The pros for interactive whiteboards in the classroom are both popular and numerous. The technology itself is fascinating to students, young teachers (especially) who are willing to speak the language of technology and, of course, administrators who are seeking evidence of an investment well spent. There are large communities which support SMART and Promethean technologies—minimizing technical difficulties and maximizing shared resources. When implemented properly and rigorously, educators may find the boards (and accompanying software) enables quicker transitions and display/manipulation of content. Certainly few can argue that the technology has any particularly negative impact related to the transmission of learning. Unlike projectors and blackboards, interactive whiteboards allow simple manipulation of objects, dragging, “perfectly” formed geometric figures and pictures—all while integrating streaming video, audio, and anything else that could be projected with traditional A/V equipment. Though proponents point to the ability to save work, this is really a fairly moot point given the fact that most software environments enable the user to save digital copies for future review and presentation.
The cons for interactive whiteboards are practical and unpopular given our society’s infatuation with technology. They are expensive—especially if they are to be installed in many school classrooms in order to promote file sharing and support within the educational environment. The installation and upkeep (bulbs cost hundreds of dollars a pop, and only last for 2-3 years pending average usage) require time and resources from an IT department supported by a relatively wealthy district. Much of the research (http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/) points to no significant difference between traditional methods and any of the alternative methods (including interactive whiteboard technology). The studies that do show improvements in student achievement when alternative technologies are used usually focus on high-performing, self-motivated students who may already have a predisposition toward interacting with technology, and these results are extremely mixed with inconsistent variables used throughout. The biggest consideration for the use of interactive whiteboards is: how will it be used? As with any tool or manipulative, it must be used properly in order for it to be effective. Interactive whiteboards allow elementary users to only click and drag. Other classroom materials—blocks, rulers, clay, cards, dry-erase boards, interactive books, science measurement and inquiry tools and materials, etc.—allow users to pinch, squeeze, turn, grasp, grip, handle, touch, feel, etc. Until technology can replicate those necessary human interactions, it will remain limited in its scope, albeit impressive looking and versatile in its presentation capabilities with a tinge of interaction.
Works Cited
What the research says about interactive whiteboards, an analysis of current research about the use of interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning, Becta’s ICT (Information and Communications Technologies) Research Network
wtrs_whiteboards.pdf
Interactive Whiteboards and Learning:A Review of Classroom Case Studies and Research Literature, compiled by Smart Technologies
Research White Paper.pdf
Heather J. Smith, Steve Higgins, Kate Wall & Jen Miller, Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature, Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education Communication and Language Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
smithinteractivewboard.pdf
Derek Glover, Dave Miller, Doug Averis, Panacea Or Prop: The Role Of The Interactive Whiteboard In Improving Teaching Effectiveness.
Glover_et_al.pdf
Teachers are fairly oblivious to securing materials within the classroom. Teachers themselves often succumb to using resources which are copyrighted for distributive use, or will use clips from movies and songs which are longer than the time or percentage allowable by law. The basis for this response is my direct observation, not to mention my own actions prior to being aware of that which I must be sensitive toward.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due, but I cannot say I agree, philosophically, with Fair Use policies primarily because it is an intrusive, invasive restriction of communication surrounding the human condition. Philosophically, ideas should be free, and should not generally be confined to restrictive access and perpetuation thereof—especially within the realm of education. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we attempt to educate our nation’s youth, but then disallow access to materials, resources, and art for the sake of producers’, record labels’, and publishers’ pockets.
Although the argument was given in Smaldino’s Instructional Technology and Media for Learning that “the ease with which software and other digital information can be duplicated without permission has inhibited some commercial publishers and private entrepreneurs from producing and marketing high-quality instructional software,” I think this is an unfounded, false argument because it implies that no high-quality instructional software can otherwise exist (apart from these educationally-minded institutions). Could you imagine the proliferation of knowledge and the incredible advances we might make if knowledge, technology, and science were released to public access?
Many applications which have been made available to the public far surpass those which are commercially produced. Our reliance on the commercial world is unnecessary if laws would permit progressive changes. Technologically speaking, Firefox, PHP, Audacity, Wikipedia, and EphPod, are all high-quality yields hailing from companies who give offer the software for free. In most cases, the products are fully customizable, and altering them is encouraged for public development! If someone intends to make money from using others’ work then, legally, it should certainly have restrictions or at least a financial trickle-back effect. As it is, Fair Use is a part of the law, and must be adhered to. At least educators have a little leniency.
