A place for conversations that promote effective teaching with IWBs
A slightly different angle
A the risk of sounding like an old bloke banging on about the same old stuff, I wrote this post in response to a discussion going on over at Classroom 2.0 about IWBs. It got lost in the noise over there (I assume, since nobody has replied to it) so I thought I'd post it over here to see if it raises any discussion in this forum...
---
I think you are missing one very important point about IWBs.
Sylvia touched on it when she said that it "reinforces the dominance of the front of the room". IWBs (and I'd argue most other technologies too) tend to reinforce the behaviours taking place in the classroom. If a teacher is a "front of the room" type, then yeah, maybe an IWB will just keep that behaviour going. If a teacher teaches in creative and interesting ways, then an IWB will open a whole bunch of opportunities to make their teaching more creative and interesting. I'd argue strongly that an IWB will simply amplify current teaching practice. If you see teachers using them in very teacher-centric ways, then maybe the teaching habits of those teachers needs some reviewing anyway?
As for the "I could do that with cardboard and sticky tape" thinking.... you could apply that sort of thinking to anything if you wanted to. Yes, you could do many of the typical drag and match exercises that IWBs are usually associated with, with cardboard and sticky tape if you really wanted to. You could annotate text with an overhead projector and an OHP marker. You could watch videos using a DVD or VHS machine. You could listen to audio with a cassette deck. And you could write on a piece of butchers paper pinned to the wall. All of these things represent typical teaching tasks that can also be undertaken on an IWB. And all of them can be replicated with older technologies or methods. So does that mean that an IWB is a waste of time/money just because an older technology could already do it? Well, I don't know... is a DVD player a waste of time/money because a VHS player can do the same thing? Is a VHS player a waste of time/money because a 16mm film projector can do the same thing? How far back do you have to take a given set of technologies (in this example, technologies for viewing moving pictures) before you accept that an upgrade to the next level of performance is worth doing? I'd venture to say that it is the IWB's ability to deal with all media in a digital format (ie, video, images, text, audio, multimedia, hyperlinking, etc) as one common digital format that is what makes it revolutionary. It is the digital convergence that make the difference.
As an example, let's say you are teaching literature and want to show your students a scene from "To Kill a Mockingbird". Sure, just to use the IWB as a projection screen for the movie is not taking advantage of its strengths. In this case, a VHS player can do the same job as the IWB. But what if you want to show a specific part of the courtroom scene from that movie.... not the whole thing, but just a 30 second grab? Perhaps you want to look at the characterisation or the lighting or the dialogue. When everything is digital, isolating a part of a scene is relatively easy... a whole lot easier than doing it with a VHS player, especially if you want to watch it a few times, perhaps pausing at a particular moment, perhaps annotating over the paused image. Now, what if you want to compare that scene to another courtroom scene from a different movie? What if you want to pause both scenes in order to compare how they handle the same type of theme? What if you want to extract a still image from these scenes so that they can be used to generate a class discussion? All of this is relatively easy on an IWB, where the video clips have been isolated in advance and embedded into a notebook/flipchart. Just tap the movie clip to watch it, tap again to pause it, extract a still frame, and so on. Trivially easy to manage in class, and extremely powerful in terms of being able to stimulate a class discussion. Try doing that with a couple of VHS tapes. Could it be done? Yes, of course. But there would be all sorts of fiddling about with tapes in class, waiting for the tapes to load, trying to cue them to the correct point, etc. Juggling two tapes from two or more movies is a nightmare...
So your assertion that older technologies can do the "same thing" as an IWB misses a whole lot of subtlety and nuance. No they can't. Having a single point of access where any digital media can be shared with the entire class is an extremely powerful idea.
