Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Introducing interactive whiteboards in the schools

3,193 views

Published on

Introducing interactive whiteboards in the schools: an experience report

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Introducing interactive whiteboards in the schools

  1. 1. Introducing interactive whiteboards in the schools: an experience report Marco Ronchetti, Benjamin Dandoy Università degli Studi di Trento, Informatica Trentina SpA
  2. 2. Interactive Whiteboards (IAW): what are they? Intro
  3. 3. The overall project <ul><li>Trentino (Trento province, Italy) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>400'000 people </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>70'000 students (School only) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7'000 teachers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3'000 classes </li></ul></ul>Intro
  4. 4. The overall project <ul><li>Target: a whiteboard per class (6 M €) </li></ul><ul><li>2006/7: 225 whiteboards (7.5%) </li></ul><ul><li>2007/8: 225 whiteboards </li></ul>Intro
  5. 5. Any problem? Intro
  6. 6. Any problem? Intro
  7. 7. The SLIM4DIDA project <ul><li>Try to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Introduce </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guide </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Help </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sustain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Create (a) community(ies) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reuse </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scale </li></ul></ul>The project
  8. 8. Structure of our project <ul><li>5 high schools and 2 so-called “comprehensive institutes” composed by primary schools (grades 1 to 5) and middle schools (grades 6 to 8) </li></ul><ul><li>4 in town, 3 in the valleys </li></ul><ul><li>57 teachers over a three months period </li></ul>The project
  9. 9. Structure of our project <ul><li>4 meetings: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General introduction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical introduction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedagogical issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus group + questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Support actions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Production of learning material </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Set up a wiki </li></ul></ul>The project
  10. 10. Teacher perception: positive aspects <ul><li>Support for handicapped students </li></ul><ul><li>Time saving in certain activities </li></ul><ul><li>Fascination of the tool </li></ul><ul><li>Complementary aspects with respect to a multimedia classroom </li></ul>OUTCOME
  11. 11. Teacher perception: negative aspects <ul><li>Induced laziness </li></ul><ul><li>Time lost for problems or setup </li></ul><ul><li>Time needed to prepare material </li></ul><ul><li>Doubts about the suitability of the tool to certain disciplines and age ranges </li></ul><ul><li>Precision and naturalness of the virtual writing not fully satisfactory </li></ul>OUTCOME
  12. 12. Problems and issues <ul><li>installation of the devices </li></ul><ul><li>Placement of the devices </li></ul><ul><li>Perception of the tool </li></ul><ul><li>How to facilitate the transition to more partecipatory teaching/learning? </li></ul><ul><li>Notion of learning object </li></ul><ul><li>NIH syndrome </li></ul><ul><li>White paper syndrome </li></ul><ul><li>Expectations/results mismatch </li></ul>OUTCOME
  13. 13. Hurdles <ul><li>Teachers are busy people! </li></ul><ul><li>Community startup </li></ul><ul><li>Fear of lack of timely and efficient support </li></ul><ul><li>Archival/retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Finding the ways to recognize and remunerate any extra work </li></ul>OUTCOME
  14. 14. Conclusions <ul><li>Is the IWB the magic tool described by the vendors and by some literature? </li></ul><ul><li>The strong point is bringing Internet and the PC in the middle of the class </li></ul><ul><li>It does not happen magically… </li></ul><ul><li>The process needs to be driven </li></ul>

×