Gary Stager Finally Shares Why He Thinks Interactive Whiteboards / Smartboards Suck
![]() |
| Effective use of Smartboard? Image: Courtesy Tom Welsh |
Mine started about 6 years ago when we launched a 1:1 laptop program in NYC where every teacher was to receive an IWB. No! No! No! I screamed. Please don’t waste money on that!!! Everyone looked at me like I was crazy. My colleague working on the project actually left to work for an IWB company (He later left the company confessing he now gets what I’m talking about). In the meantime, my cries fell on deaf ears and hundreds of IWBs marched off to the schools. Ah! The horror!
At the session I asked Gary if he’d written anything about his dislike of the devices. I was surprised to learn the answer was no. I told him I hoped he would and in the meantime, I wrote several of my own posts explaining why I hate interactive whiteboards which you can read here.
- Are Interactive Whiteboards a Smart Idea when they Make Even the Most Innovative of Educators Look Dumb? – 10 Reasons to Ditch the Board
- Do The IWBs or Clickers You (want to) Own REALLY Help Meet Learning Goals?
- Got Money for a Really Expensive Set of Training Wheels? I’ve Got An IWB to Sell Ya.
- IWBs are Not the Stars. They’re the Overpaid Extras with A Great Agent
- Getting Smart about the Real No’s No’s of Teaching with IWBs - A Photo Compilation
- Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards Too
- The Cat's Out of the Bag. More People Are Getting Smart about Interactive Whiteboards
- Erase Unnecessary Costs by Getting Smart about Interactive Whiteboards
- Why Smartboards are a Dumb Initiative
- The Ten No Nos of Teaching with a Projector or Interactive Whiteboard
“They reinforce the dominance of the front of the room and teacher supremacy. At a time of enormous educational upheaval, technological change, and an increasing gulf between adults and children, it is a bad idea to purchase technology that facilitates the delivery of information and increases the physical distance between teacher and learner.”
Gary comes out swinging dispelling these myths about the usefulness of interactive whiteboards.
To find out how he shoots holes in those arguments visit Whiteboards—A Modest Proposal by Gary Stager and/or read the March issue of Tech & Learning.
Why Using Interactive Whiteboards May Be Smart for Educators On Their Way to Becoming Innovative
-
@ Lisa - I love your posts on IWBs! It always makes for great debate and conversation! :) Funny thing is that some of the biggest protesters and critics of IWBs still USE them when they're around... ;)
I think I still kinda' like IWBs (despite all the bad press), namely because I use them and see MANY teachers using them who did not use ANY technology before they came along. And yes, computers and projectors were available before we got the IWBs. They weren't used because very few were willing to set them up. (Plus, we all know that anything that is constantly set up and put away has a much higher chance of breaking.) For a tech savvy person, setting up a projector, a set of speakers, and laptop is not a problem, but that convenience (one button) factor of the IWB has made all the difference in many of our classrooms, in terms of bringing technology into our classrooms.
Do IWBs always create great teaching and learning moments? NO WAY. But, are there times when we need our students to focus and pay attention to what we're teaching? YES! Does an IWB sometimes make for more effective teaching/presenting? YES! Aren't some of the highest paying people "Sages on the Stages." who talk, present, or perform for a living? YES! YES! YES!
WHY are we blaming the poor IWBs for ineffective teaching, presenting, or learning? Why are we demonizing a tool? Guess what? They cost a LOT less than an ineffective teacher or presenter. Poor IWB pales in comparison... Also, when you blamed the IWB setup in those classrooms at EdCampNYC, guess what? That was HUMAN error the way those poor IWBs were set up, not the IWB's fault. ;)
I think IWBs are the "Fall Guy" for ineffective teaching or presenting. It's like blaming a rice cooker for bad rice, blaming a hammer for poor construction, blaming a car for bad driving. We are blaming IWBs for being expensive, blaming them for poor teaching, blaming them for being misnamed. I don't think they named themselves, did they? Where does/should the responsibility lie?
It's similar to going into a kitchen, and blaming the microwave for the cooking that's going on in a household. Microwaves aren't evil, are they? We shouldn't use them for all of our cooking (although some might beg to differ), but even the BEST chefs use them sometimes, no? In the end though, let's not blame the microwaves for ineffective cooking...
