The cry can be heard from all levels of education and Government, a SMART Board in every classroom! Schools and boards scramble to equip classrooms with projectors and boards.
The impetus to include Educational technology is felt by educators at every level. Technology integration has become the new mantra for school boards. Teachers/schools are struggling to keep up with the rapid development and growth of new technologies and the increased cost. One such technology which has been heavily funded and strongly advocated as an important educational tool for teachers is the interactive whiteboard. (Lee, 2010) Consider though, the use of technology is only as effective as the person’s ability to use it.
The Interactive whiteboard or IWB is an interactive projection display that works in conjunction with a computer. The screen acts like a giant mouse allowing users to manipulate and interact with objects on the screen. It enables educators to merge a variety of media tools, video, images, websites, and video games to create engaging, interactive lessons for students. IWBs allow teachers to manipulate text, save class notes and student brainstorming sessions, record student work for assessment, write notes over video clips or highlight sections on web pages, showcase student work. The potential is enormous.
Smart Technologies seems to dominate in both the United States and Canada with their brand, SMART Boards. In Newfoundland Smart Technologies has been the vendor of choice.
Reflect on this scenario; Teachers arrive back at school after the summer break and the principal greets them with the exciting news that every classroom has a SMART Board. The boards are connected and ready to be used. Professional development will occur in the months to come. Teachers are given access to this interactive technology and are strongly encouraged to use the device. However, they are left to integrate it in their curriculum with very little support or professional development.
Teachers are excited and the buzz in the staffroom is around SMART Boards. The Principal notes that the few tech savvy teachers have created lessons that are dynamic, interactive and engaging. However, in most classrooms boards are being used to show videos, to project notes, to write homework on or not at all. SMART boards have turned into expensive overhead projectors. This is SMART Board implementation gone wrong.
Smart Boards have the potential to change the way teachers’ present concepts and how students interact with content. Three key benefits of Smart Boards in the teaching and learning environment are; increase in student engagement, enhanced visual representation of concepts and increased interactivity. The software included with the board facilitates the creation of teacher made content, tailored to meet the needs of the student population. (Winzenried, Dalgarno and Tinker, 2010)
Simply providing teachers with SMART Boards will not lead to these benefits being felt in the classroom. Teachers are at varying levels of proficiency with technology. They require support and easy access to mentors in the school in order to become proficient users. (Littleton, 2010)
Now consider the inner city school where I teach. There are SMART Boards in every classroom this year and an enthusiastic staff with varying levels of competency with technology. The Principal has established a technology position, with responsibility to in-service teachers on the use of SMART Boards tailored to the individual teacher’s level of competency. Surveys have been administered to identify areas of need. Teachers are mentored as they begin to use technology in their classrooms. The response from teachers has been positive and boards are being used. SMART Board implementation with the goal of ensuring all staff has the support needed to develop the necessary skills to fully integrate this technology is crucial to using the boards effectively. (Sweeney, 2010) The “smart” in the board is the level of proficiency the user has with the technology. “Smart” implementation leads to effective use of the boards in classrooms.
Now consider the initial scenario. How much more effective would the teaching and learning environment be if in-school/mentorship support, tailored to meet the needs of the teacher, was provided?
References
Lee, M. (2010). Interactive Whiteboards and Schooling: The Context. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 133-141. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Littleton, K. (2010). Research into Teaching with Whole-Class Interactive Technologies:
Emergent Themes. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 285-292.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sweeney, T. (2010). Transforming Pedagogy through Interactive Whiteboards: Using
Activity Theory to Understand Tensions in Practice. Australian Educational
Computing, 24(2), 28- 34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinkler, J. (2010). The Interactive Whiteboard: A
Transitional Technology Supporting Diverse Teaching Practices. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 534-552. Retrieved from EBSCOhost