Education and Information Technologies 8:2, 165–177, 2003. 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.
Social Constructivism and Asynchronous Text-Based Discussion: A Case Study with Trainee Teachers KATE HAWKEY Education University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract The paper reports a case study using asynchronous text-based discussion. It considers the role of the tutor and discusses the extent to which online discussions can facilitate social constructivist approaches to instruction and the creation of knowledge. Participants were 17 trainee teachers studying on a post graduate teaching course. The asynchronous text-based discussion (using e-blackboard) focused on planning for progression in children’s learning in history and culminated in the trainee teachers writing individual assignments on the topic. The paper analyses the different types of contributions made and reports on the trainees’ evaluations of the benefits and limitations of using e-blackboard. It concludes with recommendations and areas for further research. Keywords:
asynchronous, online, social constructivism, teacher training
1. Introduction There is a growing interest in the use of asynchronous text-based online discussion (Hammond, 1998) and great claims have been made for the potential for such approaches. In the absence of traditional face-to-face group dynamics and norms such as visible reactions of approval and disapproval (Palloff and Pratt, 1999), asynchronous communication has been hailed as “the great equalizer” (Wepner and Mobley, 1998). Such virtual discussions can result in “communities of inquiry” (Cook, 2001) or “communities of practice” (Johnson, 2001) where learners can collaborate together to create knowledge. The online medium facilitates the social construction of knowledge (Pear and Crone-Todd, 2002; Perkins, 1992). The thrust of such arguments is on the “renaissance” of “the learning age” (DfEE, 1998) with an emphasis on “participation, democracy and decision-making” (Hawkey, 2002). Some have gone so far as to suggest that “schooling is increasingly becoming anomalous, even anachronistic, in relation to other contexts for learning” (see, for example, Hawkey, 2002, p. 8). On the other hand, other writers have identified formidable constraints that participants report in using asynchronous online discussions (see, for example, Hammond, 1998, 2000). These include the difficulty some learners face in feeling confident enough to cross from outsider to insider within a discussion group (Wegerif, 1998) along with a “politeness syndrome” (Borthwick and Jones, 2000) which can prevail and serve to undermine honest or constructive criticism. Most significantly, there is a need to consider
166
HAWKEY
the underlying pedagogy of using such approaches or, in other words, to consider how learning takes place online. Some critics have argued that, in the rush to embrace and implement e.learning solutions, this is often the most neglected aspect (see, for example, Govindasamy, 2001).
2. Context and Subjects of the Study The participants in this study were all history graduates studying on a 36 week post graduate course to qualify as teachers of history at secondary level (ages 11–18). The structured online discussion took place between weeks 15 and 20 of the course. Prior to this the trainee teachers had attended university sessions on the teaching of history in schools, as well as having completed one six week school teaching placement. By week 20, they had just been introduced to their second school where they were about to start a second six week teaching placement. Between weeks 15 and 21 the trainee teachers were attending university seminars and lectures, working on two coursework assignments (one on history, the other a general education assignment), and visiting a primary school to look at liaison between different phases of schooling. They were not, in most cases, involved in teaching during the weeks of the online discussion.
3. Rationale for Including Online Discussion This section of the course was set up to promote trainees’ reflection from both theoretical and practical perspectives and appeared to be conducive to an online discussion for a number of reasons. The absence of the commitments of daily teaching with its focus on ‘doing’ created something of a space where trainees were encouraged to focus on ‘thinking’ and reflection (Fenstermacher, 1992). Since the trainee teachers had completed one teaching placement they had a useful body of practical experience to reflect upon. Coming together in university sessions to discuss such experiences with others had the potential to enhance such reflection in a shared and collaborative manner and drawing from theoretical inputs as well as practice. The approaching second teaching placement would also serve to put such reflections into the context of possible future action to address in the classroom. The coursework commitments for this part of the course also served to direct trainees towards both research and reflection.
