From Chalkboards to Smart Boards? Has technology changed the way teachers teach?

Posted on

Technology is becoming more and more advanced. Items that are faster and sleeker are replacing items that we once used. These are anything, from things that are in our homes to things that are in our schools. Many schools have new technology that teachers use. This might sound great, that most schools have this advanced technology, but when we look deeper do we see any change over time? More specifically, do we see any change over time in the way teachers teach?

In this research paper, I will show what author, Larry Cuban, feels about teaching and the implementation of technology over time. I will look at a couple of his books The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920 and Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom where he says that how teachers teach has stayed the same over time and how he believes that more time can aid development and make teachers more comfortable with technology. I will then go on to look at a pretty recent addition to the innovative technology family, interactive white boards, also called Smart Boards, and show that teaching has also stayed constant with its presence in classrooms. Some of the evidence used is that teachers are still the most important part of teaching and that some teachers are more comfortable using old ways than new innovative technological ways of teaching.

Larry Cuban was a former teacher and wrote about teaching in articles and books. Cuban has shown interest in school reform as well as teaching and technology. Many of his works show this interest. (About).

In Larry Cuban’s book, The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920, he begins by telling us what teaching was like in the Progressive Era. Cuban describes teaching as something that challenges students to think. According to Cuban, “The teacher’s role was to be coach and advisor, not drill sergeant.” Cuban also states that teachers and students used to work collaborate on certain projects. (Cuban 210). This was what teaching was like many years ago. Does Cuban see a change in the way teachers teach with the introduction of technology?

Cuban first looks at the technological innovation of film. After film was introduced to schools, it was not used as much as it could have been. In this section of Cuban’s book he does not say much about the effect of film on teaching. Cuban mentioned a limited amount of evidence, one of which was a 1946 survey in which superintendents from urban and rural districts were asked about the use of films in schools. It was found that senior high schools were less likely to use film while elementary schools were more likely to use film (Cuban 214). Then in 1954, urban superintendents took the survey and it was found that, again, secondary schools were less likely to use films (Cuban 216). This suggests that the difference in school levels might contribute to the frequency of film use, back when it was first introduced in schools.

Cuban’s book then goes onto the radio, which was introduced in the 1920s. (Cuban 219). Similar to film, Cuban argues that radios were not used in school as much as they could have been.  A 1941 survey in Ohio found that elementary schools did not use radios much because of issues like price, and secondary schools did not use radio as much because of issues like scheduling. (Cuban 225). Even though schools did not use radio much, Cuban mentions that radios were more available than film because it was easier to get the hardware for radio ( Cuban 222).  Unlike the sparse information Cuban found about film and teaching, he does mention that in 1924 teachers and students would prepare weekly talks with the radio. ( Cuban 220). Cuban also mentions that radio was sometimes used as supplement to teaching. (Cuban 222). From this information we see that technological innovations have differences as well as similarities.

Getting more advanced with technology, we come to the 1950s, when some schools started using TV (Cuban 229). Similar to both film and radio, Cuban states that TV was not used as much by teachers. Cuban himself did a randomized study and found that of the 317 teachers he observed, only 2% used the TV. (Cuban 241). Of the teachers that did use them, Cuban stated that the teachers prepared the class to watch TV. After the class was prepared, the students would watch the TV while the teacher supervised. Then the teacher would welcome a discussion and give an assignment. According to Cuban, this shows that the teacher still has the dominant role with the addition of the TV (Cuban 229). There were also teachers that used the TV but for a different purpose; Cuban stated that some teachers used TV in the afternoon so that they, themselves, could rest (Cuban 247). Cuban concluded, “Television has been and continues to be used as an accessory to rather than the primary vehicle for basic instruction” (Cuban 249). What Cuban concluded about the TV in schools is similar to what was said about the radio being the supplement to teaching. (Cuban 249). Then there were teachers who did not use the TV at all; they were teachers who were comfortable with the rudimentary textbook and chalkboard. (Cuban 238). Again, we see similarities and differences between the technology used in the classroom.

To answer the question, Does Cuban see a change in the way teaches teach with the introduction of technology? we can see that Cuban answers, no. To conclude what he has to say about film, radio and TV, Cuban states that teachers’ teaching methods were the same. Cuban also summarized that in looking at the 3 different technologies, elementary schools were likely to use them than higher grade levels were. (Cuban 263). Cuban explains this by saying that teachers in higher grades had to follow more stringent lesson plans and so did not have enough time to use different technological innovations than elementary schools. (Cuban 67). These points summarize what Cuban feels about teaching and technology.

