You are on page 1of 16

Learning, Media and Technology,

Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 303317

Pace, interactivity and multimodality


in teachers design of texts for
interactive whiteboards in the
secondary school classroom
Carey Jewitt*, Gemma Moss and Alejandra Cardini
University of London, UK
Learning,
10.1080/17439880701511149
CJEM_A_250981.sgm
1743-9884
Original
Taylor
302007
32
c.jewitt@ioe.ac.uk
CareyJewitt
00000September
and
&
Article
Francis
Media
(print)/1743-9892
Francis
and
2007
Ltd
Technology
(online)

Teachers making texts for use in the classroom is nothing new, it is an established aspect of pedagogic practice. The introduction of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) into UK secondary schools has,
however, impacted on this practice in a number of ways. Changes in the site of design and display
from the printed page or worksheet and the blackboard to the electronic site of the screen, together
with easy access to multimodal resources, including colour, image, sound and movementbring
new potentials for teacher text design for IWBs. The texts designed and used with IWBs can be
viewed as a meeting point for the agenda of educational policy, the interests of the commercial
sector, teachers pedagogic concerns and the facilities of technology. Pace, interactivity and multimodality are converged on by policy and research literature as key benefits of IWBs for pedagogy.
In this article, we discuss teachers design of IWB texts with a focus on these three resources.
Drawing on three illustrative examples of IWB use in secondary schools maths, we examine how
these resources are articulated and mediated in the classroom through teachers text design. We
highlight the role of teachers in digital text design and the potential of text design as a pedagogic
tool for change (and non-change). We conclude that pedagogic text design for IWBs would benefit
from a more nuanced approach to these (and other) resources that foregrounds pedagogy and
backgrounds technology.

Introduction
The design and use of texts is an established pedagogic practice in UK schools across
the curriculum. In this article, we explore teachers use of multimodal resources,
pacethat is the organisation and regulation of time, and interactivity in screenbased text design for IWBs. To do this we use a multimodal approach (Kress & van
*Corresponding author. London Knowledge Lab, 2329 Emerald St, London WC1 3QS, UK.
Email: c.jewitt@ioe.ac.uk
ISSN 1743-9884 (print)/ISSN 1743-9892 (online)/07/03030315
2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17439880701511149

304 C. Jewitt et al.


Leeuwen, 2001; Jewitt, 2006). A multimodal approach moves beyond language to
examine how a variety of resources including colour, image, sound, spatial and
kinesthetic resources are orchestrated to make meaning.
Our rationale for examining teachers design and use of IWBs in this way is twofold. First, it enables a better understanding of the facilities of the IWB, the practices
and values associated with the use of IWBs and how teachers use of the technology
helps shape curriculum knowledge, and the pedagogic relationships of the classroom.
This leads to a better sense of the potentials and constraints of the resources teachers
are designing with and the contexts they are designing for. Second, a focus on text
design highlights the pedagogic design choices teachers are involved in when making
texts. This also makes clear how new teacher designs have the potential to realise new
pedagogies that bring about change in the classroom.
Data and method
This article draws on data from the interactive whiteboards (IWBs), Pedagogy and
Pupil Performance Evaluation project, a study commissioned by the Department for
Education and Skills to evaluate the introduction of IWBs to London secondary
schools (see Moss et al., 2007, for a full account of the research). The project used a
mixed methods research design including in-depth case studies, a teacher survey of
departmental IWB availability and usage and an analysis of impact on pupil performance. The teacher survey was administered in the summer and autumn of 2005 to
a sample of London schools at the end of the first year of the roll out of IWBs. The
survey collected data on teacher motivation, familiarity and usage of the IWB, teacher
perceptions of its potential to enhance teaching and learning, and training. A total of
113 staff in 27 departments replied, including staff in those departments that had
participated in the case studies. The data were analysed using SPSS.
Case studies were conducted in nine core-subject departments in London schools:
three mathematics departments, three science departments and three English departments. Each of the schools was selected on the basis that the core-subject department
was fully equipped with IWBs and that the department was pedagogically robust,
drawing on data from government reports, Institute of Education tutors and Local
Education Authority knowledge. In each department, data were collected from three
Year 9 teaching groups, so 27 classes contributed to the study overall. Data were
collected on lessons using IWBs as well as lessons across the curriculum not using
IWBs, allowing a comparison of the impact of IWBs on classroom pedagogy to be
made. This data collection occurred in two phases, phase one in the Autumn/Spring
terms 2004/2005 and phase two in the Summer term 2005.
Data collection in each phase included a week-long period of structured observation of the delivery of a curriculum topic in the core-subject area equipped with IWBs,
video recording of two lessons from each teaching group, collection of IWB texts used
during these lesson sequences, and interviews with the head of the subject department
and the teachers observed. In addition, the research team conducted focus group
interviews with pupils and administered a pupil survey. For the purpose of this study,

Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers design of texts 305


we draw on the analysis of three illustrative examples of IWB text design from three
mathematics department-based case studies (i.e. the video recording and observation
of lessons and teacher interviews) and the teacher survey.
IWBs and teacher texts
Teachers have always made texts for use in the classroom. Through their production
of worksheets and other texts teachers mediate the requirements of curriculum and
examination. This enables the curriculum to be situated within the perceived interests, ability and context of the students.
The project survey of teachers in London secondary schools shows IWB text design
remains a key activity for the majority (78%) of teachers using IWBs. Alongside this
design work, just under half of the teachers also use texts designed by colleagues
(45%) and commercially designed resources (42%). This suggests that IWB texts
continue to be a site for the exercise of teacher autonomy and professional identity.
This is supported by the research that shows the relationship between particular
elements of the teachers pedagogy and the characteristics of the software design they
make use of (Hinostroza & Mellar, 2001).
Teachers have employed colour, image and the manipulation of 2D shapes in
maths lessons for many years, whether working with paper, overhead projectors or
computer applications. The move to IWB technology and the screen more generally
makes the multimodal resources of colour, image, dynamic movement and sound
newly available for design by teachers. The IWB provides a new collective site of
display and attention in which these resources are easily available for immediate use
in newly connectable ways for whole-class teaching. The teacher can design texts on
the IWB through the connection and juxtaposition of texts on screen, moving
between resources to produce webs of connection across sites and applications.
Part of the flexibility of the IWB is, however, that it can also replicate the function
of other technologies as well as produce something new. The IWB can be used to
show the kinds of texts that could be displayed on the traditional blackboard, or via a
television or computer screen. Moreover, some of the texts designed specifically for
use with the IWB replicate the function of traditional text forms, such as textbooks or
worksheets. Observation showed this was as true of the commercially available texts
seen in use as it was for the texts which teachers designed themselves.
Why text design matters
Texts displayed on IWBs can be understood as a meeting point of the concerns of
educational policy, the commercial sector, pedagogy and technology. Whatever the
technology, the question of what is an appropriate text for teaching and learning has
been and remains a highly charged one across the curriculum. The texts that are
brought into the classroom constitute the cultural, political and social realm for
studythe ethical material with which the teacher and the students will need to
engage. Larger level policy articulates the social relations of education and work to

