<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IWB, Mirroring Pedagogy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:39:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quentin D'Souza</title>
		<link>http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-8042</link>
		<dc:creator>Quentin D'Souza</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/#comment-8042</guid>
		<description>Hi Graham,

I recent;y heard the statement &quot;Return on Technology Investment in Education&quot; at a meeting that I had attended.  The big question that everyone has about any investment in Technology is how it will improve the quality of education that our students receive.  By being able to concentrate our funds and PD around specific technologies - whether they are IWB, Blogs, Wikis or Videoconferencing - we can hopefully improve our students quality of education.  The problem is figuring out how to identify improvements in quality and the return.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Graham,</p>
<p>I recent;y heard the statement &#8220;Return on Technology Investment in Education&#8221; at a meeting that I had attended.  The big question that everyone has about any investment in Technology is how it will improve the quality of education that our students receive.  By being able to concentrate our funds and PD around specific technologies &#8211; whether they are IWB, Blogs, Wikis or Videoconferencing &#8211; we can hopefully improve our students quality of education.  The problem is figuring out how to identify improvements in quality and the return.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim Pericles</title>
		<link>http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-7982</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim Pericles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/#comment-7982</guid>
		<description>Graham, 
You hit the nail on the head &quot;if we start from there&quot;. A number of the teachers at my school (where each classroom has an ACTIVEboard) who &quot;teach from the front&quot; are now engaging with the students far more than they used to (when they were funnelling info into heads). The converstaions, discussions, basically the talking that goes on  around what the class (and the teacher) are doing on the iwb is substantive. The focus is moving from teacher - out - the front to the teacher - along - side - of the class. 

Other staff members are flying - linking all sorts of technology with the iwb - but all are interacting with the students to a far greater degree. This is the power of the iwb - interactivity - between teachers, students and the world. 

&quot;if you want teachers to change their practice, you have to start from where they are&quot; and enabling teachers to talk with (not at) their students is a pretty good starting point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Graham,<br />
You hit the nail on the head &#8220;if we start from there&#8221;. A number of the teachers at my school (where each classroom has an ACTIVEboard) who &#8220;teach from the front&#8221; are now engaging with the students far more than they used to (when they were funnelling info into heads). The converstaions, discussions, basically the talking that goes on  around what the class (and the teacher) are doing on the iwb is substantive. The focus is moving from teacher &#8211; out &#8211; the front to the teacher &#8211; along &#8211; side &#8211; of the class. </p>
<p>Other staff members are flying &#8211; linking all sorts of technology with the iwb &#8211; but all are interacting with the students to a far greater degree. This is the power of the iwb &#8211; interactivity &#8211; between teachers, students and the world. </p>
<p>&#8220;if you want teachers to change their practice, you have to start from where they are&#8221; and enabling teachers to talk with (not at) their students is a pretty good starting point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham Wegner</title>
		<link>http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-7981</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Wegner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/#comment-7981</guid>
		<description>Hey Tony, since I asked the question - thanks for your answer! I sense that you are not an IWB fan. We&#039;ll have to agree to disagree somewhat because like all technology it can reinforce the scenario you outline or a skilful teacher will use it as just one of a range of tools to engage and challenge students. I think the discussion about pedagogy is way more important than the one about technology anyway - which is the point behind your comment...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Tony, since I asked the question &#8211; thanks for your answer! I sense that you are not an IWB fan. We&#8217;ll have to agree to disagree somewhat because like all technology it can reinforce the scenario you outline or a skilful teacher will use it as just one of a range of tools to engage and challenge students. I think the discussion about pedagogy is way more important than the one about technology anyway &#8211; which is the point behind your comment&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Forster</title>
		<link>http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-7980</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Forster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/#comment-7980</guid>
		<description>Just another way to teach from the front, a more efficient funnel to pour information into students&#039; heads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just another way to teach from the front, a more efficient funnel to pour information into students&#8217; heads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg's Weblog</title>
		<link>http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/comment-page-1/#comment-7979</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg's Weblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gwegner.edublogs.org/2006/11/20/iwb-mirroring-pedagogy/#comment-7979</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Interactive Whiteboards - any good??...&lt;/strong&gt;

There is a lot of good discussion out there about the instructional/learning value of IWB&#039;s at the moment. Graham Wegner has a really good post on the topic here. I especially like this quote: I would be worried that any......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Interactive Whiteboards &#8211; any good??&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>There is a lot of good discussion out there about the instructional/learning value of IWB&#8217;s at the moment. Graham Wegner has a really good post on the topic here. I especially like this quote: I would be worried that any&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