If an IWB enables someone who is not so effective to be more effective in a classroom, a conference room, or a corporate board room, then that IWB certainly deserves to be paid a few grand, no? Personally, I'd take an IWB over an ineffective educator or presenter any day of the week. ;)
Are Interactive Whiteboards a Smart Idea when they Make Even the Most Innovative of Educators Look Dumb? – 10 Reasons to Ditch the Board
Because the conference was held at a school, it had the usual IWB configuration. The Smartboard was front and center and not near the CPU/keyboard essential to effectively operate all necessary controls. What some presenters resorted to was a rather awkward set up with one person at the front of the room and another controlling the keyboard/mouse from elsewhere. Of course, teachers don’t have luxury of a second person or assistant, but this was what seemed to be most effective. In each session the board made these tech-savvy presenters (present company included) rather flustered and uncomfortable as a result of the glitchiness of them and/or awkwardness of having either two people at the helm or needing to run back and forth between the front of the room and the keyboard. Additionally, let’s face it. Smartboards just aren’t that intuitive. Folks often get frustrated as they intend to point to something on the board but instead the point results in unexpectedly being taken elsewhere or something they didn’t want to have appear on the screen pops up so the facilitators found themselves running back over to the keyboard and mouse.
I know all those people who feel the need to believe in the magic of the board are going to jump up and down saying how great they are at using IWBs and they will explain how they have transformed teaching with them, but the reality is they are doing that either 1) Because they begged their principal to get an IWB so they better stand up for the benefits it is supposed to provide or their school wasted thousands of dollars that could have gone toward personal computing for students. Acknowledging Smartboards are dumb is as difficult for them as telling a child there’s really no Santa Claus and the real stars are their parents. For all of those in this category, like the myth of Santa, you are attributing the magic of the board to the wrong player. While the board has tales of legend and lore behind it in reality IWBs are Not the Stars. They’re the Overpaid Extras with A Great Agent.
Five problems with interactive whiteboards
1. The keyboard doesn’t get the respect it deserves
An IWB devalues the keyboard which for many is an important component in driving a computer. Innovative educators such as myself rely on the keyboard in our presentations and interactions and using the pop up one on the IWB screen is not a viable option.
2. The pen gets more respect than it deserves
More and more innovative educators their often digitally savvy students are ditching the pen in favor of producing text with a keyboard. Drafting more often done by typing instead of hand printing or writing. For many of the digitally savvy the keyboard is mighterier than the pen.
3. Our eyes don't get the respect they deserve
As opposed to a set up with a laptop and projector that would enable the person facilitating to face the people in the room, the Smartboard, like the traditional blackboard results in teachers and students who are at the board often having their backs to the audience, or perhaps their side, to the audience. Additionally, because of this the person at the front of the room is often blocking what is on either on the board and/or the presenter often gets in the way of the projector.
4. The Promethean Shuffle and Smartboard Slide don't deserve respect on the classroom floor
While the shuffle and slide may look good on the dance floor, they usually have no place in the classroom, but educators are often led to follow this dance when interactive whiteboards are used to lead instruction. If you’ve seen someone use an interactive whiteboard, you know what I’m talking about as they slide from side to side to access the information they want on the board and shuffle out of the way of the projector. While interactive whiteboards are great at making a teacher feel like they’re taking stage, the front of the class is just not a place they should be doing that type of song and dance.
5. The time teacher's have for professional development does not get the respect it deserves
Time and time again when I point out that I see money wasted on IWBS I hear, oh…teachers aren’t using Smartboards well because they don’t have the proper training. You know what? I don’t know of any technology that people get more training for then Smartboards and they’re still not being used effectively. This is a result of two reasons.
- Useful technology doesn’t need all this training. Adults and students just figure out how to use cell phones, cameras, iPads, Wii’s, computers, televisions, projectors, etc. Sure, they may need help to get started, but then they’re off and running, at least with the basics…
- They are a catalyst for ineffective teaching. When you drop the board and let educators use just the laptop and projector the following happens:
i. Instruction can become people, rather than place-based,
ii. Instructors can have eye-to-eye contact with the students
iii. The focus is off the front of the room and on the learning.
iv. The class becomes more interactive when learning is happening around the room rather than with the one (or sometimes 2 – 4) people at the board.
When cash-strapped schools stop wasting money on training people on a mistaken expenditure they can put those funds to something more meaningful
5 Reasons Ditching Interactive Whiteboards is a Smart Idea
While being able to tap a board that will react has an upfront “WOW” factor, innovative educators instinctively know that it’s NOT smart to teach in the manner dictated by an IWB. Instead, they know that dropping the IWB enables them to do all the following which become difficult with Smartboards.
