Enhancing Instruction through Constructivism, Cooperative Learning, and Cloud Computing David W. Denton, Seattle Pacific University
Abstract Cloud computing technologies, such as Google Docs and Microsoft Office Live, have the potential to enhance instructional methods predicated on constructivism and cooperative learning. Cloud-based application features like file sharing and online publishing are prompting departments of education across the nation to adopt these technologies. However, realizing the full potential of these tools necessitates that future educators develop an understanding of how they can be used. Strategies for integrating cloud-based applications are suggested and results from a case study involving graduate education students are presented. Keywords: case study; cloud computing; constructivist learning; cooperative learning; Google Docs; instructional strategies; Web 2.0
A
lthough the term “cloud computing” is a metaphor for technologies that allow people to access computing services and to share data over the Internet, the growing impact of this technology on teaching and learning is anything but metaphorical. For example, in 2010, the Oregon Department of Education began offering Google Apps for Educators to staff and students (Casap, 2010; Dessoff, 2010). More recently, the same cloud-based applications were introduced to educators in New York State, reaching three million students and two hundred thousand teachers (Claburn, 2010). Officials in Kentucky have followed suit, opting for Microsoft’s system, Live@edu (Dessoff). Inevitably, more states will adopt cloud-based technologies. The rate of adoption is bound to increase as private companies create products for linking cloud computing with traditional educational technology. For example, Cloud
34
TechTrends • July/August 2012
Connect (Lindenberg, 2011) automates online identify management for staff and students, and ePals integrates social learning networks with Google and Microsoft cloud applications (Holsinger, VanMeter, & Pala, 2011). Despite these advances, promoting the use of innovative technologies as a regular part of the K-12 schooling experience has proven to be a challenge (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). An important dimension of this problem is getting future educators to integrate educational technology as a regular part of their approach to instruction (Abbitt, 2011). Nevertheless, researchers have been investigating the use of cloud computing to improve teaching and learning and these efforts may also improve the extent to which teachercandidates adopt innovative instructional practices. For example, Wood (2011) utilized Google Docs, a cloud-based office suite, for having undergraduates write collaborative laboratory reports. Similarly, Bonham (2011) employed Google Speadsheet and Forms to collect and graph data points from students during a laboratory experiment. Alternatively, Blood (2011) described three special education teachers at a high school sharing a Google Spreadsheet to track behavior points for students. And in a descriptive report, Rienzo and Han (2009) compared Google Docs and Microsoft Office Live on several criteria, including sharing and editing capabilities, as a way to illustrate potential uses of web 2.0 tools for managing college classes. In a case study, Schneckenberg, Ehlers, and Adelsberger (2011) utilized cloud computing to enhance instruction for graduate students in a business course. The class focused on constructivist and cooperative pedagogy, facilitated by cloud technologies, specifically Google Docs. Class activities included group-brainstorming sessions, publishing reflections on wikis, and Volume 56, Number 4
conducting peer- and self-evaluation. According to Schneckenberg et al., end of course evaluations showed positive results, 9.35 out of 10, which the researchers attributed to using instructional practices facilitated with cloud-based applications. Constructivism Interestingly, Schneckenberg et al. (2011) employed constructivism and collaborative learning as the theoretical foundation to their research. In many ways, the features of constructivism and cooperative learning are enhanced with cloud-based technologies. For example, constructivism suggests that students integrate prior knowledge with unfamiliar information to create new learning (Richardson, 2003). Cloud applications contain tools that support activities for accessing prior knowledge such as retrieving and sharing information. Furthermore, constructivism suggests that bodies of knowledge are created collaboratively and that the results of these constructions are influenced by time and place (Richardson). Many features of cloud-based applications emphasize these characteristics, such as synchronous typing and Internet publishing. There are other characteristics of constructivism that show connections to cloud-based applications. For instance, constructivism involves 1) facilitation of group dialogue, 2) reference to formal domain knowledge, 3) opportunities for students to select challenge level, and 4) practice of metacognitive skills (Richardson, 2003). Although a teacher can deploy these activities through traditional methods, such as paper and pencil assignments and whole-class discussion, organizing them with the support of cloud computing is efficient and innovative. For example, students can share files (documents, drawings, spreadsheets, presentations) and simultaneously add information, such as definitions to terms, steps to solve a problem, or data from a lab. In addition, instructors can publicly display files while students are adding content. Rather than existing as static displays, such as pages in a textbook, socially constructed knowledge, facilitated through cloud technologies, is alterable by anyone sharing in the creation of the file. Although information created in the cloud is labile, it can also be stable. For example, cloud computing enables users to chronicle and save changes over time. Functions such as See revision history in Google Documents creates a history of revisions, identified by date, time, and author. And since files can be shared, saving information from one class session to the next is streamlined. With a traditional approach, such as recording Volume 56, Number 4
Figure 1: Google Docs includes a complete office suite of cloud-based applications, which users can share and publish online.
