Interactive Whiteboard Use

I’ve read and written a good amount about interactive whiteboards (IWBs).  Basically, the main debate regarding them centers on whether they should primarily be used as for teacher-centered instruction or learner-centered instruction.  Most research has concluded, perhaps unfortunately, that the interactive whiteboards are primarily a teacher-centered instructional tool.  Below is a summary of some of the teacher centered uses of interactive whiteboards:

• Easily compare texts at once by splitting the IWB into three side-by-side screens (Miller and Glover, 2002).
• Quickly annotate, highlight, and flip back and forth between pages of a digital text (Thomas, 2003).
• Reload class- and teacher-created material for review.
• Enhance lessons with sound, video, and images (Levy, 2002).
• Transform, break apart, and rotate fractions, angles, and polygons (Edwards et al., 2002).
• Spend less time managing physical resources (Latham, 2002).
• Save time preparing lessons by more frequently saving, sharing, and reusing lesson material (Lee and Boyle, 2003).
• Regularly model ICT skills on a large screen (Goodison, 2002).

Clearly, interactive whiteboards are capable of truly transforming whole-class (teacher-centered) instruction.  In contrast, IWBs ability to transform learner-centered instruction is debatable.  Essentially, every argument defending the learner-centered benefits of IWBs is confounded by the basic fact that IWBs do not allow more than a few (usually only one) person at a time to control the display of content.  No matter how engaging or interactive, one must question the categorization of IWB lessons as “learner-centered,” which would place them in the same category as lessons built on the principals of group collaboration, student self-direction, and project-based activities.

However, in another paper I have made the case that IWBs are capable of indirectly facilitating and improving learner-centered instruction.  Firstly, time saved using the IWB to explain concepts can provide additional time for collaborative, self-directed, and project-base activities.  Secondly, greater understanding of teacher explanations can lead to more effectual leaner-centered work by students.  And thirdly, student knowledge that group or independent work might be shared with the rest of the class via the whiteboard can cause students to work with increased earnestness.

Since IWBs are nothing more than large, touch-sensitive computer screens, their ability to improve the accessibility of classroom learning anymore than laptops is limited.  However, I can imagine that IWBs could be of benefit to a learner such as Sarah (from the example student profiles).  Sarah has ataxic cerebral palsy and although she very much enjoys working with other students, her disability probably makes it difficult to express herself as much as she would like.  Therefore, the IWB’s ability to allow Sarah to easily present her work to the whole class could be of great benefit.

Also, someone like Emma who struggles with number sense could benefit from a teacher’s improved ability to explain complex mathematical concepts using an IWB.

Universal Design Challenge (Phase 2)

Improving the elevator in my building--and making more universally designed--would require the following:

• Make the elevator larger and the entrance-way wider.
• Make the doors open automatically when they reach a floor. (As is the case on almost all modern elevators.)
• Ensure that the elevator and edge of each floor are perfectly aligned.
• Install an audio system that states the present floor whenever the elevator starts or stops moving. (I don't think I've ever seen an elevator that does this.)
• When the elevator starts moving, the audio system should say what direction it is headed. (I know I've never seen an elevator that does this.)
• The elevator should beep as it passes each floor. (This is common on many elevators, but it would be more useful to a blind person if the above two improvements where also present.)
• Lower the elevator's button panel and include Braille next to each button
• The alarm button should only need to be pushed once, not held down.  When pushed, the alarm should be loud enough to be heard from nearby floors.  It should also automatically notify the building's superintendent.

Recent Web 2.0 Experience

I recently used Google Docs for the first time to work collaboratively with others.  It was for the class "Designing Curriculum and Instruction."  Our group--consisting of seven members--was tasked with writing a 1-2 page outline of our final project (due in December).

I did not have a positive experience working in this manner. As each of us wrote our respective parts of the summary, we were all essentially adding our own pieces to a puzzle.  Unfortunately, our pieces didn't quite fit together right.  Those members who first added to the document ended up making the best contributions.  But as more of us tried to contribute, it became more and more difficult to connect our own ideas to the many ideas already in the document.  Thus, the concluding paragraphs ended up expressing ideas similar to the introductory paragraphs.  We really didn't need to write more than 1 page summarizing our project, yet our summary ended up being a sprawling 2 page document.

I wonder how we could have made our collaboration using Google Docs more effective.  On solution is obvious: have fewer than seven people working together.  But what if reducing the size of the group is not an option?  Perhaps we could have been talking on the phone (or Skype) at the same time that we were collaboratively writing.  Or perhaps we could have started earlier, so that we had time to review the document as a group after each of had all made our individual contribution.  Also, since our executive summary consisted of responses to questions posed by the professor, perhaps Google Docs was the wrong tool to use for the task.  Our writing may have cohered better if we had created key questions or an outline together ourselves.

When I am eventually in the position of recommending that students use Google Docs, I now know that I'll need to guide them as they learn to use it.  Otherwise, this promising technology will not help them write coherent, concise essays.

Universal Design for Learning

I liked this quote from Chapter Four of Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning:

Non-educators often make the mistake of equating access to information with access to learning. In reality, these are two separate goals. In fact, increasing access to information can actually undermine learning, because it sometimes requires reducing or eliminating the challenge or resistance that is essential to learning.

The chapter goes on to explain that teachers should overcome this challenge through proper goal setting.  Instructional technologies and curriculum adaptations can only adequately serve special-needs children if teachers set goals wisely.  As an example of how to accommodate more students, the authors show how the goal "Every student will be able to write an essay in cursive" is perhaps better stated as "Students will write an essay."

The first goal is obviously too specific--cursive writing is only useful to people who can already write normally, but who simply wish to write faster.  A person needing to use a special device for writing does not need to learn cursive.  However, I would also argue that the latter goal is also problematic.  It doesn't challenge a physically disabled child the same way that the first goal challenges a non-physically disable child.  The goal would be better stated as "Students will be able to write a well-organized essay summarizing and analyzing subject content."  This more specific goal maintains a high standard for students of all types.

This goal also accommodates students who prefer to communicate using digital media rather than simply written text.  Although almost all students would probably need to produce some form of "written" work, they could also be encouraged to enhance their project using video, audio, images, etc.