Teacher Phil Beadle summarizes the history of the chalkboard and whiteboard, then bemoans the rise of the interactive whiteboard in an impassioned editorial from today’s Guardian. He feels that a teacher can’t be “spontaneous” because interactive whiteboards require you to actually prepare elements of your lessons beforehand, whereas lessons with regular whiteboards require only “a couple of board markers and a handful of good ideas.” I get the feeling that the real issue comes down to value - an interactive whiteboard can do everything a lower-tech whiteboard or blackboard can do and a lot more, but it also costs a lot more as a result. Therefore, if you don’t feel like you need the high-tech features, then an interactive whiteboard doesn’t make sense. But if I understand the article correctly, Beadle is suggesting that teachers who can’t (or won’t) learn the technology shouldn’t have to because it actually inhibits their creativity and natural instincts. Sounds a lot like what I used to say back in seventh grade when my mom told me to turn off my Nintendo and go do my algebra homework.
I do understand the point though. It’s hard to suddenly change and adapt to something you don’t understand, especially when you’ve taught a certain way for decades. In fact, I agreed with Beadle’s entertaining diatribe to a certain degree in an earlier post. But enough with the close-mindedness of traditional whiteboard apologists who’ve taken their tongue out of cheek and openly critique interactive whiteboards simply because they aren’t proficient enough with them yet. If you don’t like them, don’t use them. The market will survive, with or without you.
Posted by Taeho Lim
