Volume 2, Issue 6-1, November 2014, Page: 49-53
Interactive White Boards and Iranian Male High School Students’ Vocabulary Breadth
Hajar Hassani, English Department, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran
Fatemeh Behjat, English Department, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran
Seyed Jamal Abdorahim Zadeh, English Department, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran
Received: Sep. 17, 2014;       Accepted: Sep. 22, 2014;       Published: Nov. 19, 2014
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.17      View  2720      Downloads  158
Abstract
Using technology in education is very common nowadays. Interactive white boards are considered one of the product of this technology. The purpose of this research study was to determine the impact of the interactive whiteboards as an instructional tool on Iranian first-grade high school male students’ vocabulary achievement. Fifty first-grade high school male students participated in this study and were divided into two separate groups: one experimental group who were taught through the interactive whiteboards and the control group taught through traditional whiteboard. A vocabulary test used to asses students’ vocabulary achievement. The study was based on eight ninety-minute-long sessions(one session each week). Four units including vocabularies were taught during this two-month period. While teaching vocabulary, at first the teacher played the CD that pronounced each new word 3 times and asked students to repeat the words after listening to them. Then, the pronounced word appeared on the screen. Next, if the word was concrete, its picture was displayed on the interactive whiteboard, and finally the new words were used in sentences. The result of pre and post-test indicated that using interactive white boards as a treatment did not have a significant impact on Iranian high school male students’ vocabulary achievement when compared to traditional board.
Keywords
Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) or Smart Boards, Vocabulary Breadth, Students’ Perception
To cite this article
Hajar Hassani, Fatemeh Behjat, Seyed Jamal Abdorahim Zadeh, Interactive White Boards and Iranian Male High School Students’ Vocabulary Breadth, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Special Issue:Innovations in Foreign Language Teaching. Vol. 2, No. 6-1, 2014, pp. 49-53. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.17
Reference
[1]
Bell, M. (2000). The impact of the interactive electronic whiteboard on writing achievement, writing attitudes, and computer attitudes among (90) eighth graders.Texas: Wasco.
[2]
Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Interactive whiteboards: New tools, new pedagogies,new learning? Retrieved from http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Interactive-whiteboard-survey.pdf on 13 July 2014
[3]
Gruber, B (2011) . A case study of an interactive whiteboard district-wide technology initiative Iinto iddle school classrooms. Georgia: George Mason University, Fairfax.
[4]
Enayati, M., Modanloo, Y., & Mir Kazemi, F.(2012). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of technology in education. Jornal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(11), 10958-10963.
[5]
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perception of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102-117.
[6]
Lopez,Y .(2011).The smart board is an effective tool to motivates students to learn. Florida memorial university. Retrived from http://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/smartboard%2Bwith%2Bkindergartener.pdf on 3July 2014
[7]
Mathews-aydinli, J & E, F. (2010). Turkish students' and teachers' attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer assisted language learning 23 (3), 235- 252,
[8]
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2010). Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue, Technology pedagogy and education, 19 (2), 195-209.
[9]
Morgan, G. Lyn. (2008). Improving student engagement: use of the interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool to improve engagement and behavior in the junior high school classroom, PhD, school of education, Liberty University.
[10]
Oak, M. (2012). Impact of technology on education. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/list_5775936_disadvantages-smartboard.html on 25 June 2014.
[11]
Phillips,M. G. (2013). Using the keyword method and the smart board in vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Special Educational Services/Instruction College of Education In partial fulfillment of the requirement For the degree of Master of Arts at Rowan University.
[12]
Qian, D., & Schedl,M. (2004).Evaluation of an in-dept vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing. 21(1), 28-52.
[13]
Riska, P. A. (2010). The impact of smart board technology on growth in mathematics achievement of gifted learner. A dissertation presented at the Faculty of the School of Education.Liberty University
[14]
Robinson, M. (2004). The impact of the electronic whiteboard on student achievement in middle school mathematics. PhD Dissertationو Florida State: College of Education.
[15]
Shen,Z .(2008). The roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in EFL reading performance.Asian Social Science.p.2.
[16]
Tate, L. (2004). “Using interactive whiteboard to increase student retention, attention, participation, interest and success in a required general education college course.www.smarterkids. org/research/pdf/tate.pdf on 1o August 2014
Browse journals by subject