Interactive White Boards: Worth the Interaction?

Vianney Zuhey Torres

George Mason University

Reference List

References

Dash, E. ( 2004, December 8). School blackboards are turning white and interactive. The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=FA0F15F839550C7B8CDDAB0994DC404482

Dash, in this New York Times article discusses the switch from the traditional blackboard and chalk to the 21^st Century world of interactive whiteboards (IWBs). She showcases teacher-student examples that have had success with the new technology. Dash also captures the initial implementation of whiteboards from a financial standpoint. This is a valuable source as it offers concrete examples of the IWB in the classroom and gives insight as to the progression of IWB being implemented in the United States.

Ferriter, B. (2010, January 6). The tempered Radical: Wasting money on whiteboards. . ..Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radical/2010/01/wasting-money-on-whiteboards.html

Ferriter expresses in this blog how interactive white boards (IWBs) do not have any benefit in the classroom for students. Instead he thinks they are just a distraction form true teaching. He highlights that the cost of such technology and the little research done before installation is mindboggling. This blog is valuable in providing an opposing opinion to IWBs not just from a technology phobic educator but someone who has used IWB in their classroom and decided that the benefits do not out way the cost.

Interactive whiteboards in education. York: TeachLearn. Retreieved September 23, 2012

from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Interactivewhiteboards.pdf

This report breaks down what the IWB looks like in a higher education setting. It clearly summarizes the benefits and limitations as well as the inner working of the IWB. This report was highly valuable as it provided the technical background of the new technology.

Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: Grades K-12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Doug Lemov offers teachers tips and tricks as to how to become better teacher’s in his book. Lemov offers suggestions how to better motivate, engage and overall relay information to students in a meaningful way. Since IWBs are so focused around classroom engagement this book offered insight on how teachers become great teachers and showcases how engagement with or without technology is critical for student success.

Manny-Ikan, E., & Dagan, O. (2011). Using the Interactive White Board in Teaching and Learning – An Evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM Pilot Project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects , 7, 249-275. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from the Education Search Complete Database at http://web.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/ehost/detail?sid=f2c9d68c-02ed-4b2d-9922-ddffc1020624%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=9&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=70423570

Manny-Ikan and Dagan are Israeli researchers that took the use of interactive whiteboards outside of the country and expanded their research internationally. There research shows that IWBs do impact student engagement significantly and that teachers need a comprehensive database of help and guides along with a detailed training to help bridge the gap between technology and good classroom pedagogy. The result of this research helps support that IWB are worth the cost of the learning curve that tends to happen in conjunction with introducing the new technology within a classroom.

Michell,J., Hunter, J. & Mockler, N. (2010). Connecting classroomin rural communities through interactive whiteboards. Australian Journal of Education Technology , 26 (4), 464-476. Retreived September 30, 2012 from the Education Search Complete Database at http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=51860893&site=ehost-live

Michell and Hunter focus their research on examining how IWB are used to connect classrooms to other satellite classroom and a group of students to a given instructor. They depict the use of video conferencing along with IWB. And furthermore take the teachers perspective as to why IWBs are in fact a benefit in the classrooms. The value of this article is expressed in how it offers a more complex way to use IWBs. It showcases the limitlessness of possibilities with the IWB and gives an example as to how IWB can better work with other forms of technology.

Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007). The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation:  An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/905/1/Moss2007whiteboardsRR816.pdf.

London University’s report evaluates IWB from teacher and student perceptions, collaborative learning and instruction and the implications of such a technology on student performance. This extremely detailed report is highly valuable to this topic because of the depth it covers in regards to IWBs. It serves as a model that American researchers can use in determening if IWB benefit the education system in a positive way.

Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 26 (4), 417-431. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from the Education Search Complete Database at http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=51860890&site=ehost-live

Murcia and Sheffield, discuss the IWB within science classrooms. They explain how lessons better engage students as a class and help instruction be more hands on with the use of the IWB. Creating an environment where motivated students learn. This article serves as a case study as to how IWBs engage students and make a positive difference in how they learn.

Northcote, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australian Journal of Education Technology , 26 (4), 494-510. Retrieved September 22, 2012 from the Education Search Complete Database at http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=51860895&site=ehost-live

Northcoate’s research in the article “Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards?” critically examines how IWB are used during the early grades, highlights what the experts say about IWB use and ultimately observes and documents how teachers today use IWBs. This resource offers background information and easily focuses on the ways that IWB are most commonly used.