As a public educator I am, of course, required to follow Fair Use guidelines and I will. Given the current laws and restricted access to quality materials, the restrictions are perpetuated (who, after all, is going to spend the time coming up with all-encompassing curricula if they cannot receive financial gain or be allowed to work collaboratively with the public). Furthermore, illegal downloads present a problem for companies because, as stated previously, it will discourage these record labels, producers, and publishers from producing more material for fear that they will lose perceived revenue from those potential products. And so the cycle continues. You end up with a generation highly technologically savvy, yet faced with inaccessibility, which leads to the moral dilemma of whether or not to share the information that they believe should be freely accessible to begin with, which in turn frustrates corporations who resist finding alternate revenue streams by finding a way to release information to the public like so many technological applications have been successful in doing (Holzberg).
And, after saying all that, perhaps it’s truly impossible for technological applications to be carried into educational realms for lack of (and negative implications of) advertising and access to private, confidential information. As the law stands, it would be best for educators and students everywhere to simply respect the copyright laws so that publishers may produce high-quality material.
Works Cited
Holzberg, Carol, Copyright and Fair Use, January 15, 2005 available in pdf Copyright and Fair Use_cholzberg.doc Accessed on 2/15/2008 from http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=57700758.
Smaldino, Lowther, Russell, Instructional Technology and Media for Learning, Chapter 1 Technology and Media: Facilitating Learning, Chapter 2 Instructional Strategies: Integrating Technology and Media.
Given various cognitive, behaviorist, and constructivist viewpoints concerning how to go about developing and producing effective instruction within the classroom context, there exists a balance. I have long suspected that technology does not enhance student achievement alone—in fact, Laird R. Ottman Jr. speaks to the fact that motivated students will learn regardless of traditional or student-directed instructional interactions. However, if the proper pedagogy is employed, technology can, of course, be an excellent means of deliverance and direct, student-led interaction. Because adopted technologies are a part of the modern, digital world, students (especially, perhaps, those less motivated toward a particular area of academic study) are interested in grasping these technologies—even if it means they have to learn something of [unrealized] value in order to do so (Ottman).
Focusing on the balance once again, there is no one way to teach every subject. In some cases, a cognitivist approach works well as students logically organize information, connecting new and existing schema. Memorization of multiplication facts is, for example, a subject which is just not easily or efficiently addressed using constructivist approaches. Conversely, the concept of multiplication, that is the arrays and abbreviated repeated addition concepts, may brilliantly be addressed through constructivist engagement (Smaldino).
Pictures, charts, blackboard-and-chalk, dry-erase boards, etc. can well accompany the instructional goals and standards—perhaps just as well as digital replicas which do not offer much more than that which the tools of old offer. If it aids the teacher, however, which I believe technologies can certainly do, then the digital format may be the appropriate choice. If change and manipulation to pictures is needed, perhaps the digital version will allow greater versatility and adaptability as educators reflect, monitor, and fix up lessons for future engagement.
Students today are used to a wide variety of technological applications from video games to television programming to access to personal computers and the accompanying hardware and software technologies. Therefore, students should interact with these similar technologies when learning anything simply because that is the world of which they are a part. To limit this would be to limit children of old from access to graphite pencils. These are necessary tools which must be grasped and utilized within today’s classrooms (not the graphite necessarily—rather the current technologies!) (Prensky).
Works Cited
Prensky, M., Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1 in pdf. Prensky – Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Part1.pdf
Accessed on 2/19/2008 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/.
Ottman, Laird R. Jr., The Effect of Student-directed Versus Traditional Teacher-centered Presentations of Content on Student Learning in a High School Statistics Class stucentervteachercentered.pdf.
Smaldino, Lowther, Russell, Instructional Technology and Media for Learning, Chapter 1 Technology and Media: Facilitating Learning, Chapter 2 Instructional Strategies: Integrating Technology and Media
Ever since NCLB legislation, the spotlight has been on educators. Having taught in the inner city as well as suburbia, I’ve seen two extremes–neither of which ever fault the learner, which is politically, socially, and educationally taboo today. Some schools constantly watch the educators, faulting them for every [terribly calculated] statistical dip in (sometimes terribly planned) academic “performance” (assessment). Other schools are finally beginning to recognize (for the first time since NCLB…and so the pendulum swings…) that it is not just a matter of constantly faulting teachers for poor academic performance. The fact is that we are in a field of professionalism where we do not have the opportunity to pick and choose the “best materials” with which we can create products. We are handed imperfect, unsupported, attitude-injected children whose guardians may be lazy, selfish, and feeling entitled to public education handouts while communicating a sense of disregard for education itself because free public education where children can’t be left behind if they don’t take any responsibility will, inherently, fuel this cycle to produce more lazy, selfish, leeching adults (sorry for the run-on). We’ve somehow adopted this crazy-talk (based on legislation) where teachers are the only ones responsible for “passing” students along rather than fostering responsibility. We’ve embraced a deification of humans–humanism–where we’ve convinced ourselves that we can mass produce generations who can achieve the same basic skills (a high enough test score) if we only try harder and raise proficiency percentages. Can it be done? Who knows–maybe 2014 will tell; or maybe by that time there will be some new “safe harbor” way of twisting statistics to invent success for the sake of political reputation (so much for scientific process–expected, perhaps, from trying to test millions of variables at once).
