1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 以學習者為中心與合作學習法運用電子白板：國中英語教學之個案研究
Using the Interactive Whiteboard for Learner-centered and Cooperative Language Learning: A Case Study on English Instruction in Junior High School
作者 周瑄妍
Chou, Hsuan Yen
貢獻者 招靜琪
Chao, Chin Chi
周瑄妍
Chou, Hsuan Yen
關鍵詞 電子白板
學習者為中心
合作學習法
Interactive Whiteboard
learner-centered
cooperative language learning
日期 2012
上傳時間 2-Sep-2013 17:43:41 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究旨在觀察了解利用電子白板融入英文教學，輔以學習者為中心的教學理念讓國中九年級的學生利用合作學習的機會來完成演示任務的過程。本研究方法採質性研究，採用兩班共選四組十六名九年級學生做為觀察對象，利用課堂觀察，訪談，及教師反思日誌，著重在觀察老師、學生與電子白板三者之間的互動過程，學生學習態度以及老師對於自己教學方式的省思。
經由本研究發現學生能接受新的電子白板教學方式，電子白板的多媒體教材能吸引較低成就學生的學習興趣，進而增加其跟電子白板互動的意願。學生剛開始不能適應學習者為中心的教學法，在團隊合作方面通常都以組長為中心擔負過多工作，有責任分配不均的問題。部分學生只被動地接受組長分派工作，甚至有學生完全沒有參與。進一步分析後發現學生因缺乏相關合作經驗、指導與長期競爭的升學壓力下，在過程中對於此計畫有諸多抱怨，認為本計畫壓縮他們學習時間進而影響之後的升學考試；但是在經過幾次成功完成演示任務後，學生開始產生信心而改變對此教學法的態度。因此雖然電子白板有其缺點，但學生仍對於電子白板融入教學活動保持正面態度。
以研究者同時為教學者的角度而言，有了電子白板教師能方便提供貼近生活的補充教材，設計文法互動遊戲，刺激學生學習意願。然而電子白板也有其缺點，包括尺寸限制、反光、燈光昏暗導致學生上課精神不佳等問題。更重要的是，實施學習者為中心的電子白板教學為身為教師的一大挑戰，教師要轉換身分為學生學習的輔助者、適應並開發電子白板的教學軟體、承受學生們質疑此項計畫的聲音並且在不拖累教學進度下實行本研究，這些在在都成為教師的壓力來源。然而在看到學生的進步及態度的轉變，再加上觀察者的鼓勵及其對於電子白板的教學也產生興趣後，教師也發現電子白板所帶來的改變及其效益而有所改觀。透過本研究同時也發現教師需要更多的資源與協助來完成電子白板的教學。最後，研究者提出相關的建議以作為未來電子白板教學研究的參考。
The purpose of the study was to investigate the process of utilizing the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) and the learner-centered instruction and having four groups of sixteen 9th graders, who belonged to two classes, cooperated to accomplish presentation tasks. Grounded in qualitative inquiry, the study used classroom observation, group interviews, and the teacher’s log as the data for analysis. Focusing on the process of interaction between the students and the IWB, the students’ attitudes, and the teachers’ own reflections after implementing the IWB plan.
It was found that the students accepted the new IWB instructional plan because of its multimedia teaching material, which facilitated some low achievers’ interests making them willing to interact with the IWB. As for the students’ performances, the researcher found that the students were not used to the learner-centered instruction. The group leaders were usually responsible for the majority of works and caused an unfair share of works among group members. Some students stayed passive and only received the work from their group leaders, and some did not involve in the group activities and presentations at all. After further investigation, it was found that
the students were lack of experience and teacher’s guidance. Furthermore, they were long under the competitive educational culture. They thought that doing such cooperative tasks would take up their study time and further affect the effort they make for the high school entrance examination, so they had a lot of complaints during the plan. However, after several times of accomplishing the presentation tasks together, the students started to gain confidence and change their attitudes. Although there were some drawbacks, the students eventually held positive attitudes toward the IWB instructional plan.
From the teacher/researcher’s point of view, with the IWB, the teacher could also provide the students with some authentic materials and design some grammar games for the students to learn. However, there were still some disadvantages of the tool, including size limitation, sun reflection, and the dark light which made the students feel sleepy. Most importantly, it was a great challenge for the teacher/researcher to implement the plan. The teacher had to first change her role from a dominator to a facilitator, adjust the program and develop some games from the IWB, implement the plan under the pressure of the students’ complaints while following the school-required teaching schedule in the meantime. Seeing the progress of the students’ performances and their change of attitudes, together with the encouragement of two observers and the other English teachers’ interests in the plan, the teacher/researcher changed her attitudes toward the plan as well. The results of the study suggest that more resources and supports are needed for teachers to achieve the IWB plan. Finally, other suggestions for the IWB instructional plan are provided for further studies.
參考文獻 Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318.
APA Task Force on Psychology in Education. (1993). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered
psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompso, I.
(2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and
learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review,
57(4), 457-469.
Barr, D., J. Leakey, et al. (2005). TOLD like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development project. Language Learning & Technology 9(3), 55-78.
Bassey, M. (2000). Case study research in educational settings, Taylor & Francis.
Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348.
Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97-103.
