Interactive Whiteboards: Helpful or Pointless?

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

Effective Technology Integration

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

Responsible Children? What Madness?

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.

Word Processing vs. Handwriting

Word processing software applications offer tradeoff benefits to traditional handwriting. Once trained (and in many cases, not much is needed when compared to minimally-trained users of handwriting!), word processing allows for greater quantities of content and basic mechanical revisions. These benefits may outweigh learning proper handwriting technique, including neatness, legibility, and style.

 
According to Hawisher (1989) and Snyder (1993), there was no conclusion concerning whether word processing tools fostered better quality of writing. Naturally, it did allow for greater quantity and, as expected, allowed greater ability to catch and correct basic mechanical errors. Hawisher, Snyder, Bangert-Drowns (1993), nor Goldberg, Russell, and Cook (2003 – no review of category) found that word processing had any impact on content revisions affecting the very meaning of the writing (Roblyer)! For a word processor to be considered something more than a productivity tool wouldn’t it, by its very nature, “extend cognitive functioning…to engage learners in cognitive operations” (The Word Processor)?

 
Since it is perfectly possible for a user to engage mindlessly with word processors, it is not a mind tool. It merely helps to expedite the writing process and allows a format which can be easily altered and shared among colleagues—it does not explicitly “require students to think in meaningful ways in order to use the application to represent what they know” any more than traditional handwriting does (unless, of course, we are going to consider a paper and pencil a mind tool also) (The Word Processor).

 
After all, “…word processing seems to improve writing and attitudes toward writing only if it is used in the context of good writing instruction and if students have enough time to learn word processing procedures before the study begins” as may very well be the case with traditional handwriting as well (Roblyer). Good instruction is key in either case.

 
Word processors do not help people to think cognitively any more than a refrigerator is going to help people eat. Surely both tools allow for greater versatility and productivity (the latter allows me to spend less time at the grocer’s!), but both are left either unnecessarily full of junk that might not otherwise accumulate, or else empty without someone who already knows how to write (or eat).

Works Cited

The Word Processor: Mind Tool or Productivity Tool? 21 May 2009. http://www.gradcenter.marlboro.edu/~augustap/mindtool.htm

Roblyer, M.D. Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. 2006 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) model is an extension of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) model proposed by Shulman. There are, of course, strengths and weaknesses found within the bounds of the model—resulting in comprehensive gains in creating technology-based instruction and design as well as presenting difficulties in application (Mishra et al.).

 
The TPCK model can be useful in creating technology-based instruction by placing strong emphasis on interweaving not only technology with content, nor only technology with pedagogy, nor only content with pedagogy, but rather technology with content with pedagogy together. It requires facilitators of technology-based instruction to consider appropriate infusion of the target content within the confines of research-based pedagogy via technological environments.

 
The model adds a level of critique to the design of instruction which may not have been present—at least to this degree—in past considerations. Rather than focusing on technology as a means for delivery of content alone, the TPCK model calls for a rigorous exploration of the pedagogical components interwoven within. It allows one to consider whether the absence of technology would be as effective as the incorporation thereof. It is a complex model enabling designers and creators of instruction to more fully consider the effectiveness of technological tools and how they impact delivery.

 
In application, the TPCK model can be daunting due to the dynamic connectedness of each component. For example, that which one component lacks, the others may take upon themselves in order to preserve the woven nature of the triad. Additionally, technology changes at such a rate as to make even the freshest of today’s technologies stale by tomorrow. Finally, no matter how skilled an instructor may be in the art of using technology, it is likely that the instructor is no match for teaching with that technology. It is far easier to incorporate technology in “edutainment” than to wield it in such a way as to engage students in “playful learning” or other learning processes (Mishra et al., Resnick).

 
Perhaps one of the biggest strengths of the TPCK model is its ability to provide us with an analytical framework by which we may judge educational technological tools. It allows us to break down technological applications so we may individually evaluate the effectiveness and goals of the content, pedagogy, and technology:

The framework allows us to view the entire process of technology integration as being amenable to analysis and development work. Most importantly the TPCK framework allows us to identify what is important and what is not in any discussions of teacher knowledge around using technology for teaching subject matter (Mishra et al.).

There are several weaknesses within the TPCK model. Let’s imagine you have a child entering middle school. If you were to choose between a teacher who was able to expertly balance content knowledge with pedagogical awareness and a teacher who was balancing content knowledge with pedagogical awareness while focusing on technological implementation, which would you choose? On the surface, you might take the latter because they are balancing more on their plate, so to speak. But then again, maybe that’s a problem. Perhaps the educator focused on delivering content using sound pedagogical principles through the use of technology is actually more focused on using the vehicle (technology) than on the PCK alone. For this reason, you may end up choosing the educator who could deliver the content using sound pedagogical principles because their time and effort is being poured into those two critical components alone. In other words, perhaps by adding the “T” to PCK, educators are spreading their dedication to education too thin (Mishra et al.).