4. Assignment Brief The history assignment that trainees were working on during this part of the course focused on planning for progression in children’s learning in history. It had two main foci for trainees to address. Firstly, during this part of the course some of the university sessions addressed moving trainees on from planning ‘one-off’ lessons towards planning for a series of lessons and longer term planning. Previous evaluations had suggested that
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
167
trainees had faced considerable difficulty in making sense of how to plan for progression in children’s learning in history. The issue is certainly a contested and problematic one from both theoretical and practical perspectives (Counsell, 2000; Vermeulen, 2000). The online discussion was, therefore, also conceived as an opportunity to support trainees as they grappled with a genuinely difficult educational issue prior to writing their individual assignment on the topic. Secondly, the assignment also addressed progression in children’s learning from the primary through to the secondary phase of school. Between weeks 15 and 21, trainee teachers visited a primary school in the locality of their first teaching placement school for between 3 and 5 days. The purpose of this visit was to look at liaison between primary and secondary schools with a particular focus on subject liaison. The online discussion was structured in such a way as to encourage discussion of the primary school visit. Whilst the assignment directed trainees to address these two foci, there was also encouragement for trainees to draw from their own teaching experiences and so address the assignment’s foci in relation to their own professional development.
5. ICT Aims As part of the course all trainees follow an ICT curriculum; they are expected to develop their ICT skills including a consideration of ICT in relation to subject teaching. To this end there were also ICT aims associated with the online discussion. These were identified as firstly, to give all history trainee teachers the experience of participating in an online discussion; secondly, to elicit the perceptions of trainees about participating in an online discussion before, during, and after the project; and thirdly, to evaluate the strengths and limitations of online discussion as a teaching and learning strategy, looking at the process, its management, and at outcomes. There is plenty of evidence in the literature to suggest that online discussion, and particularly getting trainees started, takes a great deal of time (see, for example, Salmon, 2000, p. 27). The trainees were all in different positions regarding access to online facilities either at home or in their placement schools. In contrast, facilities at the university ensured everyone had full and free access to the necessary technology. In order to encourage participation, some face-to-face university time was released and allocated instead to online discussion time both to introduce the technology and for the ongoing discussion. For some this meant that they actually participated in the online discussion during these times while for others the allocation of this time was notional and they chose to participate at different times. It did, however, help to provide a more or less equal access to the technology. In summary, then, the online discussion had both ICT aims as well as aims to support trainees’ understanding and reflection on the thorny issue of progression in learning in history. The discussion was supported by other face-to-face taught sessions at the university on related issues and by a primary school visit, and culminated in a written assessed
168
HAWKEY
assignment by each trainee. Finally, university contact time was allocated to the online discussion to encourage participation.
6. Model of Teaching and Learning 6.1. Schema theory Approaches used in the training of teachers draw from schema theory (Schank, 1986). The tutor uses an activity with trainees which trainees can themselves use with students in classroom settings. The activity can be regarded as a template to be refined and adapted by trainees in different situations and scenarios. The approach tends to be experiential whereby the trainees get involved in doing the activity rather than the tutor simply describing it. The tutor adopts a modelling approach. In the case of using e-blackboard, the purpose was to give the trainees the experience of participating in an online discussion before reflecting on possible uses and adaptations in the classroom.
6.2. Social constructivism The online approach drew from the philosophy of social constructivism (Pear and CroneTodd, 2002). The trainees were asked to interact with each other in the online setting before presenting their individual assignment. As such the e-blackboard project was conceptualised as a practical example of a social constructivist pedagogy (Perkins, 1992).
