Teachers evaluation of Interactive Whiteboards technology in Second Language Classroom - Dissertation Example

?Results In this study, the results are the responses that were given by the and the teachers on the use of interactive whiteboards in the teaching of a second language. The data was collected through the filling of questionnaires by both teachers and students. The data collected was then subjected to analysis using the SPSS software where the frequencies, mode, and other quantitative aspects of the data were analyzed. The questionnaires were a set of questions where the respondent was supposed to pick either strongly agree (1), agree (2), disagree (3) and strongly disagree (4). The percentage of these responses were then determined. The results in general show that both students and teachers have a positive attitude towards the use of IWB in a second language classroom. The Likert Scale items in the questionnaire divided into three themes, which measures the effectiveness of IWB in terms of teaching/learning, its motivational effects and usability. Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire Items Instructional Effects of IWB Statements Mean SD Q3, IWB facilitates learning to me 3.2 .700 Q4, IWB makes learning of English much more easy 3.08 .778 Q4.a, IWB makes the learning of vocabulary much easy 2.86 .729 Q4.b, IWB makes the learning of grammar rules much easy 2.86 .718 Q4.c, IWB makes learning writing much more easy 2.66 .939 Motivational Effects of IWB Statement mean SD Q2, I think the lessons become more interesting with IWB 3.32 .844 Q5, I prefer lessons that use IWB more than lessons that use manual boards 3 1.010 Usability of IWB Statement mean SD Q1, Both IWB and the manual white board are the same in terms of usefulness* 2.68 .819 Q6, Teacher using IWB are more organized 3.10 .763 Q7, I think IWB is a waste of time and is complicated* 2.90 1.015 Q8, IWB encourages me to participate in the classroom 2.74 .922 Q9, IWB is not suitable for my age* 3.20 .881 Q10, IWB is not always successful in the lesson 2.82 .825 * These negative statements were reverse-coded For instance, the SD of the number of student who said use of IWB makes learning more interesting is 0.884 which is very close to the mean. SD for making learning of grammar and vocabulary easy are 0.718 and 0.729 respectively both of which show slight deviations from the mean. In terms of preference, the standard deviation was only 1.01 which again is very close to the mean showing that most of the student preferred the use of IWB. All these observations show that the students are quite receptive to the use of IWB. However, in terms of usability and effectiveness of IWB in learning, the SD on the number of the student who were of the view that IWB is not always successful in bring about effective learning was .825 which is higher. This implies that although it has been seen to facilitate learning and a good motivation, there is need to review it further in order to increase its success. Teachers’ Responses to the Questionnaire Items Instructional Effect of IWB statement mean SD Q1, IWB helps me to manage Instructional time effectively 90%instructional time Effectively 3.10 .718 Q2, I think the lessons become more effective with IWB 3.20 .696 Q3,IWB facilitates the classroom management for me 92 8 Q4, IWB helps my lessons be more interactive 3.05 .686 Q5, IWB facilitates discussions on the content in class 2.95 .686 Q6, There is no time for my students to get around to using an IWB* 2.75 .639 Q7, IWB provides advantages to me to make course content more visual 3.25 .716 Q8, The way I give instruction has been changed since I began to use an IWB 2.95 .759 Q9, IWB helps me to use the computer and projector more effectively than before 3.30 .733 Motivational Effect of IWB Statement Mean SD Q15, I enjoy teaching with an IWB prepared for instruction 3.05 .887 Q16, Because of using an IWB, I feel myself more prepared for instruction 2.75 .851 Q17, I notice my IWB skills are improving day by day 2.85 .813 Q18, Learning how to use an IWB is essential to me 3.15 .813 Q17, IWB makes my courses more enjoyable to the students 3.05 .759 Usability of IWBs Statement Mean SD Q24, IWB can be used in all kinds of courses 3.05 .759 Q 25, My course content is not suitable with using an IWB* 2.95 .826 Q 26, IWB can be used with various instructional methods and techniques 3.00 .858 * These negative statements were reverse-coded The responses that teachers gave on their view on the effectiveness of IWB as a teaching method are closely correlated to the attitude the students had on the same. Questions 1-9 in the teachers’ questionnaire measure the effectiveness of IWB as a teaching tool. The SD for the response on the teachers who are of the view that the use of IWB has changed the way instructions are delivered is 0.759 which shows a small deviation from the mean. This means that the highest percentages of the teachers are of the view that IWB has improved teaching. SD for IWB making the teacher more organized and making teaching more interesting are 0.851 and 0.975 respectively. In terms of motivating teachers to teach, the SD was 0.881 of the teachers look forward to teaching using the IWB. The SD for the suitability of IWB for all courses was 0.759. This indicates that a large percentage of the teachers are of the view that IWB can be used for all types of courses. Results on the open ended questions: Students open ended question: Question 1: What do you think of using the IWB in the classroom? Teachers open ended questions Question 1: How has the Interactive Whiteboard changed the way you give instruction? (Instructional effects) Themes