information on the dry board, whatever is written is removed at the end of class. This tends to create a transient record, perhaps diminishing students’ ability to reflect upon and summarize learning across multiple class sessions. To take another example, one typical approach to classroom discussion is for students to share their responses one at a time. Although this method promotes order, primarily because the instructor acts as a conversation gatekeeper, it also tends to create a bottleneck in the flow of information. Alternatively, simultaneous responding through a shared file in the cloud promotes information flow, albeit in nonverbal forms. Another advantage is that students can see the thoughts of their peers as they type, which promotes open communication, which is a characteristic of constructivist teaching (Matthews, 2000). Cooperative Learning Similar to constructivism, cooperative learning is another approach to instruction readily aligned with cloud technologies. One reason for this is that the various tools available in cloud applications, such as sharing and internet publishing, match the principle of social interdependence, which means that individuals must work together to accomplish a goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1974; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007). For purposes of comparison, competitive learning is the opposite of cooperative learning, and as the name suggests, it focuses on competition. Specifically, most individuals must fail, in order for a few to succeed (Johnson et al., 2007). Promoting the success of a few students
TechTrends • July/August 2012
35
through competition is generally antithetical to the ideals of egalitarian education (Noddings, 2007). This is especially the case since cooperative learning involves promotive interaction, which is characterized by mutual help, open communication, and exchange of needed resources (Johnson et al., 2007). These characteristics are widely valued by professional organizations, such as Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which has stated that teamwork, flexibility, and collaborative problem solving are essential skills for today’s students (Johnson, 2009). Although researchers have repeatedly proven the effectiveness of cooperative learning on achievement and classroom climate (Johnson & Johnson, 1989), combining cloud computing with cooperative learning is relatively new (Ertmer, Newby, Liu, Tomory, Yu, & Lee, 2011; Kear, Woodthorpe, Robertson, & Hutchison, 2010). Nevertheless, the research that has been conducted shows promise for enhancing cooperative learning through cloud-based technologies. For example Nicholas and Ng (2009) found that preservice science teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the efficacy of online learning improved through the use of wikis and blogs. Nevertheless, an important question, which researchers are beginning to investigate, is how educational theories, such as constructivism and collaborative learning, are enhanced through cloud computing. One obstacle that might prevent researchers from fully answering this question is the belief that digital technologies are more of a distraction, rather than an aid to learning (Traxler, 2010). Setup Dealing with this belief, and the realities upon which it is likely based, requires some careful planning. For example, it is important to establish policies and procedures for how students are expected to use their laptops, tablets, and smart phones during class (Traxler, 2010). Similarly, it is also necessary to deploy instructional methods that promote “time-on-task” engagement, and to help students understand digital technologies as tools for learning, not just entertainment. The first place students encounter expectations for appropriate technology use is on the syllabus. However, instructors need not establish these expectations through trial and error. Rather, the International Society of Technology Education (2012) has established the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for appropriate digital citizenship, and these can be used as an effective starting place for developing specific practices. For example, one of the NETS 36
TechTrends • July/August 2012
states that students learn digital citizenship by practicing safe, legal, and ethical technology use. A specific expectation shown on a syllabus might be written like this: students are expected to use their laptops for class related activities only. Along with thoughtful expectations, establishing procedures is also important. For example, using phrases such as “lower the lid” (to your laptop) helps students move away from their screens to focus their attention elsewhere, such as on the instructor. Inevitably, engaging students in an active lesson requires transitioning between activities, so having methods for redirecting student attention (from their laptops, to the projector screen, and then to the dry board) is critical. Successful technology integration requires these types of procedures. However, even the most tightly worded expectations shown on a syllabus, and reinforced through procedures, will fail unless engaging instructional practices are deployed throughout a course (Bain, 2004; Lemov, 2010). In a classroom setting, an open laptop to a disinterested student is an invitation for distraction. Although describing instructional techniques that promote engagement is beyond the scope of this article, there are a few steps that instructors can take, such as carefully planned lessons, focused objectives, varied instructional approaches, and circulating around the room during student-led activities (Lemov, 2010). After establishing expectations and procedures for how students are