Thinking about technology "dis-implementation"

Our district, along with many others, is asking whether we continue to view interactive whiteboards (IWBs) as a standard piece of classroom technology.

These expensive slabs of metal, plastic, and wire were not long ago the sign of a "high tech" classroom, a device that allows the teacher (or student) to write, draw, and provide input directly on to the projected image on the screen itself. Smart and Promethean were (are) two of the popular brands of IWBs here in Minnesota.

Yet as schools add new classrooms and as the older boards in current classrooms need replacing, serious questions about their continued use arise:

• Have the devices been used as intended? Never implemented with fidelity in many situations due to a lack of PD and no changee in teaching style, too many IWB have been little more than projection screens in some classrooms. And remain so. A fact of which I am reminded quite often, especially when promoting any new classroom technology.
• Do the devices have educational benefit? Little or mixed results of educational benefit of IWBs (like all instructional technologies, it seems) have led to questions whether education dollars might be better spend on more effective resources.
• Do the devices encourage a "front of the room" focus and discourage individualized instruction? Perhaps one of the most damning criticisms is that IWBs encourage the one-to-many teaching model, discouraging individualization, small group work, and collaboration.
• Is the changed pricing plan affordable? SMART as couple years ago announced that it would begin charging an annual use fee for its software. This came as a rude (and I would argue unethical) shock for many institutions that had purchased the hardware with the promise the software came free.
• Can the functionality be duplicated/improved by using screen mirroring software on an iPad or other tablet? The basic functionality of being freed from sitting behind a computer to change/manipulate projected images, can be duplicated by using software like Reflector or AirPlay to mirror iPad screens. Added advantages are that teachers are no longer tethered to the board itself and that any student can project from his/her device.
• In 1:1 classrooms, is a classroom viewable image even needed? Software that allows the teacher to "push" her desktop image onto student devices allows a common viewing experience without the need for projector, screen, giant monitor, etc.

If we do decide to "dis-implement" IWBs in our district, a real possibility especially at the secondary level, how can we do it purposely? A major disincentive to retiring this technology is that many of our teachers have created units, lessons, activities using the "smart" software that came with the boards.

Should we now create a "dis-implementation" strategy for educational technology? And what other technologies may we also begin to phase out? Desktop computers? Local file storage servers? Flashdrives? Computer-based software? Mounted projectors? Dedicated student response systems? Full-blown operating systems like Windows and MacOS? Scantrons? Fax machines? Printers?

Hmmmmm...

Comments

[Ron Smallwood]

All educational technology is a waste of time and money because it doesn't significantly improve learning. All educational technology, used in a thoughtful pedagogical plan, will have better results than not using that technology. I can prove both those statements.

The problem is trying to fit a technology into all pedagogical plans. There is no one size fits all technology. Instead of fitting all classrooms with IWB or big document cameras, I encourage programs & instructors to choose smaller, portable IWB systems and document cameras so when the pedagogy calls for them; they are available and not wasting space & money when they are not needed.

Instructors need to be trained first in what their technology options are, then the pedagogical application of the technology options, and only then how to use the technologies. Of course the administration needs to run through the first part of the training even before the instructors. One big role that my institution's library plays in all this is that when we are thinking about a new technology, they acquire the technology so it can be loaned out to instructors for evaluation and feedback. This generates great pedagogical applications as well as implementation and training plans.

[Kenn Gorman]

Either "training, training, training" or let teachers use what they want. I work across the hall from an excellent English teacher, and she only uses the "smartboard" to show pictures or videos. She is actually teaching without much technology (am I allowed to say that?!)

[Ron Smallwood]

I say let the teachers use what is best for their students. That will normally be what they want to use if it is based an informed choice.

[Hey Ron]

You got any stats to back up your claim there bud?

[MGD]

While I agree that teachers should have some choice in what technologies to implement in their classrooms, reason also needs to prevail. Reason often comes down to dollars and sense.

I have been asking colleagues around this state (UT), who enthusiastically embraced IWBs, to explain to me how they (IWBs) enhance or promote student learning (a question that should be asked of any technology). I put it to them this way, "What is the compelling pedagogical or instructional argument for an IWB? What learning gains can be ascribed to these devices which could not be achieved by other means, for a similar (or lower) price, in a similar amount of time? What makes the IWB uniquely useful in a classroom."

The answers I get are always the same: "I just love my whiteboard." "My kids just love the whiteboard." "It is so fun for the kids to use."

While finding a classroom device fun or enjoyable is not a bad thing, it is not an argument that justifies the cost.
As the author notes above, IWBs are a one-on-many or two or three-on-many device.They can be used by (very) small groups, but only one or two students can be actively using the device at a time. Unlike tablets or laptops, they must have a fixed location in a classroom. They nearly all require a projector, which usually requires a reduction in ambient lighting--to the detriment of other small groups in the classroom.

When someone satisfactorily answers the question, "what is the uniquely compelling instructional justification for whiteboards?", I will start implementing them. Until that time, I will turn down requests to buy them.