Larry Cuban also wrote a book solely on computers and teaching called Over Sold and Under Used: Computers in the Classroom. In this book, Cuban compares the use of computers from preschools to college. Cuban found that in preschools, computers are used a lot. According to Cuban, “The computes are left on all day, and they are in constant use by one or two preschoolers” (Cuban 138). The computers are used so that the students can play games and learn to read (Cuban 147). Cuban found that the teachers felt they’re teaching methods have changed (Cuban 157). However, Cuban said that teaching has not changed that much; he stated that “…  teachers have adapted an innovation to existing ways of teaching.” Cuban believed this because the preschools already had a certain system in the classroom and that when the computer was added, the system still maintained. (Cuban 158). This shows that Cuban’s argument still holds.

Cuban than looked at higher grade levels, like senior high. Similar to his first book that looked at film, radio and TV, in this book about computers Cuban states that teachers could not use computers as much as they wanted because they did not have enough time with the schedules that had to follow. What wasn’t mentioned much in the first book, however, was training. In this book, Cuban states that if teachers were not trained in using computers there were more likely not to use them (Cuban 197). Also, similar to the first book where we learned that teachers used instructional TV so that the teachers could rest, for this second book we see that teachers used computers for things like a word processor. ( Cuban 172). In both cases we see that teachers did not think outside the box.

Cuban also looked at professors in universities. Similar to some of the innovative technology in Cuban’s first book, Cuban found that not a lot of research was done on professors. ( Cuban 1115). Cuban also points out that professors did not use computers a lot because they did not have enough time. Professors not having enough time corresponds to doing their own research. ( Cuban 1121, 122). This again shows the similarities of innovative technology over the years.

Cuban then tries to make sense of what he found. Cuban states that teaching with technology will not change as long as teachers keep doing certain things, like putting information from the textbook into the innovative technology. ( Cuban 1196). Cuban found that computers were added to the classroom so that the schooling would move from teacher centered to student centered. ( Cuban 1134). Even though Cuban believes that has not happened, Cuban did state that in time more teachers will use the technology. According to Cuban, “Technology will not go away, and educators have to come to terms with it as an educational tool.” ( Cuban 1194).  Therefore, Cuban is saying more time will lead to more knowledge about technology.

It is beneficial to look at technology from the past, so that it can be compared to technology from the present. A recent technological innovation is the interactive white board or the Smart Board. Many sources showed revealed the positive attitudes teachers felt towards the boards. In the article “Whiteboard’s Impact on Teaching Seen as Uneven” many of the teachers felt that these white boards were “cool” and attracted students to learning.  In “Using Smart Boards to Enhance Student Learning” we see teachers praising these boards because they can be used in different ways ( Bates, 48). In “Why I Use Interactive Whiteboards” the author states how good these boards are for archiving and accuracy (Picciotto, 251,252). “Teachers Hold the Real Keys to Whiteboard Effectiveness” talks about a teacher who uses the board for multiple-choice questions. The article goes on to say how now the teacher knows the rate at which the students are answering, which allows the teacher to look at the questions that the students were taking the most time on, so the teacher can go back and explain those questions. (O’Connor, S15). These are all positive feelings teachers have towards interactive white boards.

Math teacher Lonnise Gilley uses an interactive whiteboard at Kent County High in Chestertown, Md. —Christopher Powers/Digital Directions

We must not, however, overlook studies that show us another side to whiteboards. In “Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards” the study found that better results when white boards were not used (Marzano, 80). Some reasons for this are that   some teachers speed through the material on these boards without explaining them in detail or at all. Another reason is that some teachers put a plethora of  visuals on the boards without distinguishing them-the important ones from the unimportant ones. (Marzano, 81). In “How is the Interactive Whiteboard Being Used in the Primary School and How Does This Affect Teachers and Teaching?” a study was done that showed teachers who used the boards found that the interactive white boards and the black boards are similar (Cogill,34). There was also a teacher who said after using the board she garnered more skills, but she was still a good teacher before. (Cogill, 35). There is also “ Teacher’s Perspectives on Interactive Whiteboards as a Motivational Factor in Upstate NY County” in which interviews were conducted finding that teachers think that the whiteboards are motivational factors, but that the motivation is coming from the teacher. These studies show that teaching methods have not changed with the implementation of interactive white boards.

Larry Cuban’s argument, that teaching has stayed constant over the years with the introduction of technology, holds for a recent innovative technology, interactive whiteboards. We have seen a good amount of explanation that supports this claim. It would be good to continue research on this topic to see if this claim holds in the coming years or decades.

References

“About | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice.” Word Press, http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/about/. May 3, 2012.

Bates, Christi, Hopkins, Amy, Kratcoski, Annette. “Using Smart Boards to Enhance Student Learning.” Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology.

