teachers scaffolding children working with computers: an … · 2010-06-09 · working with...
TRANSCRIPT
Teachers Scaffolding Children
Working with Computers: An
Analysis of Strategies
by
Jennifer Ellen Masters
Dip Teach, Grad Dip Ed, MEd (Research)
A thesis submitted to fulfil the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the
Centre for Learning Innovation,
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane
March, 2005
Keywords: scaffolding, computer, teacher support strategies, exemplary computer-
using teacher, primary education, pedagogy
Abstract It is often assumed that the introduction of computers will transform teaching and
learning in a primary classroom. However, in many classrooms, the effective use of
computers to support teaching and learning is yet to be realised. The study described
in this thesis is premised on the notion that simply providing access to computers will
not change classroom processes and that the agent of change is a teacher’s pedagogy
and practice.
This study initially examined the practices of a group of primary school teachers who
were considered to be exemplary in the use of computers in their classroom. It then
progressed to a focus on one teacher for indepth investigation of the strategies she
used as she supported children to complete an extended computer-based task.
Particular attention was given to the use of “scaffolding” as a teacher support strategy
for children working with computers.
The study adopted a qualitative methodology and was based on a Constructivist
Inquiry model (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) with a Grounded Theory approach (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990) for data analysis. It incorporated three phases of investigation which
included:
(a) a theoretical immersion, which was based on the literature;
(b) a functional immersion, which examined the practices and understandings
of eight teachers; and
(c) a practical immersion, in which the support strategies of the focus teacher
were observed during the implementation of the task over a period of eight
weeks. These observations were enhanced by “stimulated recall” interviews
where video vignettes were reviewed with the teacher.
A detailed coding of teacher support strategies was developed during the study and
eleven research constructs emerged from the final analysis of the data. These
constructs represented the outcomes of the study and were grouped into four themes:
(a) teacher expertise, (b) teacher understanding of support strategies, (c) the nature of
scaffolding, and (d) the role of the computer.
The results of the study suggested that a teacher needs to conscientiously select and
implement strategies in order to support students working with computers. They also
indicated that a teacher should plan for opportunities where teacher scaffolding can be
used to support and extend students. Further, the results suggested that classroom
teachers would benefit from knowing about scaffolding and how it can be
implemented with children working with computers.
The introduction of computers into the classroom invokes the need for conscious and
deliberate changes to teacher pedagogy and practice to sure that effective use is made
of the opportunities provided by the technology. Although teachers do require a
measure of computer confidence, it seems that a teacher who successfully implements
computers in the classroom is essentially focused on the implementation of effective
teaching and learning practices. Therefore, it is important that pedagogy is
foregrounded in any consideration of using computers in the classroom.
1
Table of Contents
1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study .....................................................15
1.1 Preamble .............................................................................................15
1.2 Introduction ........................................................................................15
1.3 Background to the study.....................................................................16
1.4 Purpose and aims of the study ............................................................17
1.5 Design of the study.............................................................................18
1.6 Significance and innovation ...............................................................18
1.7 Overview of the thesis ........................................................................20
1.7.1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the study...........................................20
1.7.2 Chapter 2: Literature review.......................................................20
1.7.3 Chapter 3: Methodology and design...........................................20
1.7.4 Chapter 4: Functional immersion ...............................................21
1.7.5 Chapter 5: Practical immersion ..................................................21
1.7.6 Chapter 6: Discussion.................................................................21
1.7.7 Chapter 7: Summary of the study...............................................21
1.8 Summary.............................................................................................22
2 Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................23
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................23
2.2 Perspectives of constructivism ...........................................................23
2.2.1 What is constructivism? .............................................................23
2.2.2 Vygotsky’s socio-cultural perspective .......................................24
2.2.3 Piaget and Vygotsky: Contrasting positions or compatible?......26
2.2.4 Constructivist teaching methods.................................................27
2.2.5 Situating constructivist practices in the context of this study ....29
2.3 Scaffolding .........................................................................................29
2.3.1 Scaffolding background..............................................................29
2.3.2 Characteristics of scaffolding .....................................................30
2.3.3 The scaffolding process..............................................................31
2.3.4 Impediments to scaffolding ........................................................32
2.3.5 Strategies for scaffolding............................................................34
2
2.3.6 Scaffolding with computers ....................................................... 35
2.3.7 Scaffolding in the context of this research................................. 38
2.4 Computers in education ..................................................................... 39
2.4.1 The evolving uses of computers in schools ............................... 39
2.4.2 The Information Age.................................................................. 44
2.4.3 Barriers to reform....................................................................... 45
2.4.4 Restructuring education: The new paradigm ............................. 46
2.4.5 Promoting a paradigm shift........................................................ 47
2.4.6 Exemplary computer-using teachers.......................................... 49
2.4.7 Tasks for learning ...................................................................... 53
2.4.8 Educational computer use in the context of this study .............. 56
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................ 56
3 Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design..................................... 58
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 58
3.2 Overview............................................................................................ 58
3.3 Constructivist inquiry methodology .................................................. 59
3.4 Grounded theory procedures and techniques..................................... 61
3.5 A framework of the study according to Grounded Theory
proceduressssss ................................................................................... 63
3.5.1 Establishing a research question ................................................ 63
3.5.2 Establishing theoretical sensitivity ............................................ 63
3.5.3 Data coding ................................................................................ 64
3.5.4 Representation of process .......................................................... 64
3.5.5 Theoretical sampling.................................................................. 65
3.5.6 Summarising findings ................................................................ 65
3.6 A multi-method approach .................................................................. 65
3.7 Research design ................................................................................. 66
3.8 Participants......................................................................................... 67
3.9 Research phases ................................................................................. 68
3.9.1 Phase 1 – Theoretical immersion............................................... 68
3.9.2 Phase 2 – Functional immersion ................................................ 68
3.9.3 Phase 3 – Practical immersion ................................................... 72
3.9.4 Case report ................................................................................. 75
3.10 Data collection ................................................................................... 75
3
3.11 Data coding and analysis ....................................................................78
3.12 Summary.............................................................................................79
4 Chapter 4: Functional Immersion ..........................................................81
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................81
4.2 Teacher survey....................................................................................81
4.3 Classroom observations and teacher interviews.................................84
4.3.1 Teachers 1A and 1B ...................................................................85
4.3.2 Teachers 2A and 2B ...................................................................89
4.3.3 Teacher 3 ....................................................................................95
4.3.4 Teachers 4A and 4B ...................................................................99
4.3.5 Teacher 5 ..................................................................................102
4.4 Teacher selection ..............................................................................106
4.5 Summary...........................................................................................109
5 Chapter 5: Practical Immersion............................................................111
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................111
5.2 Categories of coding.........................................................................112
5.3 Activity prior to filming ...................................................................113
5.4 Teacher interaction ...........................................................................113
5.5 Vignette 1: Storyboarding ................................................................114
5.5.1 Storyboarding vignette synopsis...............................................115
5.5.2 Analysis of teacher support during storyboarding....................116
5.5.3 Teacher Reflections on storyboarding......................................120
5.6 Vignette 2: Making the props ...........................................................121
5.6.1 Making the props vignette synopsis .........................................121
5.6.2 Analysis of teacher support during making the props ..............123
5.6.3 Teacher reflections on making the props..................................125
5.7 Vignette 3: Filming the sequence .....................................................126
5.7.1 Filming the sequence vignette synopsis ...................................126
5.7.2 Analysis of teacher support during filming the sequence ........131
5.7.3 Teacher reflections on filming the sequence ............................136
5.8 Vignette 4: Computer editing ...........................................................138
5.8.1 Computer editing vignette synopsis .........................................138
5.8.2 Analysis of teacher support during computer editing...............139
5.8.3 Teacher reflections on computer editing ..................................141
4
5.9 A detour in the process .................................................................... 142
5.10 Vignette 5: Creating the images....................................................... 143
5.10.1 Creating the images vignette synopsis ..................................... 144
5.10.2 Analysis of teacher support during creating the images .......... 147
5.10.3 Teacher reflections on creating the images.............................. 150
5.11 Vignette 6: Adding the frame: Class session ................................... 151
5.11.1 Adding the frame: Class session vignette synopsis ................. 151
5.11.2 Analysis of teacher support during adding the frame: Group
session ................................................................................. 154
5.11.3 Teacher reflections on Adding the frame: Class session ......... 157
5.12 Vignette 7: Adding the frame: Difficulties ...................................... 158
5.12.1 Adding the frame: Difficulties vignette synopsis .................... 158
5.12.2 Analysis of teacher support during Adding the frame:
Difficultiess.............................................................................. 160
5.12.3 Teacher reflections on adding the frame: Difficulties ............. 162
5.13 Vignette 8: Adding the frame: File management............................. 164
5.13.1 Adding the frame: File management vignette synopsis ........... 164
5.13.2 Analysis of teacher support during Adding the frame: File
management ............................................................................. 167
5.13.3 Teacher reflections on Adding the frame: File management... 170
5.14 Vignette 9: Adding the frame: Group support ................................. 170
5.14.1 Adding the frame: Group support vignette synopsis ............... 170
5.14.2 Analysis of teacher support during Adding the frame: Group
support...................................................................................... 174
5.14.3 Teacher reflections on Adding the frame: Group support ....... 178
5.15 Vignette 10: Music soundtrack ........................................................ 180
5.15.1 Music soundtrack vignette synopsis ........................................ 180
5.15.2 Analysis of teacher support during music soundtrack ............. 184
5.15.3 Teacher reflections on music soundtrack................................. 188
5.16 Vignette 11: Student reflection ........................................................ 188
5.16.1 Student feedback vignette synopsis ......................................... 189
5.16.2 Analysis of student feedback ................................................... 192
5.16.3 Teacher reflections on student feedback.................................. 192
5.17 Summary .......................................................................................... 193
5
6 Chapter 6: Discussion.............................................................................197
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................197
6.2 Overview of research phases ............................................................197
6.2.1 Summary of theoretical immersion (Phase 1) ..........................197
6.2.2 Summary of functional immersion (Phase 2) ...........................198
6.2.3 Summary of practical immersion (Phase 3) .............................199
6.2.4 Collating the outcomes from the research phases ....................200
6.3 Emergent Constructs ........................................................................201
6.3.1 Qualities of an exemplary computer-using teacher ..................201
6.3.2 Teachers’ awareness of scaffolding..........................................203
6.3.3 Teacher’s awareness of support strategies ...............................204
6.3.4 A Teacher support strategy continuum.....................................206
6.3.5 A sustainable environment .......................................................208
6.3.6 Scaffolding Interaction ratios ...................................................210
6.3.7 Teacher’s awareness of an individual’s Zone of Proximal
Development.............................................................................211
6.3.8 A child’s own intentions – who owns the task? .......................213
6.3.9 Implementing and withdrawing scaffolding.............................215
6.3.10 Computer as a catalyst for learning opportunities ....................218
6.3.11 A teacher’s computer knowledge, confidence and approach ...219
6.3.12 Overview of theoretical constructs ...........................................221
6.4 Summary...........................................................................................221
7 Chapter 7: Summary of the study.........................................................223
7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................223
7.2 Purpose of the study .........................................................................223
7.3 Study overview.................................................................................224
7.4 Summary of constructs emerging from the study.............................225
7.4.1 Teachers’ expertise...................................................................225
7.4.2 Teacher understanding of support strategies ............................225
7.4.3 The nature of scaffolding..........................................................226
7.4.4 The role of the computer ..........................................................227
7.4.5 Contributions to understanding ................................................227
7.5 Implications for practice...................................................................228
7.6 Limitations........................................................................................231
6
7.7 Recommendations for further research............................................ 232
7.8 Summary .......................................................................................... 233
Appendices...................................................................................................... 235
References....................................................................................................... 257
7
List of Figures, Tables and Appendices
Figures
Figure 3.1. A representation of the methodology of constructivist
inquiry…..…………………………………………….….
59
Figure 3.2. A representation of the sequence and scope for the study.. 67
Figure 3.3. A map of the study classroom including access to the
adjoining classroom.………………………………….…..
73
Figure 4.1 Survey results of exemplary teachers for Phase 2……… 82
Figure 4.2. Teachers 1A and 1B’s classroom with computer activity
centre………….…………………………………………
86
Figure 4.3. Layout of Teachers 2A and 2B’s classrooms……………. 90
Figure 4.4. Layout of Teacher 3’s classroom………………………... 95
Figure 4.5. Layout of Teachers 4A and 4B’s classrooms…………….. 99
Figure 4.6. Layout of Teacher 5’s classroom………………………… 103
Figure 5.1. Matrix of teacher interactions with student groups during
the task………………..………………………………….
114
Figure 5.2 Cognitive strategies identified during the storyboarding
activity ………………..…………………………………
118
Figure 5.3 Operational strategies identified during the storyboarding
activity………………..…………………………………
118
Figure 5.4 Affective strategies identified during the storyboarding
activity………………..…………………………………
118
Figure 5.5 Overview of strategies identified during the storyboarding
activity………………..…………………………………
118
8
Figure 5.6 Cognitive strategies identified during the making the
props activity…………………………………………….
124
Figure 5.7 Affective strategies identified during the making the
props activity…………………………………………….
124
Figure 5.8 Overview of strategies during the making the props
activity………………..………………………………...…
124
Figure 5.9 Cognitive strategies identified during filming the
sequence………………..…………………………………
133
Figure 5.10 Operational strategies identified during filming the
sequence………………..…………………………………
133
Figure 5.11. Affective strategies identified during filming the
sequence………………..…………………………………
133
Figure 5.12 Technical strategies identified in filming the sequence….. 133
Figure 5.13 Overview of strategies during filming the sequence……... 133
Figure 5.14 A comparison between the range of support strategies in
Segment 3.1 and Segment 3.3…………………………….
134
Figure 5.15 Cognitive strategies identified during computer editing…. 140
Figure 5.16 Operational strategies identified during computer editing.. 140
Figure 5.17 Affective strategies identified during computer editing…. 140
Figure 5.18 Technical strategies identified during computer editing…. 140
Figure 5.19 Overview of strategies during computer editing…………. 140
Figure 5.20 An animation image with a frame………………………... 143
Figure 5.21 Cognitive strategies identified during creating the images 148
Figure 5.22 Operational strategies identified during creating the
images………………..…………………………………...
148
9
Figure 5.23 Affective strategies identified during creating the images.. 148
Figure 5.24 Technical strategies identified in creating the images…… 148
Figure 5.25 Overview of strategies during creating the images………. 148
Figure 5.26 Cognitive strategies identified during framing: Group
session………………..…………………………………...
155
Figure 5.27 Operational strategies identified during framing: Group
session. ………………..…………………………………
155
Figure 5.28 Affective strategies identified during framing: Group
session………………..…………………………………
155
Figure 5.29 Technical strategies identified in framing: Group session.. 155
Figure 5.30 Overview of strategies during framing: Group session…... 155
Figure 5.31 A comparison of the distribution of support strategies
between the mat session in the storyboarding vignette and
the mat session in the framing vignette …………………..
156
Figure 5.32 Cognitive strategies identified during adding the frame:
Difficulties………………………………………………...
161
Figure 5.33 Operational strategies identified during adding the frame:
Difficulties………………………………………………...
161
Figure 5.34 Affective strategies identified during adding the frame:
Difficulties………………………………………………...
161
Figure 5.35 Technical strategies identified in adding the frame:
Difficulties………………………………………………...
161
Figure 5.36 Overview of strategies during adding the frame:
Difficulties………………………………………………...
161
Figure 5.37 Cognitive strategies identified during framing: File
management. ……………………………………………..
168
10
Figure 5.38 Operational strategies identified during framing: File
management………………………………………………
168
Figure 5.39 Affective strategies identified during framing: File
management. ……………………………………………..
168
Figure 5.40 Technical strategies identified in framing: File
management………………………………………………
168
Figure 5.41 Overview of strategies during framing: File management 168
Figure 5.42 Cognitive strategies identified during framing: Group
support……………………….……………………………
176
Figure 5.43 Operational strategies identified during framing: Group
support. …………………………………………………...
176
Figure 5.44 Affective strategies identified during framing: Group
support……………………………………………….……
176
Figure 5.45 Technical strategies identified in framing: Group
support…………………………………………………….
176
Figure 5.46 Overview of strategies during framing: Group support …. 176
Figure 5.47 Sequence of support provided by the teacher during group
support……………………………………………………
177
Figure 5.48 Cognitive strategies identified during framing: Group
support………………………………………………….…
186
Figure 5.49 Operational strategies identified during framing: Group
support……………………………………………………
186
Figure 5.50 Affective strategies identified during framing: Group
support……………………………………………………
186
Figure 5.51 Technical strategies identified in framing: Group
support……………………………………………………
186
11
Figure 5.52 Overview of strategies during framing: Group
support……………………………………………………
186
Figure 6.1 A continuum of support strategies……………..…….…... 206
Figure 6.2 Theoretical constructs emerging from the study…….…... 221
Tables
Table 3.1 Overview of Research Data Collection Phases ……..….. 68
Table 3.2 Identifiers and Demographics for Phase 2 Teachers……. 70
Table 5.1 Teacher Support Strategy Codes Organised into Four
Categories ………………….……………………………
112
Appendices
Appendix 1. Phase 2 survey for teachers nominated as exemplary
computer-users…………………………………………..
237
Appendix 2. Phase 2 teacher interview schedule……………………... 239
Appendix 3. “Scaffolding” definition card…………………………… 241
Appendix 4. An example of a teacher interview script with teacher
comments………………………………………………...
243
Appendix 5. Teacher support strategy codes………………………….. 251
Appendix 6. An example narrative of “Marty the Alien”…………….. 255
12
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted
for a degree or a diploma at any other higher education institution.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no
material previously published or written by another person except
where due reference is made.
Signature ___________________________________
Date ________________
13
Acknowledgements
My gratitude goes to my two supervisors, Associate Professor Carmel
Diezmann and Professor Nicola Yelland for their superb support and mentoring
throughout all stages of this study. I also would like to thank Dr. Margaret
Lloyd, my best “critical friend” for her constant support in all categories –
cognitive, operational, sometimes technical, but especially affective.
The study described in this thesis was made possible by the cooperation of the
participating research school, the nominated exemplary computer-using teachers
at the school and the children and the parents of the Year 4/5 class involved in
the project. I am grateful for their generosity and welcoming support for my
investigation. In particular, the focus teacher chosen for Phase 3 of the study
needs special mention. Her willingness to take the time to work with me and her
eagerness to share her practice, problem-solving and reflective processes is truly
appreciated.
Finally I would like to thank my family (once more). In my quest for an
appropriate quote for this thesis, I was offered “If at first you don’t succeed,
skydiving is not for you”. There were times during this mission when I was
worried my parachute was not going to open, but now my feet are almost on the
ground, the sense of exhilaration and accomplishment is comparable. Perhaps
skydiving will be suitable pastime for my anticipated increase in leisure time
after all …
14
15
1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
“Computing is not about computers any more. It is about living.”
Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital
1.1 Preamble
The motivation for this study has arisen from a long-term fascination with the
way that children engage with computers as a device for their own purposes. In
a classroom setting where traditionally the teacher decides on what children do
and when they do it, the computer can be a catalyst that inverts the balance of
control. In a classroom that integrates the computer as learning tool, the teacher
is no longer the authority on learning, rather he or she must work alongside the
students as they explore and make sense of how they can use a computer to
further their understanding.
This study was designed to investigate the support strategies used by a primary
school teachers considered to be exemplary in using computers to support
teaching and learning. In particular, it investigated the use of scaffolding as a
teacher support strategy for children working with computers.
1.2 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the context of the study. This includes
the background information that establishes the demand for research in the area
of computers in education and an outline of the aims of the study. A broad
research question is posed and terms are defined for this question. Additionally,
the significance of the work is presented, indicating the ways in which this study
will contribute to understandings of how teachers can effectively support
students using computers. Finally an overview of each of the chapters in this
thesis is provided.
16
1.3 Background to the study
Although the potential for using computers to enhance teaching and learning has
been evident for some time, in many primary school classrooms this potential
has yet to be realised. It seems that merely providing access to computers will
not bring about a change; rather teachers need to evaluate their own teaching
beliefs and to reinvent their teaching paradigm (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer,
1997). An effective way to support teachers to make changes in their own
practice is to identify instances of best practice used by teachers who have
demonstrated innovative uses of computers in their classrooms (Hanafin &
Savenye, 1993). An analysis of the strategies used by these teachers may be
useful for other teachers who are trying to support children to use computers in
new and meaningful ways.
A teacher support strategy of particular interest is scaffolding. The term was
first described by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) who defined it as “a process
that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a
goal which would be beyond his [or her] unassisted efforts” (p. 90). The concept
arose out of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of Socially Mediated Cognitive
Development in which he hypothesised that guided interactions with an adult or
a more capable peers could assist children to develop at a higher level of
operation, allowing a child to extend his or her understanding through the Zone
of Proximal Development. Consequently, when scaffolding is provided, a child
may not only accomplish the task at a higher level but also internalise the
thinking, strategy or mechanisms that are used to approach similar tasks.
(Rogoff, 1990).
The study being undertaken for this dissertation has emerged from a focus on
computers in education. Previous research (Masters, 1997), which investigated
the implementation of a computer-based mathematics curriculum unit, found
evidence that suggested the use of computer environments can enhance teaching
and learning. However, Masters also reported that the success of the activity
was highly dependent on teacher support strategies and particularly the use of
17
scaffolding. Consequently, it was recommended that more research was
warranted to investigate the circumstances of how scaffolding could be used.
In further studies (Masters & Yelland, 1997; Yelland & Masters, 1999), specific
computer-orientated scaffolding strategies were explored within the same
mathematical curriculum unit used in the previous study. This follow-up work
aimed to develop and then trial scaffolding methods in order to advise teachers
on how best to support children using computers. The outcome of this research
was that many forms of scaffolding were effective when used appropriately. It
was evident, however, that the effective implementation of these strategies was
dependent on a teacher’s understanding of the scaffolding process. This finding
was a key factor for the design of this study.
1.4 Purpose and aims of the study
The purpose of this study was to describe and analyse teacher support strategies
used by teachers who are experienced at using computers for integrated and
authentic tasks. In particular, it sought to identify instances of scaffolding used
by teachers to support children working with computers. A broad research
question was posed in order to identify the phenomenon being studied. The
research question for this study was:
How do teachers use scaffolding to support children working
with computers?
The aims of the study were:
1. To identify what teachers know about the concept of scaffolding;
2. To portray the relationships, patterns and hierarchies of support strategies
that teachers use with children;
3. To describe the strategies used by an exemplary computer-using teacher to
support children working with computers;
4. To examine the instances of scaffolding used during the implementation of
an authentic computer-based task; and
5. To formulate theoretical constructs pertaining to teacher support strategies,
scaffolding and computers in a classroom environment.
18
1.5 Design of the study
The methodological approach of this study was interpretive with a focus on
constructivist investigation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The data were collected
from a case study report based on naturalistic evaluation in classroom settings.
The design incorporated the application of a hermeneutic dialectic circle model
to negotiate constructions with participating teachers. Grounded theory
processes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) were used for data coding and analysis.
The study was implemented in three phases:
(a) A theoretical immersion where the literature pertaining to the topic was
investigated;
(b) A functional immersion where classroom teachers were surveyed,
observed and then interviewed in regards to strategies that they used to
support children working with computers; and
(c) A practical immersion where the strategies of the focus teacher were
studied during the implementation of an authentic computer-based task
in her classroom.
The data from the implementation were then analysed and the study was
presented as a case report (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).
1.6 Significance and innovation
It is apparent that educational bodies are investing in computers and associated
technologies with the assumption that they will be engaged by teachers as
reform agents in the classroom. However, it is also obvious that merely
providing computers or educational software will not transform teaching and
learning in a primary classroom. As the potential for change rests with the
pedagogy of the classroom teacher, research relating to teacher strategies during
the use of computers in the classroom is timely.
The study reported in this thesis provides a further dimension to previous work
with teacher scaffolding strategies in a computer context (Masters, 1997;
Masters & Yelland, 1996, 1997; Yelland & Masters, 1999). Whereas previous
work examined software and recommended strategies for teachers supporting
children working with computers, this research provides a new perspective for
19
educational understandings as it examines the support strategies of teachers who
are considered exemplary in using computers in their classrooms.
The report of this study presents a catalogue of teacher support strategies
developed during the study and theoretical constructs that emerge from the
analysis. The theoretical constructs derived from this study are expected to
inform the educational community about teacher support strategies in a
classroom context that incorporates the use of computers. In particular, these
theoretical constructs should provide some tangible ideas for educators
interested in notions of exemplary practice, support strategies that are used by
teachers, the use of scaffolding as a support strategy and how children can be
supported working with computers.
This study will also model innovative practice that informs research approaches
in the field. The layering effect of iterative research will be clearly demonstrated
by using the support strategy framework established in previous studies. In this
situation, the study reported in this thesis will reinforce and strengthen the
categories of teacher support strategies previously established. In doing so, this
study will help to make the teacher support strategy framework more robust,
enabling it to be valuable for further research.
The methodology adopted for this study may also be a useful model for
researchers who wish to combine methods of research and analysis. This study
will demonstrate that use of Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) for
analysis fits neatly with the Constructivist Inquiry approach (Guba & Lincoln,
1989). Additionally, the use of a stimulated recall process for negotiated
construction and a narrative report style to present analysis will be demonstrated
as effective devices. Further, the phase approach of this study will provide a
clear insight in how the Constructivist Inquiry approach can be put into practice.
During the study, the three phases incorporating hermeneutic dialectic circles
(see Section 3.3) provide a logical progression from theory to practice in
manageable cycles.
20
The most innovative aspect of the study is, rather than setting out to develop
strategies for teachers, the research draws on the wealth of teacher
understanding that we know is available in our schools. This study celebrates
that teachers can contribute to research understandings and recognises that
teacher expertise is a valuable commodity that needs appropriate
acknowledgment. In order to support this aspect, the structure of this thesis is
designed to be accessible to teachers in addition to the more traditional audience
of educational researchers. It is hoped that teachers will consider that this thesis
and associated publications provide practical advice that is readily transferable
to their teaching context.
1.7 Overview of the thesis
The thesis has been organised into seven chapters. A summary of each chapter
follows.
1.7.1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the study
This chapter has introduced the fundamental concepts relating to teachers
supporting children using computers and the main components of the research
project, including the research question and the aims of the research. It also
addressed the significance of the study for teachers and the educational
community.
1.7.2 Chapter 2: Literature review
Chapter 2 addresses the first phase of the study, Phase 1: Theoretical
immersion, and provides a literature review to ascertain the issues pertaining to
the study. The content of this chapter is organised into three sections: (a)
constructivist perspectives, (b) scaffolding to support learners, and (c)
computers in education.
1.7.3 Chapter 3: Methodology and design
Chapter 3 describes the methodology and research design of the study. It
explains how the principles of Fourth Generation Evaluation (Guba & Lincoln,
1989) guide the study and presents a summary of Grounded Theory procedures
and techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It also provides detailed information
21
on the research design, identifies the participants and describes the data
collection and analysis methods.
1.7.4 Chapter 4: Functional immersion
This chapter presents the case report data collected in Phase 2, Functional
Immersion. In this phase, teachers who were nominated as experts at using
computers in their classroom were surveyed, observed and then interviewed in
regard to the strategies that they used to support children working with
computers. This chapter also identifies the focus teacher chosen for Phase 3 of
the study and describes the characteristics that distinguished her as the most
appropriate choice.
1.7.5 Chapter 5: Practical immersion
Chapter 5 provides the case report of Phase 3, Practical Immersion. The
categories of coding used to represent the data are described and the teacher-
student interaction vignettes recorded during the data collection are represented
in a matrix. Each vignette is then presented in the form of a synopsis with
narratives of teacher and associated children interactions. A graph of coded
interactions for each vignette is profiled and these interactions are discussed.
The reflections of the focus teacher collected during stimulated recall are also
provided for each vignette.
1.7.6 Chapter 6: Discussion
Chapter 6 discusses the case report outlined in Chapters 4 and 5. It initially
overviews the progress of the three research phases and then outlines the
process for presenting emerging concepts from the study. It identifies 11
emergent constructs from the study and situates each construct within the
context of the literature.
1.7.7 Chapter 7: Summary of the study
The final chapter, Chapter 7, provides an overview of the study incorporating a
restatement of the study purpose, the research question and the aims. An outline
of the constructs that emerged from the study is presented and the ways in
which the constructs contribute to understanding are discussed. The implications
of the constructs are proposed and the limitations of the study are identified.
22
Recommendations for further study pertaining to scaffolding and the use of
computers are also suggested. This chapter concludes with a summary statement
of the study.
1.8 Summary
This chapter has set the context and presented the research question and the
aims of the study. The significance of the study has been outlined, indicating the
ways in which this study will contribute to understandings of how teachers can
effectively support students using computers. A review of the relevant literature
will be presented in the next chapter.
23
2 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter addresses Phase 1 of the study with a theoretical immersion in the
literature pertaining to perspectives of constructivism, scaffolding to support
learners and computers in education. The focus on perspectives of
constructivism (see Section 2.2) sets the broad context for the study. In
particular, it examines social aspects of learning according to Vygotsky’s (1978)
socio-cultural theory and the notion of a “constructivist teaching method”. The
next section focuses on the use of scaffolding in education and the investigation
of scaffolding with computers (see Section 2.3). This section defines scaffolding
and describes characteristics and processes. It also identifies impediments to the
use of scaffolding as a teacher support strategy and outlines research in the area.
The final discussion on computers in education (see Section 2.4) provides a
background context and defines some important notions for the study.
2.2 Perspectives of constructivism
In order to outline the scope of this study, it is important to consider the broad
cognitive, social and pedagogical perspectives influencing the study. In
particular, the key term of constructivism must be examined as it is used in
various contexts often to describe quite different concepts (see Section 2.2.1).
This examination will lead to a discussion of socio-cultural perspectives (see
Section 2.2.2), a brief comparison of Piaget and Vygotsky (see Section 2.2.3)
and a discussion of practical constructivist teaching methods (see Section 2.2.4).
2.2.1 What is constructivism?
In education, the term constructivism has come to represent a diverse range of
concepts (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). It seems that constructivism initially
emerged as an epistemology that challenged the behaviouristic perspectives of
theorists such as Skinner, Thorndike, and Watson (Ebbeck, 1996). In this
context, advocates of constructivism challenged the notion that learning was a
process of acquiring a fixed body of knowledge (Dimock & Boethel, 1999) and
instead suggested that knowledge was constructed by learners from experiences,
24
mental structures and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events
(Jonassen, 1991).
While Rousseau, Dewey, and Montessori are cited as early constructivists
(Dimock & Boethel, 1999) possibly the best known constructivist theorist was
Jean Piaget (1896-1980). During the 1960s, the theories of Piaget emerged as a
dominant influence of thinking about cognition. Piaget believed that children
independently construct their knowledge through active exploration of the
environment. In this context, social interaction is the surrounding setting for
cognitive activity but not an integral part of it (Resnick, 1991). Piaget (1970)
also suggested that thinking styles varied greatly through different stages of
growth, and as a result, he identified four major sequential stages of growth
which he attributed to distinct age ranges. Understandings emerging from
Piagetian Cognitive Theories dominated educational practice for many years. It
seemed, however, that over-generalisation in application of these theories
caused discord in educational understandings. Although researchers
acknowledged the benefits of a Piagetian philosophy, particularly the goals for
children to become skilled problem solvers and creative thinkers, they
questioned the individualistic focus of Piaget’s theories (Schetz & Stremmel,
1994).
2.2.2 Vygotsky’s socio-cultural perspective
Another influential epistemology relating to the construction of knowledge was
Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of Socially Mediated Cognitive Development.
Vygotsky (1896-1934) developed his ideas at much the same time as Piaget
(they were born in the same year), however, because of the political climate of
the time, the work of Vygotsky, as a Russian Jew, was not translated and
published in western society until many years later (Berk & Winsler, 1995).
Like Piaget, Vygotsky subscribed to aspects of constructivism (Strommen,
1992) in that he viewed learners as active constructors of their own experiences
but, in contrast to the focus on the individual attributed to Piaget, he emphasised
the social and cultural dimensions of development. Whereas Piaget identified
the social world as a surrounding context for cognitive activity, Vygotsky
25
believed that thinking could not be separated from the social setting. His
theories instead suggested that “the mind extends beyond the skin” (Wertsch,
1991, p. 14) and is intertwined with the thinking of others. In direct
consequence, language was regarded as the critical bridge between the social
environment and an individual’s mental functioning in Vygotskian thinking
(Berk & Winsler, 1995).
Vygotsky (1978) distinguished between the social and individual plane of
psychological thinking and identified the crucial role that social interaction
plays in learning. Social thinking entails the learner being guided by discussion
with others, whereas individualised thinking involves the learner decoding
information in isolation. Vygotsky maintained that initial learning takes place
on the social plane with interpersonal language (the language that is used to
interact with others) becoming intrapersonal language (the internal language of
self actualisation). It is through this process of internalising language that the
learner develops the self-regulation necessary for individualised learning to
occur.
A major focus of Vygotsky’s theories was the problem of how a child could
become what he or she not yet is. Vygotsky (1978) described a need to
“examine those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of
maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are in current embryonic
state. These functions could be termed the buds or flowers of development” (p.
86). This concept is characterised in the notion of Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD). This ZPD is defined by Vygotsky (1978) as “the distance
between actual developmental level as determined by independent problem-
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-
solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p.
86).
Vygotsky (1978) considered that this potential level of development was just as
important, if not more important, than the level of development demonstrated by
independent problem-solving. He maintained that the problem-solving which
occurred when children worked on challenging tasks with an adult or another
26
child was a more accurate indicator of intellectual competence. He also
suggested that through social interaction with more capable adults and peers,
children can collaboratively construct knowledge and then internalise it possibly
for subsequent individual problem-solving tasks (Rogoff, 1990). This, however,
does not mean that collaborating with an adult or more capable other will offer a
child unlimited potential (Dickson, Brown, & Gibson, 1984). The Zone of
Proximal Development is jointly determined by the child’s level of development
and the context of learning involved. Support in knowledge construction simply
extends children by enabling them to cross their own Zone of Proximal
Development. The strategies by which learning is promoted by more competent
others have been variously described. However, the dominant concept to emerge
from this aspect of Vygotsky’s theory is “scaffolding.” This concept is an
important aspect of this study and will be discussed in detail in Section 2.3.
2.2.3 Piaget and Vygotsky: Contrasting positions or compatible?
In many instances, the theories of Vygotsky and Piaget are directly compared as
opposing viewpoints (Cole & Wertsch, 2000; Ebbeck, 1996). While the two
perspectives may differ considerably on a theoretical level, Bereiter (1994)
suggested that on a practical level the two viewpoints are more compatible,
offering that:
Stripped to their essentials, constructivism tells us to pay close
attention to the mental activities of the learner, and
socioculturalism tells us to pay close attention to the cultural
practices in the learner milieu. Except for the practical
differences of doing both at once, there is nothing incompatible
in these proposals. Neither one implies the rejection of the other.
(p. 21)
Cobb (1994), reflecting in particular on mathematical education, also considered
that both Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives were of value to teachers and
could be coordinated in a holistic approach for students. Further flexibility on
Piaget’s constructivist theories emerged in the work of the Neo-Piagetians, the
theorists who undertook development on Piaget’s system of cognitive
acquisition (Case, 1991). Although Piaget was said to have ignored socially
27
constructed meaning, evidence of flexibility in terms of social factors emerged
in the work of neo-Piagetian researchers (Richardson, 1994). For example,
Oyama (1999), in her discussion with children about evolution, considered that:
Children and their development environments are part of the
same system, so we can recognise the constitutive importance of
the sociocultural without minimising children’s part in their own
development and without having to contrast the social with the
biologically given. (p. 199)
While Piaget and Vygotsky may have traditionally been seen as holding
contrasting positions, it appears that current thinking allows for consideration of
both perspectives and the adoption of both theories as guiding constructs for
teaching and learning.
2.2.4 Constructivist teaching methods
In recent times, particularly in relation to the use of computers in classrooms,
the term constructivist has often been used in a more practical sense referring to
a methodology for teaching in addition to a theoretical framework. For example,
The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997)
referred to contemporary constructivism and suggested that in a teaching setting
that embraced this concept, teachers needed a different view of teaching and
learning and that:
… by contrast with the more traditional view of instruction as a
process involving the transmission of facts from an active teacher
to a passive student, constructivists believe that learning occurs
through a process in which the students plays an active role in
constructing the set of conceptual structures that constitutes his or
her own knowledge base. (p. 15)
In this context, the teaching method identified as “constructivist” is often
compared to “traditional” methods of teaching. Jackson (1986) referred to the
traditional education model as mimetic in which the teacher disseminates
knowledge and the students receive it. This “mind as container” (Bereiter, 1994)
approach is also known by other terms such as directed teaching (Roblyer,
28
Edwards, & Havriluk, 1997), a didactic teaching style (Smerdon, Burkam, &
Lee, 1999), the objectivist approach (Jonassen, 1992; Roblyer, 1996) and the
transmission model (Richardson, 1994).
The characteristics of a constructivist teaching approach are complex. However,
this approach is not a euphemism for “anything goes” in the classroom
(Grennon-Brooks, 1990; Grennon-Brooks & Brooks, 1999). A teacher still has
responsibilities to ensure the students learn content and skills, however, the
teacher’s role in a “constructivist” classroom has become considerably more
complicated (Airaisan & Walsh, 1997; Strommen, 1992). While the learners
will need to take more responsibility for their own learning, the teacher needs to
structure an environment that is conducive for students to construct
understanding (Sprague & Dede, 1999). In a constructivist classroom, teacher-
student interactions are collaborative and dynamic. Students work together to
solve problems and the emphasis is on the process of inquiry and invention
(Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1996). Furthermore, Dimock and Boethel
(1999) argued that constructivism is more than discovery learning where
learners explore an unstructured environment. Rather, a constructivist learning
environment is one in which “teachers help to guide activity, not by providing
answers or steering students towards them but by asking questions that help the
students to examine their ideas more deeply and productively” (p. 18).
The concept of constructivism has evolved to incorporate a broad range of
ideas. In simple terms, it is represented by the axiom that learners construct their
own knowledge. It is, however, also used in a far wider context to portray many
aspects of teaching and learning. This “umbrella term for a wide diversity of
views” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 171) incorporates the cognitive theories
that were originally defined in this domain but in recent times the term also
incorporates social and cultural aspects of learning. In order to teach with a
constructivist approach, a teacher is required to implement concepts of a social
and cultural nature such as cooperative learning (Nastasi & Clements, 1991),
situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), peer tutoring (Baron,
1991) and scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
29
2.2.5 Situating constructivist practices in the context of this study
The focus of this study has arisen from the computer-instigated reforms in
education (see Section 2.4.7) and the mandate for teachers to use a constructivist
approach when teaching with computers. In the context of reform,
constructivism is offered as a teaching method underpinned by the theory rather
than the theory itself.
The focus of the research reported in this thesis relates to “scaffolding,” a
concept that has developed directly from Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theories (see
Section 2.3). In this study, the phenomenon of scaffolding has been investigated
in terms of the strategies that teachers employ to support children working with
computers. Consequently, in these circumstances, scaffolding strategies are
considered in terms of assisting teachers to teach in constructivist ways while
using technology in the classroom.
2.3 Scaffolding
The term scaffolding was first described by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976),
who defined it as “a process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem,
carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his [or her] unassisted
efforts” (p. 90). The concept arose out of a consideration of Vygotsky’s (1978)
theories in which he hypothesised that guided interactions with an adult or a
more capable peer could assist children to develop at a higher level of cognitive
operation. As previously noted, Vygotsky suggested that this support allowed a
child to extend his or her understandings through the Zone of Proximal
Development. Consequently, when scaffolding is provided, a child may not only
accomplish the task at a higher level but also internalise the thinking, strategy or
mechanisms used to be able to approach similar tasks (Rogoff & Gardner,
1984).
2.3.1 Scaffolding background
Many studies have investigated the application of the concept of scaffolding
and a number of issues have emerged from this research. A significant matter is
the definition of the term itself. Over the years, the discourse on scaffolding has
developed and extended to incorporate related concepts such as cognitive
30
apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989), guided participation
(Rogoff, 1990) and reciprocal teaching (Brown & Campione, 1990). Further,
while most research cites the original description devised by Wood, Bruner, and
Ross (1976), the application of the concept tends to vary with each instance. It
seems that each case brings about its own interpretation of the term according to
curriculum, participants and circumstances.
When scaffolding was introduced in an educational context it was widely taken
on board as an aspect of a social model of teaching and learning (Bliss, Askew,
& Macrae, 1996). According to Graves, Graves, and Braaten (1996) scaffolding
is frequently singled out as “one of the most effective instructional techniques
available” (p. 14). However, the concept of scaffolding is by no means clearly
established as an educational process. Bliss et al. (1996) suggested that,
although scaffolding is accepted as an appropriate teaching strategy, it is
actually a very difficult process for teachers to apply. Their research indicated
that teachers involved in their study could “talk scaffolding” but appeared to
struggle with implementation. As the term can be ambiguous, it is important to
examine the features of the concept and the contexts in which it is used.
2.3.2 Characteristics of scaffolding
As scaffolding is a concept that must be tailored to suit the circumstances of
implementation in relation to the scope of the task and the learner’s own Zone
of Proximal Development, the nature of the scaffolding process is inherently
dynamic. Several key characteristics of scaffolding can be identified (Beed,
Hawkins, & Roller, 1991; Wood & Wood, 1996). Firstly, the interaction must
be collaborative with the learner’s own intentions being the aim of the process
(Searle, 1984). Secondly, the scaffolding must operate within the learner’s Zone
of Proximal Development. Rather than simply ensuring the task is completed,
the scaffolder must ascertain the learner’s level of comprehension and then
work at slightly beyond that level, drawing the learning into new areas of
exploration (Rogoff, 1990). Thirdly, the final characteristic of scaffolding is that
the scaffold is gradually withdrawn as the learner becomes more competent
(Wood & Wood, 1996). Palincsar (1986) suggested that this notion reinforces
the metaphor of a scaffold as used when constructing buildings in that the
31
means of support is both adjustable and temporary. Of course, the ultimate goal
of scaffolding is for the learner to become independent having internalised the
knowledge required to complete the task.
2.3.3 The scaffolding process
While the general concept of scaffolding is widely accepted in educational
settings, the term has come to represent a number of different strategies or
mechanisms where learning is supported. Rosenshine and Meister (1992)
suggested that a scaffold may be (a) a resource, where a scaffolding device such
as a cue card is provided for the learner, or (b) a technique, that is, a strategy
that the teacher implements in order to scaffold the learner. When scaffolding is
considered as a process, the progression begins with the selection of a suitable
learning task (Gaffney & Anderson, 1991). The task must engage the participant
with skills that are emergent but are yet to be mastered. Furthermore, the task
must be engaging for the learner in order to sustain interest (Graves, Graves, &
Braaten, 1996). Prior to implementing the task with the learner, the activity
must be evaluated in terms of the difficulty it is likely to pose for the learner
(Wood et al., 1976). Rosenshine and Meister (1992) identified that a teacher
should anticipate errors before implementing an activity in order to steer
students away from flawed or destructive paths. Additionally, strategies for
adjusting the learner’s role (Greenfield, 1984) need to be developed in case the
task is incompatible with the his or her understanding.
The application of scaffolding during the task may be prescriptive in tasks of
simple skill acquisition or they may be generative, for instance, when teaching
higher-level cognitive skills where step-by-step procedures are not appropriate
(Rosenshine & Meister, 1992). In addition, scaffolding may relate not just to
cognitive skills but to other aspects such as emotive or affective factors. Wood
et al. (1976) referred to the process of recruitment where the scaffolder needs to
catch the child’s interest in the task and then later to frustration control in which
the scaffolder needs to support the learner emotionally when they are
discouraged by the activity. Schetz and Stremmel (1994) also described
encouragement to engage in the task as an important scaffolding strategy.
32
Considerable information is available on the strategies used to support a
learner’s thinking processes during a task. Palincsar (1986) identified that
modelling, questioning and explanation are used to make the task explicit.
Pearson (1996) suggested that teachers also contribute by cueing, coaching and
corroboration. Feedback has also been identified by several researchers (Bliss
et al., 1996; Rosenshine & Meister, 1992; Schetz & Stremmel, 1994) as an
important factor, while Applebee and Langer (1983) pointed out a need to
represent effective approaches to the task. Wood et al. (1976), who suggested
that a scaffold might involve reduction in the degree of freedom during a task,
also incorporated these aspects. Additional strategies provided by Wood et al.
included direction maintenance, marking critical features and demonstration.
Finally, scaffolding often includes a post task activity or follow-up. Graves et al.
(1996) offered a number of strategies that are used by teachers to support
students in post task phases. These included the checking of understanding and
re-teaching of key points, discussion and encouraging representation of the
concepts involved.
It is evident that scaffolding can be a valuable teaching strategy, however, it
seems that the scope of scaffolding can be intricate and complicated. Rather
than being a linear process that teachers can follow, the term seems to be used to
describe a set of strategies, variables or even advice that the teacher implements
in certain circumstances.
2.3.4 Impediments to scaffolding
Finding evidence of scaffolding in classrooms is often elusive and it seems that
there are various interpretations on what scaffolding is and where it occurs. One
point of contention is a teacher’s knowledge of scaffolding and his or her ability
to implement scaffolding strategies in their classrooms. Some research indicates
that teachers scaffold spontaneously and instinctively using strategies that
constitute scaffolding. Graves et al. (1996) stated that “quite obviously, whether
or not they use the term, teachers frequently use scaffolding in their classrooms”
(p. 14). Other research is less optimistic, suggesting that scaffolding strategies
are not automatically part of classroom interaction. Bliss et al. (1996) found that
while teachers in their study felt they were implementing scaffolding strategies,
33
their observations provided little evidence of what the researchers classified as
effective scaffolding. Tharp and Gallimore (1991) also found that teachers’
attempts at scaffolding were often ineffective. They suggested that while it is
natural for adults to assist children in everyday interactions, the nature of the
classroom does not readily support conducive conditions for teachers to relate to
each child in this way. They proposed that a teacher and student often do not
have the close bond that is required between learner and scaffolder for
scaffolding to be effective.
Another contentious issue relating to scaffolding is the concept of a teacher
being able to provide scaffolding for the many students that they have in their
classroom. Technically, scaffolding relates to an individual’s cognitive growth
and, by definition, the interaction between the scaffolded learner and the
scaffolder is one-to-one. In a classroom setting, however, this one-to-one
interaction between the teacher and every child is not often possible. Tharp and
Gallimore (1991) suggested that in most instances a teacher simply has too
many students to establish the understanding of each child’s Zone of Proximal
Development and the time needed for scaffolding interaction is not available.
However, they did suggest that teachers could be trained in instructional
strategies that would promote effective scaffolding techniques to use with their
students. The difficulty of a teacher conceptualising each child’s Zone of
Proximal Development was also flagged by Bodrova and Leong (1996) who
pointed out that while a class could have a general Zone of Proximal
Development, each child has an individual range that a teacher needed to
appreciate. Hogan and Pressley (1997b) also identified some challenges for
teachers working in class settings. These challenges include (a) the large
number of students in classes, (b) the diverse communication styles within
heterogeneous groups of students, and (c) restrictions imposed by curriculum,
timetables and assessment. There are, however, strategies that can be used to
deal with these restrictions. For example, Hogan and Pressley (1997a, 1997b)
suggested that teachers can scaffold successfully in both one-to-one and whole
class settings. Some management approaches that allow teachers to scaffold in
classroom settings include (a) organising small group work (Hogan & Pressley,
1997b), (b) using scaffolding devices where children do not necessarily need to
34
engage with the teacher (King, 1990), and (c) whole class discussions where
students have the opportunity to articulate their own ideas (Cobb, Wood, &
Yackel, 1993). Hogan and Pressley (1997a) pointed out that, while scaffolding
might be the ultimate goal for teacher support, there are other support strategies
that are useful for learners. They suggested that a teacher learning to scaffold
can still support students through an assisting process and students will benefit
from exploration and reflection on scaffolding strategies.
