Beauchamp and Kennewell developed the paper “Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard” (2012) to further develop an understanding about how an interactive whiteboard can serve as a “pedagogical hub” in the classroom and what effects it can have on learning. In it they showed how perceptions of the usefulness of the board shapes the “technical and pedagogical skills” of the teacher and students. Two scenarios are used to convey the early stage of the interactive whiteboard as “blackboard substitute” and the later “synergistic stage of IWB use.”
The authors suggest the interactive whiteboard be a pedagogical hub with a vast amount of resources ready at hand for both planned and unplanned classroom lessons and activities. They suggest the resources should “typically include a class list, lesson objectives, timing software, random name generator, matching games, quizzes, movies, sound clips, files containing what was recorded on the board in previous lessons, web browser, as well the board-specific software allowing notes and objects to be created and manipulated during the lesson and providing a large library of images.” While this list by no means constitutes an exhaustive list of resources, it is evident that it does account for many scenarios that may arise in an engaging lesson. What is essential, as discussed by Beauchamp and Kennewell, is the orchestration of the interactive whiteboard’s resources which distinguishes the use of the board by good teachers from the use of the board by less successful teachers. These statements from the authors do not surprise me at all after having spent a decade in the classroom. Having many resources at hand is invaluable to every lesson as you really can’t predict whether or not something different will happen that day. You can’t predict every possible question a student may ask either. The more resources a teacher has at hand, the more interesting things become! And orchestration of resources is essential in any classroom regardless of where they come from. With a tool like an interactive whiteboard in the classroom as a hub students are better able to perform complex tasks that require multiple resources.
The model posed by Beauchamp and Kennewell describes a teacher in the first stage as using the interactive whiteboard for nothing more than a substitute for the whiteboard originally in its place. Use of the interactive whiteboard is heavily teacher directed with limited to no control or active engagement from the students. The board “takes a passive role as an object of interaction,” contrasting with the intent for the students to actively engage with the interactive whiteboard. In this model, The authors describe the lessons in the classroom to be unaffected by the use of the interactive whiteboard as though it were just a substitute for the blackboard when there were situations where the interactive whiteboard could have made the lesson more engaging and meaningful. For example, a student mentions to the teacher there is a relevant video on a reputable website that may be of interest and if the board was being used to its potential the teacher could have made the discussion of a text, in this case a letter written by a child, come alive for the students and made the topic more real for them. Instead the teacher tells the class to look it up at home on their own time. This was a tragic waste of a teachable moment.
The "synergistic use of the IWB" describes the next stage of interactive whiteboard use where the students and teacher experience a very different class lesson. The board is a hub of activity where "Both teacher and pupils are able to construct meaning and influence the direction, momentum, and scale of the next step of the lesson." The board is a shared tool rather than directed almost exclusively by the teacher. In this scenario the relevant video mentioned by the student is watched and becomes another source of information for the lesson. The interactive whiteboard facilitates problem solving and the creation of products that rely upon active engagement of the students. The classroom talk is not authoritative and directed by the teacher, but rather questioning and discussion facilitated by the teacher and developed by the students. In this stage with the interactive whiteboard the students are collaborative, reflective, and purposefully applying concept knowledge to new situations. All of this sounds like what we want our students to be doing in the classroom anyway, so if a resource like this is hanging on the wall in the classroom, why wouldn't we want to use it synergistically?
Free Resources for Interactive Whiteboards:
Promethean Planet
SMART Exchange
Free Resources for Interactive Whiteboards:Promethean Planet
SMART Exchange
