Efficacy of Interactive Whiteboard on Psychomotor Skills Achievement of Students in Isometric and Orthographic Projection

Year 2014, Volume: 5 Issue: 4, 316 - 330, 01.12.2014

Isiaka A. Gambari Sherifat A. Balogun Ahmadu S. Alfa

Abstract

This paper discusses importance of technology education and evidences of declining performance of junior secondary school students in basic technology subject. Potentials on interactive whiteboard (IWB) as one of the new technologies to meet the challenges of the 21stcentury are also discussed. The efficacy of IWB for teaching Isometric and Orthographic projection concepts in Technical Drawing aspect of Basic Technology was determined using a pretest-posttest, non-equivalent, non-randomized quasi-experimental design. A 2x2x3 factorial design was employed. Ninety Four (49 males and 45 females) and (31 high, 51 medium and 12 low achievers) JSS-1 students from two secondary schools in Abuja Metropolis made-up the sample. The schools were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The experimental group was taught selected concepts of Isometric and Orthographic Projections using IWB and (Chalkboard) traditional method were used for the control group. A validated Basic Technology Achievement Test (BTAT) comprised of 25-item multiple-choice object test was employed for data collection. The reliability coefficient of BTAT was 0.88 using Kuder-Richardson (KR-20). The hypotheses were tested using ANCOVA and Scheffe post-hoc analysis. Results revealed that the students taught with IWB performed better than the control group. Also, high achievers performed better than medium and low achievers respectfully. The IWB was found also to be gender friendly. Based on the findings, it was recommended that the use of IWB should be encouraged in Nigerian schools.

Keywords

Interactive whiteboard, Isometric and Orthographic, Psychomotor skills, Gender, Achievement levels

