OK, so it's been a year since I dared to float the controversial idea that interactive whiteboards are little more than a big, expensive white mouse, whose functionality can easily be replaced by far less expensive solutions (see my prior post, "Is the debate over the value of interactive whiteboards really about the boards?") I received tons of feedback from a variety of sources, which did little to sway my view of them. Most from proponents were testimonies of increased student engagement, etc., etc., very similar to those I mentioned in the prior post, all subjective and lacking in any real data. Even Smart's favorite "evidence" of student achievement from the EU is vague at best, listing their boards as one of a number of technologies (emphasis on the words "one of") that were implemented. Then there are the health risks, which are only just starting to surface.
Don't get me wrong, I too can appreciate the value of including a variety of media types when explaining a key concept or working through a problem, but is the whiteboard required (or safe, come to think of it?) Or does it simply add minimally to the delivery mechanism, that being the projector and computer? And, if it is only a minor addition that can easily be replaced by less expensive technology, then should we be investing such a large number of dollars in them?
Of particular interest was a response from an industry insider who has been intimately involved in the development of interactive whiteboards for more than a decade. To quote (names changed to protect the guilty):
"I was [company X's] 2nd employee, having started [them] up in the Western US back 1993, and spent 9 years there, establishing them in the Western US, and was involved with starting [their educational foundation] up. We were talking about the eventual demise of the electronic whiteboard, but it took off, and it didn’t stop. That’s marketing for you. When the first [board product] came out, it was a product looking for a market. Yes, you are right, it is a trophy tool in the classroom and little more - do you see lemmings?"
I found that fascinating, particularly from someone who was directly involved in the development and distribution of interactive whiteboards. I was also informed that my cost estimates for adding a whiteboard to a classroom were quite low at $2,300. In fact they were based on equipment cost only, with no consideration for installation requirements. Actual costs can quickly swell to double that number, or more (you have to read this from L.A. Unified School District's bid specifications: whiteboard install = labor during off hours, driving time, 16 hours of asbestos training, and 8 hours of lead training.)
With limited budgets and the ever-expanding role of technology in the education space (and the world, for that matter,) making wise decisions is absolutely essential. When we consider any technology for schools, the decision must not be based on emotion, subjective hypotheticals, "wow" factors, or a political desire to "look technologically advanced", but on outcomes and/or practicality. This drops technology decision making into two categories, in my view: those that improve efficiency and/or those that improve student achievement. Some may balk at the efficiency argument, but I personally believe that improvements in efficiency free valuable minutes in the day, which can be devoted to educational objectives.
When we begin to talk of improving education through technology, then we get into what I believe is the heart of the debate: instructional technology vs. educational technology.
For the past several decades, technology has simply been viewed as an add-on in the classroom, and this is reflected in the vast majority of schools across the United States. The Tom Snyder model of instructional technology, in which the primary use of technology is to enhance content delivery, is pervasive because it's easy and requires little-to-no change to a teacher's traditional pedagogic style. Supporters speak of enhanced student engagement, improved delivery, and increased interactivity, which they believe will automatically lead to (generally vague) improvements in academic achievement.
We also see evidence of this "add-on" mentality in the use of student computers. "Technology" is considered as a separate topic in our technology plans and goals. We set the bar at such high watermarks as "students will know how to use a word processor by grade 4" and so on, assigning a grade for technology proficiency alone, because it's easier to treat technology as a subject than to work towards integration. Technology use is effectively siloed out of the rest of the curriculum, except perhaps when we get back to delivery, which seems to be the "killer app" for most textbook providers. But I digress...
Educational technology, on the other hand, is founded on the assertion that the real potential of technology is in its ability to change habits – to become such an integral part of the educational process that the topics at hand simply can't be learned effectively without it. Whether in a one-to-one environment or in smaller banks as "stations" or "centers" in a process of research, reflection, and content creation, they need to be integrated into the process of learning. And we, as educators, should be investing in technologies and training that make that constructive, collaborative environment possible.
