Oct
23
2011

by

How the Interactive Whiteboard is Really Ed Tech’s Laserdisk

I’m taking a class at Walden University right now, and a recent prompt asked us to identify a future technology. I took a moment to reflect on this country’s current enthusiastic roll-out of Interactive Whiteboards, and why I feel strongly that these are not the best investment for our future in educational technology.

Instead, we need to embrace more fully mobile technology. The big clunky forward facing, whole class method of lesson delivery via Interactive Whiteboard, I believe, is the Laserdisc of educational technology. The overpriced fad of Interactive Whiteboards (whether Smart or Promethean) is imperfect in their current incarnation. Sure, we all imagine classrooms with “Iron Man2”:-esque 3-D touch sensitive lessons, but inherently these pieces of equipment do not illustrate the spirit of technology in information delivery: all-access, collaborative, open, interactive, etc…

Currently, they are only as engaging as the lessons created, and those lessons are tedious to create and time-suckers in their efficiency. The prep time to create charts that utilize any effects over-and-above what you would already do with a laptop and LCD projector feels clearly developed by those with a disconnect to the precious time we have in education and the many hats we already wear. Additionally, while these boards were initially meant to help less-tech savvy teachers to embrace technology use, their hefty training time and prep time serves as its own gatekeeper for more than just tech tentative teachers.

I believe an online colleague of mine, Bill Ferriter, said it best when he wrote,

“I’m willing to argue that even with time and training, interactive whiteboards are an under-informed and irresponsible purchase. They do little more than reinforce a teacher-centric model of learning…make presentations, give notes, deliver lectures…I ask you: Do we really want to spend thousands of dollars on a tool that makes stand-and-deliver instruction easier?”

Instead, I believe mobile technology, that truly frightening technology the schools would rather spend money on avoiding than really examining, is really the silver bullet (if there is such a thing.) Smartphones, for instance, have the potential to be the great equalizer.

Mobile technology caters to individualization and differentiation, which is the present and future of student-centered learning. Mobile technology is cheaper and also represents the concept of “democratization of information,” the openness of high levels of information to the masses. The Interactive Whiteboard is still locked and loaded into the antiquated philosophy of “sage on the stage” rather than “guide on the side.”

Yes, the remote clicker technology gives the very important immediate feedback, but gaining access to remotes is not dependent on the purchase of the boards themselves. The fact is that 99% of all students carry their own remotes right there in their backpacks.

In fact, my students interviewed a young scientist from JPL earlier this year. She had just returned from rural Africa where she helped establish Internet access to remote areas throughout the continent. When asked by one of my students what the future of Internet Access was, she said that it, frankly, didn’t include computers. After all, many people in these remote areas don’t have Macs or PCs, but they do have iPhones right there in their pockets. In other words, the future of Web 2.0 tools is already being defined by global availability.

As for the future of educational technology, we must guide our purchases to reflect the world around us. We must support the learner on the go. We must support individual use, not teacher-only use. We must support inexpensive options that give us access to the most information, easily accessed and easily presented. Smartphones, (and, I believe, eventually iPads or other tablet options) permit us to assume more and more that learners have access to the same information and opportunities.

The real question is How can we spend the money saved on Interactive Whiteboard purchases in ways that really propel education into the 21st Century?  What tools or training do you think are more to the point of education’s future?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

41 Comments »

  • Mathew says:

    Thank you for this post. There’s an Alabama teacher college that assigns students “Mr. Winkle Wakes” to watch in their classes. Most students agree with the movie because that’s what they assume they’re supposed to do. However, a few always disagree with the premise and their big objection is that schools near them now have SMARTBoards.

    There are innovative uses of interactive white boards. However, I generally see them used as replacements for overhead projectors. Unfortunately, the same can be sad for computers who are sometimes used simply to replace attendance roll books. Nevertheless, when making purchasing decisions I would always prioritize technology that goes into students’ hands.

    • heather says:

      Hey Needleman!
      Great to hear from you. It’s always true that any technology has the potential to be used well. I’ve seen the boards used beautifully, but it’s a question of expense, not just use, right?

      Hey, you going to CUE this year?
      -Heather

  • I tend to agree. The huge financial outlay and teacher directed focus doesn’t sit well with me. Use apple TV. Use the $ in redesigning learning spaces that are comfortable & conducive to learning. More mileage for money. Hardware comes and goes. Yes, I can see the advantages of IWB but do not agree that you need one in every class. Like anything, a variety of devices and OS would be more useful. Ultimately, I would say spend $ on providing educators at the school more time to develop and evaluate tools, resources & learning opportunities. This investment into human PD is paramount to successful student learning and character development.