3.2 (2007):  47-49. May 3, 2012.

Briggs, Josh, Daniels, Derrick, Jeror, Tracy, Scherhaufer, Katie. “ Teacher’s Perspectives on Interactive Whiteboards as a Motivational Factor in Upstate NY County.” May 3, 2012.

Cogill, Julie. “How is the Interactive Whiteboard Being Used in the Primary School and How Does this Affect Teachers and Teaching?” 1-48. May 3, 2012.

Cuban, Larry1. Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard

College: President and Fellows. 2001. Print.

Cuban, Larry2. Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920.

New York: Teachers College Press. 1986. Print.

Manzo, Kathleen. “Education Week: Whiteboard’s Impact on Teaching Seen as Uneven.” Education Week, n.d. http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2010/01/08/02whiteboards.h03.html.

May 3, 2012.

Marzano, Robert J. “Teaching With Interactive White Boards.” Educational Leadership. 2009. May 3, 2012.

O’Connor, Mary Catherine. “Teachers Hold the Real Keys to Whiteboard Effectiveness.”

Education Week. June 15, 2011. May 3, 2012.

Picciotto, Henri. “Why I Use Interactive Whiteboards.” Math Education Page. 104.4 (2010). 250-253. May 3, 2012.

From Chalkboards to Smart Boards?

Posted on

Q:Has teaching changed over the years, with the introduction of technology? Have interactive white boards changed the way teachers teach?

Thesis: It’s not clear whether teaching has changed over the years with the introduction of technology.

Sources:

-Larry Cuban’s books

1. “The Classroom Use of Technology since 1920”

2. “Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom”

Education Week Article

Teaching Then and Now: Has Teaching Changed Over the Years with the Introduction of New Technology? And Have Interactive White Boards Changed the Way Teachers Teach?

Posted on

Technology is becoming more and more advanced everyday. Items that are faster and sleeker are replacing items that we once used. These are anything, from things that are in our homes to things that are in our schools. Many schools have new technology that teachers use. This might sound great, that most schools have this advanced technology, but when we look deeper do we see any change over time? More specifically, do we see any change over time in the way teachers teach? In this research paper, I will pay close attention to what author, Larry Cuban, feels about teaching and the implementation of technology over time. I will look at a couple of his books The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920 and Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom where he says that how teachers teach has pretty much stayed the same over time. I will answer this question in a different way and say that technology has changed the ways teachers teach. I will do this by r by reviewing some articles and books that look at teaching methods from about the 1970’s to the present to show that many teachers use this technology and there have been changes in how teachers teach. Finally, I will look at a pretty recent technological innovation, interactive white boards, and show that the addition of this novelty has changed how teachers teach.

In Cuban’s book, Teachers and Machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920, Cuban says that electronic technology has not changed the way high school teachers teach. Cuban says this is due to “school and classroom structures and culture of teaching” (Cuban2, 63). For example, there are teachers who resist using technology, which could be for a number of reasons (Cuban2, 80). Teachers might not be prepared, they might not have the time, they might not like change, etc. In regards to computers, Cuban feel like they are being used like how past innovations, radio, films, etc., have been used which means things have stayed the same (Cuban2, 81). When looking into when TVs were introduced, Cuban says that they replaced the teacher in a way because the TVs had things that were represented in better ways than the teacher could show (Cuban2, 38).

In Cuban’s book Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom he continues to say how technology in the classroom has no affected the way teachers teach and how some teachers don’t even use it (Cuban1, 71). Cuban found that in some high schools, teachers used computers to help prepare them for their classes rather than to teach their classes (Cuban1, 85). When teachers were asked about how they thought of the new technology in their school, they said “technology changed the way the prepared for classes, but not a lot of teaches said their daily practices changed” (Cuban1, 95). Furthermore, Cuban says that the classroom is still teacher centered and not student centered. Teachers might not use technological innovations, like computers, because “it takes a while to implement things in schools because they are citizen controlled and nonprofit” (Cuban1, 153). Even though Cuban feels that teachers’ methods have not changed with the introduction of technology, he feels things will change as we move forward and teachers get more used to seeing and using the technology (Cuban1, 179).

References:

Cuban, Larry1. Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard

College: President and Fellows. 2001. Print.

Cuban, Larry2. Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920.

New York: Teachers College Press. 1986. Print.

