Interactive White Boards, that is. Those technology pieces which are popping up in classrooms all over the world as part of the "modernization" of schools. Let me go on the record. I'm not a fan.
My own district invested heavily- IWBs are now in every classroom in the district and are the focus of the only regular professional development being offered in the district. Since I've gained a reputation as the1 "tech savvy teacher" people are often surprised when I'm critical of them. This post is mostly a way for me to sit down and sort through my thoughts on the matter in the hope that it'll help me when I'm explaining my position to my shocked colleagues.
My story
I was notified that I would be receiving an IWB last fall. I didn't necessarily feel that it would improve what I do in my classroom, so I told the powers that be that I didn't really need one. From my perspective, I was trying to save the district a little money. While it wasn't quite so blunt, I was effectively told I didn't have a choice in the matter: I was getting an IWB.
Once it was installed I started playing around with it. I decided since this thing was already installed, I should try to find ways that it can improve the teaching and learning in the room2. I spent several hours importing existing slide decks, creating new slide decks, learning all the fancy moves, searching Promethean Planet, and so on. I even attended a training session offered at our school.
Perhaps I started out with a biased view that negatively affected my exploring, but in the end I felt less confident about the power of IWBs than when I started.
Things they aren't:
Collaborative. I don't get it. I've often seen and heard people describe them as a means to improve collaboration between students. The ability to collaborate on an IWB is hampered by the fact that only one person can use the board at a time. Since most of my classes are 20+ students and there's only one IWB, I struggle with how this can be used collaboratively. Maybe if I had 4-5 IWBs in my room I could make it happen. Most classrooms have had a large-form presentation technology that allows for limited simultaneous use for some time now (hint: chalk/white boards). At least on a whiteboard I could have 5+ students writing at the same time.
Student-centered. IWBs have been touted as helping to create "student-centered classrooms3." I couldn't disagree more strongly. If anything they help reinforce teacher-centered instruction by keeping the focus of the classroom at the front of the room- providing support for large group lectures at the expense of decentralized student groupings. Having students come to the front and drag tectonic plates around doesn't make it student-centered. Many people have pointed to the student-voting systems (ActiVOTE, etc.) as a way to make the technology more student centered. Sure, it's an improvement but, (1) it still promotes teacher-centered instruction, (2) they're not free, and (3) if the saving grace of IWBs are voting devices, couldn't you just do away with the IWB?
Proven effective. I'm not saying IWBs can't do cool things and perhaps even inspire otherwise technophobic teachers into trying out new things. However, many people4 cite Marzano's study as definitively proving IWBs significantly improve student achievement. I disagree, but don't take my word for it: Read Jon Becker's five-part peer review of the study. He knows much more about educational research than I probably ever will.
Transformative. There's been a lot of talk about how technology can transform the educational system through connecting students to information and experts and empowering students in their own learning5. As mentioned earlier, IWBs reinforce traditional teacher-in-the-front instruction. A side effect of this is that they stifle transformative technology from being implemented and promoted. IWBs are often touted because they can be adopted immediately without requiring any restructuring of instructional styles6- which seems to be in direct opposition to many people who justify them as promoting "21st Century skills."
Things they are:
Expensive. OK, so many technologies are expensive (laptops, LCD projectors, etc.)- what I'm mainly concerned about is the dollars spent vs. improvement in learning. Most of the benefits in going from overhead projectors to IWBs seem to be focused around the LCD projector's ability to project what is on the computer screen. I haven't found much the IWB can add to instruction that I couldn't do with just an LCD projector. Laptops, in my opinion, offer opportunities for more instructional flexibility, student empowerment, and true-to-life experience than IWBs, and thus are preferable (see next).
Only found in classrooms. Unless our students become teachers, it is unlikely they'll ever use an IWB again after graduation. Laptops, on the other hand, are ubiquitous. Teaching students how to use laptops to follow their passions and fuel their learning are skills that can carry over after they leave school.
Things they shouldn't be
A public relations tool. Too often school boards and higher-ups see the shiny, fancy technology that are IWBs and see it as an easy way to improve the public perception of the school. Simply dropping an IWB into every classroom doesn't improve learning, and they shouldn't be sold as such.
Dismissed. While I'm obviously not a big fan of IWBs, I find myself getting upset when I hear teaching simply dismissing them without first looking into what they are and how they might be used. This probably has little to do with the IWB itself than the attitude it betrays. The reason behind my dislike IWBs (at least I tell myself) is because I've spent time investigating their pros and cons- not simply because they're "different" or "new."
Your opinion?
Many of you have experience with this issue and have differing opinions. If you are a big fan, please explain your position to me. I'd really like for IWBs to be a game-changer, I'm just not seeing it right now.