6.3. Scaffolding A further aspect of the model drew from the work of Vygotsky (1962, 1978). By “scaffolding” the discussion, the tutor was involved in helping trainees to move from assisted learning to independent and non-assisted learning. The scaffolding was provided by a number of forums; these had been set up in advance as part of the tutor’s preparation of the online discussion. The forums set up in advance were: Getting started; Progression in history; Models of progression; Critiquing models of progression; Role of knowledge in supporting progression; Role of next step targets in supporting progression; and Conclusions. In each of these forums there were a number of questions to be addressed, some of them relating to directed reading which had been handed out at the beginning of the discussion. As the online discussion progressed, two other forums were added; the first was to elicit trainee ongoing evaluation of the online discussion (Evaluating e-blackboard). The second was set up at the request of the trainees themselves who wished to continue using e-blackboard for other purposes during their second teaching block (School placements). Scaffolding approaches are encouraged in classroom pedagogy so that there was also a further element of modelling on the part of the tutor here.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
169
7. Salmon’s Model of Teaching and Learning The structure and sequencing of the online discussion through the forums was based on a modified version of Salmon’s model of teaching and learning online (Salmon, 2000). Stage one: access and motivation and Stage two: online socialisation. These two stages were combined and provided in a face-to-face session in a university computer room. The trainees were shown how to get started and then encouraged to start communicating with each other. It was an artificial environment since they were all in the same room, but it did serve to get everyone launched. All responses were encouraged and many messages were light-hearted and frivolous. In total there were 78 messages, all the trainees participated, and most of the messages were posted on the first day. Stage three: information exchange and Stage four: knowledge construction. These two stages were combined and comprised the online discussion on progression running between weeks 15 and 21. The tutor took ultimate responsibility for promoting discussion although one or two trainees took a co-chairing role for each forum. There was also a rough sequencing of the forums identified through the six weeks of the discussion which the co-chairs were aware of. These two practices were adopted as supplementary scaffolding strategies in the event of little discussion actually happening. As things turned out they weren’t really needed. The online discussion drew from a variety of stimuli: directed reading and stimulus questions, experiences in placement schools including the primary school visit, university face-to-face sessions. The extent to which the online exchanges comprised information exchange and knowledge construction is addressed below. Stage four: knowledge construction and Stage five: development. In one sense the assignment that trainees each produced was the fullest demonstration of their own knowledge construction and development. Salmon characterises the development stage as “participants start to challenge the basis of the conferences” (Salmon, 2000, p. 35) and “it is common for participants to reflect on and discuss how they are networking and to evaluate the technology and its impact on their learning processes” (Salmon, 2000, p. 36). In another sense, therefore, the request by trainees that e-blackboard should continue to be available after they had completed their assignments and during teaching blocks can arguably be seen as an example of this development stage.
8. Method of Analysis and Results The online discussion was codified according to categories used by the Open University MBA course, B820 Strategy (Salmon, 2000, p. 143). These categories were slightly modified to become more accurate descriptors of the range of messages posted in this discussion. Each contribution to the discussion was codified against one of the categories which best described it. Where there were longer contributions, sections of the contribution were
170
HAWKEY
Table 1. Categories for analysis (amended version of conference analysis, Salmon, 2000, p. 143) Number of contributions Individual thinking 1. Offering up ideas or resources and inviting a critique or exploration of them 2. Asking challenging questions, identifying problems, or asking for advice 3. Articulating, explaining and supporting positions on issues 4. Exploring and supporting issues by adding explanations and examples 5. Reflecting on and re-evaluating personal opinions Interactive thinking 6. Offering a critique, challenging, discussing and expanding ideas of others 7. Negotiating interpretations, definitions and meanings 8. Summarizing previous contributions 9. Proposing actions based on ideas that have been developed
