Reflections from teachers

From February 2003 to November 2003 an online questionnaire was posted on the MirandaNorth and Virtual Learning websites asking for data on the use of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) in education.   It was publicised across a number of listservs and message boards.   More than 100 responses were received: data was drawn from 90 of these.

­     28% of respondents were from Primary schools

­     50% from Secondary schools.

­     Promethean ACTIVboards were the most widely installed IWBs in schools (74%) and constituted 100% of the total in British Council Language schools.

Interactive whiteboard survey 2003

Interactive whiteboards: case studies

As more schools were fitted with interactive whiteboards and display technologies it was apparent that there was a real need for teachers to play an active role in specifying the ways in which this extremely powerful tool was installed and used. The technology can effect profound changes in the ways in which our students learn, the ways in which we teach and, more fundamentally, the ways in which we organise the curriculum and our schools.

This resource was developed by John Cuthell. It reflects research projects that he ran from 1999 to 2007 in the United Kingdom, China, Mexico and South Africa. Much of the research was funded by MirandaNet Ltd, Promethean Ltd, and Steljes Ltd.

It’s fifteen years since interactive whiteboards started to appear in UK schools, and many now regard them as passé, and are waiting for the Next New Thing to appear. Indeed, some teachers never use them, even though their classrooms may be equipped with them. Understanding a technology, knowing how it is used and being able to incorporate it into one’s pedagogical approach are all vital if it is to be any use. David Obst, from the Technische Universität, Dresden, explains how IWB technology is being introduced in one part of Germany.

Can digital devices really have an impact on learning?

Interactive White Boards

David Obst, Technische Universität, Dresden.

Visual Learning – Seeing the Meaning

During the past ten years governments and education departments across the world have invested significant sums of money in a range of whole-class visual display technologies such as data projectors, interactive whiteboards and visualisers (Cuthell, 2005a; 2008). There have been many reasons for their adoption: the technologies have been seen as a way of meeting government targets for ICT implementation, for providing access to the latest educational resources or as a way of transforming and modernising the outcomes of educational systems (Cuthell, 2005a). The high capital cost of these technologies has meant that individual teachers and schools have rarely been able to specify or select the tools for themselves. One result of this has been that the technologies, and the changes that they produce, are often seen by teachers to be externally imposed on them and their classrooms (Cuthell, 2006). Staff development is often limited to a brief instructional session that focuses on basic ‘mastery of the controls’, rather than an exploration of how the tools can be integrated into teaching and learning (Moss et al, 2007).

However, expectations of these technologies are artificially high, and researchers are often pressured to produce findings that justify the high capital investment. Assumptions that the introduction of a new technology will per se achieve pedagogical change and an improvement in learning outcomes are difficult to substantiate through research, and research findings are often lost by politicians and misrepresented in the media (Kennewell, 2006). Many surveys produce results that are limited by respondents being given neither enough information, intellectual space nor time to make a useful judgement or evaluation of visual display technologies and visual learning (Smith et al, 2007).

These resources are based on a project at The Centre for Excellence in Work-Based Learning for Education Professionals (WLE Centre) at the Institute of Education, University of London that provides the opportunity to draw together a number of studies and assign a developmental typology of visual learning implementation and approaches to provide a unique resource to support further research and professional pedagogical development.

The Centre for Excellence in Work-Based Learning for Education Professionals (WLE Centre) at the Institute of Education, University of London, is an initiative to encourage excellence and innovation in Higher Education. The WLE Centre aims to develop new approaches in work-based learning through facilitating innovations in learning at work and through professional practice; teaching and assessment modes for work-related and work-located learning; uses of e-learning and digital technologies and developing new conceptual and theoretical approaches to work-based learning.

