Learning Spaces to Support 21st Century Learners ...

Learning Spaces to Support 21st Century Learners Jana Craig Hare, Ph.D. ALTEC/Center for Research on Learning University of Kansas [email protected] Liddell Hobin, Alan Landever, Keith Mispagel, and Geri Parscale Unified School District #207 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Abstract: Learning Spaces can have a significant impact on the learning process. This descriptive study explores Learning Spaces in classrooms involved in CYBER-TEAMS project at Fort Leavenworth Schools. The CYBER-TEAMS initiative is based on a systemic approach to change leadership through professional development in which the district reflects what they are teaching, and how they are teaching in consideration of the technology rich world our students will be inheriting. Observation data collected through momentary time sampling was analyzed to determine percentage of student time in the various Learning Spaces. Keywords: learning spaces, pedagogy, observations, research, instruction

Introduction In response to the need to redesign and revitalize STEM education, the Fort Leavenworth School District created an initiative that expands STEM learning strategies to engage students and teachers in fostering the development of higher-order thinking and 21st Century Skills. One of the focus areas, Learning Spaces, is an attempt to use transformative interventions to prepare 21st Century students for the world in which they will live. As stated in their DODEA awarded grant, “Structured Learning Spaces will provide ubiquitous access to technology and 21st Century learning tools in formal, informal, and collaborative environments. These environments are designed to engage and inspire a new generation of students to become the next generation of collaborative and innovative thinkers, engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists and military leaders.” Learning spaces can have a significant impact on the learning process. This descriptive study explores Learning Spaces in classrooms involved in the CYBER-TEAMS project by defining the Learning Spaces used within the school setting and describing the use of these Learning Spaces in relation to pedagogy and content being taught. 21st Century Learners An essential role for a teacher is to help students discover how to become self-directed learners. Learners use a variety of strategies and spaces for acquiring knowledge. Because learning doesn’t necessarily happen in isolation, schools and classrooms are communities of learners who come together to explore and learn how to navigate the world productively. Learners construct knowledge as they interact with one another (Dewey, 1916; Vygotsky, 1978). Education can be viewed as the process of building communities of learners who use these social skills and spaces to educate themselves. Oftentimes we focus on teacher-to-student interactions and fail to acknowledge the learning potential of student-to-student interactions such as working collaboratively with peers. Teachers recognize that students need to learn how to communicate with one another about

Learning Spaces

2

meaningful tasks. Collaborative group work is an important part of everyday adult life. It is common to underestimate the thinking, planning, and skill development necessary for our students to work together successfully. Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education states, “In the 21st century, students must be fully engaged. This requires the use of technology tools and resources, involvement with interesting and relevant projects, and learning environments – including online environments – that are supportive and safe.” (2010) Educators have the opportunity to engage students daily, with rigorous curriculum, digital resources, real-world experiences, and collaboration with others. When considering the learning environment, learning in pairs or small groups can increase student engagement and ownership of academic assignments. Partnerships tend to increase involvement and responsibility for personal learning. Combining social support while increasing cognitive complexity can also produce positive effects for learning content and skills. In addition, peer interactions provide an opportunity for students to develop social skills and empathy for others. Off-task and disruptive behavior diminish substantially. Students feel good in cooperative settings, and positive feelings toward self and others are enhanced. While curriculum and pedagogy are essential, many supporters of the instructional use of technology would claim that the integration of technology provides an opportunity for more meaningful learning experiences and engagement to enhance student success. As an instructional strategy, the National Research Council Committee on Learning Research and Education Practice suggests that technology used in the classroom has the potential to support effective learning environments because it can provide scaffolding to augment what novice learners can do and reason about as they try to understand and apply new learning (Bransford, Brown, et al, 1999). The addition of mobile learning technologies in the classroom helps teachers differentiate instruction and Learning Spaces to meet the needs of all learners. Mobile technologies increase the potential for 21st century skills such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity to be emphasized in the classroom. STEM + ARTS x Collaboration = TEAMS STEM at its minimum means teaching four separate content areas: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. However, STEM learning, as broadly defined by the CYBERTEAMS initiative, means more than memorizing scientific facts or learning mathematical processes. STEM learning is a mindset; an educational philosophy for how students approach challenges with curiosity and solve them with rigor. The CYBER-TEAMS philosophy is that all students should be deeply engaged in STEM learning from an early age: First, so that more students have confidence in their ability to pursue the challenging coursework to succeed in a STEM career. Second, so that the students who opt for paths not traditionally viewed as “STEM careers” still benefit from the STEM mindset. The STEM to STEAM movement is growing. Integrating art and design brings beauty, meaning, and inspiration to traditional STEM fields. The Ready to Innovate report showed that organizations are eager for employees who can problem solve and think creatively (Lichtenberg, 2007). However, education in the arts also contributes to success in other fields. A NASAA Review of dozens of studies showed that integrating art and design into the curriculum led to better overall social and educational outcomes (Ruppert, 2006). A Michigan State University study showed that Nobel prize winners in scientific fields were 12 times more likely to be creative writers and 22 times more likely to be performing dancers or musicians than were average scientists (Root-Bernstein, 2008).

