Click here for link to Techwatch video:
CosN’s 12th Annual K-12 School Networking Conference held in San Francisco, March 2007.
At CosN’s Annual School Networking Conference, 2007, a panel of Ed-tech experts debated on whether interactive whiteboards (now installed in some 30% US schools), are truly worth the investment.The topic: Does the device truly revolutionise instruction?
Doug Brown, Head of Learning Technologies Department of Education, UK was among those on the affirmative side. He claimed that overall research showed that the pace of lessons, student motivation, engagement and teacher preparation were all improving as a direct result of introducing interactive whiteboards in the classroom. Almost half of all of Britain’s schools have installed these devices and teachers have found them to be user-friendly but not all were using them to their full potential. Brown believes, “There are appalling teachings in Britain too and ultimately this is not actually about the technology itself – its about the teachings.”
Findings show that it all comes down to the teachings – it ultimately depends on the teachers and the teaching methodologies. When interactive whiteboards are used creatively and appropriately, they can be transformative and revolutionalised instruction can make a stand as a result.
Bailey Mitchell – Chief Technology and Information Officer Forsyth County School District, Georgia, was also on the affirmative side. In the state of Georgia, 5.4 million was invested for the installation of interactive whiteboards into every instrutctional space. Mitchell’s initial disinterest and inattention towards this technology was challenged when he was dragged out by a specialist to witness, first-hand, students in a classroom with these interactive boards. Mitchell was immediately amazed. He’d never seen student engagement like this with any other technology they’d ever deployed and very clearly saw the evidence presented before him.
Bob Moore, Executive Director of Information Technology in Blue Valley School District, Kansas was not convinced in the effectiveness of these devices after looking at research. He questioned the value proposition as it was somewhat inconclusive. Mitchell says the interactive whiteboards do offer a good value because the educators who utilise them are highly creative and have an ability to create materials that can be used for collaborative work and can be shared with others.
Mitchell had a teacher whisper to him that since the introduction of whiteboards in her class, she wasn’t using the textbook as much. The reality was, as she could harvest the information from Net Tracker and create her own flipcharts, her teachings had become more engaging and exciting to the students than textbook lessons, whilst still covering the same material.
2.2 million dollars is spent a year on textbooks in Mitchell’s district. Although in comparision, 5.4 million dollars is spent on whiteboards, its returns are seen in having less long-term reliance on traditional materials. Virtual manipulatives can now be a part of a learning suite that interacts and is a part of the software program. This suggests a strong change from traditional to virtual manipulatives. According to Mitchell, he could not over-emphasise just how much students of today demand interactivity.
Moore argues the most outstanding teachers when given the most incredible technologies won’t always do as we expect them to. He highlights the danger here, is looking at a particular tool as a transformative agent. In his mind, technological tools aren’t transformative agents. Rather, changes in the way we think and practices aided by technological tools are transformative agents.
The bottom line:
There is no one right answer – it depends on each districts’ goals.