Interactive Digital Whiteboards: What are the Levels of Satisfaction, Needs and Contributions from the Teachers’ Point of View?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71701/kczfak66Keywords:
Technology, user satisfaction, educational innovation, methodological strategies, teaching and learningAbstract
The interactive digital whiteboard is one of the most innovative development emerged in recent years to improve the teaching and learning process. The study described aims to determine the levels of satisfaction of teachers, in relation to the use of interactive whiteboard (IDW); as well as identifying the factors that are related to teachers in order to use it. A mixed methodology was applied, combining both quantitative and qualitative aspects, with a non-experimental «ex post facto» design. For the data collection, a questionnaire with 15 Likert-type items and an interview guideline were elaborated; surveys were applied to one hundred teachers and twelve teachers were interviewed. They worked in the district of Mariano Melgar, Arequipa region. The analysis of the quantitative data was carried out using the «principal component analysis» technique, using a varimax rotation; the qualitative data was processed using the «content analysis» technique. In the analysis of main components four dimensions were identified, that were called: infrastructure, design and implementation, methodological strategies and monitoring and, evaluation, which explain 67.497% of the total variance. From «content analysis» emerged three categories: teacher professional development, sustainability and scalability, monitoring and feedback. The study concludes that there is a positive perception, linked to the infrastructure component. However, it was evident that the position of the teachers, compared to the design, implementation and development of the initiative, is quite unfavorable.
Downloads
References
Almeida, T., Pinto, S., y Piccolo, H. (2007). AutoAvaliação na fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande: Metodologia de Avaliaão. Avaliaão Campinas: Sorocaba, SP.
Anaya, P., Poblete, A. (2017). Barreras y facilitadores para el uso de las TIC en una muestra de profesores del subsector biología de establecimientos educacionales de la ciudad de Los Ángeles (seminario de título para optar al título profesional, Universidad de Concepción).
André, M., Ludke, M. (1986). Pesquisa em Educação: abordagems qualitativas. São Paulo: E. P. U.
BECTA (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/1MOylOj
Belmont, R. (1979). Informe Belmont. Principios éticos y normas para el desarrollo de las investigaciones que involucran a seres humanos. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2pTAlMG
Bogdan, R., Bilken, S. (1982). Qualitative reserach for Education: an instroduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cantalejo, I., y Lorda, P. (2005). Problemas éticos de la investigación cualitativa. Granada: Fundación Hospital de las Nievas.
Dancey, C. (2006). Estatística sem matemática para psicología. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Di Conza, J., Quiroga, C. (2013). Las responsabilidades éticas en la publicación de artículos científicos. Revista Argentina de Microbiología. 45(4), 219-221.
Domingo, M. (2011). Pizarra Digital Interactiva en el aula: Uso y valoraciones sobre el aprendizaje. Interactive Whiteboard in the Classroom: Use and Evaluation of Learning, vol. (20). 99-116
Duan, Y. (2010). Teaching interactively with Interactive Whiteboard: Teachers are the key. Networking and Digital Society (ICNDS), 2. a International Conference, 1, 144-147.
Feicht, L. (2000). Guess and Check: Aviable problemsolving strategy. Learning & Leadingwith, Technology, 27 ( 5), 50 – 54.
Field, A. (2009). Descobrindo a Estatística usando o SPSS; tradução Lori Viali. (2.a ed.) Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Flick, U. (2009). Qualidade na pesquisa qualitativa. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Friel, C. (2009). Notes on Factor Analysis. Criminal Justice Centre, Sam Houston State University.
Gadbois, S., Haverstock, N. (2012). Middle Years Science Teachers Voice Their First Experiences With Interactive Whiteboard Technology. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(1), 121-135
Gallego,J., Cacheiro, A., Maria, L., Dulac, J. (2009). La pizarra interactiva como recurso docente, teoría de la educación. Educación y cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 10(2), 127-145.
Gil, A. (2010). Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. (5.a ed.) São Paulo: Atlas.
Gonzáles, A., De Pablos, J. (2015). Factores que dificultan la Integración de las TIC en las Aulas. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 33(2), 401-417.
González, L., Recamán, A., González, C. (2013). La dimensión colaborativa con TIC en la dirección de centros. REIFOP, 16(1), 147-162.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Hamui-Sutton, A. (2013). Un acercamiento a los métodos mixtos de investigación en educación médica. Departamento de investigación educativa. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2(8), 211-216.
