NGHIÊN CỨU SỬ DỤNG BẢNG TƯƠNG TÁC TRONG VIỆC DẠY TIẾNG ANH CHO LỨA TUỔI TIỂU HỌC TẠI MỘT TRUNG TÂM TIẾNG ANH TẠI HÀ NỘI

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
University of Languages and international Studies
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION
NGUYỄN HƯƠNG THẢO

USING INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS IN
TEACHING ENGLISH TO PRIMARY STUDENTS
IN AN ENGLISH CENTER IN HANOI
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)
SUPERVISOR: PHẠM THỊ THANH THỦY, M.A.
Ha Noi, May 2014
ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH
KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP
NGHIÊN CỨU SỬ DỤNG BẢNG TƯƠNG TÁC
TRONG VIỆC DẠY TIẾNG ANH CHO LỨA TUỔI
TIỂU HỌC TẠI MỘT TRUNG TÂM TIẾNG ANH
TẠI HÀ NỘI
Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Phạm Thị Thanh Thủy, M.A.
Sinh viên: Nguyễn Hương Thảo
Khoá: QH2010.F1.E2

HÀ NỘI - NĂM 2014
ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Nguyen Huong Thao, QH2010.E2, being a candidate
for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College
relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the
library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in

the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care,
loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature
May 6
th
2014
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On completing this graduation paper, I would like to thank many people for
their invaluable help during the conduct of the research.
First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude towards my
supervisor Ms. Pham Thi Thanh Thuy, M.A for her critical and timely feedback,
her constant understanding and her unfailing encouragement, without all of which I
would not be able to complete this paper.
Secondly, I would like to say the sincerest thanks to the managers of Apollo
Nguyen Ngoc Vu and Apollo Lieu Giai: Ms. Lisa Higgins, Mr. James Bruce, Ms.
Pham Ngoc Hue and Ms. Hoang Anh who support and create favorable conditions
for me to deliver this study.
Thirdly, I also want to thank the participants of this study: native teachers
working at two Apollo English Centers in Hanoi. Without their willingness to
participate in the interviews and let me observe their lessons, this study could not
have been conducted.
Fourthly, I am grateful to my beloved family and my friends who constantly
encouraged me during the time of conducting this research and have always been
so helpful.
Last but not least, I owe my thanks to the readers for their interests in and
feedback on this thesis.
ii
ABSTRACT

Technology is an inseparable part of education in the twenty-first century,
especially in teaching and learning English. Therefore, there is an increasing
awareness of the importance of technology in English teaching worldwide
especially for primary children. Among various technological tools, Interactive
Whiteboards appear as useful equipment which is becoming popular. In Vietnam,
Interactive Whiteboards are also chosen by many schools and educational centers
such as Nguyen Binh Khiem, Le Ngoc Han, Tran Hung Dao, British Council,
Apollo English Center, etc. However, the usefulness of this equipment in
Vietnamese teaching environment is still a matter of controversy which have been
fully develop; thus, it offers an opportunity for the researcher to conduct this study
to initially evaluate the use of Interactive Whiteboards in teaching primary students
in some Apollo English Centers in Hanoi.
The research was carried out in two Apollo English Centers which are
Apollo Lieu Giai and Apollo Nguyen Ngoc Vu. The participants are native teachers
teaching primary students in three main levels in Apollo which are starter, mover
and flyer. Because of that setting, the researcher decided to employ the qualitative
multiple-case study approach. Therefore, data were collected through interviews
and classroom observations. The data collected were then analyzed to gain the
insights and implications of the study. After conducting the study, the researcher
found out that the application of Interactive Whiteboards in teaching English to
primary students receives the positive attitude from teachers. It is revealed that the
equipment can help teachers reduce the burden of planning lesson with various
software and provided materials. From that, teachers can have more freedom in
using software to access the resources or go on the Internet and to create more
interesting activities for students. Moreover, Interactive Whiteboards support the
interaction and conversation between teachers and students and the presentation of
new linguistic and cultural elements. On the other hand, some minor shortcomings
of this equipment are the technical problems in terms of Internet access, the Pen,
the Pointing Stick and the projector.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study…………………
1.2. Aims of the study and research questions.…………… ……………….
1.3. Significance of the study………………… ………………… ………
1.4. Scope of the study………………… ………………… ………………
1.5. Methods of the study………………… ………………… ……………
1.6. An overview of the rest of the paper………………… ………………
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Interactive Whiteboards………………… ………………… ………
2.1.1. Definition of Interactive Whiteboards………………… ………
2.1.2. Interactive Whiteboards in mainstream education……………….
2.1.3. Interactive Whiteboards in English language teaching…………
2.2. Primary students………………… ………………… ………………
2.2.1. Definition of young learners………………… ………………….
2.2.2. Primary students’ characteristic in language learning……………
2.2.3. Teaching English for primary students…………………………
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Setting of the study………………… ………………… ……………
3.1.1. Interactive Whiteboards in Apollo English Centers……………
3.1.2. Young learners at Apollo English Centers in Ha Noi……………
3.2. Participants …………………………………………………………….
3.3. Phase 1: Observation ………………………………………………….
3.3.1. Sampling …………………………………………………………
3.3.2. Data collection …………………………………………………
3.3.2.1. Justification for the use of observation ……………
3.3.2.2. Description of observation field note ………………
3.3.2.3. Procedure of data collection ………………………….
3.3.3. Data analysis ……………………………………………………