BECTA (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5318/1/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf
BECTA (2006). Teaching interactively with electronic whiteboards in the primary phase. Retrieved from http://www.teachfind.com/becta/about-becta-publications-teaching-interactively-electronic-whiteboards-primary-phase
Beeland, W. D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help. Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Citeseer.
Bell, M. A. (2000). Impact of the electronic interactive whiteboard on students’ attitudes andachievement in eighth-grade writing instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baylor University, Texas.
Bell, M.A. (2002)."Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker`s dozen reasons."
Retrieved from http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/mabell.html
Bennett, S. & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactivewhiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289-300.
Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Victoria, Australia, ACER Press.
Boswood, T. (Ed.). (1997). New ways of using computers in language teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Bowles, M. A. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania: 541-552.
Březinová, J. (2009). Interactive whiteboard in teaching English to young learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Masaryk University, Brno.
Burton, D. (2000). The use of case studies in social science research. In D. Burton
(Ed.), R. Burton (Ed.), Research training for social sciences. (pp.215 -224).
London: Sage.
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-Making an Impact Regionally Conference. The Earth Centre, Doncaster 2, 1-19.
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based
language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 31(1), 36-57.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers` reinterpretation of a task‐based
innovation in primary schools. TESOL quarterly 38(4), 639-662.
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary
schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System 35(4), 595-608.
Chang, H. N. (2010). The effectiveness of communicative language teaching
with interactive whiteboard on junior high school students’ English
proficiency (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Chang, C. H. (2011). Application of interactive whiteboard to elementary English instruction in an EFL context (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, J. P. (2012). The effects of interactive whiteboard integrated into collaborative strategic reading on sixth graders’ English learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Chen, Y. H. (2011). A study of the application of wiimote whiteboard instruction in an elementaryschool English class (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Cheng J. T. (2009). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard for English
instruction in the elementary schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). National
Taichung University, Taiwan.
Chikamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of computer use on L2 Japanese writing. Foreign Language Annals,36(1), 114-127.
Chiu, Y. H. (2002). Cooperative learning in one junior high school English classroom: An action research (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Normal University, Taiwan.
Cogill, J. (2003). How is the interactive whiteboard being used in primary School and how does this affect teachers and teaching. Retrieved from http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/IFS_Interactive_whiteboards_in_the_primary_school.pdf
Cogill, J. (2003). The use of interactive whiteboards in the primary school: effects on pedagogy. ICT Research Bursaries: 52.
Craig, V. D. (2009). Action Research Essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Interactive Whiteboards: new tools, new pedagogies, new learning? Some views from practitioners. Retrieved from
http://virtuallearning.org.uk/whiteboards/
Cuthell, J. P. (2005) Seeing the meaning. The impact of interactive whiteboards on
teaching and learning. In: Proceedings of WCCE 05, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Cutrim, E. S. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education 50(1), 338-356.
Debski, R. (2003). Analysis of research in CALL (1980 – 2000) with a reflection on
CALL as an academic discipline. ReCALL,15(2), 177 – 188.
Derek, G., David, M., Doug, A. & Victoria, D. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: a literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy & Education 14(2), 155-170.
Dunkel, P. (1991). Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Edwards, J. A., Hartnell, M., & Martin, R. (2002). Interactive whiteboards: Some lessons from the classroom. Micromath 18(2),30-33.
Erdem, L. (1993). The difference between cooperative learning method and traditional method in terms of academic achievement in educational sociology course at higher education level (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East
Technical University, Ankara.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching, Oxford University
Press, USA.
Fang, F. Y. (2012). The Effects of integrating intereractive eletrictronic whiteboard into English alphabet remedial instruction on students with alphabet learning difficulties (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Tautung University, Taiwan.
Felix, U. (1998). Virtual language learning: Finding the gems amongst the pebbles.
Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.
Felix, U. (Ed.). (2002). Beyond Babett Language learning online.
Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (2004). The development of CALL and current options. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal 75(1), 74-101.
Garrett, N. (2009). Technology in the service of language learning: trends and
issues. The Modern Language Journal, 93, Focus Issue.697-718.
Garrett, N. (2008). Where do research and practice meet? Developing a discipline. ReCALL,10(1), 7-12.
Gerard, F., & Widener, J. (1999). A SMARTer way to teach foreign language: The SMART Board interactive whiteboard as a language learning tool. Retrieved from http://edcompass.smarttech.com/en/learning/research/SBforeignlanguageclass.pdf
Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A “learning revolution”? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A.C. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, G. B., & Strauss, L. A. (1999). The Discovery of grounded Theory. New
York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Technology. Pedagogy and Education, 10(3), 257-278.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2003). Players in the management of change: introducing interactive whiteboards into schools. Management in Education 17(1), 20-23.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective
pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology 32(1), 5–20.
Gömleksi, M. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey). European journal of engineering education 32(5), 613-625.
Gong, Yi-Ping (2012). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on junior high school students’ English learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. A. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32(1), 38-44.
Gray, C., Pilkington, R., Hagger-Vaughan, L., & Tomkins, S. A. (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), 24.
Gorsuch, G. (2004). Test takers` experiences with computer-administered listening comprehension tests: Interviewing for qualitative explorations of test validity. CALICO Journal 21(2), 339-372.
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students` perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21(2), 102-117.
