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.
Graphic tools and graphic organizer tools each serve a unique purpose within the realm of education. Graphic tools include applications which: enable the user to draw, automatically create charts or tables based on numeric data, and/or allow manipulation of image outputs. Additionally, graphic tools include end products, often via digital libraries, such as animations, founts, photographs, clip art, and videos. Graphic organizer tools, on the other hand, allow users to directly organize and construct knowledge and concepts in visual ways. Organizational and flow charts, concept maps, idea maps and webs, storyboards, and timelines are end-product graphic organizers which can be used not only to represent ideas and concepts visually, but also to assess the creators’ understanding of those ideas and concepts by fostering the output within a constructivist environment.
Google’s Picasa (a free download is readily available online) would be easily categorized as a graphic tool because it allows a wide, untrained audience access to basic and effective image manipulation. Users may blur, replace unwanted portions with samples from elsewhere in the image with two simple clicks, automatically adjust color settings, add overlapping text, etc. In this way, users have power over selecting and editing any saved image in order to convey ideas or concepts, illustrate documents, or delving into particular learning experiences, such as exploring symmetry in a math class.
Microsoft’s Word program (found in Microsoft Office packages available on many PCs) includes “SmartArt” which enables users to easily select a type of diagram or chart in order to communicate information, concepts, and ideas. Using this tool, for example, users may identify a basic idea to explore, then relate other concepts to the original idea (through assistant, coworker, and subordinate mapping available through a simple right-click) and to other corresponding concepts through propositions (shown using text input on or among connecting lines, for example). In this way, users exercise power over ideas and are able to represent knowledge and concepts in a visual, meaningful manner.
Each of these tools (among numerous other applications which can become as complex and pricey as one could ever hope) have a particular use: Picasa may be used to manipulate images in order to provide explicit visuals for use within a larger presentation (exporting as web pages, files, etc. therein), whereas Microsoft Word’s “SmartArt” feature may be used to show visually how an idea relates to others. Each tool (graphic and graphic organizer) has specific valuable applications within the context of education, and must be mastered individually in order to take advantage of what each has to offer the learners and educators of today.
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).
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.
Are there really enough people who can resort to asking this question?
Apparently yes!
According to the IRS,
You may claim a kidnapped child as your dependent if the following requirements are met:
1. The child must be presumed by law enforcement to have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of your family or a member of the child’s family, and
2. The child had, for the taxable year in which the kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of such year before the date of kidnapping.
Do this, but start with school buses. School buses are often “tethered” (if you’re on a field trip, just use one of the “normal” buses) to a district. Install a few electric terminals there, let the districts sing your cost-saving praises to the surrounding community, then districts might even be in a position to make a profit off of their stations as the bolder within the community decide to purchase these electric cars.
There you have it. That’s our idea for Shai Agassi and the upcoming electric car boom–make it an electric bus boom to sell entire communities on the idea while promoting education and strengthening the educational system within individual communities throughout the country and around the world.
Use this link to track an eagle’s nest by live webcam…it’s up during daylight hours and you’ll need to refresh the page after about 20 minutes of view time.
If you ever want to raise your kids’ stress levels (or your own) while teaching them a valuable, necessary skill in today’s technologically privy society, direct them here…
Unless, of course, you choose the “Random Text” option which is completely not valuable–but extremely challenging and constantly frustrating.
WARNING: If you’re good, it can get kind of addicting…(feel free to change the “Tutorial” to “Web Site/Blog” then cut and paste the following totally random blog: http://www.eduponder.com)
Found this fun little puzzle. Originally created for 3rd graders, it’s become a hit with all age groups. It’s a cross between the academic game “24″ and Sudoku. I’ll start implementing this within my classroom at my first convenience! If nothing else, this will challenge brains in those inevitable doldrums between activities throughout the day.
Click on the image below to check out the official site.