Conclusion

Conclusion

            Overall interactive whiteboards present numerous benefits specifically in regards to student engagement and teacher accessibility. IWBs shine best when their screen is being used to engage classroom involvement and motivate student learning. It is clear that the use of IWBs still awaken concerns in the areas of the ethical allocating, legal distributing and security implementations of this technology. However these concerns can be overcome through Teacher IWB training (that makes teachers aware of IWB challenges) and through further research to help administrators realize the real impact the IWB is having at their particular school. Regardless, it is evident there is a population of students exposed to this technology that are having a better learning experience. Whether it is 200 or 200,000 students that benefit from such an engagement, the cost of interactive whiteboards in the classroom is certainly worth the gain. 

Further Required Research

Further Required Research

            In regards to extended research, researchers should inquire a more comparative look at IWBs. Should a IWB be in every classroom? Do STEM subjects such as math and science benefit more, less, or equally as liberal arts subjects like English and history? Answers to such questions will help educators and administrators better allocate IWBs to classrooms that can better use them. Additionally, researchers could create software that matches up better with instruction in subjects that best align with the technology.

Legal and Security Concerns

Legal and Security Concerns

“The IWB enables students and teachers to interact with all the functions of a desktop computer through the board’s large, touch sensitive surface…(Murcia & Sheffield, 2010, p. 418).”  IWB have an endless use for what they can achieve within a classroom. One reason why the opportunities are limitless is because IWBs have the ability to connect to the Internet (Manny-Ikan & Dagan, 2011). The added element of Internet access instigates controversies of legal and security issues when using IWB to arise.

In regards to legal precautions, there is a large amount of content on the Internet that is not appropriate within an educational setting. If a teacher were to display something offensive to the classroom, he or she could potentially face being sued or even fired given the gravity of the situation. A lawsuit may also be filed if a teacher chooses to distribute copyrighted information to his or her students; whether it is visually or (since IWB can be connected printers) copyrighted information could also be physically distributed to students. Hypothetically a teacher could access a book they desire to use for their class and instead of having the student buy it, print off the material and distribute it to their students at no cost.

According to a report done by the University of London (2007) when it came to security, initially teachers were concerned about theft. However in 2005 a forum took place to address this concern with members of the police, government, IWB manufacturers, and intallation companies (Moss, Jewitt, Levacic, Armstrong, Cardini, & Castle, 2007). It seems that this concern arose from the quick turnaround that some schools had in acquiring IWBs and lack of detailed intitial training for teachers.

Once again returning to the fact that IWBs can connect to the Internet, IWBs have access to a teacher’s e-mail. This makes certain information that may be personal or private vulnerable to being distributed among a classroom. A solution to such a risk is to recommend that teachers log out of their emails while using the IWB. Another issue of privacy and security can be forseen when students share information through the IWB. As in the example above, teachers may ask students to distribute their work on the IWB. This could become a  security issue if students do not act apporpriately and post offensive, inappropriate, or even unseccured personal material that can be viewed by multple parties. 

Ethical Concerns

Ethical Concerns

 In addition to social implications of bringing IWB into education, there are ethical consequences. Does the introduction of this technology change the traditional way children are taught? Education is a field that is critical to human development; therefore the risk of altering it always brings up the question whether this change is for better or worse. The idea that the instructor’s lecture is not the main source of the lesson and increased autonomy for students is a foreign concept to older educators. Ultimately, researchers have deduced that education as a whole is changing and technology is simply being used in a way to compliment such a change (Manny-Ikan & Dagan, 2011). This may cause conflict between the older educators and the younger generation of educators, but through technology training and open communication this adversity towards IWBs can be overcome. 

Another ethical caution involving the IWB is the question of distributing funds to schools so that they can acquire such boards. “Decisions to allocate serious financial resources for the purchase and installation of this technology are made without necessarily being informed by convincing research about how the boards impact learning…(Northcote, 2010).” The question of purchasing a new form of technology without first knowing the ramifications of such a choice is an ethical one. Bill Ferriter (2010), a successful language arts teacher from North Carolina, believes that IWBs are put into place without a follow up evaluation and therefore become a tool that only serves to be shown off to parents and supervisors. He goes on to say, “Interactive Whiteboard programs are nothing more than vain attempts to buy change.  Rarely paired with a clear vision of the classrooms we’d like to see, a set of tangible objectives that can be measured, or any systematic attempts to evaluate outcomes, Interactive Whiteboards are sad examples of the careless decision making and waste that are crippling some of our schools and systems (Ferriter, 2010).”