to use technology in the classroom, the next step is to choose suitable cloud applications. Two systems frequently associated with instruction include Google Docs and Microsoft Office Live. Each system has its own set of advantages and disadvantages (Rienzo & Han, 2009). However, Google Docs has gained more traction with teachers as an aid to instruction in comparison to Office Live (see Blood, 2009; Bonham, 2011; Nevin, 2009; Schneckenberg et al., 2011; and Wood, 2011). One advantage of Google Docs is that a single account allows users to create websites (Google Sites) and blogs (Blogger) through the same profile. The strategies that follow describe methods for integrating cloud computing technologies with Google Docs, rather than Office Live. Nevertheless, an instructor could adapt any of the following descriptions to work with the Office Live interface. Regardless of the system one chooses, participants will need to create an account associated with a specific email address. However, most students are familiar with creating online profiles (Carnevale, 2008). The instructor will also need an account as well, preferably one that Volume 56, Number 4
is tied to a course-specific email, such as
[email protected]. Linking a particular email address to one class makes managing files, contact lists, and correspondence easier. Another step in the setup process is for students to send an email message using their Google account to the specific email address created for the course. This enables the instructor to add each student as a contact, to promote efficient file sharing. During this step, cross referencing the class roster to the contact list serves to confirm that every student is included as a contact. Strategies for Integrating Cloud Computing Once these steps are complete, an instructor can design a variety of learning activities by following a few strategies. Some of the strategies that follow are situation specific, such as constructing a rubric, while others are general, such as providing feedback. However, each one incorporates characteristics of constructivism and cooperative learning. 1. Group Projects: In 1919, Thomas Kilpatrick suggested that projects promote purposeful action, social skills, and interest for the learner. Kilpatrick’s description has shown remarkable durability, because of its focus on teamwork, problem solving, and group decision-making. Nevertheless, Kilpatrick emphasized the role of the teacher in structuring project work, noting that students are rarely able to complete a meaningful project without guidance. He also suggested that the process was just as important as the final product. Organizing project work through cloud-based technologies enables instructors to provide structure, while also emphasizing process. For example, Google Docs allows users to share and simultaneously edit documents, while keeping a digital record of team member contributions over time. Likewise, results are readily displayed in Google Sites or Blogger. 2. Peer Assessment: Thomas, Matrin, and Pleasants (2011) defined peer assessment as processes which require students to provide feedback to their peers, based on established criteria. Engaging students in peer assessment has been shown to improve learning (King, 2002; Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2010; Willey & Gardner, 2010). Yet, helping students develop the metacognitive skills necessary for monitoring the quality of their work during production is difficult (Willey & Gardner). Nevertheless, there are a number of features available through Google Docs that are ideal for engaging students in peer assessment. For example, users can share files for viewing and Volume 56, Number 4
Figure 2 : Create a distinct email address to help manage contacts and files.
editing, make comments, chat while working, and create specific forms (surveys, inventories, and tests) to gather and share feedback. Users can publish forms online, or solicit participation through email notification. 3. Student Constructed Presentations: Lecture is a time-honored instructional practice (Friesen, 2011). However, successful teachers do more than lecture, they carefully select from a variety of instructional approaches to match activities with objectives (Bain, 2004; Lemov, 2010). Applying constructivism to the concept of lecture, supported through cloud computing, provides an opportunity for instructors to involve students in the presentation of subject matter. Sadik (2008) and Robin (2008) described this process as digital storytelling, and as the name suggests, it involves collaborative organization and presentation of content material. One way to engage students in digital storytelling is with a Google Presentation. Create a presentation and assign one slide to each student, or group of students for larger classes. Provide general guidance on the contents of each slide, such as describing a concept, defining a term, or elaborating with an example. Then allow students to fill the slide with specific information to show their understanding of the subject matter at hand. Display the presentation using a projection system as students create their slides so the whole class can observe changes over time. 4. Simultaneous Class Discussions: Conducting whole class discussion is another common teaching strategy (Lyle, 2008; Mayhill, 2006; Smith, Hardman, Wall, & Mroz, 2004). It usually involves addressing discussion questions, with one person speaking at a time, while the instructor directs dialogue. An alternative approach to this format is to have students ad-
TechTrends • July/August 2012
37
Figure 3: Involve students in the presentation of content material by sharing a Google Presentation and assigning one slide to each student.
