Smart Classroom and Students’ Achievementduring the Covid-19: Prospects and ChallengesPost Covid Situations
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the present context, the trend of education varying for a good number of determining factors like integrated technologies, new academic approaches, flexible learning space and most importantly the recent corona pandemic situation where the concept of smart classroom can create a gateway for the learners to face the challenges. Smart classroom is defined as a physical classroom space that was effective for showing teaching content, easy for class management, convenient for accessing learning resources, easy for instructional interaction, and combined with contextual awareness. Huang et al. (2012). Smart classroom helps the learner to visualize the course material, create education more attractive, fascinating, comprehensible, turn out to be more interactive, get easy access to online recourses, follow green concept, use time saving technology, increase productivity and many more. There is no unmixed blessing in this world, so smart classroom also brings some challenges with it like lack of technological skill, insufficient IT support, fascination for traditional methods, lack of proper infrastructure, difficulties for the implementation of new teaching plan, inadequate training and so on. This paper is a secondary data-based content analysis. This study aims at to reveal the advantages, disadvantages, and the procedure of Smart classroom in the Covid-19 and Post Covid Situations.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. Anyone may copy, distribute, remix, adapt and build upon the work, including for commercial purposes, provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated. License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
How to Cite
References
[1] Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers& Education, 47, 373-398.
[2] Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005).
Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of
interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57, 457-469.
[3] Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2008). Pupils’ attitudes towards school science as they
transfer from an ICT-rich primary school to a secondary school with fewer ICT resources: Does
ICT matter? Education & Information Technologies, 13, 103-118.
[4] Beeland, W.D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning, and technology: A report on 10
years of ACOT research. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from
http://education.smarttech.com/ste/en
[5] Burns, C., &Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of
interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 35-49.
[6] Clyde, L. A. (2004). Electronic whiteboards. Teacher Librarian, 32, 43-44.
[7] DenBeste, M. (2003). Power point, technology and the web: More than just an overhead
projector for the new century? History Teacher, 36, 491-504.
[8] Driscoll, M. P. (2002). How people learn (and what technology might have to do with it.
Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED470032)
[9] Fletcher, G. H. (2006). Imagine the possibilities T.H.E. Journal.
[10] Furr, P., Ragsdale, R., & Horton, S. (2005). Technology’s non-neutrality: Past lessons can help
guide Today’s classrooms. Education & Information Technologies, 10, 277-287.
[11] Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive
whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science
classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 348-358.
[12] Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A 'learning
revolution'? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary
classrooms. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32, 243-256.
[13] Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2003). Players in the management of change: Introducing interactive
whiteboards into schools. Management in Education, 17, 20-23.
[14] Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2007). Leading changed classroom culture -- the impact of interactive
whiteboards. Management in Education (Sage Publications Inc.), 21, 21-24.
[15] Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21,102-117.
[16] Hargreaves, L., Moyles, J., Merry, R., Paterson, F., Pell, A., &Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003). How
do primary school teachers define and implement 'interactive teaching' in the national literacy
strategy in England? Research Papers in Education, 18, 217-236.
[17] Jones, K. (2004) Using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of mathematics: a
research bibliography. MicroMath, 20, 5-6.
[18] Keller, T. (2008). The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism. New York, New York:
Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
[19] Kelley, P., Underwood, G., Potter, F., Hunter, J., & Beveridge, S. (2007). Viewpoints.
Learning, Media, & Technology, 32, 333-347.
[20] Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their
influence on learning. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32, 227-241.
[21] Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive
technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73.
[22] Kent, N., & Facer, K. (2004). Different worlds? A comparison of young people's home and school ICT use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 440-455.
[23] Kent, P. (2006). Using interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11, 23-26.
[24] Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twentyfirst century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30, 257-274.
[25] Knight, P., Pennant, J., & Piggott, J. (2004). What does it mean to "use the interactive whiteboard" in the daily mathematics lesson? Micro Math, 20, 14-16.
[26] Landis, M. (2005, March/April). Eight ways to integrate whiteboard into instruction. Media and Methods, 41, 4.
[27] Lawrenz, F., Gravely, A., &Ooms, A. (2006). Perceived helpfulness and amount of use of technology in science and mathematics classes at different grade levels. Technology in Science and Mathematics Classes, 106, 133-139.
[28] Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study.
Computers & Education, 49, 284-296.
[29] Mackall, P. (2004). Interactive whiteboards enhance the learning experience for deaf, hard-of- hearing students. T H E Journal, 31, 64-66.
[30] Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Thompson, K. L. (2008). Comparison of the effects of smart board technology and flash card instruction on sight word recognition and observational learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 34-46.
[31] Merrett, S., & Edwards, J. (2005). Enhancing mathematical thinking with an interactive whiteboard. Micro Math, 21, 9-12.
[32] Ozel, S., EbrarYetkiner, Z., &Capraro, R. M. (2008). Technology in K-12 mathematics classrooms. School Science & Mathematics, 108, 80-85.
[33] Pountain, D. (2001). The new penguin dictionary of computing: An a-z of computing jargon and concepts. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.
[34] Reardon, T. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in school: Effective uses. Media & Methods, 38, 12.
[35] Schut, C. R. (2007). Student perceptions of interactive whiteboards in a biology classroom (Master’s thesis, Cedarville University, 2007).
[36] Schweder, W., Wissick, C. A., & Mounce, A. B. (2008). Teaching content with interactive whiteboards. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 54-58.
[37] Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From ‘bored’ to screen: The use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41, 129-136.
[38] SMART Technologies, Company Info. (2006). Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-
[39] Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
[40] Starkman, N. (2006). The wonders of interactive WHITEBOARDS. T H E Journal, 33, 36-38.
[41] Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M., et al. (2004).
[42] Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). Using video-stimulated reflective dialogue to learn from
children about their learning with and without ICT. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 16, 321-335.
[43] Vail, K. (2003). School technology grows up. American School Board Journal, 190, 34-37.
[44] Venezky, R. L. (2004). Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education,
Communication & Information, 4, 3-21.
[45] Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 36, 851-867.
[46] Wheeler, S. (2001). Information and communication technologies and the changing role of the teacher. Journal of Educational Media, 26, 7-17.
[47] Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., &Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 307-320.
[48] Zhang, S. & Deng, H. (2004). Perception of learning effectiveness in the multimedia classroom vs. the traditional classroom: A case study. Media Review, 11, 87-107.
[49] Ziolkowski, R. (2004). Interactive whiteboards: Impacting teaching and learning. Media & Methods, 40, 44-44.