Login or register for free to remove ads.

Collaborative Software and Focused Distraction in the Classroom (Revised) ARTICLE

, Willamette University, United States ; , Pacific University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 19, Number 4, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

In search of strategies for increasing their pre-service teachers’ thoughtful engagement with content and in an effort to model connection between choice of technology and pedagogical goals, the authors utilized collaborative software during class time. Collaborative software allows all students to write simultaneously on a single collective document. The authors describe their experience of pre-service teachers negotiating meaning in a virtual parallel space simultaneously with whole class lecture and discussion. The authors introduce the concept of “focused distraction,” discuss multi-tasking in the classroom, and explain the potential that collaborative software has for self-differentiated learning. Collaborative software documents, end-of-class surveys, and videotape of classroom instruction served as data for the qualitative research. Analysis of the triangulation of this data revealed four categories of use: note taking, collaborative construction, focused distraction, and resource sharing. A preponderance of pre-service teachers reported that collaborative software was useful in class. A preponderance of students reported that collaborative software was useful in class. While they indicated varying experiences with the software, an overwhelming majority reported that collaborative software made a positive impact on their learning.

Citation

Rhine, S. & Bailey, M. (2011). Collaborative Software and Focused Distraction in the Classroom (Revised). Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4), 423-447. Chesapeake, VA: SITE.

OpenURL

Keywords

References

  1. Bargh, J. & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593-604.
  2. Bennett, K., & Cunningham, A. (2009). Teaching Formative assessment Strategies to Preservice teachers: exploring the Use of handheld Computing to Facilitate the action Research Process. Journal of Computing in teacher education, 25(3), 99-105. Retrieved from eRiC database.
  3. Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New york: David Mckay Co inc.
  4. Chang, Y. F. & Schallert, D.L. (2005). The design for a collaborative system of english as foreign language: Composition writing of senior high school students in taiwan. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference
  5. Clark, R. C. (1999). Developing technical training. Washington, DC: international Society for Performance improvement.
  6. Elgort, I., Smith, A., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195210.
  7. Felder, R. & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
  8. Franklin, T., & Peng, L. (2008). Mobile Math: Math educators and students engage in mobile learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69-80. Retrieved from eRiC database.
  9. Fritz, M. (2005, May 1). Students using handheld computers to learn collaboratively in a first grade classroom. Online Submission, Retrieved from eRiC database.
  10. Higdon, J. & Topaz, C. (2009). Blogs and wikis as instructional tools: a social software adaptation of just-in-time teaching. College Teaching, 57(2), 105110.
  11. Holcomb, L. (2009). Results & Lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: a Collective Review. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 49-55. Retrieved from eRiC database.
  12. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New york: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: a challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 133-50.
  14. Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to prose comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42.
  15. Mayer, R. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology, 38(1), 43-52.
  16. McWilliams, G. (2005, October 14). The laptop backlash. Wall Street Journal, B1.
  17. Morgan, B. & Smith, R. (2008). A wiki for classroom writing. Reading Teacher, 62(1), 80-82.
  18. Murray, O. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2008). Educate at Penn State: preparing beginning teachers with powerful digital tools. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 48-58.
  19. Noddings, N. (1985). Small groups as a setting for research on mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving. Hillsdale, nJ: lawrence erlbaum associates.
  20. Ogden, T. H. (1999). The analytic third: an overview. In S. Mitchell and L. Aron (eds.), Relational Psychoanalysis: The Emergence of a Tradition. Hillsdale, nJ: analytic Press.
  21. O’Reilly, T. (2004). Open source paradigm shift. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://tim.oreilly.com/articles/paradigmshift_0504.html.
  22. Rowe, M.B. (1987). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up. American Educator, 11(1), 38-43.
  23. Schofield, J. (2003). Social climbers. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,950918,00.html.
  24. Simplicio, J. (2001). How to recognize and counteract student inattentiveness in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(3), 199-201.
  25. Sweller, J.(1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, australia: aCeR Press.
  26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Ma: harvard University Press.
  27. Webb, N., Farivar, S., & Mastergeorge, A. (2002). Productive helping in cooperative groups. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 13-21.
  28. West, K. (2008). Weblogs and literary response: Socially situated identities and hybrid social languages in english class blogs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(7), 588-598.
  29. Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376.
  30. Wittrock, M. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531-541.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@editlib.org.


Feedback and Suggestions please email info@editlib.org or use our online feedback form.