BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 115 - 129, 01.06.2012

Serkan Celik

Öz

The interactive whiteboards (IWB) has now been incorporated into the Turkish schools and educational institutions with the launch of the Fatih Project. This article first described the adaptation of a self-efficacy scale on IWB use in Turkish. The secondary aim of the study was to report the self-efficacy levels of primary school teachers toward the technology and the use of IWB in teaching. The participants of the current research were selected on a non-random basis among the primary schools in Kirikkale having at least one designated classroom with IWB. The adaptation studies of the scale including 19 items revealed that it possessed two factors which were implied as common and specific tools of IWBs. The results suggested that the confidence levels of the participant teachers in using IWB tools and features were observed as not satisfactory. This research is expected to serve as a basis for further IWB related studies and contribute to enhancing opportunities to utilize current technologies within the Turkish educational contexts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Interactive whiteboards New educational technologies IWB Teachers’ selfefficacy in the use of technology Fatih Project

Kaynakça

  • Baran, B. (2010). Experiences from the process of designing lessons with interactive whiteboard: ASSURE as a road map. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(4), 367- 380.
  • Becta (2008). Harnessing technology schools survey 2007. Retriewed on 10 Jan 2011 from http://research.becta.org.uk/index.php?catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=14110&section=rh
  • Buyukozturk, S. (2002). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analiz el kitabi [Handbook for data analysis in social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem.
  • CutrimSchmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35(2), 119-133.
  • CutrimSchmid, E. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education, 50(1), 338-356.
  • Dobrovolny, J. (2006). How adults learn from self-paced, technology-based corporate training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers. Distance Education, 27(2), 155-170.
  • Dwyer, J. (2007). Computer-based learning in a primary school: Differences between the early and later years of primary schooling. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 89- 103.
  • Erduran, A., & Tataroglu, B. (2010) Comparison of the science and mathematics teachers’ opinions on the usage of interactive whiteboard in education. 9th International Educational Technology Conference (IETC2009). Ankara.
  • Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2002). The introduction of interactive whiteboards into schools in the United Kingdom: Leaders, led, and the management of pedagogic and technological change. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(24). Retrieved on 15 November 2010 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/glover_miller
  • Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 5- 20.
  • Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32, 38–44.
  • Gulbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A Roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers and Education, 49(4), 943-956.
  • Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perception of interactive whiteboard. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.
  • Hennesey, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into
  • subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum
  • Studies, 37(2), 155-192.
  • Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learning participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 283-301.
  • Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
  • Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: Introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351-365.
  • Hooper, S. & Rieber, L. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154-170). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Jones, S. & Tanner, H. (2002). Teachers' interpretations of effective whole-class interactive
  • teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies, 28(3), 265-274.
  • Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 61-73.
  • Kerr, S. T. (1991). Lever and fulcrum: educational technology in teachers' thought and practice.
  • Teachers College Record, 93(1), 114-136.
  • Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd edition). New York: Guilford.
  • Lai, H. J. (2010). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of interactive whiteboard training workshops: A case study from Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 511-522.
  • Lam, Y. & Lawrence, G. (2002). Teacher-student role redefinition during a computer-based second language project: Are computers catalysts for empowering change? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 295-315.
  • Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Retrieved on 9 April 2011 from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm.
  • Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Gillen, J., Kleine S., Judith N., & Mercer, N. (2007). Orchestration with the interactive whiteboard. Paper presented at the Developing Potentials for Learning 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction. 28 August - 1 September 2007. University of Szeged, Budapest. Retrieved on 17 January 2012 from http://oro.open.ac.uk/ 15279/2/EARLI_August_22ndHO.pdf
  • Littleton, K. (2010). Research into teaching with whole-class interactive technologies: Emergent themes. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 285-292.
  • Marzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82.
  • Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd edition). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Murphy, J. F., Jain, N. L., & Spooner, S. A. (1995). Use of an interactive electronic whiteboard to teach clinical cardiology decision analysis to medical students. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25(2), 238.
  • Niederhauser, D. & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-31.
  • Northcote, M. & Marshall, S. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510.
  • Olson, J. (2000) Trojan horse or teacher's pet? Computers and the culture of the school.
  • Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 1-8.
  • Quashie, V. (2009). How interactive is the interactive whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 214, 34- 38.
  • Saltan, F., Arslan, K. & Gok, A. (2010) Teachers’ acceptance of interactive white boards: A case study. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2010 (pp. 2360-2365). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Schmid, E. C. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in English language classroom through the lens of critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62.
  • Schmid, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51, 1553-1568.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 8, 23-74.
  • Simsek, O. F. (2007). Yapısal esitlik modellemesine giris: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamalari (Introduction to structural equation modeling: Basic principles and LISREL applications). Istanbul: Ekinoks.
  • Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51, 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.
  • Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368-374.
  • Stephens, C. D. (2000). Forget the sailboard--let's go whiteboarding Dental Update, 27(5), 236-240.
  • Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal esitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve ornek uygulama. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3(6), 49-73.
  • Torff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54, 379-383.
  • Turel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57, 2441–2450.
  • Turel, Y. K. & Demirli, C. (2010). Instructional Interactive Whiteboard Materials: Designers' Perspectives, Procedia Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1437-1442.
  • UNESCO (2010). Government of Australia invests $40 million (AUD) for teachers' ICT training. Retrieved on 10 January 2012 from http://www.unescobkk.org/information/news- display/article/government-of-australiainvests- 40-million-aud-for-teachers-ict-training/
  • Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated
  • things: Student views of teaching and learning with interactive white boards. British
  • Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.
  • 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), 84-96.
  • Wu, C., & Lin, C. (2009). A study of using interactive whiteboards at elementary school (in Chinese). Life Technology Education Journal, 42(6), 14-25.
  • Xu, H. L., & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 307-325.
  • Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008). Learning environments using interactive whiteboards: new learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 107-125.
  • Correspondence: Serkan Celik, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Education and
  • Instructional Technologies, Faculty of Education, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 115 - 129, 01.06.2012

