There seems to be a renewed interest in interactive whiteboards of late, with the debate largely centering around the notion of "value." Proponents often bring forth such lofty, yet immeasurable "proof" as a teacher or administrator declaration of how wonderful they are, how their classroom lessons are more engaging, effective, interactive, etc., etc. Or, better yet, they bring in a second grader and a board, and let him/her demonstrate it - leveraging what I would call the "cute factor" - in an effort to sell the technology to the school board and/or stakeholders. And in a particularly sad state of affairs, many view technology (and not just this technology) as more of a trophy than a tool - an opportunity to say, "look how advanced we are. We have interactive whiteboards in every classroom." A simple review of any recent ed tech conference will reveal plenty of evidence of this phenomenon - but I digress...
Opponents aren't a whole lot better. They are generally rather tongue-tied, stating that they just don't think they are "worth it," that the money could be better invested, or that a good teacher is a good teacher, and will succeed regardless of the technology they have (which I personally agree with, but has little to do with the issue at hand.)
While it would be difficult to argue against the value of more engaged students, or the likely improvements to classroom instruction, test scores, etc., my question is this - is it really the boards that made the difference? If we step back for just a second and look at the situation from an appropriate distance, what really changed?
The reality is that the board is only part of what was actually added to the room, and I would argue, was not the key component. The real key to this new found interactivity is the projector with a computer hooked up to it, not the whiteboard. The interactive board is, for all intents and purposes, a $1500 giant mouse with some presentation software added.
There are a number of problems with interactive whiteboards that are also rarely discussed. For example, in order to use one, you must stand in between the board and the projector, which means you are not only casting a shadow, but are blocking the view. The shadow presents difficulties with accuracy, which lead to frequent erasing and re-writing/drawing, and the blocked view means that the user must constantly bounce back and forth, in and out of the way. Interactive whiteboards are also often problematic to mount - some classrooms simply do not have a good location to mount such a large and heavy item due to pre-existing cabinetry, etc. In addition, they are easily damaged, yielding extraordinary repair/replacement costs, post mischief.
Then there are the pedagogic issues. Interactive whiteboards by their very nature reinforce the traditional "lecture hall" teaching style, which has been well proven to disengage, rather than engage most of today's students. The teacher is effectively anchored to the board, when they should be free to move about the class and drive engagement through personal interaction. And, contrary to assertions from interactive whiteboard manufacturers, our experience has been that students rarely actually touch the boards themselves. They are particularly difficult in elementary classes, since the kids are generally too short to reach much of the board. Overall from the student's perspective, once the initial "wow factor" wears off the board quickly becomes "no big deal" to them.
In the end, what we are ultimately doing is using the computer and projector to present a variety of media resources and technologies - which is great, of course - with a big, expensive, white mouse to control it. The annotation software that comes with the board is easily replaced by such products as GenevaLogic's Pointer for a mere $49. We can create the same, engaging environment and tools, and get the teacher out of the way of the board, all the while saving $1451 per room. Or better yet, we can save those great white mouse dollars, and invest them in inexpensive technologies that offer better functionality at significantly lower cost, while using the balance for other classroom resources!
One such technology that shows great promise and alleviates the anchored teacher syndrome is the iPen from FingerSystem. It looks just like a large pen, but is really a lightweight, rechargeable wireless mouse that is both durable and accurate. It's an optical device, so it allows the user to mouse/write on any surface, and has a very long range - up to 30 meters - so the teacher is free to move about the class and/or hand the device off to a student. And best of all, it costs less than $100.
In addition to basic mouse functionality, the iPen software allows it to work much like most interactive whiteboards. Simply flip a switch and it goes into "pen mode," which offers the typical pen and highlight modes, enabling the drawing of circles, arrows, and all the other stuff that one would expect from an interactive board, including saving the annotations. It even handles text entry through built in handwriting recognition, which automatically translates your writing into typed text - cursive or printed. No more punching an on screen keyboard. And it's particularly nice with graphics programs, since the pen is natural for artists who won't have to worry about their shadow blocking their view.
