Teachers’ Understandings and Practices of Using Smartboards as Digital Tools to Teach Grade 12 Life Sciences Genetics
Keywords:
Genetics; grade 12 teachers; life Sciences; smartboards; technological pedagogical content knowledgeAbstract
Teaching genetics makes learners understand the inheritance of characteristics and genetic disorders in organisms, as well as the impact of genetic engineering in human daily lives. Traditional methods of teaching genetics are ineffective in improving learners’ understanding. The paper reports a study that investigated teachers’ utilisation of smartboards as digital tools to teach genetics concepts to learners. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framed the study to measure the teachers’ knowledge and skills in integrating technology into the teaching of genetics concepts. Through a qualitative research approach four grade 12 life sciences teachers were purposefully selected from high schools in the West Rand District in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Each teacher was observed teaching genetics concepts to examine how they use smartboards as digital tools to teach grade 12 learners. Each teacher was also interviewed using open-ended interview schedule to explore teachers’ understandings of the affordances of smart boards as digital tools to teach grade 12 genetics concepts to learners. Data was analysed thematically, and three themes emerged relating to Life Sciences teachers’ use of smartboards to make genetics concepts accessible to grade 12 learners; Teachers’ understanding of the affordances of smartboards as digital tools to teach genetics; and Teachers’ challenges in the use of smartboards. The study highlights the potential for smartboards to enhance learner understanding of abstract concepts and ultimately improving performance in assessments.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.5.17
References
Akar, H. (2020). The effect of smart board use on academic achievement: A meta-analytical and thematic study. Journal of Educational Technology, 8(3), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.v8i3.908
Al-Faki, I. M., & Khamis, A. H. (2014). Difficulties facing teachers in using interactive whiteboards in their classes. American International Journal of Social Science, 3 (2), 136-158.
Angraini, E., Zubaidah, S., Susanto, H., & Omar, N. (2022). Enhancing creativity in genetics using three teaching strategies-based TPACK model. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(12), em2196. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12697
Aivelo, T., & Uitto, A. (2018). Teachers’ approaches to genetics teaching mirror their choice of content and avoidance of sensitive issues. BioRxiv, 350710. https://doi.org/10.1101/350710
Bayar, M. F. & Kurt, U. (2021). The effect of using smart boards in science lessons on middle school students, attitudes towards smartboards and reflective thinking skills. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.373.2
Biyela, T. E. & Ramaila, S. (2021). Pedagogical practices adopted by novice life sciences teachers when teaching genetics in grade 12 classrooms. Official Journal of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education, 1(1), 2799-3507. https://hdl.handle.net/10210/494511
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Chigamba, T. (2021). Exploring the pedagogical value of using smartboards and tablets in high school physical sciencse classrooms (Unpublished MEd dissertation). University of Witwatersrand.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, & mixed methods approach (5th ed.). London: Sage.
Cooper, B. & Glaesser, J. (2012). Qualitative work and the testing and development of theory: Lessons from a study combining cross-case and within-case analysis via Ragin's QCA. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(2), Art. 4.
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.2.1776
Daniel, K. L., Bucklin, C. J., Austin Leone, E., & Idema, J. (2018). Towards a definition of representational competence. In Daniel, K. (eds) Towards a framework for representational competence in science education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_1
Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, M. H. (2014). The relationship among Chinese practising teachers' epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs, and their beliefs about the use of ICT. Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 245–258.
Department of Basic Education. (2022). Report on the national senior certificate examinations (2021). National diagnostic report on learner performance. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Eldh, A. E., Rycroft-Malone, J., Van der Zijpp, T., McMullan, C., & Hawkes, C. (2020). Using non-participant observation as a method to understand implementation context in evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(3), 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12449
Ezechi, N. G. (2021). The problems of teaching and learning genetics in secondary schools in Enugu South local government area of Enugu State. British International Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 8(4), 13 19.
