RESEARCH PAPERS OPINIONS OF PROSPECTIVE PRESCHOOL TEACHERS ABOUT SMART BOARD USE FOR EDUCATION By GÜNSELİ YILDIRIM Associate Professor, Education Faculty, DokuzEylül University, İzmir, Turkey. ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to determine the opinions of prospective preschool teachers studying in education faculties at Turkey about smart board use for education. To achieve this aim, prospective preschool teachers in the Department of Preschool Teacher Education, DokuzEylül University were asked with five open ended questions through a semi- structured interview form. This is a qualitative study. Obtained data were analyzed with descriptive analysis and its results were expressed in numbers. The results showed that smart board use turned abstract concepts and subjects into concrete things during the learning process, helped to achieve meaningful learning and encouraged active learning. In addition, most of the prospective preschool teachers noted that they did not have sufficient information and skills about smart board use. In light of these findings, it can be recommended that students and teachers should be offered education about the effective use of smart boards and that smart boards should be available in all classrooms. Keywords : Smart Board, Education, Prospective Teachers. INTRODUCTION process during which individuals change new cases into At present, technological developments have remarkable meaningful units in their minds by utilizing real life effects on all parts of life and use of technology has rapidly experiences (Kim, 2005). According to anchored spread. This has made it necessary to improve and renew instruction, a constructivist approach, students should be services offered in educational organizations. In fact, use of provided with a learning environment as rich as possible educational technology has reached a maximum level in (Bransford, J.D. et al. 1990). Learning environments created educational institutions since information and by smart boards offer knowledge through visual and communication technologies have been rapidly auditory channels and allow students to access a large produced and spread, which accelerates a social amount of knowledge in shorter time. evolution (Bağcı, 2013). 1. Use of Smart Boards in Education Smart boards, an educational technology, have gained The first smart board was produced in 1991 (Shenton & popularity in all countries recently. Also called interactive Pagett, 2007). The literature about the tool started to whiteboard and electronic whiteboard and known to be expand after 2000 although reports and abstracts of many smart board in Turkey, this tool has a big touch screen and is small-scale research projects about descriptions of and connected to a computer and a projector. The board experiences with its use by teachers, schools and allows teachers and students to use information skillfully, to institutions had been available in newspapers, magazines recall it, to interact with it and to respond what is taught (Dill, and journals in Britain, before the United States of America, 2008). According to constructivism, it is important to teach Canada and Australia (Smith, et al., 2005). It is a useful how individuals can access knowledge, rather than to presentation tool which can replace almost all traditional present it readily. Constructivists propose that students and modern classroom resources and which allow access construct new knowledge in their minds with the help of to many pieces of information. Its interactive touch screen their prior life experiences. They explain that learning is a gives students and teachers an opportunity to intervene 34 i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 RESEARCH PAPERS and make changes in things on its screen and save them. It Smith, Higgins, Wall and Miller (2005) in their review noted makes classes more lively and full of visual material thanks that, there were studies about effects and potentials of to sound clips, videos, animations and highlighting things smart boards but that most of them were based on with colors, and magnification. It provides a totally new opinions of students and teachers. In an experimental interactive learning environment for students and teachers study by Weimer (2001), attitudes and motivation of to share ideas, information, images, sounds and videos. It students regarding smart board use were measured and also supports visual, auditory, spatial and kinesthetic the students in the class using a smart board were found to learning styles and facilitates learning based on multiple have increased motivation. In an experimental study by intelligences (Xu, 2011). Hersh, Meng-Fen & Georgette (2003), technologically Cogill (2002) reported that smart boards could be used to supported learning and teaching environments were offer and restructure information, to present information found to have small, but positive effects on cognitive and through available resources and visuals, to make affective behaviors of students compared to conventional explanations and comment on subjects, to revise what has methods. been learned, to give oral feedback about students' written 3. Studies about Use of Smart Boards in Turkey work, to save what has been written with an electronic pen, There have been studies about smart boards in Turkey to write on electronic media like photographs