2.3.5 Strategies for scaffolding
Given the uncertainty of spontaneous or “incidental” scaffolding by teachers
(Beed et al., 1991), it is not surprising that much of the research on scaffolding
focuses on providing strategies for teachers to use when scaffolding students.
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) acknowledged the scaffolding metaphor, but
preferred to use their broader concept of assisted performance to describe the
process in which the more capable other offers assistance to the learner to obtain
internalised understanding.
Another method based on the scaffolding concept is Rogoff’s (1990) guided
participation. This support strategy describes a partnership in which an adult
provides guidance, which may be tacit or explicit for the child who participates
to varying extents. Guided participation involves children, adults and
companions in the collaborative processes of building constructions from a
child’s present understanding to a new state of understanding and also the
arranging and structuring of a child’s participation in activity.
Collins et al.(1989) compared the scaffolding concept to the traditional learning
model of apprenticeship and described an apprenticeship where the apprentice
acquires skills from a master through a process of observation, coaching and
practice. As a reflection on this process, Collins et al. proposed a cognitive
apprenticeship model. Although cognitive apprenticeship shares some
important characteristics with traditional apprenticeship, the focus of traditional
apprenticeship is on the transfer of physical skills in a specific context while the
focus of cognitive apprenticeship is on cognitive and metacognitive skills and
processes.
35
Another form of scaffolding is reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
In this model, originally used for teaching reading, the teacher and the students
take turns playing the role of the teacher. The students are coached in
formulating questions, summarising, predicting and identifying difficulties
within a text. Collins et al. (1989) suggested that this method is effective
because students see learning as a context to be broken down in cooperation
with others rather than a sequential process. Additionally, in this strategy the
teacher models problem-solving in a context shared directly and immediately
with the students. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1985) also offered a mechanism for
teacher scaffolding developed specifically to facilitate writing processes. In this
method, the teacher uses prompts written on cue cards in a process called
procedural facilitation.
Another direction in scaffolding research focuses on observing teachers who are
implementing scaffolding and clarifying types or categories of interaction.
Roehler and Cantlon (1997) described five types of scaffolding that they
observed in two multi-age elementary classrooms. The types of scaffolding
referred to conversations between teachers and students and consisted of (a)
offering explanations, (b) inviting student participation, (c) verifying and
clarifying student’s understandings, (d) verbal modelling of desired behaviours
and (e) inviting students to contribute clues. Hannafin, McCarthy, Hannafin, and
Radtke (2001) were interested scaffolding structures in written (electronic)
documents. They argued that scaffolding could consist of (a) conceptual
scaffolding, which related to providing information; (b) meta-cognitive
scaffolding for guidance on how to think; (c) procedural scaffolding to help the
student use a tool or device; and (d) strategic scaffolding to support approaches
or tactics.
2.3.6 Scaffolding with computers
While a breadth of research has investigated the use of scaffolding in traditional
areas of schooling such as language, particularly reading (e.g., Beed et al.,1991;
Graves et al., 1996; Wollman-Bonilla & Werchadlo, 1999), mathematics
36
(Coltman, Petyaeva, & Anghileri, 2002) and science (Flick, 1998), the study of
scaffolding with computer-based tasks is less extensive.
When the inclusion of computers is considered in scaffolding projects, it is often
in terms of the computer or the computer software being used as the scaffolding
device itself. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996) developed the Computer
Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) to facilitate the
interaction of experts, teachers, parents and students in a “knowledge building
society” (p. 6). In this instance, the computer software acted as a scaffold to
develop real and contextual understandings. This online environment was also
used by Oshima and Oshima (1999) who were interested not only in the
environment supporting students but also the interactions between the students,
the computer and the teacher. Roberts and Nason (2003) were interested in
group dynamics while using the CSILE environment and Cuthbert and Hoadley
(1998) employed CSILE to allow students to work together on building design
problems. Their research focused on the actual design problems presented to the
students and how the structure of the problem could scaffold thinking and
knowledge integration.
Another example of a computer being used to provide scaffolding strategies was
outlined by Wood and Wood (1996). They described a software program which
they believed could perform tutoring tasks of a scaffolding nature. This concept
was also applied by Luckin (2001) who used a program called EcoLab to
support children building food webs and by Revelle et al. (2002), who
developed a computer-based search tool to search for information on animals in
a hierarchical structure. Mercer and Wegerif (1999) also focused on the role that
computer software could play in supporting children’s learning, evaluating
software titled TRAC (Talk, Reasoning, and Computers). The TRAC software
was used to scaffold children's use of language as a tool for reasoning and
collaborative activity. In a different approach, Baron (1991) considered
computer hardware itself to be a scaffold that could facilitate social interaction.
In this sense, she suggested that the computer served as a tool for the teacher to
foster social interactions between children and subsequent cognitive skill
building.
37
It seems that the term scaffolding is used as a broad-brush to describe any aspect
of interaction between a teacher or even a computer and the student. For
example, Bull et al. (1999) discussed scaffolding within a computer-mediated
environment in terms of both computer-based devices and teacher and peer
support. They suggested that scaffolding could be provided online by
mechanisms such as visual cueing, links to web-pages with directions,
downloadable help pages and communication forms to contact the instructor or
peers. Bull et al. (1999) also considered scaffolding strategies in terms of the
teacher’s role in supporting students using online tutorials. They claimed that
“there are [as] many kinds of scaffolding ... as there are techniques of teaching”
(p. 243) and then went on to describe a broad range of teaching aspects such as
explaining, resolving questions, inviting participation to those on the periphery,
modelling problem-solving with “think alouds” and providing evidence to
support or refute statements. Bull et al. also suggested that physical devices such
as concept maps, diagrams, illustrations and simulations should also be
considered as scaffolding mechanisms.
One of the few studies that focused on the teacher’s role in scaffolding
computer implementation was situated in a preschool setting (Schetz &
Stremmel, 1994). The findings from this study indicated that the role of the
teacher was critical regardless of the software used. It was also noted that the
type and amount of scaffolding varied according to student needs and the
objectives of the task. Barbuto, Swaminathan, Trawick-Smith, and Wright
(2003) also examined the role of the teacher in supporting children using
computers. They worked with novice computer-using early childhood teachers
in the Tech4PreK program. Barbuto et al. found that teachers, who used a
constructivist teaching approach and were enthusiastic about using computers,
scaffolded their students effectively even though they did not have prior
computing skills.
Previous investigations involving the author of this thesis also have contributed
to the understanding of scaffolding with computers (see Section 1.3). In a study
of young children working with a computer-based mathematics curriculum
(Masters, 1997; Masters & Yelland, 1996, 1997; Yelland & Masters, 1995), it
38
was found that teacher scaffolding mechanisms were key factors in the
successful integration of computers in curriculum. Not only did scaffolded
instruction support learning and depth of understanding about a concept or
problem-solving process but it also affected self-efficacy and levels of interest
in novel problem-solving tasks and contexts.
In subsequent research which devised and tested scaffolding strategies (Yelland
& Masters, 1999) it was found that while scaffolding techniques may not be
able to be prescribed for a context they should be generative in order to
accommodate the child’s perspective. Decisions about the level and type of
scaffolding were dependent on a number of factors. These included the nature of
the task and the concepts and processes involved, the needs and interests of the
children and the opportunities to share ideas with authentic audiences. It was
evident that teachers needed to be cognisant of a broad range of scaffolding
techniques in order to successfully scaffold children using computers.
In a further research iteration (Masters, 2003; Masters & Yelland, 2002; Yelland
& Masters, 1999), scaffolding with computers was classified into four broad
categories. The first category was (a) cognitive scaffolding, where a teacher
supports children when constructing understanding. It was also found that
scaffolding may be (b) affective, with the teacher supporting the children
emotionally, and (c) operational, in which the teacher can provide task
management support. A final category that is especially pertinent to using
computers and associated technology was (d) technical scaffolding. In this
situation the teacher facilitates the operation of both the hardware and the
software.
2.3.7 Scaffolding in the context of this research
For the purpose of this study, the meaning and usage of the term scaffolding will
be construed from the information provided in “Characteristics of scaffolding”
(see Section 2.3.2). This means that to be considered as scaffolding, a teacher
interaction with a child must have the following attributes:
39
1. The interaction must be collaborative with the focus on the learner’s
intentions (Searle, 1984),
2. The interaction must be supporting the learner in their Zone of
Proximal Development (Rogoff, 1990), and
3. The interaction is gradually withdrawn as the learner becomes more
competent (Wood & Wood, 1996).
While the aim of this study is to examine the process of teacher scaffolding, the
literature reviewed in this chapter has suggested that scaffolding is often used as
a broader term that is across the spectrum of teacher intervention techniques. In
order to address the full range of teacher interactions without compromising the
stricter definition of scaffolding, the term teacher support strategy will
henceforth be used in this thesis to describe any strategies implemented by a
teacher to support children in their classroom. Then, in the discussion of the
findings (see Chapter 6), these strategies will be examined to establish the
position of scaffolding as a support strategy in the context of this research.
In order to map the teacher support strategies during this study, the framework
established during the previous research by the author of this thesis (Masters,
2003; Masters & Yelland, 2002; Yelland & Masters, 1999) will be used. For the
purpose of this study, the categories of cognitive, affective, operational and
technical will be used to classify teacher support strategies.
2.4 Computers in education
This section describes the evolving uses of computers in schools (see Section
2.4.1) and identifies reforms in educational practice brought about through
technological development (see Sections 2.4.2-2.4.5). It also identifies some
important notions for this study, namely the “exemplary computer-using
teacher” (see Section 2.4.6) and “tasks for learning” (see Section 2.4.7).
2.4.1 The evolving uses of computers in schools
Whereas the notion that computers could be used by children was considered
revolutionary in the 1970s, the idea of computers “belonging” to children has
become widely accepted (Miller, 1994; Wright, 2001). Computers play an
40
integral role in our society and as children are exposed to computer applications
in their daily lives, they adopt the computer as a device for their own purposes.
The implementation of computers into education, however, has been less
revolutionary. As computer-based technology has changed other disciplines
such as communication, medicine, engineering and even entertainment, the
adoption of computers in the educational context has been less rapid and
remained almost static during times of dramatic technological change (Papert,
1993). While computers have increasingly been appearing as standard items in
classroom since the early 1980s, the use of this equipment has often been
mundane; with the computers merely used to reinforce existing educational
practices rather than as a catalyst for educational innovation (Clements, 1994;
Yelland, 1999).
Early evidence of the computer being considered for educational purposes was
documented in the late 1960s (Skinner, 1968) with a report on a series of
machines designed by Pressey for the automatic testing of intelligence and for
the delivery of information. Although Pressey became disillusioned with the
lack of acceptance for his teaching machines and abandoned the project, Skinner
continued with Pressey’s development as he thought that computerised teaching
machines based on his behaviouristic learning theories would have a profound
effect on education (Miller & Olsen, 1994). While Skinner’s teaching machines
did not become widely accepted as an educational option, his learning theories
influenced early software development with early computer-assisted instruction
(CAI) projects based on mainframe computers. As a consequence, the initial
ideas concerning the role of the computer in teaching and learning were based
on behaviouristic learning principles (Kennewell, 1994).
It was not until the introduction of microcomputers in the late 1970s that the
extended potential of computers for education began to be considered. A
technology revolution in which computers would transform education and
curriculum was foreseen. Bork (1981) predicted that “we are at the onset of a
major revolution in education, a revolution unparalleled since the invention of
the printing press. The computer will be the instrument of this revolution” (p.
269). While the extent of the “revolution” may be questioned, computers
41
certainly were to become a factor for consideration in education. Educators soon
began to explore the wider roles for computers in education. In a now seminal
publication, Taylor (1980) edited a collection of articles relating to educational
applications of computers under the framework of the computer as “Tutor, Tool
and Tutee”. The first of these metaphors, tutor referred to the behaviourist
perspective of CAI where students absorbed information from a computer
delivered tutorial. The tool metaphor looked at ways in which the computer
could support students in specific tasks. The initial tool application for the
computer was as a calculator (Taylor, 1980), however, this soon extended to
other tool applications including data-base management systems and word
processors (Sheingold, 1983). In the final metaphor, tutee, it was considered that
the computer provided a catalyst for the learner to devise knowledge and
“teach” the computer new skills. This comparison was possibly the most
revolutionary of the approaches presented in Taylor’s collection and provided a
new direction for educational computer use.
An advocate of the tutee approach was Seymour Papert. His contribution to
Taylor’s manuscript (Papert, 1980a), along with his ensuing book, Mindstorms:
Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas (Papert, 1980b) offered a radical new
way to use computers. During the 1970s, Papert and a research team at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology had developed the Logo programming
language. Papert (1980b) predicted that Logo and computers would challenge
traditional views of learning and education and even facilitate a move from
classroom-based instruction to a technology-based alternative.
In the 1960s, Papert had worked with Piaget in Geneva and was highly
influenced by the constructivist view of learning that Piaget had advocated
(Miller, 1994). Papert saw that his Logo computer environment with geometry
construction principles could be used to support the traditional curriculum but
anticipated that it should be used as a “vehicle for Piagetian learning, which to
me is learning without curriculum” (Papert, 1980b, p. 31). In an extension of
Piaget’s ideas, Papert proposed the term, constructionism that he applied to the
Logo learning environment. In an introduction that Papert (1990) wrote later for
a book dedicated to the concept, he defined constructionism as:
42
including but going beyond, what Piaget would call
constructivism. The word with the v expresses the theory that
knowledge is built by the learner, not supplied by the teacher.
The word with the n expresses further idea that this happens
especially felicitously when the learner is engaged in the
construction of something external or at least shareable ... a sand
castle, a machine, a computer program, a book.
(Papert, 1990, p. 3)
By the 1980s, Logo was seen as a new trend in education. Miller and Olsen
(1994) noted that the push for the inclusion of computers and Logo frequently
came from people who were “technologically inclined.” These individuals with
knowledge about computers began to see themselves as “special educators in
the vanguard of educational change” (p. 125). In contrast, other teachers were
seen as traditionalists who were stationary and unresponsive. In order to retain
currency, teachers were encouraged to gain the technical skills required for
working with computers It became fashionable to be “doing Logo” or “doing
computers” in the classroom (Oakley, 1986).
Inevitably, the focus on computer programming in addition to existing
classroom activity soon came under criticism. Teachers found that using
computers in this way was time-consuming and many resented a further burden
on an already crowded curriculum (Maddux, 1992). Additionally, critics began
to question whether the promise of Logo and the inclusion of computers was
being realised (Agalianos, Noss, & Whitty, 2001). The trend to incorporate
Logo and computer programming in classrooms experienced what Cuban
(1986) referred to as the “Lifecycle of an Innovation” (p. 6). In this cycle, a
technological “breakthrough” is firstly followed by a period of exaggerated
optimism and then by a period of rationalism in which implementation is
critically examined. This process usually generates disillusionment and
subsequent abandonment, in which blame is attributed to various factors and/or
stakeholders.
43
While some research suggested that Logo could enhance problem-solving
ability (Gorman & Bourne, 1983), mathematical learning (Clements & Gullo,
1984), and even transfer of problem-solving skills (Watson, Lange & Brinkley,
1992), other research found little evidence for these claims (e.g., Pea &
Kurland, 1984). Some researchers believed that Logo could not be successfully
incorporated into curriculum because the existing school structures were not
conducive to the approach (Sharpiro, 1984). Other emerging reasons for the lack
of wide acceptance of Logo were the absence of understanding or interest by the
teachers, the lack of experience by teachers responsible for implementation, the
lack of time for teachers to acquire skills and the lack of support for Logo at the
colleague, school and regional level (Bigum, 1994).
By the late 1980s, the enthusiasm for Logo and the tutee approach had lost
popular appeal - although a number of Logo enthusiasts would always remain.
The early emphasis on programming gave way to less intensive applications of
computers (Zammit, 1992), where the teacher involvement was lower.
Computers were predominantly used for drill and practice type activities
(Clements, Nastasi, & Swaminathan, 1993; Haugland & Shade, 1994; Hickey,
1993) in a tutor model and were little more than the teaching machines of the
1960s (Griffin, 1995). Drill and practice software reinforced basic skills in
content area such as mathematical operations or phonetic blends in a game
format and was frequently used by teachers as a reward or to add variety to a
diet of skill practice. While there was some evidence that these programs
promoted basic skills (Kelman, 1991), their educational value was limited.
There may have also been detrimental results from this type of computer use. A
structured computer environment such as those embodied in drill and practice
games could encourage competition and discourage cooperation between
children (Clements et al., 1993) and stifle creativity (Haugland, 1992).
Additionally, the computer tasks provided in this genre of software may be out
of context with the child’s experience and presented in isolation, rather than
integrated into the classroom curriculum (Davis & Shade, 1994; Hadley &
Sheingold, 1993).
44
Although drill and practice was the most dominant software application during
the 1990s, some educators sought to use computers for purposes other than for
the transmission of facts (i.e., as a tutor). A number of different tool applications
for computers were incorporated into educational programs (Becker, 1991).
These included word processing and desktop publishing (Bureau, 1989),
databases and spreadsheets (Geisert & Futrell, 1990), multimedia design
(Heppell, 1990) and early telecommunications (Ryan & Masters, 1994). These
concepts, however, often seemed to be seen as trends in the progression of
computer use in schools and many of them were subject to the previously noted
Lifecycle of an Innovation syndrome (Cuban, 1986). As with Logo, these
applications did not achieve wide acceptance in educational settings and, when
they were used, they were usually used within the context of the existing
curriculum rather than as an alternative approach.
However, in the late 1980s and during the 1990s, there were some isolated
instances where inroads were being made into deeper considerations of how
computers might support or even transform the education process. In 1985, the
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project was established (Sandholtz,
Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). This lighthouse project was a collaborative venture
between Apple Computers and a number of educational organisations and was
initially introduced into seven American schools with the purpose of studying
“how the routine use of technology by teachers and students may change
teaching and learning” (Apple Computers, 2004, p. 1). The ACOT project
continued for 13 years until 1998 and during this time over 100 schools around
the world participated. This project proved to be a major influence for thinking
on the use of computers in education and it was cumulated with a book entitled
Teaching with technology: Creating student-centred classrooms (Sandholtz et
al., 1997). This publication has been considered as a cornerstone of reform in
the ways that computers can be used in education.
2.4.2 The Information Age
During the early 1990s, great advances were made in technological
development. The accessibility and capability of both hardware and software
grew exponentially, facilitating the transition from the Industrial Age to the
45
Information Age (Dyrli & Kinnaman, 1994). Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) were revolutionising every aspect of society including
industry, communications, medicine, transportation and entertainment.
Over this time children’s access to computers in schools had also increased
dramatically. The ratio of students per computer in schools decreased from 125
to 10 or less over the decade from 1986 to 1996 (Grabe & Grabe, 1998;
Sandholtz et al., 1997). By 1996 the ratio of 5:1 seemed to be considered as the
optimum target ratio for computers to students in schools (Riley, Kunin, Smith,
& Roberts, 1996). Later publications illustrated that these targets were realistic
and by 2000, a ratio of 5:1 was common (MCEETYA, 2002; U.S. Department
of Education, 2004). Additionally, students had improved access to computers
outside the school and, having grown up in the emerging Information Age,
many were regular and comfortable users of the new technologies. Typically
this group were referred to as the Nintendo Generation (Kenway, 1996), while
Peach (1997) used the term I-Generation to denote their familiarity with the
new information and communications media.
2.4.3 Barriers to reform
Despite improved access to computers and increased adoption of computers by
students, effective integration of technology in schools has remained peripheral
(Yelland, 1999). Changes in classroom practice had not changed simply because
more computers were available (Riel, 1994). While research has identified many
barriers, including limited computer literacy of teachers (Zammit, 1992),
unsupportive administration (Hannafin & Savenye, 1993) and lack of up-to-date
hardware and software (Sandholtz et al., 1997), the most prevalent obstructions
to using computers effectively seemed to be the teachers’ beliefs about teaching,
their beliefs about computers, established classroom practices and the teachers’
unwillingness to change the underpinning teaching paradigm (Ertmer, Addison,
Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1999; Lloyd & Yelland, 2003).
Although advocates of computers in education have consistently recommended
a change in educational methods (e.g., Di Sessa, 1987; Papert, 1980; Pea, 1985),
many educators have been unwilling or unable to make the transition. In fact,
46
Hannafin and Savenye (1993) suggested that the reason for failed early reform
attempts may have been because the reformers underestimated the importance
of the teacher’s role in a classroom with technology. It appears that, in the
“blame” component of Cuban’s (1998) cycle, teachers are often held
responsible for the lack of technological innovation in classrooms.
Unfortunately for computer resistant teachers during the 1990s, it seemed that
the pressure to use computers in new and meaningful ways was mounting.
Marcinkiewicz (1993-94) identified that government, academia and educational
bodies shared a deep philosophy that supports the use of computers in
education. Additionally, the attraction that the media held for technology-rich
schools (Kenway, 1996) and the implication that these schools were leading
edge ensured that the public asserted pressure on schools and teachers to use
computers in productive ways. By the mid 1990s, in the wake of uneventuated
technological reform in schools, new educational policy began to prescribe
radical change to educational practice.
2.4.4 Restructuring education: The new paradigm
One of the most significant directions evident in education in recent times has
been the restructuring of education catalysed by technological innovation. Riel,
Schwarz, and Hitt (2002) identified that the redesign of schools, incorporating
computer and communication technology became a focus of many educational
bodies. As a consequence, the leading American policy, the National Education
Technology Plan 1996 (implemented in 1997 in a program entitled The
Technology Literacy Challenge) (Riley, Kunin, Smith, & Roberts, 1996), was
developed on the basis of this focus. This direction was reinforced in the design
of the revised National Education Technology Plan 2004 (due to be
implemented in 2005) (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Further, a strategy
of implementation was devised in the form of the National Educational
Technology Standards (NETS) (International Society for Technology in
Education, 2004). These Standards for students, teachers and administrators
have been designed to provide benchmarks for the integration of Information
and Communication Technologies in American schools.
47
In Queensland, Australia, where the study reported in this thesis was
conducted, a number of initiatives have shaped the direction of schools in
restructuring in light of technological trends, these include Schooling
2001(Education Queensland, 1997), Schooling 2010 (Education Queensland,
2003) and the Education and Training Reforms for the Future program
(Queensland Government, 2002).
An integral part of the reform process to incorporate computers meaningfully
into schools has been a change to instructional practices. New models for
teaching and learning incorporate a focus on problem-solving, collaborative
learning, real purpose tasks and transformed teacher roles (e.g., Jonassen, 2000;
Jones, Valdez & Nowakowski, 1995; Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, &
Means, 2000). As teachers were expected to adopt new models, they also
needed to reassess their approach towards educational processes and the
integration of technology tools (Bork, 2000). It seemed that the advent of
technology-based school reform challenged teachers’ attitudes, required
different strategies and even requested that teachers adopt a new teaching
paradigm.
Sprague and Dede (1999) proposed that teachers of the Information Age must
challenge their current model of teaching that originated in the Industrial Age
and embrace the power of student-centred constructivist learning enhanced by
the use of technologies. In the Information Age, a constructivist paradigm (see
Section 2.3) was likely to “offer the most fertile ground for the application of
technology to education” (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology, 1997, p. 16). The reform movement was underpinned by
constructivist teaching methods which engage the learner in active learning
rather than the passive consumption of information (Campoy, 1992; Riel &
Becker, 2000).
2.4.5 Promoting a paradigm shift
Even though policy called for a new approach to teaching with computers,
research indicates that resistance to change in practice has been an impediment.
48
While a change in practice was demanded, it seems that teachers found it
difficult to make the changes required. Sandhotlz et al. (1997) suggested that
rather than blame teachers for their reluctance to use technology in new ways,
the problem should be considered from the teachers’ perspectives. Teachers
have a responsibility to foster learning for their students and they need to be
reassured that using computers in constructive ways will promote positive
learning outcomes.
Roschelle et al. (2000) identified that one of the most significant barriers to
introducing effective technology practice was the mismatch between the content
of typical assessment and the type of learning most effectively supported by the
technology. A heavy focus on assessment might lead to less time being
available for higher order thinking. Sprague and Dede (1999) reported that
teachers worry that a constructivist teaching approach may be misinterpreted as
“out of control” or that they may be judged as “not working” during student-
centred activity. They also highlighted differences between the traditional and
the constructivist teaching approach and urged educators to challenge their own
models of teaching and then to judge new practices according to outcome rather
than adhering to “safe” models. Sprague and Dede also argued that it is only
through reflection that a teacher can “begin to educate other teachers and
administrators to the power of student-centred learning enhanced by the
appropriate use of technologies” (p. 17).
Campoy (1993) also recognised that teachers may be reluctant to change to
constructivist teaching methods. She suggested that the use of computers, and
especially software that promotes exploration, may actually be a catalyst to
encouraging teachers to teach in more constructivist ways. Her view is
supported by Hannafin and Savenye (1993) who felt that the showcasing of
success stories of teachers using computers in meaningful ways would
encourage others to try new methods.
The Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12
Education in the United States (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science
and Technology, 1997) also identified that teachers need to be provided with
49
pedagogical support including opportunities to observe within the classrooms of
successful computer-using teachers. Additionally, this report recommended that
future research should investigate which approaches to the use of technology are
the most effective. The concept of looking for new approaches was reiterated in
the United States of America’s National Education Technology Plan (Gamble-
Risley, 2004) which suggests that teachers need “examples of how to do things
differently” (paragraph 7).
2.4.6 Exemplary computer-using teachers
As it has been suggested that teachers who are learning how to use computers
effectively in classrooms should look to best practice examples, it is important
to be able to profile teachers who are skilled at designing and implementing
these examples. A seminal study relating to the adoption of computers in
teaching and learning was an American survey conducted by the Bank Street
College of Education in 1989. In their report, Sheingold and Hadley (1990)
described the practices and the professional growth of these teachers in order to
provide an exemplary model for other teachers. Becker (1994, republished in
2000) identified that the Bank Street Study had provided a good “portrait” of
expert computer users but expressed a need to be able to assess how these
teachers happened to use computers differently from other teachers. In his now
renowned article How Exemplary Computer-Using Teachers Differ from Other
Teachers: Implications for Realizing the Potential of Computers in Schools,
Becker selected teachers who “had reputations as being expert computer users”
(p. 274) and then sought to identify some tangible characteristics that could be
nurtured with other teachers to expand their practices. As part of an
international survey of 20 countries (Becker, 1994), approximately 1400 schools
in the USA were surveyed, spanning elementary schools from Year 3 through to
high schools. From these data Becker identified 5% of the teachers as
“exemplary computer-using teachers”.
The first observation emerging from Becker’s (1994) study was that exemplary
computer-using teachers were likely to be found at schools with other
exemplary computer-using teachers. Becker (1994) acknowledged that it was
likely that networking with other like-minded teachers nurtured best practice.
50
However, he also identified that the schools in which these teachers were found
encouraged the use of computers for consequential activity, provided organised
professional and technical support and recognised the resource implications for
incorporating computers. Becker noted that socio-economic status was not a
factor for exemplary teacher distribution. Teachers at low socio-economic
schools were just as likely to be exemplary as those in other schools.
In terms of personal qualities, Becker (1994) identified that the exemplary
computer-using teachers reported to have more formal schooling than other
teachers. Thus, teachers who have further qualifications in computer-based
study or in other areas were more likely to use computers effectively in their
teaching. While it may appear as if these teachers have learnt about using
computers in their study, Becker suggested that this trend could be explained by
identifying that these teachers, by seeking out further education, were
demonstrating a deeper interest and understanding of teaching and learning
processes. This phenomenon was also noted by Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, and
Ross (2001) who pointed out that while exemplary teachers generally
participated in more professional development, their involvement was often in
the form of providing professional development for other teachers rather than
participating as learners.
Do teachers become better at using computers effectively with experience?
Becker (1994) tentatively suggested that teachers with more experience were
more likely to be exemplary users. He did identify, however, that this was not
always the case but suggested that “experience does help” (p. 284). Becker
related his findings to Sheingold and Hadley’s (cited in Becker, 1994, p. 284)
recommendation that teachers need at least five years experience to develop
computer expertise. This perceived characteristic of experience has since been
challenged in other research, for example Lim and Barnes (2002), who
hypothesised that a more experienced teacher may be reluctant to “abandon the
tried and trusted teaching and learning tools and activities built up from the
past” in favour of new tools and methods (p. 27). Additionally, Ertmer et al.
(2001) suggested that while this may have been applicable in the early 1990s,
graduates of the 21st century are more likely to enter the workforce as
51
competent computer users and, as such, have an advantage over older teachers
who did not grow up as the I-generation.
Another difference that Becker (1994) identified was that while only one quarter
of his participants were males, nearly half of the teachers identified as
exemplary were men. Becker pointed out that the background and activities of
the male participants were quite different from the females and he suggested
that women teachers typically have more non-teaching demands on their time
than men. Additionally, women often spend less time in the workforce and on
average were less likely to participate in further qualifications. However, the
greatest difference between male and female teachers that Becker identified was
the amount of time that they spent using computers. This trend was evident in
school use, but especially substantial in non-school use. Overall, the male
teachers used computers for twice as long as the female teachers per week.
While Becker acknowledged there were a number of factors for the gender
difference, he identified that “the gender of a teacher was still among the
stronger independent predictors of exemplary computer-using teaching” (p.
285). Some researchers, however, suggest that the perceived dominance of men
as exemplary computer-using teachers can be explained by cultural factors.
Jenson and Brushwood-Rose (2003) identified that where equally competent
male and female teachers worked in a school, other teachers would be far more
likely to consult the male teacher over technical matters. Additionally, male
teachers are more likely to be selected for specialist computing roles in the
school or for specialised training opportunities. Jenson and Brushwood-Rose
also suggested that while female teachers can be very capable at integrating
computers into their teaching, they are likely to be less overt about the technical
aspects, highlighting instead the pedagogical strengths of their teaching.
Although Becker (1994) argued that the exemplary computer-using teachers
from his study were not “simply typical teachers who liked computers” (p. 289),
it appears as if technical confidence is required for teachers to work effectively
with computers. Becker noted that in the school where exemplary computer-
using teachers were prevalent, the teachers drew from each others’ expertise to
extend their involvement with computers. Additionally, these schools provided
52
teachers with technical support, which was likely to enable teachers to feel
confident in trying new approaches. This conclusion was reinforced by Tucker
(1992) who added that, in order to be innovative with computers, teachers
needed to be well-equipped and needed to work in an environment that allowed
them to explore and master the technology.
Marcinkiewicz (1993-1994) suggested that confidence with the technology was
an important factor for using computers effectively in classrooms. This concept
was reinforced by Bitner and Bitner (2002) who identified that teachers must
acquire technical skills before they could use computers as an agent of change
in their classrooms. They stipulated that “before technology can effect changes
in the classroom, those ultimately responsible for the classroom must be
considered. Teachers must learn to use technology and must allow it to change
their present teaching paradigm” (p. 95).
A further attribute required by an exemplary computer-using teacher relates to
their philosophical approach to teaching and their engagement with a student-
centred constructivist classroom (see Section 2.3.4). While Becker’s original
study (1994) did not investigate the professional practice of the teachers
identified as exemplary in depth, the report acknowledged that the exemplary
computer-using teachers were far more likely to indicate they had engaged in
recent curriculum reform. In subsequent research by Becker and colleagues,
(e.g., Becker & Anderson, 1998; Becker & Reil, 1999; Dexter, Anderson, &
Becker, 1999; Reil & Becker, 2000) the pedagogy of exemplary computer-using
teachers was examined further. Dexter et al. (1999) identified that while
computer-using teachers range along a continuum of teaching styles ranging
from instruction to construction, exemplary computer-using teachers clearly
belonged to the construction end of the spectrum. This relationship between
using computers effectively and a constructivist approach to teaching and
learning is highlighted in many studies. Lim and Barnes (2002) identified that
the teacher has a pivotal role in the mediating the way in which learners interact
with computers and that this interaction is essential to promote comprehension,
critical thinking and learning.
53
In an Australian study that also examined the practices of accomplished
teachers, Sherwood and Buchanan (1993) suggested that the teachers’ attitudes
towards learners varied. Teachers who used computers effectively in their
classrooms (a) were more comfortable with students working independently, (b)
expected more from their students, and, (c) were more flexible when working
with individuals and groups. Ertmer et al. (2001) also made this connection and
recognised that rather than a set of strategies or practice, “exemplary [computer]
use reflects teachers’ personal beliefs about teaching” (Abstract).
In Queensland, Education Queensland (2004a) has embraced a policy of
showcasing schools and teachers who are leaders in integrating Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) into teaching and learning. Additionally,
as part of the ICTs for Learning strategy, which is a key element of the
Queensland Government's Education and Training Reforms of the Future
(Queensland Government, 2002; Education Queensland, 2004b), Education
Queensland has devised the ICTs for Learning Continua for Teachers
(Education Queensland, 2004c). This continua documents a progression for
teachers incorporating ICTs into their teaching ranging from (a) minimum, that
represents the basic, functional use of ICTs in the classroom to (b)
developmental, as teachers learn to incorporate ICTs in curriculum activities.
Exemplary computer-using teachers might be represented further along the
continua either as (c) an innovator, a level that represents teachers who impact
on the integration of ICTs into the curriculum on a whole-school level, or as (d)
a leader, a teacher who takes the role as an innovator beyond the school setting
to impact on strategies and policy at a district, state, national or international
level.
2.4.7 Tasks for learning
It has been established that current educational policy advocates a constructivist
student-centred approach and teachers who are considered to be exemplary
computer-using teachers align with this philosophy. Further, research has shown
that using computers for traditional educational tasks, in traditional teaching
styles has not significantly changed educational outcomes (Jones et al., 1995).
Instead, effective computer implementation is based on new learning tasks that
54
promote “engaged, meaningful learning and collaboration involving challenging
and real-life tasks, with technology as a tool for learning, communication and
collaboration” (p. 1).
In order for teachers to be provided with examples of best practice of computer
use it is important not only to identify teachers who are exemplary at using
computers in their classrooms, but also to examine the processes that these
teachers implement in their classrooms. Roschelle et al. (2000) suggested that
the computer can be used to promote active engagement and group
participation. It also can be used by the teacher to facilitate frequent interaction
and links to real world contexts. Jonassen (2000) promoted the concept of the
computer being used as a cognitive tool or a “mindtool” where the learners
engage with computers to pose problems rather than to merely solve problems.
In this context, the computers are employed to guide and activate cognitive
learning strategies and critical thinking.
The computer can also be seen as a facilitator of creative processes. Loveless
and Dore (2002) suggested that using computers to express, explore and
evaluate ideas in different media is a creative and powerful learning experience.
This is evident in the project described by Atherton (2002) who reported that the
multimedia project that she engaged her students with “brought learning to life”
(p. 145). She also commented that the project, where the students prepared
presentations for a peer group audience, gave the students the opportunity to not
only be active learners but also educators in a new way that had not been
previously experienced.
Education Queensland has recently engaged in a major curriculum review in the
form of the New Basics Project (Education Queensland, 2004d). New Basics
provides a framework for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment for Years 1 -10
schools. This project began in 2000 and was trialled in 38 schools from 2001
and completed at the end of 2003 with a review conducted by the Australian
Council of Education Research (Ainley, 2004). In 2004, 58 schools across
Queensland offered programs from Years 1- 9 based upon the New Basics
framework (Education Queensland, 2004d).
55
The assessment component of the New Basics Framework focuses on rich tasks.
A rich task is defined as:
a culminating performance or demonstration or product that is
purposeful and models a life role. It presents substantive, real problems
to solve and engages learners in forms of pragmatic social action that
have real value in the world. The problems require identification,
analysis and resolution, and require students to analyse, theorise and
engage intellectually with the world.
(Education Queensland, 2001, p. 5)
The theoretical underpinnings of Education Queensland’s Rich Tasks are based
on aspects of “connectedness to the real world” (2000, p. 51) and a student-
centred approach where the teacher is a mentor who interacts “inductively rather
than deductively” (p. 53). In this model, children’s cognitive development is
seen as “the product of social and cultural interaction around the development
and use of tools of a cognitive, linguistic, physical and electronic nature” (p.
51). In a natural progression, computers and other ICTs are considered to be
real-world tools that students will use to reach the goals set in the Rich Tasks.
The relationship between these Rich Tasks and the constructivist approach to
teaching and learning is clearly evident. In particular, the defining features of
the Rich Tasks relate very closely to characteristics of the constructivist
environment (see Section 2.2.4). Additionally, the use of computers and
associated technology is an important aspect of New Basics and Rich Tasks.
The New Basics Project Technical Paper (Education Queensland, 2000) refers
to the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) philosophies and identifies that
although technology is not a solution to poor practice; it is an important tool in
promoting student-centred, problem-based learning environments.
While the New Basics program has created much interest in curriculum reform
in schools around Queensland since 2000, only a relatively small percentage of
state schools in Queensland are registered as New Basic schools. However,
since the introduction of New Basics, many schools have adopted components
of the program or a similar framework for curriculum design. As the Rich Tasks
56
are a set of defined tasks associated with the New Basics Program, it is common
that schools who have devised similar tasks use a different term. Some
examples of the terms used in Queensland non-New Basic schools include Core
Assessment Tasks (Longman, 2002), Multi-disciplinary Tasks (Zilm, 2004) and
Authentic Tasks (Brisbane Girls Grammar School, 2003). The focus school in
this study used the term Quality Tasks to describe the tasks (see Section 4.4).
2.4.8 Educational computer use in the context of this study
Since the early 1980s, it seems that despite significant advances in the both the
development of computer hardware and software applications, technology is
often not used in some classrooms to meet new expectations. It appears that
merely providing access to equipment will not bring about a change and that
teachers need support to evaluate their own teaching beliefs and to
reconceptualise their teaching paradigm. While the prescription of new methods
has put considerable pressure on teachers, policy alone is unlikely to achieve
reform. Rather, a more effective way to bring about change is to identify
instances of best practice and then focus on associated methods, management
and strategies that may be useful for teachers trying to use computers in new
and meaningful ways.
This study identifies teachers who are confident and successful in integrating
computers into their classroom teaching. It will endeavour to identify methods
used by these teachers, and in particular, it will identify specific scaffolding
strategies that teachers use with children working with computers. Thus, this
research will significantly contribute to knowledge pertaining to effective
computer use in classrooms.
2.5 Summary
This literature review has addressed the cognitive and pedagogical perspectives
of constructivism, socio-cultural theory and scaffolding and has discussed the
area of computers in education. It has described a constructivist approach to
teaching and addressed the nature and scope of scaffolding. In particular, it has
discussed scaffolding in relation to computer use and has situated the concept of
scaffolding within the context of this research.
57
The chapter has also described historical aspects of computers in education and
has identified that current policy has prescribed a restructuring of educational
practices in response to technological trends. Furthermore, it has recognised a
move away from the traditional transmission model of teaching towards student-
based learning and constructivist-based teaching methods. Additionally, it has
outlined the characteristics of an “exemplary computer-using teacher” and tasks
that are considered suitable for employing computers with a constructivist
teaching approach.
It is apparent from this theoretical immersion that this study required the
consideration of a wide range of literature. Additionally, it is evident that the
related field is nebulous and is ill-defined. Previous research has established
teacher scaffolding as a powerful agent, although the nature of strategies and
their appropriate deployment is imprecise. Computers and computer software
have been considered as scaffolding devices for children’s learning, however,
the teacher scaffolding required for children working with computers has had
little attention.
Previous work by the author (Masters, 1997, 2003; Masters & Yelland, 2002;
Yelland & Masters, 1999) has found that teacher scaffolding made a
considerable difference to children’s learning while using computers. As a
consequence, it was also identified that teachers need to be informed about
appropriate scaffolding strategies in order to support children using computers.
58
3 Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design
3.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of two main parts. This first part of the chapter addresses
the methodological approach used for the study (see Sections 3.2-3.6). It
examines two approaches that have informed the methodology design and
describes the framework used to apply these methods to this specific study. The
second part describes the research design of the study (see Sections 3.7 – 3.12).
It includes a graphic representation of the research design and describes the
research context, the data collection processes and the data analysis.
3.2 Overview
The broad research question for this study was “How do teachers use
scaffolding to support children learning with computers?” This question was
designed to investigate the phenomenon of scaffolding and set the general
context of the study. The aims of the study were:
1. to identify what teachers know about the concept of scaffolding;
2. to portray the relationships, patterns and hierarchies of support strategies
that teachers use with children;
3. to describe the strategies used by an exemplary computer-using teacher to
support children working with computers;
4. to examine the instances of scaffolding used during the implementation of
an authentic computer-based task; and
5. to formulate theoretical constructs pertaining to teacher support strategies,
scaffolding and computers in a classroom environment.
The methodological approach of this study was interpretive with a focus on
constructivist investigation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The data interrogation
method chosen for the study was based on Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin,
1990) because the aims of the study were to develop theory relating to
scaffolding.
59
3.3 Constructivist inquiry methodology
The methodology for this study is constructivist inquiry (see Figure 3.1)
according to the philosophy of Fourth Generation Evaluation (Guba and
Lincoln, 1989).
Figure 3.1. A representation of the methodology of constructivist inquiry (Guba
& Lincoln, 1989, p. 174).
The principles of Fourth Generation Evaluation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) were
applied to the study in order to establish a critical perspective. This approach
moves beyond the positivistic perspective of the “scientific paradigm of
inquiry” into an evaluative mode (p. 35). This was especially applicable in the
classroom-based phase of the study (Phase 3, see Section 3.9.3) which
incorporated a case report based on naturalistic evaluation.
60
Guba and Lincoln (1989) proposed a “responsive constructivist approach” to
evaluation of a phenomenon. The term “responsive” indicates an integrated,
negotiated process involving “stakeholders,” while “constructivist” indicates an
inquiry paradigm rather than the scientific paradigm (p. 39). By definition, this
approach means that rather than seeking to extract facts from a situation, a study
should examine the phenomenon in its own context and then develop a
representation of the phenomenon in partnership with participants. It should be
noted, however, that this construction cannot be considered as evidence that can
be generalised to other circumstances but rather as an illustration of a specific
instance that will contribute to an overall understanding of the phenomenon. In
this study, this approach means that teachers have been included in the process
to negotiate a representation of scaffolding in teaching. This involved discussing
the emerging constructs with participating teachers and revisiting aspects of the
discussion as necessary.
The structure of constructivist inquiry is based on a number of entry conditions.
Firstly, the study is required to be conducted in a natural setting and “it is
essential that the study be carried out in the same time/context frame that the
inquirer seeks to understand” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 175). If a contrived
context is used, the understandings will not be relevant to the natural setting.
Secondly, a researcher should not assume that they know the research context
well enough to impose pre-determined questions. The researcher should enter
the setting as a learner, knowing only “what it is they don’t know” (p. 175).
Thirdly, the inquiry must focus on human instruments because humans are
effective sources of information and can be investigated through talk, the
observation of activity, reading written records and recording non-verbal cues.
Finally, a constructivist inquiry must be able to incorporate tacit knowledge
(Polanyi, 1966). Guba and Lincoln (1989) with reference to Polanyi, defined
tacit knowledge as “all that we know minus all we can say” (p.176.) In the
context of this study, this understanding refers to the intuitive knowledge that a
teacher might have about their classroom, their students and their own teaching
practices.
61
The process used to work with data in constructivist inquiry is the hermeneutic
dialectic circle (see Figure 3.1). Guba and Lincoln (1989) propose that the
hermeneutic dialectic circle is a process that develops understandings by
continuously shaping and testing ideas through negotiation with stakeholders
until consensus, or at least a shared understanding, is reached. During this
process, concepts are identified and then verified and this information is woven
into the understandings of the inquiry. Guba and Lincoln specify four elements
that interact in the hermeneutic dialectic circle. Firstly, participants are selected
through purposeful sampling, where the researcher deliberately chooses
respondents who can provide a broad scope of viewpoints. Secondly, new
information is incorporated into the circle as it emerges, in order to be
processed. Thirdly, the hermeneutic circle “has to do with grounding the
findings that emerge in the constructions of the respondents themselves” (p.
179). This means that the researcher must make sure that the respondents are
always represented in order to ensure the development of joint construction.
Finally, the actual study design must be emergent, thus as the study proceeds the
researcher should seek to refine and extend the design.
The case report (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) is the construction that is written as a
record of the hermeneutic dialectic process. This report illustrates the
circumstances of the inquiry and “helps the reader come to the realisation not
only of the states of affairs that are believed by constructors to exist but also of
the underlying motives, feelings, and rationales leading to those beliefs”
(p.181).
3.4 Grounded theory procedures and techniques
Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology named from the practice of
generating theory from research that is “grounded” in the data. The concept of
Grounded Theory was first described by the sociologists, Glaser and Strauss in
The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). Grounded theory methodology
emerged as an alternative to the traditional scientific approach that was popular
in social science at the time and relied heavily on hypothesis posing and
quantitative analysis. Glaser and Strauss began researching together at the
University of California in San Francisco, where they developed what they
62
described as a new approach to scientific investigation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
This approach was characterised by frequent data comparisons, methodical
coding processes and systemic theoretical sampling.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) outlined many of the key components of Grounded
Theory in their original work, however, subsequent publications by Glaser and
Strauss, writing alone or with others, began to reflect marked differences in how
each researcher saw Grounded Theory and its application (Babchuk, 1996). As a
result, conflict between the two researchers was documented with Glaser
publishing a critical discussion of works by Strauss (Glaser, 1992) in which he
claimed that Strauss did not understand Grounded Theory, and therefore, the
two had distinctly different methodologies (Babchuk, 1996). In 1994, in a
chapter on Grounded Theory in Denzin’s Handbook of Qualitative Research
(Strauss & Corbin, 1994), Strauss acknowledged that a number of different
guidelines and procedures for Grounded Theory had evolved over a number of
years. Strauss and Corbin suggested that Grounded Theory had undergone
“diffusion” in which the methodology had adapted to suit various disciplines
and circumstances and “does not always appear in ways that other grounded
theorists would recognise as ‘Grounded Theory’” (p. 277). This chapter was
also accompanied by a disclaimer that identified that the writing only
represented Strauss and Corbin’s views and that “others who have been part of
this intellectual movement will differ in their views of some of the points made
here and the relative importance given to them” (p. 273).
Babchuk (1996) suggested that since the originators of this methodology have
“agreed to disagree”, then it is imperative that researchers undertaking
Grounded Theory studies clearly specify which of the authors’ publications
were used to guide the study and articulate whose guidelines are used. The
methodology used for this study is based on the Strauss and Corbin publication
“Basics of Qualitative Research” (1990) in conjunction with their later
summary, Grounded Theory Methodology - An Overview (Strauss & Corbin,
1994). The guidelines and principles of the Grounded Theory methodology
according to Strauss and Corbin are outlined in the following section.
63
3.5 A framework of the study according to Grounded Theory
procedures
Strauss and Corbin (1990) defined Grounded Theory as “a qualitative research
method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively
derived Grounded Theory about a phenomenon” (p. 23). In this sense, a theory
is built through interpretation of data to form “a theoretical rendition of reality”
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 22). This theoretical formulation can then be used,
not only to explain but also to provide a framework for action. The following
analysis examines Strauss and Corbin’s procedures and their application in the
context of this study. This discussion incorporates establishing a research
question (see Section 3.5.1), establishing the theoretical sensitivity of the
researcher (see Section 3.5.2), with three data coding stages (see Section 3.5.3)
and representing the theoretical concepts (see Section 3.5.4). The process then
requires theoretical sampling (see Section 3.5.5) and a summary of the findings
(see Section 3.5.6).
