Interactive Whiteboard Presentation 7101


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Have some kind of music playing.
  • (Introduce topic and show pictures of technology evolving, will take several slides) Good evening, I am Sharon McDaniel. I am currently a teacher at Lowndes High School. I would like to take 10 minutes of your time and talk to you about the Interactive Whiteboard (IW).
  • The first IW was developed in 1991, by David Martin (Knowlton, 2006). David Martin developed the IW as a solution to the problem of plain whiteboards, that were only being used to write on. The plain whiteboards did not have any interactive capabilities, except that students could write on them (Knowlton, 2006). The IW can help students stay focused, because they know they might get called on to go up in front of the class to demonstrate something. This alone will cause students to pay attention and learn the information that is being presented. The IW can be used with a variety of students in grades K-12, and at technical schools and colleges. It can be used for whole class or small group instruction. The IW provides visual, auditory, and interactive learning opportunities. The IW has the capabilities of the old overhead projectors and screens, the television set, the blackboard or whiteboard, and the computer combined (Discovery Channel, 2008). There are many websites that provide lesson plans and different ideas of how to use the IW.(a few slides showing students using IW’s)
  • David Martin, along with his wife, Nancy Knowlton, were co-founders and partners of the SMART Company (Knowlton, 2006). The SMART Company began as a Canadian Company that distributed projectors in the United States. The SMART Company used their money for research and came up with the IW (Knowlton, 2006). The IW was designed, in the beginning, to act as a computer monitor. The idea of the IW did not capture very much attention until 2000, when the Intel Corporation decided to invest in the IW (Manning, 2002). Nancy Knowlton took on the responsibility of marketing and sales. By 2002,one hundred thousand IW had been shipped out to different places (Manning, 2002). The IW can be purchased as a complete package with the whiteboard, projector, and software. It can also be purchased as separate pieces (Knowlton, 2006)
  • Nancy Knowlton has been responsible for funding research on the IW. The research has helped a great deal in the diffusion process of the IW (Knowlton, 2006). There is also a large amount of research that has been conducted by other people, to see what kinds of benefits are associated with the IW. One research study, conducted by Bridget Somekh and her colleagues, showed positive gains for some students (Somekh et al., 2007). Michelle Davis conducted research and found that using the IW kept students engaged, because they enjoyed being able to get up in front of the class to show the other students what they could do (Davis, 2007). Another study, conducted by C. Fox, showed that all kinds of technology tools can help make it possible for all students to achieve higher than if technology was not available (Fox, 2009). According to J. Curwood, IW’s do help raise student achievement by causing students to be engaged in the learning process (Curwood, 2009). Another study, conducted by Valerie Quashie, showed that students were excited and eager to pay attention to the lesson, because they wanted to have the chance of interacting with the whiteboard (Quashie, 2009). One article showed IW’s to be one of the best forms of technology to help keep students engaged in the lesson (Dyrli, 2008). According to J. Waters, IW’s can also be used in some settings with mobile devices that students already have in the classroom (Waters, 2009).
  • Concerns for development of the IW had to do with how slow the innovation process began, however, research that was conducted on the IW helped the innovation diffuse. The IW mainly targeted big corporate businesses and schools all over the world (Manning, 2002). Now, small and large businesses, K-12 schools, technical schools, and colleges and universities are being targeted (Knowlton, 2006).
  • There was a need for something in the classroom that would cause the students to attend to the lectures. I was exposed to the IW, during a technology workshop. The IW was demonstrated at the workshop.
  • I conducted research on the IW and started looking at demonstrations of the use of the IW.
  • I went to a conference where I was able to work with an IW. The conference lasted 2 days and I was able to learn a lot of information about how the IW worked.
  • When I receive an IW in my classroom, I will begin to use it each day. Between now and the time I get an IW, I will be learning to use one.
  • I will continue to use the IW in my classroom and I will continue to read about the research and new developments on the IW. I will continuously watch for new ways to use it and upcoming conferences.
  • According to Colin Messenger, the IW diffusion process follows the S-Curve. Sales continue to rise and the rate of adoption continues to go up (Messenger, 2009). (IW’s sold in 2009 is a prediction)
  • Sales for IW’s were very slow for the first 9 years. There were 44,000 IW’s sold in 2001. By 2007, there were 420,857 IW’s sold. Predictions for sales during the year 2009 are over 600,000 (Messenger, 2009).
  • The key innovators, in the beginning, were the people from SMART. Nancy Knowlton was the one in charge of product development and she was also responsible for the marketing and sales of the IW (Manning, 2002). Instructors at technical colleges were the early adopters, along with a few lead teachers in some of the schools across the country.
  • Relative advantage, compatibility, and observability are very important when it comes to early adopters in schools (Rogers, 2003). The IW was an improvement of the whiteboard or dry erase board, which was an improvement of the chalkboard (Wikipedia, 2009).