Current literature in the use of technologies that support visual learning tends to focus on the evaluation of government-supported initiatives to embed visual display technology in classrooms, the their impact on pedagogy. Averis, Glover and Miller (2005) examined IWB technology within the mathematics classroom; Cuthell (2005; 2006; 2008) examined IWB and visualiser use and their impact on teaching and learning, both in a UK and international context. Kennewell (2006) drew together research and examined the impact of the technologies on pedagogy. Smith et al (2007) and Moss et al (2007) conducted detailed studies nationally (Smith) and across London (Moss). Whilst some of these studies focus on the pedagogies and perspectives of the teachers there are no case studies accompanied by practitioner commentary that provide exemplars of practice of material for analysis. It is the aim of this project to provide just such materials.

The 2008/9 WLE project ‘Seeing the Meaning’ combined a metastudy of existing literature on the technologies of Visual Learning, an evaluation of effective models of pedagogical and curriculum development through professional learning and case studies, some of which were streamed video. A particular focus was on the ways in which work-based learning can support curriculum and institutional change.

The online multi-modal resource relates to the policy, theory and practice of all aspects of Visual Learning and brings together academic studies from international research; policy and best practice disseminated through Becta and other government agencies; case studies focused on classroom best practice and innovative technologies from industry. This is freely available online and forms a growing knowledge base for academics, students, schools and teachers. The project also provides video evidence that links to other work-based learning projects.

The 2009/10 project built on ‘Seeing the Meaning’ with a range of downloadable video resources. These examined the ways in which practitioners and their pupils use a range of innovative visual learning technologies and techniques in the classroom and focus on the ways in which they can support learners in a range of activities and outcomes. Video interviews explore the pedagogical and organisation strategies embedded in practice, and the ways in which these can support curriculum change both with and across institutions.

The case studies focus on classroom best practice and the integration of innovative technologies from industry. An important element is the ways in which teachers use the technologies and affordances of their personal learning networks – wikis, FlashMeeting, Twitter, MirandaMods and unConferences – both to advance their techniques and strategies and obtain feedback from critical friends.

‘Seeing the Meaning’ is a freely available online knowledge base for academics, students, schools and teachers. The project links to other work-based learning projects, and identifies:

• a range of pedagogical strategies to support and reinforce Visual Learning;
• the ways in which it can be integrated across age-related curricula;
• models for deployment across institutions;
• the integration of Visual Learning into assessment practice;
• the role of work-based learning to support the integration of visual learning technologies into existing and developing pedagogical practice;
• learner perceptions of the impact of visual learning on personal learning and progress;
• the use of personal learning networks as a forum for development and dissemination.

Key issues of visual learning, its technologies and its pedagogies are illustrated, both in the video case studies and the practitioner commentaries. They explore and develop the relationship between technology, theory, pedagogy and learning; the relationship between work, learning and professional practice and the relationship between pedagogy, assessment and visual learning.

This project enhances the existing investment by the WLE Centre in ‘Seeing the Meaning’ and provides a resource for all those wishing to use findings and information on the subject of visual learning and its technologies to further their own professional development, or to implement it in the workplace. This project links to, and supports, the WLE aims of identifying and exploring:

• the relationship between work, learning and professional practice with a particular focus on work-based pedagogies, assessment and self-evaluation strategies;
• the relationship between pedagogy, assessment and learning with innovative technologies;
• the role and use of new technologies (especially those of learners) across a range of curriculum areas;
• conceptualising and theorising the workplace as a site for learning, and the relationship with industry
• collaboration, partnership and innovation within and across institutions through personal learning networks.

International comparisons:
the Promethean Ambassadors Project, 2004 – 7.

Ambassadors for ACTIVlearning

Tools for Transformation: The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards in a range of contexts

The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teaching, Learning and Attainment

It’s a Vision Thing

Case studies from the classroom: the 2003 project

New tools, new pedagogies, new learning?

Interactive Whiteboards in the Primary School

An approach to an effective methodology

How do visual display technologies enhance learning?

2003 Promethean – MirandaNet ACTIVboard Practice-based Research Project: Case studies

ACTIVboards and Mathematics: student feedback

Ben Franklin, Sir Charles Lucas Arts College
Students comment on the ways in which interactive whiteboards have changed their learning.

