Lepkowska, Dorothy (2007). No Blood on Their Hands. The Guardian. Retrieved April 16, 2008 from http://education.guardian.co.uk/link/story/0,,2221064,00.html
"It is that mix of using technology and pedagogy - the art of teaching - that seems to be the biggest obstacle."(Lepkowaska, 2007).
All semester I've been tauting the research that has pointed out how great IWB's are. This article focuses on some of the downfalls of the IWB, or more specifically, the teachers behind the whiteboards. This article doesn't say the whiteboards themselves are bad, just that they are not a cureall for a lack of classroom achievement. While IWB's can make good teachers better, they don't necessarily make bad teachers any more effective. If teachers don't have the proper training in pedagogy and effective teaching practices, buying them a fancy interactive whiteboard isn't going to help their pupils become more successful.
Another big problem is the time teachers have to experiment and become innovative with the board. In order to use the boards to thier fullest potential, it takes time to learn the ins and outs of the software. Most teachers are given very little training with their whiteboards. I feel like I'm one of those people. I took an introductory training course this past summer and I was certainly left feeling like I knew some of the things the board could do, but didn't know how to do them. This summer I plan on retaking the intro course and then also taking the second level course.
To their credit, Promethean, the maker of ACTIVboards, has recognized this problem is trying to help fix it. They have created on-line tutorials for teachers and downloadable lessons (I'm sure SmartBoards have too, this article just discusses Promethean). I have to admit though, that I am guilty of ignoring these tutorials. If I don't know how to do something, I just don't do it. If I want to use my ACTIVboard to its fullest potential, I am going to have to invest the time to learn.
When we first got ACTIVboards at our school, the teachers got a laptop to go along with it. As they began adding more, however, they just start attatching the board to our desktops. At first I didn't like this because it meant I couldn't take a laptop home and make lessons for my IWB. This has helped me, however, avoid one of the problems this article points out. One researcher found that in 9 out of 10 classrooms she entered, the laptop was not attached to the IWB, only the projector. Thus, the board was serving as a very expensive projector instead of an interactive tool. It would be a pain to have to reattach wires and get things reset everyday. I don't have this problem; my speakers, projector, and whiteboard are always connected for instant accessibility. The technology department also lets us take the software home now and install it on our home computers so we can still create flipcharts from home.
This article also pointed out how some students are reluctant to use the IWBs. In the article, the students felt inhibited from entering what they felt to be the teacher's workspace. I have never seen that myself. My students LOVE to use the board and they get upset when we're in a hurry and I do the manipulating on the board. I guess some teachers though present the board as being "theirs" and not the students.
I would hate for this article to fall into the wrong hands (i.e. an administrator who didn't want to spend the money on IWB's). I believe their are way more pros to IWB's than cons. As I've found time and time again, training is essential as well as sound pedagogical techniques in order to make the board most effective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm really glad you posted this information because if I'm going to make an arguement for the boards to my principal I need to be prepared with what some feel are the shortfalls. I didn't think any of the so called negative aspects were things that couldn't be addressed. I still think anyone who reads the rest of your blog will clearly see the value of this tool.
I also have to comment on the first problem-- the boards don't fix bad teachers. Well, unfortunately no tool, no matter how expensive or high tech, can make up for poor teaching and poor training. It's unfortunate because I do believe in some cases, principals will try to fix teacher problems by increasing the technology. I'm glad to see that no one expects this board to work miracles or for it to replace the value of a good teacher. They can only enhance instruction that is being delivered by good teachers which is all they really need to do.
I'm not sure what to make of the article. Of course nothing takes the place of good teaching, technology, literature, manipulatives etc. My experience with IWBs has been great although I do recognize the need for more training.
The article states "The best teachers often don't have access to a whiteboard in their class, so overall there is not enough creative use of them in schools," by Tim Rudd a senior researcher at Futurelab. But that doesn't make sense to me, I'm sure the that whether you are a good teacher or not doesn't have anything to do with you having an IWB.
I agree with you that it is what a teacher does with the board that makes the difference and it is hard to find a definitive research because the boards are so new.
It is good to see something that has a different point of view.
Post a Comment