Page
1
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
11
11
11
12
14
14
15
17
17
17
17
17
18
19
19
iv
3.4. Phase 2: Interview ……………………………………………………
3.4.1. Sampling …………………………………………………………
3.4.2. Data collection …………………………………………………

3.4.2.1. Justification for the use of interview ……………….
3.4.2.2. Description ob interview schedule …………………
3.4.2.3. Data collection procedure…………………………
3.4.3. Data analysis …………………………………… ……………
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Findings ……………………… ……………………… ……………
4.1.1. Research question 1……………………… ……………………
4.1.2. Research question 2……………………… …………………….
4.1.3. Research question 3……………………… ……………………
4.2. Discussion……………………… ……………………… ……………
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1. Major findings of the study ……………………… …………………
5.2. Pedagogical implications from the findings …………………………
5.3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study……………
5.3.1. Limitation of the study ……………………… …………………
5.3.2. Suggestions for further study……………………… ……………
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………….
APPENDIX 1 ……………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX 2 ……………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX 3 ……………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX 4………………………………………………………………………
20
20
20
20
21
22
22
24
24

31
33
34
36
37
38
38
39
40
45
46
48
65
v
vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study
Technology is an inseparable part of education in the twenty-first
century, especially in teaching and learning English (Rodinadze &
Zarbazoia, 2012). When it comes to teaching process, the appropriate use of
technology can help educational system work better and more effectively
(Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Means, 1994). On the survey delivered by
Halderman (1992), when applying technology in teaching, students have
more chance of learning faster and more regularly. In another study on “Use
of Technology in English Language Teaching and Learning: An analysis”,
Shyamlee and Phil (2012) claim that “technology provides many options as
making teaching interesting and also making teaching more productive in
terms of improvements”. Besides, technology impulses the learning process
as well. Technology makes it more convenient for students to access the
knowledge (Rodinadze & Zarbazoia, 2012). These researchers believe that

