Teachers and Students Views on the use of IWBs in Secondary Schools for Enhancing Classroom Teaching and Learning

Yıl 2016, Sayı: 29, 374 - 386, 01.12.2016

Ömer Çakıroğlu

https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.1798

Öz

This study was on teachers and students’ views on the use of Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) for enhancing classroom teaching and learning in the secondary schools’ teachers and students in 6th grades. The study includes 392 sixth grade students in 14 primary schools and 142 teachers (sciences, mathematics and English) teaching sixth grades in primary schools from different classes in the city of Istanbul. Quantitative research method design was conducted as well as survey method. The questionnaire administered to teachers and students involved 19 closed questions (Yes/No) and 23 Likert-type questionnaire were used to collect data on the IWB use for classrooms teaching and learning. Mean score of 19 closed items were 73.65. Of 23 items, mean scores of 3,6 items were higher than 3.00 and only two items were lower than 3.00. Reliability for Likert-type items is excellent (0.91). The results of the study show that IWB use contributes to teaching and learning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Interactive whiteboards (IWB), improving teaching and learning, grade sixth, Quantitative research m

Ortaokullarda Akıllı Tahta Kullanımının Öğretim ve Öğrenimi Geliştirmede Öğretmen ve Öğrenci Görüşleri

Öz

Bu çalışma, ortaokul 6. sınıflarda öğretimi ve öğrenimi iyileştirmek için akıllı tahta (IWBs) kullanımı hakkında öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşleri üzerinedir. Çalışmaya, 6. sınıflarda 18 ortaokulda (142) fen, matematik ve Ingilizce öğretmeni ve 14 ortaokulda (392) altıncı sınıf öğrencisinin katılımı ile Istanbul’da farklı okullarda yapılmıştır. Çalışmada, nitel araştırma metodu kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadaki soruların 19 tanesi kapalı (Evet / Hayır) ve 23 tanesi Likert-tipidir. Elde edilen skorlar göstermiştir ki; 11 sorunun ortalaması ellinin 73.65 üzerindedir. Sadece 2 sorunun ortalaması 3’ün altındadır. Likert-tipi soruların güvenirlik katsayıları mükemmel (?=0.91) olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar göstermiştirki, IWB kullanımı öğretim ve öğrenime katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akıllı Tahta, öğretim ve öğrenimin iyileştirilmesi, altıncı sınıf, nicel araştırma yöntemi

Kaynakça

• Akkoyunlu, B., & Baskan, G. (2015). School Principals’ Opinions on the FATIH Project in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences , 174, 1497-1502.
• Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10 (4): 541-554.
• 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.
• Balta, N., & Duran, M. (2015). Attitudes of Students and Teachers towards the Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Elementary and Secondary School Classrooms. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14 ( 2), 1-23.
• Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the Interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86 (3): 97-103.
• Becta. (2006). Teaching Interactively with Electronic Whiteboards in the Primary Phase. Retrieved October 18, 2009 from httppublications. becta. org.ukdisplay. cfmres ID=25918.
• Becta. (2008). Harnessing technology: Schools survey, 1-250, http://www.becta.org.uk Beeland, W.D. (2003). Student Engagement, Visual Learning and Technology: Can Interactive Whiteboards Help? Retrieved April 18, 2003, from the University of New Castle website: http://plato75.ncl.ac.uk/beeland.pdf
• Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution–Teaching with IWBs. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press. schoolnet.org.za/CoL/../iwb_revolution
• Cakiroglu, O. (2015). Teachers’ views on the use of Interactive Whiteboards in Secondary Schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(2), 251-259.
• Celik, S. (2012). Competency Levels of Teachers in Using Interactive Whiteboards. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3 (2): 115-129
• Cintia, L., Gheorghiu, I., & Colibaba C.A. (2014). Stimulating Students ‘Motivation to Learn Science. Practical Application of Science, 2 (3), 251-256
• Cogill, J. (2002). How is interactive whiteboard being used in the primary school and how does it affect teachers and teaching. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from
• Digregorio, P., & Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2010). The Effect of IWBs on Students Performance and Learning: A Literature Review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38 (3): 255-312.
• Dogan, D., Cınar, M., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2016). “One Laptop per Child” projects and FATIH project: A comparative examination. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 1-26).
• Emron, S., & Dhindsa, H. S. (2010). Integration of Interactive Whiteboard Technology to Improve Secondary Science Teaching and Learning. International Journal for Research in Education, 28.
• European Commission; Survey of Schools: ICT in Education, Final Study Report. (2013).
• Georgieva, K., Stoykova, V., Ivanova, N., & Dimova, E. (2015). Application of Information Technologies and Interactions Tools for Improving Educational Quality. CBU International Conference Proceedings, 3, 468-474.
• Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W.A.W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 1(2), 175-191.
• Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170.
• Hall, R. (2011). Interactive White Boards: Changing Students’ Attitudes about Science. Leadership Research, 28(1).
• Hartsell, T., Herron, S. S., Fang, H., & Rathod, A. (2010). Improving teachers’ self-Confidence in Learning Technology Communication. Technology Education, 6(2), 47-6.
• Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). (Eds) Research into School Teaching and Learning with Whole Class Interactive Technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education (Special Edition), 19 (2), 127-131.
• Jankowska, M., & Atlay, M. (2008). Use of creative space in enhancing students’ engagement.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 271-279.
• Khan, S., Meyers, E., Gowen, E., & Bergman, K. (2014). Online information seeking and knowledge sharing practices of science teachers. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 51 (1), 1-4 . DOI: 10.1002/meet.2014.14505101125
• Karsenti, T. (2016). The Interactive Whiteboard (IWB): Uses, Benefits, and Challenges. Library and Archives Canada, ISBN: 978-2-923808-52-9 February 2016. iwb.crifpe.ca/files/Rapport.pdf DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3048.6169
• Kayak, S. & Kır, E. (2015). Evaluation of candidate language teachers’ level of knowledge and ideas towards the use of interactive whiteboard. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 3(5), 33-60.
• Kilic, E., Guler, C., Celik, H. E.,& Tatli, C. (2015). Learning with interactive whiteboards: Determining the factors on promoting ıwbs to students by Technology Acceptance Model. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12, 4, 285–297. Doi.org/10.1108/TTSE-05-2015-0011
• Kristin, Y., & Lynn, C. (2011). Interactive Whiteboards: A Tool for Enhancing Teaching and Learning. National Teacher Education Journal, 4 (2), 81-86.
• Kurt, A. A., Kuzu, A., Dursun, O.O., Gulpinar, F., & Gultekin, M. (2013). Pilot Evaluation of Implementation Process of the Fatih Project: Teachers' Views. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 2(1),1-23.
• Liang, T.H., Huang, Y.M., & Tsai, C.C. (2012). An Investigation of Teaching and Learning Interaction Factors for the Use of the Interactive Whiteboard Technology. Educational Technology &Society, 15 (4), 356–367