I teach pre-service teachers to prepare them for the classroom, but I also try to steer them in directions that will make them more marketable as they look for jobs in an extremely competitive job market. In addition to trying to make them web 2.0 tech-aware, I also require that they do at least one interactive whiteboard lesson. I like to require that the lesson deal with some aspect of Grammar. This tackles two of the biggest hurdles for English Teachers, Tech and Grammar.
Although I require that my students achieve a comfort level with the Interactive White Board, I needed to update my personal knowledge of the subject in order to keep up. At my own expense I signed up for a workshop/conference on the Interactive Whiteboard sponsored by one of the leading Interactive Whiteboard companies. I had limited expectations, expecting maybe 50 educators and a few trainers.
This conference was held at one of the many Long Island high schools which have embraced the IWB technology. There were more than several classrooms with IWB Technology in them. Hence, this was the perfect choice of locations for an IWB conference. There were nine hands-on workshops repeated over four sessions and there were Science, Math, Social Studies and ELA Training classes conducted on both the elementary and secondary levels. There was a product demonstration area set up in the Gym. There had to be 500 educators in attendance. This was a pleasant surprise, a real conference. My adrenaline was pumping away. I was truly excited as I often am at statewide or national educational conferences.
My enthusiasm was somewhat dampened as I engaged educators in conversation and asked two simple questions. Are you on Twitter? Do you use The Educator’s PLN Ning site? The first question elicited not verbal responses, but stimulated what can best be described as facial contortions. The second question was answered by one or two questions: What’s a PLN? or What’s a Ning? I digress however. This is a topic for another post, so, back to the IWB’s.
Two things that I strongly advocate in my class would be creative thinking for students through authentic learning, and the use of technology as a tool for learning. It is no coincidence that it also takes up much of the discussion time in our #edchat discussions. These are major common concerns of many educators today.
Now, I need to address the point of this post. I must admit that I believe that IWB’s are an asset to the classroom. They can seamlessly use web 2.0 applications to engage students in creative and constructive lessons for learning. The important element in this however is the training of the teacher using the IWB. Without training the user, the IWB becomes an expensive video projector or an expensive PowerPoint presentation tool or a very expensive hat rack.
What I believed one of the added pluses to this product was, is the vast library of lessons which are available to qualified users, but, therein lies the rub. We teach that according to Bloom’s Taxonomy, the highest form of learning is creative. A lesser form of learning, although necessary, is remembering. As I attended each of the workshops, which unveiled several very thoughtful and creative examples of previously recorded and now archived lessons, I began to notice a distressingly common thread. Each of the archived lessons addressed the remembering learning described by Bloom and not the creative learning for which we, as educators, should strive. As I watched the trainer of one of the sessions showcase another remembering lesson. I remarked that the creative learning was not on the part of the students partaking in the lesson, but rather on the part of the educator creating the lesson. It would then stand to reason, for the students to get the full benefit of an IWB, they should each be creating lessons to present to fellow students.
I am not saying that remembering lessons have no place in education. They are necessary and must be taught. This is content. However, it is the use of that content for more creative efforts which affords students learning. Remembering lessons should not be the focus of education, that focus should be on the creative.
The danger in the use of IWB’s is the lack of training. If districts place IWB’s in a classroom without training the teacher in its use, that teacher will seek from the library, lessons which have already been developed, most of which are remembering focused. This is a case of doing the right thing with the wrong result. I have been told that there are districts which place these IWB’s in classrooms as incentives for teachers to be motivated. They do not attach it to proper training. Would any of us fly with a pilot who had a 747 placed in his driveway as an incentive to fly a bigger plane without training?
Now here is what set me off today. I was in a workshop using clickers to respond to questions from a lesson. As a formative assessment it was great. They were multiple choice questions which could be instantly analyzed. It is not to be confused with a tool for learning, but rather a tool for assessment in the multiple choice genre of tests. It was in this workshop that the trainer revealed to the group that the company had filed a number of standardized tests which could be used for practice with the use of the clickers. This would offer the data to be aggregated in any way needed for analysis. Some might use the word manipulated. A teacher in the group immediately came to life. He was excited to see that this would provide him material to use for the month of May. That was the month that his district administrators designated as THE MONTH FOR TEST PREPARATION. In my mind that was squandering a month of learning for the sake of test preparation. Then the same administrators ask, why are we failing our students.