students nowadays can easily grasp and increase knowledge with the support
of online resource such as libraries or dictionaries. The two researchers also
state that technology “enhances the learning experience and equips students
to join an increasingly global workforce” and “makes education available to
a wider range of learners”. Through distance learning programs students can
use mobile devices or laptop to finish their assignments online without the
requirement of attending the class. In addition, audio and video which are
used in the lesson can encourage the participation of students as well as raise
level of understanding.
Furthermore, technology can be used as a helpful method in teaching
English for primary students. Children over the age of three are “extremely
active and mobile as well as continuing their mastery of language and
exploring facets of social behavior” (Wardle, 2000). Young children exhibit
a diversity of learning style (Gardner, 1983). Therefore, with the appropriate
1
use of technology, teachers can “expand, enrich, implement, individualize,
differentiate and extend the overall curriculum” (Wardle, 2000). In the same
study, Wardle (2000) also states the following:
“Children should first be introduced to computers one at a time, or in
small groups. Every child should have an opportunity to experience
ample hands-on opportunity to explore 4-5 different software
programs. Once each child has had this hands-on experience, the
computer center becomes one of many equally important learning
centers. It should have several chairs close by, to encourage children
to work together, and to encourage the more advanced students to act
as peer tutors. This also develops cooperative learning activities.”
In summary, technology has a positive impact on children’s social,
emotional, language and cognitive development (Haugland 2000; Van
Scoter, Ellis, & Railsback 2001)
There is an increasing awareness of the importance of technology in

English teaching. Researchers have explored different kinds of technology
can be used in English classroom such as radio, television, computers and so
on (Bahadur & Oogarah, 2013). Among various technological tools,
Interactive Whiteboards appear as useful equipment which is becoming
popular. According to Al-Saleem (2012), “Interactive Whiteboard is a very
innovative and powerful support for language acquisition” which takes full
use of computers’ features without breaking communication, improves new
kinds of learning and applies the internet into every English language class.
Derek (2009) finds that when Interactive Whiteboards are used in classroom,
both teachers and students are highly enthusiastic. He also confirms that
Interactive Whiteboards help teaching process more convenient by quickly
displaying text, images and accessing to websites whereby teachers can have
more time for instruction. Besides, Interactive Whiteboards are becoming
popular in schools. In the United Kingdom and the United States, Interactive
Whiteboards are widely used in school, colleges and universities (Isman,
Abanmy, Hussein & Al Saadany, 2012). Moreover, Interactive Whiteboards
2
are being used beyond UK and US, namely, Saudi Abria, Mauritius, etc.
(Bahadur & Oogarah, 2013). In 2011, all primary schools in Mauritius were
equipped with at least one Interactive Whiteboard.
The appearance of Interactive Whiteboards has changed the mode of
instruction (Bahadur & Oogarah, 2013); hence, many previous research have
been conducted in different countries all over the world to examine the
effects of it in English language teaching. Those research are carried on
various learners and researchers usually attempt to analyze the effects of
Interactive Whiteboards on teaching and learning processes (Yanez &
Coyle, 2011). Solvie (2004) reports Interactive Whiteboards encourage her
primary students in literacy learning thanks to its interactive function. The
author explains that the diagrams, webs and pictures, use of colors and
shapes to highlight texts have motivated students in learning and

participating the class’ activities. Another research in U.S. which focuses on
middle school students and teachers indicated that Interactive Whiteboards
is a useful device to increase students’ engagement (Beeland, 2002).
In Vietnam, recently the application of information technology in
teaching and learning activities has been becoming increasingly popular,
especially in the economically developed areas like Ho Chi Minh City,
Hanoi and Interactive Whiteboards are chosen by many schools and
educational centers such as Nguyen Binh Khiem, Le Ngoc Han, Tran Hung
Dao, British Council, Apollo English Center, etc (Le, 2013). Despite this
widespread trend, there are many social controversies over the usefulness of
Interactive Whiteboards in teaching. According to the Vice Chairman of the
Education and Training Bureau, District 2, HCM City, Ms. Pham Thi Thuy
Trang (2013), the application of Interactive Whiteboards has motivated
students in English classes; nevertheless, due to the lack of essential skills in
using this device, many functions have not been fully activated. Even the
parents find it doubtful and unreliable compared to traditional teaching
equipments. Unfortunately, there are few systematic studies on Interactive
Whiteboards in Vietnamese teaching environment. Thus, the researchers
3
decide to conduct this study to initially evaluate the use of Interactive
Whiteboards in teaching English to primary students in some Apollo English
Centers in Hanoi.
1.2. Aims of the study and research questions
The study aims to illustrate how Interactive Whiteboards are used in
English classes for primary students in two Apollo English Centers in Hanoi
which are Apollo Lieu Giai and Apollo Nguyen Ngoc Vu. The researcher is
interested in exploring how Interactive Whiteboards support the teaching
process and also its shortcoming if any. The researcher expects that the
outcome would be a good source for primary English teachers which
provides information of how to use Interactive Whiteboards effectively.

