The reason for the low implementation of IWB

Tweet

When the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB: first caught the eye of educators in the late 90s and early 2000s, it invigorated hope that education technology might begin to align with the digital age. In fact, these IWBs were respectfully dubbed a window-to-the-world. Although high market penetration of the interactive white boards served as a sign of technology adoption, its correspondingly low implementation by individual classroom teachers served as a sign of eventual failure. That is, despite school district-wide decisions to order IWBs in high numbers, teachers didn’t fully adopt IWBs into their daily practice. One explanation for this divergence between penetration and implementation lies in the complexity of the system. The IWB doesn’t function as a stand-alone item, but instead requires a collective technology quartet of an IWB, projector, computer, and desktop software. Each of these digital items presented an opportunity for technical malfunction and ultimately became a challenge to even the best technology support teams, let alone a single educator. When faced with IWB complexities, it was easier for teachers to carry on without. Unfortunately, it was the enthusiastic administrator in search of a silver bullet to improve instruction who was slow to appreciate that although the IWB carried much promise, the actual transformation was dramatically overstated. And in a classic push-and-pull scenario, the ultimate success of optical interactive whiteboards was dependent upon the teachers’ willingness to transform their practice. Many didn’t. Teaching is personal, and there is no uniform pedagogical theory that defines how any educator runs his or her classroom. If an educator is to adopt IWB technology in their classroom, he or she must feel some sort of ownership over its application in their practice. Simply put, adoption of transformational technology must be teacher-initiated. In the Interactive Display model, decision makers purchased the technology and then developed professional development plans to support the adoption by classroom teachers. The amount of professional development required to support the implementation when the majority of teachers remain passive partners is simply unfeasible for even the wealthiest of districts.