Hanson-Smith, E. (Ed). (2000). Technologically enhanced learning environments.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hashemi, M. & Najafi, V. (2011). Using blogs in English language writing classes. International Journal of Academic Research 3(4), 599-604.
Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010). Keeping in touch with learning: the use of an interactive whiteboard in the junior school. Technology, Pedagogy & Education 19(2), 237-243.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), 283-301.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), 213-225.
Hodge, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: a teacher`s journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282.
Huang, V. D. (2006). Learner-centeredness and EFL instruction in Vietnam: A case
study. International Education Journal, 2006, 7(4), 598-610.
Hui Ling, X. and R. Moloney (2011). “It makes the whole learning experience better": student feedback on the use of the interactive whiteboard in learning Chinese at tertiary level. Asian Social Science 7(11), 20-34.
Hsu, J. S. (2010). The study of teaching effectiveness in using E-book material on an interactive whiteboard – take fifth grade English class in an elementary school as an example (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations-and negotiated interaction-in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology 9(3), 79-98.
Johnson, D. W. & R. T. Johnson (1985). The internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn: 103-124.
Johnson, R. T. and D. Johnson (1994). "An overview of collaborative learning." Creativity and Collaborative Learning. Retrieved from http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/staffdev/mcdonald_j/downloads/21st/comm/BenefitsOfCL/OverviewOfCoopLrng_Benefits.html
Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. USA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.et al. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4): 26-35.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research on
training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kavanoz, S. (2006). An exploratory study of English language teachers. Online Submission, 7.
Ke, S. R. (2012). Effects of integrating interactive whiteboard into instruction on improving functional English vocabulary of junior high students with mild intellectual disabilities (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Kennewell, S., & Morgan, A. (2003). Student teachers` experiences and attitudes towards using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children. Young children and learning technologies: 71-76.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), 227-241.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(1), 61-73.
Kaufman, D. S. (2009). How does the use of interactive whiteboards affect teaching and learning? Distance Learning 6(2), 23-33.
Kojima, H. (2004). Grammar instruction in the learner-centered EFL classroom.
Kuo, H. C. (2012). A study in influence of learning style and applying interactive whiteboard in English teaching on elementary school sixth graders’ English achievement (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education.
Lee, S., H. Noh, et al. (2011). On the effectiveness of robot-assisted language learning. ReCALL : the Journal of EUROCALL 23(1), 25-58.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield
schools: a developmental study. Department of Information
Studies, University of Sheffield. Retrieved from
http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
Levy, M., & Debski, R. (1999). Worldcall: Global perspectives on Computer Assisted Language Learning. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and information technologies 13(4), 291-303.
Li, D. (1998). It`s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers` perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. Tesol Quarterly 32(4), 677-703.
Li, S. Y. (2012). Applying interactive whiteboard on English teaching to enhance learning motivation and learning achievement of elementary students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taitung University, Taiwan.
Liang, T. (1996). Cooperative learning in English education. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on English Education, 65-71. Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.
Liau, Y. H. (2010). The effects of IWB interactive teaching methods on learning achievements –Taking fifth grade English class as an example (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Lin, H. Y. (2010). Elementary school students’ learning effectiveness and attitudes towards English instruction aided by the interactive whiteboard (Unpublished master’s thesis). National University of Tainan, Taiwan.
Lin, H. Y. (2012). The study of the influence of integrating the interactive whiteboard into vocabulary instruction on the 5th graders’ vocabulary knowledge (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
Lin, W. W. (2012). A Study in achievement of applying interactive whiteboard to English sentence learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
Lin, Y. S. (2010). Integrating interactive whiteboard into elementary English remedial instruction for low achievers (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT journal, 58(4), 319.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language teaching 40(3), 243-249.
Liu, K. C. (2007). Development and application of the future classroom - An English instruction with interactive whiteboard (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Long, M.H., & Porter, P.A. (1985) Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quart., 19, 207–228.
López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education 54(4),901-915.
Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy 41(1), 26-34.
Mathews-Aydinli, J. and F. Elaziz (2010). Turkish students` and teachers` attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23(3),235-252.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and
school : strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
McManus, S.M., & Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evaluations of cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviors. J. Edu. Res., 90, 13–22.
Meece, J. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles to middle school education. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 109-116.
Miller, D., D. Averis, et al. (2005). How can the use of an interactive whiteboard enhance the nature of teaching and learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreign languages. Report made to the Becta.
Mohon, H. E. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teacher`s pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 301-312.
Mohsen, M. A. & Balakumar, M. (2011). A review of multimedia glosses and their effects on L2 vocabulary acquisition in CALL literature. ReCALL : the Journal of EUROCALL 23(2), 135-159.
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.
Mustafa, Z. (2010). Teachers` levels of use in the adoption of task-based language teaching in Malaysian classrooms. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 5(3), 127-137.
Nonkukhetkhong, K., Baldauf Jr, R., & Moni, K. (2006). Learner centeredness in
teaching English as a foreign language: Teachers` voices. Thai TESOL
International Conference.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum.
TESOL quarterly 25(2), 279-295.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2000). Language teaching methodology. London: Longman
Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(3), 12-18.
Painter, D. D., Whiting, E., & Wolters, B. (2005). The use of an interactive whiteboard in promoting interactive teaching and learning. VSTE Journal 19(2), 31-40.
Quashie, V. (2009). How interactive is the interactive whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Micromath, 214, 33-38.