Furthermore, basing on the result, the researcher evaluate whether
Interactive Whiteboards is a suitable tool in teaching English to primary
students in Vietnamese context. These aims can be achieved by finding
answers to the following three research questions:
1. How are Interactive Whiteboards being used in teaching English
to primary students in Apollo English Centers?
2. What are the benefits of Interactive Whiteboards in teaching
English to primary students from the perspective of the teachers
working at Apollo English Centers?
3. What are the weaknesses of Interactive Whiteboards in teaching
English to primary students as viewed by the teachers at Apollo
English Centers?
1.3. Significance of the study
In general, the research could be useful for both primary English
teachers and researchers working on related studies.
4
Firstly, in Vietnam research on Interactive Whiteboards is quite
limited. Therefore, the study would be an official research on this theme.
Once completed, the research is expected to be a good source for primary
English teachers in considering the advantages and disadvantages of using
Interactive Whiteboards whereby they can use it more effective.
Secondly, the research would solve the controversies over the
conformity of using Interactive Whiteboards in teaching English to primary
students in Vietnamese context. Through the result, the authorities and
educators can decide whether English classes for primary students in
Vietnam should apply this new teaching tool.
1.4. Scope of the study
The study was carried out among native teachers who are familiar
with working with Interactive Whiteboards in two centers of Apollo English
in Hanoi which are Apollo Lieu Giai and Apollo Nguyen Ngoc Vu. This

decision was made based on the fact that Apollo English Center is one of the
first educational centers applying Interactive Whiteboards in teaching
English for primary students in Hanoi, which is the main object of this
research. Moreover, with the purpose of identifying the advantages and
disadvantages of using Interactive Whiteboards, the native teachers working
at Apollo English Centers are the most suitable participants. They have
experience of working with Interactive Whiteboards as well as have their
own view on how Interactive Whiteboards benefit the teaching and learning
English process.
1.5. Methods of the study
The research was carried out in two Apollo English Centers, which
are Apollo Lieu Giai and Apollo Nguyen Ngoc Vu. The participants are
native teachers teaching primary students in three main levels in Apollo
5
which are starter, mover and flyer. Because of that setting, the researcher
decided to employ the qualitative multiple-case study approach. Multiple-
case study is a study that contains more than one single case (Baxter & Jack,
2008). This approach has many advantages. On the one hand, it allows the
researcher to analyze within each setting and across settings. On the other
hand, it also can be used to predict similar results (a literal replication) or
predict contrasting results but for predictable reasons (a theoretical
replication) (Yin, 2003). Moreover, the qualitative method was also applied
to explore the using of Interactive Whiteboards in two Apollo English
Centers in Hanoi as well as teachers’ attitude toward them. This choice was
made based on the fact that qualitative method generally aims to understand
the experiences and attitudes of participants (Brikci et al., 2007). Therefore,
data were collected through interviews and classroom observations. The data
collected were then analyzed to gain the insights and implications of the
study.
1.6. Overview of the rest of the paper

