低成就者通常缺乏學習動機。根據有關文獻，將互動式電子白板結合到課堂教學中，會促進學生的學習動機。因此，本研究旨在探討國中學生對使用互動式電子白板在英語對話教學中的成效及態度。
本研究使用質量混合分析，結合量和質的方法來分析數據。受試者為台南市某一國中的九年級學生，共兩班。其中一班被定義為實驗組，另一班被定義為對照組。採用受試者的在校學科能力考試為分組依據。教學教材使用康軒出版社開發的互動式光碟和TeamBoard互動式電子白板。教學前後進行前測及後測。每課對話教學結束後，受試者將拿到「回饋表」，並完成自我評價和同儕評價。完成八週的課程後，受試者會填寫一份互動式電子白板使用態度問卷（IWBUAQ），以探索他們對電子白板應用在英語對話教學上的看法。
根據分析結果，本研究有如下總結：
（一）在結合互動式電子白板的英語對話教學前後，受試者的前後測成績表現有顯著差異。
（二）受試者在對話字彙及對話內容方面有顯著進步。
（三）根據回饋表，受試者認為他們對話字彙學得比對話文法好。
（四）經由回饋表的數據顯示，受試者在互動式電子白板結合英語對話學習上，更有自信心。
（五）受試者認為 互動式電子白板對於他們的學習占有重要地位，也很享受使用互動式電子白板學習。
（六）大多數受試者認為互動式電子白板使他們學習時更能集中精神，而且動畫運用在互動式電子白板中使英語對話更容易理解。
這項研究的結果可作為英語教師日後教學的參考，尤其是特別針對低成就者，使用互動式電子白板，在英語學習過程中，學習者可以有更多的興趣和信心。

Low achievers usually lack motivation. Based on the literature, incorporating Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) into the classroom teaching may improve students’ motivation. Thus, this study aims to investigate junior high school students’ attitudes towards the use of an IWB in teaching English dialogues.
The mixed-model methodology was used in this study. This study adopts both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze the data. Sixty ninth-graders, all low-achievers, in a rural junior high school were selected for this study. Thirty of them (Class 306) were defined as the experimental group, and others (Class 305) were defined as the control group. They were grouped based on students’ academic competence. They possessed the same characteristics, including lower academic self-perceptions, self-motivation and self-regulation, and less goal directed behavior, and more negative attitudes toward school. The teaching materials used in this study included a CD-ROM developed by Kang Hsuan publisher and an Interactive Whiteboard, which was the TeamBoard produced by the Egan Company. The IWB instruction adopted in this research included the eight-step teaching procedure, which was a combination of Audio-lingual Method and Communicative Language Teaching Approach. Pre- and post-tests were conducted before and after the IWB instruction. After finishing every dialogue, the students received a “feedback sheet” to complete self-evaluation and peer-evaluation. After having attended eight-week classes, the Interactive Whiteboard Use Attitude Questionnaire (IWBUAQ) was designed to ascertain their viewpoints about the use of an IWB in teaching English dialogues from a textbook.
Some findings in this study were summarized as follows:
1. One-way ANOVA was conducted, and then found that there was a significant difference in students’ English dialogue performance before and after the IWB instruction. In other words, the students recruited in this study did make prominent progress in English dialogue performance after the instruction.
2. The students got improved in two parts of the post-test, vocabulary and the content of the dialogue (grammar, plot, and key points).
3. Through the feedback sheet, students thought that they learned better in vocabulary than in plot. They learned better in dialogue plots than in key points, and key points than in grammar.
4. Through students’ self-evaluation and peer-evaluation during the IWB instruction, the students got more confident in their own learning.
5. The low-achievers thought the IWB was important for their learning, they enjoyed learning with the IWB, and they felt comfortable when using it.
6. Most low-achievers thought that the IWB instruction made them concentrate more in class and the animation combined in the IWB instruction made the dialogue easier to understand.
The findings of this study serve as significant references for EFL instructors when they incorporate the IWB in their English instruction, especially for lower-achievers. After using the IWB, learners can have more interest and confidence in English learning. Further, the IWB instruction enhances their English performance in vocabulary and the content of the dialogue.

Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT Impact Report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. Brussels, European Community. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/ictimpact.pdf
BECTA (2003). ImpaCT2: The impact of information and communication technologies on pupil learning and attainment (Coventry, Becta).
BECTA (2009). Harnessing technology review 2009: The role of technology in education and skills (Coventry, Becta).
Bell, M. A. (2002). Why use an interactive whiteboard? A baker’s dozen reasons! Retrieved from http://teachers.net/gazette/JAN02/mabell.html
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Chang, H. N. (2010). The effectiveness of communicative language teaching with interactive whiteboard on junior high school students’ English proficiency. Tamkang University, New Taipei City, New Taiwan, ROC.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (1997a). Computer attitude questionnaire. Retrieved from the Institute for Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning website at the University of North Texas: http://www.iittl.unt.edu/IITTL/newiittl/iittl_instruments/caq/caq5_14.pdf
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (1997b). Scoring Computer Attitude Questionnaire - CAQ 5.22. Retrieved from the Institute for Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning website at the University of North Texas http://www.iittl.unt.edu/IITTL/newiittl/iittl_instruments/caq/caq5_22.html
Criswell, C. (2009). Promethean ActivBoard Review. Retrieved from http://pc-hardware.suite101.com/article.cfm/promethean_activboard_review
Cox, M., & Abbott, C. (2004) A review of the research evidence relating to ICT attainment (Coventry/ London, Becta/DfES).