______
- I'm ready to be a tech-savvy teacher instead of the tech savvy teacher. [↩]
- I mean, the Kool-Aid was already in my cup, I just needed to sip it, right? [↩]
- Try some Google searches to find multiple examples of this. [↩]
- Local administrators, Promethean, other IWB zealots. [↩]
- Pardon the gross oversimplification. [↩]
- for example, see page 5 in the preview of The Interactive Whiteboard Revolution. I'll admit that IWBs as an easy way of getting teachers to use technology might be their biggest benefit. I'm just not sure it's a cost effective method. [↩]
I tend to agree with you Ben. I have always had a concern, based on many of the reasons you have mentioned about IWB's and our school has not installed them. We are though, looking into interactive software that will make any computer, hooked to a data projector, have similar features to an IWB....much less expensive & restrictive. The software can also be used on the laptops as is. We are painting large areas of wall space with whiteboard paint enabling multiple uses- whiteboard, IWB areas, simple projection screens. Through the years our focus with our budgets was to direct monies towards tools the students could use in their hands....not what they could look at us doing. Our branching out to the IWB software is relevant to us now as it will help enhance the structures we have built in to using technology in our school. We will have easier opportunities for demonstration of applications/concepts, brainstorming of ideas, group instruction etc...in conjunction to the collaborative or individual activities our students will engage in.
.-= Frances Manning´s last blog ..Working Spaces =-.
I agree that many of the benefits of IWBs are overblown and they definitely promote teacher-centered instruction. But I also think many times in the science classroom, direct instruction is extremely valuable. What IWBs do in those situations is improve the quality of the teacher-centered instruction. One example I can think of is a program (sorry, name escapes me) that allows atoms and bonds to be arranged and re-arranged to provide excellent visuals to students on how atoms form elements. Could this be done simply with a laptop and projector without the IWB? Yes, probably. But as someone who loves his iPhone, I think the touch interface of a SmartBoard works fabulously when talking in front of a class. Does this example justify the cost of every IWB? Probably not and for many subjects, an IWB may not provide extra value. It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. But I definitely think they can be effective in a science classroom.
I want to thank you though for writing this article. As a preservice secondary science teacher who has used SmartBoards before, I've never really stopped and thought about their usefulness. I always enjoy an opportunity to evaluate my position on subjects. Thank you.
Great post! Let me start off by saying that I pretty much agree with everything you've written and I am also pretty sure IWBs will never be a game changer in your classroom. From what I have read on your blog over the past few years I know you are already way beyond using flipcharts to engage your students in multimedia learning and I have a feeling you're also regularly using technology for formative assessment and feedback whether or not you have a set of Activotes. Keeping this in mind, though I did promise you via Twitter that I would let you know of some of the unintended benefits I have seen with our IWB implementation.
Last year when I moved from the classroom (at a 1:1 laptop middle school) to the district office I started supporting school sites with a diverse array of technology. We have schools that only have IWBs, schools that have student computers, and schools that have both IWBs and student computers. At the moment out of our 1500 or so classrooms, 600 have Promethean boards. The majority of these boards have been acquired through grassroots movements where teachers worked with parent groups and administrators to get these boards in their classrooms. Much like you I initially thought these boards were a waste of money. They seemed to promote teacher-centered instruction, only one or two students could realistically work at the board, and the ActivStudio (now Inspire) software was really clunky. However, as I started working more and more with teachers I starting seeing some surprising-to-me patterns develop after IWBs were installed in classrooms.
Most of the teachers in my district have very limited technology experience. As a result, for the first month or so after having and IWB installed I find teachers use the technology much as they had previously used their overhead projectors. However, after attending the first few IWB software training workshops they start to experiment with taking their students to webpages and using draggable resources, such as Google Earth and NCTMs virtual manipulatives. As these teachers progress through additional workshops they start to construct flipchart lessons with multimedia resources. For teachers like you and I this might not be a huge thing...for the most part we're already doing all of this (and more) with the limited technology we already have. However, for teachers who just 3 months prior only turned on their computer to check email and take attendance this is a giant leap. After about 6 months to a year of having the board I find that many of these teachers start feeling comfortable enough with technology that they begin to incorporate student-centered technology projects. This might start initially with kids going to the computer lab to create their own flipcharts or PowerPoints, but usually leads to wikis, blogs, and lately lots of Google Earth projects. At our school sites that only have IWBs we now have teachers demanding greater access to student technology - these are teachers who often just two years ago didn’t see the logic for spending money on COWs.
