IWB: One giant step backwards?
Feb 21st, 2009 by Cathy Jo Nelson
In my career as an educator, I’ve had a chance to use Promethean, E-Instruction’s Interwrite and the SmartBoard. The only one I used for any length of time was Promethean. GSF has made me rethink this today, especially after I visited a school this morning that boasted of every classroom being outfitted with interactive white boards and smart technology.
Which system is best?
Each system I ever had the opportunity to use provided me with a wireless pad of some kind, allowing me and students to be mobile and interactive with the technology. Having the equipment is/was wonderful, and I’ve really transformed the way I teach when I have access to such tools. I’ve used slates or pads and hand held peripherals quite successfully with IWBs. But my issue with the concept of using an IWB is more than just the “how” I’ve changed as an educator in style and presentation because I had access to these tools.
Cost = Engagement?
A classroom that goes to an IWB must have minimum three expensive pieces of equipment: An IW board, a computer, and a projector. But generally two of the three pricey components of a smart classroom are designed and intended for use by one person at a time. By and large with the addition of the equipment, even if placed with the very best educators, glimpsing in these rooms will reveal one person at the front using the resource. Granted there are great interactive lessons out there, but the vast majority are interactive by definition simply because one person at a time “interacts” with the board. The rest of the class is passively engaged (if even that.) With increasing numbers of IWBs, we have regressed to a degree in my opinion.
IWB Sacrifices Community in the Classroom
Just when classrooms in the last decade had begun to move away from the expert orating from the front while the non-experts learned passively from seats facing the front, typically in rows, the pendulum is swing back. With the shift in pedagogical thinking, classrooms ten years ago were moving towards a community atmosphere where groups of varying sizes could work, and there were purposefully designed spaces a place for the educator to build community with varying sized groups as they implemented lessons. But recently the trend has been to outfit every classroom with the revered IWB. So the shift now is to go back to the desks in rows facing the expert. Its as if education and methodology have taken a huge step BACK in time, despite the tools of connectedness and interactivity.
Is an IWB Enough?
Looking at costs, and these are rough estimates here, costs are about $6000 per classroom. 
Also factor into it that peripherals like slates and handhelds are expensive luxuries that many schools can’t always afford, so corners are cut. Due to high costs, some schools provide each class with a pad, but make a single set or two of the handhelds available on a check out basis from the library, or worse, from the district office—if at all. If money weren’t a factor, then ideally a classroom would have multiple interactive pads to use simultaneously in the room, along with its own set of handhelds. So rough estimating here–three interactive slates at an estimated $1000 each AND a set of thirty handhelds at an estimated $1500 a case, and now we are talking a whopping $10,500 to outfit a class that potentially can engage the entire group in lesson implementation.
What is the key to a successful Smart Classroom?
Think how many mini laptops or Ipod Touches the minimally outfitted smart classroom could buy! Each person would have their own and increase the potential for 100% engagement. Of course this hinges on whether or not a teacher can plan engaging lessons using the tools. No, the real problem (besides the gi-normous expense in the equipment) is that most of the educators who are using them have not changed their style of teaching from how it was done in the 18th century. The only change i
s the tools. Technology is supposed to be the great classroom flattener–the element that brings the world to your classroom, and lets your students go global in their learning. Does the IWB strengthen that or hinder it? Does it move us forward, or have those educators using IW technologies just taken one grand-daddy step backwards….?
Image: ‘Apple iPod Touch’
www.flickr.com/photos/54211299@N00/1373582248
Image: ‘Box of Voting Tools’
www.pomounties.org/568101027174456183/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=54121
Image: ‘Smart Board Compare and Contrast’
www.flickr.com/photos/79427691@N00/2100882129
Image: ‘Yesterday‘
www.flickr.com/photos/93382027@N00/2254480335
Excellent commentary on the rush to the latest ‘big-screen” gizmo, often by administrators who never use the/any technology on their own.
Thanks Alice. I want to do an informal study at the school I visited recently that boasted their IWB in every class, and literally walk around to see how “engaged” students are, and better, how many students are at the board vs. how many teachers are there. I believe it would be an eye opening informal study for the principal to see,
Cathy,
I completely agree. I’ve always felt that “Smart” boards were overrated. I think they can be useful, but as always, a tool is only as good as how it is used. If I had to choose between a projector in every classroom or an IWB in only a few, the projector wins every time. Plus, a wireless keyboard and mouse can do a lot for a lot less money. The IWB software can also do a lot without the board.
-Liz
Hey yeah–I agree whole heartedly! I probably should look into a wireless keyboard and mouse for my teachers who only have a projector. Thanks for helping me think outside the box.
Agree… An iPod Touch with Air Mouse gets you 90% of what ya need…
@Tim —and think of how many a school could buy for the cost of outfitting just ONE classroom! It’s downrght gluttony to install them.
I loved the IWB when I was in a public school library. I really, really wanted it and got the Smarterkids research grant for a free board. I used it every day and loved it. But I do NOT recommend putting one in every room. As with any device, it should not be obtained unless there is a committed user with a plan waiting to put it to use.
@drmaryannbell I agree. I’ve had one–used it WITH kids everytime I had a class. But that is NOT the norm in my observation –which is sad. Thanks for visiting.
The debate in our senior high tech committee for long-term planning is mounted computer projectors in each classroom vs. IWB with built in projectors. The IWB only costs a little more after the cost for extra wiring /mounting is considered.
Advantages: the extra features: can capture work from SMARTdocument camera, interactive activities for small group work, etc.
Disadvantages: mounted projectors allow a bigger screen.
Some teachers want IWB and say it helps with informal class assessments/engagement – others just want the projector. I’m wondering if younger/new teachers will find the extra features worthwhile in the long run.
Quite a dilemma – thanks for the insights.
Rhonda
Cathy – yes, I absolutely agree with what you are saying! An IWB places the teacher right back at the front of the classroom and while there is some interactivity it is very much teacher controlled. I would much rather see money spent on laptops for students and see the teacher moving about the classroom talking with students and facilitating their learning.
Thanks Donna. My frustration is that every new school I read about is getting all classes outfitted, and my school (not new) is still struggling to provide classrooms the basics. Its just not fair and a colossal waste IMHO.
This was a great post and I totally agree. My special ed students would never stay engaged if I just used and IWB to teach them. They have to be involved and doing in order to learn and retain the knowledge. For me, spending this money for my classroom would be a waste of money. I also have heard many teachers say they never use it anyway.
Another good point about special needs students and engagement/attention span Pat! Thanks for sharing.