Fauzi, A. & Ramadani, S. D. (2017). Learning the genetics concepts through project activities using Drosophila melanogaster: A qualitative descriptive study. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia, 3(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v3i3.4540
Giles, R. M. & Shaw, E. L. (2011). Smart boards rock! Using technology to investigate geology with young children. Science & children, 49(4), 36-37.
Kazeni, M. & Onwu, G. (2013). Comparative effectiveness of context-based and traditional approaches in teaching genetics: Student views and achievement. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1–2), 50–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2013.826970
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60-70.
Machova, K. & Ehler, E. (2023). Secondary school students’ misconceptions in genetics: Origins and solutions. Journal of Biological Education, 57 (3), 633-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1933136
Mata, R., Josef, A., & Josef, R. H. (2015). Propensity for risk taking across the life span and around the globe. Psychological Science, 27(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615617811
Matemera, S. (2022). Smartboard use and pedagogic practices among educators: A case of a South African township school. International Journal of Educational Studies, 5(2), 27-87. https://doi.org/10.53935/2641533x.v5i2.246
Mihai, M. A. (2020). The use of interactive whiteboards in urban Gauteng perspectives in Education. Perspectives in Education, 38(2), 318-336. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/80907
Mishra, P., & Kohler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A network for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Young, J. R., Young, J. L. & Shaker, Z. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) literature using confidence intervals. Techtrends tech trends, 56, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0600-6
Mohanarajah, T. (2003). An appraisal of the smart board for collaborative learning. Msc dissertation: Massey University. New Zealand.
Moll, M. B., & Allen, R.D. (2014). Student difficulties with Mendelian genetics problems. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 229-233.
Mtshali, N. T. (2021). Grade 12 teachers’ experiences in using interactive whiteboards when teaching Life Sciences (Unpublished MEd minor dissertation). University of Johannesburg. https://hdl.handle.net/10210/486306
Mussard, J. & Reiss, J. (2022). Why is genetics so hard to learn? Insights from examiner reports for 16 to 18 years olds in England. School Science Review,103 (384), 32-40.
Ndlovu, N. S. (2015). The pedagogical integration of ICTs by seven South African township secondary school teachers. PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand.
Ndwandwe, K. P., Ramaligela, S. M., & Mtshali, T. I. (2024). The effectiveness of smartboards in enhancing technology teachers’ creativity. African Perspectives of Research in Teaching and Learning Journal, 1(8), 1-9.
Nyimbili, F. & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: English Language, Teaching, Literature, Linguistics & Communication, 5(1),90-99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419
Parmeter, C. (2012). Student learning engagement with smartboards in readers’ workshop. Master’s study, St. John Fisher University: Rochester, NY
Ritchie, M. J., Karen L., Drummond, K. L., Brandy, N., Smith, B. N., Sullivan, J. L., & Landes, S. J. (2022). Development of a qualitative data analysis codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework. Implementation Science Communications 3(98), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00344-9
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. New Delhi: Sage.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J. & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2) 4-14.
Strydom, A. & Bezuidenhout, R. M. (2014). Qualitative data collection. In Research matters, eds. F. du Plooy-Cilliers, C. Davis and R.M. Bezuidenhout. 173-194. Cape Town: Juta & Company.
Sutton, J. & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research: data collection, analysis and management. The Canadian Journal of hospital pharmacy, 68, 226-231. https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v68i3.1456
Tefo, R. M. (2020). The influence of smart boards on the teaching and learning of grade 12 physical sciences in Tshwane District, Gauteng, South Africa. Unpublished MEd dissertation, University of South Africa: South Africa.
Tiba, C.A. (2018). The ability of newly qualified teachers to integrate technology in their pedagogical practice. PhD thesis, Cape Peninsula University of technology: South Africa
Trelease, R. B. (2016). From chalkboard, slides, and paper to e?learning: How computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(6), 583-602. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1620
Vlckova, J., Kubiatko, M., & Usak, M. (2016). Czech high school students’ misconceptions about genetics concepts: Preliminary study. Journal of Baltic Science Education,15 (6), 738-745. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.738
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Esther Ntombifuthi Gumede, Lydia Mavuru
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