Another unexpected benefit is that we have been able to commandeer this technology for focused professional development not just on technology, but on teaching and learning overall. This year we developed a "Promethean Professional Learning Plan" that actually consists of four tiers - Basics (how to turn on your board, hook up your computer, etc), Module Training (how to use the flipchart software and additional apps with desktop overlay), ABUG (Activboard User Group), and Vanguard Action Research. I think Basics and Module Training are pretty straight forward (and where most districts stop), so I won't describe them too much. However, ABUG and Vanguard are pretty interesting. Promethean has helped lots of districts set up ABUG Saturdays. Normally these are just software training days, but in our district we wanted these to be in-depth looks at instruction. We have three per year and this year each one has a had a separate focus - multimedia learning, formative assessment and feedback, and digital story-telling. Each ABUG Saturday teachers attend a keynote built on the latest research for that particular instructional strategy and then work in grade level or content area breakout groups to design lessons incorporating the elements they learned during the keynote. Based on the topics we have chosen, these skills and conversations can easily transfer over to other software applications. For example the rubric/checklist we created for the first Saturday on multimedia learning I also use in PowerPoint, Keynote, Prezi, iLife, and Google Earth workshops. Similarly, the resources from the formative assessment and feedback day work well in any workshop on cell phones or learning through student conversations. As far as the Vanguard group goes, this is a committee of 32 teachers from two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school that are working on identifying the "next best practices" for using IWBs with students. They’re conducting their own studies in small groups to help us define as a district what is a quality technology-infused lesson for applications beyond Promethean IWBs.
And for my final unintended benefit I will leave you with short story from a recent board meeting. Unfortunately, I had to present a board report on the Promethean Learning Plan at the same meeting where we were announcing massive teacher layoffs! Lucky me, eh? At the beginning of the meeting the union president suggested a parcel tax to retain teacher positions. One of the board members mentioned that more than 50% of the voters in our district are seniors, on fixed incomes, who won’t support additional taxes. No one in the audience said anything. After the presentation on the learning plan, one of the senior citizens in the audience asked to address the board and explained that he would happily support a parcel tax if it meant the students in our district would have greater opportunities to have access to technologies like “those interactive whiteboards.”
So, if anything else I’ve learned that IWBs are a tool to get people to wake up and finally listen to the reality so many of us have already been talking about for years. They are also seem to be powerful scaffolding technologies that help teachers get from overhead projectors to student-centered technology projects by building teacher comfort and proficiency with technology. IWBs just might not be the perfect tool for me.
Its not perfect, but its a place to start...
Joe
.-= Joe´s last blog ..Taste of Google Earth =-.
Ben, I completely empathize with your frustrations about interactive whiteboards. IWBs are much like any instructional tool, it requires much more than just it's presence to be an effective aid in teaching kids. There are quite a few factors impacting the effectiveness of IWBs in the classroom. First off, when things are "forced" upon us, no doubt we are more reluctant to see the benefit. Being part of the decision making process and having input into what is being added to the classroom and for what purpose it huge in how much you are willing to buy in. In your situation, not much you can do about that one.
Another big factor is the age of the students. In my experience, IWB are more beneficial in the younger grades. It adds a level of engagement and interactivity (did I just make that word up?) for students. They tend to be very much engaged in a lesson if SOME of the material is presented on the boards in a way that allows them to be able to manipulate it themselves. For them, it is just a matter of being able to move stuff around on the board that grabs their attention just a little more. Older students (middle-high school) tend to want to create more and interact more individually, so in those cases, an IWB wouldn't really be beneficial, instead just a mounted projector would do just fine. I would be in favor of saving the money and providing my students with netbooks or their own devices. This however brings up the last point. (And you were worried about ranting...)
Teacher training and ease of use is the biggest factor in whether or not IWBs become an effective tool. Ben, I share your concern that too many decision makers are looking at IWBs as the magic tool. It seems that the boards are purchased, some initial training is given, then teachers are on their own. Of course, there will always be teachers who put in loads of extra time to become more familiar and excited about the products as they become more comfortable, but often it is on their own time. Lets face it, time is valuable and there isn't much extra to go around. When IWBs are purchased, there needs to be ongoing training and time for collaboration in terms of how they can be used well to help our students. Different boards require different amounts of training as do the different kinds of teachers that are using them.
I agree with you and I agree with Dallas that the "gimmick" factor is quite effective. Lots of pros and cons for IWBs just as with any other tool (don't get me started on student response systems!), but the key focus no matter the tool needs to be the students and how it will help them in the long run.
YIKES - Maybe a bit too much?
Good post Ben, keep it up.
Ok, for the record, Joe said it way better than I did. Well put Joe!
.-= Derek Braman´s last blog ..We Know Our Animals, Hear Us ROAR! =-.
