Social Studies Teachers’ Perspectives on the Advantages and Challenges of Interactive Whiteboard Application in Oman

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 4, 753 - 762, 15.10.2018

Ahmed Hamad Al-rabaani

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.753

Abstract

The study investigates the views of social studies teachers (SSTs) about the advantages and challenges of interactive whiteboard application in social studies lessons. Data was gathered using a questionnaire consisting of 58 items. The sample comprised 483 male and female SSTs from different governorates of Oman who were provided with three training programs about using Interactive Whiteboard (IWB). Data were analyzed by using: Means, T-test and One Way ANOVA.  The results indicated that they considered its effect to be significant in supporting students’ learning process by enhancing the quality of learning environment, excitement of use and importance of use in social studies lessons. It also showed that they used it widely in their lessons but they experienced moderate challenges, including related to technical support and the availability of IWB in all classes. The results also indicated that teachers’ gender and experience influenced their views. The study recommends the provision of more technical support to teachers.

Keywords

Interactive whiteboard, social studies teachers, Oman, advantages, challenges

References

• Akcay, A., Halit, A., & Ufuk, G. (2017). Teachers’ attitudes towards using interactive whiteboards. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, 17, 22-30.
• Al-Faki, I., & Khamis, A. (2014). Difficulties facing teachers in using interactive whiteboard in their classes. American International Journal of Social Science, 3(2), 136-158.
• Beauchamp, G., & Perkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97-103.
• Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media & Technology, 33(4), 289-300.
• Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self reported data really that bad? In C. E. Lance and R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences, 309-335. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Cision PR Newswire (2018). Interactive whiteboard market worth 516 billion USD by 2023. Retrieved 23 May 2018 from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/interactive-whiteboard-market-worth-516-billion-usd-by-2023-675816983.html
• Deaney, R., Chapman, A., & Hennessy, S. (2009). A case study of one teachers’ use of an interactive whiteboard system to support knowledge co-construction in the history classroom. The Curriculum Journal, 20(4), 365-387.
• DiGregorio, P., & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2010). The effects of interactive whiteboard (IWBs) on students’ performance and learning: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255-312.
• Elaziz, M. F. (2008). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. MSc thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.
• Geren, T., & Ergil, D. (2017). The effect of teaching supported by interactive whiteboard on students’ mathematical achievements in lower secondary education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
• Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170.
• Gosain, K. (2016). Factors Influencing the use of Interactive Whiteboard. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(3), 179-184.
• Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. A. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. The Language Learning Journal, 32(1), 38-44.
• Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.
• Hüseyin, Ö. (2014). Teachers’ and students’ perception of interactive whiteboards in the English as a foreign language classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3), 126-147.
• Isman, A., Abanmy, F., Hussein, H., & Al Saadany, M. (2012). Saudi secondary school teaches attitudes towards using interactive whiteboards in classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 286-296.
• Järvelä, R.- L., & Kauppinen, M. (2012). Oppiainepedagogiikkaa yhteistyössä: Tietotekniikan sekä äidinkielen ja kirjallisuuden integrointi opettajankoulutuksessa. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylän yliopisto, opettajankoulutuslaitos, Retrieved 20 April 2018 from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-5066-8
• Järvelä, S., Häkkinen, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2006). Motivaatio, emootiot ja oppimisen itsesäätely teknologiaympäristössä. In S. Järvelä, P. Häkkinen, & E. Lehtinen (Eds.), Oppimisen teoria ja teknologian opetuskäyttö. Helsinki, Finland: WSOY, 61-64.
• Kankaanranta, M., Palonen, T., Kejonen, T., & Ärje, J. (2011). Tieto: Ja viestintätekniikan merkitys ja käyttömahdollisuudet koulujen arjessa. In M. Kankaanranta (Ed.), Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylän Yliopisto, Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, 47-73. Retrieved 20 April 2018 from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-4198-7
• Lee, B., & Boyle, M. (2004). Teachers tell their story: Interactive whiteboards at Richardson Primary School. Retrieved 4 April 2018 from http://www.virtualclassrooms.info/iwb/articles/Teachers%20tell%20their%20story%20Interactive%20Whiteboards%20at%20Richardson%20Primary%20School.PDF
• Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Excellence in Cities Partnership.
• Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291-303.
• Lopez, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54(4), 901-915.
• Majid, Z., & Najmeh, M. (2013). Teachers views of the effect of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) on teaching. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Science, 83, 140-144.
• Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2002). The interactive whiteboard as a force for pedagogic change: The experience of five elementary schools in an English education authority. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002, 5-19. Retrieved 5 April 2018 from http://www.virtualclassrooms.info/iwb/articles/IWBpedagogicchange.pdf
• Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Panacea or prop? The role of the interactive whiteboard in improving teaching effectiveness. Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen. Retrieved 12 March 2018 from http://www.virtualclassrooms.info/iwb/articles/IWBteachereffectiveness.pdf
• Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levacic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project (London Challenge). Research Report No. 816. London, UK: University of London, Institute of Education, School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies. Retrieved 12 March 2018 from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10000905/1/Moss2007whiteboardsRR816.pdf
• Oleksiw, T. (2007). Increasing math scores with the Smart Board interactive whiteboard. Parma, OH: Parma Community School. Retrieved 20 April 2018 from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/sitecore/en/pdf/research_library/k-12/the_effect_of_the_smart_board_interactive_whiteboard_on_raising_state_test_scores.pdf
• Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just ‘lipstick’? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341.
• Smeets, E., & Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centered learning, ICT, and teacher behaviour: Observations in educational practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 403-417.
• Smith, H. J., 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.
• Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368-374.
• Syh-Jong, J., & Meng-Fang, T. (2012). Reasons for using or not using interactive whiteboards: Perspectives of Taiwanese elementary mathematic and science teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1451-1465.
• Taalas, P., & Aalto, E. (2007). Opettajuus nyt: Toiminnallisen opettajankoulutuksen haasteita. In S. Pöyhönen, & Luukka, M.- R. (Eds.), Kohti tulevaisuuden kielikoulutusta: Kielikoulutuspoliittisen projektin loppuraportti. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylän Yliopistopaino, 153-195.
• Thomas, M., & Schmid, E. C. (2010). Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: IGI Global.
• Vähähyyppä, K. (2011). Tieto-ja viestintätekniikka koulussa nyt ja tulevaisuudessa. In M. Kankaanranta (Ed.), Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylän Yliopisto, Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Retrieved 20 April 2018 from https://wiki.oulu.fi/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=29066410
• Walker, D. (2002, 13 September). White enlightening. Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 20 April 2018 from http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/services/cst/elementary/math/documents/whiteboards_research.pdf