This is my second post in this series, in a comment on an IWB article in the previous post, Gina Hale wrote:
" ... it seems that a key finding is being ignored: "Such a carefully designed rollout, featuring extensive professional development and ongoing support services, does not always occur when districts decide to put the whiteboards in classrooms, critics say." This correlates strongly with the research findings in "Professional Learning in the Learning Profession" (http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/pdf/nsdc_profdev_short_report.pdf) that job embedded, long term, intensive professional development (70 hours or more) is needed to support significant change in teacher practice. The thing that makes Interactive Whiteboards work, when they work, is a teacher who is willing and able to support collaboration and interaction. What people forget is that at the heart of teaching is a teacher, and these are not interchangeable parts (see The Widget Effect: http://widgeteffect.org/). I would so much rather districts invested in teacher development than expensive widgets. Treat the widgets like interchangeable widgets and strong teachers like the irreplaceable human capital that they are. "
The Interactive Whiteboard Revolution ning has lots to read and review.
This one highlights Decisions to be taken by school leaders.
Wasting Money on Whiteboards and on this, Bill Ferriter post Miguel Guhlin has this to say.
Interactive Whiteboards Alone are not Interactive.
Interactive Whiteboards: Engagement is not Interaction.