- Focus on the students, not the sage on the stage.
- Learning should come from anywhere, not just at the board in front of the room.
- When addressing a classroom it is better to look at students faces then have them look at your behind or side.
- Have access to the keyboard and mouse and be able to see where you are typing and clicking.
- Have access to any peripherals you are using such as when podcasting, Skyping, etc.
Got Money for a Really Expensive Set of Training Wheels? I’ve Got An IWB to Sell Ya.
Editor’s note: Here’s another in the series for those who have been following the great debate going on here at The Innovative Educator over the effectiveness of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs).I’ve never understood how the IWB companies could fool so many into needlessly wasting their money by misinforming them of the capabilities of the device which I believe provide no value over the Tablet / projector combo, yet cost as much as $1000 - $3000 more. Yet the debate about the device has helped answer this question thanks to many who’ve contributed comments, including, most recently Peter Kent who sums up some of the debate to date here at The IWB debate - where do you stand?
In our latest round, Mr. Kent acknowledges in his comments that he agrees with my belief that “everything that could be done with an IWB could be done with other / cheaper technology,” however, he shares that this is besides the point. As I read through his insights into my misguided flaws in thinking, I realize, he’s right indeed. He breaks it down in two parts. Here is an excerpt from Part 1 where he helps me understand why schools are wasting thousands of dollars on these devices when money could better be spent on resources for students.
- 1st Wrong Thing - Humans are emotional and are not rational, and you are insisting that teachers act as if they are absolutely rational.
In your posts you never mention the broader context in schools that we need to consider. Non-techie teachers (the vast bulk of teachers) are not comfortable with technology, with the concept of computers within classrooms, and while it is not rational we need to accept that. Prior to IWBs (last century) the concept of 2 or 3 computers in a classroom used to freak out the vast majority of teachers. They were however comfortable with the concept of a ‘Board’ in the room. This was the revolutionary nature of IWBs, and still is. For emotional and non-rational reasons it was technology that the vast bulk of teachers were prepared to buy into. This is what I think IWB manufactures talk about when they use the term ‘bridging technology’. An IWB is like the training wheels that teachers need as they come to terms with and hopefully eventually move to a richer and more diverse range of technologies within the classroomSo the while the detail of what your posts say are true on the surface, they are wrong within the context of ‘the real world’.
Mr. Kent is correct. I lack some of that social emotional empathy that others have and in it’s place have a more black and white view of things. A decade into the 21st century and I’m tired of the training wheels already. Especially when the funds to purchase those extraordinarily expensive wheels means fewer resources for students. I’d prefer to save those dollars by spending some time with teachers showing them how they can teach more effectively when they ditch the board, and have a seat to get down and dirty with their students (who may or may not be in the same room as them) and get to the work of learning. I understand that many teachers cling to what they believe is their rightful place, front and center of the room, but there is a better way, and it involves tying learning to people not places. And, if you’re wondering, that doesn’t mean I’m suggesting abandoning direct instruction, but rather that we make a shift in the thinking about the place from where it is delivered. When we break down the wall between the teacher up front and everyone else behind him or her we can all move ahead into the 21st century together regardless of physical location of the teachers or learners.
Note: For my response to his 2nd wrong thing about my thinking, read the comment section here.
Getting Smart about the Real No’s No’s of Teaching with IWBs - A Photo Compilation
That conversation came to mind as I ran across this slideshow from a presentation sponsored by Smartboard about using Smartboards in a 1:1 classroom. The presentation was filled with lots of examples of the dumb ways in which people use interactive whiteboards.
Even though Smartboard used these photos in a presentation to sell the device, they're their own worst enemy sometimes. I invite you to view this photo compilation which can serve as a model for what not to do when using IWBs.
IWBs are Not the Stars. They’re the Overpaid Extras with A Great Agent
I recently explained Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards Too which like my other posts on the topic received numerous responses. Kent3, who clearly cares about helping students succeed, wrote a thoughtful (three-part) comment which deserves at least a blog entry (or two) in response. I enjoy being challenged in thought-provoking ways on my views and respect those who can move or help grow my thinking.In this case, though, it’s another opponent in the ring who tried to change my mind about IWBs being tools of needless, misguided spending that has not changed my beliefs. Like the IWB companies who masterfully market to educational institutions to gain huge profits from schools (and all those who they pay), ), Kent3 (surely unintentionally) is confusing the power of the internet, laptop/tablet, projector, speakers with the power of the extra very expensive IWB add-on.
