supporting student collaboration
DESCRIPTION
Powerpoint for the 2011 SITE conference in Nashville, TN.TRANSCRIPT
SUPPORTING STUDENT COLLABORATION: EDMODO IN THE
CLASSROOM
Catherine HollandDepartment of Educational Studies
St. Mary’s College of MarylandUnited States
Lin Y. MuilenburgDepartment of Educational Studies
St. Mary’s College of MarylandUnited States
The Study
10th Grade English Students Studying the novel The Contender Practicing discussion, writing, and
creating questions Students were divided into three
“discussion groups” and asked to reply to the questions posted by Miss Holland, their student-teacher
CMC allows a more student-centered approach that could disrupt traditional teacher-centered methods (Groenke & Paulus 2008).
Rachel’s* response: “didnt read dat chapter...”Mike’s response: “@Rachel well read it then , OK !!!”
*all student names are pseudonyms
A Social Network
Because the asynchronous discussion platform functions just like “the wall” in Facebook, students understood immediately that they were to talk to each other and not to the teacher.
Limited Teacher-Prompting
56 responses to 7 teacher-directed questions/comments.
Average of ~5 responses per student (11 students total)
Accountability
Depth of Discussion
“Bobby - red is big and tough. i dont think bud likes red that much because they argue alot and he is a smartmouth. he kinda reminds me of my sister”
“Mike - He is really cocky & a smart mouth . we know this because he told Bud what too do in a smart mouth and rude way . I think us kids could realte to him because sometimes we are a little smart mouths with the authority.”
“Lisa - i think red is rude,mean and disrepect, how he talks to bud in the story and you just dont talk to people and elders like that. that he is rude and a bad attuide. No, my family wouldnt allow that at all!”
Reciprocal Teaching
Students were asked to create questions Students responded to one another for
clarification Lisa – “[Juan] what are you talking about? dills
and stuff?” Mike: “[@lisa] i think the drills are like hitting
the punching bag and sit-up , etc .”
Conclusions
Easy to monitor off-task behavior Encourages thoughtful response from
every student (even the quietest ones!) Fun, familiar platform Student-centered Could be used to discuss any text
ReferencesEdiger, M. (2007). Meaning in reading instruction. Reading Improvement, 44(4), 217-220. Groenke, S. L., & Paulus, T. (2008). The role of teacher questioning in promoting dialogic literary inquiry in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 141-164. Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934-945. Johnson, G. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: a review of recent research. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(4), 46-53. MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 93-103. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2007). Collaborative learning through chat discussions and argument diagrams in secondary school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 109-126. Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. Yang, H., & Tang, J. (2003). Effects of social network on students' performance: a web-based forum study in Taiwan. SLOAN-C: A Consortium of Instutions and Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education, 7(3). Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/v7n3_yang_2.pdf Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7-44.