveness

of IWB‘s varies considerably, as does discernible impact of their use (quantified via

the possibly spurious indicator of SATS results). Rollout of the boards themselves is

piecemeal, and largely dependant on the funding source (Glover and Miller 2006),

but the degree to which IWB‘s have been assimilated into teaching is broadly

considered to be negligible. In Secondary School‘s for instance, the introduction of

IWB‘s has led ―…to significant pedagogic change by some technologically competent

teachers in some secondary schools but there is a marked difference in the pace of

change from school to school‖(Glover and Miller 2006).



5

This could be because Teachers within this particular sector have not

received sufficient training, or, as McCormick & Scrimshaw indicate, it may be that

staff are not sufficiently acculturated into the broader potentialities for pedagogic

amelioration offered by IWB‘s and other classroom technologies (McCormick and

Scrimshaw 2001). As Glover and Miller again point out, ―..potential may not be

realised unless technology is more than an aid to efficiency, or an extension

device…Pedagogic change is necessary so that the technology becomes a

transformative device to enhance learning‖(Glover and Miller 2006). Particularly in

respect of IWB‘s, it can be posited that in order for these technologies to be fully

utilised as learning and teaching media, teachers need to fully appreciate the

opportunities for interactivity and collaboration offered. IWB‘s have the capacity to

be much more than passive presentational devices; They can become active

conduits for high quality, mutual learning experiences. Beeland corroborates this

assertion by remarking in his study of Secondary age pupils that ―..school and

technology leaders need to be aware of the potential these whiteboards have for

increasing student achievement through increased student engagement‖(Beeland

2001).

It is noteworthy therefore that in the guidance given with Circular 173/2004

(Interactive Whiteboard Initiative for Primary/Secondary sectors sponsored by the

then Department for Education and Skills) such advice as was provided on the utility

of these innovations was entirely mediated towards whole class delivery: ―When

using this technology the emphasis is on effective whole class strategies, including

teacher modelling, exposition and demonstration, prompting, probing and promoting



6

questioning, class discussions managed by the teacher, opportunities to predict, test

and confirm and bringing the class together to reinforce key points emerging from

individual and group work. It is the use of these effective teaching strategies

alongside the use of the interactive whiteboard that results in the greatest

gains‖(DfES 2004). This assertion is not substantiated in the call by any references

to indicative research, and surely presents a rather solipsistic view of the potential of

IWB‘s, negating at a stroke their capacity to facilitate and enhance small group work,

or even work with individuals.

In their study of the use of the IWB in Literacy lessons within the Primary

classroom, Smith et al. suggest a link between students‘ physical interaction with

the board and opportunities for interaction and discussion and assert that teachers

may need to consider how this can be achieved (Smith 2006); In other words, if the

incorporation of IWB‘s is to foster a higher degree of teacher -pupil and pupil-pupil

interaction within the classroom, teaching staff need to develop a new approach to

pedagogy which is predicated on the degree of access students are allowed to the

hallowed board itself. If implemented, this would represent a major cultural shift,

away from a ―Sage on the Stage‖ delivery style, to a ―Guide on the Side‖ model, with

teachers facilitating a more Socratic dialogue in the classroom, contingent on a

degree of discourse predicated on pupil interaction with the IWB. Ostensibly at least,

this appears antithetical to the prior DfES covenant, which enshrines the teachers

role in the established didactic and transmissive mode, delivering facts to passive

classroom recipients.



7

This perspective is not consistent with the fundamental principles of education

espoused by such luminaries as Vygotsky and Bruner, whose theories of cognitive

development focus pre-eminently on the idea that social interaction defines the

learning experience. Vygotsky‘s concept of the ―Zone of Proximal Development‖

(ZPD) is also predicated on the notion that social interaction is obligatory for

successful learning to take place. The ZPD is the level of development than can be

realised when children (he didn‘t extend his theory to adults) connect socially,

predominantly with their peer group but also with adult teachers: ― "Every function in

the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on

the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the

child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical

memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual

relationships between individuals." (Kearsley 2009) This constructivist view of

learning is refined by Vygotsky from ideas first postulated by his predecessor Jean

Piaget, whose theory of ―genetic epistemology‖ encapsulated the view that the

edifices on which cognition where built (assimilation and accommodation) where

contingent on ―..a constant effort to adapt to the environment‖ through social

interaction (Kearsley 2009). More recently, Jerome Bruner has contributed to this

school of thought through his writings on Instructional Design which, although

divergent in the sense that he has no adherence to the concept of stage learning

postulated by Piaget, concur with the idea that social interaction and dialogue are

essential; Learning is an active process, in which learners construct new ideas

based on their current level of understanding in collaboration with their

contemporaries.



8

Other academics have developed theories of interaction for the Digital age

which transcend the teacher-pupil/pupil-pupil paradigm. Michael G Moore for

instance is the progenitor of a three stage model which also incorporates Learner-

Content Interaction. Moore asserts that this is the mode of delivery wherein most

Adult education resides. This is the mode where learners ―talk to themselves‖, and

―…without it there cannot be education, since it is the process of intellectually

interacting with content that results in changes in the learner‘s understanding, the

learner‘s perspective, or the cognitive structures of the learner‘s mind‖. Historically

this type of interaction has defined the distant learning experience, although it could

be argued that in the new milieu of refined web technologies such as VoIP or Web

Conferencing, this is no longer the case. Whilst this mode of interaction is not

unique to the modern epoch, modern classroom technologies such as IWB‘s have

ramifications for this interplay. Moore contends that ―..Educators need to organize

programmes to ensure maximum effectiveness of each type of interaction, and

ensure they provide the type of interaction which is most suitable for the various

teaching tasks of different subject areas, and for learners at different states of

development‖. Although this excerpt is from an essay focusing on contact modes

within the realm of distance education, it is very much applicable to the pedagogical

choices modern educators should consider (Moore 1989). More recently, the

concept of learner-interface interaction has been posited. Theorists of this school

argue that ―a students skill with the communication medium..is positively correlated

with success in that course. In order to gain any meaning from the course content,

the students must be literate in the communication medium‘s rules of

interaction‖(Kelsey and D‘souza 2004). This assertion may seem self evident, but

the resulting dynamic faces two ways; Students need to enhance their learning



9

literacies to engage most effectively with incipient media, but staff also have an

obligation to avail themselves of suitable knowledge and skills to effectively address

the varying learning needs and aptitudes of their students.

It may be that the true worth of IWB‘s will not be realised (or realisable) until

this cultural shift is actuated. This will be a long struggle, as their still appears to be a

perception that technology constitutes a threat rather than an opportunity; in the

words of John and Wheeler, ―..a Trojan horse designed to destabilise conventional

teaching and deprofessionalise them‖ (John and Wheeler 2008). Within the Primary

and Secondary School environment, John and Wheeler stratify teachers into 4

categories which encapsulate the diversity of reaction to the incorporation of

Technology. These (in ascending order of keenness!) are Enthusiasts, Pragmatists,

Traditionalists and ―Refuseniks‖. Evidently, Enthusiasts attempt to fully integrate

new technologies into their teaching; Pragmatists recognise the potential of

technology and seek an accommodation with it; Traditionalists recognise the latent

potential of ICT but can perceive it as a threat to their professional knowledge and

identity. Finally, ―Refuseniks‖, as the name suggests, ―..are so critical of new

technology and teachers possible dependence on it that they resist its use and

refuse to engage with its pedagogical potential‖. A BECTA study in 2004 (Jones

2004 ) articulated clearly some of the common barriers to cultural change in the

incorporation of classroom technologies, and I would wager that many of the reasons

cited correspond with reasons cited in Higher and Further Education; Hopefully the

survey results will elucidate further.



10

The reasons for resistance to acculturation cited in this report are primarily

Lack of confidence, Lack of competence, Lack of Technical Support and Lack of

time. Teachers apparently often perceive students to possess more familiarity and

proficiency in the use of technology than they exhibit, and resultantly believe this

diminishes their perceived professional competence in the eyes of their pupils. This

may be down to specific and highly contemporaneous issues pertaining to the

accretion in inter-generational digital acculturation suggested by Mark Prensky.

Prensky believes that ―.. as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer

volume of their interaction with it, todays students think and process information

fundamentally differently from their predecessors. These differences go far further

and deeper than most educators suspect or realize…it is very likely that our

students‘ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result

of how they grew up‖ (Prensky 2001). In other words, the population can be

quantified in terms of Digital Immigrants (i.e. those who did not grow up interfacing

with a panoply of ubiquitous digital technologies) and Digital Natives (i.e. those who

did!), and ―…the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital

Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age),

are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language‖(Prensky

2001).