Pedagogically, it's a much better solution as well. The ability to interact while moving among the students, involving them while passing by virtually guarantees engagement. Standing next to that one or two who are struggling or don't ordinarily pay attention can have a dramatic impact. Even the ability to move among groups of students working on a project, handing them the pen here and there, could truly change the learning environment. And no one is excluded - even a second or third grader could use the pen at their desk, without any need for risky ladders or stands.
There are other similar solutions out there as well. Interwrite Learning has their wireless Interwrite Pad, which allows up to seven of the pads to be used in a single classroom. Wacom has Graphire pads and Salient has the V-Mouse pen.
I don't know about most other ed-tech advocates out there, but I'm sure I can find some great ways to invest that extra $1000+ per classroom. A couple of computers or some great software come to mind...
Opponents aren't a whole lot better. They are generally rather tongue-tied, stating that they just don't think they are "worth it," that the money could be better invested, or that a good teacher is a good teacher, and will succeed regardless of the technology they have (which I personally agree with, but has little to do with the issue at hand.)
While it would be difficult to argue against the value of more engaged students, or the likely improvements to classroom instruction, test scores, etc., my question is this - is it really the boards that made the difference? If we step back for just a second and look at the situation from an appropriate distance, what really changed?
The reality is that the board is only part of what was actually added to the room, and I would argue, was not the key component. The real key to this new found interactivity is the projector with a computer hooked up to it, not the whiteboard. The interactive board is, for all intents and purposes, a $1500 giant mouse with some presentation software added.
There are a number of problems with interactive whiteboards that are also rarely discussed. For example, in order to use one, you must stand in between the board and the projector, which means you are not only casting a shadow, but are blocking the view. The shadow presents difficulties with accuracy, which lead to frequent erasing and re-writing/drawing, and the blocked view means that the user must constantly bounce back and forth, in and out of the way. Interactive whiteboards are also often problematic to mount - some classrooms simply do not have a good location to mount such a large and heavy item due to pre-existing cabinetry, etc. In addition, they are easily damaged, yielding extraordinary repair/replacement costs, post mischief.
Then there are the pedagogic issues. Interactive whiteboards by their very nature reinforce the traditional "lecture hall" teaching style, which has been well proven to disengage, rather than engage most of today's students. The teacher is effectively anchored to the board, when they should be free to move about the class and drive engagement through personal interaction. And, contrary to assertions from interactive whiteboard manufacturers, our experience has been that students rarely actually touch the boards themselves. They are particularly difficult in elementary classes, since the kids are generally too short to reach much of the board. Overall from the student's perspective, once the initial "wow factor" wears off the board quickly becomes "no big deal" to them.
In the end, what we are ultimately doing is using the computer and projector to present a variety of media resources and technologies - which is great, of course - with a big, expensive, white mouse to control it. The annotation software that comes with the board is easily replaced by such products as GenevaLogic's Pointer for a mere $49. We can create the same, engaging environment and tools, and get the teacher out of the way of the board, all the while saving $1451 per room. Or better yet, we can save those great white mouse dollars, and invest them in inexpensive technologies that offer better functionality at significantly lower cost, while using the balance for other classroom resources!
One such technology that shows great promise and alleviates the anchored teacher syndrome is the iPen from FingerSystem. It looks just like a large pen, but is really a lightweight, rechargeable wireless mouse that is both durable and accurate. It's an optical device, so it allows the user to mouse/write on any surface, and has a very long range - up to 30 meters - so the teacher is free to move about the class and/or hand the device off to a student. And best of all, it costs less than $100.
In addition to basic mouse functionality, the iPen software allows it to work much like most interactive whiteboards. Simply flip a switch and it goes into "pen mode," which offers the typical pen and highlight modes, enabling the drawing of circles, arrows, and all the other stuff that one would expect from an interactive board, including saving the annotations. It even handles text entry through built in handwriting recognition, which automatically translates your writing into typed text - cursive or printed. No more punching an on screen keyboard. And it's particularly nice with graphics programs, since the pen is natural for artists who won't have to worry about their shadow blocking their view.
