This post is a comment that I made on Wes Fryer’s Speaking of Creativity blog in response to his ideas about SMART Notebook now requiring activation. The ideas of fellow commenter Gary Stager are also referenced. Unfortunately my comment seems to be caught in the moderation loop or has not been approved. Here are my thoughts. I welcome your thoughts.
Wes,
We live in the world of Twitter, Plurk, Drupal, Skype, WordPress, Edublogs, and Voicethread. Do we all listen to the ‘priests chant from’ San Francisco? How do we bring teachers along to use technology with effective pedagogy? Maybe (and just maybe) a classroom computer is being used in the learning environment for the first time, even if it is for instruction. The ability to use a metaphor familiar to teachers, the whiteboard and digital ink, may promote that first use beyond e-mail or report card writing.
Mr. Stager and your characterizations of interactive whiteboards may miss the point. The low handing fruit can also be laptops or any technology. Teaching practices are the issue and teacher’s comfort with technology. Maybe these two elements interact in a strange way. Does one lead to the other? Is there an inverse relationship between teacher technology comfort and promoted teaching practices?
In February 08 the product manager came on our podcast to discuss this issue. The Notebook 10 registration requirement was the source of great debate on the podcast, via email, and even in comments on the show notes. Here is the audio: http://pdtogo.com/smart/?p=131 We have been discussing for 2 years the possibilities of a common interactive whiteboard format. It is called the SMARTBoard Lessons Podcast because of the Kleenex effect but all lessons are released in PDF format as well. The focus is having teachers share lessons and stories of classroom interaction and practice in a fun, informal way.
Underlying this whole discussion are a series of assumptions about value: the valued pedagogy, the valued technology, and the valued platform.
Here was the response from my plurk on the issue.
Please note: A second set of threaded comments on plurk about this post.
Please note as well: In response to the plurk thread I have re-arranged the organization of paragraphs (but have not changed the text). See the original format here.
Photo credit: You Can Do It! by foundphotolj
02/08/2008 at 9:45 am Permalink
I think that the value is in the teaching, not the tool. Put a IWB in the possession of a creative, innovative and enlightened teacher and you are going to get creative, innovative and enlightened instruction. Just the same as if you put a pencil or any other technology in the hands of this type of teacher.
Anytime technology is being used in lessons in my class (which is all the time) I always ask myself, how does the technology improve or change the learning. If I am just teaching the same lesson with a new tool, it is not worth it. Often times, the answer is that technology allows greater connectivity, opens up two way communication and learning beyond the classroom walls. Sometimes the answer is that the technology allows for different learning style needs to be met, the power or visual literacy, etc. Sometimes, the lesson is improved just by the fact that students are interacting and more engaged in the learning.
I am fairly new to the world of Interactive Whiteboards, and I can see how they could be used as just a glorified chalkboard. But there are many great possibilities for interaction, connectivity, engagement, collaboration, etc. if you have a teacher who values those qualities in their teaching.
Lessons on the whiteboard do not have to be teacher centered. Put an IWB in the right hands and you will see students engaged in choice, problem solving, collaboration and communication. That is a pretty powerful tool.
Beyond that, the IWB can be a great tool for organizing lessons, recording student work, etc. It is a fun and engaging tool for teachers as well.
02/08/2008 at 11:24 am Permalink
Ben,
If you love interactive white boards, fine. I just wish the proponents of this technology would stop making constructivist claims. They are weak and unfounded. Be a proud instructionist (http://papert.org/articles/const_inst/const_inst1.html), but don’t try and justify your practices by confusing people.
I don’t care one bit how much the IWB software costs. The companies making it can drop it out of airplanes or charge a billion dollars for it. I don’t care.
I happen to believe that IWBs (beware of acronyms) are misguided, expensive attempts to 1) reinforce the dominance of the front of the room and 2) give cover to bureaucrats and politicians who want to look like they are doing modern by purchasing a piece of technology large enough to have their picture taken in front of.
Writing or tapping does not equal interactivity and handing the pen to a student might be dandy, but it does not make the activity constructivist or learner-centered. You are merely temporarily making that child the teacher.
I do not believe that knowledge is transmitted. You apparently do. That’s fine. You and Martha (above) apparently do. Organizing lessons has nothing to do with learning. Recording notes is a poor simulacrum for active participation.
Any teacher who can be replaced by notes recorded from a white board, probably should be.
If you use the dreadful content/activities provided by the whiteboard companies, you move even farther from constructivist practices.
