This seminar was titled, "Transformative Learning: Changing Teacher Pedagogy With Interactive Whiteboards." The presenter was Diallo Sessoms, a Ph.D. candidate in Instructional Technology from the University of Virginia. I highly recommend checking out his sight here. (Especially check out the 'interactive resources' link.)
From the conference booklet, "The purpose of this session is to report research findings about how elementary teachers use interactive boards and to highlight specific uses for interactive boards. Participants will see specific strategies for integrating interactive boards in elementary math and literacy lessons. Internet based resources will be provided for participants."
I was particularly interested in this session because it was not presented by a specific Interactive Board (IB) company such as SMART, InterWrite, or others. It didn't seem like a product sale.
The first point discussed was the need for educators to move from basic 'transmission' of knowledge to 'transformation' of knowledge. Historically, America's teachers have been transmitters of a body of knowledge that students are expected to receive and correctly catalogue. Today, students live in a world flooded with information. Children are growing up in a culture that assimilates information and synthesizes it for their own purposes - even creating knowledge and content with the ability to share it in a thousand possible ways. They can and do transform the information that comes to them. In order to prepare our children for existence (and jobs!) in this world, we must teach and model for them transformation of knowledge.
Technology for our students today needs to help them think differently, not just do faster what they are already doing. Interactive whiteboards can do exactly that, if the teacher uses it that way. They are extremely conducive to graphic organizers and whole-class problem solving. The teacher has the opportunity (which they may take or not) to become more like a coach as the students develop their own cognitive processes. Both independent and collaborative learning can take place.
The research on interactive whiteboards in the classroom is relatively new, and it sounds like the most authentic research is coming out of the U.K. I asked in the session if IB's have been shown to improve academic achievement - especially a concern in an inner-city, under-resourced school since we want to make the best investments. Apparently, IB's have not been proven in any way to increase academic achievement in the biggest research studies. What they are proven to increase are things like: student participation, student/teacher attitudes toward learning, student motivation, on-task student behaviors, and retention of learning. There is less repeating of lessons and reteaching when teachers use IB's. How that could not increase student achievement, I'm not sure. I think it's probably because IB's are a tool and not a method. As a tool, interactive boards are inherently subject to the manner in which they are used. Good teachers use them well, and other teachers... just use them, I guess. I think that in our school there is no question that they would be used well, especially if there is appropriate teacher training and follow-up and support.
The presenter of the seminar also included a prescribed process of developing a lesson for interactive whiteboards. Number one and two on the list was to analyze the challenge/variety in the current lesson plan and then think about how the plans should be modified according to student needs and interests. I'm thinking that with the visual/text/tactile components of lessons on interactive boards it is pretty clear how our students with learning needs can benefit from learning with the board as a tool. It seems almost like a launching pad for teacher creativity. I can think of about a thousand ways that instruction can be differentiated using IB's, especially when they are connected to the Internet. In fact, wouldn't it be great if we got a grant to study student progress before and after successful implementation of technology into the existing curriculum? I think so. We'd be a great case study.
I asked about the benefit of a Smart board as opposed to other brands of interactive whiteboards, and it seems like other IB's may do the job but that Smart Boards tend to have more 'bells and whistles' that really make things easier for teachers. For example, you can touch the screen with your hand, not just the special pens. It sounds like the board also comes with software/programs that are special for educators and really easy to use. Teachers who have used a Smart Board, what do you think?
I've emailed the presenter for his handout (which I missed, but will try to make available once I get it) and also the group that has done the IB research studies for a CD titled "The Good Guide to Interactive Boards." (I think it's the research group, I could be wrong.)
Also, click here for a site that has a ton of differentiated instruction information and handouts. Looks good.
One more thing: I asked about funding for such wonderful tools in our classroom, and the presenter mentioned that the Smart company may give grants for schools in situations such as ours. We should check it out, along with a billion other grants that I know are out there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
10 April 2006
Survey casts fundamental doubt on findings of DfES Study: 41% of schools report Interactive Whiteboards are contributing to real improvements in levels of student attainment – the rest of schools are struggling to cope with the implementation process
Interactive whiteboards are making a very real contribution to improvements in levels of student attainment. Of the 664 schools (567 Primary & 97 secondary) that responded to the National Education Research Panel’s pilot “UK National Interactive Whiteboard Training Survey” interim report– the largest and most comprehensive survey of it’s kind to date in the UK - 42.2% of Primary schools and 34.9% of secondary schools (41% overall) reported interactive whiteboards as contributing to real and observable improvements in levels of student attainment.
The Survey is the first of its kind to concentrate on the correlation between training and the successful integration of interactive whiteboard technology into the classroom. Key areas of the pilot survey focused on analysing the relationship between the length of time interactive whiteboards have been installed in schools, the level of staff competency and the perceived impact on student attainment.
The survey was piloted across 15 LEAs in February and March of this year. Evidence offered by a profiled sample of School Heads and ICT coordinators clearly shows that they believe that there is a direct relationship between the introduction of interactive whiteboard technology and real improvements in levels of student attainment.