Unfortunately in his blog Ferriter fails to explain how exactly IWBs cripple school systems other than a teacher’s mediocre knowledge of the new technology. Although prior to initial installation, school systems may or may not have done sufficient research. It is clear in conducting this research paper that in recent years IWBs have been researched in a variety of different settings. Also, to address the issue of teacher’s poor technology skills, there are, at least in Fairfax County, Virginia, numerous opportunities to receive training to help teachers better use their IWB.

School boards or administrations that make such technological decisions, should ethically consider what technology they bring into the classroom by doing proper research and taking advantage of research already available to the public. Furthermore, if IWBs better classrooms and improve student learning, then there is an ethical issue as to deciding which students receive the opportunity to enhanced education. This issue is not only wide-spread in terms of whether urban or rural schools should have IWBs but also whether math or science, English or history classes should have IWBs in their classrooms within a single school. 

Social Benefits

Social Benefits

Effective teachers engage students in ways that they too become a part of the lesson. Students must be integrated in a meaningful way that still helps them concentrate on learning the material (Lemov, 2010). This interaction can manifest itself through different forms such as small groups, experiential projects, and the use of current events. The IWB supports such interactive pedagogy. IWBs allow for more socializing within the classroom and help create class unity. The actual physical structure of the IWB allows for a more conversational set up (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010). Here technology helps teacher to student face-to-face interaction by eliminating the barrier of a laptop or desktop computer in front of either party. Instead IWBs engage students around a large surface that help captivate the educational material.

Another social benefit that IWBs have within a classroom is connecting one classroom to another. “…IWB may serve as a type of alternative to the teacher as the center of attention and may enhance cooperative learning in the class, contributing to the development of autonomous learning and higher order thinking skills (Manny-Ikan & Dagan, 2011, p. 252).” The students gain more freedom in their learning and are dependent on the information not the instructor. IWB can be used to connect one classroom to another in a digital way. Thus IWBs expand students’ learning further than the four walls that confines them in a single classroom. Teachers using IWB in this manner often motivated students to use the IWB to write notes that can be shared among the class electronically (Mitchell, Hunter & Mockler, 2010).

Examples of student engagement can be found in a music classroom when a teacher displays the sheet music of two pieces and ask students to highlight the similarities between each piece. In a science classroom, an Internet simulation is displayed so that the entire class can be included and participate in the lab. Furthermore IWBs can be used in a math classroom to display diagrams and functions that can later be saved and distributed to students after class (Dash, 2004).

Introduction

Introduction

Wake up. Turn off alarm on iPhone. Turn on Radio. Open iPad. Check e-mail then Facebook. Go to class, text best friend about next week’s job fair posted on the TV advertisements. Open laptop, attempt to take notes, send out a tweet about the weekend, and then surf the web and shop for the perfect fall outfit. Technology is everywhere and has seeped into every aspect of the modern life. Technology is found in the social aspects of life, through texting and social networks, but has also become a critical piece in educational development. Today, starting at a young age students are exposed to technology within the classroom at the elementary, middle and high school level. This may have begun by establishing computer labs in school but today there is the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) that brings the classroom to life using technology. The question posed in this research is, do IWBs make technology dependent classrooms and do the costs of this technology out way the benefits. This research aims to explore the answer to these questions by examining the social, ethical, legal and security outcomes of such a technology.

Background

The interactive whiteboard is not only found in classrooms but is also prevalent in the workforce. IWBs at work tend to be used for conference presentations as well as to share data among colleagues. The IWB found in the educational setting is a bit more complex. IWB compress several classroom technologies into one. It serves as a projector, computer screen, and a standard whiteboard. The inner workings of the IWB are intuitive and are comprised of what is already found within a typical classroom. There are four parts to this technology, the computer, the software, the projector, and the display screen. (Interactive whiteboards in education)

Given the IWBs initial high cost of $3,000, United States school systems have slowly implemented them into their classrooms since 2004. However, by the end of 2004 every classroom in other countries, such as Mexico, had an interactive whiteboard. There is mixed support for the interactive whiteboards although overall there seems to be a strong consensus that the possibilities are endless for such a technology as long as the teacher is willing to be creative. (Dash, 2004)