References

• Abassa, M. (2011). Analysis of problems and prospects of the technical college teachers in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 2011 International conference on teaching and learning and change. International Association for Teaching and Learning (IATEL).
• Ajani, S. M. (2009). Effects of workshop practices on students’ performance in introductory technology (Unpublished Manuscript). Imo State University, Owerri.
• Akpan, G. A., Udofia, A. E., & Mbaba, U. G. (2012). Influence of students, understanding and goal commitment on academic achievement in Introductory Technology in Akwa Ibom state Nigeria. International Education Studies, 5(2), 12-20.
• Aluko, K. O. (2004). Effects of cooperative and individualistic instructional Strategies on students problem solving abilities in secondary school chemistry in Ilesa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). CSET Department University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
• Anagbogu, M. A. &Ezeliora, B. (2007).Sex differences and scientific performance. Women Journal of Science and Technology,4, 10-20.
• Annetta, L., Mangrum, J., Holmes, S., Collazo, K., & Cheng, M. (2009). Bridging realty to virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learning through video game play in an elementary school classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1091-1113.
• Aregbesola, R. (2013). Opon imo - tablet of knowledge. Retrieved fromhttp://www.wsis- award.org/winner/opon-imo-tablet-knowledge-108120130905
• Balogun, S. A. (2007). Assessment of the implementation of introductory technology in Suleja, Tafa and Gurara local government of Niger state (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Federal University of Technology, Minna.
• Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) in primary schools – towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 329-349.
• Becta (2003). What research says about interactive white boards? Coventry: Becta. Retrieved 20 March 2010 fromhttp://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ wtrs_whiteboards.pdf
• Buff, D. D. (2012). Investigating the effects of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. A dissertation submitted to the Faculty in the Curriculum and Instruction Program of Tift College of Education at Mercer University.
• Christophy, E. & Wattson, E. (2007). The effect of interactive whiteboards on student learning in the chemistry classroom. Retrieved on 20 October 2014 from http://digitalcommons. liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=doctoral
• Dhindsa, H. S. &Emran, S. H. (2006, March). Use of the interactive whiteboard in constructivist teaching for higher student achievement. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference for the Middle East Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Computing, Held at Abu Dhabi (pp. 175-188).
• Fajola, O. O. (2000). Effect of three modes of computer based instructional strategies on students learning outcomes in biology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Teachers’ Education, University of Ibadan.
• Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), (2009).National policy on education. Abuja: Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC).
• Gambari, I. A. (2010).Effect of computer-supported cooperative learning strategies on the performance of senior secondary students in physics in Minna, Nigeria (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.
• Glover, D. & Miller, D. (2001).Running with technology: The pedagogic impact of the large scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10, 257-276.
• Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005b). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 14(2), 155-170.
• Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007).Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
• Higgins, S. E. (2010). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. In Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 86-101). Hershey PA: IGI Global.
• Ifamuyiwa, S. A. & Akinsola, M. K. (2008).Improving senior secondary school students' attitude towards Mathematics through self and cooperative-instructional strategies. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(5) 569- 585. (EJ799217).
• Jones, K. (2004). Using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of mathematics: A research bibliography. Micromath, 20(2), 5-6.
• Kennewell, S. & Beauchamp, G. (2003).The influence of a technology-rich classroom environment on elementary teachers' pedagogy and children's learning. In J. Wright, A. McDougall, J. Murnane& J. Lowe (Eds.), Young children and learning technologies (pp. 65-70). Sydney: Australian Computer Society.
• Kiadese, L. A (2011). An assessment of the teaching effectiveness of prevocational subjects teachers in Ogun state Nigeria. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 3(1), 5-8.
• Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics (EJ826790). Physics Education Research, 5(1) 1-14.
• Lerman, S. & Zevenbergen, R. (2006). Maths, ICT& pedagogy: An examination of equitable practice across diverse settings. In J. Novotna, H. Morova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.) Mathematics in the centre proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 49-56). Prague: PME.
• Levy, P. (2002).Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield Schools: A developmental study. Sheffield Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Retrieved on 15 July 2004 from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards. htm
• Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26-34.
• McNeese, M.N. (2003). Acquisition and Integration of SMART board interactive whiteboard skills: Gender differences among college faculty, staff and graduate assistants. Retrieved on 23 March 2012 from www.smarterkids.org/research/pdf/McNeese.pdf.
• Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2003, March). Exposure-The introduction of interactive whiteboard technology to secondary school mathematics teachers in training. Paper presented at CERME3: Third Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Bellaria, Italy.
• National Examination Council (NECO). (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, &2012). Chief examiners’ reports. Minna. Research and Statistics Unit.
• Olowoopejo, M. (2014). Fashola commissions Lagos version of Opon-imo. Vanguard Newspaper, March 14. Retrieved from http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/fashola- commissions-lagos-version-opon-imo/#sthash.MsFhFbmt.dpuf
• Painter, D. D., Whiting, E., & Wolters, B. (2005).The use of an interactive whiteboard in promoting interactive teaching and learning. VSTE Journal, 19(2), 31-40.
• Schuck, S. & Kearney, M. (2007).Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards: A case study of six schools (Sydney, University of Technology Sydney). Available online at: http://www.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/iwbproject/pdfs/iwbreportweb.pdf
• 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.
• Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
• Solvie, P. (2007). Leaping out of our skins: Postmodern considerations in use of an electronic whiteboard to foster critical engagement in early literacy lessons. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 39(7), 737-754.
• Winzenried, A, Dalgano, B, & Tinkler, J. (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4).
• Wood, R. & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.
• Yanda, M. B. (2012). Assessment of secondary school students and teachers attitudes’ towards the use of interactive whiteboard for teaching and learning in Niger State, Nigeria. (Unpublished thesis). Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria.
• Yoloye, E. A. (1990). Use and perception of computers by educationists at the University of Ibadan. Ilorin Journal of Education, 10(2), 90-97.
• Yusuf, A. (2004). Effects of cooperative and competitive instructional strategies on junior secondary school students’ performance in social studies, in Ilorin, Nigeria (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Curriculum Studies and Educational Technology, University of Ilorin, Nigeria
• Yusuf, M. O., Gambari, A.I., & Olumorin, C. O. (2012).Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning Strategies in Learning Physics. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 2(2), 94-109.
• Zittle, F. J. (2004). Enhancing Native American mathematics learning: The use of Smartboard- generated virtual manipulatives for conceptual understanding. Retrieved on 8 October 2007 fromhttp://edcompass.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/3E2A063B-6737-400F-BD07- 1D239C428729/0/Zittle.pdf
• Xu, H. & Moloey, R. (2011). It makes the whole learning experience better: Student feedback on the use of the interactive whiteboard in learning Chinese at tertiary level. Asian Social Science, 7(11).
• Correspondence: Isiaka A. Gambari, Senior Lecturer, Science Education Department, Federal
• University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria