Science Teachers’ Beliefs And Attitudes Towards The Use Of .
394Journal of Turkish Science Education. 16(3), 394-414Journal ofTURKISH SCIENCE EDUCATIONVolume 16, Issue 3, September 2019TÜRK FEN EĞİTİMİ DERGİSİYıl 16, Sayı 3, Eylül 2019http://www.tused.orgScience Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards the Use ofInteractive Whiteboards in Education*Ceren ANATÜRK TOMBAK1, Armağan ATEŞKAN2 1Bilkent University, Ankara- TURKEY2Assist. Prof. Dr., Bilkent University, Ankara- TURKEY, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5648-2385* This study is a part of M.A. thesis approved by Bilkent University. It is also presented at the 8th InternationalComputer and Instructional Technologies SymposiumReceived: 23.05.2019Revised: 04.07.2019Accepted: 11.09.2019The original language of article is English (v.16, n.3, September 2019, pp.394-414, doi: 10.12973/tused.10290a)Reference: Anatürk Tombak, C. & Ateşkan, A. (2019). Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes towars the Useof Interactive Whiteboards in Education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(3), 394-414.ABSTRACTThis study aimed to explore the beliefs and attitudes of 36 science teachers (biology, physics andchemistry) in six high schools in Ankara towards the use of Interactive White Boards (IWB). Of these,three teachers from each school were chosen for interview and classroom observations according to theirquestionnaire results with purposeful sampling method. The results were analyzed with descriptivestatistics and qualitative data analysis methods. According to the results, teachers agree that using IWBsfacilitate reaching different sources and display them to the whole class immediately. Teachers describethe common use of IWBs as showing visual materials, videos and animations in science classes. Themajority of teachers enjoy using the IWB technology and express positive feelings about it. Most teachersstate that they follow the advances in educational technology regularly. Since the frequencies areapproximately equal, no meaningful difference was found between teachers with different majors onstaying current with technology. The findings show that biology and chemistry teachers use IWB morefrequently than physics teachers. Although the teachers have positive attitudes towards the use of IWBs,it was seen that most of them do not feel comfortable while using them in the classrooms. The interviewsindicate the reason for that as insufficient in-service trainings.Keywords: Science teacher, interactive whiteboard, belief, attitude.INTRODUCTIONIn the twenty-first century, technology has increasingly been used in education field andespecially to support teaching students with different learning characteristics (Sözcü & İpek,2012). The Welsh Assembly Government in the United Kingdom (UK) stated that everyprimary school would be provided with one IWB, one computer and one projector(Beauchamp, 2004). After the pilot studies in England, this technology became a focus ofinterest among other countries in the world. The highest IWB penetration rate (73%) is in Corresponding author e-mail: ateskan@bilkent.edu.tr ISSN:1304-6020
Anatürk Tombak, C. & Ateşkan, A. (2019). Science Teachers’ Beliefs England (Liang, Huang & Tsai, 2012; McIntyre- Brown, 2011). Taiwan, Japan, Singapore,Malaysia, China and Russia are all actively advancing the integration of this technology inclassroom teaching. The United States of America (USA), Canada and Mexico are alsoconscious of the importance of using IWBs in classrooms (Liang et al., 2012).In addition to the other countries, in 2012, as part of a new project, Turkey launched apilot study on the use of IWBs and tablets in 52 schools across the country. The projectknown as FATİH (Movement of Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology) by theMinistry of National Education (MNE) is among the most significant educational investmentsof Turkey. The main goal of the project has been to make Information and CommunicationTechnologies (ICT) one of the main instruments of the education process. The project alsoaims to help teachers and students in classrooms to use these technologies effectively. Thus, itis expected of teachers to help students gain different points of view, create information oftheir own and be able to keep information through the years, and so, prepare for the futuregeneration from today (MNE, 2012).Since IWBs are already in use by teachers and students, the questions and studies focuson investigating their beliefs and attitudes towards the effectiveness and integration of theIWBs in the classroom. A considerable amount of studies indicate positive findings aboutusing IWBs in classrooms and also positive effects on learning (Habeeb, 2018; Şen & Ağır,2014). From a pedagogical perspective it is thought that IWBs facilitate collaborative groupworking among students (Kennewell & Morgan, 2003; Slay, Siebörger & HodgkinsonWilliams, 2008; Smith, Higgins, Wall & Miller, 2005). As students have an interactive,activity-based learning environment, they want to share their tasks and opinions with otherstudents in the classroom. Another advantage of the IWB is that it is a teaching tool that hashigh interactivity. According to Murcia and Sheffield (2010), the wealth of the pictures,diagrams and photos, moving objects, annotating information and shown animations on theboard enrich this interactivity. During lessons, students especially volunteer to answerquestions due to colorful images, shapes and games, so IWBs motivate students and increaseteacher-student interaction (Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2005; Murcia & Sheffield, 2010;Smith et