Wasting Money on Whiteboards. . .

Blogger’s Note:  I’m a bit worked up today, so this post has rant written all over it.  It’s heavy on the Radical and light on the Tempered.  Read at your own risk. 

I’ll admit that there aren’t many topics that I’m more passionate about than Interactive Whiteboards in the classroom. 

Seen as the first step towards “21st Century teaching and learning,” schools and districts run out and spend THOUSANDS of dollars on whiteboards, hanging them on walls and showing them off like proud hens that just laid the golden instructional egg. 

I gave mine away last summer. After about a year’s worth of experimenting, I determined that it was basically useless. 

Sure, my students thought it was nifty, but it didn’t make teaching my required curriculum any easier.  I probably crafted two or three neat lessons with it, but there was nothing unique about those activities—I could have easily crafted similar lessons using the computer stations I already have in class and any number of free online tools. 

That’s why I spent last night following Twitter’s Ed Chat about Interactive Whiteboards even after an appliance meltdown, a minor flood, and a 2 hour trip to the Laundromat.  There’s no way that I’m going to watch a conversation on whiteboards slip away—even if I’m exhausted and wearing dirty clothes!

Thankfully, there was a lot of wisdom in the Ed Chat room last night.  Few people spent any meaningful time praising the instructional goodness of Interactive Whiteboards and the majority of the participants recognized that without time and training, whiteboards become nothing more than really expensive overhead projectors. 

I’d go even farther, though, and 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.  Heck, even whiteboard companies market them as a bridging technology, designed to replicate traditional instructional practices—making presentations, giving notes, delivering lectures—in an attempt to move digital dinosaurs into the light.

Do we really want to spend thousands of dollars on a tool that makes stand-and-deliver instruction easier?

My biggest beef with Whiteboards, though, is that they are poorly aligned with the vision of instruction that most people claim to believe in.  Ask a principal what the best classrooms look like and she’s likely to say something like this:

“In the best classrooms, students are involved in creating knowledge together.  They’re studying topics, designing experiments, collaborating with peers, and challenging one another’s preconceived notions. While the teacher is always present to guide and to facilitate, the students are empowered to discover and to grow independently.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it?  If we could turn control of learning over to students, we’d probably see motivation AND academic growth levels rise all at once.  Classrooms would become innovative places that students were drawn to instead of the snooze palaces that they seem to be for so many kids today.

If those are the outcomes we most desire, then why are we wasting money on Interactive Whiteboards—tools that do little to promote independent discovery and collaborative work?  Sure—you could argue that when used as an instructional center, whiteboards become more interactive, but that is one REALLY expensive center, don’t you think?!

I’m also peeved because schools rarely have any kind of system in place to evaluate the impact that whiteboards are having on instruction.  We spend a heaping cheeseload collecting whiz-bang gadgets and then completely fail to reflect on whether or not they have helped us achieve the outcomes we most desire.

Isn’t that called hoarding?

What bothers me the most is that it seems like most school leaders don’t really care whether or not whiteboards change instruction in meaningful ways in their classrooms because whiteboards aren’t an instructional tool in their eyes.  Instead, whiteboards have become a PR tool—a tangible representation of innovation that can be shown off to supervisors and parents alike. 

Heaven forbid, after all, that you run a school without whiteboards if your colleagues down the street have taken a bite of the 21st Century fruit.  You’ll look like a hayseed at the next PTA meeting, won’t you?

I think Sylvia Martinez—who writes over at Generation Yes—said it best when she wrote:

you can't *buy* change, it's a process, not a purchase. the right shopping list won't change education

Most of the time, Interactive Whiteboard programs are nothing more than vain attempts to buy change.  Rarely paired with a clear vision of the classrooms we’d like to see, a set of tangible objectives that can be measured, or any systematic attempts to evaluate outcomes, Interactive Whiteboards are sad examples of the careless decision making and waste that are crippling some of our schools and systems. 

(Whew—can you tell that I needed to blow off a bit of digital steam?)

Comments

[Sarah K]

Great points made here. In fact, last year some of my students asked me why I didn't use the SMART board more. I said I didn't know, and constantly tried to think of ways to use it that were better than the other methods I was already using. I still didn't use the SMART board much beyond it being a projection of my computer screen.