It‘s easy to be seduced by the solipsistic logic of this logic of this argument,

but some recent evidence has suggested that in a scholarly context, although

students are comfortable with technology, they don‘t necessarily know how best to

apply it, or how to use it to maximum utility outside of a narrowly circumscribed

personal/social agenda. For instance, the JISC ―Information Behaviour of the



11

Researcher of the Future‖ report scrutinized the web skills of the ―Google

Generation‖ (analogous to Prensky‘s Digital Natives) and found that in actuality

young learners lacked the critical and analytical skills required to assess the

academic veracity of the information that they find on the web. Whilst they

possessed the basic searching skills and demonstrated confidence and familiarity

with Computers, they had apparently not been schooled in critically assaying the

plethora of materials available; Given the exponential proliferation and dubious

provenance of many such allegedly academic materials on the web, the report

further concluded that ―..young people are dangerously lacking information skills.

Well-funded information literacy programmes are needed, it continues, if the UK is to

remain as a leading knowledge economy with a strongly-skilled next generation of

researchers‖ (JISC 2008). There are also those who disparage Prensky‘s concept of

―Digital Nativitism‖; Some of the grandiose claims made in his discourse are

repudiated by Mark Bullen, who contends that ―..the digital native or net generation

discourse…presents a simplistic and superficial picture of an entire generation and

ignores the complexity of technology use and its relationship to context ‖ (Bullen

2009). Bullen and others cite as a criticism the lack of evidence Prensky has

accumulated to substantiate these assertions.

What I am endeavouring to assert here is that whilst it may appear

superficially manifest, there is not necessarily a disconnect between the teachers

skills and the students requirements. If teachers cultural resistance to technology is

predicated on fear of losing face, this is doubly unfortunate, as clearly HE and FE

staff are well versed in the skills students need in spades if they are to utilise

technology as a conduit to self-facilitated learning, although not necessarily within



12

the digital domain; If they could be encouraged and supported in utilising IWB‘s and

other technologies to support students in developing these skills, they would be

addressing an identified gap in student competence. The BECTA report also

highlights a lack of time and technical support being an impediment to take up of

ICT; BECTA suggests that this could be facilitated by support staff being skilled at

understanding and imbuing pedagogy as well as providing purely technical

assistance i.e. being Learning Technologists rather than Technical Support staff.

Within the HE context, Learning Technologists are already in post at a Faculty and/or

Departmental level, so research may indicate that to some extent these problems

are ameliorated; In practice however, there are often too few Learning Technologists

in post to support staff intensively enough in the use of technology and the

development of apt materials. Evidence from BECTA and elsewhere (e.g. Cuban et

al 2001)further suggests that staff within the compulsory sector have not been

granted sufficient time in which to familiarise themselves with Classroom

technologies, and whilst teaching time is less of a burden within Higher Education(

but probably not Further Education, where contact time is still roughly double that in

HE at 25 hours per week), other pressures (e.g. research) are in the mix.

The recent report commissioned by JISC and the Higher Education Academy,

―Higher Education in a Web 2.0 world‖(JISC 2009), reiterated the need for staff to

develop confidence and familiarity with technology. Commensurate with earlier

evidence reported above, it also signposts the critical priority of imbuing learners with

appropriate Information Literacies for the modern age. It emphasised that staff in HE

institutions need to continue to reflect on research into learning so that they are able

to make fully informed choices about their teaching and assessment methods; In



13

other words, time to reflect on the ways in which technological incorporations can

revise and enhance their approaches to teaching and learning. It also restated the

need for HEi‘s to support staff to become proficient users of an appropriate range of

technologies and skilled practitioners of e-pedagogy, incorporating both into initial

staff training and CPD programmes. This includes Senior Management Teams;

Research indicated that organisations like the Leadership Foundation could be

involved in developing staff in the full range of new technologies in their senior

management development programmes. The report also suggested that teaching

staff could use technology to facilitate a new relationship which students, contingent

on a more ―mutualised‖ exchange which Web 2.0 technologies can expedite.

As previously referenced, Glover and Miller from Keele University conducted

a study in 2006 to ascertain the extent to which Secondary School teachers

recognised the pedagogic potential of IWB‘s. There study suggested that

pedagogically the technology is underdeveloped and underused, and these

deficiencies were contingent on a number of factors, both pragmatic and conceptual;

Physical access to the boards (and time spent rehearsing with them), and staff

attitudes to these and other classroom technologies. Cognate with Rogers Diffusion

of Innovation Model, there were some ―Missioners‖ (or early adopters, to employ

Rogers vernacular), but the majority of staff were either ―Tentatives‖ or ―Luddites‖.

This correlates with Rogers model, where ―Innovators‖ and ―Early adopters‖

constitute the minority, the majority are somewhere in the middle and there are a

significant contingent of Laggards who are highly resistant to engagement. Laggards

in this instance are those who see the role of IWB‘s as purely transmissive tools,

effectively serving as a refinement of the traditional black/white board, whilst



14

Innovators (or ―Missioners‖) are seen as being committed to infusing and enthusing

their peers with a readiness for the cultural change that they see these technologies

catalysing. Rogers suggests that the mobilisation of Innovators/Missioners is

imperative in the broader adoption of new technologies, as they are the most

instrumental in the success or failure of a new idea.

Knowles theory of Andragogy may also provide some answers relating to a

lack of engagement on the part of staff. Herein Knowles uniquely proposes a theory

of learning which pertains specifically to adult learners; Teachers and support staff in

the context of this analysis. Andragogy has been disdained by some writers as

stating the obvious, in that it starts from the assumption that adults are self-directed

and expect to take responsibility for decisions. Essentially, this means that

instruction for adults needs to focus more on process than content, as the principle is

driven by four assumptions: That Adults need to know why they need to learn

something, that they need to learn experientially, that they approach learning as

problem solving, and that they learn best when the topic is of immediate value. In

Knowles words, ―..any experience that they (adults) perceive as putting them in the

position of being treated as children is bound to interfere with their learning‖.

(Atherton 2010). Knowles has his fair share of detractors, but if we consent for the

sake of argument to the concepts he espouses, they merely accentuate the

possibility that Teaching staff are not engaging with the IWB (or Classroom

Technology) agenda because they have not had the benefits explicitly articulated to

them within their professional practice. Also, ―learning experientially‖ contextually

translates to using technology in teaching practice, and there are obviously risks

entailed in exposing oneself publicly to possible failure in front of students.



15

What is striking in reviewing the research literature pertaining to the use of

IWB‘s in the Primary and Secondary Classroom is the lack of data. Many papers

don‘t seem to be contingent on a rigorous methodology; Much of the evidence

presented is anecdotal, in the form of interviews and/or questionnaires. This paucity

of hard evidence is highlighted in the review of literature from 2005 conducted by

Smith, Higgins, Wall and Miller, and seems to persist today. There is very little

quantifiable proof to corroborate claims that attainment and progression within the

compulsory educational sphere have been predicated on the incorporation of

Interactive Whiteboards and associated technologies. Interestingly, some

researchers are presenting a more nuanced appreciation of IWB‘s and their role

within the visual culture potentially permeated by the adoption of classroom

technologies.

In his 2008 study, Reedy asserts the possibility that these visual technologies

may imply a certain type of classroom teaching, restricting negotiated discourse and

entrenching the teacher as the authoritative presenter of fact, rather than as a guide

and facilitator who utilises the technology to intercede between students and a body

of knowledge. The pre-eminent technologies (cited as the IWB, Data Projector and

PowerPoint) can ―…combine to encourage a particular sort of presentational mindset

that could be beginning to shape the classroom experience…even though both

students and teachers recognise that (they) can potentially discourage complex

thinking, reasoning, and writing, and can encourage pointless animation and

ostentation‖(Reedy 2008) . Other authors (e.g. Edwards et al 2002) have suggested

that the interactive presentational features of IWB‘s can enhance the learning



16

experience in lessons like Mathematics, where the teacher can vividly display

concepts such as rotation and transformation of angles in real time. The problem

may reside not with the IWB, but with the institutional/sectoral culture, which does

not encourage Teaching staff to fully explore the potential of ICT to emancipate

students from a didactic, ―Chalk and talk‖ style delivery mode; Reedy suggests that a

lack of staff development meant that Secondary School teachers in his study did not

recognise, or feel comfortable in utilising, the interactive features of the boards, and

resultantly mass disengagement ensued, with ―…the primacy of the limited-

functionality IWB over the traditional board (leading) to some teachers rejecting the

technologies altogether‖(Reedy 2008). This appears to be a dishearteningly

common experience, and it will be interesting to see if it‘s mirrored within the

contemporary HE/FE setting.

