BibTex RIS Cite

Öğretmen ve İdareci Gözünde Etkileşimli Tahta: Kullanım Kolaylığı ve Yarar Algısı Üzerine Bir Durum Çalışması

Year 2015, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 53 - 77, 01.06.2015

Abstract

Teknoloji Kabul Modeli 3, teknolojiye uyumu inceleyen popüler modellerden biridir. Bu model çerçevesinde algılanan kullanım kolaylığı ve algılanan yarar, gerçek kullanımı tahmin eden en önemli iki bileşen olarak kabul görmektedir. Bu çalışmada – çoğunlukla akıllı tahta adıyla bilinen – etkileşimli tahtaya karşı öğretmen ve idareci algıları incelenmiştir. Algılar özellikle kullanım kolaylığı ve yarar perspektifinden incelenmiştir. FATİH Projesi kapsamında ortaöğretim okullarına etkileşimli tahtalar kurulmaktadır. Sonuçları, daha yaygın kullanıma fayda sağlayabileceği düşünülen bu araştırma, bir durum çalışmasıdır. Çalışmada 14 öğretmen ve 3 idareciyle yarı-yapılandırılmış mülakatlar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri kaynağı çeşitlemesi ile elde edilen verilere içerik analizi uygulanmıştır. Genelde hemfikir olan öğretmen ve idareciler tarafından etkileşimli tahta güvenlik açısından sorunlu bulunmuştur; dokunmatik ekranı aşırı hassastır. Bilgisayar deneyimi zayıf öğretmenlere göre kullanımı zordur. Bununla beraber, zamanı iyi kullanma fırsatı vermiştir ve dersi zenginleştirme potansiyeline sahiptir. Sonuçlar katılımcıların etkileşimli tahtayı yararlı ama zor bulduğunu göstermektedir. Bu nedenle kolaylık sağlayan tedbirlerin alınması önerilir. Bunların başında da anti-virüs gibi güvenlik tedbirleri gelmektedir