Richards, J. (2008). Communicative language teaching today. Retrieved from http://www.qzabansara.com/Article/NF115831.pdf
Sagarra, N., & Zapata, G. C. (2008). Blending classroom instruction with online homework: A study of student perceptions of computer-assisted L2 learning. ReCALL : the Journal of EUROCALL 20(2), 208-224.
Salinas, M. F., & Garr, J. (2009). Effect of learner-centered education on the academic outcomes of minority groups. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 226-237.
Schmid, E. C. (2006). 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, 19(1), 47-62.
Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploring pedagogy with interactive
whiteboards. Retrieved from
http:// www.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/iwbproject/home.html
Shin, Y. (1993). EFL methodology: Overview. EFL readings for Chinese teachers, 1, 313-317.
Slavin, R. E. (1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Edgewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and" untracking" harmful to the gifted? response to Allan. Educational Leadership 48(6): 68-71.
Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just "lipstick" ? Computers & Education 51(3),1321-1341.
Smith, H. (2001). SmartBoard evaluation: final report. Kent National Grid for
Learning. Retrieved from
www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/ict/IWB/whiteboards/report.html
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal 32(3), 443-457.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Su, Y. S. (2012). Action research on integrating cooperation learning and Interactive whiteboard into enhancement of middle-graded students’ English listening and speaking (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Terreni, L. (2009). A Case Study: How young children and teachers use an interactive whiteboard in a New Zealand kindergarten setting for visual art learning experiences (Unpublished master’s thesis). Victoria University of Wellington College of Education, New Zealand.
Thomas, A. (2003). Little touches that spell success. The Times Educational Supplement,(4533), T28-T29. Retrieved from Academic Research Library. (Document ID: 355757211).
Tozcu, A. and Coady, J (2004). Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17(5), 473-495.
Tsai, S. C. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning on teaching English as a foreign language to senior high school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Türel, Y. I. K. I. I. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education 57(4), 2441-2450.
Turel, Y. K. and C. Demirli (2010). Instructional interactive whiteboard materials: Designers` perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 9, 1437-1442.
Türel, Y. K. and T. E. Johnson (2012). Teachers` belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 15(1), 381-394.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the
complicated things: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(5), 851–867.
Wang, H. H. (2011). The study of teaching with interactive whiteboard in elementary schools---On the fifth-grade English language study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yuan Ze University, Taiwan.
Wang, P. L. (2011). The effect of computer-assisted whole language instruction on Taiwanese university students` English learning. English Language Teaching 4(4), 10-20.
Wang, S. H. (2011). A study of using interactive whiteboard in English remedial teaching for the 6th grade (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-baud language teaching
Concepts and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., Sbetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Weinberg, A. (2002). Virtual misadventures: Technical problems and student satisfaction when implementing multimedia in an advanced French listening comprehension course. CALICO Journal 19(2), 331-358.
Wen, M. H. (2009). The effects of integrating the Interactive Whiteboard into creative English writing on the 5th graders` English writing proficiency (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
We, S. L. (2010). A study of interactive whiteboard English teaching for English letters reading of first graders at Da Du Elementary School (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hsuan Chuang University, Taiwan.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.
Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology 39(1), 84-96.
Yang, W. H. (2012). A study on integrating interactive whiteboard into English teaching to enhance Taichung municipal elementary school students’ learning motivation and achievement (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dunghai University, Taiwan.
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers` views of learner-centered instruction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 35-53.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology 10(3),85-101.
Yu, H. F. (2011). An action research on improving students’ classroom engagement and their attitudes toward English learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education.
Yu, N. Y. (2010). The effectiveness of integrating interactive whiteboard with
cooperative learning on elementary school students’ English study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Diwan University, Taiwan.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英語教學碩士在職專班
97951015
101
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097951015
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 招靜琪zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chao, Chin Chien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 周瑄妍zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chou, Hsuan Yenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 周瑄妍zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chou, Hsuan Yenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2012en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2013 17:43:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Sep-2013 17:43:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2013 17:43:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097951015en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59623-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英語教學碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97951015zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在觀察了解利用電子白板融入英文教學，輔以學習者為中心的教學理念讓國中九年級的學生利用合作學習的機會來完成演示任務的過程。本研究方法採質性研究，採用兩班共選四組十六名九年級學生做為觀察對象，利用課堂觀察，訪談，及教師反思日誌，著重在觀察老師、學生與電子白板三者之間的互動過程，學生學習態度以及老師對於自己教學方式的省思。
經由本研究發現學生能接受新的電子白板教學方式，電子白板的多媒體教材能吸引較低成就學生的學習興趣，進而增加其跟電子白板互動的意願。學生剛開始不能適應學習者為中心的教學法，在團隊合作方面通常都以組長為中心擔負過多工作，有責任分配不均的問題。部分學生只被動地接受組長分派工作，甚至有學生完全沒有參與。進一步分析後發現學生因缺乏相關合作經驗、指導與長期競爭的升學壓力下，在過程中對於此計畫有諸多抱怨，認為本計畫壓縮他們學習時間進而影響之後的升學考試；但是在經過幾次成功完成演示任務後，學生開始產生信心而改變對此教學法的態度。因此雖然電子白板有其缺點，但學生仍對於電子白板融入教學活動保持正面態度。
以研究者同時為教學者的角度而言，有了電子白板教師能方便提供貼近生活的補充教材，設計文法互動遊戲，刺激學生學習意願。然而電子白板也有其缺點，包括尺寸限制、反光、燈光昏暗導致學生上課精神不佳等問題。更重要的是，實施學習者為中心的電子白板教學為身為教師的一大挑戰，教師要轉換身分為學生學習的輔助者、適應並開發電子白板的教學軟體、承受學生們質疑此項計畫的聲音並且在不拖累教學進度下實行本研究，這些在在都成為教師的壓力來源。然而在看到學生的進步及態度的轉變，再加上觀察者的鼓勵及其對於電子白板的教學也產生興趣後，教師也發現電子白板所帶來的改變及其效益而有所改觀。透過本研究同時也發現教師需要更多的資源與協助來完成電子白板的教學。最後，研究者提出相關的建議以作為未來電子白板教學研究的參考。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of the study was to investigate the process of utilizing the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) and the learner-centered instruction and having four groups of sixteen 9th graders, who belonged to two classes, cooperated to accomplish presentation tasks. Grounded in qualitative inquiry, the study used classroom observation, group interviews, and the teacher’s log as the data for analysis. Focusing on the process of interaction between the students and the IWB, the students’ attitudes, and the teachers’ own reflections after implementing the IWB plan.