Interestingly, a survey conducted by the University of Newcastle in 2004

suggested that in Years 5 and 6 (KS2) Mathematics and Literacy based courses, a

very significant volume of IWB resources had been created or adapted (58% of

Maths lessons using IWB‘s and a whopping 67% of literacy lessons using IWB‘s)

(26). It will be interesting to see how this corresponds with the HE and FE

experience. There are a plethora of free resources available for IWB‘s within

Primary/Secondary education (e.g. IWB.org, KentEd), many replete with lesson

plans etc, although there are no non-commercial equivalents in the HE/FE sectors.

The availability of free resources may account for the degree of take up/adaptation

within these communities.



17

As I‘ve mentioned elsewhere, there is limited research into the impact IWB‘s

have had in Further and Higher Education. One of the most significant instances is

from the BECTA funded ICT Test Bed project, which was commissioned by the DfES

in 2002 to explore how ICT could be used to support the Government‘s wider

agenda for education reform. £34 million pounds was made available to a range of

providers in areas of relative socio-economic depravation, including 3 FE Colleges.

The ―Key findings‖ report published in 2007 found that the incorporation of ICT had a

positive impact on pedagogy, but more specifically, that ―…The interactive

whiteboard is recognised as a major innovation, with many lecturers commenting

positively on the impact of the whiteboard on their classes. As a consequence there

is growing dependence on IWBs, and several tutors commented on the difference it

makes to their teaching, to the ambience of the classroom and to the motivation of

the learners‖(BECTA 2007). Obviously the research was attenuated to focus

specifically on the impact of classroom technologies within areas of relative poverty,

but it will be interesting to see how these reflections correlate with the perceptions of

staff in this survey.

One explanation for resistance to the adaptation and incorporation of IWB‘s

and other classroom technologies in an HE environment could be the present lack of

effective ―Change Agents‖. Change Agents are those key individuals within an

organisation who are charged (either of their own volition or by management) with

initiating, managing or implementing change. As drivers for change, they will need to

generate impact within an organisation; This means they need to have a purchase

on the trust, commitment and good will of their colleagues. Caldwell points out that

in driving change, the role of Managers is peremptory-In an analysis of traditional



18

models of Change agency, they are expected to ―…encourage commitment and

empower employees to be receptive to change and technological

innovation‖(Caldwell 2004). There have been a multiplicity of theories of Change

Agency, and in Caldwell‘s review of the literature on these models, he identifies four

essential theories.

Classifying Change agents as ―..an internal or external individual or team

responsible for initiating, sponsoring, directing, managing or implementing a specific

change initiative, project or complete change programme‖, he goes on to define the

types as Leadership, Management, Consultancy and Team based approaches.

These are broad and heuristic definitions, but nonetheless present a useful edifice

from which to consider the role of change agents pertaining to the incorporation of

ICT in the FE and HE classroom. Examining each in term, the Leadership model

focuses on the necessity of Leaders being identified and visible as the primary

motivators for and advocates of change; They ―…envision, initiate or sponsor

strategic change of a far-reaching or transformational nature‖. Within HE, Senior

Managers have not historically been especially engaged with the TEL agenda;

Understandably, their strategic decisions are primarily contingent on financial

considerations, and whilst there are fairly significant funding streams open to HE for

TEL initiatives from HEFCE (usually dispersed via JISC), these are often oriented

towards research. Additionally, the sector is not privy to the same dictats on strategy

that either bless or curse the compulsory sectors (and the FE sector to some extent).

Resultantly, whilst there are undoubtedly residual enclaves of enthusiasm for

the incorporation of pedagogically sound TEL within HE Senior Management teams,



19

these are few and far between; apocryphal promises of dramatic cost savings from

eLearning turned to ashes in the wake of the failed e-Universities UK initiative, and

since then Senior Managers have generally complied with the HEPI recommendation

that ―…the future of e-learning in the UK lies in the need for a bottom-up

development of blended learning within departments inside our HEIs‖(Slater 2009).

Within the FE environment, where there have been significant funding initiatives

mediated via the Learning and Skills Council to incorporate Classroom Technologies

(including IWB‘s), there is data which evidences reasonable support for adoption.

For instance, when questioned, 43% of FE teaching staff felt that their College

Principal was a vocal advocate of e-learning and a further 42% felt that there were

strong ICT champions at senior management level. These scores signify reasonable

interest in incorporation at senior levels, but could be construed as disappointing

given the concomitant (and some would say disproportionate) focus on funding and

strategy directed at ICT within the sector since 1999 (the period this survey

considers). However, the same census group perceived that ICT was driven

forward by department heads in only 7% of colleges and was the domain of small

groups and enthusiasts in another 7%. This information is available in a report

commissioned by BECTA in 2006 to assess the FE sectors engagement with

technology (BECTA 2006 ) To date, there has been no analogous survey of Senior

Management perceptions in HE, so this is difficult to quantify empirically.

In a statement that would seem to corroborate the requirement for change

agency to be incorporated within HE, the report also asserted that‖..the human

infrastructure that was the most important part of e-learning strategies within HEIs—

not the technology‖. Therefore it is ―…essential that academics (have) ownership of



20

progress in e-learning within their departments and key individuals (are) given the

opportunity to drive things forward. Subsequent HEFCE guidance on TEL has

reiterated the focus on winning ―Hearts and Minds‖, rather than focusing on the tools.

Their most recent strategy, ―Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of

Technology‖(HEFCE 2009) emphasises the pre-eminence of institutional strategies

and contexts, and concentrates on how institutions can enhance learning, teaching

and assessment using appropriate technology in a way that is suited to the

underlying infrastructure and practice of the institution. This mode of change would

ostensibly appear to be consistent the model identified by Caldwell as the

―Management‖ Model, wherein ―..Change agents are conceived as middle level

managers and functional specialists who adapt, carry forward or build support for

strategic change within business units or key functions‖.

Within the FE environment, this type of role has been historically funded and

performed by assigned e-Learning Champions, selected via a rigorous and extensive

application process and trained and funded (i.e. having their time bought out) by the

Learning and Skills Council. Consequently, 66% of Colleges identified in the BECTA

survey cited above were able to offer support from these Change Agents (who were

all drawn from within the roster of Teaching staff already resident within the

Institution) to other staff, and contingent on this, 80 per cent of colleges were able to

offer staff development programmes to support staff who wished to develop or adapt

e-learning materials. Whilst there is no central fund or guidance available for

equivalent positions in Higher Education, Individual Institutions and consortia have

developed similar roles. For instance, in Scotland, a variety of HE institutions have

come together to remodel there assessment practices, incorporating technology to



21

steer them away from didactic exam based adjudications and make them more

cognate with student expectations and the demands of lifelong learning. Within the

JISC funded REAP project, ‗e-learning champions‘ drawn from the six disciplinary

divisions are appointed, and supported by e-learning specialists, to work with core

module teaching teams to review and re-engineer assessment practices (Nicol

2007).

Whilst the work of champions as proselytisers for change has undoubtedly

been effective in some instances, a note of caution is sounded by the Australian

Flexible Learning Network, who suggest in their report ―The impact of eLearning

champions on embedding eLearning‖ that ―..Champions of e-learning cannot alone

embed e-learning in their organisation, industry or community. To sustain e-learning,

managers and policy makers must assist and build organisational cultures and work

processes that support innovation and the work of e-learning champions‖(Jolly et al

2009). This suggests that, cognate with the earlier HEPI and HEFCE guidance on

the pre-eminence of people in informing cultural change, it is necessary for

management to ―buy in‖ to the credo of TEL; There also needs to be a recognition

that whilst technological innovation often appears to accelerate exponentially, people

move more slowly, and cultural change can subsequently appear glacial by

comparison.

Within his 4 model conceptualisation of Change Agents, Caldwell also

suggests a Consultancy model, wherein ―…change agents are conceived as

external or internal consultants who operate at a strategic, operational, task or

process level within an organisation, providing advice, expertise, project



22

management, change programme coordination or process skills in facilitating

change‖. Within a HE context, the best recent exemplar of this model in the UK were

the HE Academy funded Benchmarking and Pathfinder programmes. In the first

instance, HEi‘s were able to bid for funds to assess their current TEL provision (not

just in a Learning and Teaching context, but in all associated processes) using a

variety of different methodologies. The results did not provide the Institution with a

Benchmark per se (i.e. a yardstick score with which they could compare their relative

performance against other Institutions); Rather it gave every tier of staff within the

organisation the opportunity to map their current perceptions of their competence

and utility with ICT. The exercise was consultant led, with the Higher Education

Academy funding the allotted hours for the consultant to facilitate the process.