[KarenR]

As I read this, I wondered how many other "21st century technologies" you could substitute...clickers? tablets? They're fancy ways for kids to answer questions, aren't they? I do know teachers who love their whiteboards as they lend an air of interactivity to their lessons without fundamentally changing the way the classroom functions.

[Anthony Cody]

Bill,
Great post. I appreciate your well informed skepticism.

[Bill Ferriter]

Karen wrote:
I do know teachers who love their whiteboards as they lend an air of interactivity to their lessons without fundamentally changing the way the classroom functions.

Brilliant comment, Karen. You've captured in one brief sentence why whiteboards are so well received by some teachers. Dangerous thinking, isn't it?

As far as clickers and tablets go, I'm a bit more open-minded. At least with clickers, I can quickly collect information that I could use to make more meaningful instructional decisions. The benefits to assessment could be worthwhile.

And if I had several slates in each classroom, I could have groups of students working with content on the board at the same time. What if I put a collection of ideas related to a concept up and asked student groups to sort the ideas into categories. It might be fun to see them visibly arguing with placements and categories together. A kind of transparent thinking deal.

But you don't need whiteboards to do either of those things...and the whiteboard is the most expensive part of the setup!

Rock on,
Bill

[TJ Shay]

I have an interactive whiteboard and it has fundamentally changed the way I teach SOME parts of my curriculum. I spend approximately 5% of the time in front of it (and get sort of exhausted by the people who claim it is a tool for lecture), and the rest of the time using a tablet and having STUDENTS using the board to explain and explore content.

The thing on which I think we agree would be best summed up in a blog post I wrote that got at least one annoyed response. To me, the only thing more misguided than the people who think that IWB's have no place in the classroom are the people who think there should be one in every classroom. There SHOULD be some checks and balances and their use in classrooms should be studied for their impact on reaching objectives.

Though I wholeheartedly agree with Sylvia (as I usually do) you can't buy change. You can provide tools for change. Could I go back to teaching without a whiteboard? Yes. Could I also go back to writing letters without a computer? Sure, but who would want to. If the tool works, use it.

I think we agree more than we disagree, but wholesale discounting of the power of this technology does not seem correct. It seems to me the creativity and skill of the teacher has a strong force in change...if that can be aided by a piece of technology, let's do it.

[Joel Zehring]

I agree whole-heartedly, Curmudgeon Bill. Sarah's and Karen's comments also resonate.

I set up a DIY interactive whiteboard with a Nintendo Wiimote. The whole set up costs about $100, but I don't use it much. The wiimotes are better used as game pads for internet games.

[Cytochromec]

Great post and comments. I propose we call them Touch Screen White Boards TSWB instead of Interactive IWBs. If anyone quotes Marzano's "research" about the effectiveness of Promethean boards you should read the actual study and this critique http://edinsanity.com/2009/06/02/marzano_part1/

I am a tech trainer and I would rather be teaching teachers about blogs, wikis, rubrics, peer editing, etc. than about how to use a TSWB.

[Steve Ransom]

Yes, yes, and yes :-)

However, I do want to add that IWBs have a legitimate role and function for certain pedagogical frameworks that can't be denied. With the right training for the right purpose and with the right audience, they can be useful and effective tools. But, just as we don't dump data probes and Lego robotics into every classroom, we shouldn't be doing so with IWBs either. Give one to each grade level. Watch/evaluate what happens. If it appears as if one teacher is doing great things (however one wants to define 'great') with it, give him/her one. If the self-contained special education room can provide of sane rationale for why one would really benefit the students, install one. If another teacher seems to be doing great things with and is limited by the shared document camera, give him/her one.

Let success breed success rather than mediocrity breed mediocrity. Give teachers the tools that they feel would help them help their students. There is no one "correct" pedagogy. If that were so, we would be a miserable and failed nation. Let's stop wasting money in the name of being "fair" by making sure everyone has the same when it comes to specialized tools.

But lets stop forcing unique (and expensive) technologies in settings where they are unwanted or do not belong... perhaps, as Sylvia stated, to claim progress.

[Caitlin]

If one teaches the same lessons on an IWB, then yes, it is a waste of money, even with all the time and training. If you don't see the advantages of using an IWB, you're not really using it. And, as TJ points out, YOU should not be the one using the board anyway, your students should be.