  • The key laggards would be the oldest group of teachers who have not had very much experience with technology and are close to retirement. Required professional development courses that will include practice using the IW will help this group and all groups to feel more adequate at using the IW. Since the early adopters help trigger critical mass, anything that will help the early adopters spread the word about IW’s will be positive.
  • A decentralized approach would work best for the adoption of the IW. The IW has already shown that the power and control of the innovation has been shared between the different members involved with the diffusion process (Rogers, 2003). The innovation started with one man, who quickly involved several people. The early adopters, which were early and secondary school teachers, helped the diffusion process by showing the benefits or problems of the IW with their peers (Rogers, 2003).
  • The key change agents will be two teachers in each department, who have volunteered to receive an IW and training on how to use it. The teachers who get the IWs will have different roles during this process. The first role will be to show other teachers that they need to use the IW (Rogers, 2003). They will be demonstrating the different things that can be done with the IW. The two teachers in each department that receive an IW will go through extensive training, so they can hold small sessions to show some of the other teachers the many uses of the IW.This is also a role of the change agents (Rogers, 2003). Many of the other teachers will look up to the change agents as knowing about the innovation. They will feel comfortable putting trust with these peopleabout the innovation.
  • The diffusion of the Interactive Whiteboard has already met critical mass in the area of K-12 education, however, the IW has only been introduced into my school system. According to sales, it looks like critical mass was reached in 2002.
  • The need to find something that worked better in a classroom, than the chalkboard or plain whiteboard, led to the development of the IW. The IW is a way to use technology to enhance the teaching and learning experience. After the IW was developed, Nancy Knowlton, the wife of the man who developed the IW helped to advertise the innovation. She backed her husband, and along with the company, SMART Technologies, has helped sell millions of IW’s (Manning, 2002). Nancy Knowlton put all she had into the innovation (Rogers, 2003). She was the champion who helped boost the innovation.
  • The IW is needed in the classrooms of Lowndes High School, so the students can see and use the new technology. According to Robert Henshaw, the use of technology is very important in the classroom, because we are supposed to be preparing students to interact in a world full of technology and the IW is a very good way to work on doing this (Henshaw, 2008).
  • Interactive Whiteboard Presentation 7101

    1. 1. EDUC 7101-Diffusion and Integration of Technology in Education<br />Sharon McDaniel<br />August 7, 2009<br />Interactive Whiteboard Presentation<br />
    2. 2. Introduction<br />
    3. 3. Evolution of Technology<br />
    4. 4. Evolution of Technology<br />
    5. 5. Evolution of Technology<br />
    6. 6. Evolution of Technology<br />
    7. 7. Evolution of Technology<br />
    8. 8. Evolution of Technology<br />
    9. 9. Evolution of Technology<br />
    10. 10. The Whiteboard<br />
    11. 11. <ul><li>Who developed the interactive whiteboard?
    12. 12. Why was the IW developed?
    13. 13. Who can the IW be used with?
    14. 14.
    15. 15.
    16. 16.
    17. 17.</li></ul>Description<br />
    18. 18.
    19. 19.
    20. 20.
    21. 21. Prices for Interactive Whiteboards vary, depending on the brand and what is needed, from $1,300 for just the whiteboard to $10,000 for a whole system.<br /><br />There are grants for schools, through SMART<br />Production, Manufacturing, packaging, marketing, and Distribution<br />
    22. 22. <ul><li>Initial research
    23. 23. Current research</li></ul>Research<br />
    24. 24. Research<br />
    25. 25. More Research<br />
    26. 26. And More Research<br />
    27. 27. <ul><li>Problems
    28. 28. Intended market in the beginning
    29. 29. Market now</li></ul>Development<br />
    30. 30. June 16,2009-Stage 1<br />Knowledge Stage-<br /><br />Stage 1 <br />
    31. 31. July 10, 2009-Stage 2<br />Persuasion Stage-<br /><br />Stage 2<br />
    32. 32. July 24, 2009-Stage 3<br />Decision Stage-<br /><br />Stage 3<br />
    33. 33. August 30, 2009-Stage 4<br />Implementation Stage-<br /><br />Stage 4<br />
    34. 34. Stage 5<br />Confirmation Stage-<br /><br />Stage 5<br />
    35. 35. S-Curve<br />
    36. 36. <ul><li>How many are currently being sold each year?
    37. 37. Predictions of future sales</li></ul>Diffusion and Adoption<br />
    38. 38. Key Innovators and Early Adopters<br />
    39. 39. Strategies to Persuade<br />
    40. 40. Older teachers<br />Key Laggards<br />
    41. 41. Centralized or Decentralized Approach<br />
    42. 42. Change Agents<br />
    43. 43. Critical Mass<br />
    44. 44. Role of the Champion<br />
    45. 45. Conclusion<br />
    46. 46. Video<br />