@Derek - Don't let my high school teachers hear you. I said something similar about younger students using the interactivity and was politely corrected. 🙂 My high school foreign language and math teachers love the board for the ability to manipulate objects.
As far as classroom response systems go I used to have a set and I promptly used them for what I now call QiTS (quiz the s%!# out of the kids) instruction. I recently read a book by Derek Bruff, Teaching with Classroom Response Systems and it opened my eyes quite a bit. These tools can be powerful for cognitively engaging all students in classroom conversations by incorporating instructional strategies like peer instruction and what Bruff calls "times for telling". http://derekbruff.com/teachingwithcrs/
I forgot to mention in my earlier post that we have been doing some work with Marzano and Pickering for our Vanguard Action Research group. Their work is being bastardized some what. Having had multiple conversations with Pickering I can tell you that they do not feel IWBs or any other technology are a panacea. However, they do see that what we currently call "effective instructional strategies" needs to be reevaluated with the amount of technology entering our classrooms. Technology can make effective instructional strategies even more effective when it is implemented properly. Working with schools throughout the US, they have found that many districts are simply rolling out technology, showing teachers how to operate it, and then walking away without any conversation regarding instruction. Based on the districts I have worked with in the past, this seems to be a common practice. I find teachers will do better if they know better...but what if they don't? Regardless of what type of technology is implemented at a school site, there has to be a strong, on-going instructional conversation. Drill-and-kill, direct instruction-only, analog teachers won't become guide-on the site, project-based learning digital instructors without a ton of support.
.-= Joe´s last blog ..Taste of Google Earth =-.
One other resource...our ABUG page. Feel free to pilfer.
http://www.sanjuan.edu/abug
.-= Joe´s last blog ..Taste of Google Earth =-.
Lots of thoughtful feedback here- I think the "IWB issue" is something many educators are dealing with and that is reflected in the larger than normal response this post has received.
@Joe: You bring up some really unique and powerful observations. I think you may have swayed my opinion. Although I'm not convinced that IWBs are the best way to win over teachers who are reticent to use technology, I agree that it can help open some doors. If I was in a school or district that was in the process of deciding how to spend technology dollars I'd still argue for laptops and projectors- but I'm not. The decision has already been made in my district and there are already IWBs in every classroom. What you helped me realize is how I should approach the existing reality instead of simply being frustrated with the decision making. Instead, I need to try to "commandeer" the IWB professional development time to focus around effective instruction rather than simply how to use the hardware and software. I'm not sure how successful this will be since there already seems to be a training program in the works, but I'm pretty sure it stops at the Module training and doesn't go any further. It still makes me wary to have all the professional development (even when it's focused on instruction) orbit around IWBs, but if that's a way in to discuss effective instructional practice, then I'll take it. Right now that's just not something we're talking about in any real way at my school.
I've glanced through the ABUG site and it looks quite good, I'll have to spend a little more time going through it more thoroughly. I'll pass on your district's professional development strategy for IWBs to the powers that be. I may hit you up again as a resource if it gains any ground.
It's clear there's a lot of educators that are less than excited about the IWB revolution, but perhaps the IWB can be what is used to help start discussions about effective instruction and the effective use of technology.
Ben -
Great thoughts. Like you I don't know if its how I would necessary choose to spend the money either. At the same time though, I don't think I would buy an iPad for every kid (an new prevailing wisdom I've noticed running around). I'm learning regardless of what hardware is purchased the implementation would have to be very strategic with an instructional focus that helps teachers move from where they are today (largely sage-on the-stage with technology as an add on) to an ultimate goal of student-centered, technology infused instruction.
Joe
.-= Joe´s last blog ..iGeneration – Creative Publishers =-.
Hey all,
Great post and even better discussion. I am also on the fence when it comes to IWB's (or any other "magical technology that will improve education the instant it is plugged in" for that matter).
I'm not trying to serve as free advertising, but Epson is releasing a new projector - the Brightlink 450Wi - that gives you what I consider the best of all available options. You get interactivity like an IWB on any surface and you are cutting down on your costs a little since the board part of the IWB is removed from the equation. The real benefit (as I see it) is that you can project this right on to your regular dry erase whiteboard. So when you just need a board, it's a board (without using up the bulb's life).
I'm sure that many of our shared concerns about the USE of this product are still going to apply in this case, however I just found it to be a bit more of a logical solution and thought I would share.
--Scott
@Scott: That type of projector does seem more logical, but as you mention, it's really how they're actually used that really matters. Even having every student with their own powerful laptop loaded with great software, digital cameras, and so on doesn't guarantee great instruction.
It's not that you can't be a great instructor with an IWB. I just don't think it helps that much.
[...] [...]
Hi,
Thanks for sharing ... really liked this article.