References

  • Akkoyunlu, B., & Yılmaz, M. (2005). Türetimci çoklu ortam öğrenme kuramı. Hacet- tepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 9-18.
  • Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R. , Curran, S., Mills, S. & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology, Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
  • Beeland, W. D., (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: can interactive whiteboards help. http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/international_research/usa/be eland_am.pdf adresinden 12.04.2014 tarihinde elde edilmiştir.
  • Bunch, J. C., Robinson, J. S. & Edwards, M. C. (2012). Measuring the relationship between agriculture teachers’ self-efficacy, outcome expectation, interest, and their use of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 67-80.
  • Çelik, S. (2012). Competency levels of teachers in using interactive whiteboards. Contemporary Educatıonal Technology, 3(2), 115-129.
  • Çepni, S. (2005). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş. (Genişletilmiş 2.Baskı). Trabzon: Üçyol Yayıncılık.
  • Dale, E. (1946). Audio-visual methods in teaching. New York: Dryden Press.
  • Davey, L. (2009). Durum çalışması değerlendirmelerinin uygulaması. (Çev. T. Gök- çek). İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 1-3. (Orijinal makalenin yayım tarihi, 1991).
  • Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceive usefulness, perceived of ease of use, and end user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 318-339.
  • Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteris- tics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.
  • Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  • Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2008). Fen öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyon ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 19-37.
  • De Vita, M., Verschaffel, L., & Elen, J. (2012). Acceptance of interactive whiteboards by Italian mathematics teachers. Educational Research, 3(7), 553-565.
  • Digregorio, P. & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2009). The effects of interactive whiteboards (iwbs) on student performance and learning. A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255-312.
  • Elaziz, F. (2008). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms, Yayınlanmamış Yüsek Lisans Tezi, Bilkent Üniversitesi, Ankara. FATİH Projesi,
  • http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/icerikincele.php?id=2 adresinden
  • 12.2013 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
  • Higgins, S. E. (2010). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. Thomas, M. & Schmid, U. C. (Ed.) Interactive whiteboards for education: theory, research and practice, (sf. 86- 101). Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
  • Isman, A., Abanmy, F. A., Hussein, H. B., Al Saadany, M. A. (2012). Saudi secondary school teachers attitudes' towards using interactive whiteboard in classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 11(3), 286-296.
  • Keleş, E., Öksüz, B. D. & Bahçekapılı, T. (2013). Teknolojinin eğitimde kullanılması- na ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: fatih projesi örneği. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2), 353-366.
  • Koçak, Ö. & Gülcü, A., (2013). Fatih projesinde kullanılan lcd panel etkileşimli tahta uygulamalarına yönelik öğretmen tutumları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(3), 1221-1234.
  • Kurt, A. A., Kuzu, A., Dursun, Ö. Ö., Güllüpınar, F. & Gültekin, M. (2013). FATİH projesinin pilot uygulama sürecinin değerlendirilmesi: öğretmen görüşleri. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 1(2). 1-23.
  • Kusano, K., Frederiksen, S., Jones, L., Kobayashi, M., Mukoyama, Y., Yamagishi, T., Sadaki, K. ve Ishizuka, H. (2013). The effects of ICT environment on teachers’ attitudes and technology integration in Japan and the US. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12(1), 29-43.
  • Legris, P., Ingram, J. & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204.
  • Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-397.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning içinde (sf. 31-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Meng, H.-J. (2011). Rural teachers’ acceptance of interactive white board-based ICT in Taiwan. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 13(2), 70-76.
  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Muhanna, W. & Nejem, K. M. (2013). Attitudes of mathematics teachers toward using smart board in teaching mathematics. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(4),373-380.
  • NG, M. W. E., Shroff, R. H. & Lim, C. P. (2013). Applying a modified technology acceptance model to qualitatively analyse the factors affecting e-portfolio implementation for student teachers’ in field experience placements. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 10, 355-365.
  • Oncu, S., Delialioglu, O., & Brown, C. A. (2008). Critical components for technology integration: How do instructors make decisions? Journal of Computers in Ma- thematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 19-46.
  • Park, E., & del Pobil, A. P. (2013). Technology acceptance model for the use of tablet PCs. Wireless Personal Communications, 73(4), 1561-1572.
  • Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yılmaz, H. B. & Ayas C. (2013). Öğretmen ve öğ- renci bakış açısıyla tablet pc ve etkileşimli tahta kullanımı: fatih projesi değer- lendirmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(3), 1-24.
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
  • Saltan, F. & Arslan, K. (2013). Teachers’ perception of interactive white boards: A case study. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 353-365.
  • Shen, C. C. & Chuang, H. M. (2010). Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the interactive whiteboard technology environment. International Review on Computers and Software, 5(2), 200-208.
  • Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341..
  • 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.
  • Syh-Jong, J. (2010) Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744-1751.
  • Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 53(3), 1000-1009.
  • Troff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2010) Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383.
  • Türel, Y. K. (2011) An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2441-2450.
  • Türel, Y. K. & Johnson, T. E. (2012) Teachers' belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394.
  • Usluel, Y. K. ve Uslu, N. (2013). Öğretmenlerin bir yenilik olarak teknoloji ile ilgili yarar algıları. İlköğretim Online, 12(1), 52-65.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology ac- ceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin | Sosyal Bilimler.

Interactive Whiteboard in the Eyes of Teacher and Principal: A Case Study on Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness

Year 2015, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 53 - 77, 01.06.2015

Abstract

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is a popular model investigating the adaptation to technology. Its most important two components, predicting the actual use, are the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Interactive whiteboards have been established at the secondary schools throughout Turkey based on the FATİH Project. The purpose of this study is to determine the teacher and principal perceptions; especially the ones about ease of use and usefulness of interactive whiteboards. The findings of the current study can potentially help improve and popularize the interactive whiteboard and its software. This research is a case study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 3 administrators and 14 teachers. Triangulation was achieved by varying the data sources – by collecting data from different majors and professions. Content analysis was done on the collected data. Teachers and principals, who shared similar opinions in general, thought the interactive whiteboard was unsafe, and its touch screen was too sensitive. Teachers with low computer competency thought it was difficult to use. On the other hand, it was found to provide time management