3.5.1 Establishing a research question
As the purpose of the Grounded Theory methodology ((Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
is to develop theory from the data, it is important that a research question does
not pre-empt the study by imposing theory. Consequently the research question
must begin as a broad focus that is “a statement that identifies the phenomenon
to be studied” (p. 38). The research question chosen for this study was “How do
teachers use scaffolding to support children working with computers?” This
question included key words that establish the phenomenon under investigation.
These words were: scaffolding, teachers, children and computers. These terms
were also used in the title of this study and were defined as parameters for the
literature review.
3.5.2 Establishing theoretical sensitivity
Theoretical sensitivity to the phenomenon was established through Immersion in
the context, which means that a researcher will be able to recognise important
data and give it meaning. This sensitivity of the researcher is derived from the
literature, personal experience and continual interactions with the data. The
study in this thesis was informed and indeed developed, from previous research
64
experience with children using computers (e.g., Masters & Yelland, 2002;
Yelland & Masters, 1999) and the investigation of the literature pertaining to
scaffolding and computers in schools (see Chapter 2). As the study progressed,
constant interaction with new data in tandem with existing knowledge ensured
that theoretical sensitivity was maintained.
3.5.3 Data coding
Data coding is a key feature of Grounded Theory methodology (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). The first step of the coding process is known as open coding
where the researcher examines the data, makes comparisons and asks questions
pertaining to the emerging structures. This is an analytic process in which
concepts are identified and developed into categories. The second phase of the
coding process is called axial coding. This is where the data is reassembled after
the “teasing out” process that occurred during open coding. Connections
between categories are made by using a coding paradigm that involves
conditions, context, action/interactional strategies and consequences. The final
phase of coding is selective coding. In this phase, the researcher selects core
categories and systematically relates them to other categories, validating the
relationships and developing categories that need further refinement. Data
coding occurred a number of times during the study sequence. This process was
used extensively in Phase 3 of the study and codes for 66 teacher support
strategies were developed to represent the teacher support interactions in the
classroom (see Appendix 5).
3.5.4 Representation of process
Strauss and Corbin (1990) noted that it is difficult to establish the concept of
progression or movement within a phenomenon. In this step, the researcher
must link any action and/or interactional sequences as it evolves over time.
Therefore, as the research develops, it is likely that the representation will begin
to take on a graphical shape in the form of flow diagrams and/or charts. At this
stage, the data can be represented in a diagrammatic form called the conditional
matrix. The matrix enables the researcher to distinguish and link levels of any
conditions and/or consequences. The representation of the scaffolding
65
phenomenon developed informally throughout this study and the final
representation of the phenomenon was established towards the end of the study.
3.5.5 Theoretical sampling
Theoretical sampling occurs to some extent at all phases of Grounded Theory
development and is a testing system of concepts emerging as the theory evolves.
Sampling involves addressing specific links within the data and applying them
to other circumstances to test for validity. This process continues until
theoretical saturation of all categories is accomplished. The process of
theoretical sampling has been used at all phases of this study, but especially
during analysis and representation where the goal was to analyse the emerging
categories of teacher support strategies and represent the information,
identifying relationships, patterns and hierarchies. It is imperative that
theoretical saturation is achieved at this point, in order to establish useful theory.
Theoretical saturation is reached when no new or relevant data seems to be
emerging and the relationships between categories are well established and
validated (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In this study, theoretical sampling was used
during cycles of negotiated construction in order to develop joint constructions.
This process will be explained in Section 3.12.
3.5.6 Summarising findings
Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggested that Grounded Theory findings should be
represented by memos, which are usually in the form of written records, and
logic diagrams (visual representations of relationships between concepts).
These records should be developed from the beginning of the study and will
play an important part in the final construction of the study report. Strauss and
Corbin (1990) believe that both memos and diagrams help the researcher gain
analytical distance from the data and, therefore, reach a level of abstract
thinking.
3.6 A multi-method approach
The inquiry approach of a constructivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) is
well matched with the Grounded Theory concept of emergent theory. While the
Grounded Theory technique will provide a clearly defined process for
66
conducting the study and examining the data, the responsive constructivist
evaluation perspective will give an additional dimension of reflection and
quality control.
3.7 Research design
An overview of the sequence and scope for this study is provided in Figure 3.2.
This study consisted of three phases of investigation. The purpose of Phase 1
was to investigate the concept of scaffolding presented in the literature. Phase 2
involved interviewing teachers who had been identified as exemplary (Becker,
2000) in using computers in their classrooms in order to ascertain their
awareness of the strategies they used to scaffold children using computers. One
teacher was then selected from the interview cohort for Phase 3. This phase
involved an investigation of the support strategies used by the focus exemplary
teacher during an extended computer-based task in her classroom over eight
weeks.
On the sequence and scope diagram (Figure 3.2), coding is illustrated with a
circular arrow to indicate the cyclic nature of this process. Thus, in each of these
phases the coding cycle continued until firm categories were established. The
data were then coded and analysed in order to identify patterns and to ascertain
concepts emerging from the study. This information was written in the form of a
case report and the outcomes from the study were represented as theoretical
constructs.
67
scope of
scaffolding
informedposition
observations of teaching
teacherstacit
knowledge
negotiatedconstructions
observations of teaching
negotiatedconstructions
interviews with children
Observations and focused interviews with exemplary teachers
informedposition
stimulatedrecall with
video
reflectionsand field notes
Constructivist Inquiry Product
Research Sequence and Scope
teacher selection
Case Report
hermeneutic
respondents
dialectic circle
respondents
(teacher & researcher)
dialectic circle
hermeneutic
Theoretical ImmersionAnalysis of literature
research literature
Phase 1: Conceptualisation: What is scaffolding?
Phase 2: Investigation: What understandings do teachers have about supporting children
working with computers?
Functional Immersion
(teachers)
Phase 3: Implementation: How does a teachersupport children working with computers?
Practical Immersion
Outcomes: How do teachersuse scaffolding to support childrenlearning with computers?
Evaluative report on how teachers use support children
working with computers.
teacher'stacit
knowledge
Investigation of teacher scaffolding of computeruse during an authentic task
Figure 3.2. A representation of the sequence and scope for the study.
3.8 Participants
The participants of this study were primary school teachers from a school
known for exemplary practice in the use of computers in education (see Section
68
3.11). While the teachers were the main participants for this study, their students
were ancillary participants during data collection sessions based in classrooms.
Eight teachers were selected on recommendation from the school Principal for
interview and then one of the teachers was chosen for the in-depth study on the
basis of survey and interview data.
3.9 Research phases
The three phases of data collection, Phase 1-Theoretical Immersion, Phase 2-
Functional Immersion and Phase 3- Practical Immersion are described in this
section. Table 3.3 provides a brief overview of the phases as an advance
organiser.
Table 3.1
Overview of Research Data Collection Phases. Phase Subjects Data Reported in 1: Theoretical Immersion NA Research literature
Chapter 2
2: Functional Immersion Teachers (N=8)
- Teacher survey (Appendix 1) - Observation notes - Interview scripts (Appendix 2) - Negotiated construction feedback (Appendix 4)
Chapter 4
3: Practical Immersion Focus teacher (N=1)
- Observations over a 5 week period – represented by 11 video-taped vignettes - Researcher reflective journal - Stimulated recall interview script
Chapter 5
3.9.1 Phase 1 – Theoretical immersion
The aim of Phase 1 was to review the literature relating to scaffolding. This
examination involved investigating the research literature. Additionally, the
study incorporated the examination of online information to contribute to an
understanding of scaffolding in education. These data were used to construct the
literature review chapter (see Chapter 2) and to inform the implementation of
the subsequent phases.
3.9.2 Phase 2 – Functional immersion
The second phase of this study focused on strategies used by teachers when they
supported children using computers. An important objective of this phase was to
69
locate teachers who were considered to be exemplary in using computers to
support teaching and learning. The teachers from this stage were observed and
interviewed to ascertain teachers’ familiarity with the concept of scaffolding.
This phase also was used to recruit a candidate for the Practical Immersion
phase (Phase 3). In order to find suitable teachers, a suburban school with a
reputation for incorporating computers into the curriculum was recruited. The
analysis of Phase 2 is reported in Chapter 4.
3.9.2.1 Research context
The selected school was developed as an Australian ACOT (Apple Classrooms
of Tomorrow) School / Teacher Development Centre (1997-2000) and is one of
240 schools world-wide that has Apple Distinguished School status. The Apple
Distinguished School program was designed to recognise schools that are
“lighthouses” of the education community and demonstrate “best practice in the
application of computers as multimedia teaching and learning tools” (Apple
Computer, 2003).
The study school was designed to be a state-of-the-art technology institution and
was purpose built with facilities to support the integration of information and
communication technologies in the classrooms. The infrastructure of the school
incorporated at least four networked multimedia computers in each classroom
with ceiling wiring to enable them to be situated in central hubs. There was also
a large screen monitor on a movable trolley for every two classrooms that could
be connected to any of the computers. Additionally, the students had access to
peripherals, such as still and movie digital cameras, and scanners. A full time
ICT coordinator supported classroom teachers at the school.
Another feature of the school was the Teacher Development Centre which
provided professional development for teachers in using computers effectively
in classroom teaching practice. The Centre also ran a program through which
teachers from other schools could visit to observe the teachers using ICT with
students and participate in discussions about staff development, and school
change. The stated learning outcomes of the Teacher Development Centre
70
(reference withheld to maintain anonymity) are that participants are presented
opportunities to develop an understanding of:
• constructivist classroom practice,
• the role of computers in supporting effective learning and teaching,
• strategies to integrate computers into classroom practice, and
• a range of applications of computers to support a student-centred
constructivist approach to learning and teaching.
3.9.2.2 Teacher selection
The study and the research instruments were described in an initial interview
with the Principal. During this interview, the Principal was asked to identify up
to ten teachers who were considered to be exemplary in using computers to
participate in the study. Although the criteria for an exemplary teacher were not
prescribed, the context for exemplariness was set during the interview through
discussion of the research survey (see Appendix 1) and interview schedule (see
Appendix 2). These instruments are described in Section 3.9.2.3. When
contacted following the interview, the Principal nominated eight teachers that he
considered suitable for participation and who were willing to be interviewed.
The subsequent focus group for this phase included both male and female
teachers (N=8) from across the primary school (Years 1-7). All but two of the
teachers taught in a team (where a pair of teachers combined classes) and two
taught individually. The selected identifiers and the demographics of the eight
teachers selected for Phase 2 are displayed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Identifiers and Demographics for Phase 2 Teachers. Identifier Gender Teaching team Year level No. of students
Teacher 1A female
Teacher 1B female
yes 2 & 3 50
Teacher 2A male
Teacher 2B female
yes 4 & 5 58
Teacher 3 female no 4 & 5 27
Teacher 4A female
Teacher 4B female
yes 2 & 3 48
Teacher 5 Female no 6 & 7 26
71
3.9.2.3 Phase 2 procedure
The purpose of Phase 2 was to investigate how the teachers reported on the
strategies they used to support children using computers. This phase was also
used to identify a teacher who would be suitable to participate in the Practical
Immersion phase of the study (Phase 3). The research instruments for this phase
were designed to highlight characteristics of exemplary computer-using teachers
(Becker, 2000).
A survey was used to map the teachers’ background profiles (de Vaus, 2002).
This survey included questions on educational qualifications, teaching history,
professional development on using computers in education and professional
leadership initiatives. It also gathered data on the profile of teacher’s current
class, such as number of children and the teaching approach in the classroom
(see Appendix 1).
The data from the survey was then enriched by in-depth, open-structured focus
interviews (Seidman, 1998) with the teachers. The interview was conducted
with either the sole teacher or the teaching team, where applicable, and took
place after a 30 to 40 minute observation of a computer-based teaching session
in the classroom. The interview was structured with a broad interview schedule
(see Appendix 2) and generally asked the teachers:
• To describe the learning activity involving computers in their classrooms;
• To describe their organisation and classroom management of this activity;
• To recall their role with children during the observation and to identify the
support strategies they used;
• To talk about scaffolding and their perceptions of the concept; and
• To identify their plans for integrated computer activity over the next term.
To support the discussion on scaffolding in the interview, the teachers were
shown a concept card (see Appendix 3) with scaffolding defined as “a process
that enables a child or a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a
goal which would be beyond his or her unassisted efforts” (Wood, Bruner &
Ross, 1976, p. 90).
72
The data from the survey was plotted onto a matrix in order to provide a visual
representation of the collective experiences of the teachers (see Figure 5.1). This
information along with the discussion generated in the interviews, was then used
to select a teacher who appeared to be informed and experienced in regards to
supporting children using computers, a teacher who could be classified as an
exemplary computer-using teacher (Becker, 2000).
3.9.3 Phase 3 – Practical immersion
The purpose of Phase 3 was to examine the practices of a teacher who had been
selected from Phase 2. The chosen teacher was Teacher 3 (see Section 4.4 for
teacher selection justification) and, as she was the only participating teacher for
Phase 3, she is referred to as the focus teacher after Phase 2. This research phase
involved observations of the focus teacher using computers with children in her
classroom in order to observe and identify the application of teacher support
strategies.
The data collection involved videotaping the teacher and her students in the
natural classroom setting while working on a quality task (see Section 2.4.7).
The frequency and duration of the collection episodes were flexible depending
on the classroom activity associated with the task. A total of twelve sessions
were recorded over an eight week period.
During Phase 3, the focus teacher was not prescribed support strategies to use
with the children. Additionally, the teacher was not asked to use any specific
software types or titles with the children. Instead the focus of this phase was on
documenting an exemplary computer-using teacher endeavouring to support
children with computer use in the context of her everyday teaching.
3.9.3.1 Research setting
The class observed in this study was a Year 4 and 5 group, with 29 children (11
girls and 18 boys) aged between 8½ and 11 years. The group occupied a large
modern classroom which was arranged with four computers in the classroom.
The classroom was separated from the next class by a concertinaed sliding panel
that could be closed or opened as required. This meant that it was possible for
73
the teacher to access the computers in the classroom next door, with access to
eight computers in total, when that class was away from the room, for example,
at the library or at a music specialist lesson (see Figure 3.3).
82
0Wet Area
820
Entry
TV
Figure 3.3. A map of the Phase 3 classroom including access to the adjoining
classroom.
3.9.3.2 The Quality Task
The class had been investigating “Earth and Space” as a theme for the final term
in the year (12 weeks). This topic had been integrated across the curriculum
and the children had been studying related concepts such as planets and
geological formations through a fantasy scenario where an Alien called “Marty”
from Endor (a fictional planet located out from Pluto) visited our planet, Earth.
The children considered the characteristics of Marty’s planet and the appearance
of the character. Each child built modelling clay figures of their imaginary
Marty and then wrote a narrative of Marty travelling to Earth. The culminating
74
activity for the theme was for the children to work in groups of three or four and
use the computer to produce a modelling clay animation (a QuickTime movie)
depicting the alien Marty’s return to its home planet of Endor after visiting
Earth. In the animation they needed to illustrate the sequence and features of the
homeward journey.
The task was broken down into a number of activities that were completed over
an eight week period. These included:
1. Deciding on the story. The group needed to work with their individual
existing stories and Marty figures to negotiate a common character and
plot for the animation;
2. Storyboarding the plot. The groups used prepared storyboard grids on
large paper to plan out the sequence;
3. Designing and producing the props. The children needed to adapt or
develop a Marty figure using modelling clay and then develop the set for
the movie. This included a backdrop, a foreground and any objects on
the set;
4. Filming the sequence. The children used a teacher developed film studio
with a stage and a digital camera on a tripod. They needed to arrange the
set and then take a series of still shots in order to develop the animation.
When the computer disk had reached capacity, the children took the disk
with the still shots to a computer and loaded them into the QuickTime
software;
5. Computer editing. When the filming was complete, the groups
previewed their sequence and removed any superfluous slides or slides
with errors, such as shots that had inadvertently captured an image of
someone’s hand;
6. Creating a mask. This was the first in a two-step process to create a
frame for the animation to play. This process “masked” out the section
of the animation that was to be displayed;
7. Adding the frame. The groups created the frame design and layered the
two images together;
8. Music soundtrack. The children selected a portion of a track from a
commercial CD and used I-movie to add the music to the animation; and
75
9. Reflection. The teacher used various mechanisms for the children to
reflect on both the product and the process of this activity. This included
informal sharing of the animations in class time, a parent evening where
children displayed their work and the production of a CD that children
could borrow to take home. For the purpose of this study, reflection also
included a focus group interview with the researcher where each group
demonstrated their animation and spoke about the construction process.
3.9.4 Case report
The analysis of data in this study (see Chapters 4 and 5) focused on representing
and mapping the relationships, patterns and structure of teacher support
strategies that emerged during the study. This process included examining
strategies described by the teachers and the strategies that were observed during
implementation. It also included an examination of computer-specific support
strategies.
The final stage of this study involved the formulation of theoretical constructs
relating to the use of teacher support strategies with children working with
computers in classrooms. The concepts that emerged describe how an
experienced teacher supports children working with computers. This
information also gives direction for development of strategies teachers can use
to support children using computers.
3.10 Data collection
Throughout the study, data were collected from a number of sources, initially
for the purpose of negotiated construction and then to develop artefacts for
coding and analysis purposes (see Section 5.2). Additionally, a reflective journal
(Yinger & Clark, 1981) was maintained by the researcher for the duration of the
study. This document included field notes kept during observations of
interactions and any insights or avenues for investigation that came to mind
during the research process.
76
The data from Phase 1 (Theoretical Immersion) were established from a range
of literature types. This information was presented in Chapter 2 in a literature
review.
The data from Phase 2 (Functional Immersion) were collected by written
observations and then audio recording of interviews. From this information, a
report was constructed to represent the classroom activity and a transcript of the
interview. In accordance with the cycle of negotiated construction (see Figure
3.2), the report for each teacher was presented in a reflection table and returned
to the teachers. The teachers were asked to provide written reflections for both
the classroom activity and the interview. This provided them with an
opportunity to clarify comments, add further information or reflect on the
discussion and the classroom activity (see Appendix 4).
The data for Phase 3 (Practical Immersion) were obtained primarily by video
capture in the classroom. The focal point of this study was on teacher activity
and, therefore, the purpose of filming was to record the focus teacher. This
meant that video capture included the teacher addressing the class, the teacher
working with small groups or pairs and/or the teacher working with an
individual. The teacher wore a lapel microphone to capture the sound from her
perspective. This microphone recorded not only what the teacher said but also
any comments made by children during conversations she had with them. In
order to maintain anonymity, pseudonyms are used in all records when children
are identified by name.
In total, 540 hours of video footage was collected, and, in a process of data
reduction (Miles & Huberman, 1994), this footage was viewed and used to
construct eleven vignettes to represent the process of the task. These vignettes
were not continuous footage of the activity, rather they were edited into
segments to show pertinent moments of the quality task when the focus teacher
was interacting with the students. The average length of each vignette was six
minutes. The total time of the selected vignettes was just under one hour. For
the purpose of analysis, the video segments were transcribed to form vignette
records. While the teacher’s comments were written in full in these records, any
77
discussion or action by the student was summarised. This was because the
critical component of each record was the teacher’s interactions, with the
children’s roles as a secondary feature.
After the implementation of the quality task, the focus teacher was interviewed
in an in-depth focused discussion. The purpose of this interview was to ask the
teacher to reflect on her implementation of the task and in particular the
strategies that she used when she supported the children through the process.
During this interview the video vignettes were shown to the teacher to allow for
stimulated recall (Tuckwell, 1980). Stimulated recall involves the use of an
original stimulus to prompt the subject's memory of an event. During the
interview the teacher was shown the vignettes in sequence and was asked to
recall the task and her support of the children as the task progressed. While it
was intended to involve the teacher in the process soon after the completion of
the task, the time taken to edit the video was considerable and so it was several
months after the task implementation when this interview took place. It did
seem, however, that this was not an impediment to the discussion because the
teacher responded well to the video that she viewed.
Data collection, coding and analysis during this study have adhered to Grounded
Theory procedure (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The first stage of this process
required initial data collection from printed material, survey, interview and
video capture. In order to provide sources for coding, artefacts have been
created and archived in a paper-based format (photocopies, transcripts and
computer print-out). The artefacts for this process were acquired in the
following methods:
(a) Published and written documents
Printed work used as data for this study was photocopied and archived for
coding purposes.
(b) Surveys and interviews
The type of interviews ranged from broad survey-type investigation to in-depth
focused discussion. The format was dynamic with the degree of structure
78
changing according to the level or focus of inquiry. Interviews were recorded on
video or audiotapes and then transcribed as soon as possible after the interview.
These transcripts formed the data for Grounded Theory coding. Survey data
were collated and represented on a matrix.
(c) Video capture
The data from classroom observations (Phase 3) were obtained by video
capture. Salient data captured in these tapes were transcribed and used as
primary data for coding.
(d) Reflective journal
The researcher reflective journal was not coded. It was, however, a useful
source for cross-referencing concepts emerging from the data.
3.11 Data coding and analysis
In accordance with Grounded Theory methodology, the information extracted
from the sources (see Section 3.10) was open-coded, axial-coded and then
validated through selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Theoretical
sampling was then used to develop constructs. The data from this study were
presented in graphic form and also in a story genre. Vignettes from the
videotapes were used to illustrate specific aspects of the theory. Accordingly,
narratives of these incidents were established to illustrate pertinent issues
(Phillips, 1994). See Sections 5.1 and 5.2 for further description of video coding
and analysis processes.
The credibility of this study was established through progressive subjectivity,
member-checking and peer debriefing (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This was
achieved through a number of mechanisms. The researcher journal was
maintained to implement progressive subjectivity and to monitor developing
understandings (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This document recorded any priori
construction and then the developing constructions throughout the study. This
made it possible to pinpoint when constructs emerged during the study and then
cross-check these observations against data collected.
79
Additionally, a system of member-checking was implemented. Member-
checking included returning to discuss concepts with the teachers interviewed
initially periodically through the study and more frequently during the final
phase of establishing findings. Further data were obtained when the research
videos were used for stimulated recall with the teachers. This process has also
depended on peer debriefing in which the researcher “engaged in extensive
discussion of findings, conclusions, and tentative analyses with someone who
has no contractual interest in the situation” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 237).
This process included discussions with members of the associated research
centre, visiting academics, colleagues and other researchers.
3.12 Summary
This chapter outlined the research methodology and described the design
features of the study. The first part of the chapter identified that both the
principles of Fourth Generation Evaluation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and
Grounded Theory procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) were used to design the
methodology and the framework of this study. In the second part of the chapter,
the research design of the study was described. It presented a visual
representation of the research design and described the research context, the
data collection processes and the data analysis.
80
81
4 Chapter 4: Functional Immersion
4.1 Introduction
This chapter reports on the investigation into the functional aspects of how
exemplary computer-using teachers support children learning with computers.
In accordance with the research design (see Chapter 3), it represents a
progression from a theoretical immersion in the concept of scaffolding
presented in the literature review (Phase 1, see Chapter 2) into a cycle of
functional immersion (Phase 2). This chapter presents the results of the surveys
from eight teachers (see Section 4.2), summaries of observations in the teachers’
classrooms and the focus interviews with teachers (see Section 4.3). It also
identifies the teacher chosen for Phase 3 of the study and illustrates the
characteristics that identify the teacher as a suitable candidate (see Section 4.4).
4.2 Teacher survey
Phase 2 of the research design initially involved surveying teachers who had
been identified as “exemplary” at using computers in their classrooms (see
Section 3.9.2). The teachers were selected from a school known for the
immersion of computers into curriculum and were nominated by the school
Principal as examples of teachers who used computers competently in their
classrooms.
The research survey (see Appendix 1) was designed to highlight characteristics
of exemplary computer-using teachers (Becker, 2000). The survey included
aspects such as formal education in computer use, teaching experience,
participation in professional development on using computers in education and
evidence of conducting professional development on this topic. It also gathered
data on the profile of each teacher’s current class, such as the number of
children and the teaching approach in the classroom. The results of the survey
are displayed in Figure 4.1.
82
Question Teacher 1A 1B 2A 2B 3 4A 4B 5 A
GE
Age bracket 24-27 20-23 31-35 36-40 28-30 41-45 20-23 24-27
gender female female male female female female female female
1.2 Year of degree completion 1997 2000 1986 1983 1990 1980 1999 1998
1.3 Aspects of computers in degree
1.4 Enrolled/completed post-grad in computer studies
QU
ALI
FIC
ATI
ON
1.5 Enrolled/completed post-grad in non-computer studies
2.1 Years teaching 4 1 15 15 9 20 2 3
2.11 Years at current school 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 3
2.12 No. of schools 1 1 2 5 6 4 1 1
2.2 Year levels taught: Early/Middle/Upper E E M U E M U E M U E E M U
2.3 Any computer specialist role 1 - LT
HIS
TOR
Y
2.31 Any specialist role 1- deputy
3.1 PD held by school
3.2 PD held by professional association
3.3 PD held by commercial organisation
PD
(5 y
ears
)
3.4 member of QSITE
4.1 Computer policy dev. at school level
4.2 Policy dev. in wider community
4.3 Provided in-service in school
4.4 In-service in community /wider conf
PR
OF.
LEA
DE
RS
HIP
4.5 Other PL promoting computers
5.1 Year level 2 & 3 2 & 3 4 & 5 4 & 5 4 & 5 2 & 3 2 & 3 6 & 7 5.2 Class members total 50 50 58 58 27 48 48 26
CLA
SS
P
RO
FILE
5.3 Teaching structure team team team team solo team team solo indicates a generic match indicates post graduate study in an area other than education indicates professional leadership in a context beyond the school
Figure 4.1. Survey results of exemplary computer-using teachers for Phase 2.
The age range of the eight teachers surveyed was between 20 and 45, with a
median age of approximately 27. Seven of the eight teachers were female, with
only one male. The years of teaching experience varied from one year to 20
years with the median years of teaching being 6.5. This range indicates that
neither age nor teaching experience probably were indicative characteristics
when the Principal selected teachers from his school to be included in this study.
83
Of the eight teachers, five reported that they had completed or were enrolled in
post-graduate study but only one teacher (Teacher 3) had completed a post-
graduate study specifically about using computers. Not surprisingly, it was the
teachers who had recently graduated (with less than 5 years of teaching
experience) who had not participated in post-graduate study. One exception was
Teacher 5 who had commenced post-graduate study after only three years of
teaching.
The majority of the teachers in the study had not been teaching at the school for
many years. The average number of years at the school for each teacher was less
than 2 and four teachers were in their first year at the school. The two teachers
who had been at the school the longest, 3 years and 4 years respectively, had
been employed as graduates and had only taught in this school.
Six of the eight teachers reported to have had teaching experience in the early
years of primary education. Four of these teachers had only taught in the early
years while the other two reported experience across all levels of the primary
school, namely early years, middle and upper. The remaining two teachers
reported having taught in the middle and upper years of primary school. The
male teacher in the group, Teacher 2A, additionally reported that he had
experience in specialist school roles, firstly as a Learning Technology support
teacher and also as an acting Deputy Principal in a previous school.
All of the teachers in this group reported that they had participated in relevant
professional development provided by the school. It was interesting though,
only two teachers identified that they had attended professional development
opportunities beyond those provided by the school. Teacher 2A and Teacher 3
both reported that they had attended sessions provided by relevant professional
associations. None of the teachers surveyed had attended sessions provided by
commercial organisations and none of the teachers reported being members of
the state professional association relating to using computers in the classroom
(the Queensland Society for Information Technology in Education).
84
All of the teachers nominated for this study had participated in some type of
professional leadership in the area of using computers in education. Four
teachers reported being involved in school policy development relating to the
incorporation of computers in teaching although no one had been involved in
policy making at a level beyond the school. All teachers had participated in
professional development activity at a school level and two had participated at a
wider community level. Five teachers noted that they had presented at a
conference in the wider educational community. Finally, two teachers identified
that they had participated in other professional leadership programs that
promoted the use of computers in education.
Discussion
The matrix displaying the results of the survey (Figure 4.1) gives an overview of
age and gender, teaching experience, breadth of experience, qualifications
accumulated and the professional development profile of each teacher. This
information contains some key indicators of exemplary computer-using teachers
(see Section 3.9.2) such as participation in professional development and
involvement in professional leadership in the field. All of the teachers had been
identified by the Principal as exemplary computer-using teachers and the survey
revealed they all had shown some characteristics that might have supported this
status. It is, however, evident from the matrix that some teachers exhibited more
of these characteristics than others.
4.3 Classroom observations and teacher interviews
The survey information was elaborated by conducting observations in the
classrooms and interviews with the teachers. The methodological approach used
for this phase is described in Section 3.9.2.3.
The interview (Appendix 2) asked the teachers:
• To describe the learning activity involving computers in their classrooms.
• To describe their organisation and classroom management of this activity.
• To recall their role with children during the observation and to identify the
support strategies they used.
• To talk about scaffolding (after being shown a definition) and their
perceptions of the concept.
85
• To identify their plans for integrated computer activity over the next term.
After the interviews were conducted, the teachers were given an opportunity to
review the information they had provided in the interview. Each teacher was
provided with a transcript of their interview with blank columns for comments.
This allowed the teacher to review the information discussed in the interview
and then elaborate or clarify if they wished to do so (see Appendix 4).
A description of each classroom observation and teacher interview is provided
in Sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.5. Teachers who taught in the same setting were
observed and interviewed together (see Section 3.9.2). The term quality task
was used at the school in reference to an integrated curriculum task or a “rich”
task (see Section 2.4.7). Any reference to curriculum or syllabus documents
relates to the Queensland syllabuses (Queensland Studies Authority, 2004).
4.3.1 Teachers 1A and 1B
Classroom observation
Teacher 1A and Teacher 1B taught together in a Year 2 and 3 class with 50
children. The teachers worked in a cooperative mode with two classrooms
joined by a small activity room and a teacher work area. The in-classroom
observation was made in one classroom in a computer activity centre with four
computers (see Figure 4.2). At least one teacher was in the classroom all of the
time while at times both teachers were present. Some children were away from
the classroom working at a remote computer lab with a teacher aide and other
children were working on off-computer tasks outside the classroom. The
computer-based task was building a timeline on the theme of “past, present and
future” in the multimedia software Hyperstudio. During the observation there
were up to six children at the computers at any one time with some working as
individuals and others in pairs.
86
820
82
0
Figure 4.2. Layout of teachers 1A and 1B’s classroom
Throughout the observation, children were working on a number of tasks. A
group gathered around Teacher 1A while she supported their downloading
images from a digital camera. Other children were inserting images into
Hyperstudio and Teacher 1B either gave them instructions or recruited other
children in the class with appropriate technical knowledge for peer coaching.
Towards the end of the session, Teacher 1A sat with one child and reviewed his
timeline with him. At one stage she asked him to stop and show her a technique
that he had used of which was unfamiliar to her. At the end of the session,
Teacher 1B identified that “time was up” and the children saved their work and
moved back to the main classroom.
Interview
Teachers 1A and 1B identified that the quality task that the children were
working on supported outcomes from the SOSE (Studies of Society and
Environment) syllabus. The children were required to choose a social aspect,
such as transport, and then represent this aspect in the past, present and offer a
prediction for the future. In terms of technical skills, the teachers particularly
wanted the children to experience using the scanner for the first time and then
manipulate the scanned images for insertion into their Hyperstudio timeline.
Additionally, the teachers identified that the task had a literacy focus with
87
emphasis on the editing process. This focus was made explicit by providing a
teacher supported editing session with each child.
Although it was usual for a rotational program to be used for computer access in
this setting, the teachers identified that the sequence observed in this instance
was atypical. In order to finish the task, the two teachers had decided to pair the
children so that children who were not yet finished could have support from
someone who had been through the process. To monitor the overall process, the
teachers had created a large colour checklist that was displayed at the front of
the class. As the children met specified outcomes, they were required to check
their name on a list.
When asked about the teacher’s role in supporting children using computers in
their classroom, the Teacher 1B identified a strategy of “coming from behind.”
She suggested that the children worked towards the goal and her role was to
ensure that no-one “straggled” with the task. Teacher 1A added that it was
important to facilitate rather than control the situation. She recounted a previous
computer-based activity where at the beginning she felt that the two teachers
were personally responsible for each child’s product. This had caused a huge
workload and a great deal of stress. Their strategy for alleviating this situation
was to call the children together for an intense sharing and modelling session
where it was made explicit to the children that they must be responsible for their
own product. She reported that this session was very valuable and “they just got
it.”
In order to support children who had difficulty with computer tasks, the teachers
identified that they used intense one-on-one sessions in spare time or at lunch-
time. During these sessions one of the teachers or a selected child who
understood the technical process well and had been taught how to support their
peers sat with the child and facilitated the construction. Part of this process
included encouragement particularly when the task was successfully completed.
Teacher 1A identified that rather than simply selecting computer processes that
they felt the children were capable of or those that they were comfortable with
88
themselves, they tended to use whatever process was required to complete the
desired task. This sometimes led to situations where the teachers themselves
were required to model problem-solving processes and sometimes seek help
from other experts. In these situations they suggested it was useful to work in a
teaching team because they could ask each other and solve the problem
collaboratively. They maintained that this was a suitable model for the children
too and they reported that often the children performed tasks far more difficult
and involved than tasks they would have selected for their children.
The teachers agreed that the role of teacher was often to allow problem-solving
to flow rather than to intervene as soon as a child had a problem. They referred
to the slogan “ask three people before me” they use in their class. Teacher 1A,
however, did suggest that she would move quickly to intervene in two cases.
The first situation would be if one child in a pair was taking over when the other
child was supposed to be in control. The other condition would be when she
noticed a child was becoming distracted by a technical aspect in a task and
losing sight of the overall goal. She gave the example of a particular child who
had just learnt how to insert buttons into the Hyperstudio pages. He had filled
the page with buttons and seemed to have forgotten that buttons had a specific
purpose on a page. When she intervened she said that rather than simply
instructing him to remove them she asked him about the purpose of the buttons.
Once he had remembered the task, he could continue independently.
When the teachers were shown the definition card of the term scaffolding (see
Appendix 3), they agreed that the term was applicable to their situation. They
did, however, seem somewhat uncomfortable with the label and Teacher 1A
commented that maybe modelling was a term that they used instead and
suggested that modelling (or scaffolding) could be defined as either structured
or incidental. Teacher 1B suggested that scaffolding was perhaps a term that
was used in formal written documents rather than teacher discussion. They
recalled, however, that the term was used when they were in university. When
asked if they used any other terms, they identified sharing as being significant.
In particular they felt that a child sharing with other children was a valuable
89
form of scaffolding. They suggested that child-to-child support was different
from teacher support and could often be more beneficial.
Teacher 1A and 1B identified that they intended to implement a unit on well-
being in the following term. The quality task for concluding the unit was the
construction of a sample bag with a number of products, created and collected,
relating to health. They were planning to start the unit by asking children to
create a brochure on the computer relating to some aspect of healthy living.
Discussion
Although Teacher 1A and 1B had both been teaching for a relatively short
period of time (4 years and 1 year respectively), they appeared to be a confident
teaching team. They also seemed to have a sound grasp of pedagogy and were
confident with the integration of computers in their classrooms. Although they
did not relate strongly to the concept of scaffolding, they were observed using a
number of strategies to support children using computers including recruiting
children to work with others, reminding children of the ultimate goal and asking
a child to explain new processes.
4.3.2 Teachers 2A and 2B
Classroom observation
The teachers in this Year 4 and 5 class were the more experienced than most of
the teachers interviewed and they had both been teaching for 15 years. There
were 58 children in the class and during the observations the children were
working individually and independently on a variety of tasks in two adjoining
rooms. The two teachers were supporting the children to complete tasks and a
teacher aide and a parent were helping in the classroom. Teacher 2A was
supervising a mathematics activity which involved a geometry task on the
computers. This activity involved photographing an image from around the
school and then using a paint program to superimpose geometric shapes on to
their images. Teacher 2B was also supervising mathematics and this
incorporated several Logo activities using the software Microworlds on the
90
computers. The main observation during this time was focused on the room
designated to Teacher 2A (see Figure 4.3).
820
820
Wet Area
820
820
Entr
y
Entry
2B
2A
Figure 4.3. Layout of teachers 2A and 2B’s classroom.
It was quite difficult to observe in this setting because the interactions were
complex and occurred between children, between teachers and children, and
with the parent helper and the teacher aide. In this situation, it appeared that the
children stayed in one location and the teachers moved to them to monitor,
assist and encourage. Teacher 2A spent much of the observation time dealing
with technical issues, such as locating folders on the computer to store graphics.
At times, he took control of the mouse and prepared the computer for children
to use. The teacher aide also checked technical details with him. Teacher 2A
also spent time managing movement of children to and from the computers and
keeping track of time. Teacher 2B seemed to be mostly monitoring the children
that she was working with and the children worked quite independently. At
times, she offered her help globally, calling to the group, “Anybody need my
assistance? I’m now available”. She also moved between children, admiring
91
their efforts, making suggestions and giving them encouragement to progress
with the task.
Interview
The teachers in this setting explained that, during the observation, their children
were working individually on mathematics tasks. The children were doing three
different tasks according to ability groupings. These activities were (a) a
geometric shapes activity, (b) a Logo maze activity, and (c) a Logo polygon
activity where children calculated the sum of the turns made by the on-screen
turtle. Teacher 2A identified that an outcome that he expected from the
geometric shape activity was that the children could isolate two-dimensional
shapes in the environment and then extend that understanding into three
dimensional shapes. He also identified that in this task he was monitoring to see
if children had the technical abilities to save their work in their own folder on
the computer. Teacher 2B suggested that the focus of the Logo maze activity
was “note-taking” and the ability to write instructions for other children to
follow. The Logo polygon group was expected to demonstrate an understanding
that the sum of the turns required for the turtle to draw any polygon was 360
degrees.
When asked about the management of computers in the classroom, the teachers
reported that the placement of the computers was very important. The
computers needed to be in a location where the teachers could supervise but
enabled them to see the rest of the class. Teacher 2A explained that the children
usually had core work that they could do at their seats when they were not
working on the computers. The core work was usually a consolidation activity
which could be done independently freeing the teacher to focus on supporting
the group or groups at the computer. Teacher 2B added that it was important to
be able to support children working at the computers on a needs basis. Some
children could work relatively independently but they required easy access to a
teacher when necessary. While the class often worked as groups or pairs,
Teacher 2A explained that these particular tasks required that children worked
alone as they were interested in an individual’s perseverance. This, however, did
92
not prevent the children asking other children for help and an “ask a buddy”
culture was promoted in the classroom.
Both Teacher 2A and 2B were confident in discussing their support role for
children working on computers. Teacher 2B identified that the children using
Logo had worked on their activity on two previous occasions and had developed
a degree of independence. She offered “I wanted them to feel independent and
capable of doing it themselves. I just came back and said, ‘How are you going?’
getting them to report to me.” Teacher 2A suggested that his role was
facilitative where he made himself available to guide and support. He also
explained that he targeted a few children who he thought might have
difficulties. When a child had a technical problem that might be of interest to
other children, he gathered a group together to explain the solution.
Both teachers had identified that while the set tasks were designed to promote
independent working skills, they felt it was appropriate at times to step in and
interact with the child. Teacher 2B suggested that there were physical signs that
indicated when a child had become too frustrated with the task noting that “they
are sitting there, looking around.” Teacher 2A discussed the balance between
supporting and helping too much, saying:
You do allow time for them to try and work it out for themselves.
Hopefully we talk about encouraging these kids to persevere at
something and some are good at it and some do struggle. Some – it is
too hard – and they stop straight away. And they are the ones we try and
work on and get them to look for different ways, look at different
strategies to overcome a problem. And then I go through it with them
again at the end of the lesson. What do you do if you are stuck on this?
What are some of the strategies you can use? So it is supporting them in
that way and only at the last resort telling them what to do.
Teacher 2A indicated that the teacher support strategies required changed as the
year progressed and it was important to recognise what prior experiences
children had before they started in the class. He also stressed the importance of
93
a teacher being reflective, thinking about which support strategies work and
how interactions could be managed differently to optimise learning.
When asked about the term scaffolding, Teacher 2A said that it was
“something” that he did “all the time” and identified that it was part of a
constructivist approach to teaching. Teacher 2B suggested that although she had
heard of the term while she was at university she really had not heard of it in an
applied sense until working at the current school. She identified that it was used
in the current setting and referred to the process of supporting both children
with difficulties and extending bright children.
Some of the terms that the teachers identified as being used in conjunction with
scaffolding included constructivism, cooperative learning, effective teaching
and learning and interactive teaching strategies. Teacher 2A agreed that
facilitating belonged in this category and Teacher 2B added that peer tutoring or
peer support was another related strategy.
When asked if the support strategies that he used when children were working
with computers could be considered as scaffolding, Teacher 2A suggested that it
varied as “sometimes it is scaffolding, sometimes it is more direct teaching.”
Teacher 2B indicated that in some ways direct teaching could be considered as
scaffolding because it could “give them enough knowledge to move up a level.”
Teacher 2A added that it was not always information that was required to get a
child “over the bump.” It could be emotional support or encouragement to give
children the confidence to persevere.
The extensive classroom experience of Teachers 2A and 2B was evident in their
responses to questions regarding supporting another teacher to scaffold
children’s learning. Teacher 2A quickly identified that it was important for a
teacher to plan for scaffolding opportunities, offering that “They would need to
plan for a teaching episode where the children had the opportunity to learn by
doing and to build on their prior knowledge and experiences and take it not only
linear, but more divergent as well.”
94
He also suggested that teachers should have a contingency plan that allowed for
the possibility that children would take a divergent path from what might have
been expected. He suggested that a teacher “may have already perceived where
that might happen and be semi-prepared, ready to go in that direction if you
need to.”
Teacher 2A further stipulated that teachers needed to recognise the manner in
which they talked with the children was very important. He said that teachers
had to provide emotional support in order to make learning a “warm, positive
episode.” Teacher 2B added that a teacher should also be aware children’s
capabilities and think about this aspect when they selected groups of children to
work together.
In the following term, the teachers from this class were planning a technology
unit on Constructing Our World. The quality task for this unit was the
construction of an educational toy for pre-school children. During the task, the
teachers planned to use a variety of computer software for design and display
purposes.
Discussion
The teachers in this classroom identified the concept of scaffolding with
constructivism and identified that it was a strategy that was, to some degree,
balanced by “direct teaching.” From the interview discussion it was apparent
that Teachers 2A and 2B related to the notion that scaffolding involved a
transition in learning as they spoke about knowledge moving “up a level” and a
teacher assisting a child to “get over a bump.” They also identified that the
teacher needed to support not only cognitive processes but also emotional
progress and the cohesion of groups of children working together.
It was difficult to ascertain much information about the teachers’ scaffolding
practices from the observation of this setting. The teachers had identified that
they were interested in how the children worked independently and so perhaps
were interacting less than they may have ordinarily done. While both teachers
95
monitored their students, they did not engage extensively with the children
while they worked on the tasks.
4.3.3 Teacher 3
Classroom observation
Teacher 3 taught a class of 27 Year 4 and 5 students. Her classroom adjoined
another Year 4 and 5 class, however, the two teachers chose not to work
collaboratively and the concertina divider usually remained closed when both
classes were in the classrooms. The computers were located in dominant
positions in the classroom (see Figure 4.4). During observations, the class was
working on two different tasks. Half the class were building models with Lego,
while the other half were working at the computers creating an electronic
portfolio as a web page. The teacher was moving around the classroom, working
with children as required. Her attention was predominantly with the children
using the computers.
820
Wet Area820
Entry
TV
Figure 4.4. Layout of Teacher 3’s classroom.
96
Teacher 3 spent much of her time watching the children working at the
computers and reinforcing the technical processes. As a child finished a task she
would acknowledge his or her achievements and then ask that child to verbalise
the next step that they were about to perform. When a boy had a problem that he
was unable to solve, the teacher sat with him while he reviewed the process.
When she realised that the problem was something she did not understand
herself, she asked the child for permission to take over the mouse. The process
of exploring helped her to identify the problem and then she explained it to the
child. Halfway through the session a timer went off. Although the teacher was
still involved with a child and did not move immediately from the computer, the
rest of the children in the class began to finish up and move back to their desks.
The teacher then announced that the groups should swap and a new set of
children moved to the computers.
In the second half of the session, the teacher again consistently monitored the
children at the computers. When one boy had a problem she referred him to the
steps of the process displayed on the wall near the computer. She also spent
some time talking about the design of web pages with two girls who were not
using the computers. While many of the teacher/child interactions were of a
technical nature, part of her discussions with children included the content of
the pages and how they would meet the needs of their intended audience. For
example, she asked one child “What is it your Grandma in England wanted to
have a look at?” As the session drew to a close the teacher began to monitor the
time, ensuring that the children finished their current task and saved their work.
By the time the timer went off the finishing and saving sequence was relatively
smooth.
Interview
Teacher 3 explained that the electronic portfolio project had begun during the
first term. As the children completed computer-based projects throughout the
year, they saved them into a specific folder on the computer. By the time they
began developing the web interface for portfolio in third term, the children had a
wide range of resources to showcase. The teacher identified that the main
outcomes for this project were related to web publishing and the technical
97
construction of web pages. She wanted the children to be able to understand
how web pages are connected and how images are referenced in the pages. She
also expected the children to develop an awareness of web ethics and security
by understanding what was appropriate to put on a web page and what they
should not include.
The teacher commented that the most usual form of management of computer
activity in her classroom was rotating groups. She went on though to explain
that the session observed was quite atypical as it was the last day of the term and
she had wanted to ensure that tasks were completed. She also explained that
children had been working independently on this task but some were working in
pairs during the observation to help children who were not as advanced with the
task. While she had not specified the pair groups for this task, she said that she
often paired a Year 4 student with a Year 5 student to “boost the Year 4’s
understanding.” It was interesting to note that each computer had one ergonomic
computer chair and additional children were required to pull up classroom
chairs. The teacher described that the class had a notion of a “driver chair.” The
child who was in that chair was in charge of the computer and other children
were not permitted to take over. Another significant aspect was that the teacher
used a number of devices as management tools. This included the timer, lists
with group rotations, instruction cards next to the computer and wall charts with
steps in a process. The teacher explained that these mechanisms were introduced
as part of her classroom environment and once the children were accustomed to
them, they responded well.
Teacher 3 described that her first interactions with the children for this activity
was to walk around and identify where children were up to in the process and
who required help. Then, when she was happy that most of the children were
working effectively, she focused on children who she knew might struggle to
get their work finished or those who might be less confident with the
construction process. She then sat with these children and supported them to
reach goals that they had set for themselves.
98
The teacher identified that it was important that children learnt how to solve
their problems, especially when they were performing processes that they had
been through before, however, she also recognised that when children had no
idea of what to do, it was essential to provide support. She said that it was
important to know the “body language” of each child and know when a
particular child required assistance. Sometimes her role was simply to remind
them of what they had done before or to provide reassurance that they were on
the right track.
Teacher 3 said that she had heard the word scaffolding before but it was unlikely
that she would use it in conversation. She commented that she was very aware
of the supporting processes she used while teaching and this was even more
evident when she was teaching adults in the school’s professional development
program. It did appear, however, that this teacher felt that the concept was
confined to using computer software. When she was asked about other concepts
that related to scaffolding, she described the process of breaking processes into
steps and the use of technical terms.
In the following term, Teacher 3 had planned a clay animation quality task with
her students. The theme for the term was Earth and Space and the children were
going to use a digital camera and the movie software QuickTime Pro to produce
a clay animation based on an alien who had visited Earth and was returning to
its home.
Discussion
Although Teacher 3 was not overly familiar with the concept of scaffolding, she
was very confident with the notion of reflecting on her teaching practices and
could effectively discuss strategies that she used to support the children in her
class. During observations, it was evident that Teacher 3 was very aware of her
own teaching practices and had not only planned the content of her lessons but
also the mechanisms she would use to support the students. This phenomenon
was not only apparent in the strategies that she used but also in the artefacts in
her classroom, namely the information charts on the walls, the rotation lists and
the timer.
99
In the observation period, Teacher 3 worked with children who recruited her
help but she also initiated interactions with children as they worked on the task.