306 C. Jewitt et al.


position teachers and students in respect to the design of texts, and in doing so create
particular versions of knowledge and student identity. In short, texts are an important
element in forming what school knowledge can come to mean.
Plainly, in one sense the texts displayed on IWBs are there because teachers have
chosen them either from already existing resources or through their own design.
However, teachers are institutionally positioned, so that, for example, examination
constraints steer them towards particular kinds or designs of texts (Sarland, 1991).
They are discursively positioned, and it is on the basis of their positioning that teachers
design and make their choices for and of texts. The design process is also shaped by
the demands of the curriculum; by the teachers perception of the students interests
and ability; and by the resources of the school and the facilities of the technology. In
other words, schools, teachers, students and others are involved in re-inflecting and
transforming national policies and text design is a central component in this process.
Policy benefits of IWBs for pedagogy
There is a common assumption in most of the research and policy literature that we
already know what the IWB can best be used for in the secondary school (Moss et al.,
2007). This literature converges on the benefits of IWBs as a transformative
pedagogic tool with the potential to revolutionise learning and teaching. Three
resources are central to this discourse:
1. Multimodality: the IWBs capacity to harness a wider range of multimodal
resources in order to facilitate pupil learning (Levy, 2002; Ball, 2003; Kennewell,
2004).
2. Pace: its capacity to increase the pace and efficiency of classroom delivery and
therefore best use of teacher time (Ball, 2003; Miller, 2003; Becta, 2004; Smith
et al., 2005).
3. Interaction: its capacity to enhance interactive whole-class teaching (Glover &
Miller, 2001; Ball, 2003; Becta, 2004; DfES, 2004).
Our research showed that in many ways these three concepts underpin teachers
design of texts for the IWB. Yet it is less clear how far these aspects of IWB use really
transform pedagogy. Certainly some of the classroom-based research on IWBs has
questioned whether IWBs support surface, superficial or deep interactivity
(Hargreaves et al., 2003). Both Coghill (2002) and Knight et al. (2004) observe that
IWBs are not necessarily used interactively. Indeed, Knight et al. (2004) argue that
without positive intervention, IWBs can reinforce a teacher-centred style of delivery.
Nonetheless, the convergence of much of the policy and research literature on the
same three aspects of IWBs produces a discourse that influences teachers sense of
proper-use and pedagogy with IWBs. The expectation is that lessons that are broadly
beneficial for learning will be visibly and measurably interactive, multimodal, using
as many modes as possible, and fast paced.
In the following section, we discuss how this discourse is inflected in teacherdesigned texts for IWBs. Our purpose is to compare and contrast the different

Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers design of texts 307


ways that teachers designed and used the resources of the IWB in order to challenge the emergent convention that good IWB pedagogy is multimodal, interactive and fast.
IWB text design and use
In this section, we draw on three illustrative examples of teacher design of IWB texts
that are typical of the range of designs we observed in use across the case studies. Each
of these teachers worked with the resources and potentials of the IWB to design and
use texts in different ways. A brief summary of the texts designed and used by the
teacher is given in each case.
Example 1: This lesson focused on polygon external and internal angles. The teacher
created the text displayed on the IWB in real time during the lesson. There was no
electronic preparation of the text. The content of the board was primarily hand written formula accompanied by some diagrammatic drawings. The teacher worked with
a total of seven ActivStudio slides in the lesson. He used three features of IWB technology: (1) the facility to draw straight lines, (2) switch to the next blank screen without erasing and (3) go back to a previous slide. The teacher taught from the front of
the class and the students remained in their seats copying information into their exercise books until the final five minutes of the lesson when a few were invited up to the
board to work with some equations.
Example 2: This lesson also focused on polygon external and internal angles. The
teacher used an IWB text prepared by himself in PowerPoint that consisted of a
sequence of 11 slides combined with three slides from Geometers Sketchpad, a software package that has been specifically designed for teaching mathematics. The texts
brought to the lesson included flipcharts with hyperlinks, diagrams, graphs and
tables. During the lesson the teacher used the IWBs visual and dynamic potential by
combining different types of software seamlessly; saving and recovering his work; the
use of drag-and-drop, hide-and-reveal, annotation tools, features such as the covering
blind and applications such as the calculator. The teacher taught from the front of the
class and at several points during the lesson students came to the front for short
episodes to interact with the board.
Example 3: The topic of this lesson was algebra and factorisation. This teacher
used a prepared ActivStudio flipchart text consisting of four slides. The main slide
showed the black outline of a square divided into sections and two sets of shapes:
a yellow square and a series of four differently coloured shapes (two brown rectangles of the same size, and two different sized and coloured squares) which when
arranged filled the yellow square and outline. The other slides consisted of a
series of algebraic equations written out and to be solved. The teacher taught
from the back of the class, and the students used interactive slates throughout the
lesson.