But that's hard. That requires a lot more work than simply "sprinkling" some technology into our educational environment. And it's not sexy, doesn't necessarily make us look good, or enable us to speak about how "technically advanced" our classrooms are. Then again, maybe it could, through the use of Web 2.0 and collaborative environments in which student work is highlighted/celebrated. But that's a whole other topic.
And so we find ourselves back at the original question: Is the "value" of interactive whiteboards really about the boards? Should we invest in technologies that, as Gary Stager puts it, "represent a pre- Gutenberg technology that reinforce the dominance of the front of the room"? Or should we instead be freeing our teachers to move about the class, involving their students in the process of instruction through the use of far less expensive and equally effective (more so, in my opinion) mobile solutions like iPens, Interwrite Pads, and Airliners? How many Asus EeePCs could you buy for the cost of that whiteboard and installation - 7? 10? 200+ at the school level? When considering the environment as a whole, that looks a lot more like pervasive technology access to me.
Keywords: Integration, Smartboards, Technology, Whiteboards
Posted by Jim Klein
|
Comments
I wrote a fairly large comment, but I must have been autologged at some point and it was lost. I don't feel like typing it all again, so here's a condensed version.
Adding integration for less money:
Obviously we need to get more bang for our buck. We want to improve student facility with technology while still giving them content area mastery in our curriculum. Luckily for us these two things are complementary. Just like kids getting practice using a pencil while working out a math problem, computers are tools that facilitate acquisition and synthesis of information and knowledge. Devices like the ultra mobile Asus mentioned above offer a portable access point with an affordable price point. $300 puts the Asus in the same category as game consoles, Nintendo DSs, fancy cell phones, and some MP3 players. Many of my students have several of the items in the list above. I bet that within the next five years, they'll be toting mobile laptops like the Asus as well. With wifi coverage increasing, this is even more likely. Schools have been prohibiting students from bringing their gadgets to school for a long time; pretty soon though, it might be to our advantage to let the students bring certain gizmos into the schools. I'm reminded of the pencil again. Ten years ago we were telling students that they needed to leave their fancy mechanical pencils at home. Now I notice that our school's pencil shelf isn't teeming with pencils anymore, and the teachers are happy to have students supplying some of their own school supplies. Sure, schools will still have to supply some of the hardware in order to provide equal access. And there are issues with security- all those machines coming in that we don't have control over (and the viruses that they might contain). If these problems could be solved, though, the burden of supplying all the necessary tech could be shared.
Smartboards:
I've not used Smartboards so I'll defer my opinion on them until I have the chance to do so. I'd love to hear the opinions of teachers that have used both Smartboards and their alternatives. And by used, I mean actually taught lessons with them, not just played with them.
I feel like this argument about Smartboards is just a continuation of the pedagogical argument of whether student-centered versus teacher-centered is more valid. People may argue that Smartboards increase student motivation- and they're probably right! Others may argue that they don't- and they're right too! If a student is using the Smartboard, there's bound to be a level of interactivity that engages the student. Smartboards are multi-modal. They have visual and kinesthetic down pat. With audio, we're now hitting 3 learning styles. Different applications may add more. But if the device is not used by students, if it's just a whiteboard crossed with a UFO, who cares? You might as well invest in a neon sign to put above a teacher's head pointing to him that says: "This is the teacher (the one who grants the bathroom pass unto lucky students)." All jokes aside, if you can create a constructivist classroom for $4000 dollars, that's cheap. I'm still in denial about what my education cost, and I still feel that I'm just hunting in the dark for what I consider to be the Holy Grail of instruction (constructivist).
