Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology

Computers and Education

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1553-1568

  Cutrim Schmid, Euline ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evaluation of CAL systems; Improving classroom teaching; Interactive learning environments; Multimedia hypermedia systems; Pedagogical issues

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; LINGUISTICS; RESEARCH; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; TECHNOLOGY;

COGNITIVE LEARNING; ENGLISH LANGUAGES; EVALUATION OF CAL SYSTEMS; IMPROVING CLASSROOM TEACHING; INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD; LANCASTER UNIVERSITY; LANGUAGE LEARNING; MULTIMEDIA INTEGRATION; MULTIMEDIA LEARNING; MULTIMEDIA RESOURCES; MULTIMEDIA/HYPERMEDIA SYSTEMS; P OTENTIAL PROBLEMS; PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES; QUALITATIVE APPROACH; RESEARCH PROGRAMMES;

MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS;

EID: 49449111719     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aldrich F., Rogers Y., and Scaife M. Getting to grips with "interactivity": Helping teachers assess the educational value of CD-ROMs. British Journal of Educational Technology 29 4 (1998) 321-332
2. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2005). An investigation into the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom: A critical theory of technology perspective. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
3. Cutrim Schmid E. Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote system component of interactive whiteboard technology. System 35 (2007) 119-133
4. Cutrim Schmid E. Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers and Education 50 (2008) 338-356
5. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008-b). Facilitating whole-class collaborative learning in the english language classroom: The potential of interactive whiteboard technology. In A. Müller-Hartmann & M. Schocker-v. Ditfurth (Eds.). Aufgabenorientiertes Lernen und Lehren mit Medien: Ansätze, Erfahrungen, Perspektiven in der Fremdsprachendidaktik.
6. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008-c). Interactive whiteboards and the normalisation of CALL. In R. de Cassia, V. Morriott, & P. Luipon (Eds.), Handbook of research on E-learning methodologies for language acquisition. Idea Group Inc.
7. DfES (2004). Embedding ICT @ secondary: Use of interactive whiteboards in English. Accessed 10.08.2005.
8. Dubois M., and Vial I. Multimedia design: The effects of relating multimodal information. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 16 (2000) 157-165
9. Dudeney, G. (2006). Interactive, quite bored. IATEFL CALL Review. Summer 2006.
10. Feenberg A. Critical theory of technology (1991), Oxford University Press, New York
11. Gray G., Hagger-Vaughan L., Pilkington R., and Tomkins S. The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategies and framework. Language Learning Journal 32 (2005) 38-44
12. Hall I., and Higgins S. Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboard. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2 (2005) 102-117
13. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Department of Information Studies (DIS), University of Sheffield. . Accessed 05.12.2002.
14. In: Mayer R. (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
15. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning (2001), Cambridge University Press, New York
16. Mayer R.E., and Moreno R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38 1 (2003) 43-52
17. Moreno R. Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Association for Psychological Science 15 2 (2006) 63-67
18. Moss, G., Carrey, J., Levaaic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., Castle, F. (2007). The Interactive whiteboards pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) project: London Challenge. Institute of Education, University of London.
19. Oxford R. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know (1990), Heinle & Heinle, Boston
20. Plass J.L., Chun D.M., Mayer R.E., and Leutner D. Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology 90 (1998) 25-36
21. Plass J.L., Chun D.M., Mayer R.E., and Leutner D. Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behaviour 19 (2003) 221-243
22. Sakar A., and Ercetin G. Effectiveness of hypermedia annotations for foreign language reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 (2005) 28-38
23. Schmitt N. Vocabulary learning strategies. In: Schmitt N., and McCarthy M. (Eds). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (1997), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
24. Seufert T. Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 227-237
25. Smith H.J., Higgins S., Wall K., and Miller J. Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 2 (2005) 91-101
26. Sweller J. Instructional design in technical areas (1999), ACER Press, Camberwell, Australia
27. Walker R. Interactive whiteboards in the MFL classroom. TELL & CALL 3 (2003) 14-16
28. Wall K., Higgins S., and Smith H. 'The visual helps me understand the complicated things': Pupils views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology 36 5 (2005) 851-867