Assessing Candidate Language Teachers’ Level Of Knowledge And Ideas Towards The Use Of Interactive Whiteboard

Year 2015, Volume: 3 Issue: 5, 50 - 77, 25.06.2015

Selda Kayak , Elif Kır

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.03423

Cited By: 5

Abstract

This study tries to reveal what candidate language teachers studying at the foreign languages teaching department of a state university know about the usage of interactive white boards as well as a longitudinal project conducted by the Ministry of Education called FATIH. The questionnaire comprised of seventeen questions which were developed by researchers upon taking expert opinions was used as the main data collection tool. A total of 68 teacher candidates going different primary schools and high schools for compulsory “School Experience” course took part in the study. The knowledge and ideas of the students were identified with the help of the findings and some recommendations were made on teacher training and use of technology in this respect.

Keywords

Interactive Whiteboard (IW), Fatih

EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND IDEAS TOWARDS THE USE OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD

Abstract

This study tries to reveal what candidate language teachers studying at the foreign languages teaching department of a state university know about the usage of interactive white boards as well as a longitudinal project conducted by the Ministry of Education called FATİH. The questionnaire which comprised of seventeen questions was developed by the researchers upon taking expert opinions and was used as the main data collection tool. A total of 68 teacher candidates going different primary schools and high schools for compulsory “School Experience” course took part in the study. The knowledge and ideas of the students were identified with the help of the findings and some recommendations were made on teacher training and use of technology in this respect. 

Keywords: Interactive Whiteboard; Fatih Project; Foreign Language Education

Keywords

Akıllı Tahta (AT), Fatih

References

• Adıgüzel, T., Gürbulak, N. & Sarıçayır, H. (2011). Akıllı Tahtalar ve Öğretim Uygulamaları. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15 (8).
• Alev, N. (2003). Integrating Information and Communications Technology (ICT) into Pre-Service Science Teacher Education: The Challenge of Change in a Turkish Faculty of Education. Unpublished EdD Thesis, University of Leicester, School of Education, UK.
• Ateş, M. (2010). Ortaöğretim Coğrafya Derslerinde Akıllı Tahta Kullanımı. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 22.
• Banoğlu, K., Madenoğlu, C., Uysal, Ş. & Dede, A. (2014). FATİH Projesine Yönelik Öğretmen Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi (Eskişehir İli Örneği). Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4 (1).
• Başıbüyük, K., Erdem, E., Şahin, Ö., Gökkurt, B. & Soylu, Y. (2014). Matematik Derslerinde Akıllı Tahta Kullanımına İlişkin Öğretmen ve Öğrenci Görüşleri. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4 (2).
• Becta (2006). Teaching Interactively with Electronic Whiteboards in The Primary Phase. Available at http://www.bee-it.co.uk/Guidance/Docs/Becta/Files [Accessed 06, 10, 2013]
• Bulut, İ. & Koçoğlu, E. (2012). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Akıllı Tahta Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşleri (Diyarbakır İli Örneği). Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19.
• Dill, M. J. (2008). A Tool To Improve Student Achievement in Math: An Interactive Whiteboard. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Ashland University.
• Erduran, A. & Tataroğlu, B. (2009). Eğitimde Akıllı Tahta Kullanımına İlişkin Fen ve Matematik Öğretmen Görüşlerinin Karşılaştırılması. 9th International Educational Technology Conference (IETC, 2009), Ankara, Turkey.
• -
• Fraser, V., Garofalo, J. Juersivich. N. (2009). Enhancing Lesson Planning and Quality of Classroom Life:A Study of Mathematics Student Teachers’ Use of Technology. Available at http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/international_ research/usa/uva_quality_of_classroom_life_report.pdf. [Accessed 07, 10, 2013]
• Gray, C., L. Hagger-Vaughan, R. Pilkington & S.A. Tomkins (2007). The Pros and Cons of Interactive Whiteboards in Relation to the Key Stage 3 Strategy and Framework. Language Learning Journal, 32.
• -
• Karasar, N. (2004). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
• Kaya, H. & Aydın, F. (2011). Sosyal Bilgiler Dersindeki Coğrafya Konularının Öğretiminde Akıllı Tahta Uygulamalarına İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşleri. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, 3 (1).
• Kayaduman, H., Sırakaya, M. & Seferoğlu, S. (2011). Eğitimde FATİH Projesinin Öğretmenlerin Yeterlik Durumları Açısından İncelenmesi. Akademik Bilişim, Şubat 2011, İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
• Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2003). Student Teachers’ Experiences and Attitudes Towards Using Interactive Whiteboards in the Teaching and Learning of Young Children. IFIP Working Groups 3, 5 Conference: Young Children and Learning Technologies held at UWS Parramatt in July 2003.
• -
• Kobi-Efor (2010). Eğitimde Fatih Projesi. Available at http://www.kobi-for.com.tr/2010pdf/aralik10/048.pdf [Accessed 01,12,2011]
• -
• 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 Journal, 13.
• Mathews-Aydinli, J. & Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish Students’ and Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Use of Interactive Whiteboards in EFL Classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23 (3).
• MEB (2014). Fatih Projesi. Available at http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/site/projehakkinda.php [Accessed 12,02,2014]
• MEB (2015). Sincan İl Genel Meclisi İlköğretim Okulunda Fatih Projesi Kapsamında Uygulanan Anket Raporu. Available at www.fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/upload/sincanilgenelmeclisi/rapor.doc [Accessed 22, 05, 2015]
• Moss, G., C. Jewitt, R. Levačić, V. Armstrong, A. Cardini & F. Castle (2007). The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge. School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, Institute of Education, University of London, Research Report No: 816.
• Oigara, N. J. & Wallace, N. (2012). Modeling, Training, and Mentoring Teacher Candidates to Use SMART Board Technology. Issues in Informing and Science and Information Technology, 9.
• Schmid, E. C. (2010). Developing Competencies For Using the Interactive Whiteboard to Implement Communicative Language Teaching in the English as a Foreign Language Classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19 (2).
• -
• Shenton, A. & Pagett, L. (2007). From ‘bored’ to screen: the use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England Literacy, 41 (3).
• -
• Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B. & Özdemir, S. (2009). “Board’s IQ: What Makes A Board Smart?”, Computers & Education, 53.
• William, D. & Beeland, J. (2002). Student Engagement, Visual Learning and Technology: Can Interactive Whiteboards Help? http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/international_research/usa/beeland_am.
• 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).
• Yalçınkaya, Y. & Özkan, H. H. (2014). Ortaöğretim Öğretmenlerinin Etkileşimli Tahta Kullanımına Yönelik Öz Yeterlikleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29.