The rest of the paper contains the following chapters:
In chapter two (Literature review) the researcher discusses the
literature review on the key terms of the study with the review of related
studies.
In chapter three (Methodology), the researcher describes the
participants and methodology of the study with full details.
In chapter four (Findings and discussion), the researcher presents,
analyzes and discusses the findings from the collected data.
In chapter five (Conclusion), the last chapter, the researcher
summarizes the main issues discussed in the paper, suggests several
pedagogical recommendations from the findings, acknowledges the
limitation of the study and elaborate on its contributions.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter includes the review of the literature related to Interactive
Whiteboards and details of primary students. In each section, the definition or
6
explanation of the key terms are presented together with the studies both worldwide
and in Vietnam related to the issue.
2.1. Interactive Whiteboards
2.1.1. Definition of Interactive Whiteboards
The first Interactive Whiteboard in the world was created by SMART
Technologies in 1991 (Company overview, n.d.). In his study, Al-Saleem
(2012) states that: “Interactive Whiteboard is a touch-sensitive screen that
works in conjunction with a computer and a projector”. It can be either
hung on the wall or placed on a cart with portable wheels so that it can be
transferred anywhere in the classroom or moved from one room to another
(Brezinová, 2009). Interactive Whiteboards play the role of presentation
device since they display images, audios or videos through the projector.
Users can control the equipment from both the board and the computer. In
addition, the users can interact with the board by using a pen or their own

fingers as a mouse (Al-Saleem, 2012). Interactive Whiteboards were
available for a single user, however, in recent years, the development of
technologies has allowed for multiple users to interact with them
(Bannister, 2010).
Interactive Whiteboards are used for various purposes. Most people
use Interactive Whiteboards for working, communicating with people
around the world. Moreover, small children can use them to play games,
watch films, listen to songs whereas older children use them for learning
purposes and having access to the Internet (Brezinová, 2009). At schools,
Interactive Whiteboards are used for teaching purposes namely enhancing
students’ learning and motivation, and facilitating instruction for teachers
(BECTA, 2003; Beeland, 2002; Schmid, 2008; Slay, Siebörger, &
HodgkinsonWilliams, 2008; Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005).
2.1.2. Interactive Whiteboards in mainstream education
7
Over the last decade, the Interactive Whiteboards have become a
popular device for instructors all over the world (Turel, 2011). Starting in
early 2000s, Interactive Whiteboards appeared in classroom in a large
number, especially in the United Kingdom. In 2003 and 2004, the UK
government spent £10 million to support the introduction of Interactive
Whiteboards into primary schools. Therefore they promptly became one of
the first countries to master this new educational technology (Hockly,
2013). Recent figure shows that the number of Interactive Whiteboards in
primary and secondary schools in the UK has been over 283,000 in 2009
(BESA,2009) taking highest rate (about 73%) of Interactive Whiteboards in
classroom worldwide (Lee, 2010). Besides, other countries including
Denmark (50%), the Netherlands (47%), Australia (45%) and the USA
(35%) have also been increasing their Interactive Whiteboards penetration
rates lately (McIntyre-Brown, 2011). Turel (2011) expresses that Italy and
Turkey have started their new projects of equipping Interactive

Whiteboards for primary and secondary schools. Beyond, the experts
forecast the application of Interactive Whiteboards in classroom will
continue rising particularly in Europe and East Asia over the next three
years (Lee, 2010).
Interactive Whiteboards are applied in different subjects and learning
contexts. Essig and Dawn (2011) delivered a study on how Interactive
Whiteboards affect elementary mathematic teachers’ in their pedagogy,
technology integration and perceptions of students at those grades. The
results found out that using of Interactive Whiteboards enhanced the
learning experience of the students. This research also plays an important
role in identifying a new and effective model of professional presentation.
Another research on the application of Interactive Whiteboards was carried
out by Syh-Jong (2010) but in a different context among secondary science
teachers. The results can be listed as follows. Firstly, Interactive
Whiteboards help in instructing subject-matter knowledge to students.
8
Secondly, they supplement new instructional strategies for teachers. Finally,
they develop the technological pedagogical content and knowledge of
science teacher.
2.1.3. Interactive Whiteboards in language teaching
Interactive Whiteboards is one of the technological equipments that
began to be used in classroom in the late 1990s (Beeland, 2002). The
appearance of Interactive Whiteboards has changed the mode of instruction,
especially in language teaching (Bahadur & Oogarah, 2013). Therefore, a
number of research has been conducted to examine its effects in both
language teaching and learning process.
An outstanding research is conducted by Al-Saleem (2012) stated that
an Interactive Whiteboards support the teaching process of foreign language
in three main ways. Firstly, Interactive Whiteboards increase the interaction
and conversation in classroom since the combination with wireless the

