The effects of using an interactive whiteboard on the academic achievement of university students

In this section the data from the experiment is analyzed and interpreted. The academic achievement pretest mean scores and standard deviation values of the three groups are given in Table 3.

Table 3: Pretest Mean Scores and Standard Deviation Values of Groups

PRETEST	Groups	N		S
	Control	16	35.63	9.98
	Experimental	17	36.47	10.72

As shown in Table 3, the experimental group of students’ achievement test mean score before the experiment was =36.47. The same value for control group students was =35.63. These values show that the achievement levels of the two groups were similar at the beginning of the study. The difference between their mean scores was ( _control - _experimental)= -0.74. The results of the independent t-test conducted to determine the significance of the difference between mean scores of the groups are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Independent T-Test Results of Pretest Mean Scores

Groups	N		S	t	DF	P
Control	16	35.63	9.98	-0.169	31	0.816
Experimental	17	36.47	10.72	-0.169	31	0.816

According to the results of the t-test shown in Table 4, no significant difference exists between pretest mean scores of groups (P>0.05), thus suggesting that the initial achievement levels of groups were similar. In Table 5, the analyses of the posttest mean scores of groups after the experiment are presented

Table 5: Posttest Mean Scores and Standard Deviation Values of Groups

POSTTEST	Groups	N		S
	Control	16	65.31	16.38
	Experimental	17	70.88	14.39

As shown in Table 5, the post-experiment mean achievement score of experimental group students was =70.88, while that of control group students was =65.31. This shows a difference between the posttest scores of control and experimental groups at the end of the study. The difference between the mean scores of the groups was ( _control - _experimental)= -5.57. Table 5 shows the achievement percentages of the groups before and after the study. The lower standard deviation values in the experimental group may be due to the effect of interactive whiteboards in increasing homogeneity. Table 6 shows the results of the independent t-test conducted to determine the significance of the difference between mean scores and achievement percentages of the groups.

Table 6: Independent T-Test Results of Posttest Mean Scores

Groups	N		S	t	DF	P
Control	16	65.31	16.38	-1.114	31	0.307
Experimental	17	70.88	14.39	-1.114	31	0.307

In Table 6 it can be seen that there is no meaningful difference among posttest mean scores of groups (P>0.05). It was found that the electricity test achievement scores of experimental and control group students did not significantly differ from the beginning to the end of the study, showing that being in different groups and measurement at different times did not significantly affect achievement levels. These findings reveal that the use of the interactive whiteboard did not significantly increase students’ academic achievement in the topic of electricity.

Below are the views of some experimental group students.

1. What is your opinion about the intelligibility of interactive board activities and their effects on students?

Female student (1): I think they are appropriate in classes because of their visual elements. I am of the opinion that they increase students’ motivation in the classes.
Female student (2): The interactive board is an enjoyable and educational practice that is in accordance with the constructive approach principles of “learning by doing” and “active student participation”.
Male student (1): The experiments conducted with the interactive board applications are more meaningful and easy to run than normal experiments. Interactive board applications are also noteworthy because they are nontraditional.
Female student (3): They reduce the time wasted. They have an important place in schools that lack experimental equipment. They facilitate learning provide permanent learning and encourage student participation in lessons

2. What are the advantages of interactive board applications in the instructional environment?

Female student (4): They ensure quick learning. They teach students how to use technological tools. They also teach better adaptation to modern life.
Male student (5): They can easily be applied to experiments. They make even the least distinct points easily seen.
Female student (3): They ensure active involvement of all students in the class. As they are short applications, I think that classroom management and ensuring teacher’s authority will be easier in these applications in comparison to laboratories.

3. What is the greatest impact (feature) of interactive board applications that impressed you and how would you describe this impact?

Male student (8): For me, the touch screen feature during laboratory experiments is fun and impressive.
Female student (1): They break students’ dependence on textbooks. Most importantly, they can be used in schools without laboratories. They allow us to access experiments at any time.
Male student (3): The visual elements make classes more fun, enjoyable and exciting. When a student uses the interactive board, s/he feels like part of the board.