Yalın Kılıç Türel and Tristan E. Johnson report in “Teachers’ Belief and Use of Interactive Whiteboards for Teaching and Learning” on a study they conducted regarding teachers and interactive whiteboards in Turkey. Teacher perceptions and use of interactive whiteboards were researched and analyzed to determine if there is any relationship between the two. This may have implications for other research on interactive whiteboards when the data for these other studies relies heavily on teacher perception, especially if this perception is not addressed in these studies. There was also a need to examine the relationship, if any, between frequency of use and the training teachers are given in using interactive whiteboards in the classroom. Türel and Johnson designed research questions that addressed topics and sources of training for interactive whiteboards for teachers, the frequency and perceptions of the whiteboards, and what relationships exist between competency, discipline area, and perception of teachers in this area. Using a quantitative descriptive research method, the authors designed and distributed a questionnaire to teachers they determined had a sufficient amount of experience with interactive whiteboards. The teachers, who responded anonymously, were mostly under 36 years old and had been teaching for less than 10 years. The results were telling.
The majority of the teachers received training from either interactive whiteboard companies or educational students, but independent and group discovery and experience was also important for use. Teachers reported needing further training in technical knowledge and skills, teaching methods, and designing activities for interactive whiteboards. The most used feature of interactive whiteboards was the mousing function, and hyperlinks were used the least. Teacher perceptions about the use of interactive whiteboards were overwhelmingly positive as they felt the visualization of content was engaging and helpful for student learning, though responses indicated teacher-centered rather than student-centered processes. Analysis of the data indicated there is a relationship between the perceptions teachers had and the frequency and length of use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom, that the level of use moderately affected teacher perception. But what does all of this mean to teachers and schools? How does knowing this relationship exists help?
It seems the more knowledge and experience teachers have regarding interactive whiteboards, the more common and effective their use is in the classroom. In the article, the authors state “if we are to expect students to improve their learning in the classroom, teachers need to develop their technology skills and positive attitudes through continued collaborative training and practice.” (2012) While formal training on use is important, more value is given to learning from each other and on their own, which seems obvious given the amount of research and time we give the idea of students learning through personal discovery and from each other as being extremely effective methods. In my own experience, when new technologies are introduced the mandatory trainings are hurried, one-size-fits-all affairs that teach the absolute basics and rarely seem relevant to my own situation, forcing me to learn it on my own anyway but now without the time set aside to do so. One year the district I was teaching in at the time introduced a new web-based program that was mandatory for use in our classrooms. Even though I went to two trainings, one of which was advertised as for advanced users, I learned very little beyond what I had discovered just poking around the site. The trainer was unable to answer any of my specific questions, questions I had to research and find answers to on my own in the end anyway. My colleagues all went to each other for help and ideas on how to use the program. We even begged for time to work on the program on our own during professional development time or "teacher work days" but was never given any. The feeling was that this "unstructured time" for teachers was akin to "free time" for students: extremely unproductive without strict accountability, i.e. district approved activities. This mindset is condescending and at times outright insulting considering we are all educated professionals with a desire to work on methods to improve teaching and learning. And a need for time is supported by the research of Türel and Johnson (2012) as vital in a teacher's development of skills in using interactive whiteboards. It is
not a stretch to assume this finding could be repeated with other technologies, so why haven't we done anything about this at a local level? How do we begin to change the "free time is wasted time" mindset? I'm open to ideas.
