WHITEBOARDS IN PEDAGOGICAL SETTINGS: LEAVE IT OR USE IT?
Corresponding Author(s) : Veni Nella Syahputri
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews,
Vol. 8 No. 3 (2020): May
Purpose of the study: This study aimed at finding out the efficiency of traditional whiteboard use in classroom settings. It is known that there are a lot of advancements in teaching and learning tools, including the means of whiteboards which can be altered by using projectors.
Methodology: This study was mainly under the qualitative design where the authors mainly weighed the data reliability on the quality of the respondents’ responses through the open-ended questionnaire set. There were 177 senior college students involved as the respondents, who volunteered to fill out the questionnaire set about the effectiveness and efficiency of whiteboard use in classroom settings. The data gathered from the questionnaire were then analyzed using percentages to see the students’ agreement on the statements in the questionnaire set.
Main findings: The results indicate that students still perceive that whiteboards—despite its traditionalism—help assist their learning process.
Applications of this study: However, there are several points that teachers need to justify concerning the whiteboard skills namely general writing ability including handwriting legibility, setting-up ability, making optimum use of whiteboards, and cleaning up compliance.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study takes into account the efficiency of conventional whiteboard uses in the globalized era. Although a lot of kinds of digital whiteboards and projectors are in use, students still consider that the use of conventional whiteboard is still necessary.
- Ahmed, S., & Conlan, C. (2011). Same old, same old: From boring to the creative presentation. BRAC University Journal, VIII(1&2), 63-72.
- Al-Drees, A., Khalil, M. S., Meo, S. Y., and Abdulghani, H. M. (2015). Utilization of blackboard among undergraduate medical students: Where we are from reality? Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 10(1), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2014.07.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2014.07.002
- Asnawi. (2015). The effects of immersive multimedia learning with peer support on speaking skills among male and female students. Studies in English Language and Education, 2(2), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v2i2.2694 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v2i2.2694
- Baltram, A. W. (1981). The whiteboard: A link between a teacher and a learner. UNICEF-UNESCO cooperative program.
- Becker, H. J. (2000). Access to classroom computers. Communications of the ACM, 43(6), 24-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/345124.345132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/345124.345132
- Bell, K. E., & Limber, J. E. (2010). Reading skills, textbook marking, and course performance. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802695879 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802695879
- Biklen, S. K., & Bogdan, R. C. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and method, 2nd Edition. Allyn and Bacon.
- Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2007). The blackboard learning system. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 35, 301-314. https://doi.org/10.2190/X137-X73L-5261-5656 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/X137-X73L-5261-5656
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., &Cocking, R. R. (Eds). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
- Chinhanu, C. (1995). Construction: Theory and practice in mathematics education. The Zimbabwe Bulletin of Teacher Education, 4(2), 1-24.
- delCampo, J. M., Negro, V., & Núñez, M. (2013). Use and abuse of audio-visual media in the college classroom: Slides show and web pages. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 93, 190-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.176
- Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
- Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
- Fuson, K. C., &Smith, S. T. (1998). The chalkboard activity structure as a facilitator of helping, understanding, discussing, and reflecting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-15). San Diego, California.
- Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one to one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 361-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782443
- Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671
- Greiffenhagen, C., (2000). From traditional blackboards to interactive whiteboards: a pilot study to inform system design. Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-24) (pp. 305-313). Hiroshima, Japan.
- Gursul, F., &Tozmaz, G. B. (2010). Which one is smarter? Teacher or board. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(2), 5731-5737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.936 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.936
- Hale, S., & Napier, J. (2013). Research methods in interpreting: A practical resource. Bloomsbury Academic.
- Hamzah, N., Roosli, W. N. A. W., Ismail, M. E., & Ariffin, A. (2019). The usage of the massive open online course (MOOC) in teaching and learning among students. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(3), 398-404. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7358 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7358
- Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russel, J., & Smaldino, S. (1996). Instructional media and technologies for learning. Prentice Hall, Inc.
- Hendry, C. (2015). Whiteboard teaching in the age of technology. https://carleton.ca/edc/2015/chalkboard-teaching-in-the-age-of-technology/
- Husniyah, A. (2019). Investigating demotivational factors in Indonesian EFL classrooms: The case of Madrasa students. Studies in English Language and Education, 6(1), 44-60. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v6i1.12210 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v6i1.12210
- Iserhagen, J. C. (1999). Technology: A major catalyst for increasing learning. T. H. E. Journal, 27, 30-34.
- Khan, M. S., & Akbar, S. R. (2000). School teaching. S. B. Nangia, A. P. H. Publishing Corporation.
- Khan, N., Mohammad, N., Shah, N., Irfanullah, I., and Farid, N. (2016). A study of the use of eye contact in the teaching-learning process at the secondary level in District Peshawar. Language in India, 16(4), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/indialogs.46 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/indialogs.46
- Lawson-Body, L., Willoughby, L., & Lawson-Body, A. (2015). Impact of the use of blackboard on the performance of accounting students. Issues in Information Systems, 16(2), 209-216.
- Locatis, C. N., & Atkinson, F. D. (1990). Media and technology for education & training. Charles E. Merrill Publishing company.
- Lutz, C. L. (2010). A study of the effect of interactive whiteboards on student achievement and teacher instructional methods (Doctoral Dissertation). The University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
- Mayfield, K. H., & Chase, P. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem-solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-105
- McLeod, S. A. (2019, July 30). Qualitative vs. quantitative research. https://www.simplypsychology.org/qua litative-quantitative.html
- Meo, S. A., Al-Masri, S. S. A. A., Ahmed, S. N. M., Aqil, M., Anwer, M. A., & Al-Drees, A. M. (2013). Comparison of the impact of PowerPoint and whiteboard in undergraduate medical teaching: An evidence-based study. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 23(1), 47-50.
- Moleong, L. J. (2007). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif [Qualitative research methodology]. Remaja Rosdakarya.
- Montgomery, S. M. (1995). Addressing diverse learning styles through the use of multi-media. FIE ‘95 Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 13-21). University of Colorado, Boulder.
- Mundy, R. (2003). Whiteboard skills for literacy. READ, 38(2), 37-39.
- Muttappallymyalil, J., Mendis, S., John, L. J., Shanthakumari, N., Sreedharan, J., & Shaikh, R. B. (2016). Evolution of technology in teaching: Blackboard and beyond in medical education. Nepal Journal of Epidemiol, 6(3), 588-594. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v6i3.15870 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v6i3.15870
- Ngoc, T. B., and, Binh, D. T. (2019). Vietnam’s electronics industry: The rise and problems of further development. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.741 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.741
- Reeves, T. C. (1998). The impact of media and technology in schools: A research report. The Bertelsmann Foundation.
- Shallcross, D. E., & Harrison, T. G. (2007). Lectures: electronic presentations versus chalk and talk – a chemist’s view. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(1), 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90021F DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90021F
- Shinde, M. B., &Shinde, S. G. P. (2015). Teachers’ dilemma of using ‘chalk and board’ or ‘projector and screen’: Which is effective? Language in India, 16(4), 138-148.