January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Q24. IWB can be used in all kinds of courses 172 3.90 1.080 12.2 64.5
Q25. My course content is not suitable with using an
IWB*
170 3.79 1.067 14.7 67.1
Q26. IWB can be used with various instructional
methods and techniques
* This negative statement was reverse-coded
157 3.95 .830 3.8 74.5
Relationship between Teachers’ IWB usage and perceptions
Chi-square tests were administered in order to examine whether there are any differences between teachers’
perceptions in terms of the frequency and duration of their IWB use. Comparisons of individual differences in terms
of the IWB use frequencies and also duration of IWB use on a weekly basis and perceptions about IWB use were
analyzed by means of the chi-square test of independence. The results of the tests and effect size values (Cramer’s V)
for each significant relation are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Chi-square test results for IWB use and perceptions of teachers
Items Q4* Q7* Q11 Q17 Q24 Q28 Q39 Q52
Frequency of IWB χ2 (df) 18.92(8) 26.35(8) 18.13(8) 14.37(6) 18.66(8) 16.80(8) 15.58(8) 32.12(6)
use (sometimes,
frequently, always)
Cramer’s V .235 .277 .232 .210 .240 .228 .221 .315
Duration of weekly Items Q3 Q4 Q7 Q27 Q28 Q33 Q39 Q52
IWB use
χ2 (df) 10.24(4) 10.07(4) 12.07(4) 8.10(3) 9.92(4) 10.80(4) 13.06(4) 11.32(3)
(up to 7 hours,
more than 7 hours)
Cramer’s V .244 .242 .265 .224 .248 .262 .287 .264
As shown in Table 5, both frequency and duration of the IWB use moderately effect (Cramer’s V between 0.2 and
0.4) teachers’ perceptions in terms of the items presented above. In addition, we found significant results for three
items (Q28, Q39, and Q52) in terms of both frequency and duration of the IWB use.
Discussion
Teachers’ IWB use and IWB training characteristics were somewhat strong. Since all participants were selected
based on their prior experience with IWB use, it is not a surprise that a high percentage (79.3%) reported that they
had ‘frequently’ or ‘always’ used IWBs in their courses. However, only half of them defined their IWB
competencies above average. Although these findings give the sense about the high quantity of IWB use specifically
for this sample, teachers were questioned on how they used IWBs in their classes and also what IWB features they
used. The results regarding preferred features of IWBs were in parallel with the results of a previous study conducted
by Türel (2011), which examined students’ perceptions about IWB use in Turkey. While teachers reported they used
a wide range of IWB features, it is clear that several features including Internet and hyperlinks are the least preferred.
For example, Beauchamp and Parkinson (2005) defined using hyperlinks as one of the highest levels of IWB skills
according to the IWB progression levels. The data (see Figure 1) depicts the paucity of synergistic (professional)
users based on the less utilized features and also the majority of initiate and advanced users based on Beauchamp’s
(2004) framework, was consistent with the teachers’ self-reported competencies (see Table 1).
The main sources of teachers’ IWB training showed the majority of respondents (67%) had joined an IWB training
session organized either by the company that supplies IWBs or by an educational institution. Looking at learning
resources, almost half of the respondents (44%) marked ‘colleagues’ as the main resource for their support and while
about a quarter of respondents reported that they learned to use IWBs by themselves. Shenton and Pagett (2007),
who observed IWB users in the UK schools, suggest that their teacher-participants gained skills to use IWBs
working by themselves or with a group of teachers. As such, these two sources should be considered as essential
supports for teachers’ IWB use as well as for informal IWB training.
Teachers’ ratings for the three IWB-training themes surprisingly indicated that most of them do not need IWB
training related to finding and designing instructional materials for the IWB although only 22 teachers received
389