I believe in Technology. I believe in support for that Technology. We need to teach our students to be prepared for their world and not one that which we might prefer. We do not get to make that choice. IWB’s with training and support can move our students forward. Kids understand IWB’s and want to use them. It’s the adults who need to be brought along. Creativity should be the focus and remembering should be the support.
IWB…. clickers…. all are seen as a panacea, a cure-all for our classrooms. I to wonder if the studies that showed, “Integrating technology boosts student performance” really did us any favors. Too many people focus on technology, and forget the ‘integrating’ part.
As a result, I’m a big fan of using the right tool for the job. Sometimes, the right tool is paper and pencil… and the human brain.
Tom,
I must a agree that whiteboards are only going to be effective with proper professional development. A lot of schools are just putting them there because they are the thing to do. I think that this resonates your secondary point of PLN’s and Twitter! I know I have done many a workshop with the majority never hearing of a PLN or understanding the power of Twitter. Thanks for your reflection and again with out proper PD whiteboards just promote a better “sage on the stage” – Mike
This was my concern, precisely, when our Soc. Sci. department recently had a 5 hour “workshop” introduction to Promethean Boards. Wonderful capabilities. No time for training or creating lessons, let alone working on lessons that give students opportunities to create. Will be looking for a group, during my summer “vacation” time to share learning that can carry through to higher level learning for students.
Worse than an “expensive video projector” use is when when teachers ignore the whiteboards or chalkboards in their room (which can usually be seen better by many of my students, at least) in favor of using their IWB only to write down notes.
I love the idea of students creating IWB lessons, but to make this happen time/space efficiently, I think you would need a laptop cart. I subbed in several districts in my area before landing in my school and what I saw outside of special tech-grant classrooms was either IWB -OR- a laptop cart; never both. In a case of choosing one or the other, I would rather have the laptops.
Some of the best uses of IWBs I’ve seen are also when students are creating lessons to present to the class. Yes it requires access to additional technology to make this happen but if you have access to it, make it happen. The particular company I have the most training and affiliation with even has a Student Edition of their popular interactivity software. Even if students are not creating interactive lessons, they should interacting with the IWB as much if not more than the teacher. Of course this stems from the proper PD that you referred to. I can’t believe there are districts that just place an IWB in a classroom and don’t require the teacher to receive any training. Sure let’s give you $4000 worth of instructional technology and not hold you accountable for knowing basic and advanced use as well as best pedagogy for student use. In my district, teachers have required training that lasts throughout the entire school year when they receive an IWB system.
Great Post Tom. I was going to pay for ten of my teachers to attend this conference but unfortunately it was sold out last week. But I do regularly use Tequipment’s PD services at my school and I have to say the trainers are excellent and the price while not cheap is reasonable relative to today’s consultant prices. After price, the next problem with training is usually in the scheduling of the training. One-shot trainings are usually ineffective and a series of trainings produces more sustainable teacher growth and use of IWB. But then with a series of trainings comes a series of scheduling headaches, and it is then that the administration’s commitment to teacher training is truly tested! However, I have found that with regular training comes regular teacher usage. there’s nothing like doing a walkthrough of your classrooms and seeing IWB usage in most classrooms! And it’s even more gratifying when the students are using them to teach their classmates! As we all know, the best way to get to know something is to teach it to someone else. Ultimately however, I agree with you that “it’s not in the tech but in the teach.”
Tom,
This is my second post, as my first, rather lengthy one, didn’t post 😦 (I was on a roll 🙂
I enjoyed reading your views on IWB’s. I must say that I was quite surprised by your post as I really assumed (I know that I shouldn’t assume–it is usually wrong) you didn’t think they were an asset after an #edchat on IWB’s in the classroom. They are only as good as the teacher and students using them. I like the emphasis you put on the creativity of the lessons. Allowing students to create lessons to share with the class is an excellent way to use in the classroom. Teacher’s creating exciting, interactive lessons for kids is a good thing as well, as long as the kids are getting to interact and not just being used as a teaching tool but also as a learning tool. I have a high school in my district where I know they are being used more as a projection device than a teaching and learning tool. I hope to help change this with some job-embedded professional development throughout the year.