I regret to say that I doubt a single piece of technology is going to revolutionize a classroom where the teacher's main approach hasn't changed. So I'd have to agree that we ought to save the money. We could buy more computers with it, sure. But if those just get put a shelf, that won't help either. Training is another possibility. The technology we get seems to go stale before the teachers have learned how to use it. Anyone who works with technology knows that the first time you do something using a computer, Palm Pilot, whatever, that there's a big learning curve. To a teacher who already has to work off the clock, sacrificing family time, that time hit is huge. We need to provide teachers with help to make the learning curve less steep, and provide them with the time to successfully integrate the technology back into their own classroom.
Of course, if each student had their own mobile learning platform that was not the school's responsibility to maintain, then the teacher doesn't have to be such a vital part of the equation. But that's a whole other thread entirely...
(er...I thought this was going to be a condensed version)
To Steve above,
I've been following the thread on Classroom 2.0. In fact, I guess you could say I've been stirring the pot a little using some of Jim's ideas from above. Most contributors have only talked about the tool, and not student achievement. I also find it hard to believe that someone mentioned that IWBs are relatively new. New to them maybe.
IWBs are not part of 21st Century learning for students, Web 2.0 is, and soon it will be Web 3.0. Step away from the board and let students get more actively involved in their learning. Let students "construct" their learning.(Yeah David) Colleges and companies are asking for graduates who can problem solve, use critical thinking to understand the problems that our world will face in the future. Twenty years ago we trained students for jobs that exist today that didn't exist then. Today we are preparing students for jobs that have not been created yet.
My compliments to Jim Klein who has brought this subject to the forefront and the best whitepaper that I’ve seen on the subject of electronic whiteboards. In my opinion, technology is leapfrogging, especially as it relates to the wireless pads, as a replacement for those electronic whiteboards. I’m not really shocked that these alternate technologies have not taken off faster than they should have, in spite of their providing added mobility, no viewing blockage, no blinding, faster navigation, no manual installation whether via stand or onto a wall, and for far less money, not to mention, projecting on a far bigger screen that is elevated, however, the downside is, not within touch range. I would surmise that all electronic whiteboard manufacturers, (almost all sell pads, preferably as an adjunct to a board) have a strong vested interest in promoting the sales of electronic whiteboards, simply because the boards have far greater revenue (my opinion.) Unfortunately, many districts have come to consider board technology as de rigueur. A better option might be the document camera, plus the wireless pad. If you price both options out, it ‘is’ still a lot less money. These devices provide capture tools that allow teachers to annotate on more than just computer based material. These devices allow for electronic, and saved annotation on non computer based material such as transparencies, paper or lab material. Let me cite the State of Washington Technology Survey, where for every 5 document cameras that go in, now only one electronic whiteboard goes in. http://www.k12.wa.us/EdTech/Survey.aspx Do they know something we don’t? This is a survey based on installed base. I will let you surmise where this trend is leading.
I just want to add one more device to Jim’s list. Most pads have as the basis of their communication foundation, Bluetooth technology. From personal experience, this is a very frustrating and limiting, especially for those, like me, less technically inclined. I would like to add to Jim’s list, a new pad. Take a look at this newest wireless pad technology, no Bluetooth (just super RF,) no set up, very feature rich and generally far less money, around $350 . Feature rich is an understatement for this product. This company is also the worlds largest manufacturer of document cameras.
http://www.qomo.com/usa/qit30.htm
As a teacher who has used an electronic whiteboard in the classroom, I have seen first-hand my students' enthusiastic engagement in learning activities and mastery of concepts across the curriculum through this medium. Several factors contributed to their successes. First, I made copious use of the excellent software available for many different subject areas. Second, rather than be "the lecturer up at the board," I had my students do the teaching (they loved using the board to demonstrate their mastery of ideas). Finally, we did a lot of research as a group via the Internet and Google Earth; it seemed to encourage more discussion than the times when students worked individually at computers.
Having said all this, it's important to add that as with any technology, it's only as effective as the training educators get, their willingness and eagerness to using it, and the support and encouragement they receive.I was fortunate to have all three.