Post your informed and critical opinion about the use of IWBs in the classroom.
I can offer my informed and researched opinion on the use of Interactive Whiteboards (IWB’s) in the classroom, however, my critical opinion is limited due to having zero practical experience with this type of hardware or relative teaching experience in a classroom setting. With this is in mind, it seems logical that in 2016 the use of IWB’s in the classroom should be commonplace. Much like the theory of connectivism, IWB’s have come of age and should be utilised to promote interactive learning, enhance student engagement, create connected classrooms, and enable students to participate in the affordances of technology. Thinking back to the foolish tech predictions observed in Module 3, I feel the same conversation will occur about the use of IWBs in years to come.
Wall, Higgins & Smith (2005) argue that Interactive whiteboards engage students and meet the needs of visual learners. As a visual learner, I tend to agree but feel the use of IWBs need to extend beyond the simple projection of material onto a whiteboard and lower level-thinking, towards student interaction with the affordances of various multimedia and more inquiry-based learning (Lacina, 2009, p. 272). Further to this, teachers need ongoing professional development to utilise the equipment beyond its constraining factors and evolve their pedagogy toward student-centred learning with IWBs. In a study, it was found that one teacher “Sally” discovered the interactive aspects of learning appealed and engaged students more than the visual aspects of colourful materials (Winzenried, Dalgarno, & Tinker, 2010, p. 540). Another teacher “Hannah” used an IWB to supplement text material to scaffold learning for weaker readers with visual images (Winzenried, Dalgarno, & Tinker, 2010, p. 544). Not only are students developing reading and writing skills with such technology, but the use of IWB’s also enable digital literacy skills. As a pre-service teacher, I hope to readily adopt Interactive Whiteboards to enable students to participate in the affordances of technology, enable whole-class activities, and project student responses via web 2.0 (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p. 167).
Post some resources that help you develop an understanding of the benefits and challenges of BYOD programs.
I have listed some articles below that have broadened my understanding of BYOD in the classroom. Some are available in a Primo search; others are listed online.
- Newhouse, C. P., Cooper, M., & Pagram, J. (2015) Bring Your Own Digital Device in Teacher Education, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 31(2), 64-72, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2015.1011292
- NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2013) BYOD literature Review, Retrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/technology/computers/mobile-device/BYOD_2013_Literature_Review.pdf
- Ullman, E. (2011). The New One to One, Tech & Learning, 31(7), 54-57.
- Stavert, B. (2010). One to One Computers in Schools. Sydney: Department of Education and Training NSW.
- NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2012). Use of Tablet Technology in the Classroom. Sydney: NSWDEC.
- Ray, M. (2013). BYO What? Library Media Connection, 31(4), 8-10.
Are QR codes a fad or a tool?
QR codes offer an amazing opportunity for students to participate in the affordances of technology and are a useful tool that complements BYOD in the classroom. QR codes essentially bridge the gap between text and web (Robertson & Green, 2012, p. 11) and allow students to make connections with resources in an engaging way by using technology that is simple to use; with devices they are comfortable with. The use of QR codes are only limited by the imagination. They offer a quick way for students to access learning materials, school-related information and can potentially supplement textbooks (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p. 238). To demonstrate their usefulness, I have created a QR code of my own that links to my twitter account where I am sharing and creating resources related to technology in education. In this context, I could direct students to relevant conversations taking place on the web, or point them in the direction of relevant resources. Feel free to have a scan and see what you find (you will need a QR reader app on your device which is free to download).
It is possible that QR codes may be a fad until the next advancement of software, but if it is possible to scan a QR code on a consumable food item to discover its origin, then teachers can utilise this tool in education to create a roadmap of linking material. It also supports student diversity where teachers can create individual QR codes that scaffold learning for different needs.
Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348.
Lacina, J. (2009). Interactive whiteboards: Creating higher-level, technological thinkers? Childhood Education, 270-272.
Robertson, C., & Green, T. (2012). Scanning the Potential for Using QR Codes in the Classroom. TechTrends, 56(2), 11-12.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2014). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (6th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). “The visual helps me understand the complicated things”: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.
Winzenried, A., Dalgarno, B., & Tinker, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Technology, 26(4), 534-552.