As an instructional technology specialist in my district, I am hoping to do some “make and take” type trainings this summer where a small group of teachers come in and work on lessons and best practices that they can take back to school and implement. Allowing teachers the time to create their lessons and the support of being there to help them with what technology they want to integrate (hopefully seemlessly). Teachers will be in charge of their learning rather than me dictating to them what they are going to learn that day. I will be there to throw ideas their way–hopefully web 2.0 tools, IWB software suggestions, clickers, other software that may help them to better deliver their content to students in the most meaningful way. I want this to be a time to grow professionally and teach them about Twitter and the strength of a PLN like mine and how to develop that.
I am glad you are blogging and enjoy reading your posts. Your pre-service teachers should be so proud that they have a professor who truly wants to prepare them for what the world of teaching is all about. Preparation is key for new teachers to be successful and remain in the education system. Thanks for all you do for educators.
I whole-heartedly agree that we need to move to higher-order skills when it comes to IWB use, and at the same time, I must thank you for recognizing that it’s not all or nothing. Basic “remembering” skills are still important and valid, so not all uses of the IWB will ever be 100% H.O.T. (Higher Order Thinking) . . . and that’s okay.
Like Jeremy said, it’s all about matching the tool to the task, and there are (infrequent) times that using the IWB will be a bit overhead-ish because that’s all the teacher needed on the fly & the overhead projector was replaced by the IWB. So, too, will it be used for showing educational movies because the pull-down screen was also replaced when the IWB arrived. The problem, however, is when teachers’ “plans” include using the IWB in low level ways.
In my travels through classrooms, and in my own recent classroom teaching experience, the lowest level IWB usage often occurs hand in hand with poor planning, despite how well-trained the teacher is on IWB usage. Life happens & sometimes we’re not as well-planned as we should be. But, when this becomes frequent, student learning suffers. It’s yet another example of how technology doesn’t take the place of good teaching; it enhances it. Of course, none of this negates the certain need for curriculum-embedded IWB training. It’s just that even teachers well-trained on the IWB must be sure to “plan” HOT into their lessons, or all that training was for naught.
We do need to ensure that training goes beyond button-pushing, but in our school district there is no funding for release time. We do our best in short after school sessions for those who voluntarily attend. It makes it hard (albeit not impossible) to go deep, though. This summer, I am offering a couple of 2-full-day SMARTBoard sessions to our teachers with the expectation of greater interactivity in their lessons and the sharing of one or two lessons by the end of the second day. I don’t know how may teachers will be willing to give up 2 back-to-back days of their summer to “go deep”, but I can’t wait to work with the type who will!
Incidentally, a couple of months ago, I asked a group of grade 3/4 students (whose teacher uses a lot of technology in her program) what their favourite ed-tech thing to do was. Some preferred blogging, many loved using the SMARTBoard, but hands-down the favourite thing above all else was creating in SMART Notebook!
Thanks for your blog entry, Tom! Great food for thought!
Sandra
Addendum to my already too long comment above:
Sorry for using a brand name. I shouldn’t have; I wasn’t thinking. I am not affiliated with that company at all… it’s just the brand our district chose to go with.
Sandra
As a humble EFL teacher in Taiwan I am faced with a number of issues in using EWBs/IWBs/SmartBoards.
First, there is no training, so I struggle in maximising their benefit, though I do try.
Second, the commands and icons seem to vary according to the particular software writer.
Third, most commands are in Chinese here, so I can’t read them anyway.
Fourth, the icons are not necessarily intuitive.
I think that training and some standardisation are both required. Certainly, getting greater student interaction is critical, especially in terms of higher order skills. However, I would suspect that reflective teachers should be able to include some of these, provided the constraints of the timetable and the curriculum allow.
In terms of assessment, I’m not an advocate of widespread use of MC quizzes, as their design and use needs close attention. If our goal is communication, then other forms of assessment (minus clickers) are more appropriate.
At all times, we need to recall that these technologies are merely tools, and should form only one part of our rich palette of strategies for teaching and learning.
