The EIAWB is the most painless and most effective way of bringing technology in a friendly manner into the classroom. Once an educator and his / her learners have accepted, adjusted, adapted, and administered the new concept, the sooner it will be effective in the LAB and with other ICT equipment.

The EIAWB must be seen as a …. just another educational tool, but with MORE visual effective concepts. I have read an educational article recently, and the MAIN theme was that learners learn more, better and faster new concepts whenit is not just text, but TEXT + VISUAL + SOUND.

EIAWB = TEXT + VISUAL + SOUND = BETTER EQUIPPED LEARNERS.

Albie with no chalk

Amidst the World Cup froth in the weekend papers was an important article on education by Helen Zille, our premier. She says, “all indicators show that our education system is in decline.” “Our target is to improve Grade 3 and 6 literacy rates from the current levels of 53.5 percent and 44 percent respectively to 90 percent by 2019. We aim to increase numeracy, currently at 35 percent for Grade 3 learners and 14 percent for Grade 6 learners, to 80 percent by 2019.”

Since the advent of technology in one school I know, their Grade 3 numeracy results have improved by over 80% and their literacy results by 125%. Interactive whiteboards in every classroom in this school have had a dramatic impact on teaching in a very short time. In overcrowded, poorly resourced classrooms it is difficult to implement imaginitive, learner-centred lessons, day after day. But the IWB takes up no space at all and provides immediate access to a wealth of resources. I’m finding that even in the poorest schools teachers are quickly motivated by the ease with which they can access information-rich literacy and numeracy software on IWBs. The take-up rate seems to me to be far quicker than the use of computer labs. I really believe IWBs are a winner!!

How much funding do you get from the IWB industry to make the claims that you do. There is very little, peer reviewed research on the impacts of IWBs on learning. The one South African study available clearly indicates that the hype is overstated and teachers would be just as well served (at far less expense) with a laptop and a data projector.
Oh, and can anyone name a single ICT or 21st Century skill that learners acquire from the IWB, especially as it is used at secondary schools?
I thought not.

Isidingo, please provide a link to the South African study you are referring to – the readers of this blog my find it interesting. Thanks for your viewpoint … but I do find the suggestion in your first sentence offensive – my claims are based on first-hand observation of 1759 interactive classrooms.

Nice post! Readers might be interested in this series of posts, focused on learning more about IWB’s and considering procurement of some for our small private college:
http://www.emergingedtech.com/2009/11/learning-about-interactive-whiteboards-for-the-classroom/.

I am a firm believer in using educational research to prove that technology in schools work or not. When anecdotal evidence is given, it is up to our higher education tertiary institutions together with practicing educators to set out research to prove its efficacy. It is what I brought up in discussion with you not so long ago. But where are these people who can either refute or confirm anecdotal evidence?

The issue with research is that when it is published, the electronic world has moved on and the info is old. Also, we can become quite arrogant about the fact that when “normal” people have a point, but it is not up to scientific research, then they are not listened to at all. The researchers then become quite difficult when you don’t have a paper published or facts to prove that it works. I have encountered that a lot from the academic world. Nevertheless I do believe that on-going quick and proper research can assist us in using all types on electronic media to our advantage. I partially agree with Isidingo on research, but only having a data projector doing a job of teaching, I’m not sure. Maybe the learners are not learning a skill, but they are learning from everything that is available to them which includes just about every available tool at their disposal and not only a textbook. In fact, I think learners may learn how to collaborate on ideas visually. Do they need an IAWB, maybe not…..but then maybe they do. Just think how much the cell phone has changed our world…I’m not so sure about the IAWB, but I am willing to give it a shot.

Isidingo, if an EIAWB brings no “improvement” – I will quit as an EIAWB Educator and start to remove ALL EIAWB from classrooms inside schools and replace them with Green Boards, or Black Boards or KOKI Boards!!

Further, to make a statement: “How much funding do you get from the IWB industry to make the claims that you do”, is not ethical acceptable @ all – do you have any proof or even any “scientific” results to prove your provocative statement ? If not, I would assume an apology to Kobus van Wyk will be acceptable.

TO CONCLUDE: ….”can anyone name a single ICT or 21st Century skill that learners acquire from the IWB”, yes I can: When can we meet and I will demonstrate a few ?

Albie for EAIWB

I’ve seen many demonstrations and presentations of interactive whiteboards. My comment is always this: “Everything you’ve just demonstrated to me, I can do by just having a data video projector and a laptop, so why the need to spend so much money on having a board?”. The only exception to this rule, is that you can’t use your finger to move things around. You need to use a mouse. Much hype has been created by the interactive whiteboard, when in fact it is the SOFTWARE that allows the board to function – again, with the exception of ‘touch’.
I think it is important to note that the “board” does not permit teachers to access resources. The software permits the teacher to access resources. And the software can run without the R20k+ board. Maybe interactive whiteboard vendors should consider selling their software standalone, as a cheaper alternative. I’ve heard the rumours currently doing the rounds that in the UK, a standard format is being (or has been) developed to allow the software to work across all different types of boards. Interesting times ahead people …

The board allows movement from one spot to another. There is too much passivity in the classroom-physically and mentally.

Stand behind a lectern while clicking your way through your lesson with a data projector and a normal white surface is boring. Sitting behind a laptop and data projector clicking through a lesson is boring. Maybe if there is a laptop, data projector with tablet and pen with a normal whiteboard, then you have better interaction because you can move around. If there are devices that work with bluetooth or infrared that can be passed around for interactivity, then the IAWB can say goodbye. A white wall will do. There are devices like those. Maybe we should test them and see if they are less expensive and just as efficient as the IAWB. The problem is…do we know what the IAWB can do?

100% agree with you Mark. I’d frankly rather use a normal chalkboard if it means I can stand in front of my class and engage them head-on.
I’ve seen a bluetooth/infrared tablet being demonstrated and I believe that this device could be a far less-expensive, and suitable alternative to the costly interactive whiteboard. After all, the IAWB -is- costly if the only extra thing it allows you to do is ‘touch and move’ as opposed to ‘click and move’. Again I say, it is the software that drives the board that allows for all the fancy features, animated lessons etc etc.
I’d like to see Khanya investigating and piloting the tablet device in the future to see if this would be a viable alternative option.