An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability studies

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure the attitudes of elementary students towards smart board (SB) use in education. A sequential exploratory mixed method was used. So the study started with a qualitative approach to establish the content and face validity of the scale, followed by a quantitative approach to test the construct validity and reliability of the scale items. Ten students, one teacher trainer specialized in SB use, three teachers experienced in SB use, and a language expert participated in the qualitative part. Data from 203 elementary students from two local schools in Malatya, Turkey, were used to test the psychometric properties of ‘smart board attitude scale’ (SBAS). The exploratory factor analysis (FA) yielded a two-factor model with 10 items. The goodness of fit indices produced by confirmatory FA confirmed the fit of the model to the data. Reliability of SBAS was also proved through multi-analyses.

Introduction

First produced in 1991 (Shenton and Pagett, 2008, Smart Technologies Inc, 2006), Smart Boards [SBs] began to be used in education in late 1990s (Beeland, 2002). It has been given several names including Interactive White Board, Electronic White Board or Smart Board (Erduran and Tataroğlu, 2009, Smith et al., 2005, Türel and Demirli, 2010). It can be described, in technical terms, as “a touch-sensitive screen that works in conjunction with a computer and a projector” (SMART, 2006, p. 5). SB use in education is getting more and more widespread (Erduran and Tataroğlu, 2009, Lan and Hsiao, 2011, Levy, 2002, Murcia, 2008). Actually, SB use in teaching is “not only a current trend but also a major policy of education” (Lan & Hsiao, 2011, p. 172). The ministries of education in Australia, the USA, and the UK have invested good amount of money to equip the classes with SBs (Hall and Higgins, 2005, Shenton and Pagett, 2008, Wood and Ashfield, 2008).

It is well documented in the relevant literature that teachers and students have strong preference and positive attitudes towards SBs in general (Hall & Higgins, 2005; Levy, 2002, Morgan, 2008, Smith et al., 2005). Some studies also found positive attitudes of teachers and students towards SB use in specific subjects such as Geography (Ateş, 2010), English (Elaziz, 2008), Science and Maths (Erduran & Tataroğlu, 2009), Social Studies (Kaya & Aydın, 2011), and Science, Maths, and English (Moss et al., 2007). Students and teachers think that SB use in education makes lessons more entertaining and interesting (Ateş, 2010, Beeland, 2002, Kaya and Aydın, 2011, Levy, 2002), exciting (Elaziz, 2008), motivating (Erduran & Tataroğlu, 2009), and enjoyable (Hall and Higgins, 2005, Levy, 2002). Both students’ and teachers’ positive attitudes can be attributed to the contribution of SB use to teaching and learning process (Moss et al., 2007). Based on the relevant literature, this contribution can be treated under two interrelated titles: SBs’ contribution to instructional excellence and SBs’ contribution to learning.

SB technology plays an important role in making the whole-class teaching more effective, productive, and creative (Elaziz, 2008, Lan and Hsiao, 2011, Lewin et al., 2008, Smart Technologies Inc, 2006, Wood and Ashfield, 2008). SBs enable the teachers to plan their lessons more effectively (Levy, 2002), conduct lessons in a more organized and planned way (Ateş, 2010), and facilitate reflective practices (Schuck & Kearney, 2007).

As a whole-class presentation medium, SB has strong multimedia and multi-sensory presentation capabilities (Smith et al., 2005). SBs can appeal three major senses of students i.e. seeing, hearing, and touching (Beeland, 2002, Hall and Higgins, 2005). Thanks to its rich visual presentation tools, teachers can use photos, flash animations, videos, documentaries, power point presentation (Ateş, 2010), graphics, animations, pictures (Türel & Demirli, 2010), produce more legible handwritings (Levy, 2002), and more precise and clear drawings (Kaya & Aydın, 2011), and add color and movement to their presentations (Hall & Higgins, 2005). Thanks to computer and other multimedia, SBs enable teachers to have the student listen to audio or music (Beeland, 2002, Elaziz, 2008), and use voice records and sound effects (Hall & Higgins, 2005). Moreover, touch-sensitive screen of SBs let the students, for example, touch the board, write or draw with fingers (Beeland, 2002), drag sentences to form paragraphs or move geometrical angles through different degrees (Hall & Higgins, 2005). Furthermore, powered with internet connection, SBs offer a large spectrum of sources (Ateş, 2010, Elaziz, 2008, Levy, 2002). Thus, teachers can have quick access to online visuals, maps, posters, graphics, videos etc. Thanks to these features, SBs facilitate the contextualization of abstract concepts or ideas in subjects like science and maths via concrete models and examples (Levy, 2002, Murcia, 2008).