Visual material Clear Organise Percentages 40% 40% 30% In this question according to teachers responses, it has been divided into three themes :visual materials, clarity and organization. Question 2: Is teaching more enjoyable with the IWB? Why? On the (motivational effects) of IWB the following were the teachers responses in percentages, where responses were divided into three themes: visual materials, tools and interaction. Themes Yes Sometimes No Percentages 90% 5% 5% Themes Visual materials Tools Interaction Percentages 45% 5% 35% Question 3: Can you use the IWB with all kinds of curses, skills, and levels? (Usability of IWB) applicability in all courses, vocabulary development, writing, grammar and listening). Themes All courses Vocabulary Writing Grammar Listening Percentages 65% 10% 10% 5% 5% Note: The percentages given above may not add up to 100% because some participants gave more than one answer. Observation The study also involved an observation of the interactions between the teachers and the learners in a lesson where the IWB were utilized. The utilizing of the board by students who were of a younger age was seen to be important in their enjoyment of the lesson. For instance, a class was observed while the teacher was using the smart board for game activity. Some students were exited to interact while others didn’t show any interest. It was observed that students who had not used the device previously were easily distracted from the main content that the teachers taught. However, students who had been instructed using the IWB more than one were observed to learn more from the interactive lesson. All in all, teachers were using the interactive white board in almost all kind of courses, levels and skills. When observing the use of the IWB in the classroom, it was observed that this technology can be used in the teaching/ learning in various ways. It provided multimedia learning that is conducted through activities such as manipulation of images and texts, note making in digital ink, group viewing of websites and saving notes that can be retrieved via website, print or email. It can also be used to illustrate the use of certain software without having to move to the individual learner. An important use of the IWB was seen to be the ability of the teacher to develop templates for lessons making teaching to be more organized. For example, one of the observed classes, the teacher used a written text sample to show students how to write. This followed by an activity to order sentences in the smart board. The teacher asked students to come out to the board and participate in the exercise. It was also easy to showcase the students’ presentation making it possible for learners to get insight into what their colleagues were doing. As such they would learn more compared to when they only got access to their own presentation (Kollias & Kikis, 2005). Some teachers could also post educational video clips that would be available to all the students. This broadened the learning scope as it would be possible to include learning examples that would normally not be available in a classroom situation. Discussion of the research findings Students’ response on questionnaire items From the responses provided by the students in regards to the instructional effect of the IWB, the motivational effect of the IWB, and the usability of IWB; the perception by the students concerning the use of the IWB by teachers in the classroom can be deduced. For instances, thou most of the students indicated that they were receptive of the new technology introduced in class, they still perceived it to be less effective in making them to learn much better. According to Turel, Y. (2010), this perception by the students could be because of their earlier expectations of how the IWB will be used of which some could have been unrealistic expectations. Secondly, this perception by the students could have been caused by the poor use of the interactive whiteboard by the teachers thus making the students to perceive it in a negative manner. Concerning the question on the effectiveness of the IWB in teaching of a second language and the success of utilization of the IWB in the classroom, majority of the students, rated the IWB was not effective. This meant that its utilization in the teaching of the second language was not adequate to improve their mastery of the language. This perhaps point to the fact that the teachers were not be effectively using and exploring all the features of the IWB to improve learning. Teachers’ response on questionnaire items From the feedback given by the teachers it is evidently clear that they had a positive perception about the use of IWB for teaching a second language. Moreover, majority of the teachers indicated that for their personal experience with the board, they feel that it can use be used in nearly all the courses. However, Shorr (2006) wrote that the IWB has limited application in the courses that it can be applied because of some complexities in teaching of certain courses. This fact is substantiated by earlier finding that universities in the UK had being slow in the adoption of this teaching tool unlike high schools and this could be because it is not applicable in the teaching of certain subject areas. In addition, Wetzel (2009) stated that the IWB is only effective in instructional teaching and not in making presentations. It is important to note that in their response, the teachers were unable to state the actual effectiveness of the IWB in teaching of a second language perhaps because of lack of an empirical assessment of the actual impact of the use of IWB on students’ performance. Instructional