Serkan Celik

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Baran, B. (2010). Experiences from the process of designing lessons with interactive whiteboard: ASSURE as a road map. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(4), 367- 380.
  • Becta (2008). Harnessing technology schools survey 2007. Retriewed on 10 Jan 2011 from http://research.becta.org.uk/index.php?catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=14110&section=rh
  • Buyukozturk, S. (2002). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analiz el kitabi [Handbook for data analysis in social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem.
  • CutrimSchmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35(2), 119-133.
  • CutrimSchmid, E. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education, 50(1), 338-356.
  • Dobrovolny, J. (2006). How adults learn from self-paced, technology-based corporate training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers. Distance Education, 27(2), 155-170.
  • Dwyer, J. (2007). Computer-based learning in a primary school: Differences between the early and later years of primary schooling. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 89- 103.
  • Erduran, A., & Tataroglu, B. (2010) Comparison of the science and mathematics teachers’ opinions on the usage of interactive whiteboard in education. 9th International Educational Technology Conference (IETC2009). Ankara.
  • Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2002). The introduction of interactive whiteboards into schools in the United Kingdom: Leaders, led, and the management of pedagogic and technological change. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(24). Retrieved on 15 November 2010 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/glover_miller
  • Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 5- 20.
  • Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32, 38–44.
  • Gulbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A Roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers and Education, 49(4), 943-956.
  • Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perception of interactive whiteboard. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.
  • Hennesey, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into
  • subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum
  • Studies, 37(2), 155-192.
  • Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learning participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 283-301.
  • Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
  • Holmes, K. (2009). Planning to teach with digital tools: Introducing the interactive whiteboard to pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 351-365.
  • Hooper, S. & Rieber, L. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154-170). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Jones, S. & Tanner, H. (2002). Teachers' interpretations of effective whole-class interactive
  • teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies, 28(3), 265-274.
  • Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 61-73.
  • Kerr, S. T. (1991). Lever and fulcrum: educational technology in teachers' thought and practice.
  • Teachers College Record, 93(1), 114-136.
  • Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd edition). New York: Guilford.
  • Lai, H. J. (2010). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of interactive whiteboard training workshops: A case study from Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 511-522.
  • Lam, Y. & Lawrence, G. (2002). Teacher-student role redefinition during a computer-based second language project: Are computers catalysts for empowering change? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 295-315.
  • Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Retrieved on 9 April 2011 from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm.
  • Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Gillen, J., Kleine S., Judith N., & Mercer, N. (2007). Orchestration with the interactive whiteboard. Paper presented at the Developing Potentials for Learning 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction. 28 August - 1 September 2007. University of Szeged, Budapest. Retrieved on 17 January 2012 from http://oro.open.ac.uk/ 15279/2/EARLI_August_22ndHO.pdf
  • Littleton, K. (2010). Research into teaching with whole-class interactive technologies: Emergent themes. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 285-292.
  • Marzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82.
  • Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd edition). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Murphy, J. F., Jain, N. L., & Spooner, S. A. (1995). Use of an interactive electronic whiteboard to teach clinical cardiology decision analysis to medical students. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25(2), 238.
  • Niederhauser, D. & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-31.
  • Northcote, M. & Marshall, S. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510.
  • Olson, J. (2000) Trojan horse or teacher's pet? Computers and the culture of the school.
  • Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 1-8.
  • Quashie, V. (2009). How interactive is the interactive whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 214, 34- 38.
  • Saltan, F., Arslan, K. & Gok, A. (2010) Teachers’ acceptance of interactive white boards: A case study. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2010 (pp. 2360-2365). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Schmid, E. C. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in English language classroom through the lens of critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62.
  • Schmid, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51, 1553-1568.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 8, 23-74.
  • Simsek, O. F. (2007). Yapısal esitlik modellemesine giris: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamalari (Introduction to structural equation modeling: Basic principles and LISREL applications). Istanbul: Ekinoks.
  • Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51, 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.
  • Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368-374.
  • Stephens, C. D. (2000). Forget the sailboard--let's go whiteboarding Dental Update, 27(5), 236-240.
  • Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal esitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve ornek uygulama. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3(6), 49-73.
  • Torff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54, 379-383.
  • Turel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57, 2441–2450.
  • Turel, Y. K. & Demirli, C. (2010). Instructional Interactive Whiteboard Materials: Designers' Perspectives, Procedia Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1437-1442.
  • UNESCO (2010). Government of Australia invests $40 million (AUD) for teachers' ICT training. Retrieved on 10 January 2012 from http://www.unescobkk.org/information/news- display/article/government-of-australiainvests- 40-million-aud-for-teachers-ict-training/
  • Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated
  • things: Student views of teaching and learning with interactive white boards. British
  • Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.
  • 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), 84-96.
  • Wu, C., & Lin, C. (2009). A study of using interactive whiteboards at elementary school (in Chinese). Life Technology Education Journal, 42(6), 14-25.
  • Xu, H. L., & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 307-325.
  • Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008). Learning environments using interactive whiteboards: new learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 107-125.
  • Correspondence: Serkan Celik, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Education and
  • Instructional Technologies, Faculty of Education, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey
Toplam 62 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA28UB86MA
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Serkan Celik Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Haziran 2012
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2012 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Celik, S. (2012). Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 115-129.
AMA Celik S. Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology. Haziran 2012;3(2):115-129.
Chicago Celik, Serkan. “Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards”. Contemporary Educational Technology 3, sy. 2 (Haziran 2012): 115-29.
EndNote Celik S (01 Haziran 2012) Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology 3 2 115–129.
IEEE S. Celik, “Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards”, Contemporary Educational Technology, c. 3, sy. 2, ss. 115–129, 2012.
ISNAD Celik, Serkan. “Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards”. Contemporary Educational Technology 3/2 (Haziran 2012), 115-129.
JAMA Celik S. Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2012;3:115–129.
MLA Celik, Serkan. “Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards”. Contemporary Educational Technology, c. 3, sy. 2, 2012, ss. 115-29.
Vancouver Celik S. Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2012;3(2):115-29.