Interactive Whiteboards: Helpful or Pointless?

Thrown out there on September 25, 2011

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

Tags: Add new tag