Hennessy, S. (2011). The role of digital artefacts on the interactive whiteboard in supporting classroom dialogue. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 463–489.
Hepp, P., Pérez, M., Aravena, C., Zoro, B. (2017). Desafíos para la integración de las TIC en las escuelas: implicaciones para el liderazgo educativo. Informe técnico N.° 22017. Santiago de Chile: Líderes educativos, Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora Escolar. VOLUMEN 12, 2018 107
Kozma, R., McGhee, R. (2003) ICT and innovative classroom practices. En Technology, Innovation and Educational Change 43-80. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.
Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Sheffield: Sheffield Excellence in Cities Partnershi.
Malamud, O., Pop-Eleches, C. (2011). Home Computer Use and the Development Human Capital. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 126(2), 987-1027.
Martín, J., Beltrán, J., Pérez, L. (2003). Como aprender con internet. Madrid: Foro pedagógico de internet).
Molina, J., López, M., Pereira, J., Pertusa, E., y Tarí, J. (2012). Métodos híbridos de investigación y dirección de empresas: Ventajas e implicancias. Cuadernos de economía y dirección de empresas. Universidad de Alicante, 15, 55-62.
Moraes, R., Galiazzi, M. (2007). Análise textual discursiva. Ijuí: Unijuí.
Miquel, S., Bigne, E., Levy, J., Cuenca, A., Miquel, M. (1996). El cuestionario. Escala y técnicas de medida. En Investigación de Mercados. Madrid: McGrawHill.
Neto, J., Moita, G. (1998). Uma introdução á análise exploratória de dados multivariados. Química Nova, 21(4).
O’Hanlon, Ch. (2007). BoardCertified. Recuperado de http://thejournal.com/Articles/.
Oliveira, T. (2001). Escalas de Mensuração de Atitudes: Thurstone, Osgood, Stapel, Likert, Guttman, Alpert. FECARP. FundaçãoEscola de Comércio, 2(2).
Ortega, M. (2006). Propuesta de introducción en el currículum de las competencias de la educación. ILPEUNESCO. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2P2jDsO
Rodríguez, G., Gil, J., García, E. (1999). Cuestionario. Aspectos básicos sobre el análisis de datos cualitativos En Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. (2.ª ed). Granada: Editorial Aljibe. 185-216.
Sad, S., Özhan, U. (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59, 1184–1191.
Solvie, P. (2004). The Digital Whiteboard: A Tool in Early Literacy Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 484-487.
Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers&Comupters, (53), 368-374.
Slay H., Hodgkinson, Ch. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just ‘‘lipstick”? Computers &Education, (51), 1321-1341.
Stake, R. (1999). Investigación con estudio de casos. (2ª ed.) Madrid: Ediciones Morata. S. L.
Toledo, P., Sánchez, J. (2013). Utilización de la pizarra digital interactiva como herramienta en las aulas universitarias. Apertura, 5(1), 20-35
Thomas, G. (2008). Elements of a national strategy to foster effective use of technology in elementary and secondary education. California: RAN Corporation.
Urra, E., Muñoz, A., Peña, J. (2013). El análisis del discurso como perspectiva metodológica para investigadores de salud. Enfermería universitaria. ELSEVIER, 10(2), 50-57.
Vincent, J. (2007). The interactive whiteboard in an early years classroom: A case study in the impact of a new technology on pedagogy. Australian educational computing, 2, 20-25.
Whyburn, L., Way, J. (2012). Student perceptions of the influence of IWBs on their learning in mathematics. Australian Educational Computing, 27(1), 23-27.
Yin, R. (2001). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. Trad. Daniel Grassi. (2.a ed.) Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Yin, R. (2002). Case Study Research II: Design and Methods. (3.a ed). Nueva York: Sage Publications.
Zamora, S., Monroy, L., Chávez, C. (2009). Análisis factorial: una técnica para evaluar la dimensionalidad de las pruebas. Cuaderno técnico 6. México D. F.: Centro Nacional de Evaluación para la Educación Superior. A. C.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., y Byers, J. (2002) Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations. Teachers College Record. 104(3), 482-515.
Zucker, A., Bonifaz, A. (2005) Lessons Learned About Providing Laptops For All Students. NEIRTEC. Boston: SRI International.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
