High School Students’ Attitudes and Experiences in EFL Classrooms Equipped with Interactive Whiteboards

  • Turgay Han Dept. of English Language and Literature, Ordu University, Ordu, School of Foreign Languages, Kafkas University, Kars,
  • Semih Okatan Dept. of English Language and Literature, Ordu University, Ordu, School of Foreign Languages, Kafkas University, Kars
Keywords: FATIH project, Interactive Whiteboards, English as a foreign language, English teachers, ninth grade students


The purpose of this study was to examine ninth grade EFL students’ experiences and attitudes towards classrooms equipped with interactive whiteboards (IWB). The data were collected with a questionnaire about attitudes towards IWB use in EFL classes, and observations from three different classrooms in three different high schools. The study indicated that the EFL students were not fully aware of how to use IWBs in learning English although they had a background of IWB use. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in the attitudes of the male and female students towards using IWBs. Overall, the results revealed that EFL students’ attitudes towards IWBs were positive although there were some technical challenges in IWB classrooms.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Turgay Han, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Ordu University, Ordu, School of Foreign Languages, Kafkas University, Kars,
Turgay Han (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of English. After teaching for ten years at Kafkas University, he joined Ordu University in 2016. His areas of research center on EFL measurement and assessment issues, individual differences in language learning, and his areas of scholarship include assessing language skills, using G-theory to examine score variability and reliability of EFL writing assessments.
Semih Okatan, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Ordu University, Ordu, School of Foreign Languages, Kafkas University, Kars

Semih Okatan graduated from the Department of English Language and Literature, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Turkey in 2002. He worked as an English Teacher at Ministry of National Education for ten years. Later on, he has started to work as an instructor at Kafkas University. He received his Master’s Degree from Kafkas University, Department of English Language and Literature in 2014. He is currently doing his PhD at Istanbul Aydın University. His research interest includes teaching language skills.


Al-Faki, I. M., & Khamis, A. H. A. (2014). Difficulties facing teachers in using interactive whiteboards in their classes, American International Journal of Social Science, 2(3). 136-158. Aydın, S. (2007). Attitudes of EFL Learners towards the Internet. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 6(3), 1-9. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov.on 15.02.2015 Aydınlı, J. M., & Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward the use of interacactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 235-252. DOI: 10.1080/09588221003776781 Best J. W., & Kahn J. v. (2006). Research in education (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22-34. Cloke, C., & Sharif, S. (2001). Why use information and communications technology? Some theoretical and practical issues. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 1(10), 7-18. DOI: 10.1080/14759390100200099 Conacher, J. E., & Royall, F. (1998). An evaluation of the use of the internet for the purposes of foreign language learning. The Language Learning Journal, 18(1), 37-41. DOI: 10.1080/09571739885200231 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage. DeSantis, J. (2012). Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard investment: Three guiding principles for designing effective professional development. The Clearing House, 85, 51–55. DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2011.607867 Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112. DOI 10.1002/tea.20243

Essam, B., & Asiri, M. J. S. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions regarding the benefits of using the interactive whiteboards (IWB): The case of a Sauidi intermediate school. Paper presented at International Educational Technology Conference. Procedai- Social and Behavioral Sciences 64, 179-185. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research. Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.. Gerard, F., Widener, J., & Greene, M. (1999). Using SMART board in foreign language classes. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (10th, San Antonio, Tx, February 28- March 4). Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217–223. DOI:10.2307/2573808 Gursul, F., & Tozmaz, B. (2010). Which one is smarter? Teacher or Board. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science 2, 5731-5737. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.936 Han, T., & Keskin, F. (2016). Using a mobile application (WhatsApp) to reduce EFL speaking anxiety. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 12, 29-50 İpek , İ., & Sözcü, Ö. F. (2016). Preferences and attitudes for using interactive whiteboards in different courses and learning. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1), 173-184. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2016.15.173 Johnson, M. E., Ramanair, J., & Brine, J. (2010). It’s not necessary to have this board to learn English, but it’s helpful’: Student and teacher perceptions of interactive whiteboard use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 199-212. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2010.51344 Katwibun, H. (2014). Using an interactive whiteboard in vocabulary teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 674 – 678. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.278 Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 359-383. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-010-9096-2

Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013) Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education 29. 76-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005 Korkmaz, O., & Cakil, I. (2013). Teachers’ difficulties about using smart boards: 2nd World Conference on Educational Technology Researches. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 83. 595-599. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.113 Lee, K. W. (2005). English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer assisted language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(12). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers.html. on 18. 10. 2015. Liang, T.-H., Huang, Y.-M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). An investigation of teaching and learning interaction factors for the use of the interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 356–367. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6 MEB. (2014). 9th and 12th grades English curriculum, Ankara 2014. Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr.on 19.10.2014 MEB. (2014). Fatih Projesi (The Movement to Enhance Opportunities and Improve Technology). Retrieved from http://www.fatihprojesi. com/?pnum=7&pt=PROJE+HAKKINDA.on 19.10.2014 Öz, H. (2014). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of interactive white boards in the English as a foreign language classroom. The Turkish Online Educational Technology, 13(3). 156-177. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. DOI: 10.1177/1525822x02239569 Schmid, E. C. (2006). Investigating the Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the English Language Classroom through the Lens of a Critical Theory of Technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(1), 47-62. DOI: 10.1080/09588220600804012 Schmid, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education 51, 1553-1586. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005

Smits, J., & Hoşgör, A.G. (2006). Effects of family background characteristics on educational participation in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(5), 545–560. DOI:10.1016/j. ijedudev.2006.02.002 Sözcü, Ö. F. & İpek, İ. (2012). Instructional, Technological and Psychological Approaches of Using IWBs: A Framework. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences 55, 990 – 999. DOI: 10,1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.589 Sweeney, T. (2010). Transforming pedagogy through interactive whiteboards: Using activity theory to understand tensions in practice. Australian Educational Computing, 2(24), 28-34. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ Belief and Use of Interactive Whiteboards for Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394. Zeng, L., Lu, x., & Zuo, M. (2010). Research into application of interactive whiteboard to interactive educational mode. Paper Presented at Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering (CiSE), 2010 International Conference.DOI: 10.1109/ cise.2010.5676988.

How to Cite
Han, T., & Okatan, S. (2016). High School Students’ Attitudes and Experiences in EFL Classrooms Equipped with Interactive Whiteboards. GiST Education and Learning Research Journal, (13), 148-165. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.317