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

The Evil that is PowerPoint

Certainly, as is the case with any tool, there are abundant misuses. Edward Tufte makes an excellent point in his essay “PowerPoint Is Evil: Power Corrupts, PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely” seen in Wired Magazine (2003): “Alas, slideware often reduces the analytical quality of presentations. In particular, the popular PowerPoint templates (ready-made designs) usually weaken verbal and spatial reasoning, and almost always corrupt statistical analysis. . . . Particularly disturbing is the adoption of the PowerPoint cognitive style in our schools. Rather than learning to write a report using sentences, children are being taught how to formulate client pitches and infomercials.” Tufte explores the numerous mistakes people tend to make with PowerPoint, but offers few solutions.

Classroom use of PowerPoint is no exception. Poor teacher training (professional development, undergraduate education classes, etc.), the lack of premium example presentations, and the proliferation of ill-formed slideware among educators contribute to poor classroom use of PowerPoint. Teachers, students, businessmen, and other professionals get stuck including graphics, text, animations, and sounds because it’s possible—not because it’s the best way to get information across. Perhaps specific research should be conducted which would seek to find the best methods of conveying learning in a way which results in long-term storage through the use of PowerPoint.

According to M. D. Roblyer in Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (Fourth Ed.), users of PowerPoint should keep in mind several creative aspects. For example, users should create slides which enhance the presentation rather than using them as a teleprompter. PowerPoint should be used when a dark room is an appropriate environment. Font type, size, and color should be considered carefully. Graphics, animation, and audio must be relevant. Teachers need to explicitly teach these considerations in order to foster student success. Without this imperative instruction, students will make the same mistakes all humans are prone to: they’ll get caught up with putting things on slides because they can rather than pondering the specific purpose of appealing to an audience.

Graphic Tools and Graphic Organizer Tools–What?

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.

Works Cited:

Roblyer, M.D. Integrating Educational Technology Into Teaching, Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006.

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.

Tech Nothing More than a Vehicle?

Richard Clark’s perspective regarding technology as a mere vehicle has had a healthy impact on the field of educational technology for those who understand it. While it may generate a feeling of justification in those who see little value in technology, Clark’s quote is intended to convey a sense of responsibility to the users of technology.

 
We all view technology as a vehicle and not something which directly influences student achievement. For example, who might you decide receives the better education: a student who attends to a Discovery Education (http://streaming.discoveryeducation.com/index.cfm) video on saving rainforests and answers questions at the end of the presentation or a student who types “I WILL NOT ABUSE MY COMPUTER PRIVILEGES” into a Word document seventy times after visiting a YouTube video on Mortal Kombat during school hours? If you can (hopefully) identify the superior learning environment in which achievement is more easily fostered (with the guiding help of a teacher), it becomes clear that, although technology was an integral part in both situations, one delivered instruction better than the other. The qualification of better in the reader’s mind verifies that technology can be “driven” in different ways—to deliver different content, and also deliver it more or less efficiently (even with regard to something as simple as speed: dial-up vs. DSL, for example).

 
This impacts the field of educational technology by opening the door for defining educational technology and instructional technology, making older technologies useful, picking and choosing among the newest of technological changes depending upon the clarification of compelling reasons to do so, etc. (M.D. Roblyer’s Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching Fourth Ed. p. 12-13). It’s supremely important to analyze the way in which technology is integrated and to truly use it as a tool rather than simply because it can be used. Technology’s use within today’s classroom must be examined to determine if there is a significant difference in the achievement and outcomes of students compared to when and where the technology is not set in place (Thomas L. Russell’s The No Significant Difference Phenomenon © 1999). Does the technology simplify the delivery of instruction for the teacher? Does the technology increase student achievement?

 
Viewing technology as a vehicle creates a less magical world—one in which teachers must still teach, navigate the information highways, filter out the inaccurate or superfluous information, realize best practices, monitor student engagement and individual growth, and so on. From a humanist viewpoint, it is nice to fantasize about the idea of plopping a student in front of a screen and allowing them to discover everything—but of course Clark wakes us up by reminding us that there’s no magic; there’s just a truck full of stuff. It still needs to be unpacked by teachers and students as they connect the content to their individual lives. We still need pedagogical understanding and sensitivity toward content along with an awareness of how to appropriately combine the two within the cauldron of relevant technology, making it highly accessible to the learners of the twenty-first century.

Abandoning Technology

Clifford Stoll states in his book High Tech Heretic (1999) that “You certainly can get an excellent education without a computer” (p. 32). Of course this is true as much as it is true that you can live an excellent life without a motorized vehicle. The problem with either of these cases, however, is that just because the excellence is possible in the absence of technology it is neither superior nor necessarily desirable to reject it. For most people, a car is a valuable, integral component which allows for social interconnectedness, access to otherwise unattainable resources, and a general sense of freedom. The same is true for our world of computing.

 
Although we all know colleagues and fellow teachers who are well able to implement effective teaching practices despite their apparent inability to navigate electronically, imagine how much less effective they would be without technology. In other words, just because the best teachers are unable to use computers extensively does not mean that they have been unaffected by the technologies in place since the middle of the twentieth century when, more than likely, those very teachers received content and pedagogical awareness as a [direct or indirect] result of research shared via (gasp) computers (see Figure 1.2 in M.D. Roblyer’s Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching Fourth Ed. p. 10-11).

 
Stoll goes on to write that “When every student…is pressed to become a computer maven, and only the incompetent are allowed to become plumbers, neither our programs nor our pipes will hold water” (p. 123). Today’s contractors use a variety of computer applications to simplify their business applications. The home inspector I recently hired not only knew his trade and understood the systems’ operations throughout the property, but was able to efficiently communicate his expertise through digital photos (with electronic drawing overlaps), an on-site print-out of the bottom line (generated from a quick type-up on his mini-laptop), and am final e-mail which linked to the full, typed report complete with digital images, diagrams, and web-based links to further explanations on any system I could possibly have a question about—all available via the world wide web. The radon mitigation and septic contractors gave somewhat less detailed reports, but were clearly all generated by computers. Sarcasm alert: truly these are people who were the heart of the incompetent crowd forced into the field of blue-collar work; my pipes have surely lost water.

 
A personal, educational, and business web designer myself, I would hardly consider myself a computer maven in lieu of the ever-expanding web language upgrades, web 2.0 technologies, and CERN’s “grid” designed to outperform today’s version of the internet many thousands of times over. Students are no more computer maven than we are necessarily car mavens; sure, we can operate a vehicle—but how many of us would dare to classify ourselves as mavens? Just as we receive basic training on how to safely and effectively operate a motor vehicle, so should our students receive training within the bounds of our computer environments.

 
The fearful cling to methods which do not integrate compelling technologies; perhaps they will soon find themselves among the reenactments of renaissance craftsmen—fascinating, but no longer necessary. Farewell, Mr. Stoll…

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.