dress discussion questions at the same time by sharing their thoughts through a cloud application. Similar to the previous strategy, an instructor can use Google Presentation to assign one slide to each student for showing a response. Students use the slide to write responses at the same time, and then present the results to the whole class. During presentations the instructor can inspect specific slides and call upon students for explanations, or revisions. 5. Collaborative Reflection: Similar to whole class discussion, reflection is a widely used instructional practice (Dunlap, 2006). Usually, students write reflections on their own, after the learning event has occurred (see Pavlovitch, 2007; Spalding & Wilson, 2002). However, Hubbs and Brand (2005) have suggested interactive class reflection as an alternative to individual reflection. This format involves collaborative journal writing during class, the contents of which focus on proximal learning events. Another approach is team reflection (Goldsmith, 1996), where teams of students reflect in a shared journal on team progress and learning. The procedural requirements of each of these methods are facilitated by sharing files in the cloud. For example, a team of students can share a Google Document and type their reflections simultaneously. An important advantage of document sharing and simultaneously typing is that students can collaborate throughout the writing process, both in terms of planning and revising. Lastly, the entire document can be published online or presented in class.
38
TechTrends • July/August 2012
6. Assisted Writing: One way to improve student writing is through the assistance of an instructor for planning, drafting, and revising (Graham & Perin, 2007). Although this practice is intuitive, there are logistical challenges, such as frequent paper exchanges, which tend to be cumbersome and time consuming. Cloud technologies eliminate many of these obstacles. For example, authoring a paper with Google Documents enables users to share their work so that another person can make changes or view progress. Additional features include comments, chat, and collaborative emailing. To be sure, large class sizes limit the use of this strategy, although students could work in peer-partnerships to reach the same results. Another advantage is the feature See revision history, which permits viewers to observe all of the changes made to a paper over time, eliminating the need to manage separate drafts. 7. Learning Illustrated: The prominent educational philosopher Jerome Bruner (1966) suggested that most of the information presented to students in educational settings is symbolic, appearing as letters and numbers. Bruner advocated for the use of two alternative representations, including images and experiences. Using Google Drawing to have students create an image in class is an opportunity to represent information visually. For example, students can draw a flow chart to show steps for solving a problem or completing a task. Similar to previous strategies, students can create these diagrams collaboratively, through the sharing function, or publish them online as a web page. 8. Class Inventory: Typically, assessment data is collected twice during a course, at midterm and final. However, limiting the collection of assessment data to two times during a class generally eliminates opportunities to take corrective action (both for students and instructor). Limited data collection is especially problematic since informal checks of student understanding have been shown to improve achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Google Forms is a convenient way for instructors to gather data to gauge student progress, classroom climate, or both. A form can be published online as a standalone web page, or embedded into a learning management system such as Blackboard or Moodle. Results from Google Forms are automatically downloaded as a Google Spreadsheet for analysis. 9. Collaborative Rubric Construction: Assessment rubrics consist of columns and rows showing criteria and levels of achievement. They are Volume 56, Number 4
useful for improving student understanding of the characteristics of a quality product or performance. Shermis and DiVesta (2011) recommend including students in the construction of rubrics to reduce ambiguity and clarify expectations. One method for doing this is to share a rubric with students through Google Spreadsheets and then invite suggestions or alterations. Alternatively, an instructor could use Google Forms to gather input on scoring criteria and then create a rubric from this information, with student help. The advantage of an open approach is that the instructor and students can discuss and negotiate elements of the rubric to promote transparent evaluation processes and improve outcomes (Lai & Ng, 2011; Shermis & DiVesta). 10. Website Publishing: An important advantage for Google Docs users is that creating one account streamlines access to Blogger and Google Sites. These tools facilitate quick and easy web publishing, which has been shown to improve student interest and collaboration (Davies, Pantzopoulos, & Gray, 2011; Terrell, Richardson, & Hamilton, 2011). For example, users can coauthor posts on Blogger or embed presentations, spreadsheets, and drawings on Google Sites. These options facilitate alternative instructional approaches, such as project- and problem-based learning.
