Stakeholders’ views about the FATIH Project: Smart EFL Classrooms

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Stakeholders’ views about the FATIH Project: Smart EFL Classrooms
Turkey has launched a large national initiative to integrate information and communication technologies in education. FATIH project, valued at 8 billion$ and with tablet computers for every student from grade 5 to 12, interactive white boards and internet connection in every class,  is often defined as ambitious, massive, grandiose and high-tech. The current study aims to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of FATIH Project based on the views of stakeholders with particular reference to language teaching and learning process. The study has been carried out at a high school in Ankara which has been a part of the project from the piloting phase. Forty three participants including seven English teachers, 20 students and 10 parents, two school administrators, three project officials and the General Director of Innovation and Education Technologies have been administered semi structured interviews. The study has revealed a distinction between the views of policy makers (officials in Ministry of National Education and Directory of Innovation and Education Technologies) and those of users (teachers and students). It appears that more briefings are needed to inform the teachers and students about the goals and planning of the project to ensure devotion and belief into the effectiveness of the project. The results also indicate that interactive whiteboards helped both language teachers to teach English effectively and students to improve language skills especially in listening, reading and writing by providing motivation via use of technology whereas tablet PCs are not thought to be cost effective by teachers, parents and students because of some technical and practical reasons.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Ekşi Yangın, Gonca
Affiliated institution (University)	Gazi University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	English Language Teaching
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	No
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)	Yeşilyurt, Yusuf Emre
Affiliated institution (University)	Gazi University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	Foreign Language Education
Corresponding author (Yes/No)	Yes
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• tablet use,technology,language learning,FATIH Project,interactive whiteboard,educational technologies

References

1. Adigüzel, T., Gürbulak, N., & Sariçayir, H. (2011). Akıllı Tahtalar Ve Öğretim Uygulamaları/Smart Boards And Their Instructional Uses. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15).
2. Akarsu, O., & Darıyemez, T. (2014). The reading habits of university students studying English language and literature in the digital age. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 85-99.
3. Akıncı, A., Kurtoğlu, M., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2012). Bir teknoloji politikası olarak Fatih Projesinin başarılı olması için yapılması gerekenler: Bir durum analizi çalışması. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, 1-3.
4. Ateş, M. (2010). Ortaöğretim coğrafya derslerinde akilli tahta kullanimi. Marmara coğrafya dergisi, (22).
5. Bax, S. (2000). Putting technology in its place: ICT in modern foreign language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern foreign language teaching (pp. 199-210). London, England: Routledge Falmer.
6. Beeland, W. D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help?. Retrieved from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf..
7. Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Victoria: ACER Press. Retrieved from http://schoolnet.org.za/CoL/ACE/course/classroom/documents/iwb_revolution.pdf
8. Bilgen, A. (2012). Chalk vs. tablet: Can FATIH Project revolutionize the Turkish education system. The European Strategists.

