Teachers’ Perspectives on Interactive Whiteboards as Instructional Tools in Four Jordanian Schools

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 73 - 89, 01.03.2014

Atef Abuhmaid

Öz

Cutting edge technologies are one of the main areas in which private schools compete so they can showcase themselves as pioneers In Jordan, as it is in other education contexts worldwide. The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) is becoming one of the rapidly adopted educational technologies everywhere. However, while moving too fast to adopt new technologies, often decision is made without taking teachers’ perceptions into account. The current study focuses on teachers’ perspectives on two main aspects of the integration of IWBs in four Jordanian private schools: First, teachers’ perceptions of IWBs as instructional tools, and second, the presence of various supporting factors identified by the literature for the success of integrating IWB into schools. The study used a 26-item Likert scale which was administered to 200 teachers in the participating schools. The results showed that the participating schools spend extensive efforts and resources in integrating IWBs into their contexts; however, some supporting factors for the effective implementation might have been overlooked. In addition, in contrast to what some professionals might expect and some vendors might try to promote, IWBs did not make teachers’ job “easier” in terms of relieving teachers’ workloads, despite their values as reported by teachers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Interactive whiteboard, IWB, Instructional technologies, Technology integration in education, ICT, Educational technologies in Jordan

Kaynakça

• Abuhmaid, A. (2009). ICT integration across education systems: The experience of Jordan in educational reform. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
• Abuhmaid, A. (2011). Embracing ICT by the Jordanian education system. In F. Albadri & S. Abdullah (Eds.), Cases on ICT acceptance, investment and organization: Cultural practices and values in the Arab world. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Ariola, M. (2006). Principles and methods of research. Manilla: Rex Book Store.
• Bahr, D. L., Shaha, S. H., Farnsworth, B., Lewis, V. K., & Benson, L. F. (2004). Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology: Attitudinal impacts of technology-supported field experience on pre-service teacher candidates. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 88-97.
• 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.
• Beauchamp, G. & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: Developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(3), 97-103.
• BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/services/cst/elementary/math/ documents/whiteboards_research.pdf
• BECTA. (2007). Harnessing technology review 2007: Progress and impact of technology in education: Summary report. Retrieved on 29 September 2009 from http://dera.ioe. ac.uk/1426/1/becta_2007_htreview_summary.pdf
• Bell, M. A. (2002). Why use an interactive whiteboard? A Baker’s dozen reasons Retrieved on 27 September 2008 from http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/mabell.html
• Betcher, C. & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution : Teaching with IWBs. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research Press.
• Billeh, V. (2002). Educational reform in the Arab region. Retrieved on 17 June 2007 from http://www.erf.org.eg/nletter/Newsletter_Sum02/NewsletterSumIssue.Q30-32.pdf
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Byrom, E. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and learning. Retrieved on 11 January, 2008 from http://www.serve.org/seir-tec/publications/lessons. pdf
• Celik, S. (2012). Competency levels of teachers in using interactive whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 115-129.
• Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Taking stock in 2004: Teacher education in dangerous times. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 3-7.
• Cuthell, J. P. (2006). Ms. Chips and her battle against the cyborgs: Embedding ICT in professional praxis. In E. K.Sorensen, D. Ó. Murchş &G. Ó.Doghair (Eds.), Enhancing learning through technology. London: Information Science.
• Deaney, R., Chapman, A., & Hennessy, S. (2009). A case-study of one teacher’s use of an interactive whiteboard system to support knowledge co-construction in the history classroom. The Curriculum Journal, 20(4), 365-387.
• Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the learning-centred school, a cross-cultural perspective. New York: Falmer.
• Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Margaret Vickers & Williams, M. (2001). Making better connections: Models of teacher professional development for the integration of information and communication technology into classroom practice. Retrieved on 11 January 2008 from http://www.dest.gov.au/ schools/ Publications/2002/MBC.pdf
• Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.
• Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1991). Changes in Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Technology-Rich Classrooms. Educational Leadership, 8(48), 45-52.
• Earley, P. & Weindling, D. (2004). Understanding school leadership. London: Paul Chapman.
• European SchoolNet. (2005). Assessment schemes for teachers' ict competence- A policy analysis. Retrieved on 19 February 2010 from http://www-old.eun.org/insight-pdf/ special_reports/PIC_Report_Assessment%20schemes_insightn.pdf
• Fink, D. (2005). Developing leaders for their future not our past. In M. J. Coles & G. Southworth (Eds.), Developing leadership: Creating the schools of tomorrow. Maidenhead: England: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Fiszer, E. P. (2004). How teachers learn best: An ongoing professional development model. Maryland: ScarecrowEducation.
• Fullan, M. (2007). The NEW meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College.
• Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Gillingham, M. G. & Topper, A. (1999). Technology in teacher preparation: Preparing teachers for the future. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 303-321.
• Gilmore, A. M. (1995). Turning teachers on to computers: Evaluation of a teacher development program. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(3), 251-269.
• 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.
• Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers' successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 480-488.
• Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Crown Press.
• Hakkarainen, K., Muukonen, H., Lipponen, L., Ilomaki, L., Rahikainen, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2001). Teachers' information and communication technology (ICT) skills and practices of using ICT. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 181-197.
• Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.
• Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 283-301
• Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E., & Rehbein, L. (2004). Technology in schools: Education, ICT and the knowledge society. Retrieved on 2 October 2013 from http://www-wds. worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/01/10/000160016_ 20050110162933/Rendered/PDF/311940PAPER0Ed110ICT0oct0401public1.pdf
• Hodge, S. & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: a teacher’s journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282.
• Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(3), 227-241.
• Jordan Education Initiative. (2009a). KETAB interactive whiteboards in the discovery schools. Amman, Jordan. Retrieved on 5 September 2013 from http://www.jei.org.jo/cms/sites/ default/files/reports/3.%20KETAB%20Interactive%20White%20Boards.pdf
• Jordan Education Initiative. (2009b). SMART interactive whiteboards in the discovery schools Amman, Jordan.Retrieved on 15 September 2013 from http://www.jei.org.jo/cms/ sites/default/files/reports/SMART%20Interactive%20White%20Boards.pdf
• Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Kleine, J. S. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children's collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 359-383.
• King, K. P. (2002). Technology, science teaching, and literacy: A century of growth. New York: Kluwer Academic.
• Kitson, L., Kearney, J., & Fletcher, M. (2005, July). Transversing the digital divide using interactive whiteboards. Paper presented at the Australian Teacher Education Association’s 33rd Annual Conference. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
• Lee, M. & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools: Lessons to be learned. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.
• Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Retrieved on 20 September 2010 from http://dis.shef.ac.uk /eirg/projects/wboards.htm
• Miller, D. & Glover, D. (2010). Interactive Whiteboards: A Literature Survey. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1-19). Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
• Moss, G. & Jewitt, C. (2010). Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: What lessons can be learnt from early adoption in England? In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 20-36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Mouzakis, C. & Bourletidis, C. (2010). A blended learning course for teachers’ ongoing professional development in Greece. In J. Yamamoto, J. C. Kush, R. Lombard & C. J. Hertzog (Eds.), Technology implementation and teacher education: Reflective models (pp. 1-24). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2005). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
• Rief, S. F. & Heimburge, J. A. (2007). How to reach and teach all children through balanced literacy? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Sabieh, C. (2001, March). A confident Arab scholar: Faculty development and technology. Paper presented at the use of information technology in higher education in arab universities conference. Beirut, Lebanon.
• Sarbib, L. (2002). Building knowledge societies in the Middle East and North Africa. Retrieved on 18 September 2010 from http://www.worldbank.org/k4dmarseille
• 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(4), 1553-1568.
• Schreiber, J. B. & Asner-Self, K. (2011). Educational research: The Interrelationship of questions, sampling, design, and analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
• Shelly, G. B. & Vermaat, M. E. (2010). Discovering computers 2010: Living in a digital world, Introductory. Boston: Course Technology, Cengage Learning.
• 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.
• Somekh, B. & Davis, N. (Eds.). (1997). Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
• Subhi, T. (1999). Attitudes toward computers of gifted students and their teachers. High Ability Studies, 10(1), 69-84.
• Sweeney, T. (2013). Understanding the use of interactive whiteboards in primary science. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 217-232.
• Torff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2010), 379-383.
• Townsend, T. & Bates, R. (2007). Teacher education in a new millennium: Pressures and possibilities. In T. Townsend & R. Bates (Eds.), Handbook of teacher education: Globalization, standards and professionalism in times of change (pp.3-24). Dordercht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for
• teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394.
• Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 350-362.
• Woolner, P. & Schools, F. (2010). The design of learning spaces. London: Continuum.
• Zhao, Y. (2003). What teachers need to know about technology: Framing the question. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), What should teachers know about technology: Perspectives and practices. Greenwich: Information Age.
• Correspondence: Atef Abuhmaid, Ph.D., Educational Technology, Faculty of Educational
• Sciences, Middle East University, Jordan