I haven't been spending much time writing on this blog lately because I've been writing end of year reports (what a way to suck the time out of your weekend/s) and I've been tending to the garden of my oft-neglected specialist blog, Activboarding (Four posts since November 27).  I've long given up on the notion that it belongs to any sort of group; it's mine and although it doesn't do the same sort of tortured soul searching that goes on here occasionally, it does have some useful stuff. Especially if you are interested in Interactive Whiteboards. If you're not, then kindly ignore this post.

What do you see when you see an Interactive Whiteboard?

Admittedly, not everyone who is critical has even seen one in action but that doesn't prevent anyone from having an opinion. And as IWB fervour builds throughout the South Australian education community (particularly in primary schools) many are wanting to see for themselves to see if there is any substance to the hype. What, indeed, are the possibilities? Some schools want to dabble cautiously (perhaps one in the library), some have decided to invest their dollars elsewhere and some are going the full hog (every classroom with an IWB by 2007).

Over the past month, I've done three presentations on ACTIVboards to three slightly different audiences. The first was to a local school wanting to get a first hand look at what an IWB actually was, the second was a favour to the ACTIVboard sales rep showcasing their product (which we have) to a school trying to pick their preferred brand and thirdly, a repeat of our International Middle Schooling Conference presentation to our local cluster group of middle school teachers. What was really interesting was that each presentation evoked different responses and different questions - and it really makes me stop and think about the fact that as teachers we all have unique world views. I received a timely email from Quentin D'Souza shortly after who posed an excellent question about questions in relation to what questions I would ask now in regards to the effective use of IWB's. There have also been a couple of excellent posts querying this focus on IWB technology - one from Warrick Wynne and a lengthy effort from Derek Wenmoth. I shared Derek's with my staff via the weekly bulletin and had a few teachers commenting how his insights hit home.

So, maybe the IWB has become a type of pedagogical magnifying glass with the questions being asked and the aspects that attract approval potentially revealing quite a lot about how classrooms operate. For example, teachers who groan at what they see as a huge learning curve and a large absorption of time are educators who see that teacher created content as important. Some might also see that the IWB is confirmation that a "sage on the stage" approach is the way to go. Some who ask about ready made content and shared resource repositories are looking to "not reinvent the wheel" - and the cynical side of me might suspect a worksheet mentality. Teachers who ask about how to create stuff on the fly and pull in images, diagrams and pieces from the web and other software programs are eyeing off the possibilities to connect different pieces of learning. Maybe they are the ones who will want the students up there using the board.

I would be worried that any school that is deciding to put an IWB in every classroom all at once could be setting themselves up for difficulties in addressing teachers' needs in terms of training and movement through Marc Prensky's four stages of technology implementation. I would not like to be that coordinator as he or she tries to move 18 or so teachers towards full and effective use of this tool. There could be quite a few still stuck permanently at Old Thing In Old Ways without timely guidance and support - something that is hard to give when one is at full stretch. As Derek pointed out, then you do have classrooms trapped in an instructivist environment. I expanded on this idea in my comment on his post:

I would also probably guess that an IWB doesn't turn a teacher into an instructivist educator - they were probably taught that way prior to the IWB. The trap is now they think that their methodology has ICT credibility just because it's up on an interactive whiteboard. It's really important to push the creative, innovative approaches to teaching and the technology should be the enabler, the connector of the learning.

One thing I will say in defence of the IWB being misused as an instructivist tool - if you want teachers to change their practice, you have to start from where they are. It's no good pressuring them with expectations that are several progression steps from where they are - that's where effective leadership steps in, the kind that realises that in today's world, technology and learning go hand in hand. Maybe the teacher who doesn't know his or her blogs from wikis, complains of e-mail overload if the in-box contains more than five messages, and wouldn't know a Moodle from a podcast might just be able to move forward (and the students exposed to more opprotunities) in a more comfortable way using an IWB. I'm not advocating that we leave any classroom in an instructivist only environment - but it isn't really a problem if we start from there.

Just a thought I had the other day when pondering the immediate future of our Interactive Whiteboard program - maybe the reason the IWB tool gathers a lot of scepticism and criticism is that unlike other new technologies like mobile phones, PDA's, mp3 players, laptops, digital cameras and DVD players, it isn't really used at all by the general public. I know that when we had our initial presentation from Peter Kent, he mentioned that the ACT Brumbies had used an ACTIVboard for game strategies and a staff member who has sons in the Aussie military has told me that SmartBoards have used to some effect in the Australian Air Force. But apart from that, the only place you'll find an IWB is a school.