and videos recently. With the increased number of these boards at and to guide classes through the internet. schools especially in primary and secondary education, 2. Studies about Use of Smart Boards studies have been performed to determine their effects. In The literature about evaluation of smart board use in a study by Şahin, Gökkurt and Soylu (2014) on smart board classes have mostly based on opinions of students and use by math teachers and high school teachers, they were teachers. Studies directed towards revealing opinions of found to have no technical difficulty in using this teachers about the issue have focused on smart board use technology and the board was reported to be effective in in different learning environments, attitudes, learning different geometric patterns and figures. competencies and perceptions of teachers and Çetinkaya Keser (2013) investigated the problems with educational importance and limitations of smart boards interactive board use encountered by secondary school (Beauchamp, 2004; Glover, Miller, Averis and Door, 2007; teachers and students and their recommendations to Kennewell, Tanner, Jones and Beauchamp, 2008; Lai, solve them. In their study, the problems mentioned by the 2010; Lau, 2011; Manny-Ikan, Tikochinski, Zorman and students and the teachers were related to learning and Dagan, 2011). In most of these studies, teachers have had teaching processes, hardware, software, course contents, a positive attitude towards smart board use and have been ergonomic designs and health. Polat and Özcan (2014) found to believe that they do or can make contributions to performed a study to reveal how and for what purposes learning environments. There have also been studies smart boards were used by primary school teachers and focusing on smart board use in different learning opinions and experiences of these teachers about positive environments and students' opinions, attitudes, and negative effects of the boards and to compare competencies and perceptions about its use and features of the boards used in the classes. In their study, the motivation for learning. Similar to studies on teachers, these teachers reported that, using smart boards increased studies have revealed that, students have a positive motivation and helped students to focus on classes better attitude towards smart board use and increased and allowed teachers to conduct classes involving more motivation and that smart boards contribute to active fun. learning and in class interactions (Amolo and Dees, 2007; Kaya and Aydın (2011) in their study on primary school Hall and Higgins, 2005; Lipton and Lipton, 2010; Roscoe, students found that, the students could better understand Derksen and Curtis, 2013). what was covered in classes and comprehend things more i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 35 RESEARCH PAPERS quickly thanks to multiple intelligence based features Descriptive analysis is made in four stages. In the first stage, allowing visual and auditory presentations of subjects and researchers create a framework based on research that internet connection of the boards had a positive questions, conceptual framework of the study and influence on classes. Yıldızhan (2013) reported that, smart dimensions available at the interviews and in the boards were more effective than conventional boards. observations. This helps to determine which themes Kırbağ Zengin, Kırılmazkaya and Keçeci (2011) in a study obtained data will be categorized into. At this stage, it is reported that, in a primary school on students' attitudes important to organize data in a meaningful and towards smart boards and effects of the boards on reasonable order. Next, researchers describe the data students' success, the students were found to prefer these which have been organized in an order. To achieve this, boards to conventional classrooms. direct quotes may have to be supplied. Then, the 4. Aim of the Study researcher explains, associates and interprets the data which have been described in the previous stage. At this The present study was performed to reveal what stage, the researcher also explains cause and effect of prospective preschool teachers studying in the relationships between the findings to strengthen the Department of Preschool Education at Dokuz Eylül University interpretations and make comparisons with different cases think about smart board use. To achieve this aim, answers when needed (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2003). to the following questions were sought: 5.1 Study Sample 1. What do prospective preschool teachers think about advantages of smart boards? The sample included 60 third year students studying in the Department of Preschool Teacher Education at DokuzEylül 2. What do prospective preschool teachers think about University. Of 60 students, 30 were attending classes during disadvantages of smart boards? daytime and 30 were attending evening classes. There 3. What problems with smart boards do prospective were 52 female students and 8 male students. The reason preschool teachers most frequently encounter? for the lower number of male students was that preschool 4. For what purposes do prospective preschool students teacher education is mostly preferred by females. Only most frequently use? students volunteering to participate were included into the 5. What do prospective preschool