Session Information
16 SES 12 B, ICT in the Classroom
Paper Session
Contribution
The focus of our presentation is the use of smart boards in the classroom. The research was done in the frame of the programme called EFOP-3.2.4. „Development of digital competences” which is the antecedent of an RRF-1.2.1. programme called „Providing equal accessibility to digital education to students and teachers”. These two programmes are originated from recognizing the latest international trends and the needs of educational institutions as for the latest digital technology is concerned.
The research problem is to track changes indicated by central governmental development in the convergent regions of Hungary focusing on supplying them with interactive displays. Our purpose was to identify changes in Hungary compared to international trends as far as the number of interactive displays is concerned, identify possible changes in teachers’ classroom practice due to professional development trainings completed in the frame of the programme.
The research questions are:
- How is the learning environment in the least developed regions changing because of the governmental intervention including supplying schools in these regions with interactive displays?
- What are teachers’ attitudes towards the use of interactive displays?
- What are the main quantitative characteristics of the teachers’ practices regarding the use of interactive displays?
- What are the main qualitative characteristics of the teachers’ practices regarding the use of interactive displays?
The importance of digital literacy in our everyday life and in the labour market is unquestionable (Ala-Mutka 2011, Area & Pessoa 2012). The notion of digital transformation has been defined in almost every field of life. Education is also an area of digital transformation, consequently the need of change in pedagogical perspectives has become a highly important issue (European Commission 2019a, b). A great number of researches has dealt with the role of digital tools including interactive white boards and interactive displays in education and tackling challenges related to them. A meta-analysis taking and pooling research results between 2002-2011 identified seven problem areas (Shi et al, 2012). From the aspect of our research, the issue of spreading and concentration of technology takes priority. The most important question is how availability of digital tools (interactive displays) is changing due to central governmental interventions. The target populations of the researches were teachers and students whose attitudes, behaviours, expectations, feelings and other mental activities towards interactive displays were analysed.
In some cases, the procurement has been accompanied by researches, which can be identified as a continuation of researches related to the use of interactive white boards, since their introduction and spread, and professional experiences, assessment of their use are essential to professional knowledge related to interactive displays. Consequently, the need of change in professional beliefs and concepts has become apparent. The most recent studies have investigated the advantages and disadvantages of interactive displays from the students’ and teachers’ perspectives (İpek & Sözcü, 2016; Schmid & Schimmack, 2010; Sad & Ozhan, 2012; Yıldız & Tüfekçi, 2012; Yang, Yorgancı, & Terzioğlu, 2013; Warwick, Hennessy & Mercer, 2011), the internal and external factors of integrating the use of interactive displays into teaching practice (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010; Stroud et al., 2014), their role in making learning more efficient (Saltan & Arslan, 2013; Saltan, 2019; Türel & Johnson, 2012; Akar, 2020).
Our research fills a gap and is unparalleled with its big sample because of the lack of researches related to interactive displays. It is based on the series of governmental actions, including procurement, installation of 3000 interactive displays, organizing professional training for teachers in the convergent regions of Hungary in 2019. Thus, we intended to contribute to the support of teachers’ conceptual change.
Method
Research design: Our results are based on two big-sampled quantitative studies carried out in 2020 and 2021. During the research, we used an excavating-descriptive strategy, in which the data was collected in a two-step process. The purpose of the studies was to explore the changes after procurement of interactive displays and professional training specialised on their use. Sampling: The data collection took place in Hungary in two stages, in the spring of 2020 (N1=12657) and 2021 (N2=9754) in both cases during the period of classroom education. In the research, the so-called teachers working in school district-maintained institutions of the convergence region participated. Regarding the age of the respondents, the youngest respondent was 22 years old and the oldest was 79 years old at the time of the survey. The sample matched to the data of the national average, thus, it can be said to be representative of gender and age distribution. The most significant part of the responding teachers (34%) teach humanities or real subjects (28%) in the highest number of hours. The proportion of teachers who teach arts, foreign languages and sports in the highest number of hours is approximately the same (12%, 10%, 9%). 7% of the respondents have the highest number of individual sessions. Research method: Both measurements were done using an online questionnaire, mainly in the framework of questions containing single-choice, multiple-choice, ranking, attitude and frequency scales. The questionnaires had four parts: general questions, questions inquiring about the frequency of the use of interactive displays. Questions referring to the qualitative use of interactive displays (What are their most and least beneficial functions? Which of their functions do you prefer using? What didactic goals do you consider when using interactive displays?) The last group of questions was about trainings referring to the use of interactive displays focusing on different levels of trainings. Data analyzation: During the data analysis, descriptive (mean, median, mode) and mathematical statistical tests (correlation and difference tests) were used. Independents variables were the grade of students and the subjects taught, and teachers’ participation in professional trainings organized within the frame of the program. With the help of analysing the role of independent variables, we could draw a wider picture of the use of digital tools, the teachers’ methods applied during teaching and we could identify some problematic areas of development.