Pedagogically, it's a much better solution as well. The ability to interact while moving among the students, involving them while passing by virtually guarantees engagement. Standing next to that one or two who are struggling or don't ordinarily pay attention can have a dramatic impact. Even the ability to move among groups of students working on a project, handing them the pen here and there, could truly change the learning environment. And no one is excluded - even a second or third grader could use the pen at their desk, without any need for risky ladders or stands.
There are other similar solutions out there as well. Interwrite Learning has their wireless Interwrite Pad, which allows up to seven of the pads to be used in a single classroom. Wacom has Graphire pads and Salient has the V-Mouse pen.
I don't know about most other ed-tech advocates out there, but I'm sure I can find some great ways to invest that extra $1000+ per classroom. A couple of computers or some great software come to mind...
Keywords: classroom technology, interactive whiteboard, presentation technology, smartboard, smartboards
Posted by Jim Klein
|
Comments
To begin with, I am glad that you want to engage teachers in this sort of dialogue, although I am confused why you suggest that we blog in our own blogs rather than simply reply to your blog. Isn't it your desire that we hold a conversation? My experience with blogs is that we use them to dialogue through the post and comment feature. Since I recently told Arlene to cancel my unused blog, I hope you do not mind if I post my thoughts below as part of this comment box, and if you have some particular reason why it should be posted in my own blog area, I will transfer my post to my own blog (if it is not already erased). Just let me know. Now for my thoughts:
I put on my boxing gloves to gear up for a nice round of debate on the merits of interactive whiteboards and then I found I agreed with most of what you had to say! You bring up some excellent points and ideas about interactive whiteboards that are well worth group discussion and I am glad you started this conversation.
You mention educational value. Deciding actual educational "value" is a tricky thing. We must consider a combination of true cost (over time), educational value, as well as teacher training to understand any technology and then add to that its influence in the classroom. I agree with you that we should do the best we can to try to measure educational value with all technologies that we consider for purchase at the classroom, school, or district level.
In that vein I would argue that the same applies to other district technologies; for instance, our Edusoft‚ equipment and materials and the Ducane‚ system for televisions in our classrooms. These items are also expensive technologies that should be examined for their pedagogical influences as well as their cost-per-classroom educational value. Wouldn't you agree? Certainly you recognize that these items are quite expensive and may promote and in some cases necessitate traditional teaching/lecture pedagogies and so fall into many of the problems you describe with interactive whiteboards in your post above.
I agree with your point about the projectors and software providing the critical ingredient that makes interactive boards such a desirable element for many teachers. I have told many teachers at my trainings that they should start with a projector--ceiling mounted if they can (hence fixing that tricky shadow problem you mention). A ceiling mounted projector provides (and this is a completely personal and probably inaccurate estimate here) about 80% of the total use of an interactive whiteboard. Of course, it is definitely more expensive to ceiling mount the projector and that should be taken into account when planning. In the end, a ceiling mounted projector may meet the dreams of many teachers.
At Highlands we began with projectors and computers on carts and once they were in active use (ie. teachers arguing over them) we began to buy more projectors and to ceiling mount those that we already had. It was then that we looked into interactive boards. We now have ceiling mounted projectors in all classrooms and look forward to getting boards activated in every classroom before the end of the year. I suppose that puts us into your label of “trophy” schools, but truly we have found the interactive whiteboards to be tremendous educational tools, not trophies to display. Our parent faculty organization is more careful with its funds than you describe.
I do agree entirely that it is a wise idea for schools to start small and build toward the best use of new technologies rather than to jump in without knowing the value, and I appreciate that you are encouraging such talk at the district level. Teachers/schools should certainly try a projector out first and see if their needs are met with a projector alone. Why spend additional funds, if so?
