Reflection 2

Middle school science classes used SenseMaker to make scaffolding, problem-solving, and knowledge acquisition more observable. Modeling expert thinking, providing a process to support individual reflection, and promoting the collaborative exchange and discrimination of ideas were used as instructional strategies to enable students to process information and make learning visible. Instructors encouraged collaborative learning as small groups of students prepared presentations to report back to the class using a webcast created using the templates available in SenseMaker. After each presentation, the audience was allowed to ask clarifying questions.

The process of the lessons can be thought of as a funnel where a big question is proposed, students must problem-solve and clarify the issue and possible solutions, choose a solution, then present it to the class. Throughout this process, the teacher continues to surrender more control of the lesson to the students.

The activity seems very closely matched to the cognitive apprenticeship framework (Renninger & Shumar, 2002). Students were encouraged to use generalized meta-knowledge as well as domain-focused meta-knowledge to support a scientific argument. The teacher played an active role in introducing the activity then stepped back to provide scaffolding as needed while groups completed the steps involved. Student results continued to improve with subsequent use of the program, showing the increase in self-efficacy of the instructor in his or her role as a facilitator and a technology guide.

The instructional strategies used in this case fit closely with those presented in the first chapter of CSCL 2 including a focus on problem-centered collaborations and making student thinking focal (students were presented with a scientific question and instructed to show the scientific thought process to answer the question). These strategies also call for an increased emphasis on understanding, a higher order concept than knowing, which is addressed in students’ presentations. Teaching a concept requires a depth of understanding that does not come with simple answers on a test or a worksheet.

Question 2:

Wikis provide a platform to create Knowledge Building Communities. KBCs are discussed at length in CSCL 2 (2002). These communities encourage the emergence of knowledge as a result of collaboration between community members.

From my writing on Case Study 2:

A wiki allows participants to share and edit a wide range of informational formats, from video, chat functions, text, internet links, slideshows, and more. Editors can change the sidebar and the front page as well as add folders for targeted content. According to their homepage, PBwiki pages are designed to allow “live, evolving documents” to be edited by groups of participants while giving the owner access controls and tracking tools that allow for close monitoring of the virtual document.

Wikis allow more shared control in creating a virtual community as members can actively share documents as well as internet links, podcasts, videos, and participate in chat rooms. Two features that are particularly exciting are the chat room application and the ability to upload and collectively revise and edit documents as these functions are not available on Blackboard, Cameron University’s current online learning program.

According to Bonk and Zhang (2008), discussion boards allow for delayed responses to community members’ questions, which brings depth to discussions as members are able to read and reflect prior to responding. A wiki provides this same opportunity by allowing asynchronous collaboration between students.

Asynchronous discussion, like any other technological tool, has pros and cons. According to Johnson in her review of recent research,

In a survey of educators, asynchronous online discussion was reportedly useful for “encouraging in-depth, more thoughtful discussion; communicating with temporally diverse students; holding ongoing discussions where archiving is required; and allowing all students to respond to a topic” (Branon & Essex,
2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with asynchronous discussion included; “lack of immediate feedback, students not checking in often enough, length of time necessary for discussion to mature, and students feeling a sense of isolation” (p. 36). Based on a survey of student preferences, Dede and Kremer (1999) concluded that asynchronous discussion provided “richer, more inclusive types of interchange” (p. 4), but required more time and provided less social interaction than synchronous chat.

In addition, wikis provide a common meeting area, a virtual classroom if you will, where students can link to one another’s blogs, sharing an online journal that makes thought processes visual and available for discussion.

As I wrote in Case Study 2
In addition, blogs allow students to make personal connections in a virtual world. Vygotsky concentrated on social cognition, the social aspects of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). He pointed out that learning occurred within a context of cultural surroundings and an interaction between people. Personal blog pages allow students to create an online identity by uploading photos and customizing their page design, further encouraging social interactions both through the blogs and the discussion boards as students get to know one another.

Both Bonk & Zang (2008) and Renninger & Shumar (2002), share a mindset of individual learning and subsequent knowledge sharing. Blogs allow students to read then reflect (through their written journals), and finally share by reading and responding to classmates’ blogs. Blogging fits perfectly into the R2D2 model, allowing for both reflection and display of visual concept maps, video, and more.

A combination of shared collaboration on a wiki space and a shared blog roll will encourage peer interactions as well as providing specific contexts for community building activities and collaborative learning.

References
Bonk, C. & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 Model: Online learning for the diverse learners of the world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249-264.

Johnson, G.M., (?). Synchronous and Asynchronous Text-Based CMC in Educationa Contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends (50,4).

Koschmann, T., & Hall, R. P., Miyake, N. (Eds.). (2002). CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Renninger, Ann & Shumar, Wesley. (Eds.). (2002). Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace. Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.