At the end of the Benchmarking round, participating institutions were invited to

bid for additional funding to become ―Pathfinders‖ by exploring an area of innovation

in Technology Enhanced Learning where strengths (or weaknesses) were identified

in the previous phase . According to the HE Academy website, ―..Projects focussed

on new ways of using and embedding e-Learning, with a view to organisational

change‖ (Outram 2005). Again, this was consultant led and HEA funded. At the end

of both phases, reports were made publically available, enabling the entire sector to

draw upon the collective experience. Consultants engaged in the process worked at

a strategic, operational, task and process level to canvas opinion, inform judgment

and predicate avenues of future development, acting as change agents to mobilise

remedial action at all levels. The HEA vision was that not only would these individual

projects initiate change within individual institutions, they would also engender a

cultural change across the entire sector by clearly demonstrating the benefits of



23

technology in teaching and learning and associated processes via trusted and

verifiable research methods.

Sir John Daniel, formerly Vice Chancellor of the UK‘s Open University, posits

a model of diffusion of innovation which could potentially expedite the task of change

agents. Drawing on work by Moore (1995), he uses the euphemism of a Bowling

Alley to articulate a theory for inculcating cultural change. Within this metaphor, an

institution moves from limited to full adoption of technology by knocking over ―pins‖

of niche interest and applicability which facilitate broader cultural acceptance by

demonstrating value within the wider professional environment. If successful, they

also create pockets of advocacy which should allow innovation to percolate more

widely. Daniel emphasises that selecting the right niches (or ―pins‖) is critical in the

first instance; ―..They should be areas where the new technology can make a real

difference, giving them a compelling reason to adopt it‖(Daniel 1998). Additionally,

the niche should not be so large as to overwhelm the organisation, and some

thought should be given to the potential ―knock on‖ (meant literally if we are

embracing the bowling metaphor!) of these niches, i.e. ―..some thought should go to

ordering the pins so that knocking over one bowling pin increases the chances of

knocking over the next‖(Daniel 1998). Whilst this niche based focus is necessarily

focused on relatively esoteric areas of work or interest, outcomes should be

sufficiently generic to demonstrate broader transferability to other prospective

paradigms; ―..it should not customise each application so much that synergy with

future niches is lost‖(Daniel 1998).



24

If we apply this hypothesis to a consideration of Interactive Whiteboards and

associated classroom technologies, traditionally there has not been a great deal of

consideration given within the HE context from Management to demonstrating and

disseminating the value of such tools. Generally, Institutions tend to either take a

―Big bang‖ approach, where they make mass procurement and provisioning

decisions without considering small scale inter-organisational dry runs, or individuals

make purchasing decisions within departments or faculties predicated on the

enthusiasm of early adopters without formalising conduits for their experiences to be

formally recorded and disseminated more widely.

There is also limited research into the capacity of IWB‘s to integrate effectively

with coupling technologies such as Voting Systems. These units increase the

interactivity of the learning experience by enabling students to signify their beliefs or

indicate their preferences during a lesson. The advantage of synergising these

technologies is that the IWB gives the teacher the opportunity to display student

perceptions in real time; Resultantly, they are able in theory to adjust their lessons

to react to any misperceptions and/or interesting tangents that these votes produce,

or they can have renewed confidence in the belief that there lesson is on target.

Votes can also obviously precipitate conversations, facilitating learning and allowing

for a less formal, didactic delivery and more of a Socratic dialogue. There is little

evidence of the use of Voting Kits in conjunction with IWB‘s in Higher and Further

Education environments, but there is a significant body of research within the

Primary/Secondary sectors which warrants consideration.



25

What literature there is in the HE domain suggests the need for training and

awareness raising of the potentialities of these media amongst students and staff

(Müller et al, 2006). A JISC Sponsored study from the University of Hertfordshire

found that ―..The level of interaction between students and tutors has increased

significantly and students‘ recall of information has improved‖ as a consequence of

the utilisation of an in-class voting system, and that ―..tutors and students enjoy the

face-to-face sessions – now freed from the chores of delivering and receiving

knowledge, both are able to interact more freely and put learning and teaching more

closely to the test. Tutors are, as a result, finding out more quickly (rather than too

late) what needs attention, and their teaching becomes correspondingly contingent‖

(JISC 2009). As an adjunct to the main thrust of the survey, I will be including a

question which considers the utility of Voting Kits and other sister technologies to

IWB‘s (e.g. Mimio‘s, Personal Tablet Boards) in the target sector s. Within the

primary and secondary sectors, research conducted indicates that the combined

utility of these technologies has resulted in increased interactivity by facilitating the

progress of students from being passive recipients of information to active

participants in class, although the level of interactivity is queried.

In their critical review of the literature previously referenced, Smith, Higgins,

Wall and Miller suggestion that although perceptions on IWB‘s seem resoundingly

positive, there is very little quantitative evidence of the actual impact of their use on

attainment or achievement. This is sadly consistent with some of the claims for

these and other classroom technologies sporadically offered by politicians, who are

inclined to make reckless statements that appear largely unsubstantiated (e.g. the

assertion by then Education Secretary Charles Clarke in 2004 that ―..Whiteboard





27

Indeed, the QAA has recently been subjected to criticism from the House of

Commons Select Committee on the HE sector, which deemed the Agency to be

focused ―..almost exclusively on processes, not standards‖; Furthermore, the

committee called for the QAA to be disbanded and replaced by an independent

Quality and Standards Agency, more analogous in remit to OFSTED. The damning

consequence was that the HE system lacked ―consistent national standards‖ and this

had spawned a culture in HE Senior Management where Vice Chancellors were

unable to present the committee with ―..a straightforward answer to the simple

question of whether students obtaining first class honours degrees at different

universities had attained the same intellectual standards‖ (HoC 2009). This has

meant that within sectors where a rigorous QA regimen has been in place, funding

streams have been allocated not just for the procurement of technology, but

provision has also been made (in principle at least) for staff to be acculturated into

adapting these technologies into their working practices via training and staff

development. This had been actuated via the creation of ―Champions‖, evidenced

above within the FE sector and funded via national initiatives (e.g. by BECTA for

multiple roll-outs of e-Learning resources under the auspices of the National

Learning Network Materials programme). There is no analogue of this approach

within the Higher Education milieu, and resultantly, I assert that, along with a

plethora of other classroom technologies, IWB‘s are not being exploited to full

pedagogic potential as a consequence of poor or non-existent peer-supported

acculturation.



28

Understanding the Use of Data:

A Survey of the perceived deployment and effectiveness of Interactive

Whiteboards and Associated Technologies in the Post-Compulsory

Environment:

The survey itself is consists of 10 multiple choice and 3 free text questions, in

addition to collecting the basic, pre-requisite information required (e.g. name, role in

organisation etc). It is designed to elicit responses which qualitatively inform my

understanding of the present pedagogic role of the IWB in a post-compulsory

context, as well as providing quantitative data on the logistical aspects of their use

(e.g. where they are located, how many of them are available, how often they are

used etc). Resultantly the multiple choice questions generally capture quantitative

data (e.g. how often are they used, what size of class do you teach with them),

whereas the free text questions will hopefully educe more qualitative information

(e.g. ―has provision of an Interactive Whiteboard changed the way you teach?‖ or

―Are you aware of any internal/external sources of pedagogical support for the

utilisation of IWB‘s within your teaching and learning?‖). The purpose of the survey

is two fold. Firstly, I am interesting in ―landscaping‖ the current level and context of

usage of these technologies in Higher and Further Education in the South West, and

making reasonable extrapolations as to trends and congruency with national trends

identified elsewhere. Secondly, I hope to use the quantative data to support my

previous assertion that a lack of practical support for adoption of these technologies

in Higher Education has resulted in a deficiency of appreciation of their pedagogic



29

value, and a concomitant lack of take up. I would aspire therefore to derive both

inductive and deductive conclusions to confirm and construct hypotheses.

