Showing posts with label interactive whiteboard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interactive whiteboard. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Survey Data: What technology Tools are Available in SD Classrooms?

I recently sent out a survey gathering information about educational technology use among South Dakota teachers. There are approximately 12,000 teachers in our state, my survey email was sent to 12,161 potential respondents and I recieved roughly 10 percent of responses back, about 1187 people responded by filling out the survey. I'll present some of the interesting findings here on the Educational Technology for teachers blog as occasion permits. Since I have not yet analyzed the data from the survey, these results are just preliminary, but still compelling. Today's post is about the availability of key technology tools in the South Dakota classroom.

Teachers were asked which of the following items are always or almost always available in their classroom, here's how they responded:

Technologies that are always or almost always available in South Dakota K-12 classrooms

Based on these results, we can infer that about 72% of South Dakota teachers have a laptop to do their work while only about 46% have desktop computers in their classroom. Only about 40% of teachers have a tablet computer such as an iPad to work with in the classroom. The most common technological tool in today's South Dakota classrooms is an interactive whiteboard such as a Smart Board, Promethean board or another brand. These are found in over 75% of South Dakota classrooms.

Based on this data, in all there are roughly 53% of south dakota classrooms that are 1:1 environments, in which a device is available for all students in the class, whether that device is a tablet, laptop or desktop computer. The most common 1:1 device is the laptop computer, and 34% of South Dakota classrooms have a laptop available for each student.

Another question that teachers responded to was about the technology tools available at schools but not always in the classroom. Here's how they responded:

Technologies that are available at South Dakota K-12 schools, but not always available in classrooms
Many different technology tools are available at schools, but some of the more commonly available items are laptop computers (35%), printers (59%), document cameras (35%), interactive whiteboards (32%) and classroom clickers for each student (37%). All of these items, except interactive whiteboards, are more likely to be available for checkout and occasional use rather than constant use in the classroom.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Interactive Whiteboard Activities That Get Students Up Out Of Their Desks

We're moving into a new unit in my Educational Technology and Distance Teaching class - interactive whiteboards for higher order learning. In this unit I teach about how to use the most common interactive whiteboard software to create engaging presentations. But the real power of interactive whiteboards has always been the opportunities they provide for student interaction and higher-order learning. My students who are often new to teaching with an interactive whiteboard, often make the mistake of just presenting at the board while students just watch from their seats. They soon learn that the best presentations take advantage of the affordances of the interactive whiteboard and have students come up to interact with the board.

What are some of the activities that students can do at the board? My book, Educational Technology for Teachers provides several different types of activities that support student engagement and interaction and here are some of the types of activities with videos showing how to create them with interactive whiteboard software:
These and other types of activities can be compelling ways for students to get involved in their own learning on an interactive whitebaord. Northern State University education students learn to create these and other activities so that they can successfully support higher-order learning and student interaction in the classroom.


Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Interactive Whiteboard Activities for Higher-Order Learning


If there's one thing that I want teachers to know, it is that learning will not be affected simply by your adopting a new technology in your classroom. Instead, you must use a technology with an appropriate learning method to really improve learning. In the case of interactive whiteboards (sometimes called Smartboards or Promethean boards etc.), I suggest using Bloom's Taxonomy as a guide to focus on higher-order learning. Remember Bloom's Taxonomy? If not, then here is a nice picture. This post is an excerpt from my book, Educational Technology for Teachers

Bloom’s Taxonomy includes categories of learning outcomes from lower-order to higher-order. These categories are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating (Krathwohl, 2002). The categories in Bloom’s Taxonomy build upon one another. Students who understand something also must remember it. Students who evaluate something must be able to apply and analyze it. 


When using an interactive whiteboard, it’s important to go beyond the remembering and understanding categories and get to the higher-order categories, including applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating. Students tend to retain the content that they are able to apply, analyze, evaluate and create, better than the content that they only remember and understand. 


Supporting higher-order learning in the applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating categories is no easy task. A high percentage of teaching in most classrooms leads to lower-order learning (remembering and understanding categories on Bloom’s Taxonomy). This state of affairs is certainly appropriate in some classrooms as students gain a developmentally-appropriate foundation of knowledge. However, in the Information Age, much of the content that students are remembering and understanding is not as useful as it once was, because this information can easily be discovered with a quick Internet search. There are times when applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating are appropriate and necessary to help students gain a deeper content knowledge than that which can easily be found on the Internet. When students are applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating, they also develop better critical thinking skills.

Higher-order learning can be fostered using interactive whiteboard activities. For instance, once a
content item has been taught by the teacher, students can be asked to apply, analyze, evaluate or create an example of this concept through interactive whiteboard activities. Students can apply rules and concepts to sort items into different categories or orders. They can analyze concepts and issues or evaluate the quality of issues and positions through interactive whiteboard activities. Students could also create interactive whiteboard lessons and games that show their knowledge. Here are a few other suggestions:


  • Present a concept, then have students do an activity with the interactive whiteboard that helps them apply the concept
  • Instead of having a student respond to a multiple choice question by touching the answer, have students sort items on a continuum or into different categories, making them apply their learning
  • Have students create an example of an idea or concept using interactive whiteboard tools
  • Instead of playing a review game using the interactive whiteboard, have them create a review game for the interactive whiteboard



Creative teachers have found ways to go beyond remembering and understanding to higher-order learning using interactive whiteboard activities in a variety of content areas. When planning lessons, ask yourself how you can help your students to apply, analyze, evaluate, or create as they learn important concepts in your class. See my book, Educational Technology for Teachers, for more information about supporting higher-order learning with interactive whiteboards. 

References:


Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.