نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار رشته برنامه‌ریزی درسی دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران

2 کارشناسی ارشد برنامه‌ریزی درسی دانشگاه کردستان

3 کارشناسی ارشد برنامه‌ریزی آموزشی دانشگاه کردستان

چکیده

تحقیق حاضر به مطالعه تجربه دانش‌آموزان سال اول متوسطه از تخته‌های هوشمند می‌پردازد. بر این اساس اثربخشی تخته‌های هوشمند بر اساس نگرش، میزان یادگیری از طریق آنها و سهولت کاربرد آنها مطالعه شده است. برای این کار با استفاده از مدل تحقیق توصیفی- اکتشافی و رویکرد تحقیق کمی-کیفی، در بخش کمی تعداد 114 دانش‌آموز سال اول متوسطه به‌صورت هدفمند انتخاب شدند که به تازگی به مدت یک سال تجربه کار با تخته هوشمند را کسب کرده بودند. اطلاعات کمی با استفاده از مقیاس محقق ساخته، یعنی مقیاس نگرش به تخته هوشمند که پایایی آن با 24 گویه 904. به دست آمد، جمع‌آوری شدند. روایی سازه مقیاس از طریق نظریه‌های مربوط به تخته هوشمند و تحلیل عاملی تأیید شد و روایی متخصصان این مقیاس، توسط معلمان و متخصصان فنّاوری آموزشی تأیید شده است. در بخش کیفی داده‌های حاصل از مصاحبه با      20 نفر از دانش‌آموزان تحلیل شده‌اند. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان دادند که نگرش کلی دانش‌آموزان سال اول دوره متوسطه نسبت به استفاده از تخته هوشمند پایین‌تر از حد متوسط است. دانش‌آموزانی که برای اولین بار با تخته هوشمند مواجه شده‌اند کاربردهای واقعی تخته هوشمند را به دلایل مختلف مانند بی‌تجربگی معلمان، کمبود نرم‌افزارها و بسته‌های درسی الکترونیکی و فقدان برنامه‌های آموزشی منسجم و متناسب درک نکرده‌اند یا نگرش مثبتی نسبت به حضور تخته‌های هوشمند در کلاس‌های خود ندارند. بین نگرش نسبت به تخته‌های هوشمند در تجربه اولیه دانش‌آموزان با میزان یادگیری و سهولت کاربرد تخته‌ها ارتباط قوی مشاهده شد. مدل اثربخشی تخته هوشمند نیز که با سه مؤلفه نگرش، یادگیری و سهولت در تحقیقات قبلی تدوین شده بود در تحقیق حاضر مورد تأیید قرار گرفت.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The study of high school students’ experiences related to smart boards

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mostafa Ghaderi 1
  • Zahra Khoshnamond 2
  • Rahimeh Mohammadi 3

1 Associate Professor of Curriculum Curriculum, Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran.

2 Master of Curriculum Planning, Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran.

3 Master of Educational Planning, Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The aim of this research was the study of high school students’ experiences of smart boards. By descriptive – exploratory method and by quantitative – qualitative approach 114 students of high school are studied. The students had at least one year experience working with smart boards. Instruments of research were Smart Board Attitude Scale-SBAS (had 24 items and its reliability was .904) and interview. The findings of research showed that attitude of students related to smart board is low than average. The students who were working for first time with smart boards had different difficulties, for example: no experience teachers, no electronic curriculum packages and lack of tools and programs of teaching. At all, the students had not positive attitudes related to smart boards. The model of smart board’s effectiveness with three factors of attitude, learning and facilitation that explored at before researches is confirmed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • smart board
  • high school
  • Educational Technology
  • Attitude
  • Learning

Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use ofinteractive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457–469.

Beeland, W. D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help?.Retrieved 07. 06. 2011. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf.

Brown, S. (2003). Interactive Whiteboards in education. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Interactivewhiteboards.pdf.

Elaziz, F. (2008).Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of Interactive whiteboards in Efl classrooms.Unpublished master thesis, Bilkent.

Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactivewhiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102–117.

Kaya, H., & Aydın, F. (2011).Students’ views towards interactive white board applications in the teaching of geography themes in social knowledge lessons. Journal of World of Turks, 3(1), 179–189.

Lan, Tian-Syung, & Hsiao, Tsung-Yen (2011). A study of elementary school students’ viewpoints on interactive whiteboard. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(2), 172–176.

Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Retrieved 10. 06. 2011 from. http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm.

Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: the process of change in pedagogic practice. Education Information Technology, 13, 291–303.

López, O. S. (2009). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners’ academic success in mathematics and readingusing interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, In press,doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019

Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41, 26-34.

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82.

Mohtadi, S & Atashak, M. (2013).Efficiency of designed electronic assignment at English learning skills, Curriculum Research, 16(42),37-45.

Morgan, L. (2008). Improving student engagement: Use of the interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool to improve engagement and behavior in the junior high schoolclassroom.Unpublished doctoral thesis, The Faculty of the School of Education, Liberty University.

Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007).The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation. Retrieved 20.06.2011.www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR816.pdf.

NihatSad, S. (2012). An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability studies, Computers & Education, 58 (2012) 900–907.

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.

Shenton, A., &Pagett, L. (2008). From ‘bored’ to screen: the use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41(3), 129–136.

Smart Technologies Inc. [SMART]. (2006). Interactive whiteboards and learning improving student learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. White Paper, Retrieved 20.06.2011.http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/whitepapers/int_whiteboard_research_whitepaper_update.pdf.

Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher–pupil interaction in the National Literacy andNumeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443 - 457.

Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91–101.

Sobhaninejad, M & Mollazehi, A. (2011). The study of teacher’s necessary components for using ICT at school curriculum planning, Curriculum Research, 7(34), 42-59.

Tian-Syung,L&Tsung-Yen,H. (2011). A study of elementary school students’ viewpoints on interactive whiteboard. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(2), 172–176.

Torff, B., &Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379–383.

Turel, Y. K., & Demirli, C. (2010). Instructional interactive whiteboard materials: Designers’ perspectives. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1437–1442.

Walker, R. J. (2005). Teaching and Learning with Interactive Whiteboards. L. Marilyn, & N. Pachler, Dü. Learning to teach using ICT in the secondary school: A companion to school experience. New York: Rutledge.

Wood, R., &Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teachingand learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 39(1), 84–96.