The technology glass
Saturday, March 17, 2007 at 08:20AM Some people think of the glass as half full. Some people think of the glass as half empty. I think of the glass as too big. ~ George Carlin
If you haven't read Tim (Assorted Stuff) Stahmer's and Graham (Teaching Generation Z) Wegner's comments on yesterday's post about interactive white boards, please do. If you read Assorted Stuff, you know Tim is skeptical of the 
IWBs and has experience with a large implementation of them in his own district. (I'd sort of been expecting his comments.) Graham's been writing about using IWBs from personal experience for as long, it seems, as I have been reading his blog. At the risk of over simplifying, here are some their concerns/observations about IWBs and their implementation:
- they reinforce "traditional" teaching methods
- their motivational aspect wears off
- the cost/value ratio of these devices is not good enough
- the effective use of an IWB is dependent on the teaching skills and philosophy of the instructor
I agree with each of these sentiments (although unlike Graham and Tim, I don't have a skeptical bone in my entire body.) Their comments gave rise to some questions:
- How are concerns about IWBs unlike any other technology application we have placed in schools? Aren't Tim and Graham's concerns about IWB true for 1:1 computing, computer labs, student use of blogs - whatever? Thank god - or there would be no need for tech directors or blogging pundits. Well, maybe there still isn't a need for the second.
- Is the "gee whiz" factor positive or negative in technology implementations? I distinctly remember the giant "oooooh" that always came just after I showed a class of teachers learning to use a word processor how to "Select All" and then change the font. Just because these folks got overly excited at first doesn't mean they aren't using the technology well or badly now - as far as I can tell.
- How do we know when any technology's cost is justified? Of the approximately $3200 per classroom we spent on this project, the SmartBoard device itself was $840 - about 25% of the cost. My logic was this - mounted LCD projectors were mostly likely going into classrooms anyway. Why not spend a modest amount of money and try to increase the likelihood of the technology being used interactively? Of course there is still a part of me that says we should take the entire tech budget and spend it all on quality books and lots of human tutors.
- Are we asking too much of devices? Which comes first the technology or the methodology to use it well? And who defines "use it well?" For good or ill, technology has always been touted as a catalyst for change. Install it and they will come along, if you will. Most of us know that is bogus. Most technology implementations have resulted in a "patina" of change, which may be more harmful to schools in the long run than the perception of no change at all. Teachers who are constructivist in nature will use technology to remain constructivist; the stage sages will add pictures to their lectures (which not be a bad thing either). As one who makes his beer money giving lectures, I am not as down on the method as others might be.
I have absolutely no stock in or relatives working for any IWB companies. I don't think my job is dependent on the successful use of these devices. I tend to own up to failures.- the professional ones anyway.
But you know, I am still glad we are doing this project. I believe in what my classroom teachers are telling me - this equipment helps them do their jobs better. (I hear comments like those that Jennifer and Jay left a lot.) The number of teachers applying for SmartClassrooms is high this year. Principals are jockeying for more than their share of installations in their buildings. The buzz from the kids is that they like'm.
Are we seeing the technology glass as half full, half empty or too big?
Reader Comments (9)
From my experience in working with many schools across the US, IWBs aren't being used well, and in many cases, not used at all. And yes, as you pointed out, that could be said of most educational technology. I also hear IT directors looking for "things to do with the IWBs" -- the hidden meaning is "to justify the money we already spent."
The next thing that happens is vendors rush in with "solutions." I'm sure you see them all the time, most are recycled drill and practice software, but now that it works on an IWB.... whoopee! Hardly the exciting uses people envision when the IWB is proposed.
So I think any backlash about IWBs becoming the must have, be all and end all of technology integration is from people who've been around this block before. How many districts are spending tons of money on IWBs and declaring technology "done!" I smell millions of dollars wasted and it's depressing.
It seems like an opportunty lost to spend scare money on something that is only an incremental change at best.
I don't use the IWB much because generally my kids are working in groups or alone with their laptops and I am with them trying to figure things out. I think IWB's can easily help those teachers who like to be the sage on the stage be the 21st century sage on the stage.
I think the best way to implement IWB's to empower students is to put them in elementary schools. There, teachers seem to be much more open to letting kids be in charge of technologies. Until we train our teachers on the pedagogy of student-centered learning, any tech (IWB or otherwise) will just be used to reinforce traditional teaching styles.
As always, your words make great sense. I am surprised that there is such a fuss about IWBs. They seem to be such and innocuous and relatively inexpensive device. Certainly not as costly as 1-1 initiatives and such. I don't get the sense from anyone that once IWB are in place, technology is "done." Just seems like a nice extra in most cases.
Jay, your voice represents what I hear from most teachers. Thank you.
Arvid, my question for you is, "Must technology toss out traditional teaching methods or should we be happy when it improves them?" To me, adding sound and images and other multisensory information to a lecture increases its impact on today's students. Is this a bad thing?
All the very best,
Doug
I really appreciate the notes and comments you've received. I wrote about this on my blog this morning, but wanted to comment to you. I"m always afraid that administrators and teachers see technology, or any teaching, and learn the wrong lesson. Someone does a great job teaching with pine cones and we buy pine cones for everyone! It's the teaching,not the props. I see administrators that are almost strangers in their own buildings, making decisions based on observations that have no context in our school reality. I have a IWB in my library, use it all the time. Sometimes it's a glorified overhead, sometimes a drive-in theatre, sometimes an interactive desktop for students. It's filthy from having little hands all over it. But's it comes down to how I use it with the kids, not if I use it, if you want to measure student learning. Thanks for your work.
----------------
Technology shouldn't toss out traditional teaching methods, but evolution probably will. A thousand years of traditional teaching, there's gotta be something better out there, right? Well, let's hope.
Lots of motivation for folks to use technology is because it can "engage students." I'm more interested in tech implementations that are tied to learning objectives. While I value the engagement piece, I feel like that still leaves the objectives question unanswered. I must say though, I personally find multimedia-enriched lectures incredibly powerful. The most recent being Will Wright's keynote at South by Southwest. Perhaps I shouldn't give up on my SmartBoard just yet. My writeup here:
http://www.21apples.org/articles/2007/03/13/sxswi-will-wright-keynote-speech
Yeah, I get worried we see too much of the "one right way" mentality. Seems like there are lots of right ways for lots of different kinds of learners.
Send me your blog URL!
Arvind, glad to hear you will give the tech another go!
All the very best,
Doug
Think about the tremendous power that comes with computing devices hooked to high speed networks. Many of our students are using them to communicate and create every day outside of school, not always intelligently.
That power offers all kinds of opportunities to expand the classroom and give students more control over their own learning.
Part of my frustration with the use of technology in the classroom I've observed (not just IWB) is that we are wasting this potential by simply grafting computers onto the traditional classroom.