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.
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
🎯
Amaç & Hipotez: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.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The study was conducted with teachers and students chosen by convenience sampling method in AUSFL in the 2016-2017 academic year.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı: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.
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.
Istifci, İ., Keser, A. D., Serpil, R., Önal, M. A., Alan, B., Türkyılmaz, S. (2018). An analysis of teachers’ and students’ perceptions on the use of smart boards in foreign language classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 83–110. https://ajindex.com/articles/1011158
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.
Troff, B. & Tirotta, R. (2009). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education,54, 379-383.