Learning Spaces

3

The CYBER-TEAMS project has chosen to rearrange the letters in STEAM to form “TEAMS.” Teamwork is vital to professional success today. The image of the lone scientist toiling in the lab has been replaced by the reality of highly functional teams communicating and collaborating in multiple venues to solve life’s big problems. Teamwork is a highly valued transferrable skill in the 21st Century workplace. Learning Spaces: Defined Just as students have different learning styles (auditory, visual and kinesthetic), spaces for learning should vary, too. Futurist David Thornburg, Ph.D. researches emerging technologies and their effect on the learning process. In his paper, Campfires in Cyberspace, Dr. Thornburg categorizes a number of different learning environments. The school district has taken this one step further to identify and define Learning Spaces that are essential to the learning environment in USD 207 (Table 1). Table  1.  Learning  Spaces   Mountaintop One to many Campfire Watering Hole Cave

One to many, but the “one” rotates Many to many Personal learning space

Oral presentations, live or digital performances, lectures, presentations via web, telephone, or other technology Circle time, facilitated discussions and meetings, moderated game rooms and online conversations, semi-structured collaborative physical and digital spaces Informal physical and digital gathering spaces, playgrounds, hallways, chat rooms, break rooms and water fountains Books, libraries, personal solitary spaces, both digital and physical

All of these spaces have long, deep roots in how humans have shared stories, pondered big questions, and developed knowledge for thousands of years. And, thanks to technology, these four physical spaces now have cyber equivalents, too. As the use of Learning Spaces vocabulary is increasing, the pedagogical awareness associated with the Learning Spaces is also increasing. Students and teachers across the school district use these terms freely to talk about how and where learning is most effective. For example, a student might recognize that they “need some cave time now,” in order to absorb new content or process information. Likewise, an instructor might redirect the class to “move to mountaintop time” so that everyone can view a group’s presentation. From a social constructivist perspective, classrooms oftentimes act as a community where learning takes place within the context of social interaction, such as in a campfire or watering hole setting. Learning in these settings, is a process of active construction of meaning where two or more individuals engage in sustained discourse about a topic. Conversations and discussions help students advance their learning in several ways. Exposure to new ideas from other students makes them aware of things that they did not know and leads to expansion of their cognitive structures. Exposure to ideas that contradict their own beliefs may cause them to examine those beliefs and perhaps reconstruct them. Communicating thoughts through a mountaintop setting allows students to articulate their ideas more clearly, which sharpens their conceptions and often leads to recognition of new connections. Open-ended environments and technology-based resources allow students to experiment and build their own learning constructs. The social aspects of learning can also be explored through online, collaborative projects and social media.