308 C. Jewitt et al.


Designs for multimodality
Observation of lessons with IWBs showed that teachers often do not make use of
the full range of multimodal resources and their text design does not change the
modes of representation in the classroom in significant ways. This is the case in
our first illustrative example. Throughout the lesson, the IWB was used in much
of the same way as a traditional blackboard with the teacher at the front of the
classroom. Writing continued to dominate the board text design with some static
2D diagrams. The instructions for each task were spoken by the teacher and were
not included in the text displayed on the IWB (Figure 1). This served to integrate the texts into the teachers talk which in turn acted as the main pedagogic
vehicle.
These kinds of resources are easiest to make in that they are consistent with
teachers existing pedagogic aims and print-based experience and knowledge.
The teachers use of the multimodal resources of IWBs in illustrative Examples 2
and 3 do, however, begin to facilitate the production of a range of new kinds of texts.
The teacher in the second example used dynamic images, colour, numbers and
diagrams and moved between applications and screens easily (Figure 2).
In the third example the teacher used colour to signify difference and sameness
(Figure 3).
The black-outline of the square displayed on the board provided a guide for the
initial arrangement of the shapes; students then suggested and showed alternative
arrangements of the four shapes within the square. The students used image, colour
and movement to explore factorisation through their manipulation of the different
shapes and visually checking the fit between the series of shapes and the large yellow
square. The question of how this approach to design matters for learning is addressed
later in this article.
Across the project, teachers consistently referred to multimodality within
discourses of student ability; for example, one teacher commented:
Figure 1. IWB board design (Example 1)

Figure 2. IWB board design (Example 2)

Figure 3. IWB board design (Example 3)

Figure 1.

IWB board design (Example 1)

Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers design of texts 309

Figure 2.

IWB board design (Example 2)

Yes, absolutely, some of the weaker ones, especially. Some of the brighter ones will get it
just by taking notes down, but the weaker ones just need that added visual aspect. Equivalent fractions are lovely, doing it on these things. Moving things is very nice. Some
students will just get the numerical way, and others just need to see the matching

This view informs both text design and use. As a result of coupling the multimodal
capacity of IWBs with student ability, multimodality was often rendered surplus for

Figure 3.

IWB board design (Example 3)

310 C. Jewitt et al.


high-ability students. Ability and interactivity were similarly linked and with similar
consequences. This positioning of multimodality fails to attend to the potential impact
of multimodality on learning. That is how the design of multimodal representations
reshapes curriculum knowledgewhat it is that is to be learnt and how. Images do
not supply a similar version of a concept; they provide a different representation of it.
To talk about a concept, to draw it, to animate it, all draw on different aspects of a
concept. Engaging with a variety of modes means engaging with a concept in different
ways, each of which fills up the concept in distinct and specific ways. In our third
example, for instance, the visual and dynamic text, consisting of coloured squares to
be manipulated, offers the students a different representation that is central to the
learning task. It does not reinforce the algebraic representations offered in the lesson.
The multimodal representation offers the possibility of making connections between
the specialised knowledge of maths and the everyday knowledge of space and design.
It also enables students to draw on their out of school knowledge and experiences and
to connect this with maths, which in turn repositions them in relation to the production of knowledge. This is perhaps reflected in pupils and teachers comments that
image and dynamic representations make concepts, especially complex concepts,
easier to see, share, discuss and understand (also found by Wall et al., 2005).
Designs for pace
Classroom observations showed a variation in pace in lessons where IWBs were used.
They also raised questions about the relationship between fast pace and effective
learning. In our first example, the focus on writing combined with the meticulous
rhythm of the teachers speech created a slow-pace lesson. There is little explicit
reference to time in the lesson. The teacher rarely asked the students questions, and
only a few students asked questions. The students answered the teachers questions
but were otherwise quiet as the text unfolded across the boards in real time.
In our third example, the pace of the lesson is notably slow and each IWB slide is
sparse. The teachers pedagogic focus is on the processes of co-constructing knowledge and the understanding of these processes rather than demonstrating correct
answers. This focus is arguably visually apparent in the sparseness of the textthere
is a lot to be constructed. The teacher is open in relation to time. She defined and
redefined the time frame for each activity as students were working. Pupils used the
slate to manipulate shapes on the IWB. As the students manipulated the shapes they
talked aloud explaining what they were doing. The teacher occasionally asked open
questions so as to make the process clearer to the rest of the class. In addition to
working with the slate, students went up to the board to show their workings out or
worked with the teachers laptop.
The potential of IWB technologies to regulate a fast-paced lesson was fully realised
in the second illustrative example. The teacher used PowerPoint files to sequence and
pace the lesson. This teacher, along with many others in our case studies, commented
on how the fast pace enabled by IWBs can make lessons flow. This lesson had a
particularly fast pace. The text was a part of a larger sequence of 23 slides on the

Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers design of texts 311


characteristics of external and internal angles of polygons that the teacher used across
three lessons. In this teaching sequence, the teacher used these 11 slides as a linear
organising structure for the lesson including three slides from Geometers Sketchpad.
This had the effect of strongly framing the content, structure and pace of the lesson.
The teacher quickened the lesson pace to get through the appropriate number of slides
by the end of the lesson. The IWB texts created in advance by this teacher in particular
his use of PowerPoint played a major part in structuring the lesson and driving its fast
pace. The text design functioned as a time management tool that controls the class
rhythm and pace. Such texts increase the pace of whole-class teaching through:

the ease of movement between screensthis is particularly the case in the use of
PowerPoint and flipcharts where the teacher has pre-planned the lesson and moves
through the lesson via screens;
the ability to preload and then move between a range of different linked materials;
and
the ability to move easily between applications.

In this lesson, the teacher exclusively controlled the flow of materials on the board
and in this respect he dominated the lesson. The effectiveness of such fast pace
would, of course, depend upon the teachers broader purposes, and to some extent
the nature of the subject matter they were covering in this way. For instance, fast pace
seems particularly appropriate when teaching certain aspects of maths. It has a less
immediate application to substantive areas of English teaching. Indeed the use of
such prepared presentational texts may result in a rigid scaffolding and superficial
interactivity.
Our research suggests that pace is realised differently in classroom texts designed
round individual screen shots through the breaking down of information into smaller
sequential elements, and the fragmentation and modularisation of information across
several screens. In the past text design in maths classrooms often happened across a
series of blackboards, leaving a narrative-like trail through a process to realise a solution. The IWB screen breaks this trail into screen blocks, and this changes the
students access to the narrative thread. Thus, the teachers design decisions in Example 2 break up an information narrative into screen-sized chunks. Preparing the
screens before the lesson means they can be filled with more information. That the
IWB text design is similar to that employed on a non-interactive board built up during
a period of teaching arguably makes the IWB board work harder for pupils to read
simultaneously.
The breakdown of the curriculum into bite-size portions is a frequent feature of
teachers pedagogic designs for IWBs. Alongside the technological facility, this may
also relate to the demands of a full curriculum, the pressure of examinations,
behaviour management and expectations of students who are labelled low ability.
Perhaps it also refracts the discourse of the digitally literate child of the twenty-first
centurywith a limited attention span and a diet of dynamic visual stimulation.
The way in which the screen is used to break up, modularise, link, connect and
disconnect elements of a lesson is central to the production of pace. It is also

312 C. Jewitt et al.


central to learning in that it serves to link, classify and frame curriculum knowledge
in important ways.
Designs for interaction
Teachers conceive of and design interactivity in different ways. The type of text
design in turn shapes the pedagogic possibilities for interactivity. The interactive uses
of the technology we observed can be categorised as follows:

Technical interactivitywhere the focus is on interacting with technological facilities of the board;
Physical interactivitywhere the focus is on going up to the front and manipulating elements on the board; and
Conceptual interactivitywhere the focus is on interacting with, exploring and
constructing curriculum concepts and ideas.