9. Bonifaz, A., & Zucker, A. (2004). Lessons learned about providing laptops for all students. Boston, MA: Development Center, Inc. & Northeast and the Islands Regional Technology in Education Consortium.
10. Coyle, Y., Yañez, L., & Verdú, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children’s language use in an ESL immersion classroom. System, 38(4), 614-625. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.10.002
11. Çelik, S., Arkın, E., & Sabriler, D. (2012). EFL learners' use of ICT for self-regulated learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(2), pp-98.
12. Çiftçi, S., Taşkaya, S. M., & Alemdar, M. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin FATİH Projesine ilişkin görüşleri The opinions of classroom teachers about Fatih Project. İlköğretim Online, 12(1).
13. Daşdemir, İ., Cengiz, E., Uzoğlu, M., & Bozdoğan, A. E. (2012). Tablet Bilgisayarların Fen Ve Teknoloji Derslerinde Kullanılmasıyla İlgili Fen Ve Teknoloji Öğretmenlerinin Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi/Examınatıon Of Scıence Teachers' Opınıons Related To Tablet Pcs Usıng In Scıence And Technology Courses. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(20).
14. Demir, S. B., & Yorulmaz, E. (2014). Tarih derslerinde akıllı tahta kullanım durumunun incelenmesi (Bir durum çalışması). Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (28), 15-38.
15. Ekici, S., & Yılmaz, B. (2013). FATİH Projesi üzerine bir değerlendirme. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 27(2), 317-339.
16. Ekşi, G., & Yakışık, B. Y. (2015). An Investigation of Prospective English Language Teachers’ Multimodal Literacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 464-471.
17. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.
18. Fri-tic. (2012). Projet One to One iPad: Visite de l’Institut international de Lancy. Retrieved July 11, 2012 from http:// www.fri-tic.ch/dyn/bin/45214-46185-1-fritic_visite_ onetoone_lancy_v2.pdf.
19. Gateway. (2004). One-to-One laptop initiatives: Providing tools for 21stcentury learners. Folsom, CA: Center for Digital Education
20. Gerard, F., Greene, M., & Widener, J. (1999). Using SMART Board in Foreign Language Classes.
21. Gérard, F., & Widener, J. (1999). A SMARTer way to teach foreign language: The SMART board interactive whiteboard as a language learning tool. Retrieved August, 23, 2010.
22. Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
23. Ingram, D., Willcutt, J., & Jordan, K. (2008). Laptop initiative evaluation report. University of Minnesota: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
24. Isci, T. G., & Demir, S. B. (2015). The Use of Tablets Distributed within the Scope of FATIH Project for Education in Turkey (Is FATIH Project a Fiasco or a Technological Revolution?). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(7), 442-450.
25. Johnson, E. M., Ramanair, J., & Brine, J. (2010). ‘It’s not necessary to have this board to learn English, but it’s helpful’: Student and teacher perceptions of interactive whiteboard use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 199-212. http://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.513444
26. Jung Won Hur & Suhyun Suh (2012) Making Learning Active with Interactive Whiteboards, Podcasts, and Digital Storytelling in ELL Classrooms, Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 29:4, 320-338, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2012.734275
27. Kim, J. H-Y., & Jung, H-Y. (2010). South Korean digital textbook project. Computers in the Schools, 27(3-4), 247-265.
28. Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, Vol 11(3), 130-151.
29. Lesardoises. (2012). Les tablettes dans l’éducation la Thaïlande. Retrieved July 12, 2012 from http://lesardoises. com/11123/les-tablettes-dans-leducation-la-thailande-franchit-le-pas-pour-328-millions-de-dollars.html.
30. Lewin, C., & Luckin, R. (2010). Technology to support parental engagement in elementary education: Lessons learned from the UK. Computers & Education, 54(3), 749-758.
31. Liu, T.-Y. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 515–527.
32. Massé, O. (2012) Rapport au sujet de l’expérimentation de l’académie de Bordeaux sur l’usage des tablettes tactiles en français. Bordeaux: IA IPR.
33. Millum, T., & Warren, C. (2014). Sharing not staring: 21 interactive whiteboard lessons for the English classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
34. MoNE (2012a) Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı FATİH Projesi. Retrieved from: http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr
35. MoNE. (2017) Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı FATİH Projesi. Retrieved from: http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/proje-hakkinda/
36. MoNE. (2012b). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Milli Eğitim istatistikleri. Retrieved from: http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2011_2012.pdf
37. MoNE (2010). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, FATİH Projesi: Fırsatları Artırma ve Teknolojiyi İyileştirme Hareketi. Retrieved from: http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr
38. Moss, G., Jewitt, Carrey, L, 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. Institute of Education, University of London. Research report no: 816.
39. Öz, H. (2014). Teachers’ And Students’ Perceptions Of Interactive Whiteboards in The English as a Foreign Language Classroom The Turkish. Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2014, volume 13 issue 3
40. Öztan, A. C. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde akıllı tahta kullanımının ilköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerininakademik başarılarına etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, TÜRKİYE.
41. Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yılmaz, H.B., Ayas, C. (2013). "The use of tablet PC and interactive board from the perspectives of teachers and students: evaluation of the FATİH project" Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1815-1822. 2013 - See more at: http://acikerisim.sinop.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11486/758?show=full#sthash.pJMgY2OT.dpuf
42. Pennington, M. C (1996). The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan Publications.
43. Peterson, M. (2011). Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in language learning. Calico Journal, 29(1), 67-80.
44. Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284.
45. Pouezevara, S., Dinçer, A., Kipp, S., & Sarışık, Y. (2013). Turkey's FATIH project: A plan to conquer the digital divide or a technological leap of faith. Turkey: RTI International & Education Reform Initiative (ERI).
46. Sakız, G., Özden, B., Aksu, D., & Şimşek, Ö. (2014). Fen ve Teknoloji dersinde akıllı tahta kullanımının öğrenci başarısına ve dersin işlenişine yönelik tutuma etkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(3), 257-274.
47. Savas, P. (2014). Tablet PCs as instructional tools in English as a foreign language education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1).
48. Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2008). From ‘bored’ to screen: the use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41(3), 129–136.
49. Tamim, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., & Bernard, R. M. (2015). Large-scale, government-supported educational tablet initiatives.
50. Thomas, M., & Schmid, E. C. (Eds.) (2010). Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: IGI Global.
51. Uluyol, Ç. (2013). ICT integration in Turkish schools: Recall where you are coming from to recognise where you are going to. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1).
52. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, D.C. Retrieved July 1, 2012 from http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/ technology/netp-2010/.
53. Van Dusen, G. (2000). Digital dilemma: Issues of access, cost, and quality in media enhanced and distance education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 27(5), 1–120.
54. Widener, J., Greene, M. & Gérard, F. (1999). Using SMART Board in Foreign Language Classes. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 1268-1273). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
55. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K., (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.
56. Yang, J. Y., & Teng, Y.W. (2014). Perceptions of elementary school teachers and students using interactive whiteboards in English teaching and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(1), 125-154.
57. Yáñez, L., & Coyle, Y. (2011). Children’s perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT Journal, 65(4), 446-457. http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq069
58. Yorgancı, S., & Terzioğlu, Ö. (2013). Matematik öğretiminde akıllı tahta kullanımının başarıya ve matematiğe karşı tutuma etkisi.. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(3), 919-930.