The survey was made available to Higher Education staff currently held on

JISC Regional Support Centre South West Contact Lists. These include Teaching

and Learning Support Staff, Teaching Staff and staff responsible for supporting the

provision of Learning Resources in these sectors. The survey will be made available

as a Word document to be appended to the explanatory e-mail, and I will utilise the

RSC‘s Survey Monkey instance to make it available via the Internet, so r espondents

have a choice of format. Survey Monkey is, according to the companies website,

―…an online survey tool that enables people of all experience levels to create their

own surveys quickly and easily‖. Whilst free variants are available, the JISC

Regional Support Centre South West have purchased a premium service, with

enhanced functionality facilitating a deeper level of data analysis. Survey Monkey is

probably the most well prevalent tool in the education sector, and it is a fairly

powerful tool which enables users to conduct online surveys and manipulate the data

via an intuitive interface, which also generates an attractive and user friendly form for

invitees to complete. The data collected is held on the Survey Monkey Server,

negating a requirement for local storage, further ameliorating data storage issues for

the licence holder. Yun and Trumbo (2000) have posited the following benefits of

online assessment tools:

· Lower cost relative to other data collection methods

· A supportive environment for actual development of an instrument

· An online data collection product that for some populations may facilitate a better

response rates



30

· Support for the data collection process; responses are automatically stored in the

provider‘s database with the ability for you to download the results when you wish.

This eliminates the need for manual data entry (Marra and Bogue 2006).

Criticisms of Survey Monkey include the fact that whilst the interface is easy

to use, as a consequence it doesn‘t incorporate the potential for high degrees of

customisation on the part of the user. In line with recommendations from Marra and

Bogue (as above), the system was extensively test driven prior to implementation, as

it had been selected by the RSC from a variety of other products which had been

piloted; It was found to be the most usable interface from the perspective of

respondees (in trial exercises), and had sufficient data manipulation capabilities from

our perspective.

Obviously the Regional Support Centre is known to the prospective

respondees, as the unit has been in operation within the region since the year 2000,

and I have had personal involvement with many of the individuals canvassed via our

roster of Institutional Visits, Events and Fora. The RSC South West is one of 13

centres constituting a national network across the UK. Their raison d‘être is to

promote and facilitate the development of Technology Enhanced Learning across

their target communities: Further Education, Higher Education in Further Education,

Smaller HE Institutions, Adult Community Learning, Work Based Learning, Offender

Learning and Specialist institutions.

Respondents had the option of responding anonymously to the survey, or

they could provide varying degrees of personal data-This was a subjective



31

judgement. Obviously prior to conducing the survey I had to clarify and articulate the

prospective respondees rights to privacy etc, and therefore defined an ―Ethics

protocol‖ to accompany the survey request, cognate with requirements mandated by

the University of Plymouth. Whilst this is only a very small scale piece of research in

both magnitude and scope, there are still ethical principles to be incorporated

commensurate with the guidelines published in March 1995(3). In essence, these

guidelines stipulate that researchers need to adhere to good practice in 6 areas.

You can see the limited ethical declaration I drafted as Appendix 1 to this document.

Appendix 2 of this document is a print out of the survey results as raw date;

Appendix 3 displays the relevant aspects of this as pie-charts.

Firstly, potential respondees should tacitly or explicitly give their informed

consent to participate in the study, with especial reference to any factors ―..that might

reasonably be expected to influence their willingness to take part‖. In the case of

this research, it is highly unlikely that anyone will have their professional identity

compromised through confessing a predilection for or aversion to using Interactive

Whiteboards, but some of the questions implying free text responses could generate

negative feedback about a respondents Institutional training provision etc (although

the option of completing anonymously potentially mitigates this entirely). Also, as I

am the sole protagonist in the collection and analysis of this data, I can guarantee

confidentiality in the scrutiny of the results.

The second covenant is to be ―..Open and honest about the research, its

purpose and application‖. This is presumably implicit in any manner of research

undertaken, and actually pertains to the prescribed, legitimate and therefore ―ethical‖



32

role of deception in certain types of scientific research; A relatively technical

disjuncture that is not relevant to this sort of study. The Right to Withdraw is the third

consideration; However, the caveats stipulated herein apply to experiments and

interviews, and not to Questionnaires, where the sole requirement is that ―..the

potential respondent should be given the choice not to reply to any particular item or,

indeed, the survey as a whole‖. Protection from harm is another criterion to be

considered within the context of the ethics of the study, and whilst the method I am

utilising would seem self-evidently ―safe‖ (i.e. compared to the possible ramifications

of ill-administered medical trails for instance), harm in this context can take more

abstract forms such as detrimental reputational consequences if confidential

responses are disclosed; Researchers therefore ―..have to take care not to damage

their informants‖.

The expectation of some manner of debriefing for participants is chronicled

next; This essentially entails providing participants with a means of extracting value

from the research for their own purposes, which could be mediated via an account of

the purpose of the study at the commencement of the investigation, or (more likely in

this case), a review of findings on completion. I will make this assignment accessible

to respondees once it has been assessed, and make that clear in the accompanying

ethical declaration. I have also précised the aims of the study in this documentation,

so potential respondees have some sense of what is trying to be achieved and how

the data will accordingly be manipulated. The guidelines suggest that ―..If you

promise feedback you have something positive to offer those you intend to research

in terms of findings that may influence future policy and practice‖; However, this does



33

not necessitate total disclosure, rather that the compiler ―..use summaries and give

the opportunity for feedback rather than giving it regardless of need‖.

Finally, the Universities ethical requirements compel researchers to ensure

confidentiality of participants throughout the ―conduct and reporting‖ of the research.

Whilst this is a thread that runs through other covenants stipulated by the University,

this particular proviso pertains to considerations of privacy in more complex

circumstances, i.e. where interviews are conducted and transcribed by an

intermediary (e.g. a Secretary), hence the need for reports to be coded to ensure

anonymity. However, it does make specific reference to circumstances where data

are held on Computer, and how the Data Protection Act is applicable. Given that the

survey was conducted via a web based technology (and that the information

extracted is therefore held remotely on ―Survey Monkey‘s‖ servers), I felt it prudent to

make reference to the DPA in the ethical statement issued to colleagues with the

questionnaire link. This means that should recipients wish to avail themselves of

further information, they have been presented with the opportunity to do so.

I opted to use a Questionnaire to capture data, for reasons I will outline.

Surprisingly, according to Wikipedia, the modern Questionnaire was devised by the

Victorian polymath Sir Francis Galton, who applied statistical methods to the study of

human differences and used Questionnaires and Surveys for collecting data on

human communities(4). The Questionnaire I have constructed is designed to elicit

―Closed‖ data (i.e. that pertaining to Quantitative analysis) as well as ―Open‖

responses (i.e. Free text submissions which lend themselves to a more Qualitative

analysis). There are initially a number of questions which are solely there for





35

be 26%! (Kalman, Y et al 2002). It is impossible for me to extrapolate this kind of

data for the national mail out, as I contacted staff in analogous roles across the RSC

national network (13 centres) asking them to forward the survey request to salient

mailing lists as a favour; Consequently, I am unable to ascertain how many lists the

message was issued to, the number of individuals approached etc. However, given

that the 23 responses have all come from within the coverage of the RSC South

West, it seems reasonable to assume that my colleagues were either not especially

conscientious in forwarding it, or the survey had such little traction when it was

presented as an abstract concept (i.e. without association with my name) that no one

from outside the South West catchment felt suitably enthusiastic about participating!

Given this eventuality, I will assume that the survey achieved the 25.76% response

rate referenced above in relation to a verifiable local distribution.

A analysis of the Job Title/Role data received will be useful in ascertaining

perceptions of use and efficacy of IWB‘s and associated technologies across

different roles. Appendix 2 constitutes the full list of 21 responses, but to

encapsulate the broad trends, 11 of these were from Management staff (i.e. those

who had titled themselves with suffixes implying seniority and leadership e.g.

Managers, Co-ordinators, Heads). 6 of these 11 had a Curriculum (Teaching and

Learning focus) e.g. Teaching and Learning Coordinator. 3 had broader remits

implying transcendent, SMT level responsibilities (e.g. Head of Staff and Quality

Services), and one managerial respondee was explicitly technical (Technology

Coordinator). The last of these 11 is ―Head of Learning Centres‖, and if this

appellation is consistent with its usual application, this implies principally

responsibility for Learning Resources. If this response rate is representative of the



36

level of engagement and interest in these developments amongst relatively senior

staff within Institutions, it is to be celebrated; JISC have previously suggested that

organisation like the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education are ideally placed

to catalyse and steer strategic developments via senior management development

programmes etc, so this quotient is encouraging. In my previous exposition of

―Change Agency‖ models, I have already highlighted the peremptory role Caldwell

(and others) believe Senior Managers need to occupy to affect change, particularly

in the leadership model where managers are the primary motivators who

―...envision, initiate or sponsor strategic change of a far reaching or transformational

nature‖. This response rate may suggest that there is an appetite amongst SMT to

be engaged over these issues.