teachers suggest study. regarding ways to use smart boards more efficiently? Thirty students, participating in the study, used smart boards 5. Method to teach five-year-old children in schools where they had practicums and at university where they received This study has a qualitative design. A qualitative study is education. This means that they had opportunities to gain directed towards examining what a phenomenon means experience in smart board use in the education level at and behavior of humans depending on the environment which they would work in the future. they live in and making detailed inferences (Merriam, 2013). Obtained data were analyzed with descriptive 5.2 Flow of the Study analysis. It is a qualitative data analysis which involves Sixty third-year students studying in the Department of summarizing data collected with various methods Preschool Teacher Education were asked to fill in a semi- according to predetermined themes and their structured interview form to elicit their opinions about smart interpretations. In this type of analysis, researchers often boards. The form was created by the researcher and quote opinions of the individuals they have observed or composed of five open-ended questions. These questions interviewed so that they can present them in a striking way. were as in the following: The primary goal of this analysis is to present summary of 1. “What advantages do you think smart boards have?” obtained data with their interpretations (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2. “What disadvantages do you think smart boards 2003). 36 i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 RESEARCH PAPERS have?” enabled students to be alert with what was covered in 3. “What problems do you experience while you use classes (n=12; 20%). smart boards?” The participants reported that, there were problems due to 4. “For what purposes do you mostly use smart boards?” insufficient knowledge about smart board use (n=23; 38.33%), and technical problems due to the device itself 5. “What should be done to use smart boards more (n=20; 33.33). They also mentioned that the boards were efficiently?” used for purposes other than they were originally Expert opinion about these questions was requested. In accordance with suggestions made by the experts, N % The Participants' Opinions appropriate revisions were made. The students were Provision of effective 31 51.66 “We don't forget what we assured that obtained data would only be used for learning have learned since it has been supported by photo scientific purposes. They were asked not to write their graphs and films” (student 6) names on the forms and to be objective while answering Allowing presentation 28 46.66 “We access a lot of information of a lot of information through visuals in classes” (student the questions. About 20 minutes after distributing the forms, in a short time (saving 14) “We learn a lot of things through time) visuals in a short time” (student 37) they were collected back. Making learning fun 24 40 “We have a lot of fun in classes. 6. Data Analysis We learn without getting bored” (student 18) Data were analyzed by the researcher. First, the students' Allowing instant access 16 26.66 “We connect to the internet to information needed and we can immediately responses to the questions were coded. These codes were in a classroom atmos access information and arranged under themes and direct codes were taken phere images we need” (student 22) when needed. To determine how many times a code was Enabling students to be 12 20 “It prevents distraction of students' alert with what is done attention in crowded classes” expressed by the participants, the symbol “x” was used. The in classes (student 29) codes under the same themes were presented in tables. In Table 1. The Participants' Opinions about Advantages of Smart reliability, analysis made to reveal consensus between the Board Use coders, Miles and Huberman's formula (1994) was used. N % The Participants' Opinions Turner and Carslon (2003) reported that, a mean coder Problems due to 23 38.33 “The fact that not all people know reliability of 0.75 or higher can show intercoder agreement insufficient knowledge how to use smart boards prevents about smart board use their effective use” (student 41) although it may vary. In the present study, the intercoder Problems with the 20 33.33 “The device is not compatible with agreement was found to be .80. device some software” (student 44) “We experience problems with the 7. Results cables”(student 29) Results of the descriptive analysis were presented in words Misuse 6 10 “Students use smart boards to watch films in their free time” (student 20) and numbers in tables. The participants' opinions about Making teachers and 6 10 “Although smart boards save time, advantages and disadvantages of smart boards were students get used to they make us get used to facileness” facileness (student 32) presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The participants' Distracting attention 4 6.66 “Since some lecturers only use words problems with smart board use were summarized in Table when only words are and phrases, our attention is distracted. used However, if photographs and videos 3. For what purposes the participants used smart boards were used in presentations, we would were supplied in Table 4 and what should be done to use watch