The educational systems throughout the world which work well (according to results like the TIMSS) often foster at least some amount of competition where, if the child does not come to terms with the responsibility which is his/hers within the educational process, they will quickly learn that responsibility elsewhere within the bounds of a trade or simpler work–you might say they’ve been “left behind,” yet still learn the same lesson within an alternative environment. Maybe it’s the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him to fish, even if it means leaving him by the bank of the river, hungry, for a while.
Thankfully, there may be a coming shift in where the educational pendulum is headed once again. The focus is now turning to individual growth rather than predetermined benchmark achievements (though currently still very much based on these–PVAS is one example of this determination). Some schools are placing more of an emphasis on support in the home–from parents, for example (shocker, right?)–in order to foster successful children. Hopefully this sense of community will allow the old addage, “it takes a village to raise a child” to ring true once again.
THE NEW PHYSICAL EDUCATION STANDARDS HAVE ARRIVED!
They are encapsulated within the content of this video–if we are to keep up with foreign countries who are far surpassing the United States, such as Romania, this is a must for the federal government to mandate, and for states to step up to the plate and start requiring our teachers to STOP LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND!
Education is more than training young people to accept modern-day norms and “go with the flow.”
It is questioning, standing up for what is right, and rejecting “the system” in order to foster a greater awareness of belonging within–no–perhaps superseding society.
This young man has done just that–he doesn’t accept the crap that life hands him. He stands up for what he knows is true–even if he does eventually succumb to…The System.
First of all, this guy provides fantastic examples of what not to say, do, or be.
I will use his videos as introductions for my kids when teaching writing. Check out the following transcript for the video which follows:
Alright youtube viewers many of you have been asking me what I like to drink. Well, I like to drink water a lot. Water is healthy for you…and all that. But what I like to drink with a meal is lemonade in these two drinks. I’m a big diet. Like sprite zero, sprite zero is pretty good, pretty good to drink, I would suggest trying it. It’s pretty good, and also, it’s basically the same thing is diet sierra mist, both of these drinks are great to drink. This is Kige Ramsey for youtube drinks.
Could we not incorporate some modern and nontraditional activities like this into Phys. Ed.?
Maybe we can just revamp the whole system to focus on incorporating some of the traditional skills in nontraditional settings. Is that possible under current legislation?
I’m sure it is somewhat–but how on earth are educators going to find the time to constantly interpret data and differentiate instruction so we can push learners through the grades as “proficiently” (as measured by arguably poorly calibrated tests and standards) as possible?
What a great music video (in a post-modern sort of way) by Little Dragon…
I’m sure we could come up with a creative educational video employing the same kind of genius puppet show. It’d probably be best to keep it away from post-modern elements to preserve any hope of students catching relevancy or meaning!
It’s necessary to share the truth with upcoming generations concerning the “privacy” to which we’ve clung dearly in the past. Social networking, online surveys, and any other online activity which can be digitized are inherently flawed with regard to privacy simply because every little piece of information can be linked to an individual. As the study below lays out in horrifying and technical detail, knowing a person’s gender, complete birth date, and zip code leads, with an alarming 87.1% accuracy, to a particular person (and how many times have you filled out a survey or signed up for an account with this information?).
It’s time to get smart and teach others, as much as it lies within their power, to take common sense control over minimizing their “digital fingerprint.” Public education (and of course all other sectors as well) need to teach basic technological skills lacking from many institutions today such as password selection, identifiable information evasion, search query sensitivity, etc.
The article, “Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization” by Paul Ohm, (linked below–click “Download” at the top of the page once you arrive, and select any of the locations from which to download the PDF…for the sake of location identification you may even want to select a location which is not closest to your actual location;-)) provides an excellent case study and analysis of these and many other profound considerations regarding privacy in this age of technology.
Read it and weep. Or at least skim through the first half of the paper when you have a free half hour or so. Then dry your tears and take action as we educate others to avoid, perhaps, some of the very mistakes we may have once made ourselves. Maybe we can’t control the security and release methods employed by unavoidable organizations with which we come in contact, but we can control that which remains in our power–including the education of others.