A Case Study The strategies listed above were used with a quarter-long class of graduate education students learning about assessment. In this class, students worked in groups of three to create a website, using Google Sites, showing examples of assessment techniques, such as multiple-choice items, constructed-response questions, and performance evaluations. Students used Google Docs to collaboratively write content to each page of their website, focusing on subject-matter from their particular endorsement area. For example, students shared a Google Document to describe how they would implement portfolio assessments in science, math, and English. They also wrote weekly reflections on what they were learning as a result of their project work. Students shared these reflections in class and summarized their contents on the last page of their websites. In addition, students made a diagram together, using Google Drawing, to show examples of formative and summative assessment practices and as a way to emphasize nonlinguistic forms of communication. During in-class activities, students simultaneously wrote notes to a Google Presentation, Volume 56, Number 4
as a form of collective note-taking, and then used information from these notes to make additions to their websites. Near the end of the course, the instructor and students constructed a rubric together, using Google Spreadsheet. For the rubric, students choose grading criteria and decided on point distributions. Students also practiced with the rubric through self- and peer-assessment activities before the instructor used it to assess website projects. At the end of the course, students completed a class inventory, which surveyed their learning of content material and attitudes toward using cloud technologies to enhance instruction. The inventory was administered using Google Forms and it consisted of four Likert scaled items, from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The Cronbach’s Alpha for the survey was .83. According to results from the inventory, students overwhelmingly indicated that they would use Google Docs with their students as a method for enhancing instruction (M = 1.17, SD = .39, N = 12). Similarly, students reported that they would have their students create websites using Google Sites (M = 1.25, SD = .62, N = 12). And although some sources report that technology use tends to distract students from content mastery (Traxler, 2010), this was not the case for participants in this study. Rather, students indicated that their understanding of assessment concepts was enhanced as a result of learning through cloud computing technologies. For example, students reported that they could construct different types of assessments (M = 1.17, SD = .62, N = 12) and deploy both formative and summative assessments in their preferred discipline (M = 1.17, SD = .58, N = 12). These results corroborate research conducted by Schneckenberg et al. (2011) who found that students responded favorably to using Google Docs in a constructivist learning environment. Similarly, Nicholas and Ng (2009) found that students working in collaborative teams preferred using blogs and wikis in comparison to traditional techniques. However, the research method used for reporting results in this article, as well as the research of Schneckenberg et al., involved case study. Additional empirical methodologies are needed to verify the efficacy of these results. Nevertheless, the outcomes do suggest that integrating cloud computing as an instructional practice in teacher training courses will influence future educators to adopt these technologies as a regular part of their own instruction.
TechTrends • July/August 2012
39
Conclusion Cloud computing, specifically integrating Google Docs, is a compelling approach to instruction where constructivism and cooperative learning serve as the theoretical backdrop. Instruction which integrates the use of cloud technologies shows tremendous potential. Perhaps this is why entire states, including Oregon, New York and Kentucky, are providing access to these tools for both teachers and students (Claburn, 2010; Dessoff, 2010). Likewise, instructors in higher education are beginning to recognize the pedagogical advantages that these technologies provide. While the integration of cloud computing as a method for improving academic achievement may seem distant, the way that these tools align with learning theories and modes of instruction suggests otherwise. The ability to share and publish student constructed content, or to simultaneously craft written narratives, or to collaborate on a wide variety of activities, will surely accelerate the use of these modes of learning in classrooms across the K-16 spectrum. The strategies and case study described in this article serve as an entry point for additional approaches and research, which are sure to follow, as more educators learn about the advantages of enhancing instruction through cloud computing. David W. Denton, Ed.D, is currently an Assistant Professor at Seattle Pacific University, where he teaches courses in assessment and instructional technology. Before joining SPU, David taught middle school students for 11 years in a variety of subjects.