The problem I see with most PD related to IWBs is that it focuses on operation of the equipment rather than the (educational) purpose for using the equipment. Beyond issues with PD, IWBs generally strike me as more flash than function.
With an IWB, you can display information/examples to the whole class, but meaningful student interaction is very limited. Only one (and sometimes two) student(s) can use the board at the same time. For me, the capacity for IWBs to impact education “more” than many other tech tools is overrated. With a projector and a much, much cheaper portable tablet (such as a Mobi or InterWrite pad), one can get many of the benefits of an IWB.
If I were prioritizing limited fiscal resources, I would invest in clickers before IWBs because they involve ALL students simultaneously and yield useable information, making the learning experience a two-way exchange. Clickers can also be used for so much more than just the multiple-choice, fact-based questions you mentioned in your post. Through use of student responders, a teacher can adjust instruction on the fly or form student groups to address specific student needs/interests. Use of clickers also increases the students’ attention to the lesson as all students are accountable to respond instead of the few who might have normally been called upon.
As with both pieces of technology discussed in your post, effectiveness is absolutely determined by the teacher uses the equipment. With clickers, effective use lies more with the quality of questions posed by the teacher for student response.* Effective use of clickers is a result of USING (not just collecting) the information gathered through the formative assessment.
Yet again, this discussion points to the potential of being blinded by the flash and fascinated by the bells and whistles of fancy equipment. We need to carefully examine whether use of such tools truly enhances learning more than any other alternative. The answer to that question may be very teacher-dependent which leads me to wonder whether the push to install IWBs in so many classrooms is a wise investment.
*[Sadly, formulation of high quality questions is another area that needs serious attention. Questioning, when skillfully integrated into instruction, is a no-tech strategy that improves student achievement.]
When I read this I can’t help but focus on the tech training you are doing with pre-service teachers. I conduct mock interviews for area universities and nearly all pre-service teachers think tech is using Microsoft Office products or the grading system used at the school where hey student taught. Few know what a blog is, how to use an RSS reader, or what Ning is all about. None Twitter! And none get any serious consideration from me for any future positions in my district.
I am a high-school Maths teacher in New Zealand. I enjoyed your thought-provoking post especially as we are currently in the process of trying to get our classrooms equipped with WIImote IWBs.
I am concerned about the issue that you raised about assessment. To quote:
… May. That was the month that his district administrators designated as THE MONTH FOR TEST PREPARATION. In my mind that was squandering a month of learning for the sake of test preparation. Then the same administrators ask, why are we failing our students.
My issue is how we as teachers can make that call to stop teaching to the test and to stop taking inordinate amounts of time out of our programs in order to prepare our students for exams when we are judged not on how creatively we teach or how authentic the learning experience is but on the grades of our students in their exams.
Authentic Learning is what stood out for me in this post. An IWB is not authentic learning. It is an “one sage on the stage” model. One person is at the board teaching, whether that person is a student or teacher.
In my opinion, the IWB is irrelevant for that reason. The real magic happens with the IWB software. That is where lessons are created, knowledge shared and learning happens. The presenting can be done with the software and some sort of tablet. The IWB is an expense not needed.
Chuck Baker stated he would rather have a set of laptops. I agree 100%. I have a IWB, a set of clickers, a wireless slate and a set of laptops. I used the IWB, clickers and slate daily until I got the laptops. The clickers put technology into everyone’s hands but it is limited to formative assessment. The slate let me walk around the room and is probably the one other piece, in addition to laptops, that I would recommend. The IWB gets used but is too centered on one person for my teaching style.
So, my recommendation for a classroom:
-set of laptops for the whole class
-a wireless slate of some sort
-a moodle classroom or blog service
To truly make a technology enriched, collaborative classroom, the laptops/netbooks need to be the center of that.
Thanks, I’ve enjoyed reading this post and the comments. Well done to everyone!
authentic learning
IWB software
@chuck Baker laptops
I agree that the magic of the IWB is in the way it is used, not in the technology itself. Just like any technology, it can help or it can hurt.
But less than half of your article was focused on the headline.