Teachers can use various functions of SBs to meet different needs of students in a fast, flexible, and easy manner (Levy, 2002, Schuck and Kearney, 2007). To illustrate, teachers can use special instructional software with SBs (SMART, 2006), modify lesson materials, keep the last-saved versions of their materials for re-use latter (Elaziz, 2008, Levy, 2002, Wood and Ashfield, 2008), highlight one part of text/picture, zoom in or attach an annotation (Türel & Demirli, 2010). With respect to quick, flexible, and easy use of SBs, Erduran and Tataroğlu (2009) noted that “the most important function of SB might be the opportunity to notice a mistake or common misconceptions […] and go back to fix it” (p. 15).

Research findings suggest that SBs’ direct contribution to instructional excellence -specially through multimedia capability and variety of sources- further supports students’ learning indirectly (Beeland, 2002, Elaziz, 2008, Kaya and Aydın, 2011, Levy, 2002). There is a well documented literature about the SBs’ contribution to learning by enhancing motivation, student engagement and active participation to lessons, hands-on applications, interaction, attention, and taking individual differences into consideration.

One key function of SBs is to motivate students to learn thanks to various properties they have (Smith et al., 2005). For example, Beeland (2002) argues that the effective use of visual, auditory, and tactile characteristics of SBs motivates the learners to learn. Elaziz (2008) reports “IWBs are perceived as good motivators in teaching and learning contexts by the students [from primary to higher education] and this motivational power can affect students’ achievement positively and reinforce learning.” (p. 85). Moss et al. (2007) found, however, that although it was welcomed initially by students because of its newness the increase in their motivation was short-lived and was not represented in their achievement. In a similar vein, Torff and Tirotta (2010) reported one but extremely weak gain of Interactive whiteboards in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Thus, from a pedagogical perspective, it can be asserted that SB is not itself an effective and motivating instructional tool in terms of learning, but can achieve the desired impact only if it is used in accordance with the appropriate teaching strategies, methods, and techniques (Türel & Demirli, 2010).

One strength of SB is its promotion of class interaction, especially between the teacher and the students (Beeland, 2002, Hall and Higgins, 2005, Lan and Hsiao, 2011, Levy, 2002, Schuck and Kearney, 2007). Thanks to its wide and touch-sensitive screen, a teacher and a student can interact with the SB in front of other students allowing them see what is going on, which is not possible otherwise (SMART, 2006), and personal works can be presented and discussed or a class voting can be done on an SB (Schmid, 2008). This way of interaction also triggers student engagement and active participation (Beeland, 2002, Elaziz, 2008). Moreover, as SBs relieve the students from the obligation of note taking, they might have more time to participate into class discussions (as cited in Levy, 2002). Furthermore, the interactive nature of SBs allows students to experience many applications themselves. For instance, Elaziz (2008) reported that students are eager to use SBs and able to do such applications as “highlighting, writing with the special pen, saving the generated materials, searching on the Internet, and playing audio and visual files” (p. 93–94). Considering all these features, coupled with its visual, audio and tactile modalities, and entertainment and motivation elements, students can concentrate onto lesson and learning (Levy, 2002, Morgan, 2008). However, some teachers have concerns that higher levels of attention can be mainly because of novelty-value, and the impact of using the SBs may decrease in time (Levy, 2002). Yet, Lewin et al. (2008, p. 292) note that “when teachers use an IWB [interactive whiteboard] for a considerable period of time (at least 2 years), teachers learn how to mediate the greatly increased number of possible interactions to best aid pupils’ learning.”

Despite of the positive considerations about SB use in education, there is insufficient evidence from systematic researches considering the impact of SB use on student attainment (Levy, 2002, Smith et al., 2005). Moreover, the available research findings seem to be controversial. Ekici (2008), in his experimental study, found the positive contribution of SB use to 6th graders’ math achievement. Levy (2002) reports that many students believe in the contribution of SB use to their learning experiences and learning achievements. Lewin et al. (2008) found positive impact on children’s Math, English and Science test scores only after being taught with an SB for more than 2 years. Moss et al. (2007), however, could not find a statistically significant effect of SB use on Math, Science, and English lesson outcomes.

Besides its strengths, SB use also has some limitations, which can cause negative attitudes among students.