Of the remaining 10 respondees whose titles don‘t imply Management level

responsibilities, 2 identify themselves formally as Learning Technologists. There

are also Library Staff and Administrators. 3 Academic staff have also identified

themselves (one a Lecturer in Biological Sciences, One a Lecturer in ICT and the

other styling themselves a Principal Lecturer but not specifying a subject!). This has

implications for the survey, as of the 21 respondees who furnished me with Job

Title/Role information, 52% appear to occupy positions of Managerial responsibility.

27% of this subset appear to occupy Senior Management posts within their

organisations. Also on this reckoning, 14% are also occupied in Academic posts,

and interestingly only 2 Learning Technologists have responded. Of the entire

response pool, only 3 individuals (including these LT‘s) have identified themselves

as occupying specifically technical roles (14%). Consequently it could be asserted

that respondees come from predominantly a pedagogical/managerial incumbency



37

rather than a technical one. Whether or not this means that the survey will isolate

strategic rather than operational trends in the deployment of IWB‘s and Associated

Technologies will hopefully be discernable from an analysis of the results. As

discussed in section one, BECTA have previously made inferences from data

evidencing a need for more Learning Technologists to imbue pedagogy within users,

as well as purely to facilitate technical operation; They found too few were in post to

effectively support staff in the use of hardware in their teaching, and to help them

develop the requisite confidence, competence and resource to comfortably use new

bits of kit with learners who they may very well (mis)perceive as having better skills

in this regard than they do. This low response rate from Learning Technologists may

mean simply that they either didn‘t receive the survey or were not inclined to

respond, but there is also a possibility that it suggests BECTA‘s assertion for FE is

also true within the broader post-compulsory milieu, and that there simply aren‘t

enough of them.

Analysing where results came from (Question 5: Which type of Institution do

you work in?), 11 of the 23 respondees come from an HE background (47.8%). This

cohort can be disaggregated further, with 2 (8.7%) respondees coming from within

Universities, 3 (13%) coming from within other HE Institutions and 6 (26.1%) from

within HE in FE environments. In this context, I am defining HE Institutions cognate

with criteria developed by the Higher Education Statistics Agency who define them

as <quote>. Of the remaining 58.2% of respondees, 7 (30.4%) came from Further

Education (making this area the single largest contingent), 2 (8.7%) came from

Specialist Colleges and 5 (21.7%) identify themselves as ―Others‖. Representing

over a fifth of respondees, this represents a significant grouping, and in retrospect I



38

believe constitutes an error in data collection in my part. This is because I gave no

option for these individuals to expand on this definition and provide me with more

accurate information on their affiliations. Given the constituencies covered by the

Regional Support Centres, it‘s reasonable to assume that these respondees come

from Adult and Community Learning or Work Based Learning backgrounds, as these

are the two major areas of support not covered by the specific categories listed in the

questionnaire. However, it would have been useful to have extrapolated some

further information on the sectoral dispersion of respondees, and it would have been

prudent for me to have at least split down the ―other‖ category into ACL and WBL

classifications. My educated hunch is that the ―Other‖ contingent would then have

been eliminated (as the Questionnaire was not distributed outside of the roster

detailed above). This means that significantly, the majority of respondees may have

come from outside the HE sector (extrapolating that the 21.7% ―Other‖ element

where from ACL/WBL), with 14 out of 23 respondents (60.86%), whilst of the 39.14%

of respondees from an HE environment, the majority (54.5% of this subset) worked

within an HE in FE milieu.

Moving beyond capturing demographic data, the next section of the

Questionnaire focused on capturing quantitative data relating to the volume and

usage of IWB‘s within the contexts described previously. In response to the question

―As far as you are aware, does your Institution currently have any Interactive

Whiteboards?‖, 100% of the 19 respondees said that they were. Interestingly, 4

respondees skipped this question, and it‘s difficult to know why given that responses

were anonymous and disclosure of a lack of awareness was therefore not an issue.

Consequently we cannot infer either that these 4 respondees were articulating a lack



39

of awareness which they did not want to communicate, or that in these 4 cases the

Institution had no IWB‘s. It may be that disambiguation could have been achieved

had the preface ―As far as you are aware…‖ been removed from the question, as this

would have implied a definitive answer was required (or at least a ―Don‘t Know‖

option could have been appended); However, the study is also mapping staff

perceptions of the availability and efficacy of these units, so from this perspective

their could be an implication to the fact that 4 out of 23 (17.39%) of potential

respondees refrained from answering the question. It could be deduced that these

respondees were not aware of the IWB allocation within their environment and did

not want to expose their relative ignorance, or conversely that they were actually

signalling the equivalent of a ―No‖ answer in not replying. This is impossible to

discern from this data.

There were 18 responses to the question ―How many Interactive Whiteboards

does your Institution currently possess?‖; 38.9% of respondees believe that over 50

IWB‘s reside within their organisation, a significant minority. In descending order,

27.8% have 0-10, 22.2% have between 21-and 30 and 11.1% have between 41-50.

However, the value of this information is negligible as obviously numbers are relative

to the size of the establishment (I.e. a small enough establishment could have total

classroom coverage with 10 boards). However, with the exception of the Work

Based Learning provider who responded to the survey, I am personally aware that all

of the respondees work within Institutions with student numbers in the thousands, so

it is fair to assume that significant penetration would be indicated by a 50 plus

reckoning. In retrospect it would also have been prudent to include a free-text



40

submission after this question for respondents to advise on exactly how many units

they believed were currently in situ.

I then endeavoured to ascertain whether or not these boards were fixed or

movable; This is an important distinction as there are manifestly inherent implications

for usage predicated on their portability. It can be reasonably inferred that static

boards lend themselves to conventional classroom delivery, whilst mobile units have

at least the potential to be utilised in less formally didactic environs e.g. in a

simulated vocational environment such as kitchens, salons etc. Again, such

extrapolations are highly speculative. In the survey, out of 19 respondents 12

(70.6%) reported that their boards were fixed, and 7 (29.4%) reported that they had

access to both. It appears from this evidence therefore that no Institutions have an

entire range of exclusively portable boards.

The next question is a free text submission, attempting to educe more details

concerning the location of the boards. Within the question, I gave some examples of

potential venues, which may have influenced the responses, given that all but 4 of

the 17 responses cited these examples (Class Room, Lecture Theatre, Training

Room). In retrospect, it might have been sensible not to have offered these

exemplar categories as they are insufficiently germane to the specific environment

within which the technology is housed. For example, ―Class Room‖ is too generic,

and does not give a designation to the specific milieu wherein a board resides; Is it a

straight-forward conference style environment, assisting ―Chalk and talk‖ delivery, or

is it employed in a vocational classroom environment and/or utilised in a more

interactive fashion? Whilst an attempt to elicit this information is made explicitly later



41

on in the study, it might have been advisable to either not have suggested specific

locales within the question, or to have added an ancillary free-text box to allow

respondents to elucidate upon the location e.g. in a mock School classroom

environment, in a Simulated Salon environment etc.

Of the 4 respondents who did not respond with one of the suggested answers,

One respondent advised that their boards were resident in their Learning Resource

Centres, One in both the LRC and within a Studio Environment (implying vocational

application), One in a Training Room, and One in an IT lab and Classroom

environment. Of the 13 other respondents, 9 advised that their IWB‘s were solely

resident within a Classroom environment; Two had installed them in both

Classrooms and Meeting Rooms, One in Classrooms, Lecture Theatres and Meeting

Rooms, and One in Classrooms and Lecture Theatres. What is interesting is that

only 4 respondees (23.5%) understood that IWB‘s were present in Lecture Theatres.

Given the usual preponderance of presentational media in these environments, it

seems surprising that only 23.5% of respondents believe IWB‘s, with their attendant

high degree of interactivity and their inherent value as pure display media, are not

more heavily utilised in this context.

It is also striking that out of 23 respondees, 6 chose to skip the question

(26%); I could extrapolate from this that over a quarter of respondents don‘t know

where the boards are situated (and consequently infer that they have experienced

little or no personal exposure to them). However, this figure is also congruent with

the earlier finding that 7 of the respondents believed their Institutions had peripatetic

boards, and therefore these boards have no fixed abode. Again with the benefit of



42

hindsight I would rephrase this question; Asking where the ―fixed‖ boards were

―permanently located‖ presupposes that itinerant IWB‘s are not utilised exclusively in

a specific location irrespective of their portability, which they very possibly are. I

would have gained more useful data if I had either omitted any references to fixed

boards in this question, or included a supplementary question enquiring as to the

most usual habitats of the roaming IWB‘s. As it is, I have no data relating to the

typical whereabouts of mobile boards, which is a rather glaring omission, with over a

quarter of respondents not being asked to account for the utility of this deployment.