effect of the IWB The feedback provided indicates that the teachers believed that the board was effective in giving instruction using visual materials and the success of the utilization of the IWB was inclined on the issuance of clear instructions and use of visual materials for teaching purposes. This feedbacks affirmed the earlier argument that the teachers were not fully utilizing the capabilities of the IWB since only 40% stated that the board allowed them to present visual materials to the class and give clear instructions. There was no mention of the audio effects and therefore, the teachers did not use video or audio presentations, which could have made the learning to be more effective and captivating. Motivational effect of the IWB From the response given in regards to this question it can be stated that the teachers considered the use of IWB in teaching of a second language as motivating because of the visual materials available on the board and because of the level of interaction that it offers Majority of the teachers stated that teaching the second language using the IWB had become more enjoyable more so because of the use of visual materials, which made the class lively and hence making the learners more engaged in the learning process. The low score on interaction means that the teachers failed to increase the level interaction with the students using the boards and perhaps this is why only a few students prefer it in class. Failure to ensure high interaction with the board, contravenes the constructivism learning theory, which advocates for the learning environment to be highly interactive. Usability of the IWB The teachers stated that the IWB was more effective in teaching all courses but they noted that the effectiveness of the IWB was low in teaching of grammar and listening to the second language. In other words, the success of the utilization of the IWB was low in grammar and listening activities.   The fact that majority of the teachers indicated that they could use the IWB in all kinds of courses but very few stated that they could use it for grammar and listening, could be because of poor mastery in using the audio devices attached on the IWB, which could easily and effectively support teaching of grammar and listening practices. This particular feedback was quite surprising because only a small percentage of the teachers stated that they supported the fact that they could use the board in teaching of a second language, which involved vocabulary development, writing, grammar, and listening. By the fact that majority stated that they could use the IWB in all kinds of courses suggest that they had a great mastery in using the board in other courses but not in teaching a second language. Perception of the use of IWB in the classroom by students The responses on the question of what students think about the use of IWB in the classroom confirms the fact that the students indeed had not developed a good perception of the IWB since only 10% stated that they prefer the IWB for use in lessons. By the fact that majority of the students only stated that it facilitates learning, this could affirm that the teachers are simply using the board in a similar manner as the blackboard and they have not utilized the extra capabilities of the IWB, which would make more than 90% of the students to prefer it in lessons. The feedback on this question also confirmed that the students still had a negative perception of the board since only 10% prefer it in lesson. This also indicated that the board is not full effective in ensuring that learners are able to learn the second language easily. The success of the utilization of the IWB in the classroom is only evident on the fact that it facilitates learning. Perception of the use of IWB by teachers in The classroom The aim of this study was to evaluate how the teachers are using the IWB in classroom instructions. It was observed in the study that generally the teachers’ attitude to the use of the new technology was positive. Almost all the teachers who responded to the questionnaires were positive that the use of smart board made learning better by making the teachers to be more organized and motivating both the teachers and the students. Teachers who had received prior training on the use of this technology in teaching were more comfortable and confident when using IWB in the classroom (Sharma & Barrett, 2007). Most of them had observed the use of technology in learning before using them in instruction. From the observations made, various conclusions can be made on how IWB improve students’ engagement and hence increases the level of success of a learning process. As it has already been established, student centered learning strategy has a high level of success in learning compared to teacher centered methods. This is because in the student centered approach, learners get to interact with the learning material through different senses and this increases information retention (Housel & Bradley, 2004). Social learning has illustrated that people need to get reinforcement from others in order to cement their beliefs and opinion (Tatnall, 2010). Moreover, whole class teaching is a crucial requirement in learning as it brings the entire class together making it possible to provide structured learning. This may be hard to stick by when teaching an individual student. Constructivism theory of learning requires that the learner actively select information which they submit to evaluation process and then synthesizes it to create meaning. Active learning has also been seen to be significant in learning where the learners actively engages in discussions, evaluation and