This is what I originally wrote on Wes Fryer’s blog – http://tinyurl.com/5j2jmn
02/08/2008 at 12:18 pm Permalink
Gary,
I want to reiterate the central idea of my comment / post: “The ability to use a metaphor familiar to teachers, the whiteboard and digital ink, may promote that first use beyond e-mail or report card writing.”
I did not state that I ‘believe in the transmission of knowledge’. I also refrained from using the word constructivism. Instead I used words such as teaching practice and learning environment. Constructivism has a vast and varied understanding. In my opinion it has become ambiguous and when used should be accompanied with additional explanation. The central idea is not constructivism but about teacher adoption of technology within the learning environment.
There are also more pedagogical models than instructivism and constructivism. Connectivisim, and objectivism are just two more. My last comment in the post was that we need to examine the value that we are giving to pedagogies that we utilize. Instead of jumping on one pedgagogical (constructivism, instructivism, connectivism, objectivism) or technological bandwagon (laptops, lego robotics, interactive whiteboards) this understanding about the value inherent in our professional practice can lead to a reflective practitioner (see Schon’s work).
I would encourage you to listen to practitioners sharing ideas (from a variety of backgrounds) on the podcast. The stories of actual practice abound.
02/08/2008 at 1:33 pm Permalink
I am not getting into the semantic debate … constructivism, interactive, connectivsm, etc. I simply want to comment from personal experience. As of this summer, our district will be 100% IWB (SMART, specifically). Every classroom physically capable of having an IWB will have one. I do regular visits to schools and school administers, specifically discussing technology use and integration. In EVERY school visit the administrator has commented that the IWB has made better teachers. Many have commented that they have seen a significant increase in teacher preparation due to the IWB. They have seen greater collaboration between teachers, sharing uses for the IWB. The students are beyond doubt more involved, more engaged, in their learning. For our district, the IWB are worth every cent spent.
02/08/2008 at 4:31 pm Permalink
SR_Mary:
How are administrators defining teacher preparation? How do they define better teachers?
Could the collaboration and preparation they cite be evidence of attempting to use the new technology as much or more than actually benefitting children?
Ben: It’s worth noting that you work for SMART Technologies. This is not a secret, but may be unknown to readers of this blog.
02/08/2008 at 5:43 pm Permalink
Gary
I’m not concerned about how the administrators “define” these things. They are good administrators, and when it’s at EVERY school, it rates worthy of note. Not all things benefitting children / learning HAVE to be measured. Even if it is vetran teachers helping neophites learn the technology (or the other way around), does that NOT count as collaberation? (I believe the academic term is “mentor.”) I have seen the collaberation myself, and it goes far beyond learning technology. IWB have created enthusiasm in teachers who were previously on “cruise control.” I’ve walked into staff lunchrooms impromptu and the subject of topic was IWB. In short, I’m sold!
02/08/2008 at 5:55 pm Permalink
Gary,
I’m not sure where you got your information, but I do not work for SMART Technologies. I have volunteered and spoken at some of the SMART User Conferences. I work for the Lambton Kent District School Board. Please don’t make this assumption.
I have addressed this here and we have had a few disagreements with SMART. I quote this segment from these sources (“we” refers to my co-host and I on the SMARTBoard Lessons Podcast):
“Finally in this very competitive world, we actually are practicing what we preach. The more we share, the more we know. Joan and I are volunteering our time (and some money) to create an online learning community.”
Ben
02/08/2008 at 6:14 pm Permalink
Martha said it well:
“I think that the value is in the teaching, not the tool.”
No matter how you dice it – An interactive white board is still a one-to-many form of teaching. I have yet to see a lesson that allows for all students to be actively engaged/connected through an interactive white board.
That being said, I think it can have a place … remembering Martha’s words about where the value lies. Just having an interactive white board in the classroom doesn’t mean all that much. I know some teachers who use it primarily to show movies. For real.
I’d rather spend money on a bunch of wii controllers and some led pointers and have my students make some interactive white boards in my classroom
http://tracyrosen.tumblr.com/post/44491355/wiiiiiiiiiii-thats-fun
02/08/2008 at 6:41 pm Permalink
Ben,
I think what you are saying is similar to the points made in your podcast last week. The Smartboard can be a “Trojan Horse” to introduce other technology into the classroom, and into the teacher’s repertoire. This is a good thing. If teachers are going to change the way they teach, to make the classroom more student-centered, they need fresh ideas. These ideas can be inspired by new tools, as teachers learn how to use them effectively.