She supported children with technical steps and also helped them to
conceptualise the task and make design decisions. Additionally, she gave
children emotional support and facilitated children working with other children.
4.3.4 Teachers 4A and 4B
Classroom observation
Teachers 4A and 4B were teaching 48, Year 2 and 3 children in a cooperative
setting. The two classrooms were diagonally connected with a concertina
divider. The divider was usually open and the children could work in both
classrooms (see Figure 4.5).
TV
Figure 4.5. Layout of Teachers 4A and 4B’s classrooms.
100
During classroom observations, the students were participating in rotational
reading activities and one task was to research Internet sites on health. The
children could either visit sites listed by the teachers on a card near the
computer or they could find their own sites with two search engine pages
provided. The observation began when the children return to classroom after
recess and sat on a mat in front of the TV for a briefing session. The children
had used the Internet previously but the teachers wanted to reinforce the steps
required. Teacher 4B started the session and explained the reading rotations.
After the mat session, the groups moved off to their activities. Two groups
worked at the computers in pairs. The teachers were loosely supervising a group
each with one in one room and the other in the other room. They both were also
supervising off- computer activities at the same time. At times, various children
using the computers attracted the teachers’ attention by raising their hand or
leaving the computer and moving to the teachers’ location. Sometimes the
teachers were able to go to the computer but, on other occasions, they indicated
that the child would need to wait until they were available.
Most of the problems seemed to be of a technical nature and usually were when
children mistyped a web address or a page failed to load. One of the strategies
used by both teachers was to ask the child to repeat the process with them
watching. This usually illustrated the problem clearly and sometimes the
problem was solved as a child repeated the process more accurately. On a few
occasions the teacher interaction did not relate to technical issues but to sharing
the content of the web pages or emotional support. Teacher 4A shared an
exciting moment with a child who had discovered on a website that “bones
aren’t white, they are brown.” The group rotated once during the session and
then returned to their seats to do some silent reading.
Interview
Teachers 4A and 4B explained that the children in their classes were currently
working on a report about the body. They required children to find useful
information on the Internet, with Teacher 4A explaining that “their goal is to
find information, information that they can understand as well. If it is too
101
difficult, particularly for our poorer readers, they need to go to some different
sites and find something that they can understand.” The teachers said that the
class had constructed some multimedia type projects earlier in the year and the
quality task for this term was based on research.
Teacher 4B identified that an important part of managing computers in their
classrooms was where the computers were physically located. She said that the
children’s desks were placed around the edges of the room and the computers
were in hubs between the two classrooms. Teacher 4A explained that the
dominant management style in their classrooms was rotational groups. Children
were allocated to groups for reading, mathematics or SOSE rotations and their
access to computers were with these different groups. They sometimes worked
in pairs at a computer if there were not enough computers or if one child was
having difficulties and needed a helper. Teacher 4A also suggested that the
children often chose to work with a partner from their group and this was
acceptable.
When asked about what strategies the teachers used when interacting with the
children at the computers, they identified that their first strategy was to let the
children investigate for themselves. When they came to a problem, the teachers
asked the children to talk the problem through with them rather than simply
giving them the solution. Teacher 4A reasoned that this was the way that they as
teachers had learnt about using computers and suggested that children would
also benefit from this approach. Teacher 4B explained that, during tasks that
required computer use, the two teachers often played different roles. While one
took a direct teaching role, the other would observe how the children were
progressing on the computers questioning them to make sure they were
achieving the required outcomes. Although the teachers preferred to allow
students to solve problems independently, they recognised that once a child
became very frustrated they would need to intervene. They also said that they
would mediate if children were having social difficulties or if disagreements
occurred with children working together at a computer.
102
Both teachers remembered hearing the term scaffolding at university when they
were studying reading and the whole language approach. However, they went
on to say that it was not a term that they heard used in teacher conversations.
They felt that the concept of scaffolding was part of their roles as teachers but
the term, along with other “jargon,” was not used per se. The teachers also
found it difficult to nominate other terms that they were likely to use. After
some discussion, they agreed that guided learning was a good way to describe
the support process.
Teachers 4A and 4B explained that they would be doing the same health and
well-being quality task as the other Year 2 and 3 class, as described by Teacher
1A and 1B. This was because in this school the teachers from the same year
levels worked together in their planning. They identified that the children would
produce a brochure on the computer and they would be able to choose either the
software KidPix or Appleworks to create it.
Discussion
The activity during observation in this setting was quite goal-oriented in that
children were locating websites to print out information. As a consequence, it
seemed that the focus for teacher intervention seemed to be more task-
orientated, that is, the technical process of loading a webpage, the rather than a
scaffolding process to support learning. During the interview, however, the
teachers did identify some strategies they used. The strategy of one teacher
being available to support while the other directed a teaching session was a
strategic mechanism for teachers working in a team.
4.3.5 Teacher 5
Classroom observation
Teacher 5 was a Year 6 and 7 teacher who worked in a single classroom. There
was an adjoining classroom, however, the structure of the demountable building
meant that it was not practical to house a double class in the two rooms. The
teachers of each class worked together, however, with each teacher being
responsible for different curriculum areas for each class. The teacher with this
103
class had been teaching for three years at the same school and had taught in
middle and upper primary.
When the researcher arrived at the classroom to observe, the children were
already under way with the task. The teacher explained that the Microworlds
project where the children were building an animation of space was almost
finished. She identified that the task was designed to test the children’s personal
understandings of Microworlds and therefore was far more individual than
usual. The teacher apologised that she would have little to do with the children
while they worked as “most of the explaining and scaffolding has already been
done.” Inside the classroom, six children were seated at computers on the one
side of the classroom. The remaining children were working individually at their
desks (see Figure 4.6).
820
820
Figure 4.6. Layout of Teacher 5’s classroom.
For much of the session the teacher watched the children but did not initiate
interaction with them. At times, the children at the computers talked with each
other without requesting assistance from the teacher. One child raised his hand
and the teacher sat with him to assist. She gave him some direction and then
withdrew her support moving to another child but still watching the original
104
child and giving support at times. After about 20 minutes, she called for
children at the computers to save their work and then asked them to rejoin the
rest of the class at the desks.
When all children had returned to their seats, the teacher called for attention and
explained what the class will do next as they rotated to new activities. She
reinforced the management plan in the classroom and reminded the children
who were going to use the computers that they should raise their hand if they
would like her help. She also suggested that if they did not have an idea of how
they might approach their problem, they should consider changing their plan
and do something less complicated.
Once the class had settled down to their new tasks, the teacher began to monitor
the children at the computers again. At times, she checked technical details with
children, particularly in relation to saving their work. She then left them to work
independently for 10 minutes and then returned. The school’s ICT coordinator
arrived at the door and one of the children met him and led him back to his
computer. The teacher, the child and the ICT coordinator proceeded to discuss a
problem that the child was having with network storage space. The ICT
coordinator left the classroom to check the child’s allocation and the teacher
moved back to her own desk. She rang a bell to indicate that time was up and
the children needed to finish up.
Interview
Teacher 5 explained that her children were working on an integrated quality task
based on the theme of Space. Over the term the children had been learning to
use Microworlds and they also had been investigating aspects of Space. This
task cumulated the term’s work and required the children to produce an
animated presentation on their understanding of space with the software.
Expected curriculum outcomes related to the Maths, SOSE, Science, English
and Technology syllabi, as well as generic skills such as problem-solving. The
teacher identified that she often used a rotating group model to manage
classroom access to the computers. This meant that she could divide the whole
105
class into four groups when she wanted individuals to have computer access or
in two if children worked in pairs.
When asked about her role when children were working with computers,
Teacher 5 explained that much of her support occurred initially when she
briefed the children about the task. During this process she encouraged the
children to write plans of what they wanted to do and what they needed to
know. Then, during the task, she monitored their progress and was available to
help if they had problems. She also stressed that it was important that she did
not actually solve the problem for the child. Rather, she wanted them to be
independent and work alone or with peers to develop solutions.
Teacher 5 said that she first heard the term scaffolding at university and then in
curriculum planning meetings with the Head of School for curriculum. She
suggested that this strategy represented “a difference between primary school
teachers and high school teachers” and it was particularly important to be aware
of this for her children as they were moving between primary and secondary
education. A related term that Teacher 5 identified was backward planning.
This term referred to the process the school used where they identified outcomes
they required from the children and then worked backwards to design a quality
task that would meet these outcomes. Another term that Teacher 5 suggested
was modelling. When asked about the interactions she might have with an
individual child, Teacher 5 found it difficult to define. She recognised that it
related to questioning and hinting to a solution without telling the child what to
do. She also thought that is was important not to stifle creativity and identified
that a teacher needed to allow children to choose their own directions in an
open-ended task.
Teacher 5 explained that her class would be working on a well-being unit in the
approaching term with a focus on physical and emotional health. While the unit
would not have a quality task as such, the children would be developing an
electronic portfolio based on a web page. She also identified that she was due to
have a student teacher working with her for the first three weeks of term and
that the class was due to attend camp later in the term. These disruptions in the
106
following term would make it difficult to conduct Phase 3 of the study in this
classroom.
Discussion
Teacher 5 had a broad conceptualisation of the term scaffolding and related it
not only to support strategies that she might use, but also to the strategies
teachers at the school used to design curriculum. She did, however, seem unsure
about the details of this concept and it may be possible that she was associating
the term with a general constructivist approach rather than a narrower notion of
a teacher support strategy.
In the activity observed in the classroom, Teacher 5 generally used a needs-
based approach where children who required help raised their hand for attention.
On these occasions she supported the children by asking guiding questions. The
availability of the ICT coordinator for children was an interesting option. In this
situation the children could extend the concept of “ask an expert” beyond their
peers and their teacher and engage the assistance of a specialist to help them
with technical difficulties.
4.4 Teacher selection
The process for selecting a focus teacher for Phase 3 of the study was described
in Section 3.9.2. The decision on which teacher to invite to participate in the
investigation of teacher scaffolding of computer use during an extended task
(Phase 3) was based on the data collected in Phase 2.
The first source of data considered was the survey matrix (see Figure 4.1). This
matrix gives an overview of age and gender, teaching experience, breadth of
experience, qualifications accumulated and the professional development profile
of each teacher, based on Becker’s (2000) characteristics of exemplary
computer-using teachers (see Section 2.4.6). This matrix provided some useful
information about the teachers surveyed. In particular it was important to select
a teacher who had at least 3 years experience in teaching and a good breadth of
teaching involvement. It was also preferable to select a teacher who had
107
demonstrated a committed interest to teaching and learning through extended
learning opportunities such as further education and professional development.
The next investigation was established by the observations and interview
discussions. The interview schedule asked the teachers to discuss the computer-
based tasks in the classrooms, the management of computer integration and their
roles in supporting children using computers. While it was not appropriate to
rate teachers on open-structured interview data (see Section 3.1.8.3), it was
evident that during the observations and the discussions, some teachers were
more fluent with aspects of teaching and learning relating to computer use than
others. This was demonstrated during the observations by proactive rather than
passive interactions and also by a heightened awareness of those processes
during the interview.
The interview schedule also included a discussion with the teachers on
scaffolding and associated theories. While a fluent knowledge of these aspects
perhaps could be considered a significant indicator of a teacher with enhanced
skills, this criterion was not particularly useful in distinguishing between
teachers in this case. This was because while all of the teachers interviewed had
heard of the term scaffolding, none of them were particularly familiar with it.
This perhaps provided support for the notion that scaffolding may be tacit
(Rogoff, 1990) where teachers can incorporate it into their teaching pedagogy
on an instinctive level rather than as an explicit process.
At the end of the interview, the teachers were asked about the computer-based
tasks that they would be implementing in the following term, any interruptions
they might have in their programs and whether they were interested in
participating further in the study. While these features were not contributors to
the teachers’ status as exemplary computer-using teachers, they certainly were
important in determining a teacher’s potential as a candidate for Phase 3 of the
study. Based on this logistical information, it appeared that some teachers were
more likely to be able to participate more fully than others.
108
The final factor for selecting a teacher for Phase 3 of the study was each
teacher’s participation in a process of negotiated construction where they were
given the scripts of the observations and interviews in their setting and asked to
provide written reflections (see Section 3.11). The teachers’ responses to this
process were quite varied. Some made a few brief notes. One merely wrote
“everything seems to be fine”, while one of the teachers used this process
effectively to analyse the discussion and her teaching approach. The ability to
engage in ongoing discussions about teaching practice could possibly been seen
as an indicator of having “a greater interest in … effective teaching and learning
processes” and denotes a characteristic of an exemplary computer-using teacher
(Becker, 2000, p. 278).
Based on the aspects described, the teacher who seemed to be the best candidate
for the Phase 3 data collection was Teacher 3. Teacher 3 had been teaching for 9
years and had had teaching experience across all sectors of the primary school.
Additionally, she had undertaken significantly more additional degrees and
academic programs than the other teachers, even than those who had finished
their first degree less recently. She had also participated in more professional
development and professional leadership opportunities than any of the other
teachers.
During the classroom observation and the subsequent interview, Teacher 3
demonstrated promising qualities as an exemplary computer-using teacher. She
worked systematically to support the children using computers during the
observation and could discuss her support strategies at a high level. She also
could transfer her understanding of support to a different context and discussed
a setting were she worked with other teachers to provide professional
development. Teacher 3 was also the teacher identified as providing significant
feedback on her negotiated construction task. When she was given the script for
reflection, she provided written clarification of issues discussed, new terms and
extended ideas.
Finally, the quality task that Teacher 3 described for the next term seemed to be
appropriate for the Phase 3 data collection. The construction of a clay animation
109
was a significant task that required the students to be involved for a number of
weeks. While it had a number of off-computer components, the construction
revolved around the use of computers and associated technology such as the
digital camera. Teacher 3 was also keen to be part of the project and she did not
have any variations in the term, such as student teachers or school camps, that
were likely to disrupt the research process.
4.5 Summary
This chapter has presented the concepts emerging from examining teachers’
classroom uses of computers in Phase 2 of the study. The survey of eight
teachers nominated by the Principal of the school illustrated that while all
teachers in the study had characteristics that could indicate exemplary
computer-using status, some teachers demonstrated these characteristics more
strongly than others. The classroom observations and teacher interviews also
revealed that there was a range in the participating teachers’ familiarity with the
concept of scaffolding. While all teachers knew of the term, only some appeared
to have a working understanding of the concept and others were not at all
confident with its use.
The use of teacher strategies for supporting children working on computer-
based tasks was observed in the classrooms. While these strategies may not
necessarily be classified as scaffolding, the common goal of these interactions
was to support the children as they engaged with computer-based tasks. While
many of the strategies related to the technical aspects of working with
computers or the content of the task (cognitive support), support was also
provided to help children work together (operational support) and to provide
emotional reinforcement (affective support).
This chapter also identified the teacher selected to participate in Phase 3 and
justified her inclusion in the study. Teacher 3 was selected for participation in
Phase 3 because her survey profile indicated that she had ample teaching
experience, she had engaged in further formal learning opportunities and had
participated in professional development programs. Additionally, the
observation in her classroom and the subsequent interview illustrated that she
110
was a reflective teacher with a good awareness of her own teaching strategies.
Further, the activity that she had planned for the impending semester was
dynamic and seemed suitable for Phase 3.
As Teacher 3 was the only teacher participating in Phase 3 any reference to her
will henceforth be as the focus teacher. The results of the implementation in the
focus teacher’s classroom are presented in Chapter 5.
111
5 Chapter 5: Practical Immersion
5.1 Introduction
The results from Phase 3 (Practical Immersion) are presented in this chapter.
Phase 3 followed the implementation of an 8 week computer-based task by the
focus teacher in a Year 4 and 5 classroom. In order to explain the process of
analysis, the categories of coding used to represent the data are discussed first
(see Section 5.2). After the coding has been described, the implementation of
the quality task in the classroom is described. The preparation for the task that
the children had worked on prior to the commencement of data collection is
explained (see Section 5.3) and then the teacher interaction with the groups of
children during the task is mapped out (see Section 5.4).
Each of the video vignettes that represent the implementation of the quality task
are discussed in sequence (see Sections 5.5 – 5.15). A synopsis of the classroom
activity for each video vignette is reported in the form of narratives of teacher
and children interactions. The data drawn from the activity is presented in a
graphical format and then the trends emerging from this representation are
discussed. The remaining part of each vignette analysis discusses the focus
teacher’s reflection on the activity. Finally the chapter concludes with a
summary (see Section 5.17).
Throughout this chapter the term support strategy is used to refer to an
intervention implemented by the focus teacher to help the children working on
the quality task. While this study is particularly focused on the ways in which
the teacher can scaffold children working with computers, the use of the word
“scaffolding” is not always applied in the strictest sense (see Section 2.4.4).
Furthermore, when discussing this concept with teachers during interviews (see
Section 4.5), it was evident that teachers often use the term loosely without full
consideration of the attributes that define the concept. Therefore the analysis in
this chapter is concerned with any mechanisms that the teacher is using to
support the children working and, consequently, the broader term of “teacher
support strategies” is used rather than “scaffolding strategies.” A more in-depth
112
analysis of instances of scaffolding during the study will be provided in Chapter
6.
5.2 Categories of coding
The video vignettes were categorised using codes developed according to the
method described (see Section 3.5). In total, 66 different strategies (in four
categories) were identified through the coding process. These support categories
were cognitive, operational, affective and technical. The strategies are presented
in full with codes and definitions in Appendix 5, however, a brief overview is
presented in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Teacher Support Strategy Codes Organised into Four Categories
Example of strategies from categories
Support category
n
Code
Label
Cognitive support 30 MS Makes suggestion
CI Clarifies ideas
SFO Soliciting for opinions
Operational support 16 PP Prompting protocol
SGN Supporting group negotiations
ME Monitors equity
Affective support 11 E Encouragement
AES Acknowledges emotional status
SH Shares humour
Technical support 9 TI Technical instruction
TR Technical recovery
CUT Checks for understanding
The support strategies developed in this process were not definitive but they
provided a useful frame of reference for discussing the interactions between the
teacher and children in the class during this analysis. Further, these coded
strategies provided a common framework for a comparative discussion of the
vignettes. This discussion is supported with graphical representations of the
strategies for each vignette (see Figures 5.2 – 5.52).
113
5.3 Activity prior to filming
The theme of “Marty the Alien” had been established in the Year 4 and 5
classroom in the previous term and each child had already built a clay model of
their imaginary Marty and then written a narrative of Marty travelling to Earth
(see Appendix 6 for an example). Additionally, the focus teacher had described
the task to the children on the day prior to data collection and the children had
self-chosen their working groups. The children’s task on the previous day had
been to share their individual stories and models of Marty with their groups and
then negotiate a shared scenario of Marty’s persona (either choosing one of the
Marty models or developing a new one) and his return to the planet Endor. They
had been told that they were to begin the activity on the following day.
5.4 Teacher interaction
The focus teacher worked systematically with all eight groups on the task over
the 8 weeks in the classroom setting (see Figure 4.4). The videoed data gathered
during the period was reduced to produce 11 vignettes with 19 video segments
(see Section 3.11). The quality task was divided into seven activities (see
Section 3.9.3) and initially one vignette was used to represent one activity (see
Sections 5.5-5.8). However, the fifth activity adding a frame diverts from this
pattern. Due to an interesting complication during this activity (see Section 5.9)
five vignettes were used to represent the framing activity (see Sections 5.9 –
5.14). The last activity music soundtrack was represented by one vignette (see
Section 5.15). The last vignette (Vignette 11) was not recorded during the
quality task because it represents a post-task reflection interview with a group of
students.
While the criteria for selecting the vignettes were based on significant
interactions between the teacher and at least one child, all eight student groups
were represented at least once in the data collection (see Figure 5.1). These
segments also included four occasions (Segments 1.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 8.2) where
the teacher addressed the class as a whole group. A final vignette (Vignette 11)
shows a group of children reflecting on their clay animation and the
construction process with the researcher.
114
Group seg class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Members
Melissa Martha Cathy Libby
Natalie Gabriella Sarah
Timothy James Peter David
Shaun, Brendon Dylan Brett2
Stan Georgia Jon
Craig Michael Alistair
Joanna Felicity Eve
Adam Brett1 Evan Keith
1.1 x
1.2 x
Vignette 1: Storyboarding the plot (Section 5.5)
1.3 x
Vignette 2: Making the props (Section 5.6)
2.1
x
3.1
x
3.2 x
3.3 x
Vignette 3: Filming the sequence (Section 5.7)
3.4 x
Vignette 4: Computer editing (Section 5.8)
4.1
x
5.1 x Vignette 5:
Creating the images (Section 5.10)
5.2 x x
Vignette 6: Frame: Class Session (Section 5.11)
6.1 x
7.1 x
7.2 x
Vignette 7: Frame: Difficulties (Section 5.12)
7.3 x
8.1 x Vignette 8:
Frame: File Management (Section 5.13)
8.2 x
9.1 x Vignette 9:
Frame: Group support (Section 5.14)
9.2 x
Vignette 10: Music soundtrack (Section 5.15)
10.1
x
Vignette 11: Reflection (Section 5.16)
R:1
x
TOTAL 4 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 1 Figure 5.1. Matrix of teacher interactions with student groups during the task.
5.5 Vignette 1: Storyboarding
The children were required to create a storyboard for their story plot. The
groups used prepared storyboard grids on large paper to plan out the sequence.
The vignette consisted of three different segments (a) Segment 1.1, a mat
115
session (53 seconds), (b) Segment 1.2, a discussion with Group 7 (98 seconds),
and (c) Segment 1.3 with a group of four boys, Group 8 (148 seconds). The total
time for the vignette was 4 minutes and 59 seconds (299 seconds).
5.5.1 Storyboarding vignette synopsis
The activity began in the first video segment with a mat session with the whole
class where the focus teacher was sitting on a low chair in front of the children
on the floor. An easel with several sheets of butcher’s paper clipped to it stood
next to her. The teacher began the discussion by reminding the children that
they had encountered the storyboard process before when they created a
multimedia product on rock layers. She then asked the group “What is a
storyboard all about? Why do I need to do a storyboard?” Several children
raised their hands and the teacher asked a child to respond. The child indicated
that a storyboard is “a guide to show us what photos to take for our clay
animation.” The teacher praised the child and repeated the definition to the
class. Another child indicated that “it is a plan.” The teacher agreed and added
that a plan would help the children to “get it right” initially. She explained to the
children that they would look at a storyboard of a clay animation together and
then the children were to form into groups that were chosen the day before to
create a storyboard for the animation.
Later, in the second segment, the teacher was working with a group of three
girls (Group 7) who had created their storyboard and had brought it to the
teacher for review. The teacher had identified that while the story that the girls
were discussing was quite complex, the storyboard did not show enough detail
and so she talked through the sequence in order to extend their planning.
Teacher: OK, so he crash lands on Endor and what ... that is it?
The girls add some detail.
Teacher: I think what we need to do is expand on this slide a little bit. These
slides are pretty obvious aren’t they flying past? But this slide isn’t
so obvious. In this slide he is coming up to Endor and then ...
A group member indicates that he crash lands and that is the end.
Teacher: but Joanna, he crash lands, and then he gets out of his space ship,
116
and then there are all the animals on the planet ...
All three girls talk about the sequence of the slides.
Teacher: Yeah. I think you need a couple more cards. I think you need one
getting to Endor, one crash landing, one of him getting out and
seeing all his friends. Is that the end of the slide show?
The girls agree.
One of the girls asked the teacher if she thought that they should include a
voice-over during the animation. The teacher acknowledged that this was a
possible choice and explained to them that this feature was added once the
visual component was complete and that they could decide if they wanted it
once they had seen the animation sequence.
The last segment of the vignette showed the teacher working with another group
with three boys (Group 8). In this situation, the storyboard was comprehensive
and the teacher worked through it, re-telling the story as she went. At times,
members of the group interrupted to either add details or correct an aspect of the
story. The teacher appeared to immerse herself in the story and expressed
sympathy when one boy told her that the character was crying as he waved
goodbye to his friends.
At the last frame of the storyboard, the teacher commented that she thought the
frame was particularly effective because it allowed them to incorporate “all of
the Marties” as each child had created a plasticine model, but only one could be
used as the main character in the animation. When the teacher had finished
reviewing the frames she asked the group if they intended to add voiceovers or
sounds and she suggested a few examples where sound effects might have been
helpful. The boys responded enthusiastically by adding examples of their own.
As teacher left the group, she directed them to review the storyboard indicating
where they would like to add voice overs and/or sound effects.
5.5.2 Analysis of teacher support during storyboarding
The teacher support strategies used during this vignette are represented in
Figures 5.2 (cognitive strategies), 5.3 (operational strategies), 5.4 (affective
117
strategies) and 5.5 (overall strategies). Figure 5.5 illustrates the overall
strategies used during the vignette and demonstrates that the majority of
strategies consisted of cognitive orientated assistance. The codes for each
strategy are provided in Appendix 5.
Figure 5.2. Cognitive strategies identified during the storyboarding activity Storyboarding: Teacher support strategies
Figure 5.3 .Operational strategies identified during the storyboarding activity
Figure5.4 . Affective strategies identified during the storyboarding activity Figure 5.5 .Overview of strategies during the storyboarding activity
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (53 secs)
segment 2 (98 secs)
segment 3 (148 secs)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
Series1 Series2
Series3
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (53 secs)
segment 2 (98 secs)
segment 3 (148 secs)
Overall categories
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
cognitive operational affective technical
category types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (53 secs)segment 2 (98 secs)segment 3 (148 secs)
119
The presence of mostly cognitive support strategies and the minimal amount of
strategies from other categories was perhaps not surprising as the task had only
just begun and the children were still very much at a conceptual stage. At this
point, the children needed to think about and discuss what they might do before
they could actually begin the task.
The first segment (Segment 1.1) had been a mat session and consequently had
very different strategies to the later segments where the teacher interacted with a
group of children. In the mat session, the teacher used strategies relating to
information and the task (see Figures 5.2 - 5.4). She worked on defining terms
(DT), providing or reinforcing information (PRI) and checking for
understanding (CU). She also provided reinforcement (RTS) when children
demonstrated understanding and explained to the children the operational
management for the task. At times, in order to support this process she used
structured materials (SM), such as the chart for storyboarding that had been
prepared prior to the activity.
In Vignette 1, the teacher was seen working with two different groups. In
Segment 1.2 she worked with Group 7. This group obviously had a good grasp
of the story they wished to tell and they had completed their storyboard.
However, the teacher felt that the storyboard was not specific enough and so she
worked with the group to help them provide more detail. The strategies she used
with this group were exclusively cognitive (see Figure 5.2). The teacher
reminded the children of what they needed to do (RTS) and clarified their ideas
for the task (CI). She extended the children by critiquing their ideas (CS) and
making suggestions (MS) about directions they could take.
The teacher interaction with Group 8 in the final segment of the vignette
(Segment 1.3) was subtly different. In this situation, the children had
conceptualised the story well and had also mapped it out effectively through
their storyboard. While the teacher again provided mostly cognitive support, the
interaction was far more balanced with the group initiating discussion. The
strategies that the teacher used were based mostly on the children’s ideas and
were either accepting their suggestions (AS) or clarifying the information (CI)
120
that was provided. She did make suggestions (MS) to extend the storyboard and
she also asked them for further ideas (SFI). There was also evidence of affective
support in the form of encouragement (E) and empathy (AEE) with the
children’s story. This segment was concluded with a withdrawal of the teacher’s
support (WS) as she directed them to continue working without her help.
5.5.3 Teacher Reflections on storyboarding
When the focus teacher viewed Vignette 1, she identified that her main aim
during the storyboarding activity had been to help the children to represent the
whole story visually using the storyboard. She recognised that the whole
process was a huge task for young children and if their ideas were not
represented as a plan then they could be easily distracted during the process.
It seemed that the teacher’s interactions with the children depended significantly
on her prior knowledge of each child. This was particularly important when it
came to group work and she needed to support children working together. The
teacher identified that it was very important that she supported each child in the
group to take ownership of the project. She offered that:
Because it was such a long-winded project, if say Adam had taken over
the whole thing, Brett would have given up after a week. So I felt at this
stage, if all of them didn't have ownership of it I would have been
pushing it uphill. I mean, after 8 weeks of sustaining a project as a
teacher you're exhausted. So the children are exactly the same. I think
it's important they all take ownership.
While the teacher was cognisant that the children should be able to represent
their own story in the animation, she was also mindful that if the children’s
plans became too complex they would find it almost impossible to re-create in
an animation. It would be important to ensure that the children planned a story
that would be a realistic guide for the animation process. She explained that at
this point of the process she preferred to limit the scope of the project rather
than let them discover that they had been unrealistic later in the process.
121
At this stage I see myself as a facilitator moulding their ideas. And yes,
some of their ideas are grand and ridiculous and not possible. But I tend
to say that to them. I'd rather say “this is going to be too long.”, or “that
won't work because of ...” and actually explain. Instead of saying “no, it
won't work.” I would rather say "it won't work because the clay
animation is going to be three hours long and you'll be taking
photographs until the cows come home."
It seemed that at this stage that although progress was varied between groups,
the teacher still had a conceptualisation of the end product and was supporting
students towards that goal. The aspect of ownership that she spoke of was
something that she developed with the students as the task progressed.
5.6 Vignette 2: Making the props
The next step in creating the animation was to build any backdrops or props
required for the scenes in the production. The children had already created
modelling clay figures of “Marty the Alien” and so each group used their
character as a scale model for the environment. For this task, the children had
access to a wide range of art and craft materials around the room including
modelling clay, star stickers, sheets of A1 card and paint. They had also been
encouraged to bring in props from home such as toys to contribute to their
product. The vignette of this activity was a piece of continuous footage of a
group of three girls, Group 2, (Segment 2.1) which lasted for 2 minutes and 32
seconds (152 seconds).
5.6.1 Making the props vignette synopsis
In segment 2.1, the three girls in Group 2 were standing around a desk and the
teacher was sitting at the desk with a piece of card laid flat on the desk surface.
Although there seemed to be little drawn on the card, the girls had described to
the teacher that the scene would be Space with a moon in the centre of the page.
Teacher: So your background is this and you will have a moon right in the
middle of it?
The girls confirm.
Teacher: What do you think of that? Can you picture it in your head?
122
The group members respond positively
Teacher: That’s all black, with lots of stars and a moon in the middle…
The teacher pauses for the group members to react, but they don’t comment.
Teacher: OK, probably you could make the moon out of something a little
more interesting? Could you use cardboard? Could you even …
Natalie suggests that they could use that coloured cardboard that was available
for the activity
Teacher: Yes ... Could you scrunch up a piece of paper and put in on there,
make it look a little bit more ...
Natalie adds that it could be round.
Teacher: Yeah, because the moon is not ... you think of our moon when you
look at it – it is white and a bit grey and ... because it shows where
all the craters are, doesn’t it? So why don’t you make it like that?
You could even use plasticine to do it if you wanted to, but try and
make it look more realistic. I think your background will probably
work really nicely with this anyway.
Once the girls were introduced to the concept of a three-dimensional, textured
moon, they began to have some ideas about its construction. Their initial plan
was to use plasticine but Natalie preferred the scrunched paper. The teacher
suggested that they could experiment with paper and then revert to plasticine if
they wanted to.
Natalie takes a piece of scrap paper to scrunch.
Teacher: Probably this way (turns the paper over), because if you do that way
we will see the words.
Natalie hesitates before scrunching
Teacher: Why don’t you scrunch it, (gestures) just scrunch it with your hands
and see what happens, like you are putting it in the bin.
Natalie scrunches. Gabriella laughs.
Teacher: There you go. So it that the sort of size that you want?
Natalie places it on the backdrop while Gabriella holds the card in place.
Teacher laughs.
Teacher: It will need to be round won’t it because it will look a bit funny if it
123
is that sort of shape. Is that the sort of size you want? You might
like to pull that bit out then turn it in to hide all the letters
Gabriella suggests that they need gold around the bottom.
Teacher: That would look good because then you could get ...
Natalie asks if there is yellow cardboard.
Teacher: I’ll have a look in the cupboard. I think I might have yellow.
Natalie explains that she would put the yellow in with the white paper so you
could see some of it when it is scrunched.
The teacher checked with the group members to see if they all liked the idea and
instructed them to think about how they might attach the ball to the backdrop,
suggesting that they might have to think about using strong glue. She then left
the group to obtain some yellow card.
5.6.2 Analysis of teacher support during making the props
In this vignette, the teacher extends a group who had responded to this task with
a rather basic approach. The teacher support strategies for this vignette are
presented in Figures 5.6 - 5.8. Figure 5.6 shows the majority of interactions
were strategies to support cognitive processes while Figure 5.7 indicates
affective strategies to support the group during decision making. Figure 5.8
represents the overview of strategies that the teacher used during this segment.
Figure 5.6. Cognitive strategies identified during the making the props activity Making the props: Teacher support strategies
Figure 5.7 .Operational strategies identified during the making the props activity
Figure 5.8 .Overview of strategies while making the props
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (152 secs)
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (152 secs)
Overall categories
0
5
10
15
20
25
cognitive operational affective technical
category types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (152 secs)
125
The children in the group appeared to be relatively happy with their design. The
teacher, however, felt that more experimentation at this stage would improve the
final product. The graphs of teacher support strategies (Figures 5.6 - 5.8) show
that she used cognitive and affective strategies in order to attempt to draw them
beyond their current thinking such as soliciting for opinions (SFO) and then
extending ideas (EI) when an idea was provided by a group member. Although
the teacher led the group along a pathway that seemed to be pre-determined, she
was subtle in her suggestions and it was likely that the children felt that they had
made the decision to use scrunched paper for the moon. It seemed that the
teacher quite deliberately directed the group towards a three-dimensional option
and then when they had made that choice, she gave fewer suggestions so that
the group could make some decisions and retain ownership of the process.
This transition was also facilitated by affective support. As the children began to
make decisions about their props the teacher reassured them that their decisions
were acceptable (RP). At times, she also needed to give permission (GP) as the
children sought approval before proceeding. In this vignette there was no
evidence of either operational or technical support. At this stage of the task, the
focus was still on decision-making and design and so the support was mostly
cognitive. As this group were functioning quite well together in their decision-
making, the teacher was not required to support the operational processes.
Further, as the task was not yet at a stage that required using technology,
technological support was not needed.
5.6.3 Teacher reflections on making the props
In the follow-up interview, the focus teacher indicated that with this group she
needed to lead them beyond their initial plan. She observed that:
This was a group that wanted to do a two-dimensional background, and
the whole point about the moon and actually using a piece of paper and
scrunching it up, painting it and drawing it on, would make it visually
better for the end product. This whole process was simply how we can
make the background a bit more interesting than two-dimensional.
126
5.7 Vignette 3: Filming the sequence
This activity represented a considerable part of the task. It involved creating the
animation sequence by taking a series of still shots of the model and the props
against the created background or backgrounds. The teacher had used the wet
area outside the classroom to set up a dedicated “film studio” where each group
went when they were ready to film their sequence. This set included a table with
a stand to support the background card, a “stage” where the children could
arrange their props and a digital camera on a tripod. Each group worked through
the scenes depicted on their storyboard and took a series of images for each
scene simulating the illusion of motion. When the floppy disk had reached
capacity, the children took the disk with the still images to a computer in the
classroom and loaded them into the QuickTime software.
In order to facilitate this process, the teacher arranged her time so she could
dedicate herself entirely to the group who were filming their animation. To do
this she engaged the assistance of a teacher aide to supervise the rest of the
children in the classroom working on independent tasks such as pre-prepared
worksheets or silent reading.
The vignette for this activity focused only on a group of three boys, Group 6. It
consisted of four different segments (a) Segment 3.1, an initial filming sequence
(321 seconds), (b) Segment 3.2 where the group first moved to the computer to
download images (103 seconds), (c) Segment 3.3, a further filming segment (82
seconds), and then (d) the final segment (Segment 3.4) where the students
downloaded images (35 seconds). The total time for the vignette was 9 minutes
and 2 seconds (542 seconds).
5.7.1 Filming the sequence vignette synopsis
In Segment 3.1, the teacher and Craig were already in the wet area. The teacher
made sure that the group was organised to start the activity and she checked
with Craig about the roles each group member would play. He identified that
they would take turns with each group member taking “about 15 each.” The
other two boys in the group, Michael and Alistair, joined the teacher and Craig
in the wet area. Michael and Alistair went to the back of the set where the title
127
background was already in place while Craig moved to the camera with the
teacher. The teacher explained to Craig how he should use the camera.
Teacher: You press that button. Put your hand under here to support it. Put
this hand under here like that. This hand goes here. That thumb goes
here and your finger here. So now have a look. Yes that is it. So
you could already take your first four couldn’t you?
Craig takes the first shot.
Teacher: Good and you have to make sure you see that recording thing. So
that is one ...
Craig asks if four shots are needed
Teacher: Yes we need four of the very first frame and four of the very last
frame.
After Craig had taken the first images and the background was changed to
represent the first scene, the teacher addressed the whole group to establish the
roles each member needed to play.
Teacher: OK now guys. Craig is in charge of taking the photos. We probably
want one person around the back and one person around here who
changes all the stuff so Craig doesn’t have to move backwards and
forwards from the camera. It is important that he can see it.
Michael moves from the back of the stage to the front. He is to be in charge of
moving the props on the stage.
Teacher: So what is our first event? What goes on here first?
Alistair briefly explains the first scene to the teacher.
Teacher: OK then, we need Marty on there
The teacher moves back and Michael moves in to arrange the props. He
indicates where the model can be positioned so that the face can be seen.
Teacher: Yes that is a good idea.
Teacher: So Michael, that is your job for the first moment is it? To move all
of the things around?
Teacher: OK. Craig, let’s have a look at the image we have. You can zoom in
if you want to get a bit closer.
Both Michael and Alistair move from their positions in order to look into the
128
viewfinder with Craig. The teacher directs them to return to their positions.
Teacher: You’ve got your job, Michael, which is over there, and, Alistair,
your job is behind. It is really important that everyone has their
own job to make it run really smoothly
The boys moved to their respective positions and then Craig took a single image
of their clay model of Marty the Alien on the ground by the spaceship. The
teacher had been leaning back away from the scene, however, as the boys
moved to rearrange the set, she stepped forward to intervene.
Teacher: Well, remember we have to move him slowly. So are you going to
take only one photo of him fixing his spaceship?
Craig agrees and then proceeds to explain the story after the event. The teacher
interrupts him.
Teacher: Well, could he walk around the front slowly, and we could take a
couple of pictures like he is climbing in because that way we will
see what he looks like.
It seemed that the story that the teacher promoting was much simpler than the
ideas that the boys were generating. All three boys attempted to explain the
plot but it seemed as if they only were considering the “big picture”, without
attention to the details.
Teacher: OK Guys, let’s just stop, stop, stop for a second! Have a think about
your storyboard. Have a think about what you have written. Have a
think about the story you want to happen here. Is Marty needing to
fix his machine up at the back or is Marty needing to fix his
machine up at the front and then how does he move to get into his
spaceship?
Craig picked up one of the props.
Teacher: We don’t need that right at the moment Craig, so just put it down
and let’s solve this problem first.
Craig and Michael both attempt to talk through a solution at once.
Teacher: I can hear two people talking but I can hear nothing. I need one
person telling me what is going to happen.
Craig describes the current scene.
129
Teacher: Is that what everyone thinks is going to happen?
Michael and Alistair agree.
Teacher: OK, fine. So we have taken one photo of him already.
Michael talks through more of the story, incorporating Marty walking over and
getting his dog. Craig and Alistair add embellishment the story.
Teacher: Guys, you are about 20 photos down the track. The first thing that I
can understand is for the flap to go up, him to put the spanner in and
him to get in. Is that right?
The boys agree.
Teacher: Then let’s take those photos. Let’s ignore everything after that.
Teacher: Michael, you are here in charge of this, remember? Craig has
already taken a photo like this, what is the next step?
The teacher allowed the progression to continue but kept a close eye on both the
positioning of the props and the role of each group member. She stressed several
times that the image that was captured in the viewfinder would be the image of
the final product. She told Craig that this was his responsibility and this was
why his job was so important.
In Segment 3.2, the group and the teacher had moved back to the classroom as
the disk was full. The three boys seemed quite confident with the steps involved
and much of the interaction was the teacher asking questions to check for
understanding as the process progressed. The teacher also engaged in some
discussion about the on-going task.
Craig is talking through the steps involved. The other two boys are standing
next to the computer but are watching carefully. A few other children are also
watching the process.
Teacher: OK, so now just move that to side so we can see it. So you know
how to highlight all of those?
The boys agree.
Teacher: Good!
Craig checks that he has to click on the image name and drag it across.
Teacher: Yep!
130
Craig has some problems dragging the files.
Teacher: Yeah, what you have to do is highlight them, now click on the
black part. That’s it and drag it across into your folder. Yep. Now
remember the numbers? Really important that our numbers go in
order.
Craig identifies that the last image was number 44.
Teacher: This last one is 44 so the next one after we load it again should be
45
Michael observes that their group had created more images than the previous
group.
Teacher: That’s OK.
Craig talks through the process.
Teacher: Great! Easy. Now we unplug it and let’s go back out and keep
going.
Segment 3.3 once again showed the teacher and the children in the wet area
taking images for the animation. The animation had progressed considerably
since the previous segments. Alistair was taking the photographs and Craig and
Michael were behind the set moving planets and the spaceship fastened to rulers
through a horizontal slot in the background. The teacher was initially positioned
away from the set against the side cupboard with another child from the class.
She later moved into the set to check on details in the animation.
Teacher: OK. So when he gets close, Mars will come between him and the
other spaceship? OK.
Yep. Craig explains the steps that they will take.
Teacher: So what about this planet? Is it still here?
Craig explains that the planet will disappear behind the planet and that it will
be moved to the left.
Teacher: But does this one come in first, because the other Marty spaceship
goes in?
Alistair adds that they don’t really need the planet yet as they will create an
illusion by substituting the spaceship.
131
Teacher: OK, so we want Marty here, is that right? Michael do you want to
take it through?
Michael positions the spaceship through a slot in the backdrop. Craig and
Alistair get the prop for the black hole ready to be involved.
Teacher: Is that after Jupiter or in front of Jupiter?
Craig tells her that it is behind Jupiter.
Teacher: OK, I’m a bit confused. If we put Jupiter in, is he on this side or this
side?
All three boys indicate the side where the space ship is located.
The last segment in the vignette (Segment 3.4) was quite brief (36 seconds) and
shows the group back in the classroom downloading more images to the
computer. Michael was sitting at the computer with Alistair and Craig standing
beside him. The teacher was standing behind the group. Alistair and Craig were
discussing the number of images on the camera while Michael moved through
the steps but they watched carefully as Michael worked. The teacher recognised
that Michael had almost finished the sequence.
Teacher: OK?
Alistair tells Michael to place one of the images in the trash.
Teacher: Good. You need to highlight them all again
Alistair vocalises the steps to highlight the images. Craig tells Michael to empty
the trash.
Teacher: Yes. You need to empty the trash before you pull the camera out,
otherwise the photos won’t be deleted. OK. Good.
5.7.2 Analysis of teacher support during filming the sequence
This vignette represented a significant transition both in terms of (a) student
understanding of the task and group ownership of the product and (b) teacher
interaction and support. The support strategies graphs for this vignette (Figures
5.9 - 5.13) indicate differences in each of the segments and in particular
comparisons can be made between the two segments where the group is
working at the set filming the sequence (Segments 3.1 & 3.3) and then the two
at the computer downloading the images (Segments 3.2 & 3.4). It should be
noted, however, that these comparisons cannot merely be a count of instances of
132
support because of the length of each segment. Segment 3.1 (321 secs) is almost
four times as long as Segment 3.3 (82 secs), while Segment 3.2 (103 secs) is
almost three times as long as Segment 3.4 (35 secs). Because of this, where
appropriate, comparisons will be made on a “per minute” basis.
Figure 5.9. Cognitive strategies identified during filming the sequence
Figure 5.10 . Operational strategies identified during filming the sequence Figure 5.13 . Overview of strategies during filming the sequence
Figure 5.11 . Affective strategies identified during filming the sequence Figure 5.12 . Technical strategies identified in filming the sequence
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (321 secs)
segment 2 (102 secs)
segment 3 (83 secs)
segment 4 (36 secs)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
Series1 Series2
Series3 Series4
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (321 secs)segment 2 (102 secs)segment 3 (83 secs)segment 4 (36 secs)
Overall categories
0
10
20
30
cognitive operational affective technical
category types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (321 secs)segment 2 (102 secs)segment 3 (83 secs)segment 4 (36 secs)
Technical strategies
0123456
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL TD
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (321 secs)segment 2 (102 secs)segment 3 (83 secs)segment 4 (36 secs)
134
Segment 3.1 highlighted some important issues for the teacher. In this vignette
she had a group that had thought extensively about their story and were very
enthusiastic to record their animation. However, a problem that she identified
early in the activity was that the group seemed to be unclear about the roles that
were required for the activity and who should play these roles. In order to
support this aspect, she used several operational support strategies (see Figure
5.10). She recruited individuals (PR) for particular roles early in the task and
then at appropriate moments defined the duties (DR) of each role to the group
members. She also reinforced these roles by supporting any group negotiations
(SGN) that were determined by role and also seeking group consensus (SGC)
when one member was representing the group.
Another pertinent feature of Segment 3.1 was that this group, while having
plenty of good ideas, were over-embellishing their plot rather than thinking
about the details they would need to record with the digital camera in order to
represent their story effectively. The capacity to streamline and simplify the
storyline was an important requirement in producing a manageable clay
animation. Therefore the teacher endeavoured to support the group towards
developing a workable progression by implementing a number of cognitive
support strategies (see Figure 5.9). At times, this meant that she had to critique
the concepts (CS) presented by the children, pointing out the weaknesses in
their ideas and then requesting further thinking (RFT), or a new direction in
thinking (RND). This also included asking them to focus on a particular aspect
(FA) ignoring distractions and sometimes moving away from the broader
picture.
Segment 3.2 was the first occasion in the task where the children were required
to use a computer. During this activity, the teacher monitored the process
closely, sitting on a chair next to Craig who operated the mouse. While the
group (and in particular Craig) seem to be quite confident with the steps
involved, she checked for technical understanding (CUT) and sometimes
provided technical information (TI) throughout the segment (see Figure 6.12).
This was also accompanied by affective support where she reinforced the
progress (R) that the group was making (see Figure 6.11).
135
In Segment 3.3 the group were once again in the wet area to film the sequence
and this provided an interesting contrast to Segment 3.1. At this stage of the
activity the group had experienced the process repeatedly and seemed to have a
good understanding of both the organisational and technical processes and also
the sequential nature of the animation process. Although the teacher was still in
the room watching the process, it appeared as if, by this stage, the group of boys
had a visualisation of the path to the end product and her interaction with them
was simply to clarify where they intended go. In fact, at times, such as when the
group were explaining the progression past Jupiter, it seemed as if they had
moved beyond the teacher’s help and they were actually providing support for
the teacher to keep up.
The teacher had identified in a previous reflection (see Section 5.5.3) that her
goal was to promote group ownership of the task while maintaining an
achievable process. It appeared that in this vignette she had achieved this goal
effectively.
The key difference between Segment 3.1 and 3.3 was not in the instances of
support provided (with Segment 3.1 registering 8.97 instances per minute while
Segment 3.3 had 7.95 instances per minute) but rather in the range of support
used in each segment (see Figure 5.14).
Different types of scaffolding
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
segment 1 segment 3
comparative segments
type
s pe
r min
ute
cognitiveoperationalaffectivetechnical
Figure 5.14. A comparison between the range of support strategies in Segment
3.1 and Segment 3.3.
136
In Segment 3.1 the teacher engaged many different types of support from all
four categories (cognitive, operational, affective and technical), in order to assist
the group with an activity that was complex and challenging. By the time they
had reached Segment 3.3, the boys had learnt more about the process and the
teacher had changed the type of support that she was providing to accommodate
the change in their understanding and level of ownership. They no longer
required the range of support and so this had been withdrawn by the teacher and
instead she monitored their progress and clarified the direction of their
animation.