Breaking Barriers to Literacy
Marion Scott-Baker, Cheam School

Hit the Road, Jack …
Tony McNally, Castle View School, Sunderland

Journey into Visual Teaching and Learning
Dai Thomas, Ringmer Community College, Sussex

Raising achievement with under-achieving boys
Kirsten Lowe, Castle View School, Sunderland

Switching on switched-off children
Karen Graham, St. Giles C. E. Primary School, Shrewsbury

Using Inter-ACTIVboards for teaching Interactive Maths Lessons
Jonathan Wood, Ringmer Community College, Sussex

Evidence from other studies

IWB: What the research shows
What the research says about interactive whiteboards. A Becta research paper, from the ICT in Research Network.

Interactive whiteboards survey: report
During 2003 teachers from schools, colleges and universities responded to an online questionnaire on the MirandaNorth and Virtual Learning websites and posted information about their uses of interactive whiteboards, and the effects that they had experienced in their teaching and their students’ learning. John Cuthell wrote the summary.

The Review Project
Ros Walker was the project manager: The Review Project was based at Hull University and was supported by NESTA and Promethean, Ltd. The aim of the project was to identify and disseminate best practice in the use of interactive whiteboards.

Learning can be seen as a mental function that relies on the acquisition of knowledge (of different types and range) that is grounded in information – whether specific or perceived. What is learned is used as the basis of further learning, skills, values, belief systems, ideologies and competences. The visual learning process is one that can be seen to underpin others (cf. Ostensiveness: Piaget, 1953.) The assumptions that follow are drawn from current thinking about the relationships between what we see, what we remember and what we know. They help to explain why visual learning may be important, and how a range of technologies may contribute to these processes.

What Science suggests

Connections in the brain are constantly changing: they are not hardwired (Greenfield, 2003). The synapses relating to vision peak at around 10 months. The density of these synapses then declines and stabilises around 10 years of age. It is the pattern, however, rather than the number of connections that is most important. In terms of cognitive development there are ‘windows of time’ in the developing brain: critical periods for neural connections and pathways (Hubel & Weisel, 1981). The concept of plasticity is relevant here, in terms of the ways in which organisms adapt to environmental stimulus – in particular the brain, and the ways in which it adapts to stimuli (Maturana & Varela, 1981.) Plasticity refers to the ways in which brain structures can change to better cope with the environment: neurons or synapses can change their internal parameters in response to inputs and stimuli. The theory of neuroplasticity (Shaw & McEachern, 2001) describes the ways in which thinking, learning, and acting actually change both the brain’s physical structure and functional organization from top to bottom.

Within the cortex, one region looks different from another, not because the function is different, but because of what it is connected to. However, all cortical regions perform a common function or algorithm (Mountcastle, 1978). Vision is no different from hearing, which is no different from motor output. Cortical connections across the different regions of the cortex are genetically determined.

What does this mean for Visual Learning?

The stimuli that come from the senses of sight and hearing are not the same, although there is a similarity in the way in which the cortex processes the signals. Therefore the cortex is dividing itself into task-specific functional areas long into childhood. The importance of plasticity is that the wiring of the neurocortex can change and rewire itself. The brain regions develop specialised functions based on information flowing in during the process of development.

The sequence can be simplified as:

Visual information à optic nerve fibres à thalamus à primary visual cortex

These inputs from visual information are converted: the inputs become neural signals. These neural signals act as ‘action potentials’, or spikes, and are partly chemical and partly electrical.

Each set of patterns is experienced differently, but the input to the brain is no different for visual, aural, sensual, motor signals or stimuli.

Is Visual Learning more powerful?

Vision relies on both spatial and temporal patterns, which are constantly changing over time, unless we simply look at unmoving object, with no change in either the lighting or our own position. The visual input is more likely, therefore, to generate a greater number of ‘action potentials’ than other stimuli.

The processes through which memory leads to recall are based on pattern sequences and temporal or spatial patterns recreated from partial versions of pattern sequences known as invariance. These invariant forms are stored in the cortical memory and reconstructed.

