Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Teachers' views on Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs)
Teachers contributing to the Leask and Preston research (2010) complained about
Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) software suites that major on resources that promote
mechanistic, behaviourist approaches - for example, testing knowledge instead of
constructing it. This kind of testing approach has limited application and is over-rep-
resented in software available to schools. It has some value for checking on progress
from time to time, but little value in concept development for the individual learner.
The teachers recommended IWB resources that have a sound pedagogical base
and which can be used to develop thinking skills, such as the mind-mapping tools
that already exist, and resources for sorting and classifying or for logging experiences
in an immediate and representative way. The best IWB products were considered to
be generic tools rather than those that provide specific one-off resources. In order
to master specific one-off resources, a teacher has to carry around a lot of informa-
tion about what might be used just once for a particular job - whereas tools that can
be adapted to meet a range of needs are more likely to be used. Teachers in some
subjects said there was little software available to support work in their specific sub-
jects. To maximize the adoption and embedding of new practice, many teachers need
exemplars which are explicit about pedagogic issues. Descriptions and case studies in
which pedagogic approaches are implicit are not sufficient. See chapter 3 for a filler
discussion on IWBs.
Developments of LOGO-type control programming were praised because they
have developed the original product so that the same program can be used without
an interface to begin with, but teachers can then move on to the control of external
devices with the older learners - hence they can be used with a range of age groups.
In terms of costs teachers prefer robustness to cheap and easy availability, such as
low-quality, digital still cameras. Teachers become disenchanted when equipment breaks
easily and cannot be repaired. However, designers needed to be alert to issues like tel-
ephone costs. One idea to be explored is that laptops for learners, loaded with all the
textbooks, might be cheaper than printed topics if the copyright issues can be agreed.
Further points to consider in choosing digital resources are summarized in Table 9.4.
Any investment in education should be linked to learning gains. If the case
can't be made that learning gains result, then the plans are not sufficiently formed.
Table 9.5 summarizes general questions to use in evaluating resources.
When the teachers contributing to the Education Futures research (Leask and
Preston 2010) compared digital with non-digital tools and resources, they commented
on the greater teaching power they now have with digital tools and resources at their
fingertips. They pointed out that, while there are some experiences that cannot be
replaced by technology (such as handwriting, music and sport), even these activities
and learning experiences can be both supported and enhanced by technology - for
example, the use of video to demonstrate and analyse performance.
The shift in school and college purchasing practice in the UK from the position
of teachers purchasing individual packages to suit their teaching to a central model
of purchasing materials to use via the learning platform has implications not only for
industry and for licensing arrangements, but also for innovative teachers who may be
Search WWH ::




Custom Search