An analysis of teachers’ and students’ perceptions on the use of smart boards in foreign language classrooms

Year 2018, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 83 - 110, 01.05.2018

İlknur Istifci , Ayse Dilek Keser Revan Serpil Meriç Akkaya Önal Bülent Alan Sinem Türkyılmaz

https://izlik.org/JA26AK33LD

Abstract

This study aims to
explore the effectiveness of smart board use in language learning and teaching
at the School of Foreign Languages (AUSFL), Anadolu University, Turkey. The study was conducted with teachers and students chosen
by convenience sampling method in AUSFL in the 2016-2017 academic year. The
participants were six volunteer teachers and 266 students who were taught English
by using smart boards. The teachers carried out at least 4 hours of their
classes in the classrooms which are equipped with smart boards. The data were
gathered by using both qualitative and quantitative methods including surveys,
questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The data analysis revealed that
both teachers and students found the use of smart boards effective in terms of
bringing fun and variety along with better learning to the class. 

Keywords

Foreign Language Education , Improving Classroom Teaching , Interactive Learning Environments , Educational Technology , Smart Boards

References

• Al-Faki, I. M. & Khamis, A. H. A. (2014). Difficulties Facing Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards in Their Classes. American International Journal of Social Science, 3(2).
• Balta, N. & Duran, M. (2015). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in elementary and secondary school classrooms. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2).
• Bulut, İ., & Koçoğlu, E. (2012). Using smart boards to enhance student learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 3(2), 47-49.
• Campbell, C., & Martin, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the first-year experience: integrating iwbs into pre-service teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 68-75.
 doi: 10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.5
• Coyle, Y., Yanez, L., & Verdu, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children’s language use in an ESL immersion classroom. System, 38, 614-625. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2010.10.002
• Elaziz, F. (2008). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Unpublished master’ thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.
• Erduran, A., & Tataroğlu, B. (2009). Comparison of science and mathematics teachers’ views regarding use of smart board in education. 9th International educational technology Conference (IETC2009), Ankara, Turkey.
• Gashan, A. K. & Alshumaimeri, Y. A. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes toward using interactive whiteboards in English language classrooms. International Education Studies, 8(12). doi:10.5539/ies.v8n12p176
• Gérard, F., & Widener, J. (1999). A SMARTer way to teach foreign language: the SMART board interactive whiteboard as a language learning tool. Retrieved August, 10, 2015.
• Gérard, F., Widener, J., Greene, M. (1999). Using SMART board in foreign language classes.
 Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
• Guerrero, M. E. M. & Velastegui, K. C. V. (2017). Useful activities to enhance the speaking skills through the use of smart board in 3rd basic education tear at Unidad educative “jean Piaget” (Albohispano) high School during the school year 2016-2017. Research Project.
• Gursul, F., & Tozmaz, G. B. (2010). Which one is smarter? Teacher or board. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 5731–5737. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.936
• Gürol, M., Donmuş, V., & Arslan, M. (2012). İlköğretim kademesinde görev yapan sınıf öğretmenlerinin fatih projesi ile ilgili görüşleri. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(3).
• Manny-Ikan, E., Dagan, O., Berger-Tikochinski, T., & Zorman, R. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning – an evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 249-273.
• Mathews-Aydınlı, J., & Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students' and teachers' attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 235-252. doi: 10.1080/09588221003776781
• Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 195-209. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491230
• Momani, M., Alshaikhi, T. S., & Al-Inizi, T. H. (2016). The obstacles of using smart board in teaching English at Tabuk secondary schools. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 4(3).
• Rajabi, A., &Khodabakhshzadeh, H. 2015. The effect of implementation of smart board on Iranian lower-intermediate EFL learners' reading comprehension and their intrinsic motivation in reading. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 281-289.
• Schmidt, E. C. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of
interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35, 119-133. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.01.001
• Schmidt, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped
 with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51, 2008, 1553–1568. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005
• Schmidt, E. C. (2009). The Pedagogical Potential of Interactive Whiteboards 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 491-505). Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.
• Schmidt, 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), 159-172, doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491218
• Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just ‘‘lipstick”?. Computers & Education, 51, 1321–1341. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006
• Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B. & Özdemir, S. (2009) Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53, 368-374.
• Soroor, R., Omid, A., & Afsaneh, G. (2014). The effect of smart school programs on EFL reading comprehension in an academic context. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 28. doi: 10.5861/ijrset.2014.936
• Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J. & Hooft, M. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and student achievement. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmidt (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: 
theory, research and practice (pp. 131-143). Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.
• Toscu, S. (2013). The impact of interactive whiteboards on classroom interaction in tertiary level English as a foreign language classes. Retrieved from: http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0006356.pdf
• Troff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2009). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education ,54, 379-383.
• Türel, Y. K., & Demirli, C. (2010). Instructional interactive whiteboard materials: Designers’ perspectives. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1437–1442.