The Role of Smart Boards in Improving the Motivation and Academic Performance of EFL University Students of Saudi Arabia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/aba9bm60Keywords:
education, English as a Foreign Language, motivation, smart board, teaching English with technologyAbstract
With the advent of smart boards, the traditional teaching pedagogy of EFL class rooms has become more appealing and interesting for the students as well as the teachers. In order to motivate the students of Saudi Arabia to acquire English language skills, technology, which includes smart boards, is introduced in the classroom. Many studies show that Saudi students lack motivation to learn English due to various reasons. The present study aims at identifying the impact of smart boards on improving the motivation and performance levels of EFL students at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University. After identifying and classifying two groups of students, the smart board is used for the experimental group, and the white board is used for the control group. The treatment was given for eight weeks. A questionnaire was given, and the student responses were taken from the experimental group after the study. A group discussion was held with the students of the experimental group to understand deeply about the impact of the smart board on their motivational levels and performance in the exams. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the experimental group in terms of motivation and grades.
Downloads
References
1. Abu Elbah, A. (2012). The impact of the program employs smart blackboards in the development of scientific skills in electrical diagrams for the basic ninth-grade students in Gaza. Unpublished MA thesis, College of Education, the Islamic University of Gaza.
2. Alresheed, S., Leask, M., & Raiker, A. (2015). Integrating Computer-Assisted Language Learning in Saudi Schools: A Change Model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 69.
3. Al-Seghayer, Khalid. (2012, December 11). Status and functions of English in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Gazette, http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/24861
4. Bakar, K. A., Sulaiman, N. F., & Rafaai, Z. A. M. (2010). Self-Determination Theory and motivational orientations of Arabic learners: A principal component analysis. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10 (1), 71-86.
5. Barber, D., Cooper, L., & Meeson, G. (2007). Learning and teaching with interactive whiteboards: primary and early years. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.
6. Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 13(3), 327-348.
7. Bunch, J. C., Robinson, J. S., & Edwards, M. C. (2012). Measuring the relationship between agriculture teachers’ self-efficacy, outcome expectation, interest, and their use of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(1), 67-80.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999
10. Durán, A. & Cruz, M. (2011). The Interactive Whiteboard and Foreign Language Learning: A Case Study. Porta Linguarum, 15, 211-231.
11. Glover D. & Miller D. & Averis, D. (2004), Enhancing Mathematics Teaching through new technology: “The use of interactive whiteboard,” Summary of report made to Nuffield Foundation on completion of a funded two-year project (April 2002-March 2004). On-line version at http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ed/iaw/nuffield.htm.
12. Hasballah, M. (2002). The effectiveness of the proposed program in the development of teachers and students' attitudes towards the use of electronic blackboards. The Faculty of Education in Damietta, Mansoura University.
13. Hew, K. F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
14. Krashen, S. (2003). Dealing with English fever. Selected papers from the Twelfth International Symposium on English Teaching/English Teachers’ Association, ROC, Taipei, Crane. (pp. 100–108).
15. Lau, I. (2011). Teachers for "Smart Classrooms": The extent of implementation of an interactive whiteboard-based professional development program on elementary teachers' instructional practices. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 7, 275-289.
16. Mahboob, A., & Elyas, T. (2014). English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes, 33(1), 128-142.
17. Marzano, R. J. & Haystead, M. (2009). Final report on the evaluation of the proton technology. Englewood Co.: Marzano Research Laboratory.
18. Mathews-Aydinli, J., & Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students' and teachers' attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 235-252.
19. Momani, M., Alshaikhi, S., & Al-Inizi, T. H. (2016). The Obstacles of Using Smart Boards in Teaching English at Tabuk Secondary Schools. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 22-39.
20. Önal, N. (2017). Use of interactive whiteboards in the mathematics classroom: Students’ perceptions within the framework of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1045a
21. Schmid, E. C. & Schimmack, E. (2010). First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers. In M. Thomas & E. C. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 197–214). New York: IGI Global.
22. Seljan, S., Banek M., Špiranec, S., & Lasić-Lazić, J. (2006). Call (computer-assisted language learning) and distance learning. In P. Biljanović & K. Skala (Eds.), MIPRO 2006: 29th International Convention. (pp. 145–150). Opatija Croatia: Proceedings
23. Smith et al. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600635452
24. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
25. Suter, W. N. (2006). Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
26. Swan, K., Schenker, J., & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications (pp. 3290–3297), Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
27. Torff, B. & Tirott, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54, 379-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
28. Walker, D. (2002).White enlightening. Times Educational Supplement, 13 September 2002. http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/services/cst/elementary/math/documents/whiteboar ds_research.pdf. (Retrieved Jan. 2014).
29. Walker, D. (2003). Quality at the dockside. http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/services/cst/elementary/math/documents/whiteboards_research.p df. TES Online. 3 January 2003. pp. 66-67. (Retrieved Jan. 2014).
30. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & 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, 851-867. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x
31. Widener, J. & Gérard, F. (2000), ‘A SMARTer Way to Teach Foreign Language: The SMART BoardTM Interactive Whiteboard as a Language Learning Tool.' https://docplayer.net/14749667-A-smarter-way-toteach-foreign-language-the-smart board-interactive-whiteboard-as-a-language-learning-tool.html
32. Wu, W.C. V., Chen Hsieh, J. S., & Yang J. C. (2017). Creating an Online Learning Community in a Flipped Classroom to Enhance EFL Learners’ Oral Proficiency. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142–157.
33. Xu, H. L. & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of interactive whiteboard pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese language. Australasian journal of educational technology, 27(2), 307-325.
34. Yáñez, L. & Coyle, Y. (2011). Children's perceptions of learning with an interactive whiteboard. ELT Journal, 65(4), 446-457.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
