Can Groups Learn?

Cohen, Ellis N.; Lotan, Rachel A.; Abram, Perc Y L.; Scarloss, Beth A.; Schultz, Susan

doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00196

Cited by 88 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 2015-2016 school year, 1.374 million, or 22%, of K-12 students in California were classified as ELLs, while an additional 1.3 million students were reclassified fluent English proficient, or RFEP, as they have subsequently met the English language proficiency criteria identified by their school districts (California Department of Education, 2015a). Still, the research literature finds that ELLs are statistically behind their monolingual peers on such key language and academic development indicators as writing (Aud et al, 2013) and in-class participation (N. Li, 2013), which in turn hinders their language growth (Cohen, Lotan, Abram, Scarloss, & Schultz, 2002). For example, in 2011, the achievement gap between non-ELL and ELL students was 36 points (on a 500 point scale) at the 4th-grade level and 44 points at the 8th-grade level in measures of reading comprehension on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to make the curriculum accessible for ELLs, educators must embrace such technological integration and innovation in literacy and writing instruction that diminish status issues, allow students to scaffold the material for one another, and provide opportunities for timely feedback (Asterhan, Schwarz, & Gil, 2012;Cohen et al, 2002). Although collaborative writing with (or without) the assistance of online technology is shown in literature to be a worthwhile endeavor for students of all ages and ability levels (Dobao, 2012), no studies have investigated the differences it makes, particularly in comparison to traditional face-to-face collaboration in the classroom, and to anonymous online collaboration in the virtual space.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing in the Middle School Classroom

Woodrich

Fan

2017

JITE:Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: In this study, the authors examine how an online word processing tool can be used to encourage participation among students of different language back-grounds, including English Language Learners. To be exact, the paper discusses whether student participation in anonymous collaborative writing via Google Docs can lead to more successful products in a linguistically diverse eighth-grade English Language Arts classroom. Background: English Language Learners (ELLs) make up a considerable portion of elementary and secondary public school students, as language and ethnic diversity has become the norm in the United States. The research literature finds that ELLs are statistically behind their monolingual peers on such key language and academic development indicators as writing. Educators and researchers then turn to collaborative writing with the assistance of online technology. Although it is shown in literature to be a worthwhile endeavor for students of all ages and ability levels, no studies have investigated the differences it makes, namely, in comparison to traditional face-to-face collaboration in the classroom, and to anonymous online collaboration in the virtual space. Methodology: Through face-to-face, online, and anonymous writing activities, a rubric, and a survey, this quantitative study asks if anonymous collaborative writing, com-pared to other modalities, equalizes participation among students of varying language fluencies, and if anonymous collaborative writing, compared to other modalities, affect student comfort levels. Contribution: This builds on research of online collaborative writing tools and suggests that using such tools (Google Docs in particular) is beneficial, especially for students who are building their language abilities. The study further reveals varied degree of success and student comfort level in participating writing tasks in three modalities. Findings: We ascertain that students of varying language fluencies participated more equally when they were able to remain anonymous. Face-to-face writing exhibited the highest overall scores, and students enjoyed working on Google Docs. Recommendations for Practitioners: Future and current teachers are encouraged to be open to new technologies and be creative in the use of technology to facilitate student learning. They should have the opportunity to participate in the discussion on how, not if, integrating technology impacts the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions of teaching. Recommendation for Researchers: After this initial quantitative study on students’ reactions to various modalities of technology-supported writing formats, the next questions to ask may be how students were engaging in dialogues during face-to-face sessions or chat features of Google Docs trials, and what types of edits students are making. Researchers should turn their focus on secondary school classrooms where there is an increasing impact of technology-assisted collaborative writing on student learning and teaching pedagogy. Impact on Society: As online technology has become an integral part of daily life, it is beneficial to educators, policy makers, and classroom teachers to understand how technology can be integrated in writing programs and to what extent the integration can help boost student motivation and participation. Future Research: More longitudinal research on online assisted collaborative writing and addi-tional quantitative data are needed to further understand the complexities of the writing process in-group online writing and the nature of collaboration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing in the Middle School Classroom