The next question, ―How frequently do you use an Interactive Whiteboard?‖,

received 15 answers, and 8 correspondents skipped the question. This accounts for

over a third (35%) of respondents, and is difficult to account for when 19 out of 23

had earlier responded ―Yes‖, there Institution currently had Interactive Whiteboards

(83%). It implies either that 4 respondents reside in Institutions which have IWB‘s,

but don‘t use them, or that these 4 respondents did not want to disclose their usage.

One of the 6 presented multiple-choice responses is ―Never‖, so it‘s reasonable to

suppose that if these individuals did not utilise the Boards, this would be the apposite

response. I would surmise that this means that there respondents did not want to

disclose their usage.

Evaluating the responses, the most regular usage was ―less than once a

week‖ (6, or 40%); I thought any other epoch would be unsuitably vague as most

people would not really be aware of whether they used a particularly application

beyond a weekly frequency (e.g. Monthly, Quarterly). 3 users (20%) have advised

that they use the boards at least once a week, whilst 2 use the boards at least once



43

a day and 2 more in every lesson (i.e. 4 in total utilising them daily, or 27% of

respondents). 1 user employs them for tuition in specific subjects, and an additional

user apparently never uses the boards. A supplementary question solicits further

details concerning use of the boards within specific subject disciplines; Even though

only 1 respondent in the survey advised they use them for specialised delivery, there

were 2 responses to this enquiry, namely for ―Software Specialist Lectures‖ and

―GIS (Geographic Information System) Training‖. Again, with the benefit of hindsight

were I revisiting this survey I would omit the criteria for a response here being

contingent on an indication of specialist tuition, and just insert another question

asking within which subject domain(s) the IWB‘s were most commonly used,

prompting a free-text response. This would give me an idea of the perceived

efficacy of the units within particular disciplines; Currently the survey extrudes

information on geographical context and group deployment, but not on scholarly

application.

Moving on, the questionnaire makes enquiries concerning group types.

Obviously multiple responses were permitted within Survey Monkey here, as I

wanted to capture as much information as possible on all aspects of utilisation. 13

people responded to this question (i.e. it was skipped by 10). Revealingly, the

largest number (8, or 61.5%) utilised the technology with other staff members within

their Institution (e.g. in Departmental Meetings/Training Sessions etc). 7

respondents (53.8%) used Boards in Whole class environments (e.g. Lectures), 6

(46.2%) in small groups (e.g. Tutorials and Seminars) and 1 respondent reported

using the boards with individuals. Given the earlier indications of prevalence in a

classroom milieu, it‘s interesting that the majority of users exploit the technology with



44

their peers rather than their student cohort; Possibly this reflects a degree of comfort

in use experienced by staff amongst their contemporaries which is not as customary

amongst their students, although this is a rather tenuous inference from the data.

Certainly evidence from JISC and BECTA detailed previously suggests this to be the

case (i.e. that teachers apparently often perceive students to have more familiarity

and proficiency in the use of technology than they exhibit, and believe that this

diminishes their authority and competence from the student perspective). We can

infer that utilising these technologies in peer groups gives staff the opportunity to

make mistakes and/or display relative ignorance in a mutually supportive context

where they will not conceive of their professional acumen being derogated; It may

therefore be a good thing, provided they are encouraged and supported in taking the

next steps in developing their experiences by using IWB‘s at the chalk face. JISC‘s

―Higher Education in a Web 2.0 world‖ emphasised the importance of practitioners

coming to their own understanding, on reflection, of the potential efficacy of

technology, making fully informed choices about their teaching and assessment

methods, and further being supported by their Institutions in becoming proficient

users of those which can be situated to their advantage(6). CPD and Initial Staff

training are both identified as suitable vehicles for this acculturation, and the use of

these technologies in comparatively risk-free contexts (i.e. with other staff) should be

further exploited.

The next question allows users to signal their usage of the boards, and again

respondees can provide as many answers as they require. Disappointingly only 12

individuals chose to respond, and predictably enough, all 12 indicated that they use

IWB‘s for presentations (with PowerPoint indicated by me as the classic platform for



45

this function). Whilst the pre-eminence of PowerPoint is not surprising given its

ubiquity in teaching and learning contexts, a more paranoid analysis may find

correlations between this data and Reedys concerns, expressed previously, that far

from being emancipator, these technologies in fact may entrench a certain kind of

teacher led didacticism, restricting negotiated discourse and entrenching the teacher

as an authoritative presenter of fact. In this study however, these anxieties are

abated somewhat by the commensurate revelation that 11 of the 12 respondees also

use their IWB‘s for both ―Multi-Media Display (e.g. Video Clips)‖ and ―Showing the

Internet (e.g. Websites)‖, heavily implying that the majority of those who responded

have a handle on aspects of the increased functionality represented by IWB‘s.

Equally encouragingly, 50%(6) of those who responded also utilise the boards for

―Student Participation (i.e. Facilitating student interaction using IWB)‖, although the

nature and extent of these interactions is not decipherable herein. 4 respondees

(33.3%) use the boards for Video Conferencing and/or Webcasting, which is a high

level function of the technology; Again, in retrospect it would have been helpful to

enable those respondees to expound further on this usage, to distinguish between

their use in this mode for staff development or student teaching. I did allow survey

users to provide a free text entry for Other uses; 4 individuals drafted a response, 2

of whom used the IWBs‘s for demonstr ating software, one for LRC student

inductions and one for using voting kits in conjunction to facilitate quizzes.

Question 6 was designed to elicit information about resource use in relation to

the boards in post-compulsory milieu. Of the 13 respondees, all of them had used

the materials which came with their boards. This is not surprising as with any

licensed technology, the software is commercially developed and pre-loaded onto



46

the kit; Consequently the two major suppliers in the UK market presently (Smart and

Promethean) both ship units with their own proprietorial operating systems. Using

these is therefore a prerequisite of engaging with the boards. Both Smart and

Promethean also make teaching resources available via their websites (e.g.

Interactive lesson activities, content assessment material and teaching resources).

Consequently, this result is not surprising. Whilst 38.5% of respondees further

advised that they had utilised freely downloaded web based materials on the boards,

I suspect this result actually reflects use of materials and resources provided on

licence by the suppliers (i.e. although materials were ostensibly free to the user,

there use was contingent on an Institutional warrant). What is perhaps slightly

unexpected is that of the 13 respondees, 38.5%(5) had utilised materials created in-

house, which implies significant creation or adaption of resources. Given the lack of

analogues in this sector to the free repositories supplied in the compulsory

educational environment, this result is more reflective of data accrued by the

University of Newcastle in its analysis of KS2 materials than I expected ( REF) .

30.8% of respondees advised that they had used commercially procured software,

whilst 15.4% signified that they had used materials created within the broader

teaching and learning community available freely via agencies such as JISC.

The next question secured 15 respondees, of whom 9 had formally received

training in the use of the IWB and its associated technologies; this meant 40% had

not received official instruction in the use of the technology. This is surprising and

somewhat dismaying, given the importance already identified of take up being

contingent on a professional understanding and acceptance of the pedagogical

application of technology. As an ancillary question, users who have received training



47

where asked to stipulate how much they had received, and the divergence is

marked; 7 of the 9 respondees had received only 1 or 2 hours training, one had

received 4 hours, and one a whopping 10 hours! Whilst it‘s impossible to deduce the

function of this training, it‘s reasonable to educe that more training equates to more

familiarity, more comfort and subsequently a greater prospect for acculturation.

The next question further develops this line of query, interrogating those who

had received training as to its provenance. Of the 12 respondees, the vast majority

(8) indicated they were self taught. However, as multiple responses where possible,

it‘s likely that this figure represents those who have engaged in an aspect of self

facilitated tuition, rather than individuals who have undertaken no training

whatsoever. 5 repondees indicated they had received training from the boards

suppliers, whilst 4 each reported they had been instructed by either official College

Trainers (e.g. via formal staff development sessions) or by internal College

Colleagues in less formal contexts. These figures have possible significance in as

much as those who are teaching themselves to use the kits may have a blunted

awareness of the potentiality of the units i.e. they may have acquired a degree of

technical proficiency, but may not have seen IWB‘s effectively utilised in

pedagogically interesting contexts as they are not engaged with networks where this

kind of exposition is commonplace. Equally, without wishing to disparage vendors

unfairly, training provided by manufacturers may not always provide the most

illuminating perspectives on the use of the hardware in situated, professional

contexts. It is within the colleague/peer/ILT champion networks that this kind of

knowledge is likely to reside; Cognate with some of Knowles theories, when

professionals interact with other professionals in these environments, they are more



48

likely to see the value of utilisation espoused contextually, and resultantly more likely

to realise the benefits and engage with the technology.