Which brings me to my third point, and that is this common misconception about what constitutes interactivity. I'm endlessly amused by those who think that the word "interactive" in "interactive Whiteboard" refers the the act of coming to the board and physically maneuvering objects around on a screen. In my opinion, that is missing the whole point. If you measure the success of IWBs by how "interactive" they are, and you measure the success of "interactivity" by how many people get to physically manipulate objects on the board, then yes, there will always be a ceiling on how successful they are in your eyes. However, I see the interactivity not as the physical interactivity of touching the board, but in the intellectual interactivity that can be created when a classroom is able to embed rich media into lesson, when it can flexibly divert off the planned course of a lesson by quickly calling up relevant web resources, when it can easily use media to juxtapose differing viewpoints that require students to think more critically or to have to defend their points of view. When you can have a large screen digital convergence facility in your classroom that adds richness and depth to the teaching and learning process, then I think you start to see the intellectual interactivity rise in that class. It is these deeper classroom discussions that arise by stimulating ideas in your students heads that really add interactivity to your classroom
I think about it like this... it's not what happens on the IWB that matters. It's what happens because of what happens on the IWB that matters.
Of course, all of this is driven by good teaching practice, by teachers who understand the dynamics of their classroom, who know the right times to hand control over to their students and the right times to assume a more centralised role of teacher. Teachers who understand learning processes, classroom psychology, differentiated learning, and so on... these teachers do really amazing things with IWBs because IWBs are powerful tools for doing these sorts of things. If a teacher just uses their IWB to do cutesy activities that get one or two kids to come to the board, of course it's never going to be revolutionary.
Let's stop looking to the IWB to be the saviour for poor teaching habits. It won't be. It will simply amplify what's already taking place in that classroom, and unfortunately that can work both ways.
---
I think you are missing one very important point about IWBs.
Sylvia touched on it when she said that it "reinforces the dominance of the front of the room". IWBs (and I'd argue most other technologies too) tend to reinforce the behaviours taking place in the classroom. If a teacher is a "front of the room" type, then yeah, maybe an IWB will just keep that behaviour going. If a teacher teaches in creative and interesting ways, then an IWB will open a whole bunch of opportunities to make their teaching more creative and interesting. I'd argue strongly that an IWB will simply amplify current teaching practice. If you see teachers using them in very teacher-centric ways, then maybe the teaching habits of those teachers needs some reviewing anyway?
As for the "I could do that with cardboard and sticky tape" thinking.... you could apply that sort of thinking to anything if you wanted to. Yes, you could do many of the typical drag and match exercises that IWBs are usually associated with, with cardboard and sticky tape if you really wanted to. You could annotate text with an overhead projector and an OHP marker. You could watch videos using a DVD or VHS machine. You could listen to audio with a cassette deck. And you could write on a piece of butchers paper pinned to the wall. All of these things represent typical teaching tasks that can also be undertaken on an IWB. And all of them can be replicated with older technologies or methods. So does that mean that an IWB is a waste of time/money just because an older technology could already do it? Well, I don't know... is a DVD player a waste of time/money because a VHS player can do the same thing? Is a VHS player a waste of time/money because a 16mm film projector can do the same thing? How far back do you have to take a given set of technologies (in this example, technologies for viewing moving pictures) before you accept that an upgrade to the next level of performance is worth doing? I'd venture to say that it is the IWB's ability to deal with all media in a digital format (ie, video, images, text, audio, multimedia, hyperlinking, etc) as one common digital format that is what makes it revolutionary. It is the digital convergence that make the difference.
As an example, let's say you are teaching literature and want to show your students a scene from "To Kill a Mockingbird". Sure, just to use the IWB as a projection screen for the movie is not taking advantage of its strengths. In this case, a VHS player can do the same job as the IWB. But what if you want to show a specific part of the courtroom scene from that movie.... not the whole thing, but just a 30 second grab? Perhaps you want to look at the characterisation or the lighting or the dialogue. When everything is digital, isolating a part of a scene is relatively easy... a whole lot easier than doing it with a VHS player, especially if you want to watch it a few times, perhaps pausing at a particular moment, perhaps annotating over the paused image. Now, what if you want to compare that scene to another courtroom scene from a different movie? What if you want to pause both scenes in order to compare how they handle the same type of theme? What if you want to extract a still image from these scenes so that they can be used to generate a class discussion? All of this is relatively easy on an IWB, where the video clips have been isolated in advance and embedded into a notebook/flipchart. Just tap the movie clip to watch it, tap again to pause it, extract a still frame, and so on. Trivially easy to manage in class, and extremely powerful in terms of being able to stimulate a class discussion. Try doing that with a couple of VHS tapes. Could it be done? Yes, of course. But there would be all sorts of fiddling about with tapes in class, waiting for the tapes to load, trying to cue them to the correct point, etc. Juggling two tapes from two or more movies is a nightmare...