References
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An Investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Caimbridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519-546. Bennett, J., & Pence, H. E. (2011). Managing laboratory data using cloud computing as an organizational tool. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 761-763. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
40
TechTrends • July/August 2012
Blood, E. (2011). Point systems made simple with Google Docs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 305-309. Bonham, S. (2011). Whole class laboratories with Google Docs. Physics Teacher, 49(1), 22-23. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carnevale, D. (2008). Colleges get out of e-mail business. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(18), A1. Casap, J. (2010). Alis volat propriis: Oregon’s bringing Google Apps to classrooms statewide. Official Google Blog. Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.com Claburn, T. (2010). Google Apps available to New York schools. Information Week. Retrieved from http:// www.informationweek.com Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 183-194. Davies, A., Pantzopoulos, K., & Gray, K. (2011). Emphasising assessment “as” learning by assessing wiki writing assignments collaboratively and publicly online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 798-812. Dessoff, A. (2010). Google and Microsoft go to school. District Administration, 46(8), 61-66. Dunlap, J. (2006). Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students’ changing perceptions. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(6), 20-26. Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Yu, J., & Lee, Y. (2011). Students’ confidence and perceived value for participating in cross-cultural wiki-based collaborations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 213-228. Friesen, N. (2011). The lecture as transmedial pedagogical form: A historical analysis. Educational Researcher, 40, 95-102. Goldsmith, S. (1996). Journal reflection: A resource guide for community service leaders and educators engaged in service learning. Washington, DC: The American Alliance for Rights & Responsibilities. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445-476. doi:10.1037/00220663.99.3.445 Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1), 15 22. Holsinger, A, VanMeter, & J, Pala, C. (2011). Press release: ePals enables SchoolSafe access to third-party applications starting with Microsoft Office Web Apps and Google Docs. ESchool News. Retrieved from http:// www.eschoolnews.com Hubbs, D., & Brand, C. (2005). The paper mirror: Understanding reflective journaling. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 60-71. International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). National educational technology standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org
Volume 56, Number 4
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Books. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974, August). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualized goal structures on learning outcomes. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The State of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15-29. Johnson, P. (2009). The 21st century skills movement - the chair of the partnership for 21st century skills spells out goals. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 11. Kear, K., Woodthorpe, J., Robertson, S., & Hutchison, M. (2010). From forums to wikis: Perspectives on tools for collaboration. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 218-225. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319-334. King, P. (2002). Promoting thinking through peer learning. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33-39. Lai, Y., & Ng, E. W. (2011). Using wikis to develop student teachers’ learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities. Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 15-26. Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Basse. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 525-536. Lindenberg, K. (2011). Press release: Pearson CloudConnect now available for Google Apps for education. ESchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/ Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22, 222-240. Matthews, M. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics (pp. 161-192). In D.C. Philips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19-41. Nevin, R. (2009). Supporting 21st century learning through Google Apps. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 35-38. Nicholas, H., & Ng, W. (2009). Fostering online social construction of science knowledge with primary preservice teachers working in virtual teams. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 379-398. Noddings, N. (2007). Philosophy of education (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Volume 56, Number 4
Pavlovich, K. (2007). The development of reflective practice through student journals. Higher Education Research and Development, 26, 281-295. doi:10.1080/07294360701494302 Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record, 104, 1393-1421. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623-1640. Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 123-127. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47, 220-228. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 487-506. Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U., & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning: Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 747-762. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-8535.2010. 01092. x Shermis, M. D. & DiVesta, F. J. (2011). Classroom assessment in action. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield. Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 395-411. Terrell, J., Richardson, J., & Hamilton, M. (2011). Using web 2.0 to teach web 2.0: A case study in aligning teaching, learning and assessment with professional practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 846-862. Thomas, G., Martin, D., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8(1), 1-17. Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 149 160. doi:10.1080/ 09687769.2010.492847 Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2010). Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35, 429-443. Wiseman, R. C. (2006). We have met our past and our future: Thanks for the walk down memory lane. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(3), 14-15. Wood, M. (2011). Collaborative lab reports with Google Docs. Physics Teacher, 49(3), 158-159.
TechTrends • July/August 2012
41
Copyright of TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