In the past five years our district has made a strong push for the use of IWBs in the classroom. The majority of our boards are Promethean while some schools are going with Smart. The learning curve for teachers has been steep. What I have seen is that phase 1 of the IWB is the power point stage, where teachers figure out how to transfer all their existing lessons and ppts into the format for the board. Stage 2 is when teachers begin accessing existing resources and modifying them to meet their curriculum needs. Stage 3 is when the teachers start to think about their own instructional design of a lesson to maximize the interactivity of the IWB. It takes a while to get here for some teachers. Whenever possible I try to model all PD for teachers using IWB, so that they can experience the interactivity as an adult learner. Allowing students to use response devices with the IWB and to facilitate lessons with the IWB is very powerful. One other strategy that has worked was for the teacher to have a few students attend the PD training on the IWB. These students become an additional resource in the classroom to help facilitate interactivity. I do think that too often IWB and clickers focus on the lower end of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This is is the result of poor instructional design. High level Bloom’s activities require higher level instructional design regardless if you use a pencil or an interactive whiteboard. Another strategy that has worked well is pairing a master teacher and a less experienced, but tech-savvy teacher. Together each brings an essential piece to the lesson– good pedagogy and tech integration in design. Overall I believe that the IWB has been a good thing in education for engaging students, but it takes time for teachers to build confidence and re-think instructional design with 21st C tools.
Tom, My response is here on my blog: http://tzstchr.edublogs.org/2010/04/18/iwbs-in-140-characters/
And, I agree working with teachers to increase their ability to use any tech tool is a good thing. 🙂
I also think wireless slates increase the interactivity of IWBS tremendously!
Thanks, as always, for sharing!
Paula
I agree with your point that it is all about using the technology in a manner that is focused on meaningful learning. No matter what the technology is, it should always be about what tasks we are asking kids to do in order attain a high level of learning. The technology is only a means for helping students get there.
We need problem solvers, thinkers, creators in our classrooms, but too often our teachers don’t model the same characteristics we expect out of our kids. Its too bad there is the focus on standardized tests, because we all know they aren’t measuring the levels of learning we want our kids to get to. They are not typically engaging, and there is little if any motivation factor for the kids to do well.
Once again, I think this supports the idea that we really need a transformation of the system. We can’t just keep doing the same thing with new technology and expect different results.
I was amazed the first time I used an IWB and was jealous of the teachers of today who had access to it. As you stated it is very important that teachers are trained in using all of the new technologies. They also need help and support in learning how to utilize these technologies in their subject areas.
Your preservice students are extremely fortunate to have you showing them and encouraging them to use the newest technologies. Of course, they first have to know how to teach and then they can incorporate these wonderful tools.
Last night I talked with a principal and mentioned how I felt that all educators should have a PLN. She had no idea what a PLN was!
Great post, Tom! Reminds me of the day about a month ago when I was doing my daily MBWA (management by walking around). I came across two of our very best teachers who were engrossed in a serious discussion. I had to stop in, knowing that anything that would keep these two so engaged had to be good stuff. I have to admit that I was caught off-guard by what I heard.
What they told me when I interrupted their discussion was that they had decided to meet to try to figure out good uses for their interactive whiteboards. See, being tech supporters, we purchased some interactive whiteboards at the beginning of the year. We gave them to our best teachers–because we figured they’d be able to use them most effectively with students.We figured they’d be able to inspire others, and we’d build momentum.
Anyone who knows me knows that one of my major soapbox issues is related to technology. I believe that technology can actually be very dangerous. Put in the hands of teachers using poor instructional practices–technology can allow us to feel good about poor instruction. In my mind, that’s a very bad thing. Ideally, I would have everyone using technology to support promising practices. I’d even settle for promising practices without technology in some cases, but I simply believe that those who are not using promising practices should have to pay the price. They should have to deal with disengaged students. They should have to deal with management problems. They should have to deal with poor achievement–because each of those “problems” is a motivator for improvement. If we feel good about poor instruction, we’ve lost all motivation to move to effective instruction.
What I hadn’t expected is that two teachers who embody effective instructional practices–student-centered instruction, rigorous and relevant instruction, teaching for understanding, teaching for learner differences, and assessment for learning–would struggle to incorporate a highly-popular piece of instructional technology. They felt guilty–they know tight budgets mean they should be taking full advantage of every purchase. The problem they articulated to me is that the interactive whiteboard relies on instructional practices that are incompatible with their beliefs systems. They had set this time to put their heads together to figure out how they might use the interactive whiteboard to support effective instruction.