How interactivity is understood and used in relation to the IWB in the classroom
is shaped by the pedagogic theories of learning that underpin particular teachers
practice, and that circulate more broadly in a subject department or school. It also
varies according to the demands of the subject and topic, the perceived ability of the
students, the time available and the peripherals used.
In our first illustrative example, the students and teacher remain in a traditional
interactive mode. The teacher is at the front and the students seated throughout the
lesson, copying the content of the board into their exercise books, except for a short
flurry of students coming up to the board in the last five minutes of the lesson to solve
some equations. Time to think in this example is largely the time children give to
solving the equation they are working on their own. Time at the front is used to
exemplify the thinking they have done earlier.
In our second illustrative example, the teachers design of interactivity with the
IWB also reinforces whole-class teaching from the front with limited dialogic episodes
and student interaction. The teachers design of texts included the answers to the
questions posed during the lesson. The answers were displayed in the lesson through
the actions of students (or the teacher) using the hide-and-reveal or drag-and-drop
facilities of the IWB. Students were asked to choose from a set of optional answers in
order to fill in a table displayed on the IWB (to match a polygon with the values of its
interior and exterior angles). In each incidence of student interaction with the board
the answers could be found (quite literally) on the IWB. Elements of texts could be
moved around but not created or transformed. Students were actively engaged in
these tasks. Their participation was structured by the teachers actions and the preplanned design of the text. During whole-class activities, students verbal participation was guided by sequences of closed questions asked by the teacher. The teacher
also guided students physical interaction with the IWB. Students were asked to go to
the front and use the board to demonstrate what they had done in their notebooks.
In this case, interactivity was both discussed by the teacher and perhaps tacitly
evaluated in terms of technological skills, how often students came up to the board

Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers design of texts 313


and how often they interacted with particular features (i.e. drag-and-drop, hide-andreveal). Under such conditions, interactivity can come to stand for interacting with
the board itself, not necessarily manipulating the concepts the teacher is teachinga
surface interactivity (Hargreaves et al., 2003).
The majority of teachers we interviewed commented on interactivity and IWBs in
terms of classroom management, inclusion, enjoyment and reward. Yet often this led
to some relatively mundane activities being designed which had little or no learning
potential. This kind of emphasis on interactivity was particularly prevalent in relation
to lower ability students while lessons with higher ability students tended to be less
focused on getting students up to the board and being seen to be interactive.
In our third illustrative example, the whole-class teaching was designed to enhance
and create spaces for interactive work. Discussion and extended dialogue were
opened up by the teachers use of the IWB. The teacher used peripherals (slates) with
the IWB. This positioned her at the back of the classroom and enhanced techniques
for student participation and control over their own learning. Teaching focused on
the process used to find the area of the yellow square in the text displayed on the IWB.
Different students controlled the IWB text using a slate passed from one desk to the
other to try and find out the area of the square. The contents of the text were used as
open-ended prompts and as resources for exploring the processes of factorisation.
The teacher intervened with comments, and the students suggested ways of solving
the problem. The teacher summarised what they had learnt by asking questions to
pupils and indicating the formula behind that process. When summarising, the
teacher referred to the insights that different pupils had made. The teacher encouraged students spoken and physical participation and pupils were active in the lessons.
The board was used to display students processes of thinking and ideas rather than
what they had done or correct answers. Answers were realised through discussion and
student participation in the lesson. Teacher and students together created the texts.
This lesson was marked by the display of texts for annotation, manipulation and
collective discussion and a move away from using IWB features such as drag-anddrop, hide-and-reveal. As a result there is less use of the board for direct mapping and
transmission of information into student exercise books through copying the contents
of the board and more creation of opportunities for talk supported by technologyenabled manipulation of elements on the board. In short, the text design is left open
for completion by the action of the students.
Teachers and their text designs for IWBs
As the analysis presented in this article shows, the policy benefits of multimodality,
pace and interactivity frequently associated with IWB pedagogy in the secondary
school do not necessarily hold and can even be misleading. For instance, there is a
paradox about the pursuit of interactivity, in which the attempt to be interactive by
bringing students out to the IWB at the front of the class leads to a focus on the display
on the board which in turn throws more students into a spectator mode. The point
we wish to make is that it is more pedagogically useful to think of pace, interactivity

