Teachers Attitudes Towards Interactive Whiteboards Teaching Tool Education Essay

Current UK governmental policy enterprises, such as Harnessing Technology: Transforming Learning and Children ‘s Servicess recommend that instructors increase their usage of engineering to better pupil academic growing ( Department for Education and Skills, 2005 ; Loveless, 2010 ; P. Smith, Rudd, & A ; Coghlan, 2008 ) . This has lead to increasing synergistic whiteboard ( IWB ) usage in UK primary and secondary schools ( Becta, 2008 ; Department for Education and Skills, 2005 ; Madden, Prupis, Sangiovanni, & A ; Stanek, 2009, p. 15 ; H. J. Smith, Higgins, Wall, & A ; Miller, 2005, p. 91 ) . Using an IWB enriches a schoolroom with images, sound, pre-prepared lessons, and entree to the Internet in multiple modes ( G. Beauchamp & A ; Parkinson, 2005, p. 97 ; Lewin, Somekh, & A ; Steadman, 2008, p. 292 ) . What makes the synergistic whiteboard so potentially utile is that instructors can utilize this engineering from a learning place in the schoolroom instead than sitting at a computing machine ( S. Kennewell, Tanner, Jones, & A ; Beauchamp, 2008, p. 64 ) . IWB ‘s are thought to better pupil motive, engagement, coaction, deepness of acquisition, every bit good as addition pupil-teacher interaction ( G. Beauchamp & A ; Parkinson, 2005, p. 97 ; Gillen, Staarman, Littleton, Mercer, & A ; Twiner, 2007, p. 11 ; S. Kennewell, et al. , 2008, p. 64 ) .Literature ReviewOne manner to believe about engineering in general and synergistic whiteboards specifically is to see the IWB a tool for people to utilize ( Gillen, et al. , 2007, p. 12 ; Lewin, et al. , 2008, p. 293 ; G. Beauc hamp & A ; Parkinson, 2005, p. 101 ; Jonassen, 2006 ; S Kennewell, 2001 p107 ; S. Kennewell, et al. , 2008, p. 65 ; Lewin, et al. , 2008, p. 295 ; Loveless, 2010, p. 9 ; Zevenbergen & A ; Lerman, 2008, p. 124 ) . Harmonizing to research, teacher attitude toward technological tools is the most of import factor in the successful execution of engineering in the school system ( Efe, 2011, p. 229 ; Teo, Wong, & A ; Chai, 2008, p. 128 ; Watson, 2001, p. 259 ) . Research workers have been analyzing this issue from a theory known as the Technology Acceptance Model ( Pynoo et al. , 2010, p. 569 ; Teo, et al. , 2008, p. 129 ) . Basically this theory suggests that people accept engineering based upon the sensed utility and perceived easiness of usage. Most surveies have found that the more utile a individual believes the engineering is ( sensed utility ) , the more likely a individual will try to utilize it ( Pynoo, et al. , 2010, p. 569 ; Teo, et al. , 2008, p. 129 ) . Versatility, shorter readying clip, ability to salvage lessons, better schoolroom direction with improved pupil behavior, improved lesson pacing, more multisensory lessons with multimedia, expanded interactivity throughout lessons, the possible to make more pupils with increased pupil success are all facets of sensed utility ( G. Beauchamp & A ; Parkinson, 2005p. 312 ; Gillen, et al. , 2007, p. 12 ; Gray, Hagger-Vaughan, Pilkington, & A ; Tomkins, 2005, p. 38 ; S. Kennewell, et al. , 2008, p. 62 ; Moss et al. , 2007, p. 6 ; Slay, SiebE† rger, & A ; Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008, p. 1335 ; H. J. Smith, et al. , 2005, p. 92 ; Teo, et al. , 2008, p. 267 ; Wood & A ; Ashfield, 2008, p. 84 ; Zevenbergen & A ; Lerman, 2008, p. 110 ) . Perceived easiness of usage is defined as a instructor ‘s expectancy of troubles connected with utilizing the engineering ( Pynoo, et al. , 2010, p. 569 ; Teo, et al. , 2008, p. 129 ) . Learning and implementing the usage of IWBs takes considerable attempt ( Borghans & A ; Weel, 2006, p. 1 ; Lewin, et al. , 2008, p. 239 ; Miller, Glover, & A ; Averis, 2009, p. 3 ; H. J. Smith, et al. , 2005, p. 98 ) . It is complicated to incorporate this tool into their personal teaching method and lesson planning ( Moss, et al. , 2007, p. 4 ; Slay, et al. , 2008, p. 1332 ) . This requires a important investing of clip non available to most instructors ( Efe, 2011, p. 229 ; Watson, 2001, p. 260 ) . Teachers need unrestricted entree to IWB ‘s in order to get the hang the engineering and go comfy with its usage ( Gray, et al. , 2005, p. 38 ) . Some schools do non hold adequate engineering for this to go on ( Efe, 2011, p. 229 ; Madden, et al. , 2009, p. 25 ; Watson, 2001, p. 257 ; Zevenber gen & A ; Lerman, 2008, p. 110 ) . Synergistic Whiteboards have important possible to alter the manner instructors teach at a really basic degree ( Gray, et al. , 2005, p. 43 ; Higgins, Beauchamp, & A ; Miller, 2007, p. 221 ; Watson, 2001, p. 252 ) . Teachers have the ability to see the full scope of potencies offered by the IWB or they can use this new resource harmonizing to their criterion and usual mode of instruction ( Bateson, 1972 ; G. Beauchamp & A ; Parkinson, 2005, p. 306 ; Gillen, et al. , 2007, p. 12 ; S. Kennewell, et al. , 2008, p. 71 ; Knight, Pennant, & A ; Piggott, 2004, p. 4 ; Miller, et al. , 2009, p. 4 ; Teo, et al. , 2008, p. 265 ; Watzlawick, Weakland, & A ; Fisch, 1974 ; Wood & A ; Ashfield, 2008, p. 86 ; Zevenbergen & A ; Lerman, 2008, p. 109 ) . This can be a considered both an indicant of usefulness and/or a trouble connected to IWBs ( Lewin, et al. , 2008, p. 295 ) . Teacher ‘s beliefs sing teaching method will find their position on this issue ( Gary Beauchamp & A ; Kennewell, 2008, p . 