Whole Class Teaching Strategies and Interactive Technology: towards a connectionist classroom
David Longman - University of Wales, Newport, UK
Malcolm Hughes - University of the West of England, Bristol. UK
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Abstract: this paper outlines some implications for pupils’ learning and for teachers’ practice, of the much increased availability of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in UK schools in the context of national educational agendas for desirable characteristics of classroom teaching. In an earlier paper (Hughes and Longman, 2005) the authors presented a critique of the concept of interactivity and connectionism in teaching and learning using IWB. That paper was based on preliminary video data gathered in secondary classrooms. In this paper, lessons are drawn from the outcomes of a small-scale research project based in a Herefordshire primary school during the spring term of 2006. For one focus week, and following training in recording and editing, class teachers and children were given unlimited and unstructured access to digital video recording equipment with a request to capture uses of the interactive whiteboard. Results of the study suggest that: there are advantages to this methodology in recording what happens in classrooms (though technical improvements are suggested); that good teachers can be a become a little better even when novice users of the technology; and that the notion of the connectionist classroom and the implications of the use of connected digital technologies could be important in our understanding of how children learn.
Introduction to the context of the research
The energetic promotion and introduction of interactive whiteboards (IWB) into classrooms by United Kingdom education policy makers seems to be based on belief in a number of desirable characteristics of classroom teaching that it are associated with expert use of the new digital input and display technologies. These associated characteristics of good classroom practice are regarded by many as key to raising standards of teaching and learning, and perhaps are best summarised by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta):
The key feature of this technology is that it emphasises whole-class teaching strategies. These include teacher modelling and demonstration, prompting, probing and promoting questioning, managed whole-class discussions, review of work in progress to reinforce key points emerging from individual and group work, and whole-class evaluation in plenary sessions (Becta, 2004)
In an earlier paper (Hughes and Longman, 2005) the present authors presented a critique of the concept of interactivity in teaching and learning using IWB. That paper was based on preliminary video data gathered in secondary classrooms. This paper extends that critique with further data gathered from teachers and classrooms in a primary school. Access to the research school in Herefordshire was sought because of its reputation as an example of a school where we might find evidence of connectedness in teaching and learning using ‘digitally connected technologies’.
The data we collected is not clear on this particular aspect of the school's approach to ICT, i.e. the extent to which the connectivity of the technologies influenced or was highly visible in the teaching although certainly it is a school which is well equipped and where pupils have good access to ICT. But our evidence does at least confirm certain findings made by other researchers looking at IWB (see Smith et al, 2005, for a thorough literature review). There is evidence of continuing enhancement in the quality of teacher led presentations and demonstrations and the engagement of the pupils is clearly improved.
The evidence we have gathered in this paper is limited in three major ways. First we do not have extensive transcripts or tallies of classroom events and interactions relying instead on video recordings that have been edited and selected for the researchers' gaze by the participants (teachers and pupils). This methodological approach is developed below. Second we have only recorded the pupils' views and have not asked the teachers involved for their perspective on the lessons that were recorded. Third, there has been selectivity in relation to what counts as an episode worthy of video recording. The pupil interviews suggested that other kinds of activities such as drawing, "colouring in" and "going on the internet" also took place but we saw none of these in our video. These informal situations have been selected out and our video samples have only captured formal teacher-led learning situations.
Overall our relatively brief observations indicate that the structural social conditions, i.e. the 'standard' teacher led style of whole-class teaching in primary school classrooms, remains strong. On the whole the potential influence of dynamic, interactive display technologies as suggested by Becta is yet to be realised, if indeed it is realisable.
What are we to do about these observations? It is too simplistic to argue that there is a better form of teaching, broadly termed 'interactive teaching', to be contrasted with a less preferred model – often referred to as just plain whole-class or didactic teaching. For example, while providing a useful literature review, Glover et al (2005) tend somewhat to this simplified perspective choosing to emphasise the contrast between a more desirable, interactive style of teaching, and the 'didactic' or 'conventional' style. We need to avoid deficit descriptions of teaching with IWB that seem to suggest that we are missing an important sea change in pedagogy if we do not somehow become adepts with IWB. Perhaps the IWB, in its most common configuration, is well suited to teacher-led whole class teaching and supports this style very well.
