Possible problems with the modified units

As research has already stated (Smith et al., 2005), there are three main problems related to the use of IWBs: training, support, and practicality. The first problem is the need for adequate training in order to use IWBs for teachers and students. The IWB can be as useful as not worthy. We have to know to which extent teachers are prepared to handle ICT related problems, to cope with classroom management and to design easy tasks for all students. Being too creative may blur or interfere with the language objectives to be achieved during the lesson plans. That is why some teachers ask themselves: do students really learn more and better using this

tool? It can be useful because it seems that using the IWB has some benefits. But some

teachers can see ICT as too challenging (Malavet, 1998; Greiffenhagen, 2000). Teachers do not know if shy children will go to the front of the classroom, if students will not get bored by using this tool so many times and one by one. On the last activity, if there is any possibility and time to make the video with Windows Movie Maker, maybe 8-9 years old students can be too young to do so. That is why the lesson plan could include older students from the last grades of primary education who could go inside the classroom and help the younger students.

Cómo mejorar la enseñanza del inglés usando la pizarra digital interactiva// María Lampérez

The second problem is the need of support when technical difficulties appear in the classrooms. Levy (2002) stated that there could be networking problems, non- existent response from electronic pens, awkwardness to move images, and lack of signal between individual slates and the board.

The third problem is the need to take into account the difficulties related to practicalities like lack or disrepair of equipment and timing. In Navarre, IWBs are only

provided on 5th and 6th grades in primary education. These lesson plans have been

planned to be done with 8-9 years old students. Thus, teachers will have to manage to change classrooms with other teachers if that is possible. Besides, the three lesson plans do not have any time limit. They do not have to last only 50 minutes. English, science, ICT and arts and crafts are connected with the animal theme. Keeping in mind that some activities have been modified, it will be really difficult to do them in so little time.

Cómo mejorar la enseñanza del inglés usando la pizarra digital interactiva// María Lampérez

ONDORIOAK

Lan honen bidez, ingelesa irakasteko orduan ADIren erabilgarritasuna erakutsi nahi izan da. Horretarako, ez gara teoria soilean bakarrik oinarritu. ADIren egoera mundu zabaletik hasi eta Nafarroa mailaraino aztertu dugu. Autore eta agentzia publiko batzuek aipatzen dituzten onurak eta desabantailak ere begiratu ditugu, eta bukatzeko, sekuentzia didaktiko bat osatu dugu. Sekuentzia didaktiko hori ez zegoen ADI erabiltzeko bereziki prestatua. Ariketa bat besterik ez zen agertzen hura baliatzeko: gurutzegrama. Hori dela eta, aldaketa batzuk egin dizkiot eta osatuagoa geratu dela esan dezaket. Hala ere, irakaslearentzako zama astuna izan daiteke ADIren erabilera. Hori irakasleen prestakuntza ezagatik, materialen egokitasun faltagatik, ikasleen motibazio ezagatik gerta daiteke besteak beste. Alde horretatik, sekuentzia didaktiko hau baliabide egokia iruditzen zait, ADIren erabilera ez den arren ale didaktiko honen berezko funtsa. Oro har, ADIren erabilerak ikasleak motibatzen dituela esaten da, kolore biziek eta mugimenduek atentzioa erakartzen baitute, eta batez ere, ikasleen eta ADIren arteko interakzioa bultzatzen delako. Tresna horrek ikasleen sormen eta autonomia gaitasunak hobetzea areagotzen du, baina batzuetan, hizkuntzaren aldetik lortu beharreko helburuak bigarren mailan uztea ekar dezake. Beraz, ikasleen atentzioa bereganatzeko balio badu ere, esan daiteke batzuetan ez dela oso eraginkorra. Gainera, ikasle bat ADIn ariketa bat egiten ari den bitartean, irakasleak ezin du esan beste ikasleak klasean egindakoa jarraitzen ari direnik. Ez gara ezkortasunean erori behar. Baliabide guztiak modu eraginkorrean eta momentu zehatzetan erabiliz gero, ez da inongo eragozpenik edo arazorik egongo. Ohiko errutinetan ADI ere erabil daiteke, kontua da oraingoz Nafarroan 3. zikloko ikasleak bakarrik balia daitezkeela tresna horretaz eta zaila dela gainerako kurtsoetako klaseetako ikasleengana iristea.

REFERENCES

Ausubel, D.P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: a cognitive view.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bourke, J.M. (2006). Designing a topic-based syllabus for young learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge. Comunidad Foral de Navarra (2009). Currículo. Educación Primaria (VOL. 1-2 español y

euskera). Pamplona: Gobierno de Navarra.

Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra (2011). Integra TIC-IKT (escuela

2.0). Pamplona: Gobierno de Navarra. Disponible en:

http://irati.pnte.cfnavarra.es/integraticaula/moodle/file.php/1/Integra_TIC_IKT_Escue la_2_0.pdf

Durán, A. and Cruz, M. (2010). The Interactive Whiteboard and Foreign Language

Learning: A Case Study. Madrid: Porta Linguarum 15, 211-231. Disponible en:

www.ugr.es/.../12.%20ANTONIO%20DURAN.pdf Consultada en fecha (25‐05-2013). Foley J. (1994). Key concepts in ELT: Scaffolding. ELT Journal, 48 (1),101-102.

Little, D.& Perclová, R. (2001). European Language Portfolio Guide for Teachers and Teacher Trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Modern Language Division.

García, M. (2012). Las Pizarras Digitales Interactivas en el proceso de enseñanza y

aprendizaje de Economía. Logroño: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja. Disponible

en:

http://reunir.unir.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/598/Garcia%20Martin1.pdf?sequ ence=1 Consultada en fecha (25‐05-2013).

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Pardo, R. & Villarreal, G. (2012). Enseñanza de inglés con uso de pizarras interactivas.

Santiago: Universidad de Santiago. Disponible en:

www.utn.edu.ar/aprobedutec07/docs/235.doc Consultada en fecha (25‐05-2013). Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read, C. (2001). 500 activities for the Primary Classroom. Oxford: Macmillan Books for Teachers.

Red.es (2006). La pizarra digital como recurso en el aula. Madrid: Ministerio de

Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Disponible en:

http://www.ascmferrol.com/files/pdi_red.es.pdf Reinebo, N. (1999). Puss in Boots. Malmö: Gleerup.

Sáez, J.M. and Jiménez, P.A. (2011). La aplicación de la pizarra digital interactiva: un

caso en la escuela rural en primaria. Albacete: Revista de la Facultad de Educación 26,

1-16. Disponible en: http://www.uclm.es/ab/educacion/ensayos.

Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K. & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or

bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Newcastle: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 91-101.

Solís. V. (2009). Efecto del trabajo con la Pizarra Digital Interactiva respecto a los

estilos de aprendizaje en la clase de inglés en primaria. Barcelona: Universitat de

Barcelona. Disponible en:

http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/16002/1/trabajo_fin_master_victor_soli s.pdf Consultada en fecha (25‐05-2013).

Takač, V.P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition.

ANNEXES