22 10 45 25 6 65 13 4 (all by the tutor) 6
codified against different categories as appropriate. The amended categories are listed in Table 1 along with the quantitative results. The number of messages posted in each forum is reported in Table 2. The number of messages by sender is reported in Table 3. Table 2. Messages posted in each forum Forum
Week
Number of messages posted
Getting started
1 2 3 4
68 1 6 3
Progression in history
1 2 3 4
7 4 27 3
Models of progression
1 2 3 4
0 2 7 2
Critiquing models of progression
1 2 3 4
3 5 11 6
Role of knowledge in supporting progression
1 2 3 4
0 3 6 3
171
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM Table 2. (Continued.) Forum
Week
Number of messages posted
Role of next step targets in supporting progression
1 2 3 4
0 1 2 2
Conclusion
6
1
Evaluating e-blackboard
4 5 6
14 5 2
5 6 7 8 9 10
4 2 3 0 1 4
School placements
8.1. Commentary on Table 3 Gender issues in technology have been a source of interest in recent years (Mayer-Smith et al., 2000), and the greater participation by many of the women is perhaps a surprising, and encouraging, finding. Several observations can be made in this regard. Firstly, the group of trainees were all ICT proficient by the time they engaged in the e-blackboard discussion and the technology itself is easy to use. Secondly, they were an established group who didn’t have to do much community building online. Thirdly, it is possible that the interactive nature of the discussion was regarded as a more significant feature of the project than the technology itself. Finally, it is worth noting that there were a greater number of women in the group than men. Each of these observations may go some way Table 3. Messages posted by each participant Women Kate (tutor) Laura Rachel Helena Susan Vicki Helene Peta Katie Kathryn Helen
Number of messages posted 16 7 6 7 13 10 23 11 18 14 20
Men Justin Gareth David Steven Simon Dulyn Andrew
Number of messages posted 8 5 6 11 9 10 8
172
HAWKEY
to explaining the high participation of women in the project although, given the limited amount of data, any inferences are at best tentative and rather speculative.
9. Qualitative Analysis 9.1. Is there a preferred style of message? The collaborative nature of the discussion and appropriate ground rules for conducting such a discussion were addressed at the outset of the project. All the messages posted show a strong sense of audience involvement (Hammond, 1998, p. 336); messages strive to make a point but not to offend. In only two messages do trainees directly disagree with the contribution that another has made. In other cases, trainees adopt phrases such as “I agree with you in the sense of . . . but . . .”. Many disagreements are presented through examples of practice observed in schools thereby slightly side stepping some debate on more fundamental issues. Disagreement is cautious and rather indirect perhaps in a recognition that non-verbal clues are absent so that messages can be easily misinterpreted. There is a sense of a mutually supportive community which is preserved through all the messages. The only real challenge comes from some of the tutor’s comments and even these are intended to be supportive in tone. Analysis of the contributions made by different individuals provides some interesting findings and illustrate well how individuals mediate the technology and the task in different ways. Helena is an instigator of discussion, opening the discussion in four of the five main substantive forums. She begins by identifying her confusion about a particular issue and either directly, or by implication, asks other trainees for their advice. Her messages are bold to the extent that they are directed to the whole group in the hope of eliciting advice from anyone. Opening the forum on progression in history, Helena writes: “I see it as not only how to get a pupil from a C to a B, but also seeing how or where a pupil has gone wrong and taking steps to correct them or help them see the error or how to improve on what they have done. Planning for progression is a skill I need and I’m not sure of the steps to take or how a teacher PLANS for progression. Any thoughts are welcome.” Having posted her message she then contributes little, following the discussion more as a “lurker” or “browser” (Salmon, 2000, p. 19). By contributing early on Helena shows her confidence as a “swimmer” (Salmon, 2000, p. 112) with the technology; she also shows herself as an initial key shaper of the subsequent discussion. Susan, in contrast, illustrates a different style; she doesn’t initiate discussion, but rather responds to others’ messages. She also adopts a particularly personal and rather intimate style, always addressing the individual by name, in spite of the fact that her messages are sent to the whole group. She writes, “Thanks Andrew, I’ll have a look at that . . .”; “Interesting idea Vicki, we hear a lot about that dip . . .”; “Katie, I love the picture idea of yours . . .”. Her contributions have much more of a one-to-one feel to them than the