That said, I must add that we at Highlands have found that interactive whiteboards do provide features that are not entirely afforded by a projector alone; for instance, the ability to demonstrate key technology applications with the use of your finger. You are right! It sounds quite silly that this would be any better than a mouse! However, in reality the students learn technology features practically through osmosis when they watch a teacher's hands move over a giant sized desktop. One of the key surprises of our first use of interactive whiteboards in our primary classrooms was how quickly students learned desktop features and navigation. As a result, our students need much less instruction in everything from drop down menus to saving and storage of files. (These are activities that did take valuable instruction time in the past). Nevertheless, we consider the student acclimation to desktop features merely a "nice extra," hardly the key benefit of the Smartboard‚. The key benefit is really things like demonstrating word blending (much more animated than a regular board), use of math applets online, and gallery objects in the Smartboard notebook application (like showing students how to use a protractor for the measuring and drawing of angles). All of these applications are much more powerful with teacher touch demonstrations as opposed to just asking students to follow the cursor with their eyes. I can understand why you may not see the value of "touching" the board. Truly, unless you are in the classroom, teaching students, you often miss the best parts of technology applications.
Your ideas about checking out other, alternative, and much cheaper products like pointers and Waacom‚ tablets are excellent. I have heard some good things about the various "wireless mouse" products that you describe and I believe for many teachers they might serve the majority of their interactive whiteboard "needs" at a much smaller price tag. It might also allow more freedom for teachers to move about the class during instruction (although I find with 30 large 5th graders freedom of movement is not easy to come by). I am so glad you bring up these promising technologies and promote them here. My only advice to other schools is the same advice I shared with Arlene about the district's interest in the Mimeo‚ as an alternative to Smartboards, "Try one out in the classroom first." Use in classroom often uncovers special features side-by-side with real limitations. It is, in my opinion the only reliable measure of any educational technology. If it is not useable in the classroom, I do not care much what the research says.
A few teachers from Highlands thought the Mimeo and E-beam were pretty nifty when we saw them in practice at a CUE conference. We received a special price due to my training with PALM and bought an E-beam‚. Unfortunately, it now sits in a closet, unused (anyone want it?). I tried to use the E-beam for about a year before I finally gave up and begged for my Smartboard back. I gave the E-beam to another teacher who is more technology savvy than me and she had the same experience. Hopefully, the Mimeo experience will be much more positive for people. But, just as you point out that some little second grader at a Smartboard provides a real "cuteness" factor, I would tell you that some trainer selling a product at a computer conference will offer every wow factor possible, but nothing is real until it is tried and true in the classroom. The best advice I have for any district or school is to have a technology confident teacher try it out in the classroom, followed by a non-confident technology teacher. Only then will you know if it is a technology that is educationally useful and (this point is important) whether it will get used. There is no point to buying technology that will sit idle or for that matter requires more support or training than can be adequately managed in a school environment. In the end, if the technology is not used or does not enhance student learning, we do not need to buy it.
So, do I think Highlands has done the right thing by purchasing projectors and Smartboards? Absolutely. We have administrators, teachers, and parents that have experienced the technology and feel it is worth the cost (over a ten-year use with one lamp replacement—the whole set-up comes to $300 dollars a year per class—seems reasonable). Do I think all schools should go that way? Not necessarily. I believe they should try out technology in small bits and see what happens—just like we did. Your advice on this topic is timely and important. I look forward to hearing from other teachers and schools about their use of various wireless devices with projectors, and I invite other schools to come take a look at what we are doing with the machines that we have purchased.
Thanks for asking,
Bonita DeAmicis
Highlands Elementary
Thanks for your comments, Bonita! You make some excellent points - I would agree that there are greater resources out there for the Smartboard software specifically - the software for their board is its primary strength. I'm not sure I agree with amortizing a Smartboard over 10 years, however, since:
One thing that hadn't crossed my mind, which you so eloquently pointed out, is the effect of maintaining attention by actually pointing at what you are describing. While this could still be done with the alternatives I mentioned, clearly it would be less elegant. In an ideal world, I think the best classroom would be constructed using all these technologies. But then there's the money issue...