314 C. Jewitt et al.


and multimodality as resources on a continuum which need to be designed as a holistic
trio rather than seen as absolute virtues. For example, if interactivity is high, then pace
may need to be slow.
Designing multimodality
The potential learning power of multimodality discussed earlier raises questions for
the design of IWB texts that move beyond the policy discourse and the assumptions
underpinning much research that multimodality is automatically good for learning.
Teachers need to be given the time to reflect on what mode is best for what purpose.
Text design demands thought about how the links and relationships between modes
and screens impact on shapes of knowledge, and particularly the classification of
knowledge in the classroom. Teachers also need time to reflect on what new practices
of interpretation, the multimodal texts they make, require from studentsto interpret
colour and movement, for instance, or to make links across elements. Texts in classrooms are dynamic and activated by the talk, gaze and gestures of teacher and
students. This raises another important question for text design, that is, which aspects
of pedagogy should be designed into the text and fixed ahead of use and which should
be designed around the text in use?
Designing pace
Redefining pace in terms of time raises other questions. In designing time into IWB
texts, it may be useful to address the potential functions of time explicitly. For
instance, who and what is to be given time. One potential with prepared texts is to
focus on teacher content and in the process background learning. A difference
between the IWB and other forms of technology (including the text book) is that they
are on all the time. The ease of movement between applications removes breaks in
lesson flow and raises new questions for how teachers time and students time are
produced, boundaried and related. The functions of pace and time (e.g. classroom
management, motivation, thinking, reflection and so on) have to be explicitly
designed into the text, making connections and disconnections across the time of the
lesson. The question of how time is organised in the text is central to the design of the
screen, in particular whether time is designed into texts as a linear narrative or as a
tentative network stretching out like a web across multiple spaces.
Designing interactivity
Designing interactivity into texts in ways that enhance learning means moving beyond
seeing students as passive recipients of preformed information (Tanner et al., 2005,
p. 3). Design for interactive use of the IWB needs to include the purposeful design of
opportunities for exploration and active participation that go beyond physical manipulation. This includes consideration of, for instance, what information to provide as
ready-made or for co-construction, what aspects of a concept it is useful to make

Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers design of texts 315


dynamic and manipulable, as well as decisions over what is an effective balance of
time for collective discussion and time to record. The IWB can be used to display,
annotate and manipulate students texts (e.g. using scanners, visualisers or sticking
student posters on the IWB). Aspects of a text can be designed to be open or closed,
fixed or manipulable, each enables different constraints and possibilities for interaction depending on the pedagogic intention.
Print- and screen-based design
Unlike some other new technologies IWBs have received an overwhelming positive
reception from teachers who otherwise struggle to incorporate technology into
their classrooms (Kemeny, 2004). At least in part, this may be due to the fact
that, unlike other new technologies IWBs have the capacity to be absorbed into
the space of the classroom without challenging the existing status quo. IWBs fit
the spatial logic of the classroomthe board and teacher at the front, they fit
existing pedagogic practices, transfer and transmission models of learning and the
whole-class teaching and learning context of secondary school. In other words,
IWBs have the capacity to mimic other pedagogic technologies. The teacher in
our first illustrative example recognised this potential of IWBs to behave like a
traditional blackboard and adapted the technology to his existing pedagogic practice accordingly.
IWBs maintain a semblance of the traditional pedagogic space of design that is the
board, while at the same time, providing new resources for design. This has both
advantages and disadvantages for text design and IWB use. The traditional design
space and the new resources afforded by the IWB can create a tension for teachers as
their design of texts for learning oscillate between print-based design principles and
digital-multimedia design principles of the screen. This same tension is also apparent
in commercial texts. One result of this tension and mimicry is that the IWB enables
the worksheet to migrate comfortably onto the screen, leaving the pedagogy of the
worksheet unchanged. Another consequence of this is that the multimodal potential
of the screen can remain dormant and unexplored.
The majority of teachers are experienced in the design of texts using print-based
principles. Our research suggests that teachers need support to design effective
texts for IWBs, in the form of time, resources and training, with a focus on the shift
from economies of print-based design to digital-based designs for learning. One
option that has been taken up at a policy level is to facilitate Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) use by providing teachers with ready-made
texts in the form of downloadable online resources. This strategy fails to take
account of the historical, political and cultural practices of text design as a pedagogic practice and the need for teachers to re-mediate the requirements of the
national curriculum for their particular contexts and student populations. Teachers
need to be supported in designing the digital space of the IWB for learning in ways
that also enable them to exercise their professional autonomy and have a situated
response to the national curriculum.