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
173
contributions made by Helena. In face-to-face discussion there are plenty of visual clues to indicate whom one is talking to or responding to. Susan’s personalised style can be seen as a helpful strategy to retain such information in the online medium. There is a difference discernible in how trainees engage with the online discussion. Katie, for example, adopts a thoughtful considered approach. Her messages are typically slightly longer than many, and demonstrate deep engagement with the issues prior to writing her messages. Other trainees are more spontaneous in their responses. Helene tends to respond to several messages each time she goes into e-blackboard, on one occasion posting 10 messages over 40 minutes. These are quick responses which identify agreement or disagreement and a brief articulation of her position on issues. It is clear that there are a range of different styles used by trainees in their negotiation of the online discussion. It is possible that some styles are more, or less, conducive to others feeling comfortable and confident to contribute and to engage with the views expressed by others. The impact of such different styles was not examined in this project but is clearly an area worthy of further research. Trainees’ evaluation of the strengths and limitations of online discussion Trainees’ perceptions of using e-blackboard were elicited online through their messages posted in an evaluation forum, through verbal feedback and interview, and by sharing emerging interpretations with trainees for comment. Perceptions are summarised below: • Overall, trainees reported feeling very positive about participating in the e-blackboard discussion and this was true for those trainees who were “quiet” as well as those who were more “communicative” online (Hammond, 2000, p. 255). The novelty aspect of using the technology may have accounted for some of this enthusiasm. • Many trainees reported finding it helpful to have a lot of time and opportunities to keep returning to the issue under discussion in a way that a single face-to-face taught session would not have allowed. This was probably particularly true given the contested nature of the issue under discussion and gives support to the view that open-ended problems lend themselves well to online discussion (Cook and Oliver, 2002). The opportunity to return to the discussion, to continue to address and reflect on the issues therein, may be one of the key advantages that online discussions have over face-to-face discussions. • Many trainees reported that, although keen to participate in the discussion, they found it difficult to identify what exactly they had learnt from the online discussion. • Some trainees reported feeling hesitant to post messages due to their public and permanent nature. Some felt that they needed to be absolutely secure in their views before they posted messages to avoid posting possibly contradictory messages if their views changed during the course of the discussion. • Some trainees recognised some potential for using online discussion with school students, particularly older students. Concerns were expressed about possible misuse with students posting hurtful messages using the anonymous function.
174
HAWKEY
10. Discussion A key concern in this project was to evaluate the potential of asynchronous text-based discussion as a medium to support the social construction of knowledge. One important indicator in the analysis, therefore, was to look at the extent to which the messages posted were interactive. Many of the messages posted in the early forums were of a highly interactive style. They were interactive to the extent that they frequently asked advice and questions of each other. There are two possible interpretations of this both consistent with the data. Firstly, the trainees were still excited with their new online project and the collaborative possibilities that the technology facilitated. Secondly, the topic (of planning for progression in history) is a genuinely difficult one which trainees soon realized was full of ambiguity and contested views. Some clearly found themselves confused and, therefore, sought advice. A large number of messages were also interactive to the extent that they challenged, discussed, or expanded the ideas of others (analysis category 6). Often, however, such engagement with another’s message was rather in passing before going on to explain their own particular position on an issue (category 3). The fleeting engagement was used almost as a connective, a syntactic device, to provide some continuity from the previous contribution and also to introduce their own. Steven, for example, writes: “Yes, Vicki, your last point about building blocks is fundamental. However, tackling the humanities brief is not necessarily inimical to the development of history skills. There are lots of areas of commonality, not least in essay writing, . . . teaching students to think and argue not only develops essay writing skills but also enhances historical insight.” Engagement with