I get the reference and comparison to the Dukane system at your site, but I think you will soon see where it all fits together when we implement the Foresman and Harcourt curriculum. These days, the textbooks are little more than a reference manual that relies heavily on video content. When you are able to pull up any of the supporting videos, on demand from your classroom with a simple remote, I think you'll be impressed. We've seen this coming for a number of years, and believe, long term, that the technology will become vital to classroom instruction.
Thanks again - I have truly enjoyed the dialog!Yes, all that you say about how the computer industry works is quite true. Nevertheless, we have had great success with the boards. Our oldest board is seven years and going strong so I think at least in that case we will get the ten year lifespan. It is true the value/cost has changed and I did not include that in my estimate, but the same came be said of any other technology.
You are so right that in a perfect world we would have all of these and more. As an educator that has tried out many forms of technology in the classroom, I must say that smartboards have been the most solidly usable, easiest to implement given classroom constraints, easiest to train people upon, and least in need of technical support of any technology that I have implemented. How often do I ask you at the DO to come help me "fix" something on my board? It is why I support them so strongly--my experience has been so positive. I also LOVE using handhelds, but would never recommend them across the board unless the teachers and administrators were ready to "take on the technology challenge." They are not so easy to implement and require much more from everyone. It is why, despite my love for them and my belief in their amazing educational value, I do not promote their use to everyone.
Finally, I look forward to the implementation of the Dukane system as you describe it. I would add that if we get to the place where steaming video will work with these I will be the loudest cheerleader. In the meantime, they do seem a waste as post-it note holders:) LOL! My point was not that Dukane or Edusoft is not a positive possibility, but that we should have dialogue on all areas of technology as it pertains to pedagogy and educational value.
Thanks for continuing the talk. Hey--how come comments come out all in CAPS for me and not for you? I wasn't yelling!
:)Bonita
Okay, you two, I've been spending a lot of time thinking about all of this. Rather than respond immediately I've needed to process it in a way that gets across my perspective. I do agree with most all of what you both have to say. I'm one of those who would just be happy with the computer and projector and doesn't need the interactive whiteboard. That said I have seen them in use and they can be very engaging for our very visual students. Though that doesn't mean that they would be used effectively in every classroom. Here's where staff development and commitment from teachers is the most important.
I just recently read a report from the Staff Development Committee that really surprised me. It was a type of survey that looked at where we are and where we are going in several areas,i.e. curriculum, reading and writing, GATE. and ELL. What disappointed me was the fact that Technology was its own item. Except for a minimal note, technology was not mentioned in any of the above areas.
My point here is that until we think of technology as part of everything we do - integration- it will always stand by itself as an add-on. Interactive whiteboards, irregardless of brand, that are used to integrate the curriculum can affect student acheivement. There should be no "technology for technology sake", but "technology for student achievement".
When we reach that level, whether we use an interactive whiteboard, streaming video, Video on Demand, broadcast, Audacity, or online resources like Spang Gang, it won't matter because all students will be engaged and learning with equity. And while this can be done without any technology, as educators, we need to move into the 21st century type of teaching to accommodate the 21st century learner.
I can't include Edusoft in any of this discussion since it is a data retrieval and assessment program specifically designed to help teachers in targeting those students that need extra help and for teacher efficiency of grading Language Arts and Math assessments. It's not a teaching tool, but can be very effective in guiding a teacher as to where in the curriculum their students need assistance. I have seen how effective it is in targeting students in need of intervention for administrators.
Recently England has released some reports as to how interactive whteboards have raised student acheivement. Their evaluations did not report on the effectiveness of the teachers who are the main component in the integration of any technology. My response to all of this is that a good teacher who can make wonderful use of integrating any technology into the curriculum will see the value of the technology.
A
Wow, if you want to get a conversation going, just drop a bomb eh? As David Bowie once said (In song lyrics): "Speak in Extremes; it'll save you time."