 
Furthermore, it can be argued that technology is merely a vehicle, and if it were to be added it to the PCK model, we might as well be adding components such as curriculum knowledge, educational context knowledge, morality (read David Patterson’s When Learned Men Murder), individual/classroom management knowledge, etc. In this way we could achieve a truly complex, quantum approach to considering every possible element of the learning process. While comprehensive, this idea could prove futile because the most important of these components (content and pedagogy) would be reduced in order to compensate for divided attention toward the others:

…technologies are merely vehicles that deliver instruction, but do not themselves influence student achievement…learning is influenced more by the content and instructional strategy in the learning materials than by the type of technology used to deliver instruction (Ally).

While strengths and weaknesses exist and difficulties in application encountered with regard to the TCPK model, it has been and will continue to be useful in creating and designing technology-based instruction.

 
 
Works Cited

Ally, Mohamed. “Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning.” 2004. Athabasca University. 19 April 2009. http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/contents.html

Mishra, Punya, and Matthew J. Koehler. “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A New Framework for Teacher Knowledge.” Teachers College Record.

Resnick, Mitchel. “Computer as Paint Brush: Technology, Play, and the Creative Society.” MIT Media Laboratory.

Stereotypes and Diversity in Technology

It’s important to break the stereotypes associated with technology–especially in today’s global climate. The stigma surrounding sexes and ethnicities must be realized and dealt with if we hope to succeed as a nation (Chapman).

We should be diligent to recognize opportunities to engage students from all backgrounds with regard to technology. If we can find a “hook” which will catch the interest of today’s youth (in art, technical drawing, music, photography, web design, programming, science, etc.), then perhaps we will enable members of all social groups to grab technology by the horns and use it fluently within the context of their lives (Pinkett).

A huge remedy to these challenges could be to create Community Technology Centers (CTCs), which would foster not only the technological skills needed, but would do so by using the “hooks” which appeal to our diverse youth populations. In this way, boredom can be transformed into something useful, causing accidental learning everywhere (Chapman)!

Works Cited

Chapman, Robbin. “Redefining Equity: Meaningful Uses of Technology in Learning Environments.” 2001. Position paper on Equity and Education Technologies. 9 April 2009.

Pinkett, Randall. “Strategies for Motivating Minorities to Engage Computers: Position Paper for the Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Minorities and Computer Science.” MIT Media Laboratory. Cambridge, MA. 1999.

Linking Sexuality and Learning

I’m confused as to why we, as educators, are concerned that students are heterosexual when considering learning abilities. This needs to be left out of the academic educational sphere (except to deal with any resulting bullying). Why? Because while sexuality is a part of human behavior, it is just that–a behavior. Gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status are all unrelated to an individual’s behavior. If we begin talking about heterosexual/homosexual tendencies within the classroom, then perhaps we must begin considering solo sexuality, fantasies, sports preferences, what the children have eaten as after-school snacks, and tissue brand preference.

These examples are matters of behavioral preferences (some of which are inappropriate to the academic setting) and ought not to be attributed as classifications to the students we teach. Could you imagine if we identified someone as an upper-middle class, able-bodied, Caucasian, Puffs-blower, chocolate-covered-pretzel-after-school-snacker male? While perhaps these attributions are true, it is unnecessary for educators to classify based on behavior in such an inappropriate way, no matter how public students may be about such preferences.

From an educationally researched standpoint, how are we to truly incorporate consideration of something like sexuality within the bounds of reviewing an educational software package? Do people learn differently because they prefer a particular type of sexuality? Any sensitivity toward sexual preferences with regard to educational software would be disasterous because there should be NOTHING suggestive of that nature within our technological tools. Even if we included a picture of a family with two mommies (in an attempt toward sensitivity), it would detract from the learning process as the learner’s attention would be immediately diverted toward an image of something that is uncommon rather than being focused on the academic content involved. In this way, the content of the software has become more sexually explicit than necessary.

In mixed-sex classrooms, especially, the use of information technology to reach sexually explicit or risqué text and material provides a high-tech medium for teasing, harassment, and embarrassment. From the teachers’ perspective, the introduction of this material disrupts learning and weakens their confidence in being able to manage technology in the classroom (“Tech-Savvy”).

While perhaps advantageous from a political standpoint due to any normalization attempted by the software, it has no place within the academic educational sphere.