Only just over a third of the total volume of respondees surveyed (8) advised

that they had used an IWB in conjunction with an ancillary technology. Of these,

unsurprisingly the vast majority has used them with Interactive Voting Kits, whilst

some others had used them with tablets/pads (i.e. handheld capture devices which

display directly onto the screen). Vendors such as Smart and Promethean both

manufacture their own brand of voting kit which work in conjunction with their boards;

It is often the case that Institutions purchase a bulk package wherein a volume of

these are shipped with the other units, so it‘s not surprising that these are the most

common ancillary technology in use (although evidently not especially common).

Again, it‘s hard to extrapolate anything from this data, but one could hazard a guess

that the low levels of utilisation imply commensurately low levels of student

interaction; Given the low intensity of utilisation of IWB‘s recorded in lecture theatre

environs, this is likely to be especially true in these situations, where voting kits can

be employed to introduce an element of interactivity to sessions which owing to their

size and nature can easily become rather dry, formal and passive.

I have included as an additional Appendix the answers to the free text

questions posited in the survey (Appendix 4). The first was designed to hopefully

elicit more data on the perceived efficacy of IWB‘s from the teachers perspective,

with particular reference to the student learning experience. Of the 14 respondees,

the overwhelming majority are seemingly enamoured of the technology. Several

users make note of the transformative capabilities of this kit, and are adroit in



49

recognising there potential to cater for different learning styles, e.g. ―I can engage

the visual and auditory learners more easily and instantly - the kinaesthetic learners

appreciate the opportunity to do things‖ and ―..more opportunities for interaction‖.

Others note that they can also be employed to expedite administrative processes

incumbent upon staff e.g. ― It also made my life easier with online registers‖, and a

couple of responded make reference to the fact that materials and interactions

captured by the board in class are not evanescent but can be usefully recorded (e.g.

‖activities can be stored and produced easily and can be used to engage the

learners in different ways‖). One major flaw articulated by a response here is the

lack of data I have collected within this survey on the use of boards with learners

with accessibility issues. One free text response specifically recalls problems with

IWB‘s in these situations, and this is something I should have invited further

comment upon.

The second free text question attempts to assay support routes staff feel they

have in the event of a technical issue. The vast majority of respondees advise that

in the first instance they would contact their in-house ICT support, although some

advise they would approach a colleague first. Users point out the importance of

developing contingencies in the event of technical problems, although some report

considerable delays and disruptions to lessons in this eventuality. Increased

acculturation of these and other technologies in situated classroom use may

inculcate the importance of developing ―Plan B‖; This is again a realisation born of

experience, so it is within professionally situated networks that this advice will have

most impact.



50

The third free text question enquires as to whether or not respondees are

aware of specific internal or external sources of pedagogic support for the utilisation

of IWB‘s. Of the 12 respondees, only 4 are aware of sources of support that can

intercede to address issues and/or improve competencies. 3 of these are primarily

―in house‖, whilst 2 users are aware of external support and resources being

mediated via the board suppliers (Smart in both instances). This is really a line of

enquiry born of professional interest, and it clearly indicates that as an advisory body

JISC need to do more to either produce or effectively signpost resources available

for this medium. However, it also pertains to this study as it shows that across the

post compulsory sector there is clearly a lack of awareness or resource in this

respect; As previously identified, the mandatory roll out of boards in schools means a

concomitant tranche of commercial and non-commercial entities developed

pedagogic support for users (e.g. KentEd, BECTA etc), but there is no equivalent

agency aggregating guidance for post-compulsory sectors. This is a point I have

made and will keep making to JISC!

In conclusion therefore, what inferences can be drawn from this limited data

set to substantiate the conclusions I proffered in my initial thesis? Certainly some of

this data suggests that in the post-compulsory sector, where Institutions are granted

relative autonomy over their budgets, there is apparently less of an onus on staff

development in relation to these technologies. There has also been historically less

of a focus on the propagation of semi-formal peer support networks to acculturate

change; In FE contexts, and in schools, assigned e-Learning champions, funded

from specific, dedicated sources, have been largely successful, with 66% of Colleges

being able to offer the support of these individuals in situated professional



51

environments. There is no comparable service in the HE milieu, although some

Institutions have federated themselves to provide this service. Equally, senior

managers have not been obligated to provide strategic support to these

developments, and so there is a patchy commitment across the sector; In many

cases, the value of these technologies has not been sufficiently articulated to

managerial staff, and hence these ―change agents‖ have become disenfranchised.

A corollary to this is the fact that, with no pressure from below, HEFCE and

attendant support agencies have not felt the necessity to author or signpost

guidance related to the effective pedagogic application of these technologies. Whilst

manufacturers will provide technical guidance and resources to licensed institutions,

these are not specifically attenuated to the requirements of users in these contexts,

and whilst College IT staff will be able to provide technical advice on usage and

support in the event of technical problems, they are not able or expected to provided

professional advice on classroom usage. The creation of peer-support networks

(which would require funding and support) would possibly ameliorate this situation,

but would require financing made available centrally and specifically mandated to be

spent on these groups. The JISC REAP project discussed in part one may be a

model for this.

In my survey, I am attempting to ascertain the degree of perceived usefulness

and use of these technologies; What I haven‘t done is assessed the degree of

compulsion presently incumbent upon practitioners to use these technologies. I

suspect however that this is currently negligible, for the reasons also cited earlier;

With no inspection regimen currently assaying the use of technology to improve



52

pedagogy, there is yet again no onus on budget-holders to provide equipment or

facilitate training. Whilst individual enthusiasts will therefore make pitches for

particular internal or external allocations, or some Managers may have an especial

enthusiasm for particular technologies, sectorally there is no compulsion on HE

institutions to consider these aspects of delivery.

In terms of where IWB‘s are currently situated and employed, I find it slightly

surprising that they appear to be under-employed in lecture theatres, where the

enhanced functionality (and capacity for interactivity) should make them obvious

choices. I can‘t use this data to infer a reason for this, but would suggest it is linked

to both a lack of confidence on the part of staff (particularly salient in these kinds of

environments where the exposure to potential embarrassment is exponentially

greater than in a small group) or ignorance relating to the potentialities. Whilst it is

also heartening to see that staff are apparently happy to use IWB‘s within their own

peer groups (staff meetings etc), this doesn‘t appear to permeate outwards and

inform their professional classroom practice. Again, the provenance of a semi-

formal mechanism to support this process would be welcomed (perhaps involving

those who have utilised them in these contexts being trained in classroom

application and becoming ―expert users/critical friends‖ for colleagues); However,

this also requires a proportionate financial and logistical commitment from funding

agencies and Institutional Managers.

To summarise therefore, whilst the data set achieved was disappointingly

small considering the number of individuals contacted, and there were obviously

flaws in the questionnaire that I would remediate given the opportunity, there is



53

nevertheless some tenuous evidence to support my inductive hypotheses that the

assimilation of IWB‘s into mainstream teaching practice has been patchy as a

consequence of poor acculturation. Teaching staff have not had the value of these

applications satisfactorily expressed to them, as a consequence of a number of

factors, including a lack of ―sticks‖ (in the form of pressure from funding and

inspection agencies to ensure IWB‘s and other technologies are appropriately

deployed within practice) and ―carrots‖ (i.e. the provision of structured, vocationally

situated networks, consisting of experienced and enthusiastic peers, to evidence the

pedagogic benefits of use).

With reference to the potential for deductive hypotheses to be ascertained

from these results, I would suggest that it would be instructive to conduct a survey

which posited this negative as it‘s cardinal assertion, and attempt to ask those who

are not presently using IWB‘s what factors are preventing them from doing so (i.e.

could this resistance be ameliorated by assistance and training sourced from within

their peer groups). In a sense, this survey was inherently flawed as it relied on

enthusiasts responding, and their perception of staff attitudes will invariably be

defined by their own perspectives; That having been said, it would have been

sensible to ask respondees to provide a free-text submission detailing the factors

that they believe inhibit uptake on the part of their colleagues, as this could

structurally inform prospective questionnaires designed to elicit this data from non-

enthusiasts.



Documents

The Efficacy of Interactive White Boards MEIT503 Sept 10 FINAL