Experiences from the Process of Designing Lessons with Interactive Whiteboard: ASSURE as a Road Map

Abstract

This study investigates university level students’ experiences of designing lessons with an interactive whiteboard as an instructional medium. The sample consisted of 40 students who will be both moderator of technological resources in schools and computer teachers after graduation from university. In the design of a lesson process, the ASSURE instructional design model was their roadmap. The results showed that none of the students had used interactive whiteboards before the course. However, most of them knew interactive whiteboards from other courses, seminars, or the Internet. Nearly half of the participants had some hesitations when they first learned that they were going to use interactive whiteboards in the course. After using it during a lesson, however, their opinions became positive. In addition, ASSURE instructional design model let them to progress systematically and step-by-step. Most of them had problems to find educational software to use with interactive white board. That is, their primary problem was with the “select instructional methods, media, and materials” step of the ASSURE model.

Keywords

• Interactive whiteboard, Instructional design, ASSURE, Technology integration

References

1. Bartsch, R. A. & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers and Education, 41(1), 77-86.
2. Berry, R. Q., Reed, P. A., Ritz, J. M., Lin, C. Y., Hsiung, S., & Frazier, W. (2005). STEM Initiatives: Stimulating students to improve science and mathematics achievement. The Technology Teacher, 64, 23-29.
3. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. New York: Sage.
4. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
5. Culp, K., M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
6. Glover, D., Miller, D. J., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). Leadership implications of using interactive whiteboards: linking technology and pedagogy in the management of change, Management in Education, 18(5), 27-30.
7. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative researches. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
8. Gustafson, K. L., Branch R. M., & Maribe R. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models (3rd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology mode, Syracuse, NY.

9. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (1999). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
10. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
11. Jones, S. & Tanner, H. (2002). Teacher’s interpretation of effective whole- class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies, 28(3), 265-274.
12. Kaplan, S. (2009). Turkiye, matematik-fen egitiminde ucuncu ligde. Hurriyet, http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=10912455&tarih=2009-02-03
13. Kelley, P., Underwood, G., Potter, F., Hunter, J., & Beveridge, S. (2007). Viewpoints. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 333-347.
14. Miller, D. & Glover, D. (2005). Evolution for a revolution: Professional development for mathematics teachers using interactive whiteboard technology. Keele, UK: Keele University.
15. Ozbay, M. (Ed.) (2005). Egitim fakultelerinde yeniden yapilandirmanin sonuçlari ve ögretmen yetiştirme sempozyumu *The results of reconstruction of faculties of education and teacher training symposium]. Ankara: Gazi Universitesi.
16. Ozdemir, S., & Kilic, E. (2007). Integrating information and communication technologies in the Turkish primary school system. British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET), 38(5), 907-916.
17. Reedy, G. B. (2008). PowerPoint, interactive whiteboards, and the visual culture of technology in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2), 143–162.
18. Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher- pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457.
19. Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers and Education, 53, 368-374.
20. Thompson, J. & Flecknoe, M. (2000). Raising attainment with an interactive whiteboard in Key Stage 2, MIE, 17(3).
21. TIMMS (1999). The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1999i/publications.html
22. TIMMS (2003). The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/
23. TIMMS (2007). The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/mathreport.html
24. Correspondence: Bahar Baran, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Education and
25. Instructional Technologies, Buca Faculty of Education, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.