Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 47-62

  Schmid, E Cutrim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746222010     PISSN: 09588221     EISSN: 17443210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09588220600804012     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bell, M. A. (2000). Impact of the electronic interactive whiteboard on students' attitudes and achievement in eighth-grade writing instruction. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Baylor University.
2. Bruce, B. C. (1997). Literacy technologies: what Stance should we take? Reading Online, 29(2), 289-309.
3. Burden, K. (2002). Learning from the bottom up the contribution of school based practice and research in the effective use of interactive whiteboards for the FE/HE sector. Learning and skills research. Paper presented at the Making an Impact Regionally Conference, The Earth Centre, Doncaster.
4. Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology: lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Debski, R. (2003). Analysis of research in CALL (1980-2000) with a reflection on CALL as an academic discipline. ReCALL, 15(2), 177-188.
6. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
7. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Collier-Macmillan.
8. Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Garrett, N. (1998). Where do research and practice meet? Developing a discipline. ReCall, 10(1), 7-12.
10. Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technologies for Teacher Education, 10(3), 257-278.
11. Goodison, T. (2003). Integrating ICT in the classroom: a case study of two contrasting lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 549-566.
12. Greiffenhagen, C. (2000). From traditional blackboards to interactive whiteboards: a pilot study to inform technology design. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference Psychology of Mathematics Education, 24(2), 305-312.
13. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study. Retrieved December 5, 2002, from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
14. Motteram, G. (1999). Changing the research paradigm: qualitative research methodology and the CALL classroom. In R. Debski, & M. Levy (Eds.), WORLDCALL: global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
15. Shamim, F. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Walker, R. (2003). Interactive whiteboards in the MFL classroom. TELL & CALL, 3(3), 14-16. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://www.e-lisa.at/magazine/tellcall/03_03.asp
17. Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: determinist, instrumental and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757-761.
18. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Warschauer, M. (2003). The allures and illusions of modernity: technology and educational reform in Egypt. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(38), 1-25.
20. Warschauer, M. & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.