keyboard reduces the time that teachers have to come back and write on the
board; consequently, there would be more chances for teachers to face their
students. Secondly, Interactive Whiteboards also help with teachers’
preparation of new cultural and linguistic elements by providing authentic
documents. Finally, Interactive Whiteboards promote the oral skills through
group works, presentation activities which bring people together and
encourage communication.
In terms of learning, from the perspective of language teachers,
Interactive Whiteboards with internet access is a potential utilization in
foreign language learning, especially for the vocabulary memorization since
the integration among the sound, the written words and the image of objects
presented is considered to raise memorization remarkably (Schmid, 2008).
Moreover, Interactive Whiteboards support different learning styles and
are used in a variety of learning environments (Chapell, 2003)
9
Besides, other researchers are interested in investigating the effects of
Interactive Whiteboards in a particular language. A recent research was
conducted by Hui Ling and Royn (2011) in Chinese language class in order
to explore teachers and students’ perceptions of learning through Interactive
Whiteboards. Two authors discovered that the application of Interactive
Whiteboards enhances various aspects of Chinese language learning. In
addition, the teachers have positive attitude towards the use of Interactive
Whiteboard which led to the effective teaching and learning of Chinese.
Additionally, Yanez et al (2011) carried a research on Interactive
Whiteboards in a different context which is an English language class in a
British primary school in Spain. The findings illustrate that the children have
a desire to interact more with the Interactive Whiteboards.
Another opinion of theorist, who has the same interest in the issue,
claimed that it is convenient for teachers in interacting with the computer
“the touch-sensitive board allows users to interact directly with applications

without having to be physically at the computer which is projecting the
image onto the board. Elements of text, graphics, sound, animation, and
video help teachers create lessons that interest and engage students during
the learning process” (as cited in Beeland, 2008, p. 2).
In short, various functions of Interactive Whiteboards allow teachers
and students to be more interactive with technology in a manner that was not
previously possible.
2.2. Primary students
2.2.1. Definition of young learners
There are some different definitions of young learners. Brezinová
(2009) defines young learners as learners aged between 6 to 11 years old.
According to Rixon (1999), young learners are defined as children between
the ages of about 5 years old to 12 years old. Otherwise, young learners are
10
also recognized as those under 14 years old (Lynne Cameron, 1999).
Therefore, in general, the definition of young learners is based on the years
spent in the primary or elementary stages of formal education before the
transition to secondary school which is the reason why the ages of young
learners are varied from one country to the others.
In Vietnam, young learners or primary students are defined as
children from 6 to 11 years old who attend classes from grade one to grade
five. Since the study is carried in Vietnam, the definition of Brezinová is the
most suitable, thus the main object of this paper are students from 6 to 11
years old.
2.2.2. Primary students’ characteristics in learning language
Children are famous for being natural language learners (Curtain,
2009). It is undoubtful that they have learned their native language with few
difficulties and by the time of 6 years old, their proficiency make non-native
speakers jealous. In her book “Languages and Children: Making the Match,
New Languages for Young Learners, Grades K-8, 4/E”, Curtain (2009) gives