Cortical memory

The reconstruction of visual memory within the cortex can be represented as:

Storing sequences à auto-associative recall à predictive ability à Invariant representations

Interactivity

Changes in input            à            increases in range of predictive ability

(Cf. Visual technologies in classrooms)

Predictive behaviours and abilities are based on prior behaviour and experience – for example, the progression from Concrete through to Abstract thinking (Piaget). These can be termed invariant representations.

Imagination

If we consider that way in which imagination works – “… seeing pictures in my head …” as one child said – then the process that we use for making predictions is reversed to produce neural inputs.

Predictive output            à            reversed            =            inputs

In this way the visualisation process is used for performative preparation, for example, by athletes, technicians, craft workers, artists and so on.

The Mind

And as for the Mind, it’s what the Brain does …

Changing performance: the role of Mirror Neurons

Mirror neurons are a class of nerve cells in areas of the brain. They relay signals for planning movement and carrying it out. The mirror system is activated when specific actions are watched, even concentrating on a separate task (Muthukumaraswamy, 2007). Motor systems in the brain are activated when a person observes an action being performed: it suggests that we understand and learn to imitate the actions of others through these brain mechanisms. Mirror neurons therefore reveal how children learn.

Mirror neurons fire in response to chains of actions linked to intentions. They then provide a template for the individual to replicate, a model for analysis of others and for prediction.

Mirror neurons provide clues to how children learn: they are active from birth (Meltzoff, 2007). This suggests that human children are ‘hard-wired’ to learn through imitation, with their mirror neurons involved in observing, and then practicing. Earlier studies – the theory of Observational Learning (Bandura, 1986) suggest that an observer’s behaviour changes after viewing the behaviour of a model. Findings from research into mirror neurons provides additional support for the Observational Learning hypothesis, which was often typified as simply constructed from causal connections. In fact, observation directly improves muscle performance via mirror neurons. By watching a game, a performer will be better able to predict what will happen next.

Re-defining interactivity

For the past ten years the term ’interactive whiteboard’ has produced discussion and dissent, with a significant group of educationalists and researchers expressing concern that the technology did not, in fact, appear to lead to a shift in pedagogy on the part of users – and that the technology seemed to reinforce traditional modes of pedagogy, rather than those considered ‘interactive’ (Moss et al, 2007).

It may be helpful, however, to reconsider the notion of interactivity in the context of technology use, and see it in terms of the interaction between the visual objects and the ways in which these are processed. Changes in input, the ways in which mirror neurons process the inputs and the impact on memory and imagination, may be more significant than the preferred pedagogical approach of a teacher.

Implications for Education: why Visual Learning is powerful

Vision relies on both spatial and temporal patterns. These patterns are constantly changing over time. This visual input therefore generates a greater number of ‘action potentials’ than other stimuli (e.g., aural).

The use of visual display technologies provides an easy focus for learners. By the visual sequencing a learning process mirror neurons can be fired and the sequence then replicated, modelled and applied to other contexts – a powerful reinforcement in mathematics education, for example (Averis et al, 2005).

When we talk about interactivity (as, for example, with interactive whiteboards), the concept of interactivity should not necessarily be predicated solely in terms of the human actors. It is much more between the learner and the display – and the ways in which there are constantly changing visual inputs, and therefore more ‘action potentials’.

These changes in input produce increases in the range of visual memory, predictive ability and in the visualisation process, with mirror neurons an integral part of the process.

It should be stressed, however, that there are innate differences in perception: whilst a number of observers witness the same events, neither the ‘action potentials’ or the outcomes are necessarily identical.