    • heather says:

      Jeannette,
      I love your idea of a variety of tools. It’s like having a staff made up of different teachers with different strengths and styles. The differences create a stronger learner with a greater access to more strategies of learning and presenting what they know.

      Great point, and thanks for commenting!
      -Heather

  • Jeanne Pease says:

    One technology that is way overlooked, and yet has been proven to improve student learning, is classroom amplification systems. Go to classroomhearing.org for more info and see for yourself!

    • Rebekkah Kline says:

      This post is right on, there is so much actual research with control groups that shows sound amplification systems have a great effect on student learning. In my system, I have advocated for their use particularly in the lower grades and the schools we have put them in are seeing results in student learning. I am now in a school that has invested heavily in IWB before I was there and now am trying to get teachers to utilize them as more than just a teacher tool.

    • Wayne Logue says:

      What a brilliant point, something so easily overlooked but may have huge benefits with some attention. Makes me think of how important sound is in watching movies either at the cinema or even on the computer or at home. With great sound you feel far more engaged in the experience. Try watching a small screen with ‘dinky’ sound but then try it with great ‘amplification’!

  • Donna Phillips says:

    The IWB technology is only as transformational for the students and teachers who use it as their professional development allows. If PD is focused on the Technological Pedogogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) then it works. PD needs to lead with the pedagogy and the IWB technology becomes a means to achieving the PCK ends, it cannot be the thing itself or technology for the sake of technology. This is being done the right way in small pockets in North America. Most teachers look for the old within the new and after a brief period of technical training revert to thier familiar style of teaching, whatever that was before the new technoliogy was introduced. For IWB technology to truly make a difference in student achievment, there has to be a transformation of the teacher and their approcah to instruction and student learning.

    Having said that, asking students to take out their cell phones and text in a response to a poll was awesome, but only worked because I had the IWB where all the responses could be shared, discussed, then displayed as a word cloud, etc.

    There is so much potential for technology to change the way we reach students and help them engage. Teachers need access to rich professional development in order to do this.

    • connie glasgow says:

      Well written article & I agree 100%! The problem lies with lack of funds either school or family based. Any ideas where “others” get money to purchase hand helds?

  • James Teas says:

    I am a proponent for the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs), and encourage my fellow teachers to make fuller use of theirs. My concern is the same one I see assigning students on-line assignments – what if they don’t have a home computer or ready access to one? The same would apply to smartphone use – what do we do to accommodate (or not accommodate) students whose families can’t afford smartphone technology? My argument in favor of IWBs would be that it’s technology that my school already has (implemented in all classrooms).

    • heather says:

      James,
      At this point I start to think of certain levels of technology use as I do books. If we waited to provide books to all students based only on when they each had books at home, we would never teach reading.

      Anyway, you see my point. I don’t mean to argue that IWBs aren’t educative technology tools, just that their expense is something we must think about when settling on a tool. I liked the suggestion above that suggests that we use a variety of tools in schools.

      What’s to say that we shouldn’t have different tools being used in different classrooms? IWBs are too expensive for a district roll-out in lieu of more potentially effective, innovative, and efficient technologies.

      Thanks for chiming in!

      -Heather

  • Steve Bartleby says:

    Technology is not the answer to everything people! We have essentially become a lazy society that caters to students every whim. Students must come to understand that public education means they must take control of their behavior and accept the consequences when they don’t. We can argue forever on this issue, but technology in the hands of a poor to mediocre teacher simply means that you have a technologically inept poor to mediocre teacher.

  • Good luck with this one, Heather!

    No matter how right you are—and I’m way down with you—I tend to get fried every time that I argue against IWBs.

    There is a strong army of Promethean toting ninjas that will now be assigned to hunting you down.

    ; )

    BTW: I really like this thinking: “We must support the learner on the go.” That’s brilliant—and easy to get your head wrapped around.