On with the show...
One of the first statements made here concerned "proof." Proof can be a very wishy- washy term in soft science. If we're talking about CST scores, nobody has shown me any proof yet that teaching character education improves test scores either, but I still do that. I'd like to think that technology is helping me to help kids master the standards, but even if I don't have proof of that, I'll continue doing it because technoliteracy is no longer reserved for the geeky among us- it's a serious part of functional literacy in our society. And if we look to technology to provide us with answers for how to do such American things as, vote- without having a hanging chad, then we'd better be teaching it in our schools.
Do projectors help teach technoliteracy? I'd say, "Definitely." My students can't see the text and features of various computer programs as rendered on my TV. A projector would make a huge difference in how and how often I use computer technology in my lessons.
Do Smartboards help? I don't know- I've never used one. I know that when I show kids how to work math problems on my whiteboard, it has less impact than when they work those problems out on mini-whiteboards or on paper along with me. Learn by doing- that's a familiar term in education. Do Smartboards allow students to actually follow along with what's going on, on screen? Or is it more like having a student come up to the board to work out a problem- only now it's "Sally, please come up to the screen to show how to open the web browser." That doesn't seem like an effective use of the technology. I think having an interface device that travels around the room would be a cheaper implementation for tech lessons. But this thread isn't really about Smartboards and technoliteracy, it's about the other subjects.
I've often not taught the lessons I wanted to teach because I have very little prep time. Sorting, ordering, categorizing, and manipulating information is a huge part of what we do. If I could easily create vocabulary cards that move around on my whiteboard without magnets popping off and rolling around on the floor, I'd have a billion of those lil' suckers spilling out of my file cabinet. I can see how a Smartboard would allow me to do just that. I could type out text boxes full of words and have students show the words' relationship, peel off suffixes, prefixes, roots, etc. They could alphabetize, categorize, chronologicalize, and Venn Diagram-afy until my LCD projector's bulb burned out. What's more, we could do this whole group, or in small groups, pairs, and individually. I just taught surface area the other day. Man, I would have loved to have a giant, manipulatable pyramid on my whiteboard that students could rotate and examine the sides from all angles. I don't think this could be done with a stylus from the student's desk. I really want to believe it could because it would be much cheaper. But I can't. Maybe I'm input-device challenged. I've tried the styluses and the feeling was much like if I had to complete an hour long cold write using a crayon in my left hand (I'm right-handed btw). They (the people trying to sell me this input device) told me I'd get used to it. I'm sure I could get used to writing with a crayon in my left hand too, but if it isn't natural, it isn't natural. I think being able to use your hands to manipulate objects on the whiteboard would turn even abstract lessons into a kinesthetic activity. And I think if we had more Smartboards floating around, more teachers would be developing lessons for them and posting them on the teacher community. I drool at the potential of having manipulatives for hundreds of lessons stored within my computer. My cupboards would lose their yellow "hazard" tape. And I wouldn't have to live in the shadow of the fear that one day I might become buried in a mountain of teaching supplies. So maybe I'm pitching in with the Smartboard camp.
The Mimeo setup (not sure on the spelling but I did see these demoed at CUE), might be a good compromise, but I'd want to see feedback from people who used it. I don't think it would make sense to invest lots of money into it just to get the chance of being the guinea pigs (If you need a guinea pig, though, I can volunteer).
I think Jim's point of the projector's location messing things up is a serious one. If students can't be working with what's projected without blocking that projection, that's a problem. At CUE, Smartboard had some arm-mounted units that solved this problem fabulously.
So, I suppose I'll pitch in with the Smartboard camp, although I could be a Mimeo proponent if I can get my hands on some decent data the makes me feel comfortable compromising. I know that if I had a Smartboard, it would be part of my daily instruction and would get used more than just for technoliteracy. I also know that by the time we find the money for all of this and make up our mind about it, I'll probably manage to get my hands on a Smartboard just as 3D holographic projectors make their way into the market. *sigh*
I just wanted to add, too, that in terms of input devices, touch is the most intuitive. Check out this great movie about one of the input technologies on the horizon: [Click to view link]
It may be that the Smartboard's interface style is not only cute, but it may be very appropriate for developing the kind of skills and mindset that will be used in tomorrow's more intuitive interface design.
