Follow-up on IWB entry
Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 08:41AM Wes Fryer, being the great guy he is, wrote a long, thoughtful reply to my snip at him for one of his recent posts on IWBs. I hate it when I get 
"out-niced" and Wes gave me a better reply than I deserved. Humbled.
Jim, the teacherninja, asked a good question:
What about your district, Doug? Are there IWBs in every class or just a number in each school or what?
We now have installed about 200 or so IWBs (Smartboards) along with mounted LCD projectors in our 7200 student district. This is the third year of a seven year plan to so equip all classrooms and teaching areas in our schools.
I've written about (and defended) this project a few times in the Blue Skunk. IWBs seem to draw a good deal of criticism from constructivism fundamentalists like Gary Stager (who I also recognize as a true child advocate).
These are among the observations I've made about SmartBoards. Oh, be sure to read the comments - they are often more informative than the posts themselves. And notice how most of the writers who like IWBs are actual teachers; those who don't like them are pundits.
- Why IWBs? Survey results
- How to get an IWB in our district
- The technology glass
- Why I love tech-using kids
- (If anyone is interested in a more generic description of my school district and its technology use, it can be found here: What would Karl see?.
While it can seem frustrating, not having the funds to do all-at-once, top-down technology projects is a good thing. Most technologies we roll out over a number of years. Because of this the early adapters and enthusiasts get them first, suffer the problems of being on the bleeding-edge, and truly create a teacher-led, teacher-changed school culture. (You are now odder if you don't use an IWB in most schools in our district than if you do.)
And as with all technology implementations, we do our best with staff training given the resources at our disposal. Each teacher who gets a SmartBoard is required to participate in eight hours of direct instruction on its use, has the benefit of a shared pool of resources for SmartBoard, and the services of an excellent in-house trainer (a media specialist who has 20% of her time dedicated to the IWB project.)
OK, let the arrows fly - again.
Reader Comments (9)
I like IWBs as a tool in the toolbox, but not as much as some teachers. My main issue: cost. It's a killer tool for a few teachers who can really leverage the interactivity to engage students, but for many, it's a glorified powerpoint clicker.
Now, if we can reduce costs, then we might be on to something.
And I know, the software really sells the hardware, but the wiimote whiteboard isn't undeveloped.
Hi Joel,
I've seen the IWB created with the Wii controller but I had not seen the link to open source software before. Thanks for that link.
My personal experience with open-source software and McGiver-type technology constructs is that they are excellent for those who are really geeky and enjoy messing with these sorts of projects. One of our teachers, for example, created what he calls his "Grover" an Elmo-like document camera created from PVC tubing and an old video camera.
But for large installations that are used by teachers of varying abilities, the ongoing cost of support and maintenance tends to be greater than initial purchase price. It's good to look at the TCO of any tech use - including any specialist that need to be hire to keep it running.
If the IWB is a powerpoint clicker for you, then you are quite right not have one. No one tool fits every teaching or learning style.
All the very best,
Doug
Glad to see you tackling this subject.
My observations - IWBs are appearing in many classrooms without consideration for subject or teacher interest. It is time to evaluate their effectiveness and ROI - yes, there is the WOW factor. But is learning enhanced through the use of this expensive tool? Are there alternatives? (I would argue that every class needs a digital projector or document camera for whole class instruction sessions and then customize the additional hardware solutions depending upon the content area and how it is best presented ).
There are too many IWBs collecting dust, being used as glorified whiteboards or as expensive overheads. No wonder teachers love them - when they are used as overheads that don't need to convert their sheets which always takes time. The arbitrary funding of IWBs as THE 21st century tool prevents schools from considering pilot studies for more appropriate tools that benefit all learners. Or from considering alternative solutions that truly engage kids beyond the Wow factor which they get over very quickly. IWBs maintain the status quo - teacher-centered classrooms, and traditional instructional methods, UNLESS they are used by a skilled educator.
And don't get me started on those "all in ones" which combine computer & projector - when one breaks, you're helpless, and then where's the ROI? Down the proverbial toilet.
(Love the toilet paper poster, BTW!)
Hi Karen,
You list some excellent concerns about IWBs with which I agree.
My only question might be: To what technology application do these concerns NOT apply?
I've always said the same hammer that builds cathedrals can break windows just as easily! The hammer is neutral; the hand that controls it is not.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment,
Doug
Doug,
You said, "My only question might be: To what technology application do these concerns NOT apply? "
The other technology applications are much less expensive or even free.
No matter what is being used, must be based upon good teaching. And we all know good teaching when we see it because we see engaged kids interacting with the content and each other or with others from around the country/world.
I know we agree; just pointing out the cost factor which should be considered in this discussion as well.
Hi Karen,
Yup. I have a finite budget as well and cost always plays a part in tech adoption.
I personally saw the SmartBoard as a relatively inexpensive investment. The need for an LCD projector and amplification system, I think, is a given in today's classroom if any web content, streaming media, visually descriptive PPTS etc. is to be shared with a class. So the cost is with the SmartBoard itself.
We pay $1200 per SmartBoard. This is about $10 per student (based on 24 students in a class over 5 years) one time expense. Our district considered this a reasonable investment.
Anyway, you are certainly correct that expenses need to be factored into tech decisions.
All the best,
Doug
Most of our high school's academic classrooms are now equipped with projection systems and interactive whiteboards, courtesy of Pennsylvania's "Classrooms for the Future" program and an EETT grant. This equipment has truly changed the way our teachers do business. Our 7th grade science teacher, a veteran of 34 or so years, was so excited after his training session that he couldn't stop talking about his Smartboard! He is our greatest iwb advocate and says he may have to delay his retirement so he can use his board longer!
Completely biased opinion: four eeePC laptops would enhance learning and instruction way more than an interactive whiteboard. That's about what I could get for $1200, and I would engage four students in content creation, instead of one student engaged at a time in direct instruction or guided practice. Laptops might provide a greater opportunity for independent practice and project-based learning.
It's all about educational bang for the buck.
Now, maybe I'm off base because I haven't seen the right examples of PBL with IWBs. Any links or suggestions?
Hi Joel,
Of course I NEVER show bias ;-0 Hey, that's what make these blogs fun.
I certainly respect your view here. I would only suggest the question shouldn't be "IWBs OR laptops" but "IWBs AND laptops - which first?"
I wish I had some examples right on hand, but it is only the level of engagement is see in the classroom when they are used.
All the best and thanks for the comment,
Doug