Rhine,+Steve.+Bailey,+Mark.+Collaborative+Software+And+Focused+Distraction+In+The+Classroom

Rhine, Steve, and Mark Bailey. "Collaborative Software And Focused Distraction In The Classroom." //Journal Of Technology & Teacher Education// 19.4 (2011): 423-447. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W. Wilson). Web. 13 Mar. 2012.

= = =**Abstract**= In search of strategies for increasing their preservice teachers’ engagement with content, the authors utilized collaborative software during class time. Collaborative software makes it possible for all students to write simultaneously on a single collective document. The authors describe their experience of students 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. Students indicate varying experiences with the software and different levels of value that they place on use of the tool. Included is students’ commentary about their experience of the process.

=Argument= In this article authors Stevie Rhine and Mark Bailey explore the functionality of collaborative learning tools in the college level class room. Rhine and Bailey acknowledge that collaborative software can be a challenging tool for teachers to utilize, however argue that when conducted properly the benefits far outweigh the challenges. They argue that collaborative document software opens up new avenues for discovery and comprehension among students. They base their model on the theory of social construction of knowledge, which “assumes that every concept or reality is dynamic and subjective (4). The authors believe when information is freely shared between students it is more likely that the group as a whole will find comprehension of the material. This is because when students take part in the construction of ideas they take on the role of explaining the information to other students, thus deepening their own understanding of the information. Collaborative software allows more opportunities as all students contribute to the notes or discussion of the topic. Rhine and Bailey also point out that when given the ability to anonymously contribute and ask questions students are more apt to ask for help, because the possibility of embarrassment is virtually eradicated.

The four main ways that the authors implemented the collaborative software in their study were: note taking, collaborative construction, focused distraction, and resource sharing. In note taking students simultaneously contribute to a single document (such as in GoogleDocs) while class is taking place. This allows students to pick up points that they may have missed, but their classmate’s noticed were important. Collaborative construction is a means of discussion among students without having to interrupt class with actual verbal discussion. These discussions can represent the collective understanding of the class and allow the teacher to assess what was missed by the students as a whole. Focused distraction is harnessing the natural tendency of the mind’s need to wander for a better purpose. Students are encouraged to utilize the wealth of information on the internet to learn more about the topics being discussed. Resource sharing is virtually the same as focused distraction, except it is adding to the discussion the resources found.

The authors found that collaborative software allowed for deeper comprehension and learning in the classroom, when administered correctly. Some problems are that students who are more vivacious about using the software, interested in the topic, or that simply type faster tend to dominate the classroom discussions and note taking. The authors recommend introducing the software thoroughly, making sure to explain exactly how to use it. If done correctly collaborative software can be a successful addition to many learning environments.

=Key Passages= “Our use of collaborative software in the classroom encourages and supports construction of knowledge by encouraging students’ social mediation of ideas to maximize learning.” (page 4)

“When meaning is negotiated freely among all students, it is more likely communal understanding will occur.” (paqe 4)

“When students actively engage in social construction of ideas, they develop deeper and more meaningful and comprehensive understanding of ideas. Mayer and Moreno (2003) describe ‘meaningful learning,’ based on Wittrock’s Generative Learning Theory (1992), as involving substantial cognitive processing, seeing it as representing a ‘deep understanding of the material, which includes attending to important aspects of the presented material, mentally organizing it into a coherent cognitive structure, and integrating it with relevant existing knowledge’ (p. 43). “ (page 5)

“Research on students’ explaining ideas to each other supports this perspective. Explainers need to evaluate their understanding of an idea, organize it, and clarify it in their minds before trying to make it understandable to others (Bargh & Schul, 1980; Mayer, 1984;Wittrock, 1990). As they do so they self-identify gaps in their thinking and make stronger connections between their previous learning and new information.” (page 5)

“We believe these tools have great potential to broaden the participation in our classes, support student-focused construction of meaning, focus students productively when they are distracted, and give power to our students to enrich the content of our classes.” (page 11)

=Selected Works Cited= Bargh, J. & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. //Journal of Educational // //Psychology //, 72(5), 593-604.

Foerde, K.; Knowlton, B.; & Poldrack, R. (2006). Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. //Proceedings of the National Academies of Science //(PNAS), 103 (3), 11778-11783.

Mayer, R. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. //Educational Psychology //, 38 (1), 43-52.

Wittrock, M. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531-541.