306 ; S. Kennewell, et al. , 2008, p. 65 ; Zevenbergen & A ; Lerman, 2008, p. 124 ) .MethodologyThis research was basic qualitative research that was trying to measure instructor ‘s feelings and attitudes toward the use of Synergistic Whiteboards. Questions were developed harmonizing to the above literature and these constructs. Forty secondary school instructors were asked to make full in respond to a 10 inquiry multiple-choice questionnaire. This questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1. Out of those who answered, five instructors were selected for farther interview. The extra interview inquiries can be found in Appendix 2. A chart of the replies and their dislocation are listed in Appendix 3. This research was conducted with an consciousness of the duty to teacher-respondents harmonizing to the values described in the British Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research Data ( 2004 ) . Questionnaires were distributed and interviews conducted without favoritism against anyone for any ground, demoing regard for single differences. Teachers who participated understood that their engagement was wholly voluntary. They were informed of the nature of this research and the grounds for it. Complete privateness and confidentiality of their engagement and their responses was assured. No personal information was collected. All questionnaires were returned without names or any identifying features. Questionnaires were kept in a unafraid cabinet with no entree except for this research worker. Those involved in this research were non antecedently known by this research worker, nor were there any double relationships with them other than research worker and participant. No misrepr esentation was involved in any facet of this research. Participants were assured that they could reply the inquiries in the questionnaire in full, in portion, or non at all. They could alter their heads about take parting at any clip with no reverberations. No vulnerable people were included in this undertaking. No inducements were offered or given to convert people to take part. Participants were advised that they could talk to this research worker sing their reactions to the inquiries involved if they so desired. This research was conducted in a nonbiased format in order to get at honest consequences. There was no effort to pull strings, turn out or confute an docket. Data was collected, collated and analysed harmonizing to frequence of each response. Because some replies were given in both the interview and questionnaires, the figure of replies to different inquiry varies slightly. As basic research, this type of analysis provides farther waies for extra research.FindingssTeachers who believe that engineering will be utile to them are more likely to do the effort to utilize IWBs. In this research, instructors assert that the primary ground they use an IWB is that it offers a assortment of uses and makes their lessons less nerve-racking as represented in the diagram to the right. For some, the newness of this technique makes their undertaking more interesting. The grounds instructors give for trying to use IWBs include it ‘s assortment of educational utilizations ( 32 % of the instructors ) , decrease of emphasis ( 25 % of the instructors ) , a new attack to learning ( 22 % of the instructors ) , to develop their ICT accomplishments ( 17 % o f the instructors ) and the IWB is their lone available board ( 4 % of the instructors ) . Question # 2, â€Å" do you utilize an synergistic whiteboard as portion of your instructor tool, † was chosen as one method of sing the issue of sensed utility. A tool is utile. Eighty per centum of the instructors who participated viewed the usage of IWBs as one facet of their instructor repertory instead than as somehow distant from them. Most of the instructors involved in this research did believe that an IWB was a tool for them to utilize. Merely 5 % of the instructors did non utilize an IWB as portion of their instructor tool. Technological attitude can be seen to some extent by how frequently a instructor uses an IWB. Thus, inquiry # 4, on mean how many lessons per twenty-four hours do you interact with the whiteboard? Peoples who use their engineering more often are assumed to believe it is utile. In this instance, about tierce of the instructors used their IWB for 1-2 lessons each twenty-four hours and about tierce of the instructors used their IWB for 3-4 lessons per twenty-four hours. This information implies that instructors are utilizing their engineering on a regular footing. Teachers seem to see IWB ‘s as a helpful tool in many countries of instruction. The information split closely