Comments on: Why IWB’s Struggle For Credibility http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/ Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:04:13 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Doug Johnson http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3328 Doug Johnson Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:29:47 +0000 http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/#comment-3328 Graham, You might find the new report by the Metiri Group, commissioned by Cisco, to be interesting: http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/TechnologyinSchoolsReport.pdf It say there is no research available on the effectiveness of IWBs. Would you blog sometime about how you are planning to evaluate your IWB project? We've installed a bunch, and other than surveying teachers, don't have a way to assess the impact. Thanks, Doug Graham,

You might find the new report by the Metiri Group, commissioned by Cisco, to be interesting:

http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/TechnologyinSchoolsReport.pdf

It say there is no research available on the effectiveness of IWBs.

Would you blog sometime about how you are planning to evaluate your IWB project? We’ve installed a bunch, and other than surveying teachers, don’t have a way to assess the impact.

Thanks,

Doug

]]> By: greg carroll http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3326 greg carroll Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:41:33 +0000 http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/#comment-3326 http://www.edtechvoi.org/methodology/ thought of you .... lol .... cheers Greg http://www.edtechvoi.org/methodology/
thought of you …. lol ….
cheers
Greg

]]> By: greg carroll http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3314 greg carroll Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:38:46 +0000 http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/#comment-3314 Hi again Graham .... I think it is the 'bang-for-buck' issue that is the stumbling block. Two mac laptops? Up to 4 pc laptops? 16-20+days Teacher release? .... or ONE IWB (fixed to the wall in ONE classroom). What is going to make the most difference for the most kids? What solution gives the most flexability and will impact on the learning of the most children? The answer/s very much depend on what is 'done' with each, or any, of these technologies or options. This is what poses the challenge for me as a principal.... Hi again Graham …. I think it is the ‘bang-for-buck’ issue that is the stumbling block. Two mac laptops? Up to 4 pc laptops? 16-20+days Teacher release? …. or ONE IWB (fixed to the wall in ONE classroom).
What is going to make the most difference for the most kids? What solution gives the most flexability and will impact on the learning of the most children? The answer/s very much depend on what is ‘done’ with each, or any, of these technologies or options. This is what poses the challenge for me as a principal….

]]> By: Artichoke http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3309 Artichoke Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:13:53 +0000 http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/#comment-3309 Ahh Graham, you return to it so often because you think about what you do - which is a considerable and sometimes unusual strength in our profession - and to understand the complexity of an idea - you must pursue it, undermine it, shake it like a fox terrier and see what falls out - The teachers I work with in NZ LOVE teaching with their IWB - one was heard reflecting last term that she would only consider moving schools if she went to a classroom with IWB - she doesn't want to ever teach without one - and they describe the same "something" that happens when kids work collaboratively with the board. So there is something happening. I like the idea of presentation technologies in schools and bringing the resources of the net up for all in the room - what I am trying to figure out is "just what is the unique advantage of the IWB that makes it worth the extra investment of funds?" Ahh Graham, you return to it so often because you think about what you do – which is a considerable and sometimes unusual strength in our profession – and to understand the complexity of an idea – you must pursue it, undermine it, shake it like a fox terrier and see what falls out –

The teachers I work with in NZ LOVE teaching with their IWB – one was heard reflecting last term that she would only consider moving schools if she went to a classroom with IWB – she doesn’t want to ever teach without one – and they describe the same “something” that happens when kids work collaboratively with the board. So there is something happening.

I like the idea of presentation technologies in schools and bringing the resources of the net up for all in the room – what I am trying to figure out is “just what is the unique advantage of the IWB that makes it worth the extra investment of funds?”

]]> By: Graham Wegner http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3308 Graham Wegner Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:26:52 +0000 http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/#comment-3308 Arti, I don't know why I keep returning to a topic that continues to torture me so. It must have something to do with the fact that as my own school has invested a lot of time and effort into interactive whiteboards and I'm one of the people leading out in this program that I keep wanting to hash over its possible role in our schools. Yes, the points you raise are valid but it's something that I've failed to encapsulate and describe that sets the IWB concept apart especially in the junior primary classroom. The issue of vertical surface writing isn't a problem with our particular brand of board and is actually an advantageous way to teach formative handwriting for young students (with a son who has had heaps of OT, I know that this is true) and when a group of young kids cluster around an IWB to work on a task or activity (ie. a brainstorm) it enables something that is difficult to replicate around a PC or a datashow. I too worry that IWB's encourage a teacher centric approach - but I would counter that is a teacher issue as much as it is a technology issue. By the way, I still have to contact the NZ teacher you suggested to me re: her IWB experience. Maybe she's as confused as me! Arti, I don’t know why I keep returning to a topic that continues to torture me so. It must have something to do with the fact that as my own school has invested a lot of time and effort into interactive whiteboards and I’m one of the people leading out in this program that I keep wanting to hash over its possible role in our schools. Yes, the points you raise are valid but it’s something that I’ve failed to encapsulate and describe that sets the IWB concept apart especially in the junior primary classroom. The issue of vertical surface writing isn’t a problem with our particular brand of board and is actually an advantageous way to teach formative handwriting for young students (with a son who has had heaps of OT, I know that this is true) and when a group of young kids cluster around an IWB to work on a task or activity (ie. a brainstorm) it enables something that is difficult to replicate around a PC or a datashow. I too worry that IWB’s encourage a teacher centric approach – but I would counter that is a teacher issue as much as it is a technology issue. By the way, I still have to contact the NZ teacher you suggested to me re: her IWB experience. Maybe she’s as confused as me!

]]> By: Artichoke http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-3307 Artichoke Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:59:48 +0000 http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/10/04/why-iwbs-struggle-for-credibility/#comment-3307 I think Graham it has more to do with the difficulty in seeing IWB as offering anything significantly different from other presentation technologies (data projector graphics tablet etc)yet costing heaps more - like what are the specific or unique advantages of the interactivity of using an IWB that make it worth all the extra dosh and follow up pd? There are so many ways to spend a schools ICT budget Then there are some unique disadvantages - for example writing on a vertical surface without leaning on the board is tricky for kids (and teachers)/ poorly set up screens have continual centering issues which is frustrating for teachers - some teachers note that the large screen immobilises kids and leads to enslavement (return to screen as sage on the stage stuff ) / and then more general issues of making ICT more prominent in the classroom - of increasing student access to ICT - goal attainment (distracted by irelevant information) spatial disorientation/cognitive overload I think Graham it has more to do with the difficulty in seeing IWB as offering anything significantly different from other presentation technologies (data projector graphics tablet etc)yet costing heaps more – like what are the specific or unique advantages of the interactivity of using an IWB that make it worth all the extra dosh and follow up pd? There are so many ways to spend a schools ICT budget

Then there are some unique disadvantages – for example writing on a vertical surface without leaning on the board is tricky for kids (and teachers)/ poorly set up screens have continual centering issues which is frustrating for teachers – some teachers note that the large screen immobilises kids and leads to enslavement (return to screen as sage on the stage stuff ) / and then more general issues of making ICT more prominent in the classroom – of increasing student access to ICT – goal attainment (distracted by irelevant information) spatial disorientation/cognitive overload

]]>