David,
Have you tried Sketch up by Google. It works great showing the relationship between plain and 3 D shapes with an interactive whiteboard. I do have a Mimeo set up at Skyblue that Debbie has allowed me to play around with. Like the Smartboard, it has the same shadowing problems when a teacher is up at the board. But using the iPen moves the instruction away form the front of the room and into the hands of the students.
You and any Saugus teacher are more than welcome to come by and check it out. the only interactive boards that I've seen that almost completely eliminate the shadowing are the new Smartboard and IBM's interactive whiteboard. Both mount at the top of the board and have a short throw projector. These units run about $3000 just to start. Not necessarily a school price.
At some point response devices may even take the place of table PC's and wireless mouse devices. Then students are still doing the work just submitting in through radio frequency inputs like the Renaissance response system.
I thought that demo on TED was great. I want my own lava lamp.
A
I can't say I know enough about smart boards to comment on their quirky behaviors. The idea behind it is what I like though. As a teacher, I want a way to save and share as many of my in class resources with the students and their families as I can. I want them to be able to see the notes and diagrams and thoughts that we talk about in class. I want to be able to have a brainstorm in class and save it for the next day's lesson, or for the student who was absent. I can't do that with a white board. I want a digital board, or pointing device that stores the work digitally.
I also want a way to share my digital resources with my class. This is where the projector comes in. Something with a better resolution than a 32" TV with an S-video connection. So, when I say I am for Smartboards, it is not a vote for a brand, but more of a vote for expanded digital interaction and usability in the classroom.
Perhaps now is not the time to upgrade to such technology if cost is prohibitive. Given today's cost, sure, let's get computers. But, given the size of computers today you also have consider the cost per square foot of keeping them in a classroom. Maybe we bank the money and wait 3 years when interactive boards and projectors are within reach.
Ultimately, we are all looking at it with different mindsets. Some are looking from the pocketbook while others are looking for another way to present material. Those two mindsets will meet when the market lets them.
As a sidenote, My husband, an animator, uses the Wacum tablet and finds it difficult and he's in the business! Here's my solution...
I often will write w/whiteboard markers directly on my ole imacs who have been updated to become internet workhorses.
There's a low tech smart board for ya!
That being said, while smartboards impressively supplement the direct teacher, I find greater value at putting the child in the center of learning. Then, I can offer coaching as needed as assess skills from a distance. This "teacher as facilitator" model provides readable engagement that's easily tracked through kids' overall performance on educational game play.
I feel smartboards shouldn't be offered instead of student labs, but as an introduction to lab activities, and if given the choice, I'd opt for the lab, and recycle old equipment whenever possible!
For those of you who are lucky enough to have a smartboard, remember that every section of The Spang Gang Web Program begins with visual tools that will enhance smart board driven lessons, so if you have one, let the tools be free and assessible through internet freeware! That way you are showcasing activities that are fun, highly motivating, and can easily be reinforced at home.
[...]That being said, while smartboards impressively supplement the direct teacher, I find greater value at putting the child in the center of learning. Then, I can offer coaching as needed as assess skills from a distance.My understanding is that the price is not much under a smartboard so we at Highlands are not sad to have gone ahead with our plans and purchased a sure-bet instead.
[Click to view link]
[...]
http://www.epsonbrightlink.webengager.com/ An Epson ultra short throw projector (almost no shadowing/glare), does wireless content over network IP with a TabletPC and/or gives you the interactive whiteboard experience without the expense of buying the board... plus you can go to 96" diagonal in 16:10 aspect ratio so you're not stuck at a 77" diagonal 4:3 for example. Cost of projector plus MIMIO and runs RM Easiteach as well... non-proprietary open architechture.