Advertisement

Interactive Whiteboard-Based Instruction Versus Lecture-Based Instruction: A Study on College Students’ Academic Self-efficacy and Academic Press

  • Yinghui Shi
  • Changling Peng
  • Xue Zhang
  • Harrison Hao YangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10309)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of interactive whiteboard (IWB)-based instruction on students’ academic self-efficacy and academic press. A quasi-experiment study was conducted using a sample of 103 freshmen from a university in central China. While students in one class employed the IWB-based instructional approach, students in the other class employed the traditional lecture-based instructional approach. Students in both classes studied English for three months. The pre- and post- surveys showed that the students with the IWB-based instructional approach had a higher level of academic self-efficacy and academic press than did the students’ with the lecture-based instruction approach, which indicated that the use of IWB can increase students’ self-efficacy and academic press when cooperated with an appropriate instructional approach.

Keywords

Interactive whiteboard English teaching Academic self-efficacy Academic press 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the specific funding for education science research by self-determined research funds of CCNU from the colleges’ basic research and operation of MOE (ccnu16JYKX037).

References

  1. 1.
    Kennwell, S., Higgins, S.: Introduction to IWBs. Learn. Media Technol. 32, 207–212 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shi, Y.H., Yang, Z.K., Yang, H., Liu, S.Y.: Study on the research hotspots of interactive whiteboards in education. In: 4th International Conference on Internet Multimedia Computing and Service, pp. 209–212. ACM ICPS (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J.: Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21, 91–101 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., Door, V.: The interactive whiteboard: a literature survey. Technol. Pedagogy Educ. 14, 155–170 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kennwell, S.: Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: a synthesis of research from the UK. BERA (British Educational Research Association), UK (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., Warwick, P.: Using interactive whiteboards to orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technol. Pedagogy Educ. 19, 195–209 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency).: Getting the most from your interactive whiteboard: a guide for secondary schools. BECTA, Coventry (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schroeder, R.: Active learning with interactive whiteboard: a literature review and a case study for college freshmen. Commun. Inf. Literacy 1, 64–73 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall, I., Higgins, S.: Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21, 102–117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, F., Hardman, F., Higgins, S.: The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. Br. Edu. Res. J. 32, 443–457 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shi, Y.H., Yang, Z.K., Yang, H., Liu, S.Y.: The impact of interactive whiteboards on education. In: 4th International Conference on Internet Multimedia Computing and Service, pp. 213–218. ACM ICPS (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, J.: Universals and specifics of math self-concept, math self-efficacy, and math anxiety across 41 PISA 2003 participating countries. Learn. Individ. Differ. 19, 355–365 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vogel, F.R., Human-Vogel, S.: Academic commitment and self-efficacy as predictors of academic achievement in additional materials science. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 35, 1298–1310 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy — toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kutluca, T., Ekici, G.: Examining teacher candidates’ attitudes and self-efficacy perceptions towards the computer assisted education. Hacettepe Univ. J. Educ. 38, 177–188 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Etem, Y., Ulas, A.H., Akan, D.: Teacher self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and computer self-efficacy as predictors of attitude toward applying computer-supported education. J. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 591–601 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linnenbrink, E.A., Pintrich, P.R.: Achievement goal theory and affect: an asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educ. Psychol. 37, 69–78 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M., Espenshade, T.J.: Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. J. Res. High. Educ. 46, 677–706 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liew, J., McTigue, E.M., Barrois, L., et al.: Adaptive and effortful control and academic self-efficacy beliefs on achievement: a longitudinal study of 1st through 3rd graders. J. Early Child. Res. Q. 23, 515–526 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Castagnaro, A.V.: Evaluating sixth graders’ self-efficacy in response to the use of educational technology. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artle=1070&context=cgu_etd
  21. 21.
    Shouse, R.C.: Academic press and sense of community: conflict, congruence, and implications for student achievement. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 1, 47–68 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E., et al.: Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Middleton, M.J., Midgley, C.: Beyond motivation: middle school students’ perceptions of press for understanding in math. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27, 373–391 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deng, Q.: A practical research on the learning pressure among college students. J. Nerv. Dis. Ment. Health 8, 20–23 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bandura, A.: Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In: Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (eds.) Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, pp. 1–43. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zimmerman, B.J., Cleary, T.J.: Adolescents’ development of personal agency: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In: Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (eds.) Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, pp. 307–337. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shi, Y.H., Yang, H., Wu, D., Zhu, S.: Interactive whiteboard-based instruction versus Lecture-based instruction: a study on students’ learning achievement. In: 4th International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology, pp. 231–235. IEEE Computer Society, CPS (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Middleton, M.J., Blumenfeld, P.: Types and sources of academic press in middle school science classrooms. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~krajcik/Types%26Sources.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yinghui Shi
    • 1
  • Changling Peng
    • 1
  • Xue Zhang
    • 1
  • Harrison Hao Yang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Central China Normal UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.State University of New York at OswegoOswegoUSA

Personalised recommendations