Workshop 2: Interactive Whiteboards

Today we learnt about using interactive whiteboards (IWB) in the classoom.
Interactive whiteteboards were originally developed for office settings (Greiffenhagen 2002) and are a relatively new technology to education.

I think these are absolutely brilliant!! GOODBYE BLACKBOARDS AND FLIPCHART PADS! (well to most of them anyway!).

'It can be used as an alternative to virtually every other classroom resources, traditional and modern, for example blackboards, flip charts, OHPs, maps, pictures, number lines, 'big books', calculators, and cassette and video players.  At a touch, the teacher has access to a bank of resources that would previously have been taken years to accumulate and a vast cupboard to store.'

(BECTA 2006, Teaching Interactively with Electronic Whiteboards in the Primary Phase (http://publications.becta.org.uk/download.cfm?resID=25918).

The quote pretty much says it all! Its like having all the resources combined in one simple resource. Interactive whiteboards can can cater for science lessons, maths lessons, English and several others. This makes it extremely convenient.

What do the teachers have to say?

Teachers report finding IWBs a flexible and versatile teaching tool across age groups and settings (Austin 2003), ranging from nursery (Wood 2001) to further and higher education (Malavet 1998) and even distance education (Bell 2002). 

Smith (2001) reports on the benefits of using a graphics package to support younger pupils’ handwriting skills where gross motor movements on the IWB helped their handwriting on paper. 

 

Teachers also report that IWBs extend possibilities when catering for a range of needs within a lesson.
Miller and Glover (2002) describe one primary teacher’s approach in splitting the IWB into three screens: each used to develop comprehension of a text at three levels with each group in turn. The facility to flip back and forth between pages on an IWB screen is also reported as a useful technique in supporting a range of needs within a class flexibly and spontaneously (Latham 2002).

 

 

What do the pupils have to say?

Young pupils in Goodison’s study (2002) report a preference for using the IWB as opposed to a computer because they found the keyboard and mouse difficult to manipulate. Stallard describes the introduction of IWBs in 29 nurseries across Birmingham as having a profound effect on the number of pupils choosing ICT activities (Wood 2001). She found that pupils who would not normally choose to work on the computer were choosing to work on the IWB, and observed that they could do the activities without needing the fine-motor skills required to operate a mouse.

 

Selected primary school pupils were involved in the interactive whiteboard (IWB) evaluation, sponsored by the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT), were interviewed in regard to their perceptions about IWBs. The pupils were very enthusiastic about particular aspects of IWBs, such as their versatility in the classroom, multimedia capabilities and the fun and enjoyment they brought to learning. Students also highlighted,
however, technical problems, teacher and students’ information and communication technology
skills and students’ lack of access to the technology as negative aspects. (Hall & Higgins 2005)

 

Problems

One of the most frequent issues raised by both teachers and pupils is the need for adequate training in order to use IWBs to their full potential.

Teachers’ inexperience in setting up equipment and in manipulating features on the board, leading to lesson disruption, was a concern for both teachers and pupils interviewed in Levy’s study (2002).

It is also reported that pupils find it difficult, or even impossible, to see the screen on an IWB when sunlight is shining directly on it (Tameside MBC 2003).

In my opinion, these thing can be overcome with time, so overall, I think that IWBs are a brilliant resource for education.

References:
 
Austin N. (2003) Mighty white. The Guardian, 7 January 2003.

Bell M.A. (2002) Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker’s dozen reasons!: Available at: http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02. Accessed 20th June 2003.

Goodison T. (2002) ICT and attainment at primary level. British Journal of Educational Technology 33, 201–211.


Hall I. & Higgins S. (2005) Primary school student's perceptions of interactive whiteboards Journal of Computer Assisted learning 21, p102–117

Latham P. (2002) Teaching and Learning Mathematics: the Impact of Interactive Whiteboards – Results of the North Islington Education Action Zone RM Easiteach Mathematics Project. BEAM Education, London.

Levy P. (2002) Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental
study. Available at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards. Accessed 20th June 2003.

Malavet P.A. (1998) Interactive whiteboards: the technology of the future, working with traditional pedagogical methodology. Available at: http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/malavet/. Accessed 20 June 2003.
Miller D. & Glover D. (2002) The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: the experience of five elementary schools in an English authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual 2002, 1 5–19.

Smith H. (2001) Smartboard evaluation: final report. Available at: http://www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/whiteboards/
report. Accessed 20th June 2003.

Tameside MBC (2003) Interim report on practice using interactive whiteboards in Tameside primary schools.
Available at: http://www.tameside.gov.uk/schools_grid/ict/whiteboards.pdf. Accessed June 2003.
Wood C. (2001) Interactive whiteboards – a luxury too far? Teaching ICT 1, 2.