![Reciprocal TeachingStudents were asked to create questionsStudents responded to one another for clarificationLisa – “[Juan] what are you talking about? dills and stuff?” Mike: “[@lisa] i think the drills are like hitting the punching bag and sit-up , etc.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/supportingstudentcollaboration-110512120100-phpapp01/85/Supporting-student-collaboration-8-320.jpg)
Supporting student collaboration
- 1. Supporting Student Collaboration: Edmodo in the ClassroomCatherine HollandDepartment of Educational StudiesSt. Mary’s College of MarylandUnited Statesceholland@smcm.edu Lin Y. MuilenburgDepartment of Educational StudiesSt. Mary’s College of MarylandUnited Stateslymuilenburg@smcm.edu
- 3. The Study10th Grade English StudentsStudying the novel The ContenderPracticing discussion, writing, and creating questionsStudents were divided into three “discussion groups” and asked to reply to the questions posted by Miss Holland, their student-teacher
- 4. CMC allows a more student-centered approach that could disrupt traditional teacher-centered methods (Groenke & Paulus 2008).Rachel’s* response: “didnt read dat chapter...”Mike’s response: “@Rachel well read it then , OK !!!”*all student names are pseudonyms
- 5. A Social NetworkBecause the asynchronous discussion platform functions just like “the wall” in Facebook, students understood immediately that they were to talk to each other and not to the teacher.
- 6. Limited Teacher-Prompting56 responses to 7 teacher-directed questions/comments. Average of ~5 responses per student (11 students total)Accountability
- 7. Depth of Discussion“Bobby - red is big and tough. i dont think bud likes red that much because they argue alot and he is a smartmouth. he kinda reminds me of my sister” “Mike - He is really cocky & a smart mouth . we know this because he told Bud what too do in a smart mouth and rude way . I think us kids could realte to him because sometimes we are a little smart mouths with the authority.” “Lisa - i think red is rude,mean and disrepect, how he talks to bud in the story and you just dont talk to people and elders like that. that he is rude and a bad attuide. No, my family wouldnt allow that at all!”
- 8. Reciprocal TeachingStudents were asked to create questionsStudents responded to one another for clarificationLisa – “[Juan] what are you talking about? dills and stuff?” Mike: “[@lisa] i think the drills are like hitting the punching bag and sit-up , etc.”
- 9. ConclusionsEasy to monitor off-task behaviorEncourages thoughtful response from everystudent (even the quietest ones!)Fun, familiar platform Student-centeredCould be used to discuss any text
- 10. ReferencesEdiger, M. (2007). Meaning in reading instruction. Reading Improvement, 44(4), 217-220. Groenke, S. L., & Paulus, T. (2008). The role of teacher questioning in promoting dialogic literary inquiry in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 141-164. Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934-945. Johnson, G. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: a review of recent research. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(4), 46-53. MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 93-103. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2007). Collaborative learning through chat discussions and argument diagrams in secondary school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 109-126. Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. Yang, H., & Tang, J. (2003). Effects of social network on students' performance: a web-based forum study in Taiwan. SLOAN-C: A Consortium of Instutions and Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education, 7(3). Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/v7n3_yang_2.pdf Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7-44.
Editor's Notes
- #3: It is a platform for teachers to communicate with students and vice versa. Teacher can create a library of assignments, students create an account very quickly and easily, all that it requires is a group ID (provided by the teacher). Teacher accounts are free and simple to create.
- #5: Shifts accountability – students can’t participate effectively with their peers if they haven’t read or do not attempt to answer a question; the peer pressure seems to be more effective than teacher-produced pressure.
- #6: Students were excited to use edmodo.com. They said things like, “This is just like Facebook!” and became very excited about the prospect of communicating with their peers using this platform. They were very familiar with the layout and style already and were comfortable using abbreviations and posting conventions.
- #7: Student talk dominated the discussion; teacher was merely a facilitator/moderator of discussion. Every student responded to every question. Easy to tell if response showed a real understanding of the text or if student had not read or was off-task.
- #8: Students were asked about how they would characterize Red from the story and if he reminded them of anyone that they knew. Students made personal connections and responses varied greatly. One student says, “This reminds me of my sister”; the second essentially says, “Red reminds me of us kids sometimes” and the third says, “My family wouldn’t allow that at all!” It would be difficult to validate all of these responses in a whole-class discussion.
- #9: When students were confused about what their classmates had said they asked one another, not the teacher, for clarification.