    Rock on,
    Bill

  • Joe Butler says:

    I agree that mobile technology is the new kid on the tech block, but i disagree that IWBs need to go. A ‘blended’ technology environment is a more realistic goal for schools to achieve. I also think we need to be careful about statements that claim most or all students have mobile devices already as this is more true for teenagers than younger students.
    The main issue in this debate comes down to $$. With a limited budget to work with educators need to spend wisely, so often IWBs get a bad rap as they are considered expensive. My experience is that the boards last a long time so don’t end up being expensive but the projectors and their bulbs cost more over the same period of time.
    Thanks for an interesting discssion but, as usual, if people want to take a strong stand on one side and not see the benfits of a middle ground then there is really no discussion at all!

    • Erik Burruss says:

      I agree with this to a certain extent. We should be striving towards a classroom environment that reflects a blend between mobile devices and more static tech in the room.

      However, this blend needs to take money into account. I was asked quite some time ago when I taught history if I wanted an IWB. I asked them “Can I have 12 computers instead, so my students can learn online research?” I got a weird look and never heard back from our district tech people. Having an 1:3 computer:student ratio in a social studies class would be amazing, and if we’re talking about bang for the buck… a much more astute investment.

      Also, from what I’ve seen IWBs also cost a lot of money for simple maintenance. They too have bulbs that burn out, and are much more complex so they need significant maintenance including qualified technicians to repair/replace them. In addition, they are so large that simply moving them costs our district $500 (yes, that would be 13 computers in my classroom now). When you add in the wireless responders, kick the cost of an IWB up to $7,000. Again, the idea of “bang for the buck” is an important one that needs to be considered in any discussion of educational technology.

  • Eric LeMoine says:

    When talking about IWBs and mobile technology, we are discussing two different things. They are not mutually exclusive! I teach in a school with IWBs in every classroom, and in most cases, the students spend more time collaborating at the board then the teacher spends in front of the class. There is so much interactivity that can take place at the board that can’t take place with a small screen. The secret is to provide proper PD and support so teachers can see how to engage students with IWB technology.

    • heather says:

      Eric,
      Great point and dead on. I do wince, however, when the PD is geared so much to asking the teacher to conform to the tool and not finding the tool to compliment the teacher. I believe teachers need to always, and I mean always, continue to learn and grow, but should the IWBs be the mandatory tool of every teacher? I’m talking, of course, about a form of differentiation for our teachers as well as our students.

      Also, what about the next generation and the next? This kind of moo-la doesn’t lend itself to upgrade easily. It’s a tool that’s too expensive for a piece of technology that can’t evolve with the speed of technology.

      Thanks for the debate. You really bring up some great points. Of course, we all come from experience. You come from a school that is clearly using the tools well!

      Proper PD and ongoing PD are absolutely necessary, as you say. Of that we can agree!

      -Heather

  • Christi says:

    I am a teacher in a public elementary school. We are being given money to spend at each grade level. What do you see as the best use of this money ($1,200.00)? We want technology in our classrooms, but the lack of money is keeping us from having it. Now we get a little and don’t know what is the best use of that money. We do not have IWB. We do have 3 desk tops and a cart with a projector we share. We would love suggestions. Thanks in advance!

  • [...] This post on an external site is worth a quick read. [...]

  • Kristi says:

    The link below is an article on Edutopia, written by the very same author, in which she lauds interactive whiteboards and learner response systems, asserting, “(But,) unquestionably, the use of the interactive whiteboard and its voter-response technology is a true breakthrough in education.” She also states, “Interactive whiteboards are the future of educational strategies, and without proper adoption of these and other technology tools, teachers are doomed to become dinosaurs in their practices.”
    http://www.edutopia.org/interactive-whiteboards-technology-success

    In the present article, she writes:
    I believe an online colleague of mine, Bill Ferriter, said it best when he wrote,

    “I’m willing to argue that even with time and training, interactive whiteboards are an under-informed and irresponsible purchase. They do little more than reinforce a teacher-centric model of learning…make presentations, give notes, deliver lectures…I ask you: Do we really want to spend thousands of dollars on a tool that makes stand-and-deliver instruction easier?”