Expected Outcomes
As 3000 interactive displays were distributed among schools in the convergence regions, the position of Hungary in the European Union regarding the portion of interactive displays has strengthened. Comparing the results of the two measurements, it can be said that the frequency of using the interactive display in the classroom has increased significantly over a year. Our results give a deeper dimension to the former results (İpek & Sözcü, 2016; Schmid & Schimmack, 2010; Sad & Ozhan, 2012; Yıldız & Tüfekçi, 2012; Yang, Yorgancı, & Terzioğlu, 2013; Warwick, Hennessy & Mercer, 2011) describing the advantages and disadvantages of interactive displays pointing out new benefits and drawbacks in teachers’ point of view. Moreover, we could identify special patterns of their use. The patterns have changed depending on the grades and subjects taught by the teachers during the preiod of research. It shows how teachers try to integrate their use into everyday practice (Drayton, Falk, Stroud, Hobbs & Hammerman, 2010; Stroud et al., 2014). Furthermore, the teachers’ ICT qualification significantly influences the frequency of use and the range of functions showing the qualitative aspects of interactive display use. Among the didactic goals illustration, introduction of new teaching material, direct motivation and frontal work keep their leading position. Comparing the results of two measurements in 2020 and 2021, we can identify manly quantitative changes in the use of interactive displays. It means that we cannot expect revulsion as a result of bigger number of available interactive displays and trainings enhancing their use. We should accept that smaller scale; mainly quantitative changes can be identified due to governmental interventions.
References
Akar, H. (2020). The effect of smart board use on academic achievement: A meta-analytical and thematic study. IJE in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 8(3), 261-273. Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual Understanding, Publications Office of the European Union. Area, M. & Pessoa, T. (2012). From solid to liquid: New literacies to the cultural changes of Web 2.0 Communicar. 38, 13-20. Drayton, B., Falk, J., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, J. (2010). After installation: Ubiquitous computing and high school science in three experienced high-technology schools. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 1-57. European Commission (2019a). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education – Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. Luxembourg European Commission (2019b). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education – Objective 2: Model for a ‘highly equipped and connected classroom’. Luxembourg Mercer, S. N. Hennessy & P. Warwick (2010). “Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 195–209. İpek, İ., & Sözcü, Ö. F. (2016). Preferences and Attitudes for Using Interactive Whiteboards in Different Courses and Learning. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1), 173-184. Paksi, B. & Schmidt, A. (2017). Pedagógusok új infokommunikációs technológiák használatával kapcsolatos tapasztalatai és vélekedései. EDUCATIO, 26(2), 196-215. Şad, S. N., Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1184–1191. Saltan, F. (2019). The New Generation of Interactive Whiteboards: How Students Perceive and Conceptualize? PER Vol. 6(2), pp. 93-102 Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2013). Teachers’ Perception of Interactive White Boards: A Case Study. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2), 353-365. Schmid, E.C., & Schimmack, E. (2010). First Steps toward a Model of Interactive Whiteboard Training for Language Teachers. IGI Global, USA Shi, Y., Yang, Z., Yang, H. H. & Liu, S. (2012). The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Education. ICIMCS’12, China. Stroud, R., Drayton, B. K. & Falk, J. (2014). Interactive Whiteboard Use in High-Tech Science Classrooms: Patterns of Integration. IJET, 9(9), pp. 41–49. 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. Warwick, P., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2011). Promoting teacher and school development through co-enquiry: Developing interactive whiteboard use in a ‘dialogic classroom’. Teachers and Teaching, 17(3), 303–324.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.