http://maria20111513.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/interactive-whiteboards/
Kent (2010) claims that when an IWB is used instead of a standard whiteboard, higher levels of intellectual quality are promoted in the classroom and students gain a deeper understanding of the topic being taught. Personally, I believe this to be very true as an IWB is easy to design/manipulate and is more stimulating for students in comparison to black scribble written on a traditional board. Due to this interactive stimulation, students are more engaged with the content being taught which leads to rich class discussion and a deeper understanding (Kent 2010). Teachers can also create activities on the IWB that are open to multiple interpretations which further fosters class discussion and engagement.
Another benefit of using an IWB is that teachers can save each lesson on the board's software for future reference. This was never possible when a traditional whiteboard was being used as the content would be erased once it was taught. According to Kent (2010), many students learn more effectively when content is delivered visually instead of orally. Therefore, the ability to review past lessons on the IWB is extremely helpful for students to further understand content and saves the teacher from trying to orally explain a concept that the class may be having difficulty with (Kent, 2010). A teacher can also access the internet when using an IWB which is particularly helpful as the World Wide Web has many websites and opportunities for further learning.
I believe that all schools should introduce the IWB in their classrooms providing that the teachers understand and know how to use this technology effectively. In order to promote a level of high intellectual quality in the classroom, the teacher must include an aspect of ambiguity in his/her IWB activities (Kent, 2010). "High levels of ambiguity usually equate to high levels of potential intellectual quality; low levels of ambiguity are associated with low levels of potential intellectual quality" (Kent, 2010, p. 16). Ambiguous activities encourage class discussion as different students may have different answers/responses. According to Kent (2010), there are four categories of activities that promote intellectual quality while using an IWB. These are:
1. Labelling
2. Sorting
3. Ordering or Sequencing
4. Puzzle, game or simulation
To reiterate, I do believe that the use of IWB's in classrooms is a smart move, however, as Kent (2010) acknowledges, without quality activities and ambiguity, the IWB is just another piece of technology. "IWB's can make good teaching great, just as they can make average teaching worse" (Kent, 2010, p. 19).
Below, I have included a link to an audio file from the ABC website that explains and explores what skills teachers and children need to adopt in the forever changing technological 21st century. This audio file explains that current ICT trends need to be used with skill in order to enhance classroom learning environments.
AUDIO FILE LINK:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/21st-century-education/4197700
http://nd20074111.wordpress.com/
Images taken from:http://maria20111513.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/interactive-whiteboards/
http://nd20074111.wordpress.com/
References:
Howell, J. (2012). Creative technologies and play. In V. Rainer (Ed.), Teaching with ICT: Digital Pedagogies for Collaboration and Creativity (pp. 87-109). Australia: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from
https://www.library.uq.edu.au/coursebank/get.php?id=34067028690294.pdf©right=yes
No comments:
Post a Comment