    My contention with this quote is that it assumes the method by which a teacher uses the interactive whiteboard is by “stand-and-deliver,” direct instruction, or ‘sage on the stage.’ However, the learning strategy used by the teacher is entirely by choice. The teacher is responsible for creating an interactive learning environment, not the board. I agree mobile devices, especially student response systems (clickers), are powerful tools for interactive teaching and learning, but this can be done with any number of tech tools, including the IWB. In an ideal classroom, the teacher will become a ‘guide on the side,’ assisting students to construct their own knowledge. A more effective way to use the IWB, instead of standing at the front of the classroom presenting information, would be to have students interact with the content displayed on the board. The teacher would move away from the front of the room to become a ‘guide on the side.’ He or she would be able to move about the room, creating a dynamic and collaborative experience, which would also generate more opportunities for higher order thinking. I agree mobile devices, especially student response systems (clickers), are powerful tools, but so too are the interactive whiteboards. The author’s opinion about interactive whiteboards do not sound well-reasoned.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Kristi Mead
    Instructional Technology Integration Coordinator
    M.S. Instructional Design and Technology (ABT)

    • heather says:

      Hey Kristi,
      Thanks for brining this up. It’s true that I’ve written about the IWB’s value. And I stand by what I’ve written at the time I wrote it, that staying up to date in one’s ability to be flexible with adopted technology is vital to a teacher’s craft. When I initially wrote that article, I was reporting from CUE if I recall. Robert Marzano was speaking about his studies of IWB (as it turns out, he was also working with Promethean at the time.) The fact is that it’s really exciting to use the board when one can manipulate them well. I’ve had a board in the past and there are some great features.

      But what I’m saying here is that we’ve all had time to slow down, take a deep breath, and really look at how we are spending our precious money. Are the IWBs really the best bet? I loved the Laserdisk when it came out too, but the fact is that it came and went with the evolution of technology. I wonder if the writing is already on the wall with the IWB’s evolution. Unless of course, these boards begin to adapt in a more efficient way.

      If we’re talking investment in our students’ futures, we need to put our money elsewhere for standardization across districts’ classrooms. There are other tools we can use as well, so why not vary our delivery?

      In terms of how the boards are used, you are right that one can use the board in a variety of ways. But many of those teachers are ones that were going to be teaching collaboratively anyway. But it is an expensive board that still inherently encourages traditional methods. Just because it’s tech doesn’t make it collaborative. The teacher does that.

      I just think there are tools out there that encourage active collaborating. IWBs do not inherently do so.

      Thanks so much for commenting. You gave great push back!

      -Heather

      • Kristi says:

        Hi Heather,

        I don’t think that much of your reply differs from what I said in my post. You say the board does not inherently encourage active collaboration. I said that it does not inherently encourage ‘stand-and-deliver’ direct instruction. However, I did not say that it encourages collaboration. I said that ideally a teacher would NOT be at the board presenting; the students would be manipulating dynamic content, allowing the teacher to be mobile, which would lend to a very different learning environment. Constructivism, collaboration, direct instruction and all other teaching and learning methodologies are designed and implemented by the teacher, no matter the tools used. The teacher, not the device, encourages active learning. That is the main message behind my post…that and don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

        If teachers cannot manipulate a board, it is usually because they are having difficulty with the integrating any technology into their curriculum. Teachers often tell me that they didn’t grow up with computers, so it’s all Greek to them and too difficult to learn. That mindset has been the greatest obstacle to facilitating the shift from education that was designed for the industrial age to the information age.

        As far as the cost, I agree that Promethean boards are outrageously expensive. An IWB is an IWB! There’s no need to spend that kind of money on the board. I have investigated and demoed several options. We have Promethean boards, mimeos, and now eBeams. The eBeam Engage is my IWB of choice. It is extremely cost effective and it alleys fears and anxiety of teachers by allowing them to keep there standard dry erase boards, as they learn to use the digital version. It is a device with speakers and other handy features that attaches to their dry erase board. By the way, I’m not a sales person. :)

        So, while I do understand your concern over the cost of large clunky boards like Prometheans, there are other IWB options worth looking into. It seems a shame to dismiss them all together, when research shows that using IWBs shows a correlation with gains in academic outcomes. They are particularly useful in special education and ESL learners. Anything we can use to differentiate and engage sounds good to me.

  • Sharon says:

    After having a Whiteboard in the classroom in the room for 1 year and losing it the next, I can’t say it has really impacted my teaching or student learning. The interruptions were frustrating (someone tripped over the power cord, so the board had to be reset. Someone moved the LCD projector, so the board had to be reset. The Smartboard program froze or shut down, so the entire system had to be reset. What I really like is the Smart Board Tools program, that enables me to build visual displays to support teaching and learning. It’s much easier than PowerPoint, and the interactive tools such as timers, screens and pop-it balloons can still be used when shown against my whiteboard or projection screen (I press the button on my keyboard). The kids still mark up the lesson, but with regular markers on the whiteboard and they’re just as excited to do this as they were to use the special Smartboard pens (that some kids couldn’t write with!). Give me a class of set of smartpads anytime!