Learning Spaces

4

Summary The CYBER-TEAMS initiative is based on a systemic approach to change leadership through professional development in which the district reflects what they are teaching, and how they are teaching in consideration of the technology rich world our students will be inheriting. The four specific areas of focus are: 21st Century Skills, Learning Spaces, Challenge Based Learning, and Serious Gaming. This paper addresses only the Learning Spaces focus. For the CYBER-TEAMS initiative to be successful, a solid foundation of Learning Spaces is essential to developing students 21st Century skills, experiencing Challenge Based Learning, and participating in Serious Gaming. The major focus of this study is to explore and describe Learning Spaces in classrooms involved in the CYBER-TEAMS project by defining the Learning Spaces used within the school setting and describing the use of these Learning Spaces in relation to pedagogy and content being taught. Through this paper we hope to add to the growing body of knowledge supporting the use of technology and Learning Spaces within instruction, particularly because it gives the teacher the opportunity to more completely engage students in informal learning opportunities and 21st Century Skills. Observation data collected during the 2011-12 school year will provide information about the Learning Spaces, technology and pedagogy.

Literature Review Focusing on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, the CYBER-TEAMS model links the instructional use of technology with the application of a student-centered, challenge based learning approach to instruction. An emphasis is placed on 21st Century Skills, such as collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity. The nucleus of the TPACK framework is the complex interplay of three primary forms of knowledge: Content (the actual subject matter), Pedagogy (methods of teaching and learning), and Technology (ranging from chalkboards to digital computers). (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) When using this framework, a synergy is developed between the relationships of technology, content and pedagogy. The use of Learning Spaces within a TPACK framework fosters transformative pedagogy and authentic learning for students. Within each school, site-based Learning Technologies Integration Specialists (LTIS) support classroom teachers by blending the powerful components of pedagogy and content knowledge. Using the TPACK framework enhances the conversation between LTISs and teachers about educational technology. It takes items they are familiar with, such as their content or pedagogy, and allows for the learning technologies to be woven into their classroom activities. This method leads to more successful teaching with technology. Professional development offered for teachers within the district does not focus on technology in isolation to the content and pedagogical knowledge that teachers need to have to integrate technology effectively. Instead, it combines these efforts for a complete immersion of technology, pedagogy and content into formal and informal learning environments. In all classrooms, student learning occurs in a variety of spaces and through various interactions. These Learning Spaces impact the quality of education received through student’s interaction with teachers, peers and content. These interactions could be through whole class instruction, collaborative tasks in small groups or pairs, or individual assignments and they could

Learning Spaces

5

happen in individual, one-to-many, or many-to-many situations. Learning Spaces provide insight into the variety of conditions that may support classroom learning. Students not only learn through interacting with their teachers, but also by collaborating with peers in small groups in one-to-many or many-to-many situations. Having good student-tostudent relationships are important conditions if students are to be active and successful learners (Elias & Schwab, 2006; Juvonen, 2006; Johnson & Johnson, 2006). Students learning together in pairs or small groups can be helpful in addressing key curricular goals. This can also allow for students to actively teach one another. The social constructivist theories of teaching and learning expand these arguments, suggesting that increased emphasis on student-to-student interaction is important for achieving cognitive outcomes as well. In this perspective, students learn by collaborating with peers in pairs and small groups and by interacting with them during class discussions. Having a diverse classroom, both in students’ backgrounds and viewpoints, is viewed as an asset. Small-group formats also hold potential for contributing to students' sense of belonging and community, which may enhance commitment to schooling (Juvonen, 2006; Osterman, 2000; Watson & Battistich, 2006). Learning often occurs as a by-product of participation in a community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Working in a space such as a watering hole, can represent “the collaborative knowledge of a group of students working together and sharing information" (Frey, et al., 2009). Individuals working in groups have the opportunity to consolidate knowledge with peers. This prepares students for independent learning tasks. By placing students in watering hole or campfire Learning Spaces, students tap into different skills not used in whole- or large-group instruction. Small-group instruction, such as in a campfire, varies in terms of tasks, group composition, and goals. Small group campfires can be used for drill, practice, learning facts and concepts, discussion, and problem solving. Cohen (1994) found that students who worked well together in small groups were better able to manage competition and conflict among team members, listen to and combine different points of view, construct meaning, and provide support to one another. When students are actively involved in the learning process, they learn best. Researchers report that, regardless of the subject matter, students, when working in small groups, tend to learn more of what is taught and retain it longer than when the same content is presented in other instructional formats. Also, students who work in collaborative groups appear more satisfied with their classes (Beckman, 1990; Chickering & Gamson, 1991; Collier, 1980; Cooper & Associates, 1990; Goodsell, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Johnson, et al., 1991; Kohn, 1986; McKeachie, Pintrich, et al., 1986; Slavin, 1980, 1983; Whitman, 1988). The small group campfire format can be viewed as an adaption to traditional whole-class instruction by having follow-up activities through interactive activities rather than individual seatwork. Cooperative group work, such as through a campfire space, has demonstrated results in increased self-esteem, improved relationships among students, and enhanced social and education skills. Students in elementary classrooms that used cooperative learning techniques were found to have a more positive perception of school and higher levels of motivation (Battistich, Solomon, et al., 1993). The importance of collaborative group learning is something that educators have acknowledged for decades. Knowledge is built and extended through the exchanging of ideas with others. Placing students on a mountaintop in order to present their findings, perceptions, or knowledge is one way to allow students to exchange their ideas with others. Explaining concepts and information to other group members has been positively correlated with achievement. This confirms the findings from other research and peer-tutoring studies (e.g., Graesser & Pearson,

