Perhaps one of the most effective ICTs in education at the moment is the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB). I believe this is true mainly because ‘it can be used for all levels of education’ (Howell, 2012) as each student is an individual and therefore will relate and respond differently to different teaching styles. J. Gage supports this view in saying ‘An IWB helps teachers to use a wide variety of different teaching styles, benefiting all types of learners’ (Gage, 2006). There is a great debate on IWBs’ appropriateness in the classroom and this post will reflect how I agree with both sides of the argument.
Peter Kent’s extensive work on the subject of IWBs in education, provides an overall vision and assistance in incorporating them into the teaching environment. Kent states; ‘It is easier to promote higher levels of intellectual quality if you are using an interactive whiteboard’ (Kent, 2010). To support this view, Kent proposes that the use of ambiguity and randomness in an IWB lesson allows the topic to capture students’ attention and engagement with the access to information that an ordinary whiteboard simply couldn’t achieve. Without intellectual quality in the classroom, students have no choice but to ‘memorise the content so it can be recalled exactly the way it was read or heard” (Kent, 2010), which for some students, proves not to be effective.
This could be overwhelming as “A tool that works for one teacher may not work for another" (Anonymous, 2011). It is my view that an IWB can be shaped and suited to any lesson regardless of the teacher’s knowledge and confidence with technology. Of course teachers are required to, when necessary, overcome the pedagogical issues ICTs possess; if they have the persistence and patience which in my opinion every good teacher should, then the learning should flow without too much trouble. If a teacher is new to creating flip charts, there are some excellent online games in similar form as that of an IWB, like the one below.
Online Game- Music: Composers Quiz (Jones, 2013)
These games may assist in giving teachers ideas and inspiration in making their own. Online games also suit most types of learning as they can be found in many forms and by being visually appealing so everyone can see and contribute to discussions. They encourage students to develop creativity, drawing on their own knowledge in order to achieve the goal of the activity through working in groups or individually and most importantly interacting and engaging with people and content, improving their critical thinking in the process. Because students grow up surrounded by games and puzzles, they will respond well when using them in the classroom.
The beauty of an IWB is the fact that their benefits are much greater than the traditional whiteboard. For example, a traditional whiteboard is ‘not vey interactive’ (Kent, 2010) and once something is written and erased, there is no way of coming back to it without having to rewrite the information again. In this way it is not possible to save your work and so continuing on from a lesson in the past is very difficult and often not revisited later. Being able to save your lessons, and even take the next step in ‘repurposing’ (Kent, 2010) IWBs not only means that there is less strain on the teacher but it is less time consuming.
Teachers can now look over their lesson plans and flipcharts and alter their content to suit a higher level of knowledge, accommodate a class’ specific needs or even assist in teaching a completely different teaching area-for example a history lesson can be converted into an English one with only a few clicks and a quick change of information. As said by Alan November “I have experienced the joys of using interactive whiteboards and clickers to create a highly successful constructivist learning environment while promoting increased social interaction. Imagination is the key to the creative use of almost any tool" (Anonymous, 2011)
(SMART Technologies, 2013) Accessed From: http://www.oecd.org/education/country-studies/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/interactivewhiteboardforprimaryclassrooms.htm
Kent gives a general overview of the possibilities of IWBs by breaking their uses down into four main groups: Labelling, Sorting, Ordering or Sequencing, and Puzzle or Game Simulation. Each kind of activity is unique and has its own strengths. They all encourage participation, cooperation and involvement of students as they approach the board and ‘using a pen, finger, stylus or other device’ (Howell, 2012) to solve, complete and ultimately interact with what’s shown on the IWB.
My Thoughts
I believe IWBs are wonderful devices for teaching, however only when used correctly by sparking discussions, further thinking and allowing more communication between both students and teacher in order to promote creativity and ‘intellectual quality’ through ‘multiple interpretations’ (Kent, 2010) and multiple users-Not having a set limit to answers or only one correct way to perform something. Also IWBs should be used to support the lesson and MUST NOT teach it. When I look back on my high school years, what stands out most in my learning was not the technology we used but the dedication of my teachers that made my learning experience so memorable. As Jim Klein says ‘You don't walk into their classrooms and say "Wow, that's a really amazing whiteboard." You say "Wow, that's a really amazing teacher"’ (Anonymous, 2011).
I worry that teachers may get too carried away in the whole ‘technology revolution’ and only focus on the fun of the lesson, not the importance of information. 'Students still need their work to be monitored and structured, and there still needs to be a clear focus on the subject content' (Gage, 2006).
Teachers, in my opinion, should not be intimidated and scared to use IWBs. From working on the assignment we completed earlier this semester, I learnt it’s really not as difficult as one would first think to produce a tool for teaching that not only benefits students’ learning but the teacher too. No matter what teaching areas are needed to cover, there’s something for everyone. ‘It’s potential is only limited by your confidence’ (Howell, 2012). I agree. So go out, experiment and have fun!
References
Anonymous. (2011). IWBs: THE GREAT DEBATE. San Bruno: New Bay Media LLC. 1-14
Gage, J. (2006). How To Use An Interactive Whiteboard Really Effectively In Your Secondary Classroom. London: David Fulton. 17-30
Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies For Collaboration And Creativity . South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 96-98
Inc, S. T. (n.d.). Centre For Effective Learning Environments (CELE): Interactive Whiteboard For Primary Classrooms. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from OECD: www.oecd.org/education/country-studies/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/interactivewhiteboardforprimaryclassroom
Jones, D. L. (n.d.). Music: Composers Quiz. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from eChalk: Teaching Resources For Interactive Whiteboards And Data Projectors: www.echalk.co.uk/music/composers/quiz1/composersQuiz.html
Kent, P. (2010). Secondary Teaching WIth Interactive Whiteboards. South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia. 13-40
OUPELTGlobal. (2010, July 15th). An Introduction To Interactive Whiteboards. Retrieved May 23rd, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlHg3F3C56l
No comments:
Post a Comment