Educational Research and Reviews
Subscribe to ERR
Full Name*
Email Address*

Article Number - E06F4D241390


Vol.8(20), pp. 1907-1915 , October 2013
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2013.1595
ISSN: 1990-3839



Full Length Research Paper

Interactive Whiteboard factor in Education: Students’ points of view and their problems



Tufan Aytaç
  • Tufan Aytaç
  • Department of Primary Education, Faculty of Education, Bozok University, Yozgat, Turkey
  • Google Scholar







 Accepted: 20 September 2013  Published: 23 October 2013

Copyright © 2013 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0


The main purpose of this study is to investigate the students’ viewpoints and the problems they face during the use of Interactive Whiteboard (IWB). This research has been applied on 202 students in primary school and high school in Ankara. In this study, the quantitative data were collected through “IWB Survey Questions” (Student Views). To identify any significant differences in terms of gender and duration of using IWB for students’ views, t-test and one-way ANOVA were used. No significant differences were found in terms of gender. There is a clear difference between primary school and high school students’ views about the use of IWB. During this study it was observed that students generally had a positive attitude towards the use of IWB. Students identified teachers’ inefficiency to use IWB, technical problems, insufficiency of e-materials and their wonders about the radiation and eye health as problems. 
 
Key words: Interactive whiteboards (IWBs), FATIH Project, Education technologies, E-Learning

Aydınlı JM, Elaziz F (2010).Turkish students' and teachers' attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Lang. Learning, 23(3):235–252.
 
Aytaç T, Sezgül İ (2012). Eğitimde Etkileşimli Tahta Faktörü: Öğrenme ve Öğretme Sürecinde Etkileşimli Tahtaların Kullanımına İlişkin Öğretmenlerin Görüşleri ve Karşılaştıkları Sorunlar, 6. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu 4-6 Ekim, Gaziantep Üniversitesi, 2012.
 
Beeland W (2001). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help?. Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Trinity College, Dublin. Retrieved May, 2010, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf.
 
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project, Centre for ICT, Pedagogy and Learning. Education & Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, Retrieved May 20, 2010 from http://www.becta.org.uk.
 
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2010). Interactive whiteboards significantly affect teaching and learning. Retrieved May, 2010, from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/smart_research_summary.pdf
 
Bulut İ, Koçoğlu E (2012). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Akıllı Tahta Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşleri (Diyarbakır İli Örneği). Dice Üniversitesi Zeya Goal Elitism Faculties Derris, 19, 242-258.
 
Campregher S (2010). Effects of the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) in the Classroom, Experimental Research in Primary School, Free University of Bolzano (Italy), Retrieved June 2011, from http://www.pixelonline.net/edu_future/common/download/Paper_pdf/ENT34-Campregher.pdf
 
Digregorio P, Sobel-Lojeski K (2010). The Effects of Interactive Whıteboards (IWBs) on Student Performance and Learning: A Literature Review. J. Educ. Technol. Systems, 38(3):255-312.
 
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.
 
European Schoolnet (2006). The ICT Impact Report: A review of studies
 
of ICT impact on schools in Europe-European Schoolnet, smarttech.com/ICT_Schoolnet, Retrieved May, 2010, from http://insight.eun.org/shared/data/pdf/impact_study.pdf. 10.10.2010.
 
Gillen J, Littleton K, Twiner A, Staarman JK, Mercer N (2008). Using the interactive white board to resource continuity and support multi modal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348-358.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00269.x
 
Glover D, Miller D, Averis D, Door V (2005). The Interactive Whiteboard: A Literature Survey. Technology, Pedagogy Educ. 14(2):155-170.
 
Gregory S (2010). Enhancing Student Learning with Interactive Whiteboards: Perspective of Teachers and Students. Australian Educational Computing, vol.25, no.2, p.31-34.
 
İşman A, Abanmy FA, Hussein HB, Al Saadany MA (2012). Saudi Secondary School Teachers Attitudes' Towards Using Interactive
 
Whiteboard In Classrooms, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, July 2012, vol. 1, Issue 3, 286-296.
 
Jordan Education Initiative (JEI). (2010). Smart Board Case Study SMART Interactive White Board Utilization in Al-Shifaa Bint Ouf School, March 2010. December 22, 2004, Retrieved May, 2010, from http://plato75.ncl.ac.uk/beeland.pdf.
 
Lan TS, Hsiao,TS (2011). A Study of Elementary School Students' Viewpoints on Interactive Whiteboard. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 8 (2): 172-176.
 
Lee B, Boyle M (2004). Teachers tell their story: Interactive whiteboards at Richardson Primary School. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from www.iwb.net.au/advice/publications/.
 
