Interactive whiteboards and the normalization of CALL

Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 69-83

  Schmid, Euline Cutrim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898306869     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-994-6.ch005     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. Armstrong, V., Barnesa, S., Suntherland, R., Curranb, S., Millsc, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4).
2. Bax, S. (2003). CALL-Past, present and future. System, 31(4).
3. Becta. (2003). Primary schools-ICT and standards: An analysis of national data from Ofsted and QCA. Coventry: Becta.
4. Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 34(4).
5. Chapman, D.W., & Mahlck, L.O. (2004). Adapting technology for school improvement. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/pubs/F165.pdf
6. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom uses of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Cuthell, J.P. (2005). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching, learning and attainment. In Proceedings of SITE 2005 (pp. 1353-1355). Phoenix, AZ: AACE.
8. 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 Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
9. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006a). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62.
10. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006b). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English Language classroom. Computers and Education (doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.001). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com
11. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote system component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35, 119-133.
12. DfES. (2004). Information and communications technology in schools in England 2004-first release. Retrieved August 23, 2005, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/
13. Dudeney, G. (2006). Interactive, quite bored. IATEFL CALL Review, (Summer).
14. Goodison, T. (2002a). Learning with ICT at primary level: Students' perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 282-295.
15. Goodison, T. (2002b). Enhancing learning with ICT at primary level. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 215-228.
16. Goodison, T. (2003). Integrating ICT in the classroom: A case study of two contrasting lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 549-566.
17. Gray, G., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the Key Stage 3 strategies and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32, 38-44.
18. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2006). Editorial. IATEFL CALL Review, (Summer).
19. Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboard. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2, 102-117.
20. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
21. 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
22. Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker, S., Tseng, C., & You, J. (2007). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Research in CALL teacher education (pp. 283-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23. 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, UK.
24. Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or band-wagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
25. Walker, R. (2003). Interactive whiteboards in the MFL classroom. TELL & CALL, 3, 14-16.
26. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). 'The visual helps me understand the complicated things': Pupils views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867.
27. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.