It was found that the students accepted the new IWB instructional plan because of its multimedia teaching material, which facilitated some low achievers’ interests making them willing to interact with the IWB. As for the students’ performances, the researcher found that the students were not used to the learner-centered instruction. The group leaders were usually responsible for the majority of works and caused an unfair share of works among group members. Some students stayed passive and only received the work from their group leaders, and some did not involve in the group activities and presentations at all. After further investigation, it was found that
the students were lack of experience and teacher’s guidance. Furthermore, they were long under the competitive educational culture. They thought that doing such cooperative tasks would take up their study time and further affect the effort they make for the high school entrance examination, so they had a lot of complaints during the plan. However, after several times of accomplishing the presentation tasks together, the students started to gain confidence and change their attitudes. Although there were some drawbacks, the students eventually held positive attitudes toward the IWB instructional plan.
From the teacher/researcher’s point of view, with the IWB, the teacher could also provide the students with some authentic materials and design some grammar games for the students to learn. However, there were still some disadvantages of the tool, including size limitation, sun reflection, and the dark light which made the students feel sleepy. Most importantly, it was a great challenge for the teacher/researcher to implement the plan. The teacher had to first change her role from a dominator to a facilitator, adjust the program and develop some games from the IWB, implement the plan under the pressure of the students’ complaints while following the school-required teaching schedule in the meantime. Seeing the progress of the students’ performances and their change of attitudes, together with the encouragement of two observers and the other English teachers’ interests in the plan, the teacher/researcher changed her attitudes toward the plan as well. The results of the study suggest that more resources and supports are needed for teachers to achieve the IWB plan. Finally, other suggestions for the IWB instructional plan are provided for further studies.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements iii
Chinese Abstract viii
English Abstract x
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Background 1
Purpose and research questions of the study 2
Significance of the study 3
Chapter Two: Literature Review 5
Research on CALL 5
Research on IWB 6
The effectiveness of IWB 7
The need for qualitative studies of IWB 8
Case studies on IWB 9
Comparison of previous IWB studies 10
Learner-centered and cooperative learning 11
Chapter Three: Methodology 15
Research paradigm 15
Context and participants 15
The context 15
The teacher/researcher 15
Participants 16
Data collection 18
Teacher’s logs 18
Classroom interaction video data 18
Interview with the two observers 18
Semi-structured group interview 19
Procedure 20
Data analysis 23
The framework and the timeline of the study 24
Overview of what are to be presented below 24
Chapter Four: Findings 27
Overview of Class A 27
Overview of Class B 31
Class A Group A 36
Overview of Group A 36
Presentation style of Group A 37
Tina 39
Tim 41
Zoe 45
Jean 47
Summary of Group A 49
Group B 50
Overview of Group B 50
Presentation style of Group B 51
Edward 53
York 56
Yvonne 59
Serena 61
Summary of Group B 63
Class B Group C 64
Overview of Group C 64
Presentation style of Group C 65
Gary 66
Dave 69
Molly 71
Penny 74
Summary of Group C 76
Group D 78
Overview of Group D 78
Presentation style of Group D 78
Tracy 80
Chad 82
Howard 85
Grace 87
Summary of Group D 90
The comparison of four groups 91
Teacher/Researcher’s viewpoint toward the four groups 97
Chapter Five: Discussion 99
Addressing research question 1 99
Positive interdependence 99
Face-to-face promotive interaction 100
Individual accountability 100
Social skills 101
Group processing 102
Some practical issues about the present educational environment 103
Students accept the norm of exam-oriented and teacher-fronted learning environment which was against teacher/researcher’s belief in the research 105
Addressing research question 2 106
The change of teacher’s role from a teacher-centered classroom to learner-centered instruction 106
Students’ reactions from the grammar teaching approach to learner-centered instruction 109
Interactions between the teacher and students in the plan 111
Addressing research question 3 112
The teacher’s reflection after implementing the IWB plan 112
Limitation of the existing educational environment 119
Influence on colleagues to have different thoughts on IWB instruction 121
The IWB instruction in some schools 122
Summary of the chapter 123
Chapter Six: Conclusions 125
Summary of the findings 125
Pedagogical implications 128
Limitations of the study 130
Suggestions for the further studies 130
Conclusion 131
References 133
Appendixes 147		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 896908 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097951015en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 電子白板zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學習者為中心zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作學習法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Interactive Whiteboarden_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) learner-centereden_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) cooperative language learningen_US
dc.title (題名) 以學習者為中心與合作學習法運用電子白板：國中英語教學之個案研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Using the Interactive Whiteboard for Learner-centered and Cooperative Language Learning: A Case Study on English Instruction in Junior High Schoolen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318.