Levy P (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Retrieved June 20, 2003, from http://www.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/ wboards documents/TeachersStory2.doc.
 
Manny-Ikan E, Zorman R, Dagan OT (2011). Using the Interactive White Board in Teaching and Learning - An Evaluation of the Smart Classroom Pilot Project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects; Jan2011, Vol. 7, p249-273.
 
Marzano RJ (2010). Executive summary: A second year evaluation study of Promethean ActivClassroom. Englewood, & Haystead, M. W. (CO: Marzano Research Laboratory).
 
Marzano RJ, Haystead M (2009). Final report on the evaluation of the Promethean technology. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Retrieved May 25, 2010 from http://www.prometheanworld.com/upload/pdf/Final_Report_on_ActivClassroom_pdf.
 
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, New York: Information Science Reference, pp. 1-19.
 
Milli Elitism Bakanlığı (MEB) (2012). Fırsatları Artırma Teknoloji İyileştirme Hareketi (FATİH) Projesi Pilot Uygulama Değerlendirmesi. Yenilik ve Elitism Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü, Arge-Raporu, Ankara.
 
Morgan GL (2008). Improving Student Engagement: Use of the Interactive Whiteboard as an Instructional Tool to Improve Engagement and Behavior In The Junior High School Classroom. Doctorate Thesis, A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the School of Education Liberty University, School of Education, Holland.
 
Pamuk S, Çakır R, Yılmaz HB, Ergun M, Ayas C (2013). Öğretmen ve Öğrenci Bakış Açısıyla Tablet PC ve Etkileşimli Tahta Kullanımı: FATİH Projesi Değerlendirmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Elitism Bilimleri, 1-24. DOI: 10.12738/estp.2013.3.1734.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.3.1734
 
Presidential Interactive Learning and Teaching Initiative (PILTI). (2009). PILTI Evaluation Survey 2009 Report Summary, Retrieved May, 2010, from http://pili.ljcreate.co.uk/file.php/1/news/news_en.html.
 
Saltan F, Arslan K, Gök 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.
 
Schroeder R (2007). Active learning with interactive whiteboards: A literature review and a case study for college freshmen. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(2), 64-73.
 
Slay H, Siebörger I, Hodgkinson C (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just "lipstick"?. Computers & Education, 51 (2008) 1321–1341.
 
SMART Technologies (2006). Interactive Whiteboards and Learning Improving student learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. White Paper, Retrieved November, 2010, from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/whitepapers/interactivewhiteboardsanduniversaldesignforlearningjan20.pdf
 
SMART Technologies (2010). Reducing stress in the classroom: How interactive whiteboards and solution-based integration improve teacher quality of life, Retrieved November, 2010, from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/international_research/usa/reducing_stress_brief.pdf
 
Smith F, Hardman F, Higgins S (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and
 
numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, 32: 443-457.
 
Smith HJ, Higgins S, Wall K, Miller J (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x
 
Smith F, Hardman, F, Higgins S (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, June 2006, pp. 443-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920600635452
 
Somyürek S, Atasoy B, Özdemir S (2009). Board's IQ: What makes a board smart?. Computers & Education, 53(2), 368-374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.012
 
Türel YK (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57, 2441–2450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.005
 
Türel YK (2012). Teachers' Negative Attitudes towards Interactive Whiteboard Use: Needs and Problems. Elementary Education Online, 11(2), 423-439.
 
Xu HH, Moloney R (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 307-325.
 
Winzenried A, Dalgarno B, Tinkler J (2010). The interactive whiteboard: A transitional technology supporting diverse teaching practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, 26 (Special issue, 4), 534-552.
 
Yanez L, Coyle Y (2011). Children's perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT, 65(4), 446-457.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq069
 
Zittle F (2004). Enhancing Native American Mathematics Learning: The Use of Smartboard-generated Virtual Manipulatives for Conceptual Understanding, smarttech.com/Zittle. 10.10.2010.

 


APA (2013). Interactive Whiteboard factor in Education: Students’ points of view and their problems. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(20), 1907-1915.
Chicago Tufan Aytaç    . "Interactive Whiteboard factor in Education: Students’ points of view and their problems." Educational Research and Reviews 8, no. 20 (2013): 1907-1915.
MLA Tufan Aytaç    . "Interactive Whiteboard factor in Education: Students’ points of view and their problems." Educational Research and Reviews 8.20 (2013): 1907-1915.
   
DOI 10.5897/ERR2013.1595
URL http://academicjournals.org/journal/ERR/article-abstract/E06F4D241390

Subscription Form