References

Averis, D., Glover, D., Miller, D. (2005) Presentation and Pedagogy: The Effective Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Mathematics Lessons.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cuthell, J. P. (2005a) The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teaching, Learning and Attainment. In Price, J., Willis, D., Davis, N., & Willis, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005 (pp. 1353 – 1355) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2005a) The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teaching, Learning and Attainment. In Price, J., Willis, D., Davis, N., & Willis, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005 (pp. 1353 – 1355) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2006) Tools for Transformation: The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards in a range of contexts. In Crawford, C. M., Carlsen, R., McFerrin, K., Price, J. Weber, R., Willis, D. A.  (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006 (pp. 1491 – 1497) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P (2008) The Use of Visualisers in Schools http://tinyurl.com/8s2p9x Accessed 18.01.09

Greenfield, S. (2003) Tomorrow’s People. London. Allen Lane.

Hubel, D. H., Weisel, T.N. (1981) Nobel Prize in Physiology for their discoveries concerning information processing in the visual system

Kennewell, S. (2006) Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK Swansea School of Education. The Australian Association for Research in Education

Maturana, H. R., Varela, F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

Meltzoff, A. N., & Brooks, R. (2007). Intersubjectivity before language: Three windows on preverbal sharing. In S. Bråten (Ed.), On being moved: From mirror neurons to empathy (pp. 149-174). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007) The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation:  An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard  Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge   Institute of Education DfES Research Report No 816

Mountcastle, V. (1978) An Organising Principle for Cerebral Function: The unit module and the distributed system. In Edelman, G. M., & Mountcastle, V. B. (1979). The Mindful Brain (pp. 17-49). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Muthukumaraswamy, S.D., Johnson, B.W., Gaetz, W.C., Cheyne, D.O. (2006). Neural Processing of Observed Oro-Facial Movements Reflects Multiple Action Encoding Strategies in the Human Brain. Cognitive Brain Research, 1071, 105-112.

Piaget, J. (1953), The Origin of Intelligence in the Child, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Shaw, C., McEachern, J. (2001) Toward a Theory of Neuroplasticity. Hove, Sussex: Psychology Press. Taylor & Francis

Smith, F., Hardman, F., Higgins, S. (2007) The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies 2006. British Educational Research Journal Volume: 32 Number: 3 pp. 437-451 ISBN/ISSN: 0141-1926

Cuthell, J., & Preston, C. (2012). Tracking the stages of learning: concept maps as representations of liminal space. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 5(1/2), 79-94.  Available online.

Preston, C.; Cuthell, J. P. (2012) MirandaMods: From Practice to Praxis in Informal Professional Learning Contexts. In C. Jimoyiannis (Ed.) Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education, pp 17-28. Springer, London.

Cuthell, J. P.; L.Cych; Preston, C. (2011) Learning in Liminal Spaces. Paper presented at Mobile learning: Crossing boundaries in convergent environments Conference, University of Bremen. Available online.

Pachler, N.; Cuthell, J. P.; Preston, C.; Allen, A; Pinheiro-Torres, C. (2010) ICT CPD Landscape Review: Final report. Becta ICT CPD Research Reports. Available online.

Cuthell, J. P. (2010). Classroom as Crucible and Catalyst. Case studies in pedagogy and praxis developing and supporting visual learning. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 1406-1411). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Cuthell, J. P.; C. Preston (2009) The Use of Concept Maps for Collaborative Knowledge Construction.  Available online.

Cuthell J. P.; C. Preston, L.Cych, T. Keuchel (2009) iGatherings: from professional theory and practice to praxis in work based teaching and learning. WLE Centre, Institute of Education, University of London http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=343&Itemid=85

Cuthell, J. P. (2009) Thinking Things Through – Collaborative Online Professional Development. In: Lindberg, J. O & Olofsson, A. D. Online Learning Communities and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery. Hershey, IGI Global

Cuthell, J. P. (2009) Integrating technology, pedagogy and theory: a resource for Visual Learning. In: Carlsen, R., McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Willis, D. A.  (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009 (pp. 3074 – 3078) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2009) Thinking and Changing Practice: Collaborative Online Professional Development. In: Carlsen, R., McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Willis, D. A.  (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009 (pp. 2264 – 2269) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2008) The Role of a Web-based Community in Teacher Professional Development. International Journal of Web Based Communities, Vol. 2, No. 8 2008, pp. 115 – 139. Geneva, Inderscience