Segment 3.4 also demonstrated a withdrawal of control by the teacher. In this
segment, she provided some continuing affective and technical support but in
these instances she was reinforcing the decisions and directions by the group
rather than directing them.
5.7.3 Teacher reflections on filming the sequence
When the teacher was interviewed about this vignette, the first aspect she
focused on was the dynamics of the group. She identified that all three boys in
this group were quite dominant and she felt that it was important to delineate
roles that they could rotate through as “they all wanted to do it all.” She also
recognised that this group appeared to be having difficulties with following the
process of transforming their storyboard into the animation and needed specific
support with this aspect. She commented that:
They need to be reminded of the fact that you need to take a lot of
photos to show that movement. And that was something that even
though we'd spoken about it in class - how take the photograph and how
you move things very slightly - it still needed to be reinforced to these
guys. And perhaps that's because they needed to physically have it in
their hands instead of my talking about it.
When asked if she thought that teachers may also have trouble conceptualising
the process of animation, she identified that it was very important that the
teacher should have experienced the process first. It would be likely that
children would struggle with the concept at first and so a teacher would need to
137
have a good understanding of the animation process and also be familiar with
the software and the technical process of putting an animation together.
The teacher was delighted to see the change in the group dynamics displayed in
Segment 3.3. She observed that “they’re working more as a team; and they
understand the process more. That was a light bulb moment. They know what to
do now and its okay.”
The teacher identified that the group had transformed from the first segment
(Segment 3.1). She commented that it would have been possible to leave the
group to work independently at this stage. She had, however, decided to stay
with this particular group because of her reservations about the combination of
children. On reflection, however, she may have changed her interaction, noting
that “I could easily have left because they had simplified it. They knew what to
do and they were thinking.”
By the end of Segment 3.3 the focus teacher recognised that the students’
conceptualisation of their animation had surpassed her own understanding of
their plan. She commented that:
It's a good change. But it's all the effort at the beginning to make sure it
works smoothly. Like, they could have kept going and arguing and
being like they were right at the beginning of that process, I suppose,
without the right questioning and push in the right direction. By this
stage as well, they are sharing the jobs around a lot better. They have
learnt how to be a group, how to enjoy each job. By this stage Alistair's
taking photographs, Michael's behind, and Craig is moving the little
models at the front. So they understand the process now, but also
they've worked out that there are three important jobs here. It's not just
one which is taking photos. And so it's okay to do all jobs because I'm
being part of the process. Whereas I think earlier on they thought the
only bit to do with the clay animation was taking photos. And that's what
they wanted to do. But by now they know that it's all important and it all
will put it together. By that stage it's easier for me too because I've used
138
all this emotional energy to try and get them on track. It is a bit of a
relief when it is finally working!
5.8 Vignette 4: Computer editing
The computer editing activity was relatively simple and straightforward. It
involved the groups previewing the images that they had taken in sequence to
remove any superfluous slides or slides with errors such as shots that had
inadvertently captured an image of someone’s hand. The vignette of this activity
consisted one segment (Segment 4.1) of the teacher working with a group of
four girls, Group 1, with a short break in the middle when the teacher leaves the
group and then returns later. It lasted for a total of 4 minutes and 12 seconds
(252 seconds).
5.8.1 Computer editing vignette synopsis
Segment 4.1 began with three of the four girls in Group 1 sitting at the
computer. Martha was directly in front of the computer operating the mouse
while Libby and Melissa were sitting back and to the side. The teacher was
standing next to the computer facing the girls. They were watching the images
running through in sequence. Another girl, Cathy, joined the group and shared
the chair with Libby. The teacher noticed that one of the slides had a hand
showing on the edge of the frame.
Teacher: Do you think it would be a good idea for us to go and find out
which photograph it was that had that arm in it? Alright.
Martha says that she thinks that it was in the first bit.
Teacher: Yeah. Quit out of it, open up your folder, and then whichever one it
is Martha, just find it and drag it into the trash.
Martha opens each slide systematically as the other girls watch carefully,
talking through the sequence. She opens eight slides, but does not find it.
Teacher: Do you remember what part of the clay animation it was in?
The girls don’t seem certain.
Teacher: OK, I have an idea. We can open all the photos in one go. Will that
make it easier?
Martha agrees.
139
Teacher: Now, we probably don’t need to open up all the way down to
seventy something, but we can open up from number one down to
say thirty and have a look at those ones first. Do you want to do
that?
Martha highlights the first thirty slides without being prompted.
Teacher: Yes, that is fine. File/Open. That will open them all up and then
hopefully you will be able to work out what number it is and then
close them all down.
Cathy says that she will keep looking at the numbers.
Teacher: That’s OK. Just when they are open. Just close them down now
Teacher leaves the group.
When the teacher returned to the group, the girls had found the flawed image in
question. Martha deleted the slide and the teacher instructed them to play
through the sequence to check if it stopped at the deleted image or if it
continued to the end. By this stage it was evident that although Martha and
Cathy were concentrating on the process, Libby and Melissa were sitting back
and off-task. The sequence worked as it should and the teacher asked the group
to think about the timing of the animation, flagging that she was aware that
some of the group members were not participating.
Teacher: So how many frames per second is this one?
Martha replies that it is two frames per second.
Teacher: OK. Girls, you are working as a group remember. You have to
come to a conclusion together, not just Martha.
5.8.2 Analysis of teacher support during computer editing
This activity was also straightforward in terms of the teacher support it required.
The support strategies applied in this activity are presented in Figures 5.15 -
5.19. Figure 5.19 shows the overview of the strategies used in Segment 4.1 with
strategies from all areas being represented.
Figure 5.15. Cognitive strategies identified during computer editing
Figure 5.16 . Operational strategies identified during computer editing Figure 5.19 .Overview of strategies during computer editing
Figure 5.17 . Affective strategies identified during computer editing Figure 5.18 . Technical strategies identified in computer editing
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (252 secs)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
Series1
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (252 secs)
Overall categories
02468
101214
cognitive operational affective technical
category types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (252 secs)
Technical strategies
0123456
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL TD
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (252 secs)
141
During this activity much of the teacher support was cognitive with the teacher
providing direction to allow the children to progress with the task. The most
frequent type of support in this area was concerned with making suggestions
(MS) and it seemed that as this process was routine, the teacher felt that she
should assist to navigate the group quickly through the steps. In this activity the
students were not required to think creatively or make many decisions about the
process.
It was interesting that, although this activity was technical, the majority of the
support was not technically orientated. The children in this group did not seem
to be having difficulties with the process and technical support was mostly when
the teacher was providing technical instructions (TI) for each step. There were
only a few instances of operational and affective support strategies noticed in
this vignette. At the end of the sequence the teacher used a “monitors equity”
(ME) strategy to ensure that all group members would contribute to the timing
decision. She also provided reassurance (R) on two occasions during the
vignette.
5.8.3 Teacher reflections on computer editing
The focus teacher thought that the process involved in the editing activity was
straightforward. She identified that, although the children had not constructed a
clay animation before, they had used the same software with previous tasks and
so they knew the process. She also pointed out that this activity did not require
the children to make many decisions by saying that “the only real decision that
needed to be made at this stage is whether you wanted 2 or 4 frames per second
- whether it's too fast or too slow.”
After viewing this vignette, the teacher focused her comments on the group
dynamics of this particular group. She identified that Martha and Cathy were
older, in Year 5, while Libby and Melissa were in Year 4. She also commented
that Martha and Cathy tended to dominate and she referred to the operational
support that she provided in the vignette to make sure that all group members
were included in the decision making.
142
The focus teacher agreed that having four group members instead of three was a
factor in group dynamics in a task such as the clay animation. She commented
that:
The more students [in a group], the more difficult it is because you need
more consensus. And when you're dealing with 9 and 10 year olds it's
difficult to form a consensus because of their egotistical little world. And
with the taking of the photos, because there are three jobs, it keeps three
people busy, and if you have four or five there’s always people lagging
around. A bit tricky …
It was interesting to note, however, that although four of the eight groups for
this task comprised three members, the remaining groups had four members.
While this was not discussed with the focus teacher during the interview, it may
have been that the defining factor in group distribution was the number of
computers available and eight groups were optimal for computer use in the
classroom.
5.9 A detour in the process
When the teacher had worked with children on a clay animation task with
previous classes, she had always moved from the computer editing activity
straight to the final activity where a music track has been added to finish the
animation. However, on this occasion she had happened to discuss the task with
the ICT coordinator in the school who commented that he had recently seen a
similar activity in another class where a frame had been added to the animation
to provide a neat edge for each image. The process first required creating an
overlay image in the software AppleWorks and another image that would be a
mask – a blank section for the QuickTime movie (the animation) to play
through. Next they needed to add the mask and the decorated overlay to the
movie to create the frame effect (see Figure 5.20). The development had seemed
quite easy to the teacher and she agreed that it would be good to try. The
coordinator was happy to go and visit the class to demonstrate to the process to
the children.
143
Figure 5.20. An animation image with a frame.
The demonstration provided by the coordinator seemed quite uncomplicated and
during the presentation the teacher took notes in order to develop instruction
posters for the children. Although she had not used this feature before she
decided that it would be interesting to add it into this task.
The addition of this feature into the clay animation proved to be anything but
simple and provided a significant opportunity to watch the teacher supporting
students while working with computers to develop the frame and add it to the
animation. In previous discussion, one vignette was used to represent one
activity, however, because this activity offered so many examples of teacher
support several vignettes were drawn from the one activity. The next five
vignettes are based on the process, with one relating to creating the images
(Vignette 5) and then four (Vignettes 6-9) situated around the process of adding
the images to the animation to create the frame. In total, this video sequence of
five vignettes runs for 27 minutes and 42 seconds.
5.10 Vignette 5: Creating the images
This was the first in the two-step process to create a frame for the animation.
The process involved creating the overlay and the masked-out section where the
144
animation was to be displayed in the final product. The teacher had produced
instructions on butcher’s paper to display on an easel. She had also reviewed the
process with the children in a mat session. This vignette consisted of two
segments with (a) a problem-solving segment (Segment 5.1) with Group 7 with
three girls (209 seconds), and (b) a similar segment (Segment 5.2) with Group 4,
a group of four boys (225 seconds). The total time for the vignette was 7
minutes and 15 seconds (435 seconds).
5.10.1 Creating the images vignette synopsis
In Segment 5.1, the teacher was working with another group but was interrupted
by Eve from Group 7 who reported that they had worked through the process
displayed on the easel but the end result was not what was expected (as the
finished image was tiny).
Teacher: Eve has called me over because she said that the other mask you
made was really tiny and she wants me to have a look at that.
The girls agree and hold up their fingers to indicate a postage stamp size.
Teacher: Then should I see that? So maybe I can work out how to help you?
Eve takes the mouse and opens the file.
Teacher: Oh, that is a bit bizarre isn’t it?
They all laugh.
Teacher: OK. Do you know what I think you are doing though? If we have a
look up in the right-hand top corner, does that say AppleWorks or
does it look like the AppleWorks symbol in the top right hand
corner?
The girls identify that the software is QuickTime.
Teacher: It is QuickTime. So what you have actually done by double-clicking
on your picture is open it up in QuickTime. We don’t want to open it
in QuickTime do we?
They agree that QuickTime is not appropriate.
Teacher: No. So quit out of that, open up AppleWorks again for me, which I
think you still have open, Joanna. Now if you go File/Open, and you
do the exact same thing, see what happens then.
145
The girls were working through the steps of the process, with Joanna using the
mouse and Eve and Felicity standing behind her, looking over her shoulder. The
teacher was sitting back on a desk behind the group. The computer was slow to
process commands and so it took a while to get to the “open” stage.
Teacher: Girls, a little bit of patience is probably a good idea. Now, Eve, sit
back for me. Let’s see if Joanna can open this up. Joanna, if you
hold the mouse button down it will scroll all the way for you. That’s
it. Now, open that up. And cross your fingers.
Eve crosses her fingers literally. Teacher laughs. Eve says that she will cross
her eyes too.
Teacher: And your eyes, Eve?
The group waits as the file slowly loads.
Teacher: Oh, it has done the same thing! How bizarre! Well, I’m confused.
Teacher shrugs and holds up her hands.
Teacher: What do you want to do? I don’t know, I don’t know what to do.
You did save it as a .jpeg didn’t you?
The group reply that they did.
Teacher: OK. What do you want to do, girls?
The girls suggest that they could probably re-do the frame, however, the
problem may reoccur.
Teacher: Exactly! So you are saying to me that you are happy to fiddle
around and make up a new one?
The girls agree.
Teacher: Great.
The teacher leaves the group to experiment with the process from the beginning.
In the second segment (Segment 5.2), the teacher was checking with Group 4, a
group of three boys who had reported that they had finished the activity. The
teacher identified that the image on the screen was the mask and she asked the
boys to show her the frame that they had created. The boys opened the image
for the teacher. They had used a graduated blue fill from navy blue to aqua blue
and they described the significance of this to the teacher.
146
One of the boys explains that the frame represents outer space with the sunlight
in the foreground and the atmosphere in the distance.
Teacher: That is really good! Are you happy with it?
The group answer that they are happy.
Teacher: OK, fantastic. Then you are done. Have you saved them though?
Because I can see “untitled 2”.You haven’t saved it as “untitled 2”
have you?
The boys claim that they saved the file as a combination of their initials.
The teacher left this group, however, she returned soon after because the group
had reported that they couldn’t find the images in their folder.
Teacher: OK. For some reason - but let me have a look - guess what? I am
just going to open this up and show you something. If I go
File/Saveas it is not saved as a jpeg. What is it saved as? An
AppleWorks file!
The group acknowledge their mistake.
Teacher: So you need to make sure it is called jpeg there and up here, what
were those initials again? OK, watch what I am doing now. Dot – j-
p-e-g.
The boys indicate understanding.
Teacher: So you put that there and that there and then you save it. You will
need to do that on your mask as well.
The teacher moved away from Group 4 to stand in the middle of the room. She
initiated a clapping pattern and the children stopped what they were doing and
responded by imitating the pattern. This was their signal to stop, look and listen.
Teacher: A very important bit of information. And I think this is what
happened with your group Felicity, why it didn’t work. I know I
can’t see everybody, but I am hoping everyone can hear me. When
you are saving your mask and your frame, you have to save it as a
jpeg. I have said this now a lot of times, but people aren’t saving as
jpegs. There are two things you need to do. The first thing you need
to do is make sure down the bottom where it says file format –
147
when you go saveas the screen comes up – where it says file format,
it probably will say AppleWorks. Do I want it to say AppleWorks?
The class confirm that the file format should not be AppleWorks.
Teacher: What do I want it to say?
The class identify that the format should be jpeg.
Teacher: Jpeg. – j – p –e – g. Then I save my file. My file name will be all of
my group’s initials. SBDB mask full stop jpeg. And that is where I
think we went wrong with your group Eve. Because we didn’t do
the full stop jpeg. If you don’t save it that way, it won’t work. You
have five minutes left to get this finished.
5.10.2 Analysis of teacher support during creating the images
During this vignette the teacher was required to move beyond her own comfort
zone with the technical process, not only assisting the children with their
problems but also do some technical problem-solving for herself. The support
strategies applied in this activity are presented in Figures 5.21 - 5.25. Figure
5.25 shows that a considerable number of support strategies were used during
this vignette. The majority of strategies were of a technical nature (see Figure
5.24), however, cognitive strategies (see Figure 5.21) were also prominent.
Support strategies from operational (see Figure 5.22) and affective (see Figure
5.23) categories were also implemented.
Figure 5.21. Cognitive strategies identified during creating the images
Figure 5.22 . Operational strategies identified during creating the images Figure 5.25. Overview of strategies during creating the images
Figure 5.23 . Affective strategies identified during creating the images Figure 5.24 . Technical strategies identified in creating the images
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
Segment 1 (209 sec)
Segment 2 (225 sec)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
Series1 Series2
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
Segment 1 (209 sec)
Segment 2 (225 sec)
Overall categories
02468
1012141618
cognitive operational affective technicalcategory types
inci
denc
es
Segment 1 (209 sec)Segment 2 (225 sec)
Technical strategies
0123456789
10
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL TD
categories
incide
nces
Segment 1 (209 sec)
Segment 2 (225 sec)
149
In Segment 5.1, the teacher began working with the group in terms of the steps
in the activity and so at first she used more cognitive support strategies.
However, when she realised that there were significant technical difficulties, she
was required to focus more on the technical support strategies (see Figure 5.24).
The interesting aspect about this segment was that when the teacher found
herself in a position where she did not know more than the group with the
problem, she chose to withdraw her support rather than take over the problem
and solve it herself.
While this strategy may have not been a viable option for many teachers, it
proved to be quite an effective approach. It meant that it gave the teacher the
opportunity to consider the problem for a while and monitor the rest of the class
to see if it was occurring elsewhere. It also gave the girls in the group (Group 7)
an insight into the idea that the teacher is not the source of all knowledge and is
a fellow learner in the process. This was also a good opportunity for the group
to try some authentic problem-solving on a contained challenge. If the problem
had proved to be simply too difficult, the teacher and the students could
postpone it and the teacher could spend time later working out a solution or
perhaps a different option, or consult the ICT coordinator.
In the second segment (Segment 5.2), the teacher arrived at the process at an
earlier stage. While she provided considerable technical support (see Figure
5.24) as the group stepped through the saving process, it also seemed that she
used this opportunity as a think aloud problem-solving session for herself to
consider the problem and identify a solution. This was evident when she called
the class to attention and described the problem as she saw it and offered them a
workable solution.
During both of the segments the teacher provided affective support (see Figure
5.23). In Segment 5.1, she used several different strategies that both maintained
a rapport with the group (such as shares humour (SH)) and also promoted
appropriate responses (such as maintains affective status (MAS)) when the
computer was taking a long time to process and the girls needed to be patient.
During the second segment, the affective support consisted mostly of
150
encouragement (E) for the group who had successfully produced a mask and an
overlay.
Even though both groups in this vignette were experiencing technical
difficulties, very little operational support was implemented (see Figure 5.22).
This may have been because, although there were technical difficulties, the
actual concept that the children were dealing with was not complex and at this
stage the difficulties were not overly impeding progress.
5.10.3 Teacher reflections on creating the images
Even while watching this vignette after the task, the teacher was still very
focused on the technical complications of the process. She reviewed the way in
which she had come to include the feature in the task and reiterated that, while it
had seemed simple to begin with, in retrospect it was not surprising that the
children had difficulties as there were several different software programs
involved and it was complex to understand why all the steps were required.
In summary, the focus teacher suggested that the problem that the children had
was not a lack of understanding of the task, but a simple lack of technical
knowledge of the software they were using. She concluded that:
I think the difficulty with that task was because they were using
AppleWorks. So, by this stage, they knew how to do the mask, they
knew how to do the frame. They'd got those steps worked out. And also
I'd written the steps on big poster board. So the students were able to
refer to the board and say we've done Step 1, now Step 2, and so on. So
they knew how to do the mask and the frame. The issue I think was
because we were in AppleWorks, because the children are used to
AppleWorks being more of text software to them - they can type their
story up on it - sure they'd fiddled around with paint and all the other
options AppleWorks has, but they'd never had to save an AppleWorks
file as a JPEG file.
151
5.11 Vignette 6: Adding the frame: Class session
The vignette of this activity showed the teacher talking to the class in the day
after the the creating the image activity. It consisted of one segment (Segment
6.1) that lasted for 5 minutes and 14 seconds (314 seconds).
5.11.1 Adding the frame: Class session vignette synopsis
In this vignette, the teacher had sat down with all the children to describe to
them the steps of adding the frame and the classroom management strategy for
getting all groups through the process. First of all, she explained that she had
taken notes during the demonstration provided by the school ICT coordinator on
the previous day and had presented them on posters for the children to follow.
Around the classroom the computers that were to be used for the activity were
each labelled with two cards, with each card listing the names of members from
a group. The teacher explained that the groups would do this activity in two sets
of four, with each group having half an hour on the computer and then swapping
with the other group listed. She identified that by the end of the day she was
hopeful that all groups would have their frame on their animation.
She then directed the children’s attention to the first component of the activity,
which was masking.
Teacher: What do you need to open up, Brett?
Brett describes the steps needed to open the file.
Teacher: Good. So you open QuickTime, you go File/Open, so that you can
go and find your movie. You need to open your movie up, so you
actually have your clay animation open in front of you. Evan? There
seems to be a lot of people not listening. Do you want to do this
today?
The class agrees.
Teacher: Then you need to listen. So you have opened up your movie, then
you go up to the movie menu across the top. File/Edit/Movie and
get Movie Properties and that is where this screen comes up. There
are two pull-down menus on there, aren’t there? The first one you
need to pull down so you can see video track, which is this button
152
here, the next one you need to pull down so you can see mask,
which is there. When that happens something changes on that box
doesn’t it? Do you remember what changes on the box? Natalie?
Natalie identifies that a big, black square comes up.
Teacher: Good. A big, black square comes up and beside it are three buttons
and the first one says “Set”.
Pause
Teacher: So then I need to click on Set/Go and find my mask and open it up.
And that is it! I have finished my mask haven’t I?
At this stage, the teacher acknowledged that while the process seemed simple,
she suspected that a few people may make some mistakes. She drew their
attention to the poster board.
Teacher: So that is what this is here for (points to the chart). Now remember
those smart questions? Start to think alright well I have got to this
bit, but I am not sure how to get to here. So therefore I will ask my
teacher how to get from here. Not, “I don’t know what to do”. So
have a really good think about it. Does anyone have any questions
about masking?
The children have no questions.
Teacher: The next one (lifts the page) is our framing.
As she lifted the page, the teacher stopped addressing the class and read through
the steps for herself. She then dropped the page so the children could only see
the first page again.
Teacher: I am actually going to make a change here because I think this
might be a better idea -because look at all the steps on framing.
The teacher lifts the page again and shows the children. Several of them express
amazement – Whoa!
Teacher: There is a lot isn’t there? I am going make a different decision here.
What we are going to do is - you know how there are four groups on
the computer and then the next four? What I think we will do is get
one group on the computer to do this. After you have done your
153
masking, would it be a good idea for us to close down our clay
animations, or would it be a good idea to keep it open?
Children respond that the file should be kept open.
Teacher: Keep it open. So actually on your computer, the first group will go
on. So, on this computer where Peter is, Cathy’s group will go on
first and Cathy’s group will go through these steps. Once they have
gone through those steps, they will leave their screen open. When
they have finished they will go to Shaun, Brendan, Dylan and Brett
and say, we are finished, it is your turn. So that group will then
come up and go through these steps. That way all of us will have
done half of what we need to do this afternoon. Does that sound OK
with you?
They agree.
Teacher: Because I think if we go on to this, we are all going to be going,
whoa! My head is spinning around and I have too many ideas in it
at one go. Are you happy to that?
They agree.
Teacher: This won’t take very long and then we will all come back down on
the floor again. The people who aren’t going to use the computer
first will do silent reading at their desks. Remember, if you are not
sure, you need to put your hand up so I can come around and help
you. As soon as you have gone through all of these steps, keep your
screen open. What do I have to do Evan?
Evan responds that they will need to keep the screen open.
Teacher: Good. Because I can imagine some people will shut them down.
Then those people on the computer will go and silent read and swap
over with the other people who will come up
The teacher directed the groups to begin either the on computer activity or silent
reading as arranged.
154
5.11.2 Analysis of teacher support during adding the frame: Group
session
It was obvious from watching this vignette that the teacher had put considerable
time into conceptualising and planning the activity prior to this session. The
graphs of support strategies for this vignette (See Figures 5.26 - 5.30) show that
the teacher used this mat session to provide a substantial amount of support in
preparation for the children to start the activity.
Figure 5.26. Cognitive strategies identified during framing: Group session
Figure 5.27 . Operational strategies identified during framing: Group session Figure 5.30 .Overview of strategies during framing: Group session
Figure 5.28 . Affective strategies identified during framing: Group session Figure 5.29 . Technical strategies identified in framing: Group session
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (314 secs)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
Series1
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (314 secs)
Overall categories
02468
10121416
cognitive operational affective technicalcategory types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (314 secs)
Technical strategies
0123456789
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL TDcategories
incide
nces
segment 1 (314 secs)
156
Figure 5.30 shows that while the strategies she used drew from all four
categories, the majority of the support she provided came from the cognitive and
operational categories. This suggested that her priorities in this session were not
only to establish the scope of the activity and its role in the overall production
but also to provide a clear classroom strategy for organising how the groups
would process through the activity. The organisational requirements of the
activity were significantly greater in this mat session segment than the previous
mat session segment illustrated in Segment 1.1 (see Figure 5.31).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
seg 1.1(53 secs) seg 6.1(314 secs)
cognitive
operationalaffective
technical
Figure 5.31. A comparison of the distribution of support strategies between the mat session in the storyboarding vignette and the mat session in the framing vignette.
In the first mat session (Segment 1.1), the focus was mostly on cognitive
support where the teacher was trying to establish the children’s perceptions of
the task. In this session (Segment 6.1), the amount of operational support was
almost equivalent to the cognitive support as the teacher not only helped the
children with conceptualising what they had to do but also how they were going
to do this. This characteristic could be explained in a number of ways. It could
have been because the process was new to the teacher, she was not particularly
confident and so she felt that she needed to make the process more explicit to
the children. It may also have been because she felt that the activity was more
complex and involved detailed technical processes so the children needed more
operational support. Alternatively, it may have related to the limitations of
equipment and the need to rotate groups on and off the computers.
157
It was interesting that several of the support strategies in this segment were
structured material (SM) (see Figure 5.26). This included initiatives such as the
poster board instructions and the cards at the computer with the group names.
These devices are a very valid form of support as they not only provide
assistance when the teacher introduces the idea, but they serve as an ongoing
visual reminder for children who are struggling with processes or concepts.
This vignette also indicated the teacher’s intention to distribute her time and
attention unequally during the activity, as she did in Vignette 3 when filming
the sequence (see Section 5.7). In this case, half of the class would be working
independently on silent reading while she worked with four groups at the
computers.
5.11.3 Teacher reflections on Adding the frame: Class session
As the teacher watched this vignette she expressed anxiety about the complexity
of the process she was asking the children to undertake. At the stage where she
was about to turn the page over and start on the second process, she asked for
the videotape to be stopped. She expressed dissatisfaction with her method in
the video and explained that if she were to do the activity again, she would have
actually stopped the process at that stage. This was exactly what she had done in
the mat session (see Section 5.11.1) and she felt better after watching the
remainder of the video.
It was ironic that later, when the activity was carried out, it seemed that it was
actually the practice of trying to pause the process in the middle was what
caused many of the problems faced by the children. Although the teacher was
reminded of this during the reflection, it was evident that she couldn’t remember
the technical details of what went wrong. It appeared that she felt that her
management of the activity must have been lacking and therefore caused the
confusion that occurred later. She commented that she would learn from her
mistakes and before she tried this activity again with a class she would make
sure that she had mastered the process herself.
158
5.12 Vignette 7: Adding the frame: Difficulties
This vignette has two segments where children are struggling with the concept
of file location and the opening and closing of files. Segment 7.1 is with Group
7 and runs 166 seconds in a continuous section. The teacher also returns to this
group at the end of the vignette and so an additional 32 seconds is added to
Segment 1 making it 198 seconds in total. Segment 7.2 is with Group 2 and lasts
for 88 seconds. In total the vignette 4 minutes and 46 seconds (286 seconds).
5.12.1 Adding the frame: Difficulties vignette synopsis
The activity was in the first rotation so the first four groups were working on the
computer. Joanna had just called the teacher over to Group 7’s computer as they
were having trouble locating the frame file. The teacher requested that they
open the movie first.
Teacher: Hang on. You were about to open it from your folder. You need to
open it in QuickTime.
Eve is searching for the file. The others are sitting uninvolved.
Teacher: Are we really taking turns here or does Eve seem to be doing more?
Joanna and Felicity indicate that Eve is working by herself.
Teacher: Exactly. So, Eve, how about we give Felicity this seeing she is
sitting nearby. Felicity, scroll down and open up your movie for me.
You might want to make that smaller so we can see it. Open up your
movie girls. Now what do you do?
The teacher lets the girls talk together as they look through the options.
Teacher: And you have to go and find it now.
The teacher watched the girls work through the steps to reach the frame. They
have been following the steps correctly, but it was apparent that there was still
something wrong. The girls explained to the teacher that the image that they
could see was not the frame that they had created. The teacher apologised for
misunderstanding the problem and then took the mouse to search for the original
file. It seemed as if somebody else’s frame file had been saved over the top of
the girls’ original file.
159
Teacher: Alright, you have literally two minutes to go in and do a new mask
and a new backdrop. I will move these from here. Somehow
someone else’s has got put over the top of yours. I don’t know how
that happened.
Eve moves to pick up the mouse.
Teacher: Eve, not you. The problem is you are not sharing terribly well.
Alright what do you save it as? Yes, JPEG. If you have a problem
put your hand up. You have 2 minutes, quickly go and do a mask
Segment 7.1 depicted Group 2 who were sitting near Group 7. The teacher
moved to this group when she heard them arguing.
Teacher: Hold on, hold on, hold on. What are you arguing over?
Natalie explains that Sarah wants to close the file whereas she wants to leave
the file open.
Teacher: What stage have you got to?
The girls talk at once but it seems that they have only reached the first step.
Teacher: So all you have done is open up your movie? Sarah, close your
movie. Open it again for me. Now what are you supposed to do?
Natalie turns to look at the poster board, but says nothing to her group.
Teacher: Come on girls, what is the next step?
Natalie talks about the process and tries to take the mouse from Sarah.
Teacher: Sarah, share. Because maybe Natalie knows what to do. I will give
you a hint – Get ...
Sarah continues to use the mouse but is following the instructions that Natalie is
giving. The third girl, Gabriella points out steps on the screen.
Teacher: Good. Good, Open and it is done. OK? Now you have to save it.
The teacher leaves Group 2 and returns to Group 7.
Teacher: Alright, how are we going? Did you save it as .J-P-E-G and JPEG
where it comes up with AppleWorks?
Yes, Yeah. The girls seem very confident.
Teacher: Good, alright, well quickly do your background for me.
160
Eve is using the mouse and draws a frame with input from the other two.
Teacher: OK, now quickly save that one.
5.12.2 Analysis of teacher support during Adding the frame: Difficulties
The teacher support strategies from this activity are presented in Figures 5.32 -
5.36. Figure 5.36 shows that once again technical support dominates the
interactions between the teacher and the children, particularly in Segment 7.1.
Figure 5.32. Cognitive strategies identified during adding the frame: Difficulties
Figure 5.33 . Operational strategies identified during adding the frame: Difficulties Figure 5.36 .Overview of strategies during adding the frame: Difficulties
Figure 5.34 . Affective strategies identified during adding the frame: Difficulties Figure 5.35 . Technical strategies identified in adding the frame: Difficulties
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
Segment 1 (198 sec)
Segment 2 (88 sec)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR MS CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
Series1 Series2
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
Segment 1 (198 sec)
Segment 2 (88 sec)
Overall categories
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
cognitive operational affective technicalcategory types
inci
denc
es
Segment 1 (198 sec)Segment 2 (88 sec)
Technical strategies
0123456
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL RP TD
categories
incide
nces
Segment 1 (198 sec)
Segment 2 (88sec)
162
In this vignette, the teacher appeared fatigued and obviously frustrated by the
difficulties the children were having, however, she remained methodical and
consistently supported the children towards their goal.
As the process was technical with very little creativity required, it is not
surprising that the most support displayed in this activity occurred in the
technical category in Segment 7.1(See Figure 5.36). This segment was also
balanced with cognitive and operational support in order to keep the girls on
track, both in terms of the task and their group interactions. It was obvious that
the teacher was also required to problem-solve throughout this segment and on
several occasions teacher shows confusion (SC) was recorded (see Figure 5.32)
as part of the interaction between the teacher and the group.
It was significant to note that only one incident of affective support was
identified during this segment (see Figure 5.35) and this was in the final
moments as the girls completed the activity. This may have been because as the
task was merely technical, it did not really require the affective support that is
needed to facilitate creativity. It may also have been that the teacher was
focused on the problematic operational and technical processes and in doing so
had to overlook the affective “wellness” of the group.
In Segment 7.2 the teacher was required to intervene because of an operational
breakdown within Group 2 (they were arguing and unable to proceed). Given
this, it was interesting to see how little support was required to recover the
group dynamics. By firstly supporting group negotiations (SGN) and then
recruiting Natalie (PR) into a role as a reader (see Figure 5.34), the teacher
helped the group to recover quickly and they were able to complete the activity.
5.12.3 Teacher reflections on adding the frame: Difficulties
During the reflection for this vignette, the discussion focussed not actually on
the activity, but on individual children’s learning within the group. The focus
teacher identified that the children were not learning at the same pace and she
commented that this influenced the roles with the groups. She felt that Eve
should have given the mouse control to someone else in Segment 7.1, because:
163
Knowing the kids in that group, I was making it easy for me. Eve would
have been down here [indicates a low position] and the others would
have been up here [indicates higher] with their understanding. So that is
why I've said “Okay Eve, let's give somebody else a go.” The other child
who took on the task would have had a greater understanding. That
makes it easier for me.
The teacher also suggested that by removing a child from the problem-solving
process where they could rest and observe the process, the group would
progress while that child either conceptualised the process or simply moved on
to the next step. In continuation of this discussion, the teacher went on to
present the notion that a teacher should watch for a child reaching their
“saturation point.” She suggested that:
I think at a certain stage in this process, children like Eve were at
saturation point mentally. Like, when you cram for an exam and can't fit
more in. And the other students weren't - it tended to be the older ones.
Eve is in Year 4. Felicity hadn't reached that saturation point. Neither
had Joanna, who is an accelerated child. She could easily have
understood it as well. Eve was, sort of, beyond her realm of, you know,
“What do I do now? I can't go on.”
While this aspect might have related to age or maturity, the teacher also
suggested that saturation depended very much on a specific context when a
child engaged with a particular challenge. Further, this could benefit a group
working through a number of challenges. The focus teacher went on to say:
They all reach the saturation level at different points as well. So even
though Eve might have been younger, her saturation point might have
been greater than the rest of them on this challenge. So I think it is when
they work as a group with the different levels, they can help each other
out in a variety of ways.
164
The teacher also referred to this concept when she discussed Segment 7.2, by
observing that:
You would have noticed that Natalie, when I said what you do next, she
turned around to obviously look at the poster which was up there
somewhere, whereas the other two girls in her group didn't. One sat at
the computer and one was just off to the side. So Natalie was Year 4 and
the other two were Year 5. So her saturation point was different again.
She was still able to think through “What do I do next?” whereas the
others were “Just tell me what to do and I'll do it for you.”
5.13 Vignette 8: Adding the frame: File management
In this vignette, the children were persevering with the problematic process of
adding the frame which had taken far more time than allocated and had
extended into the afternoon. The vignette consisted of two segments. In
Segment 8.1, the teacher was working with Group 5, a group with one girl and
two boys, who was not progressing well with the task (172 seconds). In
Segment 8.2 the teacher had called the whole class back to the mat for a group
session (84 seconds). In total this video was 4 minutes and 16 seconds (256
seconds).
5.13.1 Adding the frame: File management vignette synopsis
The teacher was sitting in front of the computer with the girl from Group 5,
Georgia. Another group member, Jon, was sitting on Georgia’s left but back
from the computer and the last group member, Stan, was standing off to the
right. It seemed as if the group had been having problems and were disagreeing
on what they should do next. The teacher was trying to ascertain were the group
was up to.
Teacher: Can you just open that for me? It looks to me like you have already
put your mask on it. But do you know what Jon? Did you press
Apple S? Because what I think you did is exactly what [the ICT
coordinator] said not to do. You saved over the top of the movie. Do
you understand what I am saying? Can I take this [the mouse]
please?
The teacher takes the mouse from Georgia.
165
Teacher: Lucky for you, this morning I put copies of all of your work in
another folder, knowing that somebody would do this. So I am
putting that in the bin and I am going to copy your original movie
across. OK? So now, in QuickTime Georgia, open up your movie
again for me.
The teacher had recovered the process, effectively taking the children back to
the starting point. She asked the group to start the process again.
Teacher: OK, now what do you do?
The children are hesitating and so the teacher indicates to the instructions on
the poster board.
Teacher: It is right here, right near you. You don’t even have to look terribly
far. What is the next step? We are not doing very good group work
this afternoon.
Jon leans over and takes the mouse.
Teacher: Good Jon. What are you doing now?
Jon talks through the steps.
Teacher: Good, good. See I think you had already done it, but you saved over
the top of the other one. So are we going to call this SJG movie?
The children identify that it shouldn’t be called SJG
Teacher: No. Because if we do, we are going to copy over the other one
aren’t we? So what are we going to save it as?
Jon suggests another name.
Teacher: Good, good. SJG and maybe the word good copy or something like
that.
Jon types in the title.
Teacher: S – J – G goodcopy and then save it.
Teacher gets up to leave.
Teacher: And guys - Georgia listen to this because this is really important.
Jon, are you listening? Are you listening, Stan? The next framing bit
takes a lot of steps. Do you want to get it done? Because you may
not get it done if you continue to argue with each other.
166
In Segment 8.2, the teacher gathered the whole class on the mat. She was
obviously frustrated by the problems that many of the groups were having and
wanted to reinforce with them that they needed to follow the instruction
explicitly.
Teacher: I have a bit of a problem. My problem is that people aren’t listening.
Remember we were discussing this before morning tea and before
lunch and you said, Yes, I am ready to listen to you. I am ready to
listen and follow instructions. It is on paper, we have spoken about
it, and [the ICT coordinator] has been here. Now if you had
difficulty listening when you were doing the masking bit, you will
make mistakes when you do the framing bit. And that is when
people will say to me, Oh, my gosh, I’m all over the place and it
won’t get done.
The teacher pauses.
Teacher: Are you willing to follow these instructions? Where are the
instructions if you are not certain on what to do? Evan?
Evan indicates to a poster, but it is the previous poster they used.
Teacher: No, we have actually done that one. It is here.
Teacher indicates to the latest poster.
Teacher: What do you do if you get lost and you are not certain what to do
even if the instructions are here? Adam?
Adam suggests that they could ask someone else in the class.
Teacher: You could ask someone else in the class. Is it possible that
someone else in your group knows? What else could you do?
A class member suggests that they return to the poster board.
Teacher: Good. You could come back and say, what stage am I up to? Oh,
I’m up to Stage 4. Now this is what I have to do.
The teacher asked the children to return to their work and to pay special
attention to following the instructions.
167
5.13.2 Analysis of teacher support during Adding the frame: File
management
In this vignette, the teacher is working hard to maintain support in times of
adversity. It is evident that the activity was far more difficult than first thought
and it appears that the technical steps involved in this process were stretching
most of the children beyond their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky,
1976). Nevertheless, at this stage the teacher is committed to including this
feature in the task and so she is doing her utmost to facilitate the process as
efficiently as possible with the groups. The support strategies used in this
vignette are presented in Figures 5.37 - 5.41, with Figure 5.41 showing the
overview of the strategies. The most pertinent aspect represented is the striking
differences between the two sessions. The second segment (Segment 8.2) is
evidently an attempt by the teacher to try a new approach and bring the focus
back on the task and the processes involved.
Figure 5.37. Cognitive strategies identified during framing: File management
Figure 5.38 . Operational strategies identified during framing: File management Figure 5.41. Overview of strategies during framing: File management
Figure 5.39 . Affective strategies identified during framing: File management Figure 5.40 . Technical strategies identified in framing: File management
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (172 secs)
segment 2 (84 secs)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
Series1 Series2
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment1 (172 secs)
segment 2 (84 secs)
Overall categories
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
cognitive operational affective technicalcategory types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (172 secs)segment 2 (84 secs)
Technical strategies
0123456
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL TD
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (172 secs)
segment 2 (84 secs)
169
Segment 8.2 was a particularly salient example of how the teacher needed to
support a group who were struggling with the process and their group structure
had dissolved because of their problems. In the first instance, the teacher
provided “technical recovery” (TR) (see Figure 5.40) to enable the students to
start again. She was then required to continue with technical support to ensure
the activity was successfully completed. It was therefore not surprising that the
most dominant support category in this segment was technical. It was also
interesting to note that the teacher had pre-empted the problem this group had
when they saved the frame file over the actual animation (by using the same
filename). This indicated that she had anticipated this error occurring and had a
copy of the animation as a precaution.
Another prominent aspect of this segment was the reduced amount of cognitive
support from the teacher (see Figure 5.41). While the support categories were
relatively evenly distributed in this segment, this was the first segment where
the cognitive support strategies category did not dominate operational and
affective categories. In this segment (Segment 8.2) it seemed that the priority
was to address the problems with group functionality. The next focus was to
provide affective support in order to encourage the children to begin to engage
with the process again after they had ground to a halt. It seemed that in a
situation such as this the use of cognitive support strategies relating to “ideas”
and the broader perspectives of the quality task were just not relevant.
Segment 8.2 was obviously an “emergency” mat session and it was evidence of
the teacher applying a reflective approach to her teacher support strategies.
When it was evident that many of the groups were having problems in following
the instructions, she called them together again in an attempt to refocus their
attention on the posters and revisit the process engaging with mostly cognitive
support strategies (see Figure 5.41). As it was, it was likely that both the
teacher and the children were too fatigued or “saturated” at this stage for this
session to be very effective.
170
5.13.3 Teacher reflections on Adding the frame: File management
In this reflection the teacher focused only on the interactions in Segment 8.1.
She referred to the moment when she directed the children to the poster once
again. Her discussion also demonstrated some of the frustrations she felt during
the segment. She noted that:
That's teaching them how to problem-solve themselves instead of
coming to me because I'm about to kill someone because by this stage
no-one’s listened or, I shouldn't say “no-one.” You know what I mean.
To a certain extent they hadn't listened to the instructions or followed the
steps or whatever was required of them. You know – “There are other
people in this room who know what to do other than the teacher. Let’s
ask them.” But I think when the pressure is on and it’s something new,
it is very difficult.
The teacher was asked if she thought that the inability to follow the steps came
about when the children reached saturation, as she had referred to previously.
She responded “Yes. And their first reaction is ‘the teacher will help me.’ And I
suppose I was feeling the pressure and I was saying ‘Let’s use all of us. It's not
just me.’”
5.14 Vignette 9: Adding the frame: Group support
This vignette was the last for the “Adding the frame sequence.” It consisted of
three segments (a) Segment 9.1 with Group 6 (55 seconds), (b) an in-depth
problem-solving episode in Segment 9.2 with Group 3 (273 seconds with a
further 10 seconds at the end of the vignette), and then (c) Segment 9.3 as a
whole class address (67 seconds). Overall the vignette lasted for 6 minutes and
45 seconds (405 seconds).
5.14.1 Adding the frame: Group support vignette synopsis
In Segment 8.1, the teacher was working with Group 6 with the three boys
sitting at the computer and with the teacher standing behind them. By this stage
it was obvious that the problem with trying to do half of the process and then
return to it later (see Section 5.11.3) had occurred and the teacher was beginning
to realise that the process had to be done in an uninterrupted sequence.
171
The teacher pins up the instruction poster on wall above the computer.
Teacher: Right, you guys are going right back to the beginning which is why
this is here. Close all of that down. We will talk it through together
so follow my instructions.
The teacher read the instructions one by one and the boys worked together to
follow the instructions.
Teacher: All right next step. Get movie properties. Apple-J will do the same
thing Craig.
Alistair is talking through the process to Craig, but misreads a step.
Teacher: No, mask, Alistair.
Craig checks with the teacher to query the next step.
Teacher: Yep. So we are following these steps, remember. So now you have
to go and find where your mask is - and just open it. Scroll down. I
can’t see it from here, but you will have to scroll down.
The teacher continued with this group until the process was finished and their
frame was combined with their animation.
The interaction with Group 3 in Segment 9.2 began when one of the other class
members reported that David from Group 3 was crying. The teacher went over
to join the group.
Teacher: David what is wrong?
The group has been arguing and David is upset and accusing other children.
Teacher: Boys, you won’t be doing this this afternoon if I have to discuss this
with you one more time. I have no idea what you are doing because
this doesn’t look right at all. Can I please hop around here so I can
see what is happening?
The teacher moves between the boys so she is in front of the computer.
Teacher: So, what step are you up to?
The boys look at the poster with very little comprehension. It is obvious that
they have not been following the steps. They begin to accuse each other again.
The teacher walks around the computer to stand in front of the four.
172
Teacher: Guys, look at me. Look at me. I am here, I am not there. You chose
right back at the beginning of term to work as a group. Does this
look like a group to you?
James responded that the group was working together at the beginning.
Teacher: No, James. A “yes” or “no” would be great.
James agreed that the members were not working as a group.
Teacher: This doesn’t look like a group to me. This looks like a bunch of
people arguing.
James continues to accuse.
Teacher: No, no. Not “he did this”, “he did that”. James, it is no one’s fault.
We are not working as a group. It is just that simple. So we are
going to quit out of all this that you have done because I have no
idea what you are up to and we are going to work together as a
group. Alright? So, obviously we need to open up QuickTime first.
The teacher is distracted by a student from another group and James and David
scuffle for control of the mouse.
Teacher: No, no, no, no, no. Do you see what I am saying? This isn’t group
work, this is arguing. And I have already said to you, if I have to sit
here and get you to do this, without cooperation, you won’t be
doing this. I am here to help you and if you want my help that is
fine - but if you don’t I will go away and you won’t have a clay
animation. What is it going to be?
Several members indicated that they would try and work as a group.
Teacher: OK, then let’s work as a group. David, your hand is off the mouse
because this is where a lot of the problem starts. Timothy put your
hand on the mouse. What is the first thing we have to do?
A group member articulates the first step
Teacher: Great! What is the next thing we have to do? David, wouldn’t it be
great if you could sort of look through there and read to Timothy
what you have to do.
The group began to function far more cooperatively following this intervention.
The teacher supported the process step by step.
173
Teacher: Great! Now what do you need to do?
David is reading out the instructions from the poster.
Teacher: So now you need to open up your movie, Timothy. So File/Open
the movie. You have to go and find the movie Timothy not the
photograph. Good. Maskmovie I think Timothy. No, no, no. Which
one did you put your mask on?
James points.
Teacher: This one or maskmovie?
James confirms his original choice.
Teacher: No, it couldn’t be because that was the one that I put in there this
morning called “movie”. Yours would have been called
maskmovie, I am thinking, well that is my guess, because I had the
one called “movie”.
They open maskmovie and it is the right one.
Teacher: OK, what is the next step David?
David is reading the poster. The teacher reassures another student, Shaun, that
she is aware that he needs help and she will be there after the current group.
David reports back to the group and Timothy follows the steps. There is a
problem with the result.
Teacher: OK. Yours has done the same thing. Can I just take the mouse for a
few seconds, Timothy?
The technical problem that had previously occurred with other groups had
developed with the process that the teacher had just supervised. The careful
monitoring of this faulty process along with successful sequence that she had
watched earlier in Segment 9.1 had allowed her to pinpoint both the problem
and the solution. The teacher stopped working at the computer and initiated the
“stop, look and listen” clapping sequence (see Section 5.10.1). The teacher
turned to address the whole class.
Teacher: Um, OK. This seems to be the problem. Number one is that we
should have, because I tried to make your lives easier and it didn’t
work, we should have gone through all of the masking steps and all
of the framing steps and it would have worked. Cathy’s group’s has
174
worked, hasn’t it Cathy? “Well done” to those people. Our twenty
minutes is pretty close to being up and you need to try and get yours
done. You guys down the front, I have already spoken with you, so
you should know they steps on what to do. OK? Is your movie just
at the back now Alistair?
Alistair responds suggesting that they need teacher help.
Teacher: I’m finding it really difficult to split myself into four, so when I’m
coming and talking to you, you need to really take notice of my
instructions and follow the instructions on the poster board. You
have five minutes left if you are on the computer.
