Joel Zehring

What a great discussion. I’ve blogged before about
the interactive whiteboard conundrum, and this recording captures so many of the key issues around IWBs, both pro and con.

Adopting any tool involves costs and benefits. Interactive whiteboards from the major companies (Promethean, SMART, Mimeo) are monetarily expensive. Additionally, there is a time investment required to master the hardware and especially the software. These costs by themselves are not unique to IWBs. Any technology carries these costs. But with IWBs, the cost are significantly steeper than with some other technologies (Wiimote Whiteboard or something completely different like Scratch).

Most of the benefit of an IWB seems to be wrapped up in “student engagement.” The ability to touch a projected screen with a special pen or a finger and manipulate graphical elements on the screen does carries with it a unique novelty. To adapt Maria Knee in the recording, I’m not sure this novelty is actually enhancing the process of building understanding. It might look like students are engaged, but they might be engaged with any number of hands on activities. In many cases, engaging students is easier than it looks. What happens when the novelty of the input device wears off? Student engagement will again depend on a highly qualified teacher planning engaging activities, with or without an IWB.

The proprietary software bundled with the hardware is another benefit. It’s difficult to find quality, integrated software for screen annotation, capture, and recording. Difficult, but not impossible. The major sellers haven’t created anything especially groundbreaking, they’ve just put a decent interface on some fairly typical applications. In many cases, these convoluted interfaces still don’t make annotation or screen recording any easier for teachers new to these applications.

I think there may be some hidden costs associated with IWBs. Have you ever felt guilty for not using that expensive new iPod every minute of the day? I’ve paid so much for some of my “toys,” that in order to “get my money’s worth,” I feel the need to use them all the time, even at the wrong times or at times when another analog tool might be better suited. Also, IWBs in the classroom may encourage a shift toward teacher-centered instruction as the teacher figures out how to manipulate the tool and implement it. How many teachers (myself included) tend to slide into play mode when planning lessons with flash tech tools?

And now, some specific responses to selected comments in the recording:

• Lisa Thumann commented on the importance of training and development for teachers with computer tools. This point can’t be emphasized enough.
• Lisa Thumann posed the problem of group engagement with a PC. Students at a computer get off task because only one student can work at a PC at a time. While this is an important class management issue, I don’t believe the best answer is a multi-thousand dollar piece of hardware. A teacher needs to find a better model for engaging students in groups, or adjust the groups.
• Ben Hazzard mentioned digital cameras as valid tech implementation for engaging students. Finding the “killer app” for a teacher is a very individual process, but it’s critical. If an IWB with screen annotation and capture is the killer app for some teachers, I agree that they should use that tool, but only if the rewards balance out the costs.