    • Kristi says:

      Hi Sharon,

      Thanks for sharing. That is very helpful in evaluating products for my teachers. Technology often gets in the way of technology, doesn’t it! I do have teachers who’ve experienced the same types of common interruptions, but say that after using the board to teach, they can’t imagine ever not using it. They look like a mother cat looking for her kittens when they think about it. I wouldn’t say they are dependent on the boards, as if the boards are doing the teaching. I think they’ve learned techniques that free up monotonous tasks and give them more teaching time. That’s what I get from our discussions anyway.

    • heather says:

      Sharon,
      It’s very interesting to hear people’s different experiences with this technology. I, too, had a board that had to be taken away due to difficulties. I had to recalibrate with every period (that’s every 45 minutes) for almost 2 years, and the relationship with the board and the projector was very weak. We changed out the projector. We tried different laptops. It just wasn’t working.

      I think the thing that I found so frustrating, however, was that the commitment to the roll-out and the money that had been invested seemed to take priority to getting feedback from those piloting the boards. Each teacher who has raised their hand to receive one has been grateful yet frustrated. Just as I, who always raises her hand to try new tools, was grateful but frustrated.

      I have created wonderful flipcharts with my board. I have loved using the curtain, the dice, the reveal tool, the eraser, etc…My students have manipulated the charts, the lessons, and the content themselves, but as you say Is it the board that I love or the program itself sans board?

      Here’s where we all seem to agree:
      Options are great
      Variety is great
      Student-Centered is great
      Guide on the Side is great
      Money well spent is great

      I do think, however, that the money on these tools tends to commit a district to a certain level of roll-out that I believe can be best used elsewhere, and if I had to choose a tool that was a full roll-out-we-need-to-see-these-in-every-classroom, I would select a more individualized tool that supported a more individualized philosophy.

      Thanks so much for sharing your experience, and thanks so much for commenting.

      -Heather

      • Chris says:

        Buying a license for the software itself without the board costs about a third of the price of the board, which includes the software. Without the board, you’ll need to add a tablet device to take advantage of the manipulative features of the software. Total expenditure for the software and tablet device will cost almost the same as the IWB or more. What’s the advantage?

  • Mel Riddile says:

    Heather,

    Here is an excerpt from a blog entitled “Do Whiteboards Engage Students?” that I wrote on the subject:

    “Actually, what initially drew my attention to the issue of whiteboards was a request from the Business teachers for a rather sizeable purchase of expensive rubber mats most often used by clerks in retail stores, who are required to spend long hours standing in one spot. When I asked about the need for the purchase, the Business teachers told me that their constant use of the whiteboards forced them to stand in one place for most of the class period.”

    To read the entire post go to:

    http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference1/2010/06/do-whiteboards-engage-students/

    Mel

  • Chris says:

    You keep saying that IWBs are too expensive and that schools should use their money more wisely…Any idea what a class set of smartphones, iPod Touches, or iPads will cost?? Much more than the IWB. And you’ll need to buy more than a class set – you’ll need to implement a 1 to 1 if you really want to see a change in teaching and learning. Way more expensive than an IWB. Plus the teacher will still need something to create content on to share out with students. If not an IWB, now you’ll need to look at an additional tablet device, whether it’s an iPad or tablet PC of some sort. The IWB is still an integral part of a 1 to 1 implementation in that it still allows the teacher and students to show and explain their work up front and then re-use that digital work in other ways. Can schools really wait to figure out what mobile technology will exist in 5 years?? Shouldn’t they capitalize on what exists now that lends itself to content creation and student engagement and plan to add more in the future. After all, no one said the teacher needs to create all of the IWB content – students can access the software too. Not all schools exist in suburbia either where everyone has a smartphone in their pocket. Providing enough devices for those without in order to ensure equity is still an expense most schools can’t bear. Smartphones also create all sorts of bullying opportunities for students at school where harsh words can be texted back and forth without the teacher’s knowledge — that’s not really a problem with an IWB.

