Магистрант Юлдашева М.

Региональный социально-инновационный университет

Possibilities of Interactive Whiteboard in FLT

A SMART Board interactive whiteboard is an interactive electronic white board which can be used for different purposes. Once the computer screen has been projected onto the SMART Board interactive whiteboard, the user can control all Windows applications with the touch of a finger. The user’s finger becomes, in effect, the mouse. The user needs only to press the board’s surface to open and close files, explore web sites on the internet, or operate software.

As with any regular white board, the user can take notes on the SMART Board interactive whiteboard. But unlike notes that are taken on a regular white board, these notes can then be printed or saved like any other document.

Those are the two main features of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard. We will now see what kind of activities SMART Board interactive whiteboards can offer to the foreign language classroom.

A SMART Board interactive whiteboard supports the teaching process of foreign languages in three main ways:

· it supports interaction and conversation in the classroom;

· it helps with the presentation of new cultural and linguistic elements;

· and it promotes the organizational skills of the teacher.

A projection onto a SMART Board interactive whiteboard is very different from a classic projection of what is found on a computer screen. With a SMART Board interactive whiteboard the user is able to navigate from the board. He does not need to continually go back to the computer and, as a consequence, turn his back to the class. The teacher can spend his time concentrating on the learning process of the student instead of the technology. This is very important when using SMART Board interactive whiteboards to teach and is crucial in the foreign language classroom. All foreign language teachers know how difficult it can be to have a relaxed conversation with the students in the target language. The SMART Board interactive whiteboard can facilitate certain types of conversations in that all members of the classroom may concentrate on the same item at the same time and conversation may then spring from that. The merit of a SMART Board interactive whiteboard is that it enhances conversation. When the teacher is navigating from point to point, he faces and interacts with the class. The teacher is able to focus on the student's language production instead of technical issues.

The SMART Board interactive whiteboard also supports communication when used in combination with a wireless keyboard. The teacher can sit with the students, reading a text or having a conversation. When new vocabulary is needed or appears, the teacher can enter the new word into the keyboard, and it will then appear on the board. The awkward situation of having to stand up, go to the board, and write the new word on the board does not occur. By simply typing the new word onto the board, the conversation may progress smoothly. The students do not have to write the word immediately. At the end of the activity, the teacher can reinforce the vocabulary by underlining, highlighting or circling. If desired, it can be printed for the student and saved for the teacher.

An important use of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard is its aid in presentation of new linguistic and cultural elements. The teacher can prepare a lesson as usual in a Notebook file or Word Document, and is then able to use the features of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard to his advantage. The instructor can use the SMART Board interactive whiteboard to overwrite, underline, highlight or circle the elements that he wants to emphasize. Because the document is typed, it is very readable, and it – along with changes and new emphases – can be saved and displayed again at any time.

Bacon/Finnemann (1990) and Allen, Bernhardt (1988) suggested in their studies the positive influence of authentic documents in language learning. With a SMART Board interactive whiteboard the instructor can not only simply project a web site, he can also overwrite it to emphasize specific linguistic and cultural elements. The SMART Board interactive whiteboard also facilitates navigation of the site because it is finger driven on the board. This, too, facilitates classroom activities.

It is often very difficult for a foreign language teacher to keep track of vocabulary introduced in the classroom, especially in the more advanced classes. Because the teacher is able to save the notes written on the board, the SMART Board interactive whiteboard can help this process. The teacher has a record of all of the vocabulary introduced at any given time and can promote their reinforcement.

Pennington (1996, 10) noticed “that the computer can sometimes encourage a form of ‘anti-social’ behavior that amounts to working in isolation from others”. This is a common criticism of computer use and is especially relevant to the foreign language teacher, who is supposed to interact with the class as much as possible.

When presented to the whole class, a web document can enhance oral interaction within the whole class. Opinions and ideas can be exchanged. It is possible to extend this operation of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard in order to let the student, instead of the teacher, navigate the board. The other students may guide him by giving directions in the target language. As suggested for group activities using the computer (Abraham and Liou 1991), the SMART Board interactive whiteboard brings people together and encourages communication.

It is also possible for students to present projects on the SMART Board interactive whiteboard. This enables them to speak without having to worry about the mouse. Pictures and text are shown without delay with the simple touch of a finger. This places the oral production in the target language in the foreground.

A SMART Board interactive whiteboards can support and enhance the learning process in many ways. One basic feature of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard is that there are many possibilities for overwriting any projected object. This allows the student to focus. They are not so easily lost and they know what the teacher wants them to select. Because the teacher can emphasize any particular structure by highlighting, underlining, or circling with different colors, it is easier for the students to organize the new concepts.

A SMART Board interactive whiteboard does not just support learning. According to PAPERT, we generally think that “in the presence of computer, cultures might change and with them people's ways of learning and thinking.” (Papert, 1987, 23). More specifically, Pennington (1996, 3) pointed out that the computer has the potential to change the processes involved in foreign language learning. The SMART Board interactive whiteboard may have this potential too. Used to accomplish certain activities, a SMART Board interactive whiteboard may enhance new kinds of learning processes. We specifically refer here to activities requiring the use of two windows.

This analysis of the SMART Board interactive whiteboard in the foreign language classroom has underlined benefits and possible problems sources classroom use.

The SMART Board interactive whiteboard offers a very interesting option for bringing the Internet into every FL class. The Internet, and the access it provides to authentic documents, is the biggest revolution in foreign language teaching/learning in the last few years. A SMART Board interactive whiteboard brings this interactive feature into the classroom without involving the cost of having one online computer for every student in the classroom.

Literature

1. Abraham, R. G., and Liou, H.-C. (1991). Interaction generated by three computer programs: Analysis of functions of spoken language. In P. Dunkel (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 133-154). New York: Newbury House/HarperCollins.

2. Bacon, S., & Finnemann, M. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written input. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 459-473.

3. Bernhardt, Stephen A. et al. Teaching College Composition with Computers: A Program Evaluation Study. Written Communication v6 n1 p10833 Jan 1989

4. Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb, 22-30.

5. Pennington, M. C. 1996. The computer and the non-native writer: A natural partnership. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.