Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions
M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, and T. T. Su

When students answer an in-class conceptual question individually using clickers, discuss it with their neighbors, and then revote on the same question, the percentage of correct answers typically increases. This outcome could result from gains in understanding during discussion, or simply from peer influence of knowledgeable students on their neighbors. To distinguish between these alternatives in an undergraduate genetics course, we followed the above exercise with a second, similar (isomorphic) question on the same concept that students answered individually. Our results indicate that peer discussion enhances understanding, even when none of the students in a discussion group originally knows the correct answer.

Read the full report at the Science magazine link below…

Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5910/122

Electronic Discussion Groups: How Initial Parameters Influence Classroom Performance
Christine B. Williams and Thomas Murphy

A study of electronic discussion groups found that initial parameters affected student participation and perceived value.

Read the full article at the EDUCAUSE link below…

Link: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAU…

Making Connections: Collaborative Approaches to Preparing Today’s and Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology
Cheryl L Rosaen, Sharon Hobson, and Ghazala Khan

A collaborative approach was developed to support the professional development of teacher candidates, collaborating teachers (CTs) and teacher educators in learning to use technology for professional and pedagogical uses. Collaboration with K-5 teachers was undertaken to build the teachers’ capacities to use technology in meaningful ways in their classroom and school, with the intent to develop technology-rich sites for teacher candidates’ learning. A study of teacher candidates’ (n=24) and CTs’ (n=15) experiences during one school year indicated that both groups learned to use technology for a variety of pedagogical and professional uses, and teacher candidates had ample opportunities to work with technology. Moreover, teacher candidates shared their growing expertise with more experienced teachers by assisting their collaborating teachers with technology, a reversal of roles usually played in a mentoring situation. Nevertheless, the study also revealed that little collaboration and interactive dialogue about technology and its potential took place between 12 teacher candidates and CT pairs. Further steps are needed to create the culture of collaboration and reciprocity envisioned, where teacher candidates and CTs work together to use and appraise technology and to think critically about meaningful technology integration into the K-5 curriculum.

All technical progress has three kinds of effects: the desired, the foreseen, and the unforeseen. Ellul (1990, p. 61)

Today’s novice teachers face many challenges. They must learn to teach for understanding in ways that are consistent with high professional standards (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS], 1989; National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association [NCTE/IRA], 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1991). They are also expected to understand and use technology in flexible, adaptive, and powerful ways to support their own and their students’ learning (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 1999; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 1997). For teacher educators, tackling these pedagogical challenges is complex because there can be great variation in teacher candidates’ entering knowledge, skills, and dispositions in using technology (Laffey & Musser, 1998; Willis & Mehlinger, 1996). There is similar variation in technology knowledge and use between two groups responsible for supporting novice teachers’ learning: teacher educators, and the classroom teachers who work with teacher candidates in schools (Fox, Thompson, & Chang, 1996; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 1994; Willis & Mehlinger, 1996). When teacher preparation program technology requirements were adopted several years ago, our faculty decided to infuse work toward those requirements into existing courses, instead of offering a separate course, so that information technology could be linked with the substance of the program (Gillingham & Topper, 1999). The challenge was to embed meaningful uses of technology within course offerings and school-based field work such that teacher candidates would learn to use technology in support of their own professional learning and in support of the learning of K-8 students.

With support from the U. S. Department of Education’s program for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to use Technology (PT3), a collaborative approach was developed to support the professional development of teacher candidates, collaborating teachers (K-5) and teacher educators in learning to use technology for professional and pedagogical uses. These efforts, undertaken in a senior-year course on methods of teaching literacy and math in Michigan State University’s Teacher Preparation Program,(FN1) were intended primarily to develop teacher candidates’ knowledge, skill and disposition to use technology both within their professional course work and in the K-5 schools where they spent four hours per week in their collaborating teacher’s (CT) classroom. Collaboration with K-5 teachers was undertaken to build the teachers’ capacities to use technology in meaningful ways in their classroom and school, with the intent to develop technology-rich sites for teacher candidates’ learning, and thus promote greater coherence between teacher candidates’ course and classroom experiences. Through these efforts to infuse technology into a teacher education course and model its uses in a variety of ways, new insights were gained into the power of technology as a professional and pedagogical tool.