316 C. Jewitt et al.


Conclusion
Through these examples, we have shown how a focus on IWB text design can contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between forms of representation,
technology, literacy and pedagogy in the school classroom. Teachers designs are
made and shaped by the complex social web within which they are located, and
configure pedagogy in particular ways. Whilst IWB technology clearly has the capacity to facilitate increased pace of delivery, the design of texts needs to consider when
it is in the interest of teachers and learners to take advantage of this facility and when
it is not. There can be a significant pedagogic value in slow, real time board work,
when it is used to realise a specific pedagogic aim.
The effective use of IWB technology, and indeed all technology, has to be embedded in curriculum knowledge, pedagogy and learning. There is a need to move
towards pedagogic principles for design and to move away from valuing a technology
driven pedagogy that is fast, interactive and multimodal. A multimodal, interactive
and a fast-paced pedagogy are not necessarily good in and of themselves. A better
understanding of how the rhetoric of IWBs plays out in the reality of the classroom is
needed. Investigating the design decisions of teachers using IWBs opens up potential
for new designs for learning.
Notes on contributors
Carey Jewitt is a Reader in Education and Technology based at the London
Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London. Carey undertakes
multimodal research on technology, learning and teaching. Her most recent
book is Technology, literacy and learning (2006, Routledge).
Gemma Moss is a Reader in Education at the Institute of Education, University of
London. She has written extensively about literacy as a social practice, including
gender and literacy and informal literacy practices that encompass a range of
media. Her current research interests focus on literacy policy and its development
in England through the formation of new kinds of knowledge communities.
Alejandra Cardini is a PhD student at the University of San Andrs, Buenos Aires,
Argentina. Her main research interests are in education policy and sociology of
education.
References
Ball, B. (2003) Teaching and learning mathematics with an interactive whiteboard, Micromath,
19(1), 47.
Becta (2004) Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: a guide for secondary schools (Coventry,
Becta).
Coghill, J. (2002) How is the interactive whiteboard being used in the primary school and how does this
affect teachers and teaching? Available online at: www.virtuallearning.org.uk/whiteboards/
IFS_Interactive_whiteboards_in_the_primary_school.pdf (accessed 4 July 2007).
DfES (2004) Interactive whiteboards. Available online at: www.dfes.gov.uk/ictinschools/ict_active/
subject.cfm?articleid=509 (accessed on 4 March 2004).

Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers design of texts 317


Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2001) Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale
introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school, Journal of Information
Technology for Teacher Education, 10(3), 257277.
Hargreaves, L., Moyles, J., Merry, R., Paterson, F., Pell, A. & Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003) How do
primary school teachers define and implement interactive teaching in the national literacy
strategy in England, Research Papers in Education, 18(3), 217236.
Hinostroza, J. E. & Mellar, H. G. (2001) Pedagogy embedded in educational software design:
report of a case study, Computers and Education, 37(1), 2740.
Jewitt, C. (2006) Technology, literacy and learning: a multimodal approach (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Kemeny, H. (2004) Review of some literature and classroom research into IWB use in primary
schools. Unpublished paper produced for the IWB pedagogy and pupil performance project.
Kennewell, S. (2004) Researching the influence of interactive presentation tools on teacher
pedagogy, paper presented at BERA, Manchester, 18 September.
Knight, P., Pennant J. & Piggott J. (2004) What does it mean to use the interactive whiteboard in
the daily mathematics lesson?, MicroMath, 20(2), 1416.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary
communication (London, Arnold).
Levy, P. (2002) Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Available online at:
http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm (accessed 16 May 2007).
Miller, D. (2003) Developing interactive whiteboard activity, MicroMath, 19, 3335.
Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007) The interactive
whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation. Research report 816 (London, DfES).
Sarland, C. (1991) Young people reading: culture and response (Milton Keynes, Open University
Press).
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K. & Miller, J. (2005) Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon?
A critical review of the literature, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91101.
Tanner, H., Jones, S., Kennewell, S. & Beauchamp, G. (2005) Interactive whole class teaching and
interactive whiteboards (Melbourne, Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia).
Wall, K., Higgins, S. & Smith, H. (2005) The visual helps me understand the complicated things:
pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards, British Journal of Educational
Technology, 36(5), 851867.