The teacher turned once again to the boys in Group 3 who were waiting calmly
for her attention.
Teacher: What we are going to do here is we are going to start again and we
are going to follow all of the masking steps and all of the framing
steps and we are going to take turns at it, so all four of you get your
hands on the mouse.
Once the sequencing problem had been identified, the process ran quite
smoothly and the teacher was able to support the remainder of the groups
complete the activity that afternoon.
5.14.2 Analysis of teacher support during Adding the frame: Group
support
The calm perseverance and flexibility displayed by the teacher during this
activity was perhaps was one of the clearest indicators of her expertise in
supporting children using computers. During the day she had regularly needed
to reassess the nature of the activity, the time it would take and the best way to
negotiate her students through the process. Additionally, on a personal level, she
struggled with her own technical understanding of the process and had to apply
problem solving strategies in order to apply the one-off instructions that she had
been given into a context that involved managing eight groups of children
through the activity.
175
By the time the class reached this stage, it was late in the day and the activity
had taken far longer than anticipated. While the concept of adding the frame
was not difficult for the children, the technical process documented on the
poster board was problematic and so in this vignette the teacher displayed an
instructional style of support where she provided considerably more structure
than on previous occasions.
Figures 5.42 - 5.46 illustrate the support strategies that the teacher used in this
vignette. The overview of strategies for this vignette (see Figure 5.46) is clearly
dominated by the operational support used by the teacher in Segment 9.2 to
support Group 3 to complete their task.
Figure 5.42. Cognitive strategies identified during framing: Group support
Figure 5.43 . Operational strategies identified during framing: Group support Figure 5.46 .Overview of strategies during framing: Group support
Figure 5.44 . Affective strategies identified during framing: Group support Figure 5.45 . Technical strategies identified in framing: Group support
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA BP ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (55 secs)segment 2 (283 secs)segment 3 (67 secs)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR MS CS ME SFO SGC
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (55 secs)segment 2 (283 secs)segment 3 (67 secs)
Affective strategies
0123456
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (55 secs)segment 2 (283 secs)segment 3 (67 secs)
Overall categories
0
5
10
15
20
25
cognitive operational affective technicalcategory types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (55 secs)segment 2 (283 secs)segment3 (67 secs)
Technical strategies
0123456
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL RP TD
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (55 secs)segment 2 (283 secs)segment 3 (67 secs)
177
In Segment 9.1, the teacher had adopted a recovery strategy. At this stage, she
didn’t seem particularly concerned about the students internalising the process
or exploring the options available, rather she instructed them through the
activity. This was evident in both cognitive and technical categories of support
where the interactions mostly related to information. Figure 5.42 shows that the
teacher gave information (GI) and reminded the children of the sequences
(RTS). Figure 6.45 shows that the teacher also used technical instruction (TI)
and then reminded the children of technical information (PRIT).
The children in this group appeared to be competent at following instructions
and worked effectively with the teacher as she provided information step by
step. The teacher was not required to provide operational support (see Figure
5.43) and only one instance of affective support where the teacher reassured the
children (R) was recorded (see Figure 5.44). In this instance, the documented
process worked effectively and the teacher support enabled the group to finish
the activity without further trouble.
In Segment 9.2, the teacher was unable to help the children by instructing them
through the steps because their group structure had deteriorated to a level that
made it impossible for all the members to participate in the group task. The first
thing that the teacher needed to do was to address the operational issues with
Group 3 and support them to work as a group again. Figure 5.47 shows the
sequence of support provided during Segment 9.2.
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40affective
operational0
1
2
3
4
5
inst
ance
s
per 5 instances
affective
cognitive
technical
operational
Figure 5.47. Sequence of support provided by the teacher in Segment 9.2.
178
The graph in Figure 5.47 illustrates that while the group (Group 6) were
dysfunctional, the focus teacher could do very little but concentrate on
operational support. Then, when the group was able to function again, she was
able to implement cognitive and technical support to allow the group to continue
with the task.
When looking at specific operational strategies (see Figure 5.43) it is evident
that much of the support involved the teacher identifying for children that the
current approach was not working. Strategies such as critiques structure (CS)
were used followed by draws students on-task (DOT) and then requests new
direction (RND).
The technical support provided to this group was similar to that provided to
Group 3 in the previous segment (see Figure 5.45). Technical strategies
included technical instruction (TI) and providing/reminding of technical
information (PRIT). It also included checking understanding (CUT) and when
necessary the teacher used critiquing action (CA) in order to keep the children
closely to the correct steps.
The action that the teacher took when she realised that the process was faulty,
even though all the steps had been followed correctly, was interesting. In
Segment 9.3 she stopped the entire class and for just over a minute provided a
reflection session of mostly cognitive support (see Figure 5.42) where she
reviewed the planning of the task (STP) and then reflected on the processes they
were supposed to use (RP). She then reminded the children of what they were
required to do to complete the task (RTS). In terms of operational support (see
Figure 5.43) she used time management (TM) to specify the time they had left
to complete the task and then prompted protocol (PP) so the children would
make the best use of limited teacher interaction time.
5.14.3 Teacher reflections on Adding the frame: Group support
The focus teacher identified that during this activity some of the groups had
managed to successfully complete the process while others had not. By the time
this stage had been reached, she felt that the main focus was to get all of the
179
groups finished. In reaction to Segment 9.1, she recognised that the most
important aspect was to finish the task, noting that “this was a survival tactic, as
in these guys needed to get it done, and the best way for them to get it done is
for me to stand there and work step by step through the process.”
After she had watched Segment 9.2 the teacher focused immediately on the
personalities of the children involved and identified that:
James is very exasperated. James is a black and white boy - yes or no,
got to be his way. David is a little bit the same. The difference being
that James can be right in his black and white whereas David is normally
wrong. And so they clash very heavily.
With this group she recognised that if she didn’t intervene in a significant way,
the process would simply not get completed. She explained that “that is where
the teacher -if you want the end product - that's where you have to step in and
not take over, but you have to direct that group.”
It was pointed out to the teacher that at this stage she was actually at the level
where she was giving physical instructions, for example “You take your hand
off the mouse; you put your hand on the mouse.” She agreed, commenting that:
Because they're at that point where they can't decide. They're saturated.
They really can't do any more. They just need that teacher help to get
them to the end point. Whereas it’s interesting because the first group
could. They were well, easing into this. It was okay for them. Whereas
with James’ group it just wasn't working.
The teacher recognised that when an activity became difficult or problematic, it
was often a factor that made group dynamics stronger as individuals worked
together to solve the problem. However, on other occasions, a problem situation
without support could cause the disintegration and eventual destruction of a
group. She also felt that joint conceptualisation of the end product was
important, saying that:
180
You can't look into people's brains, but perhaps in the first group the
image in their brain of what the end product would be was very similar.
But in James’s group perhaps in their brain their visualisation of what it
would be was totally different, and that might have been an issue that
made it really difficult for them to get something. Like, I know when
James’s worked with other people on other things, his visualisation in
his mind of the end product is often 180 degrees away from the rest of
the group, and that can make it really difficult for the group.
5.15 Vignette 10: Music soundtrack
The addition of music to the animation was the final step to finish the task. The
children had been required to locate a music sound track that they wanted to add
to their animation. It seemed that most groups had brought in a commercial
compact disc (CD) from home. The children then were required to select a
portion of a track from the CD and used the software iMovie to add the music to
the animation.
This vignette shows Group 1 working with the teacher to add their soundtrack.
It consists of only one segment (Segment 10.1). The segment is quite long and
lasts for 9 minutes (540 seconds).
5.15.1 Music soundtrack vignette synopsis
In Segment 10.1, the activity took place back in the wet area with the teacher
and the children seated around the teacher’s own laptop. One child was standing
next to the poster board that was positioned across the table facing the group.
The teacher later identified that the use of her laptop was necessary because it
was the only computer in the classroom that had the appropriate software for
this purpose. The remainder of the class were once again working in the
classroom with guidance of the teacher’s aide.
The child at the poster board was reading out the steps while the teacher
supported the process of carrying out each step with the children at the
computer.
181
Teacher: What is the next thing to do, Cathy? We have done number one.
Cathy reads out the instruction.
Teacher: So we need to click on New Project. And obviously this has to go in
your folder? Not in Stan’s, Jon’s and Georgia’s. Now with that one
we don’t want to call it [the focus teacher’s] movie, do we? What
we have to put up there is we put your initials and then the word
“project.” So this is where you put CLMN project. So you do all of
that, there you go, project. Good and clear. OK we have done that.
What do we do next Cathy?
Cathy reads out the next instruction.
Teacher: Good. So Import/File and go back to your folder again
because we don’t want Tony’s folder. And this is where we
have to open up that DVD movie that we just made. Alright?
So then we will click on that one. Now import that movie
into iMovie. So far, so good? Easy?
The girls agree that it is easy.
At regular intervals the teacher checked with the group to ensure that they were
each comfortable with both the process and the group roles.
Teacher: Cathy, are you happy to stay there still?
Cathy confirms that she is.
Teacher: OK. So you can turn that over now.
Cathy pretends she is a teacher. Teacher laughs.
Teacher: You would make a very good teacher, Cathy. OK. Do you want to
swap Melissa? Are you happy sitting there reaching over? Can you
still see what you need to do?
When it was time to actually select the music track, the teacher initiated a
discussion to help the group decide which segment of the music track should be
matched to the movie sequence.
Teacher: You are song number one aren’t you? Do you know what part you
want to include?
Cathy explains that they want about the first half of the song.
182
Teacher: Remember that your movie is about 17 seconds and so many bits, so
we need to make it 18 seconds long. So we can’t put the first half of
the song because the song is about 3 minutes long isn’t it? If we
press play we can listen to the song and try and work out the bit that
we want.
The teacher turns up the volume.
Teacher: I just want to make sure that is loud enough. You have to be
thinking, what part of this song do I want?
Cathy suggests that they do 18 seconds from the start. Melissa adds that it
should be from where the singing starts.
Teacher: So what you are saying is when he first starts singing instead of just
the musical bit?
The girls agree.
Teacher: And remember it fades in and fades out.
The girls revise and suggest that they can play the track from the start if the
music is fading in.
Teacher: So have we now got a decision?
The girls agree and Melissa starts the music track.
Teacher: OK, so now press Stop, Melissa.
Teacher: OK. So what is going to happen, when we press play again?
Melissa? That song will play from the beginning? You then might
have to count 5 in your head because it won’t actually show five
seconds in, but you know the song well enough to know when it is
going to start singing anyway. When you are ready to record it, we
need to press record music and then when you are finished you need
to press record music again and that will stop it. Alright, so are you
ready? Let’s press play.
Once the portion of the song had been selected, the girls were ready to test their
sequence. It was apparent that the teacher was a little apprehensive that the
process would be problematic based on some practice trials she had conducted
before she had asked the children to complete the activity.
183
Teacher: And this where we cross our fingers because this is where the
problem went wrong yesterday.
The music starts and Cathy runs around to watch with the rest of the girls. She
bops in the background.
Teacher: What did you think? What we can do - see how your sound clip
that you just imported from the CD actually goes longer? What is
happening is it is not fading out right at the end, it is fading too late.
So Melissa, can you see the grey arrow?
Melissa indicates an arrow on the screen.
Teacher: No down here where my finger is. Can you see the grey arrow? If
you click on that and drag it across, you will actually be able to take
that across right down to the end of your clay animation, or just a bit
past the end.
Melissa follows the instructions.
Teacher: So now we have actually just got rid of that little bit. Alright? If you
press this you can see it on the big screen and you can see what it
looks like.
Cathy comes back around to watch. Cathy claps, the other girls are also
pleased.
Teacher: What do you think?
The girls say that they think it is good.
Teacher: Are you happy with it?
The girls are very excited by the finished movie.
Teacher: (To the researcher) Thank goodness that worked! That’s amazing!
There was one more step to finish the animation and the teacher suggested that
the girls rearrange their roles once again. Cathy moved to the computer and
Melissa took the position by the poster board to read the instructions.
Teacher: Now, do you remember when we did our procedure movies from
last term?
The girls identified that they did remember.
Teacher: This is that exact same process. Do you remember that we made our
QuickTime movies different sizes and some played really well and
184
some didn’t because some were of really good quality and some
were of average quality? So we have to make a decision on what
sort of quality we want here. So what is the next thing we need to
do, Melissa?
Melissa reads the instruction
Teacher: Can you see here that this has got a drop down menu? So if you
click on that and click on QuickTime. Now remember you get to
pick what size movie you want. So this small movie is 10 frames
per second, so if you click on that drop down menu, we can pick
any of these. I would suggest that you either pick the medium
movie or the large movie. So if you click on medium - just click on
medium for the moment Cathy - that will give us 15 frames per
second, or if you click on it again, large, that will give use 29. Now
remember for the movies for last term that was a really good size.
So do you want to do a big one again? Just so you know it is a
really good quality. So now you press export and have a look at
what we are going to call that. So this is the final, it’s done, clay
animation.
5.15.2 Analysis of teacher support during music soundtrack
The atmosphere during this vignette was very different from the last four
vignettes taken from the previous activity (see Sections 5.10-5.14). In the
previous activity the children were required to work fairly independently with
the poster board of instructions as the teacher needed to support four groups at
once. The environment was difficult for the teacher to sustain and all
participants were required to work hard with each other and the teacher to try
and achieve to the set goals.
In Segment 10.1, the teacher remained with the one group in a space removed
from the classroom for the entire activity. The group still had the poster board
with instructions, however, the process of reading the steps and then performing
the tasks was heavily supported by the teacher. In this situation, it seemed that
the students were required to do less in terms of engaging with and solving
problems. One reason for this contrast may have been because the children were
185
working at the teacher’s personal laptop. Not only was it the only computer
where this work could be carried out and therefore could only be completed by
one group at a time, it was also likely that the teacher felt data on her computer
was too precious and/or confidential to allow children to work with it
unsupervised.
Another reason for the increased supervision for this activity may have been that
the difficulties which materialised in the previous activity had initiated an
element of caution for this task. It seemed that the teacher was apprehensive that
the process to be used in this activity may have been as problematic and so she
was taking extra precautions to make sure that the children did not have to
engage with unexpected and peripheral problems such as those that appeared in
the last activity.
The support strategies that the teacher used during Segment 10.1 are presented
in Figures 5.48 - 5.52. Although the children in this segment did not appear to
be having difficulties with the processes, the number of support strategies used
indicates that the teacher nevertheless supported the children constantly
throughout the activity.
Figure 5.48. Cognitive strategies identified during music soundtrack
Figure 5.49 . Operational strategies identified during music soundtrack Figure 5.52. Overview of strategies during music soundtrack
Figure 5.50 . Affective strategies identified during music soundtrack Figure 5.51 . Technical strategies identified in music soundtrack
Cognitive strategies
0123456
SM GI PRI RTS DT SFO MS AS EI SFI SI CS CI RFT RND PTS RD CIP IP DOT RPE CU LC OI STP GP FA ROP SC WS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (540 sec)
Operational strategies
0123456
SGN NGS RND MT RP DP DOT PP TM PR DR CS ME SFO SGC ML
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (540 sec)
Affective strategies
0123456789
10
E AEE AES SH GP RP R CC SU MAS AS
categories
incide
nces
segment 1 (540 sec)
Overall categories
05
10152025303540
cognitive operational affective technicalcategory types
inci
denc
es
segment 1 (540 sec)
Technical strategies
0123456789
1011121314151617
TI TR RO TS PRIT CUT CA IL TDcategories
incide
nces
segment 1 (540 sec)
187
While initial perceptions of this vignette may have been a sense of “over-
servicing” by the teacher in that she provided consistent support even though the
students didn’t seem to be having difficulties, closer examination of the
strategies can offer some valid explanations for this level of interaction.
This vignette illustrated the last activity of the task, as the clay animation was
finished when the students added the music soundtrack, and in this activity it
seemed as if the teacher used a different approach to support because of this.
Although the activity was very technical in nature, the teacher also was required
to provide a cognitive framework for the students in order for them to piece
together a complete understanding of the task and to experience a sense of
completion.
The graphs from this vignette show that the teacher used predominantly
cognitive and technical support strategies in similar quantities (see Figure 5.52).
However, closer examination of the specific graphics relating to technical
support and cognitive support shows that while the teacher used a wide range of
cognitive support strategies (see Figure 5.48), the technical support (see Figure
5.51) provided was mostly from two categories, technical instruction (TI) and
providing/reminding of information (PRIT). It appears that in order to refocus
the children on the task and the completion of the product, the teacher was
taking the emphasis away from the children’s engaging heavily with the
technical process by providing very strong support in this area. While a
consequence of this may have been that the children did not need to gain a
mastery of the technical issues involved in this stage, freedom from technical
problem-solving meant that the group were enabled to move to the “big picture”
level where they could review, evaluate and then enjoy the completion of their
product.
The considerable amount affective support provided by the teacher during this
vignette was also indicative of the process of drawing the task to a close (see
Figure 5.50). In previous vignettes, the teacher had generally provided more
affective support only if the children were struggling with the activity or the
operational structure of the group was at risk. In this activity, the teacher used
188
the strategy of checking for contentment (CC) throughout the vignette. While
this increased support may have been compensation by the teacher for any
insecurity experienced in the previous activity, it may also have just been a
strategy that the teacher was using in the last activity to ensure that the group
were satisfied with the animation that they had produced.
5.15.3 Teacher reflections on music soundtrack
In this reflection, the teacher described the process of importing the animation
into the iMovie software, adding the music and then exporting it as a QuickTime
movie. She confirmed that this process concluded the task and added that at this
stage they could have included voice-overs and sound effects as well, although
all of the groups only incorporated music. She acknowledged that at the
storyboard stage several groups had indicated that they would include additional
sound but by the final stages of the task the children were happy that the music
was enough to “finish” the animation.
When it was suggested to the teacher that the girls in Group 1 shown in
Segment 10.1 seemed comfortable with the technical processes, she agreed and
commented that unlike the previous activity, this was something that was
familiar to the class. In a interview conversation with the researcher she noted:
Teacher: You can use words like import and export and it's just like normal
language to them - they understand what to do.
Researcher: So by this stage they were back in their comfort zone?
Teacher: Mmm. I suppose with the fading in and out too, in things like
Hyperstudio you can do that, so they're just used to using it
everywhere, So we're all back in our comfort zone and it is okay.
Researcher: A nice way to finish?
Teacher: Yes.
5.16 Vignette 11: Student reflection
The student reflection vignette did not show the teacher working with the
children but rather a group talking to the researcher about the task. This vignette
was taken from the sequence of video recordings of interviews with the groups
in the class and was selected as an example to share with the teacher during the
189
stimulated recall session. Segment 11.1 featured Group 6 and ran for 6 minutes
and 19 seconds (379 seconds).
5.16.1 Student feedback vignette synopsis
The three members of Group 6 and the researcher were sitting in the teacher’s
office watching the group’s animation playing on a computer. The researcher
asked the group to play the animation and to explain how it was made.
Michael starts the animation and all three watch with proud expressions
Researcher: Wow! I remember watching you film that. That was pretty
special wasn’t it?
The group agree.
Researcher: You could see all those planets whizzing past and the two ships
coming in. So how did you do it?
Craig: We got -
Michael: We took photos with a digital camera (gestures) and we moved it
like that much (demonstrates with his fingers).
Craig: And we had a ruler stuck into the back of the spaceship.
Michael: Two rulers!
Craig: Two rulers, yeah.
Michael: Look at this!
He uses the mouse to reach a specific section of the animation. Craig put his
hand over Michael’s to take control of the mouse.
Alistair: You can see the ruler underneath it.
Michael: See (points) We put that one in there and there are two rulers
here.
Researcher: Oh, yes! I see it.
The group continued to explain the mechanisms of filming the animation in
great detail. In particular they described a section of the animation where they
created an illusion of the alien Marty’s dog “getting into” the space ship, but
really hiding behind it.
190
Researcher: So, how did you learn to do this?
Craig: Because we looked at [another class’s] things because they did it
first.
Researcher: Right ...
Craig: Then we had a go at it.
Researcher: Had you ever done one before?
All three said no.
The group were keen to continue discussing the details of the animation and
they reminisced about how they damaged their clay model for one shot when
they really needed it intact in a later shot. When they were asked if anything
went wrong during the process, their answers were again in the context of
arranging and filming the sequence.
Michael: We didn’t think we would need Marty’s face again and Craig
took it out and scrunched it up. So we had to cover it with the
dog.
Researcher: (laughs) That was a pretty bad mistake wasn’t it?
It was difficult to distract the group from focusing on features of the animation.
However, when the animation had been played through several times, the
discussion was directed to the operational aspects of the task.
Researcher: So who did the work in this?
Michael: Me!
Craig pokes Michael.
Craig: All of us.
Alistair: All of us.
Researcher: How did you work out who did what?
Craig: Well, Alistair went to the backdrop.
Alistair: And we took turns. Someone did the camera and someone did
the modelling so if you had to put clouds in and someone
smoothed it out at the back.
Researcher: So did anyone else help you with this?
Alistair: [the focus teacher] helped a little bit.
191
Craig has started the animation playing again and needs to be re-focused.
Researcher: Craig, I said did anyone else help you and Alistair said [the focus
teacher] did a little bit.
Craig: Yeah.
Researcher: How did she help?
Craig: She, [the focus teacher], got all the clay to put on the bottom
when we needed it.
Researcher: Right. Was that her idea or your idea?
Craig: Ours.
Researcher: OK. How else did [the focus teacher] help?
Craig: She told us how to set it all up. The camera and everything.
Researcher: Yeah, OK.
Craig: Yeah and she showed us how to get it onto the computer and
then get rid of it.
Alistair: And she told us that it was going to overwrite and you had to
change the filename.
Researcher: It is pretty good she knows all that stuff isn’t it?
Alistair: Yeah.
Craig: Do you want to look at it again?
The boys played the animation through from the beginning. They were
obviously fascinated with their product and moved in time with the music,
pointing out key points as they went.
Researcher: I think it looks fantastic. Did you learn to do new things in this
project?
Craig: Yes. How to put the sound in.
Researcher: What about the rest of you? Did you learn new skills in this?
Alistair Yes.
Craig: How to make the frames and how to put Marty on it.
Researcher: Did you know you could make movies like this with a computer?
Michael: Nuh!
Alistair: Well, I knew you could put the frames ...
Researcher: That was really great.
192
5.16.2 Analysis of student feedback
The coding categories used for the task vignettes could not be applied in the
same way to this vignette and so this process was not performed for this section.
However, some basic observations can be made regarding the nature of the
group’s response.
An interesting aspect in this discussion was that the boys in the group appeared
to equate their clay animation production only to the process of filming the
sequence. They did not mention the preliminary processes such as storyboarding
and creating the props and they only mentioned using the computer at the very
end when discussing the teacher’s role. It was intriguing that when they were
asked about any problems they had, they still only referred to the filming
sequence when the process of adding the frame had been so problematic.
In terms of the categories of teacher support, the responses in this discussion
were predominantly related to cognitive aspects that the teacher worked with
during filming the sequence. They did, however, also refer to operational
aspects of assigning roles to group members and turn-taking. When asked about
the teacher’s role, they identified that she provided technical support and
technical expertise.
The other important aspect to come from this discussion was the clear sense of
ownership of the process and the eventual product that the boys had developed
during the task. Although it was evident that task implementation that the
teacher had played a significant role in the conceptualisation and the
development of their animation, by the completion of the task their perceptions
of her contribution had faded to a minor part.
5.16.3 Teacher reflections on student feedback
The focus teacher appeared to enjoy watching her students talk about the task
and was pleased that they were so confident in displaying their animation. She
also commented on their focus on filming the sequence and suggested that this
was what they remembered the most because they spent so much time taking the
photographs.
193
In terms of their lack of comment on the activities based on the computer, she
identified that the children in the class were very used to working with
computers and “it shows that the technology is just another tool to get them
from A to B.”
5.17 Summary
This chapter presented the case report of the study, represented as Phase 3 in the
research sequence and scope diagram (see Figure 3.2). It described eleven video
vignettes that represent the case and then reported on the analysis of the support
strategies implemented by the teacher. It also presented the teacher’s reflections
of the task and the strategies that she used to support the children in her class.
During the implementation of the “Marty the Alien” quality task in the Year 4
and 5 classroom, The focus teacher demonstrated that she planned strategically
and then systematically supported the children in her class through the quality
task progression. She also demonstrated that she consistently monitored her
support, adjusting the plan when it required flexibility. The first two activities,
story boarding the plot (see Section 5.5) and making the props (see Section 5.6)
were relatively straightforward and the teacher’s focus was mostly on helping
the children conceptualise the task and the end product. As a consequence, the
majority of the support strategies at this stage were classified as cognitive. It
was also noted that during these activities the teacher actively influenced the
children’s decisions about the end product. At this stage it seemed that the
ownership of the task was shared between the teacher and the children rather
than belonging solely to the children.
Filming the sequence (see Section 5.7) was the third activity and the first time
that the children were required to use technology. This activity was far more
involved than the previous tasks and represented an increased engagement in the
task for the children. The vignette of this activity illustrated a shift in ownership
for children working with the teacher. At the beginning of the vignette, the
teacher worked hard to keep the children focused on conceptualising a realistic
product. However, by the end of the activity the children had clearly
established what they would do and the teacher’s role had faded. This vignette
194
also represented an increase in the variety of support strategies that the teacher
used. It seemed that as the task presented more authentic problem-solving for
the children, the teacher’s role had become more diverse.
The computer editing activity (see Section 5.8) presented the children with a
routine process rather than a challenging problem-solving environment. As a
consequence the teacher’s support focused on a monitoring role, with the aim of
progressing smoothly through the steps. The section reported that although the
activity was technical in nature, technical support was not the dominant
category of support.
The next stage of the task involved adding a frame to the animation (see Section
5.9 – 5.14). This feature had not been part of the original task design and was
included after a suggestion by the school ICT coordinator. While the teacher
probably regretted incorporating this feature into the animation as it was very
problematic, this process provided a great insight into how a teacher can support
children who are engaging with problems while using computers. Because this
stage became very involved, five vignettes were created to represent the process
of adding a frame to the animation.
During the process the teacher implemented a wide range of support
mechanisms from all categories. It was also noted that in different situations the
teacher often focused on one type of support. For example, in Section 5.14, she
concentrated on the operational aspects of a group in order to help them work
together. It was also identified that at times the teacher moved away from
supporting the students to conceptualise the activity and instead focused on
simply getting through the required steps. She explained that this was a
“survival tactic” to finish the activity.
In this activity the teacher also demonstrated the strategies she used when she
had technical difficulties herself. At times, in this set of vignettes she was
observed acknowledging to the children that she did not have a solution to a
problem and withdrawing from the process. She also was seen to “talk aloud” a
problem with a group of students in order to better understand the issues herself.
195
The final activity in the task was adding a music soundtrack (see Section 5.15).
It was identified that while this activity did not seem difficult for the children,
the teacher supported the process heavily. This may have been because the
teacher was working with only one group and with her own laptop computer or
it may have been because she felt that the previous activity had been
problematic and she wanted to ensure that the task was completed on a positive
experience. Another reason that was suggested was that as the concluding
activity she may have wanted the children to focus on the overall task and not
the technical details of that particular activity.
The last vignette in the sequence depicted a group of students reflecting on the
task with the researcher (see Section 5.16). From this discussion it was evident
that the children had developed a clear ownership of the product and were very
proud of their work. It was noted that the group equated creating a clay
animation mostly with filming the sequence and that they acknowledged that the
teacher played only a minor role in the creation process. The teacher was
pleased that the children had become confident in the process of clay animation
and she suggested that the technology was seen by the children as another tool
for creation.
196
197
6 Chapter 6: Discussion
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a discussion of the case report outlined in Chapters 4 and
5. Initially, an overview of the progress of the four research phases described in
Chapter 3 (see Section 6.2) is provided and then the process for presenting
emerging concepts from the study (see Section 6.3) is outlined. It is identified
that 11 emergent constructs have been produced from the study. These
constructs are organised into four themes and the relationships of these
constructs are represented in Figure 6.1. Each construct from the study will be
situated in the context of the literature (Sections 6.3.1 to 6.3.11). These sections
also will provide a statement defining each construct. The chapter concludes
with a summary (see Section 6.4).
6.2 Overview of research phases
This overview will summarise the progression in each of the three research
phases (see Figure 3.2).
6.2.1 Summary of theoretical immersion (Phase 1)
Phase 1 consisted of an immersion in the theoretical concepts required for the
study. A literature review was established in this phase (see Chapter 2), which
provided a reflection on perspectives of constructivism, scaffolding to support
learners and an overview of computers in education. While the discussion of
learning theory and the use of computers in education was important to situate
the study, the section relating to scaffolding in education and scaffolding with
computers was particularly relevant to this phase in order to address the
question of Phase 1, namely “What is scaffolding?”
It was identified that in order to be considered to be scaffolding, an interaction
between a teacher and a child must have the following attributes:
1. The interaction must be collaborative with the focus on the child’s
intentions,
198
2. The interaction must be supporting the child in their Zone of Proximal
Development (Vygotsky, 1978), and
3. The interaction must be gradually withdrawn as the child becomes more
competent.
Additionally, it was noted that, although the intentions of this study was to
examine the process of teacher scaffolding, the term is commonly used in a
broader context for teacher support strategies. Therefore, it was identified that
the term teacher support strategy would be used generically to describe any
strategies implemented by a teacher to support children in their classroom. In
this chapter, the strategies will be discussed in the context of scaffolding defined
by the attributes described in this Section.
6.2.2 Summary of functional immersion (Phase 2)
Phase 2 focused on the functional aspects of teachers supporting children
working with computers (see Chapter 3). Of particular interest was how
teachers who were considered effective at using computers perceived
scaffolding and how they supported children using computers in their
classrooms.
Eight teachers who were nominated as exemplary computer users participated in
the data collection for this phase. The survey of the teachers illustrated that
while all teachers in the study evidenced characteristics of an exemplary
computer-using teacher (Becker, 2000); some teachers seemed to fit the profile
better than others. The classroom observations and teacher interviews also
revealed that there was a range in the participating teachers’ familiarity with the
concept of scaffolding. While all teachers knew of the term only a few appeared
to have a comprehensive understanding of the concept. A number of teacher
strategies for supporting children working on computer-based tasks were
observed in the classrooms. While these strategies were not necessarily
considered to be scaffolding, the purpose of these interactions was to support
the children as they engaged with computer-based tasks. These strategies related
to the mechanics of using the computers (technical), the content of the task
(cognitive), supporting children working together (operational) or emotional
support (affective).
199
This phase also identified the teacher who was selected to participate in the
Phase 3 (Practical Immersion). Teacher 3 was selected as her survey profile
indicated that she had ample teaching experience, she had engaged in further
formal learning opportunities and had participated in professional development
programs. Additionally, the Phase 2 classroom observation and interview
illustrated that she was a reflective teacher with a sound awareness of her own
teaching strategies. Furthermore, the activity that she had planned for the
impending semester was dynamic and seemed suitable for the study. Teacher 3
was known as the focus teacher for Phase 3.
6.2.3 Summary of practical immersion (Phase 3)
This phase involved observing a quality task implementation in the focus
teacher’s Year 4 and 5 classroom (see Chapter 5). The task was conducted over
eight weeks and involved groups of children creating an animated QuickTime
movie of figures created with modelling clay.
During the implementation of the quality task, the focus teacher implemented a
wide range of teacher support strategies. The first two activities (see Sections
5.5 and 5.6) were preparing for the image creation and were quite
straightforward. The teacher’s role during this stage was to help the children to
plan their clay animation and as a consequence most of the support was
cognitive. The next activity, filming the sequence (see Section 5.7), required the
children to use a computer and was much more involved than the previous
activities. During this activity, the teacher shifted her participation in order to
assist the children to make decisions for themselves. It was also identified that
during this activity the teacher used support strategies from all categories in
more varied ways. It seemed that as the task became more involved the
teacher’s role had become more differentiated.
The editing the images activity on the computer was again straightforward and
the focus teacher adopted a supervisory role to ensure that the students moved
smoothly through the steps. This activity was then followed by the process of
adding a frame to the animation (see Section 5.9 – 5.14). The adding a frame
200
activity was difficult for the children and also the teacher. This activity provided
a prime opportunity to see how the teacher supported students who were having
difficulty with the concepts involved and also solved computer-based problems
that emerged. During the framing activity, the teacher used a wide range of
support strategies from all of the support categories. It was also identified that
the teacher often chose to focus on one type of support or changed her level of
interaction according to the difficulties the children faced.
The last activity was to add a music soundtrack to the clay animation (see
Section 5.15). In this activity, the teacher supported the students closely,
especially with the technical aspects of the process. A focus of this activity was
also to make sure that the children maintained an overall conceptualisation of
the task.
The Phase 3 data collection was concluded with a student reflection activity.
The children were very enthusiastic about the task and had clearly formed a
strong sense of ownership for their clay animation movie. They displayed
confidence and understanding about the process involved and the computer
software that they had used.
6.2.4 Collating the outcomes from the research phases
The data from Phases 2 and 3 were collated into a Case Report format (Guba &
Lincoln, 1989) and have been presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Guba and Lincoln
suggested that in a constructivist enquiry, the concept of research “findings”
should be discarded as this implies that objective “truths” are possible. In a
theoretical sense, evaluation cannot converge on end point, rather any constructs
emerging from the study need to be open for continuous, recursive
reconstruction. In a practical sense, however, research needs to conclude and
while emergent constructs should be as informed and sophisticated as possible,
it needs to be identified that these constructions should be open to challenge
and/or refinement. In this study, the outcomes of the research are presented as
theoretical constructs. The constructs emerging from this study have been
informed from the literature (Chapter 2) and then established from data
collected in Phase 2 (Chapter 4) and Phase 3 (Chapter 5).
201
6.3 Emergent Constructs
Over the course of this study a number of constructs relating to teacher
understandings, teacher support strategies and scaffolding have been formed. At
the conclusion of this study eleven constructs, grouped into four conceptual
themes, have been identified as research outcomes. The titles of the constructs
in their thematic groups are:
Theme 1: Teacher expertise
o Construct 1: Qualities of an exemplary computer-using teacher
o Construct 2: Teachers’ awareness of scaffolding
Theme 2: Teacher understanding of support strategies
o Construct 3: Familiarity with strategies
o Construct 4: A teacher support strategy continuum
o Construct 5: A sustainable environment
Theme 3: The nature of scaffolding
o Construct 6: Scaffolding association
o Construct 7: Awareness of the ZPD
o Construct 8: Intentions of the child
o Construct 9: Instances of intervention
Theme 4: The role of the computer
o Construct 10: Computer as catalyst
o Construct 11: Teacher computer knowledge, confidence and approach
Each theoretical construct is now identified in the context of the literature and
the study (see Sections 6.3.1 – 6.3.11). A construct statement is made at the end
of each section.
6.3.1 Qualities of an exemplary computer-using teacher
The teachers selected for inclusion in Phase 2 were nominated by the school
Principal as examples of teachers who made exemplary use of computers in
their classrooms (see Section 3.9.2). The research survey given to the teachers
202
in Phase 2 was designed to highlight characteristics of exemplary computer-
using teachers (Becker, 1994). This information contained some key indicators
of exemplary computer-using teachers such as participation in professional
development and involvement in professional leadership in the field. Becker
(1994) identified that teachers in his study were more likely to be exemplary
computer using teachers if (a) they had participated in post-graduate
qualifications and/or training; (b) they had significant teaching experience; (c)
they were male; and (d) they were confident users of computers. All of the
teachers had been identified by the Principal as exemplary computer-using
teachers and the survey revealed they all had shown some characteristics that
might have supported this status. It was, however, evident that some of the
teachers displayed more aspects of exemplariness than others.
The teachers in Phase 2 participated in observations, followed by interviews
(see Section 4.3). This process was very useful in determining the teachers’
confidence with computers and generally the teachers displayed a high degree
of competence. During all of the classroom observations the teachers worked
with their students on a computer based task. All of the teachers demonstrated a
sound understanding of the relevant computer software and the process required
to complete the task. It seemed that the teachers selected for this focus group
met the exemplary criteria of “a confident user” particularly well.
The final criterion for an exemplary computer-using teacher (see Section 2.4.6)
was a strong constructivist approach to teaching and learning. While this aspect
was described as the most important attribute for an exemplary computer using
teacher, in the observation/interview schedule with the focus group, evidence of
a constructivist approach to teaching and learning varied considerably. As
discussed previously (see Section 4.3), while some of the teachers were engaged
in rigorous student-centred activities with their pupils, there was evidence that
other teachers were following quite directed activities. In these settings,
although the children were performing tasks quite competently, it seemed that
the goal of engaging with the computers as a tool for constructivist learning was
not being eventuated particularly well. The variation in teaching approaches was
apparent during the teacher interviews as well. Teacher 3 was notable as a
203
teacher who could discuss constructivist pedagogy confidently. Teachers 1A
and 1B were also prominent as teachers who could discuss teacher support
strategies with a sound understanding and they demonstrated effective support
for the children using computers during the observation. This was interesting
because on the teacher survey this pair were relatively inexperienced, especially
Teacher 1B who had only 1 year of teaching experience.
While there are obviously degrees of “exemplariness”, it seems possible that
sometimes teachers are seen as exemplary mostly because they are confident
and competent users of the technology. While a teacher needs to be confident
with the technology, this criterion is not enough to ensure exemplary use of
computers. It is possible for a teacher to be confident in their computer use but
unless the teacher also has a strong constructivist approach to teaching and
learning it is unlikely that teacher will demonstrate exemplary computer-using
practice. The construct derived from this discussion is:
Construct 1: Qualities of an exemplary computer-using teacher
Teachers may be competent at using computers, however, it is likely that they
require a constructivist approach to teaching and learning in order to
demonstrate exemplary computer-using practice.
6.3.2 Teachers’ awareness of scaffolding
A debatable issue discussed in the literature (see Section 2.4.4) is that
scaffolding is common practice in classrooms. Some research indicated that
scaffolding was used frequently by teachers as part of their teaching role (e.g.,
Graves, Graves & Braaten, 1996), but others (e.g., Tharp & Gallimore, 1991)
thought that scaffolding was more exclusive, and, unless teachers had a good
understanding, attempts to scaffold were usually ad hoc and often ineffective.
In Phase 2, the teachers were shown a definition of scaffolding and asked to talk
about the concept of scaffolding and their understandings of related theory. All
teachers interviewed said that that had heard of the term scaffolding. However,
it did not seem to be a term that they used in professional discourse. One of the
204
teachers suggested that it was part of constructivist teaching while others
suggests that terms such as cooperative learning, peer teaching, guided learning
and backwards planning were related to the concept of scaffolding. In the
interviews conducted none of the teachers mentioned Vygotsky or notions such
as the Zone of Proximal Development. There were some informal concepts
relating to process presented by the teachers, however, including the notion of
“getting over the hump” described by Teachers 2A and 2B.
Classroom observations revealed that while the participating teachers used
many different types of support strategies with children using computers (see
Section 4.3), only some of these strategies had characteristics that could perhaps
legitimately classify them as scaffolding. When the implemented support
strategies were discussed in the following interviews, none of the teachers
distinguished between different strategies that they had used. The construct
established from this examination is:
Construct 2: Awareness of scaffolding
Most teachers have heard of the term scaffolding, but many do not know
specifically what it is or what is involves.
6.3.3 Teacher’s awareness of support strategies
The teacher chosen for Phase 3 was selected as the best example of an
exemplary-computer using teacher from the teachers participating in Phase 2
(see Section 4.4). In her initial observation/interview, it was identified that the
focus teacher was acutely aware of her support strategies and she demonstrated
that she was a reflective practitioner. Over the eight weeks of Phase 3
implementation (see Chapter 5), the teacher was observed teaching in cycles,
where she planned, implemented and then reflected. The most significant
observation during this phase was that the teacher’s awareness of support
mechanisms was highly acute and rather than being an incidental process, she
systematically implemented, monitored and adapted the support strategies that
she used.
205
At the beginning of the quality task (see Sections 5.5 and 5.6), the focus
teacher’s awareness was evident in her preparation. The teacher had a “big
picture” plan for the students but knew that she would have to establish this
concept with the children. She provided both physical support mechanisms in
the form of the butcher’s paper storyboard and also conceptual supports such as
making explicit links to previous experience that the children had. She then
reinforced the concept of “the plan” throughout the implementation of the
activity by getting the children to consult their plan when any decisions had to
be made. As the task progressed, the teacher demonstrated both pre-designed
support, such as mat sessions and wall charts, and also reactive support
strategies such as monitoring group participation (see Sections 5.12 and 5.13 for
examples). Vignette 9, where Group 3 were struggling with the task and group
cooperation had deteriorated, was a particularly good example of the focus
teacher continually monitoring her support strategies of the group. In this
instance she used a number of operational support strategies to restore group
harmony, adapting her strategies when necessary. Only when she was satisfied
that the group could function again did she move on to cognitive and technical
support.
The teacher reflection segments presented in Chapter 5 also illustrated that the
focus teacher had a strong awareness of her support strategy mechanisms. A
pertinent example is when the teacher was discussing the group that she
supported in the filming the sequence activity (see Section 5.7.3). In this
segment she described how she needed to use support strategies to establish and
then reinforce group roles as the group worked through the filming activity. The
construct derived from this analysis is:
Construct 3: Familiarity with strategies
A teacher needs a strong awareness of support strategies and must be able to
systematically implement, monitor and adapt these strategies in order to support
students effectively
206
6.3.4 A Teacher support strategy continuum
In the literature relating to scaffolding (see Section 2.3), it was established that
although the term is often used loosely to describe any support strategies that a
teacher might use in the classroom, scaffolding actually has some clearly
defined characteristics, namely that the interaction must (a) be supporting the
child’s intentions, (b) be operating within the child’s Zone of Proximal
Development, and (c) be withdrawn as the child becomes competent at the task.
An important aspect that emerged from this study was that while teacher
scaffolding was indeed a powerful strategy to support children, it was certainly
not the only mechanism of support that the focus teacher used during the quality
task. Rather, it seemed that the strategy of scaffolding was an optimal
intervention on a support strategy continuum. The progression along the
continuum ranged from merely providing step-by-step instructions to a child
through to a process of facilitation where the teacher was supporting the child to
engage with the task, however, the goal was mostly to complete the task rather
than ensure that the child was extending their understanding. The extent of the
continuum occurs when the teacher uses scaffolding to progress the child’s
learning across their Zone of Proximal Development (see Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.1. A continuum of support strategies.
While the focus teacher clearly recognised that scaffolding with consequential
withdrawal of support was ideal to promote children working at their optimal
capabilities, at times it was simply not possible to do this. When circumstances
became an impediment to using scaffolding as a support strategy the teacher
would sometimes retreat to use a simpler process of facilitation and would focus
just on helping the child complete the activity. These circumstances included
207
aspects such as when time was limited or when the children had become too
tired. Facilitation was also used if the child or group was showing signs of
cognitive overload or had reached a point of saturation. This strategy may also
have been initiated when group dynamics had become strained and the members
of a group were no longer working well together. Finally when technical
problems became overwhelming, the teacher sometimes chose to facilitate or
even instruct in order to get through a difficult situation.
An example of successful scaffolding occurred during the filming the sequence
vignette (see Section 5.7). In this situation the group doing the activity were
highly motivated and were intent on reaching their desired goal. The teacher had
a good understanding of the capabilities of the individuals in the group and also
an informed sense of the group dynamics. At the beginning of the activity, the
teacher kept control on the actions of the group, requiring that they discuss and
justify each decision. However, as the activity progressed, the children became
more competent in technical aspects and also better at making workable
production decisions. The teacher gradually withdrew her support so that, at the
end of the activity, she merely monitored the activity as it progressed. This
level of support was not, however, always possible or suitable. The level of
interaction between the teacher and the children in the class varied considerably
according to the conditions in the classroom and the groups involved.
While the continuum of support was evident throughout the implementation of
the quality task, it was particularly apparent during the framing sequence (see
Sections 5.9 – 5.14). When Group 7 unexpectedly produced a tiny image (see
Section 5.10.1), the teacher attempted to use a scaffolding mechanism where she
used the cognitive support strategy of makes suggestion (MS) to point out some
menu options for the group trying to solve a technical problem. However, when
she realised that the software was not behaving in the way she suggested, she
reverted to a more direct approach by giving technical instructions. Towards the
end of the framing sequence when time was critical and the children (and the
teacher) were becoming tired (see Section 5.14.1), the teacher did not even
attempt to scaffold the process, rather she placed the instruction chart in front of
the group and directly supervised their working through each step.
208
It appears that rather than a “one size fits all” method of teacher support,
scaffolding is a strategic intervention that can be implemented when conditions
are conducive. In light of this observation throughout the quality task, the
following construct has been formulated:
Construct 4: A teacher support strategy continuum
On a continuum of support strategies, the process of scaffolding provides the
optimal intervention on a scale from providing instructions ranging through
facilitation and then extending into scaffolding.
6.3.5 A sustainable environment
Chapter 2 identified features of a constructivist teaching approach (see Section
2.2.4) which included the collaborative and dynamic teacher-student
interactions that occur in an environment where students work together to solve
problems (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1996). It also discussed tasks for
learning in a constructivist classroom (see Section 2.4.7) where the computer is
used as a “mindtool” (Jonassen, 2000) to support authentic and creative
investigation activities.
In the focus classroom, the teacher had designed a quality task for the term
based on constructivist principles (see Section 2.4.7). The quality task involved
groups of children working together to create a clay animation movie, a task that
required real problem-solving and involved the use of computers in authentic
ways. While the main focus of the curriculum in the focus teacher’s classroom
over the eight weeks was based on the quality task, this was not the only activity
underway. The reality of being a classroom teacher meant that this teacher was
responsible for 27 children, 5 days a week in structured school days. As the
intensity of a quality task often requires the teacher to work with relatively few
children in a focussed way, the teacher intentionally designed her program with
activities of differing educational intensity in order to create a sustainable
classroom environment. For example, while a proportion of the class were
working with the teacher on activities that were part of the animation project,
other class members were asked to do unrelated tasks that were less demanding
209
or were consolidating previous learning experiences. This included activities
such as building with Lego, independent reading and worksheet activities.
The differentiated activity in the classroom was, to some extent, determined by
limited computer numbers. During the quality task, most of the activities that
required a computer were divided, with half of the class working on the clay
animation and the other half doing other activities. Sometimes the
differentiation in classroom activity was required because the location where the
animation task groups were working was physically removed from the
classroom such as when the children were the filming the sequence in the “wet
area” located adjacent to the classroom (see Section 5.7). On these occasions the
teacher usually accessed the assistance of a teacher aide who supervised the
children in the classroom so that the teacher could concentrate on assisting the
children working on the project.
While the number of computers available was a defining factor, this was not the
only reason for differentiated activity. The teacher also reduced the number of
children that needed her support so that she could provide an effective support
service and in order to plan for scaffolding opportunities. By limiting her
attention to a few groups or even one group, the teacher could monitor progress
and be on hand to support when required and scaffold when appropriate.
Conversely, the teacher pointed out that it would not be possible for children to
maintain the concentration required during the quality task and scaffolding
session for long periods of time. It was important that children had times when
they could undertake tasks where concentrated thinking was not required.
It seems likely that in a constructivist classroom there needs to be an ebb and
flow of concentrated and dynamic interaction rather than a consistent level of
interaction. The construct emerging from this observation is:
Construct 5: A sustainable environment
In order to establish a sustainable constructivist classroom environment, a
teacher needs to design a program with activities that are of varying intensity,
requiring different levels of concentration and engagement.
210
6.3.6 Scaffolding Interaction ratios
A debated aspect of scaffolding is the notion of a compulsory one-to-one
interaction between the scaffolder and the learner (see Section 2.3.4).