This article begins with a discussion of the perspectives that guided the approaches taken to integrating technology. Next, the research questions and methods of inquiry are described. The third and fourth sections discuss teacher candidates’ and collaborating teachers’ learning. The fifth section discusses findings from analysis of the joint work of pairs of collaborating teachers and teacher candidates to understand the extent to which they worked collaboratively and reciprocally in learning to use technology. The concluding section discusses what was accomplished–the desired, foreseen and the unseen in these efforts–and next steps for working toward the desired goals.

Link: http://uwashington.worldcat.org/oclc/301582776

Collaborative Reflection and Professional Community Building: An Analysis of Preservice Teachers’ Use of an Electronic Discussion Board
Sheila A Nicholson and Nathan Bond

The use of technology in the educational setting can provide support for professional development early in a teacher’s career. The purpose of this qualitative exploratory study was to examine the use of an electronic discussion board in a field-based block of courses as a place where 17 preservice teachers could share experiences and ideas. The researchers examined the nature and development of the discussions over one semester. The study found three major benefits: (a) computer mediated communication extends discussions beyond the classroom; (b) the discussion board became a place for professional support and community; and (c) preservice teachers’ reflective thinking developed over time as a result of the discussion board. The electronic discussion board appears to be a promising way to enhance and support existing structures for preservice and inservice teachers’ professional growth.

As novice teachers journey through each stage of their professional development from teacher preparation course work, to field-based experiences and student teaching, and into their first year of teaching, they share common concerns and face similar challenges. This journey has been well-documented by researchers (Fuller, 1969; Kagan, 1992; Steffy & Wolfe, 2001) who found that novices are more concerned initially with the larger school situation, classroom discipline, the affective aspects of teaching, and their own egocentric perceptions as educators, rather than with the students in their classes and their students’ learning. These “new” teachers draw upon a lifetime of experience as students to construct sometimes unrealistic and optimistic views of teaching (Kagan, 1992; Weinstein, 1989). Coupled with these concerns and preconceptions are the challenges of isolation and increasing lack of support which become more pronounced as the beginning teachers progress through their introductory years in the profession (Fuller, 1969). While participating in their preparation program, beginning teachers receive support from their fellow classmates, university supervisors and school-based cooperating teachers. However, peer interaction and collegial support often drop during the first year of teaching when the beginning teachers find themselves alone in the classroom with only minimal support from colleagues or mentors (Sachs & Smith, 1988; Moir & Gless, 2001). Some researchers have labeled these new teachers, “lone wolves” (Huberman, 1995). Overwhelmed with a deluge of responsibilities, the new teachers have little time to collaborate with colleagues.

Teacher preparation programs have responded to these concerns and challenges by employing a variety of reflective, collaborative practices advocated by researchers (Joyce & Showers, 1995) to facilitate the induction of teachers into their profession. Many programs currently place preservice teachers in schools as early as possible, recognizing that fieldwork allows novices to enact a knowledge base and act like practitioners. In such settings, they gain confidence in their ability to solve problems and awareness of how such problem solving is done (Johnson, 1992). Teacher preparation programs also provide their beginning teachers with cohort support from their peers thus creating preprofessional communities for learning. The need for such cooperative communities has long been recognized and stands in contrast to the school climate that is often isolated and competitive (Graves, 1992). Peers are now seen as an underused resource. In a study by Hawkey (1995), student teachers expressed their desire to learn from their peers, to share expertise and experiences. They benefited from a community where the cognitive skills taught by the professor complemented the affective and emotional skills and support provided by their peers. In addition, most teacher preparation programs emphasize the need for novices to engage in reflective thinking about themselves and the practice of teaching and to share their thinking with their peers. Raywid (1993) found that for teachers to grow in their profession they must have time for collaborative reflection on practice, conditions, and events, and such reflective collaboration must be sustained over time.