with 22 % of instructors admiting their belief that IWBs better planning, 20 % describing their belief that an IWB improves gait, 26 % coverage that they believe IWBs aid develop a better lesson flow and 24 % believe that their administration is helped by the usage of an IWB. Fewer instructors have seen an betterment in pupil behavior. On the other manus, 95 % of the instructors perceive the IWB as utile for bettering pupil comprehension of new constructs. Teachers continue to see value in IWB, with sentiments moderately equally split between believing that this engineering increases pupil motive ( 18 % ) , pupil engagement ( 25 % ) , teacher motive ( 15 % ) , and teacher engagement ( 17 % ) . Research strongly suggests that if a instructor believes that any troubles inherent in engineering are greater than what they perceive as its utility, that instructor will non utilize the engineering. When the IWB is non easy available, instructors are unable to entree it and go familiar plenty with it to go comfy. Therefore, inquiry # 1 was asked to measure IWB entree, a strong issue of sensed easiness of usage. In this research the bulk of respondents answered yes. Educational research workers stressed the doctrine of pedagogical alteration as a consequence of engineering. If instructors are utilizing their IWBs as an interaction instructor tool, they are thought to be trying pedagogical alteration. Are instructors utilizing IWBs from their old teaching method or are they incorporating this new engineering and making new ways of learning? Most of the instructors who answered this inquiry are utilizing their IWB as an synergistic instruction tool. The literature on engineering execution stresses the importance of instructor preparation. Most research emphasizes the deficiency of preparation as a barrier to positive integrating of new engineering. Yet more than half of the instructors take parting have had no formal preparation in the usage of an Interactive Whiteboard. The issue of salvaging lessons can mention to sensed easiness of use. The inquiry efforts to understand how instructors are accommodating to the new engineering. Teachers who do non salvage their work have n't yet realized this clip salvaging value built-in in engineering. These instructors are in the minority. A removable memory stick allows instructors to salvage their lessons but non to portion with one another. This could be another clip salvaging mechanism and an experience that increases teacher engineering accomplishment. The same is true of a personal web country. These instructors are in the bulk. A full two-thirds of the instructors use a memory stick or a personal web country to salvage their work. Merely one-forth of the instructors are salvaging their work to their section ‘s resort bank where instructors could easy portion their work with each other.DiscussionGovernmental policy encourages the increased usage of IWB and other engineering in instruction to better p upil success over clip. The literature reappraisal addressed engineering as a tool to be utilized by instructors harmonizing to the perceived utility and perceived easiness of usage. In the ideal, harmonizing to governmental policies, learning would alter and accommodate with the consequence being greater pupil success. This will merely go on if instructors can see that the utility of IWBs outweighs the troubles involved in using them. A simple study was administered to 40 instructors and interviews were conducted with five more instructors. The instructors believe that using IWBs will better pupil motive, motive, engagement in acquisition, teacher-student interaction and ability to larn new constructs. Most instructors do see the IWB as a tool for them to utilize in their instruction. Teachers are utilizing their IWBs on a moderately regular footing. They view this tool as utile for instructors every bit good as pupils. Teachers believe that IWBs make their occupation easier in footings of lesson planning, pacing lessons, lesson flow, administration, and ability to orchestrate schoolroom interaction. While IWBs are readily available for usage, there is a major job with instructor preparation for their usage. As more than one-half of the instructors in this research undertaking had no formal preparation in the usage of synergistic white boards, it is improbable that the coveted governmental educational alterations could reasonable be expected to happen. Equally long as instructors are being given engineering without the preparation to give them a deepness of understanding, they will reasonably implement this engineering from the pedagogical cognition they have.Decisionâ€Å" Teacher ‘s attitudes and experiences towards the usage of Synergistic Whiteboards ( IWBs ) † as instruction and larning tool was conducted to measure how current secondary school instructors match the research literature. Research workers and governmental policy shapers suggest that IWB ‘s can alter teaching method for the better, bettering pupil attainment. Many articles mentioned