more carefully” (student 11) Missing what lecturers 3 5 “When we only focus on visuals, we smart boards more efficiently were outlined in Table 5. say when images be can miss what the teachers say” come the focus of (student 22) The participants thought that smart board use provided interest effective learning (n=31; 51.66%), supplied more Regression in manual 2 3.33 “When education is offered only skills through smart boards, handwriting information in a short time (n=28; 46.66%), made learning skills may regress” (student 33) fun (n=24; 40%), allowed instant access to information Table 2. The Participants' Opinions about Disadvantages of Smart needed in a classroom atmosphere (n=16; 26.66%), and Board Use i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 37 RESEARCH PAPERS introduced for (n=6; 10%), caused facileness in teachers 8.33%), inability to hear the sound from the smart board and students; i.e. using only shortcuts and being superficial (n=5; 8.33%), and inability to use the smart board when (n=6; 10%), distracted attention when only words and there was a power cut (n=3; 5%). phrases were used (n=4; 6.66%). In addition, they noted The participants reported to use the smart board to give a that they missed what teachers told when focusing on presentation (n=44; 73.33%), to watch a video related to images (n=3; 5%) and that smart boards caused a what was covered in classes (n=28; 46.66%), to support regression in their manual skills (n=2; 3.33%). classes with visuals (n=21; 35%), to receive information The problems with smart board use reported by the support when necessary (n=11; 18.33%), to watch participants were insufficient knowledge of board use lecturers' presentations (n=9; 15%), to listen to voice (n=19; 31.66%), inappropriate hardware connection recordings related to classes (n=9; 15%) and to see charts, between the computer and the smart board (n=14; tables, graphs and numerical data (n=2; 3.33%). 23.33%), improper internet connection (n=13; 21.66%), The participants recommended that, teachers and waste of time since the smart board was locked (n=10; prospective teachers should be educated about smart 16.66%), inactivity of the touchpad (n=8; 13.33%), board use (n=35; 58.33%) and presentations should incompatibility of some software with the smart board involve not only words and phrases but also videos and (n=7; 11.66%), freezing screen in some situations (n=5; photographs (n=8; 13.33%). They also recommended N % The Participants' Opinions that the internet connection should be strengthened (n=8; 13.33%) and that smart boards should be used in all Problems due to 19 31.66 “I have problems with starting a video insufficient knowledge and opening a page since I don't courses (n= 5; 8.33%). Other recommendations made about smart board use know how to use the board well” (student 40) were prevention of smart board use for purposes other than Problems with hardware 14 23.33 “We experience problems with hard teaching and learning (n=5; 8.33%), preparation of a connection between the ware connection between some manual for smart board use (n=4; 6.66%), being careful computer and the smart computers and the board, especially board inappropriate cables” (student 42) N % The Participants' Opinions Problems with Internet 13 21.66 “We have frequent problems with connection connecting the Internet” (student 16) To give a presentation 44 73.33 “We use smart boards to give Waste of time since the 10 16.66 “Since the smart board is locked, presentations. This makes classes smart board is locked we cannot finish preparations before more efficient and fluent” (student 6) classes. We have to wait for the teacher, “I use the smart board in presentations, so it causes waste of time.” (student 22) activities and voice recordings” (student 51) Problems with using 8 13.33 “Smart boards have a touchpad. the touchpad Sometimes they get inactive, which To watch a video 28 46.66 “We watch videos about things we disrupts flow of classes” (student 34) about subjects cover in classes” (student 55) taught Incompatibility of 7 11.66 “We experience incompatibility smart boards with problems when we use PowerPoint To support information 21 35 “We look at photos and watch videos some software presentations we have prepared with visuals as visual support for classes. This helps somewhere else” (student 41) us to record things in the long-term memory”(student 16) Images freeze in 5 8.33 “Images sometimes freeze while some situations watching a video” (student 16) To get information 11 18.33 “We connect to the internet when “The screen of the smart board support by connecting we need to search for information” freezes. This disrupts flow of to the internet when (student 17) classes” (student 23) necessary Inability to hear the 5 8.33 “Since there are no sound systems in To watch lecturers' 9 15 “Lecturers use the smart board to sound from the smart classes, we have problems with images presentations present subjects”(student 6) board at the back rows and videos with sound” (student 33) To listen to voice 9 15 “We listen to music related to our “The sound volume causes problems recordings related classes” (student 20) for students sitting at the back rows” to classes (student 3) To show charts, tables, 2 3.33 “We use the smart board to see Inability to use the smart 3 5 “When the electricity cuts off, there can graphs and