Smart Boards Leaving Chalkboards in the Dust

Posted on

Title: Smart Boards Leaving Chalkboards in the Dust

Research Question: I would like to research how technology has changed what’s going on in classrooms in the United States from the 1950s to today. Particularly, I would like to focus on how and why chalkboards have been replaced by Smart Boards in the United States. In addition I would like to see how teachers and students feel about this. Has this transition improved learning, sparked interest for students, etc? I first thought about Smart Boards replacing chalkboards when I talked to my sister back in Brooklyn, New York. She is currently in her senior year of high school (she goes to a small, all girl, Catholic school). She was telling me how now most of the math teachers are using Smart Boards instead of chalk boards. When I left that school in 2010 I remember a few math teachers using Smart Boards.

Why? I think this is important to research about because we are living in an age where technology is taking over. I wanted to see how technology is doing in classrooms. I could have chosen computers, but I feel that I know less about chalkboards and Smart Boards. I want to become a math teacher and so it would be nice to know how the instruments teachers use are changing.

Research Strategy: I first went to the Trinity College Library homepage. Then I looked under Trinity Online Resources (TOR) and looked under Educational Studies. Then under the results, I looked under “News.” I then went to Lexis Nexis Academic and typed in “chalkboards and smartboards in secondary education” in the search box and looked under Newspapers.

I used Google for the rest of my search. I typed in things like:

Chalkboards and Smart Boards in the U.S.

From Chalkboards to Smart Boards

Books on chalkboards and white boards

History of chalkboards

History of Smart Boards

For the last 2 searches, “History of Chalkboards” and “History of Smart Boards” I went to the Wikipedia page, not with the intention of using Wikipedia as a source, but to look at what sources they cited. I then looked at ones I thought were appropriate.

Sources:

“About Blackboards – Blackboard Technology and Chalkboard History Advances.” Ergo in Demand, n.d. http://www.ergoindemand.com/about_chalkboards.htm.

(This source talks about the history of chalk boards).

Baburajan, Rajani. “Education Technology News: U.S. the Largest Adopter of White Boards: Smart Technologies.” TMCnet.com, July 20, 2009. http://education.tmcnet.com/topics/education/articles/60232-us-largest-adopter-white-boards-smart-technologies.htm.

(This source shows an interview with Terry Wason, manager, CEE, Russia and India. This source talks about how Smart Boards are becoming very popular in the United States.)

Bader, Daniel. “From Chalk Boards to SMART Boards: Local Schools 2.0.” Http://www.uticaod.com, February 24, 2012. http://www.uticaod.com/business_review/x1353887340/From-chalk-boards-to-SMART-boards-Local-schools-2-0.

(This source talks about how technology is being used in the classroom.)

“Georgia Pacific Newsroom – UPDATE: From Chalkboards to Smartboards.” Georgia-Pacific News, December 21, 2011. http://www.gp.com/newsroom/newsarticle.asp?newsid=9460.

(A generous donation was allowed for classrooms in Choctaw County to get Smart Boards. This source talks about how Smart Boards will help students.)

Kuster, Judith. “No More Chalkboards: Interactive Whiteboards.” American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA), August 30, 2011. http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster4/part100.html.

(This source talks about the benefits professors have in using Smart Boards).

Liebrecht, Deia. “West Area Gets Smart With Technology.” TheLedger.com, November 27, 2007. http://www.theledger.com/article/20071127/NEWS14/711270453.

(This source talks about the benefits Smart Boards have for students.)

Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. “Whiteboards’ Impact on Teaching Seen as Uneven.” Digital Directions, January 8, 2010. http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2010/01/08/02whiteboards.h03.html.

(Advocates and a couple critics of Smart Boards talk about how they feel about them).

Miller, Patty. “LexisNexis® Academic & Library Solutions.” Lexis Nexis, December 20, 2010. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?

(This is source is about a public school’s transition to using Smart Boards. The procedures of making the change is talked about. The cost is talked about as well.)

Avoiding Plagiarism Exercise

Posted on

Example 1: Plagiarize the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

No measure is perfect, but the estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” which attempt to isolate the “true effect” of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year.

Example 2: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, without copying it word-for-word.

There is no measure that is faultless, but approximations of value-added and other models, which try to separate how the individual teacher is affected through the tests the students take, have faults during any year.

Example 3: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, and include a citation. Even though you cited it, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

According to Diane Ravitch, there is no measure that is faultless, but approximations of value-added and other models, which try to separate how the individual teacher is affected through the tests the students take, have faults during any year (Ravitch, 270).

Example 4: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, and include a citation to the original source.

According to Diane Ravitch, it is not right to say a teacher is a good one or not by looking at the grades his/her students get on exams (Ravitch, 270-271).

Example 5: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, add a direct quote, and include a citation to the original source.

According to Diane Ravitch, it is not right to say a teacher is a good one or not by looking at the grades his/her students get on exams.  Ravitch describes this as being “alarmingly error prone”(Ravitch, 270-271).