ATTITUDES OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD USERS

Biró Piroska

2012

Abstract

Thanks to the applications more and more IWBs are available for the institutions in Hungary. The most active and enthusiastic teachers who are ready for the latest challenges start to use the technical devices at once, they learn to use it and apply it in their everyday education. The aim of the research is to get a picture of active IWB users' opinions. 50 randomly selected teachers were asked whose schools have got several IWBs available. So, the results below reflect experienced teachers' opinion, since they have been using IWB from 1 to 5 years.

References

  1. Chris Betcher, Mal Lee (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: teaching with IWBs. ACER Press
  2. Dave Miller, Derek Glover and Douglas Averis, (2004) Motivation: The contribution of Interactive whiteboards to teaching and learning in mathematics, <http://www.iprase.tn.it/attivit%E0/studio_e_ricerca/r ed5_08/download/03_Interactive_whiteboard_and_ma thematics.pdf>, Retrieved 2.06.10.
  3. EU, 2006. Key competences for Lifelong Learning http:// europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_y outh/lifelong_learning/c11090_en.htm, Retrieved 12.08.11.
  4. Euline Cutrim Schmid, (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology, Computers & Education, 51 (4), 1553-1568
  5. Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Kleine Staarman, J., & 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, 348-358.
  6. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard and modern languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sectors. Learning, Media and Technology. 32 (1), 5-20.
  7. Hall&Higgins, (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. (21), 102-117.
  8. Hannah Slay, Ingrid Siebörger, Cheryl HodgkinsonWilliams (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education 51 (1321- 1341)
  9. Heather J. S., Higgins S., Kate Wall, Jen Miller (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, 91-10.
  10. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology. (32) 283-301.
  11. Higgins, S., Beaucamp, G., Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology. 32(3), 213-225.
  12. Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity, and multimodality in teacher design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303- 317.
  13. Karl Lehner et al., (2010). Interactive White Board - National Case Studies, insight.eun.org, http://moe.eun. org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2db0f7d1-089c4a3a-b157-db3d65a393b2&groupId=10620 Retrieved 2.06.11.
  14. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227-241.
  15. Ketskeméty László, Izsó Lajos, Könyves Tóth Elod: Bevezetés az IBM SPSS Satistics programrendszerbe, Artéria Stúdió Kft., 2011
  16. Kirsti Ala-Mutka, Yves Punieand Christine Redecker, 2008. Digital Competence for Lifelong Learning, ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/EURdoc/JRC48708.TN.pd f, Retrieved 12.08.11.
  17. Polit, D. F., Hungler, B. P. (1995). Nursing research. Principles and practice (5th Ed.). New York: J. B. Lippincott.
  18. Ruth K., Neil M., Paul W., Judith K. S, (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children's collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? Computer - Supported Collaborative Learning (2010) 5, 359-383
  19. Sajtos László, Mitev Ariel, SPSS kutatási és adatelemzési kézikönyv, Alinea kiadó, 2007
  20. Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., & Scrimshaw, P. (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project: Report to the Department for Education and Skills.
  21. Syh-Jong, J. (2010). Integrating the whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education 55 (1744-1751)
  22. Tar Zs., (2009), Case Study: Hungary - Interactive Whiteboard, http://moe.eun.org/c/document_library /get_file?uuid=c4d1dbdb-a98f-47d2-a9f1- 9172fb9d987f&groupId=10620 Retrieved 2.06.11.
  23. Virányi Ilona, Dr. Zrínyi Miklós, Dr. Baráthné Kerekes Ágnes, (2001). Ápolás és informatika. Megbízhatóság és validitás két attitud skála hazai adaptációja kapcsán, http://www.eski.hu/new3/kiadv/nover/2001/200105/V ZB.htm, Retrieved 2.06.11.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Piroska B. (2012). ATTITUDES OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD USERS . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-8565-06-8, pages 348-355. DOI: 10.5220/0003922703480355


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu12,
author={Biró Piroska},
title={ATTITUDES OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD USERS},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,},
year={2012},
pages={348-355},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003922703480355},
isbn={978-989-8565-06-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
TI - ATTITUDES OF INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD USERS
SN - 978-989-8565-06-8
AU - Piroska B.
PY - 2012
SP - 348
EP - 355
DO - 10.5220/0003922703480355