It’s not that I advocate insensitivity toward topics and situations which present themselves; I do not believe it is the place of educators to carry out political agendas to popularize human preferences–especially those pertaining to subjects which are banned to those younger than 18 years of age in media such as magazines, television programming, filmography, and websites. It is, however, appropriate and necessary for educators to guard against inappropriate material and any bullying resulting from students’ professed preferences within the academic environment. If significant educational research presents itself concerning the differences in learning abilities within groups of people who have preferences [seemingly] unrelated to education, I will certainly change this tune.

Works Cited:

“Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age.” April 2000.  AAUW Educational Foundation. 9 April 2009.

Who’s Driving the Learning?

There is a delicate balance between allowing students to drive their own learning and allowing federal mandates determine what you teach. The standards certainly provide a good skeletal structure for what needs to be taught in certain grades, but standards alone have no flesh and blood. Likewise, student interest provides some direction in the content which is taught (call it the flesh and blood), but without a skeletal structure is a rather useless heap.

While there are certain content areas which need to be addressed in each grade level, the “appropriateness” can be determined somewhat by the level of inquiry which has been developed within the students as well as by their obvious maturity level (for example, we wouldn’t give young students—if any—a car battery, stripped wires, and a light bulb in order to explore electric circuits), their zone of proximal development, as well as their developmental stage (as defined by Piaget).

By using appropriate and varied forms of assessment, I will also be able to uncover misconceptions. Through determining questions the students have, providing opportunity to confront misconceptions by comparing them to observation, providing proper information and allowing them to practice, I will be able to change their misconceptions.

Applying Piaget to Adult Learning

Although Piaget describes the stages as they relate to specific age ranges of children, much of his theory can, in my opinion, be applied to all age groups with regard to a wide array of topics.

For example, an adult learner might not understand how a particular computer program works. Despite any given modeling by an instructor, the learner is able to do nothing more than make guesses as to what is happening on the screen, and may not even understand why some visuals are appearing and disappearing again (sensorimotor).

As the instructor continues to work with the learner, the learner begins to manipulate parts of the program, though needs constant guidance from the instructor (preoperational).

As time passes and instruction builds, the learner is eventually able to work independently within the bounds of the program, manipulating variables in order to solve given problems (concrete operations).

Finally, the learner “gets it” when the ability to describe to someone how the particular program may be used to solve hypothetical situations without ever turning a computer on is mastered (formal operations) (Llorente, “Piaget”).

In this light, Piaget becomes more relevant to the cognitive process at all ages of human development rather than pinning his theories to ages 0-15.

Works Cited

“Piaget.” Funderstanding. 4 April 2009. http://www.funderstanding.com/content/piaget

Llorente, Juan Carlos. “Researching Adults’ Knowledge Through Piagetian Clinical Exploration…” 2000. Metapress. 4 April 2009. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=q7wj1471r3174g61&size=largest

Abraham Maslow: Learning Theorist?

Maslow is a bit tricky. I would question whether or not he is a theorist with regard to learning. Undoubtedly, his pyramid is simple and pretty and, on the surface, seems to make sense, but when it comes to applying it to human behavior it works, at best, sometimes.

First, Maslow arbitrarily picked who he thought were self-actualized people and interviewed them in an attempt to understand and make conclusions about self-actualization itself (Boerre).

Second, much of Maslow’s research was based on responses from educated white males. It would be nice if someone who wanted to validate his hierarchy could perform a cross-cultural study (Illeris).

Finally, Maslow does not attempt to describe the learning process, he safely lists attributes which need to be met in order for other attributes to be built on top. Nowhere does he explain how learning occurs (“About Learning”).

What would we say of martyrs like Joan of Arc or “starving artists” or of those imprisoned for their beliefs or of those historical figures who spent the majority of their lives in solitude, arguably wanting of any sense of belongingness yet who still exhibit strong self-esteem and, perhaps, actualization? Were they not able to accomplish and live for that which they felt called or destined? Were they unable to learn in hostile environments or where they lacked nourishment?

While it doesn’t explicitly address any ideas about learning, I find Maslow’s hierarchy useful to keep in mind when I consider a child’s aptitude in learning environments. I often realize that they are dealing with some of these very issues at home (physiological, safety, belongingness) and, therefore, I am more sensitive to what they may need within the confines of my classroom, and try to provide for those which a child may lack when I am able.

Works Cited:

Boeree, George C. “Abraham Maslow.” 2006. Shippensburg University. 4 April 2009. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html

Illeris, Knud. “How We Learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond.” 2007. Routledge. 4 April 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=41pWdwCrAx0C&printsec=copyright&dq

“About Learning.” 2008. Funderstanding. 4 April 2009. http://www.funderstanding.com/content/about-learning