readers some evidences on the significant linguistic ability of children. She
says that after 6 months letting children to study in a second-language
setting, parents will be amazed with the level that their children can reach
which is higher than adults studying in the same period of time.
Moreover, children have their own learning style, especially in
second-language learning. Unlike adults, children have no real reason for
learning the language and they are unaware of learning a language. In other
word, children acquire language, while the adults learn it (Krashen, 1986).
Moreover, they are not aware of needs to motivate; their goals are short term
and the relations with teachers and taking part in interesting activities
motivate them to engage with second-language. In addition, Scott and his
coworkers (1991) also note some characteristics of young learners that
11
teachers should be aware of. They list out as the following: “children are
very curious and active; they have a limited attention span, require
interaction in learning, prefer physical activities, learn by manipulating
things, mostly rely on speaking and require praise in any form”.
2.2.3. Teaching English for primary students
Teaching to young learners at primary school is different from that to
adults. Phillips (1993) claimed that types of activities designed by teachers
should be based on students’ circumstances, attitudes and interests rather
than the children’s physical age and it is essential for teachers to understand
students’ characteristics.
In the line with mentioned characteristics (in the previous part), some
factors should be considered in teaching English to primary students. Firstly,
teachers should create the situations in which students can acquire language
naturally and communicatively since young learners acquire languages by
means of acquisition rather than learning (Sukarno, 2008). Secondly, Brown
(2001) noticed that the attention spans of students of this age are short;
hence, it is necessary for teachers to make the lessons interesting, lively and

fun. He also claimed that the sensory input plays an important role in a
lesson which helps students feel sufficient for a classroom. As a result, the
lesson should balance among physical activities, visual and auditory
activities and non-verbal language. Thirdly, according to Abe (1991) it is
useful to use media in teaching English to young learners since it helps the
classroom situations to be more alive. Additionally, media also helps
teachers render materials and help the students comprehend the given
materials.
12
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the method employed to answer the research questions would
be described in details. The participants, the instruments and the procedure of data
collection and analysis would be justified.
3.1. Setting of the study
3.1.1. Interactive Whiteboards in Apollo English Centers
Apollo Vietnam was founded in 1994. It is the first fully foreign
owned English language training company in Vietnam. Apollo is an
affiliation of International House World Organization which is one of the
largest and oldest groups of language schools in the world. In Vietnam,
13
Apollo continues to strive to maintain as the top class English teaching
organization. Apollo’s achievements in education and training are
recognized by the Vietnamese Government and the United Kingdom.
Apollo is the first foreign organization that has received two campaign
medals for “the Cause of Education” from the Vietnamese Ministry of
Education and Training. In 2008, Apollo’s Chairman of the Board of
Directors was also awarded the MBE (Member of the British Empire) by
Queen Elizabeth II for providing international-standard English training in
Vietnam.
Apollo owns nine modern and international-standard centers all over

Vietnam in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Da Nang and Hai Phong. The study
was carried out in two centers of Apollo in Hanoi which are Apollo Nguyen
Ngoc Vu and Apollo Lieu Giai. Interactive Whiteboards are equipped in
every class at every level since Apollo believes that Interactive Whiteboards
can enhance students’ learning motivation.
Interactive Whiteboards in Apollo are provided by Promethean, a
famous provider of the equipment. Each Interactive Whiteboard is
accompanied with a projector, a pen or a pointing stick. Interactive
Whiteboards in Apollo are installed with various software and programs.
Firstly, ActivInspire is known as the basic software in a Promethean
Interactive Whiteboard. It plays the role as a traditional whiteboard.
Moreover, it enables teachers to lead the lesson on an Interactive
Whiteboard. ActivInspire has many features. Teachers can use it to create
new lesson filled with rich, powerful activities and support assessment for
learning tasks with students, groups and the whole class. With a choice of
age appropriate interfaces, ActivInspire gives teachers the ability to access a
wealth of teaching activities, tools, images, sounds and templates, with a
world of additional resources available on Promethean Planet (ActivInspire
description, n.d). Secondly, Apollo use Our Discovery Island textbook as
14
the main teaching program. The program is provided by Pearson
publication and divided into six levels. Each level is accompanied by a
digital version which is installed in every Interactive Whiteboards in
Apollo. The digital course book embodies all material available in the
textbook, enriched by interactive exercises, audio and video material,
flashcards, story cards and teacher resources. Thirdly, the Interactive
Whiteboards in Apollo English Centers are all connected to the Internet and
available teachers to search for online material during the class.
3.1.2. Young learners at Apollo English Centers in Hanoi
Apollo English Centers divide their students into two big types which