Learning Spaces

6

1994) indicating that explaining material to others is an effective learning experience for both participants. Receiving explanations can also correlate positively with later achievement scores indicating, “students who know what to ask about and succeed in getting their questions answered are likely to master the material” (Good & Brophy, 2008). No matter what the Learning Space, students can become engaged in content through the use of technology and higher-level activities, such as analyzing or evaluating information. The mere act of integrating technology in isolation does not necessarily result in the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills or improved student achievement. These results are derived from how the technology is used and the role the teacher plays in the classroom. Collaboration may also be a key factor in the acquisition of higher order thinking skills (Brabec, Fisher, et al., 2004; Lemke & Coughlin, 1998; Wegerif, 2002). When focused on higher-order thinking skills, research has shown that integrating technology into teaching does appear to have a particularly significant effect. Hopson evaluated the effects of placing students in a technology enriched learning environment on the development of higher order thinking skills in fifth grade students. The result of his study, which employed the CAQ (Computer Attitude Questionnaire) and Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes, indicated that the technology enriched the environment positively and significantly affected the use of the higher order thinking skills and evaluation in the students (Hopson, 1998). Summary The purpose of this literature review was to explore the research on and related to Learning Spaces in the classroom. The research discussed in this study points towards a need for teachers to engage students through a variety of Learning Spaces. The research shows that this type of learning environment has the potential for engaging students in meaningful learning with authentic tasks in individual and social settings. Research into how technology rich learning environments are structured and what strategies teachers have used to maximize student learning is extremely important for future policy decisions regarding educational technology.

Methods Setting and Participants The setting for this study includes elementary and middle schools that are participating in USD 207’s CYBER-TEAMS initiative, funded through the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Educational Partnership. Observation data was collected at four schools: three elementary schools and one middle school. All schools were located on the Fort Leavenworth Army Post. Observations occurred during the time that the teachers were conducting classroom activities in the core content areas of reading, math, science or social studies. A random sample of teachers in grades K-8 was selected for observations. Selection decisions were made on the basis of convenience (those whose schedule would allow for researchers to observe classroom activities) and willingness (those who were willing to participate in the classroom observations). Classes observed had between 12-25 students. Observation Instrument and Procedures The ALTEC Observation Form was modified for use as the data collection instrument in the CYBER-TEAMS project (Craig Hare, 2011). This observation form was originally developed during Spring 2008 to be used in Technology Rich Classrooms (TRC) and non-TRC,