If there had been more extensive and better planned initial training, more effectively focussed on the initial needs of teachers, the situation in schools may have been more positive. The likelihood is that the introduction of interactive whiteboard technology would have led to improvements in levels of attainment across a much higher percentage of schools.
The problem is that Head teachers and ICT Co-coordinators have been struggling to cope with the planning and of an often disruptive installation programme. More and more schools are now not just undertaking one installation, but typically a large number simultaneously. Indeed, in some cases an entire school-wide installation in one fell swoop.
It is estimated that there are now in excess of 200,000 interactive whiteboards installed in UK school classrooms – 44% of all Primary and 18% all Secondary classrooms). 79% of these have been installed within the last two years – 54% in the last 12 months.
The unfortunate reality is that Head teachers and ICT Coordinators have simply not had the time they would like to deliver training. They have hardly had time to sufficiently digest the impact that interactive whiteboard technology is having on educational provision in their school.
Great Expectations
A conflicting study by the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne was recently released. There is a real danger therefore that some of the conclusions reached by the study are based on wholly unrealistic expectations about the likely impact of interactive whiteboards in the initial phases of implementation.
Much of the press surrounding interactive whiteboard technology stems from the mistaken impression that the technology will have a dramatic impact upon performance in the months immediately following installation.
Interactive whiteboards are not a “technological quick fix” which automatically produce impressive leaps in performance simply by hanging a board in the classroom. In the same way that introducing computer labs and then the Internet has not resulted in great leaps in examination results.
There is a real need to educate key decision-makers about the importance of initial training in relation to the successful embedding of interactive whiteboard technology in the classroom in the first instance. Only then will continuing professional development be effective in making full use of the implemented technology over time.
This starts from the top down, starting at governmental level. There was no mandated requirement in either Phase 1 or 2 of the government’s funding of school’s technology through BECTA for training to be provided. This must now be regarded, if not as a serious oversight, then certainly a sin of omission. Sufficient consideration wasn’t given to either the training needs or pedagogical requirements of teachers.
This is a shame; today’s NERP Survey found that when the training offered was taken up it was rated as effective or very effective by school leaders:
Effective or very effective training?
• LEA sponsored training session 76%
• IWB manufacturer 72%
• IWB retailer/supplier 64%
The problem is that there simply isn’t enough of it on offer.
The survey found that a high proportion of schools relied on teachers to learn from each other or muddle through unaided.
Training provider?
• Teacher from your school 61%
• Self taught 43%
• LEA sponsored training session 49%
• IWB retailer/supplier 26%
• IWB manufacturer 23%
This is both a source of strength but also a source of great weakness for schools. It is a source of strength because it encourages the growth of supportive learning communities within schools sharing best practice and resources between members of staff. On the flip-side it places an unfair reliance on early adopters of interactive whiteboard technology who are expected to share their knowledge with others usually in their own time and often at the expense of their own professional development.
There is a real danger that not enough well thought-out and effective training is setting teachers, students and schools up to fail.
“There is an underlying perception, which is engrained within British educational culture that teachers will somehow muddle along and cope with the introduction of cutting edge technology in the classroom as it arrives and as it is installed,” said Richard Connor, a Senior Partner for NERP. “There is little foresight given to how to manage a successful implementation regime. It is incumbent on both the government as well as the interactive whiteboard manufacturers themselves to educate the educational leaders.”
It is understandable that 11% of the pilot schools were unable to commit to a response on improvements stating that it is too early to assess the impact of interactive whiteboards on student attainment. They have simply not had access to, or been using the technology long enough, to make a valid judgement about its impact in the short to medium term.
The clear message is that it is incumbent both on the government as well as the interactive whiteboard manufacturers to educate school leaders. To ensure that teachers in schools receive the kind and level of training that effectively allows them to maximize the impact that interactive whiteboards have on pupils in the classroom.
The second phase of this survey began in March, with surveys sent out to over 25,000 schools. The final report covering in excess of 5,000 responses is planned for distribution in June 2006 and will form the largest UK response to issues relating to interactive whiteboards and training issues.
For more detailed information about the National Interactive Whiteboard Training Survey, please download the interim pilot media report from http://reports.nerp.org.uk/iwbpilot.pdf
Ends
The more I'm reading and thinking about this, the more I am convinced that we can and should use this technology at our school. The KEY is going to be adequate teacher training and support. I know the teachers at our school already often feel stretched to the max, but I think that if IBs were implemented with a high degree of support we could really see some great results. I envision a staff person who is willing to learn proficiency with an IB and then share knowledge and be on hand to help problem solve when the IBs are initially introduced. (I can see this person taking lesson plans, for example, and finding websites and/or IB tools that work well and helping a teacher to integrate it into the lesson.)
Thank you, Mr. Sessoms for sharing your comments and the research that is happening in the U.K.
Post a Comment