APA Task Force on Psychology in Education. (1993). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered
psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompso, I.
(2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and
learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review,
57(4), 457-469.
Barr, D., J. Leakey, et al. (2005). TOLD like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development project. Language Learning & Technology 9(3), 55-78.
Bassey, M. (2000). Case study research in educational settings, Taylor & Francis.
Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348.
Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97-103.
BECTA (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5318/1/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf
BECTA (2006). Teaching interactively with electronic whiteboards in the primary phase. Retrieved from http://www.teachfind.com/becta/about-becta-publications-teaching-interactively-electronic-whiteboards-primary-phase
Beeland, W. D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help. Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Citeseer.
Bell, M. A. (2000). Impact of the electronic interactive whiteboard on students’ attitudes andachievement in eighth-grade writing instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baylor University, Texas.
Bell, M.A. (2002)."Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker`s dozen reasons."
Retrieved from http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/mabell.html
Bennett, S. & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactivewhiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 289-300.
Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Victoria, Australia, ACER Press.
Boswood, T. (Ed.). (1997). New ways of using computers in language teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Bowles, M. A. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania: 541-552.
Březinová, J. (2009). Interactive whiteboard in teaching English to young learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Masaryk University, Brno.
Burton, D. (2000). The use of case studies in social science research. In D. Burton
(Ed.), R. Burton (Ed.), Research training for social sciences. (pp.215 -224).
London: Sage.
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-Making an Impact Regionally Conference. The Earth Centre, Doncaster 2, 1-19.
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based
language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 31(1), 36-57.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers` reinterpretation of a task‐based
innovation in primary schools. TESOL quarterly 38(4), 639-662.
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary
schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System 35(4), 595-608.
Chang, H. N. (2010). The effectiveness of communicative language teaching
with interactive whiteboard on junior high school students’ English
proficiency (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Chang, C. H. (2011). Application of interactive whiteboard to elementary English instruction in an EFL context (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, J. P. (2012). The effects of interactive whiteboard integrated into collaborative strategic reading on sixth graders’ English learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Chen, Y. H. (2011). A study of the application of wiimote whiteboard instruction in an elementaryschool English class (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Cheng J. T. (2009). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard for English
instruction in the elementary schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). National
Taichung University, Taiwan.
Chikamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of computer use on L2 Japanese writing. Foreign Language Annals,36(1), 114-127.
Chiu, Y. H. (2002). Cooperative learning in one junior high school English classroom: An action research (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Normal University, Taiwan.
Cogill, J. (2003). How is the interactive whiteboard being used in primary School and how does this affect teachers and teaching. Retrieved from http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/IFS_Interactive_whiteboards_in_the_primary_school.pdf
Cogill, J. (2003). The use of interactive whiteboards in the primary school: effects on pedagogy. ICT Research Bursaries: 52.
Craig, V. D. (2009). Action Research Essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Interactive Whiteboards: new tools, new pedagogies, new learning? Some views from practitioners. Retrieved from
http://virtuallearning.org.uk/whiteboards/
Cuthell, J. P. (2005) Seeing the meaning. The impact of interactive whiteboards on
teaching and learning. In: Proceedings of WCCE 05, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Cutrim, E. S. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education 50(1), 338-356.
Debski, R. (2003). Analysis of research in CALL (1980 – 2000) with a reflection on
CALL as an academic discipline. ReCALL,15(2), 177 – 188.
Derek, G., David, M., Doug, A. & Victoria, D. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: a literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy & Education 14(2), 155-170.
Dunkel, P. (1991). Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Edwards, J. A., Hartnell, M., & Martin, R. (2002). Interactive whiteboards: Some lessons from the classroom. Micromath 18(2),30-33.
Erdem, L. (1993). The difference between cooperative learning method and traditional method in terms of academic achievement in educational sociology course at higher education level (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East
Technical University, Ankara.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching, Oxford University
Press, USA.
Fang, F. Y. (2012). The Effects of integrating intereractive eletrictronic whiteboard into English alphabet remedial instruction on students with alphabet learning difficulties (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Tautung University, Taiwan.
Felix, U. (1998). Virtual language learning: Finding the gems amongst the pebbles.
Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.
Felix, U. (Ed.). (2002). Beyond Babett Language learning online.
Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (2004). The development of CALL and current options. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal 75(1), 74-101.
Garrett, N. (2009). Technology in the service of language learning: trends and
issues. The Modern Language Journal, 93, Focus Issue.697-718.
Garrett, N. (2008). Where do research and practice meet? Developing a discipline. ReCALL,10(1), 7-12.