the views of others was largely superficial. It is interesting to trace the messages generated by each trainee to their eventual assignment. In many cases there is clear evidence of continuity from messages posted and the content of their assignment. This suggests that there was perhaps limited genuine engagement with each other’s thinking with little modification in light of another’s thinking. Having read the final assignments there is a sense that some trainees were using the discussion to first articulate their emerging or established views, as a sort of rehearsal prior to writing their assignment. The shared online discussion certainly provided an opportunity to seek others’ views on an opinion presented or to receive reassurance, but there is little evidence of trainees’ changing their views in light of the discussion. The nature of the online medium may account for some of this superficiality. In talking to Helena, for example, she said that she found face-to-face conversations more helpful in sorting out her particular confusions. Such interactions are better suited to addressing finer details and subtleties (“What exactly did you mean . . .”) than online discussion. If there are more opportunities for misunderstandings to arise in the online setting, it may follow that participants will be more cautious and reticent to attempt deep engagement with the views expressed in this setting.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
175
11. Social Constructivist Pedagogy or a Missed Opportunity? The online discussion allowed for trainees to share views, to construct and debate meaning. There were aspects of the project, however, which, on reflection, belonged more to a traditional transmission paradigm. My own selection, as tutor, of the readings, and of the forums for discussion along with stimulus questions, provided a very robust structure. To this extent I was the principal shaper of the discussion. My own authority as tutor was evident in my own contributions to the discussion where I did much more summarizing of others’ views and posing challenging questions to promote discussion than did any other participant. In one instance, I politely curtailed a tangential discussion which arose about school uniform in a fairly teacherly fashion! Likewise, the authority of myself as the tutor was evident in some of the trainees’ messages, who responded to such challenges from their tutor and engaged with the issues presented more so than those presented by other participants. I was afforded a privileged position by all. The final individual written assignment also had much resonance with a traditional transmission model of teaching and learning. Arguably, the trainees had the opportunity to discuss issues much as they would in a face-to-face seminar before addressing the more important task of writing their assignment, more important to many since this is what they would receive a grade for. Reflecting back on the experience of the project, my starting point had been an interest in looking at the potential of e-blackboard as a learning tool. There had been rather open ended objectives to the project, largely exploratory, to begin to look at the potential of the technology for either teachers during their initial training, or for students in classrooms taught by these trainee teachers. The technology had been the focus rather than a full consideration of an appropriate pedagogy to accompany the project. There is much in common here with the early implementation of ICT policies in schools and also with how trainees often first venture into using ICT in their own teaching. The pressure, urgency, and “hype” surrounding ICT on the one hand (Ismail, 2001), or a genuine enthusiasm to participate in “the dawning of a new age” on the other (Hawkey, 2002), can blur or detract from a focus on pedagogical implications or possibilities. The problems with not addressing these issue is that without clear thinking on these issues one will revert to what is known best, “action replays of earlier pedagogic encounters” (Hawkey, 2002). This was true in my case. It was also, most probably, reinforced by the trainees who, typically, will have experienced a long educational apprenticeship where the authority of the teacher is given the privileged position. A move towards handing greater control and direction over to the trainees, however, is also a problematic position. In the course of the online discussion on progression one trainee started a new thread of discussion on the place of school uniform to which some trainees added messages. These messages were largely expressions of personal opinions on the subject and the forum became an exchange of information and opinion. Likewise, the trainees requested access to e-blackboard during their block teaching placement and the messages posted then were of a similar nature, exchanging ideas on resources, etc. There is little evidence from this study that greater democracy will result in much critical engagement and reflection. The need for some structure and direction is evident.