the deman d for instructors to accommodate themselves to the technological progresss in order to carry through this alteration. However, research besides carefully explained that if the sensed utility did non outweigh the sensed easiness of usage, instructors would non do the attempt to change their thought and learning behavior. For the most portion, the instructors who participated in this survey are utilizing IWBs on a regular footing. The engineering is available. However, without the designated preparation that allows pedagogues to understand engineering at a deep degree, engineering will merely be funnelled through the bing teaching method. This was illustrated by the simple inquiry about salvaging their work. Few instructors take advantage of the chances to portion work by salvaging on a school-wide waiter. Hopefully, future research will measure what needs to happen for instructors to be given engineering preparation that would let them to utilize the full resources of available engineering.Appendix 1: Questionnaire for instructorsDo you hold an synergistic whiteboard available every bit frequently as you would wish? Yes No Make you utilize an synergistic whiteboard as a instructor tool? ( Please tick merely one ) Yes No Sometimes As portion of your learning how make you utilize the whiteboard? ( Please tick merely one ) As an synergistic board ( You touch it with you pen or finger, write on it, etc ) As a show board ( Just to project work for the projector with no interaction ) Both On mean how many lessons per twenty-four hours do you interact with the synergistic whiteboard? No lessons 1 – 2 lessons 3 – 4 lessons 5 – 6 lessons Have you had formal whiteboard preparation? ( Please tick merely one ) Yes No On a instructor ‘s perceptive which of these characteristics do you believe synergistic whiteboards can better? ( More than one can be ticked ) Planing Pace Flow of lessons Do you believe utilizing an synergistic whiteboard better apprehension of new constructs? ( Please tick merely one ) Yes No Do you believe synergistic whiteboards additions: – ( Please click one or more ) Pupil ‘s motive Pupil ‘s engagement Teacher ‘s motive Teacher ‘s engagement What has encouraged you to utilize an synergistic whiteboard? ( Please click one or more ) A new attack to learning Its assortment of use To develop your ICT accomplishments It is the lone board in the schoolroom Make the lesson less nerve-racking How make you salvage the information created? ( Please click one or more ) Do non salvage work Department ‘s resort bank Removable memory stick Other methods Personal web infiniteAppendix 2: Interview inquiries for instructorsMake you utilize an Synergistic Whiteboard? If so how long have you been utilizing one? What do you utilize the Interactive Whiteboard for? Why? What type of interaction does the Interactive Whiteboard encourage? Why? How has the Interactive Whiteboard improved your instruction and acquisition? Why If you had the pick which medium ( Interactive or kick Whiteboard ) would you utilize as a learning tool? Why? What has been the cardinal influence ( s ) that has encouraged you to utilize the Interactive Whiteboard? What things would forestall you from desiring to utilize the Interactive Whiteboard?Appendix 3: Response Datas1. Make you hold an synergistic whiteboard available to utilize every bit frequently as you would wish? Yes 34 85 % No 6 15 % Entire 40 100 % 2. Make you utilize an synergistic whiteboard as portion of your instructor tool? Yes 32 80 % No 2 5 % Sometimes 6 15 % Entire 40 100 % 3. As portion of your learning how make you utilize the whiteboard? As an synergistic board 28 70 % As a show board 6 15 % Both 6 15 % Entire 40 100 % 4. On mean how many lessons per twenty-four hours do you interact with the whiteboard? No lessons 2 5 % 1-2 lessons 14 35 % 3-4 lessons 14 35 % 5-6 lessons 10 25 % 40 100 % 5. Have you has any formal whiteboard preparation Yes 18 45 % No 22 55 % 40 100 % 6. Think IW can better Planing 10 22 % Pace 9 20 % Flow of lessons 12 26 % Administration 11 24 % Behaviour direction 4 8 % Entire 46 100 % 7. Make you believe utilizing an synergistic whiteboard better apprehension of new constructs? Yes 38 95 % No 2 5 % Entire 40 100 % 8. Make you believe synergistic whiteboards additions Think IW additions Pupil ‘s motive 12 18 % Pupil ‘s engagement 16 25 % Teacher ‘s motive 10 15 % Teacher ‘s engagement 11 17 % Active student engagement 16 25 % Entire 65 100 % 9. What has encouraged you to utilize an synergistic whiteboard? Encourage to utilize IW A new attack to learning 9 22 % Its assortment of use 13 32 % To develop your ICT accomplishments 7 17 % Merely board in the schoolroom 2 4 % Make the lesson less nerve-racking 10 25 % Entire 41 100 % 10. How do you salvage the information created? How make you salvage the information created A new attack to learning 9 22 % Its assortment of use 13 32 % To develop your ICT accomplishments 7 17 % Merely board in the schoolroom 2 4 % Make the lesson less nerve-racking 10 25 % Entire 41 100 %