synthesis as opposed to just passively taking instruction through methods such as lecturing(Kent, 2006). IWB brings all these aspects together making learning to be not only interesting but meaningful. Previous researches have shown that IWB enhances students engagement, which has already been stated as an important component of learning (Housel & Bradley, 2004). The smart board not only allows the teacher to give uniform structured instructions to the whole class, but also makes it possible for the students to be involved throughout the learning process ( Kitchenham, 2011). The students get to interact with their colleagues and the teacher at the same time. IWB provides a huge space for the manipulation of various multimedia. Moreover, it provides a large screen where the interaction between a teacher and an individual student can be observed by the rest of the class. IWB, together with its accompanying software can be used for the creation of learning activities that keep the students engaged through interaction and participation, enhances the focus on the learning objective hence improving the learning outcomes. Effectiveness of use of IWB in teaching of a Second Language In the teaching and learning of a second language, IWB promotes learning in several ways. One, it promotes conversations and interactions in the classroom. Using a projection form the Interactive Whiteboard is very different from the use of a projection from a computer screen. This is because unlike a computer screen, IWB makes it easy for the user to navigate from the board. This is unlike when using a computer the teacher has to go back to the computer screen (Houff, 2010). The teacher can thus focus his attention on the student and not on the technology making learning to be more interactive and reducing distractions. Moreover, through the use of IWB it is easy to present new linguistic elements and new cultures in class. Most importantly, it is enhances the oral skills since the IWB uses multimedia which includes both visual and audio presentation of learning materials. In teaching of a second language, it has been observed that the learners may not be very comfortable conversing in the new language (Kent, 2006). IWB makes possible for the learners to focus their attention on a single item of discussion and a conversation can start from this item. Since the teacher does not have to deal with the technical issues, he can focus on students’ interaction and this enhances the conversation. Communication can also be supported through the use of a wireless keyboard. If a new vocabulary is stumbled across during the interaction between the student and the teacher, the teacher can quickly type the new word in the wireless keyboard. This information is easily retrieved later by the students and can be used to review that lesson, hence promote memory, and the learning of new vocabulary (Booth, 2009). This also saves time as the teacher does not have to move to the board and write the new word and it also ensures smooth flow of conversations. When summarizing the lesson, the teacher can then highlight the new words through circling or coloring. IWB supports the development of oral skills as opposed to the use of computers in the teaching of foreign language. This is because the use of computer encourages isolation which is not helpful to the learning of a new language that requires constant interaction between the teacher and the learners (Younie & Leask, 2013). The Interactive White Board overcomes this problem by facilitating the presentation of a single web document to the whole class and this allows for interaction. Opinion can be exchanged by extending this to the IWB where the students can also navigate on the board. This enhances the student engagement in class which further improves their concentration and enhances the learning outcomes. An individual student can navigate on the board while the other students give him/her directions on the new language (Gage, 2006). It thus integrates learning and hence improves communication that is crucial in the learning of a new language. Most importantly, the IWB makes it easy for the students to present their projects. This is because the learners do not have to keep worrying about the technical issues such as the touching of a mouse. This is because the IWB makes navigation easy with just the touch of an icon using the fingers (Braham, 2006). The texts and the pictures also appear immediately when they are touched making it easy for the student to concentrate on presenting the information to the audience and eradicating the awkwardness of having to go back to the computer to click a mouse. The results of the open ended questions on the use of IWB in the classroom indicate that both teachers and student are positive, that this technology promotes learning by making it more interesting, motivating learners and it is easy to use. The success of utilization of IWB in the Classroom The research conducted together with information from various studies indicates that the introduction of technology in a classroom is not adequate to allow for the adoption of a new pedagogy or for improving the level of interactivity (Housel & Bradley, 2004). It is important to note that although the introduction of IWB makes it possible for the teachers to organize instructions and content in a more orderly fashion, but it does not guarantee that the instructional quality would be improved or improve the learning experience. Another research conducted showed that the interactivity of the learners and the teacher is limited to the “magic” of the board. The use of the modern technology makes it possible for both the learners