numerical geometric figures and graphs” board when there is a be delays in classes” (student 47) data (student 16) powercut Table 4. The Participants' Opinions about for What Purposes Table 3. The Participants' Opinions about Problems they they Use Smart Boards Experienced while Using Smart Boards 38 i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 RESEARCH PAPERS the control group. The students in the experimental group N % The Participants' Opinions had a higher academic performance at the end of the Teachers and 35 58.33 “Teachers and prospective teachers students should should be educated about smart study. get training about boards” (student 5) how to use smart Pamuk, Çakır, Ergun, Yılmaz and Ayaş (2013) found in their boards study that, smart boards increased interest, knowledge, Presentations should 8 13.33 “Presentations should have visual involve not only words elements rather than words and experience and motivation, had positive effects on and phrases but also phrases. Those involving only words videos and photographs make classes boring” (student 39) learning-teaching processes and improved interaction of Internet connection 8 13.33 “It should be easy to access the teachers with students and other teachers. Beeland (2011) should be strengthened internet when smart boards are reported that, smart boards contributed to fulfillment of used and the internet connection should be strengthened” (student 26) needs of students having different types of intelligence and Smart boards should 5 8.33 “Smart board use should be wide participation of students in classes. Several other studies be used in all courses spread and should be used in all courses” (student 47) also showed that smart boards had potential to support Smart boards should 5 8.33 “Smart boards should not be used learning and teaching (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007; not be used for purposes for purposes other than for in class other than they are purposes such as watching movies Wall, Higgins & Smith, 2005) and made a contribution to originally intended for or listening to music not related to classes.” (student 20) involvement in learning activities (Akbaş & Pektaş, 2011; A manual should be 4 6.66 “Teachers and students should be Herbert, 2012). In a report about results of a study on smart prepared for smart enabled to use smart boards more board use consciously. A manual explaining boards at Newcastle University, it was noted that students how to use a smart board should be prepared” (student 16) learned better thanks to classes involving visual contents Care should be taken 4 6.66 “Expert support should be obtained resulting from smart board use. The report also revealed with using smart boards and care should be taken with its use” (student 45) that students focused on what was covered in classes Smart boards should 2 3.33 “The key to the smart board should better (Higgins, S., et al. 2005). Schut (2007) reported that, not be locked not only belong to the teachers. It should also be given to a student smart boards were a valuable educational tool likely to be representative of the class” (student 42) used in many classroom environments. They were found to have many benefits like causing students to focus on Table 5. The Participants' Opinions about What should be Done to Use Smart Boards More Efficiently classes, increasing students' interest and interaction and with its use (n=4; 6.66%) and not keeping it locked (n=2; improving visual materials. They were also reported to allow 3.33%). enrichment of classes with animations, sounds, pictures and games in diaries kept by students and at interviews. 8. Discussion Smith, Higgins, Wall, and Miller (2005) determined that, In this study, prospective preschool teachers' opinions smart boards improved the quality of teaching and about smart board use were revealed. Advantages of supported learning. It is clear that the results of the present smart board use reported by the students were that smart study are consistent with the literature. boards provided effective learning, offered more In this current study, the disadvantages of smart board use information in shorter time, made learning fun, allowed determined by prospective preschool teachers were instant access to information needed in a classroom problems related to insufficient information about use of atmosphere and caused students to be attentive. the boards, technical problems with the device, using the Önder and Aydın (2016) by using a semi-structured boards for purposes other than learning and teaching, interview form in an experimental study with pre and post directing students to facileness, distracting attention when tests investigated effects of smart board use in biology presentations included only words and phrases, missing classes on academic performance of tenth-year students what teachers told when attention was paid to images and in secondary education. In the study, education was regression in manual skills. In a study by Yılmaz and Usta offered through smart boards in the experimental group (2015), teachers usually reported that smart boards but through conventional methods without smart boards in i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 39 RESEARCH PAPERS contributed to teaching, but they admitted that they could should be knowledgeable about it due to not use the boards properly