176
HAWKEY
One way forward might be to look again at the final outcome, to keep this as an online activity, and to build more peer review into this. Trainees would be responsible for evaluating other trainees’ answers posted online and assessed on both the feedback presented to peers as well as their own articulation of knowledge. To do this would probably necessitate a shorter more focused task to answer. It would also probably necessitate smaller groupings of trainees. There is much to recommend this approach as Pear and Crone-Todd’s (2002) experience suggests, “Being called upon to evaluate other students’ answers in writing, student markers engage in the highest level of thinking (evaluation) in Bloom’s taxonomy. In many cases student markers see answers that they had not thought of themselves, but they recognize as good answers. They also see answers that they recognise as incorrect but must learn to discern why they are incorrect. In view of these consideration, it should come as no surprise that students frequently cite being markers as the feature (of the project) that taught them most” (Pear and Crone-Todd, 2002, pp. 229–230). One could add that such an approach could serve to sharpen skills much needed by trainee teachers for when they work with pupils, including clear articulation of meaning, engagement with meanings expressed by others, and providing feedback which is both positive and affirming as well as critically constructive. Whilst there is clearly merit in adopting greater peer review and building this into the assessment, this strategy still has something of a teacherly ring to it with its focus on desired outcomes determining the approach. Any such approach needs to be sensitive to the findings of this and other research that some participants will find working in this medium challenging. The public and permanent nature of the discussion, along with the lack of subtlety due to the absence of face-to-face create particular challenges. Such features need to be addressed explicitly with trainees in an attempt to help trainees to better understand their own learning within such media. I leave the final words to a trainee who, in describing the use of online discussion, expressed it thus, “It is more calculated than a conversation but less straight-jacketed than formal written submission” (Steven). It is into the gap between these two media that online discussion is best conceptualised and situated. It is a (relatively) new medium which gives rise to an opportunity for a new genre of writing. Hammond has identified an appropriate style for the new medium which he describes as “a communicative approach which is personal, dialogic, and open minded as to sources of knowledge” but cautions that participants would also require support and a willingness to take risks (Hammond, 2000, p. 261). The challenge for research and curriculum development is to look further at the characteristics of effective communication within this milieu, along with a consideration of how best to support learners to engage with the opportunities which it offers.
References Borthwick, A. and Jones, R. (2000) The motivation for collaborative discovery learning online and its applications in an information systems assurance course. Issues in Accounting Education, 15(2), 181–210. Cook, J. (2001) Bridging the gap between empirical data on open-ended tutorial interactions and computational models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 85–99.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
177
Cook, J. and Oliver, M. (2002) Designing a toolkit to support dialogue in learning. Computers and Education, 38, 151–164. Counsell, C. (2000) Historical knowledge and skills: A distracting dichotomy. In Issues in History Teaching, J. Arthur and R. Phillips (eds). Routledge, London, pp. 54–71. DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1998) The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain. DfEE, London. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1992) Where are we going? Who will lead us there? In The Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX. Govindasamy, T. (2001) Successful implementation of e-learning: Pedagogical implications. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3/4), 287–299. Hammond, M. (1998) Learning through online discussion: What are the opportunities for professional development and what are the characteristics of online writing. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(3), 331–346. Hammond, M. (2000) Communication within online forums: The opportunities, the constraints and the value of a communicative approach. Computers and Education, 35, 251–262. Hawkey, R. (2002) The lifelong learning game: Season ticket or free transfer? Computers and Education, 38, 5–20. Ismail, J. (2001) The design of an e-learning system: Beyond the hype. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3/4), 329–336. Johnson, C. M. (2001) A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45–60. Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E., and Woodrow, J. (2000) Closing the gender gap in technology enriched science education: A case study. Computers and Education, 35, 51–63. Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (1999) Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Pear, J. and Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002) A social constructivist approach to computer-mediated instruction. Computers and Education, 38, 221–231. Perkins, D. (1992) What constructivism demands of the learner. In Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction, T. Duffy and D. Jonassen (eds). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Salmon, G. (2000) E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. Kogan Page, London. Schank, R. C. (1986) Explanation Patterns. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Vermeulen, E. (2000) What is progress in history? Teaching History, 98, 35–41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962) Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wegerif, R. (1998) The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1) (http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/). Wepner, S. and Mobley, M. (1998) Reaping new harvests: Collaboration and communication through field experiences. Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 50–61.