Learning Spaces

7

or typical general education classrooms. The sections of the observation form included categories for observing specific technology being used by teachers and students, how the students were grouped in various Learning Spaces during classroom activities, what the teacher was doing during the observation session, and what cognitive level, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, was being implemented. The data set gathered during 2011-12 was be utilized in the analysis of Learning Spaces. Observations included momentary time sampling in live classrooms at 20-second intervals. Momentary time sampling has been shown to be an effective and accurate observation tool when short intervals are used and when the behavior is of substantial duration (Harrop & Daniels, 1986; Saudargas & Zanolli, 1990). In this case, the behaviors being observed in the classroom were not short or discrete behaviors occurring infrequently, they were general activities that would happen over a relatively long period of time during the classroom activities. In recording the observation data, the observers watched a single timer on a computer screen. Once the timer reached 20 seconds the observers recorded what was occurring at that moment. All categories were scored each minute, with two sections being scored every 20 seconds. Each classroom observation was between 15 and 40 minutes in length.

Results We anticipated identifying a difference in use of Learning Spaces and teacher engagement throughout the course of the school year. For instance, we hoped to see more student-centered learning taking place and more instances where the teacher is the facilitator of learning instead of the provider of content. It was also anticipated that there would be a difference in the cognitive activity students were engaged in throughout the year, and that they would have more activities that required them to analyze or evaluate information or create new information. Data were gathered in over 2,150 intervals during the 2011-12 school year from the 4 participating schools. A total of 77 observation periods were conducted. Table 2 includes the number and percentage of time each category was coded during the observations during 2011-12. Table 2. 2011-12 Observation Results - Learning Spaces

Learning Space Mountaintop: Whole Class Attention to Student Campfire: Whole Class Attention to Teacher Whole Class Attention to Media Watering hole: Students working in pairs, small groups or mixed groups (including individual, pairs, and/or small groups) Cave: Students working independently

# 95

% 4.4%

768

35.7%

458

21.3%

610

28.4%

As the data indicate, students were observed in campfire and cave Learning Spaces most of the time. A smaller percentage of student learning time was spent in a watering hole space.

Learning Spaces

8

The least amount of time was observed with students on a mountaintop, presenting to their peers and others. It is important to note that while student Learning Spaces were predominantly campfires and watering holes, the teacher was observed providing individual or group help 39.8% of the time, an increase of 7.2% over the amount of time spent in a lecture or class discussion (32.6%). In addition, observed classroom activities tended to focus on lower cognitive levels, where students were listening to the teacher receiving knowledge (35.5%) or applying knowledge/skills (46.1%). Observation data indicated that students were analyzing or evaluating information only 2.4% of the class time and creating new knowledge 4.7% of the class time.

Conclusions This data provides baseline information used to inform first-year grant activities. It is encouraging to see data reflecting the teacher in a “facilitator of knowledge” role. It is also important to note the differences in use of classroom Learning Spaces. Mountaintop Learning Spaces were rarely observed being utilized. The CYBER-TEAMS Leadership Team can use this data to make sure mountaintop facilities and equipment is available for student use. In addition, the Learning Technology Integration Specialists can assist teachers with creating learning activities where mountaintop presentations could be encouraged. Future research could include a more detailed analysis about the correlation of the Learning Spaces to teacher engagement and interaction with students as well as the cognitive activity in which students are participating. Analyzing the data differently may indicate if the teachers that were part of the Technology Leadership Team, receiving additional professional development throughout the year, utilized the Learning Spaces differently than classroom teachers who were not part of the Technology Leadership Team. These results of this and future studies can be helpful for teacher educators by educating future teachers about the power of utilizing a variety of Learning Spaces to differentiate classroom activities. Student learning occurring in a variety of spaces, similar to learning in the real world, promotes communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity for our 21st Century Learners.