al., 2005).Although most of the studies report positive results for the integration of thistechnology, there are some conflicts about improving students’ motivation and efficacy ofusage. For example, it is thought that teachers do not have adequate training to use IWBs totheir full potential (Marín-Diaza, Figueroa-Floresb & Varoa, 2017; Samsonova, 2019). Also,some of the students find them difficult to operate (Çoklar & Tercan, 2014; Smith et al.,2005). Other problems are stated by the teachers are in relation to the usage of the board andthe long time needed for preparation before the lesson. On sunny days, the teacher’s shadowmay fall on the screen during the writing process, so some of the students have difficulty inseeing the board clearly and also the sound that comes from the board marker disruptsstudents’ concentration during the lesson (Çoklar & Tercan, 2014; Erduran & Tataroğlu,2009).Computer facilities such as wireless internet, multimedia devices and applications suchas IWBs have started to enhance teaching and learning processes (Dinçer, 2015; MathewsAydınlı & Elaziz, 2010; Nafidi, Alami, Zaki, El Batri, & Afkar, 2018). Even if education withmodern technological tools has started to replace the traditional classroom techniques, thisevolution has raised a lot of questions and speculations along.Like many countries around the world, IWBs became fashionable classroom tools inTurkey in the scope of the FATİH Project. Although a considerable amount of studies haveemphasized positive attitudes towards the use of IWBs in classrooms, the differences in theeducation background of the country, pre-service trainings, and technological infrastructuresof the schools may cause diverse outcomes. According to Abuhmaid (2014), several factors395
396Journal of Turkish Science Education. 16(3), 394-414including teacher trainings, support of the school principals, adequate infrastructure, andmentoring are believed to be facilitating factors for the effective utilization of IWBs byteachers in the classrooms. Supporting the importance of the pre-service trainings, TheEuropean Commission (2013) states that, teachers’ confidence in using ICT can be asimportant as their technical competence, because confidence levels have an influence on thefrequency of utilisation of ICT based activities.In 2015, Ormanci, Cepni, Deveci and Aydin conducted researches about thematicreview of IWB use in science education. According to their findings, the researchers carriedout studies about IWBs because of gaps in the literature. The studies are done regarding theeffects of IWBs on student academic success, learning outcomes, users’ experiences. Theyalso highlighted the need of more studies about use of IWBs focusing on science education.Thus, by considering all of these issues, it is apparent that the utilisation of IWBs canvary in different countries and also educational technological background is a factor. Sincethis technology is new in Turkey, the literature has some lacking points in terms of teachers’acceptance of the IWBs in Turkey. In addition, there are limited studies about scienceteachers’ acceptance towards this technology.The aims of this study are to explore high school science teachers’ beliefs and attitudestowards the use of IWBs in science classes, to investigate particular IWB usage differencesamong three disciplines of science teachers (physics, chemistry and biology) from eachschool, and, to find out the contributions of IWBs to particular teaching processes of the highschool science teachers’ teaching processes.METHODSThe study utilized a mixed-methods approach with an embedded design. At thebeginning of the study, the attitudes of the high school science teachers towards the use ofIWBs were measured quantitatively with a questionnaire. This quantitative data wassupplemented by qualitative data which consisted of classroom observations and interviewswith the teachers. Observations of each class (physics, chemistry and biology) were used inorder to explore IWB usage processes and differences among these teachers. Interviews withscience teachers of each discipline (physics, chemistry and biology) were conducted tounderstand the contribution of IWBs to particular teaching processes and the main differencesamong subject area teachers towards the use of IWBs.a) ParticipantsThis study was conducted at six high schools in Ankara. Science teachers (biology,physics and chemistry) from each of the six high schools were selected. The total number ofsubjects in the sample was 46, but only 36 of the teachers were willing to fill thequestionnaire. This means 78.2% of the teachers participated in the study. Of these, threeteachers from each school were chosen by considering their questionnaire results withpurposeful sampling method. Thus, with two exclusions, 16 of the teachers were interviewedand observed in the classroom.b) InstrumentsThe instruments of the research consist of; questionnaire, interview, and classroomobservation.QuestionnaireIn this research, a questionnaire was used in order to explore high school teachers’beliefs and attitudes towards the use of IWBs. The original questionnaire was developed byMathews-Aydınlı and Elaziz (2010) to investigate attitudes of teachers towards the use of
