You are here:

Teachers' Perceptions of Interactive Boards for Teaching and Learning in Public and Private High Schools in the Arab Education System in Israel
ARTICLE

, Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education & An-Najah National University ; , Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education ; , Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education & Kaye Academic College of Education, Beer-Sheva, Israel

iJET Volume 7, Number 1, ISSN 1863-0383 Publisher: International Journal of Emerging Technology in Learning, Kassel, Germany

Full Text

Abstract

Interactive boards are becoming an integral part of the educational scene in schools in the western countries and are not considered just an additional aid to teaching. In Israel too, interactive boards are becoming gradually part of the educational scene, so evaluation is needed for various aspects of teachers' teaching and students' learning with these new tools. One such important aspect is teachers' perceptions of the interactive board as a tool for teaching and learning. This research intended to examine the difference between teachersâ?? perceptions of four aspects of the interactive boards: pedagogic, didactic, technical-pedagogic, and technical-didactic aspects. We examined teachers' perceptions of these aspects in public and private schools. In addition, we examined the difference between the perceptions of those who use the computer for teaching and those who do not. Further, we examined the reasons that prevent teachers from using the interactive boards in public schools as compared to private schools. The data was collected through a questionnaire which examines teachersâ?? perceptions of four aspects of using the interactive boards. The participants were 217 high school teachers (157 public high school teachers and 60 private high school teachers). The research findings show that there exist significant differences between teachersâ?? perceptions of the interactive board for teaching and learning regarding (1) type of school, and (2) use of computers for teaching goals. No significant difference was found between reasons that prevent teachers from using the interactive boards in public and private school except one reason: the shortage of interactive board in every classroom. We discuss the findings and draw appropriate conclusions. It was also interesting to examine the reasons that prevent teachers from using the interactive boards, and whether there is difference in these reasons in public schools as compared to private schools.

Citation

Daher, W., Abu-Hussein, J. & Alfahel, E. (2012). Teachers' Perceptions of Interactive Boards for Teaching and Learning in Public and Private High Schools in the Arab Education System in Israel. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 7(1), 10-18. Kassel, Germany: International Journal of Emerging Technology in Learning. Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Jones, A. & Vincent, J. (2010). Collegial mentoring for effective whole school professional development in the use of IWB technologies. In M. Thomas & A. Jones (Eds), Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(Special issue, 4), 477-493. Retrieved April 20, 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/jones.html
  2. Campbell, C. & Kent, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards in pre-service teacher education: Examples from two Australian universities. In M. Thomas & A. Jones (Eds), Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4), 447-463. Retrieved April 20, 2011from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/campbell.html
  3. Glover D. & Miller D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10, 257–276.
  4. Kuzminsky, T.V. (2008). Interactive Whiteboard Technology within the Kindergarten Visual Arts Classroom. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Art Education. Georgia Public University. Retrieved April 20, 2011 from http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-041220 08-104815/unrestricted/kuzminsky_tracy_v_200805_maed.pdf.pd f
  5. 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 (4), 1553-1568.
  6. Wall, K., Higgins, S. And Smith, H (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated things: pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology 36 (5), 851-867. Retrieved April 20, 2011from http://davidlongman.com/documents/Interactive%20WhIteboards/thevisualhelpsmeunderstand.pdf
  7. Beeland, W.D. Jr (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: can interactive whiteboards help? Annual Conference
  8. Missika, A. & Rotem, A. (2008). Interactive White Board: review, evaluation of its use & Uses. Online Journal (In Hebrew).
  9. Andrews, P. (2007, September). Conditions for learning: A footnote on pedagogy and didactics. Mathematics Teaching, 204, 22.
  10. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations for the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22.
  11. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
  12. Jetton, T.L., & Alexander, P.A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290-308.
  13. Silva, E. (2001). Pedagogic Competency of the Brazilian University Professor. Retrieved April 20, 2011 from http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/sil01089.htm
  14. Chick, H., Baker, M., Pham, T. & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for decimals. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 297-304. Prague: PME.
  15. Can, G. & Cagiltay; K. (2006). Turkish Prospective Teachers' Perceptions Regarding the Use of Computer Games with Educational Features. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), 308321.
  16. Trouilloud, D.O.; Sarrazin, P.G.; Martinek T.J. & Guillet, E. (2002). The influence of teacher expectations on students' achievement in physical education classes: Pygmalion revisited, European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 591–607.
  17. Lee, V., Dedrick, R. & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208. Http://dx.doi.org/10.23 07/2112851
  18. Selfe, C.L., & Hawisher G.E. (2004). Literate lives in the information age: Narratives on literacy from the United Publics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  19. Mantero, M., & McVicker, P. (2006). The Impact of Experience and Coursework: Perceptions of Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Radical Pedagogy, 8(1). Retrieved April 20, 2011 from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue8_1/mantero.html
  20. Doyle, E., Stamouli, I., & Huggard, M. (2005). Computer anxiety, self-efficacy, computer experience: An investigation throughout a computer science degree. A paper presented at the 35th Annual
  21. Al-Siyaty, A. (2004). The influence of using the computer on developing part of the innovative thinking of grade 2 students in Siwodi schools. The Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 5(3), 151-177 (In Arabic).
  22. Cross, D.I. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: Examining mathematics teachers' belief structures and their influence on instructional practices. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 12, 335346.
  23. Jaber. O. & Daher, W. (2010). Relations among the Educational Constructs of Elementary School Geometry Teachers. The International Journal of Learning, 17 (2), 371-390.
  24. Lockheed, M.E. & Zhao, Q. (1993). The empty opportunity: local control and secondary school achievement in the Philippines. International Journal of Educational Development, 13 (1), 45-62.
  25. Beasley, W. & Sutton, R. (1993). Integration of computers in schools: Three levels of teacher expertise. Journal on Computing in Teacher Education, 9(4), 11–15.
  26. Cogill, J. (2002). How is the interactive whiteboard being used in the primary school and how does this affect teachers and teaching? Retrieved April 20, 2011 from http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/IFS_Interactive_whiteboards_in_tHe_primary_school.pdf
  27. Lai, H.-J. (2010). Secondary school teachers' perceptions of interactive whiteboard training workshops: A case study from Taiwan. In M. Thomas & A. Jones (Eds), Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 511-522. Retrieved April 20, 2011from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/lai.html
  28. Bingimlas, K.A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References