Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 825–841 | Cite as

Investigating K-12 teachers’ use of electronic board in the classroom in the Central South of United States

  • Yixin ZhangEmail author
Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Examining classroom teachers’ use of electronic boards is crucial due to the rapid widespread replacement of traditional blackboards in schools. This study focuses on K-12 teachers’ use of electronic boards in the classroom, quantitatively in four subscales – presentation, motivation, engagement, and assessment, and teachers’ attributes – grade levels, ages, and years of teaching. The results reveal that correlation coefficients of presentation, motivation, engagement, and assessment, are significantly correlated. Elementary teachers tend to feel more comfortable in using electronic boards than middle school teachers. Teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards electronic board are significant factors in students’ motivation and engagement. Qualitative data present most teaching activities and their desires to improve their more efficient usage of electronic board. Limitation of study and recommendation for further research are provided.

Keywords

Electronic board Motivation Engagement Assessment Educational technology K- 12 teaching 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mrs. Stacy Dellafosse for data collection, and Mrs. Onyx Zhang for proof-reading this manuscript.

References

  1. Al-Qirim, N. (2011). Determinants of interactive white board success in teaching in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 56(3), 827–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaro-Jimenez, C., & Beckett, G. (2010). Interactive Whiteboards: All-in-one Tool for ESL Teaching and Learning. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on e-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (pp. 2331–2337). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  3. Cabus, S. J., Haelermans, C., & Franken, S. (2017). SMART in mathematics? Exploring the effects of in-class-level differentiation using SMARTboard on math proficiency. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chamblee, G. (2016). Interactive Whiteboards Research and the Mathematics Classroom: A LearnTechLib Review. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 2484–2489). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172043/.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, S. H., & Tsai, M. Y. (2013). Using the interactive whiteboards to teach picture books: The case of Taiwan. Online Submission, 6(11), 86–92.Google Scholar
  6. ClassFlow. (2018). Retrieved from https://classflow.com/ July 30, 2018.
  7. 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. Curriculum Journal, 20(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeSantis, J. D. (2013). Exploring the effects of professional development for the interactive whiteboard on teachers’ technology self-efficacy. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 12, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Essig, D. (2011). A Case Study of Interactive Whiteboard Professional Development for Elementary Mathematics Teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University.Google Scholar
  10. Fekonja-Peklaj, U., & Marjanovic-Umek, L. (2015). Positive and negative aspects of the IWB and tablet computers in the first grade of primary school: A multiple-perspective approach. Early Child Development and Care, 185(6), 996–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ipek, I., & Sozcii, O. F. (2016). Preferences and attitudes for using interactive whiteboards in different courses and learning. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1), 173–184.Google Scholar
  14. Karsenti, T. (2016). The interactive whiteboard: Use, benefits, and challenges. A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 42(5), 1–22.Google Scholar
  15. Kelley, G. P. (2014). Factors that have an effect on students’ scores on the Florida algebra 1 end-of-course assessment in algebra 1 classrooms using interactive whiteboard tools. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida.Google Scholar
  16. Kuykendall, B., Janvier, M., Kempton, I., & Brown, D. (2012). Interactive Whiteboard Technology: Promise and Reality. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on e-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2012 (pp. 685–690). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) https://www.learntechlib.org/p/41669/.Google Scholar
  17. Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Journal of Education & Information Technologies., 13(4), 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Link, T. (2012). The effect of interactive whiteboard-based instruction on mathematics performance of English learners. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John's University, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Lopez, O. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lopez, O., & Krockover, C. (2014). Contextual factors relevant to elementary teachers using interactive whiteboards in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(3), 405–426.Google Scholar
  22. McQuillan, K., Northcote, M., & Beamish, P. (2012). What matters most when students and teachers use interactive whiteboards in mathematics classrooms? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(4), 3–7.Google Scholar
  23. Murcia, K. (2010). Multi-modal representations in primary science: What's offered by interactive whiteboard technology? Teaching Science, 56(1), 23–29.Google Scholar
  24. Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oigara, J. (2017). Teaching and learning with Smart Board technology in the elementary classroom. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (pp. 896–899). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  26. Olsen, A., LeMire, S., & Baker, M. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy and peer support on student participation with interactive white boards in the middle school math class. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
  27. Öz, H. (2014). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards in the English as a foreign language classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3), 156–177.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Park, J. (2014). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ perceptions toward white board system prior to actual experience. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(3), 262–270.Google Scholar
  29. Park, S., Kim, K., Everson, J., & Mushegan, A. (2011). The effect of interactive whiteboards on kindergarten students’ learning: Findings from two case studies. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 1630–1633). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) https://www.learntechlib.org/p/36530/.Google Scholar
  30. Phelps, R. J. (2012). Perceptions of the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards on student engagement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edgewood College.Google Scholar
  31. Rains, C. S. (2011). Effect of interactive whiteboard instruction on 5th grade standardized test scores in the area of mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University.Google Scholar
  32. Rosetti, J. (2012). Analyzing the perceptions and use of interactive whiteboards by prekindergarten teachers in presentation of classroom Lessons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University.Google Scholar
  33. Sad, S. N., & Ozhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1184–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sheffield, C. C. (2015). Struggling to move beyond projection: A case study of instructional use of an interactive white board in elementary social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 541–567.Google Scholar
  36. SMART Board. (2018). Retrieved from https://home.smarttech.com/ July 30, 2018.
  37. Šumak, B., Pušnik, M., Heričko, M., & Šorgo, A. (2017). Differences between prospective, existing, and former users of interactive whiteboards on external factors affecting their adoption, usage and abandonment. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 733–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swan, K., Schenker, J., & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2008 (pp. 3290–3297). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) https://www.learntechlib.org/p/28842/.Google Scholar
  39. Tunaboylu, C., & Demir, E. (2017). The effect of teaching supported by interactive whiteboard on Students’ mathematical achievements in lower secondary education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394.Google Scholar
  41. Wang, J., Cheon, J., Hamman, D., & Han, S. (2015). Identifying the relationships among teachers’ perceptions and the use of interactive whiteboard and students’ learning performance. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015 (pp. 3475–3482). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  42. Whyburn, L., & Way, J. (2012). Student perceptions of the influence of IWBs on their learning in mathematics. Australian Educational Computing, 27(1), 23–27.Google Scholar
  43. Xu, H., & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 307–325. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.Google Scholar
  44. Yang, J. Y., & Teng, Y. W. (2014). Perceptions of elementary school teachers and students using interactive whiteboards in English teaching and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(1), 125–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education ProfessionsMcNeese State UniversityLouisianaUSA

Personalised recommendations