and the teacher to have a reciprocal interaction with the board. Nevertheless, for learning to be meaningful; when using the electronic boards, other factors need to be fulfilled. For instance, the teacher has to have great mastery of the content and the subject matter for the interactions to flow smoothly (Betcher & Lee, 2009). This will enable him or her to respond promptly to queries that the learners may have during the learning lesson. If the teacher is not very conversant with the language, the interactions may be disrupted making learning less meaningful. The teacher also needs to be sharp in the sense that he is able to identify the key areas that the student need to emphasize on and highlight them. Moreover, although the new technology makes it possible for the learning to be conducted at a faster pace, it success is pegged on the expertise and professionalism of the teacher in as a mediator of the interactions (Gage, 2006). The teacher must capitalize on the capabilities of the board and creative use of the features that it provides to create meaningful instructions. The classroom observation of the utilization of the IWB was aimed at evaluating whether this new technology was helping in shifting the teaching method from the traditional teacher centered strategy to the new pedagogy of constructivism. The theory of constructivism advocates for the complete engagement of the learners in the construction of new learning. This means that learning has to be fully learner centered. In this study, it was however observed that the teachers were adamant in losing control of the classroom (Betcher & Lee, 2009). The teachers would still manipulate the lesson in such a way that they maintained full control of the classroom and control student behavior (Moskal & Keneman, 2011). Most of the teachers used the technology as a way of meeting their need to be in control of the learning process instead of giving allowing the student to define the development of the learning process. Nevertheless, IWB has been recognized to have great potential of facilitating a paradigm shift if it is used over a long period of time (Gage, 2006). This is because change from the teacher centered instructional method would require the time in order to be able to give up control in the classroom and allow the instructions to be more learners centered. The research suggests that with proper training and reinforcement, the teachers can be in a position to adopt the constructivism approach which has so far been confirmed to be the best method in teaching of languages (Kent, 2008). Giving the teachers feedback and time for development can go a long way in helping the teachers to gain the necessary skills, knowledge and resources that will enable them adopt the constructivism approach in teaching. It will also enable the teachers to learn how they can effectively use the new technology in enhancing the learning outcome (Betcher & Lee, 2009). This is because as the results above showed, despite the fact that the teachers and students said that the use of IWB made learning more interesting, they did not think that it was successful in promoting learning. Training would thus help bridge this gap creating learning value from the use of the new technology. The use of the technology over a long time will give the teachers the confidence to use the different learning resources presented by the use of new technology. They will be in a position to explore the different multimedia provided by the technology including the computer applications which can be an endless learning environment (Betcher & Lee, 2009). This would greatly enhance learning considering that content retention is enhanced when the learners are able to perceive the new information through the different senses. IWB helps the teacher to present information using different media which also makes learning interesting. The correlation between secondary and primary findings To begin within, in the literature review section it was noted by Slay et al. (2008) that the IWB is an advanced technology that improves collaboration and interactivity in the classroom. However, in the feedback given by the students, majority stated that it was an advanced technology, which simply facilitates learning while teachers in one of their responses stated that the board was more enjoyable because it enables them to present visual materials and only few stated that it enables them to improve interactivity within the classroom. This difference between the secondary and primary findings could be attributed to the fact that the teachers had a poor mastery of the IWB and hence they were unable to capitalize on the main goals of the board, which is to improve collaboration and interactivity. However, it is important to note that because of this possibly of the teachers having poor mastery in using the board, the UK government was encouraged to develop the MirandaNet (online network), where teachers are able to learn how to use the board from collaborative efforts by other partners in the higher education sector. The findings of the primary research largely draw a picture that the IWB is not effective in teaching of a second language. This finding is supported by the research carried out by Swan et al. (2008), which upon analysis of research data noted that there was a very significant improvement in the classes where the interactive whiteboard was primarily used for problem solving and interaction unlike in classes where the board was used just as a tool for presentation. Because of the fact that the teachers largely preferred the IWB because it enables them to present visual materials it can be stated that