Gerard, F., & Widener, J. (1999). A SMARTer way to teach foreign language: The SMART Board interactive whiteboard as a language learning tool. Retrieved from http://edcompass.smarttech.com/en/learning/research/SBforeignlanguageclass.pdf
Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A “learning revolution”? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243-256.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A.C. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, G. B., & Strauss, L. A. (1999). The Discovery of grounded Theory. New
York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of the large-scale introduction of interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Technology. Pedagogy and Education, 10(3), 257-278.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2003). Players in the management of change: introducing interactive whiteboards into schools. Management in Education 17(1), 20-23.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective
pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and Technology 32(1), 5–20.
Gömleksi, M. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey). European journal of engineering education 32(5), 613-625.
Gong, Yi-Ping (2012). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on junior high school students’ English learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. A. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32(1), 38-44.
Gray, C., Pilkington, R., Hagger-Vaughan, L., & Tomkins, S. A. (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), 24.
Gorsuch, G. (2004). Test takers` experiences with computer-administered listening comprehension tests: Interviewing for qualitative explorations of test validity. CALICO Journal 21(2), 339-372.
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students` perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21(2), 102-117.
Hanson-Smith, E. (Ed). (2000). Technologically enhanced learning environments.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hashemi, M. & Najafi, V. (2011). Using blogs in English language writing classes. International Journal of Academic Research 3(4), 599-604.
Harlow, A., Cowie, B., & Heazlewood, M. (2010). Keeping in touch with learning: the use of an interactive whiteboard in the junior school. Technology, Pedagogy & Education 19(2), 237-243.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), 283-301.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), 213-225.
Hodge, S., & Anderson, B. (2007). Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: a teacher`s journey. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 271-282.
Huang, V. D. (2006). Learner-centeredness and EFL instruction in Vietnam: A case
study. International Education Journal, 2006, 7(4), 598-610.
Hui Ling, X. and R. Moloney (2011). “It makes the whole learning experience better": student feedback on the use of the interactive whiteboard in learning Chinese at tertiary level. Asian Social Science 7(11), 20-34.
Hsu, J. S. (2010). The study of teaching effectiveness in using E-book material on an interactive whiteboard – take fifth grade English class in an elementary school as an example (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations-and negotiated interaction-in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology 9(3), 79-98.
Johnson, D. W. & R. T. Johnson (1985). The internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn: 103-124.
Johnson, R. T. and D. Johnson (1994). "An overview of collaborative learning." Creativity and Collaborative Learning. Retrieved from http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/staffdev/mcdonald_j/downloads/21st/comm/BenefitsOfCL/OverviewOfCoopLrng_Benefits.html
Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. USA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.et al. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4): 26-35.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research on
training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kavanoz, S. (2006). An exploratory study of English language teachers. Online Submission, 7.
Ke, S. R. (2012). Effects of integrating interactive whiteboard into instruction on improving functional English vocabulary of junior high students with mild intellectual disabilities (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Kennewell, S., & Morgan, A. (2003). Student teachers` experiences and attitudes towards using interactive whiteboards in the teaching and learning of young children. Young children and learning technologies: 71-76.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology 32(3), 227-241.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(1), 61-73.
Kaufman, D. S. (2009). How does the use of interactive whiteboards affect teaching and learning? Distance Learning 6(2), 23-33.
Kojima, H. (2004). Grammar instruction in the learner-centered EFL classroom.
Kuo, H. C. (2012). A study in influence of learning style and applying interactive whiteboard in English teaching on elementary school sixth graders’ English achievement (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education.
Lee, S., H. Noh, et al. (2011). On the effectiveness of robot-assisted language learning. ReCALL : the Journal of EUROCALL 23(1), 25-58.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield
schools: a developmental study. Department of Information
Studies, University of Sheffield. Retrieved from
http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm
Levy, M., & Debski, R. (1999). Worldcall: Global perspectives on Computer Assisted Language Learning. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and information technologies 13(4), 291-303.
Li, D. (1998). It`s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers` perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. Tesol Quarterly 32(4), 677-703.
Li, S. Y. (2012). Applying interactive whiteboard on English teaching to enhance learning motivation and learning achievement of elementary students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taitung University, Taiwan.
Liang, T. (1996). Cooperative learning in English education. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on English Education, 65-71. Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.
Liau, Y. H. (2010). The effects of IWB interactive teaching methods on learning achievements –Taking fifth grade English class as an example (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Lin, H. Y. (2010). Elementary school students’ learning effectiveness and attitudes towards English instruction aided by the interactive whiteboard (Unpublished master’s thesis). National University of Tainan, Taiwan.
Lin, H. Y. (2012). The study of the influence of integrating the interactive whiteboard into vocabulary instruction on the 5th graders’ vocabulary knowledge (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
Lin, W. W. (2012). A Study in achievement of applying interactive whiteboard to English sentence learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
Lin, Y. S. (2010). Integrating interactive whiteboard into elementary English remedial instruction for low achievers (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT journal, 58(4), 319.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language teaching 40(3), 243-249.
Liu, K. C. (2007). Development and application of the future classroom - An English instruction with interactive whiteboard (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Long, M.H., & Porter, P.A. (1985) Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quart., 19, 207–228.
López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education 54(4),901-915.
Martin, S. (2007). Interactive whiteboards and talking books: a new approach to teaching children to write? Literacy 41(1), 26-34.