Cuthell, J. P.; Preston, C. (2008) Expert ICT advisers considering their own ICT CPD experiences. In: Carlsen, R., McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Willis, D. A.  (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008 (pp. 3247 – 3250) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P.; Preston, C. (2008) Multimodal Concept Mapping in teaching and learning: a MirandaNet Fellowship project.  In: Carlsen, R., McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Willis, D. A.  (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008 (pp. 1999 – 2007) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2008) Online forums as a resource for teacher professional development: lessons from a web-based community of practice and influence. International Journal of Web Based Communities, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2008, pp. 359 – 365

Cuthell, J. P.; Preston, C. (2007) Braided Learning: Developments In An Online Community Of Practice. In: Kinshuk, Sampson, D. G., Spector, J. M., Isaias, P. (Eds.), Proceedings Of The IADIS International Conference On Cognition And Exploratory Learning In Digital Age (CELDA 2007) pp.79-84 IADIS Press

Cuthell, J. P., Preston, C. (2007) Perspectives on ICT CPD: Past, Present and Future. The experiential learning of advisers responsible for school teachers’ ICT CPD programmes. WLE Centre, Institute of Education London. Available online.

Cuthell, J. P. (2006) Ms. Chips and her Battle Against the Cyborgs. Embedding ICT in Educational Practice. In: O Murchu, D. & Sorensen, E. ‘Enhancing Learning Through Technology’. Hershey, Idea Group

Cuthell, J. P. (2006) Tools for Transformation: The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards in a range of contexts. In: Crawford, C. M., Carlsen, R., McFerrin, K., Price, J. Weber, R., Willis, D. A.  (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006 (pp. 1491 – 1497) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2006) Online forums as learning resources: some case studies from MirandaNet. In: Proceedings of IADIS International Conference: Web Based Communities 2006 pp. 371 – 375.

Cuthell, J. P. (2006). Steering the Supertanker: Changing Teaching and Learning In: Computers in the Schools: Technology Applications in Education (2006) 23 1/2 Ed. Maddux, C. Binghamton, N.Y. The Howarth Press

Cuthell, J. P., Preston, C. (2005)‘Teaching in ICT-rich environments – using e-learning to create a knowledge base for 21st century teachers’, In: Leask, M. & Paschler, N. ‘Learning to teach using ICT in the Secondary School, 2nd Edition’. London Routledge

Cuthell, J. P. (2005). Beyond Collaborative Learning. Communal construction of knowledge in an online environment. In: Proceedings of Web Information Systems and Technologies, 2005, (pp. 529 – 536) INSTICC

Cuthell, J. P. (2005). What does it take to be active? Teacher participation in online communities. In: International Journal of Web Based Communities, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2005, (pp. 320-332) Geneva, Inderscience

Cuthell, J. P. (2005) The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teaching, Learning and Attainment . In Price, J., Willis, D., Davis, N., & Willis, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005 (pp. 1353 – 1355) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2004). Can technology transform teaching and learning? The impact of interactive whiteboards. (pp. 1133-1138) In Price, J., Willis, D., Davis, N., & Willis, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2004 Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J (2003). Next steps for ICT teacher education: ICT for active learning. In Price, J., Willis, D., Davis, N., & Willis, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2003 (pp. 2740-2744). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Evaluation of an In-Service ICT Teacher Education Project. Proceedings of International Conference on Innovation in Higher Education. Kiev 2003

Cuthell, J. P. (2003) Virtual Learning In J. Kirjonen (Ed.). Knowledge work and occupational competence, (pp.23-37) Jyvaskyla, Finland: Institute for Educational Research.

