You are here:

The effect of modeling approaches in collaborative learning: Online discussion board for pre-service teachers
PROCEEDINGS

, Rutgers University, United States ; , Queens College, CUNY, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper is a report on the findings of a study conducted on a graduate level online discussion. Discourse analysis techniques were used to examine which modeling approach is more effective to construct pre-service teacher’s knowledge within a community of learners. Findings indicate that facilitator-modeling is more effective than guideline driven discussions on the Internet. The discourse of participants in facilitator-modeling shows quantitatively and qualitatively more advanced than its counterpart group discourse. Educators need to provide a moderator/facilitator as modeling to promote knowledge building in pre-service teacher.

Citation

Lee, A. & Shin, S. (2010). The effect of modeling approaches in collaborative learning: Online discussion board for pre-service teachers. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 611-617). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 28, 2023 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-359.
  2. Derry, S.J., Levin, J.R., Osana, H.P. & Peterson, M (2000). Fostering students’ statistical and scientific thinking: Lessons learned from an innovative college course. American Educational Research, 37(3), 747-773.
  3. Bhattacharaya, M. (1999, October). A study of asynchronous and synchronous discussion on cognitive maps in a distributed learning environment. WebNet 99 World Conference on the WorldWide Web and Internet Proceedings, Honolulu, HI. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED448698).
  4. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 27-60). New York, Cambridge.
  5. Copeland, W.D. (1989). Technology-mediated laboratory experiences and the development of clinical reasoning in novice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 10-18.
  6. Davidson-Shivers, G, Tanner, E., & Muilenburg, L. (2000, April). Online discussion: How do students participate? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED443410).
  7. Derry, S.J., Levin, J.R., Osana, H., Jones, M.S, & Peterson, M. (2000). Fostering students’ statistical and scientific thinking: Lessons learned from an innovative college course. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 747-773.
  8. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1-44.
  9. Hmelo, C.E., & Guzdial, M. (1996). Of black and glass boxes: Scaffolding for learning and doing. In D.C. Edelson& E.A. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS ’96) (pp. 128-134). Charlottesville. VA: AACE
  10. Harasim, L. (1989). On-line education: An new domain. In R. Mason& A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers, and Distance Education (pp. 50-62). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  11. Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp.39-64). New York: Praeger.
  12. Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production and knowledge. PublicAccess Computer Systems Review, 2, 39-53.
  13. Jeong, A. (2003). Sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25-43.
  14. Khine, M., Yeap, L., & Lok, A. (2003). The Quality of Message Ideas. Thinking and Interaction in an Asynchronous CMC Environment. Educational Media International, 40(1-2),115-25.
  15. Mandernach, B.J., Dailey-Hebert, A., & Donnelli-Sallee, E. (2007). Frequency and time investment of instructors’ participation in threaded discussions in the online classroom. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1). Retrieved October 5, 2007 from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/6.1.1.pdf
  16. McIntyre, D.J., Byrd, D.M., & Foxx, S.M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton, (3rd Eds.), Handbook for Research on Teacher Education (pp.171-193). Simon and
  17. O’Donnell, A.M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P.A. Alexander& P.H. Winne (2nd Ed.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 781-802). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  19. Romiszowski, A. & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd Ed. (pp. 397-431). New York: Macmillan.
  20. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R.K. Sawyers (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.97-115). New York, Cambridge University Press.
  21. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers& Education, 46, 49-70.
  22. Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing. Elements of a social thoery of CSCL. In P. Dillenbourg (Series Ed.) & J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner& R.L. Martens (Vol Eds.), Computer Supported collaborative learning, Vol 3. What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education (pp. 53-85). Boston,
  23. Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R.M., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175-203.
  24. Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehensionmonitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
  25. Tabak, I. (2002). Teacher as monitor, mentor or partner: Uncovering participant structures involved in supporting student-directed inquiry. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 466-472). Mahwah,
  26. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  27. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Webb, N., M., & Palincsar, A.S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841-873). New York: Macmillan.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read