1 / 22

Eimear Kelly Athlone Institute of Technology EdTech 2009

Using a new dog to teach old tricks – Can an interactive whiteboard enhance the teaching and learning of German?. Eimear Kelly Athlone Institute of Technology EdTech 2009. Aim of the action research.

acton-pruitt
Download Presentation

Eimear Kelly Athlone Institute of Technology EdTech 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using a new dog to teach old tricks – Can an interactive whiteboard enhance the teaching and learning of German? Eimear Kelly Athlone Institute of Technology EdTech 2009

  2. Aim of the action research • To establish whether using an interactive whiteboard can make the learning and teaching of German more: • Interactive • Collaborative • Memorable • Enjoyable

  3. Methodology • Small-scale action research • Activities • Planned • Implemented • Observed • Reflected upon • Revised • Feedback from focus group

  4. The case for using technology • Research into technology-enhanced learning • Student motivation, concentration and participation • Presentation of information and learning resources • Explanation of concepts and ideas • Facilitation of interaction and activity • Teacher organisation • “Homo Zappians”

  5. The interactive whiteboard • Touch-sensitive screen that works in conjunction with a computer and a projector • Computer screen image is projected onto a whiteboard • Facility to annotate, animate and manipulate documents

  6. An electronic pen – or a finger – assumes the function of the mouse • “Drag and drop” • Board and software quite intuitive

  7. Students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the IWB • Primarily positive • “It helps to see the words actually moving.” • “It’s easier to remember what you have seen.” • “When you physically move words it’s easier to remember what you’ve done.” • “It’s more interesting.”

  8. Students’ perceptions cont’d • “You can do things on the screen which you can’t do on paper.” • “It works well with smaller groups.” • “It gets you used to standing up in front of the group.” • “It can make you nervous in case you get it wrong – but that makes you try harder to get it right.”

  9. Students’ perceptions cont’d • “You can work as a team.” • But …. • It takes time to set up • Sometimes it doesn’t work – you can’t drag the words

  10. Lecturer’s perspective on the effectiveness of the IWB • Primarily positive • Students appear to be more attentive • Students participate more • Students volunteer more • Students focus on the communicative element of the tasks – grammar secondary but improved

  11. Lecturer’s perspective cont’d • Opportunity to reflect upon and revise teaching approaches which may have become stale • Custom-made tasks and activities which can be re-used • Facility to record and upload “virtual tutorials”

  12. Lecturer’s perspective – cont’d • But… • Very time-consuming – few suitable resources available as of yet, other than interactive websites • Technology can stall or fail – although this is less likely when using the board independently of the internet • No evidence as yet that the technology has had a perceptible impact on the accuracy of the students’ implicit knowledge of grammar as measured by their performance in spontaneous language use

  13. Findings • Can using an interactive whiteboard can make the learning and teaching of German more: • Interactive • Collaborative • Memorable • Enjoyable

  14. Future directions • More research into impact of this technology on accuracy • Collaboration with languages colleagues on materials development

  15. Acknowledgements • Students in German 2, Athlone Institute of Technology • Community of Practice in Instructional Technology, AIT • Teaching and Learning Unit, AIT • Department of Humanities, AIT

  16. References • Cambi, P.J. & Eisenstein Ebsworth, M. (2008) Merging a metalinguistic grammar approach with L2 academic process writing: ELLs in Community College. TESL-EJ12(2) http://tesl-ej.org/ej46/a1.html Accessed 17 February 2009 • Corbeil, G. (2007) Can PowerPoint presentations effectively replace textbooks and blackboards for teaching grammar? Do students find them an effective learning tool? CALICO Journal 24(3), pp. 631-656 • Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L, Pilkington, R. & Tomkins, S. (2002) The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal32, pp.38-44 • Fotos, S. (2002) Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (eds) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.135-154

  17. Levy, P. (2002) Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: a developmental study. University of Sheffield. http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/wboards.htm Accessed 9 December 2008 • Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008) Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning. Glasgow Caledonian Academy. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/anoush/documents/DigitalNativesMythOrReality-MargaryanAndLittlejohn-draft-111208.pdf Accessed 17 February 2009 • Stepp-Greany, J. (2002) Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning and Technology 6(1) pp.165-180

More Related