Anatürk Tombak, C. & Ateşkan, A. (2019). Science Teachers’ Beliefs IWBs in English as Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. The questionnaire was adapted forthe science teachers by making the necessary pronoun changes. Specifically, the adaptationwas done by replacing “English” word with “science” in item 12, 13 and 15.The questionnaire includes a five-point Likert-type scale, open-ended and multiplechoice items. A reliability check with Cronbach’s Alpha resulted in the score of .78(Mathews-Aydınlı & Elaziz, 2010). Since the questionnaire was adapted for current studywith some changes, reliability was rechecked with Cronbach’s Alpha and resulted in the scoreof .84. In addition, to improve the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted in one of thehigh schools in Ankara with nine science teachers.Below, Table 1 shows the distribution of the questionnaire’s items and their dimensions.There are a total of 22 items in the questionnaire which consists of six dimensions: attitudesrelated to IWBs as a teaching tool (9 items), positive attitudes towards the use of IWBs (5items), negative attitudes towards the use of IWBs (5 items), attitudes towards teachertraining (2 items), the usage of IWBs in science classes (5 items) and the frequency of usingIWB (1 item).Table 1. Questionnaire questions and dimensionsDimensionsQuestionnaire questionsAttitudes related to IWBs as a teaching tool1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9Positive attitudes towards the use of IWBs10,12,17, 21, 22Negative attitudes towards the use of IWBs11,13,14,15,16,Attitudes towards teacher training18,19The usage of IWBs in science classes2,3,4,9,20The frequency of using IWB6InterviewIn order to explore the attitudes of science teachers towards the use of IWBs andproviding further insight, a semi-structured interview protocol (Harrell & Bradley, 2009) wasused. The questions in the protocol were adapted from the interview questions of MathewsAydınlı and Elaziz (2010). There were 14 open-ended questions in total, which coveredexploring teachers’ opinions about the benefits of IWBs, the most common problems aboutusing IWBs and general background information about the teachers. The interviews wereconducted with three of the science teachers from each school. Two of the teachers chose notto participate in the interviews and lesson observations. Therefore 16 out of 18 teachersparticipated in the interviews. The interviews were held in Turkish, and participants’responses were recorded on a voice recorder. In data analysis process, all answers weretranslated to English by the researcher.ObservationIn addition to the interview questions, quantitative data was supplemented byobservations of the three science classrooms (biology, physics and chemistry) from eachschool. An observation chart was developed after a literature review and partially adaptedfrom Altınçelik (2009). The questions in the chart basically focused on teachers’ commonuses of the IWBs in science classes and their common problems related to IWB use. Also,there was an independent part with a sketch of the classroom that includes the location of theIWB.c) Data AnalysisQuantitative data analysisAll of the items in the questionnaires were analyzed comparatively with descriptivestatistics using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, v.15.0). All the Likert-scale397
398Journal of Turkish Science Education. 16(3), 394-414items consisted of a five-point scale: strongly agree (5), agree (4) no idea (3), disagree (2),and strongly disagree (1). While calculating means and standard deviations, the option “Noidea” was excluded from the variables in order to investigate only the degree of actualagreement and disagreement among the participants. Since the descriptive analysis methodwas used for data analysis, means, frequencies and percentages were used to represent thedata.Qualitative data analysisQualitative data examined in the research was gathered from the semi-structuredinterviews and observations. Grich (2013) indicates that two stages are needed for analysis ofinterview or observational data; the first stage is the transcription and the second is thepreliminary analysis of the data. To follow these steps, gathered data was grouped accordingto conceptual framework, research questions or key variables and provided in a proper displayformat. Miles and Huberman (1994) defined this procedure as coding for analysis.At this stage of the study, responses from the interview section were transcribed to beginthe data analysis. A structured coding system was created by considering the meanings of theresponses and actions of the teachers. To keep teachers’ personal data confidential, numberswere given as a code to each interviewee. Interviews were analyzed after categorizing thecommon responses with the help of color codes, and under sub-categories. For analyzingclassroom observations, a checklist which contained all the gathered data from observationcharts was prepared. The data in the observation charts were grouped according to commonfeatures and categories. Then, all data which derived from interviews and observations werecategorized by considering research questions. Thus, this allowed the researchers to analyzethe qualitative data from two different perspectives.FINDINGSThe results were obtained from the analysis of data, which were related to scienceteachers’ attitudes towards using IWBs, usage in the science classrooms, differences amongdisciplines, and contributions of IWBs to particular teaching processes.a) Attitudes of high school science teachers towards the use of IWBsAttitudes of high school science teachers towards the use of IWBs were categorized intofour sub-sections: Teachers’ attitudes towards IWBs as a teaching toolTeachers’ positive attitudes towards the use of IWBsTeachers’ negative attitudes towards the use of IWBsTeacher attitudes towards training programs about IWBsTeachers’ attitudes towards IWBs as a teaching toolTeachers’ attitudes towards the use of IWBs as teaching tools were investigated withnine questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) of the questionnaire.Table 2. Teachers' attitudes towards IWB as a teaching 32.911.2454.250.963.611.0503.811.167
