Running Head: THEORIZING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY – THE INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD: A TECHNOLOGY NOT A PEDAGOGY
Tara C. Avenia
ETEC 511 – Section 66A
Submitted to: Dr. Franc Feng
June 2012
Who Killed the Chalkboard?
One of the oldest forms of educational technology, and arguably one of the most economical, is the chalkboard. The chalkboard is inexpensive to produce, easily distributed, and portable. The chalkboard does not require electricity to function, requires little maintenance, and is easily mastered by anyone with basic literacy skills. As Puryear (1999) defends, the chalkboard is also a tool that has contributed to learning in primary, secondary, and post secondary education.
The chalkboard, although an efficient and effective instructional tool, has been virtually replaced throughout education institutions by the interactive whiteboard (IWB). An IWB is a large touch-sensitive computer enhanced whiteboard. It enables a teacher to append their lessons with interactive multimedia content including video, audio, animations, digital games, real time simulations, and images. An IWB allows teachers to share data via a network, to make live recordings of the content on the IWB, and to store digital lessons for future use. The technology has been said to facilitate in class discussions, to motivate students, and to improve whole class participation (Glover & Miller, 2001).
Unlike a chalkboard, if an IWB is used only as an accessory of teaching, Smith, Higgins, Wall, and Miller, (2005) argue that the potential to impact learning remains unrealised. This is important because to date, Smith et al. (2005) and Glover et al. (2001) agree that the primary investment being made is on the technology, and not on the variable costs of training, maintenance and support. As Smith et al. (2005) have concluded after reviewing multiple research efforts, government in the United Kingdom and North America are investing rapidly in the IWB technology in the absence of evidence to support that this technology benefits learning, classroom interaction, or achievement. Glover et al. (2001) report that the majority of training that is provided to teachers is general, and is not subject specific. There is inadequate technical support and the maintenance of the IWB is often neglected. Glover et al. (2001) similarly found that experienced teachers feel intimidated by how fast their younger colleagues pick up the technology. The experienced generation of teachers are afraid to experiment with IWBs in their classroom because they lack the confidence to effectively operate the technology. Smith et al. (2005) further suggest that the enthusiasm for IWB among teaching professionals will fade as the technology ages, and the novelty wears out.
If used effectively, IWBs could reduce teachers’ preparation time. Once a teacher is properly trained and prepared, the IWB will organize the lesson resources and cut down on time lost as well as resources wasted. The IWB can facilitate the transformation from a paper based, and paper wasted classroom pedagogy to a non-linear, student centred educational practice. With proper support, the IWB could facilitate a true community of practice among teaching professionals. One where educators create, shares, and revises instructional resources improving the learning potential for everyone involved. IWBs have the potential to facilitate an entire pedagogical shift, but without proper support the IWB is nothing more than a projector hooked up to a computer with a wireless mouse. A very expensive projector at that.
If teachers are using IWBs simply to display PowerPoint presentations, or worse, not using them at all, why has the chalkboard been all but eliminated in classrooms across the Western world? The chalkboard is cheaper to make, easier to master, and to upkeep. The IWB is a great educational tool; it is a means to improve education, but not the end.
References
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large- scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(3), 257-278. doi: 10.1080/ 14759390100200115
Puryear, J. M. (1999, September). The economics of educational technology. Tech KnowLogia, 46-49. Retrieved from http://www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_Articles /PDF/17.pdf
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K. and Miller, J. (2005), Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, (21). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x