A subtler view of the nature of interactive teaching models is required if we are to make progress on the issue of how IWB (and related technologies) could bring about a step change in the character of teacher-pupil interactions. Even so, investigations into the features of whole-class interactive teaching, and especially investigations into the whole-class interactive teaching strategy promoted by the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, show that such higher order teaching styles are difficult to achieve and sustain (e.g. English et al 2002, Hardman et al 2003, Hargreaves et al 2003, Myhill et al 2004, Smith et al 2003, Tanner et al 2005)
Whereas the aim of such strategies is to raise standards by providing a richer more constructive experience for pupils, the competing constraints of such elements as maintaining pace and allowing time for pupil contributions has the result that “…teachers are becoming more directive in their teaching, with little opportunity for pupil elaboration” (Hardman et al, 2003). The evidence and analysis suggests that classroom teaching within the framework of the WCIT approach remains teacher centred and teacher led. There is, overall, little change in the pattern or quality of interactivity in pupil learning. Teachers do most of the talking and most of the thinking because the strongly objective oriented approach of the NLS and the NNS provide little opportunity for genuine pedagogical interactivity:
“Far from encouraging and extending pupil contributions to promote higher levels of interaction and cognitive engagement, the majority of the time teachers’ questions are closed and often require convergent factual answers and pupils display of … known information.” (Hardman et al, 2003 p)
In short, whether we consider the impact of IWB (and related technologies) or the impact of curriculum strategies that explicitly aim to shift the default teaching style, neither is particularly successful in achieving the higher order aspirations of interactive teaching.
In our previous paper (Hughes and Longman, 2005) we proposed a slightly different way of thinking about the apparent choice between interactive or didactic teaching. This is the concept of the 'connectionist' classroom[1] as a way of thinking about what sort of teaching and learning environment may best be served by the functionality of ICT (e.g. the list advanced by DfEE, 1998: speed, automation, capacity, range, provisionality, interactivity). There are important issues about the ways in which ICT can be configured so as to maximise the potential of this functionality, not singly but in a systematic way (see Hughes and Longman 2005 for a small scale example from a primary school).
One way to handle this is the connectionist classroom (Askew et al. 1997). This model of classroom teaching emphasises the connections between ideas as a key tool in shaping understanding – the case of Askew et al, the domain was mathematics. It also emphasises social connectivity as a key part of effective teaching and learning, as are dialogue, problem-solving and we would add, enthusiasm and excitement. At this stage the model does not propose that all teaching should be aiming at 'higher order' questions but only that, for example, through creating an atmosphere of dialogue, higher order questions will naturally arise – they do not have to be aimed for.[2]
In a connectionist classroom ICT, and therefore the IWB, is organised heterarchically, i.e. there is high interconnectivity of the parts of the system. This means that any ICT 'tool' can in principle be captured or displayed by other similar tools. This technological solution however cannot be imposed and it would not on its own bring about the higher order step changes in classroom teaching that are widely thought to be desirable in the drive to push up standards. Alongside the configuration of ICT, which cannot happen all at once but takes time, there needs to develop the exercise of certain kinds of teaching behaviours that promote such activities as children thinking collectively (i.e. socially) or reaching out to look for things in other parts of the world (e.g. " … going on the internet …").
In this paper, and with this perspective in mind, we are taking a descriptive look at some small episodes of IWB use in primary classrooms. Our data show us that the connectionist description of a classroom can be seen in small flashes. This is not to say that our data is negative, that we are in any sense disappointed with what we have seen. How we take this on in the future is returned to in the conclusions but it is not important to explore the methodological principles we are developing alongside the descriptive model of the effective ICT-rich classroom.
Methodology for the use of classroom video
As already suggested in this paper, hints drawn from hearsay led us to believe that in a primary school in Herefordshire, we might find evidence of connectedness in teaching and learning using ‘digitally connected technologies’. The school was approached for permission for a small-scale classroom-based research project to see whether or not such evidence existed. The school was well-equipped with digital display technologies linked to the Internet available in all Reception to Year 6 classrooms. All teaching and support staff had received training in technical and pedagogic issues, the school received excellent OfSTED and Diocesan reports (it is a Church of England School) and the headteacher and several staff were self-confessed ‘converts’ to use of ICT to enhance teaching and learning.
The headteacher was concerned about the potential use made of any recordings but was reassured that the methodology chosen was to ask the children and their teacher to engage in a collaborative task; ‘telling a story’ of how the interactive whiteboard was used over the period of a week. Each teacher and class were given a morning or afternoon’s training in using digital video cameras and the editing software which was provided on a laptop computer. Therefore the task also addressed some key learning objectives for ICT. Each classroom was equipped with a digital video camera, a tripod stand and a laptop running editing software, capable of connection to the IWB. What was recorded, edited and kept was entirely in the hands of each teacher and their class. At the end of the week teachers gave the research team edited highlights of their story. Only one class failed to provide any data as there had been technical problems with the equipment.