Researchers such as Thrap and Gallimore (1991) present the idea that
scaffolding can only take place between a teacher and a single child because, by
default, the support must target an individual learner’s Zone of Proximal
Development. While it is obvious that any result of scaffolding will be in terms
of the individual child, it is perhaps unrealistic in a classroom setting to specify
that scaffolding should only be considered if a teacher is working alone with an
individual (Hogan & Pressley, 1997b).
The focus teacher worked mostly with groups and sometimes with pairs or the
whole class. While it has been established that many of the support strategies
the teacher used would not be considered as scaffolding, it is probable that the
teacher was effectively scaffolding individuals when working with more than
one child.
To some extent, the scaffolding process may even be enhanced in a teacher-
group interaction when the child has the opportunity not only to experience their
own interactions with the teacher but also to observe the other group members
as they interact with the teacher. In this arrangement students may even scaffold
each other as their Zones of Proximal Development shift at differing rates (see
Section 2.3.5). It may also be possible that some scaffolding is enhanced by
being able to work with more than one child. For example, operational
scaffolding is likely to be more advantageous when the teacher is working with
a child or children within a group structure.
Examples of the teacher scaffolding with more than one child have occurred
throughout this study. A clear example of successful group scaffolding was
evident in filming the sequence (see Section 5.7). In this activity, the teacher
worked with three boys to assist them to conceptualise their animated movie,
cope with the technical steps of filming and work together as a team. The
situation, such as this, where all group members appear to be obtaining
211
scaffolding from the teacher-group interactions is perhaps less common. A more
likely scenario is that when the teacher scaffolds an activity with children in a
group, the scaffolding may be more beneficial for one or a few of the group
members. In Vignette 9 (see Section 5.14), the teacher worked with Group 3
when group negotiations had broken down. Although the group members were
arguing about procedures, one child was particularly upset. In this interaction,
the teacher supported the whole group cohesion but particular the upset child,
who progressed from physical scuffling as a negotiation strategy to being able to
play a specialist role and report back to his group members. It is possible too
that in a group situation the nature of the task does not always maintain the
attention of all group members. In Vignette 4 (see Section 4.8), the teacher was
supporting Group 1 on the computer editing task. The girl who was in control of
the mouse was very focused, on the task and responded well to the teacher’s
support. However, the other girls in the group were less involved and although
the teacher consistently referred to them to keep them involved, it was likely
that the girl with the mouse gained more from the activity and the teacher
interaction.
In accordance with Hogan and Pressley’s (1997b) discussion of teacher
scaffolding with more than one child, the observations in the focus classroom
suggest that scaffolding can occur during interactions other than one-to-one
exchanges between a child and the teacher. The construct for this focus is:
Construct 6: Scaffolding association
A teacher can effectively scaffold in an interaction other than one-to-one.
However, it is likely that this scaffolding will be of differing benefit to each
participant.
6.3.7 Teacher’s awareness of an individual’s Zone of Proximal
Development
A main concern for the viability of scaffolding in the classroom was that teacher
may not be familiar enough with a child’s Zone of Proximal Development
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Additionally, knowledge of the Zones of Proximal
212
Development of all the members of a class was a major challenge for teachers
(Bodvara & Leong, 1996; Hogan & Pressley, 1997b). However, teachers do
establish a good understanding of the capabilities of students in their classrooms
and it is possible that teachers can develop a provisional perception of each
student’s Zone of Proximal Development (Bodvara & Leong, 1996).
While the focus teacher was not overly familiar with concept of a Zone of
Proximal Development at the beginning of the study it soon became evident that
she had a good understanding of the interests, strengths and weaknesses of most
of the children in her class. The teacher reflection sections for each vignette
often highlighted how much her prior knowledge of each student influenced the
way she chose to interact with a group or child. In the first reflection (see
Section 5.5.3) she commented that the personalties of group members were a
key factor in supporting group dynamics and then when reflecting on filming the
sequence (see Section 5.7.3) she pointed out that the operational support that she
provided was in response to the dominance of the individuals in the group.
When the children reached the final stages of the adding the frame activity it
was obvious that the Zone of Proximal Development was an important factor in
teacher/group interactions. In her reflection (see Section 5.12.3), the focus
teacher discussed the concept of a child reaching their “saturation point”. In this
particular activity she suggested that the child who could be extended no further
would benefit from stepping back from the process and allowing another child
with more capability to take over. In terms of the Zone of Proximal
Development it could be considered that the first child had reached the extent of
her Zone. Trying to extend the child beyond that point would lead to frustration
without conceptualisation of the understandings involved. Conversely, the
second child was operating with a higher Zone of Proximal Development. This
child could work on the same task while still being within her Zone.
The solution that the focus teacher proposed for this scenario was interesting. In
a sense, the goal was to allow the task to progress with every child getting some
opportunity to contribute within their Zone of Proximal Development. It was
not important that each child experienced every aspect of the task as this would
213
be too intensive and time-consuming. Instead it was possible for the children to
be participants for some of time but observers at other times.
The focus teacher was not aiming on defining a Zone of Proximal Development
for each child. She was, however, able to implement this concept when the
situation required it. In response to this observation the formulated construct is:
Construct 7: Awareness of the ZPD
While the Zone of Proximal Development is an intangible notion, a teacher can
develop a good sense of what a child can do and then how far he or she can be
assisted with scaffolding.
6.3.8 A child’s own intentions – who owns the task?
During scaffolding, the interaction must “focus on the child’s intentions” (see
Section 2.3.2). In a classroom situation where a curriculum is designed by a
teacher in accordance with school policy and a designated syllabus, the idea that
the curriculum, and therefore the task, “belongs” to the children is debatable.
However, in the classroom setting, an important part of a teacher’s role is to
introduce the task to the children in such a way that they take on the ownership
of it.
It was evident at the beginning of the task that the focus teacher had a realistic
concept of what a clay animation might involve. However, this was not always
in accordance with the children’s embryonic ideas of their own clay animation.
In the storyboarding vignette (see Section 5.5), the teacher is working hard to
encourage the children to think creatively when planning their animation but at
the same time she is trying to help them be realistic by ensuring that all the
details of their plan appear on the storyboard. In the teacher reflection for this
vignette the teacher identified that, as the quality task would need to be
sustained for a considerable amount of time, it was important that each group
member could feel that the task belonged to them as an individual (see Section
5.5.3). Not only did the teacher make sure that she did not overly impose her
ideas on them, she also made sure that the group maintained a democratic
process of decision making.
214
As the task progressed, there were further signs that indicated that the teacher
still maintained some task design constraints. When the girls in Group 2 were
designing the props for their animation, the teacher actually guided them to
make more elaborate props than they had initially planned (see Section 5.6). As
identified in the teacher reflection section for this vignette (see Section 5.6.3), at
this stage of the task it seemed that the teacher still had a general idea of an end
product that she wanted the children to achieve and was supporting the group
subtly towards that goal.
In the filming the sequence vignette it was evident that the participating group
had developed a strong sense of ownership of the task and while the teacher was
working hard to support them with their “own intentions”, maintaining a
realistic action plan proved to be very difficult (see Section 5.7). During this
vignette, the teacher implemented some intense scaffolding, and, as the children
became familiar with the clay animation process, the teacher found that she
could withdraw her support and allowed the group to progress independently
towards their achievable goal. The effectiveness of this support was evident
when the same group was interviewed in the student feedback vignette (see
Section 5.16). The boys in this group were very proud of their movie and
attributed the work involved to all the members of the group. They did
acknowledge, however, that the teacher helped “a little bit.”
While the supporting the children’s own intentions is an important aspect of
scaffolding, ownership of a task is not something that immediately resides with
the child. Rather, it is a transition process that evolves from when the teacher
describes the task to the children to when the task is in full production. During
this process, the teacher needs to be aware of the importance of ownership and
he or she must be sensitive to honouring the intentions that the child is setting
for himself or herself. In accordance with these observations, the construct
addressing this concept is:
215
Construct 8: Intentions of the child
During scaffolding interventions a teacher needs to recognise the importance of
supporting the child’s own intentions and should work consistently towards this
goal.
6.3.9 Implementing and withdrawing scaffolding
The final characteristic of scaffolding is that the interaction should be gradually
withdrawn as the child becomes more competent (see Section 2.4). This aspect
of scaffolding perhaps is the more difficult for teachers to enact (Bodrova &
Leong, 1996). In a classroom where many individuals or group are competing
for teacher support, the temptation to either withdraw the support as soon as the
children are even slightly more competent, or conversely, to maintain the
support just to get the activity finished is significant. Additionally, it is difficult
for a busy teacher to adequately monitor learning during scaffolding and as the
support is withdrawn. It may, however, be possible to promote this aspect
through heightened reflection and careful classroom management (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1991).
In the vignettes from this study, three different arrangements of teacher/children
interactions were observed (see Chapter 5). The first arrangement was whole
class discussions where the teacher gathered all of the children together to
discuss a concept or a problem (e.g., see Section 5.5). The second arrangement
was when the teacher was seen to join a group either of her own accord or at the
request of the group, used support strategies to assist the children and then
withdraw that support (see Sections 5.6, 5.8 & 5.10 for examples). It should be
noted here that, as this study focused only on the role of the teacher, it did not
capture what happened before the teacher joined a group or after she left. The
third arrangement was when the teacher arranged her schedule so she could
devote her time to one group for a complete activity (see Sections 5.7 & 5.15).
In this setting she monitored a group working and could implement and
withdraw support as she felt was required.
216
An example of a whole-class discussion occurred during Vignette 8 (see Section
5.13) when it appeared that the children were not paying enough attention to the
written instructions on the poster board. In this discussion, the focus teacher
maintained a central role in the conversation and reinforced the importance of
following steps. Although it is possible for scaffolding to occur at an individual
level in a discussion such as this, the generic nature of the interaction usually
means that individuals are less likely to benefit directly (Bodrova & Leong,
1996). This type of interaction, however, is quite easy for a teacher to manage
as all the children in the class can be seen as a single entity and, through
discussion and query, the teacher can withdraw support when he or she thinks
that the class has generally grasped the concepts being discussed.
The arrangement where the teacher “floats” between groups working on the task
was the most common form of teacher/children interaction in this study. In these
work periods, the teacher typically organised for half of the class to be working
on computers while the other half did an alternate activity (see Section 6.3.5).
While the teacher managed to support the computer-based groups successfully,
it did appear that it was more difficult for her to scaffold during these times. The
reason for this was that the decision to interact with the students was often
reactive, rather than proactive, that is, the group had asked for help after getting
into trouble. Additionally, her decision to withdraw support was sometimes
because she was needed elsewhere. An example of reactive intervention
occurred when Group 7 was locating their frame image for their animation (see
Section 5.12). In this case, the teacher was called when the group were
completely unsure of what to do. When the teacher arrived at the group, she
found that only one group member was still working on the problem while the
others had given up. In this case she needed to focus on re-involving the group
members before work could continue. Even though scaffolding is more difficult
with this type of interaction, there were times when the teacher quickly
recovered the situation to a level where scaffolding could be implemented. An
example of this was when the members of Group 3 were arguing and the teacher
focused on operational scaffolding (see Section 6.3.6). In this case, she needed
to use a wide range of support methods to stabilise the situation but then
217
managed to settle down and scaffold firstly with operational strategies and then
with technical and cognitive strategies.
The third arrangement was when the teacher had planned focused time with one
group for a complete activity (e.g. see Section 6.3.5). During the quality task,
this occurred for the filming the sequence activity (see Section 5.7) and then
again for the music soundtrack activity (see Section 5.15). Under these
conditions, the teacher was able to supervise the group that she was working
with continuously. She could observe the group interactions and then intervene
at times she thought appropriate. She could also choose the moment to withdraw
support and then she could monitor as support was being withdrawn and
reassert it if it appeared as if the children were struggling. A clear example of
this was again in the filming the sequence vignette (see Section 5.7). In the
beginning of the vignette, the focus teacher was using a wide range of support
mechanisms to ensure that the group worked well together (operational), they
understood the technical aspects (technical), they were focused on the task goals
(cognitive) and they were engaged and confident (affective). However, by the
middle of the process the teacher had withdrawn many of the original scaffolds.
At this stage she could focus on extending the group, particularly in terms of
articulating their plan. During this process, the teacher had plenty of time to be
reflective and the quality her interactions with the children indicated that this
environment was very conducive to the implementation of successful
scaffolding.
Although the teacher was able to implement and withdraw scaffolding most
efficiently in the controlled environment where she could monitor, interact and
reflect, the reality of a primary classroom means that this setting is not often
possible. However, if a teacher can make sure that he or she has some
opportunities when time is available to focus on their scaffolding, particularly
the moments of implementation and withdrawal, it is likely that their scaffolding
abilities will develop. With a heightened awareness of when scaffolding should
be implemented and when it should be withdrawn, it is likely that a teacher will
be able to use these skills more effectively in the busier classroom setting.
Therefore the construct emerging from this discussion is:
218
Construct 9: Instances of Intervention
In order to become a more experienced scaffolder, a teacher needs opportunities
to reflect on their own scaffolding strategies and in particular the aspect of when
to implement and withdraw support.
6.3.10 Computer as a catalyst for learning opportunities
It has been identified that a classroom of the “new paradigm” requires student-
centred constructivist learning enhanced by the use of technologies (see Section
2.4.4). In this environment the computer is used as a learning tool (see Section
2.4.7) and acts as a catalyst to promote active learning on authentic tasks. As the
quality task observed in this study consisted of both on and off-computer
activities, it was interesting to notice that the support strategies implemented by
the teacher changed significantly when the children were working on tasks that
involved using computers. During the off-computer tasks, the teacher mostly
seemed to be using cognitive support strategies in relation to the ongoing
conceptualisation of the product. However, once the children reached the stages
where they needed to use a computer and associated technologies, the variety of
strategies increased with the teacher using a range of strategies from all four
categories (i.e., cognitive, affective, operational and technical).
The first instance in the study where the computer and the digital camera were
used was in the filming the sequence vignette (see Section 5.7). In the first
segment of this vignette the teacher began to use a wide range of strategies from
all categories. This breadth of strategies reduced, however, as the vignette
progressed and as the students became familiar with the processes involved.
During the problematic “adding the frame” process a major increase in the
variety of teacher support strategies was noted. This is illustrated clearly (see
Section 5.11.2) where a whole-class discussion relating to this activity is
compared to a similar discussion implemented prior to the computers being
used. Through this comparison it is evident that the introduction of computer-
based activities in to the task increased the complexity and the need for
engagement with problem-solving for the children and the teacher.
219
Jonassen (2000) suggested that a computer acts as a “mindtool” and, rather than
reducing the need for problem-solving; it provides an opportunity for active
learning and critical thinking. In this study, it appeared as if the computer
actually played the role of a catalyst for problem-solving and engagement with
the task. As a consequence, the opportunities for the teacher to apply a diverse
range of support strategies while the children worked also increased. The
construct regarding this aspect therefore is:
Construct 10: Computer as catalyst
The use of a computer as a tool to support an authentic learning task can act as a
catalyst to promote greater engagement with problem-solving.
6.3.11 A teacher’s computer knowledge, confidence and approach
To use computers effectively in the classroom, the teacher needs to be
committed to constructivist teaching approach and he or she also needs to be
confident and familiar with using computers (see Section 2.4). It was identified
that the focus teacher displayed characteristics that identified that she could be
considered as an exemplary computer-using teacher, including a good
understanding of computers and a personal interest in the use of computers (see
Section 4.4).
During the implementation of the quality task in the focus classroom, the
teacher demonstrated her confidence with using computers. She had a thorough
understanding of the processes required to complete the task and she was very
capable with both the software programs that she was using and the hardware
requirements such as downloading images from the digital camera. At one stage
during the task, however, the teacher found that the children were having
technical difficulties for which she did not have an immediate solution (see
Sections 5.10-5.14). When this happened the teacher demonstrated the
application of some highly appropriate strategies to both support the children
and also to work out the problem at hand. She initially modelled some strategies
to the children to use when a technical problem occurs, which included going
220
over the process step-by-step and checking details such as the file extension.
She let the children know she didn’t have an immediate solution to the problem
and identified that they could investigate it and perhaps advise her on what they
found out. Teacher 3 also redesigned her approach to the activity in light of the
problems that were occurring. She then regrouped the children in a whole-class
discussion so she could explain the new approach. Additionally, during this
time, she was supporting the children who were struggling with the technical
difficulties and sometimes with group cohesion that was deteriorating due to the
problems the group members were having.
During these times, the teacher not only needed an in-depth understanding of
support strategies, she also required effective technological problem-solving
skills in order to solve the problems for herself. The focus teacher dealt with this
situation effectively and in later discussion with the children it was noted that
this process where things did not work obviously had not overly concerned the
children (see Section 5.16). When Group 6 was asked about any problems they
had they did not mention this occurrence and instead focused on the details of
animating their clay figures. However, it was evident that the teacher felt
somewhat self-critical about having to deal with technical problems as she went
and felt that she should have been better prepared. In reflective comments, she
said that she would review the process and make sure that she had mastered it
before she attempted it with a class again.
While teachers do not need to be experts at using computers, they do need to
have a thorough understanding of strategies for solving computer problems. It is
important too that they can confidently apply problem-solving strategies as they
work with children. If they find dealing with computer-based problems
intimidating, it is likely that he or she would have difficulties with the process
of supporting children using computers for authentic tasks. Therefore, the
construct produced from this observation is:
221
Construct 11: Teacher computer knowledge, confidence and approach
Teachers do not need to be expert computer-users, but they do need to be
confident with solving computer-based problems in order to support children
using computers.
6.3.12 Overview of theoretical constructs
The theoretical constructs from this study are presented in Figure 6.1. Eleven
constructs have been established and these are organised in four broad themes of
(a) teacher expertise, (b) teacher understanding of support strategies, (c) the
nature of scaffolding, and (d) the role of the teacher (see Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.2. Eleven Constructs emerging from the study based on four themes.
6.4 Summary
This chapter has provided an overview of the implementation of the three
research phases identified in Figure 3.2. It has also presented eleven constructs
emerging from study. These constructs were drawn from Phase 2 and Phase 3 of
the study and grouped in four broad themes, (a) teachers expertise, (b) teacher
understanding of support strategies, (c) the nature of scaffolding, and (d) the
role of the computer.
222
223
7 Chapter 7: Summary of the study
7.1 Introduction
This chapter revisits the purpose of the study incorporating a restatement of the
research question and the aims (Section 7.2). It also reviews the study in a study
overview (Section 7.3). An outline of the constructs that emerged from the study
(Section 7.4) and the ways in which they contribute to understanding are then
presented. The implications of these outcomes are discussed (Section 7.5), the
limitations of the study are identified (Section 7.6), and recommendations for
further study pertaining to scaffolding and the use of computers are described
(Section 7.7). Finally, a summary statement of the study is provided (Section
7.8).
7.2 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of scaffolding as a teacher
support strategy in an educational context where computers were an integral
part of the curriculum (see Section 1.3). The general research question for the
study was “How do teachers use scaffolding to support children working with
computers?” The research question was addressed by:
1. Identifying what teachers know about the concept of scaffolding;
2. Portraying the relationships, patterns and hierarchies of support strategies
that teachers use with children;
3. Describing the strategies used by an exemplary computer-using teacher to
support children working with computers;
4. Examining the instances of scaffolding used during the implementation of
an authentic computer-based task; and
5. Formulating theoretical constructs pertaining to teacher support strategies,
scaffolding and computers in a classroom environment.
In response to the question “How do teachers use scaffolding to support children
working with computers?”, this study revealed that scaffolding is used by
effective teachers to support children working with computers at optimal times
when conditions are conducive to scaffolding.
224
7.3 Study overview
The theoretical basis of this thesis (see Chapter 2) was underpinned by the
philosophy of constructivism and in a practical sense the study engaged the
understandings of constructivist teaching and learning methods. In particular the
study drew on Vygotskian perspectives of Socially Mediated Cognitive
Development (Vygotsky, 1978) and the theory of scaffolding derived from
Vygotsky’s work was of specific importance to the study.
The use of computers in education formed an essential background for this
study including the evolution of computer use in schools. This discussion also
included the restructuring of schools based on technological innovation; a
process which inevitability entwines the use of computers and constructivist
pedagogy. Some key concepts emerging from the paradigm shift promoted by
computers included the notion of an exemplary computer-using teacher (Becker,
2000) and the concept of an authentic task, designed to situate the computer as a
tool for learning.
An interpretive methodology (see Chapter 3) was selected for this study based
on the concept of constructivist inquiry (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This
incorporated the application of a hermeneutic dialectic circle model to negotiate
constructions with participating teachers. The analysis processes of Grounded
Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) were used in order to code and analyse the
data.
The study was implemented in three phases which were:
(a) Phase 1: A theoretical immersion where the literature pertaining to the
topic was investigated,
(b) Phase 2: A functional immersion where classroom teachers were
surveyed, observed and then interviewed in regards to strategies that
they used to support children working with computers, and
(c) Phase 3: A practical immersion where the strategies of an exemplary-
computer using teacher were studied during the implementation of an
authentic computer-based task in her classroom.
225
The data from the implementation were then analysed and the study was
presented in the form of a constructivist inquiry product – the case report. The
first aspect of the case study, the functional immersion phase investigating
support strategies with teachers, was presented in Chapter 4. The second aspect
of the case study was the practical immersion phase with the focus teacher (see
Chapter 5).
7.4 Summary of constructs emerging from the study
In accordance with evaluative research practices (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), 11
constructs were identified as emerging from the study. These constructs were
grouped in four broad themes, (a) teachers’ expertise, (b) teacher understanding
of support strategies, (c) the nature of scaffolding, and (d) the role of the
computer.
7.4.1 Teachers’ expertise
The constructs relating to the theme of teachers’ expertise were:
Construct 1: Qualities of an exemplary computer-using teacher
Teachers may be competent at using computers, however, it is likely that they
require a constructivist approach to teaching and learning in order to
demonstrate exemplary computer- using practice.
Construct 2: Awareness of scaffolding
Most teachers have heard of the term scaffolding, but many do not know
specifically what it is or what is involves.
7.4.2 Teacher understanding of support strategies
The three constructs relating to the theme of teacher understanding of support
strategies were:
226
Construct 3: Familiarity with strategies
A teacher needs a strong awareness of support strategies and must be able to
systematically implement, monitor and adapt these strategies in order to support
students effectively
Construct 4: A teacher support strategy continuum
On a continuum of support strategies, the process of scaffolding provides the
optimum intervention on a scale from providing instructions ranging through
facilitation and then extending into scaffolding.
Construct 5: A sustainable environment
In order to establish a sustainable constructivist classroom environment, a
teacher needs to design a program with activities that are of varying intensity,
requiring different levels of concentration and engagement.
7.4.3 The nature of scaffolding
In relation to the theme, the nature of scaffolding, the following constructs were
formulated:
Construct 6: Scaffolding association
A teacher can effectively scaffold in an interaction other than one-to-one.
However, it is likely that this scaffolding will be of differing benefit to each
participant.
Construct 7: Awareness of the ZPD
While the Zone of Proximal Development is an intangible notion, a teacher can
develop a good sense of what a child can do and then how far he or she can be
assisted with scaffolding.
Construct 8: Intentions of the child
During scaffolding interventions a teacher needs to recognise the importance of
supporting the child’s own intentions and should work consistently towards this
goal.
227
Construct 9: Instances of intervention
In order to become a more experienced scaffolder, a teacher needs opportunities
to reflect on their own scaffolding strategies and in particular the aspect of when
to implement and withdraw support.
7.4.4 The role of the computer
The constructs relating to the role of the computer were:
Construct 10: Computer as catalyst
The use of a computer as a tool to support an authentic learning task can act as a
catalyst to promote greater engagement with problem-solving.
Construct 11: Teacher computer knowledge, confidence and approach
Teachers do not need to be expert computer-users, but they do need to be
confident with solving computer-based problems in order to support children
using computers.
7.4.5 Contributions to understanding
The theoretical constructs that have emerged from this study make a useful
contribution to the knowledge pertaining to teacher scaffolding, particularly in a
context where computers are incorporated. In some aspects, the constructs
presented here corroborate what has already been presented in the literature.
Construct 1 reinforces indications that exemplary computer-use is linked to a
teacher’s use of constructivist teaching practices (see Section 2.4.6). Likewise,
Construct 2 supports concerns voiced by researchers such as Tharp and
Gallimore (1991) that implementing scaffolding is not as obvious as suggested
by some (see Section 2.3.4).
The constructs relating to teacher understandings of support strategies offer new
insights that situate scaffolding in a wider field of teacher support strategies.
Rather than considering scaffolding as “the best way to support” as suggested
by much of the literature (see Section 2.3), Constructs 3, 4 and 5 identify that
228
scaffolding is a genre of strategy that an informed teacher implements in a
carefully managed environment.
Constructs 6, 7, 8 and 9 reinforce the importance of a teacher being familiar
with the characteristics of scaffolding described in the literature (see Section
2.3.2). Construct 6 aligns with research that suggests that teachers can learn to
scaffold in a variety of configurations in a classroom (e.g., Hogan & Pressley,
1997). Likewise the emphasis that Bodrova and Leong (1996) place on the
timing of scaffolding is supported in Construct 9. This construct further
indicates that teachers should explicitly practice and reflect on this aspect of
scaffolding.
The theoretical constructs presented about the role of computers in relation to
scaffolding align closely with the literature related to the restructuring of
education and exemplary computer-using teachers (see Section 2.4.). While
Construct 10 reinforces the basis that forms the foundation of the restructuring
movement, Construct 11 reiterates that teachers need to be informed in order to
use computers effectively.
Insights from this study have already been presented in several forums.
Publications include a conference paper and a journal article addressing the
evidence of scaffolding in the classroom (Masters, 2003, 2004a), a conference
paper focusing on the aspect of scaffolding implementation and withdrawal
(Masters, 2004b) and an accepted conference submission relating to practices of
an exemplary computer-using teacher (Masters, 2005).
7.5 Implications for practice
Scaffolding is indeed a very powerful support mechanism to help children
engage better with an authentic task and particularly when children are required
to use computers in meaningful ways. The constructs formulated from this
study have implications for the educational community who will benefit from
information about scaffolding in a classroom context that incorporates the use of
computers. In particular, these constructs provide some tangible ideas for
educators interested in notions of exemplary practice, support strategies that are
229
used by teachers, the use of scaffolding as a support strategy and how children
can be supported working with computers.
The constructs relating to teachers’ expertise recognised that teachers who are
identified to be exemplary in using computers in their classroom can vary
considerably in their understandings, strategies and “exemplariness”. The label
of exemplary computer-using teacher is an arbitrary one and the term indicates a
path rather than a destination. While some teachers stand out in aspects of
understanding, skills and even enthusiasm for using computers in their
classroom, it is important to recognise that these teachers still need support to
extend their own learning and practice. In terms of promoting computer use in
the classroom, while ICT skills are necessary, it is also important that these
skills are in context of pedagogy, reflective practice and strategies for support
including an understanding of scaffolding.
The recommendation in the literature that teachers are provided with
opportunities to observe within the classrooms of successful technology-using
teachers (see Section 2.4.5) seems to be very sound. To illustrate the success of
this strategy, the aspect of awareness outlined in Construct 3 (familiarity with
strategies) was clearly evident to the researcher during observations. The
process of observing the focus teacher illuminated that it was crucial that a
teacher is an active support agent in a classroom rather than someone who
simply reacts to the children’s requests for assistance. Further, it was found that
the process of stimulated recall (see Section 3.11) in which the focus teacher
viewed herself teaching was also beneficial. It is likely that teachers who have
the opportunity to watch and reflect on classroom practice (including the
practising teacher) will gain many of the insights highlighted in this study.
In the literature relating to a Computers in Education (see Section 2.4) it was
identified that, in regards to integrating computers in education, constructivist
teaching is often construed as the ultimate approach on a sliding continuum
ranging from an instruction approach to curriculum (see Section 2.4.6). It was
also identified (see Section 2.4.5) that many teachers struggle with the
implementation of a constructivist teaching approach, particularly while trying
230
to incorporate computers. A significant implication of this study is indicated by
constructs emerging from the theme of teacher understanding of support
strategies. While it appears that scaffolding, as part of a constructivist teaching
approach, is the ultimate support strategy that teachers seek, the nature of the
classroom means that it is just not practical to implement this support
exclusively. In the study classroom, the teacher used a variety of support
strategies and only selected to use scaffolding when it suited the needs of the
child or if it was practical for her supervision role at the time. Likewise, in order
to maintain a sustainable classroom environment, the teacher planned some
activity that was very constructivist in nature in contrast to other tasks that were
less cognitively demanding. While constructivist learning experiences are
fundamental in a contemporary classroom, a teacher shouldn’t feel inadequate if
every classroom experience is not constructively-orientated. However, it is
important that a teacher understands the progression of support strategies and
pedagogical approaches. He or she also needs to ensure that they plan for
classroom experiences to the extent of both continuums.
In discussions with the eight primary teachers in this study, it was found that
while teachers had heard of the term scaffolding it was not widely used by the
teachers and in particular the characteristics of scaffolding were unfamiliar to
them. While the teacher chosen as the focus teacher was included in this
category, in practice she demonstrated a strong tacit knowledge of the processes
involved. One particular aspect of the study identified was that the teacher-
planned activities that allowed her to interact with a group exclusively. This
gave her the opportunity not only to interact with the group when she felt was
necessary but also to reflect on her support processes by implementing support
and then monitoring what happened when that support was withdrawn.
The constructs described under the theme of the nature of scaffolding related to
the characteristics of scaffolding and the importance of a teacher being aware of
these characteristics. An implication indicated by these constructs is that
scaffolding should be an explicit process rather than a generic concept. Teachers
need to know what interactions constitute as scaffolding and should seek
opportunity to practice and then reflect on these interactions.
231
Although it could be argued that the computer and associated technology was
used simply as a tool to support the children engaging with the design and
construction of their animated movie, it is evident that the technology was an
important component of the study. As noted in Construct 10 (computer as
catalyst), using a computer extended the opportunity for students to engage with
problem-solving and this also had implications for the teacher attempting to
incorporate computers in classroom activities as described by Construct 11
(teacher confidence). It is important that, in the spectrum of professional
development of teachers, in-service relating to the use of computers in education
does not focus only on skills but also promoting confidence and strategy for
teachers who would find this an impediment when trying to assist children
working with computers.
7.6 Limitations
According to Guba and Lincoln (1989) the constructivist inquiry methodology
establishes transferability by providing “as complete a data base as humanly
possible in order to facilitate transferability judgements on the part of others” (p.
242). While the data provided in this thesis represents a strong portrayal of the
events during the phases implemented in this study, the potential for transfer
rests largely with the reader. As such, the applicability of the constructs
formulated in this study will always depend, to some extent, on the reader’s
prior understandings and experiences.
The methodology of constructivist inquiry was followed as closely as possible
for this study, however, at times some aspects were limited. In particular the
process of frequent member-checking (see Section 3.12) was restricted at times
due to the busy schedules of the teachers involved and the remote location of the
school where the study was conducted. This difficulty was amplified during the
data analysis stages because the focus teacher left the school and relocated
interstate. These access problems were largely dealt with by using alternative
communication methods such as email.
232
The design of this study had features that could be construed as inherent
limitations. By choosing an exemplary teacher as a focus it is immediately
evident that this teacher is extraordinary rather than typical. While the focus
teacher demonstrated impressive capabilities when supporting the students it
may be that these skills are simply not transferable. The process of ascertaining
a need and then implementing support may be too complex and too situated to
apply to another context. Another restriction of this study was that the focus
remained on the teacher and did not seek to document the consequences of the
scaffolding in terms of student outcomes. While it is suggested that scaffolding
is a more effective interaction, this cannot be discussed in terms of learning
outcomes unless this avenue is explored. A final aspect limiting the scope of the
study outcomes is that the study did not account for varying levels of learners or
different learning environments. It is likely that the scaffolding processes that
occur at particular stages of schooling or in different contexts can vary
significantly.
7.7 Recommendations for further research
Just as this study was developed from a line of inquiry stemming from previous
research (Masters, 1997; Masters & Yelland, 1996, 1997; Yelland & Masters,
1999), a number of research directions can be identified from this point. Some
possible avenues for further investigation include:
(a) Extending documentation of specific instances of scaffolding during
computer use, building on the teacher support categories developed for
coding purposes in this study;
(b) Investigating how teacher scaffolding changes as children become more
capable at solving problems and more competent with computers;
(c) Examining the effect that teacher scaffolding has on children’s
understanding and confidence when using a computer; and
(d) The development and implementation of a mentoring program where
teachers are supported to observe exemplary teachers scaffolding
children working with computers and then assisted to implement these
strategies in their classrooms.
(e) Investigating the implications of the study for a wider range of policy
makers and practitioners in teacher education and schools.
233
7.8 Summary
In summary, this study has contributed substantially to understandings about
teacher scaffolding, particularly when children are working with computers.
Although it may seem to a casual observer that scaffolding “happens naturally”
in a classroom, on closer inspection it appears that a teacher must
conscientiously select and implement strategies in order to support and extend
their students. Further, a teacher should not expect to merely scaffold children’s
learning if and when the opportunity arises. Rather, teachers need to deliberately
plan for activities that promote scaffolding opportunities and also plan their own
teaching so they are available to make the most of the learning moments.
Evidence suggests that tasks that require children to use computers in authentic
ways can offer substantial opportunities for teachers to scaffold children’s
learning. However, in order for a teacher to scaffold during these tasks, the
teacher needs to have a good understanding of strategies and be confident in
applying those strategies during the tasks. It is likely too that this process would
be difficult for the teacher if they were not confident with their own problem-
solving strategies when working with computers and associated technologies.
234
235
Appendices
Appendix 1: Phase 2 survey for teachers nominated as exemplary computer-
users.
Appendix 2. Phase 2 teacher interview schedule.
Appendix 3. Scaffolding definition card.
Appendix 4. An example of a teacher interview script with teacher comments
Appendix 5. Teacher support strategy codes
Appendix 6. Example narrative of “Marty the Alien”.
236
237
Appendix 1. Phase 2 survey for teachers nominated as exemplary computer-users.
Teachers scaffolding children’s learning with computers: An analysis of strategies
Jenny Masters, QUT
Teacher Background Survey
Name ________________________ School __________________________
Your age bracket (please circle)
20-23 24-27 28-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 over 50
1.0 Your Teacher Education
Initial teacher education
1.1 Institution_____________________________
1.2 Year of completion: ______
1.3 Did you study any aspects of computer use, educational application and/or skills in your degree? yes / no If yes, please describe.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
Further education
1.4 Have you enrolled in or completed any post-graduate qualifications in computer studies? yes / no If yes, please describe.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
1.5 Have you enrolled in or completed any post-graduate qualifications other than computer studies? yes / no If yes, please describe.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
2.0 Your Teaching History
2.1 How long have you worked as a teacher?
_______yrs full-time _________yrs part-time
2.2 Please provide a brief time-line profile of your teaching history. An example is shown on the left-hand side. 2001 2001- yr 6/7 RWSS 1999 -yr 7, RWSS 1998 -comp. coord, CKSS 1997 -½ time yr 5, CKSS ½ time comp. coord. 1996 -yr 5, CKSS 1993 -yr 2, CKSS 1992 -university
2.3 Please describe any role that you have had where computer speciality has been required. ________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
238
3.0 Your Professional Development
Please indicate the professional development programs on computer use, educational application and/or skills that you have participated in over the last five years.
3.1 Over the last 5 years, I have attended workshops or sessions provided by the school.
yes / no If yes, please comment. ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
3.2 Over the last 5 years, I have attended workshops or sessions provided by a professional association (eg QSITE)
yes / no If yes, please comment. ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
3.3 Over the last 5 years, I have attended workshops or sessions provided by a commercial organisation (eg Qantum).
yes / no If yes, please comment. ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
3.4 Are you or have you ever been a member of the Queensland Society for Information Technology in Education (QSITE)?
yes / no
4.0 Your Professional Leadership
Please comment on your involvement with the promotion of computers in education
4.1 Have you been involved in computer policy development at a school level?
yes / no If yes, please comment. ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
4.2 Have you been involved in computer policy development in the wider educational community?
yes / no If yes, please comment
.____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
4.3 Have you ever provided in-service about computer use, educational applications and/or skills for teachers at your school?
yes / no If yes, please comment. ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
4.4 Have you ever provided in-service on computer use, educational applications and/or skills in the wider educational community?
yes / no If yes, please comment. ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
4.5 Have you been involved in any other professional leadership activity related to the promotion of computers in education?
yes / no If yes, please comment. ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
5.0 Current Class Profile
5.1 Year level ________
5.2 Number of children in class:
Boys _________ Girls ___________
5.3 Teaching structure:
solo / team (partner: _____________ )
5.4 Computer access
integrated / isolated, remote / isolated, local
Comments ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
6.0 Other
6.1 Would you like to share any other aspect of your teaching background and your experiences with using computers in the classroom? ____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Many thanks for your participation…
239
Appendix 2. Phase 2 teacher interview schedule.
Teachers scaffolding children working with computers: An analysis of strategies
Stage two: Investigation
What strategies do teachers use when supporting children learning with computers? Objectives To ask teachers to: a) define the learning activity involving computers in their classrooms b) describe their organisation and classroom management of this activity c) recall their role with children during the task and to identify the support strategies
they used d) talk about scaffolding and their perceptions of the concept e) Identify their plans for integrated computer activity over the next term. Interview Schedule Introduction • Brief description of the study • Research question
How can teachers use scaffolding to support children’s learning with computers?
• Definition card for scaffolding
Scaffolding A process that enables a child or a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his or her unassisted efforts.
Teacher’s perception of the activity 1. Can you describe any task that requires computers that your class is working on at
present? 2. What objectives do you have for this/these task/s? 3. What learning outcomes do you expect to achieve? Teacher’s awareness of organisation and management 4. What classroom organisation strategies do you use during the task/s? 5. Can you describe how you organise the children working at the computer?
240
Teacher’s perception of interaction 6. Can you think back over the activity you have identified and describe your role
with the children during the activity? (Open-ended discussion prompted with researcher observation notes)
7. On these occasions, what was the circumstance that prompted you to become involved?
8. How might your support have influenced the children’s learning? 9. What other strategies may you use to support your students with this activity? 10. Thinking back over the activity, were there any events or actions that you were
dissatisfied with? If you were to do this task again, would you do anything differently?
Teacher’s conceptualisation of scaffolding I have used the term “scaffolding” to refer to strategies a teacher uses to support children during a task (scaffolding definition card). Some research has suggested that scaffolding is a “tacit” practice that teachers engage in – it is something that we do “naturally” in our role as a teacher. 11. Have you heard this vocabulary used in teacher conversation? If so, where did you
first hear this term? 12. Do you consider that this concept is active in teacher discussion? 13. Can you identify any other terms that might relate to this concept? 14. When you support children using computers do you consider that you are
engaging in a scaffolding process? 15. When you are supporting children using a computer what are the characteristics of
this role? What advice would you give to a student teacher who was required to support children?
Teacher’s plans for integrated activity 16. Can you identify the tasks that incorporated the integrated use of computers that
you have planned for next term? 17. Can you describe roughly what you intend to happen, the goals of the task and the
learning outcomes that you intend to achieve. 18. When do you intend start and finish the tasks? 19. How many hours do you expect to spend on each task? 20. How will you organise your class for each task? Expression of interest During next term, I would like to observe a teacher working with his or her class on a task that integrates computers. This will involve interviews with the teacher prior to the task, observations by the researcher for the duration of the task and then interviews with the teacher and some of the children after the task. The data collection devices will be a lapel microphone attached to the teacher, a fixed video camera and a hand-held video camera. 21. Would you be willing to permit this research in your classroom? 22. Are you aware of any events in your classroom next term that may interfere with
this study, for example are you expected to supervise a pre-service teacher? Thank you for your participation!
Sca
ffo
ldin
g
A p
roce
ss t
hat
en
able
s a
chil
d o
r a
nov
ice
to s
olve
a
pro
blem
, ca
rry
out
a ta
sk
or
ach
ieve
a
goal
w
hic
h
wou
ld
be
beyo
nd
h
is
or
her
un
assi
sted
eff
orts
. (W
ood
, Bru
ner
& R
oss
, 19
72)
Ph
oto:
Gra
y, E
. (19
99
) M
y F
amil
y w
ebsi
te
htt
p:/
/ww
w.e
du
cati
on.q
ut.
edu
.au
/mas
ters
/EC
_p
roje
cts/
Gra
y/ti
tlep
age.
htm
Appendix 3. Scaffolding definition card. 241
242
Card back
243Appendix 4. An example of a teacher interview script with teacher comments
Teacher’s Scaffolding Children Working with Computers – Interview Transcript Focus Teacher - Years 4 & 5
Question Set Discussion Teacher clarification
or further comment Teacher’s perception of the activity Can you describe any task that requires computers that your class is working on at present? What objectives do you have for this/these task/s? What learning outcomes do you expect to achieve?
Researcher: Can you first of all describe to me the task that the children were doing today? Focus teacher: What the children were working on were their electronic portfolios. We started their portfolios in term one and what they are to be is a collection of some of their work, both technology based work, like a Hyperstudio stack or maths and English and other integrated activities that aren’t technology based, but can be created into a webpage. So other activities that we have done, maybe we created a dice, a poster, something like that, we will take a photo of it to include it in our webpage, so people can actually visually see it. In the case of the Hyperstudio or Kidpix, we actually export that and import into our webpage. Each term, we write what the term theme is, so that we get the idea of what these activities are related to. Then each webpage will have the activity, the diary, the photograph, whatever and a description of what is being done so that hopefully if it gets put up on the web, people will know the context. Researcher: OK, so who is the audience for your webpages? Focus teacher: The audience at the moment is just students in our school. It has been put on the Intranet. We are hoping to get…some of those are actually on the Internet, on our school and class web page, but we want to get them all up so we are having to…we have a massive collection of all the work that they have done in their portfolios, but we are having to censor that obviously to go on the Internet. So that what we are looking are two separate things. I go through all the work on the Internet and I go through all the students’ files and try and pick out one or two web pages that work, as in the pictures are there and everything is typed correctly, and I actually do the censoring of that for the Internet. That audience is mainly the parents, other schools and other teachers who are interested. Researcher: So what are the objectives that you have set for the children and what are the learning outcomes that you expect from this task? Focus teacher: The main objective is to try and get them to understand how the (webpages) pages work. Not necessarily the work, they have done the work. They know how to use all the other software packages. They know how to write and all that sort of stuff. The main objective is to understand about a web page. The kids know Hyperstudio really well and can understand the card system, but I found even the older students that are putting their photos in their portfolios, putting it on to a web page, is a different understanding. The main thing is getting them to understand how webs (webpages) work, understand how the software package goes and how they can add things to their web pages to make it interesting. So, gifs and pictures to make it interactive.
Teacher’s awareness of organisation and management What classroom organisation strategies do you use during the task/s? Can you describe how you organise the children working at the computer
Researcher: I noticed that you had a timer today that went off for children to change over. What classroom organisation strategies do you use during the task and how can you describe particularly how you organise the children working at the computer? Focus teacher: Normally what we would do, it is part of our rotational activity, so that it would be one child at a computer on their own working on their electronic portfolio. The other children would then be working on other rotational activities throughout the class. Today is a little bit different in that it is the last day of school and I wanted half of the children on this morning before you came, so they would go in the folders (? difficult to hear) and then the new children going on looking at the problems that they faced. Working in the pairs…I didn’t actually say to the children, I want you to work with this child. In the past I have said I would like a year four-curriculum child to work with a year five-curriculum child. Simply because a lot of year fours
?? I don’t know either!
244level of understanding isn’t as good as a year fives, so grouping those children together helps – it boosts their understanding. Some of the children still, you would have noticed, find it very difficult to do it on their own. Tony he was sitting on the corner… Researcher: I have a little map – this is the first group you had. I picked up a few names but not many…This was Tony here? Focus teacher: Tony, yeah. I spent a lot of time with him. Researcher: That’s right. He had the shopping activity. Focus teacher: Yes. He finds the concept very difficult to understand and so he needs someone to it with him, but he does have other issues that prevent him from working with other children. Researcher: So the teacher/student scaffolding is different from that with another child? Focus teacher: Yes. Where as in the second rotation, there were Adam and Timothy working together. Adam is in year 5 and Timothy is year 4. Adam is a very capable child, can work independently and is a very good peer tutor. Now, Timothy was wandering around while that second rotation was on and I directed Timothy on to that computer with Adam, knowing that Adam was able to help him. Whereas if Timothy was sitting beside someone like Tony in that rotation group, he wouldn’t have got too far at all. Researcher: When they were working together were they working on Adam’s program or Timothy’s? Focus teacher: Adam was working on Adam’s product and Timothy was watching and I asked Adam about fifteen minutes from the end to go on to working on Timothy’s product, which he chose not to do, because he was focused on his own thing. Researcher: He wanted to get on with his? Focus teacher: Yes, he wanted to get his finished and understandably so. Which is why I like to have one child working on their own but in certain cases we can’t do that. Researcher: And how did you use the computer chairs? (each computer has one ergonomic chair and additional classroom chairs are pulled up) In most cases of two children, the lesser involved of the pair was the one without the computer chair. I wondered if that meant the one in the “driver” chair got to be in charge? Focus teacher: Very much so. It is a power thing. This is my chair. And they have caught on to it. The person who can show their strength or their dominance sits there. Researcher: You have groups on the board. That relates to this task you have been doing? Focus teacher: Yes, they are rotational groups. Researcher: And the timer? Is that usual? Focus teacher: Yeah. The kids have responded really well to the timer. When we first started using it, they would say “Oh, what do I do next” but now I can write the rotations on the board with a slight description beside it, and as soon as the timer goes off, they will look where they are going, and off they go. It works really well the timer.
Teacher’s perception of interaction Can you think back over the activity you have identified and describe your role with the
Researcher: Now, thinking back to your interactions today. I want you to think back over the activity and describe your role. What do you do? Focus teacher: Well what I was aiming at doing, was trying to have a look initially at as many people’s work as I could to see where they are at. I know the children who I can leave in a sense, on their own, like Adam. Like he really knows what he is doing. So initially it is wandering around trying to see where everyone’s at, watching and sometimes asking can I help you. And most
In this situation, I am the facilitator helping the students achieve what they want.
245On these occasions, what was the circumstance that prompted you to become involved? children during the activity? (Open-ended discussion prompted with researcher observation notes) How might your support have influenced the children’s learning? What other strategies may you use to support your students with this activity? Thinking back over the activity, were there any events or actions that you were dissatisfied with? If you were to do this task again, would you do anything differently?
children are going, oh I am fine, and off I go. If that is the case, with say four out of the six groups, then I’m fine. I usually set myself with the children who I know have problems in getting their work completed on the computer or have minimal understanding of the software package still, even though we have been doing for nearly a year, they are still a bit rough on some things. So that is why in that first group, you would notice I spent a lot of my time with Tony and Kathy who was sitting over here. She finds this difficult. Whereas the rest of the students in that first group were OK. Researcher: I noticed that these other students you barely had any interaction… Focus teacher: Yes. And it is always looking over and making sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. We have a number of students who sometimes do other things…but in that first group Tony and Kathy were the problem ones. In the second group was a different issue in that we are having a few troubles with transferring some quick art from one software package to another. Sometimes it is showing, sometimes it is not. Researcher: I noticed you were having a problem over here. Focus teacher: Yes. That was Joanna and Natalie. Researcher: Whose stack were you working with? Focus teacher: That was Joanna’s. Joanna is an accelerated child. She is year three age but she is year four curriculum, so that sort of sets the scene for her too. The second group – there were more children with more problems than with the first group. It was more me moving between each group, spending a couple of minutes trying to help them to solve their problems. Trying to get them to work it out…because we have been using it for so long, someone said – I can’t remember how to make a link. I said well, have a think about it, how would we do this. So, in the second group it was really to get to as many people as I could and try and get them to solve their problems. Simply because they have been through it so many times before. Researcher: Now, I noticed that a lot of the time with the interactions, children occasionally put their hands up or ask for help. Other times you appear to monitor them and help when necessary. When do you decide to go in and help? Focus teacher: When the body language says I have no idea. Often with a child like Kathy, Lorraine who was sitting here, Timothy, Natalie, their body language says, alright, I’ve given up. And I’m not sure what I am actually seeing. Natalie starts scuffing the chair a lot, Lorraine just sort of falls off her chair, Kathy does things other than what she is supposed to be doing. You may have noticed, she walked through the door, played with the tap and then came back. Timothy got up too quickly. He couldn’t have done what he needed to get done in that time. So I said, come back and show me what you have done. So, I think because I know the children and I’ve seen them interacting with computers before, their body language is telling me something. Besides the fact that you can look at the screen and nothing is happening, or Page Mill isn’t up or they are not doing anything on the computer, they’re the sort of things I am looking at, yeah. Researcher: When you do actually move in and interact, what are type of things you are doing? How would you classify your role? Focus teacher: What I am trying to do there, is to get them, the children to remember … The question that I ask them is, OK, well where would that be found? Researcher: So some of it is the technical aspects of the task? Focus teacher: Yeah. A lot of it was the stage we looked at, with the technical aspects. And, hang on, remember what we spoke about this morning, which was, you have got to put that little bit of a blurb above it, so people understand what you are on about. Researcher: So actually reminding them? Focus teacher: Yeah, yeah. The conscientious students know that already and more often than not, children remember that and there is a board up on the easel, that says this is what we have to do and there is a card there saying… It is a visual that reminds them and they know what they are on the computer to
With some students simply observing to make sure they’re on the right track is enough. I also know who can and can’t do what is needed with the technology. Facilitator. Someone to jog their memory as they’ve done it before.