Despite the fact that many teacher preparation programs integrate systems that support professional growth through field-basing, cohorts, and reflection as well as provide for transition from considerable support to less support, many novices still experience the effects of isolation. One promising solution to this dilemma, which may overcome these impediments to developing reflective thinking and supportive communities among novice teachers, is an electronic discussion board, a type of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Since the advent of CMC and its increasingly widespread use in teacher preparation, a growing body of research has reported its value in the professional development of novice teachers.

The purpose of this study was to explore the uses of a discussion board in a field-based block of courses as a place where preservice teachers could share experiences and ideas. By analyzing the topics that dominated the discussions as well as the nature of the dialogues, the researchers sought to answer the following questions: What was the nature of these preservice teachers’ discussions; and, how did their discussions develop over time?

Link: http://uwashington.worldcat.org/oclc/301582765

Exploring the Influence of Web-Based Portfolio Development on Learning to Teach Elementary Science
Lucy Avraamidou and Carla Zembal-Saul

This qualitative case study examined web-based portfolio development in the service of supporting reflective thinking and learning within the innovative context of Professional Development Schools. Specifically, this study investigated the nature of the evidence-based philosophies developed by prospective teachers as the central part of the web-based portfolio task and the ways in which the technology contributed to it. The findings of this study illuminated the participants’ understandings about learning and teaching science emphasizing a student-centered approach, connecting physical engagement of children with conceptual aspects of learning, becoming attentive to what teachers can do to support children’s learning and focusing on teaching science as inquiry. The way the task was organized and the fact that the web-based format provided the possibility to keep multiple versions of their philosophies gave prospective teachers the advantage to view how their philosophies were changing over time, which supported a continuous engagement in metacognition, self-reflection, and self-evaluation. Built on these findings we suggest that future research be directed in the area of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about science teaching and learning and the kinds of experiences that influence their development. The ways in which technology tools can contribute to supporting prospective teachers in developing personal theories consistent with current recommendations of reform focusing on supporting learning through inquiry should also be explored.

In recent years, the notion of a “portfolio” has become easily recognizable as a part of the everyday language. Olson (1991) reported that a portfolio was originally defined as a portable case for carrying loose papers or prints–port meaning to carry and folio pertaining to pages or sheets of paper. Today folio refers to a large collection of materials, such as documents, pictures, papers, work samples, audio, or videotapes.

Portfolios have been used in teacher education in different formats, in a variety of ways, and for different purposes. The diversity of the functions and uses of portfolios have consequently produced multiple definitions depending on the purpose that the portfolio serves. Initially portfolios were associated with a scrapbook that included artifacts that had been saved and which could eventually be shown to a prospective employer (Aschermann, 1999). Portfolios also were described as a purposeful, integrated collection of work (Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991), and as an extended resume (Wolf, 1994). Dana and Tippins (1998) referred specifically to the science portfolio as “a researched presentation of the accomplishments of a teacher of science documented with teacher and student work and substantiated by reflective writing” (p. 723).

Portfolios can be used to demonstrate effort, progress, and achievement (Barrett, 1998) and to illustrate good teaching (Aschermann, 1999). According to Wolf (1991) portfolios can give teachers a purpose and framework for preserving and sharing their work and stimulate them to reflect on their own work and on the act of teaching. Other purposes of portfolio development involve the enhancement and development of teaching skills (Collins, 1990), the encouragement of reflection upon one’s teaching (Richert, 1990), and professional growth through collegiality (Shulman, 1988). As Lyons (1998a) suggested, “the portfolio may be considered from three perspectives: as a credential, as a set of assumptions about teaching and learning, and as making possible a powerful, personal reflective learning experience” (p. 4).

This study focused on the development of web-based portfolios in science teacher education. Two issues are important in this study: (a) the emphasis on supporting prospective elementary teachers’ reflection and (b) the construction of their knowledge of learning and teaching science. The literature review that follows illustrates the different approaches to portfolio development in teacher preparation programs.

