First steps toward a model of interactive whiteboard training for language teachers

Interactive Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 197-214

  Schmid, Euline Cutrim ^a   Schimmack, Estelle ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b Anna Lindh Primary School   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900165413     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch013     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. 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. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.01.001
2. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008a). Interactive white-boards and the normalisation of CALL. In R. de Cassia, V. Morriott & P. L. Torres (Eds.), Handbook of research on e-Learning methodologies for language acquisition. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
3. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008b). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education, 50, 338-356. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.001
4. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008c). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1553-1568. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005
5. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2008d). Facilitating wholeclass 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 (pp. 325-335). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
6. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2009a). The pedagogical potential of interactive whiteboards 2.0. In Thomas, M. (Ed.), Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
7. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2009b). Interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom: Exploring new pedagogical opportunities. Mueller, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr.
8. Davies, G. (2003).Computer-assisted language learning: Where are we now and where are we going? Retrieved June 8, 2005, from http://www.nestafuturelab.org/viewpoint/learn23.htm
9. Dudeney, G. (2006). Interactive, quite bored. IATEFL CALL Review, Summer, pp. 8-10.
10. Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. London: Longman.
11. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
12. 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. doi:10.1080/09571730585200171
13. Gray, G., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. (2007). Integrating ICT into classroom practice in modern foreign language teaching in England: Making room for teachers' voices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 407-429. doi:10.1080/02619760701664193
14. Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
15. Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. London: Longman.
16. Legutke, M., Mueller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker v.Ditfurth, M. (2007). Preparing teachers for technology-supported English language teaching. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), Kluwer handbook on English language teaching (pp. 1125-1138). New York: Springer.
17. Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker, S., Tseng, C., & You, J. (2007). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (Eds.), Research in CALL teacher education (pp. 283-29). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
18. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2009). Interactive white-boards in the Web 2.0 Classroom. In Thomas, M. (Ed.), Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
19. 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.
20. Orr, M. (2006, May). Interactive Whiteboards - the difference that makes the difference? Learners speak their minds. Paper presented at Learning Technologies in the Language Classroom: A step closer to the future, University of Cyprus.
21. Preston, C., Cox, M., & Cox, K. (2000). Teachers as innovators in learning: What motivates teachers to use ICT. London: Teacher Training Agency/MirandaNet/Oracle/Compaq.
22. Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning. London: Macmillan.
23. Walker, R. (2003). Interactive whiteboards in the MFL classroom. TELL & CALL, 3, 14-16.
24. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x
25. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(4), 525-537. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.010
27. Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language learning. In Rosenthal, J. (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.