ARTICLE SUMMARY

This article by Kershner, Mercer and Staarman (Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick., P. & Staarman J. 2010, ‘Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities?,’ Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol 5, pp359-383) examines the way IWB (Interactive Whiteboards) can be used to enhance the collaborative learning approach in classrooms. Technology is becoming ever more prevalent in the modern world and teachers have adapted to include technology into their classrooms, particularly IWB’s and Smart Boards. This article is part of a wider range of research which seeks to examine how technology can be used to its full capacity in the classroom and how technology impacts student learning.

The pedagogical framework behind this study derives from social-constructivist learning theories and the socio-cultural theory of Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s theory emphasises that language is the key factor in the development of all higher order cognitive processes. (p54 text) This study closely examines the student’s language and examines what they say to gain a better insight into the student’s learning process, their functioning as a collaborative group and engagement with the activity. Collaborative learning is used as a means to encourage students to talk with other students about their learning. By being placed into groups, students are exposed to different the opinion, understandings and experiences of other students which can help them learn new information by making more connections.

The participants in this study included twelve class teachers and their students aged between 8 and 10. From these twelve classes, teachers chose target groups consisting of three students of average achievement who had already been working together as a group on other learning tasks. The study included several different methods to gather data included a series of three lessons videoed in each classroom, field notes, pupil interviews, teacher discussions, teachers’ written commentaries, and other documentation including the IWB screen records. The article focuses on two groups of students working collaboratively with an IWB during different lessons.

Each group interacts differently with each other and with the IWB and as a result the results of this study are seen to be ‘mixed.’ Those students who have had limited interaction with the IWB see it as a motivation to engage in the learning activity. Their discussions are more about the IWB than the scientific content of the activity. In comparison the other group do not see the IWB as a motivator to engage in the lesson, more as a tool to complete the required activities, and therefore spend more time away from the IWB discussing their topic using scientific terminology and exchanging ideas. The results of this study can be generalised to include the impacts of ICT on collaborative learning in the classroom. The authors conclude that none of the features offered via the IWB are exclusive to the IWB and another such ICT device could be used to the same effect. The authors also conclude that their observations show that the collaborative task with the IWB demonstrated a highly integrated system of physical activity, spoken dialogue, and nonverbal communication.

WRITTEN DISCUSSION

What can generally be concluded from the article in relation to teaching and learning?

There are three main points that can be concluded from this article; collaborative learning, while an effective educational tool, requires a large amount of scaffolding in order to achieve the desired results, that technology must be used wisely in order to present it becoming a distraction rather than a learning tool, and that teachers need to be listening to conversations amongst student groups in order to gain an insight to group dynamics, goal achievements and task engagement. Collaborative discussion is a learning approach that suits itself well to the subject of science as it provides students with the opportunities to test their existing knowledge, assimilate new ideas and gain different perspectives from their peers. Discussing scientific themes with peers allows students to “share thoughts, ideas, and questions freely with each other, without teacher direction or interference, the languages of the child and of science melded together to create a scientific discourse” (Bennett, 1999, p.5).

The article highlights the need for teachers to create scaffolding which supports collaborative discussion long before they expect student to undertake collaborative group work together. Students need to be able to take turns, share ideas and listen to one another. If these basic communication skills are not present then students will not be able to effectively work as a group and engage in collaborative discussion. “Individual learners have to engage each other’s thinking in order for collaborative learning to be more effective than individual learning. This means that learners need to achieve a common cognitive frame of reference, or common ground, to reap the benefits of having multiple problem perspectives within a learning group” (Kershner, Mercer, Warwick,. & Staarman, 2010, p.537). Working as a group does not come easily for some students and without the interaction of all group members optimum collaboration will not take place. “simply putting students together does not automatically bring about collaboration and productive learning; students need to know how to regulate their learning and collaboration” (Chan, 2012, p.65). Students can find learning on its own a struggle let alone working within a group environment. Students need to focus on their own learning as well as the way the group interacts with each other.

Another implication from this article in terms of teaching can be seen in the role which the teacher takes while the groups of students are working collaboratively together. When students are working in their groups the teacher does not simply remove themselves from the learning process, they instead take on a different role. This was observed by Maloch, 1999, where she describes the teacher’s role during collaborative group work as an active one. While students are engaged in their group work the teacher is still present, be it on the outside of the group, “sitting just outside the circle... she acted as a facilitator and a mediator, rather than a leader. Instead of orchestrating the discussion from the outset of the discussion, she responded to what students generated” (Maloch, 1999, p.7). Maloch describes the role of the teacher in two areas, to help students with problem solving and to provide students with strategies that they can use to enrich their discussions (Maloch, 1999,

p.10). The article by Kershner, Mercer, Warwick & Staarman does not show the interaction of the teacher amongst the student groups. However, it does show the differences between groups who are able to engage in collaborative tasks and those who don’t. As a teacher this distinction would be useful so that teachers know which groups need assistance and which ones are plodding along nicely. The teacher’s ability to reflect on how the students are learning is a vital part of collaborative learning.

One last conclusion that can be made from this article is the use of ICT in the classrooms. As shown in the article, the IWB was not necessarily a useful tool for the students to use during this activity. The group which did stay on task actually moved away from the IWB to complete their task and the group which stayed at the IWB talked more about the IWB than the task itself, the IWB acting as a distraction. This comes back to the scaffolding that teachers need to provide around how to use ICT and how to behave when using it. The more experience student have using ICT, the less it will become a motivator of novelty. Student will then be able to use ICT for its appropriate purpose rather than experimenting or playing with its features.

Can the findings of the article be employed in your classroom? Why?

I believe that I am able to use these finding in the classroom as collaborative learning is a learning approach that encourage in my classroom. The article’s findings about how different groups interact differently with and without the ICT and how it may become a form of distraction. Collaboration requires scaffolding, and so too does the use of ICT. I would not try to use ICT as a tool for collaborative learning unless I felt that the students had sufficient scaffolding in each area. I will be careful not to employ technology in a way that will distract students from the original purpose of the lesson. Another point that I can take away from this article is pay attention to the type of discussion occurring amongst groups and the need to discern if this is talk for talk sake, or talk about the topic at hand. If it is not talk about the topic then it may be necessary for me, as a teacher, to provide more scaffolding for particular groups or the class as a whole.

Forum Posting

The article I read concerns collaborative learning and ICT in the classroom (Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick., P. & Staarman J. 2010, ‘Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities?,’ Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol 5, pp359-383). The article provides a good starting point if you are interested in the use of ICT and collaboration in the classroom as it identifies some important key ideas in relation to these issues. It does not offer any conclusions to the issue, but emphasises the need for further research in this area. If you are already aware of ICT issues in the classroom I would not recommend this article for you to read as it will not offer any new insights for you. For someone like me though, I don’t have a strong ICT background, I found it quite useful and easy to understand.

REFERENCES

Bennett, J.M. 1999, ‘Students Learning Science through Collaborative Discussions on Current Events in Science,’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Boston, MA,March 28-31, 1999).

Chan, C.K.K 2012, ‘Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a discussion,’ Metacognition Learning, Vol.7, pp63-73

Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick., P. & Staarman J. 2010, ‘Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities?,’ Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol 5, pp359-383

Malcoh, B. 1999, ‘Shifting to Student-Centered, Collaborative Classrooms: Implementing Student-Led Discussion Groups,’Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Vialle, W., Lysaght, P. & Verenikina, I. 2014, Psychology for Educators, Cengage Learning, Australia