Egan TeamBoard (n.d.). TeamBoard RT (16:10). Retrieved from www.teamboard.com.au/TeamBoard 87 - Full.pdf
Egan TeamBoard (n.d.). Welcome to TeamBoard. Retrieved from http://www.teamboard.com/tech/mac/User_Guide.pdf
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows: Step by Step (11.0 Update). Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), Computer & Education, 57, 1953-1960. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010
Heidi, S., Jones, C., Dobbie, A., & Alford, C. L. (2002). Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature, Acad. Med. 77 (10), S86-S93. Retrieved from http:// journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/pages/default.aspx
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225. doi: 10.1080/17439880701511040
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, Yunlin County, Taiwan, ROC.
Jang, S. J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1744-1751. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.020
Kayaoğlu, M. N., Dağakbaş, R., & Öztürk, Z. (2011). A small scale experimental study: using animations to learn. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 24-30. Retrieved from http:// www.tojet.net/
Kelly, S., & Turner, J. (2009). Rethinking the effects of classroom activity structure on the engagement of low-achieving students. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1665-1692. Retrieved from http:// www.tcrecord.org/
Kennewell, S. (2006). Reflections on the interactive whiteboard phenomenon: A synthesis of research from the UK. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Active Educational Researchers, Adelaide, Australia.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning, Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227-241. doi:10.1080/17439880701511073
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. Modern Language Journal, 90, 249-252. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00395_3.x
Lee, F. L., Pun, S. W., Li, S. C., & Kong, S. C. (2006). The Development of Using Interactive Whiteboards (IWB) in Enhancing Learning and Teaching in Schools. Education and Manpower Bureau of Hong Kong.
Lin, C. C. (2009). Learning action verbs with animation. The JALTCALL Journal, 5(3), 23-40. Retrieved from http:// jaltcall.org/journal/
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, Tainan City, Taiwan, ROC.
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, Yunlin County, Taiwan, ROC.
Liu, G. Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue oceans? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 738-747. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00851.x
Liu, G. Z. (2011). The blended language learning course in Taiwan: Issues & challenges of instructional design. In J. Macalister & I. S. P. Nation (Eds.), Case studies in language curriculum design: Concepts and approaches in action around the world (pp. 82-100). New York, NY: Routledge.
Luik, P., & Mikk, J. (2008). What is important in electronic textbooks for students of different achievement level? Computers & Education, 50(4), 1483-1494. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.02.001
Mccoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2001). A comparison of high achievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes, perceptions, and motivations. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(2), 71-83. Retrieved from http:// www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
Ministry of Education. (2010). Regulations and Laws. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 221-243. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00015-8
Richards, J. C. (2002). Theories of teaching in language learning. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 19-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rudd, T. (2007). Interactive whiteboards in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/events/listing/whiteboards/report
Samuelsson, U. (2010). ICT use among 13-year-old Swedish children. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(1), 15-30. doi:10.1080/17439880903560936
Schmid, E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51, 1553-1568. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.005
Schmid, E. C. (2009). Interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom: Exploring new pedagogical opportunities. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploring pedagogy with interactive whiteboards: a case study of six schools (Sydney, University of Technology Sydney). Retrieved from http://www.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/iwbproject/pdfs/iwbreportweb.pdf
Schulz-Zander, R., Büchter, A., & Dalmer, R. (2002). The role of ICT as a promoter of students’ cooperation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 438-448. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.002.x
Selwyn, N., Potter, J., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Primary pupils’ use of information and communication technologies at school and home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 919-932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00876.x
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. doi:10.2307/1175860
SMART Technologies. (2010). 600 Series Features. Retrieved from http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-US/Products/SMART+Boards/Front+Projection/600+Series/Features.htm
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
Tataroğlu, B., & Erduran, A. (2010). Examining students’ attitudes and views towards usage an interactive whiteboard in mathematics lessons. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2533-2538. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.368
Topping, K. (1998) Peer assessment between students in college and university. Review of Educational Research 68(3), 249-276. doi:10.2307/1170598
Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645. doi:10.2307/1170598
Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gain in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillion, G., Farrington-Flint, L., Hayes, M., …Selwood, I. (2010). Understanding the Impact of Technology: Learner and School level factors (Coventry, Becta)
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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00508.x
Zsoldos M. (2003). Low-achieving (learning disabled) pupils in year 2 of the primary school in Hungary. Eur. J. of Special Needs Education, 18(2), 243-250. doi:10.1080/0885625032000079014
MOE. (教育部，2006)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要─英語學習領域。教育部。