I honestly think that fact brings with it a set of expectations for learning improvement and measurable outcomes from its use that doesn't apply to the same degree as the other mentioned technologies. The IWB is also designed to be a group based tool that can be used by pairs or individuals while mobile phones, PDA's, mp3 players, laptops, digital cameras and the humble PC are designed for individual use first that education has co-opted for group use and pairs. As I said at the start of this post, just a thought ...

Hi to all participants from this morning's presentation. I promised that if you looked at the website address on my business card, you'd end up here and I'd have some links to ideas and resources mentioned during the presentation.

Did You Know? powerpoint link at this post at the Fischbowl.

Lockleys North Primary School IWB blog, Activboarding.
Also, click on my Interactive Whiteboards category tag on the right hand side of this site.
IWB sites bookmarked - del.icio.us/iwb.user or del.icio.us/wegner/iwb or del.icio.us/wegner/interactive_whiteboards

Also, the wiki site from our Middle Schooling Conference presentation on IWB's has some worthwhile IWB resources and contain links to the Marc Prensky articles quoted.

Feel free to comment or email at my contact address in the right sidebar.

Last year our school installed six Promethean ACTIVboards across the school (including my own shared classroom) and I started this blog thinking that I could connect to other educators about that very topic. Well, I got plenty of connection to educators but not really on the topic of IWB's. In fact, much of the interaction has challenged my perspective not just on the use of this much heralded tool but its future in the rapidly evolving education landscape. I've actually concluded that I'm one of the very few people that's actually blogging about IWB technology. Most of that goes over on the Activboarding blog (which is a collection of links, resources and documentation) but when I want to reflect on my own ideas and how our IWB program has influenced me personally, then I'll post it here at TGZ.

Since August last year I've developed into a very competent technical user of the school's ACTIVboards. I've had to because although I had the same amount of experience as the others starting out (zero), it's in "my job description" to be good at troubleshooting and working how to use new technology. Being only part time in the classroom has meant I haven't developed my pedagogical skills with the IWB as much as my full time classroom based colleagues. So while I can demo the ACTIVboard to anyone and showcase the technical capabilities, I am still in the developing stage of using it really effectively with my own class. It's actually started to develop some worrying signs in the way the classroom is now set up is quite board oriented. Instead of groups of tables for collaborative tasks, the kids actually wanted a form of rows so that everyone has a decent view. Still, the classroom isn't about my preferred learning style but my students'. I still suspect that the true value of an IWB will be when the students have greater access to mobile technologies, maybe in the form of 1:1 handhelds or a class set of wireless laptops. Model stuff, then do.

So. with the first group of IWB teachers, there was an unwritten understanding that they were working things out for themselves and that the available support wasn't very much in front (if at all) of them. The teachers who've just started this past week have a slightly different outlook. In general, they probably aren't as confident or gung-ho as the original pioneers displaying a more cautious approach. They like to be sure of what they are intending to do with the IWB and aren't playing and experimenting as much compared to what I observed 11 months ago. They also have a reserve of experience to fall back on - buddies to go and see if they get stuck and need help. We're using better quality laptops this time around so there have been less technical hitches. I suppose one of the biggest shifts now is that our school has shifted from experimenting with this new (for Australia) technology to now being a school with a big commitment to the successful implementation of Interactive Whiteboards. We can now cater for all of the students in one way or another using IWB - if the kids aren't already in one of the 11 classrooms equipped with an ACTIVboard, then they will have access in the Science Room or the Resource Centre. So we have to make this idea work - there's a lot of dollars invested in this direction. Our partnership with Flinders Uni will be important to make sure that the pedagogy employed in our classrooms uses this portal to digital resources to best effect.

I've also been spending way too much a lot of time working on the presentation for the Middle Schooling conference in the evenings so I'm starting to feel like I spend more time thinking about IWB's than actually using them to work with kids. As with all technology, I reckon sometimes the teachers need to get out of the way and watch the kids using it, then direct them in ways that are beneficial. We'll see how the initiative unfolds in the next few months.