246do but often with children like those I talked about, they are the ones that need that contact. Lorraine now is at least starting to say, I’ve forgotten how to make a link, whereas earlier this year she wouldn’t identify that. Researcher: And I noticed sometimes your role is just reinforcing what they are doing is OK. Focus teacher: Yeah. And things like… with Kathy who had difficulty initially, she said, Wow, it’s working now. And so with her, one of the big steps is confidence to have another go and for me to say, Well done, that’s great. Researcher: Sometimes I notice, and this is fascinating, sometimes you say to them, Would you mind if I do this for you? I thought is was great that you asked permission… Focus teacher: I always do that, and even if they are not on the computers. I say, would you mind if I helped you out… Researcher: When do you decide to do that? Focus teacher: When I know its going to be easier for them and easier for me time wise in the class. If I’ve got twelve people on a computer, and you will notice that some of the work is saved on the hard drive, we have video footage on one machine, and that needed to be copied. It was quicker for me to go in and do that. Researcher: And it might be beyond some of them? Focus teacher: Yeah. Other children, Evan, Adam, Melissa, although she is not here at the moment, incorporate them in their projects and they will find them no problem. But usually the children I ask, would you mind if I did this for you, they are the ones who still aren’t there yet. Researcher: Perhaps they aren’t in the range where they can conceptualise it? Focus teacher: But a lot of those children too are year 4, so perhaps next year when they are year fives they will understand it. Researcher: Something I noticed at one stage, with this graphics problem, you said, I’m really stuck here. Now, what strategies are important there? You obviously admitted to the children that you didn’t know what to do… Focus teacher: I do. I say, I really don’t know the answer to this problem. I normally try and work it out. I say, OK, why don’t you guys try and see what you can do, see what you can come up with, because often they find out and I don’t need to worry. I then go away and I look at the program after work or at lunchtime or something. I go, well why doesn’t this work? If I still have a problem, I then go and speak to someone else and say this isn’t working, can you help me out with this. Researcher: Do you explain to the children how you got to the solution? Focus teacher: Yeah, yeah. The next day or whenever we come back to it. I say, hey guys, this is how to do it and share it with them. That way they have got the knowledge and they don’t need me all the time. Researcher: Because that is really important with computers isn’t it? Focus teacher: It is. And other times we have spoken about, and we speak about it all the time, the idea that I am not the expert in the classroom, there are lots of other people who are skilled I think. Because sometimes they have solved the problem already and I often say, well he has done this…We were using another program a couple of weeks ago called XXXplus and we had a problem of printing and I said who has printed this? And maybe four or five people put their hand ups. So they are the people you need to speak to if you are having a problem with your printing. Some children do that, and I try and get them to go straight to other kids all the time. OK, James, talk it over with another person. So, I will try and hunt it down, I will try and work it out. Often I will actually try and work it out with the kids while they are there, if we have time. Researcher: OK, So…There was one particular problem that I was interested in and that was naming of the files. That can be a bit different in that it is an ongoing
247conceptualisation of the computer file system. Now he had called it “Evan’s grop”. How did you handle that problem? What are the steps you went through? Focus teacher: What I always get the children to do is put their name before whatever they have done and then name it efficiently, so that if I go and look at it or somebody else goes and looks at it, they know that is Focus teacher’s Kidpix slide, or something like that. What Evan had done was named it Evan’s grop. He actually had started to name it Brendon, because he works in a group with Brendon, Alistair and Evan but he was going to call it with Brendon, Alistair and Evan’s group - something. And I said, well this is just in your electronic portfolio folder, do I need to put all the other student’s names in there? No, I don’t. OK, well let’s call it Evan’s something. So then he typed Evan’s grop. And I said does that actually describe what you are saving? And he said, No, it doesn’t. And I said, What are you actually saving? And he said, I’m saving my Hyperstudio stack. I said, Are you saving your whole stack or just part of your stack. He said, I’m just saving part of my stack. What are saving? The title page? or whatever. I said, What could we call it then? We can’t call it Evan’s Hyperstudio Stack on Robots. That is far too long, what could we call it. And he said well we could call it Evan’s Robot. I said Is it a photograph of your robot? What is it? He said well, no it is my stack. I said well we could call it Evan’s robot stack. So that then gives us an understanding of who it belongs to and what it is. Researcher: Thinking back over this activity, was there events or actions or things that happened that you were dissatisfied with? If you were asked to do it again, what would you do differently? Focus teacher: I need to do two things and this relates to the software that I am putting before the kids. One is the copy of those pictures that we were having problems with coming from other works, occasionally. Sometimes it worked, I opened it up yesterday and it was fine and other times its not, so that would make it easier for the kids to get in and click on their pictures. So the second is that the software we have needs to be upgraded. I spoke to the children before you came and said well let’s have a look at this particular student’s – he is away today – he had done it on this computer and it had come up with the Q for Quicktime and I said the image won’t come up, but it will in a delayed time frame and that needs to be updated. So, if those two problems were solved and we could do it again, that would have made it less frustrating for some of the kids. Researcher: So you would like to fade the technology out – to get to the real task? Focus teacher: Yes. Try to make it seamless so they can get in and do whatever they need to get done without having those extra concerns. Researcher: What about in terms of the actual structure of the task? Is there anything different that you would do? Would you change the activity at all? Focus teacher: The activity has actually grown over the year. Initially we just started with how do I go about creating in Kidpix. So over the year, the activities have grown and the kids knowledge of what to do has grown, so I don’t think I would change that because their skills are building on top of each other. In a perfect world we would have more computers, but I can’t complain, I have got six computers. I would really like to have more. I use my laptop, that gives me another pair on a computer. The rotations that we do in our class – the kids stick to that and that works pretty well. On that side of things, I probably wouldn’t change much.
Teacher’s conceptualisation of scaffolding I have used the term “scaffolding” to refer to strategies a teacher uses to support children during a task (scaffolding definition card). Some research has suggested that scaffolding is a “tacit” practice that teachers engage in – it is something that we do
Researcher: Have you used this term in conversation? If you did where did you hear it first? Focus teacher: I probably…yes I have, but I probably wouldn’t have used the word scaffolding. I would have done it without really being aware of actually what I was talking about (laughs) Researcher: Well, I guess that really is what tacit knowledge is… Focus teacher: Yeah, um. I do stuff always with the kids but I suppose I am more aware of it when I am actually teaching adults. Because I have done a lot of training with adults on using different software packages at computer conferences
I now use the word “scaffolding” more! I think a number of things I do are just instinct – I can tell when students need more or less scaffolding to be successful in the task.
248“naturally” in our role as a teacher. Have you heard this vocabulary used in teacher conversation? If so, where did you first hear this term? Do you consider that this concept is active in teacher discussion? Can you identify any other terms that might relate to this concept? When you support children using computers do you consider that you are engaging in a scaffolding process? When you are supporting children using a computer what are the characteristics of this role? What advice would you give to a student teacher who was required to support children?
and workshops that I have been involved in. And I am more aware in the planning for a conference of how I need to scaffold for the adults that I am with the kids. That probably is a varied skill, because I need to do it with the children also but I suppose I already know how to do it. Maybe it is something else with the adults that makes me plan it. Researcher: Maybe when transferring into that less familiar environment, you are more explicit about it? Focus teacher: Yes. And the language needs to change when you are speaking with adults to with the children. So I can talk to the children – put it in this folder or that folder, and use the technical language but I couldn’t if I am working with adults who don’t know. I did a workshop last year using that same software and halfway through it a woman said “what is a link?”. Well, if you have chosen to come to a webpage session, I would presume you would know what a link is. Whereas the children I can say you need to link to here and here and here and they can do that. So the scaffolding is probably more obvious with the adults than the kids. Researcher: Do you use the term scaffolding when you work with adults? Focus teacher: No I don’t (laughs). Researcher: OK but you know the word and you used it when you were talking. Do you know where you heard it first? Focus teacher: Noo… Researcher: Is it something that you pick up from your university days? Focus teacher: Possibly… um I know the term but yeah, it is just not something that comes up in conversation. Researcher: Is there anything other terms that might relate to that same sort of concept? Focus teacher: Um….probably… (interrupted by a child) Researcher: OK, If you think of any, you can write them on the survey I gave you Focus teacher: I probably use procedure more, but not with the children, again with adults. (pause) Yeah with the steps involved getting to the stages. Researcher: When you are supporting children using the computers, do you think that you are scaffolding? Focus teacher: Yes, very much so. At the beginning of the year, I had a number of children in the class that had already used that particular software that they were using today but more who did not know how to use it, so we had to be tolerant and explain very clearly so all the children can do the task. So, a lot of the first term, using Pagemill was scaffolded in simple things like getting a colour on the background and getting them to follow what I had done, literally. So, I want you to go on the computer, you now have to change the background colour, you now have to create a textbox and type something in. I want you to go off and do that. So you really basically you do their home page with them coming back and me saying, well now we need to do…, with a constant to and fro. Well now it is not to and fro, now it is more me knowing well that child doesn’t understand, so I will work with that child. But the first term, probably even into the second term, when their understanding was improving, there were still a lot of children you would find…Even a few weeks ago, I would sometimes say, OK let’s all stop and have a look at this. It makes it easier for me because I don’t have to say it for all the different groups. Researcher: Now, if you were telling someone else about supporting children using computers, what are the characteristics of that role? For example if you were saying to a student teacher, giving advice on how to support children, what are some of the characteristics you would describe? Focus teacher: What they would need to be able to do it? They would need to understand the software, would be my very first thing. I had a student teacher in here this term and he didn’t understand the software and he would say to the children, “how do you do this” and they would go “I don’t know” and he
This also includes problem solving. If you know technology and different software packages well enough, you can problem solve to help the students. Technology is quite linear so you just need to know the steps to solve the
249would walk off. And that would be very frustrating. So first you need to get familiar with the software and then you need to be able to interact, interrelate with the child and understand what they are saying. I suppose because I’m used to it, when children talk to me, I understand what they are talking about. But if you don’t understand what they are saying, where they are coming from, then you will find it difficult. And I think sometimes the children don’t know what they are actually saying. They are confused really about what they want. So, being able to say well, can you try and put that in another way or is this what you are really saying. Trying to get their understanding. I have answered that effectively? I’m not sure if I’m on the right track. Researcher: Yeah. Of course, it is quite complex. Another aspect is knowing when not to intervene. Focus teacher: Yeah that is important. And I think that it is important not to show the kids how to do it. And that is why I usually say to someone “would you like me to do this for you?” rather than just take over. Researcher: I noticed you did that… Focus teacher: Yeah. Because I don’t want to…like, that isn’t my job… Researcher: A lot of teachers do… Focus teacher: Yeah. But it is really hard not to, because you already know it, and you think I can do that in five seconds and it is really frustrating and you haven’t got time, I can understand. But then long term, what is the benefit of that? To me the benefit is get the child to know it and if I have to sit on my hands while talking about it, then I will sit on my hands. Researcher: But then on occasions, you do take control and do something for the children. Perhaps you have thought it important to get them over a complicated technical process so they don’t lose that understanding they were gaining in the complexity of the problematic situation? Focus teacher: Yes. And that relates really nicely to our outcomes that we work on because some children do have that understanding and you can say to them yes you can do that, whereas as other don’t. And so I don’t want those lower children to lose the skills that they already have, with what we are doing on the computer. And if I need to say, do you mind if I do that for you so that I can help you out…and most of them you would expect them to say, Oh yeah. It is not because they are giving up, it just for them achieving the goal is just a bit much.
problem. And letting them know you are not an expert. Some students can’t visualise the concept well enough and need to be shown. If you know your students, you know when to interrupt and help or leave them be.
Teacher’s plans for integrated activity Can you identify the tasks that incorporated the integrated use of computers that you have planned for next term? Can you describe roughly what you intend to happen, the goals of the task and the learning outcomes that you intend to achieve. When do you intend start and finish the tasks? How many hours do you expect to spend on each task? How will you organise your class for each task?
Researcher: I want to move on now to thinking about what you are doing next term. I would like to follow some of the rich tasks that are happening and actually follow through one of the quality tasks from the beginning to the end, to see how it develops over the time. Your class is a great candidate because you are working on your own; you don’t work in a partnership, which for me can complicate trying to track a teacher interacting with children. I also found that in the middle of primary school is a good target because these children are not too independent yet, they still need you a lot. So, I certainly would be interested in coming back next term and following through on a quality task. Focus teacher: That would be great. We are actually doing a clay animation. Researcher: Oh, lovely. Focus teacher: Great. We are doing Earth and Space, and we’ve got this little alien, he is spending a couple of weeks travelling from his planet through space, so we will learn a little bit about space. We have done a lot on that already. Our main focus is Earth, but our clay animation at the end of term will be that little fellow going home. So the beginning of term will be, well what does he look like, his personal characteristics – whatever they come up with. So we will design the actual clay model early on. So then throughout the term we’ve got the model as a personality and then at the end we will create the clay animation of him going home. Researcher: So what are the learning outcomes that you are setting for this? Focus teacher:
250Initially it will be…our little man is from a planet called Endor, so our initial outcomes, learning focus, will be with SOSE and what do I understand about space. When we are on Earth, they are actually focusing before that, the four of our classes from our team are focusing on different planets. I can remember exactly what my planet is, (laughs)… Researcher: And you said that the four classes… Focus teacher: Yeah. We actually have four classes in our team. Stuart is actually my teaching partner (and two other teachers) and the teacher aide who works with us for four days. So we have split the four main concepts that we see as part of the unit “Our Changing World”. (Earth and Space) So each class has taken one of those particular main areas, I know that I am doing rocks and soil but I can’t think of what the others will do. So we will be focusing on that, trying to do a lot of problem solving with our little Martian. So if he was in Queensland or in Tasmania or a very rocky mining area how can he walk and things like this. So we are doing a lot of problem solving based questions on that. And then at the end… Oh and we are also looking at the characteristics of our little fellow. We come up with thing like when he is cold he is blue and when he is not So we are going to put together a stack Researcher: Ok, What are the logistics of me trying to follow something like this? When do you work on this? Is it something you do all the time? Will I be able to identify windows of opportunity when I can come into the classroom? Focus teacher: With my planning you will be able to identify opportunities because I am pretty…I’m not organised to the T, but I can tell you on Tuesday I’ve got SOSE, so this is what is going to be happening and I can tell you that in week one, so you can plan. On a Monday morning we always have rotation so it is never on a Monday in the middle session. And I can say well this is my specialist hour, so it will never be then. Researcher: We have talked about the hours that you might need and as soon as you have that plan done we can have a look at that. And the rotational groups, will that be your organisation for this task? Focus teacher: Yeah.
Expression of interest During next term, I would like to observe a teacher working with his or her class on a task that integrates computers. This will involve interviews with the teacher prior to the task, observations by the researcher for the duration of the task and then interviews with the teacher and some of the children after the task. The data collection devices will be a lapel microphone attached to the teacher, a fixed video camera and a hand-held video camera. Would you be willing to permit this research in your classroom? Are you aware of any events in your classroom next term that may interfere with this study, for example are you expected to supervise a pre-service teacher?
Researcher: So, if I were coming into your classroom, I would actually bring a video camera in on a tripod. I would also mike you as the teacher and then with every child that the teacher speaks to, I am getting that interaction. I would probably have a hand-held camera. At one or two stages I would like to interview a few children and obviously interview you. Is that something that you could include in your class? Focus teacher: Yes. That would be fine. Researcher: Have you got any events planned for your class that might get in the way …camps or excursions? Focus teacher: No. Not at that time of the year. Researcher: OK. That’s great. I will come and see you again before the end of the term. ----------------------------------END OF TRANSCRIPT-----------------------------------
251
Appendix 5. Teacher support strategy codes
Teacher Support Strategy Codes Teacher strategy code definition example Cognitive Information, ideas, opinions, suggestions, task Providing structured material
SM Provides pre-prepared concrete teaching material or a pre-defined mechanism to support children
Butcher's paper with storyboard grid, clapping routine
Giving instructions GI Directing children, step by step OK, now move your ruler slightly to the left.
Providing, reinforcing or reminding of information
PRI Introduces new information to the task or reminds children of information that has been presented earlier in the task
Remember that these pictures must all be in order
Reinforcing/reminding of task or sequence
RTS Reminds children of the scope and characteristics of the task or the sequence of the task and the order required.
When we have filled this disk we will go and download them to the computer
Defining terms
DT Providing or eliciting definitions for terms or concepts that the children need to use
A storyboard is….
Soliciting for opinions SFO Asking either a child or the group if they had an opinion
What do you think we should do here, Tim?
Makes suggestion MS Suggests a direction or an idea What about if we try to do this one first?
Accepting children's suggestions/ideas
AS Listens to ideas and acknowledges that a child or group has contributed an idea
We could make Mars out of modelling clay? Yes we have a lot of...
Extending ideas EI Takes an child or group's idea and extends on the concept
If you wanted to you could press some pebbles into the Mars.
Soliciting for ideas SFI Asking either a child or the group for their pre-conceived ideas
What did you decide to make your animation about?
stimulating ideas SI Actively promotes the children to think of new ideas and/or extend on ideas
What about if we tried …
Critiquing suggestions/ideas
CS Discusses an idea, pointing out strengths and weaknesses
Your space ship looks good up to here, but now in this frame it isn’t obvious what happens next.
Clarifies ideas CI Takes an idea provided by the child and rephrases it, usually seeking the child's approval.
So here he crash lands on Endor?
Request further thinking RFT Asks child or group to think again about the task or to do some more work
I think you are going to need to expand on this slide a bit.
Requests new direction RND Terminates direction of thinking and as for a new direction
OK let’s just stop for a second
252
Promotes thinking strategy PTS Suggests that children use a meta-strategy to support thinking.
Can you picture it in your head?
Requests decision RD Asks students to provide a decision or direction
So what have you decided to make your moon out of?
Child identifies Progress CIP Asks children to identify where they are in a process
OK. Where are you up to?
Identifies Progress IP Marks where the children are in a process
OK. We have done the first step, now we need to…
Drawing students back on task
DOT Helps to focus thinking when discussion and/or ideas have moved away from the task or sequence
Wait, I think you are ahead of yourself. Just look at this move for a moment.
Reminds of prior experience
RPE Reminds children of a previous task where a process or strategy was used.
Remember we did this with movies last term?
Checking for understanding
CU Checks verbally or visually to see if the child/group are demonstrating or reporting an understanding of the task
Why do we need to do a storyboard?
Limits choice LC Narrows option for a child who is distracted by choices
Either this speed or this speed will be best.
Offers input into task OI Gives child/ren an opportunity to decide what will be included in the task or process
We could try to add a mask here or we could just leave it out. What do you think?
Shares task planning STP Shares teacher task decision making with the children
I am going make a different decision here.
Giving permission GP Approves a direction when a child seeks permission and/or they are hesitating because they do not have permission
Yes, you can put Marty’s dog in front if you want to.
Focuses on an aspect FA Draws attention to a particular aspect.
Look in the camera again. That is what your picture will be. Is that what you want?
Reflects on Process ROP Promotes reflection on what worked and what went wrong
So why do you think your space ship falls over? The body is OK, but I think the problem is in the legs.
Shows confusion SC Shows to the children that the teacher doesn’t always have a solution
I don’t know, I am confused.
Withdrawing support WS Withdrawing cognitive support when children appear to have grasped the concepts
Ok, go and have a think about your sound effects or words or whatever you want.
253
Operational Group, processes (refers to physical steps), task Supporting group negotiations
SGN Monitors or intervenes while members of the group are negotiating
I can’t hear when you all talk, I need one person to tell me what is happening.
Negotiating group structures
NGS Works with children to establish group members or members' roles
So Craig is in charge of taking the photos?
Requests new direction RND Terminates group process and asks for a new direction
OK let’s just stop for a second
Managing transition MT Gives students instructions or strategies to move from one area or one activity to another.
Four groups have half an hour and then we will swap.
Reinforcing processes RP Reminds children of the physical processes that are involved in the task.
It is important everyone does their job so the process runs smoothly.
Describing processes DP Introduces new processes that will be engaged during the task.
Get together in your group and then we will head off and work on the storyboard.
Drawing students back on-task
DOT Identifies when children are no longer participating in the task and re-engages them with the task
Hey boys, you need to concentrate on this.
Prompting Protocol PP Reminds child or children of etiquette
Remember; please don't speak when someone else is talking.
Time Management TM Monitoring time against activity and notifying children of time aspects
We only have five minutes to do this quickly.
Participant Recruitment PR Suggesting roles for group member/s
Why don’t you hold that for him?
Defining Roles DR Explaining or reinforcing the roles in a task
One person, stands here while the other…
Critiquing group structure CS Analyses group dynamics, pointing out strengths and/or weaknesses
This is not working. You are all arguing.
Monitors equity ME Ensures that group members have equal or fair opportunity
Are you taking turns?
Soliciting for opinions SFO Asking either a particular child in the group if they had an opinion
What do you think we should do here, Tim?
Seeking Group Consensus SGC Makes sure that any decision is made by the group, not just an individual.
Is everyone OK with that?
Managing Location
ML Assesses or manages physical positions of group members
Would you like to swap places so you can reach?
254
Affective Emotional support encouragement
E praise
That's good
Acknowledges emotional expression
AEE Identifies that the child or group is expressing emotion
Oh, that is sad!
Acknowledges emotional status
AES Identifies that the child or group responding emotionally
You seem upset
Shares humour SH Relates to and participates in humorous exchange
You would make a great teacher Caitlin!
Giving permission GP Approves a direction when a child seeks permission and/or they are hesitating because they do not have permission
Yes, that will be great!
Reassurance R Emotionally supporting when doubt has emerged
I’m sure it will work out
Checks for contentment CC Makes sure child/group is comfortable with a decision
Alright?
Reassures Progress RP Acknowledges that progress has been achieved
You are doing really well so far
Accepting children's suggestions/ideas
AS Accepts and praises a child or group suggestion
Yeah that is probably a really good idea
Maintains affective status MAS Suggests/promotes an affective condition
A bit of patience is needed here
Shares uncertainty SU Teacher shares feelings of uncertainty with the students
This is where we keep our fingers crossed …
Technical Relating to computer and peripheral use Technical Instruction TI Provides steps for technical
processes Click file, saveas
Technical Recovery TR Supports physically and/or verbally to reverse a technical problem
Hang on, I’ll just get that back for you.
Reminds students of the required outcome
RO Reminds of the final product required during the technical process
Don’t forget you will only see what is inside the frame.
Technical suggestion TS Suggests a possible use or capability of the equipment
Did you know you can zoom in?
Providing, reinforcing or reminding of information (technical)
PRIT Introduces new technical information to the task or reminds children of technical information that has been presented earlier
You did save it as a jpeg?
Checking for Understanding (technical)
CUT Checks verbally or visually to see if the child/group are demonstrating or reporting an understanding of the technical aspect
And where does this image get saved?
Critiquing action CA Points out weaknesses or errors in technical action
No. Look you are in the wrong folder.
Identifies limitations IL Points outs the capabilities and limitations of the technology
I think it is probably demanding too much in one go.
Technical Demonstration TD Teacher demonstrates a step or operation
Watch what I am doing now. Dot–jpg.
255
Appendix 6. Example narrative of “Marty the Alien”.
The Adventures of Marty Once there was an alien called Marty. Marty came from the
planet after Pluto called Endor. Endor was a very friendly
planet and a peaceful planet but the annoying thing is that it’s
very cold and Marty lived there for over 10 years and he
wanted to see what Earth was like so he went to see. While
Marty was travelling past Pluto he turned to ice, but it melted
and he got a cold.
Further on he went past Neptune and saw Neptune and Pluto
orbit each other. After that Marty went to Uranus and slid on
Uranus’s rings. He then went to Jupiter and sunk into its
surface. Then Marty crossed the asteroid belt and nothing
happened. Next Marty went to Mars and he was hot for the
first time in his life. Marty then took a wrong turn and went to
Venus and he lost track of where Earth was.
After that Marty got hit by a meteor and the meteor took him
to Mercury and then another meteor came and took him to
Earth and about 3 months later he had met a lot of people and
he had been to nearly all of the countries and he was really
happy.
THE END
256
257
8 References (American Psychological Association (APA). (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (5th Ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.)
_______________________________________________________________
Agalianos, A., Noss R., & Whitty, G. (2001). Logo in mainstream schools: The
struggle over the soul of an educational innovation. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 22(4), 479-500.
Ainley, J. (2004). Evaluation report of the New Basics research program.
Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Research. Retrieved December
19, 2004, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/pdfs/exteval.pdf
Airaisan, P., & Walsh, M. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan,
78(6), 444-449.
Apple Computer (2003). Apple distinguished schools. Retrieved November 18,
2003, from http://www.apple.com/uk/education/ads/adschools.html
Apple Computer (2004). ACOT overview. Retrieved July 17, 2004, from
http://images.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/acotover.pdf
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and
writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168 - 175.
Atherton, T. (2002). Developing ideas with multimedia. In A. Loveless & B.
Dore (Eds.), ICT in the primary school (pp. 125-145). Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Babchuk, W. (1997). Glaser or Strauss? Grounded theory and adult education.
Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult, continuing and
community education, October, 1997, Retrieved January 10, 2000, from
http://www.canr.msu.edu/aee/research/gradpr96.htm
258
Barbuto, L., Swaminathan, S., Trawick-Smith, J., & Wright, J. (2003). The role
of the teacher in scaffolding children's interactions in a technological
environment: How a technology project is transforming preschool teacher
practices in urban schools. In J. Wright, A. McDougall, J. Murnane & J.
Lowe (Eds.), Young children and learning technologies: Selected papers
from the International Federation for Information Processing Working
Group 3.5 open conference: Volume 34. Melbourne, Australia: Conferences
in Research and Practice in Information Technology. Retrieved December
12, 2004, from http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV34Barbuto.pdf
Baron, L. (1991). Peer tutoring, microcomputer learning and young children.
Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 2(4), 27-40.
Becker, H. (1991). How computers are used in the United States: Basic data
from the 1989 IEA Computers in Education survey. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 7(4), 385-406.
Becker, H. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other
teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-321.
Becker, H. (2000). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other
teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools.
Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 1(2), 274-293.
Becker, H., & Anderson R. (1998, April). Validating self-reports of the
“constructivism” of teachers’ beliefs and practices. Paper presented at the
American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Becker H., & Reil, M. (1999). Teacher professionalism and the emergence of
the constructivist-compatible pedagogies. Irvine, CA: University of
California. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from
http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/special_report2/index.htm
Beed, P., Hawkins, M., & Roller, C. (1991). Moving learners towards
independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher,
44(9), 648-655.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism and Popper’s world 3.
Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21-23.
259
Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and
early childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Bigum, C. (1994). Logo, some critical reflections. In A.D. Salvas, & C.
Dowling, (Eds.), Computers in education: On the crest of a wave? (pp. 194-
200). Blackburn, Australia: Computer Education Group of Victoria.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight
keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-
100.
Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning:
Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 17-35.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (1996). Scaffolding in the Zone of Proximal
Development. Of Primary Interest, 3(4), 1-7. Retrieved January 8, 2005,
from http://naecs.crc.uiuc.edu/opi-nl/volume3/number4.html
Bork, A. (1981). Learning with Computers. Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
Bork, A. (2000). Learning technology. EDUCAUSE Review, January/February,
1.
Brisbane Girls Grammar School (2003). Annual report 2003. Retrieved
December 12, 2004, from
http://www.bggs.qld.edu.au/downloads/BGGS_ANN_REP_2004.pdf
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a
context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives
on teaching and learning thinking skills. (Contributions to Human
Development Series (pp. 108-126)). Basel: Karger.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
Bull, K., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C., & Griffin, J. (1999).
Processes for developing scaffolding in a computer mediated learning
environment. In Rural Special Education for the New Millennium.
Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education,
Albuquerque, New Mexico: March (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 429765)
260
Bureau, W. (1989). Computers, catalysts for change at Springfield High School.
In C. L. Selfe, D. Rodrigues, & W. R. Oates (Eds.), Computers in English
and the language arts: The challenge of computer education (pp. 97-110).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Campoy, R. (1992). The role of technology in the school reform movement.
Educational Technology, 32(8), 17-22.
Case, R. (1991). The mind’s staircase. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clements, D. (1994). The uniqueness of the computer as a learning tool:
Insights from research and practice. In J.L. Wright & D.D. Shade (Eds.)
Young children: Active learners in a technological age (pp.31-49).
Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Clements, D., & Gullo, D. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young
children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058.
Clements D., Nastasi, B., & Swaminathan, S. (1993). Young children and
computers: crossroads and directions from research. Young Children, 48(2),
56-64.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives
on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking,
and classroom practice. In E. Forman, N. Minik, & C.A. Stone (Eds.),
Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development
(pp. 91-119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (2000). Beyond the individual-social antimony in
discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Retrieved October 15, 1999, from
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/colevyg.htm
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick
(Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser
(pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coltman, P., Anghileri, J., & Petyaeva, D. (2002). Scaffolding learning through
meaningful tasks and adult interaction. Early Years, 22(1), 39-49.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology
since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
261
Cuthbert, A., & Hoadley, C. M. (1998, April). Designing desert houses in the
knowledge integration environment. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California.
Davis, B., & Shade, D. (1994). Integrate, don’t isolate! Computers in the early
childhood curriculum. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376991)
de Vaus, D.A. (2002). Analyzing social science data. London: Sage.
Dexter, S., Anderson, R., & Becker, H. (1999). Teacher’s views of computers as
catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 31(3), 221- 232.
Dickson, L., Brown, M., & Gibson, O. (1984). Children learning mathematics:
A teacher’s guide to recent research. London: Cassell Education
Dimock, K., & Boethel, M. (1999). Constructing knowledge with technology.
Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431398)
Di Sessa, A. (1987). The third revolution in computers and education. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 343-367.
Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the
design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
Research for Educational Communications Technology. (pp. 170-198). New
York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Dyrli, O., & Kinnaman, D. (1994). Preparing for the integration of emerging
technologies. Technology and Learning, 14(9), 92, 94, 96, 98, 100.
Ebbeck, M. (1996). Children constructing their own knowledge. International
Journal of Early Years Education, 4(2), 5 -27.
Education Queensland (1997). Schooling 2001. Retrieved October 28, 2001,
from http://education.qld.gov.au/tal/2001/home.htm
Education Queensland (2000). New Basics Project technical paper. Retrieved
October 19, 2003, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/docs/nbftech.doc
Education Queensland (2001). New Basics – The why, what, how and when of
Rich Tasks. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/pdfs/richtasksbklet.pdf
262
Education Queensland (2003). Queensland State Education - 2010. Retrieved
December 21, 2004, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/qse2010/pdf/strategy.pdf
Education Queensland (2004a). Education Queensland. Retrieved December 5,
2004, from http://education.qld.gov.au/
Education Queensland (2004b). ICTs for learning. Retrieved December 18,
2004, from http://education.qld.gov.au/ictsforlearning/
Education Queensland (2004c). ICTs continua. Retrieved December 18, 2004,
from http://education.qld.gov.au/itt/learning/use/continua.html
Education Queensland (2004d). The New Basics Project. Retrieved December
19, 2004, from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/
Ertmer, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining
teacher’s beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72.
Ertmer, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. (2001). Technology-using teachers:
Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5). Retrieved
December 14, 2004, from http://www.iste.org/jrte/33/5/ertmer.cfm
Flick, L. (1998, April). Integrating elements of inquiry into the flow of middle
level teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego.
Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent
processes of teaching and learning. In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a
diverse society (pp.184-198). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gamble-Risley, M. (2004) National Education Technology Plan Redefines the
Digital Playground. Converge. Retrieved December 13, 2004, from
http://www.centerdigitaled.com/converge/?pg=magstory&id=91348
Geisert, P., & Futrell, M. (1990). Teachers, computers and curriculum:
Microcomputers in the classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
263
Gorman, H., & Bourne, L. (1983). Learning to think by learning LOGO: Rule
learning in third grade computer programmers. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 21, 165-167.
Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (1998). Integrating technology for meaningful learning.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Graves, M., Graves, M., & Braaten, S. (1996). Scaffolding reading experiences
for inclusive classes. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 14-16.
Greenfield, P. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of
everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its
development in social context (pp. 117-138). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Grennon-Brooks, J. G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging
new connections. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 68-71.
Grennon-Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1999). In search of understanding: The case
for constructivist classrooms. Adamandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Griffin, J. (1995). Issues of multimedia in the learning environment. In J. Griffin
& L. Bash (Eds.), Computers in the primary school (pp. 55-69). London:
Cassell.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinct patterns in
teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3),
261-315.
Hannafin, M., McCarthy, J., Hannafin, K., & Radtke, P. (2001). Scaffolding
performance in EPSSs: Bridging theory and practice. In the Annual
Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 658-663.
Hannafin, R., & Savenye, W. (1993). Technology in the classroom: The
teacher’s new role and resistance to it. Educational Technology, 33(6), 26-
31.
Haugland, S.W. (1992). The effect of computer software on pre-school
children’s developmental gains. Journal of Computing in Childhood
Education, 3(1), 15-30.
264
Haugland, S, & Shade, D. (1994).Software evaluation for young children. In
J.L. Wright & D.D. Shade (Eds.), Young children: Active learners in a
technological age (pp.31-49). Washington: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Heppell, S. (1990). Multimedia in the primary learning environment: The
challenge ahead. In J. Fields(Ed.), The challenge ahead: information
technology in the primary school curriculum. Nafferton, North Humberside:
Studies in Education.
Hickey, M. (1993). Computer use in elementary classrooms: An ethnographic
study. Journal of Computing in Early Childhood, 4, 219-28.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997a). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional
approaches and issues. New York: Brookline Books.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997b). Scaffolding scientific competencies within
classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 74-
107), New York: Brookline Books.
International Society for Technology in Education (2004). National Educational
Technology Standards (NETS).Retrieved December 12, 2004, from
http://cnets.iste.org/index.shtml
Jackson, P. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Jenson, J., & Brushwood-Rose, C. (2003). Women@work: Listening to
gendered relations of power in teachers' talk about new technologies.
Gender and Education, 15(2), 169-81.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational
Technology, 49(7), 28 -33.
Jonassen, D. (1992). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new
philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and
Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical
thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
265
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). New times
demand new ways of learning. Plugging In: Choosing and Using
Educational Technology, Washington, D.C.: Council for Educational
Development and Research, North Central Regional Education Laboratory,
Retrieved March 14, 2002, from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/newtimes.htm
Kelman, P. (1991). Alternatives to integrated instructional systems.
Communicator, 21(1), 21-34.
Kennewell, S. (1994). A computer’s role in revealing and influencing learners’
understanding. Midwest Research -to-Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing and Community Education, Australian Association for Research
in Education, Retrieved May 4, 2001, from
ftp:/ftp.swin.edu.au/pub/aare/aare94/conf94/kenns94.206 .
Kenway, J. (1996). Technological trends: Issues for schooling. In R. Lingard &
F. Rizvi (Eds.), External environmental scan (pp. 20-26). Queensland:
Department of Education.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom
through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal,
27(4), 664-687.
Lim, C.P., & Barnes, S. (2002), “Those who can, teach” – The pivotal roles of
the teacher in the information and communication technologies (ICT)
learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 27, (1&2), 19-40.
Lloyd, M., & Yelland, N. (2003). Adaptation and avoidance: Observation of
teachers' reactions to technology in the classroom. Change:
Transformations in Education, 6(1), 81-96.
Longman (2002). Education spotlight…What is happening in Queensland?
School Hotline Issue 3, 2002, Retrieved December 4, 2004, from
http://www.pearsoned.com.au/schools/primary/pdf/newsletters/SchoolHotlin
e3_2002.pdf
Loveless, A., & Dore, B. (2002). ICT in the primary curriculum. Buckingham:
Open Press University.
Luckin, R. (2001). Designing children’s software to ensure productive
interactivity through collaboration in the zone of proximal development
(ZPD). Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 13, 57-85.
266
Maddux, C. (1992). Logo: The case for cautious advocacy. Computers in
Schools, 9 (1), 59-79.
Marcinkiewicz, H. (1993-94). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing
computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 26, 220-237.
Masters, J. (1997). Investigations in geometric thinking: Young children
learning with technology. Unpublished Masters thesis, Brisbane:
Queensland University of Technology
Masters, J. (2003). Teacher scaffolding strategies for children working with
computers. In Y. S. Chee, N. Law, K. T. Lee, & D. Suthers (Eds.), The
second wave of ICT in education: from facilitating teaching and learning to
engendering education reform: Proceedings of The International Conference
on Computers in Education 2003 (pp. 406-413). Hong Kong: AACE.
Masters, J. (2004a). Developing a new pedagogy for student learning.
Snapshots: The Specialist Schools Trust Journal of Innovation in Education,
1(1), 22-25.
Masters, J. (2004b, July). Realising the potential of computers in the classroom:
Teacher scaffolding strategies for supporting children working with
computers. Paper presented at “Research, Reform, Realise the Potential”, the
Australian Computers in Education Conference. Adelaide. Retrieved
December 1, 2004, from
http://www.acec2004.info/confpapers/paperdetails.asp?pid=7247&uid=&do
cid=75
Masters, J. (2005 accepted). What works in the classroom? How an exemplary
teacher supports children using computers. Paper to be presented at “40
years of computer education. What works?”, The eighth IFIP World
Conference of Computers in Education. University of Stellenbosch: Cape
Town, South Africa.
Masters, J., & Yelland, N. (1996). Geometry in context: Implementing a
discovery-based technology curriculum with young children. Australian
Computers in Education Conference, Canberra: Australian Council for
Computers in Education. Retrieved December 21, 2000, from
http://www.spirit.com.au/ACEC96/papers/yelland.htm
267
Masters, J., & Yelland, N. (1997, June). Investigations in geometry: Young
children learning with technology. Paper presented at “From misconceptions
to constructed understanding”, Fourth International Seminar, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Masters, J., & Yelland, N. (2002). Teacher scaffolding: An exploration of
exemplary practice. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 313-321.
MCEETYA (2002). Information and communication technologies education:
Student participation and outcomes. In MCEETYA (Corp. Ed.) National
Report on Schooling in Australia 2002. Retrieved December 25, 2004, from
http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2002/index.htm
Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999) Children’s talk and the development of
reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1),
95-111.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, J.L. (1994). Turning the computer into the children’s machine.
Australian Educational Computing, 9(1), 38-39.
Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study of
teaching with technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(2), 121-141.
Murphy, N., & Messer, D. (2000). Differential benefits from scaffolding and
children working alone. Educational Psychology, 20(1), 17-30.
Nastasi, B., & Clements, D. (1991). Research on cooperative learning:
Implications for practice. School Psychology Review, 20 (1), 110-31.
Oakley, J. (1986). Is there more to Logo than Piaget and powerful ideas? In
A.D. Salvas & C. Dowling (Eds.), Computers in Education: On the Crest of
a Wave?Melbourne: CEGV.
Oshima, J., & Oshima, R. (1999, April). Scaffolding for progressive discourse
in CSILE: Case study of undergraduate programs. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Montreal.
Oyama, S. (1999). Locating development: Locating developmental systems. In
E. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. Gelman, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual
development: Piaget’s legacy (pp. 185-208), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
268
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73 - 98.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Educational
Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73 - 98.
Papert, S. (1980a). Computer-based microworlds as incubators for powerful
ideas. In R. P. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee.
(pp. 203-210) New York: Teacher College Press.
Papert, S. (1980b). Mindstorms; Children, computers and powerful ideas. New
York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1990). Introduction by Seymour Papert. In I. Harel (Ed.)
Constructionist Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Re-thinking school in the age of the
computer. New York: Basic Books.
Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganise mental
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
Pea, R., & Kurland, D. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer
programming. New Ideas on Psychology, 2(2), 137-168.
Peach, F. (1997). Foreword. Schooling 2001 Project: School Kit, iii-iv.
Pearson, P. D. (1996). Reclaiming the center. In M. Graves, P. van den Broek,
& B. M. Tony (Eds.), The first R: Every child’s right to read (pp. 259-274).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Phillips, D.C. (1994). Telling it straight: Issues in assessing narrative research.
Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 13-21.
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New
York: Grossman.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Report
to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the
United States. (pp. 1-66) Retrieved February 2, 2000, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html
Queensland Studies Authority (2004). Queensland Studies Authority. Retrieved
December 21, 2004, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/
269
Queensland Government (2002). Education Training Reforms for the Future.
Retrieved May 4, 2004, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/etrf/whitepaper/pdfs/whitepaper.pdf
Resnick, M. (1991). Xylophones, hamsters and fireworks: The role of diversity
in constructivist activities. In I. Harel & S. Papert, (Eds.), Constructivism,
Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Retrieved 01 January, 2005, from
http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/Xylo/XH.html
Revelle, G., Druin, A., Platner, M., Bederson, B., Hourcade, J., & Sherman, L.
(2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 11(1), 49-57.
Richardson, V. (1994). Constructivist teaching: Theory and practice. Teaching
Thinking & Problem Solving, 16(6), 1-7.
Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal
of Research on Educational Computing, 26(4), 452-474.
Riel, M., & Becker, H. (2000). The beliefs, practices, and computer use of
teacher leaders. Revised version of a paper presented at the 2000 meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved September 27,
from http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/aera/startpage.html
Riel, M., Schwarz, J., & Hitt, A. (2002). School change with technology:
Crossing the digital divide. Information Technology in Childhood
Education. Annual of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE), 147-180.
Riley, W., Kunin, M., Smith, M., & Roberts, L. (1996). Getting America’s
students ready for the 21st century: Meeting the technology literacy
challenge. A Report to the Nation on Technology and Education.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Ed. Retrieved March 23,
2000, from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/NatTechPlan/priority.html.
Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J., & Dwyer, D. (1991, April). Tradingplaces: When
teachers utilize student expertise in technology-intensive classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Roblyer, M. (1996). The constructivist/objectivist debate. Learning and Leading
with Technology, 24(2), 12-16.
270
Roblyer, M., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. (1997). Integrating educational
technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roberts, A., & Nason, R. (2003). Team Role Balance, Engagement, and
Knowledge-building Activity within On-Line Learning Communities. In Y.
S. Chee, N. Law, K. T. Lee, & D. Suthers (Eds.), The second wave of ICT in
education: from facilitating teaching and learning to engendering education
reform: Proceedings of The International Conference on Computers in
Education 2003 (pp. 406-413). Hong Kong: AACE.
Roehler, L., & Cantlon, D. (1997) Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social
constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding
student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6-42), New York:
Brookline Books.
Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In
B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social
context (pp. 95 - 116), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social
context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing
how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies.
The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-101.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-
level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26 - 33.
Ryan, M., & Masters, J. (1994). Problem solving through purposeful writing
and publishing. In M. Ryan, (Ed.), APITITE 94: Proceedings (pp. 41-48),
Brisbane, Australia : APITITE 94 Council.
Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centred classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Development of dialectical processes in
composition. In D.Olson, N. Torrence, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy,
language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing
(pp. 307-329), Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge
society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6-10.
271
Schetz, K., & Stremmel, A. (1994). Teacher-assisted computer implementation:
A Vygotskian perspective. Early Education and Development, 5(1), 18-26.
Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who’s building whose building?, Language
Arts, 61(5), 480-483.
Seidman, I. (1998) Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for
researchers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sharpiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective
on children’s learning science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sheingold, K. (1983) Classroom software for the Information Age. Technical
report no. 23. Bank Street College of Education, New York: Center for
Children and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
249933)
Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating
computers into classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in
Education, Bank Street College of Education.
Sherwood, C., & Buchanan, P. (1993). Changing classrooms – A national
perspective: A national survey on the integration of computers into schools:
Teachers’ current practices and experiences. Australian Educational
Computing, July, 235-238.
Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Smerdon, B., Burkam, D, & Lee, V. (1999). Access to constructivist and
didactic teaching: Who gets it? Where is it practiced? Teachers College
Record, 101 (1), 5-34.
Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999). Constructivism in the classroom: If I teach this
way am I doing my job? Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(1), 6-9,
16-17.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview.
In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.
273-285). California: Sage.
272
Strommen, E.F. (1992). Constructivism, technology and the future of classroom
learning. Children’s Television Workshop, Bank Street College of
Education, Retrieved August 5, 1999, from
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/Publications/papers/construct.html
Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). A theory of teaching as assisted
performance. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning to
think (pp. 42-62). London & New York: The Open University.
The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997).
Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12
Education in the United States. Retrieved July 4, 2000, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html.
Tucker, M. (1992). The genie in the bottle. Electronic Learning, 12(3), 50.
Tuckwell, N. (1980). Stimulated recall: Theoretical perspectives and practical
and technical considerations. University of Alberta : Centre for Research in
Teaching.
U.S. Department of Education (2004). National Education Technology Plan.
Retrieved December 13, 2004, from http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, J., Lange, S., & Brinkley, V. (1992). Logo mastery and spatial
problem-solving by young children: Effects of Logo language training, route
strategy training and learning styles on immediate learning and transfer.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 521-540.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In
L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine and S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on
socially shared cognition (pp. 85-100). Washington D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Wollman-Bonilla, J., & Werchadlo, B. (1999). Teacher and peer roles in
scaffolding first graders’ responses to literature. The Reading Teacher,
52(6), 598-607.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
273
Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review
of Education, 22(1), 5-16.
Wright, C. (2001). Children and technology: Issues, challenges, and
opportunities. Childhood Education, 78(1), 37-42.
Yelland, N. (1999). Reconceptualising schooling with technology for the 21st
Century: Images and reflections. Information Technology in Childhood
Education Annual, 39-59.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (1995). Learning without limits: Empowerment for
young children exploring with technology. Proceedings of Australian
Computers in Education Conference (pp. 79-93). Perth.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (1999). New ways of learning with technology:
Scaffolding children learning and understanding. Advanced Research in
Computers and Communications in Education: New Abilities for the
Networked Society, Proceedings of ICCE’99 (pp. 499-506). Chiba, Japan :
IOS Press.
Yinger, R. & Clark, M. (1981). Reflective journal writing: Theory and practice.
(Occasional Paper No. 50). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Institute for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED ED208411)
Zammit, S. A. (1992). Factors facilitating or hindering the use of computers in
schools. Educational Research, 34(1), 57-66.
Zilm, M. (2004). Adapt! Adopt! Create! MMMy Mag, Schools of Toowoomba
Cluster Retrieved December 19, 2004, from
http://www.toowoombshs.eq.edu.au/mymag/curriculum.htm#adapt