I relieved them of that duty. I said, “Don’t force it. Do what you do. You’re great. Keep using all the other instructional technology you always use. The interactive whiteboard–it’s just not for you.”
My school has made a huge investment to give every classroom an IWB. The only training most of the teachers have had involved setting up the equipment.
Knowing that there was more to using IWBs than that, I have sought out as much training as I can find and afford; my school suggests we attend outside trainings on weekends but won’t pay the registration fees. It seems silly to spend $3000 on an IWB and not invest $99 to pay for a teacher to use his own time to learn how to use it.
Unfortunately, most of those outside trainings only taught me advanced board operation and features like creating popping balloons to reveal answers. Fun, but of limited importance.
Like @B_Wagoner’s teachers, I want to use this equipment effectively and maximize my principal’s investment, but I and the other teachers in my building are not given the support we need to do that.
In that regard, IWBs are just like every other tool, every other text, and every other curriculum I’ve seen introduced in my admittedly short (6 years) teaching career.
This is great food for thought. My issues with IWB, beyond the lack of training are two-fold (and perhaps overly practical). First, technology isn’t perfect – sometimes servers go down; projectors break, etc. While encouraging teachers (and students) to employ new technology we must also encourage them to think and create with basic tools (ie. an easel and a marker). Second, technology costs money. Our PTA was encouraged to spend $30,000.00 on outfitting our 3rd thru 5th grade classes with IWBs. Great donation but our technology budgets were never increased to pay for blown bulbs. In fact we’ve taken a hit so now we juggle to make ends meet.
I agree that we need to do more than simply provide the physical boards. We have two in our school that are new this year, and the use of them hasn’t spread as much as we’d hoped. I’m hoping that connecting through networks like Twitter will help me find ways to better use the tools.
Thanks for another great read. As a new teacher and tech coordinator I really appreciate the critical analysis you offer.
Regarding IWBs, like many have said, tools are only as good as their users. I try to remind my students of this when using computers.
Thanks again.
IWBs can be great tools for collaborating as a class. Online activities in MFL done as a group with students negotiating to decide an answer before getting the site’s instant feedback is just one example.
The problems arise when teachers think they are engaging students, but are really just lecturing with a new and flashier tool…still teacher directed.
Maybe we can all look at them as a way for getting teachers to make the first small step into the world of technology at the level of substitution, and support them as they move up the scale towards transforming their teaching and student learning.
Hi Tom
Very thought provoking post. I can only make the comment I use to drive my E-Learning coaching: “Technology is a tool, not a teacher.” I cannot believe there is a month set aside for teaching to the test!!!
I could live without my IWB – give me St controlled tech as opposed to a giant white elephant
Hi Tom –
Being new to the IWB cadre of teachers I’ve had to learn a lot by the seat of my pants (and with much help from my students). Professional development is definitely the key.
Several things that have worked for me.
1. I put the IWB (Aspire) software on all my student’s computers. They now can create and download my flipcharts.
2. Having students come up to the board and manipulate things.
IWBs need to be more than fancier presentation software that continues the sage on the stage paradigm.
Just getting started using it (less than 2 months) and getting excited about the up coming training and learning how to develop more interactive lessons.
Tom,
Thanks for the post and reflection. I agree with your concerns about training and time to process the impact of the IWB to create higher level learning. My other concern is the cost of the traditional IWB. We have three in my school and I won’t use them because of the extreme cost. I found Johnny Lee’s video on TED Talks and made my own for about $60 dollars. With that ownership and pride in making my own (very cheap) IWB, I seek out the professional development. I haven’t left it up to my department or school to train me. I have trained myself through the use of my fantastic PLN. I believe that when a tool is given to educators with, “use this, it will change your classroom” there isn’t enough time given to the why and how, the exact point of your post. I would encourage educators to make their own Wiimote IWB, take pride in your creation and own the tool.
Thanks for your great work and contribution to my PLN.