Cuthell, J. P. (2002) Virtual Learning Ashgate Aldershot

Cuthell, J. P. (2002). Virtual Learning In: Journal of Informatics and Education Kratsova A (ed.). 11 – 2002 (pp. 2 – 16) Association for Informatics Education Moscow ISSN 0234 – 0453

Cuthell, J. P. (2002). A Community of Learners In: Distributed Cognition Karasavvidis I (ed.). Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 13 (1/2) (pp. 169–188) Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Norfolk, VA

Cuthell, J. P. (2001). Virtual Learning? CAL01 Warwick University.

Cuthell, J. P. (2000). The Online Learner. Computer Education. Issue 94 Computer Education Group

Cuthell, J. P. (2000). Students vs Teachers: Computers as the Site of Conflict. Educating for the Third Millennium. Cheltenham & Gloucester College.

Cuthell, J. P. (1999). The House that Strauss Built. D.I.Y. in Cyberspace: Bejeaned Student Bricoleurs. Computer Education. Issue 91 (pp.19-21) Computer Education Group

Cuthell, J. P. (1999). The Autonomous Learner. Paper presented at CAL99 Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, UK. CAL99 Virtuality in Education Abstract Book Pp. 197-199 Elsevier Science

Cuthell, J. P. (1999). How do you learn? An 11-18 developmental perspective. ELSIN 4 European Learning Styles Information Network. University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom. Available online.

Cuthell, J. P. (1998). What Teachers Think About IT. Computer Education. Issue 88, Pp. 16-19 Computer Education Group

Cuthell, J. P. (1998). Thumbs Up for the Digital Kids? Computers, Equality and Opportunity. MirandaNet: Institute of Education. University of London.

Cuthell, J. P. (1998). The House that Strauss Built. D.I.Y in Cyberspace: Bejeaned Student Bricoleurs. Media 98. Institute of Education. University of London.

Cuthell, J. P. (1997). Cyborgs Sitting in the Classroom. Writing the Future: Writing and Computers 10. Brighton

Cuthell, J. P. (1997). Teaching and Technological Change. The Lifelong Learning Office MirandaNet, for MicroSoft.

Cuthell, J. P. (1997). Patterns of Computer Ownership. (1997) Computer Education. Issue 86, Pp. 13-21. Computer Education Group

Cuthell, J. P. (1996). Teachers lag behind students. Times Educational Supplement, 29.11.96 London

Cuthell, J. P. (1996). Students, Computers and the Writing Process. Writing Conferences: Writing and Computers Association. European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Barcelona

Cuthell, J. P. (1991). The GIGO factor: Language, Learners and Computers Conference paper: Learning Technology Conference: DTI; Transcend Technology

Cuthell, J. P. (1990). Work Shadowing: towards the development of a model. Education & Training. Vol. 32 No. 4 MCB University Press

Cuthell, J. P. (1990). Work Shadowing. Training & Management Development Methods MCB University Press

Evaluations and Research

The Publications section has full details of these projects, with a number of reports available for download.

Research

Interactivity and innovative forms of online CPD.

ICT CPD: personal perspectives; national perspectives.

Investigating Visual Learning

The impact of Visual Learning technologies

Investigating the impact of interactive whiteboards on learners, classrooms and teacher praxis.

The impact of ICT on learning styles and cognitive patterns in young people.

Bridging the Digital Divide. The use of laptop computers at home and school.

ICT and its impact on schools: managing change.

Developing a pedagogy for eLearning.

Creativity, problem solving and thinking skills.

eLearning and interactive online materials; an evaluation of a post-NOF training pilot.

Evaluations for Becta.

ICT issues in ITT.

Applied research:

Design & pedagogical architecture of Key Skills Online website (Actis ltd).

Design & construction of managed learning environments.

Development of e-learning materials.

e-Learning consultancy.

Development of Change Management project.

Project evaluation, NESTA

Research supervision:

Postgraduate action research projects, Bath Spa University.

MirandaNet: Mentor for MirandaNet Action Research scholars – Interactive Whiteboard Evaluation; Intranet Development.

Supervisor and online mentor to head teachers in managing change occasioned by ICT.

DfES: Mentor for Best Practice Research Award holders.