Comments on: Interactive Whiteboards: Is the writing on the wall?

By: Neil Spurgeon

Neil Spurgeon — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:00:45 +0000

Hi all I realise I am joining this discussion rather late
in the day, we even do have a ’sort-of’ Tory Government now, which
throws interesting light on the final two comments above, however I
am particularly concerned with Sina’s excellent comments re teams
of ‘experts’ to try and get the most out of IWB. Given that, maybe
they are not the best tools and maybe we didn’t want them – the
fact is they are there, stuck on the wall and forcing a particular
shape and didactic method on teachers which none of us like very
much and which is ever so 19th Century. BUT and it is a big but
too, given that we have ‘em and are expected to use ‘em, how can we
as teachers, together with thinking technologists like Sina, get
the most out of ‘em? Should we for example be trying to use
detailed illustrations and diagrams with movement and student
participation including disambulation of objects, whether that be
Dinosaurs in Primary, the Mary Rose in Secondary, a Nuclear Reactor
in FE and nano technology in HE or perhaps more usefully maybe we
should just play video, one of the best ‘tricks’ in Smart Boards is
the ability to instantly freeze a video by just putting the pen
down into the holder and discussing what has just occurred on
screen. Or maybe we should be storyboarding ‘how to pass the exam’
in cartoon form? I don’t know the answer, which is why I am asking
the question, but I’ll bet that Sina and I together, given a few
moments in a classroom with an IWB on the wall, could come up with
some ideas that would knock the socks off Ofsted next time they
come calling and, at the same time and much much more usefully
would allow my students to get more, from that object which I might
hate, but hate more not knowing how to use properly, hanging on the
wall.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sun, 23 May 2010 13:08:46 +0000

Thanks for posting this, Ross. I too have been trying to find out about Conservative policy with regards to ICT in education and also drew a blank. I guess we shall just have to wait and see.

By: Ross Young

Ross Young — Sat, 22 May 2010 20:30:41 +0000

Thought you might find this rather interesting reading…

http://www.agent4change.net/policy/ict-provision/599-the-long-wait-the-tories-on-ict-and-learning.html

By: steph

steph — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:34:13 +0000

Really interesting post! I was pretty adamant that having a IWB present in the classroom was a positive thing but can see and understand this alternative point of view. However i do think that some of the points made by bill are a bit excessive and i still feel that understanding how to use an IWB effectively to enhance a lesson or use as an aid to a lesson can be very beneficial, i guess i will only know the true effect of an IWB when i have one of my own and a class to ‘use’ it with.

By: Sina

Sina — Fri, 07 May 2010 11:01:56 +0000

Great post, Jeremy. There are loads of interesting points in there. I do agree with the notion that an IWB in itself does not mean learning. The fact that there are IWBs in most class rooms does not equal better teaching either. It just means there is a new tool. And it is definitely time well spent trying to answer the questions as to why are they there, how can they support different kinds of learning and what is their pedagogical value? Yet when is the right time for trainee teachers to answer those questions: before they ever used one, during their time at university, while being on placements, after they graduate? In this context I totally agree with Amada’s argument: how are students supposed to reject or embrace a new technology, if they are not sure whether they have seen it work in its full capacity?

This is where I in my role as Technical Demonstrator come into play I guess. I have offered one hour workshops on Smartboards in the past and soon will do more. Preparing those sessions I found myself in the peculiar situation not knowing for sure, what to cover in such a workshop. From a technical point of view there is nothing new or challenging in an IWB. There is an on-switch and then one can use the overlay to navigate the computer connected. So I did not really understand what the actual problem was. Throughout the first couple of workshops it became clear to me that the technical side was not the real issue. There seems to be the assumption that IWBs have some magic functions that are simply hidden away somewhere. “Where to click” was not the issue, but “how to make it relevant to learning and teaching”. Basically I need to define what “full capacity” actually means when it comes to IWBs. But how could I possibly do that as a technician with no training in pedagogy, lesson planning and specific subject affiliation? Who has the knowledge and authority to define when an IWB has achieved its “full capacity”?

This shouts out for team work big time. So hopefully in the coming workshops I can establish a dialogue between trainee teachers and me (and everyone else, who would like to make suggestions). I need to understand what is expected from them “in the real world” and how we can help them to fulfil those expectations. They need to become equally confident in using IWBs as well as purposely not using them, if they feel they do not enhance learning and teaching. Hence we should enable students to fulfil “real world demands”, but at the same time become confident to question where those demands and expectations come from and whether they are useful. In the end of the day, however, it will be them, who have every right to decide what “full capacity” means when it comes to IWBs.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:34:10 +0000

I meant to add here that, as you have noted about the cost implications, it would appear that we are stuck with them for the foreseeable (until perhaps we all have burned retinas from continually looking into the projectors). We therefore need to know how to use them properly, and with all the available capability??

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:26:18 +0000

I found this blog very thought provoking Jeremy and I agree that there is an expectation from partner schools that ITE students are ‘au fait’ with IWB’s. I also agree about the dubious reference to interactivity.
However, in order that we, the new generation of teachers, are able to maximise the capabilities of this hardware, surely there is a need for training? After all, teachers already in the workplace received training when IWBs were installed.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:21:15 +0000

This is a really thought-provoking post Jeremy. I think it’s also interesting from the perspective of wider policies towards technologies in schools over the last 13 years. This has been characterised in education by targets to get all schools online. Then all schools with lower pupil-to-computer ratios; resulted in a lot of suites then laptop trolleys. Then all schools connected to broadband. Then all classrooms equipped with IWBs. Laptops for all…..and so on. On the one hand I think this sense of entitlement for all is laudable. But on the other hand isn’t it also quite disempowering for teachers? I think of classrooms as often being extensions of the teachers who inhabit them; particularly in primary. Goffman talked about the way environments and objects in them can become an extension of people’s identities. The trouble with the blanket ‘IWBs for all approach’ is that it lacks teacher agency. Like you say teachers have had no say in what technologies they might or might not make use of. I remember someone once saying at a conference I think that one local authority had taken away the ‘old’ whiteboards to make sure that the teachers used the new technology. What kind of say have teachers had even in where the IWBs are installed in their classrooms, what happens to the old whiteboard? What type of whiteboard?