    • Steve says:

      In my experience, implementing a 1 to 1 environment within a classroom is actually rather cheap. All it really requires is saying “Hey kids, why don’t you bring your own device to school tomorrow.” Many argue that not all students own devices…of course this is true, but not as true as some may have you think it is. The inequities are fewer and less easily defined than you may think they are. This should only be stated when it is actually a fact, not as an excuse. IWBs have a purpose, but would be the last item on my list of technology to purchase. If it were free, then absolutely. Bang:Buck ratio is too low!

  • [...] read this great post on tweenteacher.com about interactive whiteboards.  I am blessed to be in a great classroom with a mounted projector [...]

  • [...] a “sage on the stage”, teacher in front of the class mentality. So anyway, when I saw this article, i found it thought provoking. Again, nothing against these devices, just food for [...]

  • Patricia says:

    I must say I felt a sense of relief when I read this post! This is my second year using SmartBoard technology and I find it to be far more frustrating than helpful. I want to love it, I really do, but something always runs amuck. For example, it freezes up, then I have to realign, I try to write and realize I am holding onto the eraser, and then I have to convert files so I can post them for my students…etc. I do enjoy the ability to have students manipulate objects, for example I had my students separate physical and chemical changes into the correct categories, but again, it is difficult to have everyone engaged and participating at the same time. I am not ready to give up and I am hoping the more I explore the easier it will become…right? :)

    • Jason says:

      What I am reading here is people complaining about IWB issues that are not IWB issues at all.
      Remember IWBs and their projectors are just touch sensitive computer screens.
      The freezing, stalling and crashing is not the result of IWBs but the computers that are connected to them.
      Schools who use IWBs should be more conscious of the computers that are driving them.
      This is a constant frustration as a tech specialist.
      The use (or misuse) as many people have pointed out stems from 2 main issues;
      1. Teachers with poor pedagogy
      2. Computers with poor performance

  • Paul Lorette says:

    Good points. I agree that we are wanting to get away from teacher directed lecture style instruction but I think there is still a place for these boards, particularly when we give the pens and the pointers to the students. I have seen kids on fire with their learning using the boards to present to their peers. One in every classroom? Probably not, would rather have ipads and video conferencing, but I think in some contexts, there is still a benefit for smart board technology. The real worry for me is teachers using the boards as a giant tv or computer screen and then claiming they are promoting 21st century learning and technology integration. Kind of like calling making a poster or a book report, Project Based Learning. Used wisely however, these boards can still be powerful learning tools for kids.

  • Brian Thomas says:

    Very insightful article. I do think there is limited use for interactive white boards in classrooms, but as schools are trying to allocate tech resources, I agree that mobile tech is much more collaborative and personal (ie student-centered). It is certainly possible to create great lessons that utilize a IWB, but like all other tools, it’s only used best in debriefs and collaborative experiences. I’d rather simply have a projector. With mobile devices connected wirelessly to the projected computer (see apps like SplashTop), teachers can get the same effect of an IWB, without all the added expense.

  • Charlene says:

    This is my fourth year using a Smartboard in my classroom. I love the technology for all the subject areas I teach (Math, Socials, Science, Language Arts). I especially love the math tools and games which let students explore and investigate as a class, in small groups and individually. I find it great for writing and reading lessons as well. It’s especially useful for PWIM. For most units, I have prepared multimedia presentations (images, information, videos, websites, games) to visually kick off lessons and concepts. Realistically, I probably only stand at the Smartboard for a total of 10 minutes per lesson. The rest of the time the students are working independently or co-operatively on concepts and activities. In short, I love having an IWB and would be disappointed to lose it. For those who have to recalibrate, look into getting your projector mounted.

  • If you prefer the traditional whiteboard, try a high end glass whiteboard. Great for the corporate or classroom environment.

  • Mike says:

    Kids today spend about 50% of their life “plugged in” to/with technology. the last thing they need is more of this dribble. What they really need is great classroom discussion focused on critical thinking and the use of primary sources of information whenever possible. Teachers should spend their limited resources on great supplemental content instead.

  • […] interactive whiteboards (IWBs) bubble to the surface. Evidence can be seen through blog posts like this or this and  Twitter exchanges or on discussion threads like MirandaLink, the ICT Research Network […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL


Leave a Reply

 

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Sign up for the latest news on all models of education. Geek out at your convenience on the latest trends in curriculum design and policy.
Join the mailing list today!

* indicates required
  • Latest Books


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License

Creative Commons License
© 2013