Investigation of the views of teachers toward the use of smart boards in the teaching and learning process
Furkan Bıçak 1 *
More Detail
1 Trabzon University, Institute of Educational Sciences
* Corresponding Author


This study was carried out to determine the teachers' views on the usability of the smart board in the classroom and their needs to adapt it in the teaching process. Case study method was adopted in the study. The study was conducted on 10 different middle school branch teachers who were working at public schools in a northern province of Turkey. As data collection tool, a semi-structured interview form which is used commonly in qualitative research methods was established. The data obtained were evaluated within the context of content and descriptive analysis techniques. The results revealed that although teachers expressed a positive opinion on smart board practices, they stated that they were insufficient in the use of smart boards and that they needed more practice-oriented in-service courses. Depending on the results, some suggestions have been made about smart board applications and seminars to be given to teachers.



  • Baran, B. (2010). Experiences from the process of designing lessons with interactive whiteboard: Assure as a road map. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1 (4), 367-380.
  • BECTA (2006). Teaching interactively with electronic whiteboards in the primary phase. Retrieved from [08.01.2016]
  • Cabus, S. J., Haelermans, C., & Franken, S. (2017). SMART in Mathematics? Exploring the effects of in class level differentiation using SMART board on math proficiency. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 145-161.
  • Çelik, D., Özmen, Z. M., Aydın, S., Güler, M., Birgin, O., Açıkyıldız, G., ... & Gürbüz, R. (2018). A national comparison of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers' beliefs about mathematics: The case of Turkey. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 42(193), 289-315.
  • Çepni, S. (2009). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş [Introduction to research and project studies] (4th edition). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık
  • Demirci, A., Taş, H. İ., & Özel, A. (2007). The use of technology at secondary school geography lessons in Turkey. Marmara Geographical Review, 15(2), 37-54.
  • Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. CITY, CA: Sage Publications,
  • Ekici, F. (2008). Effects of smart board usage on primary school maths students’ success. Unpublished master thesis. Marmara University, İstanbul.
  • Gökçe, S., Yenmez, A. A., & Özpınar, İ. (2016). Mathematics teachers’ opinions on worksheets prepared with geogebra. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 164-187.
  • Jelyani, S. J., Janfaza, A., & Soori, A. (2014). Integration of SMART boards in EFL classrooms. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 2(2), 20-23.
  • Kaya, G. (2013). The effects of using interactive whiteboards on students' achievement of transformational geometry in mathematics lessons. Unpublished Master thesis. Gazi University, Ankara.
  • Kazu, H. & Yeşilyurt, E. (2008). Teacher’s aims of using ınstructional tools and materials. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 18(2), 175-188.
  • Keleş, E., & Çelik, D. (2000). Investigation of in-service training courses performed about computer technologies and their application in education between 2000 and 2010 in Turkey. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 2(1), 164-194.
  • Kennewel, S. (2006, October). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the U.K. Paperpresented at The AARE Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Kennewell, S. & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227–241.
  • Lai, H. J. (2010). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of interactive whiteboard training workshops: A case study from Taiwan. Educational Technology, 26(4), 511-522.
  • Lipton, M. L., & Lipton, L. G. (2010) Enhancing the radiology learning experience with electronic white board technology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 194(6), 1547-1551.
  • Marzano, R .J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82.
  • Onder, R., & Aydin, H. (2016). Students' views towards the usage of smart board in biology lessons. Journal on School Educational Technology, 11(3), 18-28.
  • Özgür, H. (2013). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Exploring of the relationship between critical thinking dispositions and individual innovativeness of ICT pre-service teachers in terms of various variables]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2), 409-420.
  • Powers, R., & Blubaugh, W. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Preparing teachers for the future. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3), 254-270.
  • Rüzgar, B. (2005). Bilginin eğitim teknolojilerinden yaralanarak eğitimde paylaşımı. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 1303– 521.
  • Sarıtepeci, M., Durak, H., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016). Examination of teachers’ in-service training needs in the field of instructional technology: an evaluation in light of applications implemented at FATIH project. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 601-620.
  • Sevim, O., & Sayır, F. (2017). Investigating interactive white board speaking skills activities in Turkish lessons according to teachers’ and students’ ideas. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 5(8), 160-172.
  • Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick? Computers & Education, 51, 1321-1341.
  • Smith, H, J., Higgins, S., Wall, K. and Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
  • Şahin, M . (2016). The analysis of the views of teachers related to the functions of teaching materials during the teaching-learning process. Kastamonu Education Journal, 23(3), 995-1012.
  • Tataroğlu, B. (2009). The effect of utilizing the smart board in mathematics teaching on 10th grade students, their academic standings, their attitude towards mathematics and their self efficacy levels. Unpublished Master thesis. Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir.
  • Tezci, E. (2009). Teachers’ effect on ICT use in education. The Turkey sample. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1285–1294.
  • Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Quantitative and qualitative research methods] (5th ed.) Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayınları.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.