The most critical limitation of SB use in education seems to be inadequate or improper use of SBs by teachers. Armstrong et al. (2005) stress that SB use must not be reduced to physical installation of the board itself and the relevant software. They note that “teachers are the critical agents in mediating the software, the integration of the software into the subject aims of the lesson and appropriate use of the [SB] to promote quality interactions and interactivity” (p. 457). But there is a risk of under-use by reducing SBs to a projection or a writing surface (Murcia, 2008). To avoid this, teachers should utilize those functions of SB technology which are superior to previous technologies. As a matter of fact, when SB’s capabilities are under-used students are disappointed and frustrated (Levy, 2002), and this rather expensive investment (Smith et al., 2005) turns out to be unproductive.

These negative outcomes of inadequate or improper SB use can be prevented at best through teacher training, which is another problem as highlighted in the relevant literature (Somyürek, Atasoy, & Özyürek, 2009). In their review Smith et al. (2005) reported the need for teachers for an adequate and comprehensive training. While some teachers report they have had this in-service training (Ateş, 2010), some others state they have not yet had any in-service training and most (63%) need one (Elaziz, 2008).

Some instructional practices, methods or techniques used by teachers with SB can also cause problems. As Cox and Abbott justify, the SB’s impact on students’ success depends on the teacher and the pedagogical approach she uses with SB (2004, as cited in Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007). Accordingly, SB should be used so as to “place students at the centre of the teaching and learning experience” (Murcia, 2008, p. 20). It should not be employed in a limited way, say, by using traditional lecturing method in which knowledge is transmitted, but in such a way which optimizes opportunities to engage students with the creative learning processes (Wood & Ashfield, 2008). Although SB is a fast and effective presentation tool, Ateş (2010) emphasizes the risk of using SB to overload the students with the content as soon as possible to complete the content of the syllabus. Another counterproductive practice is described as restricting learners’ access to SB (Hall & Higgins, 2005), thus preventing interaction, participation, and experimenting.

Choosing and using SB-compatible pedagogical software appropriate to the learning goals is crucial (Armstrong et al., 2005). It is reported that these pedagogical software, or materials, can be prepared by subject teacher groups (Ateş, 2010), publishing houses (Elaziz, 2008), or the teacher herself (Levy, 2002, Moss et al., 2007). Actually, well designed materials compatible with SBs is limited in the market (Türel & Demirli, 2010). As a matter of fact, since teachers know best the learners’ needs and flexibly plan their lessons using the outputs of formative evaluation, they had better take an active role in the material development process. This certainly will put a time constraint burden on teachers (Levy, 2002), as well as causing difficulty among teachers not familiar with material design principles (Moss et al., 2007).

In addition to the lack of pedagogical knowledge and skills, teachers’ failure to handle the technical problems cause another limitation. To illustrate, one common problem with SB use is wasting time and related classroom management problems as a result of technical troubles with PC, projector or software (Ateş, 2010, Hall and Higgins, 2005, Levy, 2002). In a similar vein, displacing board or projector as a result of bumping etc. necessitates re-setting the calibration (Beeland, 2002, Hall and Higgins, 2005, Smith et al., 2005). Moreover, such problems degrade teacher’s confidence (Levy, 2002).

Finally, some other problems related with SB use in education can be summarized as the sunshine blocking students’ sight (Ateş, 2010, Hall and Higgins, 2005, Levy, 2002), the shadow cast by hand or arm blocking the writings (Beeland, 2002, Hall and Higgins, 2005), problems about planning the allocation of a limited number of SBs in large schools (Elaziz, 2008, Levy, 2002); dust on the projector lenses (Levy, 2002), health and safety problems caused by electric or connection cables (as cited in Smith et al., 2005).

As summarized above, SB use in education contributes to instruction and learning process, and both teachers and students generally have positive attitudes towards SB use in their classes despite of some limitations due to the teacher or the environment. Also it is understood that there is limited research about SB’s impact on student attainment. It is believed that, from a curriculum evaluation perspective, it is necessary to investigate whether this rather new and costly technology generates the desired pedagogical impacts. Researcher’s literature review yielded no Turkish instruments developed to measure elementary students’ attitudes towards SB use in education in general, other than those developed or adapted to evaluate SB use in specific subjects (see Ateş, 2010, Elaziz, 2008, Tataroğlu and Erduran, 2010). Therefore, in this study it was intended to develop a standardized instrument [Smart Board Attitude Scale-SBAS]) which can be used to evaluate SB use in elementary education in terms of its contributions to instructional excellence and students’ learning, and limitations from the students’ point of view.