Woodrich

Fan

2017

JITE:Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are some notable exceptions; in particular, we viewed (Barron, 2000;Cohen et al, 2002;Sawyer, 2003;Schwartz, 1995) as important preliminary studies of group cognition within the learning sciences. However, even theories in cognate fields that seem quite relevant to our concerns, like distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1996), actor-network theory (Latour, 2007), situated cognition (Lave & Wenger, 1991), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) and activity theory (Engeström, 1987) adopt a different focus, generally on interaction of individuals with artifacts rather than among people, indicating an orientation to the larger community scale of social sciences.…”

Section: The Need For a New Science Of Group Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Cognition as a Foundation for the New Science of Learning

Stahl

2010

New Science of Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the new global world, it is time to recognize that knowledge is primarily produced socially and progressively, not just by spontaneous acts of isolated minds. Individuals participate in this as knowledge learners, knowledge users and knowledge builders, predominantly through their interactions in small groups. The cognitive work of small groups can be distinct from individual thinking and community knowledge processing. We need a new science of group learning to complement our sciences of individual learning and community knowledge building. In particular, we need a science that will help us to realize the potential of computer networking to foster the formation of virtual groups and computersupported collaborative learning. The construct of group cognition provides a theoretical and practical foundation for developing the needed science, for analyzing the work of small groups and for designing effective collaboration software. The Virtual Math Teams Project provides a model of such scientific research. Along with related explorations of group processes, it has already started to produce concrete analyses of group cognition and to develop a multi-faceted online educational environment. A science of group cognition can systematically provide findings that are objective, reliable and generalizable through its interpretive case studies. With its focus on the group as the unit of description, group cognition joins other post-cognitive theories, which extend the analysis of cognition beyond the psychological individual. As the pivotal middle ground in which knowledge is primordially co-constructed, the group provides a foundation for sciences of learning at the individual, small group and community levels.

show abstract

“…Studies of small-group processes from psychology, sociology and other social sciences also tend to focus on non-cognitive aspects of group process or else attribute all cognition to the individual minds rather than to group processes. There are some notable exceptions; in particular, we viewed (Barron, 2000;Cohen et al, 2002;Sawyer, 2003;Schwartz, 1995) as important preliminary studies of group cognition. However, even theories that seem quite relevant to our concerns, like distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1996), actor-network theory (Latour, 2007), situated cognition (Lave & Wenger, 1991), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) and activity theory (Engeström, 1987) adopt a different focus, generally on interaction of individuals with artifacts rather than among people.…”

Section: The Need For a New Science Of Group Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Study Group Cognition

Stahl

2010

Analyzing Interactions in CSCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Understanding how a collaborative group as a whole constructs knowledge through joint activity in a CSCL setting is what sets the research field of CSCL apart from other approaches to the study of learning. Successful collaboration involves not only the incorporation of contributions of individuals into the group discourse, but also the effort to make sure that participating individuals understand what is taking place at the group level. The contributions of individuals to the group and of understandings from the group to the individuals cannot be studied by analyses at the individual unit of analysis, but only be studying the interactions at the group level. The group knowledge construction process synthesizes innumerable resources from language, culture, the group's own history, individual backgrounds, relevant contexts and the sequential unfolding of the group discourse in which the individuals participate. Although the group process is dependent upon contributions and understanding of individuals, their individual cognition is essentially situated in the group process. Group cognition is the science of cognitive processes at the group unit of analysis. These group processes-such as the sequential flow of proposals, questioning, building common ground, maintaining a joint problem space, establishing intersubjective meanings, positioning actors in evolving roles, building knowledge collaboratively and solving problems together-are not analyzable as individual behaviors. This chapter will describe how the Virtual Math Teams project was designed as a prototypical CSCL environment in which the relevant resources and interactions could be recorded for the micro-analytic study of group cognition.

show abstract

Can Groups Learn?

Cited by 88 publications

References 5 publications

Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing in the Middle School Classroom

Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing in the Middle School Classroom

Group Cognition as a Foundation for the New Science of Learning

How to Study Group Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About