Mathews-Aydinli, J. and F. Elaziz (2010). Turkish students` and teachers` attitudes toward the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23(3),235-252.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and
school : strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
McManus, S.M., & Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evaluations of cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviors. J. Edu. Res., 90, 13–22.
Meece, J. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles to middle school education. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 109-116.
Miller, D., D. Averis, et al. (2005). How can the use of an interactive whiteboard enhance the nature of teaching and learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreign languages. Report made to the Becta.
Mohon, H. E. (2008). SMART moves? A case study of one teacher`s pedagogical change through use of the interactive whiteboard. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 301-312.
Mohsen, M. A. & Balakumar, M. (2011). A review of multimedia glosses and their effects on L2 vocabulary acquisition in CALL literature. ReCALL : the Journal of EUROCALL 23(2), 135-159.
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.
Mustafa, Z. (2010). Teachers` levels of use in the adoption of task-based language teaching in Malaysian classrooms. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 5(3), 127-137.
Nonkukhetkhong, K., Baldauf Jr, R., & Moni, K. (2006). Learner centeredness in
teaching English as a foreign language: Teachers` voices. Thai TESOL
International Conference.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum.
TESOL quarterly 25(2), 279-295.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2000). Language teaching methodology. London: Longman
Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(3), 12-18.
Painter, D. D., Whiting, E., & Wolters, B. (2005). The use of an interactive whiteboard in promoting interactive teaching and learning. VSTE Journal 19(2), 31-40.
Quashie, V. (2009). How interactive is the interactive whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Micromath, 214, 33-38.
Richards, J. (2008). Communicative language teaching today. Retrieved from http://www.qzabansara.com/Article/NF115831.pdf
Sagarra, N., & Zapata, G. C. (2008). Blending classroom instruction with online homework: A study of student perceptions of computer-assisted L2 learning. ReCALL : the Journal of EUROCALL 20(2), 208-224.
Salinas, M. F., & Garr, J. (2009). Effect of learner-centered education on the academic outcomes of minority groups. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 226-237.
Schmid, E. C. (2006). 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, 19(1), 47-62.
Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploring pedagogy with interactive
whiteboards. Retrieved from
http:// www.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/iwbproject/home.html
Shin, Y. (1993). EFL methodology: Overview. EFL readings for Chinese teachers, 1, 313-317.
Slavin, R. E. (1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Edgewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and" untracking" harmful to the gifted? response to Allan. Educational Leadership 48(6): 68-71.
Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just "lipstick" ? Computers & Education 51(3),1321-1341.
Smith, H. (2001). SmartBoard evaluation: final report. Kent National Grid for
Learning. Retrieved from
www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/ict/IWB/whiteboards/report.html
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal 32(3), 443-457.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Su, Y. S. (2012). Action research on integrating cooperation learning and Interactive whiteboard into enhancement of middle-graded students’ English listening and speaking (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Terreni, L. (2009). A Case Study: How young children and teachers use an interactive whiteboard in a New Zealand kindergarten setting for visual art learning experiences (Unpublished master’s thesis). Victoria University of Wellington College of Education, New Zealand.
Thomas, A. (2003). Little touches that spell success. The Times Educational Supplement,(4533), T28-T29. Retrieved from Academic Research Library. (Document ID: 355757211).
Tozcu, A. and Coady, J (2004). Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17(5), 473-495.
Tsai, S. C. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning on teaching English as a foreign language to senior high school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Türel, Y. I. K. I. I. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education 57(4), 2441-2450.
Turel, Y. K. and C. Demirli (2010). Instructional interactive whiteboard materials: Designers` perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 9, 1437-1442.
Türel, Y. K. and T. E. Johnson (2012). Teachers` belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 15(1), 381-394.
Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the
complicated things: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(5), 851–867.
Wang, H. H. (2011). The study of teaching with interactive whiteboard in elementary schools---On the fifth-grade English language study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yuan Ze University, Taiwan.
Wang, P. L. (2011). The effect of computer-assisted whole language instruction on Taiwanese university students` English learning. English Language Teaching 4(4), 10-20.
Wang, S. H. (2011). A study of using interactive whiteboard in English remedial teaching for the 6th grade (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-baud language teaching
Concepts and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., Sbetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Weinberg, A. (2002). Virtual misadventures: Technical problems and student satisfaction when implementing multimedia in an advanced French listening comprehension course. CALICO Journal 19(2), 331-358.
Wen, M. H. (2009). The effects of integrating the Interactive Whiteboard into creative English writing on the 5th graders` English writing proficiency (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.
We, S. L. (2010). A study of interactive whiteboard English teaching for English letters reading of first graders at Da Du Elementary School (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hsuan Chuang University, Taiwan.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.
Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology 39(1), 84-96.
Yang, W. H. (2012). A study on integrating interactive whiteboard into English teaching to enhance Taichung municipal elementary school students’ learning motivation and achievement (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dunghai University, Taiwan.
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers` views of learner-centered instruction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 35-53.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology 10(3),85-101.
Yu, H. F. (2011). An action research on improving students’ classroom engagement and their attitudes toward English learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education.
Yu, N. Y. (2010). The effectiveness of integrating interactive whiteboard with
cooperative learning on elementary school students’ English study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Diwan University, Taiwan.		zh_TW