Regardless, the touch capabilities of an IWB put the teacher, whether an instructor or student presenter, up front and allows him/her to work with content, not just show it; with IWBs, the days of clicking through slide presentations should be gone. Additionally, because an IWB works via a computer, class activity can be recorded for absentees or for review purposes.

[jdornberg]

You've got to tip your hat to the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers, software developers, and even textbook publishers. They could sell the proverbial ice to the proverbial eskimos.

IWBs are just the latest "thing" for school districts to throw their money at. Let's review: desktop computers, Palms, laptops, clickers... what have I missed? Soon it will be iPods, netbooks, eReaders and the Apple Tablet that we're complaining about. Back in the day it was probably filmstrip projectors with cassette tapes, and who could forget laser disks!?!

As an instructional technology specialist, my experience with IWBs is no different than any of the aforementioned devices. There are those teachers who simply don't "get" it or even "want" it(probably because they don't have "time" for it). There are teachers who adopt and then adapt the technology and do amazing things for and with their students.

But these same teachers could probably do amazing things with a cardboard box and some markers. They are creative, passionate, dynamic professionals who love their job and their students.

I guess what I'm saying is that IWBs are not inherently "good" or "bad" so let's not choose up sides and label them as such. Instead, let's question the wisdom of purchasing ANYTHING, including textbooks, without devoting a considerable amount of time for research, training, and professional development.

But in the minds of many superintendents, PD isn't as "sexy" as a shiny new thing that can be featured in the local paper or on the nightly news.

[Vanessa Cassie]

Jdornberg, I completely agree with your sentiment! ALL products (technology based or not) are a success or failure based on the teacher who chooses to use them. I've seen both 'good' and 'bad' examples of teaching with an IWB, but I've also seen just as many 'good' and 'bad' examples of teaching using computers, textbooks, TVs, Internet, etc.

I would like to offer one varying viewpoint that I have yet to see on any blog post (and I know I'm going to get criticism for this one!) Is there really, truly anything 'wrong' with stand and deliver lessons? I believe that they still have their place in education, right alongside student-centered learning, small group collaboration, etc. Why must the pendulum swing from one extreme to the next? Have we not all seen a teacher who is a 'good' storyteller teaching one class over from a teacher with 'bad' facilitation skills? If IWBs can be viewed as a tool to further enhance whatever style of teaching that best works for THAT educator, then I am a firm supporter of them.

[Sharnon007]

I agree wholeheartedly. Too bad that the administrators let the company representatives tell them what to buy. How many teachers actually KNOW that the WIImote option is truly a VIABLE option? How many administrators know that?
Exactly!

[Acreelman.blogspot.com]

Good discussion. It's another case of how we use technology to maintain the traditional classroom paradigm instead of radically rethinking the whole process of learning and education. We use technology to support familiar methods instead of starting from scratch and seeing what new things we can do with the amazing resources available today.

[Judith Epcke]

Are districts buying IWBs to transform teaching/learning? If so, that is misguided on a number of levels and the fault lies not with the IWBs, but with the decision makers in those districts. The same could be said for 1 to 1 programs. If the pedagogy hasn't changed to understand the transformative power a 1 to 1 program can help facilitate, then they are just fancy word processors. The transformation needs to change BEFORE the purchase of the technology. I'm unsure why IWBs are being vilified. They are not at fault; the expectations of their impact are skewed. ANY technology in the hands of a teacher who doesn't understand the pedagogy behind constructivism, or 21st Century teaching/learning, or whatever you decide to call a progressive mindset/pedagogy about the power of technology, will be nothing more than an expensive tool that BOEs can point to and use as a PR tool.
Now you've got ME riled up. :)

[Tandilyn]

I think IWB do have the potential for great interactivity with students; however, the interactivity is greatest in small groups - which as Bill already stated, makes them a VERY expensive center.

I have an IWB and I felt guilty the whole first year I had it because I knew that it had so many great features, but it can take a LOT of TIME to prepare lessons to use those features, and just didn't have that time - especially when I could use another method of similar effectiveness that didn't require my board.

With that said, I still currently harbor a love/hate relationship with my board.

I see potential with IWBs that just need a great vision from administration, but what I envision in my head is likely decades in the future (if it even ever comes to fruition).