  References Battistich, V., D. Solomon, et al. (1993). "Interactive Processes and Student Outcomes in Cooperative Learning Groups." The Elementary School Journal 94(1): 19-32. Beckman, M. (1990). "Collaborative Learning: Preparing for the Workplace and Democracy." College Teaching 38(4): 128-133. Brabec, K., K. Fisher, et al. (2004). "Building Better Instruction: How Technology Supports Nine Research-Proven Instructional Strategies." Learning and Leading with Technology 31(5): 6-11. Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, et al., Eds. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School Washington, DC, National Academy Press. Brown, M. B., & Lippincott, J. (2003). “Learning Spaces: More than Meets the Eye”, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1. Chickering, A. W. and Z. F. Gamson, Eds. (1991). Applying the Seven Principles for Good

Learning Spaces

9

Practice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Cohen, E. G. (1994). "Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups." Review of Educational Research 64: 1-35. Collier, K. G. (1980). "Peer-Group Learning in Higher Education: The Development of HigherOrder Skills." Studies in Higher Education 5(1): 55-62. Cooper, J. and Associates (1990). Cooperative Learning and College Instruction. Long Beach, Institute for Teaching and Learning, California State University. Craig Hare, J. (2011). Student grouping strategies in technology rich learning environments at the intermediate grade level. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, United States. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http:// www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/CUBOVE.pdf Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education, Free Press. Duncan, A. (March 2010). Using Technology to Transform Schools. Speech presented at the Association of American Publishers Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C. . Elias, M. and Y. Schwab (2006). From compliance to responsibility: Social and emotional learning and classroom management. Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. C. Evertson and C. Weinstein. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum: 309-342. Frey, N., D. Fisher, et al. (2009). Productive Group Work: How to Engage Students, Build Teamwork, and Promote Understanding. Alexandria, VA, ASCD. Good, T. L. and J. E. Brophy (2008). Looking in Classrooms, Pearson Education, Inc. Goodsell, A. S. (1992). Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. National Centre for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Graesser, A. and N. Pearson (1994). "Question Asking During Tutoring " American Educational Research Journal 31: 104-137. Harrop, A. and M. Daniels (1986). "Methods of time sampling: A reappraisal of momentary time sampling and partial interval recording." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 19: 73-77. Hopson, M. H. (1998). Effects of a technology enriched learning environment on student development of higher order thinking skills. Denton, TX, University of North Texas. ISTE. (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for Students, Second Edition. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Johnson, D. W. and F. P. Johnson (2006). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (9th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: NJ, Prentice-Hall. Johnson, D. W. and R. T. Johnson (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN, Interaction Books. Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, et al. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC, George Washington University. Junoven, J. (2006). Sense of belonging, social bonds, and school functioning. Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd Edition). P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum: 655-674. Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Learning Spaces 10

Lemke, C. and E. Coughlin (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven Dimensions for Gauging Progress. Santa Monica, Milken Family Foundation. Lichtenberg, J., Woock, C., & Wright, M. (2007). Ready to Innovate. McKeachie, W. J., P. R. Pintrich, et al. (1986). Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature. Ann Arbor, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Michigan State University Teacher's College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Oblinger, D. (2004), Leading the Transition from Classrooms to Learning Spaces, NLII White Paper. Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Washington, DC: Educause. Osterman, K. F. (2000). "Students’ need for belonging in the school community." Review of Educational Research 70(3): 323-368. Root-Bernstein, R., Allen, L., Beach, L., Bhadula, R., Fast, J., Hosey, C., Kremkow, B., et al. (2008). Arts Foster Scientific Success: Avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society and Sigma Xi Members. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1(2), 51-63. Ruppert, S. S. (2006). Critical Evidence: How the Arts Benefit Student Achievement (p. 24). Saudargas, R. A. and K. Zanolli (1990). "Momentary time sampling as an estimate of percentage time: A field validation." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 23: 533-537. Slavin, R. E. (1980). "Cooperative Learning." Review of Educational Research 50(2): 315-342. Slavin, R. E. (1983). "When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Student Achievement?" Psychological Bulletin 94(3): 429-445. Thornburg, D. (1999). Campfires in Cyberspace: Primordial Metaphors for Learning in the 21st Century. http://www.tcpd.org/thornburg/handouts.html Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Watson, M. and V. Battistich (2006). Building and sustaining caring communities. Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. C. Evertson and C. Weinstein. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum: 253-279. Wegerif, R. (2002). Literature Review in Thinking Skills, Technology and Learning: Report 2. UK, National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. West, L., & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Whitman, N. A. (1988). Peer Teaching: To Teach Is to Learn Twice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC, Association for the Study of Higher Education.