1.
Introducing interactive whiteboards in the schools: an experience report Marco Ronchetti, Benjamin Dandoy Università degli Studi di Trento, Informatica Trentina SpA

2.
Interactive Whiteboards (IAW): what are they? Intro

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.
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.
Any problem? Intro

6.
Any problem? Intro

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>