Anatürk Tombak, C. & Ateşkan, A. (2019). Science Teachers’ Beliefs 08.38.358.325.0Note: f: Frequency SD: Strongly disagree (1) D: Disagree (2) NI: No idea (3) A: Agree (4) SA: Strongly agree(5)SD: Standard DeviationQ1: Using the IWB resources reduces the time I spend writing on the board.Q2: When using IWBs in the classroom, I spend more time for the preparation of the lesson.Q3: I think using IWBs makes it easier to reach different sources and display them to the whole classimmediately.Q4: IWBs are beneficial for saving and printing the materials generated during the lesson.Q5: I can give explanations more effectively with the use of IWBs.Q6: With the help of the IWB, I can easily control the whole class.Q7: I think IWBs can be a good supplement to support teaching.Q8: Using IWBs makes me a more efficient teacher.Q9: Using IWBs makes it easier for a teacher to review, re-explain, and summarize a subject.Q6According to mean scores given in Table 2, teachers agree with most of the statementsin the questionnaire. The highest mean score belongs to question three, approximately 88.9%(N 32) of the teachers think that IWBs make it easier to reach different sources and displaythem to the whole class immediately. The second highest mean score belongs to questionnine, 83.3% (N 30) of the teachers think that using IWBs make it easier for teachers toreview, re-explain, and summarize. Regarding the first question, 58.3% (N 21) of theteachers think that using the IWB resources reduce the time they spend writing on the board.For the second question, 37.1% (N 13) of the teachers reveal that when they use IWBs in theclassroom, they spend more time for the preparation of the lesson. Regarding the results offourth question, 66.7% (N 24) of the teachers agree that IWBs are beneficial for saving andprinting the materials generated during the lesson. Looking at the responses to the fifthquestion, 72.3% (N 26) of the teachers agree that they can give explanations more effectivelywith the use of IWBs.The sixth question has the lowest mean score in this category (M 2.89). 37.1% (N 13)of the teachers disagree that with the help of using the IWB, they can easily control the wholeclass, while 28.6% (N 10) of the teachers indicate that they have no idea about this statement.For the seventh question, 80.6% (N 29) of the teachers indicate that IWBs can be a goodsupplement to support teaching. Furthermore, looking at the responses to the eighth question,50% (N 18) of the teachers agree that using IWBs makes them more efficient teachers.Teachers’ positive attitudes towards the use of IWBsTeachers’ positive attitudes related to the use of IWBs were investigated wit
Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes towars the Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(3), 394-414. ABSTRACT This study aimed to explore the beliefs and attitudes of 36 science teachers (biology, physics and chemistry) in six high schools in Ankara towards the use of Interactive White Boards .
Beliefs The first component is beliefs. A consumer may hold both positive beliefs toward an object (e.g., coffee tastes good) as well as negative beliefs (e.g., coffee is easily spilled and stains papers). In addition, some beliefs may be neutral (coffee is black), and some may be differ in valance depending on the person or the
interesting teaching world with some beliefs that matched their practices and others that differed from it. This research study made the researcher conscious about other interesting aspects related to the teaching beliefs and how relevant the teachers' academic background and the impact it had on their beliefs and their practice was
KS2.2: Beliefs and practices, Hinduism 1 Ealing Agreed Syllabus: guidance for teachers KS2.2: Beliefs and practices, Hinduism Overall aim: To explore some of the beliefs and practices that fall under the umbrella term "Hinduism" Origins Pupils will know that the Hindu dharma originated in India think about the origins of their own family's
Generally, these views are subconscious, but can have an impact on an individual's beliefs about . Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 4(3), (Oct., 2016) 21-36 23 . stability in others. Olson and Jimenez-Silva (2008) explored the change in preservice teachers' beliefs and attitudes toward ELLs after required ESL endorsement .
On Computable Beliefs of Rational Machines IBM Research Division, Almaden Research Center, San Jose, California 95120-6099, and . beliefs may be determined by the basic beliefs but the program cannot even approximate them. It should be noted that in this paper we do not . beliefs, so a pair (Mi, Mj) entails a complete description of the .
2.5.2 The role of principals in developing learners' and teachers' attitudes and teachers' positive attitudes towards Mathematics 38 2.5.3 Giving learners sufficient opportunity to learn Mathematics 39 2.5.4 Promoting positive attitudes through co-operative learning 40 2.6 CONCLUSION 41 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
3 European attitudes Public attitudes to biomass cofiring 7 The attitudes of Europeans to climate change and mitigation technologies have been reviewed by Fernando (2006) with data mainly from Eurobarometer reports. The attitudes of citizens of all the countries in the EU on a variety of subjects are regularly published in these reports. The .
Astrodienst Ephemeris Tables for the year 1993 tropical zodiac contains Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, True Node, Moon's .
