We Need Practice!

Yalın Kılıç Türel and Tristan E. Johnson report in “Teachers’ Belief  and Use of  Interactive Whiteboards for Teaching and Learning” on a study they conducted regarding teachers and interactive whiteboards in Turkey.  Teacher perceptions and use of interactive whiteboards were researched and analyzed to determine if there is any relationship between the two.  This may have implications for other research on interactive whiteboards when the data for these other studies relies heavily on teacher perception, especially if  this perception is not addressed in these studies.  There was also a need to examine the relationship, if any, between frequency of use and the training teachers are given in using interactive whiteboards in the classroom.  Türel and Johnson designed research questions that addressed topics and sources of training for interactive whiteboards for teachers, the frequency and perceptions of the whiteboards, and what relationships exist between competency, discipline area, and perception of teachers in this area.  Using a quantitative descriptive research method, the authors designed and distributed a questionnaire to teachers they determined had a sufficient amount of experience with interactive whiteboards.  The teachers, who responded anonymously, were mostly under 36 years old and had been teaching for less than 10 years.  The results were telling.

The majority of the teachers received training from either interactive whiteboard companies or educational students, but independent and group discovery and experience was also important for use.  Teachers reported needing further training in technical knowledge and skills, teaching methods, and designing activities for interactive whiteboards.  The most used feature of interactive whiteboards was the mousing function, and hyperlinks were used the least.  Teacher perceptions about the use of interactive whiteboards were overwhelmingly positive as they felt the visualization of content was engaging and helpful for student learning, though responses indicated teacher-centered rather than student-centered processes.  Analysis of the data indicated there is a relationship between the perceptions teachers had and the frequency and length of use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom, that the level of use moderately affected teacher perception.  But what does all of this mean to teachers and schools?  How does knowing this relationship exists help? 

It seems the more knowledge and experience teachers have regarding interactive whiteboards, the more common and effective their use is in the classroom. In the article, the authors state “if we are to expect students to improve their learning in the classroom, teachers need to develop their technology skills and positive attitudes through continued collaborative training and practice.” (2012) While formal training on use is important, more value is given to learning from each other and on their own, which seems obvious given the amount of research and time we give the idea of students learning through personal discovery and from each other as being extremely effective methods. In my own experience, when new technologies are introduced the mandatory trainings are hurried, one-size-fits-all affairs that teach the absolute basics and rarely seem relevant to my own situation, forcing me to learn it on my own anyway but now without the time set aside to do so. One year the district I was teaching in at the time introduced a new web-based program that was mandatory for use in our classrooms. Even though I went to two trainings, one of which was advertised as for advanced users, I learned very little beyond what I had discovered just poking around the site. The trainer was unable to answer any of my specific questions, questions I had to research and find answers to on my own in the end anyway. My colleagues all went to each other for help and ideas on how to use the program. We even begged for time to work on the program on our own during professional development time or "teacher work days" but was never given any. The feeling was that this "unstructured time" for teachers was akin to "free time" for students: extremely unproductive without strict accountability, i.e. district approved activities. This mindset is condescending and at times outright insulting considering we are all educated professionals with a desire to work on methods to improve teaching and learning. And a need for time is supported by the research of Türel and Johnson (2012) as vital in a teacher's 
development of skills in using interactive whiteboards. It is 
not a stretch to assume this finding could be repeated with other technologies, so why haven't we done anything about this at a local level? How do we begin to change the "free time is wasted time" mindset? I'm open to ideas.

What Didn't Come From the Mouths of Babes is Just as Important

In “Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard"
(2012), the authors, Süleyman Nihat Sad and Ugur Özhan, describe a study they conducted with the purpose of investigating the experiences students across grade levels had over the previous two years in classrooms with interactive whiteboards.  Fifty students were placed in five focus groups for interviews. The authors asked students what they liked and disliked about the use of interactive whiteboards in lessons, and how the boards enhanced learning for them.  In doing so, they discovered a question they had not considered before - whether the interactive whiteboards are being used correctly.

Among what students liked most about the interactive whiteboards, the ease of use, lack of chalk dust, better visuals, and time-saving factors were at the top of the list.  The students overwhelmingly disliked technical problems that made using the interactive whiteboards difficult.  When asked how they believe interactive whiteboards enhanced their learning, the students reported that they were better able to visualize information and give it context.  One such response said “‘I was able to understand the human circulation system clearly distinguishing the arteries and veins, red and white blood cells thanks to clear and colored visuals on the IWB’ (Sixth grade).”  The students also felt the internet resources accessed through the board helped them learn abstract concepts better.  What these responses revealed to Sad and Özhan is the very real possibility that the interactive whiteboards were not being used correctly.

What the students reported as being the best liked features or the ways the interactive whiteboards enhanced their learning can all be done with just a computer with an internet connection and projection surface, something I have done for years in classrooms without interactive whiteboards.  If that is all that is beneficial to the students, then why purchase the interactive whiteboards in the first place?  The visuals the students stated being the most effective in enhancing their learning did not rely upon the interactive whiteboard to function and the board became a de facto projection screen.  Being able to easily access resources using the internet is also not a function of the board - it is a function of the internet-connected computer.  What students reported liking were actually teacher-centered activities whereas the interactive whiteboard facilitates student-centered activities.  With the many functions that enhance learning through interaction and active participation with the interactive whiteboard, the lack of responses involving these functions lends itself to the authors’ suggestion that the boards were not being used correctly.  

Sad and Özhan recommend an integration of technology and pedagogy where teachers are knowledgeable in strategies and methods that support the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom.  In order to integrate technology and pedagogy teachers need to be trained and supported in the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom, a point the authors do not make in their recommendations.  I have mentioned in this blog before the importance of training teachers in the effective use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom (see Effective Use: The Key Word is Effective), and this study further supports this need for initial and ongoing training in incorporating this technology into a teacher’s pedagogy.  The use of some technology is far from intuitive and interactive whiteboard skills do not lend themselves to being picked up without guidance.  The first time I attempted to use an interactive whiteboard in another teacher’s room I could not figure out how to get the pen to write where I wanted it to.  The point must have been off about six inches to the right and at an odd angle.  Thankfully one of the students knew the board needed calibrating (and at that time I didn’t know this was something you do) and showed me how to do it.  Now, I’ll calibrate everyone’s board!  And how did I become excellent at this?  I was taught by someone else who knew.  There are many other functions involving the board that I or someone else would need to know and we will not get them, not easily anyway, without training and support.

Bonus Video: How to calibrate a Promethean Board. As easy as this seems once you know it, I never would have figured this out on my own. The more you know!

Using the term "synergistically" unironically!

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