It is therefore more important than ever for there to be dialog between teachers, for a sharing of best practices. Podcasts such as yours are a big step in that direction. I value it highly and recommend it often to my colleagues.
02/08/2008 at 8:23 pm Permalink
But it’s a pretty pricey horse…
02/08/2008 at 8:34 pm Permalink
Yes, Tracy, but it’s one administrators are willing to buy.
02/08/2008 at 9:22 pm Permalink
I am moving into my third year teaching with my SmartBoard. I also train other teachers how to use the board. Having said that, as much as I love my board, if I had the choice, I would rather have a class set of laptops. But Elizabeth is correct. The administration was willing to purchase the boards, not the laptops. I do create teacher directed lessons on them, the children create presentations in the software and present on the board, and sometimes we just show movies. It has not made my classroom a more teacher centered room. As Martha stated, “the value is in the teaching, not the tool.” I am long past running a teacher centered classroom, whether or not there is a SmartBoard there. It’s all a choice.
02/08/2008 at 10:45 pm Permalink
thank you all for this stimulating discussion.
quoting from sr_mary’s post:
yes, i have noticed a ‘significant increase in teacher preparation due to the IWB.’ i have spent hours looking for the perfect lesson prepared by others to match the children in my class. i usually don’t find anything that suits. so then i have spent hours designing the lesson myself, but i find the lesson often does not work. ‘s cool! i enjoy being a learner and believe the iwb in my classroom has given me something more to learn about. i love my moments of consternation and disequilibrium and reflection. so often the iwb has prompted me to communicate in a smarter/better way than using the iwb. i think i am at the stage where i spend less time on ‘preparation’ and more time on reflection.
‘They have seen greater collaboration between teachers, sharing uses for the IWB.’ with my colleague robyn i teach some collaborative iwb lessons, or share iwb resources that i have designed. the best bit about this collaboration is the reflection afterwards between me and robyn, and the satisfying level of thnking that we generate together, usually asking the question, WHY. why did we use the iwb in the lesson anyway? why were the children engaged? why did i feel that the lesson was a waste of time? how did the iwb improve the teaching/learning/collaboration/communication for our students?
‘The students are beyond doubt more involved, more engaged, in their learning.’ they would be engaged if i gave them a Happy Meal. i wonder if engagement always means deep satisfying learning?
my personal rules i consider when incorporating iwb in lesson planning:
-why am i using the iwb in this lesson?
-small group work is best in my classroom with the iwb
-who gets to touch the board? teacher/student?
-whose text is on the board? teacher’s/students?
cheers
brette
03/08/2008 at 11:09 am Permalink
“Yes, Tracy, but it’s one administrators are willing to buy.”
So maybe we need to start asking why that is.
The research tells us that one-to-one improves learning, yet administrators are only willing to buy a tool that supports one-to-many?
Something seems wrong with this….
03/08/2008 at 1:29 pm Permalink
The “powers” in my district have only read about disasters with one-to-one laptop intitiatives. Students hacking through security, not bringing laptops to school, downloading garbage; teachers not using them enough to merit the cost… etc. I know we won’t be going to a one-to-one initiative anytime soon. I’m glad they will spend money on IWB, and that teachers do use them well.
03/08/2008 at 5:51 pm Permalink
Tracy, I think you have a very valid point. I don’t know why. Perhaps Smartboards are “flashy”. Or perhaps they are just not as threatening, because they look like things people are already familiar with. Maybe they think they can get away with less training because everyone “knows” already how to use a whiteboard.
Sr. Mary, I know exactly what you mean. We do have a 1:1 laptop program, and my faculty really don’t know what to do with them. They are the ones that bring in those horror stories about schools that have abandoned the laptops, hoping our laptops will go away. This is why I harp so much on professional development having to come in with the tools. We’ve got the stuff, but not the ideas of how to use them effectively. If the teachers ignore the tools they have, it doesn’t matter what is available.
30/03/2009 at 10:27 pm Permalink
Ben,
I do like your trojan horse, or lowest dangling fruit ideas. Although an IWB may be an expensive way to go about it. But if an IWB gets a teacher excited about technology in the classroom, perhaps it is a small cost over the remainder of a teachers career.
My biggest concern is the hype which I mention here: http://techteachengage.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/are-iwbs-worth-it/
I am so glad that you and Gary are having this banter. The more people who question how they are using their IWB or ANY technology the better I say. Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.