Link: http://uwashington.worldcat.org/oclc/96568591

Comparative Analysis of Preservice Teachers’ Reflective Thinking in Synchronous versus Asynchronous Online Case Discussions
Barbara B Levin, Ye He, and Holly H Robbins

This study was undertaken to better understand the nature of preservice teachers’ reflective thinking during case discussions about classroom management in two online formats: synchronous versus asynchronous. Findings indicated that when participants engaged in synchronous online case discussions they had higher levels of critical reflection than when they engaged in asynchronous online case discussions. Also, participants’ initial preferences for asynchronous discussions changed from the beginning to the end of this study. Reasons for changes in participants’ format preferences and descriptions of participants’ levels of critical reflection are discussed.

How and what teachers learn from cases are questions that continue to intrigue teacher educators who use case-based teaching methods as part of their pedagogical repertoire (Lundeberg, Levin, & Harrington, 1999; Merseth 1996). Good cases that represent the messy, complex, and situated nature of teaching and learning are excellent catalysts for discussion (Levin, 1995, 1999b). Cases also present us with a way of connecting theory with practice and can provide a focus for developing reflective thinking and for engaging in problem solving and critical thinking (LaBoskey, 1994; Richert, 1992). However, the increased use of online and web-supported courses used in many teacher education programs (Wright, Marsh, & Miller, 2000) prompted this study of different formats for discussing dilemma-based cases in a web-supported course.

Online case discussions may be conducted in synchronous (occurring at the same time) or asynchronous (occurring over time) modes, which may be facilitated or unfacilitated. If a case discussion is facilitated this may be done by the course instructor or by students in the course (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000). Although course management tools such as Blackboard or WebCT are only delivery systems (Clark, 1994), and similar outcomes may be achieved from face-to-face (F2F) case discussions, this study was designed to (a) understand prospective teachers’ preferences regarding different formats for online case discussions, and (b) analyze the quality of reflective thinking about the content of cases discussed in synchronous versus asynchronous discussion environments during a web-supported course about the interaction of classroom management and instruction.

This article offers reasons provided by preservice teachers about their preferences for different formats for online case discussions and provides a content analysis of the discourse from a subset of the participants who each engaged in two synchronous and two asynchronous online case discussions. The research questions that guided this study were: (a) Do preservice teachers prefer synchronous or asynchronous online case discussions? What reasons do they provide for their preferences? (b) Do preservice teachers prefer peer-facilitated or instructor-facilitated online case discssions? What reasons do they provide for their preferences? (c) What can be learned about the level of preservice teachers’ critical reflection, as it was originally defined by Dewey (1933) and operationalized by Harrington, Quinn-Leering, and Hodgson (1996) and Hutchinson (1996), in synchronous and asynchronous online case discussions?

Link: http://uwashington.worldcat.org/oclc/102863864

Using Student Response Systems to Increase Motivation, Learning, and Knowledge Retention
David J. Radosevich, Roger Salomon, Deirdre M. Radosevich, and Patricia Kahn

Student response system (SRS) technology is one of many tools available to help instructors create a rich and productive learning environment. David J. Radosevich, Roger Salomon, Deirdre M. Radosevich, and Patricia Kahn describe a study designed to measure the effect of an SRS on student interest and retention. Two sections of an undergraduate management class participated in this study. Section 1 served as a control group by participating in a typical class without SRS; section 2 used SRS throughout the semester to facilitate active learning. Results indicate that although the classes were comparable at the onset of the semester, those students who used the SRS as an integral part of the classroom reported greater interest in the class and higher expectations of success, performed better on a midterm exam, and more importantly, performed better on a knowledge-retention test administered at the end of the semester. Radosevich, Salomon, Radosevich, and Kahn argue that SRS technology can have beneficial outcomes for student performance and knowledge retention.

Link: http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=449

The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008
Educause

This 2008 ECAR research study is a longitudinal extension of the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 ECAR studies of students and information technology. The study is based on quantitative data from a spring 2008 survey of 27,317 freshmen and seniors at 90 four-year institutions and eight two-year institutions; student focus groups that included input from 75 students at four institutions; and analysis of qualitative data from 5,877 written responses to open-ended questions. In addition to studying student ownership, experience, behaviors, preferences, and skills with respect to information technologies, the 2008 study also includes a special focus on student participation in social networking sites.

Link: http://www.educause.edu/library/ERS0808