This doesn’t surprise me as these companies spend countless dollars to lead people to believe that the device runs the show. Confusing the masses into believing this, which means big profits for them. The reality is the co-star of this show (aside from the teacher and students) is the internet, which is supported by that fabulous laptop or even better the supah stah...***The Tablet***. Putting them up in lights, is of course, none-other-than the beloved... projector!!! Providing sound is those powerful, but very affordable (under $40) speakers.
The IWB is merely a highly overpaid insignificant extra that can be replaced by any number of other free and more effective substitutes.
IWB just has a very good (marketing) agent that fools you into believing he’s the star. I did read Kent’s entire research report supporting IWBs. Not surprisingly what I found is there is not a single instance where IWBs aren’t given credit for the work of the real tech stars of the show: the laptop/tablet, internet, projector, and software (which can/and often is run independent of the board, whose functionality can be accomplished with alternate free software as well). Examples include:
- A photo was displayed on the IWB and revealed in portions using the ‘spotlight tool’.
-Ahem, you don't need an IWB to display a photo or to use a spotlight tool. - Speaking Activity – Students reported on current events using Internet News websites via an IWB.
-Huh? What does the IWB have to do with bringing us current events or websites that have current events. The other hardware stars are responsible. - Selected student’s work was displayed on the IWB at the end of the lesson using the visualiser.
-Ummm...I don't need an IWB or visualiser to display student work and actually, I'm more interested in where this work was authentically published and the global community who was involved in the conversation. - Using the IWB students had to write their name on a continuum identifying ‘How well do they swim’.
-Okay, why do I even need any tech for this??? Let's have students line up and have cool conversations with classmates about where they belong to do so. - There's lotsa arranging and prioritizing.
-We can do this easily, more efficiently, and with more interactivity without an IWB. Why on earth are we using and IWB to prioritize? Not necessary. - Downloading onto the IWB and playing the song ‘Come on the bay’ engaged the boys who were usually reluctant singers.
- Ahhhh! You didn't download on the IWB. You downloaded on a computer. No IWB required. - Students were being read to by a ‘talking book’ on the IWB.
-Well, umm, no. The talking came through the speakers and the book was on the laptop. IWB is unnecessary. - The teacher displayed a work sample on the IWB while the students were completing the task. This allowed students to complete the task without having to be continually reminded of what to do.
-Really? Do I even need to explain why the $2.5K investment is an extra with an overpaid agent here????
If I had the extra bucks to throw around in these cash-strapped times, I would instead cast a shiny class set of student response systems or Smart pens or maybe 10 iTouches or netbooks. These extras would no doubt soon rise to the role of supporting actor or maybe even steal the show. They certainly would be more worthy of idolization then those overpaid IWB extras who are typecast to a boring front and center role, never mingling among or even having the opportunity to go home with their audience. Instead, my stars would shine, connected to a student, rather than that of an immobile (but valuable) Midas star stuck helplessly in front of the room. The reason that’s important and all the other flaws of using an IWB vs more effective means of teaching and learning is the topic of yet another post indeed.
Stay tuned.
Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards Too
It just irks me that these companies lead people to believe they need to spend thousands when they can do the same thing and better using free tools.
Well, I have a blog post brewing that really dives into why these devices make learning worse and why schools and districts should instead spend their dollars on resources for students, but I haven't had the chance to write it (someday, I hope). However, serendipitously I came across a piece that shares many of my sentiments. Mine has a slightly different spin, but until that post makes it's way to the top of my pile, I'll share this one written by educator, author, blogger Bill Ferriter. Like many educators after a year of trying to make the best of a bad tool, Bill began Getting Smart about Interactive Whiteboards
In his article "Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards," Bill, who gave his IWB away, shares in my belief that...
most of the time, interactive whiteboard programs are, in fact, nothing more than vain attempts to buy change. Sharing that even with time and training, interactive whiteboards are an under-informed and irresponsible purchase. They do little more than reinforce a teacher-centric model of learning. Heck, even whiteboard companies market them as a bridging technology, designed to replicate traditional instructional practices (make presentations, give notes, deliver lectures) in an attempt to move digital teacher-dinosaurs into the light. I ask you: Do we really want to spend thousands of dollars on a tool that makes stand-and-deliver instruction easier?To read more pearls of wisdom from Bill visit his article here Why I Hate Interactive Whiteboards.