are Apollo Junior and Apollo Adult. The focus object of this study is Apollo
Junior. Apollo Junior comprises four levels, namely Kindy (students from
ages 4 to 6), Kids (students from ages 6 to 11), Kids plus (students from ages
10 to 12) and Teens (students from ages 12 to 17). Since the researcher
wants to explore the use of Interactive Whiteboards in teaching primary
students, the suitable candidate is the Kids level where attending students are
from 6 to 11 years old.
In Apollo English Centers, the Kids level is evaluated to be equal to
the A1 level of CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages). Council of Europe describes A1 level that students can
understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases
aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type; they can introduce
him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal
details; and can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks
slowly and clearly and is prepared to help (Council of Europe, 2001).
At Apollo English Centers, Kids level is again split into three smaller
level which are Starter, Mover and Flyer. Beside four English skills, Apollo
English Centers incorporate LETS
TM
method (Learning English Through
Subjects) which supplements the knowledge of Maths, Science and life
15
skills. Therefore in each level, students have different targets. Firstly,
students of Starter level are expected to understand, speak and listen to basic
instruction. They should be able to read short sentences and a text, write
missing words (nouns). In term of LETS method, after finishing the course,
Starter students would know basic numeracy and simple mathematical
operations in English, basic awareness of science topics on the natural
world, social skills such as team work, pair work, sharing, critical thinking
(identifying and comparing), art and social sciences, etc. Secondly, Mover

students are expected to have the same skill as Starter but to a higher level.
They know how to describe differences between pictures, tell story from
pictures, listen for names, spellings and specific information. In addition,
they can read for specific information and gist, stories and factual texts as
well as write short texts. With regard to LETS, students are able to discuss
and solve simple problems, measure, shapes, life cycles, etc. Finally, Flyer
students are expected to be able to listen for specific and detailed
information; answer questions with short answers to get information. They
also can read and understand a short text; write longer standard texts. In term
of LETS, Flyer students know food chains, food science, animal
identification, work/jobs, music, arts, environment, ecology and
conservation, present in a group. (Apollo course description, n.d.)
3.2. Participants
The participants of the study were native English teachers working at
two Apollo English Centers which are Apollo Nguyen Ngoc Vu and Apollo
Lieu Giai. The decision was made based on the fact that those teachers work
with Interactive Whiteboards every day and thus gain their experience in
using them.
In each center, the teachers were randomly chosen from those
teaching three main levels of primary students at Apollo English Centers:
starter, mover and flyer. Therefore, six teachers involved in the research. All
16
of them have been using Interactive Whiteboards as a tool supporting their
teaching process.
3.3. Phase 1: Observation
3.3.1. Sampling
After choosing the participants, the researcher started observing.
In each Apollo English Center, the researcher observed three classes of
primary students at starter, mover and flyer levels. These classes were
taught by the teachers who accepted to be the participants of this study.

3.3.2. Data collection
3.3.2.1. Justification for the use of observation
Field observation was chosen to collect the information on the
effectiveness and weaknesses of using Interactive Whiteboards in
teaching English to primary students. Le et al. (2012) reported that
field observation is the method of watching people or animal in
their natural habits. In a language study, the researcher can
observe the students and teachers’ behaviors in a language
classroom. Observation is more advantageous than questionnaire
and interview in enhancing the validity and reliability of the
information. People do not always give honest answer in doing
questionnaire; however, by observing the researcher can watch the
natural and true behaviors of the participants (Le, 2012).
Therefore, field observation is flawlessly suitable for the current
study.
17