they largely used the IWB as a presentation tool. Recommendations and Implications From the findings made from this research, there are several recommendations that can be made on how to make the teaching using the IWB more effective. One of the recommendations is that it has been found that it is crucial that teachers be trained on how to use this new technology (Braham, 2006). This should be reinforced through the demonstration of the practicality of this method. In training, the teacher trainer should use all the possible multimedia to illustrate how the electronic device works. He should also encourage the teachers to be creative in order to keep the learners not only interested in the short term but in the long term. Another recommendation is that a database that store the various instructional materials and lessons that utilize the IWB should be created (Mirtschin, 2010). This would save the teachers the time taken to prepare lessons as the information would be retrieved in future for other classes. Getting into contract with the IWB instructional material created by other teachers can enhance creativity as teachers build on what already exists. The third recommendation is ensuring that at least 50% of the classrooms are converted into Smart classrooms (Kent, 2008). This would create continuity and ensure that the students get access to this technology. Limitation The research conducted had several limitations which can act as the basis for future research. The questionnaires used did not discern the teachers’ preference of the use of the IWB and the success was related to the training or the duration of time the individual teacher has used the device (Vrasidas & Glass, 2005). This is because these have been recognized as important factors in ensuring the success of the use of IWB in improving the learning experience. The experiment has thus failed to distinguish the significance use of the technology in teachers who uses it frequently, and those who only use it occasionally. Although this study used both quantitative (Questionnaires) and qualitative (observation) data, further studies might amend those methods used. For example, the observation could be followed by an interview with the teachers. This would help to obtain more information to scaffold the data from the observation. References Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press. Booth, D. W. (2009). Whatever happened to language arts?: -- it's alive and well and part of successful literacy classrooms everywhere. Markham, Ont: Pembroke Publishers. Braham, G. (2006). How to survive and succeed with an interactive whiteboard. Cambridge: LDA. Gage, J. (2006). How to use an interactive whiteboard really effectively in your secondary classroom. London: David fulton publishers. Houff, S. G. (2010). The classroom facilitator: Special issue questions. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Housel, D., & Bradley, T. (2004). Read and succeed: Level 4. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education. International Conference on Computer Assisted Language Learning., Bradley, L., & Thoue?sny, S. (2012). Call: Using, learning, knowing, EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012, proceedings. Dublin: Research-publishing.net International Conference on Control Systems, & Lee, G. (2012). Advances in intelligent systems: Selected papers from 2012 International Conference on Control Systems (ICCS 2012), March 1-2, Hong Kong. Berlin: Springer. Kent, L. (2008). 6 steps to success in teaching with technology: A guide to using technology in the classroom. New York: iUniverse, Inc. Kitchenham, A. (2011). Models for interdisciplinary mobile learning: Delivering information to students. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Kollias, A., & Kikis, K. (2005). Pedagogic innovations with the use of ICTS: : from wider visions and policy reforms to school culture. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Mirtschin, A. (2010). Cool tools for the connected classroom. Carlton, Vic: Education Services Australia. Moskal, M. K., & Keneman, A. F. (2011). Literacy leadership to support reading improvement: Intervention programs and balanced instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Oxford: Macmillan. Shorr, P. W. (2006). The new digital wave: Dive in! Whiteboards are quickly changing how we teach. Instructor 115(5), 24-26. Slay, H., Sieborger, I., and Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just lipstick? Computers & Education 51 (3), Swan, K., Schenker, J. and Kratcoski, A. (2008). The Effects of the Use of Interactive Whiteboards on Student Achievement. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3290-3297). Tatnall, A. (2010). Web technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. TECH-EDUCATION 2010, & Lytras, M. D. (2010). Technology enhanced learning: Quality of teaching and educational reform : First International Conference, TECH-EDUCATION 2010, Athens, Greece, May 19-21, 2010 : proceedings. Berlin: Springer. Turel, Y. (2010). Developing Teachers’ Utilization of Interactive Whiteboards. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3049-3054). Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach with technology. Greenwich, Conn: Information Age Pub. Younie, S., & Leask, M. (2013). Teaching with technologies: The essential guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Wetzel, D. R. (2009). Smart board implementation strategies: Self-evaluation of integration of interactive whiteboards in lessons. Suite101®.com Retrieved from http://www.suite101.com/content/smart-board-implementation-strategies-a149304. Accessed on [29.07.2013] Read More