References

  • Akkoyunlu, B., & Yılmaz, M. (2005). Türetimci çoklu ortam öğrenme kuramı. Hacet- tepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 9-18.
  • Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R. , Curran, S., Mills, S. & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology, Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
  • Beeland, W. D., (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: can interactive whiteboards help. http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/international_research/usa/be eland_am.pdf adresinden 12.04.2014 tarihinde elde edilmiştir.
  • Bunch, J. C., Robinson, J. S. & Edwards, M. C. (2012). Measuring the relationship between agriculture teachers’ self-efficacy, outcome expectation, interest, and their use of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 67-80.
  • Çelik, S. (2012). Competency levels of teachers in using interactive whiteboards. Contemporary Educatıonal Technology, 3(2), 115-129.
  • Çepni, S. (2005). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş. (Genişletilmiş 2.Baskı). Trabzon: Üçyol Yayıncılık.
  • Dale, E. (1946). Audio-visual methods in teaching. New York: Dryden Press.
  • Davey, L. (2009). Durum çalışması değerlendirmelerinin uygulaması. (Çev. T. Gök- çek). İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 1-3. (Orijinal makalenin yayım tarihi, 1991).
  • Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceive usefulness, perceived of ease of use, and end user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 318-339.
  • Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteris- tics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.
  • Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  • Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2008). Fen öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyon ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 19-37.
  • De Vita, M., Verschaffel, L., & Elen, J. (2012). Acceptance of interactive whiteboards by Italian mathematics teachers. Educational Research, 3(7), 553-565.
  • Digregorio, P. & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2009). The effects of interactive whiteboards (iwbs) on student performance and learning. A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 255-312.
  • Elaziz, F. (2008). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms, Yayınlanmamış Yüsek Lisans Tezi, Bilkent Üniversitesi, Ankara. FATİH Projesi,
  • http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/icerikincele.php?id=2 adresinden
  • 12.2013 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
  • Higgins, S. E. (2010). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in primary schools in the UK. Thomas, M. & Schmid, U. C. (Ed.) Interactive whiteboards for education: theory, research and practice, (sf. 86- 101). Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
  • Isman, A., Abanmy, F. A., Hussein, H. B., Al Saadany, M. A. (2012). Saudi secondary school teachers attitudes' towards using interactive whiteboard in classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 11(3), 286-296.
  • Keleş, E., Öksüz, B. D. & Bahçekapılı, T. (2013). Teknolojinin eğitimde kullanılması- na ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: fatih projesi örneği. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2), 353-366.
  • Koçak, Ö. & Gülcü, A., (2013). Fatih projesinde kullanılan lcd panel etkileşimli tahta uygulamalarına yönelik öğretmen tutumları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(3), 1221-1234.
  • Kurt, A. A., Kuzu, A., Dursun, Ö. Ö., Güllüpınar, F. & Gültekin, M. (2013). FATİH projesinin pilot uygulama sürecinin değerlendirilmesi: öğretmen görüşleri. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 1(2). 1-23.
  • Kusano, K., Frederiksen, S., Jones, L., Kobayashi, M., Mukoyama, Y., Yamagishi, T., Sadaki, K. ve Ishizuka, H. (2013). The effects of ICT environment on teachers’ attitudes and technology integration in Japan and the US. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12(1), 29-43.
  • Legris, P., Ingram, J. & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204.
  • Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-397.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning içinde (sf. 31-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Meng, H.-J. (2011). Rural teachers’ acceptance of interactive white board-based ICT in Taiwan. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 13(2), 70-76.
  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Muhanna, W. & Nejem, K. M. (2013). Attitudes of mathematics teachers toward using smart board in teaching mathematics. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(4),373-380.
  • NG, M. W. E., Shroff, R. H. & Lim, C. P. (2013). Applying a modified technology acceptance model to qualitatively analyse the factors affecting e-portfolio implementation for student teachers’ in field experience placements. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 10, 355-365.
  • Oncu, S., Delialioglu, O., & Brown, C. A. (2008). Critical components for technology integration: How do instructors make decisions? Journal of Computers in Ma- thematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 19-46.
  • Park, E., & del Pobil, A. P. (2013). Technology acceptance model for the use of tablet PCs. Wireless Personal Communications, 73(4), 1561-1572.
  • Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yılmaz, H. B. & Ayas C. (2013). Öğretmen ve öğ- renci bakış açısıyla tablet pc ve etkileşimli tahta kullanımı: fatih projesi değer- lendirmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(3), 1-24.
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
  • Saltan, F. & Arslan, K. (2013). Teachers’ perception of interactive white boards: A case study. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 353-365.
  • Shen, C. C. & Chuang, H. M. (2010). Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the interactive whiteboard technology environment. International Review on Computers and Software, 5(2), 200-208.
  • Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341..
  • 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.
  • Syh-Jong, J. (2010) Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744-1751.
  • Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 53(3), 1000-1009.
  • Troff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2010) Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383.
  • Türel, Y. K. (2011) An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2441-2450.
  • Türel, Y. K. & Johnson, T. E. (2012) Teachers' belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394.
  • Usluel, Y. K. ve Uslu, N. (2013). Öğretmenlerin bir yenilik olarak teknoloji ile ilgili yarar algıları. İlköğretim Online, 12(1), 52-65.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology ac- ceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin | Sosyal Bilimler.
There are 48 citations in total.

Details

Other ID JA63HE92EA
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Meryem Fulya Görhan

Semiral Öncü

Publication Date June 1, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 4 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Görhan, M. F., & Öncü, S. (2015). Interactive Whiteboard in the Eyes of Teacher and Principal: A Case Study on Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 4(1), 53-77.