Greg
Over the last 4 years we have dedicated our fundraising to IWBs and have equipped our 20 classrooms with IWBs. The teacher PD has been sporadic to say the least. Teachers with a modicum of interest have learned through playing and help files and are beginning to hand over the IWBs for group activities and student use, others still use them as glorified projectors for the sage on the stage.
Late last year we installed the IWB software on PCs that weren’t connected to an IWB; a handful of netbooks, some old PCs in the shrinking computer suite. Students use the IWB program to create activities and presentations to share with their peers and other classes. The files are stored in central location on the server and are accessible by anyone in school who wants to use them. In many cases they exceed the quality of teacher created resources.
I say we should consider spending a good proportion of the PD on the kids.
Great Post! As elementary education major in about my junior year of college, I still have not mastered the IWB. Many of my professors use this but I personally have not had any instructions or experience on it. I’m a hands on learner and look forward to the opportunity but with IWB’s becoming such a big part of our educational system, shouldn’t I have some instructions on how to operate one. I am taking an EDM class, which this post is part of, but we have not had any experience with IWB’s.
I think people are generally interested in tech or not. I was just talking to a group about the iPad and two people stood closer and engaged while a glassy look was put forth by a third person who really didn’t have anything to say on the topic.
I can’t think of a profession more capable of handling these two types of groups than educators. After all, educators already understand how to address groups with various interest levels with success.
All I know is that the separation between someone say at our level technically and someone who does not use a computer daily is growing rapidly.
Professor Whitby,
I agree with many of your ideas regarding the IWB. In many of my middle school observations, I have seen teachers use the IWB to teach lessons that require simple memorization of facts. As a pre-service teacher, this was quite disappointing because I expect the IWB to play a major role in the reform of education. It seems obvious to me that without incorporating technological tools in the classroom, education will lose importance. With the rapid growth of technology, teachers cannot expect students to feel importance in their use of a pen, paper, and memorization of facts that can quickly be found on their cell phone. There is no logic behind remembering information that is available with the click of a button.
More importantly, I truly feel that the improper use of the IWB is related to a lack of understanding. Based on my own observations, I feel as if teachers do not have a full understanding of the tools that the IWB offers. During class last week, it seemed obvious that the IWB is capable of doing many different things. During a one hour lecture, I did learn a lot about the IWB. However, I also understood that in order to master the IWB, I need to take a full course to utilize it to my best ability. I think that if teachers had confidence with their use of the IWB, they would feel safe with the incorporation of more creative lessons. The IWB might actually be more compelling for the teacher to use, if he or she understood the full capability of the board.
In the methods course, all students are required to use the IWB to teach a lesson on grammar. I am a victim of my own criticism. I fully admit that I am not a master of the IWB and that I do not feel comfortable attempting to create a lesson. I plan to use a PowerPoint for my lesson to ensure the success of the lesson. I do not want to feel uncomfortable in my ability to teach a lesson on grammar with the IWB. I believe that many teachers could feel the same way. Who wants to look incapable in front of a class of twenty students?
I would propose a required course for all teachers to take that includes the full understanding of the IWB. Once comfort is established, teachers will be confident in creating their own lessons on the IWB. This would ensure that they use the IWB to create lessons that go beyond simple memorizations of facts, or slides, that can be completed the same way on a PowerPoint. Once teachers fully understand the capability of the IWB, I feel as if they would want to use it to their best ability.
This is always an interesting subject. I feel, if used properly, IWBs can be a powerful tool. However, too often they are used in an updated version of the same sit-and-get model. The teacher still stands at the front of the room using the IWB to present material. Rarely do the students get up and use the IWB, let alone create with it.
For much less money you can purchase interactive slates that use the same software as the ‘full-blown’ IWB. The slates allow for mobility in the classroom. No longer is one tied to the front of the room. The students no longer have to get up to use the technology; one can hand it to them. Many brands offer the capability to have several slates working on the same, split screen. How is this technology not better than an IWB?
I must a agree that whiteboards are only going to be effective with proper professional development. This includes in-service, pre-service and teacher educators.
My student teachers are using the IWB, but the IWB becomes the main attraction. They must learn that it is a teaching tool, not the focus of the lesson.
My personal goal is to learn as much as I can, then practice, practice, practice so I can teach them some IWB best practices. Thanks Tom.
