Application of an Interactive Whiteboard in the Realization of Entomological Programme Contents
In this paper an analysis of the application of an interactive whiteboard (IWB) in the biology teaching was presented. The types of interactive whiteboards, their advantages and disadvantages, the contextual factors on which the application depends, the positive and negative effects in teaching and learning and pedagogical aspects and strategies for applying interactive whiteboard are described. Also, an example is given how the IWB was applied in the realization of entomological programme content. The role and importance of insects in nature has been shown. It is very important that students understand the role of insect (especially insect pollinators) and their importance in nature. With the help of an IWB, this biology programme content was presented in the form of the concept maps. This allowed students to understand the significance of different entomological concepts and relations among them. Also, an overview of the researches about the uses of an IWB in biology teaching in the realization of various biological programme content was given. It was shown that the IWB contributed to the improving of processes of teaching and learning. It was concluded that IWB are determined as positive teaching tools, and researches show that they could have a positive impact on the motivation, perception, attention, behavior of students and their achievements in teaching biology. Application of IWB can be easily accomplished with little additional training (for teachers and students). In the future, training of teaching staff for the using of IWB in teaching biology is planned.
Brecka, P. & Oleksakova, M. (2013) Implementation of interactive whiteboards into the educational systems at primary and secondary schools in the Slovak Republic. International conference on advanced information and communication technology for education (ICAICTE), Hainan, China. Retrieved in November 2017 from https://www.atlantis-press.com/php/download_paper.php?id=8804
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D. & Door, V. (2005b). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 14(2), 155-170.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D. & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32(1), 5-20.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media & Technology, 32(3), 283-301.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
Jang, S. & Tsai, M. (2012). Reasons for using or not using interactive whiteboards: Perspectives of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (8), 1451-1465.
Kinchin, I. М. (2000). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34 (2): 61-68.
Littleton, K., Twiner, A. & Gillen, J. (2010). Instruction as orchestration: multimodal connection building with the interactive whiteboard. Pedagogies: An International Journal, Vol. 5 (2), 130-141.
Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: A new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy, 41(1), 26-34.
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S. & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19 (2), 195-209.
Mernjik, M. (2013). Interactive whiteboards in teaching physics. Graduation, Novi Sad: University of Novi Sad.
Miller, D., Glover, D. & Averis, D. (2004). Panacea or prop: The role of the interactive whiteboard in improving teaching effectiveness. Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen.
Onder, R. & Aydin, H. (2016). The effects of the use of smart board in the biology class on the academic achievement of student. i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 12 (1), 18-29.
Oztap, H., Ozay, E. & Oztap, F. (2003). Teaching cell division to secondary school students: An investigation of difficulties experienced by Turkish teachers. International Journal Of Biologocal Education, 38 (1), 13-15.
Perry, M. (2013). Effects of Visual Media on Achievement and Attitude in a Secondary Biology Classroom. A Master’s Research Project Presented to The Faculty of the Patton College of Education and Human Services Ohio University.
Raonić, R. (2012). A strategy for using an interactive whiteboard. Sombor: Secondary Technical School Sombor.
Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards: A case study of six schools. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.
Schut, C. R. (2007). Student perceptions of interactive whiteboards in a biology classroom. B.A. Life Science Education, Cedarville University.
Šikl, А. (2012). Didactic potential of interactive boards and pedagogical aspects of their application in teaching. Technology and informatics in education. Fourth International Conference, Technical Faculty Čačak.
Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341.
Smith, H., 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.
Tessmer, M., Wilson, B. & Driscoll M. (1990). A New Model of Concept Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38 (1), 45-53.
Torff B. & Tirotta R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Comput Educ, 54(1), 379–383.
Tsaparlis, G., Hartzavalos, S. & Nakibog˘lu, C. (2013). Students’ Knowledge of Nuclear Science and Its Connection with Civic Scientific Literacy in Two European Contexts: The Case of Newspaper Articles. Science & Eduction, 22(8), 1963–1991. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9578-5
Veselinovska, S. (2014). Use the interactive whiteboard in teaching biology. Technics and Informatics in education. Fifth Internacional Conference, Faculty og Technical Science Čačak.
Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55 (1), 350 – 362.
Weimer, M. J. (2001). The influence of technology such as SMART board interactive whiteboard on student motivation in the classroom. West Noble Middle School. Ligonier, Indiana.
Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.
Yang, K., & Wang, T. (2012). Interactive WhiteBoard: Effective Interactive Teaching Strategy Designs for Biology Teaching. E-Learning - Engineering, On-Job Training and Interactive Teaching. Taiwan. 139-156.
Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Subject Didactics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).