Stager on IWB’s
Posted by: admin in Learning and Teaching, Pedagogy, School Vision, hardware, opinion, professional learning” Is it not possible that certain technologies undermine best practices?
Are we so technocentric that we believe that every technology is equivalent and dependent on either a) “PD” or b) teacher effort?
I’m sure there are teachers who could do creative things with a chainsaw. Why not buy every teacher a chainsaw?
What if the technology is just bad or unnecessary? Is that a possibility?”
ouch! …. a very good point though!!
(source – comment 13 …. and a good discussion to follow in full)
and from Sylvia Martinez:
…, I see very little evidence that they [IWB's] are being used well in MOST classrooms. I just don’t think that the handful of teachers using them in “engaging” ways would justify the millions that have been spent on them. Most of the schools I work with are busy “looking for things to do with whiteboards”. Really, I wish I didn’t hear that phrase time and time again. In reality, People are looking for ways to justify the money they spent.
I think we have to acknowledge that although IWBs MIGHT be used well, they aren’t. The next question is whether “good” PD can fix this.
To answer that, I think you have to question the primary model and design intent of any technology, because that’s how it will mostly be used. Just because a few excellent teachers make something more out of it doesn’t justify it. The primary model and design intent of IWBs reinforces instructionist teaching practice. That they are being primarily used this way should surprise no one.
In my opinion, no amount of PD will fix this. And in fact, it’s likely that millions more dollars will be poured into PD to try to get teachers to use IWBs, and the result will by and large be in an instructionist, front of the classroom mode. I don’t think PD about IWBs, classroom embedded or not, will be able to overcome the basic nature of IWBs – that their primary function is to allow a teacher to control a presentation in the front of the classroom.
So, to me, the news that PD isn’t overcoming this basic nature of the IWB should surprise no one either.
Backs up my thinking as well. I am yet to see any classroom with an IWB where the pedagogical model was anything other than “full frontal”!
Entries (RSS)
[...] , with the reflective practice of Marnie , with the oh so helpful links and tips of NZChrissy , or Greg with his links to thought provoking/ amusing/ novel YOUTUBE happenings… to name but a few? Its [...]
Greg, I’ve been a bit slack of late and am only checking in on some of your more recent writings. You could’ve predicted that a post on IWB’s would get me in!! I just want to say thanks for pointing me towards that post – the comments were pure gold and give so much food for thought. Like you, I could pull out many quotable quotes and I’d be inclined to highlight the ones that challenge rather than support my thinking. I always get a bit intimidated when people like Gary Stager add their piece because I get the impression that he has a very definite view of what constructivism is in the classroom and deep down, I’m not so sure that my own hybrid methodologies would measure up. I wish I had his conviction but I’ll have to be content with being a learner – if all teachers had to measure up to some of the lofty ideals (and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have ideals) then we wouldn’t have much of a teaching force anywhere in the world.
I think I need to brood on that post and the comments for a while and see what it all means for me and my school situation.
[...] – Stager on IWB’s saved by elve292008-09-02 – IWB A Quantum Leap In Concealability saved by sxephil2008-08-30 – IWB [...]
Interesting points Greg……but its kind of funny how so many teachers say things like “I know that this thing is a powerful beast – If only I knew the best way to use it.”
My experience with the IWB is that it is most powerful when it is used in student centered ways – and most often it is not. One of the problems is that the IWB learning journey that most teachers take leads them through the teacher centered (instructionalist) modes of use first, then on to the student centerd levels later.
Typically teacher learning with the IWB takes the following stages:
1 Use it as a chalkboard
2 Use it to show a prepared data show
3 Include (teacher orientaded) interactive elements
Then to the more student focussed
4 Students interact with the board
5 The board facilitates interaction between the students.
One of the big problems is that many teachers get marooned somewhere about level 3 – for whatever reason perhaps:
because it involves stepping outside of a comfort zone,
because they havn’t seen enough goon student-centric lessons,
or because the school has purchased the $6000 IWB but is not prepared to part with a couple of hundred for some decent software.
If the IWB is to be used well then then its got to be interactive for all – not just for the teacher at the board!
I have found learning games to be an excellent way to involve students in the action of the IWB and have recently launched a website making such games available.
http://www.myinteractiveclassroom.com.au/
The games presented are easilly adaptable across the curriculum – you dont need PL – you just need to be willing to have a go.
Cheers
John Short