So your assertion that older technologies can do the "same thing" as an IWB misses a whole lot of subtlety and nuance. No they can't. Having a single point of access where any digital media can be shared with the entire class is an extremely powerful idea.
Which brings me to my third point, and that is this common misconception about what constitutes interactivity. I'm endlessly amused by those who think that the word "interactive" in "interactive Whiteboard" refers the the act of coming to the board and physically maneuvering objects around on a screen. In my opinion, that is missing the whole point. If you measure the success of IWBs by how "interactive" they are, and you measure the success of "interactivity" by how many people get to physically manipulate objects on the board, then yes, there will always be a ceiling on how successful they are in your eyes. However, I see the interactivity not as the physical interactivity of touching the board, but in the intellectual interactivity that can be created when a classroom is able to embed rich media into lesson, when it can flexibly divert off the planned course of a lesson by quickly calling up relevant web resources, when it can easily use media to juxtapose differing viewpoints that require students to think more critically or to have to defend their points of view. When you can have a large screen digital convergence facility in your classroom that adds richness and depth to the teaching and learning process, then I think you start to see the intellectual interactivity rise in that class. It is these deeper classroom discussions that arise by stimulating ideas in your students heads that really add interactivity to your classroom
I think about it like this... it's not what happens on the IWB that matters. It's what happens because of what happens on the IWB that matters.
Of course, all of this is driven by good teaching practice, by teachers who understand the dynamics of their classroom, who know the right times to hand control over to their students and the right times to assume a more centralised role of teacher. Teachers who understand learning processes, classroom psychology, differentiated learning, and so on... these teachers do really amazing things with IWBs because IWBs are powerful tools for doing these sorts of things. If a teacher just uses their IWB to do cutesy activities that get one or two kids to come to the board, of course it's never going to be revolutionary.
Let's stop looking to the IWB to be the saviour for poor teaching habits. It won't be. It will simply amplify what's already taking place in that classroom, and unfortunately that can work both ways.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Allen on -
"Let's stop looking to the IWB to be the saviour for poor teaching habits. It won't be. It will simply amplify what's already taking place in that classroom, and unfortunately that can work both ways."
You are exactly right. That's is currently happening in my system. We are finally getting iwb's in every classroom and most everyone is excited about them. I've heard several people from administration claim how much better learning is going to be. The vibe I'm getting is that they are expecting this tool to make all classrooms a great environment for learning. What they do not seem to understand is that it's the teacher that creates the environment, not the toys in the classroom. An iwb is not going to make someone who is not a good teacher magically into the teacher of the year.
However, I am one of the lucky few right now that does have an iwb in their classroom. And I truly believe it has enhanced my teaching and even in first grade has brought a level of understanding that I've never had before! It has helped me to become a better teacher, and I don't think I was that bad before I got it!
-
Permalink Reply by Janette Eade on -
Thank you so much for your thoughts. They really resonate with me. I am working in Sydney in an ICT Centre on a project with teachers who have Advanced IWB skills. I needed someone to agree with me especially about the idea of interactivity - I totally agree it is about engagement and higher level thinking not 'touching' the board.
-
Permalink Reply by Margot Lindgren on -
My apologies - I am new to all of this... I have now joined your ning. The comment listed here by Jan Eade was really from me. The computer didn't ask for a login and I 'thought' it knew I was here... I will use some of your thoughts for my training day hope that is okay.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Betcher on -
No worries... if it helps, the book was released this week (got my copy yesterday! Very exciting) and it has a whole lot of stuff in there on the same basic theme...
Links on the front page if you're interested.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Ann on
-
Hey Chris,
I enjoyed reading your posting, very eloquently put. My favourite quote is "...its not what happens on the IWB that matters. It's what happens because of what happens on the IWB that matters." I believe that nails it on the head. With your permission I am going to quote you in my presentation today to new IWB users. I am very pleased to have found this site and I look forward to exploring all the thoughts and ideas shared here. Thanks for taking the time to share.
Mary Ann
About
© 2009 Created by Chris Betcher on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