due to their insufficient abovementioned problems (Wall, et al. 2005). technical knowledge. Demircioğlu and Yadigâroğlu (2014) In this present study, the prospective preschool teachers emphasized that, in-service training which could enable reported that smart boards were used to give a teachers to utilize information and communication presentation, watch a video about what was covered in technologies effectively should be designed. In a study by classes, support classes with visual materials, support Altın and Kalelioğlu (2015), students suggested that information by connecting to the internet, see lecturers' teachers should receive education about use of presentations, listen to voice recordings for classes and technology and that technical support remained show charts, tables, graphs and numerical data. insufficient to fulfill their needs on time. However, teachers So that smart board could be more efficient. The included in the study by Altın and Kalelioğlu commented prospective preschool teachers recommended that, the that, they were satisfied with the use of interactive boards teachers and preservice teachers should be educated and used them efficiently in classes but still needed in- about how to use them and that presentations should service education. In a study by Korkmaz, Aktürk, and Karimi involve not only words and phrases but also videos and (2013) on prospective primary school teachers, the photographs. They also added that, internet connection participants had a positive attitude towards computer should be strengthened and that smart boards should be assisted education, but emphasized that courses directed used in all courses. Other recommendations were to towards use of technology were inadequate. They prevent their misuse, to use them carefully, to prepare a recommended that, in addition to prospective teachers' manual for smart board use and to avoid keeping them interest, computer and technology courses would be more locked. The results pointed out to the prospective teachers' effective and should be incorporated into the curriculum. lack of knowledge about smart board use. The participants Kayaduman, Sarıkaya and Seferoğlu (2011) underlined also asked for preparation for manuals to provide the users serious deficiencies in teachers' use of information and with knowledge of their use. Büyüköztürk, Ş., KılıçÇakmak, E., communication technologies. In view of the results of the Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012) in their study abovementioned studies and the present study, it is clear on opinions of social sciences teachers about smart board that smart board users do not have sufficient knowledge of use found that 60% of the teachers did not have sufficient smart board use. knowledge and skills to use the boards. In this present study, the prospective preschool teachers In view of the results of this study, it is obvious that smart were found to experience problems with the use of smart boards increase effectiveness of learning through visual boards resulting from insufficient knowledge, connection materials and provide students with fun in classes. between the boards and the computers, internet However, it is clear that both teachers and prospective connection, touchpad, incompatibility of the boards with teachers do not have adequate knowledge to use the some software, freezing screen, inability to hear sounds boards and need a manual to use them. In addition, the from the boards at the back rows and power cuts and prospective teachers use the boards to give a waste of time due to keeping the boards locked. In Wall, et presentation. They experience problems with connection al.'s study (2005), the students mentioned some negative of the boards with the device. aspects of smart boards. They complained that the boards 9. Recommendations created technical problems like other technological tools and required waiting for it to turn on and off. They also ·Prospective teachers should be educated about how admitted that they were anxious about using the board, to use smart boards and guides about their use should since they thought it could easily become out of order. A be available in the internet to all students and lecturers. few students claimed that it could not replace teachers ·The balance between words/phrases and visual and books. Wall, et al. concluded that smart board users 40 i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 RESEARCH PAPERS materials should be well adjusted and interaction [4]. Bağcı, H. (2013). Fatih Projesi Çerçevesinde should be continued throughout the classes. Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Etkileşimli Tahtaya Yönelik ·Smart boards should not only be used as projectors Görüşlerininİncelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Okan Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. and both lecturers and students should be made aware of interactive function of the boards as well. [5]. Beauchamp, G. (2004). “Teacher use of the Interactive ·Problems with sound systems, compatibility with all Whiteboard in Primary Schools: Towards an Effective Transition Framework”. Technology, Pedagogy and software and internet connection in smart boards Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 327- 348. should be solved. ·Smart boards should be used as boards in addition to [6]. Beeland, W.D. (2002). “Student Engagement, Visual Learning and Technology: Can Interactive Whiteboards their projector functions and lecturers should be Help?” Annual Conference of the Association of educated about it. Information Technology for Teaching Education, Dublin, ·Smart boards should be used in all classes. Trinity College. Conclusion [7]. Bransford, J.D., et al. (1990). “Anchored Instruction: Why In light of the results of this study, the following conclusions we Need it and how Technology can Help”. In D. Nix & R. were drawn. Smart boards help record what is learned in Sprio (Eds), Cognition, Education and Multimedia. the long-term memory and make classes fun. They are Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. utilized to support presentations with videos and voice [8]. Büyüköztürk, Ş., KılıçÇakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., recordings when necessary to record new information in Karadeniz, Ş., and Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel Araştırma the long-term memory. They also allow access to Yöntemleri (13. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA. additional information needed in classes through the internet, thus providing an opportunity to get more [9]. Cogill, J. (2002). “How is the Interactive Whiteboard information in short time. However, they may have being used in the Primary School and how does this Affect problems with compatibility with software used for Teachers and Teaching”. Retrieved from URL: presentations, cables, connection and the internet. http://mypad.northampton.ac.uk/13416667lc/files/2013/1 Besides, presentations given through smart boards might 0/iwb-26igy0w.pdf have problems with the sound system. In addition, the [10]. Demircioğlu, G. and Yadigaroğlu, M. (2014). “Kimya boards are mostly considered as projectors and are not Öğretmenlerinin Fatih Projesineİlişkin Görüşleri”. Eğitimve used for interaction purposes. They are not found in all Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 32 (ISSN: classes, which causes problems. 2146-9199). References [11]. Dill, M.J. (2008). “A Tool to Improve Student [1]. Akbaş, O. and Pektaş, H. (2011). “The effects of using an Achievement in Math: An Interactive Whiteboard”. Interactive Whiteboard on the Academic Achievement of Doctorate Thesis, Ashland University. University Students”. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science [12]. Glover, D. Miller, D. Averis, D. and Door, V. (2007). “The Learning & Teaching, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 1-19. Evolution of an Effective Pedagogy for Teachers using the [2]. Altın, H.M. and Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). “Fatih Projesiileilgili Interactive Whiteboard and Modern languages: An Öğrencive Öğretmen Görüşleri”. Başkent Unıversity Journal Empirical Analysis from the Secondary sectors”. Learning, of Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 89-105 Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 5-20. [3]. Amolo, S. and Dees, E. (2007). “The Influence of [13]. Hall, I. and Higgins, S. (2005). “Primary School Interactive Whiteboards on Fifth-Grade Student Students' Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboards”. Journal Perceptions and Learning Experiences”. Action Research of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 21, pp. 102-117. Exchange, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-9. [14]. Herbert, M. (2012). “Whiteboards Engage Autistic i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 41 RESEARCH PAPERS Students in Social Learning”. District Administration, Vol. 48, [24]. Kim, (2005). “The Effects of a Constructivist Teaching No. 3, pp. 44. Approach on Student Academic Achievement, Self- [15]. Hersh C. W, Meng-Fen L. and Georgette M. M., Concept, and Learning Strategies”. Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 7-19. (2003). “A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning with Technology on Student Outcomes”. [25]. Lai, H.J. (2010). “Secondary School Teachers' Retrieved from http://treeves.coe.uga.edu/edit6900/meta Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboard Training Workshops: analysisNCREL.pdf A Case Study from Taiwan”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 26, pp. 511-522. [16]. Higgins, S. Falzon, C. Hall, L. Moseley, D. Smith, F. Smith, H. and Wall, K. (2005). Embedding ICT in the Literacy [26]. Lau, I. (2011). “Teachers for "Smart Classrooms": The and Numeracy Strategies: Final Report. Project Report, Extent of Implementation of an Interactive Whiteboard- University of Newcastle, upon Tyne, Newcastle. based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers' Instructional Practices”. Interdisciplinary Journal [17]. Kaya, Hüseyin; Aydın, Fatih (2011). “Sosyal Bilgiler of E-Learning & Learning Objects, Vol. 7, pp. 275-289. Dersindeki CoğrafyaKonularının Öğretiminde AkıllıTahta Uygulamalarınaİlişkin ÖğrenciGörüşleri”. Zeitschriftfür die [27]. Lipton, M. and Lipton, L. (2010). “Enhancing the Welt der Türken, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 179-189. Radiology Learning Experience with Electronic Whiteboard Technology”. American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. [18]. Kayaduman, H., Sarıkaya, M. and Seferoğlu, S.S. 194, No. 6, pp. 1547-1551. (2011). “Eğitimde FATİH Projesinin Öğretmenlerin Yeterlik Durumları Açısındanİncelenmesi”. Akademik Bilişim 11 - XIII. [28]. Manny-Ikan, E. Tikochınski, T.Zorman, R. and Dagan, Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri, İnönü Üniversitesi, O. (2011). “Using the Interactive White Board in Teaching Malatya, 2 - 4 Şubat. and Learning - An Evaluation of the smart classroom Pilot Project”. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning [19]. Kennewell, S. and Beauchamp, G. (2007). “The Objects, Vol. 7, No. 249-273. “Features of Interactive Whiteboards and their Influence on Learning”. Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, [29]. Merriam, S.B. (2013). Nitel Araştırma: pp. 227-241. Desenveuygulamaiçinbirrehber, (Çev. Ed. S. Turan) Ankara, Nobel AkademikYayıncılıkEğitimDanışmanlık Tic. Lmt. Şti. [20]. Kennewell, S. Tanner, H. Jones, S. and Beauchamp, G. (2008). “Analysing the Use of Interactive Technology to [30]. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Implement Interactive Teaching”. Journal of Computer Data Analysis, (2nd Ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Assisted Learning, Vol. 34, pp. 61-73. [31]. Onder, R. and Aydin, H. (2016). “The Effect of the Use [21]. Keser, H. Çetinkaya, L. (2013). “Turkish Studies- of Smart Board in the Biology Class on the Academic International Periodical for the Languages”. Literature and Achievement of Student”. i-manager's Journal on School History of Turkish or Turkic, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 377-403. Educational Technology, 12(1), Jun-Aug 2016, Print ISSN: 0973-2217, E-ISSN: 2230-7133, pp.18-29. [22]. Korkmaz, A. Aktürk, C. and Karimi, O. (2013). Fatih Projesi Sürecinde Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Bilgisayara [32]. Pamuk, S. Çakır, R. Ergun, M. Yılmaz, H.B. and Ayas, C. Yönelik Tutumlarınınİncelenmesi: Kilis 7 Aralık Üniversitesi (2013). “Öğretmenve Öğrenci Bakış Açısıyla Tablet PC ve Örneği. Retrieved from http://inet-tr.org.tr/inetconf18/ Etkileşimli Tahta Kullanımı: FATİH Projesi Değerlendirmesi”. bildiri/56.pdf (Erişim: 11.07.2016). Kuramve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 1799-1822. [23]. Kırbağ Zengin, F. Kırılmazkaya, and G. Keçeci, G. (2011). “Akıllıtahtakullanımınınilköğretimöğrencilerinin fen [33]. Polat, S. and Özcan, A. (2014). “Akıllı Tahta Kullanımıyla veteknolojidersindekibaşarıvetutumaetkisi”. 5th İlgili Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Görüşleri”. KastamonuEğitim International Computer & Instructional Technologies Dergisi, Vol. 22, No. 2pp. 439-455. Symposium, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ. [34]. Roscoe, K. Derksen, A. and Curtis, K. (2013). “Using 42 i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 RESEARCH PAPERS Presentation Software to Integrate Formative Assessment Objective Congruence for Multidimensional items”. into Science Instruction”. Science Scope, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. International Journal of Testing, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 163-171. 48-57. [40]. Wall, K. Higgins, S. and Smith, H. (2005). “'The Visual [35]. Schut, C.R. (2007). “Student Perceptions of Interactive Helps me understand the Complicated Things': Pupil Views Whiteboards in a Biology Classroom”. Master Thesis, of Teaching and Learning with Interactive Whiteboards”. Cedarville University, B.A. Life Science Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. [36]. Shenton, A. and Pagett, L. (2007). “From 'Bored' to 851–867. Screen: The use of the Interactive Whiteboard for Literacy in [41]. Xu, H.L. (2011). “It makes the whole Learning Six Primary Classrooms in England”. Literacy, Vol. 41, No. 3, Experience Better”: Student Feedback on the use of the pp. 129-136. Interactive Whiteboard in Learning Chinese at Tertiary [37]. Smith, H, J. Higgins, S. Wall, K. and Miller, J. (2005). Level”. Asian Social Science, Vol. 7, No. 11, pp. 20-34. “Interactive Whiteboards: Boon or Bandwagon? A Critical [42]. Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal Bilimlerde Review of the Literature”. Journal of Computer Assisted Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: SeçkinYayınları. Learning, Vol. 21, pp. 91-101. [43]. Yıldızhan, Y. H. (2013). “Temel Eğitimde Akıllı Tahtanın [38]. Şahin, Ö, Gökkurt, B. veSoylu, Y. (2013). “Matematik Matematik Başarısına Etkisi”. Middle Eastern and African öğretmeni adaylarının kesirlerle ilgili pedagojik alan Journal of Education Research, Vol. 5, pp. 110-121. bilgilerinin öğrenci hataları bağlamında incelenmesi”. 4th [44]. Yılmaz, H. veUsta, E. (2015). “Öğretmenlerin Akıllı Tahta International Conference on New Trends in Education and Kullanımı Konusunda Görüşlerininİncelenmesi”. 9th their Implications, konferansında sunulan sözlü bildiri, International Computer & Instructional Technologies Antalya. Symposium - ICITS2015. Afyonkarahisar, 20-22 Mayıs. [39]. Turner, R.C. and Carslon, L. (2003). “Indexes of Item- ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Günseli Yıldırım is presently working as an Associate Professor in the Education Faculty, DokuzEylül University, İzmir, Turkey. She got B.A from Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey and completed her M.S and Ph.D at DokuzEylül University, İzmir, Turkey. She is specialized in Teaching as a Profession, Teacher Education and Childhood Education. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 l No. 2 l September - November 2016 43