[Beyond] RE: [Secondary] Re: [Advisory] IWBs - An Australian perspective

[Ian]

On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 00:27 +0000, Graham Hastings wrote:
> Dear All 

> I have been following this thread with interest.  It is an extremely
> important one because it raises vital questions about a technology
> that has the power to transform teaching for better or for worse in
> almost every school in the developed world. 

Not a technology but several technologies. Really there is no great
quibble about bringing the vast and rich source of information that is
available on the internet into whole class teaching, or the ability to
use and demonstrate specific applications. The IWB itself is just an
Input/Output device and display screen. The data projector is what
brings the image to whole class size and the software and computers is
what provides overlay and annotation and other facilities - and also
causes all the problems of incompatibility between different
manufacturers. 

>  The children like to see clear diagrams, moving images, listen to
> sounds.  

All that is down to the display technologies, software and maybe 20 quid
for some decent powered speakers.

> They like to play games and interact with the software via the
> boards. 

That aspect is the board itself but could be achieved with any touch
screen from a smartphone to a tablet PC. Its not exclusive to IWBs but
the IWB format can be the best way to deliver interactivity particularly
for younger children.

>  The interactive element is used less by teachers of the older
> children and I have to admit that the boards are used more as a
> presentation tool. 

In that case we could have saved a lot of money! What is the opportunity
cost? What training/support could have been bought in instead? Other
books and equipment could have been bought? Could more classrooms have
had data projectors?

>  We could have installed projectors but presentations are much more
> watchable when the interface with the computer is an IWB.

I can't really understand why. Surely if the presenter used say a tablet
PC, it would be better because they would not be casting a shadow over
the image every time they went to touch the board?

> Having been against the introduction of IWBs (I was yet to be
> convinced of their value) I managed to hold out until about three
> years ago when we finally bit the bullet and got the first few to
> evaluate. After a year we decided that they did have something to
> offer and equipped half the teaching rooms in the school.  We had
> substantial technical problems when the boards were first installed –
> a number of teachers became very disenchanted with the technology and
> very nearly gave up using them altogether.  Others, through
> insufficient training, failed to make very good use of their boards.
> We reached a tipping point and might just as easily have found
> ourselves on either side of this argument.  

I imported the first Hitaci IWBs into the UK back around 1998/9. I have
trained on and used every type of board since and while I agree they do
have utility, I think the hype is overdone and leads to a lack of
considered evaluation of their cost-benefit. The argument polarises into
"they are brilliant" or "they are useless" when the reality is they are
brilliant in some circumstances and useless in many others. The real
issue is what can we learn in order to get better value learning from
technology in the future. 
 
> I think this is what is really going on - In many schools the boards
> were bolted to the walls and the teachers were told to get on and use
> them (more characteristic of a secondary school approach?).  This is
> inviting failure.  Schools who have adopted the same approach as us
> are now beginning to report improvements in the quality of teaching
> and learning as a result of their introduction.  I admit it took us
> time.  For the first year we may even have gone backwards.  My very
> rough rule of thumb is that it takes teachers, particularly those who
> are not confident with computers (and there are still many of these),
> three years of sensitive hand holding (more characteristic of a
> primary school approach?) before they will claim that they can teach
> more effectively with the IWB than they used to without it.
> 
The majority of people are slower to change than technologies. The same
problems confront us with e-portfolios, using learning platforms etc. A
credible e-strategy needs ways of getting people to change the way they
work. Buying technologies and designing procurement frameworks is the
easy part. 

> We are stuck with the technology – it is up to us to make it work.

>From a NAACE perspective, I hope we are prepared to formulate policy on
what we learn from these things. If nothing else we should be beginning
to realise that chucking technologies at schools without adequate
training or other incentives to take it up is a vastly inefficient way
of running a national education service.


-- 
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
A new approach to assessment for learning
www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.