I have done a lot of observation hours while at St. Josephs college; there was a whiteboard in almost every classroom i observed. I definitely that every teacher and pre teacher should learn how to use a white board.
White boards and interactive technology in the classroom seem to only be enhancing the students and the teachers ability to teach and learn. They are well organized and allow the students to have a different way of being taught; instead of sitting and listening through the traditional way of teaching.
IWB’s can be useful tools in the classroom. I recently wrote a post about this myself which can be viewed at http://kcreutz.blogspot.com/2010/04/benefits-of-smart-board.html
I am strongly in agreement though that training on the IWB is very crucial to it’s success in the classroom. I know that the staff at my school feels the same way as they are constantly asking for training. (This is rare, because unfortunately teachers at our school sometimes want to do less training, inservices, and conferences). It has been our goal as part of our new technology plan to provide the best training possible for our teachers and students to increase their learning through IWBs.
I completely agree that IWB are an asset to any classroom. The problem is more about funding and proper training. I think if more educators saw the advantages and benefits that this tool has, they would be begging for installment and further training. These lessons have the power to go beyond anything that has ever been seen before.
Interesting reading Tom! I can’t speak for IWB as I have not used one – although I suspect that there are many similarities with the way I use the virtual classroom (Elluminate) with distance learners. Of course with Elluminate all students can have access to the whiteboard, and can also be involved through polling although to my knowledge there are no pre-prepared “lessons” available. I was particularly interested by your reference in the post to the majority of archived and available for use lessons for IWB being “remembering” ie in the “fact” and possibly to a limited extent in the “understanding” area of the cognitive domain. In my opinion this is perhaps because it is much more challenging anyway to develop generic lessons in the understanding and application areas of the cognitive domain, and also incidentally in the affective domain. My feeling is that activities for these areas are much more time consuming and demanding to develop as they have to be much more customised. Certainly for myself I use lots of simple re-usable knowledge related activities in my virtual classes (grag and drop, wordsearch etc) but almost all of the action learning type activities are changed and “tweaked” each time to customise them for particular groups of learners.
Lovely article. One of the things that could reduce the training time is if the iwb would function more like your basic computer interface. I think that there are some unneeded complications…
The best interface I have seen (for simplicity) is smoothboard, which is a second (and third) gen wii based whiteboard. (Yes Johnny Chung Lee’s wiimote whiteboard is evolving, after the “concept test” open source code that many people have built on since 2007… I wrote a comparison at https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARO0cbbLg1aVZGY3ajJwZnhfMTA3aG12azh4Z3M&hl=en – sorry for the large link, but I figure everyone feels safer seeing google doc than bit.ly … ).
Smoothboard allows the teacher to “program” (no programming required) the board to their needs, or leave it in its simple mode, and everything is very transparent. (a typical iwb is like playmobile, and smoothboard is like lego, in which you can set buttons to launch programs or set funcions.)
I run one off of a netbook, and it works fine, although the built in tablet pc in windows 7 premium allows handwriting recognition, which allows you to surf net via handwriting.
And for secondary teachers like yourself Tom, you can have the students make their own, and be producers rather than consumers, in a scaffolded and extremely well documented environment. In addition, if there are any problems, they turn into higher thinking exercises. (which are solved very quickly.) Problems create intelligence.
I see it as: you can give students a ride in a car vs. teach them how to make their own car that they can use in different contexts afterwards. And the thousand bucks you save per class give plenty of money for training budgets…
Professor Whitby,
I completely agree with you that technology matters. Also, that it is the creativity which should be the focus and remembering the support. I have been in a number of classrooms during my observations where an educator either uses the IWB for simple lessons requiring only remembering, or does not use the IWB at all, or in extreme cases uses the IWB with no knowledge of how to use it what-so-ever. This is a clear example of how all educators must seek out professional training for these IWB’s. As a pre-service teacher I feel very pleased to have had a minor lesson about the IWB’s and to know that we will be doing lessons with them in class. Practicing hands-on with the IWB’s is the best way to expand our knowledge with how to function lessons involving the interactive board, and most importantly our students. We need to keep our students engaged and involved in our lessons, and the IWB’s are right at our fingertips to take advantage of. So let’s get started!