Just been reading that great wee magazine, Interface (hard copy without the need to be connected) over a glass of wine or two. It is a mine of information for anyone interested in the
latest technologies that could support learning in New Zealand schools.




Peter Kent a former secondary school Physics teacher and Primary school DP in ACT has written a stimulating article on interactive whiteboards “See it to believe it”. Interactive Boards have been around for a number of years and my impression is that primary teachers have been faster to recognise their value in the classroom than anyone else. I visited BETT at the Olympia London while on on holiday in January this year. To quote from its own publicity blurb it was ” the world’s largest educational technology event” An army of sales people were ready to pounce on anyone who loitered near a display. As a marketing event for IWB’s it was a success but paid scant regard to the more immediate needs of the vast majority of schools. (from an NZ perspective)
Peter answers a number of questions including:
What value do interactive whiteboards(IWB’s) have in today’s classrooms?
“…an IWB can improve the quality of teaching by giving access to the potential of ICT”
I would argue that the use of ICT only makes sense within a wider discussion on 21c pedagogy. Do we need a whiteboard at the front of a classroom interactive or not? Do we need to redesign the classroom environment from scratch after we decide what we want to achieve in it? We need to put ICT into a pedagogical context.
The term interactive whiteboard is misleading. The interactive nature of the boards is limited to the teacher directing a lesson. Some control can be given to students as they move objects around on the screen to complete a class cloze or diagram labeling exercise. We should correctly refer to IWB’s as “digital whiteboards”, a helpful tool that makes life easier for teachers. We shouldn’t become bogged down in debates about the relative value of new technology tools.
What do you see as the reality of IWB usage-in terms of the way they’re being used compared to optimum use?
“….if a teacher’s underlying pedagogy is good usually their use of an IWB will be inspired…..If the teacher use a primarily didactic method…….then their use will probably be dreadful…”
I couldn’t agree more but does good pedagogy necessarily involve the use of an IWB? The real pedagogical issue in most schools is connectivity. Students are highly connected outside of school yet the moment they come through the school gates they have to power down and get the A4 writing pad out. They treat this technology with the respect it deserves by screwing up their notes to practice basketball skills with my waste paper bin.

The advert on the back page of the latest Interface is a good example of it being “about the technology” and not “about the pedagogy” Learning and Teaching Scotland first blogged about the Asus EeePC last November. It entered the market as a dirt cheap web browser (about $450 then). Since then it has grown in spec and price. It is sometimes viewed as a curiosity. How does it compare with a fully spec’d laptop and can you do without all the usual bells and whistles?
All the wrong questions are being asked again. If we move from dirt cheap paper technology what would the corresponding web 2.0 equivalent be? Probably an Asus Eee PC 900. Which brings us Back to the Future.
18c classrooms had students with chalk slates doing exercises set on a chalk blackboard. Maybe the 21c equivalent is a class of students connected to the web with their Eee Pc’s as the teacher provides skilfully enhanced lessons via the portal opened up by an interactive whiteboard. Interesting times eh, need another glass of wine now.