Ruby (1995) suggests that the written word is seen as the more creditable and authoritative medium than the visual. From her perspective as an anthropologist, she notes:
“Anthropology is a word driven discipline. It has tended to ignore the visual/pictorial world perhaps because of distrust of the ability of images to convey abstract ideas. When engaged in ethnography, the researcher must convert the complex experience of fieldwork to words in a notebook and then transform those words onto other words shifted through analytic methods and theories.” (p.135)
Heath and Luff (1993) feel that, through the creation of rich audio visual data records, video ethnographies ‘have considerable advantages over more conventional forms of data used in the social sciences, such as field notes or the responses to questionnaires’ (p. 308). The self-evident ‘reliability’ of a video data record may actually intimidate classroom researchers, since it offers opportunities to hold their analysis and findings up to closer inspection. As Lomax and Casey (1998) explain, “the reliability of the data is, in a sense, self-evident because the recorded image may be repeatedly re-played, and, of course, the analysis and findings can be repeatedly checked for reliability and validity.”Central to digital video research has been the creation of tools of analysis of classroom interaction. Heath (1986) considers that the most prevalent check on digital video as a primary research method is the “……lack of an analytic framework….’ for studying the video data.
“In examining video recordings of naturally occurring activities, the researcher is faced with a level of detail in human interaction that renders our more familiar sociological concepts and analytic devices somewhat inappropriate save in a very crude sense.” (1986: 4).
This factor may have been looked upon as a reason to avoid the method, rather than as a challenge and an opportunity to access a rich data source which can offer a better understanding of the classroom phenomena under study. It is relatively easy to present analytically interesting video clips linked to transcript, as well as attaching coding or key words to those video clips. Yet, as mentioned in earlier discussions of the marginalisation of the visual, little room is made for the presentation of video data analysis in prestigious conference settings or learned journals. We are much more comfortable with a matrix of values and a MicroSoft chart.
Furthermore, there is not much writing about practical aspects of video analysis methods, with a ‘lack of clarity in the literature regarding the validity of video based methods,’ and little information about how to formally analyse the data (Lomax and Casey, 1998). Methods of analysis using other research methods than classroom video are much more established and widely accepted as leading to reliable and valid finds and it is tempting to revert to tried and tested methodologies. However, Heath and Hindmarsh (2002) consider “it is not possible to recover the details of talk through field observation alone, … it’s unlikely that one could grasp little more than passing sense of what happened” (p. 107). They feel ‘traditional’ ethnography fails to attend to the situated and interactional nature of practice and action (Heath and Hindmarsh, 2002: 104). Hughes and Sharrock (1997) agree with this view that the character of social life cannot be understood by simply ‘taking notes’ of the details of everyday life from observation. Conventional observational ‘fieldwork’ cannot provide a data source from which to sufficiently analyse detailed interaction with and around digital media.
The potential for confusion, or misunderstanding, would still be rife if audio alone was used to augment such observation, since the complexity of kinaesthetics and body language would be missed. The video camera is the best sociological tool with which to access detailed classroom interactions around media, and while detailed and repeated observation of video data do not involve a method per se, they do provide ‘a methodological orientation from which to view ‘naturally occurring’ activities and events’ (Heath and Hindmarsh, 2002: 110). In this study we have adopted a descriptive approach based upon detailed and repeated observation of video data. Eight hours worth on four tapes of data was collected. Initial observation of the data led to much of it being discarded as unusable for technical reasons and the remaining clips transferred in edited form for ease of viewing by the researchers. With the primary research method of video recording, we could still continually check the data against any interpretations throughout the analysis process. Having selected analytically interesting and discernible video sequences, we occasionally returned to the complete data set for new lines of inquiry. For example, when observing patterns of technical difficulties experienced by teachers and children we returned to the original video tapes to re-scrutinise examples where it was very difficult to see or hear what was happening, data which we earlier dismissed as being too difficult to make sense of.
Despite the forgoing concerns about what analysis to make and what tools of analysis to use the most common criticism of using digital video are the unnatural effects digital video methods can produce on the classroom research subjects. In fact, many classroom researchers discount the validity of the video camera as a credible research tool on the grounds that it is too intrusive and generates unnatural effects. Yet, it is an unconvincing argument that assumes that methods of participant observation can provide a more ‘naturalistic’ appreciation of classroom practice. So, while video camera recordings are often assumed to be an intrusive method, Heath and Luff (1993: 308) argue that it can actually have less effect on the ongoing interactions than having a participant or non-participant observer. Our experience of observing classrooms over many years lead us to think that pupils and teachers 'act-up' no more or less for a video camera than for a non-participant observer.