The paper appeared in the journal’s special issue on the role of information and communication technology (ICT) in valuing individual and shared learning. It is an exemplary piece of writing that captures the essence of teaching, technology use, and expert research design and implementation. Beauchamp and Kennewell are from Wales, and some of the language is different from American English. Nevertheless, the writing is easy to follow and the messages imparted are universal. Readers who are conversant with the players in the project--pedagogy, technology, and interaction--will appreciate the foundational value of the reporting.

The funded project ran from April 2005 to June 2007; it involved 41 teachers from 21 primary and secondary schools, and different subjects: mathematics, science, and language. The paper explores how the interactive features of ICT support interactivity in teaching and whether a more dialogic or deeper level of interactivity was fostered by the technology. As might have been anticipated, the depth of dialogue is a function of the teaching. The conclusion is that although ICT has the potential to facilitate improved learning and achievement, pedagogy--the ways that teachers represent aspects of a subject--must change in ways that have yet to be identified.

Some of the highlights of the paper are worth sharing. First, to control the teacher variable, all teachers chosen were effective practitioners, with a good level of support from the school. Second, the subject dictated the tool used--games, quizzes, and right answer activities are not conducive to deep learning. Third, the technology was useful for paired or individual activities, but, again, did not necessarily generate improved learning. Finally, the interactive whiteboard (IWB) was useful for sharing ideas and work with the whole class, but was not used to support reflection at deeper levels.

The authors maintain that the study provided “considerable insight into the reasons why ICT has had relatively little impact on attainment and how its contribution might be increased.” They did a fine job with the first part of their conclusion, but the second part, regarding methodology of teaching, still needs to be addressed. Deeper achievement cannot be attained by technology; the critical element in learning is the teacher.